The bridge Cimino shows is attractive but Puhoi River is a wide span and I would predict that there would be opposition from some quarters.

The current Regional Parks Management Plan has quite an emphasis on non-car-based access to regional parks but this is easier said than achieved. One of the attractions of the Te Muri purchase was its closeness to the metropolitan area.

There are proposals for walking, riding and kayaking trails using regional parks that are being discussed and developed right now. One of the many advantages of the regional parks network is being able to plan and make decisions across the network – eg so that recreational activities can be planned for in the right locations. For example, trails can be developed for mountain-biking and horse riding at suitable parks so they can be kept out of the Waitakeres (except for horse riding at Pae O Te Rangi) where they could cause damage. Waitawa was purchased and is being developed to cater for recreational activities where there is growing demand to take the pressure off other parks with high conservation values.

Regional parks have policies about consultation and relationships with local communities and interest groups and talk and meet constantly, that is either through officers and also through councillors. There are also at least a dozen “friends” type groups with more formal arrangements. Any person or group can come to regional parks or myself directly and I welcome that.

Sandra Coney

Hi Greg, Thanks for posting this .Could I please direct readers to the Auckland Council Strategy and finance committee meeting of November 30 (agenda posted publicly well before then) that deals with this issue. It is The Allocation of Non Regulatory Decision Making Responsibilities Item 17 (p223).( http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/committees/strategyfinancecommittee/meetings/strategyandfinancecomagitem13-2-2220111130.pdf)
This is the document we were responding to. As Greg has indicated, the restrictive way the Local Government Act was set up only provided us with an either or response, which was quite unsatisfactory to us as a Board, as we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. To reiterate that we were seeking some thing more than just input or consultation but that at no time were we advocating annexing the park from the Regional network.
In the Committee meeting above it is apparent that our underlying, implied request for greater input by the Board was similarly understood by Auckland Council .

Under Other Decision Making Options, p241 of the same document, “Other decision-making options. The focus is currently on the allocation of decision-making responsibility to local boards.
However, there are other tools available to the governing body to involve local boards in the decision-making of Auckland Council. These include the following.
Delegations: The governing body can delegate its decision-making responsibilities to one or more local boards. This is not limited to regulatory decisions. The governing body can also delegate its non-regulatory decision-making responsibilities to local boards. A delegation allows for far more specific and detailed decision-making parameters than the allocation, and can be better tailored to specific circumstances.
This is particularly useful in circumstances such as the following.
• Where the governing body wishes to delegate part of a decision-making power while
retaining overall responsibility for the activity. An example might include a park that
contains a volcanic feature. It may be appropriate given the significance of the park, for
the governing body to retain the overall decision-making responsibility for major
decisions, but delegate decisions relating to local community use and activity within
that park to the relevant local board.
• Where the governing body wishes to delegate a recommendatory role to a local board.
This provides a local board with a formal role while the governing body retains
decision-making. This might be appropriate for a regional park that has strong local
significance (such as the Waitakere Ranges).
Delegations can be standing delegations that apply to all local boards or delegations to an individual local board for a specific purpose.”

This consideration of a heightened formal recommendatory role is what I understand to be the essence of what the Board was trying to achieve. It is not an attempt to take control but to simply gain a place a bit closer to the table so that we are not always collecting the scraps off the floor of last nights feast.
Finally, we must remember that the ARC is no longer with us despite the fact that we continue to enjoy the legacy of its Regional Parks Network largely unaltered. Change IS afoot though, and an examination of the status of ALL the parks in the Auckland Region was already underway before the Waitakere Ranges responded to the above Allocations paper. The mobilisation of various concerned groups around Auckland in response to the challenge presented by the Waitakere Ranges Local Board, especially with it being synchronous with the renewal of Joint Residents and Ratepayers meetings in Waitakere,can only be a good thing. Forewarned is forearmed.Even the ARC was not perfect as a recent email circulating about the mahurangi Coastal Trail indicates, so why would we expect Regional Parks under the new Council to be different.(http://www.mahurangi.org.nz/Coastal-Trail/Mahurangi-Coastal-Trail.php). Local groups made a difference in Mahurangi and Local groups and Local Boards can work together to make a real difference in the future.