Tuesday, February 2, 2010

North Shore City's useful Bill 3 Submission

I would like to congratulate North Shore City Council officers for a very useful and readable draft submission to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. Aka Bill 3. I understand this submission is very much the thinking of the politicians first and foremost, put into submission form by the officers.

You can find a link so you can download the whole thing at the end of this blog. But what I wanted to provide was my extracts from it. My choice of extracts is based on getting the main guts out of the submission, so you can use bits and pieces in your own submission. If you want to. It's not bad to repeat stuff - especially if you strongly agree.

NSCC's submission is a very useful summary of issues relating to: Local Boards; CCO's in general; Auckland Transport CCO in particular; Spatial Plan; and Stormwater.
1. Statement of Principles

Inter-relationships

“…there is risk with moving from 8 local government organisations to one local government organisation and 8 Council Controlled Organisations that the same issues with tensions and slow resolution of problems could continue to be the bane of Auckland’s governance, therefore it is vital the organisations have a shared goal of contributing to the vision of the Auckland region as a whole and implementing plans consistent with the Auckland region’s Spatial Plan…”

Subsidiarity

“… we believe Auckland Council should have the ability to focus solely on regional strategies, plans and their implementation. It is highly important, therefore, that the principle of subsidiarity is applied, we note that the Government is applying this same principle in its cabinet decision for ‘Local Boards to have a statutory role broader than community boards but narrower than local authorities and a much greater interdependence between the Auckland Council and Local Boards (compared with Community Boards and Councils), requiring close consultation and integrated decision-making’. We believe it is vital that the Auckland Council Governing body have the time to focus on regional issues, and not be caught up in decisions that can be made at local level by Local Boards.”

Equity and Access

“…. Communities across Auckland vary significantly. It is highly desirable for the health and progress of the region as a whole that individual community needs and and desires are able to be reflected appropriately… the regional benefit of recognising and allowing for these differences should be allowed for within the base funding agreements with Local Boards providing that the general equity and access to services across the region is maintained…”

2. Local Boards

Place Shaping role of Local Boards


“…we believe in order for the Local Boards to have a truly ‘place-shaping’ role and to engage local democracy at grassroots it is vitally important that the functions of the second tier (the Local Boards) be clearly defined, are substantive and meaningful… we believe the powers and functions of the second tier should be enshrined in legislation, to esnure clarity of prupose and clear delineation of duties and powers between the two tiers…

“….while we believe local planning and consenting issues should be delegated to Local Boards and acknowledge that this is not achievable with the requirement that Local Boards deal only with non-regulatory matters, this does not preclude the Auckland Council from delegating to Local Board members the power to be part of a panel hearing resource consents, to provide the local input and enable better connectivity with the place-shaping role the Local Boards should have…”

Placeshaping and the role of Council Controlled Organisations

“…It does not appear from the Bill that Local Boards will have the ability to input into any strategies or plans made by the Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s) this includes Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Ltd, or that the CCO’s will be accountable to the Local Boards for work to be done in a local area. There is likely to be a large amount of work doen by Local Boards in helping placeshape their neighbourhoods, this not only involves dealing with local people on what Auckland Council may do for them but also what might be needed in their respective areas in regard to traffic calming measures or parking issues on roads…. (however) Auckland Transport is not directly accountable to Local Boards. Furthermore, the governing body of the Auckland Council is not accountable for the activities of Auckland Transport, but for how it influences the governance of the CCO – eg through appointing directors, and influencing its Statement of Intent….”

“…. Our council would like to see some provision in the Bill for Local Boards to have the ability to deal directly with the transport organisation or any of the other CCO’s where there is a local impact in respect of the work they are doing. We believe there should be a requirement in the Bill for the CCO’s to have in place a Local Board agreement stipulating how the Local Boards and the CCO’s will interact and what decision making will prevail between the 2 bodies by 30 April of the year following an election…”

3. Council Controlled Organisations

Retention of infrastructure assets in public ownership

“…we are strongly committed to the belief that all infrastructure assets should remain in public ownership… we believe that provisions surrounding Watercare Services Ltd remaining in public ownership should be enshrined in law….”

Establishment of CCO’s through Order in Council

“…The Bill allows the Minister to establish, through an Order in Council and on the recommendation of Auckland Transition Agency further CCO’s… our Council believes there should be further constraints placed on the criteria for establishing new CCO’s….”

Ability for Minister to appoint initial directors of CCO’s

“…The Bill provides for the Minister of Local Government to make the initial director appointments to the CCO’s established under an Order in Council. It is generally considered best practivce for the body to which the directors to be accountable, to appoint them… we believe there should be ability for an interim board to be appointed for an interim period, this will then give the Auckland Council the ability to review the board members and the mix of skills…”

Integration of Spatial Plan and Infrastructure

“… we believe there should be provision within the Bill for CCO’s to ‘give effect’ to the Auckland region Spatial Plan…”

Requirement to consider 4 well-beings

“…there should be provision within the Bill for CCO’s to consider the four well-beings as part of their planning process…”

Local Board agreements with CCO’s

“…We believe there should be a requirement in the Bill for the CCO’s to have in place a Local Board agreement stipulating how the Local Boards and the CCO’s will interact and what decision making will prevail between the bodies by 30 April of the year following an election…”

4. Planning

Spatial Plan and lack of timeframe

“…while we agree that the Auckland Council ‘must prepare and adopt a spatial plan for Auckland’ (Clause 66(1)), we are concerned that there is no timeframe for when such a plan should be completed, and nor is anything said about when updates are required. We note that since Toronto became a unitary authority in 1998, there was considerable delay before its first Spatial Plan emerged – a delay that is widely seen as being a major cause of the difficult development environment that the city has experienced…”

“…we suggest that the wording in Clause 66(1) be amended to read: ‘That Auckland Council must set a strategic vision for the city and must prepare and adopt a spatial plan by the end of its first term in office. Updates to the spatial plan should be prepared on an as required basis but no less than every six years.’…”

Spatial Plan and the need to recognise importance of integrated planning

“…We believe it is critical that the proposed Auckland Council structure responds to the strategic importance of centre and corridor planning, particularly because these two fundamental elements of regional planning are controlled, respectively, by the Auckland Council and by Auckland Transport. But because we believe that the linkages between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are less strong than desirable…. There is a likelihood that integrated planning will be difficult to achieve…”

Spatial Plan and the need to recognise sustainability and sustainable development

“…In order that the purpose of the spatial plan… ‘Section 45, 66(2) becomes consistent with existing law and clearer about the imperative of long-term thinking in achieving sustainable development…’, we suggest that Section 45, ‘66(2) be amended to read: The purpose of the spatial plan is to provide an effective long-term strategy for the sustainable development and management of Auckland…”

“… we also feel that there should be a clear connection made between social, cultural and economic factors and the more ‘physical’ development responses that have been emphasised at Clause ’66. We therefore suggest that Clause ‘66(3)(f) be amended to read: “to set out a development strategy on how to achieve broad policy objectives for land use, transport, other infrastructure, and environmental management in Auckland’s evolving social, cultural and economic framework’…”

5. Auckland Transport

Auckland Transport’s objectives


“…The objective and operating principles of Auckland Transport, as set out under s.45 of the Third Bill, are not as specific or wide-ranging as the objectives for ARTA under the (soon to be repealed) Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004….”

“…the LGAAA (2004) provides more specific objectives for ARTA, which do not apply to Auckland Transport:

- expansion of what exhibiting a sense of social and environmental responsibility means
- avoiding adverse effects on the environment
- ensuring views of affected parties are taken into account
- give land transport options early and full consideration
- provide early and full opportunities for consultation on land transport programmes
- focus on overall needs of region and views of communities
- consider needs of future generations, including cultural and economic wellbeing
- foster co-operative and colaborative working relastionships
- clear accountability

“…we believe that the objectives for Auckland Transport need to be more specific because they are currently open to misinterpretation… Auckland Transport’s objectives need to be similar to ARTA’s objectives…”

Accountability of Auckland Transport

“…Accountability during the transition phase to 1st November 2010. Prior to the Auckland Council coming into effect on 1 November, the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) together with the Ministers of Local Government and Transport, influence the direction of Auckland’s transport systems. Legislation contained in the 3rd Bill will guide the direction of Auckland Transport – for example by setting objectives and operating principles – after the Bill becomes an Act. Thus, elected local representatives do not have any influence during the important transitional period…”

“…Ongoing accountability post 1st November 2010…. There is no statement on what happens if the Auckland Council is not satisfied with Auckland Transport’s contribution to the council’s (or the Government’s) objectives….”

“…Accountability to Local Boards…. Auckland Transport is not accountable to local boards. Furthermore, the governing body of the Auckland Council is not accountable for the activities of Auckland Transport, but for how it influences the governance of Auckland Transport… Auckland Transport, unlike other CCO’s, does not need to prepare and adopt a 10-year plan that includes information on how the organisation is giving effect to the Auckland Council’s strategy, plans and priorities… the 3rd Bill should set out consultation requirements for Auckland Transport, including the opportunity for Local Boards to provide feedback on proposed activities that have an impact on the Local Board’s area…”

“…Auckland Council oversight of Auckland Transport planning…. We note with concern that the proposed legislation at New Clause 75 subsection 3 (p.55) currently exempts Auckland Transport from the requirement to prepare and adopt a plan under New Clause 75 subsection 2(c) which enables Auckland Council to require substantive CCO’s to prepare and adopt a plan covering a period of at least 10 years describing how the organisation intends to: (i) manage, maintain, and invest in its assets; and (ii) maintain or improve service levels, and; (iii) respond to population growth and other changing environmental factors, and; (iv) give effect to the Council’s strategy, plans and priorities…. Removing Auckland Council’s exemption (as in the Bill now) would provide the opportunity for Auckland Council to obtain an explicit statement from Auckland Transport on how it intends to “give effect” to key Council strategies, in particular the Spatial Plan…”

Transport and Land Use Integration

“…The 3rd Bill is particularly emphatic in allocating responsibility for developing and managing the Auckland Transport System to Auckland Transport. But we believe the Bill does not adequately emphasise the fundamental importance of achieving transport and land use integration… Transport and land use integration is a key objective of the RLTS but we believe that its ability to influence the actions of Auckland Transport has been substantially downgraded from that currently applying to ARTA. Whereas the 3rd Bill requires the Auckland Transport’s RLTP to be ‘consistent with’ the RLTS, ARTA’s RLTP has been required to ‘give effect’ the RLTS…”

“….We have a number of questions about this:

- Will Auckland Transport reflect the land use strategies being promoted by the Auckland Council through the selection and prioritisation of transport projects in the RLTP?
- Will Auckland Transport provide public transport services and infrastructure which support the region’s land use strategies?
- How much recognition and accommodation will be given by Auckland Transport to land use objectives and plans in individual transport projects?

“…we believe the following additional objective for Auckland Transport is required….The objective of Auckland Transport is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to the effective and sustainable integration of land use and the transport system, including an affordable, safe, responsive and sustainable network…”

6. Ongoing operation of development contributions

“…development contributions represent a significant funding source for the Auckland region (projected to fund a total of $1.6 billion of growth related capital investment over the 2009-2019 period). If the legal provisions around transition and the ongoing ability of Auckland Council to use development contribuitions as a funding tool were not carefully managed, the new Auckland council would be faced with a major funding issue…”

7. Water and Stormwater organisation issues

“…there is some confusion around the relationship between wastewater services and stormwater. It is assumed that initially at least Auckland Council will be responsible for stormwater management across the region… while powers under LGA 74 Pt 21 have been removed from the Auckland Council (these relate to the use of vehicle crossings; planting in dividing strips; foot paths and channels….) some of these are useful for stomrwater management when dealing with overland flow and flooding, and the powers therefore need to be restored to Auckland Council for stormwater management. If these powers remain removed from Auckland Council, there needs to be a requirement for Auckland Transport to acknowledge the function of roads in managing/conveying stormwater and a requirement for them to work with Auckland Council…

Good eh?
Anyway, here's the link so you can download this submission. It's the lion's share of the agenda you can get from NSCC's website for its Council meeting of 3rd February 2010.
http://www.northshorecity.govt.nz/YourCouncil/Meetings/AgendasAndMinutes/Documents/2010%20Agendas%20Minutes/February/Council%203%20February%202010%20Order%20Paper.pdf

No comments:

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

North Shore City's useful Bill 3 Submission

I would like to congratulate North Shore City Council officers for a very useful and readable draft submission to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. Aka Bill 3. I understand this submission is very much the thinking of the politicians first and foremost, put into submission form by the officers.

You can find a link so you can download the whole thing at the end of this blog. But what I wanted to provide was my extracts from it. My choice of extracts is based on getting the main guts out of the submission, so you can use bits and pieces in your own submission. If you want to. It's not bad to repeat stuff - especially if you strongly agree.

NSCC's submission is a very useful summary of issues relating to: Local Boards; CCO's in general; Auckland Transport CCO in particular; Spatial Plan; and Stormwater.
1. Statement of Principles

Inter-relationships

“…there is risk with moving from 8 local government organisations to one local government organisation and 8 Council Controlled Organisations that the same issues with tensions and slow resolution of problems could continue to be the bane of Auckland’s governance, therefore it is vital the organisations have a shared goal of contributing to the vision of the Auckland region as a whole and implementing plans consistent with the Auckland region’s Spatial Plan…”

Subsidiarity

“… we believe Auckland Council should have the ability to focus solely on regional strategies, plans and their implementation. It is highly important, therefore, that the principle of subsidiarity is applied, we note that the Government is applying this same principle in its cabinet decision for ‘Local Boards to have a statutory role broader than community boards but narrower than local authorities and a much greater interdependence between the Auckland Council and Local Boards (compared with Community Boards and Councils), requiring close consultation and integrated decision-making’. We believe it is vital that the Auckland Council Governing body have the time to focus on regional issues, and not be caught up in decisions that can be made at local level by Local Boards.”

Equity and Access

“…. Communities across Auckland vary significantly. It is highly desirable for the health and progress of the region as a whole that individual community needs and and desires are able to be reflected appropriately… the regional benefit of recognising and allowing for these differences should be allowed for within the base funding agreements with Local Boards providing that the general equity and access to services across the region is maintained…”

2. Local Boards

Place Shaping role of Local Boards


“…we believe in order for the Local Boards to have a truly ‘place-shaping’ role and to engage local democracy at grassroots it is vitally important that the functions of the second tier (the Local Boards) be clearly defined, are substantive and meaningful… we believe the powers and functions of the second tier should be enshrined in legislation, to esnure clarity of prupose and clear delineation of duties and powers between the two tiers…

“….while we believe local planning and consenting issues should be delegated to Local Boards and acknowledge that this is not achievable with the requirement that Local Boards deal only with non-regulatory matters, this does not preclude the Auckland Council from delegating to Local Board members the power to be part of a panel hearing resource consents, to provide the local input and enable better connectivity with the place-shaping role the Local Boards should have…”

Placeshaping and the role of Council Controlled Organisations

“…It does not appear from the Bill that Local Boards will have the ability to input into any strategies or plans made by the Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s) this includes Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Ltd, or that the CCO’s will be accountable to the Local Boards for work to be done in a local area. There is likely to be a large amount of work doen by Local Boards in helping placeshape their neighbourhoods, this not only involves dealing with local people on what Auckland Council may do for them but also what might be needed in their respective areas in regard to traffic calming measures or parking issues on roads…. (however) Auckland Transport is not directly accountable to Local Boards. Furthermore, the governing body of the Auckland Council is not accountable for the activities of Auckland Transport, but for how it influences the governance of the CCO – eg through appointing directors, and influencing its Statement of Intent….”

“…. Our council would like to see some provision in the Bill for Local Boards to have the ability to deal directly with the transport organisation or any of the other CCO’s where there is a local impact in respect of the work they are doing. We believe there should be a requirement in the Bill for the CCO’s to have in place a Local Board agreement stipulating how the Local Boards and the CCO’s will interact and what decision making will prevail between the 2 bodies by 30 April of the year following an election…”

3. Council Controlled Organisations

Retention of infrastructure assets in public ownership

“…we are strongly committed to the belief that all infrastructure assets should remain in public ownership… we believe that provisions surrounding Watercare Services Ltd remaining in public ownership should be enshrined in law….”

Establishment of CCO’s through Order in Council

“…The Bill allows the Minister to establish, through an Order in Council and on the recommendation of Auckland Transition Agency further CCO’s… our Council believes there should be further constraints placed on the criteria for establishing new CCO’s….”

Ability for Minister to appoint initial directors of CCO’s

“…The Bill provides for the Minister of Local Government to make the initial director appointments to the CCO’s established under an Order in Council. It is generally considered best practivce for the body to which the directors to be accountable, to appoint them… we believe there should be ability for an interim board to be appointed for an interim period, this will then give the Auckland Council the ability to review the board members and the mix of skills…”

Integration of Spatial Plan and Infrastructure

“… we believe there should be provision within the Bill for CCO’s to ‘give effect’ to the Auckland region Spatial Plan…”

Requirement to consider 4 well-beings

“…there should be provision within the Bill for CCO’s to consider the four well-beings as part of their planning process…”

Local Board agreements with CCO’s

“…We believe there should be a requirement in the Bill for the CCO’s to have in place a Local Board agreement stipulating how the Local Boards and the CCO’s will interact and what decision making will prevail between the bodies by 30 April of the year following an election…”

4. Planning

Spatial Plan and lack of timeframe

“…while we agree that the Auckland Council ‘must prepare and adopt a spatial plan for Auckland’ (Clause 66(1)), we are concerned that there is no timeframe for when such a plan should be completed, and nor is anything said about when updates are required. We note that since Toronto became a unitary authority in 1998, there was considerable delay before its first Spatial Plan emerged – a delay that is widely seen as being a major cause of the difficult development environment that the city has experienced…”

“…we suggest that the wording in Clause 66(1) be amended to read: ‘That Auckland Council must set a strategic vision for the city and must prepare and adopt a spatial plan by the end of its first term in office. Updates to the spatial plan should be prepared on an as required basis but no less than every six years.’…”

Spatial Plan and the need to recognise importance of integrated planning

“…We believe it is critical that the proposed Auckland Council structure responds to the strategic importance of centre and corridor planning, particularly because these two fundamental elements of regional planning are controlled, respectively, by the Auckland Council and by Auckland Transport. But because we believe that the linkages between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are less strong than desirable…. There is a likelihood that integrated planning will be difficult to achieve…”

Spatial Plan and the need to recognise sustainability and sustainable development

“…In order that the purpose of the spatial plan… ‘Section 45, 66(2) becomes consistent with existing law and clearer about the imperative of long-term thinking in achieving sustainable development…’, we suggest that Section 45, ‘66(2) be amended to read: The purpose of the spatial plan is to provide an effective long-term strategy for the sustainable development and management of Auckland…”

“… we also feel that there should be a clear connection made between social, cultural and economic factors and the more ‘physical’ development responses that have been emphasised at Clause ’66. We therefore suggest that Clause ‘66(3)(f) be amended to read: “to set out a development strategy on how to achieve broad policy objectives for land use, transport, other infrastructure, and environmental management in Auckland’s evolving social, cultural and economic framework’…”

5. Auckland Transport

Auckland Transport’s objectives


“…The objective and operating principles of Auckland Transport, as set out under s.45 of the Third Bill, are not as specific or wide-ranging as the objectives for ARTA under the (soon to be repealed) Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004….”

“…the LGAAA (2004) provides more specific objectives for ARTA, which do not apply to Auckland Transport:

- expansion of what exhibiting a sense of social and environmental responsibility means
- avoiding adverse effects on the environment
- ensuring views of affected parties are taken into account
- give land transport options early and full consideration
- provide early and full opportunities for consultation on land transport programmes
- focus on overall needs of region and views of communities
- consider needs of future generations, including cultural and economic wellbeing
- foster co-operative and colaborative working relastionships
- clear accountability

“…we believe that the objectives for Auckland Transport need to be more specific because they are currently open to misinterpretation… Auckland Transport’s objectives need to be similar to ARTA’s objectives…”

Accountability of Auckland Transport

“…Accountability during the transition phase to 1st November 2010. Prior to the Auckland Council coming into effect on 1 November, the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) together with the Ministers of Local Government and Transport, influence the direction of Auckland’s transport systems. Legislation contained in the 3rd Bill will guide the direction of Auckland Transport – for example by setting objectives and operating principles – after the Bill becomes an Act. Thus, elected local representatives do not have any influence during the important transitional period…”

“…Ongoing accountability post 1st November 2010…. There is no statement on what happens if the Auckland Council is not satisfied with Auckland Transport’s contribution to the council’s (or the Government’s) objectives….”

“…Accountability to Local Boards…. Auckland Transport is not accountable to local boards. Furthermore, the governing body of the Auckland Council is not accountable for the activities of Auckland Transport, but for how it influences the governance of Auckland Transport… Auckland Transport, unlike other CCO’s, does not need to prepare and adopt a 10-year plan that includes information on how the organisation is giving effect to the Auckland Council’s strategy, plans and priorities… the 3rd Bill should set out consultation requirements for Auckland Transport, including the opportunity for Local Boards to provide feedback on proposed activities that have an impact on the Local Board’s area…”

“…Auckland Council oversight of Auckland Transport planning…. We note with concern that the proposed legislation at New Clause 75 subsection 3 (p.55) currently exempts Auckland Transport from the requirement to prepare and adopt a plan under New Clause 75 subsection 2(c) which enables Auckland Council to require substantive CCO’s to prepare and adopt a plan covering a period of at least 10 years describing how the organisation intends to: (i) manage, maintain, and invest in its assets; and (ii) maintain or improve service levels, and; (iii) respond to population growth and other changing environmental factors, and; (iv) give effect to the Council’s strategy, plans and priorities…. Removing Auckland Council’s exemption (as in the Bill now) would provide the opportunity for Auckland Council to obtain an explicit statement from Auckland Transport on how it intends to “give effect” to key Council strategies, in particular the Spatial Plan…”

Transport and Land Use Integration

“…The 3rd Bill is particularly emphatic in allocating responsibility for developing and managing the Auckland Transport System to Auckland Transport. But we believe the Bill does not adequately emphasise the fundamental importance of achieving transport and land use integration… Transport and land use integration is a key objective of the RLTS but we believe that its ability to influence the actions of Auckland Transport has been substantially downgraded from that currently applying to ARTA. Whereas the 3rd Bill requires the Auckland Transport’s RLTP to be ‘consistent with’ the RLTS, ARTA’s RLTP has been required to ‘give effect’ the RLTS…”

“….We have a number of questions about this:

- Will Auckland Transport reflect the land use strategies being promoted by the Auckland Council through the selection and prioritisation of transport projects in the RLTP?
- Will Auckland Transport provide public transport services and infrastructure which support the region’s land use strategies?
- How much recognition and accommodation will be given by Auckland Transport to land use objectives and plans in individual transport projects?

“…we believe the following additional objective for Auckland Transport is required….The objective of Auckland Transport is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to the effective and sustainable integration of land use and the transport system, including an affordable, safe, responsive and sustainable network…”

6. Ongoing operation of development contributions

“…development contributions represent a significant funding source for the Auckland region (projected to fund a total of $1.6 billion of growth related capital investment over the 2009-2019 period). If the legal provisions around transition and the ongoing ability of Auckland Council to use development contribuitions as a funding tool were not carefully managed, the new Auckland council would be faced with a major funding issue…”

7. Water and Stormwater organisation issues

“…there is some confusion around the relationship between wastewater services and stormwater. It is assumed that initially at least Auckland Council will be responsible for stormwater management across the region… while powers under LGA 74 Pt 21 have been removed from the Auckland Council (these relate to the use of vehicle crossings; planting in dividing strips; foot paths and channels….) some of these are useful for stomrwater management when dealing with overland flow and flooding, and the powers therefore need to be restored to Auckland Council for stormwater management. If these powers remain removed from Auckland Council, there needs to be a requirement for Auckland Transport to acknowledge the function of roads in managing/conveying stormwater and a requirement for them to work with Auckland Council…

Good eh?
Anyway, here's the link so you can download this submission. It's the lion's share of the agenda you can get from NSCC's website for its Council meeting of 3rd February 2010.
http://www.northshorecity.govt.nz/YourCouncil/Meetings/AgendasAndMinutes/Documents/2010%20Agendas%20Minutes/February/Council%203%20February%202010%20Order%20Paper.pdf

No comments: