Agenda of Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

1 Nau mai | Welcome

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

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

3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

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

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 17 June 2025, and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 8 July 2025, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

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

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

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

7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions

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

8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation - Ōtara Youth Hub

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Terangi Parima, CEO of The Community Builders NZ Trust will present to the Board a deputation on the Ōtara Youth Hub closing its doors on the 1 July 2025, and would like the opportunity to formally present the circumstances surrounding this closure as well as the ongoing and potential impacts on young people and the wider community, and if any support might be possible moving forward.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whakamihi / will thank Terangi Parima, CEO of The Community Builders NZ Trust for her deputation and attendance.

8.2 Deputation - All Heart NZ

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Lindsay (LJ) Unuia the Chief Encourager at All Heart NZ would like to introduce himself to the board and share the future plans that All Heart NZ have for the local community. They would also like to thank the Board for the support they have received in submitting the expression of interest (EOI) for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe (CRC) Community Recycling Centre.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whakamihi / will thank Lindsay (LJ) Unuia the Chief Encourager at All Heart NZ for his deputation and attendance.

Attachments

a Deputation - All Heart NZ............................................................................. 275

8.3 Deputation - Freedom for Animals

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Dr Michael Morris a representative from Freedom for Animals will present to the Board a deputation on the future use and current condition of the greyhound racing track at Manukau Sports Bowl, as it will be transitioning away from racing use in July 2026.

2. Freedom for Animals would like to raise concerns about the current condition of the fencing around the racetrack. In several locations, the fence appears to be in a state of disrepair and may pose a safety risk and that Auckland Greyhound Racing Club, as the leaseholder, is responsible for the upkeep of these facilities.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whakamihi / will thank Dr Michael Morris representative from Freedom for Animals for his deputation and attendance.

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

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

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

10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

29 July 2025

Multi-board Services Options

File No.: CP2025/14713

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board local board’s feedback on funding and governance options to manage Multi-board Service (MBS) facilities, and the criteria to identify them as outlined in the attached discussion paper.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Staff have been investigating options to address concerns regarding local community facilities that are governed and funded by a single local board despite serving users predominantly from outside their host local board area. These facilities are referred to as Multi-board Service facilities or Multi-board Services (MBS).

3. This report seeks local board feedback on MBS proposals following the Joint Governance Working Party's (JGWP) endorsement of a discussion paper (Attachment A) on 11 April 2025.

4. Staff considered various governance models but do not recommend shared governance between the Governing Body and local boards, though shared governance between neighbouring local boards could be explored if there is interest. Alternative options include transferring all MBS or specific categories of local community services to Governing Body control.

5. Four funding options were examined: cost-sharing between host and user boards, adjusting the Fairer Funding model, allocating a portion of existing funding, and securing additional Governing Body funding.

6. Staff are also seeking local board feedback on revising the funding threshold for MBS identification, proposing to increase the current criterion of $200,000 net annual operating expenditure.

7. Staff have outlined benefits and drawbacks of these options but have not made any firm recommendations. Recommendations to the Governing Body will be made through the JGWP after local board feedback is considered. The option of no change remains.

8. The report also covers an indicative timeline of future work with the expectation of implementing any change through the Long-Term Plan 2027-2037.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback on governance and funding options, and criteria for Multi-board Services.

Horopaki

Context

9. The Governance Framework Review (GFR) identified that certain Auckland local community service facilities, primarily used by people from outside their host local board area, function at a sub-regional level and should be managed differently.

10. In 2021, the Governing Body directed staff to explore shared funding and governance models for these facilities, now referred to as Multi-board Services (MBS). Through the GFR work, two criteria were agreed for facilities to be considered an MBS:

i) greater than 50 per cent of the asset’s users reside outside of the local board area that the asset is located in (the host local board) and

ii) the asset costs in excess of $200,000 per annum (net of revenue) to operate.

11. In early 2022, staff began investigating governance and funding options for MBS. This work was subsequently put on hold subject to decisions on proposals for funding equity for local boards and the proposed reorganisation of local boards.

12. Once those decisions were made in mid-2024, work on MBS resumed.

13. Staff proposals in a report to the JGWP in November 2024 were supported as follows:

i) reviewing the criteria for MBS approved in 2021

ii) investigating funding options to support local boards with MBS

iii) other matters, including various governance options for MBS.

14. Following this staff presented a discussion paper (Attachment A) to the JGWP on 11 April 2025 which addresses three key areas – governance, funding, and criteria for identifying Multi-board Services. The JGWP endorsed the discussion paper and the options covered in it to be presented to the local boards for their feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. Staff presented the discussion paper and relevant attachments (Attachment B – list of MBS facilities, Attachment C – impact of Governance options, and Attachment D – Impact of funding options) to all local boards through their workshops in May and June.

16. At the workshops staff also discussed the financial and governance implications of each of these options for individual local boards.

17. This report seeks the local board’s feedback on the options presented in the discussion paper under each of the following topics - governance, funding, and criteria for identifying Multi-board Services. The topics are outlined in the following order in the discussion paper, as each has implications for the others:

a. Governance:

Staff previously considered a shared governance model for MBS, involving the Governing Body and affected local boards or a committee of affected local boards. However, these options are complex, resource-intensive, and unlikely to gain broad support.

An alternative approach under consideration is shifting decision-making authority for all MBS or certain categories of local community services to the Governing Body. This reflects the scale and complexity of MBS facilities, where contractual arrangements often limit local boards' ability to influence outcomes - despite the financial responsibility resting entirely with them.

A logical candidate for this shift (shifting a category of local community services) would be pools and leisure facilities. If supported, further work would be required to gather local board feedback, assess financial implications, particularly in the context of Fairer Funding, and determine the Governing Body’s position on this governance shift.

The local board’s views on these proposed approaches are sought.

b. Funding Options:

The discussion paper outlines four potential funding options for MBS:

i) 50/50 split between host and user local boards: A key challenge under this option is determining which and how many user local boards contribute toward the MBS. Particularly for facilities with broad regional usage, such as the Central Library

ii) adjusting Fairer Funding calculations by removing 50 per cent of the MBS cost from the host local board’s budget baseline. This may have fairer funding implications which would need to be carefully evaluated

iii) setting aside a portion of the local community services funding pool, to fund MBS which may impact Fairer Funding allocations, requiring further analysis to ensure equitable outcomes

iv) additional funding from the Governing Body to cover MBS costs. The source of additional funding would need to be identified and agreed, and this option may also necessitate a shared governance model involving the Governing Body.

The following table analyses each of the above funding options against four criteria – additional funding impact, complexity to implement, impact of fairer funding equity rankings, and impact on fairer funding top-up.

#	Funding Source	Additional Funding Impact	Complexity	Impact on equity rankings	Impact on FF top-up
(i)	50/50 split between host and user local boards
(ii)	adjusting Fairer Funding calculations
(iii)	setting aside a portion of the local community services funding pool
(iv)	additional funding from the Governing Body

Staff have no specific recommendation at this point, as all options come with advantages and disadvantages as shown in the table above and as is outlined in the discussion paper. The local board’s feedback on the funding options is sought. Funding options can be further explored once the above governance options are considered, as these have implications for funding.

c. Criteria for facility being considered an MBS:

One of the proposed criteria is that 50 per cent of users reside outside of the local board area where the service is located. There are issues around determining this and staff recommend using Human Mobility Index (HMI) data, which is collected from mobile devices of people in a set geographic range, as the only sufficiently accurate measure available.

The other criteria proposed is that these services should cost at least $200,000 per annum to run. Further research suggests that this amount is too low and would result in too many MBS which could be problematic to manage. The JGWP’s view on increasing this is sought and if supported, staff will come back with options for consideration.

The local board’s feedback is sought on the proposal to increase the dollar threshold in the second criteria for identifying MBS facilities.

18. Given the difficulties staff have identified in determining an outcome, the option of no change remains on the table. Local board views will help inform this.

19. Staff recommend that any decision on MBS (governance or funding) be implemented through the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2027-2037. A draft list of MBS facilities based on the current criteria is included as Attachment B of the report.

20. Local board feedback will be presented to the JGWP in August 2025.

21. A feedback template (Attachment E) has been included to assist the local board in responding to the proposals outlined in the discussion paper.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

23. This is an administrative report and has no direct effect on climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. Staff will work with different parts of the organisation such as Finance, Parks and Community Facilities, Pools and Leisure, Community Wellbeing and Legal to develop further advice, based on the direction from the JGWP.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. Some of the proposals in this report have impacts on the Decision-Making Responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards and local board budgets. These have been discussed with the local boards through individual local board workshops. This report is seeking feedback on these proposals from the local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its Te Tiriti o Waitangi derived obligations and its broader obligations to Māori. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau - Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework (KOTM) and Local Board Plans.

27. Based on further direction from the JGWP, some or all of the options in this report may have to be investigated in detail. The impact of these options on Māori will be considered through those detailed investigations.

28. Mana whenua and hāpori Māori (Māori communities) will be consulted on significant changes to current governance or funding mechanisms and future investment proposals. Various consultation processes and opportunities will be identified to discuss changes and funding with iwi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. Most of the governance and funding options covered in this report do have financial implications individual local board budgets, but no impact to overall council budget.

30. One of the funding options proposes additional funding from the Governing Body to support local boards with MBS and this may have a financial impact for council. The current estimated impact of this option is $10 million operating expenditure each financial year. The capital impact has not yet been estimated and will be based on planned renewals through the LTP 2027-2037.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. The key risks and mitigations of a MBS approach are discussed in detail the attached discussion paper. These include inaccurate user data, budget accuracy issues, and lack of local board interest. Mitigations involve working with facilities staff to validate data analysis and identify anomalies, collaborating with Finance and subject matter experts to improve financial accuracy, and ensuring local boards fully understand the implications of all options, including maintaining the status quo.

32. An additional consideration is that some proposed options may not align with equitable funding distribution principles but are put forward recognising the legacy nature of these asset decisions and the unique sub-regional role of MBS facilities.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. All local board feedback will be presented to the Joint Governance Working Party in August 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Discussion paper on Multi-board Services	21
b ⇩	Draft list of Multi-board Services based on the current criteria	31
c ⇩	Impact of governance options	35
d ⇩	Impact of funding options	39
e ⇩	Feedback template	43

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jestine Joseph - Project Implementation Lead

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Angela Clarke - Head of Service Investment & Programming

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

29 July 2025

Kōkiri Agreement 2025-2026 (local board transport agreement)

File No.: CP2025/14678

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek endorsement of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Kōkiri Agreement 2025-2026, which provides a plan for Auckland Transport’s work programme engagement.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Kōkiri Agreement is the culmination of an annual process that sets the agreed levels of engagement between Auckland Transport and the local board on Auckland Transport’s annual work programme.

3. The process began when Auckland Transport provided advice to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board at a forward works programme briefing on 26 November 2024. The local board responded formally on 15 April 2025 by identifying its priorities and specifying the level of engagement it seeks for each project or programme CP2025/04311.

4. Auckland Transport has considered the local board’s feedback 18 March 2025 Resolution number OP/2025/34 and the Kōkiri Agreement 2025/2026 now formalises the agreed approach to engagement.

5. This report seeks local board endorsement of the Kōkiri Agreement 2025-2026 (Attachment A).

6. Auckland Transport will provide quarterly updates on the Kōkiri Agreement, with the first report scheduled for September 2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) tuhi tīpoka / note that Auckland Transport’s Forward Work Programme brief (Attachment B) to the agenda report was received and considered by the local board before making decisions on the proposed levels of engagement outlined in the Kōkiri Agreement 2025–2026.

b) ohia / endorse the Kōkiri Agreement 2025-2026 (Attachment A).

Horopaki

Context

Project Kōkiri

7. Project Kōkiri began in mid-2023 and aims to establish a more structured and supportive relationship between local boards and Auckland Transport (AT).

8. The project is part of AT’s response to the 2020 Review of Auckland Council’s Council-controlled Organisations, which identified a need for more meaningful and collaborative engagement between AT and local boards.

9. Since the 2020 review, Auckland Transport has taken steps to improve the flow of information and support local board decision-making. These efforts have culminated in the development of the Kōkiri process.

10. The Kōkiri process establishes an annual engagement structure, with each local board's desired level of engagement captured in their Kōkiri Agreement (local board transport agreement).

11. Table One outlines the key steps for developing Kōkiri Agreements.

Table One: Process for developing Kōkiri Agreements

Process for developing Kōkiri Agreements
Oct – Nov 2024	Local boards received early advice on AT’s forthcoming financial year work at forward work programme briefings. (Attachment B)
Mar – Apr 2025	Local boards provided formal feedback on AT’s work programme, including: a) the desired level of engagement for specific projects or programmes b) suggestions for additional projects not included in the forward work programme c) identification of any projects unlikely to receive community support.
May – Jun 2025	AT responded to this feedback via memo (Attachment C).
Jul 2025	This report seeks endorsement of the local board’s Kōkiri Agreement (Attachment A).
Ongoing	Quarterly progress reports will be provided on the projects and programmes in each local board’s Kōkiri Agreement. A summary of last year’s Kōkiri Agreement is included as Attachment D.

12. Through Kōkiri, Auckland Transport aims to provide local boards with a clear and consistent framework for engagement. This structure enables local boards to influence AT’s work programme through formal feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Kōkiri Agreements prioritise the projects and programmes that are of most interest to each local board. Auckland Transport delivers hundreds of projects annually across each local board area, making it essential to understand what matters most to each board.

14. Clear prioritisation from local boards provides valuable insight into transport-related objectives. By reviewing AT’s proposed work and identifying key priorities, local boards offer meaningful guidance that AT can use to either adjust planning or clearly explain why certain projects or programmes may not be feasible.

15. While Auckland Transport’s planning processes have some built-in flexibility, having clear information about local board expectations enables better alignment with local needs. The overall aim of Project Kōkiri is to strengthen relationships and support greater local board input into AT’s planning and delivery.

16. The Kōkiri Agreement also sets out a framework for regular progress reporting. Each quarter, local boards receive an update on their agreement, providing an opportunity for both parties to review progress and make any necessary updates or amendments.

17. Attachment C provides a summary of the 2024–2025 Kōkiri Agreement, including completed work and any changes made to the original document.

18. Attachment D provides the deaths and serious injuries recorded in the Crash Analysis System (CAS), held by New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA), for the period 2020 – 2024, in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area.

Transport reform

19. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are currently awaiting the release of the updated Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, which is expected to include changes to local boards’ transport decision-making responsibilities. At the time of writing, the implications of the legislation have not been confirmed. Once further information is available, both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport will provide updates to ensure local boards are informed of any changes that may impact their role in transport planning and decision-making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

20. Auckland Transport engages closely with the council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan and the council’s priorities.

21. Auckland Transport reviews the potential climate impacts of all projects and works hard to minimise carbon emissions. Auckland Transport’s work programme has been 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

22. Project Kōkiri was developed in close collaboration with Auckland Council’s Governance and Engagement Department and has been regularly reported to the Local Board Chairs’ Forum, typically monthly.

23. The project is a key deliverable of the Local Board Relationship Project, which was initiated in response to the 2022 Mayoral Letter of Expectation. This directive stated:

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

24. Project Kōkiri directly responds to this directive. Local board feedback is gathered through regular reporting mechanisms, with additional insights provided by quarterly surveys measuring satisfaction with engagement.

25. The project also builds on historical engagement practices with both Auckland Council and other council-controlled organisations (CCOs), drawing from lessons learned to shape a more consistent and collaborative approach.

26. Auckland Transport will use the Kōkiri Agreements to inform internal delivery teams of each local board’s priorities and expectations for engagement throughout the planning and implementation of transport projects and programmes.

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

Local impacts and local board views

27. Auckland Transport provided the local board with a forward works programme briefing at a workshop on 26 November 2024 to receive quality advice on the programme.

28. The response from both elected members and staff supporting local boards has been positive. Elected member satisfaction is measured using regular surveys, that demonstrate an increase in satisfaction from 41-71 per cent since Kōkiri started. Auckland Transport executives also engage directly with local board chairs. Council staff supporting local boards are regularly engaged and Senior Advisors were invited to the Forward Works Programme debrief.

29. Respondents are specifically supportive of the large amount and quality of information provided, the detailed discussion with subject matter experts, and attendance at workshops by AT executive leaders.

30. There were additional workshops on 11 February 2025 with the Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager to discuss the proposed programme and help support local boards to develop their views.

31. Following the workshops, the board received a report at their 18 March 2025 meeting and provided its feedback on the proposed programme and its priorities (Resolution number OP/2025/34).

32. Auckland Transport responded to this formal feedback by memorandum (Attachment C).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

35. When required, or good practice, Auckland Transport will engage with iwi about projects or programmes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. This decision has no financial implications for the local board because Auckland Transport funds all projects and programmes.

37. Local boards do have a discretionary transport budget through the local board transport capital funds, and these projects are included in the Kōkiri Agreement. However, their financial implications are reported separately.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. Delays in decision-making or a lack of local board capacity to support the agreed level of engagement may lead to project delays and increased costs for Auckland Transport and consequently, for the ratepayer.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39. Auckland Transport will use the Kōkiri Agreement to inform internal teams delivering projects and programmes about the local board’s priorities and expectations for engagement.

40. Auckland Transport will report on the Kōkiri Agreement quarterly, starting in September 2025.

Legislative changes

41. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport will update local boards on any changes to transport legislation and how this may impact local boards’ role in transport planning and decision-making.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Kōkiri Auckland Transport and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Transport Plan 2025-2026 (local board agreement)	51
b ⇩	Forward Works Programme Brief - Ōtara-Papatoetoe local board ‘The Year Ahead FY 2025/26’	61
c ⇩	Auckland Transport memo response to local board feedback towards development of the 2025-2026 Kōkiri Agreement & summary of the 2024–2025 Kōkiri Agreement	131
d ⇩	Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board deaths and serious injuries recorded in the Crash Analysis System for the period 2020 – 2024	139

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ben Stallworthy - Principal Advisor Strategic Relationships, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

John Gillespie - Head Stakeholder/ Elected Member Management – Auckland Transport

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

29 July 2025

Te Ara Hura 2027 - PCF maintenance contracts programme local board feedback report

File No.: CP2025/14366

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on the Te Ara Hura / The Way Forward 2027 Parks and Community Facility maintenance contracts programme.

2. To seek local board views on:

· service aspects that matter most to each community

· focus areas for local priority.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The Te Ara Hura / The Way Forward 2027 programme is focused on re-tendering Auckland Council’s community open space and facilities maintenance contracts, originally initiated in 2017. These new contracts aim to align with increased local board decision-making responsibilities, requiring flexibility to reflect local priorities while maintaining cost-efficiency and consistent service delivery across the region.

4. Governance on region-wide maintenance contracts rests with the Revenue, Expenditure and Value (REV) Committee, with regular updates and workshops held to ensure elected members are informed. Local boards have decision making over local service delivery and were engaged through workshops in March to May 2025. These gathered feedback on services, delivery methods, and strategic priorities. This feedback will shape the development of contract-specific local priority documents.

5. Contract delivery will be guided by several national and council-level strategies, influencing procurement standards, service levels, and reporting expectations. Consultation has occurred with a wide range of stakeholders including other councils, private industry, current suppliers, internal council teams, and mana whenua. This has provided valuable insights into service delivery approaches and opportunities to enhance outcomes.

6. Each board is now invited to formally resolve its feedback for inclusion in the tender documents. A follow-up report in August will outline the implications of local board feedback and provide a summary of each board's priorities. Continued engagement with mana whenua will provide opportunities to support Māori outcomes.

7. The new contracts will be aligned with the Fairer Funding Long-term Plan funding model and will require greater transparency around service costs and reporting. Mechanisms such as funding top-ups or service substitutions will allow outcomes to be tailored for each local board. Shared priorities across multiple boards may be incorporated into the standard contract.

8. Staff will continue to provide updates throughout 2025 and 2026, including at the Local Board Chairs Forum and through Parks and Community Facilities (PCF) monthly reports.

9. The final contract model options and procurement plan will be presented to the REV Committee in December 2025. Procurement is scheduled to begin in early 2026, with contract awards in December 2026. The new contracts will commence on 1 July 2027.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide views on the Te Ara Hura / The Way Forward 2027 Parks and Community Facility maintenance contracts programme, including:

i) service aspects that matter most to the community

ii) focus areas for local priority.

Horopaki

Context

10. The Te Ara Hura / The Way Forward 2027 Parks and Community Facility maintenance contracts programme is the work to re-tender the community open space and buildings maintenance contracts. These will be some of the largest maintenance contracts in Australasia.

11. In 2017, Auckland Council streamlined its approach to parks and community facilities maintenance by combining various contracts into five full-facility, outcome-based maintenance agreements, delivered by four primary contractors. These contracts span a ten-year period and are due to expire on 30 June 2027.

12. The model has delivered simplified operations and shifted some operational risks to suppliers, for example scheduling mowing frequencies. The model has also delivered cost avoidance and extra services delivered within budget. A few issues have emerged, including some unclear contract specifications, some poor asset data, and limited council oversight due to scheduling being transferred to suppliers.

13. The 2017 model is not set up to easily identify local board splits to costs because it is a lump sum agreement, based on a large geographic area. Assets and services can be added and removed from the contract through a variation process.

14. Staff are now working through requirements for the next phase of full facility contracts, which may again span 10 years. The final contract length will be determined based on advice around achieving best value, balanced against suppliers’ potential capital investment timing for large plant and equipment purchases.

15. This work is aligned with the recent Local Government Act Section 17A service delivery and value for money review. This looked at a range of issues and coincided with the Te Ara Hura work. These reviews considered the current contract model and proposed future approach, to ensure any changes support robust procurement and strong value for money outcomes.

16. Procurement activities in council are governed by the Group Procurement Policy. This sets out the general principles for all procurement activity. It gives direction on how procurement activities are managed and by whom.

17. Parks and Community Facilities and the Procurement Department will manage the operational aspects of the procurement process, including writing the procurement plan details, options to be priced by the suppliers and recommending the approach to market. They will manage the tender process including evaluations, negotiation and award recommendations. The contracts are signed by the relevant council Delegated Financial Authority (DFA).

18. The REV Committee has decision making over council’s large regional maintenance contracts including this programme, and the responsibility currently sits with the Revenue, Expenditure and Value (REV) Committee.

19. For the current stage of this programme, they will review the recommended approach and give direction on the proposed Procurement Plan. This will set out the options that the suppliers will be asked to price. The REV Committee requires feedback from the Parks Committee and from local boards, around what is important to include in the tendered options for pricing.

20. Local boards have decision making over local service levels of major maintenance service delivery contracts, related to their local board area. They can give direction on which services are important, and on what to scale up or down, as their local priorities require. They can give direction on their priorities for strategic items such as sustainability or local employment and local contractors. This will feed into the procurement plan to help design the options that are priced by suppliers.

21. Increased decision-making responsibilities for local boards are an important consideration for the new contracts. They will need to provide flexibility to reflect and deliver local priorities, while also trying to balance cost-efficiency and consistent service levels across the region. This flexibility will also be reflected in the contracts for the Regional Park maintenance, to allow their priority services to be delivered in the most fit for purpose manner.

Plans and policies

22. The delivery of maintenance services for open space and community facilities takes place within the framework of several Auckland Council and national plans and policies. These have implications on how maintenance services are procured, what standards and reporting need to be in the contracts and what standard services must be delivered.

23. The key documents are listed below.

National legislation:

· Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2010

· Local Government Act 2002 (LGA)

· Te Tiriti o Waitangi

· Building Act 2004.

Auckland Council plans and policies:

· Auckland Plan 2050

· Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034

· Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan

· Group Procurement Policy

· Sustainable Procurement objectives

· local board agreements.

Scope

24. The programme scope is to implement the 2027 Parks and Community Facilities full facilities maintenance contracts. The main goals are:

· consistent quality and delivery across Auckland

· effective level of flexibility to give effect to the local board decision-making role over local procurement

· clarity for customers

· continued cost avoidance successes

· reduced council risk

· achieving social, environmental and supplier diversity targets.

25. To help achieve this, staff started collecting lessons learnt, feedback, reviewing specifications and considering options for the contract model in 2023. These insights will help create a contract structure that is easier to manage, including around contractor performance, and achieves local and regional outcomes while ensuring value for money to Aucklanders.

Consultation and engagement

26. As part of the Value for Money review, the Value for Money team spoke to several organisations who have large facility maintenance requirements. These were a mix of private industry, other councils, the current suppliers and other council teams. None have the same size or complexity of our city, and they deliver their services in a variety of ways.

27. They shared some lessons including that some thought that the active contract management we need requires more resources. Others thought a mix of outcome and frequency models applied intelligently in a hybrid or mixed model should work well.

28. The Parks Committee has oversight of Regional Parks, and a workshop was held with members in February 2025 to update them on the progress of the programme and receive informal feedback in relation to regional park maintenance.

29. Staff have engaged with mana whenua, through the mana whenua forum and with individual iwi. This engagement will continue throughout the project. More details can be found in paragraphs 67-70.

30. Staff ran workshops sessions with all local boards during March, April and May and their feedback is summarised in paragraphs 60-63.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Options assessment

31. The Value for Money team’s early business case work considered a wide range of criteria to develop preferred options for these contracts. These included factors such as:

· Strategic – case for change

· Economic – optimising value for money

· Commercial – viable and attractive to suppliers

· Financial – affordable for council

· Management – achievable and set up for success.

32. The process of developing a business case helped create the goals list used in the scope definition. These will be refined through the life of the programme.

33. Staff have worked through options about the form of the contract model. The initial list of 162 options was worked down to a long list and then a short list with one recommended option.

34. This work was presented to and discussed with the REV Committee in November 2024, under the report, Options update for P27 “Te Ara Hura” Full Facilities Maintenance Contracts. Resolution ECPCC/2024/47 was passed and is summarised below.

Summary of resolution:

The Committee noted that staff have evaluated various options for the P27 Te Ara Hura Full Facilities Maintenance Contracts and developed a shortlist, with an initial recommendation favouring a hybrid contract structure. The Committee endorsed the decision not to pursue further investigation into either a fully insourced model or a single entity outsourced model. Staff will continue to explore the shortlisted options, focusing on the recommended hybrid approach. It was also noted that the 2017 shift from many small contracts to five larger ones resulted in ongoing cost avoidance of $30 million. The proposed option aims to maintain service efficiency while improving some areas of service delivery and supporting the local board decision-making role over local procurement.

35. Several constraints to delivering the new maintenance contracts have been identified. These are listed below and are expanded on in the Risks and mitigations section, paragraph 75:

· long-term plan budget

· cost

· requirement to maintain cost avoidance achieved in 2017

· technology

· market availability

· local elections in 2025.

36. These may limit how, and to what extent, the programme will deliver improvements.

Contract model

37. The model has several dimensions that need to be decided. How these key levers are used influences the cost, efficacy and efficiency of the contracts. The major levers are:

· supplier model - large and small suppliers

· geographic coverage - size of areas or functional suppliers

· services - types of services covered by the full facility contract and by specialist suppliers

· specifications – how and to what standard the services are to be provided

· contract management systems – processes for managing the contracts and the performance.

38. In general, the contract model options are likely to have a mix of these dimensions, with flexibility where required. For example, large suppliers covering multiple local boards are likely to create the most economies of scale across the city but will not suit every situation.

39. All local boards have given feedback on the contract model elements. Their feedback is summarised in paragraphs 60-63.

40. The types of services and the specifications are key areas that communities see and react to every day. These will strongly influence local priorities. A standard level of services is required to meet legislative requirements and some of Auckland Council’s key policies.

41. Some services or levels of service may be specific to local boards. The cost implications need to be understood, so local feedback will be used to request the relevant information during the tender stage.

42. Staff sought feedback from local boards, specific to their local area and circumstances. Feedback was received on all aspects of the contracts including:

· what services the contracts will deliver

· how the contracts will deliver the services

· strategic focus areas that are important to the board.

43. More details can be found in the Local impacts and local board views section, paragraphs 60-63.

44. Each contract will have a local board specific priority document as part of the contract. This will hold details of the focus areas, services specifics and reporting requirements for each board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

45. The new contracts give the opportunity to set key performance indicators, reporting requirements and support innovation. Some local boards would like climate indicators and practices as part of their local priority document, some only require general reporting. Others are required by the council’s policies.

46. Some examples are:

· reduce herbicide use

· reduce water use

· report waste diversion from landfill.

47. The Parks and Community Facilities sustainability team and the Waste team are contributing to the specifications and reporting requirements of the contracts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

48. Parks and Community Facility teams have been giving feedback to the project since 2023. These views are being incorporated into the final recommended contract model, specifications and reporting requirements.

49. Key points raised by PCF include:

· better definition of ambiguous statements

· mandating templates for reporting

· improving planned preventative maintenance schedule visibility

· changing some building services to frequency.

50. These will help make the contractor performance easier to manage and will improve visibility of services.

51. Staff are continuing discussions with Healthy Waters, Auckland Transport, Corporate Property, Waste Solutions and Eke Panuku/Property. Some of their maintenance services could be delivered by the full facility contractors, creating cost efficiencies and improved customer outcomes.

52. The inclusion or exclusion of these services will be decided by the relevant teams and if they go ahead, will be included in the procurement plan approved by the REV Committee in December 2025.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Local priorities

53. Workshops were held with each local board between March and May 2025. Local boards have provided feedback on aspects of the contracts that are important in their communities. Areas of specific interest will be captured in each contract local priority document.

54. Local boards have decision making over local procurement and an increased level of decision making over local services, including the ability to increase or decrease levels of service. Therefore, more transparency and local flexibility is required in the new contracts.

55. The assets included in the contract schedules and the services delivered can be changed through the term of the contract. Any changes will have implications in terms of cost, service delivery and reputation. Staff will give advice and support to elected members to work through these as required.

56. The process to add or remove individual assets from the contract asset schedule will continue in the new contracts. Major changes to services can be made but are better dealt with at the tendering and award stage because they are likely to have significant cost implications. However, these could be negotiated when required.

57. If the elements a local board wants to be provided are not covered by the final standard contract specifications, changes could be achieved by:

· a funding top up by the local board

· removal of some services from the standard contract.

58. If a subject is common to many boards, a mechanism will be included in the standard contract. For example, a key performance indicator could be added into the standard contract to measure and report contractor performance around local employment. These will be identified once all local board’s resolved feedback has been received.

Local board feedback

59. All local boards held at least one workshop to discuss feedback on the current contracts. A memo and presentation were shared discussing the background and future opportunities. Key questions were:

Services:

· Which service aspects matter most to the community?

· What are the current pain points with maintenance?

Focus areas for local priority:

· What local factors should influence service delivery?

· What opportunities are important for local businesses and communities?

60. Staff received verbal feedback from most workshops. In addition, a survey was shared with local board members to help draw out local views. The survey has several sections including strategic focus areas and individual services. The full survey template can be found as Attachment A.

61. Some common discussions and items of feedback were around local employment, living wage, cost, value for money, length of the contract, community volunteer group relationships, environmental sustainability, and the concept of guardianship/local people giving better quality service.

62. There were several discussions about how good standards of maintenance are ensured uniformly across Tamaki Makaurau.

63. Most boards expressed concern about ensuring the new contracts and associated processes were set up to better support their governance role. Improvements in detailed cost information for each local board is required.

64. The feedback received has been collated. The information is being used to help frame what needs to be included in the procurement, the contracts and which parts need differing levels of flexibility.

65. This report is the opportunity for each board to formally resolve on its feedback. This will form part of the contracts’ local priority document. A second report will be delivered in August, this will inform of the likely implications of all of the feedback to the contract, and to summarise each boards local priority document to be included in the tender information and final contracts.

66. Some items of feedback are not within the scope of the new full facilities contracts. These have been captured and will be shared with the relevant teams, once all feedback has been received. A copy will be available on request, once all the feedback has been analysed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

67. Staff have engaged with mana whenua, through the mana whenua forum and with individual iwi. This engagement will continue throughout the project.

68. These engagements give iwi the chance to identify opportunities for economic development through tendering for maintenance works and to give feedback that may help Māori outcomes.

69. Initial feedback is a request to hold an informal workshop to look at case studies of existing success stories where iwi groups and businesses are contracting service delivery to council and their suppliers. This is planned for August.

70. These ideas are being used alongside the feedback from local boards and staff, to help design the tender options and contracts. They are likely to have some impact on how the geographic areas are developed, if there are specific sites or services that could be tendered outside of the full facility work and what contract reporting requirements are needed to support Māori outcomes.

71. Once formal feedback from mana whenua is received, it will be included in the REV Committee procurement plan report, planned to be presented in December 2025.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

72. In 2024, the Parks and Community Facilities full facility maintenance contracts, across all of Auckland cost $194,000,000, excluding minor capex spend. This is funded by the long-term plan operational funding. The future contracts will continue to be funded in this way.

73. The 2027 maintenance contracts will be in place after increased local board decision making and the revised local board funding model, is in place. This requires new levels of flexibility, cost information for each maintenance service and local board area, and reporting requirements to be provided by the new contractors.

74. Cost models will be developed to help identify and ensure value for money. These will be used during the tender and negotiation stages to help compare the tender submissions and options.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

75. There are several high-level risks currently identified. The details and possible mitigations are listed in the table below.

Risk	Detail	Mitigation
Long-term plan budget	Opex budgets for local board maintenance are set in advance Fairer Funding decisions have changed local board’s responsibilities on maintenance	Tendering will include multiple options and detailed costing per local board Contractor reporting will give greater clarity and more detailed information to help board’s decisions
Cost and cost increases	Inflation, asset schedule increases from urban development and new projects will add cost to the contracts	Forecasts for these will be included, based on tender pricing Contracts will allow for changes The procurement plan approval report for the REV Committee will clarify where the funding for these is to be sourced from
Maintain cost avoidance	2017 cost efficiencies to be continued where possible	Tendering will include multiple options and detailed costing per local board to identify how cost efficiencies can be continued Local priority options will include additional staff requirements where required
Technology	Council’s systems – any changes have to be across the organisation and are not under PCF control PDF and email business to business communication systems create extra cost for contractor and council and contribute to reduced quality of service to customers	Customer relationship management council-wide services are not part of this work but will be monitored Tender documents will be clear on the required business-to-business software requirements and contingencies will be considered
Market availability	There are a limited number of large contractors with sufficient skills to do this work at scale More smaller contractors are available but may specialise in one area. They are likely to require additional contract management support	Run an open tender process with adequate time for quality responses Consider and cost mixed models to allow smaller contractors or sub-contractors Cost additional contract management support
Local elections	No political decisions will be made in October and November 2025 Current assumptions may need to be reviewed if new political direction is required	Prepare timeline to work around the constraint Prepare to update new elected members Check assumptions after the elections
Central government procurement policy changes	Changes have been announced but without detail or timing This may change some of the details of the procurement plan and assumptions	Follow Council’s Group Procurement Policy until there is formal direction to change Monitor the government changes and consider if they could be helpful for Auckland
Inconsistent maintenance levels across the city	Local board decision making and cost pressures may mean some services are cut in some areas	A base level of service will be recommended in the REV Committee procurement plan report

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

76. Staff will update local boards through a presentation to the Local Board Chairs Forum, planned for September, and through periodic updates in the PCF monthly reports.

77. A second report to summarise likely contract implications and each local priority document, will be presented to each board before September 2025.

78. Staff will present the final recommended approach, contract model and procurement plan to the REV Committee in December 2025. The resulting decision will allow staff to progress the tendering in early 2026.

79. Staff will update local boards about the progress of the procurement process through 2026.

80. The final contract award approval by the REV Committee is planned for December 2026.

81. The new contracts term will start 1 July 2027.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local board feedback form - Te Ara Hura Full Facilities Maintenance Contracts	151

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarah Jones, Programme manager (P27 Contracts)

Authorisers

Taryn Crewe - General Manager Parks and Community Facilities

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

29 July 2025

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board feedback on 'Let's Protect Our Environment' early public consultation, to inform the development of the Regional Pest Management Plan 2030-2040

File No.: CP2025/13626

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To request feedback from local boards to inform the development of the Regional Pest Management Plan 2030-2040, informed by the views of their local constituents from the early public consultation ‘Let’s Protect Our Environment’

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Regional Pest Management Plans (RPMPs) are statutory plans that are created by all regional councils under the Biosecurity Act 1993 to coordinate pest management in the region. Auckland’s current RPMP is for the period 2020-2030.

3. Biosecurity Act processes for creating RPMPs are lengthy, so it is necessary to begin reviewing the plan now, to ensure a new, fit-for-purpose RPMP is in effect when the current RPMP lapses. A timeline for this process is set out in Attachment A. The review provides an opportunity to include new pests, such as exotic caulerpa seaweed, freshwater gold clam and new weed species.

4. A memorandum was provided to all Auckland local boards on 25 July 2024 detailing the proposed early consultation piece to test Aucklanders’ current views on key topics, including cat management for threatened indigenous wildlife protection, a clean anchor rule to help reduce the spread of exotic caulerpa seaweed and other marine pests, and pest management for climate change resilience.

5. The former Planning, Environment and Parks Committee approved (PEPCC/2024/90) a public consultation titled ‘Let’s Protect Our Environment’ (LPOE). Its purpose was to test views on a few high-profile new pests and existing issues where more understanding is needed for drafting of the next RPMP, due in 2030.

6. Public consultation was sought between 25 October and 8 December 2024. Over this time, 3,678 submissions were received. The feedback was mostly from individuals but also included responses from 75 organisations and four Māori entities.

7. Regional feedback indicated a high level of support for mandatory cat desexing, microchipping, and registration; a moderate to high level of support for climate change resilience, marine and freshwater biosecurity, and a moderate level of support for confining domestic cats to their owner’s property. Further details of feedback are summarised in Attachment B.

8. Ōtara-Papatoetoe residents strongly support the mandatory desexing, microchipping, and registration of domestic / pet cats across Auckland, on offshore islands and near threatened species habitat. Ōtara-Papatoetoe residents support for containing domestic cats to their owner’s property, especially at a whole-region scale, and strongly support Council providing increased financial support for those who cannot afford to desex their cats.

9. Ōtara-Papatoetoe residents are strongly supportive of Council involvement in marine and freshwater lake biosecurity and support a rule requiring all anchor chains and other marine gear to be free of pests, visible dirt, seaweed, and animals before being moved to another location, and the banning of motorised boats on Lake Tomarata. A summary of feedback from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe local board area can be found in Attachment D.

10. Feedback on cat management was sought from a representative group of Aucklanders through a deliberative democracy process in November 2024. Thirty-eight Aucklanders participated in the workshop sessions, which were run by an independent facilitator. Participants strongly supported increased council interventions, particularly near ecologically sensitive areas. Considerations of cost and practicality were raised by some. A report prepared by some of the participants is appended as Attachment C.

11. Staff are now seeking feedback from local boards based on the views of their communities (Attachment D). This feedback will inform the drafting of the proposed plan, along with technical analysis and feedback from tangata whenua, public and stakeholders.

12. A proposed plan will be formally consulted on in 2027, alongside the Long-term Plan. Local boards will then have another chance to comment based on their constituents’ submissions.

13. The new RPMP will be made operative in 2030. A more detailed timeline is given in Attachment A.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide feedback on the Let’s Protect Our Environment 2024 public consultation key issues (Attachment D).

Horopaki

Context

Current Regional Pest Management Plan 2020-2030

14. The Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act) allocates a regional leadership role to regional councils, within the wider national biosecurity system. As a unitary authority, Auckland Council holds this regional leadership role.

15. Regional Pest Management Plans (RPMPs) are statutory plans that are created by all regional councils under the Act. Their purpose is to coordinate biosecurity actions by land occupiers, businesses, individuals, councils and other organisations.

16. These plans identify key regional values that will benefit from a regionally coordinated approach to pest management, such as threatened species and ecosystems, primary industries, critical infrastructure, human safety, and socio-cultural values. To protect these values, outcomes are set for named pest species, supported by rules, powers (for example, ability to inspect risk goods or private property), and direct delivery components.

17. Auckland Council has an existing Regional Pest Management Plan 2020-2030, which was approved by the Environment and Community Committee in March 2019 (ENV/2019/22). It covers a wide range of pest species (over 300 species in total), including weeds, mammals such as possums and feral pigs, turtles, birds, kauri dieback disease, wasps and marine pests.

18. Implementation of the RPMP 2020-2030 is funded by the Natural Environment Targeted Rate.

Early consultation to inform the new RPMP by 2030

19. The council will need to create a new RPMP by 2030, at which time the current plan is set to expire.

20. In 2024, the Policy and Planning Committee approved early public consultation titled ‘Let’s Protect Our Environment’ (LPOE). The aim of this consultation was to gather insights into public views on a small number of topics, particularly high-profile new species not in the current plan, or existing species where more information is needed on Aucklanders’ current views.

21. The LPOE consultation form asked Aucklanders for their views on:

· potential responsible cat ownership rules

· predator free islands

· protecting marine and freshwater environments from invasive species

· pest management for climate resilience.

22. Public submissions were analysed at a regional (Attachment B) and local board-level (Attachment D). Public feedback will be used alongside other inputs, including technical information and ongoing engagement with elected members, mana whenua, and stakeholders to draft the proposed plan.

23. Additionally, a deliberative democracy participatory forum with 38 participants matching the 2018 demographic profile of Auckland was run by independent facilitators. The purpose of this forum was to provide informed feedback on responsible cat ownership and potential cat management interventions to support native wildlife conservation in the region, from a representative group of Auckland residents. An overview of this process and responses is reported below from paragraph 45; further details of participatory forum feedback are summarized in Attachment C.

24. The above topics do not include direct questions on all pest issues that are likely to be covered in the next RPMP. For comparison, the current RPMP contains over 300 different pest species. The early consultation topics are designed to test public views on specific issues where staff feel more information on current public views is required to inform the development of a draft RPMP. In 2027, the public will have a chance to comment on the entire proposed plan.

25. Targeted stakeholder engagement will also seek views from those who may be particularly affected by certain topics. Tangata whenua engagement is also underway.

26. The high-level timeframe for the plan review process is summarised in Attachment A..

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Let’s Protect Our Environment submissions – regionwide

27. The early public consultation asked respondents whether they supported measures for responsible pet ownership, responsible boat ownership, predator-free islands, and the prioritisation of pest management for climate change resilience.

28. A total of 3,678 written submissions were received including 2,355 online responses, 1,277 hard copy surveys, and 46 emails. Most submissions were from individuals (3,603); submissions were also received from 71 organisations and four Māori entities.

29. Respondents were diverse and were generally representative of Auckland’s population, except that there were fewer Māori respondents than representative of the population (7 per cent versus 12 per cent). Respondent demographics are summarised in Table 1 below. Submitters were able to select multiple ethnicities; therefore, the sum of the respondents across all ethnicities is greater than 100 per cent.

Table 1: LPOE submitter demographics

Descriptor	% Respondents	% Census
Gender
Male	43.2	49.4
Female	56.5	50.2
Gender diverse	0.3	0.4
Ethnicity
European	37	50
Māori	7	12
Pasifika	29	17
Asian	30	31
Middle-Eastern / Latin American / African	2	3
Other	1	1

30. Submissions were received from all local board areas (Table 2). In addition, over 1000 submissions were not attributable to a local board area, either due to the respondent being from a regionwide organisation, being outside of Auckland, or not supplying their local board.

Table 2: Local board representation in LPOE consultation submissions

Local Board	Total number of submissions	Per cent of regional population who live in board area (%)	Per cent of submissions by local board area (%)
Albert-Eden	136	5.8	5.7
Aotea/Great Barrier	43	0.1	1.8
Devonport-Takapuna	113	3.5	4.7
Franklin	75	5.1	3.1
Henderson-Massey	136	7.5	5.7
Hibiscus and Bays	163	6.9	6.8
Howick	201	9.3	8.4
Kaipātiki	78	5.3	3.3
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu	216	4.7	9.1
Manurewa	126	6.0	5.3
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	98	4.7	4.1
Ōrākei	103	5.0	4.3
Ōtara-Papatoetoe	153	5.2	6.4
Papakura	62	4.4	2.6
Puketāpapa	45	3.4	1.9
Rodney	157	4.7	6.6
Upper Harbour	114	4.6	4.8
Waiheke	65	0.6	2.7
Waitākere Ranges	106	3.3	4.5
Waitematā	72	4.9	3.0
Whau	119	4.9	5.0
SUBTOTAL	2,381	100	0.14
Regional organisation	13	-	-
Not supplied	1,265	-	-
Outside Auckland	19	-	-
TOTAL	3,678	-	-

31. Regionally, LPOE feedback shows:

· support for responsible cat ownership measures, especially compulsory cat desexing and microchipping

· support for measures to reduce impact and spread of marine and freshwater pests

· over 70 per cent of people support measures to address the impact of climate change

· a need for better communication with the public on how to:

o better protect the environment

o limit the spread of pests

o be a responsible pet or boat owner

32. Further detail of regional consultation feedback can be found in the summary of feedback report in Attachment B.

Let’s Protect Our Environment submissions – Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

33. 153 pieces of feedback were attributed to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area, including 152 individuals and one organisation.

34. Feedback in the local board area came from a broad range of age groups, with most respondents being between 15 and 74 years of age. There was a slight under-representation of male submitters under 44 years of age, an over-representation of female submitters aged 35-44, and an over-representation of both genders above 45 years (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Age and gender of Ōtara-Papatoetoe LPOE submitters compared to census data

35. Respondents in your local board area strongly support the mandatory desexing of domestic cats on offshore islands (71-75 per cent support, depending on the island) and within 1 kilometre of known threatened species habitat (79 per cent support, 11 per cent do not support).

36. Seventy-four per cent support mandatory desexing of domestic cats across the whole region.

37. There is strong local support for Council providing funding assistance for those who cannot afford to desex their cats (76 per cent support, 18 per cent do not support).

38. Ōtara-Papatoetoe respondents strongly support mandatory cat microchipping, with 96 per cent supporting the rule for all of Auckland and 92 per cent supporting within 1km of known threatened habitat.

39. The majority of Ōtara-Papatoetoe respondents support containing cats to their owner’s property across Auckland (84 per cent support, 11 per cent do not support). There is a also support for containing cats to property within 1km of threatened species habitat (74 per cent) and on offshore islands (65-70 per cent, depending on the island).

40. Most Ōtara-Papatoetoe respondents supported a rule allowing only island residents to transport their domestic cats to offshore islands (63-78 per cent, depending on the island).

41. Ōtara-Papatoetoe respondents had a higher-than-average level of support for marine and freshwater biosecurity, including support for a clean anchor chain rule (88 per cent in Ōtara-Papatoetoe, versus 80 per cent overall), marine invasive species management (84 per cent support versus 74 per cent overall), lake invasive species management (84 per cent versus 79 per cent overall), and the banning of motorised boats on Lake Tomarata to prevent freshwater pest incursions (74 per cent, versus 67 per cent overall).

42. Ninety-two per cent of Ōtara-Papatoetoe respondents support increased climate change resilience in our management of the natural environment.

43. Further detail comparing support from Ōtara-Papatoetoe respondents to regional support can be found in Attachment D.

Deliberative democracy forum

44. Forty participants were recruited, and 38 participated, in a deliberative democracy forum on responsible cat ownership and potential cat management interventions. The participant group was demographically representative of Auckland and included cat owners and people who participated in environmental or conservation activities (these were not mutually exclusive).

45. The forum included two sessions, both run by an independent facilitator in November 2024. Sessions involved presentations from subject matter experts from Auckland Council, SPCA, and University of Auckland’s School of Biological Sciences. Discussion was held in small table groups of participants and shared back to the workshop group.

46. The forum as a whole felt that given the impacts cats can have on our native species, controls should be introduced by council to provide some protection in remaining refuge areas. There was unanimous support for only island residents transporting cats to offshore islands, and strong agreement of the need for microchipping and desexing cats, especially on gulf islands and within 1 kilometre of sensitive mainland areas.

47. While there was strong support for containing cats to their owner’s property on offshore islands, there was less support for containment on the mainland near sensitive areas, and low support for Auckland-wide cat containment rules. There was general support for increased financial support for those who cannot afford to desex their cats, with broad agreement on targeted subsidies to ensure equitability and effectiveness in both lower socio-economic and ecological hotspot areas.

48. A report prepared by some of the participants is appended as Attachment C.

Request for local board feedback

49. Local boards are being asked for their views on the measures tested in the Let’s Protect Our Environment public consultation. Detail on the views of Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board constituents can be found in the feedback document in Attachment D.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

50. Climate change is expected to exacerbate pest spread and impacts through increased temperatures as well as more frequent and intense extreme weather events. While many other stressors caused by climate change are difficult to manage, minimising pest impacts is one of the most achievable actions we can undertake to increase the resilience of indigenous species and ecosystems.

51. Indigenous ecosystems provide critical carbon sequestration and storage, localised cooling, and resilience against flooding. Therefore, protection of indigenous species and systems through pest management is an important component of increasing the region’s climate resilience.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

52. The RPMP has operational implications for many parts of the council group, especially our land management functions on local and regional parks, Watercare catchment land, and stormwater management. Internal engagement with relevant departments is underway, to inform the drafting of the new RPMP.

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

Local impacts and local board views

53. Issues and associated rules included in the next RPMP will affect Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board constituents, as well as the management of local parkland for which the local board is the decision-maker. For this reason, staff have undertaken engagement on key issues and present the responses from constituents and an opportunity for local board feedback in Attachment D.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. Introduced species can significantly adversely impact on a range of values central to te ao Māori, such as taonga species, kaitiakitanga, whakapapa, mauri and mātauranga. For example, Te Kawerau ā Maki have described kauri dieback disease as an existential threat to their iwi.

55. Many iwi and hapū are engaged extensively in pest management within their rohe. There is also increasing capacity and interest in partnering with or contracting to Auckland Council to deliver aspects of pest management.

56. Conversely, some introduced species that can be considered to have adverse impacts in certain situations can also be highly valued by some Māori as kai (for example feral pigs) or for other uses.

57. Tangata whenua engagement for the RPMP is already underway. This will seek to understand tangata whenua aspirations, the extent to which these are impacted by introduced species, and how the regulatory elements of the RPMP might assist in realising those aspirations. Engagement and collaboration with tangata whenua will also contribute to the strategic framing, ‘look and feel’ of the new RPMP.

58. Māori submitters’ (n=230) feedback is summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of feedback from individual Māori submitters through the LPOE early consultation

Q1A. All domestic/pet cats should be desexed
In area	Support (%)	Do not support (%)	Other (%)	Unsure(%)
Aotea	76	5	4	14
Kawau	77	6	3	14
Rakino	77	6	3	14
Waiheke	76	6	3	16
Within 1km of threatened species habitat	79	7	2	13
All of Auckland	72	9	4	14
Q1B. All domestic/pets cats must be microchipped
In area	Support	Do not support	Other	Unsure
Aotea	73	10	2	14
Kawau	74	10	2	14
Rakino	74	10	2	14
Waiheke	74	10	39	13
Within 1km of threatened species habitat	76	10	2	13
All of Auckland	70	13	2	15
Q1C. All domestic/pet cats must be contained to their owner’s property
In area	Support (%)	Do not support (%)	Other (%)	Unsure (%)
Aotea	55	19	5	22
Kawau	55	20	3	22
Rakino	54	21	4	21
Waiheke	54	22	3	22
Within 1km of threatened species habitat	59	18	2	21
All of Auckland	50	26	2	22
Q1D. Only island residents’ domestic/pet cats can be taken to offshore islands
In area	Support (%)	Do not support (%)	Other (%)	Unsure (%)
Aotea	42	22	2	33
Kawau	42	23	2	33
Rakino	42	23	2	33
Waiheke	40	23	2	35
Q1E. What is your opinion on council providing increased financial support for those who cannot afford to desex their cats?
	Support (%)	Do not support (%)	Other (%)	Unsure (%)
	68	14	2	16
Q3A. What is your opinion on introducing a rule to require all anchor chains and other marine gear to be free of pests, visible dirt, seaweed and animals before moving to a new location?
	Support (%)	Do not support (%)	Other (%)	Unsure (%)
	70	3	2	25
Q3B. What is your opinion on Auckland Council controlling invasive species in high ecological and/or cultural value marine ecosystems?
	Support (%)	Do not support (%)	Other (%)	Unsure (%)
	67	4	3	27
Q4A. What is your opinion on Auckland Council controlling pests in more of the region’s lakes (beyond Tomarata and Rototoa)?
	Support (%)	Do not support (%)	Other (%)	Unsure (%)
	67	5	2	26
Q4B. What is your opinion on banning motorised boats from Lake Tomarata to help prevent the spread of freshwater pests and to protect shoreline vegetation?
	Support (%)	Do not support (%)	Other (%)	Unsure (%)
	59	9	2	30

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

59. Council’s implementation of the current RPMP is funded through a combination of general rates and the Natural Environment Targeted Rate.

60. The Biosecurity Act requires council to be confident that funding exists for implementation, at time of adopting the new plan. The proposed RPMP 2030-2040 will be consulted on in 2027 alongside the long-term plan.

61. As well as costs to council, the rules and obligations imposed in a RPMP can impose costs on other parties. Conversely, the management approaches within a RPMP seek to mitigate costs that would otherwise be imposed by pest impacts.

62. An analysis of benefits and costs, and how these are allocated across beneficiaries and exacerbators will be prepared and consulted on alongside the proposed plan in 2027.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

63. The RPMP may attract Environment Court challenges and judicial reviews and adverse media coverage. These risks are mitigated through thorough technical research and evidence-based programmes, effective public and stakeholder consultation including through the attached Let’s Protect Our Environment consultation and deliberative democracy process, and a systematic review to ensure all aspects of the Biosecurity Act and National Policy Direction are complied with.

64. Conversely, the lack of effective pest management provisions through a fit-for-purpose RPMP would pose significant risks to the region’s natural environment, primary industries, critical infrastructure and socio-cultural values.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65. Staff will continue to engage with tangata whenua and review relevant technical information, including engaging with stakeholders. These information sources, along with public feedback from the early consultation period and local board feedback, will be workshopped with the Policy and Planning Committee (or equivalent) in early 2026 to inform the drafting of the proposed new RPMP.

66. The proposed RPMP will then be brought to the Policy and Planning Committee in mid-2026 to approve it for public consultation in early 2027, aligned with the Long-term Plan consultation.

67. Local boards will be briefed on the proposed plan in late 2026, ahead of public consultation. Local boards will have a further opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed plan in 2028, informed by submissions made by your constituents following submissions analysis.

68. Following submissions analysis and any consequential changes to the proposed plan, the new plan will be made operative by 2030. A detailed timeline is set out in Attachment A.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Timeline for creating the Regional Pest Management Plan 2030-2040	169
b ⇩	Lets Protect Our Environment feedback summary report	171
c ⇩	Lets Protect Our Environment Participatory form feedback report	203
d ⇩	Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Lets Protect Our Environment feedback	219

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarah Killick - Biosecurity Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Sam Hill - General Manager Environmental Services

Sam Sinton - Executive Office Community

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

29 July 2025

Approval for two new road names at 31 Prices Road, Manukau Central

File No.: CP2025/14935

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board to name two public roads, created by way of a subdivision development at 31 Prices Road, Manukau Central

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. 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 subdivider /developer shall be given the opportunity to suggest their preferred new road name/s for the local board’s approval.

3. The developer and applicant, Fernbrook Property (PR) Limited has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

4. The proposed road name options have been assessed against the Auckland Council Road Naming 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 Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.

5. The proposed names for the new public roads at 31 Prices Road, Manukau Central are:

Applicant’s Preference

Alternatives

Road 1

Straight Drive

Wiroa Drive

Ranginui Drive

Road 2

Ranginui Lane

Austin Lane

Buttimore Lane

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) approve the following names for two new public roads created by way of subdivision undertaken by Fernbrook Property (PR) Limited at 31 Prices Road, Manukau Central, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (Road naming reference RDN90122570, resource consent reference SUB60401173).

i. Straight Drive (Road 1)

ii. Ranginui Lane (Road 2)

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent reference SUB60401173 was approved for creation of an industrial lot, a balance lot and roads to be vested to Council on 21 December 2022.

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

8. In accordance with Australian & New Zealand Standard, Rural and Urban Addressing, AS NZS 4819:2011 and the Guidelines for Addressing in-fill Developments 2019 – LINZ OP G 01245 (the standards), any road including private ways, COALs, and right of ways, that serve more than five lots generally require a new road name in order to ensure safe, logical and efficient street numbering.

9. Whlist the roads do not service five or more lots at this stage, there is a potential for these roads to be servicing more lots once the balance lot is further subdivided in the future. The roads to be named are highlighted in yellow in Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Theme: The proposed names reflect the characteristic and layout of the roads as well as the history of the area.

Road Number

Proposed name

Meaning (as described by applicant)

Road 1

Straight Drive

(applicant’s preference)

As per the site plan above, the name 'Straight Drive' accurately describes the physical characteristics of the road, being 720 meters long and completely straight. This aligns with the council's preference for names that reflect the local environment or physical characteristics.

As an industrial area near the airport, a straightforward, functional name like 'Straight Drive' reflects the practical nature of the industrial development and the surrounding environment. The design typologies of industrial buildings feature straight lines. Further the nearby airport is characterised by straight lines, such as the runway.

Wiroa Drive

(alternative)

As the Cultural Values Assessment [prepared by Te Ākitai Waiohua noted “Wiroa Island is a motu in the Manukau Harbour that was valued by Te Ākitai Waiohua for its red ochre”. Road 1 heads in a south-westerly direction from Prices Road in direct alignment towards Wiroa Island - refer the Aerial Photo below.

We consider Wiroa Drive an appropriate name to recognise the importance of nearby Wiroa Island to Te Ākitai Waiohua.

Ranginui Drive

(alternative)

Ranginui is the historic name of the land where both new roads are located.

The extract below is taken from a heritage report prepared for Fernbrook Property by CFG Heritage and shows the ‘Ranginui Estate’ being 8 farms in the area being marketed for sale in December 1925.

Highlighted on the plan is blue is the approximate location of Road 1 and Road 2. As this highlight show, the new roads are in the middle of the area referred to in 1925 as the Ranginui Estate.

The Austin family and descendants farmed the Prices Road area for over 70 years. The Buttimore family, current owners of 55 Prices Road and the vendors for 31 Prices Road are Austin descendants. As noted in our correspondence with the Buttimore family at Appendix 2 attached, when the Austin family originally purchased the land they kept the name Ranginui as the name of their farm.

The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand provides the following explanations as to the meaning and heritage of ‘Ranginui’.

“Ranginui – the sky

Ranginui, the sky father, was torn away from Papatūānuku, the earth mother, and formed the vault of the heavens. When Māori looked up at the sky they saw the sun god, Te Rā, whose journey was slowed by the legendary Māui. At night, they sometimes saw Rona, who had been pulled up from Earth by the Moon. These live among a vast family of celestial bodies, all encompassed within Ranginui.

Ranginui – the sky father

Māori mythology personified the heavens as a sky father, naming him variously Rangi (heavens), Ranginui (great heavens), Rangiroa (expansive heavens), or Te Ranginui-e-tū-nei (the great-standing heavens). He was also called Te Rangiātea, which referred to the great breadth of the heavens, or Te Rangitiketike and Te Rangipāmamao, which denoted loftiness and remoteness. The names Te Rangiwhakataka and Te Rangitakataka describe how the heavens reach down to the horizon to meet Papatūānuku, the earth mother.”

Road 2

Ranginui Lane

(applicant’s preference)

Same meaning as Ranginui Drive.

Austin Lane

(alternative)

This is named after the Austin family who… have along with their descendants farmed the land the road is located for over 70 years.

Buttimore Lane

(alternative)

This is named after the Buttimore family…whose ancestors have farmed the land for over 70 years.

13. 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.

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

15. Road Type: ‘Drive’ and ‘Lane’ are acceptable road types for the new public roads, suiting the form and layout of the roads.

16. Consultation: For the names ‘Austin Lane’ and ‘Buttimore Lane’, family members’ consent have been obtained. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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.

21. The applicant contacted Te Ākitai Waiohua who have indicated that they have no objections to the names ‘Wiroa’ and ‘Ranginui’

22. On 03 March 2025, mana whenua were contacted by the council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Te Ahiwaru Waiohua

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Waikato-Tainui

· Ngāti Whanaunga

23. By the close of the consultation period (10 working days), a response was received from Te Ahiwaru Waiohua indicating their support for the name ‘Wiroa’. A response was also received from Te Ākitai Waiohua confirming their preference for the name ‘Wiroa Drive’ for Road 1 and ‘Ranginui Lane’ for Road 2.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

25. The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for the Council.

26. 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

27. 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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Report Attachment A - Site Plan	235
b ⇩	Report Attachment B - Location Map	237

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Amy Cao - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

29 July 2025

Approval for a new private road name at 59 Hillcrest Road, Papatoetoe

File No.: CP2025/15035

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board to name a private road, being a commonly owned access lot created by a subdivision development at 59 Hillcrest Road, Papatoetoe.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The developer and applicant, Yodha D136 Limited, has proposed the names presented below for consideration by the local board.

4. The proposed road name options have been assessed against the Auckland Council Road Naming 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 generally met and the proposed names are not duplicated elsewhere in the region or in close proximity. Mana whenua have been consulted in the manner required by the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.

5. The proposed names for the new road at 59 Hillcrest Road, Papatoetoe are:

· Chardi Kala Way (applicant’s preference)

· Yodha Place (alternative)

· Akal Way (alternative)

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) approve the name Chardi Kala Way for a new private road created by way of subdivision undertaken by Yodha D136 Limited at 59 Hillcrest Road, Papatoetoe in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 (road naming reference RDN90124422, resource consent references BUN60440228 and SUB60440300)

Horopaki

Context

6. Resource consent reference BUN60440228 (subdivision consent reference SUB60440300) was approved for a subdivision to create six residential allotments and a commonly owned access lot on 21 March 2025.

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

9. For this development, whilst LINZ has indicated that the COAL does not need to be named because the allotments can be sub-addressed from Hillcrest Road, the applicant would like to propose a road name. The guidelines do not prevent this. The road to be named is highlighted in yellow in Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. 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.

12. Theme: The proposed names reflect the cultural and ancestral theme of the developer, and they honour the positive values and cultural heritage of the Sikh community in Auckland.

Proposed name	Meaning (as described by the applicant)
Chardi Kala Way (applicant’s preference)	…reflects the spirit of eternal optimism and resilience. This Sikh concept aligns with Māori values such as mana, kia kaha, and whakamanawa, which all emphasize strength of spirit, emotional courage, and uplifting the community in times of adversity. It acknowledges a shared cultural emphasis on maintaining dignity, hope, and strength across generations.
Yodha Place (alternative)	fantastic name — bold, meaningful, and easy to remember. “Yodha” means warrior in Punjabi and Sanskrit, and it aligns strongly with Sikh heritage. Yodha Lane represents the concept of the warrior-protector, which closely aligns with the Māori value of toa — a warrior who carries mana (prestige, authority) and protects the people (iwi) and land (whenua). Just as the Sikh 'Yodha' defends with courage and moral strength, the Māori toa stands as a guardian of community and culture. Both traditions honour bravery
Akal Way (alternative)	“Akal” means timeless, eternal, or undying in Punjabi. In both Sikh and Māori worldviews, the eternal is not just a spiritual state, but a guiding principle for how we live in harmony with others and the land. 'Akal' reflects the undying essence of life, much like the Māori concept of wairua and the eternal connection through whakapapa

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

15. Road Type: ‘Place’ and ‘Way’ are acceptable road types for the new road, suiting the form and layout of the road.

16. 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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

Local impacts and local board views

19. 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

20. 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.

21. The applicant contacted Ngāti Tamaoho for feedback on the proposed names on 01 May 2025, prior to lodgement of this road naming application. It is understood that no feedback was received.

22. On 21 May 2025, mana whenua were contacted by the Council on behalf of the applicant, through the Resource Consent department’s central facilitation process, as set out in the guidelines. Representatives of the following groups with an interest in the general area were contacted:

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Te Kawerau ā Maki

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Te Ākitai Waiohua

· Te Ahiwaru Waiohua

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Waikato-Tainui

· Ngāti Whanaunga

23. By the close of the consultation period (10 working days), no responses, comments, or feedback were received. Dependant on the scale of the development and its level of significance, not all road naming applications receive comments from mana whenua.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

25. The road naming process does not raise any financial implications for the Council.

26. 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

27. There are no significant risks to the 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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Report Attachment A Scheme Plan	243
b ⇩	Report Attachment B Location Map	245

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Amy Cao - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon - Team Leader Subdivision

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

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

Author	Claire Bews - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Author	Claire Bews - Democracy Advisor
Authorise	Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager