Skip navigation
Council member and meetings
Council
Back to contents

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL

HELD ON THURSDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2008 AT 6:00PM

PRESENT: Deputy Mayor David Hay, JP (Chair)
  Councillors: Douglas Armstrong, QSO  
    Ken Baguley [until 10:15 item C1; from 10:30pm item C2]
    Aaron Bhatnagar  
    Leila Boyle  
    Dr Cathy Casey  
    Bill Christian, JP [until 8:3pm item 9vi; from 8:37pm item 9vi; until 8:47pm item 9vi; from 8:51pm item 9vi]
    Mark Donnelly  
    Graeme Easte  
    Glenda Fryer [until 7:39pm item 9ii; from 7:44pm item 9ii]
    Paul Goldsmith [until 8:20pm item 9iv; from 8:23pm item 9vi;
    Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga  
    Toni Millar, JP  
    Graeme Mulholland, JP [until 6:48pm item 7.3; from 6:53pm item 7.3; until 8:45pm item 9vi; from 8:50pm item 9vi]
    Richard Northey, ONZM  
    Noelene Raffills [until 8:42pm item 9vi; from 8:47pm item 9vi; until 9:15pm item 9vi; from 9:23pm item 9vi]
    Denise Roche [until 10:40pm item C4; from 10:50pm item C4]

  1. Top APOLOGIES

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Christian seconded:

    That the apologies from His Worship the Mayor Hon. John Banks and Councillor Greg Moyle be accepted.

    CARRIED

  2. Top MINUTES

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Mulholland seconded:

    That the minutes of the council meeting held on Thursday, 13 December 2007 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

    CARRIED

  3. Top LEAVE OF ABSENCE

    There were no leave of absence requests.

  4. Top PETITIONS

    There were no petitions.

  5. Top DEPUTATIONS

    See items 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4.

  6. Top EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS

    Councillors Casey requested an extraordinary item be considered and tabled a notice of motion requesting voting rights for all councillors on the item of One Plan for Auckland when it goes to the Finance and Strategy Committee for consideration.

    [ATTACHMENT 6]

    Councillor Casey moved:

    Councillor Boyle seconded:

    That an extraordinary item of business be considered as item 19 regarding voting rights for all councillors at the Finance and Strategy Committee on any item concerned with One Plan for Auckland.

    The reason for this extraordinary item is that there is a tight timeframe around the development of the One Plan document.

    A division was called for, voting on which was as follows:

    For the Motion:

    Against the Motion:
    Councillors: Leila Boyle

    Cathy Casey

    Bill Christian

    Mark Donnelly

    Graeme Easte

    Glenda Fryer

    Richard Northey

    Denise Roche

    		 Councillors: Doug Armstrong

    Ken Baguley

    Aaron Bhatnagar

    Paul Goldsmith

    Deputy Mayor David Hay

    Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga

    Toni Millar

    Graeme Mulholland

    Noelene Raffills

    His Worship the Mayor John Banks and Councillor Greg Moyle were absent.

    The motion was declared LOST by 9 votes to 8.

  7. Top DEPUTATIONS

    7.1. THE ONEHUNGA ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY (TOES)

    The Deputy Mayor tabled a letter dated 26 February 2008 from Jim Jackson, Chairman of the Onehunga Enhancement Society.

    [ATTACHMENT 7.1A]

    Mr Jackson (Chairman) and Mr Tunicliffe (Secretary) of the Onehunga Enhancement Society gave a presentation.

    [ATTACHMENT 7.1B]

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Mulholland seconded:

    That Mr Jackson (Chairman) and Mr Tunicliffe (Secretary) of The Onehunga Enhancement Society be thanked for their presentation and that the concerns raised regarding the proposed new Transit NZ motorway in Onehunga be forwarded to council officers for consideration and report to the Arts, Culture and Recreation Committee.

    Councillor Northey moved the following amendment:

    Councillor Boyle seconded:

    1. That Mr Jackson (Chairman) and Mr Tunicliffe (Secretary) of The Onehunga Enhancement Society be thanked for their deputation.
    2. That the submission and the issues raised in the submission by The Onehunga Enhancement Society (TOES) be referred to officers for an early report back to the City Development Committee.

    CARRIED

    The Deputy Mayor put the following substantive motion:
    1. That Mr Jackson (Chairman) and Mr Tunicliffe (Secretary) of The Onehunga Enhancement Society be thanked for their deputation.
    2. That the submission and the issues raised in the submission by The Onehunga Enhancement Society (TOES) be referred to officers for an early report back to the City Development Committee.

    CARRIED

    7.2. THE TREE COUNCIL - SIGRID SHAYER

    Ms Shayer (Chairman) and Ms Massey (Field Officer) of the Tree Council tabled documentation to support their presentation.

    [ATTACHMENT 7.2]

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Easte seconded:

    That Ms Sigrid Shayer (Chairman) and Ms Hueline Massey (Field Officer) of The Tree Council be thanked for their presentation and the issues raised regarding community board input into tree consents be considered with item 9(vi) - Delegations Review.

    CARRIED

    7.3. REGIONAL GOVERNANCE - PENNY BRIGHT

    Ms Bright provided documentation to support her presentation regarding why she was disputing and refusing to pay Auckland City Council rates and why the Royal Commission on Auckland Regional Governance should be 'de-railed' by the public.

    [ATTACHMENT 7.3]

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Boyle seconded:

    That Penny Bright be thanked for her presentation.

    CARRIED

    7.4. DELEGATIONS REVIEW - COLIN DAVIS

    Colin Davis, Chairman of the Eastern Bays Community Board, tabled a paper outlining concerns his community board and others shared regarding the delegations review and proposed changes to community board delegations.

    [ATTACHMENT 7.4]

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Millar seconded:

    That Colin Davis, Chairman, Eastern Bays Community Board, be thanked for his presentation and that the issues raised regarding the delegations review and the proposed changes to community board delegations be considered with item 9(vi).

    CARRIED

    REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

  8. Top CITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 01/2008

    An extract from the Eastern Bays Community Board meeting held on 20 February 2008 which related to the Dog Bylaw Review was tabled for consideration.

    [ATTACHMENT 8A]

    Councillor Millar tabled documentation to support her amendment.

    [ATTACHMENT 8B]

    Councillor Lotu-Iiga moved:

    Councillor Mulholland seconded:

    That the recommendations contained in the report of the City Development Committee report No. 01/2008 be adopted ie:

    1. Bylaw Review - Health and Animal Related Bylaws

    That council approve the commencement of the special consultative procedure for the Bylaw Review - Health and Animal Related Bylaws.

    1. Stormwater Component of Project Motions South Alliance Sewer Separation Project

    That Metrowater be reimbursed the stormwater component of the Project Motions South Alliance Target Outturn Cost totalling $5.9m over the next three years (including risk and escalation contingency and excluding GST).

    Councillor Millar moved the following amendment:

    Councillor Armstrong seconded:

    That the recommendations contained in the report of the City Development Committee report No. 01/2008 be adopted ie:

    1. Bylaw Review - Health and Animal Related Bylaws

    That council approve the commencement of the special consultative procedure for the Bylaw Review - Health and Animal Related Bylaws subject to the following changes:

    Dog Control Bylaw 2008 -

    1. Fourth schedule - designated dog exercise areas, Eastern Bays, Waiatarua Reserve - Conditions/ comments column to be amended to read:

      "Except in wetland areas and an area of approximately 1 hectare on the northern side of Waiatarua Reserve, adjoining Towle Place, in the vicinity of the outfall area where there is close proximity to the wetland, which is a leashed area. No dog is permitted to go within the 10 metres of the playground.

    2.  Second Schedule, leashed areas -
      1. An area of approximately 1 hectare on the northern side of Waiatarua Reserve, adjoining Towle Place, in the vicinity of the outfall area where there is close proximity to the wetland, which is a leashed area.

    CARRIED

    Councillor Northey moved an amendment by way of addition:

    Councillor Fryer seconded:

    That it be noted that the members of the hearings panel are Councillors Lotu-Iiga, Casey and Millar.

    CARRIED

    The Deputy Mayor put the following substantive motion:

    That the recommendations contained in the report of the City Development Committee report No. 01/2008 be adopted ie:

    1. Bylaw Review - Health and Animal Related Bylaws

      1. That council approve the commencement of the special consultative procedure for the Bylaw Review - Health and Animal Related Bylaws subject to the following changes:

      Dog Control Bylaw 2008 -

      1. Fourth schedule - designated dog exercise areas, Eastern Bays, Waiatarua Reserve - Conditions/ comments column to be amended to read:

        "Except in wetland areas and an area of approximately 1 hectare on the northern side of Waiatarua Reserve, adjoining Towle Place, in the vicinity of the outfall area where there is close proximity to the wetland, which is a leashed area. No dog is permitted to go within the 10 metres of the playground.

      2. Second Schedule, leashed areas -
        1. An area of approximately 1 hectare on the northern side of Waiatarua Reserve, adjoining Towle Place, in the vicinity of the outfall area where there is close proximity to the wetland, which is a leashed area.
      1. That it be noted that the members of the hearings panel are Councillors Lotu-Iiga, Casey and Millar.

    CARRIED

  9. Top FINANCE AND STRATEGY COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1/2008

    Kate Sutton, Chairperson of the Tamaki Community Board, was in attendance and spoke on behalf of the Board for item 9(vi), Delegations Review.

    Secretarial note:

    The Chairman of the Finance and Strategy Committee put the Finance and Strategy Committee report no. 1/2008 in parts.  Each item in the report was dealt with separately.

    Councillor Armstrong moved:

    Councillor Bhatnagar seconded:

    That the recommendations contained in the report of the Finance and Strategy Committee report No. 01/2008, item i, Human Resources Information Systems Business Case, be adopted ie:

    1. Human Resources Information Systems Business Case

      That the council approve the proposed budget of $3,665,629 for phase one of the new SAP Human Resources and payroll system which is needed to replace outdated and manual systems, effectively manage a workforce of 2,300 people and achieve significant ongoing savings.

      CARRIED

      Councillor Armstrong moved:

      Councillor Bhatnagar seconded:

      That the recommendations contained in the report of the Finance and Strategy Committee report No. 01/2008, item ii, Evaluation of Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) Partial Take Over Offer for Auckland Airport, be adopted ie:

    2. Evaluation of Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) Partial Take Over Offer for Auckland Airport

      1. That it be noted that Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) has made a partial takeover to Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) shareholders to increase its stake to 40 per cent and that if successful it plans to put to shareholders an amalgamation proposal including capital restructuring.
      2. That it be noted that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) partial takeover offer for Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) requires:
        1. approval from shareholders for CPPIB to hold less than 50 per cent of AIAL;
        2. acceptances for 39.2 per cent of the shares in AIAL it does not already own.
      3. That it be noted that the Council's Auckland Airport shares policy requires the Council to reject the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) offer to purchase Council's Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) shareholding, but allows Council to approve CPPIB holding a stake of less than 50 per cent of AIAL as a means of facilitating a restructure - if this is in Council's best interest.
      4. That it be agreed that the Auckland City Council will not sell its Auckland International Airport Limited shares as per its Auckland Airport shares policy.
      5. That it be agreed that officers will report the results of analysis of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) partial takeover offer for Auckland International Airport Limited, including a recommendation on how the Council should vote in relation to CPPIB holding less than 50 per cent of the company, at a special Council meeting held prior to the offer period closing on 13 March 2008.

      CARRIED

      Councillor Armstrong moved:

      Councillor Bhatnagar seconded:

      That the recommendations contained in the report of the Finance and Strategy Committee report No. 01/2008, item iii, Auckland Regional Transport Network Limited Annual Report and Annual Meeting, be adopted ie:

    3. Auckland Regional Transport Network Limited Annual Report and Annual Meeting

      1. That Auckland Regional Transport Network Limited's (ARTNL's) annual report be received, noting that ARTNL made an earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) surplus of $735,000.

      2. That Council recommends to Auckland Regional Transport Network Limited's directors that the 2007 Annual Report be adopted.

      3. That Council votes in favour of the following resolutions for Auckland Regional Transport Network Limited's 2007 annual meeting, to be held by way of written resolution in lieu of a physical meeting:

        1. to receive, consider and adopt the financial statements and reports for the year ended 30 June 2007;

        2. to re-appoint the Controller and Auditor-General as the auditor and authorise the directors to fix the auditors fees.

      4. That Councillor Doug Armstrong, Chair of the Finance and Strategy Committee, be delegated authority to vote on behalf of Auckland City Council and sign documents required to give effect to the proposed resolutions of Auckland Regional Transport Network Limited's 2007 annual meeting.

      CARRIED

      Councillor Armstrong moved:

      Councillor Bhatnagar seconded:

      That the recommendations contained in the report of the Finance and Strategy Committee report No. 01/2008, item iv, Terms of Reference for Directors Review and Appointments Subcommittee (DRAS), be adopted ie:

    4. Terms of Reference for Directors Review and Appointments Subcommittee (DRAS)

      That Councillors Armstrong, Hay, Bhatnagar and Northey be appointed to the Directors Review and Appointment Subcommittee (noting His Worship the Mayor Hon. John Banks is an Ex Officio member), with Councillor Armstrong as the Chairman, and that the terms of reference for the Subcommittee be confirmed as follows:

      1. review the performance of the Council's boards;
      2. review the composition of the Council's boards;
      3. recommend to Council through the Finance and Strategy Committee on reappointments to the Council's boards;
      4. recommend to Council through the Finance and Strategy Committee on removing members from the Council's boards;
      5. shortlist and interview candidates for positions on the Council's boards;
      6. recommend to Council, through the Finance and Strategy Committee, new appointments to Council's boards;
      7. recommend proposed fee increases for board members to the Finance and Strategy Committee;
      8. recommend to the Finance and Strategy Committee on matters relating to Auckland International Airport Limited's annual general meeting;
      9. appoint the elected representative or officer who will attend Auckland International Airport Limited's shareholder meetings.

      CARRIED

      Councillor Roche moved the following amendment to item 9.iv.:

      Councillor Easte seconded:

      That Councillor Cathy Casey be added to the Directors Review and Appointments Sub-committee (DRAS).

      A division was called for, voting on which was as follows:

      For the Amendment:

      Against the Amendment:
      Councillors: Leila Boyle

      Cathy Casey

      Bill Christian

      Mark Donnelly

      Graeme Easte

      Glenda Fryer

      Richard Northey

      Denise Roche

      		 Councillors: Doug Armstrong

      Ken Baguley

      Aaron Bhatnagar

      Paul Goldsmith

      Deputy Mayor David Hay

      Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga

      Toni Millar

      Graeme Mulholland

      Noelene Raffills

      His Worship the Mayor John Banks and Councillor Greg Moyle were absent.

      The amendment was declared LOST by 9 votes to 8.

      The Deputy Mayor put the following substantive motion:

      That the recommendations contained in the report of the Finance and Strategy Committee report No. 01/2008, item iv, Terms of Reference for Directors Review and Appointments Subcommittee (DRAS), be adopted ie:

      Terms of Reference for Directors Review and Appointments Subcommittee (DRAS)

      That Councillors Armstrong, Hay, Bhatnagar and Northey be appointed to the Directors Review and Appointment Subcommittee (noting His Worship the Mayor Hon. John Banks is an Ex Officio member), with Councillor Armstrong as the Chairman, and that the terms of reference for the Subcommittee be confirmed as follows:

      1. review the performance of the Council's boards;
      2. review the composition of the Council's boards;
      3. recommend to Council through the Finance and Strategy Committee on reappointments to the Council's boards;
      4. recommend to Council through the Finance and Strategy Committee on removing members from the Council's boards;
      5. shortlist and interview candidates for positions on the Council's boards;
      6. recommend to Council, through the Finance and Strategy Committee, new appointments to Council's boards;
      7. recommend proposed fee increases for board members to the Finance and Strategy Committee;
      8. recommend to the Finance and Strategy Committee on matters relating to Auckland International Airport Limited's annual general meeting;
      9. appoint the elected representative or officer who will attend Auckland International Airport Limited's shareholder meetings.

      CARRIED

      Councillor Armstrong moved:

      Councillor Christian seconded:

      That the recommendations contained in the report of the Finance and Strategy Committee report No. 01/2008, item v, Triennial Agreement 2008, be adopted ie:

    5. Triennial Agreement 2008

      1. That the Triennial Agreement 2008 report, dated 13 February 2008, and the legislative timeframe for endorsement of the Auckland regional triennial agreement be noted.

      2. That the 2008 Auckland regional triennial agreement be endorsed and that the Chief Executive and His Worship the Mayor Hon. John Banks be delegated to sign the agreement.

      CARRIED

    6. Delegations Review

      Extracts from several community board meetings regarding the Delegations Review item were collated into one document for the Councillors information and consideration.

      [ATTACHMENT 9(vi)A]

      Secretarial Note:

      The report from the Group manager Democracy Services is an addendum report to the one considered by the 13 February Finance and Strategy Committee. The report contains the delegations detail (refer item 11 of the 28 February Council agenda). This information has been expanded since the Finance and Strategy Committee meeting although with the exception of two errors made regarding liquor licensing and the omission of an accredited councillor as a planning commissioner, it has not materially changed. The Eastern Bays Community Board Chairman has identified an error in the community board delegations and the omission of an accredited councillor on the planning commissioner list.  The errors will be corrected to ensure the status quo remains regarding liquor licensing.

      [ATTACHMENT 9(vi)B & 11B - new pages 142 and 154]

      It was also identified that Appendix 4 and 5 of the Group manager Democracy Services' report dated 15 February 2008 did not clearly identify the changes with additions in underscore and deleted text with a line through it.

      [ATTACHMENT 9(vi)C & 11C - new pages 192-197]

      The recommendations contained in the item 11 report will be considered as part of item 9(vi). Corrected pages are attached.

      Councillor Armstrong moved:

      Councillor Bhatnagar seconded:

      That the recommendations contained in the report of the Finance and Strategy Committee report No. 01/2008, item vi, Delegations Review, be adopted ie:

    7. Delegations Review

      1. That the resolutions of the 13 February 2008 Finance and Strategy Committee meeting be noted, being:

        1. That the two phase approach to the review and revision of the delegations register (interim review followed by a substantive review) be approved.

        2. That the functions and delegations approved at the 23 August, 1 November and 22 November 2007 Council meetings be reconfirmed, subject to the following interim changes:

          1. That the changes to the regulatory delegations be approved, with the key change being the creation of four subordinate decision makers reporting to the new City Development Committee.

          2. That the establishment of two sub-committees - the Appeals Sub-Committee and the Specialist Hearings Sub-Committee be approved (these sub-committees will report to the new City Development Committee, forming two of the four subordinate decision makers).

          3. That Council delegates to the Chief Executive the power to on delegate all staff delegations except those powers of authorities in respect of which delegation is prohibited by statute or regulation.

          4. That the interim changes be referred to the City Development Committee for consideration and recommendation to the Finance and Strategy Committee and Council.

          5. That in the interim period Dog control objections should be the responsibility of the Appeals Sub-Committee and Councillors appointed by the Sub-Committee.

        3. That the existing staff and financial delegations be confirmed.

        4. That during the transitional period of the delegations review the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Northey be given delegated authority to determine the appropriate decision making entity to which an item should be referred where it is not clearly specified in the delegations register (this delegation does not preclude the item being referred to the Finance and Strategy Committee upon agreement from both the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Northey, this delegation supersedes the delegation approved in resolution B of item 12 of the 22nd November 2007 Council meeting).
        That the Council adopt the following:
      2. That council approves the two-phase approach to the review and revision of the delegations register (interim review followed by a substantive review).
      3. That the functions and delegations approved at the 23 August, 1 November and 22 November 2007 Council meetings be reconfirmed, subject to the changes recommended in D - T below.
      4. That council approves the interim, high-level mapping of delegations from the previous triennium to the current committee structure as detailed in Appendix 3 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review".
      5. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the City Development Committee be delegated the powers set out in Section 1 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review", relating to:
        1. The appointment of Councillors to hearings panels; and
        2. Determining whether or not the council participates in joint hearings.
      6. That the Chairperson of the City Development Committee be delegated the powers set out in Section 1 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review", relating to:
        1. The approval of immediate work necessary remove a protected or scheduled tree for reasons of safety, injury or damage prevention; and
        2. Appointing additional Hearings Commissioners in special circumstances.
      7. That the City Development Committee be delegated the functions and powers as set out in Section 2 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review", which gives the Committee extensive delegations over all the council's planning and regulatory functions.
      8. That an "Appeals Sub-Committee" be established as a sub-committee of the City Development Committee with the membership listed below, and the delegated authorities as set out in Section 2 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review" and as summarised below:

        Appeals Sub-Committee
        Membership
        • Chair: City Development Committee
        • Deputy Chair: City Development Committee
        • One further Councillor from City Development Committee
        Delegated authority to consider:
        • Appeals relating to resource consents; notices of requirement; and resource management policy (proposed plans, plan changes and variations).
          • Appeals often raise matters of strategic importance and policy. Political decision-making is desirable.
        • Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987: Consideration of exemptions.
          • This power cannot be sub-delegated further under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987
        • Dog control objections. The Finance and Strategy Committee on 13th February 2008 requested that these objections be heard by elected representatives.
      9. That the Appeals Sub-Committee have a quorum of two and that the City Development Committee be authorised to appoint the additional Councillor to this sub-committee.
      10. That a "Specialist Hearings Sub-Committee" be established as a sub-committee of the City Development Committee with the membership listed below, and the delegated authorities as set out in Section 2 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review" and as summarised below:

        Specialist Hearings Sub-Committee
        Membership
        • Three independents appointed by the City Development Committee.
        Delegated authority to consider:
        • Hearings under the Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002 regarding drainage and works on private land.
          • This power cannot be sub-delegated further under the LGA 1974 or LGA 2002
        • Section 357 objections under the Resource Management Act 1991.
          • Hearings are required. There is greater efficiency in having a dedicated entity for this function than frequently appointing commissioners. The independents will resolve objections that relate to costs or conditions. These may then go on to appeal at which point councillors will preside as members of the appeals sub-committee.
      11. That the Specialist Hearings Sub-Committee have a quorum of two.
      12. That the council confirm the use of Hearings Commissioners to hear and determine planning and regulatory matters with the functions and powers as set out in Section 2 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review", which includes hearings relating to:
        • Bylaws;
        • Bylaw dispensations;
        • Notified resource consents;
        • Non-notified resource consents with decline recommendations;
        • Notices of requirement; and
        • Policy (proposed plans, plan changes and variations.
      13. That the appointment of Hearings Commissioners be delegated to:
        • Councillors and Independent Hearings Commissioners: For hearings related to notified and non-notified resource consents and notices of requirement - appointed by Chair and Deputy Chair of City Development Committee. Appointed councillors should be accredited as planning commissioners to undertake hearings.
        • Elected representatives and Independent Hearings Commissioners: For bylaws and policy (proposed plans, plan changes and variations) - appointed by City Development Committee.

        and that the draft delegations manual in Sections 1 and 2 of appendix 2 be amended accordingly.

      14. That a panel of Duty Commissioners be established with the membership set out below, and the powers and functions set out in Section 2 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review".

        Duty Commissioners
        Membership o Three independent commissioners - appointed by the City Development Committee
        Delegated authority to consider: o Decision making on specified resource consent and bylaw dispensation applications where no hearing is required.

        -Allows expeditious decision-making on applications that require greater scrutiny than those determined by officers acting under delegated authority.
      15. That the council delegate to hearings commissioners the authority to hear submissions on a proposed new, amended or revised bylaw and make recommendations to council. Hearing commissioners to be any appropriate councillor or independent commissioner.
      16. That the council approves changes to delegations for community boards relating to planning, bylaws and trees as set out in Section 3 of Appendix 2 (as amended) of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review", with the effect that community boards' input will be on the following:
        • Resource consents for non-complying activities and the removal of scheduled trees;
        • Making submissions on notified resource consent applications;
        • Policy issues (proposed plan changes and proposed plans); and
        • Nomination of either one planning spokesperson to cover all planning issues (including trees) or one planning spokesperson and one tree spokesperson.
        • Liquor licensing (noting the status quo remains)
      17. That council delegates to the chief executive all staff delegations as set out in current delegations subject to the changes set out in of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review", with the exception of powers of authorities in respect of which delegation is prohibited by statute or regulation.
      18. That changes to the regulatory delegations detailed in Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review" be approved.
      19. That during the transitional period of phase two of the delegations review the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Northey be given delegated authority to determine the appropriate decision making entity to which an item should be referred where it is not clearly specified in the delegations register.

        The meeting adjourned at 8:52pm and reconvened at 9:01pm.

        Councillor Northey moved the following amendment to item 9.vi.:

        Councillor Boyle seconded:

        That A. be amended by way of addition:
        1. That Council approves the two phase approach to the review and revision of the delegations register (interim review followed by a substantive review) and that the current delegations applying under the last council for community boards remain in place and be part of the substantive review with which would be reported back with recommendations before the end of 2008.

        A division was called for, voting on which was as follows:

        For the Amendment:

        Against the Amendment:
        Councillors: Leila Boyle

        Cathy Casey

        Bill Christian

        Mark Donnelly

        Graeme Easte

        Glenda Fryer

        Richard Northey

        Denise Roche

        		 Councillors: Doug Armstrong

        Ken Baguley

        Aaron Bhatnagar

        Paul Goldsmith

        Deputy Mayor David Hay

        Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga

        Toni Millar

        Graeme Mulholland

        His Worship the Mayor John Banks, Councillors Greg Moyle and Noelene Raffills were absent.

        Voting in the division was TIED with 8 votes for and against. The Chairman exercised his casting vote against the amendment. The amendment was declared LOST by 9 votes to 8.

        That E, H, I and M be amended to include the following addition:

        That Councillor Fryer be added to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the City Development Committee to exercise the delegated powers outlined in E, H, I and M.

        So that I reads:
        1. That the Appeals Sub-Committee have a quorum of two and that the three members be the Chairman, Deputy Chairman of the City Development Committee and Councillor Fryer.

        A division was called for, voting on which was as follows:

        For the Amendment:

        Against the Amendment:
        Councillors: Leila Boyle

        Cathy Casey

        Mark Donnelly

        Graeme Easte

        Glenda Fryer

        Richard Northey

        Denise Roche

        		 Councillors: Doug Armstrong

        Ken Baguley

        Aaron Bhatnagar

        Bill Christian

        Paul Goldsmith

        Deputy Mayor David Hay

        Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga

        Toni Millar

        Graeme Mulholland

        Noelene Raffills

        His Worship the Mayor John Banks and Councillor Greg Moyle were absent.

        The amendment was declared LOST by 10 votes to 7.

        Councillor Fryer moved the following amendment to item 9.vi.:

        Councillor Casey seconded:

        Add to M:
        1. That the names of the accredited community board members be added to Appendix 1 with consequential changes to other resolutions.
        That U, V and W be added as follows:
        1. That Community Board planning commissioners who have "Making Good Decisions" accreditation be added to the list of Planning Commissioners.
        2. That the city Development committee be divided into two Council committees, with a restored Planning and Regulatory Committee delegated responsibility for District Plans, Plan Changes, Bylaws, regulatory processes, the Auckland District Licensing Agency and the matters specified under the heading community Wellbeing.
        3. That all Councillors not holding a Ministry for the Environment 'Making Good Decisions' qualification be offered the opportunity to attend an Auckland workshop as soon as practicable.
        Secretarial note:

        The Deputy Mayor ruled amendment V. out of order pursuant to standing order 2.18.11. Voting then took place on Councillor Fryer's amendment M, U and W.

        A division was called for, voting on which was as follows:

        For the Amendment:

        Against the Amendment:
        Councillors: Leila Boyle

        Cathy Casey

        Bill Christian

        Mark Donnelly

        Graeme Easte

        Glenda Fryer

        Richard Northey

        Denise Roche

        		 Councillors: Doug Armstrong

        Ken Baguley

        Aaron Bhatnagar

        Paul Goldsmith

        Deputy Mayor David Hay

        Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga

        Toni Millar

        Graeme Mulholland

        Noelene Raffills

        His Worship the Mayor John Banks and Councillor Greg Moyle were absent.

        The amendment was declared LOST by 9 votes to 8.

        The Deputy Mayor put the following substantive motion:

        That the recommendations contained in the report of the Finance and Strategy Committee report No. 01/2008, item vi, Delegations Review, be adopted ie:

    8. Delegations Review

      That the resolutions of the 13 February 2008 Finance and Strategy Committee meeting be noted, being:

      1. That the two phase approach to the review and revision of the delegations register (interim review followed by a substantive review) be approved.

      2. That the functions and delegations approved at the 23 August, 1 November and 22 November 2007 Council meetings be reconfirmed, subject to the following interim changes:

        1. That the changes to the regulatory delegations be approved, with the key change being the creation of four subordinate decision makers reporting to the new City Development Committee.

        2. That the establishment of two sub-committees - the Appeals Sub-Committee and the Specialist Hearings Sub-Committee be approved (these sub-committees will report to the new City Development Committee, forming two of the four subordinate decision makers).

        3. That Council delegates to the Chief Executive the power to on delegate all staff delegations except those powers of authorities in respect of which delegation is prohibited by statute or regulation.

        4. That the interim changes be referred to the City Development Committee for consideration and recommendation to the Finance and Strategy Committee and Council.

        5. That in the interim period Dog control objections should be the responsibility of the Appeals Sub-Committee and Councillors appointed by the Sub-Committee.

      3. That the existing staff and financial delegations be confirmed.

      4. That during the transitional period of the delegations review the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Northey be given delegated authority to determine the appropriate decision making entity to which an item should be referred where it is not clearly specified in the delegations register (this delegation does not preclude the item being referred to the Finance and Strategy Committee upon agreement from both the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Northey, this delegation supersedes the delegation approved in resolution B of item 12 of the 22nd November 2007 Council meeting).

    That the Council adopt the following:

    1. That council approves the two-phase approach to the review and revision of the delegations register (interim review followed by a substantive review).
    2. That the functions and delegations approved at the 23 August, 1 November and 22 November 2007 Council meetings be reconfirmed, subject to the changes recommended in D - T below.
    3. That council approves the interim, high-level mapping of delegations from the previous triennium to the current committee structure as detailed in Appendix 3 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review".
    4. That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the City Development Committee be delegated the powers set out in Section 1 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review", relating to:
      1. The appointment of Councillors to hearings panels; and
      2. Determining whether or not the council participates in joint hearings.
    5. That the Chairperson of the City Development Committee be delegated the powers set out in Section 1 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review", relating to:
      1. The approval of immediate work necessary remove a protected or scheduled tree for reasons of safety, injury or damage prevention; and
      2. Appointing additional Hearings Commissioners in special circumstances.
    6. That the City Development Committee be delegated the functions and powers as set out in Section 2 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review", which gives the Committee extensive delegations over all the council's planning and regulatory functions.
    7. That an "Appeals Sub-Committee" be established as a sub-committee of the City Development Committee with the membership listed below, and the delegated authorities as set out in Section 2 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review" and as summarised below:

      Appeals Sub-Committee
      Membership
      • Chair: City Development Committee
      • Deputy Chair: City Development Committee
      • One further Councillor from City Development Committee
      Delegated authority to consider:
      • Appeals relating to resource consents; notices of requirement; and resource management policy (proposed plans, plan changes and variations).
        • Appeals often raise matters of strategic importance and policy. Political decision-making is desirable.
      • Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987: Consideration of exemptions.
        • This power cannot be sub-delegated further under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987
      • Dog control objections. The Finance and Strategy Committee on 13th February 2008 requested that these objections be heard by elected representatives.
    8.  That the Appeals Sub-Committee have a quorum of two and that the City Development Committee be authorised to appoint the additional Councillor to this sub-committee.
    9. That a "Specialist Hearings Sub-Committee" be established as a sub-committee of the City Development Committee with the membership listed below, and the delegated authorities as set out in Section 2 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review" and as summarised below:

      Specialist Hearings Sub-Committee
      Membership
      • Three independents appointed by the City Development Committee.
      Delegated authority to consider:
      • Hearings under the Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002 regarding drainage and works on private land.
        • This power cannot be sub-delegated further under the LGA 1974 or LGA 2002
      • Section 357 objections under the Resource Management Act 1991.
        • Hearings are required. There is greater efficiency in having a dedicated entity for this function than frequently appointing commissioners. The independents will resolve objections that relate to costs or conditions. These may then go on to appeal at which point councillors will preside as members of the appeals sub-committee.
    10.  That the Specialist Hearings Sub-Committee have a quorum of two.
    11. That the council confirm the use of Hearings Commissioners to hear and determine planning and regulatory matters with the functions and powers as set out in Section 2 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review", which includes hearings relating to:
      • Bylaws;
      • Bylaw dispensations;
      • Notified resource consents;
      • Non-notified resource consents with decline recommendations;
      • Notices of requirement; and
      • Policy (proposed plans, plan changes and variations.
    12. That the appointment of Hearings Commissioners be delegated to:
      • Councillors and Independent Hearings Commissioners: For hearings related to notified and non-notified resource consents and notices of requirement - appointed by Chair and Deputy Chair of City Development Committee. Appointed councillors should be accredited as planning commissioners to undertake hearings.
      • Elected representatives and Independent Hearings Commissioners: For bylaws and policy (proposed plans, plan changes and variations) - appointed by City Development Committee.

      and that the draft delegations manual in Sections 1 and 2 of appendix 2 be amended accordingly.

    13. That a panel of Duty Commissioners be established with the membership set out below, and the powers and functions set out in Section 2 of Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review".

      Duty Commissioners
      Membership o Three independent commissioners - appointed by the City Development Committee
      Delegated authority to consider: o Decision making on specified resource consent and bylaw dispensation applications where no hearing is required.

      -Allows expeditious decision-making on applications that require greater scrutiny than those determined by officers acting under delegated authority.
    14.  That the council delegate to hearings commissioners the authority to hear submissions on a proposed new, amended or revised bylaw and make recommendations to council. Hearing commissioners to be any appropriate councillor or independent commissioner.
    15. That the council approves changes to delegations for community boards relating to planning, bylaws and trees as set out in Section 3 of Appendix 2 (as amended) of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review", with the effect that community boards' input will be on the following:
      • Resource consents for non-complying activities and the removal of scheduled trees;
      • Making submissions on notified resource consent applications;
      • Policy issues (proposed plan changes and proposed plans); and
      • Nomination of either one planning spokesperson to cover all planning issues (including trees) or one planning spokesperson and one tree spokesperson.
      • Liquor licensing (noting the status quo remains)
    16. That council delegates to the chief executive all staff delegations as set out in current delegations subject to the changes set out in of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review", with the exception of powers of authorities in respect of which delegation is prohibited by statute or regulation.
    17. That changes to the regulatory delegations detailed in Appendix 2 of the Group manager, Democracy Services report dated 15 February 2008 entitled "Delegation Review" be approved.
    18. That during the transitional period of phase two of the delegations review the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Northey be given delegated authority to determine the appropriate decision making entity to which an item should be referred where it is not clearly specified in the delegations register.
    19. That Community board members who were planning commissioners be thanked for their services.

    CARRIED

    Councillors Boyle, Casey, Easte, Fryer, Northey and Roche wished their vote against the substantive motion to be recorded.

    REPORTS OF OFFICERS

  10. Top CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S JANUARY 2008 REPORT

    The Chief executive's responses to questions raised by councillors was tabled.

    [ATTACHMENT 10A]

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Christian seconded:

    1. That the council notes the significant matters highlighted within the Chief executive's January report dated 21 February 2008.

    2. That sufficient copies of councillor questions and answers regarding the Chief Executive's report be made available to the public at Council meetings and on the Council's website from March 2008 as part of the minutes.

    CARRIED

  11. Top DELEGATIONS REVIEW

    Refer to item 9 (vi) Delegations Review.

    Secretarial Note:

    The report from the Group manager Democracy Services is an addendum report to the one considered by the 13 February Finance and Strategy Committee. The report contains the delegations detail (refer item 11 of the 28 February Council agenda). This information was not available at the Finance and Strategy Committee meeting. The recommendations contained in the item 11 report will be considered as part of item 9(vi).

  12. Top ROYAL COMMISSION ON AUCKLAND GOVERNANCE SUBMISSION APPROACH

    An extract from the Regional Governance Committee meeting held 19 February 2008 was tabled.

    [ATTACHMENT 12A]

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Bhatnagar seconded:

    1. That the proposed submission approach Option 1 - Future Auckland six key drivers, as recommended by the 19 February 2008 Regional Governance Committee meeting (see Attachment 12A) be approved.
    2. That that the timeframe available to prepare council's submission for lodgement with the Commission on 22 April 2008 and the proposed reporting programme be noted.
    3. That a briefing workshop which will be held with all community board members on 4 March 2008 be noted.
    4. That it be noted that the Commission will release its information and discussion package on 3 March 2008 which will detail its processes, key issues and timeframes.
    5. That it be noted that the proposed trip to Brisbane city council by a delegation of the Regional Governance Committee has been postponed given the limited time available to prepare council's submission.
    6. That it be noted that the Commission's time constraints will only allow for targeted consultation with key stakeholders. The key stakeholders are currently being identified by officers for consideration by the Regional Governance Committee.
    7. That it be noted that a report has been prepared to the Finance and Strategy Committee for approval for a committee delegation to visit Brisbane city council as part of preparing council's submission.
    8. That council advise officers on the directions and outcomes it is seeking from:
      • Council's submission and the proposed submission approach
      • Consultation and engagement processes with key stakeholders (including community boards)
      • Key stakeholders to be consulted in developing council's submission
      • The proposed Chief executives briefing to council.
    9. That the existing information from the community outcomes planning process be used to inform council's decision on the content of the Royal Commission submission and to refine that information by liaising with community boards and other key stakeholders.
    10. That the minutes of the Regional Governance committee meeting held on Tuesday, 19 February 2008, and any reports (subject to confidentiality considerations) relating to the Royal Commission presented to the committee be published on council's web page.

    CARRIED

  13. Top AVONDALE-ROSKILL WARD BY-ELECTION

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Raffills seconded:

    That council adopt the early processing of returned voting documents over the voting period for the Avondale-Roskill Ward By-election as permitted under section 79 of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

    CARRIED

  14. Top SUBMISSION ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING: ENABLING TERRITORIAL AUTHORITIES BILL

    Cr Northey tabled the Waitakere City Council's submission on the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill.

    [ATTACHMENT 14A]

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Goldsmith seconded:

    That the council approve the submission on the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee on 29 February 2008 with the following amendments as agreed by the Chairs of the Community Services, City Development, and Finance and Strategy Committees:

    1. Auckland City Council is concerned that this is another instance in which central government is shifting the management of social issues to local government
    2. Auckland City Council considers there are many drivers for the decreasing affordability of housing that will require a number of policy initiatives to address. These drivers include central government regulation adding to the cost of new homes. The Bill is a narrow instrument introduced without the supporting central government policy and funding necessary to address key affordability issues
    3. The mechanisms proposed under the Bill represent an inefficient redistribution of wealth at a local level.

    Councillor Northey moved the following amendment by way of substitution:

    Councillor Casey seconded:

    That the proposed Auckland City Council Submission on the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill be amended to read as follows:

    1. Auckland City supports this Bill in principle but urges that it be substantially amended if it is effectively to promote affordable housing.  We broadly support the points made by the Waitakere City Council in its submission in this regard.
    2. The relative unaffordability of housing, particularly for young families in urban areas is a major crisis that central government, local government, the private sector and voluntary agencies must all work together on to help overcome. Otherwise relative poverty and reduced life opportunities for the people concerned, particularly for children, and huge difficulties in recruiting workers who can afford to live near our major manufacturing and service industries, will continue.
    3. Enabling, empowering and resourcing local authorities to implement policies to ensure a fair and appropriate proportion of affordable housing in developments works very well both in its operation and in its effects in major Australian cities and should be able to be made to work well in New Zealand.
    4. Abolishing the future imposition of restrictive covenants, as is proposed in clause 35, which ban an affordable or social housing component in developments, is supported, but requires strengthening and more clarity to be effective.
    5. The Bill fails to deal with other measures that would encourage or enable affordable housing provision. We reiterate the range of points we made in last year's submission to the Commerce Select Committee, which is attached. In particular we believe the following measures should be added to the Bill or be undertaken by Government.
    6. The Bill or a later one should end the preferential tax treatment of residential property investment. Economic growth in productive areas is slowed by the unfair attractiveness investment in property caused by the favourable tax treatment of profits from sales of investment property and of losses from properties being offset against other earnings. It is also probable that property prices and also rental levels are unnecessarily high as a consequence. This means some lower income renters cannot afford other items in their family budget, increasing hardship.
    7. The Overseas Investment Act should apply to residential property in urban and other sensitive regions. Residential property prices are artificially raised by what overseas buyers from wealthier countries are prepared to pay for our coastal and other desirable locations. Bringing aspects of these sales under the Overseas Investment Act should slow some of this property price pressure.
    8. The Bill should require rental property owners to obtain a warrant of fitness for their properties. This should generate a higher and healthier standard of rental stock. The "Warrants of Fitness" could be issued and regulated by either central or local government. If this was not required of all landlords it could be used as an incentive for landlords to seek a warrant of fitness in order to be eligible for the full accommodation supplement, which would then apply at a lower rate for those not complying. The higher rate would help off-set the costs of maintaining the standards of their dwellings. This would improve the condition of rental stock nation-wide and provide a healthier environment for tenants and their families. It would also encourage tenants see the dwelling as their home and care for it as a long-term proposition.
    9. In order to achieve greater security of tenure throughout the community and to enable people, especially families, to see their tenancies as their "homes" it is desirable to include a "just cause for eviction" as part of this Bill. At present a tenant can be evicted, after a short notice period, without a reason. All tenancy terminations should have a specified "cause" which can then be challenged at the Tenancy Tribunal and injustices avoided. Such laws exist in many parts of the world, such as Germany, Great Britain and France, and do not cause alarm among landlords. Good landlords would welcome such a change as it would make tenancies more secure and guarantee lower turn-around. It would also provide stability to families who have experienced frequent moves and reduce having children moving from school to school - a great advantage for the education sector as well as the families concerned. The financial and social costs of moving house frequently can be a great strain on people on low and modest incomes. At present both landlords and tenants are often seeking "fixed term tenancies in an attempt to generate more security, but these are difficult to change, usually requiring a costly Tenancy tribunal hearing.
    10. The Bill or government policies should include measures to enable and assist third sector housing providers. There are an increasing number of third sector housing organisations providing affordable housing in New Zealand. Such community-based organisations are able to be more flexible and innovative in responding to new and local priorities. They often provide additional services that complement the work of government agencies. The current funding available to encourage and enable the provision of affordable housing by third sector organisations is very limited in amount and slow and bureaucratic in process. There is a real need to develop this sector in future through considerably greater scale and flexibility in funding and resourcing. Such measures should include bank loan guarantees and enabling approved agencies to access income related rents for their tenants who meet Hosing New Zealand criteria.
    11. The Bill or Government policy should specifically assist partnerships between Councils, developers and third sector providers to provide for local needs for affordable housing. Councils and the voluntary sector can identify gaps in affordable housing provision, Councils can provide land and advice, developers can bring a wealth of technical knowledge and third sector organisations can provide passion, innovation and responsiveness to the needs of their clients and communities
    12. The Bill imposes unnecessary and undesirable costs and complexities on local government in developing and implementing affordable housing policies and therefore is most unlikely to be implemented by any New Zealand local authority unless it is drastically amended.
    13. The government should be required to develop National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards for the provision of affordable housing.
    14. The research, consultation and decision that an affordable housing policy is desirable and appropriate should be resourced and conducted by the government in consultation with local government, developers, other housing providers and others interested on a region by region basis. It should be consistent in its content and implementation across each region of the country where it is deemed to be appropriate. Otherwise it is likely, if they were to do it on their own initiative at all, that, say, Manukau and Waitakere could each develop inconsistent and somewhat deficient policies and Auckland City finally determines not to proceed with a policy. There should be one process for each metropolitan region led and resourced by central government and resulting in a consistent well-developed policy across each metropolitan region.
    15. The bill should be amended either to provide more specificity in its definition of affordable housing or else a specific requirement for this to be contained in the national policy Statement or a National Environmental Standard on housing affordability.
    16.  The relationship between the requirements and processes of the Resource Management Act and of this Act need to be clearly spelt out in this Bill.
    17.  The Needs Assessment in clause 8, were it to remain at all in the Bill, should be carried out by central Government. Researching these matters are resource intensive and require consistency across Councils and should be carried out by central government.  This clause should be replaced by setting out the details of the process and content of a National policy Statement and / or National Environmental Standard for affordable housing provision
    18.  The Actions required of territorial authorities in clause 12 needs to have paragraph 12(2)(a) deleted so that a local authority's development contributions policy remains determined by other objective grounds and may not be adjusted for this purpose.
    19. Clause 12 should also be amended to require central government to contribute appropriate assistance and relief to assist developers to, or contribute to providing, affordable housing.
    20. Developers and others with an interest and concern should have their say on the policy as part of the overall consultative process. They should only have rights of appeal about due process and other points of law, not an open right to appeal at any later stage to the Environment Court on any grounds.
    21. Clause 26 should be removed from the Bill. There should be no right of appeal to the Environment Court over Affordable Housing Policies because it will unfairly negate their effectiveness and is an entirely inappropriate body to adjudicate on matters of strategic policy.  It is a matter that would be referenced in a Council's LTCCP and should be open to challenge only on the matters that policy can be challenged on.
    22. (xxii) It is undesirable and unfair that the lodging of an appeal against any part or all of the affordable housing policy should force a Council not to be able to apply that part of the policy or even the whole policy in the case of other developers rather than just for the applicant.  Subclauses 27 (4) and (5) should be removed
    23. It should be made clear in clause 30 that a Council can utilise land or money obtained under this policy to be able to enable some social housing as well as affordable housing.
    24. The use of the adjective "principal" before "purpose" in clause 35 and also the references in clauses 5 and 6 on what covenants are designed to achieve, are both unnecessary and will lead to lack of clarity and to expensive litigation.  The words "principal purpose" would best be deleted and replaced by the word "effect".
    25. There should be added to sub clause 35 (2) a provision to void covenants against transfers to private, charitable, iwi or voluntary agency housing providers that include among their purposes the provision of social or affordable housing.
    26. There should not be a general regulation making power, as proposed in clause 36, to impose additional criteria on local government. The government should be obliged to change the law to do this.

    A division was called for, voting on which was as follows:

    For the Amendment:

    Against the Amendment:
    Councillors: Leila Boyle

    Cathy Casey

    Graeme Easte

    Glenda Fryer

    Richard Northey

    Denise Roche

    		 Councillors: Doug Armstrong

    Ken Baguley

    Aaron Bhatnagar

    Bill Christian

    Mark Donnelly

    Paul Goldsmith

    Deputy Mayor David Hay

    Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga

    Toni Millar

    Graeme Mulholland

    Noelene Raffills

    His Worship the Mayor John Banks and Councillor Greg Moyle were absent.

    The amendment was declared LOST by 11 votes to 6.

    The Deputy Chair put the following substantive motion:

    That the council approve the submission on the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee on 29 February 2008 with the following amendments as agreed by the Chairs of the Community Services, City Development, and Finance and Strategy Committees:

    1. Auckland City Council is concerned that this is another instance in which central government is shifting the management of social issues to local government
    2. Auckland City Council considers there are many drivers for the decreasing affordability of housing that will require a number of policy initiatives to address. These drivers include central government regulation adding to the cost of new homes. The Bill is a narrow instrument introduced without the supporting central government policy and funding necessary to address key affordability issues
    3. The mechanisms proposed under the Bill represent an inefficient redistribution of wealth at a local level.

    A division was called for, voting on which was as follows:

    For the Motion:

    Against the Motion:
    Councillors: Doug Armstrong

    Ken Baguley

    Aaron Bhatnagar

    Bill Christian

    Mark Donnelly

    Paul Goldsmith

    Deputy Mayor David Hay

    Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga

    Toni Millar

    Graeme Mulholland

    Noelene Raffills

    		 Councillors: Leila Boyle

    Cathy Casey

    Graeme Easte

    Glenda Fryer

    Richard Northey

    Denise Roche

    His Worship the Mayor John Banks and Councillor Greg Moyle were absent.

    The motion was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 6.

  15. Top SUPPLIER RECOMMENDATION REPORT FOR MULTI FUNCTION POLES

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Christian seconded:

    1. That the proposal submitted by HUB Street Equipment Limited for the supply of Auckland multi function poles to the value of $1,540,850 (excluding GST) be accepted.

    2. That a contingency sum of $154,085 (excluding GST) for the HUB Street Equipment Limited contract for the supply of Auckland multi function poles be approved.

    CARRIED

  16. Top URGENT DECISION - STRENGTHENING REGIONAL GOVERNANCE PROGRAMME - REPRESENTATON ON THE REGIONAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FORUM

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Goldsmith seconded:

    That the urgent decision regarding strengthening regional governance programme - representation on the Regional Sustainable Development Forum be noted as follows:

    1. That the resolutions passed at the 13 December 2007 council meeting regarding the Strengthening Regional Governance Programme - Representation on the Regional Sustainable Development Forum be confirmed as follows:
      1. That it be noted that the Strengthening Regional Governance project agreed that a Regional Sustainable Development Forum (RSDF) should be established:
        1. to be a committee of the Auckland Regional Council
        2. to be responsible for developing and recommending the One Plan for Auckland to the Regional Council for adoption.
      2. That it be noted that the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) has resolved that the Regional Sustainable Development Forum (RSDF) adopt the basis of membership, which previously applied to the Auckland Regional Growth Forum. Local government representation on the RSDF be as follows:
        • City and District Councils: 1 voting member and 1 non-voting member each
        • Regional Council 3 members
        • Each local government member will have 1 vote.
      3. That it be noted that the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) has invited council to nominate its voting members and alternates to represent Auckland city council on the Regional Sustainable Development Forum (RSDF), with the first meeting being 22 February 2008.
      4. That it be noted that the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief executive have recently met with the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) and expressed Auckland city's disappointment over the ARC's decision to over-ride the broadly agreed recommendation of the final report on Strengthening Auckland's Regional Governance.
      5. That the Regional Sustainable Development Forum (RSDF) representatives, in accordance with the Auckland Regional Council's resolutions, be:

        • The Mayor be appointed as the voting member of the Regional Sustainable Development Forum

        • Deputy Mayor be appointed as the non-voting member of the Regional Sustainable Development Forum on the understanding that he will be entitled to vote in the Mayor's absence.

    2. That it be noted that when territorial authorities considered the proposed arrangements for strengthened regional governance there were differences of opinion about council representation on the Regional Sustainable Development Forum (RSDF). Auckland City favoured a population based proportional formula for the territorial authority members of the RSDF. Other councils however favoured the representation model included in the final report of strengthening regional governance.
    3. That it be noted that Auckland city council previously resolved (28 June 2007) on Regional Sustainable Development Forum (RSDF) membership that:

      "local authority representation be based on population to a total of sixteen for the territorial authorities and four from the regional council with each council to decide its own RSDF members and alternates for those members, noting that this form of representation provides some recognition of proportionality".

    4. That a review of Auckland city council's participation on the Regional Sustainable Development Forum (RSDF) be undertaken in 12 months time.

    CARRIED

  17. Top URGENT DECISION - SUBMISSION ON 2007 LOCAL AUTHORITY ELECTIONS TO PARLIAMENT'S JUSTICE AND ELECTORAL COMMITTEE

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Millar seconded:

    That the urgent decision regarding the Submission on 2007 local authority elections to Parliament's Justice and Electoral Committee be noted as follows:

    That the Council approve the submission to Parliament's Justice and Electoral Committee on its inquiry into the local authority elections.

    CARRIED

  18. Top EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC : LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987

    Deputy Mayor David Hay moved:

    Councillor Christian seconded:

    That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

    The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

    Item No.

    General subject of each matter to be considered

    Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

    Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

    Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution
    C1. Transport Committee Report No. C01/2008 Public conduct of matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason to withhold exists under section 7. Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

    The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

    In particular, the report relates to the purchase of land. The owners of the properties are not yet aware that their land will be required for roading purposes. Should approval be given, negotiations will commence with the owners.

    		 Section 48(1)(a)

    The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

    C2. City Development Committee Report No. C01/2008 Public conduct of matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason to withhold exists under section 7. Section 7(2)(h)

    The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

    In particular, the confidential supplementary information report on the Waterfront design work for the Marine events centre contains commercially sensitive information with prices provided as part of the Request for proposal process from invited consultants. Until the supplier recommendation has been ratified by council, the information must remain confidential.

    Section 7(2)(a)

    The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

    In particular, personal information is contained in the report relating to the people who have sought appoint as commissioners.

    		 Section 48(1)(a)

    The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
    C3. Undertaking to lend funds to Watercare Public conduct of matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason to withhold exists under section 7. Section 7(2)(h)

    The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

    Section 7(2)(i)

    The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

    In particular, the report enables negotiation on Watercare's financing structure using commercially sensitive information to take place without prejudice or disadvantage.

    		 Section 48(1)(a)

    The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
    C4. Tenders for Refuse Disposal Public conduct of matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason to withhold exists under section 7. Section 7(2)(b)(i)

    The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret.

    Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

    The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

    Section 7(2)(i)

    The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

    In particular, the report on the refuse tenders contains commercially sensitive information regarding the pricing of individual elements of the tender, and further negotiations are required with incumbent contractors.

    		 Section 48(1)(a)

    The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
    C5. Urgent Decision: The EdgeŽ Public conduct of matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason to withhold exists under section 7. Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

    The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

    In particular, the report includes detailed information on THE EDGEŽ's approach to assessing the risk and financial returns of a proposed show which if released to the public enable its competitors to gain commercial advantage when bidding for or setting prices for future shows.

    		 Section 48(1)(a)

    The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

    CARRIED

    There being no further business the Deputy Mayor declared the meeting closed at 10:52 pm.