Letter to Rodney Hide with survey of North Shore community board members on Governments response to the Royal Commission

[David Thornton is a former member of North Shore City Council, Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee and Greater London Council]

30thApril 2009

Hon Rodney Hide MP
Minister of Local Government
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Dear Minister

Governments response to the Royal Commission

I write to present to you the views of a group of individual serving Community Board Members in North Shore City as expressed in an informal, but constructed, survey carried out after the Government’s announcement.
Full details are as set out below.
This paper has also been distributed to some board members in other parts of the region as part of the process of developing a ‘regional’community boards submission to you which will come to you under the signature of Mike Cohen.
I will be pleased to be part of any future discussion forum on these and other issues relating to Auckland’s Governance.

Yours sincerely

David Thornton
Member, Glenfield Community Board
[Eecutive, Auckland Region & Far North Community Boards Association]

Government response to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance.

Opinions of a group of North Shore elected Community Board members

[Initiated and co-ordinated by David Thornton, Glenfield Community Board]

Following the Government’s response to the Royal Commission, and the mayors and councils early reactions, I discussed with fellow elected community board members on the North Shore the possibility of achieving a common view as individual members familiar with their own communities.

We moved forward with some email correspondence and a meeting which prepared a draft position paper. This paper was circulated to all 24 elected members, the majority of whom responded, and the document amended to note the reservations of a small minority on some points.

A total of fourteen (14) community board members responded to the draft position paper, a further three (3) were away from Auckland and unable to respond – the remaining seven (7) members did not respond. Since the final draft paper was ciruclated, on Wednesday 22nd April, four (4) more members have responded to give a total of sixteen (18) respondents – 75% of total possible,

The first part of the position paper set out six (6) general position points. (see below)

Of the sixteen (16) respondents, seven (7) fully supported the six points, a further six (6) supported with minor reservations, three (3) had stronger reservations on a couple of points, and two (2) did not agree with the idea of having a position and asked not to be associated with the paper [although both later asked to be kept informed!!].

This means that the majority of North Shore elected Community Board members support the position with a small number having some reservations on a couple of points.

I stress that these are the personal individual views of elected community board members and should not be construed as the formal views of any of the boards – at this stage!!!

This paper is offered to encourage further discussions within our communities and to give initial thoughts to key stakeholders and decision-makers.

A. General position of a majority of elected North Shore City Community Board members

1. Despite some reservations we accept the inevitability of the Government’s proposal for a single Auckland Council for the Auckland region and will work with all parties to achieve the best outcome for residents, ratepayers and the Region
2. We strongly support all 20 councillors being elected on a ward basis – i.e no councillors to be elected ‘at large’. [Three respondents felt that some ‘at large’ would be necessary to ensure a ‘regional view]
3. We do not support the council wards being established on the same boundaries as Parliamentary Boundaries.
4. We accept the inevitability of the election of a Mayor at large – with the proviso that the office has powers restricted to those powers in the government’s proposals i.e. power to appoint Deputy Mayor and Committee Chairs, and preparing budget for council approval, and staffing of the Mayor's office [Two respondents were strongly opposed to election of Mayor ‘at large’]
5. We support the establishment of a minimum of 30 Local Boards, with boundaries established on the basis of communities of interest, and with the widest possible powers and delegations. [Three respondents felt we should not specify number of Local Boards at this time]
6. We would like to be given every opportunity to work with the Minister and with the Department of Internal Affairs to assist in producing a system which guarantees a definitive, co-operative and sustainable future for local government for Auckland

B. Delegations to Local Boards.

The next part of the paper deals with delegations, powers, functions and funding in relation to Local Boards.

Powers

Local Boards to have the powers to set their own budgets - within a funding cap agreed with the Auckland Council – to carry out their delegated functions which shall be set out in legislation.
It is critical that these functions include delegated powers to DECIDE rather than simply ADVOCATE.
This is not an exhaustive list and some additions/deletions are likely after further consideration.

Functions

1. Local maintenance of roads and footpaths.
2. Traffic management of local roads, parking etc
3. Manage provision and maintenance of street furntiture and trees, street naming, stopping and temporary closure.
4. Street lighting, policy, location, style
5. Cycleways and walkways, locations/priorities
6. Beautification, graffite removal
7. Public information signage
8. Hear and decide local resource consents – including notifications
9. Local parks (as defined and agreed with Auckland Council) – maintain, develop, allocate space, hire, create new park, concessions, making reserves management plans.
10. Recreation centres and local sports facilities.
11. Community Centres, Coummunity Houses, halls and local facilities.
12. Local Enterainment and cultural venues.
13. Delegated law-enforcement control of litter
14. Public toilets – locations, a local cleanung and maintenance contracts.
15. Beach control (use, cleaning and sanding)
16. Local events promotions – celebrations, memorials, entertainment,fireworks, markets.
17. Camping grounds
18. Local artworks – location, development, approvals
19. Minor safety works, set priority of projects
20. Citizens Advise Bureaux
21. Local Art Galleries and Museums [One respondent felt strongly that these should be a regional responsibity due to funding concerns]
22. Any other activity delegated by Auckland Council.

Funding

We recommend there should be a formula for the expenditure of rates collected by the Auckland Council.
The formula should be based on dividing the total income into two parts – a percentage allocated to Local Boards for them to carry out their functions, and the balance for Auckland Council to spend in accordance with its city-wide policies and priorities.
Local Boards would be advised on their individual allocation and have the power to prepare their own budget and make decisions on priorities within their area.

C. Resource Consents.

The Government’s plan shows Resource Consents being dealt with at Auckland Council level.
We can accept that lodging and processing can be centralised [with local ‘branch’ offices] but we are concerned if Hearings are also centralised.
Changes in recent years include the development of an accreditation system for Hearings Commissioners – and those accredited can, theoretically and in fact, hear applications in any part of the country.
Furthemore, once accredited, any commissioner who ceases to serve in an elected capacity can continue to be a commissioner.
It seems to us this clearly establishes that resource consent hearings are quasi-judicial and come under the RMA rather than the Local Government Act.
We therefore believe that, under the proposed new governance scheme, local hearings panels be established in each Local Board area to ‘hear and decide’ local recource consent applications.

ENDS

© Scoop Media