Agenda of Rodney Local Board - Wednesday, 21 May 2025

1 Nau mai | Welcome

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

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

3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

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

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 16 April 2025, and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 30 April 2025, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

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

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

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

7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions

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

8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Rodney Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Deputation: Earth Beat Festival

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Sadra Saffari has requested a deputation to update the local board on the Earth Beat Festival.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Mr Saffari for his attendance at the meeting.

8.2 Deputation: Puhoi Heritage Museum

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Puhoi Heritage Museum have requested a deputation to update the local board on their activities.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Ms Allen and Ms Schollum for their attendance at the meeting.

8.3 Deputation: Hoteo North Reserve and Hall Incorporated Society

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Hoteo North Reserve and Hall Incorporated Society have requested a deputation to update the local board on their activities.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Ms Croul for her attendance at the meeting.

8.4 Deputation: Warkworth Rackets Club

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Warkworth Rackets Club have requested a deputation to present a proposal for a temporary lease at Shoesmith Reserve, Warkworth.

2. A presentation has been provided and is included as Attachment A to the agenda report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Mr Hooper and Mr Wilson for their attendance at the meeting.

Attachments

a Presentation.................................................................................................. 177

8.5 Deputation: Taupaki speed limits

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Mark Enfield has requested a deputation to discuss the reinstatement of rural speed limits in Taupaki.

2. A presentation has been provided and is included as Attachment A to the agenda report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Mr Enfield for his attendance at the meeting.

Attachments

a Presentation.................................................................................................. 185

8.6 Deputation: Keeping communities and road users safe

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Steven Law has requested a deputation to express his concerns regarding road user safety.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Mr Law for his attendance at the meeting.

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of three minutes per speaker is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

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

10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

11 Ngā Pānui mō ngā Mōtini | Notices of Motion

Under Standing Order 2.5.1 (LBS 3.11.1) a Notice of Motion has been received from Member G Upson for consideration under item 12.

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Notice of Motion	11

Rodney Local Board

21 May 2025

Deliberations on proposed changes to local dog access rules

File No.: CP2025/09150

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

4. The local board received 1077 public feedback responses across all proposed changes. This includes feedback from seven organisations, one pro forma campaign (with 258 signatures), and one late feedback submission after the close of the public consultation period.

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

6. All feedback is summarised into the following topics:

Topic and description	Topic and description
· proposal 1: Parry Kauri Park - 178 responses	· proposal 2 Snells Beach - 611 responses (including pro forma campaign)
· proposal 3: Vera Reserve Baddeleys Road, Baddeleys Creek Reserve and Pigeon Place Accessway - 147 responses	· proposal 4 Wonderview Road Esplanade - 140 responses
	· other matters

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

[NOTE: Local board to pass resolutions (a) and (b) BEFORE commencing deliberations]

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

b) whakaae / accept the late feedback from one person received within a week after the close of public consultation for consideration alongside all other public feedback received.

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

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

i) respond to the public feedback on the proposed changes

ii) adopt the proposed changes as publicly notified at [insert any locations]

iii) adopt with amendments, the proposed changes at [insert any locations]

iv) reject the proposed changes and retain the current rules at [insert any locations].

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

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

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

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

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

f) tapae / delegate authority through the chief executive to the manager responsible for the policy on dogs to make editorial changes or to correct errors or omissions to the amendments in d)

g) allocate up to $6900 from the local board’s Community Facilities Asset Based Services budget for the installation of signage to implement the amendments the policy in d).

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

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

13. On 11 December 2025, the local board adopted a proposal to amend local dog access rules in the local board area contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 (resolution RD/2024/222).

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

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

· Parry Kauri Park

· Snells Beach

· Vera Reserve Baddeleys Road, Baddeleys Creek Reserve and Pigeon Place Accessway

· Wonderview Road Esplanade.

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

The proposal received 1077 public feedback responses

17. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 20 January to 23 February 2025. During that period, council received 1077 feedback responses from people and seven organisations, including one late feedback response and one pro forma campaign (with 258 signatures).

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

19. The consultation initiatives had a media reach to an audience of over 3.7 million (print, online, TV, Radio) and the ‘AK Have Your Say’ webpage received about 29,000 visits.^{^[1]}

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

Public awareness initiatives

· notification in New Zealand Herald and local papers^{^[2]}

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

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

· email notification to external stakeholders (e.g., SPCA)

· email notification to mana whenua and mataawaka

· appearance on radio and TV interviews^{^[3]}

· information ‘drop-in’ sessions and ‘Have Your Say’ events^{^[4]}

· information on the akhaveyoursay website.

Public feedback opportunities

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

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

· the Rodney drop-in session was on 1 February 2025 and Have Your Say event on 12 February 2025

· verbally by phone.

Public responses

· the local board received 1077 feedback responses from people and seven organisations through the online feedback form or by email. This included a pro forma campaign initiated by Dog Friends Auckland with 258 signatures, and one late feedback response

· six people attended the Rodney ‘Have Your Say’ event. Six provided verbal feedback, most also provided written feedback.

21. Attachments A to G in this report contain a deliberations table (A), proposal (B), summary of regulatory decision-making requirements (C), consultation feedback summary (D), extract of feedback by proposal (E), full copy of public feedback received online or by email, post or verbally (F), at ‘drop-in’ sessions and ‘Have Your Say’ events (G).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Public feedback generally opposed the proposal

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

23. The majority of public feedback opposed the proposals, with the exception of local board area feedback to proposed changes to the local dog access rules at Parry Kauri Park.

Topic

Total support from local board area

Total support from people across Auckland

Proposal 1: Parry Kauri Park

54 per cent support (33 of 61 responses)

44 per cent opposed

37 per cent support

(65 of 178 responses)

Proposal 2: Snells Beach

31 per cent support (39 of 125 responses)

62 per cent opposed

27 per cent support

(97 of 353 responses)

Proposal 3: Vera Reserve Baddeleys Road, Baddeleys Creek Reserve and Pigeon Place Accessway

29 per cent support (10 of 34 responses)

65 per cent opposed

31 per cent support

(45 of 147 responses)

Proposal 4: Wonderview Road Esplanade

37 per cent support (13 out of 35 responses)

60 per cent opposed

31 per cent support

(44 of 140 responses)

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

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

· giving all public feedback due consideration with an open mind

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

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

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

· providing a clear record or description of the decisions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25. 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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

28. There was a total of 255 responses across all the proposed changes from submitters identifying with the local board area (Summary in Attachment D, extract of feedback by proposal in Attachment E, and copy in Attachment F).

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

33. In total, there was 60 responses from Māori. For Proposal 1, support from Māori was similar to feedback from across Auckland (36 per cent in support). For Proposal 2, support was similar to the overall feedback from the local board area and across Auckland (30 per cent in support). For Proposals 3 and 4, there was much lower support from Māori than from the local board area or across Auckland (only eight and nine per cent in support respectively).

34. One organisation, Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust, supported the proposed changes but did not provide further comments.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. There may be financial cost to the local board of up to $6900 if all the proposed changes were adopted as publicly notified. The local board would need to fund the cost, most likely out of capital budgets.

· Parry Kauri Park: $2000 (covers two new signs, courier and installation)

· Snells Beach: $2500 (covers 11 new signs, courier and installation)

· Vera Reserve Baddeleys Road, Baddeleys Creek Reserve and Pigeon Place Accessway: $1600 (covers new and replacement signs, courier and installation)

· Wonderview Road Esplanade: $800 (covers one new sign, courier and installation).

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. The following risks have been identified:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38. Following a final decision of the local board:

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

· staff will install updated signage funded by the local board

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Deliberation table	21
b ⇩	Statement of Proposal	37
c ⇩	Local board decision-making criteria	39
d ⇩	Summary of public feedback	41
e ⇩	Extract of feedback by proposal	43
f ⇩	Copy of individual feedback	45
g ⇩	Drop-in and Have Your Say sessions feedback	47

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Georgia Kane - Policy Advisor

Nancy Chu – Principal Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Wilson - Senior Policy Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 May 2025

Kōkiri report: Rautawhiri Road Helensville Safety Improvements - Local Board Transport Capital Fund project

File No.: CP2025/09640

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for the installation safety improvements on Rautawhiri Road, Helensville, and to any allocate remaining budget and cost savings to other projects in the Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report provides an update on the Rautawhiri Road, Helensville safety improvements project funded via the Rodney Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund and related to the local board’s Kōkiri Agreement, a local plan that outlines levels of engagement with local projects between Auckland Transport and the local board.

3. The Rautawhiri Road safety improvements project was workshopped with the local board on 14 November 2024, where the local board indicated support for a staged approach to safety improvements at this location:

Stage 1	Stage 2
Installation of two electronic driver feedback signs	Following implementation of stage one, monitor for changes in driver behaviour before deciding whether to install a pedestrian refuge or zebra crossing. The monitoring will be done in two stages.
Road markings with ‘50’ and ‘SLOW’
Additional signage

Table 1: staged approach

4. Monitoring will be undertaken following the completion of Stage 1. Based on the results of the monitoring, Stage 2 will need to be considered in the next three-year local board term funding starting July 2026.

5. As this project is at a ‘collaborate’ level of engagement in the local board’s Kōkiri Agreement, formal local board support to proceed to construction is required.

6. The Rautawhiri Road safety improvement project is forecasted to cost approximately $110,798.54 of the $410,798.54 allocated budget and therefore is estimated to have approximately $300,000 leftover budget after implementing the Stage 1 reactive works.

7. The Taupaki Road refuge crossing is now completed with a total project cost of $178,475.95 of the $208,475.95 allocated budget and therefore has a confirmed cost saving of $30,000.

8. Auckland Transport is therefore recommending allocating the remaining budget from the Rautawhiri Road Helensville safety improvements project ($300,000) and the cost saving from Taupaki Road refuge island project ($30,000) to start new projects which can be completed within the current three-year Local Board Transport Capital Fund funding term ending in June 2026.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamana / authorise Auckland Transport to proceed with the installation of road safety improvements at Rautawhiri Road, Helensville (Stage 1)

b) toha / allocate remaining funds of $330,000 from the Rautawhiri Road safety improvements project and the Taupaki Road pedestrian refuge project in the Rodney Local Board Transport Capital Fund to the following projects identified by the local board in their resolution of 19 February 2025 (resolution RD/2025/13):

i) Hudson Road, Warkworth centre traffic island - $150,000

ii) Riverhead bus stop upgrade - $60,000

iii) Puhoi Road and Matakana Valley Road wheel stops - $120,000.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

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

11. Any ‘collaborate’ or ‘consult’ project involves local board decisions that need to be taken and recorded. This report is to provide the decisions relating to the delivery of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) project to construct safety improvements at Rautawhiri Road, Helensville, which is at a ‘collaborate’ level of engagement in the local board’s Kōkiri Agreement.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. The safety improvements project for Rautawhiri Road, Helensville was initiated by the Rodney Local Board. Following the local board’s proposal, Auckland Transport engaged with design consultants to explore feasibility of speed calming and gateway treatments.

13. This project was workshopped with the local board on 14 November 2024 where they were presented with the following information:

· the 85th percentile speed in this section is approximately 60km/h. This means that at the point of measurement, 85 per cent of drivers are driving at a speed at or below 60km/h. Further analysis of available speed data shows that approximately 56 per cent of surveyed drivers are exceeding the speed limit

· low pedestrian numbers were observed

Image 1: speed counts

Image 2: pedestrian counts

14. The following options to improve driver behaviour were presented as follows:

Stage 1 - gateway treatment

· install two electronic driver feedback signs on approaches to proposed pedestrian facility near existing refuge

· new signage, road markings with speed (50) and SLOW markings near eastern approach (near day care) to alert speed change from 80 to 50km/h.

Image 3: road markings

Image 4: proposed electronic driver feedback and pedestrian crossing sign locations

Image 5: proposed electronic driver feedback sign location (south side)

Stage 2 - options

a) Pedestrian refuge island and speed cushions (if required)

Image 6: proposed pedestrian refuge island

Pros	Cons
Suitable at locations with low pedestrian demand	Vehicle movement is prioritised over pedestrian
Cost effective to build, approx. $200,000	Existing sign on island being hit by over dimension vehicles
Faster delivery and minor disruption to public during construction

Table 1: list of pros and cons for installation of pedestrian refuge

b) Raised Zebra Crossing (alternate if required)

Pros	Cons
Prioritises pedestrian movement over general traffic	Higher costs, estimated to cost approx. $350,000
Reduces vehicle speeds, hence safer for pedestrians	Potential to increase noise and vibration as the road is used by over dimension/overweight vehicles
Potential to address the pedestrian demand in future as there are major developments in the area	Low existing pedestrian demand leading to decreased driver attention

Table 2: list of pros and cons for installation of raised zebra crossing

15. At the workshop on 14 November 2024 the local board indicated support for Stage 1 initially which can be delivered under ‘reactive works’. The scale of work involved in Stage 1 is minor (signage and road marking improvements) which does not require public consultation. This report seeks approval to commence this stage. In future if Stage 2 was required, that design would go through public engagement.

16. Following implementation of Stage 1, Auckland Transport will monitor driver behaviour on this section of Rautawhiri Road in two stages. One will be short-term monitoring three months after the installation of Stage 1, and long-term monitoring five to six months after the installation of Stage 1 within the current three-year LBTCF funding term ending at June 2026. Following the monitoring, the findings will be presented back to the local board to discuss whether Stage 2 is required. Stage 2 could form part of the next three-year LBTCF programme starting July 2026.

17. This means now the local board will have some remaining funds ($300,000) after the completion of Stage 1 which the local board can allocate to start new projects for the remaining time of the current three-year LBTCF funding term, ending June 2026. Additionally, the construction of the Taupaki Road refuge island project is completed with a cost saving of $30,000. Therefore, the local board currently has $330,000 cost savings that can be allocated to start new projects.

The following table outlines the project status, budget, and cost savings of the two projects discussed:

Projects	Budget	Project Status	Cost Savings
Rautawhiri Road crossing – Stage 1	$410,798.54	Construction ready	$300,000
Taupaki Road kerb extension and pedestrian refuge island outside Harry James Reserve	$208,475.95	Completed	$30,000
		Total	$330,000

Table 3: summary of project cost savings in current LBTCF programme

18. The local board has previously resolved a priority list of contingency projects from their last LBTCF funding allocation at the 19 February 2025 business meeting (resolution RD/2025/13). Based on that priority list, the following table Auckland Transport’s recommendation for the allocation of the $330,000:

Project	Budget
Hudson Road, Warkworth centre traffic island	$150,000
Riverhead bus stop upgrade	$60,000
Puhoi Road and Matakana Valley Road wheel stops	$120,000
Total	$330,000

Table 4: Priority list of contingency projects

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects are initiated by Rodney Local Board and do not impact on council facilities.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects were initiated by Rodney Local Board and have been workshopped with members publicly prior to this report being submitted.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

25. In this case none of the decisions involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water so specific Māori input was not sought.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. The Rodney Local Board have already committed funds from the LBTCF to progress these pedestrian safety improvements on Rautawhiri Road, Helensville.

27. The remaining cost savings from the Rautawhiri Road project and the Taupaki pedestrian refuge project need to be spent within the current three-year LBTCF term ending June 2026.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28. The proposed decision does have some risk. Any construction project can be affected by a range of factors including weather, contract availability or discovery of previously un-identified factors like unmapped infrastructure.

29. Auckland Transport manages risk by retaining a 10 per cent contingency on the projects and historically there are several occasions in the organisation has used budget surpluses in other programmes to support delivery of the LBTCF. However, there is always a small risk that more money may be required from the fund should there be a cost overrun or unforeseen issue.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. With support from the local board the Rautawhiri Road project will progress to construction as per Auckland Transport works schedule.

31. Concepts for the other projects will be workshopped with the local board at a future date following design and investigation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Beth Houlbrooke – Elected Member Relationship Partner

Authorisers

John Gillespie – Head of Stakeholder and Community Engagement, Auckland Transport

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 May 2025

Kōkiri report: Coatesville-Riverhead Highway Pedestrian Crossing - Local Board Transport Capital Fund project

File No.: CP2025/09641

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the type of crossing to be constructed at Coatesville-Riverhead Highway in the Coatesville Village Centre.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. At the 20 November 2024 business meeting Rodney Local Board, instructed Auckland Transport to modify the design of the crossing at Coatesville-Riverhead Highway in the Coatesville Village to include a raised pedestrian crossing (resolution RD/2024/194).

3. Section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002 states in part that “A local authority must, in the course of its decision-making process in relation to a matter, give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter” therefore Auckland Transport engaged with local communities about proposed projects.

4. This report provides local feedback relating to this decision and is an opportunity for the Rodney Local Board to review its decision (resolution RD/2024/194) to reinstate the proposal for a raised pedestrian crossing.

5. Auckland Transport seeks confirmation from Rodney Local Board whether to continue with the Coatesville Village crossing project in its current form, a raised pedestrian crossing, or to return to a signalised crossing.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakamana / authorise Auckland Transport to proceed to detailed design and construction of a signalised pedestrian crossing at Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Coatesville.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

8. Any ‘Collaborate’ or ‘Consult’ project involves local board decisions that need to be taken and recorded. This report is to provide the decisions relating to the delivery of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) project to construct a pedestrian crossing at Coatesville-Riverhead Highway in Coatesville village centre, which is at a ‘collaborate’ level of engagement in the local board’s Kōkiri Agreement.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Background Coatesville Riverhead Highway pedestrian crossing

9. On 18 October 2023, Rodney Local Board requested that Auckland Transport investigate using the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to build a new raised crossing on Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, as it runs through Coatesville village (resolution RD/2023/171).

10. Subsequently, Auckland Transport reviewed its use of raised crossings. The review found that a crossing with a pedestrian activated signalised crossing was a better option for this site because it increases safety with less impediment to traffic flow. Additionally, the contemporary speed limit on this road was 60km/h, making a raised crossing more disruptive and potentially dangerous.

11. This information was presented in the 17 July 2024 business report at which time the local board passed a resolution (resolution RD/2024/109) to “amend the design from a raised pedestrian crossing at Coatesville-Riverhead Highway and replace with other appropriate pedestrian safety improvements”. Auckland Transport acted upon this direction and developed plans for a signalised crossing.

12. The speed limit in Coatesville village was reduced to 50km/h in October 2024, creating an opportunity to use a raised pedestrian crossing. The local board received letters of support from the local residents’ association, and Electorate Member of Parliament, for the crossing to be raised.

13. The local board resolved on 20 November 2024 (resolution RD/2024/194) to request Auckland Transport to “move forward with the detailed design of a raised pedestrian crossing on Coatesville-Riverhead Highway.”

14. Auckland Transport acted upon this direction, re-designing the project and conducting public engagement about the project.

15. Public engagement ran from 24 March to 6 April 2025 with approximately 1300 A5 flyers being distributed to residents, businesses and community groups – see Attachment A to the agenda report.

Results of public engagement

16. Findings of the public engagement were workshopped with the local board on 7 May 2025 – see Attachment B to the agenda report.

17. The full public engagement feedback report will be completed after the local board has resolved on the type of crossing to be constructed and will be published on Auckland Transport’s website. All submitters will be notified of the decision.

18. A brief summary of the findings are as follows:

· 192 submissions received

· majority supported a crossing but were against a raised one

· many submissions suggested alternatives such as a flat zebra crossing or traffic light-controlled crossing.

Image 1: summary of submissions

19. In summary, the public feedback strongly supports a crossing but does not support building a raised crossing. In general terms the benefits and concerns are shown in the table below:

Option

Pros

Cons

Raised zebra crossing

· A detailed design is read so it could proceed to construction almost immediately

· costs and construction timeframes are confirmed

· supported by Coatesville Resident and Ratepayers Association.

· most of the public sentiment is against a raised crossing

· A raised crossing has the potential for noise and vibration issues in the nearby Coatesville Village.

Signalised crossing

· more aligned with feedback provided through the consultation

· still at the scheme design stage, may take up to six months to finalise designs

· may not reduce speeds as much as a raised crossing would

· may require additional funding

Table 1: options pros and cons

20. Auckland Transport’s advice is that both options are technically feasible and will improve safety in Coatesville Village.

21. Auckland Transport can deliver a raised crossing in the Coatesville Village faster than a signalised crossing, as the detailed design is already completed. A raised pedestrian crossing is slower to construct and more disruptive, as it has higher impact on local traffic flow during the construction. It may also increase local noise and vibrations, a key consideration in a village. Auckland Transport advises Rodney Local Board that the public engagement process demonstrates there is limited support for a raised crossing in the Coatesville Village.

22. A signalised crossing on the other hand, will take longer to get to the construction stage as it has not gone through detailed design, but has lower disruption during construction in comparison to a raised table crossing construction.

23. Operationally, a pedestrian signal may not reduce approach speeds to the crossing as much as a raised table would.

24. The lack of public support is a significant issue, and in Auckland Transport’s opinion, means Rodney Local Board should reconsider its position and authorise the signalised crossing option. This option will take longer to get to the construction stage as detailed design will need to be undertaken but meets the objective of improving safety in Coatesville Village. Also, the construction is likely to be shorter and less disruptive in comparison to the raised table option. Most importantly, the local board will be acting with the support of the majority of people.

25. Currently, either option can be delivered within the allocated budget before the end of the current three-year local board funding term ending June 2026.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects are initiated by Rodney Local Board and do not impact on council facilities.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. The local board transport capital projects have been initiated by Rodney Local Board and have been workshopped with members and public informed prior to this report being submitted.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. The Rodney Local Board have already committed funds from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to progress this pedestrian crossing project. This report does not seek additional funding, however the local board need to resolve an option for this crossing as soon as possible to give staff enough time to finish the detailed design and construct this project within the current three-year funding term which ends on 30 June 2026, after which the funding cannot be carried over.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

35. Auckland Transport manages risk by retaining a 10 per cent contingency on the projects and historically there are several occasions in the organisation has used budget surpluses in other programmes to support delivery of the LBTCF. However, there is always a small risk that more money may be required from the LBTCF due to any unforeseen issues that might arise during construction.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. With support from the local board the project will progress to construction as per Auckland Transport works schedule.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Public engagement collateral	63
b ⇩	Workshop presentation 7 May 2025	65

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Beth Houlbrooke – Elected Member Relationship Partner

Authorisers

John Gillespie – Head of Stakeholder and Community Engagement, Auckland Transport

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 May 2025

Fourteen new public road names and six new private road names, and the renaming of an existing public road at 101 Argent Lane, Upper Ōrewa (Milldale Development Stages 4C, 7, 8 and 9)

File No.: CP2025/08569

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to name fourteen new public roads and six new private roads, being commonly owned access lots, created by way of a subdivision development at 101 Argent Lane, Upper Ōrewa (Milldale Development Stages 4C, 7, 8 and 9).

2. To seek approval to rename an existing public road to become an extension of the existing road ‘Endsley Rise’.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

4. The developer and applicant, Fulton Hogan Land Development Limited, has proposed the new road names in the table below for consideration by the local board.

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

6. In addition to the new road names, the applicant seeks to rename ‘Lysnar Road’ to become an extension of ‘Endsley Rise’. This has been reviewed by Land Information New Zealand, who considers this a better outcome to have a single road name for a single stretch of road. The applicant has stated their intention to reuse the name Lysnar elsewhere in the development, given its significance to this particular area.

7. No existing landowners of the properties along Lysnar Road will be affected by the proposed renaming, as all the land along Lysnar Road is owned or will be owned by the developer/applicant.

8. The proposed names for the new public and private roads at 101 Argent Lane, Upper Ōrewa (Milldale Development Stages 4C, 7, 8 and 9) are:

	Applicant’s preference	Alternatives for all roads
Public Collector Road 1	Huarahi Road	· Hauāuru Road/Lane/Street · Tonga Road/Lane/Street · Hangaruru Street/Lane/Road · Karuwhai Street/Lane/Road · Waewae Kākā Street/Road/Lane · Gumfields Road/Lane/Street · Annadale Road/Lane/Street · Flaxmill Road/Lane/Street · Kate Street/Lane/Road · Craddock Lane/Road/Street.
Public Local Road 1	Hutson Road
Public Local Road 2	Jacob Road
Public Local Road 3	Lamont Street
Public Local Road 4	Lambert Road
Public Local Road 5	Kiwakiwa Street
Public Local Road 6	Heruheru Street
Public Local Road 7	Bartly Street
Public Local Road 8	Joseph Street
Public Local Road 9	Mataira Street
Public Local Road 10	Tāranga Street
Public Local Road 11	Mouku Road
Public Local Road 12	Pītau Street
Public Local Road 13	Pūnui Road
Private Local COAL 1	Enoch Lane
Private Local COAL 2	Elon Lane
Private Local COAL 3	Enos Lane
Private Local COAL 4	Maggie Lane
Private Local COAL 5	Parareka Lane
Private Local COAL 6	Taupeka Lane
Road name change (Lysnar Road)	Endsley Rise (extension of existing road name)	· n/a.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the following names for the fourteen new public roads and six new private roads created by way of subdivision undertaken by Fulton Hogan Land Development Limited at 101 Argent Lane, Upper Ōrewa (Milldale Development Stages 4C, 7, 8 and 9), in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (resource consent references BUN60419151, BUN60425347, BUN60430899, BUN60427756, road naming reference RDN90122962).

	Applicant’s preference
Public Collector Road 1	Huarahi Road
Public Local Road 1	Hutson Road
Public Local Road 2	Jacob Road
Public Local Road 3	Lamont Street
Public Local Road 4	Lambert Road
Public Local Road 5	Kiwakiwa Street
Public Local Road 6	Heruheru Street
Public Local Road 7	Bartly Street
Public Local Road 8	Joseph Street
Public Local Road 9	Mataira Street
Public Local Road 10	Tāranga Street
Public Local Road 11	Mouku Road
Public Local Road 12	Pītau Street
Public Local Road 13	Pūnui Road
Private COAL 1	Enoch Lane
Private COAL 2	Elon Lane
Private COAL 3	Enos Lane
Private COAL 4	Maggie Lane
Private COAL 5	Parareka Lane
Private COAL 6	Taupeka Lane

b) whakaae / approve the renaming of the public road Lysnar Road to ‘Endsley Rise’ at 101 Argent Lane, Upper Ōrewa (road naming reference RDN90122962).

Horopaki

Context

9. Resource consent references BUN60419151, BUN60425347, BUN60430899, and BUN60427756 relating to Stages 4C, 7, 8, and 9, respectively, of the Milldale Development, were issued in 2024 for the creation of residential lots, commercial lots, and associated roads and accessways.

10. The roading and location plans of the development can be found in Attachments A and B to the agenda report.

11. In accordance with the standards, every public road and any private way, commonly owned access lot (COAL), or right of way, that serves more than five lots generally requires a new road name in order to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering.

12. Those roads requiring a name for the current stages of the subdivision (4C, 7, 8 and 9) are identified in Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

15. Theme: the proposed names represent a historical linkage or environmental/landscape feature of the area:

	Proposed name	Meaning (as described by applicant)
Public Collector Road 1	Huarahi Road (applicant’s preference)	Means ‘route’, ‘track’ in te reo Māori. Supplied by Ngāti Manuhiri
Public Local Road 1	Hutson Road (applicant’s preference)	The Huston family were one of the earliest landowners in Wainui, along with the Thick, King, Lloyd and Jacobs families, whose children formed the first community school and church. The area was mostly covered in ferns, scrub and kauri and was ideal for digging for gum and milling timber.
Public Local Road 2	Jacob Road (applicant’s preference)	The Jacob family were one of the earliest landowners in Wainui, along with the Thick, King, Lloyd and Jacobs families, whose children formed the first community school and church. The area was mostly covered in ferns, scrub and kauri and was ideal for digging for gum and milling timber.
Public Local Road 3	Lamont Street (applicant’s preference)	The Lamberts and Lamont families were in the second wave of landowners to Wainui, who cleared the land for cultivation. Along with the earlier wave, they formed the first community school and church.
Public Local Road 4	Lambert Road (applicant’s preference)	The Lamberts and Lamont families were in the second wave of landowners to Wainui, who cleared the land for cultivation. Along with the earlier wave, they formed the first community school and church.
Public Local Road 5	Kiwakiwa Street (applicant’s preference)	te reo Māori word for Blechnum fluviatile - a common fern in damp shady areas of bush throughout Aotearoa/New Zealand.
Public Local Road 6	Heruheru Street (applicant’s preference)	te reo Māori word for Leptopteris hymenophylloides - native tufted ground fern.
Public Local Road 7	Bartly Street (applicant’s preference)	Joseph and Margaret Henl, originally from Austria, held the linking block between Lysnar Road and Argent Lane in the late 1800s, with four children that attended the Wade School: Bartly, Joseph, Maggie and Kate. ‘Henl Lane’ was named 100m to the north in Stage 6 of this development.
Public Local Road 8	Joseph Street (applicant’s preference)	Joseph and Margaret Henl, originally from Austria, held the linking block between Lysnar Road and Argent Lane in the late 1800s, with four children who attended the Wade School: Bartly, Joseph, Maggie and Kate. ‘Henl Lane’ was named 100m to the north in Stage 6 of this development.
Public Local Road 9	Mataira Street (applicant’s preference)	te reo Māori word for Myrsine australis - a small native tree with leaves that have wavy edges, often with reddish spots, and the young stems are red.
Public Local Road 10	Tāranga Street (applicant’s preference)	te reo Māori word for Pimelea longifolia - an upright shrub found in scrubland throughout Aotearoa/New Zealand.
Public Local Road 11	Mouku Road (applicant’s preference)	te reo Māori word for Asplenium bulbiferum - tufted native ground fern.
Public Local Road 12	Pītau Street (applicant’s preference)	te reo Māori word for ‘young succulent shoot of a fern.’
Public Local Road 13	Pūnui Road (applicant’s preference)	te reo Māori word for Cyathea cunninghamii - a tall, graceful tree fern.
Private Local JOAL 1	Enoch Lane (applicant’s preference)	Enoch Bond was the founder of the Bond Brothers General Store in the Wade (1875). This road is adjacent to the new town centre.
Private Local JOAL 2	Elon Lane (applicant’s preference)	The eldest son of Enoch Bond, of the Bond Brothers General Store.
Private Local JOAL 3	Enos Lane (applicant’s preference)	The fourth son of Enoch Bond, of the Bond Brothers General Store.
Private Local JOAL 4	Maggie Lane (applicant’s preference)	Joseph and Margaret Henl, originally from Austria, held the linking block between Lysnar Road and Argent Lane in the late 1800s, with four children who attended the Wade School: Bartly, Joseph, Maggie and Kate. ‘Henl Lane’ was named 100m to the north in Stage 6 of this development.
Private Local JOAL 5	Parareka Lane (applicant’s preference)	te reo Māori word for Marattia salicin – king fern.
Private Local JOAL 6	Taupeka Lane (applicant’s preference)	te reo Māori word for Notogrammitis heterophylla – gypsy fern.
Alternative name options
All roads	Hauāuru Road/Lane/Street	te reo Māori word for ‘western’. Supplied by Ngāti Manuhiri
	Tonga Road/Lane/Street	te reo Māori word for ‘southern’. Supplied by Ngāti Manuhiri
	Hangaruru Street/Lane/Road	te reo Māori word for ‘forest land, dense scrubland’.
	Karuwhai Street/Lane/Road	te reo Māori word for Rumohra adiantiformis - climbing native fern.
	Waewae Kākā Street/Road/Lane	te reo Māori word for Gleichenia microphylla - carrier tangle, parasol fern.
	Gumfields Road/Lane/Street	Gum digging was a major source of income and growth in the area in and around the kauri forests that once covered this valley. The gum was used by Māori for fire or night light, binding flax, and tattooing. European uses included glue, varnish, and fire starters.
	Annadale Road/Lane/Street	This was the name of the farm given to the land alongside Argent Lane by the Lloyd family.
	Flaxmill Road/Lane/Street	A flax mill was established in the mid-1800s by the Tibbetts family on Brunton land, near the upper tributaries of the Ōrewa River.
	Kate Street/Lane/Road	Joseph and Margaret Henl, originally from Austria, held the linking block between Lysnar Road and Argent Lane in the late 1800s, with four children who attended the Wade School: Bartly, Joseph, Maggie and Kate. ‘Henl Lane’ was named 100m to the north in Stage 6 of this development.
	Craddock Lane/Road/Street	Craddock Bond was the brother of Enoch and co-founder of Bond Brothers General Store.

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

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

18. Road Type: ‘Road’, ‘Street’, and ‘Lane’ are acceptable for the respective roads, suiting their form and layout.

19. Renaming of Lysnar Road: the applicant proposes to rename the existing Lysnar Road to Endsley Rise, given that it is more logical to have a single road name for a single stretch of road, and no landowners will be affected by the change. While it was considered to propose the opposite (rename Endsley Rise to Lysnar Road), an existing landowner would be affected by this change and is therefore not the preferred option. The applicant has stated their intention of reusing the name Lysnar elsewhere in the development, given its significance to this particular area.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

25. On 1 November 2024, the applicant’s agent contacted Ngāti Manuhiri and sought feedback on a suite of names including te reo Māori names that they proposed and also te reo Māori names that had previously been supplied by Ngāti Manuhiri. While they supported the proposed te reo Māori names Ngāti Manuhiri stated that their preference would be for all road names to be in te reo Māori.

26. On 20 March 2025, mana whenua were contacted by council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Te Ākitai Waiohua (Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority)

· Ngāti Te Ata (Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua)

· Ngāti Pāoa Iwi Trust

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Whanaunga (Ngāti Whanaunga Incorporated)

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Ngāti Wai.

27. By the close of the consultation period, no other feedback had been received.

28. Having received support from Ngāti Manuhiri for the te reo Māori names proposed, the applicant now wishes to proceed to a decision from the local board. They believe that they have a good mix of both te reo Māori and European names and therefore also request that if the te reo Māori alternative names are to be used that they only be used to replace the te reo Māori preferences opted for rather than the European preferences.

29. This site is not listed as a site of significance to mana whenua.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Roading plan	87
b ⇩	Location map	89

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Mira Narula – Align

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 May 2025

Asset recycling disposal recommendations

File No.: CP2025/07379

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the disposal of Allot 207, 208 and 209 SO 51660, and Section 72 Block XV Mahurangi Survey District, both on Mahurangi West Road, Puhoi.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Allot 207, 208 and 209 SO 51660 and Section 72 Block XV Mahurangi Survey District, both on Mahurangi West Road, Puhoi are parcels of stopped road that have been identified as no longer required for a public work.

3. Eke Panuku has engaged with council and its council-controlled organisations, iwi authorities and the Rodney Local Board regarding this property. No public work requirement has been identified for this property through this engagement.

4. A resolution approving the proposed disposal of this property is required from the Governing Body before the proposed divestment can be progressed. Sales proceeds from the proposed disposal will be allocated towards the asset recycling target contained in council’s Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) ohia / endorse the disposal of:

i) Mahurangi West Road, Puhoi Allots 207, 208 and 209 SO 51660 contained in Records of Title NA64B/955, NA64B/956, NA64B/957; and

ii) Mahurangi West Road, Puhoi Section 72 Block XV Mahurangi Survey District contained in Record of Title NA64B/961.

Horopaki

Context

5. Asset recycling is an important lever for Auckland Council, providing capital to be invested into the most strategically important activities. Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan 2024-2034 includes a target of $300 million to be realised from asset recycling. This is to be achieved from proceeds of sale of surplus council owned property and alternative commercial arrangements.

6. For all properties that are potentially no longer required for public work purposes, Eke Panuku engages with council departments and its council-controlled organisations (CCOs) through an expression of interest process to establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is required for a future funded public work. Once a property has been internally cleared of any public work requirements, Eke Panuku then consults with local boards, mana whenua and ward councillors.

7. The Governing Body makes the final decision to approve non-service property for disposal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. Mahurangi West Road, Puhoi Allot 207, 208 and 209 SO 51660 is a 941m² property held on three titles adjoining 28 Mahurangi West Road. Allotments 207 and 209 are stopped road, from land taken prior to 1962 for roading purposes. Allotment 208 is stopped road, from land taken prior to 1908 for roading purposes.

9. Mahurangi West Road, Puhoi Section 72 Block XV Mahurangi Survey District, is a 297m² property at the corner of Mahurangi West Road and Pukapuka Road, adjoining 16 Pukapuka Road. It is stopped road, from land taken prior to 1946 for roading purposes.

10. Both properties are vacant and laid to pasture. Both are currently encroached on by the adjoining owners.

11. The road stopping for both properties was undertaken in 1986 as part of the realignment of Pukapuka Road. Titles were issued in 1987. The properties subsequently continued to be held by the former Rodney District Council as vacant land until 2021 when they were reviewed following purchaser enquiries from neighbouring property owners.

12. Given the location and configuration of both properties, they could only be sold to the adjoining landowners, who have expressed interest in acquiring the properties should council approve them for disposal.

13. The landowner adjoining Section 72 Block XV has expressed interest in acquiring the property should council approve it for disposal.

14. The Auckland Unitary Plan zoning for Allots 207, 208 and 209 SO 51660 is part Rural - Rural Production, and for Section 72 Block XV Mahurangi Survey District is Rural – Rural Coastal (Whangateau to Waiwera). Both properties are rated together on council’s Geomaps system, with a combined valuation of $26,000.

15. As both these properties are stopped road, they are not subject to the offer back obligations under section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981.

16. The disposal of the subject properties is not deemed significant under Auckland Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

17. Images of the properties are in Attachment A to the agenda report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. The proposed sale of these two parcels is likely to lead to land use changes. It is acknowledged that any form of construction and development can increase carbon emissions.

19. Allot 207, 208 and 209 SO 51660 and Section 72 Block XV Mahurangi Survey District are not in flood prone areas and are not coastal properties subject to coastal inundation.

20. Council’s Geomaps identifies a known 100-year rainfall event overland flow path that may impact Allot 207, 208 and 209 SO 51660.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. Consultation was undertaken with council departments and CCOs on the proposed disposal of Allot 207, 208 and 209 SO 51660 and Section 72 Block XV Mahurangi Survey District in March and April 2023.

22. No alternative public work requirements for the two parcels were identified.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. Eke Panuku provided the Rodney Local Board with an information memorandum regarding Allot 207, 208 and 209 SO 51660 and Section 72 Block XV Mahurangi Survey District in December 2023.

24. A report was due to have gone to the local board business meeting in April 2024 but was withdrawn.

25. Eke Panuku sent an updated memorandum in April 2025.

26. This report provides the local board with an opportunity to formalise its views regarding both these properties.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. Nineteen mana whenua iwi authorities were consulted regarding any issues of cultural significance associated with Allot 207, 208 and 209 SO 51660 and Section 72 Block XV Mahurangi Survey District.

28. Consultation took place in December 2022 and January 2023. No issues of cultural significance were received in response.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. Capital receipts from the sale of properties not required by Auckland Council contribute to the goals of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. No significant risks associated with the recommendation contained in this report have been identified.

31. The properties’ market values may be lower than anticipated, or they may fail to sell to the adjoining owners. If the properties fail to sell in the first instance, they can be brought to market again at a later date.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Subject to the local board’s endorsement, a recommendation to dispose of Allot 207, 208 and 209 SO 51660 and Section 72 Block XV Mahurangi Survey District will be reported to the Governing Body for a decision.

33. Adjoining landowners are seeking to purchase both parcels should they be approved for sale. The terms and conditions of any disposal would be approved under appropriate financial delegation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Property images	95

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carl May - Team Leader Portfolio Review

Authorisers

Marian Webb - General Manager Assets and Delivery, Eke Panuku

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 May 2025

Endorsing Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rate grants for 2025/2026

File No.: CP2025/02941

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To confirm Business Improvement District annual compliance against the Auckland Council BID Policy (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) as of 10 March 2025.

2. To consider whether the local board should recommend to the Governing Body the setting of the targeted rates for the North West Country and One Mahurangi Business Improvement District programmes for the 2025/2026 financial year.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Business Improvement Districts-operating business associations within the local board area

3. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are programmes where local business and property owners have agreed to work together to improve their business environment, encourage engagement with all BID members and attract new businesses and customers.

4. The BID Policy includes a total of 23 Requirements, 19 are the direct responsibility of the BID-operating business association (BID) and inform this report. As part of the 19 Requirements, the BIDs are required to provide annual accountability reports which are due 10 March each year.

5. All BIDs need to work within the BID Policy and meet the terms of the signed three-year Business Improvement District Targeted Rate Grant Agreement.

6. The BID annual accountability reports on public funds received by the BID within the local board area for the 2023/2024 financial year and compliance with the Auckland Council BID Policy (2022) as of 10 March 2025. This report has a direct link to council’s Annual Plan and budget 2025/2026 process to set the BID targeted rates for 2025/2026.

7. Rodney Local Board has two BIDs operating in their local area:

Table 1: BID targeted rate sought 2025/2026

Incorporated society name	Proposed 2025/2026 Targeted Rate	Met BID Policy annual accountability reports
North West Country Inc.	$206,010	Yes
One Mahurangi Business Association Inc.	$143,500	Yes

8. Staff recommend that the local board supports North West Country and One Mahurangi BIDs receiving their targeted rate grant for 2025/2026 set by the Governing Body.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) tūtohu / recommend to the Governing Body the setting of the 2025/2026 Business Improvement District targeted rates for inclusion in the 2025/2026 Annual Plan and budget for the following Business Improvement District (BID) programmes:

i) $206,010 for North West Country BID

ii) $143,500 for One Mahurangi BID.

Horopaki

Context

Business Improvement District Policy and targeted rate grant agreement

9. Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2022) (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi includes a total of 23 Requirements, 19 are the direct responsibility of the Business Improvement District-operating business association (BID) and inform this annual report (Attachment A to the agenda report).

10. The remaining four BID Policy Requirements set out the process for establishing, expanding, and discontinuing a BID programme; and determines rating mechanisms. These will be covered within individual BID local board reports.

11. The BID Policy does not prescribe or measure standards for BID programme effectiveness. That is a matter for business association members to determine. Staff, therefore, cannot base recommendations on these factors, but only on the policy’s express requirements.

12. The BID Policy is supported by a Business Improvement District Targeted Rate Grant Agreement, a three-year agreement signed by both Auckland Council and each BID-operating business association’s executive committee. The agreement sets out the relationship between the parties, how payment will be made and that compliance with the BID Policy is mandatory. The agreement confirms the business association’s independence from Auckland Council. All 51 BIDs currently have a BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement which will finish on 30 June 2025. Staff are preparing the agreement for signing in June 2025 for the upcoming three-year period.

13. This report to the local board focuses on the BIDs annual accountability reporting (BID Policy Requirements 9, 11 and 18) relating to public funds received by the BID for the 2023/2024 financial year. The report also confirms compliance with the 19 BID Policy Requirements that are the responsibility of the BID as of 10 March each year.

14. This report includes a copy of the individual BIDs Governance Summary documents, Attachments B and C to the agenda report. These documents include the full resolution detailing the amount of BID targeted rate grant approved by association members at their 2024 Annual General Meeting (AGM) for the 2025/2026 financial year. The BID chairperson also agrees, by signing this document, to advise the council of any perceived or real current issues that can affect compliance with the BID Policy.

Business Improvement District Programmes

15. Local BID programmes should provide value to the collective business community by delivering a suite of economic activities that respond to local needs and opportunities and are agreed by the local business community. BID programmes also provide the opportunity to work with the council group and engage with local boards.

16. The BID programme does not replicate services provided by the council but channels the capabilities and knowledge of the private sector to improve economic outcomes and achieve common goals.

17. Each business association operating a BID programme sets the BID targeted rate grant amount at its AGM when members vote to approve a detailed income and expenditure operational budget and business plan for the following financial year.

18. Responsibility for delivery and the outcomes of the BID programme sits with the individual BID-operating business association executive committee (provision of reporting information) and members (reviewing information provided to them by the executive committee).

19. All BIDs need to be aware of the requirement to re-register by April 2026 under the updated Incorporated Societies Act 2022. All BIDs are registered incorporated societies and may need to update their constitutions to meet the new Act.

Business Improvement District Policy refresh 2025

20. The BID team undertook a refresh of the BID Policy starting in October 2024. This refresh is nearing completion with the final draft of the BID Policy 2025 document going to the Governing Body meeting on 29 May 2025.

Regional BID Programme Growth

21. Grey Lynn Business Association achieved a successful BID establishment ballot in November 2024. This will see them commence as a new BID from 1 July 2025 with a BID targeted rate grant of $320,000.

22. Takanini Business Association failed to meet the BID Policy ballot mandate and will not progress the BID establishment project to full BID status.

23. Two business associations are in the process of having their BID programmes stopped for non-compliance with the BID policy.

24. This will bring the total number of BID programmes to 50 as of 1 July 2025.

25. There are several BIDs signalling a review of their BID boundary areas and progressing towards a BID expansion over the next few years. These include Howick, Kingsland, Manurewa and Glen Eden.

26. Thirty-seven BIDs increased their targeted rate grant amount for 2025/2026 - between two per cent to 42.5 per cent - while 12 maintained the fiscal status quo.

Rodney Local Board Business Improvement District Targeted Rates 2025/2026

27. Rodney Local Board has two BIDs operating in their local board area. Table 2 shows the amount of targeted rate each BID had approved at their 2024 AGM for the 2025/2026 financial year and linked to the council’s Annual Plan and budget 2025/2026 approval process.

Table 2: BID targeted rate changes in 2025/2026

Incorporated Society name

Proposed 2025/2026 Targeted Rate

(Approved at AGM)

BID targeted rate grant 2024/2025

Proposed increase over 2024/2025

North West Country Inc

$206,010

$189,000

9 per cent

One Mahurangi Business Association Inc

$143,500*

$148,500**

N/A

* Amended and approved by resolution One Mahurangi Executive Committee 22 January 2025.

** BID targeted rate grant 2024/2025 paid to One Mahurangi was calculated from 286 BID ratepayers x $500 (no GST applied) plus $5,500 surplus carried over from the 2022/2023 financial year.

One Mahurangi BID targeted rate grant – flat rate mechanism

28. The One Mahurangi BID targeted rate is collected using the BID flat rate mechanism of $575 (incl GST) charged to each BID ratepayer. This flat rate mechanism was voted on and accepted in the One Mahurangi 2020 BID establishment ballot.

29. One Mahurangi BID is the only BID within all 51 BIDs who have this flat rate mechanism.

30. Due to this flat rate mechanism, One Mahurangi BID targeted rate grant amount is subject to fluctuations depending on the number of ratable properties within the BID boundary area on 1 July each year. These year-to-year fluctuations are a result of properties being subdivided/split or merging which either increases or decreases the number of BID ratable properties/ratepayers that can be charged the One Mahurangi BID flat rate.

31. Business Improvement District targeted rates are also subject to the previous year surplus or deficit where the council has collected more or less rates than the BID grant paid to the BID. In the case of One Mahurangi BID flat rate mechanism, absorbing any surplus or deficit across the BID ratepayers is not an option. This can be a bonus to One Mahurangi who have over the last few years received extra BID grant funds due to a surplus. However, for 2025/2026 the One Mahurangi BID targeted rate grant will be subject to a deficit carried over from the 2023/2024 financial year.

32. The One Mahurangi BID targeted rate for 2025/2026 will be set at $143,500 calculated from 288 BID ratepayers x $500 (no GST applied) minus $500 deficit carried over from the 2023/2024 financial year.

Decision making

Auckland Council

33. The recommendation in this report is put into effect with the Governing Body’s approval of the Annual Plan and budget 2025/2026 and its setting of the 2025/2026 targeted rates.

34. In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Governing Body is authorised to make the final decisions on what BID programme targeted rates, if any, to set in any particular year or property (in terms of the amount and the geographic area to be rated).

Local boards

35. Under the Auckland Council shared governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities in relation to BID programmes. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body if it is satisfied that the BID is sufficiently complying with the BID Policy.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Business Improvement District 2025 accountability reporting process overview

36. Upon receipt of individual BID annual accountability documents, staff follow a set process that includes reviewing the documents provided by 10 March 2025 against the BID policy, analysing changes from the previous accountability period, and following up with BIDs on any identified issues.

37. The BID team report this year that all BIDs successfully completed their annual accountability reporting by the due date of 10 March 2025. There were no serious issues identified as part of this annual accountability review.

38. The BID Policy, Requirement 11, sets out the documents that form the annual accountability reporting documents for each BID. These documents confirm membership decision-making has taken place regarding the BID programme at the 2024 AGM. Other reporting requirements include the filing of annual financial statements with the Companies Office under the Incorporated Societies Act.

39. At the time of writing this report over 12 BIDs had completed the reregistration process with the New Zealand Companies Office under the Incorporated Society Act 2022.

Rodney Local Board Business Improvement Districts

40. Using the documents and information submitted, the BID team is satisfied that North West Country and One Mahurangi BIDs have sufficiently met the BID Policy Requirements and the BID Policy for setting of the BID targeted rates for 2025/2026.

41. Staff advise the local board to recommend to the Governing Body the setting of the targeted rates for 2025/2026 as set out in Table 1.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

42. Through targeted rate-funded advocacy and activities, BID-operating business associations promote and can facilitate environmental sustainability programmes and climate response where appropriate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

43. Advocacy is a key service provided by business associations that operate a BID programme. BID-operating business associations ensure the views and ambitions of their members are provided to elected representatives and council teams, including council-controlled organisations (CCOs), on those policies, plans, programmes, and projects that impact them.

44. Business Improvement Districts will continue to work across the council and at various times alongside the CCOs.

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

Local impacts and local board views

45. The local board’s views are most frequently expressed by its appointed representative on the board of each BID-operating business association. This liaison board member (or alternates) can attend BID board meetings to ensure there is a direct link between the council and the operation of the BID programme.

46. North West Country and One Mahurangi BID programmes best align with the Rodney Local Board Plan 2023, Outcome: Our Places - Our towns, villages and rural areas are vibrant, prosperous and liveable.

47. Recommending that the Governing Body sets the targeted rates for North West Country and One Mahurangi business associations means that these BID programmes will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties in their respective rohe. They will provide services in accordance with their members’ priorities as stated in their strategic plans.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

48. The BID Policy and the annual accountability process does not prescribe or report on individual BID programme’s effectiveness, outcomes, or impacts for Māori. However individual BIDs may include this level of detail in other reports provided to their members. This localised project reporting is not a requirement of the BID Policy and is not part of the BID Policy annual accountability reporting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

49. There are no financial implications for the local board. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from business ratepayers in the district and used by the business association for improvements within that rohe. The council’s financial role is to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the associations every quarter.

50. The targeted rate is payable by the owners of the business-rated properties within the geographic area of the individual BID programmes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51. To sustain public trust and confidence in the council, the BID Policy sets out a balance between the independence of the BID-operating business associations and the accountability for monies collected by a public sector organisation.

52. For the council to be confident that the targeted rate grant funds provided to the BID-operating business associations are being used appropriately, it requires the BIDs to fully complete all annual accountability reporting and the 19 BID Policy Requirements that are the responsibility of the BIDs.

53. Council staff regularly monitor compliance with the BID Policy throughout the year including responding to queries and issues raised by council staff, members of the BID, the public and elected members.

54. The BID team actively seeks out and grows relationships with council departments that interact with BID programmes to ensure a consistent approach is applied for the programme.

55. The role of the local board representative is a key link between the parties involved in the BID programme in terms of communication and feedback. Local board representatives on BID programmes are strongly encouraged to contact the BID team if they have any queries or concerns.

56. This report is part of an active risk management programme to minimise inappropriate use of funds. It provides an annual update that the BIDs operating within the local board area are compliant with the BID Policy.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

57. If the local board supports this report, it will recommend to the Governing Body that the BID targeted rates be set as part of the Annual Plan and budget 2025/2026.

58. After the targeted rates are approved, the council will collect the targeted rate funds effective from 1 July 2025 and distribute them in quarterly BID grant payments to the North West Country and One Mahurangi BIDs.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Business Improvement District Policy Requirements summary	105
b ⇩	North West Country Governance Declaration	109
c ⇩	One Mahurangi Governance Declaration	111

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Gill Plume - BID Senior Advisor

Claire Siddens - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager CCO/External Partnerships team

Anna Bray - General Manager Group Strategy, Transformation and Partnerships

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 May 2025

Auckland Council’s submission to proposed waste legislation changes – local board feedback

File No.: CP2025/09922

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To outline the process and opportunity for local board members to provide feedback on the Government’s proposed amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Litter Act 1979 to inform the council’s draft submission.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Ministry for the Environment released its consultation document Have your say on proposed amendments to waste legislation - Tukuna ō whakaaro mō ngā menemana marohi ki te ture para, on 22 April 2025 outlining proposed amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Litter Act 1979. Submissions on the proposed amendments close on 1 June 2025.

3. The proposed amendments for consultation relate to the following aspects:

· creating a framework for Extended Producer Responsibility

· improving the allocation, distribution and use of waste disposal levy funding

· clarifying roles and responsibilities for central government, local government and the waste sector

· creating a modern, effective compliance regime

· enabling controls to address impacts of ‘mismanaged waste’ (e.g., illegal dumping, litter and or ‘escaped’ waste carried by wind or water from one site to another).

4. Approval is being sought from the Policy and Planning Committee on 15 May 2025 to delegate authority to the chairperson and deputy chairperson of that committee, and a member of Houkura, to review and approve the council’s final submission due 1 June 2025.

5. Waste Solutions staff will lead the development of Auckland Council’s submission which is due to the Ministry for the Environment by 1 June 2025.

6. A preliminary assessment of potential implications for Auckland Council of the proposed legislative amendments highlights the following key aspects, refer also to Attachment B to the agenda report:

· implementation of extended producer responsibility: creating an Extended Producer Responsibility regulatory framework for end-of-life products would provide better support for waste minimisation and management outcomes for households and others. The Extended Producer Responsibility implementation may potentially provide positive impacts on resource recovery systems across the region, including opportunities through Auckland’s Resource Recovery Network

· funding impact: a change to the method to distribute waste disposal levy funds across all territorial authorities is proposed to provide a more equitable share distributed from larger councils to smaller councils. This would result in Auckland Council receiving a reduced amount from the ministry compared to the current population based method. This reduction will be partly offset by total levy funding increases from 2025–2027, due to higher waste disposal levy rates that the government confirmed in 2024. Maintaining certainty for the existing 50:50 share of levy revenue between central government and local government remains important to the council to ensure long term planning

· service delivery and costs: creating the ability to use waste disposal levy funding to support a wider range of environmental activities provides opportunities for the council and its partners to address local and regional issues, (including managing waste generated from climate-related and natural disasters, remediation of vulnerable closed landfills, and activities that reduce environmental harm). However, this would also introduce competing demands for limited waste disposal levy funding. There may also be the potential for increased operating costs to the council should a levy be applied to existing (or future) waste-to-energy facilities which are yet to be defined

· monitoring and enforcement of ‘mismanaged’ waste: a new compliance regime with potential impacts on effectiveness and resourcing.

7. Auckland Council’s submission will be developed based on policy positions articulated in relevant council strategy, such as Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para 2024 - Ki te Para Kore / Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2024 – Towards Zero Waste and other recent council submissions on government policy relating to waste management and minimisation.

8. Mana whenua will be invited to provide input on the council’s submission. Given the short timeframes involved in developing and submitting a submission, relevant, recently documented views from local boards and mana whenua on the waste plan 2024 may also be referred to.

9. Local boards can provide formal feedback by 22 May 2025 to be incorporated into the submission; or by 12.00pm on 30 May 2025 to be appended to the council’s submission.

10. Further evidence and supporting positions will be obtained from subject matter experts across the council group.

11. The council’s draft submission will be circulated to the delegated members for input and approval.

12. A copy of the final submission will be provided to all elected members, local board members, Houkura and mana whenua once submitted.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback on the government’s proposed amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Litter Act 1979 to inform the council’s draft submission.

Horopaki

Context

Government’s consultation on amendments to waste legislation

13. On 22 April 2025, the Ministry for the Environment - Manatū Mō Te Taiao (the ministry) released its consultation document, Have your say on proposed amendments to waste legislation - Tukuna ō whakaaro mō ngā menemana marohi ki te ture para (consultation document). A summary of the proposals and consultation questions is provided in Attachment A to the agenda report. Consultation closes 1 June 2025.

14. The consultation document states that the proposed amendments are to “create fit-for-purpose, modern waste legislation that gives us more options and flexibility to reduce and manage waste effectively and efficiently”.

15. Feedback is sought on 37 consultation questions across the following five proposals:

· creating a framework for ‘extended producer responsibility’

· improving the waste disposal levy system through changes to allocation, distribution, and use

· clarifying roles and responsibilities in the waste legislation

· creating a modern, effective compliance regime

· enabling efficient and effective controls for littering and other types of ‘mismanaged waste’.

16. The term ‘extended producer responsibility (EPR)’ is described in the consultation material as a suite of policy instruments that shift financial and/or operational responsibility for material recovery and waste management towards producers, importers and retailers, instead of falling by default on councils, communities, future generations and nature. EPR can include tools such as product stewardship schemes and deposit return models, such as a container return scheme for beverage containers.

17. The term ‘mismanaged waste’ is referred to in the consultation document as meaning litter, illegal dumping, or ‘escaped’ waste carried by wind or water from one site to another due to inappropriate management/storage.

18. The proposals include consolidating the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA 2008) and Litter Act 1979 into one bill.

19. The ministry states it will analyse all submissions received by 1 June 2025 to help inform policy and government decisions. If cabinet agrees, an amendment bill will then be introduced to parliament.

20. A delegated authority is sought to approve council’s submission, given the next Policy and Planning Committee meeting is scheduled for after the 1 June 2025 submission deadline.

Previous government’s consultation on waste policy and legislation reform

21. The WMA 2008 requires that all territorial authorities “must have regard to the New Zealand Waste Strategy” when developing waste management and minimisation plans. In late 2021, under the previous government, the ministry undertook a public consultation to update the New Zealand Waste Strategy (which had not been updated since 2010) and to reform the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Litter Act 1979.

22. At that time, delegated approval for the council’s submission on the ministry’s consultation document was provided by the Planning Committee on 4 November 2021 (resolution PLA/2021/127).

23. In March 2023, the previous government adopted Te Rautaki Para - Waste Strategy to replace the previous version of the New Zealand Waste Strategy. Around the same time, cabinet papers were also released outlining the previous government’s proposed new legislative provisions.

24. In March 2023, the Policy and Environmental Planning Committee approved that any proposed replacement legislation for the Waste Management Act 2008 and Litter Act 1979 would be a priority submission for council (resolution PEPCC/2023/33).

Recent updates to New Zealand Waste Strategy and waste legislation

25. On 5 March 2025, the Government released its Waste and Resource Efficiency Strategy to replace the Te Rautaki Para strategy document adopted by the previous government in 2023.

26. In March 2025, the ministry also released its two-year work programme, indicating waste legislation reform would take place during the first half of 2025.

27. Prior to the release of the new strategy and work-programme, the Government made targeted amendments to the WMA 2008 in 2024 which included enabling central government to spend its portion of waste disposal levy funds on a broader range of waste and environmental activities. The waste disposal levy is applied to every tonne of waste disposed at approved disposal facilities across the country, and the funds are administered by the Ministry for the Environment for purposes of waste minimisation activities (and other broader central government activities as set out in recent amendments to the WMA 2008).

28. These recent amendments to the WMA 2008 also allowed for waste disposal levy rates to continue to increase incrementally up to July 2027. In 2009, the waste disposal levy rate was originally set at $10 per tonne for a Class 1 landfill (a disposal facility that accepts waste materials from household, commercial, industrial or institutional sources), and remained at that rate until 2021. Since then, waste disposal levy rates have increased incrementally, with lower levy rates also getting applied to other classes of landfills (Class 2 construction and demolition landfills, and Class 3 and 4 managed or controlled fill facilities). For a Class 1 landfill the rate is now $60 per tonne and will increase to $75 per tonne on 1 July 2027.

29. Table 1 below shows the increase in waste disposal levy rates that the government has confirmed to be introduced over the next three years. The ministry acknowledges New Zealand’s waste disposal levy rates will remain comparatively lower than similar waste disposal rates in Australia and the United Kingdom.

Table 1: confirmed increase in waste disposal levy rates for 2025-2027

Facility class	1 July 2025	1 July 2026	1 July 2027
Facility class	($ per tonne)	($ per tonne)	($ per tonne)
Class 1 (municipal landfill)	$65	$70	$75
Class 2 (construction and demolition fill)	$35	$40	$45
Class 3 and 4 (managed or controlled fill facility)	$15	$15	$20

30. Under the WMA 2008, central government and territorial authorities equally share revenue generated by the waste disposal levy (after administration costs). The share of levy funding that goes to territorial authorities is distributed according to population within councils and districts.

31. In FY 2023/2024, Auckland Council received $26.6 million waste levy funding, compared to $5.6 million received in FY 2020/2021, before levy rates increased. Under the WMA 2008 territorial authorities must spend the levy funding on activities set out in a council’s Waste Minimisation and Management Plan, with some exceptions.

32. For central government, the focus to date has been on investing in waste minimisation projects largely through the ministry’s contestable Waste Minimisation Fund.

Council’s strategic framework relating to waste minimisation

33. Auckland Council’s strategic direction relating to waste is set by the Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para 2024 - Ki te Para Kore / Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2024 – Towards Zero Waste (Waste Plan 2024) and complemented by Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan 2020.

34. Other policy, planning, and regulatory documents of relevance to waste activities include the council’s Long-term Plan 2024–2034, Infrastructure Strategy 2024, Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, local board plans, Sustainable Procurement Framework, the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019.

35. The waste plan 2024 continues a Zero Waste by 2040 vision originally set out in Auckland Council’s first Waste Minimisation and Management Plan in 2012. The waste plan 2024 has over 100 actions across 12 priority focus areas.

36. Waste disposal levy funds are used by Auckland Council to deliver a range of council’s waste minimisation activities and actions set out in its waste plan 2024, including the provision of a Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund, community engagement programmes managed by council’s Wastewise team, and various projects to reduce waste.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Process to develop council’s submission

37. Staff are in the process of reviewing the consultation document and coordinating a response. Thorough consideration of the scope and implications of the proposed amendments is required before well-defined advice and detailed feedback can be provided to the proposed delegated elected members.

38. The council’s submission will be developed based on current policy positions articulated in council’s adopted plans and policies. Evidence and data gathered through the recent development of the waste plan 2024 will be used, along with reference to the council’s submission provided to the ministry in 2021 as part of the previous government’s consultation on waste legislation.

39. Staff are seeking via this report local board feedback. Mana whenua have also been invited to provide input on the council’s submission. Local board and mana whenua views will also involve drawing on relevant input received through the pre-engagement and consultation process to develop the waste plan 2024.

40. Further evidence and supporting positions will be obtained from subject matter experts across the council group.

41. Once developed, the council’s draft submission will be circulated to the delegated elected members for input, review and approval.

42. Staff will submit an approved submission through the Ministry’s Citizen Space portal before 11.59pm, 1 June 2025.

Preliminary advice on proposals

43. To support the process to gather feedback from elected members and the council group, a preliminary review of the proposals in the consultation document and consideration of potential implications for Auckland Council and the region is provided in a table in Attachment B. This preliminary analysis is expected to inform the general direction of council’s submission.

44. A summary of the main implications for Auckland Council from an initial review of the proposed legislative amendments is provided below.

Funding impact

· A new method is proposed to distribute levy funding to territorial authorities, to provide for a more equitable approach for the provision of levy funds to smaller councils. Instead of using only a population-based method, the proposed new method is to provide all authorities with a flat amount (based on distributing 20 per cent of the 50 per cent share allocated to all councils), and an amount that distributes the remaining 80 per cent of funds to councils based on a city or district’s population

· this proposed calculation method would reduce the amount Auckland Council receives annually, compared to the current distribution method. Table 2 below shows the comparison between the actual funding amount Auckland Council received in FY 2023/2024 compared to the proposed funding model. The FY 2027/2028 projection illustrates the increase due to increased waste disposal levy rates under the current funding model, and the difference under the proposed new funding model. This shows that while the council will receive an additional $26.8 million over the four-year period from FY 2023/2024 (due to waste disposal levy rates increasing), the proposed new method would reduce the annual amounts the council would receive by $5 million and $10 million each year, depending on when such a proposal would be implemented.

Table 2: estimated waste disposal levy funding under the proposed funding model

Auckland Council’s waste disposal levy funding	Actual FY 23/24 funding (annual)	Estimated 27/28 funding (annual)*	Funding difference from 23/24–27/28
Current method	$26.6m	$52.8m	$26.8m
Proposed method	$21.4m	$42.7m	$21.7m
Reduction	($5.2m)	($10.1m)	($5.1m)

*this is based on the total levy revenue that is generated from the total tonnages of waste disposed to landfills across the country, as well as population data within each territorial authority. Figures provided to council staff by ministry staff in late 2024.

· increased levy rates between 2025 and 2027 will result in more revenue generated for central and local government. In the longer term, the proposed change in the method to distribute levy funds would continue to require close strategic and financial planning, especially if combined with the proposed broadening uses of the levy funds (refer Attachment B for details).

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework and implementation

· as EPR schemes develop under a proposed new regulatory framework, Auckland Council would benefit from shifting certain responsibilities for end-of-life waste to producers/consumers of products. However, the council would likely need to adapt its waste planning functions, waste collection and resource recovery systems, and associated community engagement programmes, to complement EPR schemes as they are designed and implemented.

Service delivery

· the proposed broadening of the range of environmental activities that the council could use waste levy funding for may result in changes to the current range of waste minimisation service provision and outcomes, especially if not offset by other waste initiatives being funded through other means (e.g., private sector resource recovery initiatives or implemented ERP schemes) and in the absence of having a clear decision-making framework to help assess competing priorities

· the proposals to have minimum obligations for territorial authorities to enable household waste and recycling services and making it a discretionary requirement to provide litter bins in public places, may require the council to review the various delivery models used across the region

· there are also potential future cost implications for the council and its council-controlled organisations (CCOs) services (in particular, Watercare) in relation to a proposed amendment that could require waste-to-energy plants to be subject to a waste disposal levy. However, the consultation document is not clear on the types of waste to energy facilities that would have to pay the levy. Potentially, this may include the Ecogas facility processing Auckland’s kerbside food scraps. For Watercare, a levy on waste-to-energy facilities would be a significant factor to consider as it explores future options to manage biosolids generated at its Māngere Wastewater Treatment Plan. Further clarifications of the proposals, and implications, are required.

Compliance, monitoring and enforcement framework for mismanaged waste

· the proposed compliance framework and integration of provisions into legislation to address issues with ‘mismanaged waste’ (including litter, dumping, and waste that has the potential to escape a site) would support key issues and actions contained within the council’s waste plan 2024. It may also require assessment of the council’s enforcement capacity, and the potential for additional resources to implement such changes.

Access to and management of waste data

· proposed amendments to enhance data on mismanaged waste and ERP schemes would help inform the council’s planning and decision-making processes but may also necessitate potential investment in systems to collect, manage, and share with regulators specific data on waste issues and activities.

Strategic alignment

· the council’s waste plan 2024 largely aligns with the proposed legislative amendments. However, as the proposed amendments, decision-making frameworks, and regulatory changes are further clarified and developed, the implementation of the waste plan 2024 may require further review.

Timeframe for the consultation

45. The timeframe for feedback and submission on the consultation document is provided in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Timeframe milestones for consultation

Milestone	Date
Consultation document released	22 April 2025
Online briefing for local board members	19 May 2025
Deadline for incorporated feedback	22 May 2025
Deadline for appended feedback	30 May 2025, 12pm
Consultation period closes	1 June 2025
Copy of final council submission circulated to Governing Body members, local board members and Houkura	2 June 2025

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

46. The disposal and treatment of waste comprises around four per cent of Auckland’s gross greenhouse gas emissions.

47. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the disposal and treatment of waste is the release of bio-genic methane from landfills (generated from organic waste, such as garden waste, timber, food scraps, biosolids, paper or cardboard). Lesser contributions to New Zealand’s waste-sector emissions arise from wastewater treatment, incineration and open burning, and biological waste treatment (composting).

48. Emissions associated with the transportation of waste materials are not categorised within waste-sector emissions. Rather, these contribute to emissions from the transport sector. Embodied emissions contained within wasted products (i.e. emissions generated across the lifecycle of a product) are also not included within the four per cent of gross emissions associated with waste treatment or disposal.

49. The consultation document is not explicit in how the proposed amendments intend to respond to impacts from climate change. However, there are implicit connections made between reducing emissions by achieving waste minimisation outcomes (e.g., through proposals to strengthen EPR outcomes), and by adapting to the impacts of climate change through broadening the scope of activities that waste levy funds can be used for (e.g., for costs associated with managing emergency waste, remediating closed landfill sites which may be vulnerable to extreme weather events, or investing in “activities that reduce environmental harm or increase environmental benefits” which is broad in nature and could be interpreted as including climate change mitigation or adaptation activities).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

50. Feedback on the consultation document will be sought from subject matter experts across relevant council departments and CCOs, including Waste Solutions, Finance, Parks and Community Facilities, Auckland Transport and Watercare.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Local impacts

51. The potential local impacts from the proposed amendments will be considered as part of the council’s submission, however it is expected that the proposed legislative changes will impact local communities in various ways, including the following key points.

· introducing extended producer responsibility schemes would have an impact on people’s purchasing choices and waste minimisation behaviours. The implementation of schemes could lead to changes in product design to minimise waste, or the provision of new collection systems and differing financing arrangements, that could result in new resource recovery, reuse, or recycling infrastructure within the Auckland region

· stronger controls to monitor and enforce ‘mismanaged waste’ would mean local ‘Litter Control Officers would gain enhanced powers to address litter and illegal dumping, and this would potentially improve Auckland’s ability to reduce negative issues associated with litter and illegal dumping

· broadening the use of waste levy funding for activities that ‘reduce environmental harms or increase environmental benefits’ may present an opportunity for local boards to respond to local environmental issues. This would need to be supported by a clear decision-making framework on how the use of waste levy funding gets accessed across the Council Group without compromising the strategic objectives and goals of the council’s waste plan 2024.

Local boards

52. Local boards provided strong direction through the development of the waste plan 2024 and the council’s 2021 submission on government waste policy and legislation. These views will help to inform the submission.

53. Local board views received will be either incorporated within the report or appended to the submission, depending on when they are able to provide views.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. Staff have contacted Houkura and are seeking to engage with iwi through the Mana Whenua Resilience and Infrastructure forum to alert them to this public consultation and the opportunity to input on council’s submission. Staff will do the same for the Tāmaki Makaurau mana whenua entities.

55. Feedback expressed to the council on previous related submissions, and through the engagement process to develop the draft waste plan 2024 will be incorporated into the development of this submission where relevant.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

56. The submission will be developed as part of the council’s business-as-usual central government advocacy activity.

57. As the consultation is on proposed legislation changes, it is not yet possible to quantify the budgetary consequences for the council. However, as highlighted the consultation document proposes changes to the amount of waste disposal levy funding Auckland Council currently receives and on what activities the funding can be used for.

58. The potential financial implications for the council will be further considered as part of the council’s submission.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

59. There is a minimal risk in making a submission to the Ministry for the Environment consultation document.

60. Potential risks to the council arising from strategy and legislation changes will be considered as part of the council’s submission.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

61. Local board resolutions on the government’s proposed amendments to waste legislation will be included in the Auckland Council submission on this matter.

62. Below are the key dates for input into the submission.

· 22 May 2025: deadline for feedback to be considered in the council’s submission

· 30 May 2025, 12pm: final date for any formal local board feedback to be appended to the submission

· 30 May 2025: final submission will be approved by delegated members subject to Policy and Planning Committee 15 May 2025 meeting

· 2 June 2025: final submission will be circulated retrospectively to Governing Body members, Houkura and local board members.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of proposals and consultation questions	123
b ⇩	Preliminary assessment of proposed amendments and implications for Auckland Council	131

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Tania Utley - Senior Waste Planning Specialist

Nadine Wakim – Senior Waste Planning Advisor

Authorisers

Justine Haves - General Manager Waste Solutions

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Rodney Local Board

21 May 2025

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Rodney Local Board for quarter three 2024/2025

File No.: CP2025/08006

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive the Rodney Local Board’s integrated quarterly performance report for quarter three, 1 January to 31 March 2025.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The work programme is produced annually and aligns with Rodney Local Board Plan 2023 outcomes.

4. The key activity updates from this quarter are:

· ID389: connected and resilient communities Rodney

· ID388: support and activation – Rodney East Community Centres and Rural Halls

· ID4406: Rodney community arts and culture coordinator

· ID4417: Rodney freshwater education project

· ID512: Rodney Shorebirds Trust coordinator.

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the integrated performance report for quarter three ending 31 March 2025.

Horopaki

Context

6. The Rodney Local Board has approved 2024/2025 work programmes (Attachment A to the agenda report) for the following:

· Customer and Community Services

· Local Environmental

· Auckland Emergency Management

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

Graph 1: work programme activities by outcome

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local board work programme snapshot

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

Graph 2: work programme performance by RAG status

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

Graph 3: work programme performance by activity status and department

Key activity updates from quarter three

10. Some key achievements for quarter four in the delivery of the local board work programmes for 2023/2024 are (but not limited to):

· ID389: connected and resilient communities Rodney.

o the Mahurangi Community Hub work has begun on a joined up placemaking approach across the Mahurangi East Community Centre, the library and the adjacent areas in Goodall Reserve. A landscape designer has been contracted to do initial design work that will focus on activating and enlivening the area to make it a more attractive and interesting space for the community

o Warkworth library will be collaborating with the Warkworth Community Garden Group to develop a small teaching and sensory garden outside the library. Work is underway on building the garden beds and writing the relationship agreement and guidelines that will underpin this collaboration

o Shoesmith Hall - there has been further work done on understanding the needs of current and potential users of the hall and outside space and this will guide the renovations that are about to begin. The number of users has been increasing steadily.

· ID388: support and activation – Rodney East Community Centres and Rural Halls.

o quarter three saw fantastic community engagement through a variety of events and initiatives. The Mahurangi Artist Trail at Warkworth Town Hall was a standout, drawing excellent attendance and positive feedback. Several new workshops were held, all of which were well attended and strengthened connections between local artists and the wider community

o the Rodney Youth Festival in Wellsford was a vibrant, collaborative success, co-created with local talent, volunteers, and the Rodney Youth Project. It highlighted youth creativity and leadership in an inclusive setting

o A free parenting programme, launched in Wellsford in partnership with the Ministry of Education, has seen strong participation. Given its success, it will continue into term two

o two new activations were delivered this quarter: a 'playing card swap' in Wellsford and a ‘have a go’ pilates session in Warkworth. Both encouraged local participation and community connection.

· ID4406: Rodney community arts and culture coordinator. In quarter 3 Creative Rodney East delivered a variety of engagement. Glass artist Jule Beaumont held fused glass workshops at her studio, inviting a wide range of levels. Contemporary korowai weaving workshops at Warkworth Town Hall were by experienced Māori artist tutor Harini Pickering with 30 attending three workshops. Participants created their own miniature contemporary korowai, displayed attractively in a box-frame. The experience offered a chance to unite in a creative, welcoming, community atmosphere, while building confidence in skills. The Matakana Artist Network 2025 Arts Trail was successfully held. It received support to elevate promotional material with stronger, visual bites to present their many creative participants, to attract a wider audience to engage in this long-standing event. Local creatives Noila Souza with photographer film maker Vitor D'Alcantara collaborated to capture the essence of the event. They documented creative processes, offered behind-the-scenes insights while highlighting unique stories behind each creative studio. Artists Noila Souza and Katie Higgins are currently leading a mural project with a group eight to 10 year olds at Te Kira o Puhinui Warkworth Primary School. Each student will contribute, fostering a sense of ownership and pride in the project

· ID4417: Rodney freshwater education project. In quarter three, Mountains to Sea Conservation Trust worked with Helensville School, Tauhoa School, and Rodney College to support freshwater education. At Rodney College, 36 Year 7 and 8 students visited Centennial Park in October 2024. Due to challenges accessing a stream for ongoing water quality testing, Mountains to Sea is helping students develop an alternative action plan to strengthen their connection to the awa. At Tauhoa School, 40 students visited Te Pahi Creek to apply their freshwater learning. Teacher planning is complete, ensuring a structured inquiry programme. At Helensville School, 139 students participated in the programme. During their visit to Te Awaroa Stream, they discovered adult īnanga and juvenile eels. They will complete their programme by analysing stream data and identifying actions to improve waterway health

· ID512: Rodney Shorebirds Trust coordinator. The coordinator organised the annual Australasian bittern monitoring and supported community groups across Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland with their monitoring programmes. The bittern monitoring report and results are being finalised and will soon be shared with Auckland Council, community groups, iwi, and other stakeholders. The conservation coast predator control zones have caught 9800 predators, with a significant increase in rats, totaling 1308 in the last 12 months. The Rangatahi Conservation Programme, which teaches local teens conservation essentials and provides hands-on experience, is fully subscribed and began in February 2025. The Shorebirds Trust monitoring programmes at Te Arai North show a positive breeding season for New Zealand dotterel, an increase in the shore skink population, and a stable black mudfish population.

Activities on hold

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

· ID4313: Whisper Cove – remove section of coastal walkway. This project is on hold pending a local board resolution

· ID30612: Riverhead War Memorial Park – renew pavilion. This project is on hold due to budget constraints

· ID30625: Sinclair Park – rebuild pavilion. This project is on hold due to layout and service assessments being completed

· ID40317: Sandspit - refurbish historic buildings. This project is on hold pending further funding availability

· ID26249: Goodall Reserve – renew skate park and minor assets. This project is on hold due to budget constraints

· ID30607: Mangakura – refurbish toilet block, renew carpark and minor assets. This project is on hold due to budget constraints.

· ID30620: Warkworth Showgrounds – renew sand fields one, two and three. This project is on hold until next year when a further field renewal will begin

· ID30663: Rodney – renew sand fields. This project is on hold until planning works begin again in July 2025.

· ID37422: Elizabeth Street Reserve – renew open space assets. This project is on hold due to budget constraints

· ID40319: Snells Beach – renew open space assets. The project is on hold pending a local board resolution

· ID30619: Rodney Town Centre – revitalisation implementation centre plan – stage 2 -Warkworth. This project is on hold due to budget constraints

· ID30863: Waimauku Memorial Hall – renew heritage facility – stage 2. This project is on hold pending further funding availability

· ID40301: Kumeū Arts Centre – refurbish building including entranceway reconfiguration. This project is on hold pending further funding availability

· ID3355: Opango Reserve – Whangateau Traditional Boatyard Inc lease. This project is on hold due to the underlying land being subject to a reclamation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

14. The local board is invested in several environmental and sustainable projects which aim to build awareness and deliver in part on climate mitigation practices. These include:

· ID4130: Okiritoto Stream Restoration project

· ID511: Rodney West coordinators

· ID506: Restore Rodney East facilitator

· ID4117: Rodney – celebration of Māori and Māori zero waste practices

· ID4417: Rodney freshwater education project

· ID508: Pest Free Coatesville coordinator time

· ID512: Rodney – Shorebirds Trust coordinator

· ID4056: The Forest Bridge Trust kiwi avoidance training

· ID20: Rodney ecological volunteering and environmental programmes (local parks).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

16. This report informs the Rodney Local Board of the performance for quarter three ending 31 March 2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

17. The Rodney Local Board Plan 2023 provides a commitment framework through the development of initiatives that respond to Māori aspirations. The following activities have a Māori outcome focus:

· ID4117: Rodney – celebration of Māori and Māori zero waste practices

· ID4119: Te Ao Māori and community led conservation Rodney

· ID3852: Rodney – local implementation of Ngā Hapori Momoho (Thriving Communities strategic action plan)

· ID1122: Library Services – Rodney

· ID389: Connected and resilient communities Rodney.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

18. This report is provided to enable the Rodney Local Board to monitor the organisation’s progress and performance in delivering the 2024/2025 work programme. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Financial Performance

19. Operating revenue of $2.7 million is above budget. Income from Martins Bay ($1.6 million) and Whangateau ($861,000) Holiday Parks was above budget by $56,000 and $156,000 respectively.

20. Operating expenditure of $14.3 million is six per cent above year-to-date budget. The majority of the $823,000 overspend is from the Community Services division. Community Facilities opex renewals were $201,000 over budget due to the budget being held centrally but the cost allocated to the local board.

21. Locally Driven Initiatives funded projects are $264,000 behind budget. The major variance is in ecological volunteers environmental programme ($84,360) – this programme is on track with a green RAG status, indicating the budget will be spent by year end.

22. Capital spend of $10.1 million year-to-date represents investments in the refurbishment of the Mahurangi East Library ($2.7m year-to-date),and the Port Albert refurbishment ($178,548) and various other approved capital expenditure work programme items.

23. The complete Rodney Local Board Financial Performance report can be found in Attachment B to the agenda report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter four (30 June 2025).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Rodney Local Board work programme update - quarter three (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Rodney quarterly performance report Q3 FY25 financial appendix (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Robyn Joynes - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

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

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

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

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

Chairperson	Brent Bailey
Deputy Chairperson	Louise Johnston
Members	Michelle Carmichael
	Mark Dennis
	Tim Holdgate
	Colin Smith
	Geoff Upson
	Ivan Wagstaff
	Guy Wishart

Local board member	Organisation	Position
Brent Bailey	Central Shooters Inc	President
	Auckland Shooting Club	Member
	Royal NZ Yacht Squadron	Member
	Muriwai Community Association Incorporated	Member
Michelle Carmichael	Fight the Tip Tiaki te Whenua Inc	Deputy chairperson
Michelle Carmichael	Tapora School Board of Trustees	Staff representative
Mark Dennis	Helensville Tennis Club	Elected member
	Helensville District Health Trust	Committee member
	Everykid Charitable Trust	Trustee
	Auckland Justices of the Peace Association	Member (JP)
	Parakai Springs Complex	Operations manager
	North West Security	Director
Tim Holdgate	Landowners Contractors Association	Vice chairman
Tim Holdgate	Agricultural & Pastoral Society Warkworth	Committee member
Louise Johnston	Blackbridge Environmental Protection Society	Treasurer
Colin Smith	Landowners Contractors Association	Committee member
Geoff Upson
Ivan Wagstaff
Guy Wishart	Huapai Kumeū Lions	Member
	Kaipara ki Mahurangi LEC	Member
	Kumeū Community Centre	Committee member
	Kumeū Small Landowners Assoc	Member
	Future Kumeū Inc Committee	Member
	Kumeū Live (Music Events)	Manager
	Kumeū Emergency Network	Member
	Kumeū Community Action	Member
	Kumeū Showgrounds Committee	Member

Author	Louise Healy - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Author	Brent Bailey – Chairperson
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager