Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board - Thursday, 25 September 2025

1 Nau mai | Welcome

The Chairperson A Atkinson will open the meeting with a Karakia.

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

At the close of the agenda an apology had been received from Member J Mclean.

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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 28 August 2025,including the confidential section, and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 18 September 2025, 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 Upper Harbour 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 Meadowood Community Centre Year End Report 2025.

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive an update from the Meadowood Community Centre on their year-end report.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Sian Bonner, Centre Manager, Meadowood Community Centre, will be in attendance to present the Meadowood Community Centre year-end report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the deputation from Sian Bonner, Centre Manager, Meadowood Community Centre and thank her for her attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Meadowood Community Centre year-end report 2025.................................. 201

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.

9.1 Richard Davidson - Concerns over sculpture adjacent to the Albany Community Hall.

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Richard Davidson will be in attendance to speak about his concerns over the sculpture adjacent to the Albany Community Hall.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Ricard Davidson for his attendance.

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.”

Upper Harbour Local Board

25 September 2025

Local Board Views on Private Plan Change 115 for 20 Noel Williams Place, Windsor Park

File No.: CP2025/18584

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on Private Plan Change 115 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) by Windsor Park Community and Multisport Hub Incorporated, to rezone 12,800m² (1.28 hectares (ha) or approximately 20 percent of the land) at 20 Noel Williams Place, Windsor Park (the site) from Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation Zone to Residential Mixed Housing Urban Zone.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. Windsor Park Community and Multisport Hub Incorporated (the Requestor) has lodged a private plan change request under clause 21 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The request is to amend the AUP to:

a. rezone 12,800m² (1.28ha) of land (owned by Windsor Park Community and Multisport Hub Incorporated) at 20 Noel Williams Place, Windsor Park from Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone.

b. introduce a new precinct, ‘Windsor Park’, that will apply to the rezoned land.

4. The private plan change request would enable for the establishment of approximately 80-100 dwellings in this area, and will incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards as required by s77G(1) of the RMA.

5. The rezoned part of 20 Noel Williams Place, Windsor Park is anticipated by Windsor Park Community and Multisport Hub Incorporated to be sold to a private developer following the rezoning. The capital generated from selling this land is to be invested into the remaining sports club area to enhance its sporting facilities for both club members and the wider public.

6. 241 primary submissions and 2 further submissions were received on the private plan change. The submissions received generally sought that the private plan change be approved or declined; with key issues raised relating to the proposed level of intensification, loss of open space, transport, infrastructure servicing and reverse sensitivity effects on existing permitted activities at the adjacent Windsor Park Baptist Church.

7. A local board can present local views and preferences when expressed by the whole local board. This report is the mechanism for the local board to pass a resolution providing its views on the private plan change request. Staff do not recommend what view the local board should convey.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whakarite / provide local board views on the private plan change request 115 by Windsor Park Community and Multisport Hub Incorporated for 20 Noel Williams Place, Windsor Park.

b) kopou / appoint a local board member to speak to the local board views at a hearing on the private plan change request.

c) tautapa / delegate authority to the chairperson of Upper Harbour Local Board to make a replacement appointment in the event the local board member appointed in resolution b) is unable to attend the private plan change hearing.

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

8. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on these documents’ contents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents (sections 15-16 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009).

9. A private plan change request will be included in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) if it is approved. Local boards must have the opportunity to provide their views on private plan change requests – when an entity other than council proposes a change to the AUP.

10. If the local board chooses to provide its views, the planner includes local board views verbatim, and addresses those views in the hearing report (and issues raised by submitters).

11. If appointed by resolution, a local board member may present only the local board’s views at the hearing to commissioners, who decide on the private plan change request.

12. This report provides an overview of the private plan change request, and a summary of submissions’ key themes.

13. This report does not recommend what the local board should convey, if the local board expresses its views on the private plan change request. The planner cannot advise the local board as to what its views should be, and then evaluate those views.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

14. Plan Change 115 (PC115) applies to 12,800m² (1.2ha) of land zoned Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation Zone, located in the northern part of Windsor Park at 20 Noel Williams Place.

15. The 1.2ha area proposed for rezoning has a flat terrain and contains a training sports field and the East Coast Bays Rugby Club's clubhouse. The area currently has very limited usage due to its unimproved soil surface, partial irrigation, and lack of drainage. No formal competition sport is played there, and 20 Noel Williams Place, Windsor Park (the site) is not considered suitable for rugby or cricket training.

16. Figure 1 shows the land proposed for rezoning and the existing land uses within its immediate context. Figures 2 and 3 show respectively the existing and proposed AUP zoning for the plan change land.

Figure 1: The proposed precinct extent (in red) and the immediate land use context. Source: Requestor Urban Design Report (Figure 2-10, Page 10).

Figure 2: Existing AUP zoning for the subject site and proposed precinct extent (in red). Source: Requestor Urban Design Report (Figure 2-18, p11)

Figure 3: Proposed Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) zoning and precinct extent (in red). Source: Requestor Urban Design Report (Figure 3-4, p15)

17. The objective of the private plan change request is to rezone approximately 1.28ha of the site for residential use, with the capital generated from selling this land reinvested into the remaining sports club area (which is approximately 5.1ha) and will be utilised to enhance facilities for both club members and the wider public.

18. The precinct provisions seek to incorporate Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) as required by s77G(1) of the RMA. Incorporating MDRS is a statutory requirement, and the Council is unable to accept (or adopt) a private plan change request that doesn’t incorporate MDRS (see clause 25(4A), Schedule 1, RMA). No other amendments to the existing AUP provisions are proposed as part of this plan change request.

19. The site contains a row of 15 pohutukawa trees, approximately 4–5 metres in height, along the eastern boundary, and around 15 Tristaniopsis laurina (water gums) along the northern boundary. The plan change proposes to protect the existing pohutukawa through the precinct provisions by introducing a ‘Tree Protection Area’ and landscaping controls to ensure development does not occur within, or result in the removal of, these trees.

20. Vehicle access to the plan change area will be provided via a new private road connection from the southern end of the existing cul-de-sac on Noel Williams Place, linking to a new internal loop road. Pedestrian connections will be provided between the site and East Coast Road, as well as between the site and Noel Williams Place, with direct links to Windsor Park to the east and south. The site is also within walking distance of public transport services on East Coast Road.

21. The current primary vehicle access to the plan change site is via an easement over the carpark at 542 East Coast Road, the adjoining property owned by the Windsor Park Baptist Church. Any changes to this easement would be a civil matter rather than a resource management matter, and no changes are proposed as part of this plan change.

22. Windsor Park Community and Multisport Hub Incorporated (WPCMSH)‘s application included the technical reports and information to support the plan change as follows:

· private plan change request, including proposed precinct plans and provisions

· planning and section 32 evaluation report

· specialist reports on environmental effects, urban design, infrastructure, traffic and stormwater and flooding.

23. These reports and other application details are available from council’s website in the following link.

24. Council’s planner, and other experts, will evaluate and report on:

· technical reports supplied by the applicant

· submissions

· views and preferences of the local board, if the local board passes a resolution.

Themes from submissions received

25. PC115 was publicly notified on 22 May 2025, and submissions closed 23 June 2025. The Summary of Decisions Requested (SDR) was notified on 24 July 2025, with the further submissions period closing on 7 August 2025.

26. 241 primary submissions and 2 further submissions were received. The submitters were generally either members of the East Coast Bays Rugby Football Club and East Coast Bays Cricket Club, or local sporting organisations and residents. The number of submissions in support, opposition and neutral are listed in Table 1 below.

27. Key submission themes are listed below:

· Density and the effects of intensification on the local community

· Support for rezoning to enable upgrades to existing club facilities

· Loss of existing open space

· Transport matters, including traffic, road layout, and site access

· Infrastructure capacity and servicing in the area

· Reverse sensitivity effects on existing activities at the adjacent Windsor Park Baptist Church.

Table 1: Submissions received on plan change 115.

Submissions	Number of submissions
In support	137
In opposition	103
Neutral	1

28. Information on individual submissions, and the summary of all decisions requested by submitters, is available from council’s website:https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/unitary-plan/auckland-unitary-plan-modifications/Pages/details.aspx?UnitaryPlanId=285

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

29. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan sets out Auckland’s climate goals:

· to adapt to the impacts of climate change by planning for the changes we will face (climate adaptation)

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 (climate mitigation).

30. Both council’s climate goals (climate adaptation and climate mitigation) are relevant and align with the requirement for RMA decision-makers to:

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

· to have regard to any emissions reduction plan and any national adaptation plan prepared under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (section 74(2) RMA) when preparing or changing a district plan.

31. Consequently, any local board views on climate adaptation and/or climate mitigation will be considered by the plan change decision-makers (who will consider climate change effects even if the local board does not express views on this topic).

32. The land subject to the private plan change request is currently identified as being subject to natural hazards in council’s geospatial system, as there is one existing overland flowpath traversing the subject land. Climate change effects are anticipated to worsen the effects of natural hazards.

Local board views - climate

33. The following prompts are included to assist the local board in forming any view should it wish to do so regarding climate mitigation and/or adaptation:

· How will the proposed plan change request impact on greenhouse gas emissions and what is the approach to reduce emissions? Consider in/dependence on private motor vehicle trips, connections to and availability of public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure, or whether a quality compact urban form will result

· What effect will climate change have over the lifetime of what the proposed plan change enables, and how will these effects be addressed? Will climate risks, such as flooding, increased heat, coastal erosion, or extreme weather events be alleviated or elevated?

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34. Specialists from Planning and Resource Consents, Healthy Waters, Parks and Community Facilities (Land Advisory Services and Parks Planning), Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited have considered the private plan change request and have had input into the requests for additional information under clause 23 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

35. Auckland Transport reviewed the proposal as part of the Clause 25 process, and considered at that stage that it had no significant concerns.

36. Watercare Services Limited have reviewed the proposal in relation to water and wastewater servicing; and confirmed (via a memo rather than a submission) that there is sufficient capacity in both the bulk water supply and bulk wastewater networks to service the proposed development without compromising their ability to service the existing live zoned areas.

37. No council-controlled organisation made a submission.

38. Council staff from all the above-mentioned departments will also review the submissions and provide expert input into the hearing report that the independent hearing commissioners will consider.

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

Local impacts and local board views

39. The private plan change request is for 20 Noel Williams Place, Windsor Park, within the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

40. Windsor Park is privately owned open space land held by the Requestor. While the southern part of Windsor Park adjoins Centurian Reserve, which is a council-owned reserve, the proposed plan change area is located at the northern end of Windsor Park and is not directly adjacent to Centurian Reserve. As such, the plan change will have no effect on the reserve itself, nor on the local board’s responsibilities or operations in that area.

41. This plan change relates to the Upper Harbour Local Board area only.

42. Factors the local board may wish to consider in formulating its view:

· interests and preferences of people in the local board area

· well-being of communities within the local board area

· local board documents such as local board plan, local board agreement

· responsibilities and operation of the local board.

43. WPCMSH have stated that they engaged with the local board prior to lodgement[1]. Feedback at that stage was informal; restrictions on delegations prevent that informal feedback from being considered to be the formal views of the local board.

44. This report is the mechanism for obtaining local board views. The decision-maker will consider local board views, if provided, when deciding on the private plan change request.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

46. WPCMSH advised that it consulted with the following iwi authorities when it prepared the private plan change. Emails were sent to the following mana whenua groups in November 2023 on the proposal, and included plans and an offer to meet on site or at another location if desired:

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki,

· Ngāti Manuhuri,

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Ngāti Te Ata,

· Ngāti Whanaunga,

· Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara,

· Ngāti Whatua Ōrākei,

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Te Kawerau o Maki.

47. Council notified all of the above iwi authorities of this plan change request. No iwi authorities made a submission or provided any additional information on PC115.

48. The hearing report will include analysis of Part 2 of the RMA which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

49. The private plan change request does not pose any financial implications for the local board’s assets or operations. The plan change will occur on a part of the site privately owned by the applicant, with any funding generated through the sale of the rezoned land to be utilised to upgrade the existing on-site club facilities.

50. Costs associated with processing the private plan change request will be recovered from the applicant. Impacts on infrastructure arising from the private plan change request, including any financing and funding issues will be addressed in the hearing report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51. The local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on the private plan change, if it does not pass a resolution. This report provides:

· the mechanism for the local board to express its views and preferences

· the opportunity for a local board member to speak at a hearing.

52. If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, these opportunities are forgone.

53. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a private plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s) (Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, clause 36D). This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

54. The planner will include, and report on, any resolution of the local board in the section 42A hearing report provided to the Independent Hearing Commissioners. The local board member appointed to speak to the local board’s views will be informed of the hearing date and invited to the hearing for that purpose.

55. The planner will advise the local board of the decision on the private plan change request by memorandum.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarah Wong - Policy Planner

Authoriser

Eryn Shields - Team Leader - Planning

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

25 September 2025

Hooton Reserve - options for improved parking management

File No.: CP2025/20436

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek endorsement to delegate parking management at Hooton Reserve to Auckland Transport, enabling the introduction of paid parking to improve safety, access, and compliance in line with the Upper Harbour Local Parks Management Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Hooton Reserve is experiencing significant challenges in its western carpark, including antisocial behaviour, illegal dumping, and unauthorised vehicle access. These issues compromise public safety, disrupt site operations, and reduce availability for legitimate park users.

3. In response to escalating safety concerns and to support operational management of the site, the Upper Harbour Local Board resolved at the 24 July 2025 business meeting to request immediate temporary vehicle access restrictions and directed staff to investigate parking management solutions (resolution number UH/2025/94) This aligns with the Upper Harbour Local Parks Management Plan, which identifies the western carpark as a priority for review and highlights the intention to collaborate with Auckland Transport on improved parking management.

4. Hooton Reserve has two carparks, east and west, both intended for park users. Enforcement is currently inconsistent – the eastern carpark is partially controlled by Auckland Transport, while the western carpark remains uncontrolled, unsealed, and frequently misused.

5. Following engagement with Auckland Transport, staff presented three potential parking management options to the local board at its workshop on 12 June 2025:

· Option 1: Status Quo

· Option 2: Delegate to Auckland Transport – Time Restrictions Only

· Option 3: Delegate to Auckland Transport – Paid Parking

6. Staff recommend that the Upper Harbour Local Board resolve to delegate parking management at Hooton Reserve to Auckland Transport, enabling a consistent, enforceable regime as an interim measure pending longer-term improvements, including recreational development opportunities, envisioned under the Upper Harbour Local Parks Management Plan.

7. In particular, staff recommend Option 3, introducing paid parking under Auckland Transport’s management, subject to Traffic Control Committee approval. A managed paid parking regime would improve access, safety, and compliance, while also generating non-rates revenue that could be reinvested into reserve maintenance, renewals, and potential recreational improvements.

8. This report therefore seeks the local board’s endorsement to proceed with Option 3 and formally delegate parking management at Hooton Reserve to Auckland Transport. If the local board resolves to progress the recommended option, the following steps will be undertaken:

· Council staff will formally request Auckland Transport to prepare a draft parking management plan for both carparks, to be reviewed by the local board before submission to the Traffic Control Committee.

· Delegation will be made to Auckland Transport (through Auckland Council’s Chief Executive) for the management of the Hooton Reserve carparks, including the introduction of paid parking, subject to approval by the Traffic Control Committee.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) ohia / endorse Option 3 – delegation of management of the Hooton Reserve carparks to Auckland Transport, enabling the introduction of paid parking to improve safety, access, and site operations, subject to Traffic Control Committee approval.

b) tono / request that council staff formally request Auckland Transport to prepare a draft parking management plan for both the eastern and western carparks, for local board review prior to Traffic Control Committee submission.

c) tāpae / delegate authority to the Chief Executive of Auckland Council to enter into necessary arrangements with Auckland Transport to give effect to resolution (a) above.

d) tuhi tīpoka / note that this delegation will enable consistent enforcement, improve safety and access, and support reinvestment into reserve maintenance and development in alignment with the adopted Local Parks Management Plan

Horopaki

Context

Site overview and parking context

9. Hooton Reserve, located at 259 Oteha Valley Road in Albany, is a significant community asset offering a wide range of recreational facilities, including a playground, skate park, basketball courts, BMX track, fitness equipment, public toilets, walking paths, and a 3.5km cycleway connecting to nearby reserves. The reserve is surrounded by open space and parkland, with Albany Town Centre situated to the south.

10. Vehicle access is via Mills Lane, with carpark operating hours set at 7am–9pm in summer and 7am–7pm in winter. The site includes two separate carparking areas intended for park users:

· East Carpark: Approximately 110–115 marked spaces, including mobility parks.

· West Carpark: Approximately 155 unmarked, unsealed spaces. This facility has an alternative driveway that also services other recreational facilities further west which will need to be retained.

11. Despite restricted hours, overnight parking in the western carpark is common, particularly by motorhomes, campervans, trucks, and other heavy vehicles. This unauthorised use contributes to surface degradation and limits access for legitimate park users. The Upper Harbour Local Parks Management Plan (LPMP) identifies this area as a priority for review due to misuse, long-term vehicle storage, and freedom camping. These activities have negatively impacted the visitor experience and raised operational and safety concerns, including incidents of threatening behaviour toward council staff.

Local board direction and staff investigations

12. At the 24 July 2025 business meeting, the Upper Harbour Local Board put forward a Notice of Motion and resolved requesting the temporary closure to vehicle access of the western carpark at Hooton Reserve (resolution number UH/2025/94). This decision was made as an interim health and safety measure and to support operational management of the site. The local board also requested that staff explore parking management solutions, including the potential introduction of paid parking to enhance safety, access, and overall site operations.

13. Earlier, at a workshop held on 12 June 2025, staff presented three parking management options. The local board expressed a clear informal preference to explore a paid parking model, with the intention that net revenue be potentially reinvested.

14. Following further analysis and consultation, Auckland Transport’s Parking Design and Solutions team recommended a comprehensive review of both the eastern and western carparks. This integrated approach would ensure consistency in parking management, enforcement, traffic flow, access, and user experience – key elements to be aligned within future parking design plans, subject to approval by the Traffic Control Committee (TCC).

15. The purpose of this report is to seek the Upper Harbour Local Board’s endorsement to delegate parking management responsibilities for Hooton Reserve’s carparks to Auckland Transport (AT), in accordance with the Local Parks Management Plan (LPMP).

16. This delegation will empower AT to design and implement a consistent and enforceable parking regime that:

· regulates the carparks

· enhances the user experience

· supports the operational needs of the reserve

· generates revenue for reinvestment into park improvements, reducing burden on ratepayers.

Land classification and decision-making authority

17. Both carparks are held in fee simple by Auckland Council and classified as recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977:

· West Carpark: Lot 1 DP 198079, Record of Title NA127A/485 (Attachment A)

· East Carpark: Lot 2 DP 198079, Record of Title NA127A/486 (Attachment B)

Figure 1: GIS arial view of Hooton Reserve carparks, Albany

18. The Reserves Act 1977 empowers local authorities to regulate the use of reserves, including imposing parking charges, in order to prevent nuisance, protect public safety, and ensure reserves are used for their intended purpose.

19. Auckland Transport (AT) holds delegated authority to manage traffic and parking controls under its bylaws. Formal decisions regarding parking restrictions are made by the Traffic Control Committee (TCC), which ensures that all processes are appropriately followed.

20. The Upper Harbour Local Board is the administering body for Hooton Reserve. Staff recommend that the local board delegate (through the Auckland Council Chief Executive) responsibility for the management of off-street parking at Hooton Reserve to Auckland Transport (AT). This delegation would enable AT to apply its existing parking management powers and processes to the reserve, including in relation to the setting of parking charges.

Existing parking controls at Hooton Reserve

21. East Carpark: Enforcement was approved by AT’s Traffic Control Committee (Resolution ID 16419, 2021) with restrictions (P120, Mobility P180) applying Monday–Friday, 8am–6pm.

22. West Carpark: The local board has not delegated enforcement authority for the larger west car park area. The area is unsealed and unmanaged, with widespread misuse observed including commuter parking and freedom camping.

23. Site Survey: AT has confirmed that there is high demand for parking in the area, with low turnover particularly near key transport corridors. In May 2025, AT staff conducted a site survey and subsequently shared their observations and recommendations with council staff. These included exploring the implementation of parking restrictions such as paid parking options, time-limited parking, and remote enforcement using camera technology (refer to Attachment C).

Strategic context

24. The recommendations in this report align with the following council plans and policy’s objectives:

Table 1 - Alignment with the council’s policies and plans

Council’s plan or policy	Summary
Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023	The recommendations in this report align with the objectives of the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2023. They contribute to creating safer, more resilient communities, support advocacy to Auckland Transport for investment in multi-modal and active transport infrastructure, enhance the amenity of public spaces around local businesses, and improve access to community amenities and recreational opportunities.
Upper Harbour Local Parks Management Plan	The recommended option is consistent and contemplated by the operative LPMP for the Hooton Reserve carpark. The plan contains specific management intentions to “Work with Auckland Transport over the management of car parking in the reserve to prioritise access for recreational visitors.”
Room to Move: Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s Parking Strategy 2023	Manages parking to support a more sustainable transport system through a tailored approach.
Auckland Plan 2050	Ensures Auckland meets the challenges of population growth, shared prosperity and environmental degradation by focusing on improving transport and access.
Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013	Regulates public behaviour and access to council-controlled spaces to ensure safety and enjoyment in Auckland.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Options for the future management of Hooton Reserve carparks

25. At its 12 June 2025 workshop, the Upper Harbour Local Board considered three options for improving parking management at Hooton Reserve. A comparative summary of the advantages, disadvantages, and overall assessment is provided in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Advantages and disadvantages summary table

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages	Summary of analysis
1. Status Quo – Free Parking	Retains current free system; allows flexibility for future decisions.	Ongoing misuse, safety concerns, and lack of enforcement. Does not align with board direction or the LPMP.	Not recommended – perpetuates existing issues and fails to meet strategic objectives.
2. Delegate to AT – Time Restrictions Only	Improves turnover and compliance; retains free parking for visitors.	Lacks a sustainable funding mechanism; limited deterrent for long-stay users; inconsistent with AT’s advice and surrounding area parking controls.	Not recommended – partial benefits only; lacks financial sustainability; and inconsistent approach.
3. Delegate to AT – Paid Parking	Improves access, safety, and compliance; generates revenue for public benefit; aligns with AT practices and Albany parking controls.	Potential public resistance; may disrupt visitor behaviour or deter casual use.	Recommended – best balance of enforcement, funding, and access; aligns with LPMP and board priorities. Users contribute to the cost of parking, reducing burden on ratepayers.

Option 1: Status Quo

26. Maintaining the current approach would avoid immediate change but is not recommended due to:

· ongoing misuse by commuters, commercial vehicles, and freedom campers

· limited enforcement tools to manage antisocial behaviour

· missed opportunity to generate non-rates revenue for reinvestment

· continued degradation of the unsealed western carpark surface

· misalignment with the reserve carparks intended purpose and LPMP priorities.

Option 2: AT Time Restrictions Only

27. This option would involve AT formalising parking at the western car parking area at Hooton Reserve including installing marked car parking spaces and time restrictions (P120, applying Monday–Friday, 8am–6pm, consistent with the eastern parking area).

28. While it may improve turnover, this option does not align with AT’s recommended integrated parking approach for the Albany area or support revenue generation for reinvestment. Additionally, it would require intensive enforcement to ensure compliance and achieve the intended outcomes. For these reasons, it is not recommended.

Option 3: AT Paid Parking (recommended option)

29. In situations where off-street parking issues arise on community assets such as parks, due to high demand or safety concerns, AT is empowered under delegation to determine and implement the most appropriate parking management solution. This may include introducing priced parking to improve turnover and address operational challenges.

30. Following initial discussions with AT staff, Option 3 proposes the introduction of a technology-enabled paid parking system. This system would be aligned with existing on-street parking controls in Albany, subject to approval by the Traffic Control Committee (TCC). Key features of the proposed solution include:

· capability for remote monitoring and enforcement via camera technology

· flexible zone configuration, without the need for sealing or line marking

· demand-responsive pricing, with potential to extend operating hours if required to support broader objectives such as managing freedom camping

· strategic alignment with wider transport and urban management goals.

31. It is proposed that AT fund and manage the implementation of a paid parking system. Capital costs would be recovered through parking revenue, with 80 percent net compliance revenue returned to council for reinvestment (see Financial Implications section).

32. Based on the analysis of each option, staff recommend Option 3 (AT paid-parking) as it provides a sustainable, enforceable solution that supports the board’s objectives and enhances the visitor experience at Hooton Reserve.

Alternative approach: Procure a commercial parking provider (out of scope)

33. At its workshop on 12 June 2025, the local board also queried the possibility of engaging a commercial parking provider. This option was not formally presented by staff and is currently out of scope.

34. It is important to note a commercial parking management approach introduces distinct operational and legal considerations compared to Auckland Transport (AT) management. Key considerations include:

· potential conflict with AT’s delegated authority

· requires a separate report and approvals to undertake a procurement process

· additional statutory and consultation requirements under the Reserves Act 1977

· does not allow for regulatory enforcement; relies on civil contracts with users

· potential for a public hearing and delays if opposed.

35. Given these complexities, this approach is not recommended at this time but may be revisited if strategic priorities shift.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

36. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council both support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan and other council climate priorities:

· The proposals outlined in this report do not include any change in the use of the land or introduce any new sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

· Regulated parking restrictions, and the ability to control access by heavy vehicles on parks and reserves, helps to minimise carbon emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport (AT) have jointly investigated options for improved parking management at Hooton Reserve. This work has involved cross-council collaboration, with input from Parks and Community Facilities, Resilience and Infrastructure, Legal Services, Financial Advisory, Local Board Services, and Auckland Transport.

38. AT provided early input into the options and support the proposed paid parking restrictions, subject to approval by the AT Traffic Control Committee (TCC).

39. Should the local board endorse the proposal, council staff will continue to work closely with AT to implement the recommended approach and ensure alignment with local board priorities and community needs.

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

Local impacts and local board views

40. At its workshop on 12 June 2025, the Upper Harbour Local Board considered three options for managing parking at Hooton Reserve. The local board expressed a preference for a paid parking solution, with revenue reinvested into the reserve, and requested staff to prepare a report outlining the proposed options.

41. A user pays approach will improve public safety, increase parking turnover, and enhance access for legitimate park users, in line with Reserves Act requirements.

42. The proposal is consistent with Auckland Transport’s (AT) Parking Strategy, which promotes tailored, demand-responsive parking management to optimise public space and support equitable access.

43. Since 2018, AT has implemented similar paid parking zones in Albany following public consultation. Insights from that rollout have informed the current proposal, which seeks to establish a consistent and enforceable approach across both on-street and off-street parking in the area.

44. The adopted Upper Harbour Local Parks Management Plan 2024 supports collaboration with AT to improve carpark management at Hooton Reserve, with a focus on prioritising access for recreational users.

45. If the local board resolves to proceed, AT will carry out consultation with the local community and directly affected stakeholders in accordance with its statutory obligations and standard engagement processes, prior to implementing any new parking controls.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

47. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, the Unitary Plan, Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework and local board plans.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48. Auckland Transport (AT) has indicated that no upfront capital investment is required from Auckland Council to implement paid parking at Hooton Reserve. AT will fully fund the initial setup, including signage, meters, traffic flow controls, and reporting to the Traffic Control Committee (subject to final approval).

49. AT has confirmed that paid parking can be introduced at the western carpark without resurfacing or line marking. This approach aligns with the site's current condition and future recreational plans under the LPMP. The area can be designated as a parking zone with minimal infrastructure – primarily signage and a payment machine. Traffic Control Devices regulations permit unmarked zones where line marking is impractical (e.g., gravel surfaces), subject to further investigation and TCC approval.

50. Set up costs will be recovered through paid parking revenue. Once recovered, net revenue is proposed to be shared as follows:

· 80 per cent to Auckland Council – allocated to a designated budget code for Hooton Reserve to support ongoing site maintenance and improvements

· 20 per cent retained by AT

· 100 per cent of enforcement fees retained by AT

51. Two existing capital work programme items may support further feasibility or design work if required:

· Activity ID 30718 – Hooton Reserve: Renew Western Carpark

· Activity ID 30457 – Upper Harbour: Renew Reserve Roads and Carparks.

52. Detailed parking tariffs, revenue forecasts, and confirmation of the revenue share model will be developed during the next phase of investigations and presented to the local board alongside AT’s draft Traffic Control Committee report to support informed decision-making.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

53. A summary of identified risks and mitigations for option three are detailed in the table below:

Table 3: Risks and mitigations for introducing paid parking at Hooton Reserve

Risk Area	Summary	Mitigations
Overflow parking	Paid parking may lead to increased parking on surrounding streets.	Collaborate with AT to monitor impacts and adjust controls if necessary.
User experience	Introduction of paid parking may disrupt visitor behaviour or deter casual use.	Provide clear, user-friendly signage, a grace period, and convenient payment options to support transition.
Revenue transparency	Concerns over charging for public assets and how revenue is used.	Communicate that net revenue will be reinvested into site improvements, future reserve development, and initiatives that deliver public benefits.
Stakeholder impact / accessibility	Parking fees may create financial barriers for some users.	Set fees below market rates to maintain affordability and equitable access.
Implementation costs	Insufficient budget for setup and maintenance of parking infrastructure.	Work with AT to ensure installation and operational costs are covered under their delegation and revenue share agreement.
Reputational	Community opposition to paid parking may affect public perception.	Proactive communication and engagement to build understanding and support for the initiative.
Health and safety	Changes to traffic flow and usage may create safety risks.	AT to develop a Health & Safety Plan including monitoring and enforcement measures.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

54. If the local board resolves to approve the proposal to transfer parking management at Hooton Reserve to Auckland Transport, the next step is to initiate the formal delegation process.

55. The following procedural pathway is required to enable AT to enforce off-street parking controls on reserve land, including the implementation of paid parking measures:

· Staff will prepare a formal memo to the Chief Executive outlining the context and the terms of the delegation to AT as set out in this report, for approval.

· Subject to approval, Auckland Transport will undertake technical assessment and design work in alignment with AT’s existing parking management framework.

· A subsequent report will be presented to the local board seeking endorsement of the proposed parking management plan.

· Final approval will be sought from Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee (TCC) to enable implementation and enforcement of parking controls. While AT staff have indicated they will seek to fast-track this process due to the urgency of safety concerns, the standard approval timeframe may take up to six months.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Record of Title NZ127A/486 - West Carpark	29
b ⇩	Record of Title NA127A/485 - East Carpark	31
c ⇩	Auckland Transport Site Survey, May 2025	33

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Zee Lasseter - Business Growth & Development Manager

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Property & Commercial Business

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

25 September 2025

Kōkiri Report: Local Board Transport Capital Fund Project Update, Picasso Drive Crossing Project, Launch Road Proposed Parking Changes Feedback Report, Constellation Drive Shared Path Project Update and Medallion Drive Speed Table Removal

File No.: CP2025/20338

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to:

· seek approval of the preferred option on Picasso Drive Crossing Project from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and approve any cost savings be reallocated to priority projects.

· seek support from the local board on three (3) Auckland Transport Forward Works Programme projects:

o Launch Road Proposed Parking Changes

o Constellation Drive Shared Path Project

o Medallion Drive Speed Table Removal.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide feedback or make decisions related to the Kōkiri Auckland Transport and Upper Harbour Agreed Local Board Transport Plan 2025 – 2026 (Kōkiri Agreement) which outlines levels of engagement between Auckland Transport and the local board on transport projects. A copy of the 2025/2026 Kōkiri Agreement can be found in Attachment A of this agenda report.

3. This report follows up from two workshops with the Upper Harbour Local Board. The first workshop, held on 4 September 2025 provided an update on the Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund 2023 – 2026 (LBTCF) and included consideration of the Picasso Drive crossing project which has a current funding allocation of $375.000 from LBTCF. A copy of the workshop material can be found in Attachment B of this agenda report.

4. The Picasso Drive Crossing Project responds to requests for a safer pedestrian crossing near the back gate of Marina View School. Auckland Transport presented three options to the local board:

Option 1: New zebra crossing (with loss of 8 parking spaces)

Option 2: Road marking upgrades (no parking removal, additional yellow lines, “SLOW” markings, and signage) – recommended option

Option 3: Zebra crossing plus road marking/signage.

5. If the local board supports option 2 (road marking upgrades), there will be a cost saving of $295,000 from the Picasso Drive Crossing Project.

6. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund Update Report provides a summary of project delivery status, cost savings, and next steps, ensuring that funding is allocated to priority projects.

7. This report allows for the local board to consider the allocation of any cost savings from the Picasso Drive Crossing project to other Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects should the recommended option be approved. The recommended allocation of cost savings are as follows:

· $8,000 to Herald Island Kingsway Road (Causeway) Lighting

· $15,000 to Clark Road zebra crossing upgrade

· $294,929 to Clark Road frontage upgrade (contingency project).

8. As this is a “collaborate” level of engagement, local board authorisation for Auckland Transport to proceed with the recommended option, authorisation to construct, and approval to allocate the recommended cost savings to the other priority projects is now sought.

9. At a workshop held on Thursday 4 September 2025, the Launch Road Proposed Parking Changes were presented. This project aims to improve parking availability and turnover for visitors and businesses in Hobsonville. Auckland Transport undertook public engagement, resulting in updates to the proposal - removing some paid parking areas, adding mobility spaces, and making weekends free. As this is a “consult” level of engagement, the local board is being asked to provide feedback and their position on the revised approach. A copy of the workshop material can be found in Attachment C of this agenda report.

10. At a workshop held on Thursday 4 September 2025, the Constellation Drive Shared Path Project was presented. This initiative aims to address gaps in pedestrian and cycling infrastructure by delivering a new 360-metre shared path along Constellation Drive, improving connections to the SH1 shared path and Constellation Bus Station. The local board is invited to support the scheme design and endorse continued engagement to ensure the project meets local needs and integrates with existing infrastructure. A copy of the workshop material can be found in Attachment D of this agenda report.

11. At a workshop held on Thursday 11 September 2025, the Medallion Drive Speed Table Removal project was presented. Auckland Transport recommends removing the existing raised zebra crossing near Oteha Valley School due to vibration exceeding recommended limits and resident complaints about noise. The proposal includes reconstructing the refuge island and installing new signage to maintain pedestrian safety. The local board is asked to support the recommended removal, support public engagement on the proposal, and endorse progression to detailed design and construction. A copy of the workshop material can be found in Attachment E of this agenda report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the recommended option 2 (road marking upgrades) for the Picasso Drive Crossing Project and authorise Auckland Transport to progress the project to construction, subject to general positive sentiment from public engagement

b) whakaae / approve the budget allocation of $8,000 to Herald Island Kingsway Road (Causeway) Lighting

c) whakaae / approve the budget allocation of $15,000 to Clark Road zebra crossing upgrade

d) whakaae / approve the budget allocation of $294,929 to Clark Road frontage upgrade (contingency project)

e) tuku / provide feedback on the revised Launch Road Proposed Parking Changes, as outlined in the updated proposal, as part of the ‘consult’ level of engagement

f) tautoko / support the scheme design for the Constellation Drive Shared Path Project

g) tautoko / support the removal of the Medallion Drive raised zebra crossing and endorse the next steps, including public engagement and progressing to detailed design.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

a)  Collaborate – AT and the local board are working together to deliver the project or programme. The local board leads the process of building community consensus. The local board’s input and advice are used to formulate solutions and develop plans. Local board feedback is incorporated into the plan to the maximum extent possible.

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

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

14. Any ‘Collaborate’, or ‘Consult’ projects involve local board decisions that need to be taken and recorded. This report provides the decisions relating to the delivery of the following transport projects:

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) projects

15. Picasso Drive Crossing Project – a ‘Collaborate’ level of engagement project seeking local board approval for the recommended option (road marking upgrades) and authorisation to allocate cost savings to other priority projects.

16. LBTCF Project Updates and Cost Savings Allocation – a ‘Collaborate’ level of engagement seeking local board confirmation of the allocation of cost savings from the Picasso Drive Crossing Project and approval to allocate these savings to other LBTCF projects, namely:

o $8,000 to Herald Island Kingsway Road (Causeway) Lighting,

o $15,000 to Clark Road zebra crossing upgrade, and

o $294,929 to Clark Road frontage upgrade (contingency project).

17. This allocation is part of the local board’s LBTCF programme for the current electoral term, with funding required to be spent by 30 June 2026.

Auckland Transport Forward Works Programme projects:

18. Launch Road Proposed Parking Changes – a ‘Consult’ level of engagement project seeking local board feedback and position on the revised proposal to improve parking availability and turnover for visitors and businesses in Hobsonville, following extensive public engagement and feedback analysis.

19. Constellation Drive Shared Path Project – a ‘Consult’ level of engagement project seeking local board support to progress the scheme design, stakeholder engagement, and finalising detailed design for a new 360-metre shared path connecting to the SH1 shared path and Constellation Bus Station.

20. Medallion Drive Speed Table Removal – a ‘Consult’ level of engagement project seeking local board support for the recommended removal of the raised zebra crossing near Oteha Valley School, reconstruction of the refuge island, and installation of new signage to maintain pedestrian safety.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Picasso Drive Crossing Project

21. The Picasso Drive Crossing Project is a Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) initiative with a current allocation of $375,000 and is included in the Upper Harbour Kōkiri Agreement 2025/2026. It is a “collaborate” level of engagement project that seeks to improve pedestrian safety near the rear gate of Marina View School. Auckland Transport presented three options for the crossing.

Option 1: Zebra Crossing

22. This option involves installing a new zebra crossing near the school gate, which would provide pedestrians with formal priority when crossing. The design includes lane width reductions at the crossing to further reduce vehicle speeds. However, this option would result in the loss of eight parking spaces adjacent to the school.

Image One: Option 1 Zebra Crossing

Option 2: Road Marking Upgrades (Recommended Option)

23. This option proposes upgrading road markings without removing any parking. Additional yellow line markings would be installed to improve parking behaviour, along with “SLOW” ground markings and enhanced signage to increase awareness of the school zone. This option does not create a formalised crossing but addresses safety concerns through visual cues and enhanced driver awareness. The school community expressed strong support for this option, citing concerns about parking loss and the effectiveness of supervision at a formal crossing.

Image Two: Option 2 Road marking upgrade (preferred Option)

Option 3: Zebra Crossing plus Road Marking/Signage

24. This option combines the features of Option 1 and Option 2, installing a zebra crossing with lane width reductions, additional yellow line markings, “SLOW” ground markings, and signage. Like Option 1, this option would result in the loss of eight parking spaces.

A map of a neighborhood

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Image Three: Option3 Zebra Crossing plus road marking/Signage

25. The school community provided feedback on all three options. They did not support Options 1 or 3 due to concerns about the loss of parking and the difficulty of supervising a formal crossing. There was also concern that an unsupervised zebra crossing could create a false sense of security for students. The school supported Option 2, which focuses on ground markings and signage, and indicated openness to reviewing the location again in the future if needed.

26. If the local board supports Option 2 (road marking upgrades), there will be a cost saving of $295,000 from the Picasso Drive Crossing Project. This cost saving can be reallocated to other priority LBTCF projects.

27. The local board is asked to support Option 2 (road marking upgrades) for the Picasso Drive Crossing Project and authorise Auckland Transport to progress the project to construction, subject to general positive sentiment from public engagement.

Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects update 2023-2026

28. As part of the Picasso Drive Crossing Project presentation, Auckland Transport provided an update on the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) programme for 2023 - 2026. This report provides an update on the delivery status of current LBTCF projects and seeks confirmation of the allocation of cost savings from the Picasso Drive Crossing Project to other priority projects.

29. The cost saving of $295,000 from the Picasso Drive Crossing Project enables the board to progress additional projects within the current electoral term. The recommended allocations are as follows:

· $8,000 to Herald Island Kingsway Road (Causeway) Lighting. This allocation will enable completion of construction and address post-construction issues, including additional works required due to theft and site damage, as well as mitigation of lighting spill concerns raised by nearby residents.

· $15,000 to Clark Road zebra crossing upgrade. This funding supports the detailed design and construction of the crossing, which aims to improve pedestrian safety in Hobsonville. Public engagement on the project has been completed, and the design includes repurposing an existing parking bay for motorcycles and installing new signage to support enforcement of parking rules.

· $294,929.00 to Clark Road frontage upgrade (contingency project). This allocation will enable the completion of missing links in the Scott Point development, including upgrades to footpaths, parking bays, and stormwater infrastructure along the Clark Road frontage. The project is expected to be delivered by the end of June 2026 and will complement the Clark Road zebra crossing upgrade.

30. In addition to the $295,000 cost saving from the Picasso Drive Crossing Project, a further $22,929 in savings has been identified, bringing the total available cost saving to $317,929. It is recommended that $8,000. be allocated to the Herald Island Kingsway Road (Causeway) Lighting project to enable completion and address post-construction issues, and $15,000.00 to the Clark Road zebra crossing upgrade to support detailed design and construction. These allocations reflect the board’s commitment to progressing priority projects that enhance safety and connectivity. The remaining $294,929 is proposed to be allocated to the Clark Road frontage upgrade as a contingency project, with delivery expected by the end of June 2026.

A table with a blue and white text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

31. These allocations are part of the board’s LBTCF programme for the current electoral term, with funding required to be spent by 30 June 2026. The local board is asked to confirm the allocation of cost savings as recommended.

Launch Road Proposed Parking Changes

32. The Launch Road Proposed Parking Changes project is a “consult” level of engagement project included in the Upper Harbour Kōkiri Agreement 2025/2026. The project seeks local board feedback and direction on a revised proposal to improve parking availability and turnover for visitors and businesses in Hobsonville.

33. Auckland Transport undertook comprehensive public engagement in June 2025 and July 2025 to gather feedback on the proposed changes. Engagement activities included online and paper-based feedback forms, a community pop-up event at the Hobsonville Ferry Wharf, stakeholder meetings, and direct communications with local businesses and residents. In total, 988 survey responses and 109 direct emails were received, representing about 7 per cent of the Hobsonville population.

34. The consultation revealed strong opposition to paid parking in the area, with 68.4 per cent of respondents preferring no paid parking at all. Key concerns included the need for ferry access, residential parking availability, financial stress, business access, and the potential for parking issues to shift to other streets. There were also requests for more mobility spaces, parking permits for residents, and free parking on weekends. Feedback on the days and times for paid parking was mixed. Many respondents preferred paid parking only on weekdays or not at all, while others suggested extended hours or weekend-only charges. Suggestions were also made for alternative pricing, time restrictions, and improvements to public transport links, particularly for Scott Point.

35. The outcomes of the consultation are summarised in the table below:

Theme/Concern	%/Count of Responses	Summary of Feedback
No paid parking	68.4%	Strong opposition to paid parking in any area
Ferry access	High frequency	Need to retain access for ferry users
Residential parking	High frequency	Concerns for residents without off-street parking
Financial stress	High frequency	Cost burden for regular users and residents
Business access	High frequency	Impact on visitors and workers at local businesses
Mobility spaces	Frequent requests	More mobility spaces needed
Parking permits	Frequent requests	Permits for residents suggested
Free parking on weekends	Frequent requests	Weekends should remain free
Days/times for paid parking	Mixed	Weekday-only preferred by many; some suggest weekends only or extended hours
Alternative pricing/time limits	Frequent suggestions	Time-restricted parking or different pricing models
Public transport improvements	Frequent suggestions	Need for better bus service, especially for Scott Point

36. In response to this feedback, Auckland Transport revised the proposal as follows:

· Paid parking has been removed from Hudson Bay Road and the top section of Launch Road

· Paid parking is now limited to Monday–Friday, 8am–6pm, with weekends free

· Parking bays will be marked along Launch Road, and a dedicated space will be created for the concession holder

· Four new mobility spaces will be added (two P180 and two P240)

· Unrestricted parking will be permitted near Marlborough Apartments to address concerns from residents without off-street parking.

37. The revised proposal aims to balance parking availability for visitors and businesses with community concerns and feedback. The local board is asked to consider all consultation outcomes and provide feedback and their position on the revised approach.

Constellation Drive Shared Path Project

38. The Constellation Drive Shared Path Project is a “consult” level of engagement project included in the Upper Harbour Kōkiri Agreement 2025/2026. The project seeks to address gaps in pedestrian and cycling infrastructure by delivering a new 360-metre shared path along Constellation Drive, enhancing connections to the SH1 shared path and Constellation Bus Station.

39. The scheme design includes the following key concepts and features:

· Construction of a shared path on both the northern and southern sides of Constellation Drive, extending from the Constellation Drive/SH1 interchange to Home Place

· Conversion of the existing slip lane into a signal-controlled traffic lane and shared path on the Home Place approach

· Installation of new slip lane priority crossings to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety

· Enlargement of existing slip lane islands and widening of signalised crosswalks to enhance accessibility.

· Integration with the Constellation Bus Station and the SH1 shared path, supporting mode shift and enhancing connectivity to key transport hubs.

Image Four: Project Overview

40. The project has progressed through feasibility assessment, optioneering, scheme design, and internal review. The next steps include external consultation and stakeholder engagement by September 2025, finalising detailed design by October 2025, and completing resource consent processes. Construction is scheduled to commence once all approvals are in place.

41. The local board is asked to support the scheme design and endorse continued engagement to ensure the project meets local needs and integrates with existing infrastructure.

Medallion Drive Speed Table Removal

42. The Medallion Drive Speed Table Removal project is a “consult” level of engagement project included in the Upper Harbour Kōkiri Agreement 2025/2026. The project seeks local board support for the recommended removal of the raised zebra crossing near Oteha Valley School.

43. The raised zebra crossing was installed in 2023 as part of the School Speed Programme, located near the secondary gate for Oteha Valley School. The crossing was designed to support speed limit reductions and has been effective in lowering vehicle speeds. However, residents have raised complaints about noise and vibration exceeding recommended limits. Vibration testing confirmed that the amenity impact on nearby residents is worse than NZTA’s recommended limit, with heavy vehicles causing disturbance even at slow speeds.

44. Auckland Transport recommends removing the existing speed table and reconstructing the refuge island at the location. The proposed solution includes:

· Removal of the raised zebra crossing (speed table)

· Reconstruction of the refuge island to maintain pedestrian safety

· Installation of new signage on the approach to the refuge island

· Retention of a pedestrian facility that caters to all road users.

45. The benefits of this solution include eliminating vibration issues for residents while retaining a pedestrian facility. However, vehicle speeds may increase, and some local residents and the school may oppose the removal.

Image Five: Proposed Solution

46. The next steps are for the local board to support the removal, support public engagement on the proposal, and endorse progression to detailed design and construction. Construction is anticipated to commence in mid-2026 following completion of engagement and design.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

48. AT reviews the potential climate impacts of all projects and works hard to minimise carbon emissions. AT’s work programme is guided 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

49. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects were initiated by Upper Harbour Local Board and do not impact on Council facilities.

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

Local impacts and local board views

50. The Upper Harbour Local Board reviewed and provided feedback on several transport projects across workshops held on 4 September 2025 and 11 September 2025. These sessions allowed members to consider design options, raise concerns, and guide next steps.

51. The three projects below, are part of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF), were also workshopped:

· Picasso Drive Crossing Project was discussed at the workshop on 4 September 2025. Members considered three options for improving pedestrian safety near Marina View School and indicated a preference for Option 2 (road marking upgrades), which was supported by the school community and provided significant cost savings for reallocation to other priority projects.

· As part of the Picasso Drive presentation on 4 September 2025, an update on the LBTCF programme was provided. Members reviewed the delivery status of current projects and supported the recommended allocation of cost savings to:

· Herald Island Kingsway Road Lighting

· Clark Road zebra crossing upgrade, and Clark Road frontage upgrade (contingency project).

52. Auckland Transport Forward Works Programme projects

· Launch Road Proposed Parking Changes were workshopped on 4 September 2025. Members reviewed the outcomes of public consultation, including strong opposition to paid parking, concerns about ferry and residential access, and requests for more mobility spaces. The board is asked to give feedback and their position on the revised proposal, which limits paid parking to weekdays, adds mobility spaces, and retains free parking on weekends

· Constellation Drive Shared Path Project was presented at the workshop on 4 September 2025. Members considered the scheme design, including shared paths on both sides of Constellation Drive, slip lane conversions, and improved crossings. The board supported the design and endorsed continued stakeholder engagement and integration with existing infrastructure

· Medallion Drive Speed Table Removal was discussed at the workshop on 11 September 2025. Members reviewed the technical findings regarding vibration impacts and supported the recommended removal of the speed table, reconstruction of the refuge island, and installation of new signage to maintain pedestrian safety

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

53. 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.

54. 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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

56. The following projects are funded through the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) for the current electoral term. The funds for this term must be spent by 30 June 2026.

57. The Upper Harbour Local Board has committed funding to progress the following LBTCF projects:

· Picasso Drive Crossing Project – allocated budget: $375,000 (with potential $295,000 cost savings should recommended option be supported to be reallocated to other LBTCF projects)

· Herald Island Kingsway Road Lighting – allocated budget: $8,000 (from cost savings)

· Clark Road zebra crossing upgrade – allocated budget: $15,000 (from cost savings)

· Clark Road frontage upgrade (contingency project) – allocated budget: $294,929 (from cost savings).

58. The following projects are part of Auckland Transport’s Forward Works Programme and are fully funded by Auckland Transport:

· Launch Road Proposed Parking Changes – support for the revised proposal to improve parking availability and turnover for visitors and businesses in Hobsonville.

· Constellation Drive Shared Path Project – support for progression of the scheme design, stakeholder engagement, and finalising detailed design.

· Medallion Drive Speed Table Removal – support for the recommended removal of the speed table, reconstruction of the refuge island, and installation of new signage to maintain pedestrian safety.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

59. The proposed decisions carry some risk. Any construction project can be affected by factors such as weather, contractor availability, or the discovery of previously unidentified infrastructure.

60. AT manages risk by retaining a 10% contingency on the projects and historically there are several occasions in the organisation has used budget surpluses in other programmes to support delivery of the LBTCF. However, there remains a small risk that additional funding may be required from the LBTCF.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

61. Should the local board support the recommendations in this report the following Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) projects will proceed within the current electoral term, with funding required to be spent by 30 June 2026:

· Picasso Drive Crossing Project will proceed to construction, following confirmation of the preferred option and completion of public engagement

· Herald Island Kingsway Road Lighting, Clark Road zebra crossing upgrade, and Clark Road frontage upgrade (contingency project) will proceed to delivery, utilising the cost savings reallocated from the Picasso Drive Crossing Project.

62. Should the local board support the recommendations in this report the following Auckland Transport Forward Works Programme projects will proceed to the next stages of delivery in line with Auckland Transport’s work programme:

· Launch Road Proposed Parking Changes will proceed to implementation of the revised proposal, subject to local board feedback and position

· Constellation Drive Shared Path Project will progress to finalising detailed design, stakeholder engagement, and resource consent, with construction to follow

· Medallion Drive Speed Table Removal will advance to detailed design, public engagement, and construction.

63. Auckland Transport will continue to update the Upper Harbour Local Board on progress and provide further opportunities for input as required.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Kōkiri Agreement 2025 - 2026.	57
b ⇩	Picasso Drive Crossing Project and Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme update.	69
c ⇩	Launch Road Proposed Parking Changes workshop material.	99
d ⇩	Constellation Drive Shared Path Project workshop material.	119
e ⇩	Medallion Drive Speed Table Removal workshop material.	127

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Owena Schuster, Elected Member Relationship Partner
Authoriser	John Gillespie, head of Stakeholder and Community Engagement

Upper Harbour Local Board

25 September 2025

Kōkiri Auckland Transport Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Plan - 2025 - 2026 quarterly update

File No.: CP2025/20574

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update on projects in the Kōkiri Auckland Transport and Upper Harbour Agreed Local Board Transport Plan 2025 – 2026. (Kōkiri Agreement).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Kōkiri Agreement 2025 - 2026 is the local board’s engagement plan with Auckland Transport’s work programme.

3. Developing the agreement is an annual process. During this process Auckland Transport provides advice on its work programme, seeks feedback from the local board, responds to this feedback, and establishes an endorsed plan for engaging on work in the local board area.

4. The local board endorsed the Kōkiri Agreement 2025-2026 at their 24 July 2025 business meeting.

5. This report provides an update on projects in the Kōkiri Agreement for September 2025 as outlined in Attachment A.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the September 2025 quarterly update on the Kōkiri / Local Board Transport Agreement 2025-2026.

Horopaki

Context

6. In mid-2023, development of the Kōkiri Agreement was initiated to build a more structured and supportive relationship between local boards and Auckland Transport (AT). The Kōkiri Agreement is formed through an annual process that includes the following steps:

October/November	AT provides quality advice to local boards on the next financial year’s work programme.
March	Local boards provide their feedback, prioritise projects or programmes, and request levels of engagement for each project.
April/May	AT responds to that feedback, and a Kōkiri Agreement is written for each local board.
June/July	AT seeks formal endorsement of the Kōkiri Agreement from local boards.

7. AT reports quarterly on the prioritised projects and programmes listed in the local board’s Kōkiri Agreement.

8. This process provides a clear annual structure for engaging with AT. Local boards are able to influence Auckland Transport’s work programme through the annual Kōkiri Agreement process.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. Kōkiri Agreements prioritise the projects or programmes that are of most interest to the local board. Clear local board prioritisation provides Auckland Transport with expectations of transport-related objectives, in addition to the objectives provided in the local board plan. This information helps AT to either inform its planning or to offer better explanations for why certain projects or programmes cannot be delivered.

10. However, plans evolve and change, so AT reports quarterly on progress of projects in the Kōkiri Agreement. This means that local boards are kept informed and have a regular opportunity to provide formal feedback to AT about their work programme.

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

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

12. Attachment A to this report provides updates about all projects and programmes currently listed in this local board’s Kōkiri Agreement 2025 - 2026. Attachment B to this report is a quarterly update on road maintenance activities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

13. This report does not have a direct impact on climate, however the projects it refers to will.

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

16. The Kōkiri Agreement is a product of the Local Board Relationship Project. AT started the project in response to a 2022 ‘Letter of Expectation’ directive from the mayor that stated in part that:

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

17. The Kōkiri Agreement gives effect to this intent. AT receives local board feedback via regular engagement. AT also surveys local board members quarterly about engagement, providing an indication of satisfaction.

18. The Kōkiri Agreement was developed working closely with Auckland Council’s Governance and Engagement Department.

19. The Kōkiri Agreement is reported to the Local Board Chair’s Forum on a regular basis.

20. This work relies on historical commitments with both Auckland Council and with other major council-controlled organisations (CCO) through the previous joint CCO engagement plans.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. The local board endorsed the Kōkiri Agreement 2025-2026 at their 24 July 2025 business meeting. This report provides a quarterly update on projects in the agreement.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. 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.

23. 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

24. The Kōkiri Agreement is focused on AT’s interaction with local boards, as such Māori input was not sought at a programme level. However, when individual projects or operational activities have impact on water or land, Auckland Transport engages with iwi to seek their views. These views are shared in reports seeking decisions from the local board.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

25. Generally, this report has limited financial implications for the local board because Auckland Transport funds all projects and programmes. However, local boards do have a transport budget, called the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

26. Updates about Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects are included in this report, but financial implications are reported separately, in project specific decision reports.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27. If a local board provides any formal direction on changes to the Kōkiri Agreement, there are risks consider. First, the local board needs to be able to commit to the time required for the level of engagement requested. If decisions are not able to be made or are slowed down by local board decision-making, there can be significant financial costs.

28. Auckland Transport suggests that this risk is mitigated by the local board providing sufficient workshop time to allow for timely discussion of activities listed in the Kōkiri Agreement.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29. After local boards receive this report, AT will respond to any additional resolutions.

30. The next quarterly report is planned for December 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board’s Kōkiri Agreement 2025 - 2026 quarterly update.	141
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Kōkiri Agreement Quarterly Maintenance and Renewals.	151
c ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Kōkiri Agreement Quarterly Storm Recovery. Programme	153

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Partner
Authoriser	John Gillespie – Head of Stakeholder and Community Engagement

Upper Harbour Local Board

25 September 2025

Watercare - Metropolitan Servicing Strategy

File No.: CP2025/16126

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek formal feedback from the Upper Harbour Local Board on Watercare’s Metropolitan Servicing Strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Watercare is developing a Metropolitan Servicing Strategy for water and wastewater to help guide long-term infrastructure investments. This is a step towards providing safe, resilient, and affordable water and wastewater services for Watercare’s metropolitan servicing area for the next 70+ years.

3. The Metropolitan Servicing Strategy engagement booklet was developed to help public understand the strategy and the water and wastewater challenges faced.

4. Public engagement took place from 25 March 2025 to 1 June 2025. The process aimed to inform Aucklanders about the Metropolitan Servicing Strategy and invite them to help shape its direction.

5. This report provides early insights into what Watercare heard from the public, specifically, the values, aspirations, and considerations Aucklanders want reflected in the decision-making framework. A full engagement report will be published in November 2025.

6. Watercare will consider feedback resolved by the local board in the development of the Metropolitan Servicing Strategy.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback on Watercare’s Metropolitan Servicing Strategy.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Auckland Water Strategy outlines the strategic direction for managing Auckland’s waters to 2050. Sitting below the Auckland Water Strategy, Watercare has servicing strategies that set out high-level direction and show possible options and future scenarios for Auckland’s drinking water and wastewater management. The graphic below outlines the relationship between Auckland Council plans and strategies and Watercare’s plans and strategies:

A diagram of a service strategy

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

8. This report is about the metropolitan water and wastewater servicing strategy, which covers the geographic area outlined in the map below:

A map of water with blue and yellow dots and white text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

9. The strategy will outline important future challenges including:

· Future drinking water sources for our city.

· Improvements to the wastewater system to better manage growth, and how and where treated wastewater is discharged.

· A biosolids strategy to find a new solution for the management of biosolids after the Puketutu Island Rehabilitation Project is completed.

Engagement Approach

10. Watercare has delivered the first phase of engagement to shape Watercare’s Metropolitan Servicing Strategy (the strategy), to bring communities and stakeholders into the conversation about how Auckland’s water and wastewater services will need to evolve to meet future challenges. The engagements have the following key goals:

· Raise awareness and understanding

· Understand community and stakeholder perspectives

· Build relationships and trust

· Go beyond legal obligations.

11. The below outlines the timeline for the Metropolitan Servicing Strategy:

A diagram of a process

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

12. Within the above timeline there are two distinct phases of community engagement:

· Phase 1: 25 March – 1 June 2025: Shaping the strategy

o To present our future water challenges to the community and seek feedback on what matters most to them, including their values and aspirations for the future of water and wastewater services in Tāmaki Makaurau. This consultation will help us understand what communities know and care about. It will shape the strategy by building water literacy through our engagements and identifying emerging themes. Following this phase, we will provide an engagement report in August 2025, summarising the feedback and detailing how it will be used to influence the strategy

· Phase 2: February 2026 – April 2026: Sharing the strategy

o During this phase, we will share the draft metropolitan servicing strategy with our communities to seek feedback and for the communities to see how their feedback from Phase 1 has been reflected in the strategy, ensuring transparency and building trust in the consultation process.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. The first phase of public engagement has been delivered from 25 March 2025 – 1 June 2025. The purpose of this engagement was to raise awareness, build water literacy, and invite Aucklanders to share their values and aspirations. Key engagement activities included:

· 6 community drop-in sessions

· 3 pop-up booths

· 2 Global Café-style workshops (Manukau and Glenfield)

· Youth workshop and hackathon

· Buzzly youth challenge

· 2 public webinars

· Attendance at the Manukau Symposium and Auckland Council Advisory Panels.

14. This feedback is helping us shape a servicing strategy that reflects the needs and aspirations of our people, now and for the future. What follows is a snapshot of who we heard from and how:

· 3,870 total public interactions across all events

· 460 responses to our bespoke survey

· 3,469 token drops submitted

· 226 comments and feedback notes collected during events

· 91 submissions received via the Buzzly Youth Platform

· 100+ students engaged, marking a notable increase in youth participation

· Ongoing monitoring of key questions through our monthly tracker (representative sample, n=400 per month).

15. The key themes we heard from these engagement activities are:

· Preparedness for extreme weather is a top priority; people are supportive of early investment to ensure long-term security.

· Resource recovery is important, Aucklanders want to do more with what we have (e.g. recycling water, biosolids).

· People are happy to invest in the future, provided there is trust, transparency, and accountability.

· Conversations about money reflect a desire for value and confidence in where funds go, not just affordability.

· People learn quickly and are open to partnership when the information is clear and accessible.

16. Watercare received eight responses for the Metropolitan Servicing Strategy from the Upper Harbour Local Board area, Watercare also has reasonable insights from Watercare’s ‘monthly tracker’ survey (a regular survey of a representative group of Aucklanders from different backgrounds, regions, ages and living situations). Insights specific to respondents from Upper Harbour include:

· Residents in Upper Harbour primarily want Watercare to keep costs low, help prepare Auckland for yo-yo weather and build long-lasting infrastructure over other priorities (reducing emissions, improving technology and innovation, investing in recycling/circular economy initiatives)

· Fortification and relocating low lying infrastructure, on-site water solutions and improving the network are the priorities for upper harbour residents when it comes to climate change. These were ahead of improving water knowledge in the community and reducing emissions.

17. Glenfield Workshop (2.5 hours)

· A diverse group in terms of age (18–80+), ethnicity, home ownership and gender.

· Strong support for incremental change and ensuring future water security

· Emphasis on getting the basics right and then pursuing innovation for the benefit of customers and the environment

18. Opportunities and Challenges

· Climate impacts are not widely understood; more education is needed to build buy-in for solutions like water reuse.

· Wastewater and biosolids are "out of sight, out of mind", public awareness is low.

· Where benefits were unclear (e.g. emissions reduction), engagement was weaker – we need to make the ‘why’ more visible.

· There’s a strong desire for reassurance that Auckland’s system is future ready.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

19. The global impacts of the changing climate will bring significant direct and indirect changes and challenges, which have been outlined in the strategy.

20. These include extreme weather events, prolonged dry periods, rising seas and increased coastal flooding.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. The Auckland Council Infrastructure Strategy team have been involved in the strategy.

22. As a regional strategy, the final draft will be brought to the Policy and Planning Committee for endorsement.

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

Local impacts and local board views

23. All local boards have been given the opportunity to have a workshop on the strategy, with information specific to the feedback from their constituents. Following that workshop, they have the opportunity to formally resolve their feedback for inclusion in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24. Watercare have a process for engagement with Mana Whenua that is independent of the community engagement process. Feedback from that process will also be used to develop the strategy.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

25. There are no direct financial implications for the local board as a result of this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26. There are no risks and mitigations identified as a result of this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27. Feedback from the local board will be considered in the development of the strategy document.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Chris Allen - Manager Strategic Planning – Watercare

Moana Williams - Stakeholder Engagement Manager - Watercare

Authoriser

Ben Halliwell – Elected Member Relationship Manager - Watercare

Upper Harbour Local Board

25 September 2025

2025 Local Government Elections - Meetings and Decision-making until new local board members make their declarations

File No.: CP2025/20219

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide for appropriate arrangements for decision-making between the final local board meeting of the current electoral term and the inaugural meeting of the new Upper Harbour Local Board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The final meeting of the Upper Harbour Local Board in this current term is scheduled for 25 September 2025. Between the final meeting and the first meeting of the local board in the new term, decisions may be needed from the local board. At the end of every term, temporary arrangements for making these decisions need to be confirmed.

3. The term of office of current local board members ends following the official declaration of the election results. The declaration will be publicly notified between 13 – 17 October 2025, with the term of office of current members ending and the term of office of new members commencing the day following notification.

4. For the period from the commencement of the term of office of newly elected members until the inaugural meeting when members are sworn in (interregnum), decisions may be made by the Auckland Council Chief Executive under current delegations.

5. The existing local board’s delegation to the Chief Executive requires, amongst other things, that staff consult with the allocated local board portfolio holder/lead on certain decisions. As a temporary measure, this report seeks to allow staff to make decisions without complying with the requirement for consultation during the interregnum.

6. This report also confirms that the urgent decision delegations and process that is already in place caters for making decisions at the local board level in the period between the final local board meeting and the official end of term.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm that the local board’s existing urgent decisions delegations process will be utilised where decisions are required from the local board between the final local board business meeting (25 September 2025) and the end of term (18 October 2025).

b) tuhi tīpoka / note that from the commencement of the term of office of newly elected members until the inaugural meeting when members are sworn in (interregnum), all decision-making will be undertaken by the Chief Executive under current delegations.

c) tuhi tīpoka / note that the Chief Executive will not be required to comply with consultation requirements in the local boards’ delegation protocols when making decisions during the interregnum.

d) tono / request that the Chief Executive exercise restraint when making decisions during the interregnum and to consider referring significant decisions to the first meeting of the incoming local board.

Horopaki

Context

7. Current elected members remain in office until the newly elected members’ term of office commences, which is the day after the declaration of election results (Sections 115 and 116, Local Electoral Act 2001). The declaration will be publicly notified on 17 October 2025, with the term of office of current members ending and the term of office of new members commencing on 18 October 2025.

8. The newly elected members cannot act as members of the local board until they have made their statutory declaration at their inaugural local board meeting (Clause 14, Schedule 7, Local Government Act 2002).

9. Between the final meeting and the first meeting of the local board in the new term, decisions may be needed on urgent matters or routine business as usual that cannot wait until the incoming local board’s first business meeting in the new electoral term.

10. As with each of the previous electoral terms, temporary arrangements need to be made and/or confirmed for:

· making urgent decisions before the end of term

· making decisions that require consultation with local board/local board members during the interregnum.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Urgent decisions – arrangement for remainder of the term

11. Between the last business meeting and the declaration of results expected on Friday 17 October 2025, current local board members are still in office and can use their existing urgent decisions delegations to make decisions that are required from the local board during this time.

12. The urgent decisions process includes a delegation to the chairperson and deputy chairperson that enables them to make decisions on behalf of the local board where it is not practical to call the full board together.

13. All requests for an urgent decision will need to be supported by adequate staff advice and clear recommendations.

Decision-making during the interregnum

14. All local boards have made a general delegation to the Chief Executive. During the interregnum, any decisions that will be required from the local board, and which cannot wait until a local board meeting, will be undertaken by the Chief Executive under his existing delegations.

15. The delegation to the Chief Executive is subject to a requirement to comply with the delegation protocols, which require consulting with the local board on some decisions that are made by staff under delegated authority. Consultation is often done through a local board lead (referred to as a portfolio holder in the delegation protocols). The most common area requiring consultation is landowner consents relating to local parks. Parks staff receive a large number of landowner consent requests each month that relate to local parks across Auckland.

16. During the current term, while the elected members remain in office, staff will continue to consult with leads/portfolio holders as required by the delegation protocols (or chairperson where there is no portfolio holder). However, during the interregnum, staff will be unable to comply with this requirement due to the absence of appointed portfolio holders/lead/chairpersons to consult with.

17. As a temporary measure, it is recommended that staff continue to process business as usual decisions that cannot wait until the local board’s first business meeting without consultation. Following the election of chairpersons at the inaugural meetings, staff will consult with the chairperson when and if required and can resume consultation with appointed representatives once new arrangements for leads/portfolio holders are in place.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. This report relates to procedural matters and has no quantifiable climate impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. The arrangements proposed in this report enable the council to proceed with necessary business during the election period. During the interregnum, staff will exercise restraint and ensure that any significant decisions are deferred to the incoming local board.

20. These arrangements apply only to local boards. The reduced political decision-making will be communicated to the wider council group.

21. The governing body has made its own arrangements to cover the election period, including delegating the power to make urgent decisions between the last governing body meeting of the term and the day the current term ends, to any two of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and a chairperson of a committee of the whole. From the commencement of the term of office of the new local board members until the governing body’s inaugural meeting, the Chief Executive will carry out decision-making under his current delegations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. This is a report to all local boards that proposes arrangements to enable the council to process routine local matters during the election period. This will enable the council to meet timeframes and provide good customer service.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have specific implications for Māori, and the arrangements proposed in this report do not affect the Māori community differently to the rest of the community.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. This report and decision being sought relates to a procedural matter and does not have any financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. There is a risk that unforeseen decisions will arise during this period, such as a decision that is politically significant or a decision that exceeds the Chief Executive’s financial delegations.

26. This risk has been mitigated by scheduling meetings as late as possible in the current term and communicating to reporting staff that significant decisions should not be made during October 2025.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27. The decision of the local board will be communicated to senior staff so that they are aware of the arrangements for the month of October 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Rhiannon Foulstone-Guinness – Elections Programme Senior Advisor

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Oliver Roberts – Head of Governance Programmes and Policies

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board submission on Online Casino Gambling Bill	167

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Urgent Decision Upper Harbour Local Board feedback on Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill.	171
b ⇩	MEMO - Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill.	173

[1] ‘Windsor Park Community and Multisport Hub Incorporated – Plans for Windsor Park’, Resolution no. UH/2024/6.

Chairperson	Anna Atkinson
Deputy Chairperson	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
Members	Callum Blair	Kyle Parker
	John Mclean	Sylvia Yang

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board - record of workshop 14 August 2025.	183
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board - record of workshop 28 August 2025.	187
c ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board - record of workshop 4 September 2025.	189
d ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board - record of workshop 11 September 2025.	193

Author	Heather Skinner - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Author	Nish Chakravarthy – Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

Author	Max Wilde - Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)
Authoriser	Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager