community boards – functions and delegations

This document records the delegation of Council functions, responsibilities, duties, and powers to Community Boards.

The Community Boards have been established under section 49 of the Local Government Act 2002 to represent, and act as an advocate for, the interests of their community.

The delegations are expressed in general terms. The delegations shall be exercised with proper regard for the Council’s strategic direction, policies, plans, Standing Orders and its interpretation of its statutory obligations. The delegations are to be read together with the following propositions.

These delegations are based on the following principles:

· Issues relevant to a specific community should be decided as closely as possible to that community. Where an issue has city-wide implications, ie any effects of the decision cross a ward or community boundary or have consequences for the city as a whole, the matter will be decided by Council after seeking a recommendation from the relevant Community Board or (any ambiguity around the interpretation of “city-wide” will be determined by the Mayor and Chief Executive in consultation with the relevant Chair);

· Efficient decision-making should be paramount;

· Conflicts of interest should be avoided and risks minimised;

· To ensure processes are free from bias and pre-determination Community Boards should not adjudicate on issues on which they have advocated or wish to advocate to Council;

· Community Boards should proactively and constructively engage with residents on local matters that affect the community they represent and raise with Council issues raised with them by their community and advocate on behalf of their community.

These delegations:

(a) do not delegate any function, duty or power which a statute (for example section 53(3) and clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002) prohibits from being delegated;

(b) are subject to and do not affect any delegation which the Council has already made or subsequently makes to any other committee, Council officer or other member of staff;

(d) are subject to any notice issued by the Council, from time to time, to a Community Board that a particular issue must be referred to Council for decision;

(e) reflect that decisions with significant financial implications should be made by Council (or a committee with delegated authority);

(f) promote centralisation of those functions where the appropriate expertise must be ensured; and

(g) reflect that all statutory and legal requirements must be met.

DELEGATIONS

Decide:

· Naming new roads and alterations to street names (in the Community Board’s area).

· Official naming of parks, reserves and sports grounds within the provisions of Council’s Naming Policy. Note [1]

· Removal and/or planting of street trees within the provisions of Council’s Operational Guide for Urban Forest Plan where a dispute arises that cannot be resolved at officer level. Note [2]

· The granting of leases and licences in terms of Council policy to voluntary organisations for Council owned properties in their local area, for example, halls, but not including the granting of leases and licences to community houses and centres.

· The granting of rights-of-way and other easements over local purpose reserves and granting of leases or licences on local purpose reserves.

· The granting of leases and licences for new activities in terms of Council policy to community and commercial organisations over recreation reserves subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977 and land managed as reserve subject to the provisions of the Local Government 2002, in their local area. (Note: renewal of existing leases and licences will be reported once a year to Council’s City Development Committee).

· The allocation of funding from the Community Engagement Fund in accordance with Council’s adopted guidelines.

· Expenditure of funds allocated by the Council to the Board from the Miscellaneous Budget to cover expenditure associated with the activities of the Board. The Chair to approve expenditure, in consultation with the Board, and forward appropriate documentation to the Committee Advisor for authorisation. Boards must not exceed their annual expenditure from the Miscellaneous Budget.

· The allocation of funding for the training and development of Community Board or members, including formal training courses, attendance at seminars or attendance at relevant conferences.

Consider and make recommendations to Council on:

· Particular issues notified from time to time by Council to the Community Board.

· Roading issues considered by the Mayor and Chief Executive to be strategic due to their significance on a city-wide basis, including links to the State Highway, or where their effects cross ward or community boundaries.

· Parks, reserves and sports ground naming for sites that have a high profile, city-wide importance due to their size and location and/or cross ward or community boundaries.

· Representatives to any Council committee, subcommittee, subordinate decision-making body, working group, or ad hoc group on which a Community Board representative is required by Council.

· The setting, amending or revoking of speed limits in accordance with the Hutt City Council Bylaw 2005 Speed Limits, including the hearing of any submissions.

GENERAL FUNCTIONS

Provide their local community’s input on:

· Council’s Long Term Plan and/or Annual Plan.

· Council’s policies, programmes (including the District Roading Programme) and bylaws.

· Changes or variations to the District Plan.

· Resource management issues which it believes are relevant to its local community, through advocacy.

· The disposal or acquisition of significant assets.

· Road safety including road safety education within its area.

· Any other issues a Board believes is relevant to its local area.

· Review Local Community Plans as required.

Reports may be prepared by the Board and presented to Council Committees, along with an officer’s recommendation, for consideration.

Any submissions lodged by a Board or Committee require formal endorsement by way of resolution.

Co-ordinate with Council staff:

· Local community consultation on city-wide issues on which the Council has called for consultation.

Maintain:

· An overview of roadworks, water supply, sewerage, stormwater drainage, waste management and traffic management for its local area.

· An overview of parks, recreational facilities and community activities within its local area.

Develop:

· Community Response Plans in close consultation with the Wellington Region Emergency Management Office, emergency organisations, the community, residents’ associations, other community groups, and local businesses. The Community Response Plans will be reviewed on an annual basis.

Grant:

· Local community awards.

Promote:

· Recreational facilities and opportunities in its area with a view to ensure maximum usage.

· Arts and crafts in its area.

Appoint:

· A liaison member or, where appropriate, representatives to ad hoc bodies, which are involved in community activities within the Board’s area, on which a community representative is sought.

Endorse:

1. Amendments to the Eastbourne Community Trust Deed (Eastbourne Community Board only).

9 5 April 2018

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Wainuiomata Community Board

Minutes of a meeting held in the Wainuiomata Community Library,

Queen Street, Wainuiomata on

Thursday 5 April 2018 commencing at 7.00pm

PRESENT: Cr C Barry Cr J Briggs

Mr R Sinnott (Chair) Mr T Stallworth

Ms S Tuala-Le’afa Mr G Tupou

Ms M Willard

APOLOGIES: Mrs J Winterburn

IN ATTENDANCE: Mayor WR Wallace (part meeting)

Mr L Allott, Chief Information Officer

Ms A Reilly, Manager, Wainuiomata Community Hub (part meeting)

Mr D Simmons, Traffic Asset Manager (part meeting)

Mr B Gall, Settings Coordinator (part meeting)

Mrs A Doornebosch, Committee Advisor

PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

Resolved: (Mr Sinnott/Cr Briggs) Minute No. WCB 18201

“That the apology from Mrs Winterburn be accepted and leave of absence be granted.”

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Speaking under public comment, Mayor Wallace thanked and acknowledged the student leaders from Wainuiomata High School for their presentation. He noted Wellington Water Ltd’s efforts to establish emergency water facilities in the region. He acknowledged the passing of Mr Mike Grigg and noted the community had lost someone very much a part of Council and the Community Board. He wished the Board well for 2018.

Speaking under public comment, Ms Delsyia Kupenga said she was passionate about the Wainuiomata Swimming Pool. She considered the pool was under-utilised and if further developed could be a more valued asset to the community. She considered the development of a covered area within the complex would allow the pool to be open year round. She said a cafeteria at the facility would also be beneficial and would create local job opportunities.

3. Presentations

Presentation by the Head Students of Wainuiomata High School (18/325)

A presentation was provided by Leon McLeod-Venu (Head Boy), Jasmine Inthavong (Head Girl) and Faleono Leala (Deputy Head Boy) of Wainuiomata High School.

Mr McLeod-Venu thanked the Board for the opportunity to provide a presentation. He noted the new visions for the school which focussed on attracting local youth to attend their school rather than other education facilities outside of Wainuiomata. He said the goal for 2018 was to improve the perception of the school within community. He acknowledged the work initiated by the Head Students in 2017.

Mr Leala noted that another goal was to develop closer relationships with primary and intermediate schools in Wainuiomata, to inspire them to attend Wainuiomata High School. He said this was an opportunity to promote the opportunities at the High School and encourage local children to stay in Wainuiomata for their education.

Ms Inthavong said their focus was to raise the expectations of what their school could achieve and provide, and then pass this culture on to new students.

Members agreed to assist the students to lodge a submission to Council’s Long Term Plan for 2018-2028.

Presentation by Wellington Water Limited - Establishing Community Water Stations (18/426)

Mr Andy Brown, Programme Manager, from Wellington Water Limited outlined the development of a community water station in Wainuiomata and other areas of Wellington. He noted that in the event of an emergency some parts of Wellington would be without a water supply for up to 100 days without the development of these facilities. He said each water station would have treatment facilities on site, based around a 20 foot container. He advised the facilities were linking into existing water supplies, with a target of providing 20 litres of water per person, per day. He advised distribution would be provided through a system of bladders, including some small bladders designed to be used in the back of utility vehicles. He highlighted that it would take approximately seven days to set up the facilities, so residents would still need to store their own emergency water supplies.

In response to questions from members, Mr Brown said the facility could be used in the event of a drought, but noted it would be reliant on the amount of water available in streams and rivers. He said there was no current budget for the development of a second facility at Wainuiomata, but he could request this. He noted one facility in Wainuiomata would be sufficient to supply water to residents in Wainuiomata as this would be supplemented by other existing supplies. He advised the location of the stations was limited by the location of wastewater pipes and natural water supplies.

Presentation from Love Wainuiomata

Ms Esther Venning, representing Love Wainuiomata provided a presentation. She highlighted the achievements of Love Wainuiomata over the last three years. She noted the close partnerships developed within the community and the ongoing development of the Wainuiomata Development Plan. She noted focus areas of developing a vibrant heart in Queen Street, making Wainuiomata a destination for people, highlighting the recreational opportunities and that it was a great place to live. She said they had delivered the seven day makeover, a youth zone near the library, and a number of community events such as the Rural Fest and Pop Up Christmas. She further noted the new Queen Street sign and the garden development at Pukeatua lookout. She outlined the Queen Street Reserve Concept Plan.

In response to questions from members, Ms Venning said the Queen Street Reserve Concept Plan was being developed to provide a connection between Queen Street and the Wainuiomata Mall.

The Chair highlighted that the Board would be lodging a submission to Council’s Long Term Plan. He said as part of this submission the Board would seek feedback from the community on the developments within Queen Street.

Presentation by Smokefree Wainuiomata

Mr Barry Gall, Settings Coordinator provided a presentation. He noted a workshop had been held in Wainuiomata to discuss how best to raise smokefree awareness in Wainuiomata. He acknowledged the Board for their leadership role in this initiative. He noted Council’s Parks and Gardens Division was installing smokefree signs in parks in Wainuiomata and officers were developing localised signage specifically for Wainuiomata. He highlighted that the Wainuiomata Rugby Club was considering smokefree signage on their rugby grounds. He advised the Working Group would report back to the Board at its meeting to be held on 13 June 2018. He also advised that the matter would be submitted to Council’s Policy and Regulatory Committee at its meeting to be held on 24 September 2018 and then Council.

Mrs Leah Clarke, representing Regional Public Health noted they were supporting Council’s Healthy Families in developing smokefree playgrounds and sports fields. She highlighted the initiative was focussing on changings people’s thinking to encourage smokefree behaviours for the next generation. She noted that stop smoking flags would be installed on Queen Street in May. She said a survey of awareness of smokefree areas would be conducted shortly for juniors in the Wainuiomata Rugby Club.

In response to questions from members, Mrs Clarke said they had contracted Otago University to conduct a smoking analysis in Wainuiomata in 2013. She said this had found that there were 2900 smokers in Wainuiomata, which represented $6.5M in tax revenue per annum.

Presentation by the Wainuiomata Art Exhibition 2018 Steering Group

Ms Margaret Willard, Ms Annie Reilly and Ms Ginny Bell provided a presentation. They noted the use of social media had assisted in advertising the exhibition. They advised over 500 people attended the opening night with average attendance of 60 visitors per day. They also noted the criteria for submitting art was that the artist must live, work or play in Wainuiomata. They advised they had developed a logo, and were planning to make the exhibition an annual event. They noted a dedicated exhibition space would assist future exhibitions and hoped this would be part of the new Wainuiomata Hub space. They highlighted the exhibition included over 40 artists, with 70 pieces and 12 works sold.

In response to questions from members, Ms Reilly advised they would engage with local schools to consider including children in the next exhibition.

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

Resolved: (Mr Sinnott/Cr Barry) Minute No. WCB 18202

“That Standing Order 3.5 be suspended to allow Mr Bill Clegg to speak under public comment on a matter not on the order paper.”

Speaking under public comment, Mr Bill Clegg said that a tunnel should be constructed through the Wainuiomata Hill and Council should spend some funds from rates on the development. He considered Council should not appropriate funds from rates to a particular area, and that these funds should go to projects. He noted the Coast Road was in poor condition and needed upgrading. The Chair agreed to follow up Mr Clegg’s concerns with officers.

The meeting adjourned at 8.30pm and recovened at 8.40pm.

5. Minutes

Resolved: (Mr Sinnott/Ms Willard) Minute No. WCB 18203

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Wainuiomata Community Board held on Wednesday 8 November 2017, be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

Report referred for board input before being considered by A subCommittee of Council

Lees Grove - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions (18/492)

Report No. WCB2018/2/83 by the Traffic Engineer

The Traffic Assets Manager elaborated on the report. He noted the proposed restrictions related to the main access points to Fernlea School. He said Lees Grove was narrow which caused traffic congestion at drop off and pick up times at the school. He noted officers had recommended the option which would enforce parking restrictions both in the morning and the afternoon. He considered this would improve safety for all users and discourage poor parking behaviour.

In response to questions from members, the Traffic Assets Manager said he would discuss with Council’s Parks and Gardens Division if they could develop a footpath near the alternative entrance to Fernlea School. He said traffic plans were being developed for other schools in Wainuiomata including speed zone programmes. He advised the blue lines indicated no parking at certain times of the day only, and messaging regarding these rules would be distributed by the school.

Resolved: (Mr Sinnott/Mr Tupou) Minute No. WCB 18204

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed, including refreshing the painting of the yellow lines and kea crossing markers.”

Resolved: (Mr Sinnott/Ms Willard) Minute No. WCB 18205

“That the Board asks officers to work with Council’s Parks and Gardens Division to consider the installation of a footpath on the grassed area near the alternative entrance to Fernlea School.”

7.	Committee Advisor's Report (18/320) Report No. WCB2018/2/32 by the Committee Advisor
	The Committee Advisor highlighted Council’s Long Term Plan 2018-2028 consultation period was open until 5pm, 3 May 2018. Members asked the Committee Advisor to follow up training opportunities for members and report back.
	Resolved: (Mr Sinnott/Mr Stallworth) Minute No. WCB 18206 “That the Board notes the report.”
8.	Chair's Report - April 2018 The Chair tabled his report. He highlighted the Board would hold an additional Community Clinic earlier in April to discuss issues for the Board’s submission to Council’s Long Term Plan. He advised he had asked officers for guidance in developing promotional material for Long Term Plan consultation with the community.
	Resolved: (Mr Sinnott/Cr Briggs) Minute No. WCB 18207 “That the Board: (i) receives the report attached as page 8 to the minutes; (ii) agrees to use the remaining Board Administration Budget for 2017/18 for the purposes of advertising, meetings and community consultation to develop a submission to Council’s LTP; and (iii) agrees to make a submission to Council’s upcoming Long Term Plan.”
	Resolved: (Mr Sinnott/Mr Tupou) Minute No. WCB 18208 “That the Board agrees to make a submission to the Greater Wellington Regional Council, asking them to retain the No. 80 bus commuter service in Wainuiomata.”

9. Information Item

Central District Pest Control Limited - Notice of Ground Based Possum Control (18/423)

Memorandum dated 20 March 2018 by the Committee Advisor

Resolved: (Mr Sinnott/Ms Willard) Minute No. WCB 18209

“That the Board receives and notes the memorandum.”

10. Report from representatives on local organisations

Keep Hutt City Beautiful (18/322)

Report No. WCB2018/2/33 by Ms Willard, Member, Wainuiomata Community Board

Resolved: (Mr Sinnott/Mr Stallworth) Minute No. WCB 18210

“That the report be noted and received.”

11. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 9.32 pm.

Mr R Sinnott

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 13th day of June 2018

19 13 June 2018

Wainuiomata Community Board

29 May 2018

File: (18/943)

Report no: WCB2018/3/160

Willis Grove/Hine Road - Proposed Give Way Control & No Stopping At All Times Restrictions

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval for the installation of Give Way priority control on the Willis Grove approach to Hine Road and associated No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Hine Road, as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Traffic Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i) approves the installation of a Give Way priority control on the Willis Grove approach to Hine Road as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(ii) approves the installation of No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Hine Road as shown attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

For the reason that the proposed changes will encourage drivers to slow down to the appropriate speed before entering the intersection and will improve the sight distance and space for vehicles negotiating this intersection.

Background

2. Council received a request from a local resident to install broken yellow lines in the vicinity of the Willis Grove/Hine Road intersection.

3. The concern expressed is that vehicles park on both sides of Hine Road, reducing the available carriageway width, increasing the risk for vehicle conflict.

4. Vehicles parked either side of the intersection also reduce the visibility for vehicles exiting from Willis Grove.

Discussion

5. The Hine Road carriageway is relatively narrow at this location, with approximately 7m to 7.2m between kerbs.

6. When cars are parked both sides of the road, the available carriageway can be reduced to around 2.8m to 3m, wide enough for only a single vehicle.

7. The intersection of Willis Grove and Hine Road is currently uncontrolled.

8. Anecdotal evidence from residents indicated that motorists often exit Willis Grove without slowing or looking for vehicles on Hine Road. This behaviour, in conjunction with the narrow carriageway, increases the risk of vehicle conflict.

9. A check of the CAS (Crash Analysis System) database shows that there have been four recorded crashes within 50m of this intersection between 2007 and 2018.

- Three of these were vehicles on Hine Road hitting a parked vehicle. Causes: Crash 1 - Alcohol. Crash 2 - attention diverted. Crash 3 - hit and run.

- One of the crashes was caused by a vehicle overtaking another vehicle turning right into Willis Grove.

10. Officers originally developed a proposal to install No Stopping At All Times restrictions (broken yellow lines) opposite the Willis Grove T intersection (Appendix 2).

11. There was mixed community feedback on the original proposal, primarily due to the loss of road-side parking.

12. Officers, in consideration of the community feedback, modified the original proposal to include a Give Way priority control on Willis Grove and reduced No Stopping At All Times restrictions on the south side of Hine Road.

13. The Give Way control will encourage motorists to slow and look for traffic when exiting Willis Grove.

14. The proposed parking restrictions will improve the sight distance for vehicles exiting Willis Grove and improve the road safety level of service for all road users by maintaining the carriageway width in the vicinity of the intersection, reducing the risk of vehicle conflict.

Options

15. The options are:

i. to leave the area as it is without any restrictions and accept the current levels of service for accessibility and road safety; or

ii. install a Give Way control on the Willis Grove approach and No Stopping At All Times Restrictions on Hine Road (Appendix 1); or

iii. install No Stopping At All Times Restrictions to prevent parking opposite Willis Grove as originally proposed (Appendix 2).

Consultation

16. Consultation documents for the original proposal (Appendix 2) were delivered to 24 local residents. The properties included: No. (3 to 17, 17A, 18, 19A, 19B Willis Grove) and (141, 143, 144, 145, 1-2/146 Hine Road).

17. Twelve responses were received: Six (50%) were in support; five (42%) were against the proposal and one (8%) did not specify their position.

18. The three residents that would be most affected by the loss of parking are all against the original proposal. These residents suggested an intersection control at the end of Willis Grove would be a better solution.

19. Comments from supporting residents include:

- “The new lines will make entering & exiting Willis Grove a lot safer”.

- “That would be greater protection to passing cars and busses & those exiting Willis Grove”

20. Comments from opposing residents include:

- “The issue at Willis Grove is no different to the rest of the road”

- “I have never had trouble getting out of Willis Grove. Hine Road is narrow when cars are parked in a variety of places, but just a little patience is required”.

- “The only reason that there could be any problem with this intersection would be if drivers do not drive sensibly according to the road conditions. The problem is that drivers coming down Willis Grove intending to turn left into Hine Road do not always slow down to the appropriate speed, take a quick look to the right and around they go”

21. As a result of the consultation feedback, the original proposal (Appendix 2) has been modified in order to retain the maximum number of on-street parking spaces but still provide an improvement to the overall intersection safety, as shown in (Appendix 1).

22. The Wainuiomata Community Board will consider the recommendation at its meeting on 13 June 2018 and the resolution will be tabled at the Traffic Subcommittee meeting on 18 June 2018.

Legal Considerations

23. These restrictions are made pursuant to the provisions of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Financial Considerations

24. These changes can be funded from Council’s 2017/2018 road markings budget.

Other Considerations

25. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of local government in that it ensures access for emergency vehicles at all times. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises standard road markings.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Appendix 1 Willis Grove Hine Road - Proposed Give Way Control & No Stopping At All Times Restrictions June 2018	20
2 ⇩	Appendix 2 Willis Grove Hine Road - Proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions June 2018	21

Author: Zackary Moodie

Traffic Engineer - Network Operations

Reviewed By: Sylvio Leal

Traffic Engineer

Approved By: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

27 13 June 2018

Wainuiomata Community Board

23 May 2018

File: (18/897)

Report no: WCB2018/3/161

Smokefree Queen Street, Wainuiomata

Purpose of Report

1. To report on steps taken to increase awareness of smokefree areas in Wainuiomata and make recommendations to designate areas of town centres in Wainuiomata as smokefree areas.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Board:

(i) recommends that Council designate the area of Queen Street in Wainuiomata attached as Appendix 1 to the report as a smokefree area; and

(ii) notes that the Board’s recommendation will be presented to the Policy and Regulatory Committee on the 2 July 2018 for its consideration.

For the reason that this option will increase the number of smokefree outdoor public places with a particular focus on areas where children and families congregate and socialise and where the impact from the visibility of smoking is greatest. Queen Street was the main focus of the consultation and 82 per cent of those responding to the survey supported designating it a smokefree area.

Background

2. In 2016, Council extended its Smokefree Outdoor Public Places Policy to include:

a. Playgrounds;

b. Outdoor swimming pool complexes;

c. Parks and sportsgrounds, including skate parks;

d. Bush shelters;

e. Train stations;

f. Beaches;

g. Outdoor public areas around Council buildings and facilities;

h. Smokefree Council run and funded events; Council will work with event organisers to encourage events for which it provides funding to be smokefree;

i. Outdoor pavement dining areas

j. Explore designating areas in town centres as smokefree areas.

In early 2017, Wainuiomata and Stokes Valley were identified as initial communities to engage and consult with regarding clause j of the policy – ‘explore designating areas in town centres as smokefree areas’.

Smokefree Queen Street

3. The process in Wainuiomata included engagement with the community and a Smokefree Queen Street Survey which was conducted between 9 and 31 May 2017. The 2017 report is attached as Appendix 2 to the report. A total of 489 people responded with the following key results:

· Strong support for a smokefree Queen Street. 82 per cent of respondents supported Queen Street becoming a smokefree area;

· Broad support across age groups with the lowest support of 73 percent for 34-44 years and the highest support of 90 percent for ages 10-16 years;

· 62 percent indicated support for other town centres to become smokefree. Other town centres identified were the Village/Homedale with 68 responses (26%) followed by Norfolk Street with 17 responses (6%). Other significant responses were ‘all of Wainuiomata’ with 40 responses ;

· 89 percent of respondents lived in Wainuiomata.

As well as the above results, the survey indicated a lack of awareness of current smokefree areas and highlighted that Council needed to improve its communications and signage.

4. Officers reported to the Board in June 2017 presenting the results of the survey and the engagement conducted, and provided recommendations. After discussion it was resolved that the Board:

i. works alongside Healthy Families Lower Hutt, community organisations and members of the community to review, enhance and promote the current designated smokefree areas in Wainuiomata;

ii. works alongside Healthy Families Lower Hutt to undertake a full review in six months time of existing smokefree areas in Wainuiomata, what areas are working ,what needs to be improved and learnings highlighted; and

iii. recommends a review of the full scope of the smokefree initiative in Wainuiomata in 6 months time to ensure the community is ready and supports further community smokefree areas.”

Raising awareness of smokefree areas in Wainuiomata

5. In August 2017, a stand at the ‘Wellness in Wainui’ expo promoted awareness of smokefree spaces. The interaction involved asking residents to place a sticker on outdoor places where they spend their time. This mapping illustrated that the identified places largely overlapped with smokefree areas. An information sheet was handed out that provided a summary of the ‘Smokefree Queen Street’ survey and listed smokefree areas. The event was attended by over 400 residents.

6. In early November 2017, the Community Board facilitated a workshop to identify actions to raise awareness of current smokefree areas. In late November 2017, a small group met to progress the actions passed by the Board in June and agreed to explore Wainuiomata specific smokefree signage and messaging, as well as to seek insights from young people specifically. Regional Public Health and Healthy Families Lower Hutt engaged with students at Pukeatua Te Whanau Kura to get insights and creative input on key messages.

7. Insights from Pukeatua students and from other conversations included:

· The term ‘smokefree’ can be misunderstood by speakers of Te Reo and Pacific languages. The syntax lends itself to meaning ‘free to smoke’.

· The colour green means ‘go’.

· The international ‘no smoking’ graphic is the most effective communication to non-English speaking international travellers.

· Children go for the international ‘no smoking’ graphic when asked to design a smokefree message with one adaptation - they draw an ‘x’ through the circle instead of the single line. In general, children and young people are more direct about communicating the message.

· The green metal smokefree signs blend in at parks and seem to have lost their effectiveness in general.

· The ‘thanks for not smoking’ message needs to be localised to ‘thanks for not smoking here’.

· Wainuiomata has a strong sense of local identity and ‘Wainuiomata proud to be smokefree’ would be more engaging for residents.

· Sports clubs’ endorsement of smokefree sportsgrounds can be more effective than a Council sign.

8. In February 2018, the Wainuiomata Community Board Chair delegated responsibility for leading the awareness raising project to Gabriel Tupou (Board Deputy Chair) with support from Sisi Tuala Lea’fa (Board member). Led by the Board, a group including representation from Regional Public Health, Healthy Families Lower Hutt and Wainuiomata Hub met regularly to co-ordinate and implement actions to raise awareness of smokefree areas. The group also liaised with Takiri Mai te Ata Regional Stop Smoking Service. Since November 2017 the group has conducted a number of actions to raise awareness of smokefree areas in Wainuiomata and the following is a summary:

9. Signage:

· A ‘Wainuiomata proud to be smokefree’ graphic was developed from the generic “Lower Hutt proud to be smokefree’ graphic and includes local iconic images of the swimming pool and Pukeatua Bridge with the message reading ‘Thanks for not smoking here’.

· After engagement with Greater Wellington Regional Council, ‘Wainuiomata proud to be smokefree’ stickers were installed at 39 local bus shelters.

· After engagement with Parks and Gardens team, green metal smokefree signs were installed at the following parks, playgrounds and sportsgrounds: Antrim Crescent Reserve, Arakura Park, Bryan Heath Park, Frederick Wise Park, Hugh Sinclair Park, Karaka Park, Leonard Wood Park, Mary Crowther Park, Ngaturi Park, Parkway Family Playground, Queen Street Reserve, Richard Prouse Park, Stockdale Street Reserve, Sun Valley Reserve, Wainuiomata Mountain Bike Park and William Jones Park.

· Funding has been offered to Love Wainuiomata for a mural that includes a smokefree message in the basketball zone behind Wainuiomata library. The project involves a local artist (Aidan Walbaekken) working with youth from the Tihei Rangatahi programme.

· The Hub, Community Hall and swimming pool already have signage.

10. Media and promotion of smokefree spaces:

· The 2017/18 smokefree summer campaign included illustrations of smokefree spaces on Council signboards and Digital Notice Boards along with flags promoting smokefree council events e.g. Rhythm and Reels.

· Articles and paid space in the ‘Our Hutt City’ and ‘Health Highlights’ sections of the Hutt News.

· Articles and paid space in the Wainuiomata News.

· Multiple Facebook postings.

· Posters of smokefree areas.

Discussion

11. Raising awareness of smokefree areas is a challenging and ongoing task, especially given the wide scope of Hutt City Council’s policy which is one of the most comprehensive in New Zealand.

12. The second Smokefree Lower Hutt Citizens Panel Survey was conducted in November 2017. There were 741 responses to the survey and Wainuiomata residents were the largest group of respondents by suburb with 64 (14%). Key results of the survey included:

· 63% knew that Council had made some areas smokefree.

· Print media (58%) and signs and displays (40%) were the main two ways people knew about smokefree areas.

· Most people were aware that swimming pools and playgrounds are smokefree; however, awareness of other smokefree areas was significantly lower in comparison.

· Strong support for outdoor areas in the Lower Hutt CBD, Jackson Street Petone and suburban shopping centres being smokefree (over 80% for each).

· Strong support for Lower Hutt becoming increasingly smokefree (90%) including a smoking ban in all public places where children are likely to go (89%).

13. The first Hutt City Council Smokefree Lower Hutt Citizens Panel Survey was conducted in April 2016 and there was an overall increase in those that indicated ‘strongly agree’ to particular questions between the surveys of 2016 and 2017:

Question	Strongly Agree
Question	2016	2017
I support Lower Hutt becoming increasingly smokefree	65%	68%
It frustrates me when people smoke near me when I'm dining outside at a restaurant	59%	66%
Smoking should be banned in all public places where children are likely to go	64%	71%
It frustrates me when I'm sitting outside and someone starts to smoke near me	56%	64%

14. Before embarking on the smokefree areas awareness raising project in Wainuiomata, officers and stakeholders reflected on how messaging could be more engaging in order to strengthen communication through print media and signage. Our insight gathering highlighted language and messaging ambiguity and the desire for messaging to be localised and personalised.

15. The task of awareness raising is ongoing and, based on the high level of support from residents and the resource available, sufficient effort has been made to raising awareness of smokefree areas in Wainuiomata in order to consider designating Queen Street a smokefree area.

Options

1) Status Quo

Do not designate any Wainuiomata town centre areas as smokefree. This option would not help fulfil Councils aim to become increasingly smokefree and contribute to the Government’s goal of a smokefree New Zealand by 2025. It would not be in-line with the results of the survey conducted in Wainuiomata, support from the community, or the support expressed for smokefree outdoor public areas in the city overall.

2) Designate Queen Street as a smokefree area

This option would increase the number of smokefree outdoor public areas with a particular focus on areas where children and families congregate and socialise and where the impact from the visibility of smoking is greatest. This location was the main focus of the consultation and 82 per cent of those responding to the survey supported designating Queen Street a smokefree area.

3) Designate Queen Street and the Village/Homedale shops as smokefree areas

This option would increase the number of smokefree outdoor public areas with a particular focus on areas where children and families congregate and socialise and where the impact from the visibility of smoking is greatest. The shops at Homedale were mentioned by 68 respondents which is 26%of the responses to this question in the survey. The area has a lower footfall than Queen Street. Council is taking a progressive approach to achieving a Smokefree Lower Hutt and more work may be required to build support for including this area.

Consultation

16. This is described above under ‘Engagement and Consultation’,

Legal Considerations

17. There are no legal considerations.

Financial Considerations

18. Funding for the recommended option is covered by the annual Smokefree Lower Hutt budget for the three years up to 2019.

Other Considerations

19. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of local government in that it:

a. Sets out to deal appropriately with a matter which is of concern to the public and in which Council can take a lead locally. Reducing the visibility of smoking can contribute to de-normalising the behaviour for children and young people and therefore contribute to the health and wellbeing of future generations.

b. The policy does this in a way that is cost-effective because it can contribute to reducing the prevalence of smoking over the longer-term and therefore reduce health and other costs. Effective implementation is dependent on good promotion. The policy does not rely on Council officers enforcing the approach.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	WCB Smokefree Queen Street Report 25 May 2017	28
2 ⇩	Proposed Smokefree Town Centre Areas in Wainuiomata	33

Author: Barry Gall

Settings Coordinator - Healthy Families

Reviewed By: John Pritchard

Principal Research and Policy Advisor

Approved By: Hayley Goodin

Healthy Families Manager

MEMORANDUM 36 13 June 2018

Our Reference 18/898

TO: Chair and Members

Wainuiomata Community Board

FROM: Debbie Hunter

DATE: 24 May 2018

SUBJECT: Community Engagement Fund 2017-2018

Recommendations

That the Board:

(i) notes that the Community Engagement Fund closed on 4 May 2018 and two applications had been received;

(ii) agrees that the applications were considered according to the merits of the application criteria and priorities of the fund;

(iii) agrees to the recommended allocations for the Wainuiomata Community Engagement Fund 2017/2018; and

(iv) agrees that the organisations granted funding will be required to attend a meeting of the Board once the project has been completed.

Purpose of Memorandum

1. For the Board to assess and determine the funding to be granted to the eligible Community Engagement Fund applications.

Background

Community Engagement Fund

2. Hutt City Council agreed through the 2017/2018 Annual Plan to contribute $48,850 for the Community Board/Panel Community Engagement Fund.

3. This is for local activities/events that directly benefit the communities concerned.

4. In November 2017 the Board allocated $2,766.00, leaving a balance of $5,841.00 to be available in a second round of funding.

5. The fund was promoted through Hutt City Council’s grants system and through contacts/networks via members of the Community Boards/Panels.

6. Two applications were received under the Wainuiomata Community Board Community Engagement Fund requesting a total of $5,841.00. They are as follows:

No.	Organisation	Description	$Eligible Request
1	Wainuiomata Rugby Football Club (Junior)	Purchase of equipment (gazebo, sound equipment/portable speaker, medals and ribbons) to be used at Wainuiomata Rugby Club Junior events.	2,998.00
2	Acting Out NZ Inc To provide a safe and fun activity in the Wainuiomata area for youth aged 8-16 to not only engage in a love of musical theatre but to encourage them to learn new skills, make new friends and boost their confidence in a 'real' environment.	For the purchase of the Sound of Music Licence – associated to the new youth musical theatre group in Wainuiomata. Advertising for the show that is to be held in October 2018, purchase of t-shirts.	2,843.00
			$5,841.00

7. The Board has $5,841.00 available to be allocated. The funds need to be allocated by end of June 2018.

8. Any organisations granted funding will be required to attend a meeting of the Board once the project has been completed.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this Memorandum.

Author: Debbie Hunter

Community Advisor - Funding and Community Contracts

Approved By: Melanie Laban

Divisional Manager, Community Projects and Relationships

39 13 June 2018

Wainuiomata Community Board

31 May 2018

File: (18/950)

Report no: WCB2018/3/80

Representation Review - Options Consultation

1. On 22 May 2018, Council agreed to consult the community on possible options for a draft proposal for the city’s representation arrangements.

2. This paper provides the Board with information regarding:

a. The options for consultation

b. The consultation approach and timing

c. Background information that will provided to each Board and also to the community to support community consultation

Recommendation

That the information in the report be noted and received.

3. A survey was conducted from 3 April 2018 to 15 April 2018 on Council’s representation arrangements. This survey was the first step Council took to prepare for the development of a draft representation proposal which must be consulted on and approved prior to the 2019 local government elections. The survey was sent to all ‘Hutt City Views’ panel members.

4. That survey provided Council with information on which to develop a set of options for representation which will be tested via survey (both telephone and Citizen’s Panel) over the period 31 May to 2 July 2018.

5. At the same time Council will be publicising the consultation on these options via its web site (a page that will be devoted to information about the Representation Review is being prepared), Hutt Views (in Hutt News), working with Boards and Community Panels to assist them with any engagement they would like to undertake and providing background information on both the website and having hard copies of that information at libraries in the community. A copy of the background information, information about Boards and Panels and the draft engagement plan are attached as Appendices 1, 2 and 3.

6. The options for Council are:

a. Status quo – elected by wards

b. Mixed – 6 ward Councillors and 6 at large

c. At large only

7. The options for second tier representation are:

a. Status quo – Community Boards in Petone, Eastbourne and Wainuiomata and Community Panels in the Northern, Eastern, Western and Central wards

b. Community Panels across the city

c. Community Boards across the city

d. No second tier representation

8. People will be asked if they want second tier representation and if yes, what form that representation should take.

Final Draft Proposal

9. Feedback on the options available for representation will inform the development of Council’s final draft proposal for representation arrangements. Public notice of the final draft proposal will then be given and the community consulted. The likely timeline is as follows:

Date	Action
31 May to 2 July	Public consultation on options available for representation (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above)
2 July to 24 July	· Public feedback considered · Draft proposal for representation prepared for Council’s consideration and resolution
6 August to 9 September	Public consultation on draft proposal for representation
10 September onwards	· Where there are submissions - consider submissions, make any amendments · No submissions – final proposal
24 September	Results of public consultation and final representation proposal to Policy and Regulatory Committee for approval
17 October	· Council resolution on final representation proposal · Public notice given
25 October to 22 November	Appeal period
23 November	· If no appeals – final public notice · Appeals and objections – forwarded to Local Government Commission. Commission has until 10 April 2019 to consider appeals/objections and make a determination
11 April 2019	Appeals to High Court (if any lodged)
12 October 2019	Local government elections

10. Officers will be available to assist Boards and Panels with engagement with their communities and/or providing information as required.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Representation Review background information and options analysis	40
2 ⇩	Boards and Panels responsibilities	50
3 ⇩	Representation Review Engagement Plan 2018	51

Author: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Attachment 1

Representation Review background information and options analysis

REPRESENTATION REVIEW – Background Information and Options Analysis

Introduction

The overriding principles that have to be considered when looking at representation are:

· Fair and equal representation

· Equal opportunity to vote and to stand as a candidate and

· Public confidence in and understanding of the local electoral processes^{^[3]}

Local authorities must take these principles into account when making decisions the Local Electoral Act 2001.

Representation – what does it mean?

Representation means an action or speech on behalf of a person, group, business house, state, or the like by an agent, deputy, or representative. A person does not need to be elected to represent other people. A good local example of this is Resident’s Associations many of whom make regular submissions to Council on matters of local interest. People do not stand for election as a member of a Citizen’s Action Groups for example however this does not mean that they cannot and/or do not represent people who live in the area which the Resident’s Association works in.

Effective Representation

Effective representation means representation that reflects “significant characteristics of the electorate such as gender, ethnicity, socio-economic class, locality and age” and “encourages close links and accountability between individual elected members and their constituents”.^{^[4]} This needs to take account of the nature and locality of those communities of interest and the size, nature and diversity of the district or region as a whole.^{^[5]} One submission to Lower Hutt’s 2001 Representation Review sums this up: “effective representation is achieved by having Councillors elected locally with who[m] residents can identify and can have a reasonable chance of knowing and judging their abilities.”^{^[6]}

Fair representation

Fair representation relates to the number of persons represented per member. The ratio of persons per member in each ward or constituency is required to be within +/-10% of the ratio for the district or region as a whole. This is designed to ensure approximate equality in representation i.e. votes of equal value.^{^[7]}

Communities of Interest

In 2007, the Local Government Commission’s view, as outlined in their guidelines to local authorities on the representative review process, was a little more expansive. They suggested that:

A community of interest is the area to which one feels a sense of belonging and to which one looks for social, service and economic support. Geographic features and the roading network can affect the sense of belonging to an area. The community of interest can often be identified by access to the goods and services needed for ordinary everyday existence. Another community of interest factor could be rohe or takiwa area of tangata whenua.^{^[8]}

So common features of a community of interest are geography and social, economic and cultural connections, all of which contribute to the development of a shared identity.

In their more recent 2017 Guidelines for Representation Reviews the Commission says:

One definition^{^[9]} of ‘community of interest’ describes it as a three-dimensional concept:

· perceptual – a sense of belonging to a clearly defined area or locality

· functional – the ability to meet with reasonable economy the community’s requirements for comprehensive physical and human services

· political – the ability of the elected body to represent the interests and reconcile the conflicts of all its members.^{^[10]}

The following criteria should be used when considering fair representation of communities within a larger community.

Distinctiveness: a community board might be considered appropriate to provide effective representation for distinct communities of interest, which may or may not be isolated, and which have a strong sense of identity, distinct from the city as a whole

Representation: a community board might be considered where a distinct community of interest is unlikely to be directly represented on the territorial authority. Such a lack of effective representation might be caused by low population within the community, low councillor numbers, large wards or an absence of wards. A community board might also be considered where a distinct community of interest is deemed to be under-represented and unlikely to have its issues and concerns fully considered by the territorial authority

Access: physical proximity to the territorial authority offices, staff and elected members may be an important consideration. The decision will also be influenced by the presence or absence of mechanisms to gather a community’s views e.g. ward committees, community or residents associations, councillor clinics or regular local authority-organised fora in those communities.

Effective governance: local authorities may wish to consider establishing community boards where more devolved forms of decision-making are seen as desirable in order to provide effective governance. This may occur in local authorities with large populations and be designed to bring local government closer to the people and where devolving neighbourhood-based issues to community boards has the effect of freeing up the time of councillors to focus on metropolitan or district-wide issues.

Options for Council elections

· Status quo – councillors elected by ward. There will be two Councillors per ward as there is now

· Mix of ward and at large – one Councillor per ward, six elected at large

· Council elected at large only – no ward Councillors

Considerations:

Pros

· allows equal geographical representation

· local councillors understand local needs/wants and local issues are advocated for

· gives all legitimate groups, especially those with a geographic base, a better chance of being represented on the city council

· ward Councillors are more attuned to the unique problems of their constituents, such as crime levels, small lot development, trash pick-up, potholes, and recreation programs

· ward elections may improve citizen participation because councilmembers who represent a specific district may be more responsive to their constituency

· wards enable Councillors to stay in touch with community grass roots

· ward system makes standing for a local area more accessible for the average person

· allows for diverse opinion from all areas of the town to be considered

· reduces the possibility of special interest groups and large campaign contributors influencing city government

· greater accountability to the residents of each ward

Cons

· Ward system may encourage parochial decision^{^[11]} making i.e. ward Councillors not considering the entire city when making their decisions

· Ward system means that means people only have a vote for 2 out of 12 councillors i.e. all Councillors vote on issues that are local and specific to other wards yet people in those specific wards do not get to vote for all Councillors

· Those areas with Community Boards have greater level of elected representation – ward Councillors and a Community Board

· Lack of diversity of candidates

· vote trading between Councillors on different decisions to ensure they get decisions favourable to their ward

Mix of ward Councillors (six) and Councillors elected at large (six)

Pros

· Can help to facilitate a balance of viewpoints – a ward perspective and a city wide perspective

· Has potential to increase diversity of candidates standing

· Council members will be advocates for the ward in which they live

· Reduces potential for parochial decision making and could encourage Councillors to think more about the good of the entire community and less about the interests of their ward and of their own re-election prospects

Cons

· Has potential to create “A and B grade” candidates – at large candidates might be viewed as better than ward councillors as they are elected by the whole city, this could affect the culture of council and how councillors relate to each other;

· Multiple representatives can be elected from the same geographical area and/or economic group

· May increase the likelihood of political tickets

At large only

Pros

· More practical in cities with a population that isn’t diverse or as large – Lower Hutt has a very diverse population and areas of high deprivation

· Council members are responsible for representing the needs and wishes of all of the people in the city

· Moving away from wards would encourage Councillors to think more about the good of the entire community, and less about the narrow interests of their ward and of their own re-election prospects

· Place the emphasis on population across the board and equity of representation

Cons

· Costs to stand far greater as candidates have to cover the whole city. This may mean that some potential candidates won’t be able to stand at all and reduce the diversity of candidates

· Can weaken representation of minority groups and restrict diversity of candidates particularly from candidates from high deprivation areas of the city

· Greater potential for special interest groups and large campaign contributors influencing city government

· Multiple representatives can be elected from the same geographical area

· Difficult for at large council members to be fully aware of and respond to issues

Options for second tier

· Status quo – a mix of Community Boards (in Petone, Eastbourne and Wainuiomata) and Community Panels (Northern, Eastern, Western and Central wards)

· Community Panels only across city – appointed representatives

· Community Boards only across city – elected representatives

· No second tier representation

Considerations for having second tier representation in the city

General

· Does the city need Councillors as well as Boards and/or Panels? Cities of comparable size do not have second tier representation. Councillors are elected to Council to govern the affairs of the City and the interests of all the city’s residents. It must make itself aware of and have regard to the views of all its communities.

· Is there a greater need for second tier representation if Councillors are elected in at large or mixed (at large and wards) rather than having ward Councillors?

· Would individual geographic areas “miss out” on representation without Boards and/or Panels?

· Should there be consistency in approach to second tier representation or is “representation” sufficient whether by a Board or a Panel?

Specific

· Enables greater level of involvement in democratic process at community level providing

· Second tier representatives are more accessible and more opportunities for community involvement in local projects

· Councillors’ current access to information and links with those working at community level may be assisted

· Adds a “local voice” to the debate –second tier representatives represent the resident communities and business communities of their specific community.

Community Boards

Community Boards were established as part of local government reform in 1989 which disestablished the old Boroughs of Petone, Eastbourne and Wainuiomata. Boards are elected every three years along with all other elected members. Board members serve three year terms and then must stand again for election. These groups meet every six weeks: all the meetings are open to the public, except for items considered under ‘public excluded’ business. At the start of each meeting time is made for public comment; anyone can speak for three minutes on any item that is in the order papers.

The following link will take you to the Terms of Reference for current Community Boards - http://iportal.huttcity.govt.nz/Record/ReadOnly?Tab=3&Uri=3688711

Community Boards are elected to represent the views of the local community and are delegated certain roles and responsibilities by Council. Lower Hutt’s current Community Boards are:

· Eastbourne

· Petone

· Wainuiomata

These communities were Borough Councils prior to the 1989 amalgamation of councils. Eastbourne and Petone are represented by two ward Councillors – Wainuiomata also has two ward Councillors.

Community Board members are remunerated per annum as follows:

Per Triennium	TOTAL	Chair	Members
Eastbourne	$39,070	$13,070	$6.535
Petone	$$54,315	$15,560	$7,780
Wainuiomata	$57,211	$16,390	$8,195

Other funding per annum

	Eastbourne	Petone	Wainuiomata
Engagement Fund	$2366	$6250	$8607
Miscellaneous	$5,000	$5,000	$5,000
Training/Professional Development	$3000	$3000	$3000

Community Panels

Council established four community panels in the Central, Eastern, Northern and Western ward communities in July 2017. Each panel consists of up to five appointed community representatives along with two ward councillors. Representatives are appointed through an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process with appointment decisions made by the Mayor and relevant ward councillors. Through the EOI process applicants need to:

· Demonstrate a real commitment and passion to local community

· Demonstrated ability to work proactively and constructively with a team

· Clear evidence of a connection and strong networks with local community groups and residents

· Live in the local community

· An interest in local body matters and/or including an interest in standing for Council in the future

· Demonstrated ability to represent their community – in the community and in formal public settings, including Council

Also considered are:

· Professional skills

· Existing membership to community groups – e.g. Residents Associations, Marae, School Boards etc.

The role of the panels is to represent and act as an advocate for the interests of their communities. The purpose of the panels is outlined in the general functions outlined below:

· Discuss, debate and provide feedback to Council on all important local issues, city wide matters of significance, Annual Plans and policy setting

· Allocate and manage a Local Community Projects Fund

· Allocate and manage the local Community Engagement Fund for the Central, Eastern, Northern and Western wards to assist and support local community events and initiatives.

The community panels meet as needed. The following link will take you to the Terms of Reference for current Community Panels - http://iportal.huttcity.govt.nz/Record/ReadOnly?Tab=3&Uri=4642155

Funding each year

Per Triennium	TOTAL	Central	Western Hills	North	East
Honorariums	$53,731	$13,433 (less tax)	$13,433 (less tax)	$13,433 (less tax)	$13,433 (less tax)
Engagement Fund (no change)	$31,626	$9,320	$6,201	$7,644	$8,461
Admin Budget	$12,000	$3,000	$3,000	$3,000	$3,000
Training/Professional Development	$24,000	$6,000	$6,000	$6,000	$6,000
Community Projects Fund	$114,250 per annum or $457,000 for three years	$38,083 (or $114,250 for three years)	$38,083 (or $114,250 for three years)	$38,083 (or $114,250 for three years)	$38,083 (or $114,250 for three years)

Community Panels can choose whether to use all the Community Fund Projects money in one year or split the fund over the 3 years of the triennium.

Attachment 3

Representation Review Engagement Plan 2018

representation review Engagement plan

Project lead: Wendy Moore, Divisional Manager Strategy and Planning

Timing: 30 April 2018 – 2 July 2018

Engagement OBJECTIVES

Primary objective

what are your primary engagement objectives?

1. To obtain community feedback on proposed packages for Lower Hutt’s representation arrangements:

i. Status quo (Council elected by ward), and

a. no second tier representation, or

b. Community Panels, or

c. Community Boards, or

d. a mix of Community Boards and Community Panels;

ii. Council elected as a mix of ward and at large, and

a. no second tier representation, or

b. Community Panels, or

c. Community Boards, or

d. a mix of Community Boards and Community Panels;

iii. Council elected at large, and

a. no second tier representation, or

b. Community Panels, or

c. Community Boards, or

d. a mix of Community Boards and Community Panels;

2. Obtain Community feedback regarding their preferred package for Lower Hutt’s representation arrangements 21^st May 2018-8 June 2018

Secondary objective/s

what are your secondary engagement objectives?

1. Community understands the options for electing Council – ward, mixed (ward/at large) and at large and can make an informed choice

2. Community understands the difference between Community Boards and Community Panels and can make an informed choice regarding second tier representation

3. Community understands the meaning of representation being: a person or organisation that speaks, acts, or is present officially for someone else; the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented. There is no need for that representative to be elected

· Community Panels - Representation means discuss, debate and provide feedback to Council on all important local issues, city wide matters of significance, Annual Plans and policy setting, assist and support local community events and initiatives, manage local community projects fund, manage community engagement fund

· Community Boards - represent and act as an advocate for the interests of the community this includes providing feedback on services, Annual Plan working with community interest groups, undertake delegated responsibilities

RISK MANAGEMENT

Risks	Likelihood	Impact	Mitigation
Low response from general public	Medium	High	Publicising the survey through rates demands if possible, separate flyer, Hutt Views, HCC web site, digital notice boards in libraries, administration building, community hubs
People do not understand the difference between community panels and Community Boards	Medium/High	High	· Ensure material accompanying the survey clearly explains the options available · Have information on HCC website · Have person that can be directly contacted by members of the public who need further explanation of the options
Low response from Citizen's Panel members	Medium	High	Ensure that panel members are suitably incentivised to respond to survey on the representation package options
Councillors are concerned about the accuracy of community feedback	Medium	High	Ensure that Councillors are comfortable with the consultation plan

Stakeholders

Identify and describe your primary (most affected) and secondary stakeholder groups. Remember to include your internal stakeholders. Complete Stakeholder Log

sTAKEHOLDERs (PRimary)	interest	notes
Council	· Community representation · Community satisfaction with that representation	· Councillors will want to ensure that representation arrangements across the city is compatible with and/or reflects the needs of the community
Community Boards and Community Panels	Community representation	These communities will want representation that ensure their interests are addressed by Council when necessary
Ex-Community Committee members	Want to know what is going to happen with representation for their area	Will be concerned that they have not been asked to be on a Community Panel
Ward councillors North, East, West and Central	· Community representation · Community satisfaction with that representation	· Councillors will want to ensure that their wards’ interests receive a similar level of representation as those areas of the city that have Community Boards · Councillor’s will want to ensure that funding requests from their wards receive appropriate consideration at community and Council level

sTAKEHOLDERs (secondary)	interest	notes
Iwi	Representation	· Will need to be kept informed about the process

APPROACH

Describe what you are planning to do and most important, why? What’s the reasoning behind certain tools, a particular style? How will you ensure they are effective? Are there any timing, seasonal or regional considerations?

Community Representation

· Hutt views – ensure debate across wider city and that people understand they can make their views known via the Citizen's Panel or directly by e mail, hard copy

· Rates demand insert if possible

· Citizen's Panel survey on options and telephone survey

key messages for Communications – community representation

cORE PROPOSITION	Proposing options for consideration for representation arrangements in the city.
primary messages	This is an opportunity to have your say on how representation is arranged in the city – both Council and second tier representation
Call to action	Have your say – should there be a change and of the options presented which option most closely represents your ideal for representation arrangements

Tasks/Key DAtes

date	task	person responsible	status
31 May 2018	Set up Citizen's Panel survey	Wendy Moore	Started
31 May 2018	Discuss communications approach	Wendy Moore Jon Hoyle	In final stages of approval at 29 May 2018
2 July 2018	Draft paper completed on preferred option for representation :	Wendy Moore
24 July 2018	Council decision made on draft representation proposal for final community consultation	Council
6 August 2018	Draft representation proposal for final community consultation

Evaluation

hOW WILLYOU KNOW YOUR ENGAGEMENT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL? hOW WILL YOU MEASURE THIS?

· Response rate to Citizen's Panel survey

· High level of understanding of proposal in community

· Involvement of Community Boards and Community Panels

· Final draft proposal isn’t appealed or objected to

Engagement tools / channels

Internal

· Our Space

External

· Hutt Views

· Citizen's Panel

· Rates demands

· Digital notice boards

· HCC web site

· HCC Face Book

Distribution

How will you distribute your communication materials? See above.

Sign-off

Signed	Wendy Moore
Date	21 May 2018

58 13 June 2018

Wainuiomata Community Board

11 May 2018

File: (18/806)

Report no: WCB2018/3/81

Committee Advisor's Report

1. The primary purpose of this report is to update the Board on various items of interest to the Board.

Recommendation

That the Board:

(i) notes the report;

(ii) considers appointing a member of the Board as a representative to the Keep Lower Hutt Beautiful Committee; and

(iii) decides the timeline, catering and publicity requirements for the Community Spirit Awards.

2. Wainuiomata Community Board By-Election

A by-election process has commenced to replace Margaret Willard who has recently resigned. If there is more than one candidate nominated there will be a by-election on Friday 17 August. The by-election has been advertised on Council’s website, in the Dominion Post on 24 May, in the Hutt News on 29 May and in the Wainuiomata News on 30 May.

Nominations opened on Thursday 24 May and must be in the hands of the Electoral Official before 12 noon, Thursday 21 June.

3. Keep Hutt City Beautiful Committee – Board Representative

Margaret Willard was appointed as Board representative on the Keep Hutt City Beautiful Committee on 5 April 2017. The Board is asked to consider whether it wishes to appoint a replacement representative to the Committee.

The Keep Lower Hutt Beautiful Committee (KLHB) is a volunteer group operating with the support of Council and its Environmental Sustainability Advisor. Over the years KLHB has led Lower Hutt’s graffiti eradication service and many other anti-litter and beautification initiatives. The Committee meets on an as need basis with its next meeting scheduled for August.

4. Community Spirit Awards

The annual Community Spirit Awards recognise members of the Wainuiomata community who have carried out outstanding voluntary service in Wainuiomata over a period of time and have contributed to the spirit of the community. The awards are scheduled to be held in September. Members are asked to decide on publicity and catering requirements and a timeline for nominations.

5. Community Consultations

Please see below a list of current proposals Council is consulting on:

Consulting on

Closing Date

Ecology and Landscapes

Walter Mildenhall Park Reserves

Priority Routes and Earthquake-Prone Buildings

15 June

29 June

Consultations can be viewed on Council’s website:

http://www.huttcity.govt.nz/Your-Council/Have-your-say/Consulting-on/

6. 2017/2018 Expenditure

The Board’s Miscellaneous Administration Budget for the 2017/2018 financial year is $5,000, and the Training Budget is $3,000. Expenditure to date is $2,043.60 from the miscellaneous budget and is included in Appendix 1 attached to the report.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Wainuiomata Community Board expenditure June 2018	59

Author: Judy Randall

Committee Advisor

Approved By: Kathryn Stannard

Divisional Manager, Democratic Services

MEMORANDUM 61 13 June 2018

Our Reference 18/1010

TO: Chair and Members

Wainuiomata Community Board

FROM: Andrew Cumming

DATE: 06 June 2018

SUBJECT: Ecology and Landscapes Consultation - Update

Recommendation

That the Board receives and notes the memorandum.

Purpose of Memorandum

1. To update the Board on the Ecology and Landscapes Consultation.

Background

2. Council is continuing its preliminary consultation with landowners on identifying and protecting sites of significant ecology, landscapes, and coastal natural character.

3. Since Council wrote to landowners earlier this year, a large number of people have been in contact by telephone, email, and in-person meetings. The views of landowners on this project have been diverse with some opposed, some in support, and many simply seeking more information and clarity.

4. Some landowners have indicated inaccuracies in the initial identification of sites and have requested to have the area identified removed or reduced.

5. As the initial identification of sites of significance was based on aerial photos and existing documents, a key aim of the consultation has been to verify the accuracy of the areas identified. As a result of these discussions, a number of draft Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) have had areas reduced or removed. On request by landowners, Council is also carrying out site visits with ecologists to further verify the significance of the identified areas. So far there are around 100 requests for site visits to re-assess the area of significance identified, or to provide landowners with more information on the ecology on their site.

6. In addition, Council has developed further grounds for reducing or removing SNA boundaries. These include:

· excluding an area of five metres around legally established buildings with a footprint greater than 10m2;

· excluding areas that have regenerated or been planted within the last 23 years, as evidenced by 1995 aerial photography; and

· removing river beds including that of the Wainuiomata and Orongorongo rivers.

Next Steps

7. The site visits requested by some landowners are being carried out and will be completed over the coming months.

8. We are looking to set up a collaborative working group made up of representatives from all interests including landowners, iwi, community associations and conservation organisations.

9. The working group will be challenged to develop a package of District Plan regulations and non-regulatory incentives and support measures that will achieve native biodiversity protection goals and satisfy legislative requirements. Council staff will assist with information and advice as required but will not influence the working group’s recommendations to Council. The working group sessions will be run by an independent facilitator.

10. The working group’s recommendations will formally go to Council’s District Plan Committee for consideration. The recommendations will influence the makeup of any District Plan provisions plus the incentives and support measures that Council will provide.

11. The timing of any formal District Plan change will depend on the progress of the working group and the nature of its recommendations. Realistically, any District Plan change would be unlikely before 2019.

12. Leading up to the formation of the collaborative working group, Council proposes to run 3 briefing workshops:

· one for representatives of landowners;

· one for representatives of conservation and ecological interest groups; and

· one for representatives of community associations. An invitation to the Community Board will be sent in due course.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this Memorandum.

Author: Andrew Cumming

Divisional Manager District Plan

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

[1] This excludes sites that are considered high profile, significant on a city-wide basis due to their size and location, or where the site crosses ward or community boundaries.

[2] The Operational Guide for Urban Forest Plan is available from Council’s Parks and Gardens Division.

[4] Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System, Towards a Better Democracy, December 1986, pp. 11 – 12

[5] Representation Arrangements, Code of Good Practice for the management of local authority

elections and polls 2016, SOLGM, p 4

[6] Anne-Marie Beeler, Normandale Residents Association, Submission to the Hutt City Council Review of Membership and Basis of Election for the 2001 Triennial General Election and Proposal to Establish new Communities, 11 September 2000.

[8] Local Government Commission, Guidelines to Assist Local Authorities in undertaking Representation Reviews, 2^nd edition, 2005, p. 10.

[9] The Concept of Community of Interest (1989) prepared by Helen Fulcher for the South Australian Department of Local Government.

[11] In the 2001 Lower Hutt City Representation Reviews a one submitter even pointed out the benefits of parochialism through wards as a way of ensuring that Councillors were intimately aware of local issues, were accessible to residents, and reflected the city’s communities of interest so ensuring a range of views on council

Richard Sinnott (Chair)	Gabriel Tupou (Deputy Chair)
Terry Stallworth	Sisi Tuala-Le’afa
Jodie Winterburn	Cr C Barry
Cr J Briggs