Waitemata written feedback volume 3...20.91 a year or $0.40 a week for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from $191.00 to $211.91 a year). ... ”Our vision is a total

Date: Tuesday, 28 April 2020

Annual Budget 2020/2021 Waitemata Local Board

WRITTEN FEEDBACK Vol. 3 (3311–3550)

Sub # Organisation Local Board Volume

3311 Waitemata 33314 Waitemata 33316 Waitemata 33317 Waitemata 33318 Waitemata 33319 Waitemata 33322 Auckland City Centre Residents' Group Waitemata 33325 Waitemata 33326 Waitemata 33327 Waitemata 33332 Waitemata 33335 Generation Zero Auckland Waitemata 33340 Waitemata 33345 Waitemata 33346 Waitemata 33349 Waitemata 33350 Waitemata 33364 Waitemata 33395 Waitemata 33396 Waitemata 33397 Waitemata 33398 Waitemata 33399 Waitemata 33400 Waitemata 33401 Waitemata 33403 Waitemata 33404 St Mary's Bay Association Inc Waitemata 33406 Waitemata 33409 Waitemata 33410 Waitemata 33426 Waitemata 33434 Waitemata 33458 Evolve Lighting Waitemata 33460 Touchpoint Group Waitemata 33461 Justice & Peace Commission of the Catholic Diocese of Auckland Waitemata 33481 Waitemata 33490 Waitemata 33499 Waitemata 33529 One Plus One Communications Waitemata 33530 Phillimore Properties Limited Waitemata 33531 Poronui Investments Waitemata 33547 Waitemata 33550 Cleveland Properties Ltd Waitemata 3

Annual Budget 2020/2021

Submitter detailsDate received: 22 Mar 2020 12:40

Attachment:

Organisation name:

Local Board: Waitematā

Regional feedback1. Waste management target rate

The cost of responsibly dealing with our kerbside recycling (paper, cardboard and plastics) hasincreased due to international market conditions. To pay for this we propose to charge onlythose who use the service by increasing the targeted rate by $20 a year (or $0.38 a week) to$141.03 (incl. GST).

If we do not do this, we would have to fund the shortfall by increasing general rates for allratepayers, including those who don’t get a kerbside collection service.

What do you think of our proposal?

2. Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City

In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through atargeted rate. This targeted rate no longer meets the cost of collection. In other areas, residentsalready meet the full cost of rubbish collection via pay-as-you-throw.

To cover this extra cost we propose increasing the targeted rate in these areas by:

#3311

$14.23 a year or $0.27 a week for a 120 litre bin (the total cost changing from $129.93 to$144.16 a year), and20.91 a year or $0.40 a week for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from $191.00to $211.91 a year).

If we don't do this, we would have to increase general rates for all ratepayers, including those wholive outside these two areas who would subsidise residents of old Auckland and Manukau Cityareas.


3. Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate

Last year we consulted on removing the septic tank pump-out service funded by a targeted rate.While feedback indicated a willingness to go ahead with the removal in the Henderson-Masseyand Upper Harbour local board areas, residents of the Waitākere Ranges local board area want tokeep the service.

The cost of delivering this service is higher than the current targeted rate of $198.43. Ourproposal is to recover the full cost by increasing the targeted rate to between $260 and$320 a year (incl. GST). This increase would apply from July 2021.

If we don't do this, the council could end the service, or continue to subsidise the cost of theservice to septic tank users in the Waitākere Ranges local board area from all general ratepayers.


Local prioritiesWaitematā

I support most of the prioritiesI support in particular funding practical actions in response to council’s climate emergencydeclaration and to supporting key providers as they address homelessness issues. I would like thelocal board to encourage council to act more quickly than to date on its emergency declaration. Iwould like council to appoint a public transport champion who tells the stories of people's changeto or ongoing use of public transport. I think many people do not realize that public transport hasimproved considerably over the last decade. I would like the local board to actively save ALL treesfrom being cut down (unless diseased or dangerous), as a logical response to the climate changeemergency, as per its sensible stand against felling the trees in Western Springs Park. I would likethe local board to include the Leys Institute in its three-year plan for 2020-2022 to show supportfor the earthquake strengthening of these buildings so they can be returned to public use, as wasthe intention of this gift to the people of Auckland.

Other feedback5. Do you have feedback on any other issues?

Auckland needs a night shelter. All other cites in New Zealand have one. I would like the localboard to support those attempting to get a night shelter up and running, and to encourage othersin council to open their minds to conversations about a night shelter.

#3311

already meet the full cost of rubbish collection via pay-as-you-throw.











I support most of the prioritiesThe Waitemata Local Board states that one of its roles is “caring for the environment andpreserving heritage”. So it is appropriate that some statement regarding the Leys Institute shouldbe included in the 3 year plan for 2020-2022. While the Local Board has indicated its support forthe seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute buildings, it does not have access to sufficientfunding to carry out strengthening and must rely on the council’s governing body. However, writingthis into the Local Board Plan will show the community that the Local Board is advocating for thestrong desire for these buildings to be strengthened and returned to use as much lovedcommunity facilities over the last 115 years.


The Leys Institute buildings were legally gifted to the council in 1964, with properties and fundsattached for the maintenance of the buildings. These funds have been available to council formany years and now it is time to return those resources for the seismic strengthening of the libraryand gymnasium. These heritage buildings are listed Category 1 by Heritage New Zealand

#3314

Hello Board MembersI understand that right now you are preparing the 3 year plan for 2020- 23. In light of that:

I personally, and on behalf of many concerned fellow neighbours, request that Auckland Councilcurrently allocate funds to seismically strengthen the Leys Institute Library and Gymnasium, and returnthe community facilities that we have been able to enjoy for the last 115 years.( I also note that funds also in good faith provided to the Council from the Leys Family since 1964 forthe purpose of maintenance of the buildings - that has been very much neglected!)

I observe that The Local Board states its role is:

· Maintaining and upgrading town centres and facilities including parks, beaches,libraries and halls.

· Representing community views on local issues.

· Caring for the environment and preserving heritage.

· Supporting local arts, culture, events, sports and recreation.

· Providing grants and partnering with local organisations to deliver community services.

This Ley’s Institute with it’s library and gymnasium is of immense value to our community on so manylevels.

Its a special Heritage building - Grade A! My own grandchildren come to Rhythm and Rhyme, My granddaughter attends ballet classes at the gymnasium, I attend yoga there on SundaysThe library is always busy, the computers are always in use when I go there to get books myself. Thestaff are amazing - helpful and knowledgeable. My stepson did all his study in the lower floor study area ( basement) to have peace and quiet - as hestudied and eventually became an airline captain.

Its a centre - and a connector of the community. We urgently desire and need to have this facility available - in a time when people are disconnectingand focussed on their phones - Ley’s Institute serves as a hub and connector of people. right down to thenoticeboard advising what’s on locally. Please get it up and running again quickly.

#3314

”Our vision is a total revolution in consciousness from I-consciousness to One- Consciousness.

From a suffering state to a Beautiful state.From self – preocupation to connection.From Division to Being One”

#3314



Attachment:

Organisation name:









#3316










I support most of the prioritiesThe Waitemata Local Board states that one of its roles is “caring for the environment andpreserving heritage”. So it is appropriate that some statement regarding the Leys Institute shouldbe included in the 3 year plan for 2020-2022. While the Local Board has indicated its support forthe seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute buildings, it does not have access to sufficientfunding to carry out strengthening and must rely on the council’s governing body. However, writingthis into the Local Board Plan will show the community that the Local Board is advocating for thestrong desire for these buildings to be strengthened and returned to use as much lovedcommunity facilities over


s annual plan, similar to this: The Leys Institute buildings were gifted to the council decades ago,with properties and funds attached for the maintenance of the buildings. These funds have beenavailable to council for many years and now it is time to return those resources for the seismicstrengthening of the library and gymnasium. These heritage buildings are listed Category 1 byHeritage New Zealand (meaning they are of national significance – the same status as the TownHall), and Category A by Auckland Council. A Conservation Plan was done in 2000, and sincethen there have been multiple reports and recommendations on the state of the buildings, the

#3316

most recent in 2017, advising simple steps to make the buildings safer. None of these have yetbeen implemented. It’s time for the Auckland Council to allocate a budget towards seismicstrengthening of the Leys Institute, so these much loved facilities operating for 115 years, can besafely returned to the community.

Auckland Council

#3316

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/V55NyvDsksIjQj_G130p3g



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support

I support only because the more recycling we do the less waste goes to landfill.


In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through a

#3317

targeted rate. This targeted rate no longer meets the cost of collection. In other areas, residentsalready meet the full cost of rubbish collection via pay-as-you-throw.





Support

It is better than have to purchase prepaid bags each week and stops animals getting into therubbish bags.






Do not support - end the service

It is only for a limited number of people why should be pay for this service. They will have to payindividually if they cannot be on the main sewer.

Local prioritiesMaungakiekie-Tāmaki

I support most of the priorities

Waitematā

Other feedback

#3317

5. Do you have feedback on any other issues?

Money should be set aside for the strengthening of the Leys Institute in St Marys Road, St MarysBay. This is a priority as it has mostly funded itself up to now and is an icon in the "Bay". It is usedby many including the Public Library which is a very important part of life for a lot of local people. Ifthe addition to the building is the problem, demolish that part and retain the original building.

Auckland Council

#3317

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/eSsi8mhcNbSmlpdBQQblWw



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support

This creates an incentive for people to reduce waste - but you must ensure it isn't regressive -often it's easiest for the wealthiest to shop in ways that reduce waste.


In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through a

#3318

targeted rate. This targeted rate no longer meets the cost of collection. In other areas, residentsalready meet the full cost of rubbish collection via pay-as-you-throw.





Support







“Local residents are concerned about the closure of the Leys Institute building library due toseismic problems and the future of the buildings if nothing is done. The buildings are listedCategory 1 by Heritage New Zealand and Category A by Auckland Council. These are importantheritage and valuable community buildings. The Leys Institute buildings were gifted to councildecades ago with properties and funds attached for the maintenance of the buildings. Theyrepresent a tangible link to our local history and demonstrate Victorian architecture andphilanthropy. The buildings are important in the Ponsonby urban landscape and irreplaceable. Iwant Auckland Council to plan for the seismic and functional upgrade of the Leys Institutebuildings and to budget for this work in this year’s annual plan.”


“Local residents are concerned about the closure of the Leys Institute building library due to

#3318

seismic problems and the future of the buildings if nothing is done. The buildings are listedCategory 1 by Heritage New Zealand and Category A by Auckland Council. These are importantheritage and valuable community buildings. The Leys Institute buildings were gifted to councildecades ago with properties and funds attached for the maintenance of the buildings. Theyrepresent a tangible link to our local history and demonstrate Victorian architecture andphilanthropy. The buildings are important in the Ponsonby urban landscape and irreplaceable. Iwant Auckland Council to plan for the seismic and functional upgrade of the Leys Institutebuildings and to budget for this work in this year’s annual plan.”

Auckland Council

#3318

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/rR0-8XmBiqHsuz0jbB8abw

Submission on Auckland Council Annual Budget 2020/21

CCRG are pleased to have the opportunity to submit on Councils Annual Budget.

Our area of focus, in priority order, are the ones we believe are critical to creating a World Class City Centre. For ease of reference we will present these under the Auckland Plan Outcomes and we would suggest that this might be a useful format for all Local Board Plans. It makes measuring success against those Outcomes much easier for citizens to see, and this in itself, increases involvement and interest in elections and the work that the Local Board do.

We believe the following also responds to the various questions posed in the consultation material.

CCRG supports the proposed increases in the waste management targeted rate and the refuse rate as it relates to the Auckland city centre.

Belonging and Participating Two focus areas for CCRG are – developing a vibrant community centre at EMC and providing a safe, secure night shelter for those who need it.

We are excited with the changes at EMC over the past few months and it is now a more open and accessible space for people to relax and enjoy. We are keen to continue this work, with the Boards support, to develop a 24/7 community hub for city centre residents. Our thanks for the efforts of the Waitemata Ward member and the Waitemata Local Board who have worked with the EMC team to make huge progress in advancing community engagement in recent months and have strengthened ties with CCRG.

CCRG believe that we do need a night shelter in the city centre and would encourage the WLB to support the current initiative from the NEST and similar projects. There should be no need, or excuse, for anyone to sleep rough in our city centre – the minimum we can do is to provide a safe and secure place for people who need it. We believe this is required, in addition to the Housing First initiative and other social housing programmes that are currently underway in the city centre.

Maori Identity and Wellbeing According to the Treaty of Waitangi website, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei invited English settlers to share the land with them in 1840. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei agreed to hand over approximately 3000 acres of land for a township to be established and gifted other areas of land within the Waitemata Local Board area.

To give effect to Maori identity and wellbeing CCRG would suggest that this generosity should be more widely acknowledged and celebrated. A useful means of achieving this would be to rename streets and places in the city centre with Maori names that provided some historical connection to place. CCRG support bicultural way finding and the inclusion

#3322

of Māori interactive public art, both in which provide tangible connections to place and history. We would also support efforts by Council and the WLB to strengthen ties with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei as mana whenua. The proposal being put forward by Auckland Transport to relocate the city centre bus terminal to land that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei own is a reminder that the colonial days of Auckland are not yet over. Homes and Places. We have three areas of interest under this Outcome – disaster preparedness for homes in the city centre, more protected Open Space and improved public amenities. With the development of high rise apartments in the city centre CCRG believe there is also an urgent need for the Governing Body to work with the WLB on disaster preparedness plans to ensure that the city centre is a safe place for residents to live. The recent Convention Centre fire highlighted how unprepared we were to provide support for those who needed it and the Coronavirus maybe another example of this need. The city centre has a desperate shortage of quality open space and that shortage is getting worse. Increasingly our open space is being compromised for more commercial activities with Aotea Square being a classical example. Plonking a shipping container in the middle of our prime civic space for nothing more critical than to sell alcohol is not quality decision making. A more recent sign inviting people into “The Garden” displays a level of disdain about what public means. That renaming part of our civic square is considered acceptable is bad enough but for the sign to be decorated with plastic ivy displays a total lack of understanding about what Auckland is about. This commercial adventure has removed the most valuable space in the city centre for young children to play safely where parents/guardians can watch them. CCRG would like to see council require all commercialisation of public open space to also take into account of the value lost when removing public open space from 24/7 public use. This exercise would provide a more transparent cost/benefit analysis of a proposed event and would include ALL costs incurred by the council family for hosting the activity/event. CCRG are very supportive of the proposals outlined in the 2007 Draft Waterfront Plan, prepared by the former Auckland City Council, and making provision for public open space at the end of Wynyard, Halsey, Hobson, Princes, Queen and Captain Cook wharves. We would encourage council, and the council family, to establish, and protect, these same area as key 24/7 public open spaces in our city centre. Despite a considerable amount of work, little improvement has been made on providing clean toilet, shower and lockers across the city centre. CCRG would like to see this as a priority for the WLB over the next three years with an agreed development programme to support the initiative. Transport and Access

#3322

CCRG are totally supportive of the Access for Everyone programme that has been developed by the expert team Auckland Design Office. It was very pleasing to see the progress on stage two of High Street getting underway recently. A4E has the capacity to change how we use the city centre space with a much stronger focus on people and at far less cost than the traditional permanent infrastructure method. We would like to see this as a priority budget area for council over the next three years. We are also aware of a huge shortage of designated Goods Service Vehicle parking spaces in the city centre. Without the capacity to deliver these critical aspects of living, working and doing business in the city centre, the current traffic congestion and abuse of pedestrian spaces will only get worse. CCRG does not support shared parking for Service Delivery Vehicles – unless it is marked Good Service Delivery Vehicles the space will be used by everyone looking for a carpark. CCRG are supportive of the existing Bus Terminal remaining where it is at SkyCity and do not believe it should be moved. It is in the most central location and within very close proximity to the CRL Aotea Station, so for passengers there is not better space in the city centre. It also has a 999 year Resource Consent and, since its inception, thousands of subsequent planning, traffic and place making decisions have been made on the basis that it would be in this location for a very long time. To suggest it should be moved because it does not fit with the new Convention Centre is neither a useful, or correct, statement. CCRG would encourage the various parties to work together and develop a World Class bus terminal on the current site that gives effect to the World Class City we all aspire to and that adds value to the investment the taxpayers and ratepayers have made in the New Zealand International Convention Centre development. Environment and Cultural Heritage The city centre environment is deteriorating rapidly as a consequence of the number of diesel buses travelling in/around the city centre, and the various ferry, cruise and freight ships. The black carbon levels in Queen Street are a health hazard and this is totally unsatisfactory from CCRG’s perspective. We would like to see many more, and improved, multi-site monitoring stations that will measure the air quality across the entire city centre. This will also provide the information needed to measure the success of various initiatives to reduce air pollution in the city centre. There is currently a plethora of street works taking place in the city centre and very little, if any, protection is provided to the public from dust and noise associated with this work. There is no excuse for this and in many cities across the globe this would not be accepted. We would request that the council require every construction site to have screens/vegetation that protect the public from dust and noise, along with improved street lighting for safety at night. CCRG are also increasingly concerned at the poor quality of street maintenance/cleaning in the city centre and this adds to the sense of ugliness associated with the construction work.

#3322

There has been an increasing amount of man-made noise in the city centre during the hours of 11pm and 4am by Ventia Contractors. We have had feedback from residents that AC noise control advise that this is permissible activity noise that they and have no control over this but suggested that we take it up with Council/WLB. CCRG appreciate these works are necessary (cleaning etc.) however noisy works conducted in the middle of the night are not good outcomes for residents. Yes please to lot’s more trees and bees – CCRG are very supportive of the Urban Ngahere Strategy and would like to see this implement throughout the city centre. It will be especially important as we reforest following the destruction of trees for the CRLL works. Opportunity and Prosperity The extremely low voter turnout in Auckland at the last Local Government elections is an issue that we think all Local Boards should be addressing with the Governing Body. There appears to be ample scope for improved community engagement in this area as the current levels are a lost opportunity for all. CCRG would also like to see more work done around distance working as a means of reducing peak traffic demand in the city centre. 24/7 secure work hubs across Auckland provide the opportunity to better manage peak traffic in the city centre and improve both family and community life which supports shared prosperity amongst all Aucklanders. The need for this is not more evident that the current Covid19 pandemic. Development Strategy The lack of a cohesive, co-ordinated approach to developments across Auckland leads to significant delays and overlaps which usually come at a cost to ratepayers and residents. CCRG would like to see the Governing Body, in association with Local Boards, develop standard Resource Consent conditions that provide for set timeline/timeframes for each specific construction project, or project stages, with penalties if these are not achieved. Although outside the scope of this particular submission, it is also CCRG’s view, that the Governing Body should be the owner, and instigator, of the annual CCO Statement of Intent process and that may provide another opportunity to be more specific with expectations of project delivery. Thank you again for this opportunity and we look forward to working with Council, through the ACCAB, on the development of a World Class City centre.

#3322



Attachment:

Organisation name:









#3325










I support most of the prioritiesThe Waitemata Local Board states that one of its roles is “caring for the environment andpreserving heritage”. So it is appropriate that some statement regarding the Leys Institute shouldbe included in the 3 year plan for 2020-2022. While the Local Board has indicated its support forthe seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute buildings, it does not have access to sufficientfunding to carry out strengthening and must rely on the council’s governing body. However, writingthis into the Local Board Plan will show the community that the Local Board is advocating for thestrong desire for these buildings to be strengthened and returned to use as much lovedcommunity facilities over the last 115 years.


It is appropriate that some definitive statement regarding the Leys Insitute should be included inthe 2020-22 3 year plan. The local board clearly indicated its support for seismic strengthening-but without access to sufficient funds willed to rely on the council governing body. It would bereassuring g tooth's community to see it stated specifically in the local plan. ADDITIONAL NOTE -The Board and Council also indicated they would not allow the buildings to deteriorate whileunoccupied, and there would be on going security. We see it IS DETERIORATING already. As aclose neighbour I can report : that weeds are growing around the building inside the fence, and

#3325

people have been seen inside the fenced area, and there is already graffiti on the walkway walls.

Auckland Council

#3325

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/s2q_OvyY4nicIzFNErzV_w



Attachment:

Organisation name:









#3326










I support most of the prioritiesI do NOT support many aspects of the Western Springs Lakeside Plan. No to path widening Yesto path repair and maintenance No to lowering the Lake and planting out the settlement pond Yesto cleaning the Lake and using the system designed when the Lake was created includingrepairing the weir system and settlement pond and floating riparian planting to not stop children'sview of the bird life No to the removal and widening of bridges especially the double hump bridge.This should be an historic structure and be enhances by adding 2 triple hump bridges. The areaby MOTAT tea rooms should be a large boardwalk area for picnicking and tea Yes to signage ofthe history of Wairaka and the birdlife Yes to educational enhancement Yes to new playgroundwith Zoo theme, working with ATEED to realise this a a tourist attraction No to the removal of thePine Forest that will cause the destruction of a regenerating native forest below yes tomanagement jointly with community to only remove the dead and dangerous dozen as specified inthe independent Tree By Tree Assessment Yes to seismicly reinforcing historic buildings includingthe Leys Institute Library asap No to the moving of the Horticultural Society from their rooms inGNR. Yes to reinstating their garden and making it a composting hub Yes to a reuse and recyclecentre but not at the Horticultural Society rooms, it's more suitable to be associated with MOTATYES to the carpark by MOTAT 2 for 350cars Yes to no parking on Meola Rd ONLY during 'rushhour', yes to adding more off street carparks for the 'Dog Walking Park' No to chopping down ANYtrees, transplant them, invest in tree transplanting machinery No to the removal of magnolia treesin K Rd or to the 'enhancement' including the cycleway that is removing its character. Same goesfor Ponsonby Rd...leave them alone Yes to AT installing temporary 'enhancements' rather thancostly cycleways, foot path widening, scooter bays UNTIL they have been proven to reducebusiness of shopping areas, as in High St with trade being halved (I have proof), Make safe WestLynn pedestrian crossing as currently it's not Code Compliant No to no traffic in City Centre, yes toreplacing diesel buses with Electric No to park on Victoria St as it will stop movement of goods,

#3326

services and shoppers in the City Centre Bring back bus routes that connect shopping villages, egSurrey Cres and down through West End Rd village to Jervoius Rd No to Erebus Memorial in SirDove Myer Robinson Park


Rubbish targeted rate NO cos then people will start dumping rubbish NO to burning waste, YES torecycling and composting Selling assets NO cos we need the revenue to keep rates lower Stopselling parks no matter how small Put separation of sewer and stormwater prime importanceInfrastructure BEFORE development NO to Skypath as the cost is exorbitant NO to big spendingwhen country/world in crisis with a pandemic Properly manage parks and trees in particular. STOPcutting down trees. YES to bring back Tree Protection NO to Tupuna Maunga Authority 'IntegratedManagement Plan' to remove all exotic trees NO to Western Springs Pine Forest Removal insteadof proper management NO to AC legal team defending Town Planning decisions againstcommunity instead of genuine consultation NO to outsourcing Park Management to Ventia or thelike Pedestrians BEFORE cyclists Put 25% of the population with mobility issues before cyclistswho are 2% of commuters STOP building cycleways in main arterial roads and through shoppingvillages Replace all diesel buses with electric buses YES to transparency YES to live broadcastingCouncil and Local Board meetings and workshops YES to more engagement with Community NOto non-Notified Resource Consents on any Public Property including TMA Maunga

Auckland Council

#3326

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/PIsLyWzbByH47usw2WsVVw

TMA Operational Plan and Annual Budget

The Tupuna Maunga Authority's 'Integrated Management Plan'is vague to say the least, some have called it 'propaganda' and'pulling the wool over the eyes of public' as it say the plan is to"slowly cloak all the maunga in natives" but what this means is'remove all exotic trees'. It's not too much to ask, for the Integrated Management Plan toclear, transparent and unambiguous?If I had read this consultation document, along with the 38responses, I would have approved it too, not knowing that itplanned to remove so much of the bird habitat.

This process of removing exotic trees and therefore bird habitathas already taken away bird song from Mangere Mountain,Pigeon Mountain and Mt Wellington. Next in line is Mt Albert/ Owairaka. The plan is to do the same with all 13 Maunga.

I object to Tupuna Maunga Authority spending my rates todestroy bird habitat.

The Tūpuna Maunga Authority hasSIX representatives from Auckland CouncilONE representative of the CrownSIX mana whenua

The Council recently declared a 'Climate Emergency'.

The Crown recently passed the 'Zero Carbon Act'.

#3326

Statement made Māori focused hui on climate change "There was a clear commitment from Māori to address climatechange. Many agreed that the responsibility lies with us all,and suggested we need to look at how we protect this world forgenerations to come."

So why do the Council, the Crown, and Mana Whenua all wantto cut down thousands of mature trees on Maunga?

I object to Tupuna Maunga Authority spending my rates to cutdown oxygen producing, carbon sequestering, city cooling,mature trees in a time of 'Climate Change Emergency'. It's notas if 'exotic trees' create 'exotic oxygen'.

The next in the TMA IMP is the vagueness referring to 'pestspecies'. There are only 7 of the trees on Owairaka that can be identifiedas 'pests' according to the Auckland Council Pest SpeciesRegister. One of those is the willow tree, that the rare kaka has fed ontwice that I have observed on 1st December 2019 and 11January 2020.Native birds don't give a flying fig whether the Rees they landon, feed on, roost in or nest in are exotic of indigenous.Other 'exotics' are also food source for native birds - cherryblossoms, flame trees provide nectar for tui, morepork and batsroost in the crags of pines and macrocarpa, wood pigeon feedon karaka (introduced by Maori on arrival in Aotearoa) andolives.

I object to Tupuna Maunga Authority spending my rates toremove food source of a rare bird

Tupuna Maunga Authority plan on replacing exotic trees withmainly with low-lying grasses, flaxes and shrubs reduces birdhabitat.

#3326

This was the plan back 20 ago in the 'Mt Albert ManagementPlan 2000’ that was also the plan. It was wrong then and evenmore wrong now as can be seen by the diversity of current birdlife on Owairaka Maunga. (This of course applies to ALL theMaunga)

The TMA IMP talks about enhancing the Maunga to be able tobe 'World Heritage Sites', surely that means indigenous birdlife too? Yet these plans to remove exotic trees, removeimportant bird habitat. On Mt Roskill 187 trees would getremoved only leaving 85. On Owairaka 345 trees form abouthalf of the bird habitat.

The bird life on Owairaka has substantially increased in the 20years since the 'Mt Albert Management Plan 2000’ was writtenbecause exotic trees grow so fast that bird habitat has increasedexponentially. Surely that would be important for 'WorldHeritage' status?The 'Mt Albert Management Plan 2000’ identifies mynah,yellowhammer, chaffinch, magpie, wood pigeon*, swallow,sparrow, tui*, starling, blackbird and silver eye*Currently birds seen include these indigenous* and rare**birds - Fantail*Kingfisher*Morepork*Waxeye*Kaka** https://youtu.be/QAoTXzIW6xg

Tomtit (miro miro)**

I object to Tupuna Maunga Authority spending my rates toreduce bird habitat and remove bird song as they have done on

#3326

https://youtu.be/QAoTXzIW6xg

Pigeon Mountain, Mangere Mountain and Mt Wellington.

I object to Tupuna Maunga Authority spending my rates onculturally insensitive structures.I refer to the 'brutal architecture' of the barriers at the entry ofOwairaka that are reminiscent of prison camps rather thanentry to a 'recreational reserve'.Even more offensive is the cultural insensitivity of the toiletblock at the entry of Owairaka. The cultural significance of anentry onto a sacred place, a Taonga, the mouth of Maunga isseen as the personification of an ancestor, to place a toilet hereis literally 'shitting in her mouth'. The TMA is charged withspending our rates to enhance these reserves to what they hopeto be world heritage status but their Board don't even have theminimal understanding of the cultural significance of thedesigns that they approve. They should have spent their budgetmore wisely and employed architects like 'Design Tribe' whospecialise in indigenous design and who would never havemade such a faux pas. (Rau Hoskins 021658019)At the 'Love Your Maunga' event, held recently by TPA onMangere Mountain they held a 'sticker survey' of preferreddesign elements by Boffa Miskell. This is a children's game notgenuine consultation.

I object to Tupuna Maunga Authority spending my rates onremoving community facilities that are used by 'Maori and allof the people of Auckland' or intending to remove thosefacilities by increasing rents to 'force' them out. As they havedone with Mt Wellington Skate Park

I object to Tupuna Maunga Authority spending my rates

Most of all, I object to the superficial 'consultation' process andthe exclusion of public in the process with the Council

#3326

Representatives rubber stamping every step in a 'woke' mannerthat doesn't 'represent Maori and ALL of the people ofAuckland. Shame on them!

TMA's previous budget (so it is likely that current budget willalso include this on other Maunga) has included experts toprove that the Resource Consent be non-Notified, claiming thatit had 'minimal effect on public', yet to take away bird song, asit has on Mangere Mountain and Pigeon Mountain has had ahuge effect upon everyone who enjoy birds and upon theMaunga itself.

The Tupuna Maunga Authority have applied for ResourceConsents for tree removal in these Reserves and SignificantEcological Areas, on the grounds that the 'effects on public areless than minor'. Therefore the applications were non-NotifiedResource Consents yet they were given this authority overthese Reserves for "Maori and all of the people of Auckland". So the Maunga are Reserves for all Aucklanders yet the TMArestricted the public from having their say after they deceivedthe public with their 'Integrated Management Plan'. By usingthe words "slowly cloak all the maunga in natives" the planalluded to 'succession planting' where the seedlings are in anursery under the exotics and pretending to only remove 'pestspecies'. At the same time, the TMA employed ecologists andtown planners to remove all the non-indigenous trees. These'colonial trees', as they have described, now appear to thepublic, to be an aggressive act of retaliation for the terrible actof colonisation, by their exclusion from genuine consultation.

I totally object to Tupuna Maunga Authority spending my ratesto exclude me from having my say on Resource Consents

#3326

Bird habitat protector

Sent from my iPad

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326

#3326



Attachment:

Organisation name:









#3327










I do not support most of the prioritiesThe Waitemata Local Board states that one of its roles is “caring for the environment andpreserving heritage”. So it is appropriate that some statement regarding the Leys Institute shouldbe included in the 3 year plan for 2020-2022. While the Local Board has indicated its support forthe seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute buildings, it does not have access to sufficientfunding to carry out strengthening and must rely on the council’s governing body. However, writingthis into the Local Board Plan will show the community that the Local Board is advocating for thestrong desire for these buildings to be strengthened and returned to use as much lovedcommunity facilities over the last 115 years.


The Leys Institute buildings were gifted to the council decades ago, with properties and fundsattached for the maintenance of the buildings. These funds have been available to council formany years and now it is time to return those resources for the seismic strengthening of the libraryand gymnasium. These heritage buildings are listed Category 1 by Heritage New Zealand(meaning they are of national significance – the same status as the Town Hall), and Category A byAuckland Council. A Conservation Plan was done in 2000, and since then there have beenmultiple reports and recommendations on the state of the buildings, the most recent in 2017,

#3327

advising simple steps to make the buildings safer. None of these have yet been implemented. It’stime for the Auckland Council to allocate a budget towards seismic strengthening of the LeysInstitute, so these much loved facilities operating for 115 years, can be safely returned to thecommunity.

Auckland Council

#3327

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/JCuM8Rvw_PSdS_SJbtINWQ

1

Annual Budget 2020/2021 To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Submitter details

Date received: 22 Mar 2020 16:44

Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback

1. Waste management target rate

The cost of responsibly dealing with our kerbside recycling (paper, cardboard and plastics) has increased due to international market conditions. To pay for this we propose to charge only those who use the service by increasing the targeted rate by $20 a year (or $0.38 a week) to $141.03 (incl. GST).

If we do not do this, we would have to fund the shortfall by increasing general rates for all ratepayers, including those who don’t get a kerbside collection service.


Support

#3332

2


In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through a targeted rate. This targeted rate no longer meets the cost of collection. In other areas, residents already meet the full cost of rubbish collection via pay-as-you-throw.


$14.23 a year or $0.27 a week for a 120 litre bin (the total cost changing from $129.93 to $144.16 a year), and

20.91 a year or $0.40 a week for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from $191.00 to $211.91 a year).

If we don't do this, we would have to increase general rates for all ratepayers, including those who live outside these two areas who would subsidise residents of old Auckland and Manukau City areas.


Other


Last year we consulted on removing the septic tank pump-out service funded by a targeted rate. While feedback indicated a willingness to go ahead with the removal in the Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour local board areas, residents of the Waitākere Ranges local board area want to keep the service.

The cost of delivering this service is higher than the current targeted rate of $198.43. Our proposal is to recover the full cost by increasing the targeted rate to between $260 and $320 a year (incl. GST). This increase would apply from July 2021.

If we don't do this, the council could end the service, or continue to subsidise the cost of the service to septic tank users in the Waitākere Ranges local board area from all general ratepayers.


Local priorities

Waitematā

I do not support all of the priorities I would prefer the Leys Institute Library to be strengthened and returned to the community, rather the proposed development at 254 Ponsonby Road. The Waitemata Local Board states that one of its roles is “caring for the environment and preserving heritage”. So it is appropriate that some statement regarding the Leys Institute should be included in the 3 year plan for 2020-2022. While the Local Board has indicated its support for the seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute buildings, it does not have access to sufficient funding to carry out strengthening and must rely on the council’s governing body. However, writing this into the Local Board Plan will show the community that the Local Board is advocating for the strong desire for these buildings to be strengthened and returned to use as much loved community facilities over the last 115 years.

#3332

3

Other feedback


The Leys Institute buildings were gifted to the council decades ago, with properties and funds attached for the maintenance of the buildings. These funds have been available to council for many years and now it is time to return those resources for the seismic strengthening of the library and gymnasium. These heritage buildings are listed Category 1 by Heritage New Zealand (meaning they are of national significance – the same status as the Town Hall), and Category A by Auckland Council. A Conservation Plan was done in 2000, and since then there have been multiple reports and recommendations on the state of the buildings, the most recent in 2017, advising simple steps to make the buildings safer. None of these have yet been implemented. It’s time for the Auckland Council to allocate a budget towards seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute, so these much loved facilities operating for 115 years, can be safely returned to the community.

#3332

Auckland Council Annual Budget 2020/2021 Submission March 2020

Introduction

Generation Zero welcomes the ability to submit on Auckland Council’s Annual Budget 2020/2021. We are a youth-led climate justice group that advocates for solutions to provide a zero-carbon future through smart transport, liveable cities and independence from fossil fuels. We overall agree with the suggested changes that you have listed as requiring feedback, but see that there are other broader issues that you have not asked the public for feedback on which are needed. Generation Zero looks forward to further expanding on the points made within this submission. We also hope that this budget will align with the application of other council plans such as the recently revised Auckland Climate Action Plan. It is imperative that Auckland Council considers these plans given the current climate crisis and the need to provide a thriving and livable Tāmaki Makarau that secures a future for us all.

Water management, refuse collection, Waitakere rural sewage service and targeted rates

Overall Generation Zero is in support of the proposed changes to these proposals. We see that this way of funding for the required additional revenue is more equitable given it is user-pays. The alternative would involve general rates increasing for all ratepayers, which would disproportionately impact those who are the most marginalised including low-income communities.

Alongside this fare increase, there is a need for more support to help communities transition to reducing the amount of material placed into recycling. Although research has shown that low-income communities produce less waste than high-income communities , it is still a critical consideration to 1

ensure that we bring along communities as we move towards a zero-waste economy that does not simultaneously heighten inequity. Solutions include increasing access to food waste collections and places to recycle e-waste, and equitably funding community-led zero-waste workshops as recommended in similar cities such as Toronto. 2

Additionally, we further commend the council’s efforts to increase funding to develop recycling infrastructure in Tāmaki Makaurau to reduce our reliance on shipping our materials overseas. We would like the council to further build on this given the environmental impacts associated with shipping recycling material overseas.

Raising general rates would negatively impact lower income communities for a service that they do not use. A targeted rate to continue the delivery of the service would be the best approach as it would cost those who directly benefit from the service while preventing negative environmental impacts.

1 Miranda, M.L., Bauer, S.D. and Aldy, J.E. 1996. Unit pricing programs for residential municipal solid waste: An assessment of the literature. Report prepared for the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Washington DC: EPA. www.epa.gov/epaoswer/nonhw/payt/pdf/swlitrep.pdf [Accessed March 2020]. 2 Toronto Environmental Alliance. 2016. Zero waste Toronto: A vision for our city. Toronto Environmental Alliance. Toronto Canada: TEA. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/toenviro/pages/1636/attachments/original/1456190964/TEA_-_Zero_Waste_Toronto_Report_-_2016.pdf?1456190964 [Accessed March 2020]

1

#3335

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/toenviro/pages/1636/attachments/original/1456190964/TEA_-_Zero_Waste_Toronto_Report_-_2016.pdf?1456190964

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/toenviro/pages/1636/attachments/original/1456190964/TEA_-_Zero_Waste_Toronto_Report_-_2016.pdf?1456190964

Regarding the Waitakere rural sewage service, it is important that the service does continue. Many rural Aucklanders report they neglect to maintain the upkeep of their systems when it is their responsibility. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board area is home to the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park and some of the Auckland Region’s best water bodies and beaches. Preventing the encroachment of wastewater into these natural features protects their cultural and spiritual value and the ecosystem services they provide in terms of carbon capture, climate cooling and biodiversity support.

Overall, we are in support of this policy change to the waste management targeted rate as we see this as being one tool that can be used to help Tāmaki Makaurau reduce our waste and to incentivise a zero-waste future.

Local board priorities

Although Generation Zero has members throughout various local boards in Tāmaki Makaurau, as a collective youth-led climate justice group we do not feel that it is right for us to comment on what we think should happen at each board level. This is where community input and concerns should be at the forefront when expressing their priorities as a local board.

We do feel though that a climate and decolonisation lens should be applied to the various actions within the priorities of the local boards, including how each priority is linked to or helps, address climate change and provide climate justice. Simultaneously, Mana Whenua and Tangata Whenua within each local board should be centred in having tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) and the mana to dictate the priorities within each local board.

Other items

Item 66 Increasing subsidy for school children to 50%. This is a good start for making public transport more accessible and encouraging lower carbon transport options for younger people. While we would always like to see this go further, this is a step in the right direction.

Items 36-52 We are happy to see a much bigger emphasis on climate change in this budget. There are some excellent initiatives being funded to reduce the carbon emissions of council operations. The review of the Unitary Plan from a climate lens is also an excellent initiative which has the potential to make a significant impact, provided that this review puts climate change at the forefront. This suggests that Auckland Council is recognising that its plans and policies can have a significant influence on Auckland’s carbon emission.

However, we would like to see more emphasis placed on Auckland Transport and its policies, as transport makes up 40% of Auckland’s emissions. Auckland Transport still has significant weight placed on providing for private car transport, and still views emissions as just one small piece of the transport puzzle, rather than being a central concern and gearing all transport planning towards a low carbon future.

Item 37 These are good initiatives, however we would like to see more emphasis on increasing the proportion of schools which have access to this resource. Currently, the plan is to “continue to invest”; we would like to see an increase in investment if this means reaching the remaining 25% of schools who do not get reached by this programme.

2

#3335

Items 42-45 The initiatives to electrify and decarbonise the vehicle fleet, starting this year, are a good start, which Generation Zero fully supports. There are, however, a few key considerations which are not mentioned:

● There is no date by which Auckland Council and its CCOs pledge to have a fully electrified fleet. This is necessary to hold the council family accountable.

● There is no mention of other initiatives to change the composition of the council fleet - for example, increasing the number of fleet e-bikes available to council staff. Many trips taken are a shorter distance, and could easily be done by e-bike.

● There is no mention of changing the travel behaviour of council staff coming to work. We would like to see further consideration of offering subsidies or other encouragement of alternative transport modes such as public transport and active transport, and an active discouragement of driving.

Item 51 We fully support the additional funding for all of these initiatives, particularly the emphasis on the Unitary Plan, and a Te Aō Māori worldview on climate change. The latter is critically important in ensuring a just, equitable transition that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Conclusion

Overall there are actions within the budget that are to be applauded, although we see numerous areas that could be strengthened to ensure the budget reflects the voice of rangatahi who are wanting strong climate action. This is especially evident in applying a climate lens to how we, as a city, plan and budget our priorities. We look forward to further engaging with you on the development of this budget.

3

#3335

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback






#3340

2












Local priorities

Waitematā

I support most of the priorities Public libraries and art galleries should be major priorities. I want to put in particular support for a library I have often used, the Leys Institute in Ponsonby, which has closed without a definite time for the earthquake repairs to be completed. Of course the coronavirus has temporarily interrupted all activities, but this is a plan for the future!

Other feedback


I would not want to live in Auckland if there was not a good public Art Gallery and a good library service. The internet has added to printed books but NOT replaced them.

#3340

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#3345

2













Local priorities

Waitematā

The Waitemata Local Board states that one of its roles is “caring for the environment and preserving heritage”. So it is appropriate that some statement regarding the Leys Institute should be included in the 3 year plan for 2020-2022. While the Local Board has indicated its support for the seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute buildings, it does not have access to sufficient funding to carry out strengthening and must rely on the council’s governing body. However, writing this into the Local Board Plan will show the community that the Local Board is advocating for the strong desire for these buildings to be strengthened and returned to use as much loved community facilities over the last 115 years.

Other feedback

#3345

3



#3345

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback




#3346

2














Local priorities

Waitematā

The Waitemata Local Board states that one of its roles is “caring for the environment and preserving heritage”. So it is appropriate that some statement regarding the Leys Institute should be included in the 3 year plan for 2020-2022. While the Local Board has indicated its support for the seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute buildings, it does not have access to sufficient funding to carry out strengthening and must rely on the council’s governing body. However, writing this into the Local Board Plan will show the community that the Local Board is advocating for the strong desire for these buildings to be strengthened and returned to use as much loved community facilities over the last 115 years.

#3346

3

Other feedback



#3346

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#3349

2













Local priorities

Waitematā

I am concerned about the closure of the Leys Institute. The is no evidence of explicit support for its maintenance in the Local Board Proposals. These buildings have a Category 1 rating by Heritage NZ and Category A by the Council. They are true Taonga and for more than a Library and gym. They function as a true community centre for their community and provide a range of services and opportunities for all age groups. When they were gifted to the Council they were also provided with a trust fund for their maintenance. The restoration of this group of heritage buildings should have priority. It should feature explicitly in the Plan of the Local Board but since the latter does not have the necessary resources to undertake this project it should also be written into the Council Budget. In supporting this work the Local Board would be fulfilling one of its objectives - to care for the environment and local heritage. These buildings have not only a practical use but also are part of our heritage and an asset to the urban environment. I ask that

#3349

3

you include it in your work plan and also that you endeavour to have it included in the Council Budget in this years annual plan..

Other feedback


#3349



Attachment:

Organisation name:










#3350









I do not support all of the prioritiesThe Waitemata Local Board states that one of its roles is “caring for the environment andpreserving heritage”. So it is appropriate that some statement regarding the Leys Institute shouldbe included in the 3 year plan for 2020-2022. While the Local Board has indicated its support forthe seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute buildings, it does not have access to sufficientfunding to carry out strengthening and must rely on the council’s governing body. However, writingthis into the Local Board Plan will show the community that the Local Board is advocating for thestrong desire for these buildings to be strengthened and returned to use as much lovedcommunity facilities over the last 115 years.


The Leys Institute buildings were gifted to the council decades ago, with properties and fundsattached for the maintenance of the buildings. These funds have been available to council formany years and now it is time to return those resources for the seismic strengthening of the libraryand gymnasium. These heritage buildings are listed Category 1 by Heritage New Zealand(meaning they are of national significance – the same status as the Town Hall), and Category A byAuckland Council. A Conservation Plan was done in 2000, and since then there have beenmultiple reports and recommendations on the state of the buildings, the most recent in 2017,advising simple steps to make the buildings safer. None of these have yet been implemented. It’stime for the Auckland Council to allocate a budget towards seismic strengthening of the LeysInstitute, so these much loved facilities operating for 115 years, can be safely returned to thecommunity.

#3350

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback






#3364

2












Local priorities

Waitematā

I support most of the priorities The preservation of the Leys Institute has to be a top priority, it is one of the most important public buildings in the area and its donated status, with a supporting fund, must be honoured. There must be room to recognise a change in priority so demolition by neglect does not take place

Other feedback


See question 4

#3364

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Support

#3395

2








Support






Support - continue the service

Local priorities

Waitematā

I support most of the priorities I believe the necessary seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute building be made a priority and every effort must be made to restore this historic building to public use as a local library. Auckland city is short of buildings of significant historical value that can continue to play an important role in our communities lives.

#3395

3

Other feedback


The linked image cannot be d isplayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link poin ts to the correct file and location.

#3395

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


A

Regional feedback





Support

#3396

2








Support







Local priorities

Waitematā

I support most of the priorities The Waitemata Local Board states that one of its roles is “caring for the environment and preserving heritage”. So it is appropriate that some statement regarding the Leys Institute should be included in the 3 year plan for 2020-2022. While the Local Board has indicated its support for the seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute buildings, it does not have access to sufficient funding to carry out strengthening and must rely on the council’s governing body. However, writing this into the Local Board Plan will show the community that the Local Board is advocating for the strong desire for these buildings to be strengthened and returned to use as much loved community facilities over the last 115 years.

#3396

3

Other feedback


#3396

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback






#3397

2












Local priorities

Waitematā

I do not support all of the priorities I believe that the historic Leys Institute building should be preserved. It would be a travesty for the building not to be part of the local community and indeed the wider Auckland community, given its historic significance. I understand the the Leys Institute building has the same classification as the Town Hall. Earthquake strengthening of the building should be a priority in the budget.

Other feedback


#3397

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Support

#3398

2

Each person should be responsible for the full lifecycle of the products they consume - this includes end of life and packaging. It should act essentially as a vice tax.








Other

Waste removal costs should reflect their true costs and not be subsidised by other users. This proposal still strikes me as significantly cheaper than other regions, on an assumption of 1 bin every two weeks. That comparison and justification has not been made clear so I struggle to have a clear view.







These users must pay for the third of three waters as everyone else does.

Local priorities

Waitematā

I do not support most of the priorities The population mix of WLB is not well reflected in annual budgeting, with nearly half the

#3398

3

population being within the motorway ring. While the majority of this population is not politically active, their needs are just as strong for good footpaths, safe connections to their schools and stores, clean air, and safe, accessible green spaces. The city centre is a complicated place, but for every meter improvement there is a huge benefit to a huge, dense population. It's just great bang for buck, but we have some of the worst footpaths in Auckland and the lowest amount of green space per resident of anywhere in the country - neither things to be proud of and with no plans to address this in any plan at any level. This is where we need the Local Board more than ever. A new park in Ponsonby is great, but we don't have our own back gardens - clean air outdoors and public green space in the city centre is worth more than anything to us.

Other feedback


Green space, clean air, footpaths.

#3398

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Support

#3399

2

I generally support this because costs go up, but people who don't use it or use it very little might ask why they have to pay the same as those who fill their bin each fortnight?








Support

But what about people who hardly use the bin? We usually have only one small bag in the bottom of the bin, a) because we run a compost and b) because we don't buy a lot of 'stuff'. Will people have a choice as to which sized bin they have?







Do people who use this get a reduction on their rates because they don't use the city's wastewater system?

Local priorities

Waitematā

I support most of the priorities I am very concerned about the Leys Institute, which is vital for both community and heritage

#3399

3

reasons. First, it is a community hub which many people use for many different purposes. It serves a number of community functions, of which the library itself may be the most important (for contact between people, use of computers and above all for the books and to encourage reading, particularly among the young). Secondly, we do not want to lose all our heritage although sometimes I feel as if the council and developers do not value it at all. I ask the Waitemata Local Board to strenuously encourage Auckland Council to continue investigating and then implementing the preservation and strengthening of both the Leys Institute buildings so that they can be reopened for the uses for which they were given to the city. Otherwise I support the priorities apart from the Ponsonby Park proposals - this seems to be all concrete and buildings which I do not feel is a park.

Other feedback


I repeat my comments about the Leys Institute as given under the Waitemata Local Board priorities. I repeat them here because I recognise that this is a council rather than a local board responsibility since, as I understand it, the Council would need to fund and to carry out the necessary project. I am very concerned about the Leys Institute, which is vital for both community and heritage reasons. First, it is a community hub which many people use for many different purposes. It serves a number of community functions, of which the library itself may be the most important (for contact between people, use of computers and above all for the books and to encourage reading, particularly among the young). Secondly, we do not want to lose all our heritage although sometimes I feel as if the council and developers do not value it at all. I ask the Waitemata Local Board to strenuously encourage Auckland Council to continue investigating and then implementing the preservation and strengthening of both the Leys Institute buildings so that they can be reopened for the uses for which they were given to the city.

#3399

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Support

#3400

2








Support






Local priorities

Waitematā

I do not support all of the priorities The Waitemata Local Board states that one of its roles is “caring for the environment and preserving heritage”. So it is appropriate that some statement regarding the Leys Institute should be included in the 3 year plan for 2020-2022. While the Local Board has indicated its support for the seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute buildings, it does not have access to sufficient funding to carry out strengthening and must rely on the council’s governing body. However, writing this into the Local Board Plan will show the community that the Local Board is advocating for the strong desire for these buildings to be strengthened and returned to use as much loved community facilities over the last 115 years.

#3400

3

Other feedback



The linked be d isplayehave been renamed, oVerify that to the corrlocation.

#3400

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Support

It makes sense to only charge those using the service.

#3401

2








Support

It's a vital service so we have to pay for it though costs must be analysed to make sure Auckland Ratepayers are receiving value for money. One idea is to do an audit of all the rubbish bins in Auckland - there are too many in some places and they just lie around on the street and folks fill them. I have personal experience of finding "strays", advising Council but nothing has been done.







Sewage is growing and systems must improve or enlarge to accommodate it. Save our beaches!!!

Local priorities

Waitematā

I do not support all of the priorities I believe that heritage is part of the Waitemata's role and want the Leys Institute in St Marys Bay

#3401

3

to figure in the 3-year plan. Seismic strengthening was identified some years back but nothing has been done and now this vital part of the area has been closed and there doesn't seem to be sufficient will or funds to carry out the work. Funds were left by the Leys family to carry out maintenance but this money has been used for other purposes. It is now time for the Auckland Council (Waitemata Board) to put this right and save this building.

Other feedback


Auckland Council has required residents to meet Heritage standards in their renovations, and it is important that Council shows its integrity and restores this beautiful building to the community, spending funds allocated for that purpose by the Leys Family and strengthening it and doing the right thing. The Council has not followed its own rules and restored this building. It is a Category A building and must be used and loved by many more generations of Aucklanders.

#3401






Support

Needs to be done







I do not support all of the prioritiesWe are very worried that the Leys Institute is going to be sold to a developer. We feel thatAuckland Council has allowed the building to fall into disrepair, have "discovered" that it is notseismically sound, says it can' t find the money to repair it and then sells it to a developer. This isthe same as the Greys Avenue Civic buildings. His Majesty's theatre was also allowed to go toruin, then was onsold. This MUST STOP!! It has happened so often for Aucklanders to believeCouncil's publicity.


Heritage Buildings must be restored. In this case (Leys Institute) funds were allocated andreceived by the Council which missued them for other reasons and now there isn't enough torestore this building. This is a CRIME.

#3403

22 March 2020 submission to:

Waitemata Local Board 3-year plan Auckland Council annual plan and budget

Subject: Future of the Leys Institute and Gymnasium

In response to online survey:

Question 4: Waitemata Local Board 3-year plan. The calls on:

The Waitemata Local Board to endorse strengthening of the Leys Institute and Gymnasium and return this building to its original use, as a library and general community facility. The board states that one of its roles is “caring for the environment and preserving heritage” and the association requests that a statement regarding the board’s position on the Leys Institute be included in the 3-year plan for 2020-2022.

While the board has indicated its support for strengthening of the Leys Institute buildings, it does not have access to sufficient funding to carry out strengthening and must rely on Auckland Council for this. However, writing this into the local board plan will show the community that the WLB has a strong desire that these historic buildings be strengthened and returned to use as much loved community facilities over the past 115 years. The community’s desire to preserve these buildings is underscored by the staging of a protest of more than 120 people outside the Leys Institute on February 26 and the formation of a Friends of the Leys Institute group.

Question 5: Other feedback

The Leys Institute buildings were gifted to the council decades ago, with funds attached for the maintenance of the buildings. These funds have been available to council for many years and now is the time to use those resources for the seismic strengthen of the library and the gymnasium. These heritage building are listed Category 1 by Heritage New Zealand and Category A by the Auckland Council.

#3404

A conservation plan was carried out in 2000, and there have been multiple reports and recommendations on the state of the buildings, the most recent in 2017.

The calls on Auckland Council to allocate a budget for seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute and Gymnasium so these historic community facilities at the heart of our neighbourhood can be returned to the community.

The association, on behalf of the community, stresses that they should not be:

- Demolished - Used for other than their intended purpose, in particular,commercial purposes - Be lost to the St Mary’s Bay community due to any review by the Waitemata Local

Board of community facilities in west Waitemata.

#3404










I support most of the prioritiesThe Waitemata Local Board states that one of its roles is “caring for the environment andpreserving heritage”. This plan is the opportunity for the Board to put this into effect: • It isappropriate that some statement regarding the Leys Institute should be included in the 3 year planfor 2020-2022. • Whilst the Board has indicated its support for the seismic strengthening of theLeys Institute buildings, it cannot fund that work and must rely on the council’s governing body. Bywriting this into the Local Board Plan the Board will demonstrate to the community that it willadvocate with Council both for the buildings to be strengthened and for them to be returned to useas highly valued community facilities.


I want Auckland Council to allocate a budget towards seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute,so these much loved facilities operating for 115 years, can safely be returned to community use: •The Leys Institute buildings (library and gymnasium) were gifted to the council more than 100years ago, together with funds for their maintenance. Council has had the use of the buildings andfunds to meet its responsibilities to its constituency for many years. It is time to respect andmaintain the spirit of the gift by committing funds to the seismic strengthening of the buildings sothat their long-standing uses are continued. • These are heritage buildings of national significance

#3406












I do not support all of the prioritiesThe Waitemata Local Board states that one of its roles is “caring for the environment andpreserving heritage”. So it is appropriate that some statement regarding the Leys Institute shouldbe included in the 3 year plan for 2020-2022. While the Local Board has indicated its support forthe seismic strengthening of the Leys Institute buildings, it does not have access to sufficientfunding to carry out strengthening and must rely on the council’s governing body. However, writingthis into the Local Board Plan will show the community that the Local Board is advocating for thestrong desire for these buildings to be strengthened and returned to use as much lovedcommunity facilities over the last 115 years.


The Leys Institute buildings were gifted to the council decades ago, with properties and fundsattached for the maintenance of the buildings. These funds have been available to council formany years and now it is time to return those resources for the seismic strengthening of the libraryand gymnasium. These heritage buildings are listed Category 1 by Heritage New Zealand

#3410

Contact details

#3426

Why I am here -

Direct funding and support to projects and places that our local community has been asking for in the

realm of placemaking and transportation. Using stories collected out on the streets since 2015.

#3426

Place-led changeand me.

#3426

Advocacy for children and familiesPonsonby Playgroup Ponsonby Community Ctr. Master of Teaching Primary

#3426

#3426

#3426

#3426

Meet my bus whanau...

#3426

Meet your Travelwise Schools ...

#3426

Kia ora from Parking Day

#3426

#3426

This here is , your local Karangahape Rd hero.

#3426

We need your help...

#3426

#3426

#3426

- Can you as a local board ask the hard questions and fund the research that will improve access and information .

- Support policy changes that simplifies language to promote equity

- Support policy change that improves access to public spaces and funds reports into current practice and

necessary improvements.Ie: partial street closures

Updated localised program calendars.Ie: container for electrics bikes western park

#3426

#3426

Fund better Civics Education

Teach how local policy is created and implemented in order to better engage our citizens in a more

meaningful proactive way.

#3426

A civicseducation strategy includingdiverse

forms ofengagement

and improvement

of bothcommunity& student

voice

#3426

Educate about AT concessionsFund onsite concession sessions

Improve access to Hop and bus infrastructure supporting offline sites

Funding 3 new top up locationsnear schools and busy locations

#3426

#3426

#3426

#3426

#3426

#3426

Fund pedestrian safe havens across Richmond

Road and Great North Road

#3426

#3426

Advocate for Vision Zero

Commit to following and putting policiesin place that reduces speeds around schools.

Collect data and fund consultation that leads to implementing and providing outcomes.

#3426

#3426

#3426

#3426

#3426

Waitemata Local Board Plan for 2020

Presentation

3 March 2020

#3434

The Strand

Significant Health & Safety Issues

1. Intersection of Gladstone andThe Strand

• Cars

• Pedestrians

2. Bend in The Strand• Cars

• Trucks

• Pedestrians

#3434

Bend in The Strand –make safe for cars, trucks and pedestrians!

#3434

Intersection of GladstoneRd and The Strand

The Problems• Traffic coming down Gladstone Rd

to go to Quay St or Tamaki Drivehave to negotiate a very complexintersection.

• Pedestrians walking from QuaySt/Tamaki Drive to either BalfourRd or Lower St Georges Bay Rdhave to cross busy roads without apedestrian crossing.

#3434

Outcome Requested: Solve the problem

Issue: Solution is controlled by NZTA and Auckland Transport.

WLB Action: Advocate for Urgency!

#3434

St Georges Bay Rd Street

Scape Upgrade

#3434

#3434

WLB Action: First step -allocate part of the TCF to fund the project management and preparation of the designs.NB: 2017 estimate of this cost was $125k

Second step - advocate to Auckland Transport to fund implementation.

#3434

WE NEED YOUR HELP BEFORE THE 22ND MARCH

Over the past 3-4 years the landowners in St Georges Bay Road have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into transformational infrastructure which now supports a working population of around 2,000 people. The Faraday precinct is an award winning space, with former warehouses being repurposed to create a dynamic series of spaces in which to work, shop and eat, thereby providing a generous addition to the public urban infrastructure.

Yet despite significant private investment, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have neglected the streetscapes and general evirons on this side of the city, choosing to focus on the waterfront and readiness of the city for the likes of America’s Cup.

It’s Parnell’s turn to secure some major investment for a change and we need your assistance before 22nd March.

By completing the details below, you are asking the Waitemata Local Board to advocate for the Revitalisation of the St Georges Bay Road warehouses area, (as published in the Parnell Plan), to be funded in the next review of the Long Term Plan (LTP), and the Governing Body and Auckland Transport to make provision for this project to be included.

THE S

TRAND

WINDSOR ST

GARFIELD ST

SCARBO

ROUG

H TC

E

ST GEO

RGES BAY RD

KENWYN ST

CLEVELAND RD

STANWELL ST

AVON ST

STRAFORD ST

BRADFORD ST

GLADSTONE RD

H E L P I M P R O V E T H E S T G E O R G E S B A Y R D S T R E E T S C A P E

Potential streetscape project area

HERE‘S HOW YOU CAN HELP...

#3458

Company/Employer: Touchpoint Group

I confirm I am asking the Waitemata Local Board to advocate for the Revitalisation of theSt Georges Bay Road warehouses area, (as published in the Parnell Plan), to be funded inthe next review of the Long Term Plan (LTP), and the Governing Body and AucklandTransport to make provision for this project to be included.

This area has exploded with new offices and people - but needs improvement footpaths,crossings and outdoor areas.

Regards

#3460

Justice and Peace Commission / Te Komihana Rongomau, Paetika

SUBMISSION to Auckland Council of the Justice & Peace Commission of the

Catholic Diocese of Auckland on Auckland Council 2020/21 Annual Plan

The Justice and Peace Commission of the Catholic Diocese of Auckland undertakes advocacy and

education for social justice on behalf of the Diocese. Our submission is based on the recognition of

the human dignity and right to protection of all members of society particularly the most vulnerable.

The Catholic Church has a long standing support for Just Wages and the importance of extending Just

Wages to contract workers, who are often the victims of cost cutting attempts to lower wages by

contracting work out.

Auckland Council’s commendable clear support for paying its direct employees the Living Wage is

undermined by the ability to contract work out at below the Living Wage. This loophole must be

closed promptly. Paying employees and contract workers a Living Wage contributes to the wellbeing

of employees by ensuring their children and families have sufficient money to live each day with

dignity.

As research has showed this can also have economic benefits such as increased productivity and job

satisfaction resulting in lower staff turnover and absenteeism. We strongly encourage Auckland City

Council to take action and pay the Living Wage to workers employed by Council contractors on a

regular and ongoing basis.

This will be a step forward towards realising the Auckland Vision and Policies common theme 1.3e

that the Council aims to work towards a City in which all Aucklanders can benefit from social and

economic prosperity and reduced inequality, and can participate in and enjoy community and civic

life.

Recommendations:

1.1 We support the Council’s proposal outlined in the Annual consultation document to implement

a living wage policy over the council term ending October 2022 and in particular to ensure the

Living Wage is paid to contracted cleaners engaged in regular and ongoing work for the Council.

The important role of these workers in highlighted in the current Covid-19 crisis

1.2 We call on Auckland Council to ensure that workers employed by Council contractors on a

regular and ongoing basis are also paid the Living Wage (as tenders are sought or services are

tendered in to) employed by Council contractors on a regular and ongoing basis are also paid the

Living Wage

1.3 We request that the Council include in all Terms and Conditions of Contract for services that the

contractor pay any workers involved in the contract a minimum of the Living Wage.

1.4 And also we call on Auckland Council to explicitly recognise our bicultural relationships with

Māori under te Tiriti o Waitangi and to uphold national and international human rights

commitments.

#3461

2

Procurement Policy

The key to ensuring Auckland Council contractors are paid the Living Wage is to have a clear, fair and

robust procurement policy.

We understand that Auckland Council is guided by the principles of Ethical and Sustainable

Procurement that defines ethical procurement as procurement processes which –

Respect fundamental international standards against criminal conduct (like bribery,

corruption and fraud) and human rights abuse (like modern slavery), and respond immediately

to such matters where they are identified, and

Result in progressive improvements to the lives of people who contribute to supply chains and

are impacted by supply chain decisions.

Paying the Living Wage is consistent with Auckland Council’s Procurement Framework, Policy and

Strategy. The Council’s website Framework explicitly states its procurement principles as being to:

Work together

Value te Ao Māori

Be sustainable

Act fairly

Deliver the best value for every dollar (the principle of best value for every dollar does not

necessarily mean selecting the lowest price response, but the best possible outcome for the

total cost of ownership (or whole-of-life cost).

We believe these should also explicitly state that in all Terms and Conditions of Contract for services

that the contractor pay any workers involved in the contract a minimum of the Living Wage.

Conclusion:

The Justice & Peace Commission of the Catholic Diocese of Auckland supports the Auckland Council

Annual Plan 2020/21 setting the pattern for succeeding plans within the term of this Council by

ensuring that workers employed by Council contractors on a regular and ongoing basis are also paid

the Living Wage (as tenders are sought or services are tendered in to).

By requiring all contract workers to be paid the Living Wage the Auckland Council will be able to make

progress towards the goals outlined in its own documents of a more equitable and World Class City.

Contact information

Name

Organisation Justice & Peace Commission, Catholic Diocese of Auckland

Address

Telephone

Email

#3461

1

Annual Budget 2020/2021 - Hard copy submission

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#3481

2

Support








Support







Local priorities

Are the priorities right for the local board area in 2020/2021?

Waitematā

I support most of the priorities

Other feedback

#3481

3


NA

#3481

1



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#3490

2

Support








Do not support






Do not support - continue the Waitākere septic tank service subsidised by all general ratepayers

Local priorities


Other feedback


#3490

1



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#3499

2

Other

Depends on what do you want to do when you get more moeny from us













Local priorities


Waitematā

I do not support most of the priorities THeir priorities not very clear for me

Other feedback

#3499

3


More bus stops in Nelson Street. Auckland city centre ot more events in parks , rubbish bins and put umbrella for these chairs to help us to in winter and sit in parks

#3499

#3529

#3530

#3531

#3547

Scanned with CamScanner

#3550#355# 3550

Documents

Waitemata written feedback volume 3...20.91 a year or $0.40 a week for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from $191.00 to $211.91 a year). ... ”Our vision is a total