Citizenship Ceremonies

Transcription

1 Citizenship Ceremonies File No.: CP2011/02612 Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to present options for Local Boards consideration for delivering citizenship ceremonies across the Auckland region. Citizenship ceremonies connect our new citizens with local government and provide an important opportunity to reinforce Auckland as an inclusive city that celebrates diversity. Item 16 Prior to the establishment of the Auckland Council, citizenship ceremonies were the responsibility of the seven Auckland local authorities, with variances in the manner in which ceremonies were managed and associated costs. This report proposes alternative approaches to citizenship ceremonies across the region, where Local Boards have a lead role in welcoming new citizens to their communities. In addition to the recent changes in the local government context, there is an expected increase in citizenship candidates between due to the five-year condition to achieve citizenship, introduced via legislation in 2005, reaching maturity. Therefore, a new approach also needs to account for increasing demand for ceremonies across Auckland. The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) is a key stakeholder in the delivery of citizenship ceremonies. DIA staff are required to attend each ceremony and since 2006, the DIA has contributed funding of $10 per candidate. The DIA establishes the parameters for the delivery of citizenship ceremonies nationally. The DIA has been consulted in the development of this report and has provided feedback on the options presented. They will however need to approve final proposed changes to citizenship ceremonies in Auckland and require a minimum of four weeks to implement any changes. This report outlines five options for consideration by the Local Boards. Options four and five were developed post the presentation of an initial discussion document to the March 2011 Local Board Chairs Forum. The proposed options take into account the legal requirements of the Department of Internal Affairs, the role of Local Boards and projected demands of the number of future candidates. It should be noted, however, that staffing implications for all options are still being assessed. The recommendations of this report outline the proposed decision making process. While the new delivery model is being determined, interim ceremonies will be held in May/June 2011 to meet the demands of existing candidates. The dates and locations for these ceremonies are as follows: Area Date Address South 5 May Telstra Clear Stadium, Manukau Central 30 May Auckland Town Hall, CBD West 31 May Waitakere Council Chamber, Henderson North 8 June Bruce Mason Centre, Takapuna Further interim ceremonies may be required depending on the time that it takes for the final regional option to be agreed and implemented in partnership with the DIA. Citizenship Ceremonies Page 55

2 Item 16 Recommendation/s a) That the report be received. b) That Local Board Chairs workshop the options outlined in this report in May with their board and also with neighbouring boards if desired. c) That each Local Board resolves its preferred option at its business meeting during May/June d) That officers discuss the preferred option, based on a majority of Local Board responses, with the Department of Internal Affairs. e) That officers assess and recommend back to the Local Boards the final approach. Background Prior to transition to the Auckland Council, citizenship ceremonies were the responsibility of the seven Auckland local authorities. There were variances in the manner in which the ceremonies were managed and associated costs. For example, some ceremonies involved professional performances and gifts being presented to candidates, which affected overall event costs. Immediately post the establishment of the Auckland Council, four citizenship ceremonies were held across Auckland. These ceremonies were presided over by either the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, and Local Board Chairs for the second South ceremony, and ensured that the Council responded to candidates awaiting confirmation of citizenship before the end of Local Board members were invited to participate in each event. The Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) made an initial allocation of non-regulatory activities to Local Boards, in accordance with the principles set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act These activities include civic duties, engagements and functions in the local area, including citizenship ceremonies and recognition of volunteers. Post feedback and discussions with the Local Board services team and the Local Boards at the end of 2010, it was agreed that any review of future Auckland Council citizenship ceremonies would reflect the role and expectations of Local Boards and communities, whilst ensuring that the legislative requirements of the DIA are met. There is an expected increase in citizenship candidates between due to the five-year condition to achieve citizenship, introduced via legislation in 2005, reaching maturity. Therefore, a new approach will also need to account for increasing demand for ceremonies across the region. These issues will need to be further negotiated with DIA. The DIA have asked that Council first determine the preferred future delivery model and then they will work with Council officers to establish how to enable it. Decision Making This report identifies five options for consideration. While there are a number of options that could be considered* (see note below for discounted options) the options in this report have been developed based on: Role and expectations of Local Boards Projected demand (numbers) Geographic demand (location) i.e. which Local Board areas are most likely to be impacted Required frequency based on projected demand Citizenship Ceremonies Page 56

3 Feedback from Local Board Chairs, i.e. options four and five have been developed following an initial report being presented to the Local Board Chairs Forum at the end of March Criteria: In assessing options, the following criteria have been used to assess the proposed options: Responsive and inclusive of Local Board and community expectations Flexible enough to respond to varying demand Meets legislative requirements and is acceptable to DIA Cost effective. Item 16 Assumptions: The following key assumptions have been considered in the development of the proposed options: Presiding of ceremonies: The assumption for the five options is that one or more Local Board Chair/s will preside over all or part of each citizenship ceremony. Where ceremonies encompass more than one Local Board area the relevant chairpersons may decide to rotate the hosting of the event or co-host and preside over those residents from their local board area within any given ceremony. There will need to be discussion amongst the relevant Chairpersons as to their specific role in each ceremony. That the DIA subsidy will remain at $10 per candidate. Budget projections are based on 14,232 participants annually, as the indication from DIA is that projected numbers will increase and the 2008 candidate numbers provide an agreed baseline for the next 12-18months. *Note: Two additional options were investigated and discounted as follows: a) As per the discussion document presented to the March 2011 Local Board Chairs Forum an option of monthly ceremonies, with at least one ceremony per year in every local board area (excluding Great Barrier), was explored and discounted by Events, Local Board services and the DIA as unsustainable. The reasons being: Scale and number of ceremonies that would be required (i.e. a minimum of 126 ceremonies per annum) Staffing resource and system capability is insufficient for all three parties to deliver at least 1 x ceremony per week (February - December) Availability of venues Workload on elected members The DIA could not resource the option therefore did not support it. b) At the March 2011 Local Board Chairs Forum, it was requested that officers explore a further option which would provide the flexibility for candidates to attend any ceremony across the Auckland region. Based on discussions with the DIA, this option is not possible, as DIA does not have the capacity to meet that level of responsiveness. Candidates are invited as per their home address to attend a ceremony in the area in which they reside. DIA have two staff who administer ceremonies across New Zealand. Sixty per cent of all citizenship applicants are from Auckland. This is approximately 250 candidates per week. DIA does not have the staff resource to respond to 250 individual requests per week. A) Summary of Options: A summary of the five options is presented in the table below. Citizenship Ceremonies Page 57

4 Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 58

5 B) Detailed outline of options Option One: Bi-monthly citizenship ceremonies located and hosted in local board areas, across two local board areas and in sub-regional clusters Single board hosting and presiding: Citizenship ceremonies held every two months in local service centres in the following Local Board areas Rodney, Franklin, Waiheke, and Papakura. Citizenship ceremonies held every two months in the Torbay Community Hall in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. Citizenship ceremonies held every two months in the Howick and Manurewa Local Boards areas (venue to be decided). Item 16 Cluster of two Local Boards hosting and presiding: Citizenship ceremonies held every two months at the East Tamaki Community Hall and shared across two Local Board areas - Otara-Papatoetoe and Mangere-Otahuhu. Cluster of three Local Boards hosting and presiding: Citizenship ceremonies held every two months at the Bruce Mason Centre and shared across three Local Board areas Devonport-Takapuna, Upper Harbour and Kaipatiki. Citizenship ceremonies held bi-monthly in the Waitakere Trusts Stadium and shared across the West sub-regional cluster of Waitakere-Ranges, Whau and Henderson- Massey. Cluster of six Local Boards (with the exception of Waiheke) hosting and presiding: Citizenship ceremonies held every two months in the Auckland Town Hall and shared across the following Local Board areas - Albert-Eden, Great Barrier, Waitemata, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Orakei, Puketapapa Rationale for Option One: Geographically based. Partly responsive to Local Boards that have expressed interest in hosting ceremonies within their local board area with capacity to cater for larger numbers in large venues versus those who co-host larger ceremonies involving a number of boards and communities. The experience will be intimate for those new citizens in smaller local board areas while bigger centres offer the opportunity for new citizens to experience a larger civic event. All Local Board Chairs will have the opportunity to host more than one ceremony per year. Candidate numbers, based on the DIA statistics for the past three years (see Appendix 1.a and 1.b), are manageable. Candidates can receive their citizen certificate within two months of their approval. DIA support the frequency of this option. Risks and Issues: This option is the most costly per candidate. Existing civic events staff would not be able to service all ceremonies per annum, with the Local Boards Services team needing to facilitate at least the single Local Board hosted ceremonies. The Local Board Services team may not have the capacity to do this. Ensuring there is a consistent level of delivery for each ceremony. The proposed changes to citizenship ceremonies within this option will create a number of issues for the DIA. Citizenship Ceremonies Page 59

6 Item 16 Option Two: Bi-monthly citizenship ceremonies located and hosted in one, or across two or three Local Board areas in North (Rodney, Hibiscus and Bays) and South; quarterly citizenship ceremonies in fixed locations and co-hosted by all Local Boards in Central and West and a cluster of three Local Boards in North (Devonport-Takapuna, Upper Harbour and Kaipatiki). Single board hosting and presiding: Citizenship ceremonies held every two months in local service centres in the following Local Board areas Rodney, Franklin, Waiheke, and Papakura. Citizenship ceremonies held every two months in the Torbay Community Hall in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. Citizenship ceremonies held every two months in the Howick and Manurewa Local Boards areas (venue to be decided). Cluster of two Local Boards hosting and presiding: Citizenship ceremonies held every two months at the East Tamaki Community Hall and shared across two Local Board areas - Otara-Papatoetoe and Mangere-Otahuhu. Cluster of three Local Boards hosting and presiding Citizenship ceremonies held every three months and shared across three Local Board areas - Devonport-Takapuna, Upper Harbour and Kaipatiki. The venue is the Bruce Mason Centre. Citizenship ceremonies held every three months in Central and West sub-regional area Hosting and presiding will be shared by all Local Boards within the West and Central areas and thus potentially involve 3-6 boards per ceremony. The venues will be the Auckland Town Hall and Waitakere Trust Stadium. Rationale for Option Two: This option has many similar benefits to Option One, with the extra benefit of efficiencies in staff resources given a reduction in the number of ceremonies delivered. Larger ceremonies at larger venues in Central create economy of scale given the costs associated with the Town Hall. Risks and Issues: Ensuring there is a consistent level of delivery for each ceremony. Candidates in South, some areas of North and Waiheke will only have to wait two months post their approval for a ceremony whilst candidates in Central, West and some areas of North will have to wait three months. DIA are seeking a shorter time wait time for candidates, this option addresses half of the participants only. Howick has a large number of candidates and a suitable venue has yet to be identified. Option Three: Quarterly citizenship ceremonies, in fixed locations and hosted by Local Boards as per the four sub-regional areas Citizenship ceremonies held every three months in each sub-regional area i.e. North, West, Central and South. Hosting and presiding will be shared by all Local Boards within the North, West, Central and South areas and thus potentially involve 3-8 boards per ceremony. Venues will remain the same throughout the year in each sub-regional area. Rationale for Option Three: Citizenship Ceremonies Page 60

7 Larger ceremonies create efficiencies in staff resources. Larger ceremonies at larger venues create cost efficiencies. Four dates to schedule into Local Board members calendars each year. Consistent level of delivery for each ceremony. Local Board Chairs will have the opportunity to preside over the ceremonies as in Option One and Option Two but all ceremonies will be co-hosted. Item 16 Risks and Issues While this option is the most cost effective, it does not meet a number of criteria. Not meeting the Local Board expectations of local ceremonies. Perception of lack of change in delivery model from legacy councils. DIA are seeking a shorter wait time for candidates. This option is as per current practice and candidates will receive their citizen certificate within three-four months of their approval. The DIA would work with this option but it is on the boundary of the time they would accept between ceremonies. Candidates may have to travel further to one specific area within their cluster. Option Four: Bi-monthly citizenship ceremonies, in fixed locations and hosted by Local Boards as per the four sub-regional areas (developed post March 2011 Local Board Chairs Forum) Option Four follows the same model and approach as Option Three, the only variation being frequency with the proposed sub-regional ceremonies being held every two months rather than every quarter. Rationale for Option Four (as per Option three): Larger ceremonies create efficiencies in staff resources. Larger ceremonies at larger venues create cost efficiencies. Four dates to schedule into Local Board members calendars each year. Consistent level of delivery for each ceremony. Local Board Chairs will have the opportunity to preside over the ceremonies as in Option One and Option Two but all ceremonies will be co-hosted. In addition the rationale outlined above this option is more responsive than Option Three in terms of frequency i.e. bi-monthly versus quarterly ceremonies and thus also in meeting DIA requirements. Risks and Issues As per option three: Not meeting the Local Board expectations of local ceremonies. Perception of lack of change in delivery model from legacy councils. Candidates may have to travel further to one specific area within their cluster. Option Five: A further variation developed in response to Local Board Chairs Feedback (developed post March 2011 Local Board Chairs Forum) Option Five takes into account the following suggestions from the Local Board Chairs Forum: a) Waiheke Island candidates are included in the Central sub-regional cluster b) Ceremonies for Puketapapa and Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board areas have been added c) Ceremonies for Henderson-Massey Local Board have been added. Rationale for Option 5 Geographically based. Citizenship Ceremonies Page 61

8 Item 16 Responsive to Local Boards that have expressed interest in hosting ceremonies within their local board area with capacity to cater for larger numbers in large venues, versus those who co-host larger ceremonies involving a number of boards and communities. The experience will be intimate for those new citizens in smaller local board areas while bigger centres offer the opportunity for new citizens to experience a larger civic event. Risks and issues Ensuring there is a consistent level of delivery for each ceremony. Capacity to deliver is yet to be determined. Significance of Decision This report does not trigger the Significance Policy. Consultation Discussions have taken place with the Department of Internal Affairs, Auckland Council Local Board Services Team and the Local Board Chairs Forum. The report reflects the expectations and requirements of each of these discussions. Further consultation is now required with Local Boards. Financial and Resourcing Implications See Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 for detailed scheduling and initial budget projections for each of the five proposed options. The combined budget for citizenship ceremonies from legacy councils is approximately $165,000 per annum. It should be noted that: a) Staffing implications for all options are still being assessed. b) The costs of hospitality such as catering and gifts have not been included in the attached budget information, as the Auckland Council policy for this in relation to citizenship ceremonies is yet to be determined. The cost of including light refreshments for each participant and guests is $4 per head. As the calculations have been based on 14,232 participants with two guests each, the projected total cost to include light refreshments is $170,784 per annum. At their March 2011 Forum, Local Board Chairs raised that the hospitality of the events needs to be recognised. Once the final option is determined, staff will rework budgets with Local Board Chairs to include hospitality. Legal and Legislative Implications The five options for the staging of Citizenship Ceremonies meet the parameters for the delivery of the Ceremonies for of the Department of Internal Affairs and the Citizenship Act 1977 No 61 (as 29 November 2010). Implementation Issues All options outlined in this report will require delivery by Civic Events with support from Local Board services officers. As noted previously staffing implications for the Civic Events team are still being assessed. Sourcing suitable and available venues within the region for all options will also be an ongoing challenge. In addition, consideration needs to be given to DIA staff resources, as they require staff to attend each ceremony. DIA have two members of staff who manage the candidate waiting lists and prepare ceremony packages for Local Authorities in New Zealand. Staff attend ceremonies to deliver and hand out citizen certificates. Changes to the processes or an increase in the number Citizenship Ceremonies Page 62

9 of packages that they prepare will place pressure on existing resources as they are currently working to capacity. As noted earlier in the report the DIA require a minimum of 4 weeks to review and implement any changes to citizenship ceremonies. DIA will also need to make changes to their systems in order to deliver the new model. The DIA Citizenship Operating System (COS) allocates an applicant into a ceremony at the time the application is processed. This system is currently set up with the seven previous local authority city fields. DIA are signalling that any change to this system is a major exercise with significant costs. Item 16 The DIA handbook requests Local Authorities hold worthwhile ceremonies for the candidates, which include a number of elements, including a cultural component. Working with the DIA on preserving the integrity of the Oath taking (the most important aspect of the ceremonies) and security of the Certificates of Citizenship (each certificate can be used to obtain a Passport) is also a priority. Transporting Certificates of Citizenship to various venues needs to be considered and the ceremonies will need to be streamlined over the region. While the new delivery model is determined, interim ceremonies will be held in May/June to meet demands of existing candidates. The dates for those ceremonies are as follows: Area Date Address South 5 May Telstra Clear Stadium, Manukau Central 30 May Auckland Town Hall, CBD West 31 May Waitakere Council Chamber, Henderson North 8 June Bruce Mason Centre, Takapuna Further interim ceremonies may be required depending on the time that it takes for the final option to be identified and able to be implemented in partnership with the DIA. Appendix 1.a: Summary of Candidate Numbers to Date Appendix 1.b: DIA Candidate figures (as per Local Board area) Appendix Two: Proposed Scheduling for Options 1-2 Option 1: Bi-monthly local board ceremonies Option 2: Bi-monthly and quarterly local board ceremonies Option 3: Quarterly sub-regional ceremonies Option 4: Bi-monthly sub-regional ceremonies Option 5: Developed in response to feedback from local board chairs Appendix Three: Detailed Budget Costs for Options 1-5 Option 1: Bi-monthly local board ceremonies Option 2: Bi-monthly and quarterly local board ceremonies Option 3: Quarterly sub-regional ceremonies Option 4: Bi-monthly sub-regional ceremonies Option 5: Developed in response to feedback from local board chairs Citizenship Ceremonies Page 63

10 Item 16 Attachments No. Title Page A Summary of candidate numbers B Proposed scheduling for options 1 to 5 66 C Detailed budget costs for options 1 to 5 70 Signatories Authors Gail Richards, Manager Arts, Culture and Events Authorisers Louise Mason, Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture Citizenship Ceremonies Page 64

11 Attachment A Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 65

12 Attachment B Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 66

13 Attachment B Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 67

14 Attachment B Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 68

15 Attachment B Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 69

16 Attachment C Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 70

17 Attachment C Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 71

18 Attachment C Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 72

19 Attachment C Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 73

20 Attachment C Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 74

21 Attachment C Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 75

22 Attachment C Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 76

23 Attachment C Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 77

24 Attachment C Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 78

25 Attachment C Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 79

26 Attachment C Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 80

27 Attachment C Item 16 Citizenship Ceremonies Page 81

28

29 Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation File No.: CP2011/02621 Item 17 Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to apprise the Kaipatiki Local Board of the current situation regarding the accommodation options for the Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust. This report gives background information on the Trust s current occupation of Northcote War Memorial Hall and discusses the options considered and decisions taken by the former North Shore City Council. It presents options for future actions that may be considered by the Local Board. The Birkenhead Northcote Community Facilities Trust provides a range of services to the local community on behalf of Council and Government. The Trust was relocated to the Northcote War Memorial Hall in 2004 to enable the construction of the new Birkenhead Library. Changes in the Library design meant that it was unable to accommodate the Trust. North Shore City Council undertook to find alternative premises. The site behind the Birkenhead Leisure Centre on Birkenhead War Memorial Park was identified as the most likely option for a new building to accommodate the Trust. In May 2010 Council resolved to invite the Trust to work with the Project Team to develop plans, specifications and costs for a new building at this location. Plans for a two storey property were developed with preliminary estimates of the costs for the preparation of building and resource consents. Council at its meeting July requested that budget be secured to develop the new Centre on Birkenhead War Memorial Park. This has been done and all reports for consent applications are ready for review by Auckland Council. Once reviewed it was the intention of the original Project Team to enter into further consultation with the affected parties including neighbours, other users of the Park, North Shore Leisure and the community groups and organisations that will utilise the building. Plans were drawn up, the budget secured and the team was ready for the consent stage at the time of transition. Since then the Trust has incorporated the role of the Glenfield Community Facilities Trust. This has meant that the population and area served by the proposed new building has increased significantly, and the original plan may no longer be suitable. Direction is required from the Kaipatiki Local Board on whether the area of search for new premises should be widened or the new building on Birkenhead War Memorial Park should be initiated. Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 83

30 Item 17 Recommendation/s a) That the report be received. b) That the Kaipatiki Local Board notes the challenges identified in seeking to establish a viable property in which to relocate the Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust. c) That the Kaipatiki Local Board considers the options identified by Officers to establish viable premises for the Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust 1) To proceed with plans to provide a new build facility on Birkenhead War Memorial Park, adjacent to the Birkenhead Leisure Centre, 2 John Court Street, Birkenhead. 2) To investigate available properties in the wider area covered by The Kaipatiki Local Board. 3) To modify the Northcote War Memorial Hall to facilitate the occupation of the Trust in the medium to long term. d) That the Kaipatiki Local Board identifies its preferred option. Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 84

31 Background The Birkenhead Community Facilities Trust was formed in It is a Charitable Trust governed by a Board of Trustees that employs the Community Co-ordinators serving the Birkenhead- Northcote and Glenfield areas. Item 17 The Trust is contracted to Council to provide community development services and to facilitate networking and capacity building to the community groups and organisations operating in the area. It also holds contracts with the Ministry of Social Development and Harbour Sport. The Trust is visible in the community operating the Summer Fun Programmes in local parks and delivers the Graffiti Management Programme. It facilities the Strengthening Families Co-ordinator and Te Roopu O Wai Ora Officers in their roles, supports a university placement in the community and provides toys and equipment on a temporary basis to a number of other community organisations. The Trust was for many years housed in the lower level of the former Birkenhead Library where it had offices and storage space. The Council s provision of accommodation for the Trust is considered to be part of Council s contractual arrangements with Council. Prior to the demolition of the Birkenhead Library in 2004, the Trust was relocated to the Northcote War Memorial Hall (NWMH) at 2 Rodney Road, Northcote. At the time, it was anticipated that this would be a short term arrangement for approximately 18 months to two years whilst the new library was being developed. While the Hall was valued by the community, it was not being well used at the time. Ensuing consent issues and an Environment Court decision resulted in a redesign of the proposed library and a reduction in its scale. The new building cannot accommodate the activities of the Trust and it has therefore remained at the NWMH with no security of tenure. Northcote War Memorial Hall The NWMH was erected in the mid-1950s on a Council-owned site using monies raised directly by the local community and government subsidies available at the time. The site is zoned Special Purpose 9, Community Use, in the North Shore City District Plan and is a Category A item in the Schedule of Buildings Objects and Places of Heritage Significance in Appendix 11A of the District Plan. It is not listed with the Historic Places Trust. The two-storey building provides a hall with a smaller lounge area that can be separated or incorporated into the main body of the hall as required, together with a kitchen, toilets, accessible toilet and foyer on the upper level and office/meeting space with an accessible toilet on the ground floor. When originally constructed the hall provided space for the local branch library and the area s Plunket rooms. Both of these uses combined took up approximately half of the available operational space. Over the years the ground floor accommodation originally occupied by Plunket has been rented as a doctor s surgery and later used as office accommodation by PHAB, an organisation providing advice and support services for disabled teenagers and young adults. The Hall houses the original marble war memorial plaque and the wooden memorial board that was previously located in the adjacent Council Chamber, which is now used by the Northcote Point Community Crèche. To accommodate the Trust s temporary relocation to the NWMH Council erected a partition in the main hall. The smaller hall or lounge area is used for community meetings and has been furnished accordingly by the Trust. The ground floor accommodation is available for meetings as required by the community. Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 85

32 Item 17 The premises are currently well used by the Trust and have become a hub for community activities in the area. The space provides accommodation for six staff members and the Hall is used by a number of community groups and organisations on a regular basis. They include the Northcote Point Community Crèche Committee, the Men s Shed Project, Strengthening Families meetings, the Crime Prevention Reference Group Neighbourhood Support North Shore meetings and the Mast Network. When it became apparent that the Trust could not be rehoused at the new library concerns were raised by the Northcote Residents Association (NRA) and the Northcote Returned Services Club (NRSC) resulting in the Trust s accommodation requirements being further considered by Council. The NRA feels that the hall is not seen as being available for community activities and that the Trust s occupation of the premises means that the space is not available for larger meetings or social functions. The NRSC has stated its concerns that the current configuration of storage and office accommodation in the main hall detracts from and conflicts with the heritage significance of the space as an identified war memorial. Neither the NRA nor the NRSC have ever had tenure or control of the hall or the activities undertaken therein, and nor does either organisation wish to take on these roles in the future. Council at its meeting in March 2010 instructed Officers to seek advice from Council s solicitor who in April 2010 confirmed that if the Trust s occupation is intended to be temporary then there were no specific planning issues as existing use rights would apply. If, however, the decision was taken to permit the Trust to remain in occupation in the long term, then a Resource Consent for a controlled activity could be obtained to avoid any doubt on planning constraints. Given the Special Purpose 9 zoning of the site and the activities undertaken by the Trust it was felt that Council would be bound to grant consent under Section 104A of the Resource Management Act. It must, however, be noted that the Trust to remain in occupation of the property it would require funds to better configure the available space to meet the needs of the occupants, provide more flexibility for current and future community needs, and to ensure that the position of the War Memorial Boards within the property more appropriately reflects their significance. Concept plans and very initial costings were prepared that gave an indication of how these objectives could be achieved on a staged basis, but the funds to carry out these works would need to be identified if this option were to be considered. Further consultation would also be required with all stakeholders to ensure that any decisions taken would reflect the requirements of the occupants, the local residents and all potential users of the facility. Alternative Accommodation Options A Project Manager was appointed and a project team formed including Council staff and consultants from Davis Langdon, Property and Construction Consultants to work with the Trust to scope its requirements and identify potential alternative properties. The Trust met with the Consultant and its office, meeting and storage space, and car parking requirements were measured and recorded. Other attributes to be considered when looking for property included accessibility, visibility, security and the availability of parking and transport links for visitors. A progress report was submitted to Council s Community Services and Parks Committee on 13 May Officers were directed by the Committee to utilise the information gathered and use best endeavours to identify alternative property options for the Trust. It was indicated that the Trust be permitted to remain in occupation at the Hall on a month-to-month basis until new premises were secured. A total of 27 properties were considered, some identified by the Trust, and others by Council staff utilising various letting agents in the area. Options included the purchase/lease of new premises, the relocation to existing Council accommodation and the provision of a purpose-built facility within the geographic area covered by the former Birkenhead Northcote Community Board. An initial analysis of the 27 sites identified resulted in some being discounted due to planning constraints, being too large or too small, not having sufficient parking or storage to meet the requirements of the Trust or being too expensive. Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 86

33 The first cut reduced the number of potential sites and buildings to 11, including the Northcote War Memorial Hall for comparison. These were then analysed again and rated by size, location, visibility, provision of parking, security, accessibility and cost. The premises identified as being the most suitable at the time, if the NWMH could not be considered as a long term option, was the car park behind the Birkenhead Leisure Centre in John Court Street, Birkenhead. Davis Langdon and the members of the project team then prepared a report for Council that was presented on 26 and 31 May 2010, when it was resolved that the Trust be invited to work with the Project Team to develop plans for a new build on this site. Item 17 2 John Court Street, Birkenhead War Memorial Park The site identified is accessed from John Court Street and sits immediately behind the Birkenhead Leisure Centre, Birkenhead War Memorial Park. The Project Team was expanded to include town planning, architectural and engineering expertise. With the Trust, it worked through requirements and specifications and developed a design that has direct pedestrian access via a covered walkway from John Court Street, but which used the topography of the site to provide storage and parking at the lower level. The building has an office, storage, meeting/kitchenette/break out space and toilet facilities on the ground floor (approx 106m 2 ). The basement has secure storage and wash down facilities (approx 62m 2 ). It can be accessed internally or from the car park behind the Leisure Centre via a roller garage door. A covered loading bay was planned from a fenced parking area accessed form the old temporary library car park. The Trust was satisfied that the building proposed was a workable solution given the options available. However, there were concerns regarding the availability of sufficient parking for the Trust s vehicles and the difficulty manoeuvring vehicles on the site, given the size and layout of the parking area and the width and standard of the existing driveway. Initial costings of $515,000 plus GST were calculated by the Project Team. This included an estimate for building costs, development contributions and fees to take the project to the consent application stage. A report was prepared for consideration by the Community Services and Parks Committee at its meeting in July The Committee resolved that it be recommended to Council that budget be identified to meet the capital cost of the building and that Council Officers be requested to progress the matter. The Council has since secured budget for the project and this capital sum is being held pending the commencement of this project. All reports for consent applications were prepared and are ready for review by Council. Once reviewed it was the intention of the project group that further consultation be undertaken with neighbours and affected parties prior to the lodgement of the consents. Issues for consideration re proposed purpose-built facility Planning The proposed property on the site at the rear of the Leisure Centre is a non-complying activity under the provisions of the North Shore City District Plan. The site is zoned Recreation 4 (Organised Sport), clubrooms and community houses are considered to be controlled activities within this zone. However, whilst the project may not fully align with the objectives and policies of this zone, the proposal is not contrary to those stated in the Plan. The consenting process may require limited notification if the written consent of the parties affected cannot be obtained. The Project Team did arrange two preliminary meetings in September 2010 with the residential neighbours and the other organisations using the Park. Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 87

34 Item 17 Only 10 of 130 invited residents attended the meeting. They expressed concerns about the trees on the site and controlled access from John Court Street. The other organised parks users had no concerns, other than the effect any development s site coverage may have on future plans for the Park. Design The facility was designed with the requirements of the Northcote Birkenhead Community Facilities Trust in mind. The Trust has now amalgamated with the Glenfield Community Facilities Trust and the Glenfield Community Co-ordinator is now located in the same office. The proposed building may be able to accommodate the additional staff and storage requirements. However, there will be no opportunity to extend the property should the Trust grow or wish to offer any additional services. The building is a stand-alone feature of the Park and whilst the design is aesthetically pleasing it is not integrated into the design of the existing Leisure Centre. There is also concern from North Shore Leisure that the positioning of the building will limit the potential for future expansion of the existing Centre. When the library vacated the space that is accessed from the rear car park, North Shore Leisure was planning to create a covered outdoor area to cater for archery and sports activities that cannot always be accommodated on the busy sports fields in the park. The car park also provides the accessible parks available for visitors to the indoor sports area of the Leisure Centre; this may be compromised by the new building and the occupation of the site by the Trust and its vehicles. Location The site for the proposed building was chosen given the original search brief - i.e. the new premises were to service the population in the former Birkenhead Northcote Community Board area. Following Council amalgamation, The Trust now serves the entire area within the Kaipatiki Local Board boundary. Should a search be undertaken now, it is possible that a more suitable location could be identified that would be more central for the population served and would better meet the identified needs of the Trust now and in the future. Funding The funding secured may not be sufficient to complete the building. Building costs have generally increased by approximately 5% in the last year and whilst the budget set for the project was considered to be adequate with a small sum set for contingencies it did not make allowances for any fees if the consent process becomes protracted. Nor is there any funding identified to improve the access and driveway to the proposed building. Conclusion The Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust has continued to provide a valuable service to the community in what was to have been temporary premises for the last seven years. The issues relating to the permanent base for the Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community facilities Trust must be resolved. The uncertainty surrounding the provision of appropriate property may impact on the service delivery of the Trust, which has been acknowledged by all to be of a high standard and extremely important to those in the Kaipatiki Local Board area that it serves. Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 88

35 Options 1. To proceed with the plans for the new build project on Birkenhead War Memorial Park, 2 John Court Street, Birkenhead. The proposed new build project on Birkenhead War Memorial Park, whilst providing a purposebuilt facility was the best solution available at the time. However, it is not ideal in that it will constrain further growth of the Trust and will preclude the extension or development of the Birkenhead Leisure Centre. Consents have still to be obtained and there is a risk that once the matter is notified, even on a limited basis that the decision could be some time away. If this is the case there are questions about whether the funding identified will be sufficient to take the project through the consent process and then meet the capital costs given the general increase in building costs. Item Further investigate alternative options given the change in circumstances since the original proposal was conceived. If the search area was widened to look at properties in the Kaipatiki Local Board area there is the potential to secure something that may better meet the needs of the Trust now and in the future. However, as found previously many properties were found to be unsuitable due to planning constraints, the availability of parking for staff and visitors and purchase or modification costs. There will also be costs incurred that have not been budgeted for in identifying a site/building and on the initial preparatory consent works that could be required. 3. Modify Northcote War Memorial Hall to mitigate the concerns expressed by interested parties and make the best use of the available space. If the Trust were remain in its current position the property would require adaptation to meet its and the wider communities needs. The Northcote War Memorial Hall was previously under-utilised and always provided a mix of allocated space - i.e. the Plunket Rooms, the doctor s surgery and casual bookable community space. This arrangement could potentially continue with few planning issues and for a budget that would be less than that identified for the new build project. However, there are those in the community who feel that this is an inappropriate use of the building and may not be willing to change their position on this matter. Decision Making The members of the Kaipatiki Local Board are asked to consider the options available for the provision of a viable, long tem property to accommodate the Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust. The options are a) To proceed with the plans for the new build project on Birkenhead War Memorial Park, 2 John Court Street, Birkenhead. b) Further investigate alternative options given the area now covered by the Kaipatiki Local Board and the Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust. c) Modify the Northcote War Memorial Hall to mitigate the concerns expressed by interested parties to make the best use of the available space. Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 89

36 Item 17 Significance of Decision There are no matters of significance addressed in this report. Consultation Further consultation will be required depending on the option considered to be most appropriate to meet the long term accommodation requirements of the Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust. Financial and Resourcing Implications A budget of $515,000 has been identified and secured to progress the provision of new accommodation for the Birkenhead Northcote Community Facilities Trust This figure may need revising depending on which option is chosen. Consent fees, consultants fees and general increases in building costs may need to be funded. Legal and Legislative Implications N/A Implementation Issues Further information will be presented to the Kaipatiki Local Board on an ongoing basis depending on the option favoured by the members for further investigation. Attachments No. Title Page A Aerial Photograph, Northcote War Memorial Hall, 2 Rodney Rd, Northcote 91 B Aerial Photograph Proposed Site at Birkenhead War Memorial Park, 2 John Court Street, Birkenhead 93 C Sketch Plans of Proposed New Building, Birkenhead War Memorial Park, 2 John Court Street, Birkenhead 94 Signatories Authors Authorisers Maureen Buchanan, Community Lease Advisor Kevin Marriot, Manager Community Development and Partnerships Louse Mason Manager Community Development Arts Culture and Events Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 90

37 Attachment A Item 17 Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 91

38 Attachment A Item 17 Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 92

39 Attachment B Item 17 Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 93

40 Attachment C Item 17 Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 94

41 Attachment C Item 17 Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 95

42 Attachment C Item 17 Birkenhead Northcote Glenfield Community Facilities Trust - Accommodation Page 96