Agenda of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

29 April 2025

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

File No.: CP2025/06418

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide local board views on 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) tuku / provide local board views on the final amended Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy in Attachment B

b) tuku / provide local board views on the proposal to update 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 CP2025/06418

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 (Under Separate Cover)
b	Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy (final draft version with track changes) (Under Separate Cover)
c	Putting things into practice – scenarios, examples of good practices and applications of the two open space provision option packages (with maps) (Under Separate Cover)
d	Preliminary findings for improving advice to local boards (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Aubrey Bloomfield - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Carole Canler - Senior Policy Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

29 April 2025

Public feedback on proposal to amend dog policy and bylaw

File No.: CP2025/06637

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

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

d) tāpae / 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^{^[1]} 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 733 people from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area provided feedback to the proposal.

25. There was majority support for proposals to reorganise, simplify and clarify Policy and Bylaw content, and proposals to clarify dog access rules at Tāwharanui and Wenderholm Regional Parks, split support for proposals to change or clarify dog access rules at Mahurangi, Shakespear, Ambury, and Muriwai Regional Parks, and majority opposition for the proposal to limit the number of dogs walked and 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)	41 per cent	57 per cent	33 per cent	66 per cent
P2	Auckland Botanic Gardens	45 per cent	54 per cent	34 per cent	62 per cent
P3	Hunua Ranges Regional Park	39 per cent	48 per cent	33 per cent	56 per cent
P4	Long Bay Regional Park	36 per cent	58 per cent	26 per cent	70 per cent
P5A	Mahurangi Regional Park East	43 per cent	50 per cent	27 per cent	62 per cent
P5B	Mahurangi Regional Park West	44 per cent	49 per cent	28 per cent	60 per cent
P5C	Mahurangi Regional Park Scott Point	44 per cent	49 per cent	29 per cent	61 per cent
P6	Pākiri Regional Park	22 per cent	78 per cent	15 per cent	81 per cent
P7	Shakespear Regional Park	49 per cent	41 per cent	39 per cent	51 per cent
P8	Tāpapakanga Regional Park	31 per cent	63 per cent	34 per cent	55 per cent
P9	Te Ārai Regional Park	22 per cent	78 per cent	18 per cent	76 per cent
P10	Waitawa Regional Park	28 per cent	72 per cent	30 per cent	61 per cent
P11	Whakanewha Regional Park	33 per cent	47 per cent	35 per cent	51 per cent
P12A	Ambury Regional Park	40 per cent	45 per cent	37 per cent	55 per cent
P12B	Muriwai Regional Park	50 per cent	45 per cent	46 per cent	47 per cent
P12C	Tāwharanui Regional Park	59 per cent	30 per cent	43 per cent	45 per cent
P12D	Wenderholm Regional Park	51 per cent	35 per cent	42 per cent	44 per cent
P13A	Restructure the policy to more clearly show its goal, focus areas, council actions, and rules	79 per cent	11 per cent	71 per cent	17 per cent
P13B	Clarify rule that all dogs classified as menacing must be neutered	84 per cent	11 per cent	81 per cent	13 per cent
P13C	Clarify who can provide behavioural assessments in relation to menacing dog classifications	89 per cent	3 per cent	83 per cent	6 per cent
P13D	Clarify what areas in Auckland require a license to keep multiple dogs on a property	79 per cent	13 per cent	74 per cent	17 per cent
P13E	Clarify how dog access rules are set	81 per cent	10 per cent	75 per cent	13 per cent
P13F	Clarify Auckland-wide dog access rules	83 per cent	14 per cent	76 per cent	17 per cent
P13G	Clarify or correct errors in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules	72 per cent	6 per cent	67 per cent	12 per cent
P13H	Remove outdated information in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules	86 per cent	6 per cent	80 per cent	9 per cent
P13I	Update dog access rules for Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains)	49 per cent	23 per cent	49 per cent	26 per cent
P13J	Remove outdated or duplicate bylaw content	86 per cent	6 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kylie Hill - Principal Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a	Hibiscus and Bays Play Plan 2025 (Under Separate Cover)
b	Hibiscus and Bays Play Plan 2025 Supplementary Information (Under Separate Cover)

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

29 April 2025

East Coast Bays Community Centre – approval of developed design to refurbish building

File No.: CP2025/06330

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the refurbishment of East Coast Bays Community Centre at 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay and to progress the project to detailed design and construction.

2. To approve additional funding of $4,399,683 CAPEX across financial years 2026 to 2029 to deliver the full scope of the refurbishment project.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The refurbishment project of East Coast Bays Community Centre was identified via a condition assessment report. The local board requested that staff investigate the refurbishment of the building and bring the building to today’s standard and establish a safe place for the community.

4. The project aligns with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2023 Outcome - Our Community. The project was approved by the local board as part of its 2024/2025 CAPEX renewal work programme (resolution HB/2024/73).

5. The local board has approved an allocation of $3,300,317.97 of ABS: Capex – Local Renewal funding towards the refurbishment of the interior and exterior of the building including remediation of the asbestos containing material within the building and in the roof on level two.

6. Staff have progressed the project to date by completing asset condition assessment, strategic assessment, business case, seismic assessment, concept design, asbestos refurbishment survey, developed design (Attachment A to the agenda report), stakeholder input and local board presentation.

7. Two workshops have been held with the local board to discuss the project. A summary of feedback from those workshops is as follows:

· Service and Asset Planning presented on 8 July 2021 - Determining the future use of 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay.
Feedback from the local board at time was that the identification of just Browns Bay residents as possible users of the building was inaccurate as people from neighbouring areas, including Campbells Bay, Long Bay and Murrays Bay, also use the building.

· Parks and Community Facilities presented on 11 March 2025 – Work programme line 18544 East Coast Bays Community Centre - refurbish building. Presentation outlining refurbishment options and asbestos removal options and proposed developed design (Attachment A).
The local board supported recommended refurbishment options and requested formal approval via a business report.

8. The refurbishment options outlined are:

· refurbishment as per developed design (Attachment A),

· removal of all asbestos containing materials,

· replacement of all windows,

· consideration of back of house entry to create better connection with other facilities within Village Green

· local board office area to be refurbished as per corporate property requirements

· upgrade of existing lift.

9. Staff now seek approval of the options and additional funding allocation prior to progressing the project to detailed design, consenting and construction.

10. Following the approval of the preferred option from the local board, the project will progress to detailed design and construction phase (May 2025 – December 2026).

11. Staff from Parks and Community Facilities will be working collaborative with Corporate Property in relation the refurbishment requirements of local board office area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the developed design (Attachment A) for the refurbishment of East Coast Bays Community Centre at 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay and to progress the project to detailed design.

b) whakaae / approve additional funding of $4,399,683 CAPEX across financial years 2026 to 2029 to deliver the full scope of the refurbishment of the East Coast Bays Community Centre at 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay.

Horopaki

Context

12. The East Coast Bays Community Centre is located at 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay. Other community facilities based around the Village Green include the East Coast Bays Leisure Centre and Library (at the Bute Road interface), the Senior Citizens Centre and the Community Creche on Inverness Road.

Figure 1: Location plan of the East Coast Bays Community Centre

13. Community programmes are run from rooms for hire across all three floors of the East Coast Bays Community Centre. There are three existing community leases within the building: Heart of the Bays (HOTB), Plunket and Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB).

· HOTB is an initiative of the East Coast Bays Community Project Incorporated. They are a community-based-not-for-profit organisation.

· Plunket and the CAB provide services from two separate community lease areas on the ground floor of the building.

· The second floor of the building is home to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board offices, staff accommodation and meeting rooms.

14. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board offices and staff accommodation is temporarily located at Hawiti, 6-8 Munroe Lane, Albany, until such time the building refurbishment is complete, and the local board office area can be refurbished to corporate property’s technology and security standard requirements.

15. The building structure was originally constructed in 1975 as per property records. Most of the construction consists of concrete block masonry walls. The complete structure consists of two building blocks, which were constructed on concrete slab foundation.

16. The main community centre block is a two-level building and has a pressed metal wide span roof which appears to be in reasonable condition overall. The adjoining block used by the local board, CAB and Plunket is a three-level building with a corrugated fibre cement roof.

Building issues

17. The current potential earthquake rating is 45 per cent of New Building Standard. Minimum requirement is 34 per cent. However, a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) considered liquified soil conditions which the building is prone to. It requires additional structural strengthening which has been addressed as part of the developed design (Attachment A).

18. There are multiple entrances to the building and there is no central or obvious reception area. This provides a challenge to visitors.

19. There is a staff room with kitchen facilities located on the second floor of the two-level building, a kitchen in the third floor Rothesay Room (meeting room), and a kitchenette on the ground floor used by CAB and HOTB.

20. There are no kitchen facilities on the ground floor of the two-level building easily accessible to the meeting spaces on this level. Currently, room users must access the second-floor kitchen via the stairwell. To reach the ground floor kitchen users are required to leave the building as internal access through the building is closed. There may be opportunities to consolidate the number of kitchens whilst also making them more accessible.

21. There is limited storage space in the building, and it is not easily accessible. Future storage needs to be more accessible for users.

22. The layout of the building contributes to difficulty accessing the second and third floor due to the location of the lift. The refurbishment aims to address the challenges of the layout and therefore improve the overall accessibility of the building.

23. All the toilets are generally tired, showing wear and tear and are not located in the most accessible locations for users of the key community centre spaces.

24. There is no security system in place and there are security requirements around the use of the second-floor local board accommodation, meeting rooms and staff rooms. These requirements need to be addressed as part of the development of any future council staff rooms and local board accommodation. In the existing building, unauthorised person(s) can get inside and into any part of the building.

25. The joineries of the building are dated, deteriorated and somewhat passed their life span. Most of the windows have been shut, as operating them has been an issue due to aged functional deficits, and they would not fit within the current compliance levels. There have been reports about windows failing within the three-level building.

26. The overall building structure shows wear and tear, along with worn carpets, tired interior wall linings and ceilings, and will require comprehensive remedial work. These improvements may include repairs or replacements as necessary to restore and enhance the overall aesthetic and functionality of the space.

27. An asbestos refurbishment survey found asbestos containing materials in many areas and elements of the building including textured ceiling, gutters, façade panels and the main roof. The presence of asbestos containing materials within the exterior and interior of the building limits potential improvements to the building and increases cost of maintenance throughout the life of the asset.

Previous advice / project history

28. As a part of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 2024/2025 CAPEX Renewal Work Programme, the local board approved $3,300,317.97 of ABS: CAPEX – Local Renewal funding towards the project to deliver refurbishment of the interior and exterior of the building including remediation of all the asbestos containing material within the building and in the roof on level two at 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay.

29. A draft concept design was discussed with stakeholders at the beginning of 2023. The discussions included:

· layout of the building, including the size of rooms, storage requirements and naming of the rooms

· a draft concept design was agreed with onsite stakeholders in June 2023

· the stakeholder feedback has been integrated into the developed design (Attachment A).

30. The developed design was updated on 22 October 2024 based on the findings of an asbestos refurbishment survey. This updated design reflects the need to change the exterior façade panels as it is impossible to replace windows without disturbing asbestos containing façade panels.

31. The developed design was presented to stakeholders on 25 and 26 February 2025. In general, positive feedback was received in relation to the incorporated changes to the layout which addresses current issues. Further feedback was received and discussed to additionally inform the detailed design.

32. On 11 March 2025 staff presented the developed design and asbestos refurbishment survey findings to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board outlining the refurbishment options. In addition to the discussed options, window replacements and a lift upgrade were suggested for the three-level building based on communication with stakeholders.

33. During the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board workshop on 18 March 2025, staff presented the draft local board work programme for financial year 2025-2026. The presentation noted that this report was planned to be presented to the local board to approve the additional funding allocation requirements and commitment for financial years 2026 – 2029.

Links to relevant regional strategies, policies and plans

34. The local board plan is a strategic document which reflects the priorities and preferences of the community, and provides direction for local board activity, funding and decision-making over a three-year period. The plan recognises the importance that community spaces play in connecting diverse communities and the need for them to be multi-purpose, accessible, and attractive to everyone.

35. The Auckland Plan 2050 is Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s long-term plan that looks ahead 30 years and identifies outcomes which will address the region’s key challenges of high population growth and environmental degradation while ensuring shared prosperity.

Table 1: Long term plans outcomes and objectives

Name of the strategic document	Project / programme / initiative / activity alignment
The Auckland Plan 2050	Belonging and Participation - Foster an inclusive Auckland where everyone belongs
	Homes and Places - Provide sufficient public places and spaces that are inclusive, accessible and contribute to urban living
The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2023:	Objective: A vibrant and thriving community with places to celebrate, learn and enjoy culture and arts
	Key initiative: Engage with staff and users of our council owned facilities and spaces, such as libraries, leisure centres and pools, and venue for hire, to ensure that they continue to reflect the evolving ways our community wishes to use and access services and remain accessible to all
The Community Facilities Network Plan:	Ensure existing facilities are fit for purpose
	Address gaps or duplication in provision and needs for community facilities
	Meet current and future demand arising from population growth and changing user expectations.

36. The Community Facilities Network Plan details how council aims to provide community facilities over the next 20 years, including community centres, venues for hire, libraries and leisure centres. The key drivers for the plan are to:

· ensure existing facilities are fit for purpose

· address gaps or duplication in provision and needs for community facilities

· meet current and future demand arising from population growth and changing user expectations.

37. The plan envisages council moving away from standalone facilities to multi-purpose and integrated facilities which are strategically placed to be highly visible and accessible to the local community. These facilities will contain multiple and flexibly designed spaces which are able to accommodate different activities within one site.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

38. The following options for the comprehensive renewal of the East Coast Bays Community Centre were developed and presented to the local board at a workshop held on 11 March 2025, including status quo.

Table 2: Options presented to the Local Board

Activity	Options
Refurbishment	1. Do nothing
	2. Refurbish building
	3. Rebuild
Asbestos removal	1. Remove all asbestos from the buildings
	2. Keep existing roof, remove all other asbestos
	3. Remove decorative pebble panels, soffits and balcony walls

39. An assessment of each option, taking constraints, risks, mitigation and estimated costs into consideration, was tabled and discussed with the local board at the workshop. A summary of all options is outlined in Attachment B to the agenda report.

40. The local board supported refurbishment option 2 and asbestos removal option 1 at its workshop on 11 March 2025. Upon approval of the recommendation, detailed design will be developed based on recommended options.

Recommended option

41. The developed design (Attachment A) outlines the recommended refurbishment which addresses current building issues:

· creates clear main entrance with central and obvious reception

· connects CAB with the rest of the building

· provides easy access to all facilities: toilets, kitchens, meeting rooms

· creates accessible storage space

· creates easy access to lift

· provides appropriate air conditioning/ heating and ventilation to all spaces

· isolates Plunket Clinic from the rest of the building with designated toilet

· improve safety features of overall facility.

42. The recommended asbestos removal option 1 creates a future proofed building that can be easily maintained without limitations and enables future potential improvements if required. The recommended three level building windows replacement will provide an operational and fully functional environment for the community.

43. The recommended lift upgrade provides a safe environment and improves the overall accessibility of the facility.

44. In scope: layout improvements, new floor coverings, new air conditioning system, new suspended ceiling system, new lighting, new cabinetry in kitchen areas, interior painting, interior new doors, glass partition to the meeting room, from floor to ceiling, new window joinery, exterior recladding, asbestos removal, roof replacement, lift upgrade.

45. Out of scope: local board office Level 1 (pending decision of corporate property and added funding for interior fit out), carpark, office equipment, two-level building roof, furniture, fixtures, equipment, appliances, curtains, blinds, windows treatment, branding and signage/external signage.

46. It is recommended that the local board approve the required additional funding and the developed design (Attachment A) to allow the project to progress to the detailed design and construction stage of the project.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

47. The council’s climate goals as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan are:

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

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

48. It is anticipated that there will be an increase in carbon emission from construction, including contractor emissions. Staff will seek to minimise carbon and contractor emissions as far as possible when delivering the project.

49. Maximising the upcycling and recycling of existing material, aligned with the waste management hierarchy (prevention, reduction, recycle), will also be prioritised to ensure minimum impact. All site demolition items shall be transported to designated council’s recycling centres to maximize the benefits of existing materials.

50. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions will be achieved through sourcing of low-carbon material options (including sourcing materials locally) and the use of products with environmental declarations for embodied carbon reductions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

51. Council staff from within Parks and Community Facilities (Operational Management and Maintenance, Specialist Asset Assessments - Asbestos, Seismic, Buildings, Structures), Community Wellbeing and Corporate Property teams have been consulted. They support the refurbishment as it will improve the building’s quality and reduce maintenance costs.

52. The project will deliver significant improvements which will contribute to the needs of the community surrounding the area.

53. Collaboration with staff will be ongoing to ensure that the maintenance of the renewed building is integrated appropriately into the operational maintenance and asset management systems once completed.

54. The level 1 local board office area, staff accommodation and meetings rooms are managed through Corporate Property. Corporate property is supporting the refurbishment option and is in support of refurbishment of the building to allow for future housing of the local board and staff accommodation. The interior fit out of the local board area, staff accommodation and meeting rooms as highlighted in the developed design (Attachment A) will be funded through Corporate Property. The refurbishment will include the removal of asbestos containing materials for this area.

55. Interior fit out and security upgrades that are required for local board accommodation can be included in the overall refurbishment project to increase efficiencies and decrease overall timeline in collaboration with Corporate Property.

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

Local impacts and local board views

56. The East Coast Bays Community Centre has multiple groups running programmes from the community centre. These groups include:

· Church groups and Sunday Schools

· support groups such as AA, Neighbourhood Support and New Immigration groups, Bereaved Parents support groups

· senior study and learning groups

· for meetings – Body corporate AGMs, Browns Bay Business Association

· Browns Bay Community English School for Adults

· crafts groups including Theatre, Art and Bricks 4 Kids

· language groups (ESOL, French, Mandarin)

· health and wellbeing classes - meditation, yoga and tai chi

· social board game (Rummi, Scrabble) and Mah Jong groups.

57. There is a ‘hub’ of community facilities based around the Browns Bay ‘Village Green’ (11 Inverness Road, Browns Bay). These facilities include:

· East Coast Bays Library

· East Coast Bays Leisure Centre

· Browns Bay Senior Citizens Hall

· East Coast Bays community creche.

58. The project will benefit the community by creating better connections between these existing facilities. It will further improve how they already work in collaborative and integrated ways, supporting each other and the services they provide. For example, the Senior Citizens group often refer their members to CAB for migrant assistance and language support.

59. The developed design (Attachment A) was presented to the local board at the 11 March 2025 workshop, along with assessments of each option, including constraints, risks and estimated costs. The local board members requested further consideration of building accessibility from back of house to achieve the benefits to the community discussed above. These considerations are to be investigated as part of the detailed design phase.

60. Staff will collaborate with Community Wellbeing and all onsite stakeholders throughout the disruptions of the construction phase and identify alternative accommodation as required.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

61. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its statutory obligations and relationship commitments to Māori. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, the Unitary Plan (operative in part), Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework and local board plans.

62. Once the developed design option is approved by the local board, the development of the detailed design can be progressed. Additional collaboration with iwi will be undertaken as part of this phase.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

63. A total budget of $3,300,317.00 has been approved by the local board for this project in the following financial years (resolution HB/2024/73):

Table 3: Outline of approved funding allocation for the project

Budget source	FY18-24	FY25	FY26	FY27	FY28+	Total ($)
ABS renewals CAPEX	$166,660.97	$98,035	$951,548	$84,074	$2,000,000	$3,300,317

64. This report seeks approval for an additional $4,399,683.00 of capital funding for the project, estimated to be required in 2025/2026 and 2026/2027 to ensure the delivery of all aspects of the project as per preferred options (refurbishment, asbestos removal, additional windows replacement in three-level building and lift upgrade).

65. In addition, $2,000,000 of funding is proposed to be brought forward into 2025/2026 and 2026/2027 to enable the delivery by December 2026, which is earlier than previously anticipated.

66. This funding decision being requested through this report is in advance of the 2025/2026 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board capital work programme approval, and decisions will be incorporated into the final work programme for adoption in June 2025.

Table 4: Outline of total funding allocation required for the project (option 2)

Description	Cost
Asbestos removal	$710,000
Site preparation	$400,000
East Coast Bays Community Centre Construction costs based on developed design	$3,810,000
Siteworks	$130,000
3-level building replacement	$500,000
Lift upgrade	$200,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST	$5,750,000
Future cost escalation (provisional) 1%	$57,500
Design development contingency (affects physical works cost) 10%	$575,000
Construction contingency 10%	$575,000
Consultant, consent fees, Internal charges	$742,500
TOTAL PROJECT	$7,700,000

Table 5: Outline of required funding allocation for the project

Budget source	FY18-24	FY25	FY26	FY27	Total ($)
ABS renewals CAPEX	$166,660.97	$98,035	$3,717,652	$3,717,652	$7,700,000

67. The current anticipated timeline for the delivery requires the timing of funding allocation to be brought forward into 2025/2026 and 2026/2027, earlier than previously anticipated. This could be accommodated within the local board’s capital funding levels and through the Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP), however would require deferral of other projects in the existing capital programme to accommodate the funding capacity for the East Coast Bays Community Centre refurbishment.

68. The current maintenance cost of the building is $30,000 annually. It is expected that ongoing maintenance costs for the expected lifespan of the community centre will drop to $18,000 annually after refurbishment.

69. The interior fit out, required security systems implementations and technology requirements for Level 1 – local board area, staff accommodation and meetings rooms will be funded through a separate funding source by Auckland Council Corporate Property and is not included in the above estimated total.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

70. Building consent is required, and the preparation and processing of this may have an impact on the timeframe for construction of the asset. The current timeline accounts for the detailed design phase and consenting requirements.

71. The following risks and mitigations have been considered:

Table 6: Risks and mitigations

Risks identified	Mitigation
Disruption to community centre services	A temporary alternative location will be provided: facilities around Village Green, mobile offices etc. Parks and Community Facilities will be collaborating with Community Wellbeing and onsite stakeholders around alternative accommodation as required during the construction phase.
Timeframe
Building consent	Preparation and processing of the building consent may have an impact on the timeframe for construction. Staff will endeavour to meet the deadlines.
Health & safety
Public are exposed to unsafe conditions during construction phase	Construction site will be fully fenced off from the public with appropriate signages and no provisions for public access to the site.
Budget
Budget is not - approved	Further funding will be required in later financial years to deliver the full scope of the project. The recommendation is to seek upfront commitment from the local board for financial years 2025/2026 and 2026/2027 with anticipated delivery in financial year 2026 and 2027, to allow the full scope of the project to be undertaken. If the local board does not approve the funding as part of this report, the project will experience significant delay and the expected construction costs will increase. Without approval of the proposed design and additional funding requirements, none of the outcomes are met and the building will have continuous limitations around accessibility, security and maintenance, resulting in significantly increased consequential operational expenditure. Without the approval for the proposed design and required funding allocation, the refurbishment of the level 1 local board area, staff accommodation and meeting rooms cannot be progressed by Corporate Property to house local board and staff members.
Construction
Poor weather during construction may delay delivery	Construction methodology and programme will allow for wet weather considerations.
Damage to existing paths due to construction works	If damage were to occur, this would have to be remedied at a cost to the project. A small contingency has been factored into the budget to account for this.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

72. The table below summarises the anticipated next steps and estimated delivery timeframes for the project.

73. The estimated timeframes assume successful and timely completion of each identified project step. Unforeseen delays in the procurement of establishing a physical work contractor has the potential to delay completion of the project beyond the identified timeframe.

Table 7: Project phasing and timelines

Project phase	Planned completion timeframe
Business report for approval of the developed design (Attachment A) and budget allocation for recommended options	May 2025
Detailed design Once the developed design (Attachment A) option is approved by the local board, the development of the detailed design can be progressed. Additional community engagement and collaboration with iwi will be undertaken as part of this phase.	June 2025
Building consent application	August 2025
Procure physical works contractor / build partner The tender will be submitted to a suitable contractor as per the procurement guidelines.	September 2025
Physical works Accurate commencement and duration of the physical works is not known at this time and will be confirmed at a later stage, but it is envisaged between the dates specified.	October 2025 – December 2026

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Developed design for East Coast Bays Community Centre - refurbish building at 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay (Under Separate Cover)
b	Option assessment for the East Coast Bays Community Centre refurbishment (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Stas Valasiuk - Senior Project Manager, Parks and Community Facilities

Authorisers

Julie Pickering - Head of Area Operations

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

29 April 2025

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

File No.: CP2025/06415

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback 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 Hibiscus and Bays 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 (Under Separate Cover)
b	List of current Eke Panuku projects in the local board area (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

John Nash - Programme Manager

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

29 April 2025

Annual Plan 2025/2026: local board consultation feedback and input to regional topics

File No.: CP2025/07434

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive consultation feedback from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area on:

· proposed priorities and activities for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Agreement 2025/2026

· regional topics for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

2. To recommend any local matters or advocacy initiatives to the Governing Body for consideration or decision-making as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 process.

3. To provide input on the proposed regional topics in the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 28 February to 28 March 2025 to gather community feedback on the proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026. This included consultation on the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2025/2026 to be included in its local board agreement.

5. Local board agreements outline annual funding priorities, activities, budgets, levels of service, performance measures and initiatives for each local board area. The 2025/2026 local board agreements will be included in the Auckland Council’s Annual Plan 2025/2026.

6. Of the 13,016 submissions received in total from across the region, 934 submissions were from individuals or organisations who made submissions relevant to the Hibiscus and Bays local board area. In comparison, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board received 2,082 submissions in last year’s long-term plan consultation, and 1,898 submissions were received for the 2023 annual budget consultation.

7. Six-hundred and seventeen (617) submissions from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area responded to the question on the overall proposed annual plan, including 5 submissions from organisations. A majority of individual submitters supported most or all of the proposals (75 per cent). Two submissions from organisations supported most proposals, two did not support most proposals and one did not know.

8. Four-hundred and sixty-nine (469) submissions relevant to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area were received on the local board’s 2025/26 proposals, including five organisations and one iwi submission (Ngaati Whanaunga). A majority of individual submissions supported most or all of the proposals (74 per cent), a majority of organisation submissions supported most or all of the proposals (80 per cent) and the submission from Ngaati Whanaunga supported most of the proposals.

9. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, together with Upper Harbour Local Board, asked an additional question in relation to contributing local funding towards the development of a vision and plan for the future of North Harbour Stadium and Domain Precinct. A total of 471 submissions were received by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on this question, 369 of which were from individuals or organisations from the local board area. Majority of individual submitters agreed with the proposal. While majority submitters on behalf of organisations also agreed with the proposal, there was a 50:50 in the submissions of organisations from the local board area with two that agreed and two that opposed the proposal. The complete analysis for both local boards can be found under Attachment A.

10. During the consultation period, a question about local board proposals for 2025/2026 was mistakenly left out of the online feedback form, affecting 145 submissions from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. The issue was later fixed, and affected submitters were contacted and given the chance to respond before the 28 March deadline. Fifty-nine (59) of the affected submitters responded to the missing question. A review has been carried out to find the cause of this error and prevent similar errors in the future.

11. As part of the Annual Plan process, local boards provide recommendations to the Governing Body for consideration or decision-making. This includes any local board advocacy initiatives. The Governing Body will consider these matters during the Annual Plan decision-making process in May and June 2025, including:

· any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

· any new/amended local targeted rate proposals

· the release of local board specific reserve funds

· any other local board advocacy initiatives.

12. Local boards have a statutory responsibility to provide input into regional strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on council’s Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive consultation feedback on the proposed Hibiscus and Bays Local Board priorities and activities for 2025/2026.

b) whiwhi / receive consultation feedback on regional topics in the Annual Plan 2025/2026 from people and organisations based in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

c) tuku / provide input on regional topics in the proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026 and key advocacy initiatives to the Governing Body.

Horopaki

Context

13. Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of Auckland Council, including the annual budget.

14. Local boards are also required to agree a local board agreement with the Governing Body each financial year that outlines the annual local activities to be delivered in the local board area, and includes information relating to budgets, levels of service, and performance measures.

15. In the 2025/2026 financial year, local board agreements will form part of the Auckland Council’s Annual Plan 2025/2026 and the local board will finalise its agreement with the Governing Body on 10 June 2025.

16. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 28 February to 28 March 2025 to seek community feedback on the proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026. The consultation content included information on regional proposals to be decided by the Governing Body, and information on the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2025/2026 to be included in its local board agreement.

17. Consultation on the regional topics asked submitters to respond to questions on several key proposals, including:

· the overall plan, including initiatives under the seven areas of council activities or investment that contribute to the vision for Auckland, such as transport and water infrastructure investment, and fairer funding for local boards

· destination management and funding major events with the introduction of a Bed Night Visitor Levy (contingent on legislation changes from central government)

· changes to Rates, Fees, and Charges, including an overall rates increase of 5.8% for the average-value residential property, a 3.3% rise in the targeted rate for waste collection and an average 3.5% increase in the Natural Environment Targeted Rate and Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate.

18. The Hibiscus and Bays local board consulted on the following proposed priorities for 2025/2026:

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board proposed priorities 2025/2026

Priority 1. Support the youth networks in our area to help our young people thrive, and to have a voice in local board decision-making

Priority 2. Support and advocate for further protection of our sea, soil and fresh water from contamination and sedimentation through methods such as re-naturalisation, or daylighting

Priority 3. Support the development and increased use of our local parks, reserves, and sports fields by being available for people of all abilities, ages, and socio-economic backgrounds to enjoy in a range of leisure and recreation activities

Priority 4. Encourage local business associations to continue to support business development, to contribute to safer, more vibrant, and attractive town centres, that continue to meet the changing needs of our residents

Priority 5. Support and fund efforts to mitigate and adapt reserves, parks and public assets from the effects of climate change through initiatives such as the Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy

Priority 6. Contribute funding for the development of a vision and plan for the future of the North Harbour Stadium and Domain Precinct

Table 1. Proposed local board priorities for 2025/26

19. In addition to these questions, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board also asked for additional feedback with a yes/no question specifically about contributing funding for the development of a vision and plan for the future of the North Harbour Stadium and Domain Precinct (priority 6).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. This report includes analysis of consultation feedback relevant to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. This analysis supports the local board to consider public feedback in its input to the Governing Body on the regional topics in the proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026, key local board advocacy and any other local matters to be recommended to the Governing Body.

Consultation feedback overview

21. As part of the public consultation for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 Auckland Council used a variety of methods and channels to reach and engage a broad cross section of Aucklanders to gain their feedback and input into regional and local topics.

22. In total, Auckland Council received feedback from 13,016 people in the consultation period. This feedback was received through:

· written feedback – 10,011 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters.

· in person – 3,001 pieces of feedback in person and through 89 Have Your Say events (two of which were held in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area).

· Neurodiverse Online Audio – four feedback forms.

23. There were two ‘Have Your Say’ events, ‘drop-in’ style, in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area: one at East Coast Bays Library on the 22 March 2025, and one at Whangaparāoa Library on 14 March 2025. Feedback on the local board’s proposed priorities was collected at these sessions in the form of sticky notes and sticker dots placed in posters (Attachment B). These posters were also on display at the Whangaparāoa Library for two weeks.

24. Graphs 1 and 2 below provide an overview of demographic categories people identified with. This information only relates to those Hibiscus and Bays submitters who provided demographic information:

Graph 1. Ethnicity compared to Census data

Graph 2. Age and Gender

25. All feedback will be made available on an Auckland Council webpage called “Feedback on the Annual Plan 2025/2026'” and will be accessible after 22 April 2025 through the following link: https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/annual-plan-2025-2026/feedback-annual-plan-2025-2026.

26. During the consultation period, a question about local board proposals for 2025/2026 was mistakenly left out of the online feedback form, affecting 145 submissions from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. The issue was later fixed, and affected submitters were contacted and given the chance to respond before the 28 March deadline. Fifty-nine (59) of the affected submitters responded to the missing question. A review has been carried out to find the cause of this error and prevent similar errors in the future.

Feedback received on the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s priorities for 2025/2026

27. Four-hundred and sixty-nine (469) submissions relevant to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area responded to the question ‘What do you think of our proposals for your local board area in 2025/26?’, including five organisations and one iwi submission (Ngaati Whanaunga).

28. Of these, 340 submissions from individuals either supported most or all of the proposals (74 per cent), 66 did not support most proposals (14 per cent), 16 did not support any proposals (3 per cent), and 41 submissions responded they did not know (9 per cent).

29. Three of the organisation submissions supported most or all of the proposals (80 per cent), one supported all proposals and one did not support any. The submission from Ngaati Whanaunga supported most of the proposals.

Graph 3. Overview of submissions on the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board proposals

30. An analysis of the comments provided by submitters reflects a range of priorities and concerns. The main themes from the different groups of submitters are summarised in Table 2 below.

Submissions	Main themes
Submitters who supported most priorities (majority of submitters)	Support for inclusive and accessible public spaces/services, with strong community backing. Preference for practical, visible improvements—especially infrastructure, environment protection, and town centre upgrades. Climate and environmental focus, with support for science-based, community-driven approaches.
Submitters who supported all priorities	Strong support for youth empowerment and participation in community and decision-making processes. Strong environmental advocacy, especially for nature-based solutions and climate adaptation. Investment in accessible parks and people-friendly town centres, with long-term strategic planning in mind.
Submitters who did not support most priorities	Emphasis on financial restraint and prioritisation of core services. Preference for practical, cost-effective initiatives, with visible local outcomes. Skepticism toward council-led social and environmental programmes, preferring national or independent delivery.
Submitters who did not support any priorities (small number of comments)	Call for fiscal responsibility, especially in core infrastructure like transport and wastewater. Opposition to added costs due to affordability concerns. Support for basic park amenities like shade, toilets, BBQs, and seating.
Submitters who selected ‘other’	Frustration with the consultation process—seen as vague or ineffective. Concerns about transport and infrastructure, with a preference for focusing on core services (e.g., transport, water, roads) over less essential initiatives. Strong demand for a more reliable Gulf Harbour ferry service and operator change, alongside wider concerns about unreliable public transport, congestion, and insufficient infrastructure planning. Cost and equity concerns, with a strong call for responsible spending and fairer distribution of services.

Table 2. Main themes from feedback on the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board proposals

31. Submitters were also asked how important each proposed priority was to them. The table 3 below provides an overview of the submission data for each priority.

HBLB 2025/26 proposed priorities	Very important	Fairly important	Less important	I don’t know	Total submissions
Priority 1. Support the youth networks in our area to help our young people thrive, and to have a voice in local board decision-making	155	130	160	11	456
	34%	29%	35%	2%
Priority 2. Support and advocate for further protection of our sea, soil and fresh water from contamination and sedimentation through methods such as re-naturalisation, or daylighting	266	123	58	11	458
	58%	27%	13%	2%
Priority 3. Support the development and increased use of our local parks, reserves, and sports fields by being available for people of all abilities, ages, and socio-economic backgrounds to enjoy in a range of leisure and recreation activities	237	154	62	4	457
	52%	34%	14%	1%
Priority 4. Encourage local business associations to continue to support business development, to contribute to safer, more vibrant, and attractive town centres, that continue to meet the changing needs of our residents	198	161	81	5	445
	44%	36%	18%	1%
Priority 5. Support and fund efforts to mitigate and adapt reserves, parks and public assets from the effects of climate change through initiatives such as the Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy	188	128	133	10	459
	41%	28%	29%	2%
Priority 6. Contribute funding for the development of a vision and plan for the future of the North Harbour Stadium and Domain Precinct	164	98	174	15	451
	36%	22%	39%	3%

Table 3. Submission data for proposed local board priorities for 2025/26

32. This section provides an analysis of the feedback from submitters relating to each of the local board’s proposed priorities, except Priority 6: Contribute funding for the development of a vision and plan for the future of the North Harbour Stadium and Domain Precinct, which will be detailed in a separate section and under Attachment A.

Priority 1: Support the youth networks in our area to help our young people thrive, and to have a voice in local board decision-making

33. Submitters who supported most priorities:

· Many submitters valued youth-focused activities, facilities, and programmes, highlighting their importance for social cohesion and personal growth.

· Mixed views on youth involvement in decision-making: while youth input was generally welcomed in a consultative role, there was opposition to youth having direct decision-making power.

· Calls for greater transparency, emphasis in the importance of balancing youth initiatives with core services and other community needs, and support for inclusive, intergenerational approaches.

34. Submitters who supported all priorities:

· Strong support for initiatives that prioritise the wellbeing of young people and foster their active participation in the community.

· Clear emphasis on providing youth with opportunities to engage and belong, particularly through well-equipped facilities such as libraries and sports venues.

· Many submitters highlighted the importance of enabling youth to have a voice in decision-making processes, recognising that their involvement is crucial for the future of the community.

35. Submitters who did not support most priorities:

· Preference for focusing on infrastructure and essential services over youth input in governance.

36. There were no comments on this priority from submitters who did not support any priorities.

Priority 2: Support and advocate for further protection of our sea, soil and fresh water from contamination and sedimentation through methods such as re-naturalisation, or daylighting

37. Submitters who supported most priorities:

· There was a clear call for tangible, well-resourced initiatives, including re-naturalisation and daylighting, to improve environmental outcomes and build climate resilience.

· Most submitters backed increased efforts to safeguard natural ecosystems, particularly around water quality and coastal health.

· Feedback encouraged the local board to work closely with community groups, such as Forest and Bird and Restore Hibiscus and bays, developers, and other stakeholders to reduce pollution and sedimentation amid ongoing urban development.

38. Submitters who supported all priorities:

· Strong support for protecting natural resources—sea, soil, and freshwater—from contamination and sedimentation, with particular concern for coastal areas and vulnerable marine species.

· Clear preference for environmentally friendly approaches such as renaturalisation and daylighting, with less support for artificial methods.

· Call for greater community participation, sufficient funding, and more effective, clearly defined plans.

39. Submitters who did not support most priorities:

· One individual submitter and one submission on behalf of an organisation expressed preference for infrastructure intervention, such as seawalls, over methods, like naturalisation.

40. There was a very small number of comments from submitters who did not support any priorities but one referenced concern with sewage on beaches.

Priority 3: Support the development and increased use of our local parks, reserves, and sports fields by being available for people of all abilities, ages, and socio-economic backgrounds to enjoy in a range of leisure and recreation activities

41. Submitters who supported most priorities:

· Submitters emphasised the need for parks, reserves, and sports fields to cater to all ages, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds, promoting social inclusion and community well-being.

· There was a clear desire for upgraded facilities, cleaner amenities, and revitalisation of underused areas like Mairangi Bay Reserve, rather than spending on non-essential beautification.

· Feedback highlighted the importance of public consultation, clear communication, and thoughtful, balanced development to ensure spaces meet diverse community needs and support a wide range of recreational activities.

42. Submitters who supported all priorities:

· Strong support for expanding recreational facilities, such as basketball courts, to meet community demand. Submitters also highlight the value of supporting youth and sports groups to encourage active, healthy lifestyles.

· Submitters emphasise the need for well-maintained parks, reserves, and sports fields that are accessible to people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds. Upgrades to infrastructure, like the Mairangi Bay Surf Club, were seen as important for ensuring modern and inclusive community spaces.

· Preserving natural areas, especially coastal and foreshore environments, is seen as essential for maintaining the area’s character and appeal. Overall, submitters advocate for investment in spaces that promote community wellbeing and engagement.

43. Submitters who did not support most priorities:

· Emphasis on the importance of maintaining and activating existing spaces, expressing preference for ratepayer money to spent on tangible and visible initiatives, such as well-maintained parks, clean and safe public spaces, and essential infrastructure.

44. There was a very small number of comments from submitters who did not support any priorities but some reflected support for basic park amenities like shade, toilets, BBQs, and seating.

Priority 4: Encourage local business associations to continue to support business development, to contribute to safer, more vibrant, and attractive town centres, that continue to meet the changing needs of our residents

45. Submitters who supported most priorities:

· Submitters valued the role of business associations in promoting economic activity and community events but stressed the need to align development with the broader needs of local residents.

· There was strong support for creating safer, more welcoming public spaces that encourage social interaction, reduce crime, and include community-driven initiatives beyond retail or commercial spending.

· Feedback highlighted the need to revitalise neglected areas and support local job creation, particularly to benefit aging populations and reduce the need for commuting.

46. Submitters who supported all priorities:

· Strong call for more walkable, less car-focused town centres that encourage community interaction and accessibility.

· Submitters back efforts to support local businesses and adapt to changing community needs, aiming to create thriving, vibrant town centres.

· Feedback supports a balanced approach that combines business development with public amenities, such as parks, to create safe, inclusive, and holistic community environments.

47. There was a small number of comments from submitters who did not support most priorities that reflected a view that business associations should lead development efforts independently, with minimal council involvement.

48. There were no comments on this priority from submitters who did not support any priorities.

Priority 5: Support and fund efforts to mitigate and adapt reserves, parks and public assets from the effects of climate change through initiatives such as the Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy

49. Submitters who supported most priorities:

· There was broad support for climate adaptation and protection of public assets, with endorsement for both sea walls and re-naturalisation initiatives to address climate change impacts, especially in vulnerable coastal and residential areas.

· Concerns were raised about the governance and funding of the Urban Ngahere Strategy, with calls to prioritise essential health, safety, and conservation outcomes over beautification efforts.

· There was strong backing for climate strategies grounded in science, with a focus on local community and mana whenua involvement, and support for conservation groups.

50. Submitters who supported all priorities:

· Support for efforts to address climate change and prioritise environmental sustainability, particularly through initiatives focused on parks, reserves, and public assets.

· There is concern about the lack of detail around how projects will be executed, with a call for greater clarity and transparency.

· While recognising financial limitations, submitters emphasise the need for well-planned, strategic investment to ensure effective and impactful environmental outcomes.

51. There was a small number of comments from submitters who did not support most priorities that questioned the validity of local board responsibility for climate action, preferring such issues be handled at the national level.

52. There were no comments on this priority from submitters who did not support any priorities.

Feedback received at Events

53. A total of 66 comments relating to local board priorities were collected at the local libraries. Of these, 8 were left in display boards at the Whangaparāoa Library, 26 were provided at the ‘drop-in’ session at Whangaparāoa Library on 14 March, and 32 were provided at the ‘drop-in’ session at East Coast Bays Library on the 22 March 2025.

54. The analysis of these comments reflects a blend of concerns over ageing local infrastructure, environmental protection, community wellbeing, and the responsible allocation of resources. Main themes include:

· Youth & Community Support: Strong support for more investment in youth networks, permanent community spaces (e.g., pump track), and wellbeing initiatives like local events and youth programs.

· Arts & Environment: Positive feedback on artistic projects (e.g., murals, sculpture trail) and environmental education, as well as praise for library events and restoration efforts.

· Transport Concerns: Recurring concerns about high public transport costs and unreliable services, with calls for discounted fares, better routes, improved cycleways, and more reliable ferry and road infrastructure.

· Environmental Issues: Worries about pollution (e.g., sewage leaks, waterway contamination), the need for marine reserves, and the environmental impacts of intensive development, particularly in sensitive areas.

· Infrastructure & Urban Growth: Concerns that rapid development is outpacing ageing infrastructure, posing long-term risks.

· Amenities: Broad support for improving local amenities, including parks, playgrounds, libraries, and beach seating.

· Spending Priorities: Some opposition to funding for initiatives seen as non-essential, such as climate action or special interest group support, in favor of focusing on core services.

· Accessibility: Significant concern over inadequate accessibility infrastructure, including disabled parking, footpaths, and wheelchair access, with calls for urgent improvements.

Feedback received on the North Harbour Stadium

55. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, together with Upper Harbour Local Board, asked the same questions in relation to the North Harbour Stadium and Domain Precinct, including an additional yes/no question specifically about contributing funding for the development of a vision and plan for the future of the North Harbour Stadium and Domain Precinct.

56. A total of 471 submissions were received by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on this question, 369 of which were from individuals or organisations from the local board area.

57. The majority of individual submitters agreed with the proposal. While majority submitters on behalf of organisations also agreed with the proposal, there was a 50:50 split in the submissions of organisations from the local board area with two that agreed and two that opposed the proposal.

58. Most comments from submitters on this question were general rather than specifically addressing the question of funding for the development of a vision and plan. For example, many of the comments provided by those who supported funding the vision and plan, referred to underutilisation and opportunities.

59. Key themes from comments of submitters who responded ‘yes’:

· general support for the retention and development of the stadium and domain precinct

· that the stadium is currently underutilised

· opportunities for better management including a suggestion of more localised management

· opportunities for broader use of the stadium, citing a range of opportunities including sports, concerts and other community activities and events

· a desire to preserve the stadium for future generations

60. Key themes from comments of submitters who responded ‘no’:

· that there are other more important priorities for council and the local board to fund including infrastructure, transport, and environmental protection

· concerns about spending in the current economic climate, that any spending on the stadium is a waste of money and that it could continue to be a financial drain

· that the stadium is underutilised and not well managed - a ‘white elephant’.

· perceptions that the stadium does not benefit the wider community.

61. Location was raised as both a positive and a negative – some respondents noted that it was well located and easy to reach while others noted that it was hard to get to, with poor parking and congestion.

62. I don’t know comments were more neutral and focused on a lack of knowledge and/or use of the stadium.

63. The complete analysis for both local boards can be found under Attachment A.

64. Consultation feedback on local board priorities will also be considered by the local board when approving their local board agreement between 10-12 June 2025. Local board key advocacy initiatives will be considered in the current report.

Requests for local funding

65. One organization submission proposes that the Annual Plan 2025/26 should set aside funding for a seawall (approx $1m) as an immediate solution to the coastal erosion at Ōrewa Reserve.

Feedback received on the regional proposals from submitters from Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area

66. The proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026 builds on the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP), setting out Auckland Council’s priorities and how services and investments are proposed to be funded. Consultation on the proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026 asked submitters to respond to key questions related to:

· The overall plan, including initiatives under the seven areas of council activities or investment that contribute to the vision for Auckland, such as transport and water infrastructure investment, and fairer funding for local boards

· Destination management and funding major events with the introduction of a Bed Night Visitor Levy (contingent on legislation changes from central government)

· Changes to Rates, Fees, and Charges, including an overall rates increase of 5.8% for the average-value residential property, a 3.3% rise in the targeted rate for waste collection and an average 3.5% increase in the Natural Environment Targeted Rate a

67. Submitters were also encouraged to provide feedback on any of other matters included in the Annual Plan 2025/2026 consultation document.

68. The submissions received from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area on these key issues are summarised below, along with an overview of any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.

Key Question 1: Overall Plan

69. Aucklanders were asked whether they support the overall plan, including prioritising investment in:

· transport

· water; and

· fairer funding for local communities.

70. The consultation document for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 also outlined the proposed funding approach which includes a 5.8 per cent rates increase for the average value residential property, consistent with the LTP, and additional debt financing to fund $4 billion in capital expenditure.

71. The proposed 5.8 per cent rates increase for the average value residential property for 2025/2026 includes the following proposed rates changes:

· an average general rates increase of 6.40 per cent for existing ratepayers

· an average increase of 3.5 per cent to the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR) and Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate (CATTR) for existing ratepayers, as set out in the LTP

· an average increase of $2.12 in the Water Quality Targeted Rate (WQTR) to cover the operating and interest costs for the programme, as set out in the LTP

· a 3.3 per cent increase to the overall Waste Management Targeted Rate (WMTR) for the typical household.

72. A total of six-hundred and sixty-seven (667) submitters selected Hibiscus and Bays Local Board as their local board area. Of these, Six-hundred and sixty-two (662) were submissions from individuals and five (5) were from organisations.

73. Six-hundred and twelve (612) submissions from individuals from the local board area responded to the regional question “Q1. What is your opinion on our proposed annual plan?”. Five (5) organisations from the local board area also responded to this question.

74. A majority of individual submitters supported most or all of the proposals (75 per cent). Submissions from organisations were split between supporting most and do not support most of the proposals (40:40 per cent), and one submission from an organisation selected “I don’t know”.

A green and red rectangular boxes

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

75. An analysis of the comments from submitters who responded to this question indicate general support for the proposals in the annual plan, particularly in terms of infrastructure investment, community development, and long-term sustainability. However, there are strong concerns about the proposed rates increases.

· Submitters who supported the overall plan appreciate investment in water and transport but want more clarity and realism in delivery.

· Submitters who opposed the overall plan, focus on the unaffordability of rates, wasteful spending, and a desire for a back-to-basics approach.

· Many call for the council to focus on essentials first, delay non-critical projects, and improve operational efficiency and accountability.

76. The main themes across the submissions on this question are summarised in Table 4 below.

Topic	Themes across submissions
Rates and Affordability (Most Dominant Concern)	Concerns around rising living costs, especially for low-income households, renters, and pensioners. Some support rate rises only if tied to clear outcomes and cuts in wasteful spending. Suggestions for alternative funding sources (e.g., tourism levies, central government support).
Transport and Congestion	High demand for improved public transport, ferry reliability, and reduced congestion. Calls for investment in cycling infrastructure, electrification of fleets, and safer roads. Gulf Harbour ferry is frequently mentioned as underperforming and at risk of being cut.
Water and Infrastructure	Emphasis on upgrading outdated water, stormwater, and wastewater systems, particularly for climate resilience. Seen as core, non-negotiable infrastructure that should be prioritised before “extras.” Support for intergenerational investment—fix now to avoid worse later. Concerns about over-intensification without infrastructure to match; preference for infill housing over greenfield sprawl.
Fairer funding	· Support for giving local boards greater control over spending and decision-making, with preference for local contractors or community-driven initiatives over centralised solutions. Funding decisions made locally, not centrally, were seen as more likely to reflect community priorities and increase transparency and trust.
Environmental initiatives	Strong desire to protect and improve public access to nature—native bush, walkways, and reserves. Mentions of urban sprawl leading to a disconnect from green space. Green spaces are seen as good for wellbeing, community cohesion, and even tourism. Environmental initiatives (e.g., water quality, climate action) are positively received but seen as secondary to infrastructure by some.
Trust, Transparency, and Delivery Doubts	Some skepticism over council's ability to follow through on plans or manage funds effectively. Frustration with vague proposals, lack of specific details. · Requests for clearer consultation processes and better explanations of proposed changes.
Fiscal Responsibility	Many want a focus on core services only (transport, water, infrastructure) and reduced spending on “non-essentials.”

Table 4. Summary of themes from submissions on the overall plan proposals

Key Question 2: Destination management and major events

77. Aucklanders were asked for feedback on a bed night visitor levy paid by those in short-stay commercial accommodation, to fund destination management, marketing and major events. Without such a levy, a $7 million budget shortfall for the 2025/2026 financial year could impact the funding for major events that are expected to attract visitor expenditure, such as the ASB Classic, Auckland Marathon, and Auckland Writers Festival.

78. A bed night visitor levy of 2.5 to 3 per cent paid by those in short-stay accommodation would raise around $27 million annually to fund even more destination management, marketing and major events activities in Auckland. However, this requires central government legislative change. Auckland Council continues to work with central government on this, with public feedback helping to inform this work.

79. Six-hundred and twenty-seven (627) submissions from individuals from the local board area responded to the regional question “Q2. Do you support a bed night visitor levy paid by those in short-stay commercial accommodations, to fund destination management, marketing and major events activities?”. Four (4) organisations from the local board area also responded to this question.

80. The majority of individual submitters (55 per cent), and three organisations (75 per cent) supported this proposal. Thirty-five (35) per cent of individual submitters did not support the proposal and 10 per cent either did not know or chose ‘other’. One organisation did not support the proposal.

81. An analysis of the comments from submitters who responded to this question reflect a split of views on the proposal:

· Those who support the proposal back the fairness and benefits to tourism infrastructure.

· Those who oppose are concerned with economic harm, unfairness, and poor planning.

· There are also some submitters who are undecided and would like more information, fairer design, and transparent implementation.

82. Table 5 provides an overview of the main themes from the different submissions.

Submissions	Main themes
Support the levy	Fair Contribution from Tourists: supporters believe tourists should help fund the city services and events they benefit from. This is seen as fair and common in global tourist cities. Sustainable Funding for Events: the levy is viewed as necessary to fund major events and infrastructure without burdening ratepayers. Many want the funds ring-fenced for tourism-related uses. Minimal Impact on Visitors: most believe the levy would not deter tourists as it’s a small, reasonable cost in the context of overall travel expenses.
Do not support the levy	Harm to Tourism: many fear the levy could discourage visitors or cause them to shorten their stays, particularly as Auckland is already expensive. Unfair and Disproportionate Burden: concerns that it targets only accommodation users, ignoring the broader tourism ecosystem. The projected revenue is also seen as excessive. Prefer Alternative Solutions: suggestions include event ticket surcharges or national-level funding. Some believe the tourism sector should be self-funded, not reliant on local government.
Other / I don’t know	Need for Clarity and More Information: submitters in this category felt they did not fully understand how the levy would work, who it applies to, or what it funds. Calls for clearer communication were common. Conditional Support: some supported the levy only if it applied to international visitors, excluded residents, or was used strictly for specific community or tourism needs. Concerns About Fairness and Impact: mixed views on how different accommodations and types of visitors would be affected. Some feared higher costs could reduce competitiveness.

Table 5. Summary of themes from submissions on the proposal for a bed night visitor levy

Key Question 3: changes to other rates, fees and charges

83. Aucklanders were asked to provide feedback on proposed changes to certain targeted rates and some fees and charges as outlined below.

Waste management rates changes

84. Aucklanders were asked whether they support applying the Refuse Targeted Rate to residential and lifestyle properties in Franklin and Rodney to fund the council’s rubbish collection service, replacing the current system of purchasing rubbish bags.

85. Starting in 2025/2026, residential and lifestyle properties in Franklin and Rodney will be charged a refuse targeted rate for the first time. Franklin's rate will cover a full year of service, while Rodney's will be about 83% of the full charge due to its scheduled September 2025 start date. Additionally, from July 2025, waste management services and targeted rates will be introduced in Manukau's commercial areas where the service isn’t presently available.

86. Six-hundred and thirty (633) submissions from the local board area responded to this question, including three submissions from organisations from the local board area.

87. A majority of individual submitters supported the proposal (57 per cent), and the remaining individual submitters either did not support the proposal (28 per cent), did not know or chose ‘other’ (15 per cent). Of the three organisations, two did not support the proposal and one supported the proposal.

88. Submitters were also given the opportunity to comment on this proposal or other rates, fees and charges proposals, including:

· changes to some animal management fees including an increase in the dog adoption fee from $350 to $450 and an increase vet fee from $75 to $150

· fees for some cemetery and cremation services

· realigning bach fees into pricing tiers based on occupancy levels, capacity, and location

· aligning staff charge-out rates with staff pay bands for services in regional parks

89. An analysis of the comments provided reflects feedback focused on the waste proposals. No comments were identified to be in reference to the other fees and charges proposals. Table 6 provides a summary of the themes in these comments.

Submissions	Main themes
Support the proposals	Simplifying Waste Collection (Bins over Bags/Tags): strong backing for removing rubbish tags and adopting bin-based systems. Seen as more efficient, less confusing, and better for the environment. Fairer Charging and User-Pays: support for fees based on actual waste generated. Advocated for household size and bin size to influence pricing to improve fairness. Cost Efficiency and Environmental Responsibility: centralized systems and bins perceived to reduce costs and plastic use. Desire for services that are both affordable and environmentally sound.
Do not support the proposals	Unfair Financial Burden: strong objection to flat waste charges for low-waste households. Preference for a more targeted 'user pays' system. Lack of Flexibility and Choice: frustration with mandatory systems and inability to opt out or use private providers. Calls for residents to choose their own waste provider or collection frequency. Increased Costs Without Added Value: concerns about paying more for underused services (especially food waste). Some saw no value for the additional cost, especially during tough economic times.
Other / I don’t know	Financial Pressure and Cost of Living: widespread concern about affordability—especially for seniors, renters, and low-income households. Additional fees seen as compounding already high living costs. Desire for More Information and Clarity: many didn’t understand the proposed system fully and felt uninformed. Asked for clearer communication and consultation before decisions are made. Need for Flexibility and Regional Equity: calls for tailored approaches by household type and location. Frustration from communities (e.g., Rodney, Franklin) that felt under-served or unfairly treated.

Table 6. Summary of themes from submissions on changes to other rates, fees and charges

Other matters for feedback

90. The following matters were also included in the consultation in the annual plan:

Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2025/2026

91. Aucklanders were asked for feedback on the draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority (TMA) Operational Plan 2025/2026 which sets out a framework in which the council must carry out the routine management of 14 Tūpuna Maunga, under the direction of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority.

Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) Reforms

92. The proposal includes structural reforms to certain CCOs, such as Auckland Transport, Eke Panuku, and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited. The reforms aim to bring some functions and services back in-house under council control to improve strategic alignment, increase democratic accountability, and deliver better value for Aucklanders.

93. The analysis of the feedback received for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board did not identify any views on these topics.

Any other feedback

94. Aucklanders were asked if they had any other comments. There were 212 comments from the local board area. An analysis of these comments indicates a range of community concerns, emphasizing the need for fiscal responsibility, improved infrastructure and facilities, and a shift in council priorities toward more practical, everyday services rather than cultural or social initiatives. Comments often also included specific suggestions or ideas.

95. Key themes of note across this additional feedback received are summarised in Table 7 below.

Topics	Main themes
Cost management	Requests for Budget Cuts: calls for reducing budgets for non-essential services and focusing on core services. Water Rate Discounts: requests to incentivize rainwater harvesting with discounts for those reducing the strain on the water system.
Infrastructure and council services	Road Maintenance: a significant number of comments discuss road issues, including calls for fixing roads, specifically criticising the chip-sealing technique, and concerns about its longevity. Wastewater Cleanup and Infrastructure Needs: a recurring theme focused on the maintenance and cleaning of wastewater systems and general infrastructure. Floodlit Sports Fields: a number of comments express the need for more artificial turfs and floodlit sports fields to meet demand.
Local amenities and community facilities	Facility Upgrades and Maintenance: several comments, particularly on Mairangi Bay Surf Club and local sports facilities, emphasize the need for upgrades, focusing on dilapidated facilities and lack of public amenities. Public Rubbish Bins and Dog Control: requests for public rubbish bins to be reinstated, along with more rigorous enforcement of dog-related rules on beaches. Youth Sports Infrastructure: strong calls for better facilities to support youth sports, especially regarding football and other shared spaces.
Environmental and Sustainability Issues	Coastal and Environmental Protection: a number of comments about the importance of protecting coastlines, sealife, and the environment, including calls for sustainable practices. Encouragement for Eco-Friendly Practices: suggestions like offering incentives for sustainable actions (e.g., water-saving practices, waste reduction).
Specific Infrastructure Projects and Road Concerns	Of particular interest to the local board, there were a number of specific comments focusing on delays in construction projects such as East Coast Road/Glenvar Road intersection, which are seen to contribute to ongoing traffic congestion.

Table 7. Summary of themes from any other feedback

Recommendations on local matters

96. This report provides for the local board to recommend local matters to the Governing Body for consideration as part of the Annual Plan process, in May 2025. This includes:

· any new/amended local targeted rate proposals

· any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

· release of local board specific reserve funds

· local advocacy initiatives.

Local targeted rate and business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals

97. Local boards are required to endorse any new or amended local targeted rate proposals or business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals in their local board area. These proposals must have been consulted on before they can be implemented. The local boards then recommend these proposals to the Governing Body for approval of the targeted rate.

98. This does not apply to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for the 2025/2026 financial year.

Local board specific reserve funds

99. Local boards are allocated funding for the delivery of local services, projects and programmes that are important to their communities. Local boards have decision making over the allocation of these funds, but need approval from the Governing Body where the release of local board specific reserve funds is requested, which are being held by the council for a specific purpose.

100. This does not apply to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for the 2025/2026 financial year.

Local board advocacy

101. Local boards can also agree advocacy which considers the consultation feedback above. This allows the Governing Body to consider these advocacy items when making decisions on the Annual Plan 2025/2026 in May.

102. The advocacy initiatives approved by the local board will then be included as an appendix to the 2025/2026 Local Board Agreement. These can include advocacy on:

· Introduction of a Bed Night Visitor Levy: This proposal involves implementing a levy on visitors staying in short-term accommodations, such as hotels and bed and breakfasts. The revenue generated would be used to support major events and promote Auckland as a tourist destination. The implementation of this levy is contingent upon enabling legislation from the central government.

· Changes to Rates, Fees, and Charges: The council proposes adjustments to rates, fees, and charges, including an overall rates increase of 5.8% for the average-value residential property. This equates to approximately $223 per year or $4.29 per week. The proposal also includes a 3.3% rise in the targeted rate for waste collection and an average 3.5% increase in the Natural Environment Targeted Rate and Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate.

· Fairer Funding for Local Boards: The plan proposes a new funding model to address imbalances between Auckland's 21 local boards. This model aims to allocate funds based on factors such as population size and infrastructure needs, enabling local boards to better respond to the needs of their communities.

· Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) Reforms: The proposal includes structural reforms to certain CCOs, such as Auckland Transport, Eke Panuku, and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited. The reforms aim to bring some functions and services back in-house under council control to improve strategic alignment, increase democratic accountability, and deliver better value for Aucklanders.

· Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan: The council seeks feedback on the draft operational plan for the Tūpuna Maunga Authority, which governs the 14 ancestral mountains of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland. The plan outlines the framework for the routine management of the Tūpuna Maunga and administered lands for the 2025/2026 financial year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

103. The decisions recommended in this report are part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 and local board agreement process to approve funding and expenditure over the next year.

104. Projects allocated funding through this Annual Plan process will all have varying levels of potential climate impact associated with them. The climate impacts of projects Auckland Council chooses to progress, are all assessed carefully as part of council’s rigorous reporting requirements.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

105. The Annual Plan 2025/2026 is an Auckland Council Group document and will include budgets at a consolidated group level. Consultation items and updates to budgets to reflect decisions and new information may include items from across the group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

106. The local board’s decisions and feedback are being sought in this report. The local board has a statutory role in providing its feedback on regional plans.

107. Local boards play an important role in the development of the council’s Annual Plan 2025/2026. Local board agreements form part of the Annual Plan. Local board chairs have been invited to attend Budget Committee workshops. Local board members were provided recordings or briefings of the Budget Committee workshops for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

108. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact Māori. Local board agreements and the Annual Plan are important tools that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Māori Outcomes.

109. Local board plans, developed in 2023 through engagement with the community including Māori, form the basis of local board area priorities.

110. Some projects approved for funding could have discernible impacts on Māori. For any project or programme progressed by Auckland Council, the potential impacts on Māori, will be assessed as part of relevant reporting requirements.

111. Analysis of consultation feedback received on the proposed Annual Plan includes submissions made by mana whenua, matawaaka organisations and the wider Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.

112. The Governance team led the council-wide approach with support from Ngā Mātārae on engagement with Māori entities. This included:

· three information sessions for mana whenua on submissions and the process for submissions

· five information sessions for mātaawaka on submissions and the process for submissions

· one hearing style event for mana whenua and mātaawaka groups

113. Nineteen mana whenua entities have interests in the Auckland Council rohe. Thirteen of the nineteen (68.42%) provided verbal or written submissions on the Auckland Council’s proposals for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

114. There were six oral submissions from mana whenua and six oral submissions from mātaawaka at Have your Say Events.

115. There was one iwi submission (Ngaati Whanaunga) on the proposed priorities for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. This submission supported most of the priorities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

116. The local board provides input to regional plans and proposals. There is information in the council’s consultation material for each plan or proposal with the financial implications of each option outlined for consideration.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

117. The council must adopt its Annual Plan, which includes local board agreements, by 30 June 2025. The local board is required to make recommendations on these local matters for the Annual Plan by early May 2025, to enable and support the Governing Body to make decisions on key items to be included in the Annual Plan on 28 May 2025.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

118. Recommendations and feedback from the local board will be provided to the Budget Committee for consideration as part of decision-making for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

119. The local board will approve its local content for inclusion in the final Annual Plan 2025/2026 (including its local board agreement) and corresponding work programmes in June 2025.

120. The final Annual Plan 2025/2026 (including local board agreements) will be adopted by the Governing Body on 25 June 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Analysis: North Harbour Stadium Question (Hibiscus and Bays and Upper Harbour Local Boards) (Under Separate Cover)
b	'Have Your Say' event poster (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Glenda Lock - Local Board Engagement Advisor

Saskia Coley - Local Board Advisor

Rita Bento-Allpress - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

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

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

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

Authors	Will Wilkinson - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

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