I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 3 July 2014

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr George Wood, CNZM

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Anae Arthur Anae

 

Members

Cr Cameron Brewer

Cr Mike Lee

 

Mayor Len Brown, JP

Kris MacDonald

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Calum Penrose

 

Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Dick Quax

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr Penny Webster

 

Cr Penny Hulse

Glenn Wilcox

 

Cr Denise Krum

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Barbara Watson

Democracy Advisor

 

26 June 2014

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7629

Email: barbara.watson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee will deal with all strategy and policy decision-making that is not the responsibility of another committee or the Governing Body i.e. strategies and policies associated with environmental, social, economic and cultural activities. Key responsibilities will include:

 

·         Final approval of strategies and policies not the responsibility of other committees or the Governing Body

·         Setting/ approving the policy work programme for Reporting Committees

·         Overviewing strategic projects, for example, the Southern Initiative (except those that are the responsibility of the Auckland Development Committee)

·         Implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

·         Operational matters including:

o   Acquisition and disposal of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities

o   Stopping of roads

o   Public Works Act matters

 

Powers

 

(i)      All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a)     powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body responsibilities)

(b)     where the committee’s responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only

(ii)      Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii)     Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iv)    Power to establish subcommittees.

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          5  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    5

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          5

6.1     Manurewa Local Board - Angela Dalton, Chair                                                6

6.2     Upper Harbour Local Board - Brian Neeson, Chairperson                             6

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          7

9          Consideration of stadiums strategy submissions and feedback to Regional Facilities Auckland                                                                                                                         9

10        Delegation of further off-street parking responsibilities to Auckland Transport 47

11        Draft Community Grants Policy: Endorsement for public consultation              63

            Due to its size, Attachment A is available in a separate Attachments agenda.

12        Psychoactive Substances Draft Local Approved Products Policy                       77

13        Submission in response to the Ministry for the Environment discussion paper “Priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention: A discussion document” 105

            Due to its size, Attachment A is available in a separate Attachments agenda.

14        Heritage Incentives Policy Framework                                                                   111

15        Ministerial local government elected members group                                          115

16        Technical publications from the Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit (RIMU)                                                                                                                                     119  

17        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

18        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               125

C1       Mt Albert Aquatic Centre - Governance Review and Remedial Works               125  

 


1          Apologies

 

Apologies from Cr CM Casey, Cr C Darby, Cr CE Fletcher and Cr ME Lee have been received.

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 5 June 2014, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

4          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

5          Public Input

 

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

6.1       Manurewa Local Board - Angela Dalton, Chair

Purpose

1.       Angela Dalton, Chair of the Manurewa Local Board wishes to address the committee to discuss the costs of implementation of programmes approved by the governing body, such as

i)        the Regional Economic Development Plan – local boards are being asked to fund $25,000

ii)       Smoke Free policy – local boards were asked to fund the installation of signage ($10,000), but there was no budget to do this.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      thank the Chair of the Manurewa Local Board for her presentation.

b)      request staff to investigate how to address the anomaly of local boards.

 

 

6.2       Upper Harbour Local Board - Brian Neeson, Chairperson

Purpose

1.       Brian Neeson, Chair of the Upper Harbour Local Board wishes to address the committee in support of the Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) Stadium Strategy (Item 9 on the agenda).

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      thank the Chair of the Upper Harbour Local Board for his presentation.

 

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local  authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 


 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

 

8          Notices of Motion

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 

Consideration of stadiums strategy submissions and feedback to Regional Facilities Auckland

 

File No.: CP2014/09211

 

Purpose

1.       To provide the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee with an update on Regional Facilities Auckland’s (RFA) stadiums strategy, including consideration of public feedback.

Executive summary

2.       RFA’s stadiums strategy was one of two key consultation topics in the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015.  A summary of feedback received was presented to the Budget Committee in May. The Budget Committee referred the analysis of the submissions to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for consideration and asked that any feedback be provided to RFA.

3.       The stadiums strategy has been in development since late 2010. RFA undertook a series of engagements with a wide range of stadium stakeholders throughout 2011 and 2012. In 2012 RFA sought Auckland Council’s “in principle” endorsement of the stadiums strategy noting that wherever it was necessary, such as requiring additional resources, it would seek the relevant authority to proceed.

4.       If fully implemented, the stadiums strategy contains three key elements:

·    integrating the operations of all of Auckland’s main stadiums

·    developing essential high performance sport support facilities and services

·    specialised uses for each stadium

5.       A total of 1,069 submitters to the draft Annual Plan (54.4 percent of all submitters) provided a response on the stadiums strategy. Of these, 230 submitters supported the proposal, while 501 did not support it and 338 were unsure.

6.       A significant proportion of the comments relate to specific issues, rather than the overall strategy. Those specific issues relate primarily to the specialisation of stadium functions, such as rugby league moving from Mt Smart or speedway moving from Western Springs. To a large extent, the specific issues raised through this process are similar to those already identified by the key sporting organisations directly affected by stadium specialisation.

7.       Five of the 21 local boards made resolutions pertaining to the stadiums strategy topic in the draft annual plan and an information session for local board members was held in May. RFA has confirmed it will continue to engage with relevant local boards as development and implementation of the strategy progresses.

8.       The public submissions and feedback from this committee will help further inform the direction RFA takes with stadium owners, sporting codes and stadium hirers. At the RFA Board’s April meeting, the board resolved that “the annual plan submissions form part of RFA’s considerations, alongside other inputs, in the further development and implementation of the stadium strategy”.  Any financial impacts will be considered as part of the long term plan process.

9.       Some elected members have questioned the inclusion of Eden Park in the strategy. RFA believes it would be difficult to prepare a stadiums strategy that does not at least consider Eden Park and its place in the future Auckland stadiums environment.


10.     Quite separately, the Unitary Plan process is underway with speculation in a number of forums relating the future redevelopment of Eden Park’s number 2 ground. Eden Park is seeking the flexibility to respond to changes in its environment over the next 30 years. However, any future plan to redevelop the number 2 ground is an initial decision for the Eden Park Trust, which includes Auckland Cricket and Auckland Rugby associations. It is also subject to the outcome of the Unitary Plan process, and necessary resource consent agreements.

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      note the public feedback on Regional Facilities Auckland’s stadiums strategy received during the Annual Plan public consultation process

b)      note that feedback from the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, along with the annual plan submissions and input already received from key stakeholders, will form part of Regional Facilities Auckland’s considerations in the further development and implementation of the stadiums strategy.

Analysis

Context

11.     RFA’s stadiums strategy was one of two key consultation topics in the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 (the information provided and the questions asked is provided as Attachment A).  A summary of feedback received was presented to the Budget Committee meeting on 8 May 2014. The Budget Committee referred the analysis of the submissions to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for consideration and asked that any feedback be provided to RFA.

12.     RFA’s stadiums strategy has been in development since late 2010, when the council’s stadium assets were brought under the umbrella of RFA. Prior to the council’s amalgamation, work had already taken place following the ARPASS Regional Facilities Strategy document which started to identify a regional perspective on Auckland’s sports and recreation facilities. RFA undertook a series of engagements with a wide range of stadium stakeholders throughout 2011 and 2012.  These included local boards, iwi, sporting teams and franchises, community users, neighbourhood groups and national and regional sporting bodies. In 2012 RFA sought council’s “in principle” endorsement of the stadiums strategy noting that wherever it was necessary, such as requiring additional resources, it would seek the relevant authority to proceed. A timeline of the process to date is provided as Attachment B.

13.     If fully implemented, the stadiums strategy contains three key elements:

·    integrating the operations of all of Auckland’s main stadiums: integration of operations avoids unnecessary duplication, provides consistently better customer and venue hirer experiences and significantly reduces costs. Financial modelling indicates that an integrated approach will lead to an improved financial position for all stadiums and improved customer and hirer outcomes. Council endorsed this approach in September 2012.

·    developing essential high performance sport support facilities and services at Mount Smart and QBE stadiums. These developments would help improve on-field performance and would complement the investment at the Millennium Institute’s National Training Centre.

·    specialised uses for each stadium:

Eden Park continues to be Auckland’s main stadium for major rugby, league and football games

QBE Stadium is the venue for smaller rugby, league and football games

Mount Smart remains a venue for outdoor concerts and events. Arena 2 would be developed as a smaller 5000 seat venue for sports including rugby, league, football and athletics.  The development at Arena 2 will incorporate the existing international standard athletics track.  Arena 1 would become the main venue for speedway events

Western Springs remains a venue for outdoor concerts and events. It could become the main Auckland venue for cricket matches (Twenty20, one-day games and test matches).

14.     Under the strategy, existing community uses of the stadiums will be retained and enhanced as far as possible.  Also, where a regional sporting organisation is bound by its organisational boundaries, the stadiums strategy does not envisage that they will be required to play fixtures outside those boundaries.  The developments proposed in the strategy align with Auckland’s Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (SARSAP) and, wherever possible, with the relevant sporting codes’ national and regional facility strategies.  They also complement the facilities and services provided at other venues around Auckland (e.g. Trusts Arena, North Shore Events Centre, Millennium Institute of Sport and Health).

15.     In considering the strategy and future use of Auckland’s stadiums, it is important to note that RFA and Auckland Council are, in some cases, dealing with privately owned franchises and organisations that seek to maximise their commercial return.  Some of these organisations currently receive ratepayer subsidies – directly through subsidised use of facilities such as playing fields and associated facilities, direct payments, rebates and sponsorships, or indirectly through commercial contracts, heavily biased towards those commercial organisations, which RFA inherited from legacy councils.

16.     In December 2012, council resolved to undertake wider public consultation on the stadiums strategy.  This took place during the 2014/2015 annual plan process.

Annual Plan Consultation Feedback

17.     The stadiums strategy was one of the key topics consulted through the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015. A total of 1,069 submitters (54.4 percent of all submitters) provided a response on the stadiums strategy.  Of these, 230 submitters supported the proposal, while 501 did not support it and 338 were unsure.  Analysis by sub-region and by stadium and activity was provided in the report to the Long-term and Annual Plan Hearings Committee on 8 April 2014 titled Summary of public submissions on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 – Regional overview (see paragraphs 21 – 34 of Attachment C).

18.     RFA have analysed the submissions and RFA board members and management also joined councillors to hear verbal submissions. A notable feature is that a significant proportion of the comments (72 per cent) relate to specific issues, rather than the overall strategy. Those specific issues relate primarily to the specialisation of stadium functions, such as rugby league moving from Mt Smart or speedway moving from Western Springs. The integration and high performance aspects of the strategy attracted relatively little attention from submitters.

19.     Of the main issues identified, a large proportion of comments related to the proposed relocation of speedway to Mt Smart. There was particular emphasis on the history of speedway at Western Springs, with many submissions noting speedway’s history at that site since the 1930s. To a large extent, the specific issues raised through this process are similar to those already identified by the key sporting organisations directly affected by stadium specialisation. These organisations have stated that they will need to manage a degree of customer and stakeholder expectations if and when they make their decisions to move their businesses as identified within the strategy.


20.     The graphic below summarises responses to the draft annual plan consultation as analysed by RFA[1].

21.     To support the draft annual plan consultation process, council staff organised three public information sessions in March 2014 at Mt Smart, Eden Park and QBE (North Harbour) stadiums with council and RFA staff in attendance. Public attendance at these sessions was very low.

22.     A report presented to the RFA board (refer to Attachment D) on 30 April 2014, recommends “that the annual plan submissions form part of RFA’s considerations, alongside other inputs, in the further development and implementation of the stadiums strategy”. The public submissions will help further inform the direction RFA takes with stadium owners, sporting codes and stadium hirers. Any financial impacts will be considered as part of the long term plan process.

23.     It is important to note that some aspects of the strategy are beyond the direct control of Auckland Council or RFA; some are subject to commercial negotiations between parties other than council or RFA; and many aspects of the strategy are interdependent.

Eden Park

24.     Some elected members have questioned the inclusion of Eden Park in the strategy, given that neither the council nor RFA have an ownership interest in that stadium. RFA believes it would be difficult to prepare a stadiums strategy that does not at least consider Eden Park and its place in the future Auckland stadiums environment. RFA has considered this in their strategy, in particular noting the need to integrate operations and specialise the function of Auckland’s stadiums.

25.     Quite separately, the Unitary Plan process is underway with speculation in a number of forums relating the future redevelopment of Eden Park’s number 2 ground. This follows Eden Park’s Unitary Plan submission.

26.     Eden Park took the opportunity to explain its rationale publically, both in the hearings session on the stadiums strategy and subsequently in local media. Eden Park stated that they were preserving their options given the 30 year longevity of the Unitary Plan. In short, Eden Park is seeking the flexibility to respond to changes in its environment over the next 30 years. However, any future plan to redevelop the number 2 ground is an initial decision for the Eden Park Trust, which includes Auckland Cricket Association and Auckland Rugby Association. It is also subject to the outcome of the Unitary Plan process, and necessary resource consent agreements. It would therefore be premature to assume Eden Park has made alternative plans for its number 2 ground, given that its board has not agreed to an alternative use and there are no planning approvals in place.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

27.     Five of the 21 local boards made resolutions pertaining to the stadiums strategy topic in the draft annual plan, on a range of topics. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board supports the inclusion of North Harbour Stadium as part of RFA.  Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa local boards noted submitters’ concerns (Maungakiekie-Tamaki particularly acknowledged the local concerns about proposed changes to sporting codes at Mount Smart).  Rodney Local Board supports speedway remaining at Western Springs, with no further limitations on its operation. In contrast, Waitemata Local Board supports the proposed changes that would see speedway move to Mount Smart and Western Springs developed as a test cricket venue.

28.     An information session for local board members was held on 16 May. RFA and council staff briefed them on the strategy, responded to questions and participated in a discussion. RFA confirmed it will continue to engage with relevant local boards as development and implementation of the strategy progresses. This ongoing engagement has already resulted in a workshop with the Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Upper Harbour local boards to discuss the implications for Mount Smart and QBE Stadiums respectively. A workshop is also planned with Waitemata Local Board.

29.     This report will be forwarded to local boards for their information following the committee meeting.

Maori impact statement

30.     As part of the initial stakeholder engagement in 2011-2012, RFA contacted 14 Auckland iwi groups. Three met with RFA to provide oral submissions or presentations, one of those also provided written feedback.

31.     RFA’s ongoing engagement with iwi specifically includes working with the Tamaki collective in relation to the operations at Mt Smart Stadium and with iwi in relation to the aquatic facility development at QBE Stadium.

Implementation

32.     RFA continues to maintain dialogue with key stakeholders, including organisations such as Sport New Zealand, the Warriors, Springs Promotions Limited, New Zealand Cricket, Auckland Cricket, New Zealand Football, Ponsonby Rugby Club, North Harbour Rugby and other venues within RFA’s sphere of influence such as the Trusts Arena and North Shore Events Centre. Any financial impacts will be considered as part of the long term plan process.

 


 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Stadiums strategy information in the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015

15

bView

Stadiums strategy timeline

19

cView

Summary of public submissions on draft Annual Plan 2014/2015

21

dView

RFA board report - Annual Plan submissions on stadium strategy - 30 April meeting

29

   

Signatories

Authors

Kirsty Colquhoun - Advisor

Authorisers

Mark Butcher - Treasurer

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 





Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 









Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 


















Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 

Delegation of further off-street parking responsibilities to Auckland Transport

 

File No.: CP2014/05200

 

Purpose

1.       This report explains the current arrangements for council owned off-street parking and outlines the pathway to a final and comprehensive delegation to Auckland Transport (AT) to manage these assets by the end of 2014. This report also seeks further interim arrangements to manage off-street parking until a final comprehensive delegation is given.

Executive Summary

2.       The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA 2009) allocates responsibilities for off-street car parking under the control of council to Auckland Council and responsibilities for on-street parking to AT. Since amalgamation, council has delegated to AT the various off street parking responsibilities that have been necessary to enable the effective management and operation of council owned off-street parking assets as part of a region-wide parking network. 

3.       These delegations have occurred on a case by case basis until strategic objectives for the parking network are developed and supporting bylaws from both AT and council can be adopted. Consultation is now underway on a parking discussion document.  This work will lead to the adoption by both council and AT of strategic objectives for both on and off-street parking for the region.

4.       The board of AT have already adopted the AT Traffic Bylaw 2012 which covers on-street parking. The development of the Auckland Council Traffic Bylaw which will cover off-street parking is underway and due for completion by the end of 2014.

5.       Until that time, the following further interim arrangements for off-street parking are required:

a.   A delegation to AT to set and enforce parking restrictions in council owned community library car parks.  Currently, library carparks do not have parking restrictions, and the lack of enforcement is leading to pressure on the availability of parking spaces for those who wish to use libraries. The Manager – Libraries and Information, in consultation with local boards, will specify to AT which particular library carparks require restrictions and enforcement, and draft protocols have been developed to support this arrangement.

b.   A delegation to AT to manage, control and enforce all off-street car parking which can only be delegated by a council resolution.

c.   The interim adoption of a price adjustment policy for inner city car parking buildings which will enable AT to effectively manage four parking buildings that have become too full to accommodate business-related short term parking.  This is because of the significant accommodation of earlybird (commuter) parking.

d.   A delegation to AT to implement the interim price adjustment policy.

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)     delegate to Auckland Transport the power to establish restrictions in council owned library car parks

b)     delegate to Auckland Transport the power to enforce parking restrictions in council owned library car parks

c)     authorise Auckland Transport to retain all monies collected in relation to any  enforcement action undertaken pursuant to the delegations in recommendations a) – b)

d)     delegate the powers in recommendations (a) – (b) to Auckland Transport on the basis that the library car parks where restrictions and enforcement apply will be specified by the Manager – Libraries and Information and with the approval of  relevant local boards

e)     delegate to Auckland Transport all powers and duties necessary for the management, control and enforcement of all Auckland Council off-street parking which requires a council resolution to be delegated to Auckland Transport.  This delegation includes only those powers and duties expressly specified and does not include any power or duty for AT to change or set new restrictions or charges, but includes any ancillary responsibilities, duties or powers necessary to give effect to the delegation. This delegation takes effect immediately, remains in force until further notice and may be reviewed or revoked at any time

f)      adopt as an interim measure, the Price Adjustment Policy for Council Owned Off-street Parking in the Central Business District (Downtown, Victoria Street, Fanshawe Street and the Civic car parks) until the wider parking strategic objectives can be finalised.

g)     delegate to the Traffic Control Committee of Auckland Transport the ability to implement the Price Adjustment Policy for Council Owned Off-street Parking in the Central Business District (Downtown, Victoria Street, Fanshawe Street and the Civic car parks) and monitor its effectiveness.

Discussion

Parking arrangements in Auckland

6.       LGACA 2009 provides that AT are responsible for on-street parking and council are responsible for council owned off-street parking.  Any off-street parking facilities that were vested in AT during amalgamation also transferred control and management responsibilities to AT so are excluded from this report.

7.       LGACA 2009 also provides that council may delegate the control and management of council owned off-street parking to AT.

8.       Responsibility for parking controls within council sits with Governing Body (or its committees) because parking controls are a part of Auckland’s transport networks and infrastructure and regulatory matter.

Bylaws allow parking restrictions to be made

9.       Parking restrictions are able to be put in place by council or AT by adopting bylaws.  Council bylaws must use the special consultative procedure to gain public input.

10.     LGACA 2009 provides that AT has responsibility for transport related bylaws but only in relation to roads (on-street parking). On 8 July 2012, the Board of AT adopted a traffic bylaw pursuant to section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998 to set requirements for parking and control of traffic on roads under the care, control or management of AT.  This bylaw revoked and replaced the ‘road-related’ (on-street) parts of the legacy transport bylaws.

11.     Council retains responsibility for bylaws controlling council owned off-street parking e.g. council owned car parks, library car parks, community centres or recreation areas. Council has commenced the development of a traffic bylaw that mirrors the AT Traffic Bylaw 2012.  When the council bylaw is adopted (which is intended to be by the end of 2014) the remainder of the legacy transport bylaws will be revoked.

12.     Because of the wording of the residual legacy bylaws, there are currently some matters that can be delegated by the chief executive, and some matters which cannot be delegated unless by a resolution of council.

Strategy supports bylaws

13.     The content of council bylaws are normally supported by strategic objectives from strategy or policy documents which have had public input.

14.     AT have prepared a parking discussion document for consultation with local boards and the wider community to support the development and adoption of a long-term parking strategy for Auckland. It is envisaged that this process will be complete by the end of the year.

15.     Until the council’s traffic bylaw and a parking strategy can be adopted, council and AT staff have been working collaboratively to put in place the necessary off-street parking arrangements to enable the effective operation of public parking assets. 

Delegations currently in place

16.     The Auckland Council chief executive has delegated to AT all powers and duties for the management and control of council owned off-street parking throughout Auckland except:

a.       Areas specifically dedicated to council facilities – e.g. libraries and community centres.

b.       The ability to change or set new restrictions or make changes to parking charges.

c.       The ability to enforce off-street parking in areas that require a council resolution to be delegated.

17.     Auckland Council has, by resolution, also delegated off-street parking responsibilities to AT for:

a.       The establishment and enforcement of restrictions in the carparks situated in local and regional parks (subject to a request from the Parks Manager after Local Board consultation).  This does not include the ability to set charges

b.       The enforcement of parking restrictions and a change to ‘pay and display’ at 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna

c.       The enforcement of parking in the short-term and long term parking areas at Claris Airport

d.       The establishment of restrictions and the ability to control and manage parking on council owned land and assets within the New Lynn Town Centre.

Delegations sought in this report

18.     Three further delegations are sought in this report as interim arrangements until a parking strategy and Auckland Council traffic bylaw are adopted and a single comprehensive delegation to AT can be given.

a.       A delegation to AT to set and enforce restrictions at community library off-street carparks

b.       A delegation to AT for the management, control and enforcement of all off-street car parking which can only be delegated by a council resolution

c.       A delegation to AT to implement the Central Business District (CBD) Price Adjustment Policy by adjusting prices in four  inner city off-street car parks owned by council (this will follow the council adoption of the CBD price adjustment policy)

Delegation 1: Delegation to set restrictions in library car parks

19.     Council provides free parking in library car parks to support the use of libraries. In town centres, library patrons often undertake other errands in addition to using the library and this is a generally accepted practice.

20.     At this stage, there are two libraries, Blockhouse Bay and Takapuna, where there is a problem with commuters using library car parks and where it would be appropriate to manage the use of the space in favour of library patrons.

21.     Parking restrictions would need to be put in place before enforcement in these car parks could occur.


22.     A general delegation to AT to set restrictions and enforce in library car parks where requested to do so by the Manager – Libraries and Information (after consultation with the local board) would allow council staff to work with AT and the relevant local board at any library site where problems arise, on a case by case basis, rather than seek to obtain specific delegations from the committee for each library.

23.     The proposed delegation does not give AT the authority to set up parking restrictions and undertake enforcement without reference to council staff or local boards.  New parking restrictions and enforcement in council owned library car parks will be agreed by the Manager – Libraries and Information, having first reviewed complaints from the public or reports of problems from staff.  The libraries that are in the order of priority for parking enforcement are:

o   Blockhouse Bay Library

o   Takapuna Library

24.     For use under this proposed delegation, council and AT staff have prepared protocols for parking enforcement, for approval by the relevant local board (Attachment A).

25.     Options considered to address the issue of inappropriate use of library carparks:

a.       Council could take no action, which would mean that the existing situations would continue. This option is not recommended as it does not favour library patron use over commuter use.

b.       Council could establish the parking restrictions pursuant to bylaws and enforce those itself.  However, the expertise in relation to establishing and reviewing car parking is held by staff employed by AT and all enforcement is currently undertaken by AT.  This option is not recommended because it would mean that Council would need to duplicate these fields of expertise with no apparent gain in outcome.

c.       Council could take no immediate action and require each change to a library car park to be resolved by a committee of council. This option is not recommended it is not practical or efficient to manage specific libraries and locations individually.

d.       Council could delegate management and enforcement of library car parks to AT only in relation to specific library car parks via the Manager – Libraries and Information, in consultation with local boards and under a set of protocols. This is the recommended option as it is the most effective and efficient way for council to manage library car parks in line with current objectives.

Delegation 2: Delegation to enforce off-street parking areas that require a council resolution to be delegated

26.     Prior to amalgamation, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to agree allocation of responsibilities for activities in the road corridor was signed between the former chief executive of council and the chief executive of AT.  The purpose of the MoU was essentially to ensure a seamless transition for customers and clarity over which organisation was responsible for particular activities e.g. trees and street vegetation, rubbish bins, street art and public toilets. The MoU allocated responsibility for all council owned off-street parking to AT.

27.     A delegation to AT to enforce off-street parking in some areas in Auckland can only be made by a resolution of council rather than by a chief executive. This is because of the wording of legacy bylaws,

28.     This delegation to AT to enforce off-street parking in areas in Auckland which can only be delegated by a resolution of council, compliments the previous chief executive delegation and will ensure that enforcement of off-street parking in all areas of Auckland (except for some specific exceptions in the chief executive delegation) is captured by a delegation so that AT can enforce as required.

29.     AT will bear the costs and retain the revenue associated with this delegation. If a surplus is generated from this activity, AT must use the surplus to offset the annual total funding requirement from Auckland Council.

Delegation 3: Delegation to change prices in the Central Business District (CBD) in line with an interim price adjustment policy.

30.     An interim CBD price adjustment policy is proposed (Attachment B) for adoption by council to allow for the adjustment of charges within four council-owned car parking buildings in the city centre (Downtown, Victoria Street, Fanshawe Street and Civic car parks).

31.     The draft interim CBD price adjustment policy contains principles and methods for the flexible management of these facilities to achieve council goals for the city centre.  It provides an interim basis for the adjustment of inner city prices until such time as the region wide policies for on and off-street parking have been consulted on and approved by Council and the board of AT. 

32.     A delegation is also sought for the Traffic Control Committee of AT to have the responsibility to implement and monitor the effectiveness of this policy with immediate effect.

33.     The substantive material in the draft interim CBD price adjustment policy has been developed by AT and approved by the AT board for consultation, but requires consideration by council and a resolution to adopt the policy until the residual legacy bylaws are revoked and the new council bylaw is in place.  The CBD price adjustment policy is a small part of the parking discussion document (attached as an appendix in a slightly different format), which is currently out for consultation.

34.     Early adoption of the interim CBD price adjustment policy is sought primarily because the council-owned inner city car park buildings are becoming full more frequently, meaning that people wanting to conduct business or visit the city centre for recreation and shopping are struggling to find parking.  Changes to pricing structures for different parking products (earlybird or short stay) are needed to balance the needs of all users and make effective use of public resources.

35.     This report has been prepared in advance of a council workshop on the AT parking discussion document due to occur on 1 July 2014.  At the time of writing, there were known objections from local boards about the timeframes for consultation on the parking discussion document.  Heart of the City has also raised concerns about AT proposing changes to parking prices without consultation during the Annual Plan process.

36.     Whilst understanding these objections, options considered are as follows:

i.      Council could delay adopting the CBD price adjustment policy and giving the delegation to AT to implement, but consider it again later in the year when it is envisaged that the final parking strategy and Auckland Council traffic bylaw will be completed.  Although this option is the technically correct approach from a policy development and adoption viewpoint, it will not alleviate the immediate issues for off-street parking in the CBD and will continue the preference to the needs of earlybird (commuter) parking over short-stay business oriented customers. However it may avoid triggering further objections about the process and timeframes (only) on the discussion document.

ii.     Council could adopt the interim CBD price adjustment policy and give the delegation to AT to implement it ahead of the broader parking strategy and bylaw in order to alleviate the immediate problems in the inner city. This option is recommended because if council or AT become aware of any drawbacks to the CBD price adjustment policy during consultation, an amended policy can be developed. In fact, the early adoption of the draft policy provides a trial period in advance of the adoption of a broader parking strategy.

Future arrangements

37.     Once the final parking strategy and AC traffic bylaw have been adopted, a final and comprehensive delegation can be given to AT to manage and control all council-owned off-street parking in Auckland (including setting of restrictions and charges in line with on and off-street price adjustment policies). This is intended to be completed by the end of 2014.

Consideration

Local Board Views

38.     Local board views will be sought on a site by site basis before library parking restrictions are implemented as set out in the ‘Protocols for parking enforcement in library car parks’ (Attachment A).

39.     Local boards are currently providing input on broader and longer term strategic parking matters for the region via the parking discussion document prepared by AT. Their input will contribute to the preparation of a final strategy to be adopted by both AT and council.

Maori Impact Statement

40.     There are no particular impacts on Maori which are different from general users of the council owned off-street car parks.

General

41.     AT has been closely involved in the preparation of this report.

Implementation Issues

42.     The costs for the library delegation including setting the restrictions and providing signage, will be absorbed within existing budgets.  The costs of library car parking enforcement will be met by AT.  It is not anticipated that the revenue generated by library car parking enforcement will be significant enough to justify revenue sharing with the council as it is not intended there will be ‘pay and display’ machines or other parking charges.  The only revenue will be in relation to infringement tickets and towing.  These are not expected to exceed the costs of the parking regulation.

43.     In accordance with the protocols at attachment A  council owned library car parks are identified by the Manager – Libraries and Information as needing regulation (after consultation with Local Boards), AT’s parking and enforcement staff will prepare a report detailing the current situation and recommending appropriate action and parking restrictions to be adopted.  This report will then be considered by AT’s Traffic Control Committee.  That committee includes the managers of Road Corridor Operations, Access and Parking and Enforcement and meets on a fortnightly basis.

44.     The costs of implementing the delegation areas which require a council resolution for enforcement to be delegated will be met within existing budgets.

45.     The revenue generated from changes to inner city off-street parking charges will be used to reduce the annual funding requirement from council.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Parking Protocols for enforcement in library car parks

53

bView

CBD off street parking price adjustment policy

55

Signatories

Authors

Justine Haves - Team Leader Library Assets

Rose Leonard - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Mark Butcher - Treasurer

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 



Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 

 

 

Council owned off-street parking in the Central Business District.

Price adjustment policy

 

Auckland Council

May 2014

 


 

 

Contents

Purpose of the policy. 3

Context for change. 4

Policy position. 4

Principles. 4

Methods. 5

Demand Responsive Pricing. 5

Setting Yield Targets. 5

Hourly, Daily and Monthly Prices. 5

Special events and seasonal peaks. 6

Roles and responsibilities. 6

 


 

Purpose of the policy.

The responsibility for off-street public car parking policy rests with Auckland Council.  Off-street public car parking exists as part of a broader mix of parking provision in Auckland namely:

·    off-street provided by the private sector and

·    on-street parking, for which policy responsibility rests with Auckland Transport (AT).

This price adjustment policy recognises that transitioning from a historical approach that focused council assets on the commuter market to one that prioritises short-stay parking is a significant policy change and needs to be carefully and flexibly managed. Rebalancing the use of Council’s inner city parking buildings in this way will support the achievement of council’s broader strategic objectives by meeting the needs of businesses and visitors in addition to those of commuters.  This is especially important when the public transport choices available to commuters across Auckland are improving rapidly.

The purpose of this policy is to gives a clear direction on how council owned car park buildings in Auckland’s Central Business District (CBD) will adjust prices to achieve council objectives contained in the Auckland Plan, the City Centre Masterplan and the Economic Development Strategy.

The commuter market consists of repeat customers who expect consistency in prices and are highly sensitive to price adjustments. Adjusting prices too rapidly is likely to lead to sharp changes in demand and result in unintended consequences that AT may struggle to manage.

It is important to acknowledge how this policy shift will be experienced by customers. The customer benefits expected are:

·    Accessibility – Short stay parking will be prioritised making the CBD more accessible for short-stay visitors of all types.

·    Fair – parking prices will be set at the lowest possible price to ensure the peak demand for short stay parking is met.

·    Congestion – providing discounts and price incentives for car-poolers or customers that arrive outside peak times will help alleviate congestion.

 

The scope of this policy is limited to the adjustment of parking charges in council owned car parks in the CBD, specifically:

·    Downtown car park

·    Civic car park

·    Victoria Street car park

·    Fanshawe St car park

This price adjustment policy will come into effect immediately. The position and principles in it are supported by the emerging strategic work being undertaken by council and AT within the broader long term parking strategy for Auckland. 

Context for change

AT manages a number of car park buildings in the CBD on behalf of Auckland Council. Each car park experiences different parking demands for different parking products and therefore has a different parking profile. Ideally, the specific product mixes, targets and prices set for each car park should vary, but the price adjustment principles that underpin each approach should be the same. This will give council (via AT) the ability to manage these assets flexibly and transparently as changes to commuter choices become a reality.

Some car park buildings experience significantly different parking demand on different days of the week or different times of the day. Where demands differ significantly, it would be optimal to use differing peak and off-peak prices. Peak prices should be higher and coincide with typical weekday working hours. Off-peak prices should be lower and apply in the weekends and evenings, but may apply at other times depending on demand.

Policy position

This policy provides a shift in focus for council owned inner city off-street car parks from accommodating long-stay to short stay parking.  This will be achieved by revising early bird times and prices in order to discourage peak commuting.  It also provides price adjustment principles and methods that support the flexible and transparent alignment of off-street with on-street charges in the CBD.

Price Adjustment Principles

Charges will support Council’s broader strategic objectives of assisting CBD visitation, promoting public transport use, discouraging commuter trips at peak times and reducing congestion by:

·    Prioritising short stay parking over long stay parking.

·    Use demand responsive pricing and charging the appropriate rate to achieve parking occupancy targets as stated in the Auckland Transport Statement Of Intent

·    Adjusting prices gradually and being transparent about how prices will be set.

·    Using a consistent, transparent and data-driven approach for setting parking charges.

·    Signal intentions for change to charges early and avoiding surprises to customers as much as possible.

·    Ensuring the peak demand for short-term parking is met as consistently as possible with existing assets.

·    Using pricing levels to achieve strategic outcomes e.g. discouraging peak commuting

·    Using specific parking management measures during special events and short seasonal peaks such as school holidays.

·    Simple parking products - The transition to demand responsive pricing offers the opportunity to eliminate some parking products and simplify the customer experience.

Methods

Demand Responsive Pricing

The parking prices in car park buildings will change gradually and periodically based on demand. This is consistent with the approach being used to manage on-street parking in the CBD. Occupancy levels will be constantly monitored by AT to ensure peak demand for short-stay parking is met most of the time. If the demand for parking in a car park is found to decrease, the prices will also decrease. Likewise, if the demand for parking in a car park is found to increase, the prices will increase. Demand will be constantly monitored in the car park buildings but prices will not be adjusted more than quarterly and only if warranted by demand. The only exception to this would be reducing prices for promotions during special events such as school holidays. This provides the flexibility required to adapt to fluid market conditions.

Setting Yield Targets

Yield in this context is defined as the amount of revenue generated by a particular parking product (i.e. concession lease holder) per space used. Each parking product (i.e. concession lease, casual, early bird, etc.) provides a different yield. For example, a typical early bird parker who arrives in the morning will park for around 8 hours and leave around 5pm. If the early bird price is set at $13 the yield from that space during the weekday peak will be $13. On the other hand a single space may be occupied by several casual parkers at different times throughout the peak period. If the casual rate is set at $3 per hour and the space is occupied for a total of 6 hours the yield would be $18.

The board of AT will set yield targets for each parking product. The yield target is the amount of revenue per space that AT aims to achieve for each parking product. The targets will be based on the following approach:

·    Prices for commuter parking products will be set to return a similar yield across all commuter products. However, commuters that prefer a guaranteed parking space will be required to pay a premium price.

·    In order to prioritise short-stay parking AT will aim to achieve a lower yield from short stay products than from commuter products.

·    Parking products that achieve specific travel demand management outcomes, such as car-pooling or off-peak travel, may be discounted in recognition of their contribution to supporting council’s strategic objectives.

 

 

Hourly, Daily and Monthly Prices

Daily and monthly prices will be set based on a formula in relation to the hourly rates. This allows daily and monthly parking prices to fluctuate based on demand along hourly rates. The exact formulas will depend on the parking profile of each individual car park building but will be based on the same principles.

·    Hourly rates: Hourly rates will be set according to demand.

·    Daily prices: The maximum daily price will be set between 5 and 10 times the hourly rate.

·    Monthly unallocated spaces: The monthly unallocated space price will be set between 18 and 24 times the daily price. This reflects the approximate number of days in a month that a lease holder would use the car park.

·    Monthly reserved spaces: The monthly reserved space price will attract a 30% to 70% premium on the monthly unallocated spaces.

·    Travel Demand Management products: Products which support AT’s strategic objectives (i.e. car-pooling, off-peak travel) will receive a discount of between 10% and 50%.

Special events and seasonal peaks

Special event pricing and specific parking management measures will be used to deal with the impacts of special events and short seasonal peaks such as school holidays. For example during capping ceremonies additional spaces may be reserved for short stay parkers and existing commuters would be warned beforehand that there would be limited availability and advised to make alternative arrangements.

Roles and responsibilities

AT’s Parking and Enforcement Team will support the Traffic Control Committee of AT to set the parking occupancy levels and yield targets for each parking product.  If occupancy levels indicate that a price adjustment is required, approval will be sought for the board to make changes by the Manager, Parking and Enforcement.

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 

Draft Community Grants Policy: Endorsement for public consultation

 

File No.: CP2014/12631

 

Purpose

1.       Seeking the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee’s endorsement of the draft Community Grants Policy (Attachment A) for formal local board engagement and public consultation during July and August 2014.  It also highlights the budget implications of the proposed grants programme, which will be considered through the Long-term Plan process 2015-2025.

Executive summary

2.       A new Community Grants Policy (CGP) has been developed to guide the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.  The CGP covers community development, arts and culture, events, sport and recreation, environment and heritage.  Once adopted, the CGP will replace an interim community funding programme that has operated since amalgamation, consisting of more than 50 local and legacy ‘city-wide’ grants schemes and a small number of regional grants schemes.

3.       The CGP proposes a new community grants programme with:

·     a local component (21 local grants programmes and a ‘multi-board’ grants programme, governed by local boards and aligned with local board plans), and

·     a regional component (six regional grants programmes aligned to strategic directions in the Auckland Plan, with governing body decision-making).

4.       The development of a ‘multi-board’ programme to support sub-regional groups and activities has been a key challenge for the policy.  The CGP proposes a flexible multi-board cluster model, with local boards retaining individual control of local grant funds but participating in collective design, deliberation and decision-making for multi-board schemes. S taff recommend a staged transition to this model, by continuing the current geographical clusters for the first year of implementation.  This will enable the new model to be tested and refined, and give elected members, staff and applicants time to adapt to other aspects of the CGP.

5.       The CGP will be a critical tool to implement Auckland’s vision as set out in the Auckland Plan, local board plans and the council’s core regional strategies, policies and plans, and it is important that there is sufficient funding to resource the new programme.

6.       The community grants budgets inherited from the legacy councils are currently over-subscribed, especially at the regional level.  To fully implement the CGP and deliver on the transformational shifts, staff propose additional investment of $2 million p.a. to be considered through the Long-term Plan process 2015-2025.  This will increase the amount of funding for the regional grants programmes without reducing the existing funding envelope for local and multi-board grants.

7.       If the committee endorses the draft CGP, formal local board engagement and public consultation will run during July and August.  A final policy will be presented to the committee in October / November 2014.  At this time staff will propose budget structure options for the new community grants programme, taking into account the outcome of LTP deliberations in the second half of 2014. If adopted, implementation of the CGP will begin from 1 July 2015.


 


Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      endorse the release of the Draft Community Grants Policy (Attachment A) for formal local board engagement and public consultation during July and August 2014

b)      note the budget implications arising from the draft Community Grants Policy and that it is proposed that $2 million per annum of additional investment to support its implementation be considered through the Long-term Plan 2015-2022 process.

Comments

Background

8.       With the amalgamation of the legacy councils in 2010, Auckland Council inherited eight different approaches to community grant funding and more than 75 different grants and funding schemes. In the absence of a consolidated policy, the majority of these legacy grants schemes and existing funding arrangements have continued to be rolled over each year through an interim funding programme.

9.       The Community Grants Policy (CGP) is one of a suite of Auckland Council policies that guide the provision of financial assistance to community groups and organisations. It will be a critical tool to implement Auckland’s vision as set out in the Auckland Plan, local board plans and the council’s core regional strategies, policies and plans.

10.     A discussion paper outlining the key elements, issues and options for the CGP was work-shopped with local boards during March and April 2014.  Workshops were also held to test draft approaches with the governing body and key stakeholders in May.  A summary of the feedback received and how this has been reflected in the draft CGP is provided as Attachment B.

Summary of draft Community Grants Policy approach

11.     The draft Community Grants Policy proposes a framework for a new Auckland Council community grants programme with two main components: a local grants programme (incorporating multi-board grants) and a regional grants programme.

Local grants programme

12.     Local grants are a key tool local boards can use to implement the vision set out in their local board plans, and provide a very direct, tangible way of supporting local community aspirations and responding to local needs and opportunities. At the local level the CGP is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to provide a framework and guidelines that will assist local boards to deliver best practice in grant-making. This approach responds directly to feedback received from local boards during consultation on the draft Community Funding Policy in May 2012.

13.     The draft CGP proposes that each local board is supported to operate their own local grants programme under the broader umbrella of the CGP, and can award grants to groups and organisations, projects, services, events and activities that benefit residents in their local board area. Boards will be supported to develop specific funding priorities for their grants programme, drawing on the priorities set out in their local board plans.

14.     Two grant schemes are proposed to operate through the local grants programme: Fast Response Local Grants (up to $1,000) and Local Grants (over $1,000).  Applicants for Fast Response Local Grants will complete simplified application and accountability processes, and timeframes for decision-making and payment will be kept as short as possible to ensure responsiveness to the community.  Applicants for Local Grants will complete application and accountability processes proportionate to the size of the grant they are seeking.  Grants can be ‘one-off’ awards or recurring over multiple years.

Developing a multi-board grants programme

15.     One of the key policy issues during the development of the CGP has been how to deal with activities and groups that are ‘sub-regional’, i.e. where the scope and/or scale of the activity is broader than ‘local’ but may not meet the threshold for regional. If grant funding is only provided at the local and regional level, this presents a significant issue and would potentially create a funding gap affecting many groups.

16.     Under the council’s shared governance model and the allocation of decision-making there is no provision for sub-regional decision-making. However the legislation states that, “A local board should collaborate and co-operate with one or more other local boards in the situations where the interests and preferences of communities within each local board area will be better served by doing so.” Staff developed a range of options for supporting this collaboration to occur, and work-shopped these with local boards in March and April 2014.

17.     The CGP responds to local board feedback on these options by proposing a multi-board grants programme that balances a number of factors, as summarised below.

·     Local boards want to retain individual decision-making over any local funds they contribute towards a multi-board grants programme

·     There was a widely-held view that a model that enables local board representatives to physically meet together and discuss applications jointly affecting them will result in more strategic decision-making and better community outcomes

·     Local boards expressed a strong preference for flexibility to collaborate in a range of possible multi-board ‘clusters’, rather than being grouped into permanent, geographical clusters based on legacy council boundaries

·     Operationally, it is not practicable to manage and resource a potentially limitless number of multi-board clusters brought together on a case-by-case basis, and each multi-board grants scheme needs to have a minimum level of funding to be viable (i.e. to achieve a reasonable cost-to-serve per grant awarded).

Proposed multi-board grants programme

18.     The draft CGP proposes that local boards be supported to form a range of new, outcome-driven multi-board clusters. These clusters will invite applications from, and award grants to organisations, services, projects, events and activities that benefit residents across their combined areas. Local boards could participate in more than one cluster.

19.     Multi-board clusters may be:

·     Groups of local boards with contiguous boundaries, for example southern local boards wanting to support events in the Southern Initiative area

·     Local boards that share a common characteristic or interest, for example high populations of older people, or bordering the Hauraki Gulf

·     Local boards that want to address a common issue, for example by supporting employment programmes targeting marginalised young people.

20.     Staff will engage with local boards to scope and establish appropriate clusters, which may be in response to a need or opportunity identified by their communities, or to deliver strategic outcomes they have mutually identified in their local board plans. Once local boards have instigated (or agreed to participate in) a multi-board cluster, council staff will work with the participating boards to understand the outcomes sought, and design a grants programme to deliver these.

21.     Applicants seeking support from a multi-board cluster will make one combined application to all participating local boards in the cluster, will receive a single decision and grant award, and will submit one accountability report when their funded activities have been completed.


Implementation of the multi-board grants programme

22.     To achieve a smooth transition from the interim funding arrangements to the new grants programme, staff will propose to local boards that the existing joint funding committees and subcommittees be continued for the 2015/2016 financial year, with local boards contributing funds from their local budgets at their discretion.

23.     Local boards would not be obliged to participate in the joint funding committees and subcommittees, or to fund any specific application they did not consider delivered benefits for their residents. If local boards were in a position to establish and resource new clusters and wanted to do so, this could also be supported.

24.     This phased approach would enable a multi-board grants programme to launch in 2015 alongside the new local grants programmes with minimum additional preparation, given that the joint funding committees and subcommittees have some existing structure in place (e.g. delegated local board representatives, terms of reference, approximate schedule of funding rounds, and an existing pool of applicants). Staff could work with these existing multi-board clusters to develop appropriate funding priorities for the transitional year. This approach would be a good test for the model and enable refinements to the process to be agreed with local boards, while minimising any initial impact on community organisations.

25.     The current geographical clusters of local boards (i.e. the joint funding committees aligned to the former city and district council areas in the Auckland region) are:

·     Northern cluster: Devonport-Takapuna, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipatiki, Rodney, Upper Harbour

·     Southern cluster: Franklin, Howick, Mangere-Otahuhu, Manurewa, Otara-Papatoetoe, Papakura (note that suitable arrangements would need to be developed with the southern local boards, as they have not been operating as a cluster)

·     Western cluster: Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

·     Central cluster: Albert-Eden, Great Barrier (optional), Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Orakei, Puketapapa, Waiheke, Waitemata.

26.     If this approach is agreed, the transitional arrangements would be reviewed prior to the financial year commencing 1 July 2016, and local boards would then be supported to establish additional and/or alternative clusters in subsequent years.

Regional grants programme

27.     It is proposed that the governing body of Auckland Council, through its various committees, will award grants to regionally significant organisations, services, events and activities that benefit residents across Auckland. At the regional level the CGP proposes six activity-focused grants programmes aligned to strategic directions outlined in the Auckland Plan.

28.     The proposed regional grants programmes are:

·     Regional Arts and Culture Grants Programme

·     Regional Community Development Grants Programme

·     Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme

·     Regional Events Grants Programme

·     Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme

·     Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme

29.     Each of the proposed regional grants programmes is conceived and will be promoted as a key mechanism to implement the relevant regional strategy, policy or plan (e.g. the Regional Arts and Culture grants programme will support the Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan). These regional strategies enable – or will enable – the council to determine where it will target its resources in the medium to long term.

30.     The draft CGP proposes that most of the regional grants programmes provide for two distinct grant types: single-year project grants, for standalone initiatives, and multi-year strategic relationship grants. Project grants of varying size will be awarded through a contestable process at least once per year, while the strategic relationship grants will enable the council to enter multi-year funding relationships with a small number of organisations operating at the regional level. The majority of organisations receiving strategic relationship grants will have an existing relationship with Auckland Council and be able to demonstrate a clear track record of achievement at this level.

31.     To be considered eligible for regional grants, applicants must be able to show that their service, project or activity:

·     Primarily addresses regionally determined priorities, and is:

·     Regional in terms of scale and/or significance, and/or is

·     Regional in terms of impact and/or reach.

32.     The regional grants programmes are described in schedules to the Draft Community Grants Policy, as it is anticipated these schedules may be reviewed and updated over time as strategic priorities change.

Financial implications of the CGP

33.     The CGP will be a critical tool to implement Auckland’s vision as set out in the Auckland Plan, local board plans and core regional strategies, policies and plans, and it is important that there is sufficient funding to effectively resource the new programme for this purpose.

34.     The legacy grants budgets inherited at amalgamation (or created subsequently) total c. $8.3 million p.a., or around $6 per head of population, with the majority supporting groups and activities that are either local or multi-board (via the legacy ‘city-wide’ funds). These funds are already oversubscribed – on average the value of requests is three times the available budget, and in some cases considerably more.

35.     Of the total community grants budget, c. $2.4 million is currently targeting regional groups and activities. Current baseline funding for each of the regional grants programmes is as follows:

·     Regional Arts and Culture grants programme ($650,000)

·     Regional Community Development grants programme (No regional budget: all current grant schemes for this activity are administered by local boards, with some regional groups receiving interim allocations via the Annual Plan)

·     Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grants programme ($545,000)

·     Regional Events grants programme ($400,000)

·     Regional Historic Heritage grants programme ($345,000)

·     Regional Sport and Recreation grants programme ($500,000)

36.     The existing grants programmes at this level are not able to meet current demand, and in some cases include funding tagged to specific recipients. While contestability will be introduced for all funding schemes there is little ‘headroom’ to support new applicants or address emerging priorities. For example, there is an expectation that a number of major events dropped from ATEED’s portfolio will now need to be funded through the Regional Events Fund from 2015/16, at an additional cost of $170,000 against the existing budget of $400,000.

37.     Many regional organisations have been waiting for implementation of the new CGP to access regional funding, and in some cases their need has become so urgent that elected members have allocated emergency funding through the annual plan as an interim measure.

Financial options for supporting the CGP

38.     There are four options for financing the CGP, summarised in the tables below. The first three options would work within the existing budget envelope, while the fourth (recommended) option requires additional investment. (Note that all options assume the retention of existing funding for this activity).

Option

Pros

Cons

1.  Spread available budget across whole grants programme

Re-distribute current grants budgets across the entire grants programme, which would involve retaining some of the legacy local / multi-board funding to be spent regionally.

Would enable a more viable regional grants programme to be created than currently exists, within existing budget envelope.

Budget levels would still be low to deliver an effective regional programme.

Would further reduce the funding available locally and for multi-board grants.

A number of groups who have previously relied on a council grant may not receive funding in the future.

Unlikely to be acceptable to local boards, given existing concerns over available funds and the level of community demand on these.

2.  Spread available regional budget across regional grants programme

Divide the current regional budget of c. $2.4 million equally between all six regional grants programmes, providing a budget of approximately $400,000 per programme.

Would enable a regional grants programme to be created within existing budget envelope.

Distributes current funding equally between activities rather than aligning to legacy spending.

Redistribution of budgets takes place only at regional level, which will be more acceptable to local boards than first option.

Budget levels would still be low to deliver an effective regional programme.

Would reduce historical levels of funding in some areas, despite existing demand outweighing supply.

A number of groups who have previously relied on a council grant may not receive funding in the future.

Likely to increase current pressure from regional groups on limited local and multi-board funds.

3.  Reduce regional grants programme

Withdraw one or more of the proposed regional grants programmes (e.g. community development), until further funding can be obtained.

Would enable a regional grants programme to be created within existing budget envelope.

Reduction of proposed programme occurs only at regional level, which will be more acceptable to local boards than first option.

 

Likely to be poorly received by the community.

Will leave the council with no transparent mechanism to fund regional organisations delivering outcomes in these areas.

Will increase current pressure from regional groups on limited local and multi-board funds.

4.  Make additional investment in regional programme (recommended option)

Increase investment in the regional grants programme (an additional $2 million p.a. is proposed)

Increases ability of grants programmes to become effective tool for implementation of regional strategic framework.

Creates greater capacity to meet existing community demand and some anticipated demand.

Supports council’s stated intention to empower and work in partnership with our communities across each of the activity areas.

Reduces current pressure from regional groups on limited local and multi-board funds, and will enable the majority of legacy funding budgets to be retained for grants for local and multi-board activities.

New investment may be difficult to commit given the council’s significant financial constraints.

Additional regional investment may not be supported by local boards as they are also facing high demand on limited funds at the local and multi-board level.

Rationale for recommended option

39.     To fully and effectively implement the new CGP and make the ‘step change’ required to deliver on the transformational shifts signalled in the Auckland Plan (and in other regional strategies such as Thriving Communities and the Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan) staff consider additional resources will be required beyond current provision in the LTP 2012-2022.

40.     By investing in an effective grants programme, the council can tangibly support community aspirations and build social capital, deliver value for money to ratepayers, and generate considerable goodwill by supporting groups and organisations that deliver benefits for Auckland.

41.     Staff acknowledge a recommendation for new investment is problematic within a context of significant financial constraint for Auckland Council, but supporting and partnering with community groups through grants is a relatively low cost yet effective means of achieving community outcomes. Grant recipients tend to be experts in their respective fields and trusted in their communities, and they are able to access a range of external relationships and resources to achieve our mutual goals. By providing grants for activities that align with the council’s strategic priorities, the council is effectively leveraging external funds from central government, private philanthropists, corporate sponsors, independent funding bodies and Auckland residents, as well as thousands of hours of volunteer time.

42.     Additional investment in the regional grants programme of $2 million p.a. is proposed as an option for governing body consideration through the LTP process 2015-2025. Staff consider a minimum of between $600,000 and $800,000 is required for each regional grants programme if the CGP is to support meaningful progress against the council’s stated priorities in these activity areas and deliver on the transformational shifts. The level of investment requested will support an average fund size of $750,000 (the exact distribution of budget between the six programmes would be proposed alongside the final policy).

Next steps

43.     Should the committee endorse the draft CGP, formal local board engagement will commence in early July and run until late August, while public consultation will begin on 14 July and run for four weeks, closing 10 August. Activities during the consultation period will include:

·     Reporting to the July meetings of the Ethnic Peoples and Pacific Peoples Panels, as well as the Seniors Panel, the Disability Strategic Advisory Panel  and the Community Development and Safety Committee.

·     Distribution of information packs and fliers, and provision of information via ‘Shape Auckland’ and a dedicated webpage on the Auckland Council website.

·     Promotion via ‘Our Auckland’, community and ethnic newspapers and Auckland Council social media channels.

·     Online survey and paper-based submission options.

·     A minimum of four public workshops and two hui.

 

44.     Feedback will be collated and amendments made to the draft CGP, and staff anticipate a final policy will be presented to the committee in October / November 2014.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

45.     The design of the new grants programme proposed in the CGP has been strongly influenced by local board feedback received during consultation on the first draft Community Funding Policy in May 2012, and during more recent engagement.

46.     A discussion paper on the new CGP was prepared in February 2014 and discussed in specially convened local board cluster workshops in March 2014, which were attended by representatives of all local boards. The paper outlined the basic elements of the proposed grants programme and sought their feedback on specific policy issues. A summary of the feedback received during the cluster workshops and how this has been reflected in the draft CGP is provided as Attachment B.

47.     Once the committee has approved a draft CGP for consultation, staff will attend workshops with all local boards during July and August 2014. The purpose of these workshops is to discuss the draft and support the provision of formal local board feedback during business meetings held over this period.

48.     As noted, the majority of the available community grants budgets are currently administered at the local and multi-board level. However local boards believe further funding would still be required if they are to implement the CGP effectively. If the revised Local Board Funding Policy (LBFP) is adopted, local boards will support the local component of the CGP from their share of the overall budget for locally driven initiatives (LDI). From the 2015 / 2016 financial year, the level of funding for each local grants programme will be individually determined by local boards through the local board agreements process.

Māori impact statement

49.     Community grants have the potential to make a significant impact on Māori through supporting the outcomes in the Māori Plan. Under the proposed principles for the CGP, all grants programmes should respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing, as outlined in the Auckland Plan, local board plans and regional strategies, policies and plans, by providing grants to organisations delivering Māori outcomes locally and regionally.

50.     There is already some dedicated funding for Māori outcomes at the regional level, currently focused on papakainga and marae development across Auckland. Te Waka Angamua will be working with Mana Whenua and Mataawaka to explore how best to target this and/or other funding allocated for Māori outcomes in future, e.g. determining eligibility criteria and the most appropriate forums for priority-setting and decision-making. Once this work is completed the funding may be brought under the scope of the CGP.

51.     During workshops in March/April 2014, staff discussed options with local boards for creating dedicated Māori funding schemes at the local level, or embedding Māori outcomes as a ‘standing priority’ across all proposed grants programmes at the local and regional level. Local boards expressed interest in dedicated Māori funding schemes at the local level if regional funding was made available to them for this purpose, but otherwise felt it was more appropriate for any targeted spending to be at each local board’s discretion, driven by local board plan priorities. The CGP’s intent to align grant-making to strategic priorities should ensure funding is allocated to groups and projects delivering Māori outcomes, where these have been signaled in the local board plan.

52.     The current interim funding programme includes one grants scheme dedicated to Māori outcomes (the Marae Development Fund in the former Manukau City area). Communications supporting the public consultation on the CGP will make it clear that this particular scheme, along with all others operating through the interim programme, will be replaced by the new grants programmes once a new CGP is adopted. However, local boards, either individually or in clusters, will have full discretion to provide grants for any purpose that benefits their local communities, including supporting marae.

 

53.     As noted above, regional marae development funding may also provide some capacity to meet this specific need going forward, and Te Waka Angamua will release details of the application and decision-making process for that funding for the next financial year.

54.     The draft CGP provides flexibility for decision-makers to award grants to community groups that are not formally constituted charitable organisations, where appropriate, and staff understand this should increase access to funding for some Māori organisations, such as marae, who may not previously have been eligible.

55.     Two hui will be held as part of the public consultation stage to ensure issues and opportunities of interest to Māori can be discussed.

Implementation

Budget alignment

56.     Existing funding arrangements and grants schemes were rolled over for the 2014/2015 financial year. If adopted, implementation of the CGP will begin from 1 July 2015 to align with the new LTP 2015-2025 and implementation of the Local Board Funding Policy (LBFP). This will enable the finalised budget structures to be implemented alongside the policy.

57.     Staff will propose a budget structure for the new grants programmes when the final policy is tabled with the committee in October/November 2014, outlining the treatment of any inherited (and new) community grants budgets and funding arrangements that will support the CGP going forward. This should enable staff to take into account the outcome of the LBFP review and LTP deliberations in the second half of 2014 and present budget structure options accordingly.

Operationalisation of the CGP

58.     The draft CGP has been developed with substantial input from the relevant departments and business units within the Operations division to ensure that it is able to be delivered.

59.     The proposed implementation timeframe should provide operational teams with adequate time to design supporting systems and business processes, and to produce public-facing collateral that outlines the structure and requirements of the new grants programmes in detail. This will include:

·     Working with decision-makers to schedule an annual calendar of funding rounds for each level of the programme

·     Producing new promotional materials for the council website, marketing and promotion through media channels and to support public information sessions

·     Designing new online application forms and guidelines for prospective applicants

·     Ensuring support will be available for prospective applicants requiring assistance or capacity building to access the grants programmes, working with specialist colleagues where appropriate

·     Developing business processes and templates to enable consistent assessment and reporting to elected members, and to support their decision-making

·     Updating funding agreements, accountability forms and other legal documentation to ensure they are fit-for-purpose, and developing processes to deal with any grant recipients in breach of their agreements

·     Ensuring payments processes and associated financial controls are robust, efficient and fit-for-purpose


60.     If the CGP is adopted on schedule towards the end of 2014, grant applicants / recipients will also have more than six months to prepare for the changeover to the new policy and manage any implications. Staff will work with previously funded organisations to support them to access the new grants programmes during subsequent years, and provide advice to elected members if there is a need to consider transitional arrangements in individual cases.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Draft Community Grants Policy (Under Separate Cover)

 

bView

Key feedback provided during political engagement

73

     

Signatories

Authors

Rebekah Lauren - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 

Draft Community Grants Policy:

Key feedback provided during political engagement

Between March and May 2014, officers attended four local board cluster workshops and a governing body workshop to introduce the scope, raise key issues and seek initial feedback on the draft Community Grants Policy.  A summary of key feedback and how the draft policy has responded to this feedback is outlined in the tables below.

Local board cluster workshops

Key feedback

How the draft policy has responded

General support for proposed principles.

The definition of ‘fairness’ is unclear.

Need to ensure recognising / valuing diversity is captured within principles.

Proposed principles retained.

Expanded explanation of policy principles to ensure clarity of key terms.

Valuing diversity captured more explicitly.

General support for ensuring proportional processes for application and accountability (e.g. simplified processes for smaller grants).

Important to ensure appropriate compliance is in place even for low value grants.

Proposal for proportional application and accountability processes retained, including appropriate compliance requirements for all grants.

Further detail on processes will be provided as part of implementation planning.

No consensus on dollar thresholds for proposed grant types.

Important to have grant type suitable for very small grants – unlikely very large grants will be provided at local board level.

Reduction in the number of grant types to:

·    Fast Response Local Grants (<$1000)

·    Local Grants (>$1000)

Desire to understand financial situation of applicants to support decision-making.

Important to balance consideration of financial need, with encouraging financial independence and not penalising applicants who are successful at fundraising.

Desire to see information on other financial assistance applicants have received from council (e.g. community lease).

Inclusion of ‘Financial considerations’ section in policy, noting that we will take an applicant’s financial position into consideration in assessment and prioritisation.

This will include applicants’ ability to access other sources of financial support, efforts made to access other funding, and details of other forms of financial assistance received from council.

Grants processes need to be as accessible as possible to enable grassroots groups to apply.

Must be support for groups unable to access online processes.

Reflected in ‘fairness and equity of opportunity’ principle. The design, promotion and management of the programme will take account of our diverse communities’ needs and interests.

Application forms and guides will be simple and in plain English. Staff will be available to support applicants as necessary, including those without access to the internet. 

General support for local grants to be contestable, but want discretion to respond to urgent needs or opportunities in between scheduled grant rounds.

Policy proposes that the governing body or local boards can choose to make a discretionary grant in some cases (although not obliged to do so). The applicant would need to make a compelling case for an urgent decision to be considered.

Agreement that not-for-profit organisations are key audience for community grants.

No consensus on whether grants should be available to commercial entities or groups that are not formally constituted.

Policy emphasises focus on not-for-profit organisations, but does not exclude other types of organisation from applying if they deliver community benefit.

Local boards can specify additional eligibility criteria for their individual grants programme (e.g. excluding commercial entities) at their discretion.

No consensus on a preferred model for multi-board grant-making but an overall preference for third option presented: local boards jointly consider applications to multi-board clusters, but retain individual decision-making over local funds.

No consensus on a preferred multi-board cluster structure but desire to be able to cluster non-geographically.

Policy proposes local boards participate in multi-board clusters but retain full control over their budgets.

Local boards will have the discretion to establish clusters as they see fit – may be geographical, or to support shared outcomes around common issues and opportunities.

Report proposes transition to new approach by retaining existing geographical multi-board clusters for first year of policy implementation.

Timing of local, multi-board and regional funding rounds will be important to ensure access to appropriate funding.

Sequencing of funding rounds will be considered during implementation planning in early 2015.

Need clear definitions of regional vs. multi-board and local activities.

Policy proposes criteria to qualify for regional funding.

General support for principle of ‘match funding’ but want discretion over how to implement locally.

Policy proposes match funding will be implemented at the discretion of local boards. Guidelines to support interested local boards to establish effective match funding programmes will be developed by operational staff.

General support for ring-fenced local funding for Māori outcomes, if this funding is provided regionally.

If local funding is to be used, felt targeted spending should be at local boards’ discretion, driven by local board plan priorities.

Policy proposes that all grants programmes should respond to the council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing, as outlined in the Auckland Plan and local board plans.

No regional budget is currently available to support Māori outcomes locally.

Scoping / feasibility work around use of dedicated regional budget being undertaken by Te Waka Angamua.

Support for grants budgets supporting regional environmental and heritage outcomes to be held and managed regionally.

Grants supporting local environmental and heritage outcomes to be managed locally.

Two regional grants programmes proposed to achieve regionally significant environmental and heritage outcomes: Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme and Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme.

Local boards will support organisations delivering local environmental and heritage outcomes.

 

Governing body workshop

Key feedback

How the draft policy has responded

General support for proposed principles.

Need for clarification of principles concerning fairness, equity and proportionality.

Proposed principles retained.

Expanded explanation of policy principles to ensure clarity of key terms.

Grants processes need to be as accessible as possible to enable grassroots groups to apply.

Must be support for groups unable to access online processes.

Reflected in ‘fairness and equity of opportunity’ principle. The design, promotion and management of the programme will take account of our diverse communities’ needs and interests.

Application forms and guides will be simple and in plain English. Staff will be available to support applicants as necessary, including those without access to the internet. 

Desire to understand financial situation of applicants to support decision-making.

Important to balance consideration of financial need, with encouraging financial independence and not penalising applicants who are successful at fundraising.

Desire to see information on other financial assistance applicants have received from council (e.g. community lease).

Inclusion of ‘Financial considerations’ section in policy, noting that we will take an applicant’s financial position into consideration in assessment and prioritisation.

This will include applicants’ ability to access other sources of financial support, efforts made to access other funding, and details of other forms of financial assistance received from council.

Need clear definitions of regional vs. multi-board and local activities.

There may be benefit in providing opportunity for smaller groups to collaborate to deliver shared work programme with regional coverage.

Policy proposes criteria to qualify for regional funding.

Demonstrating regional scale and delivery of regional outcomes are key components of criteria, which could enable collaborative applications. Collaboration is explicitly encouraged in policy principles.

Regional organisations seeking funding to deliver local activities should have to evidence local support / demand. Important to avoid service duplication and displacement of local groups by regional groups with more resources.

Staff assessing applications and supporting decision-making at the local level can provide advice on this issue as required. Local boards also have good knowledge of local groups and areas of under-capacity.

General support for ensuring proportional processes for application and accountability (e.g. simplified processes for smaller grants).

Important to ensure appropriate compliance is in place even for low value grants.

Important to ensure processes are in place to identify and manage grant recipients in breach of their terms and conditions.

Proposal for proportional application and accountability processes retained, including appropriate compliance requirements for all grants.

Further detail on processes will be provided as part of implementation planning. This will include processes for identifying and managing grant recipients in breach of their terms and conditions.

Preference for a multi-board funding approach which enables local boards to meet and make decisions.

Policy proposes local boards participate in multi-board clusters that enable shared consideration and decision-making, even if boards continue to hold funds individually.

Agreement that not-for-profit organisations are key audience for community grants but comfortable that other types of groups may be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Policy emphasises focus on not-for-profit organisations, but does not exclude other types of organisation from applying if they deliver community benefit.

Decision-makers can specify additional eligibility criteria for their individual grants programme (e.g. excluding commercial entities) at their discretion.

Concern that different local boards may set different exclusions for their local grants programmes which could be confusing for applicants.

Local boards provided feedback on the first draft policy (May 2012) that the CGP should not be overly prescriptive. The ability for boards to set parameters for local grants is in line with the allocation of decision-making over this activity. Staff do not anticipate that local boards will specify a number of additional exclusions.

Concern as to whether strategic relationship grants could become ‘perpetual’ – i.e. no opportunity for renewing portfolio of strategic relationships.

Policy proposes expressions of interest will be sought for strategic relationship funding through a contestable process. This process will allow both the incumbent(s) and other organisations to make their case for support. Allocations should reflect applicant best able to deliver strategic outcomes.

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 

Psychoactive Substances Draft Local Approved Products Policy

 

File No.: CP2014/10949

 

Purpose

1.       To seek the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee’s endorsement for the proposed content of the draft Local Approved Product Policy.

Executive summary

2.       On 6 March 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved a work plan for the development of Auckland Council’s Local Approved Product Policy (LAPP) (Item 9; Resolution number REG/2014/34).

3.       The LAPP will set rules regarding where retail outlets of psychoactive substances may operate.  The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 provides that a policy may regulate the location of retail outlets by reference to broad areas within a district, proximity to other premises selling approved products and/or distance from certain types of premises such as schools, places of worship and other community facilities.

4.       Despite the designation of ‘low risk’, legal psychoactive substances still cause harm to those that use them and the communities where they live.  Minimising this harm is the key outcome from a successful LAPP.  An effective LAPP will mean fewer vulnerable people with access to substances, less antisocial behavior from substance use and improved economic performance for local business. 

5.       Six options were considered for the LAPP.  Three options were rejected prior to consultation as not being able to achieve the outcomes for a successful LAPP.  The remaining three options were discussed with local boards, external stakeholders and council staff.  After consideration of feedback and relevant research a preferred option has been developed.

6.       The preferred option would prevent licences being granted in areas of high deprivation, near high schools and near addiction and mental health treatment centres.  It would also limit how close to an existing shop a new shop could open.  This option would reduce the availability of these substances in areas where their presence is likely to have the greatest potential for harm.  The prevention of harm is achieved while maintaining the intent of the government to allow a regulated sale of these substances.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      endorse the proposed draft Local Approved Product Policy that will prevent the sale of approved psychoactive substances in the following areas:

·     high deprivation areas as defined by the Ministry of Health’s Deprivation Index score of 8, 9 or 10 indicating areas that fall in the bottom 30% of deprivation scores

·     neighbourhood centers as defined by the unitary plan

·     within 300m of a high school

·     within 100m of a primary school

·     within 300m of the mental health or addiction treatment center

·     within 500m of an existing psychoactive substance retail licence

b)      forward a copy of this report to local boards to be considered on their agendas

c)      note that once all the local board feedback has been analysed, a final draft Local Approved Product Policy (LAPP) will be presented to the committee on 9 October 2014 to be approved for public notification via the special consultative procedure

d)      note the special consultative procedure will begin in November 2014 with the expected final adoption of the policy in March 2015.

Comments

Background

The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

7.       The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (the Act) sets a regulatory framework for the manufacture and sale of psychoactive substances.  The Act’s purpose is to protect the health of, and minimise the harm to, individuals who use psychoactive substances and regulate the availability of psychoactive products.

8.       The Act banned psychoactive substances from being sold in dairies, service stations, supermarkets, convenience stores and places where alcohol is sold.  It also restricted the advertising of products and the sale to those under 18.  The Act granted interim approvals to 42 products considered safe for use and interim retail licences to around 170 stores across New Zealand with 52 licences granted in Auckland.

The Psychoactive Substances Amendment Act 2014

9.       The Psychoactive Substances Amendment Act 2014 came into effect on 6 May 2014.  This Act ended all interim approvals and licences previously granted under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.  This reversal meant there were no psychoactive substances that were legal to sell and there are no businesses that could legally sell them.

10.     The amendment did not change the intent of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 to allow the sale of low risk psychoactive substances.  The Ministry of Health has indicated it will have regulations considered by the Cabinet Legislative Committee in early July 2014 to set out the testing regime required for a product to be approved.  It is expected that regulations to allow retail licences will follow early in 2015.

11.     The need for an effective LAPP has not changed with the legislative amendments.  The removal of approved psychoactive substances will allow the LAPP to be in place before any retail licences are granted.

Where the authority to create a local approved product policy comes from

12.     Sections 66 to 69 of the Act enable territorial authorities to develop a LAPP for their region.  The LAPP is limited to:

·    The location of premises from which approved products may be sold by reference to broad areas. 

·    The location from which approved products may be sold by reference to proximity to other premises from which approved products are sold.

·    The location of premises from which approved products may be sold by reference to proximity to premises or facilities of a particular kind or kinds.

Previous Council decisions

13.     On 6 March 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved a work plan for the development of Auckland Council’s LAPP (Item 9; Res # REG/2014/34).

14.     At the 27th March 2014 Governing Body meeting, staff were directed to consider options for reducing the development period of the LAPP.  Staff advised that the only viable option for reducing the development time would be to shorten the consultation process to a single round with Local Boards.  There is no longer a need for this reduced development period due to the removal of all approved products by the Psychoactive Substances Amendment Act 2014.


15.     On the 14 May council staff presented a number of options for a LAPP to the Community Development and Safety Committee.  The committee endorsed the third option, to limit the sale of substances to specified areas that were evidence based (item 12, Resolution # COM/2014/10).

What is the problem?

16.     The Act created a regulatory framework allowing the supply of psychoactive substances to the public that the Regulatory Authority has deemed to be low risk.  Despite the designation of ‘low risk’ these substances have been linked to adverse health outcomes, crime, worsening mental illness and aggressive behaviour, especially amongst vulnerable people.  People using these substances in public places are causing a number of problems for communities.  Communities are reporting public nuisance and disorder, a reduced perception of safety and a decrease in people shopping in nearby businesses.  All of these effects and having a negative impact on the economic and social health of communities. 

Desired outcome for the LAPP

17.     A successful LAPP will minimise the harm resulting from the use of legal psychoactive substances.  Auckland Council’s proposed LAPP will deliver the following harm reduction outcomes.

a)    reducing access to approved substances for vulnerable people.

b)    reducing the impact of antisocial behavior resulting from approve substance use on the public.

c)    reducing the impact on the economic performance of local business from antisocial behavior resulting from the use of approved substances.

18.     In addition to harm reduction the LAPP will be practical to implement and cost effective.

19.     The above points make up the objectives of the Council’s proposed LAPP and form the foundation upon which the options have been evaluated.

Other considerations in developing the LAPP

20.     There are two trade-offs that need to be considered in the development of the LAPP.  The first is the freedom for people to buy and sell legal products against the harm these products can cause.  The more freedom people have to purchase these products the greater the harm that will be experienced.  However if the sale of these products is severely restricted there is a risk of unduly constraining the freedom of people to conduct a lawful business.  Ensuring a balance between these two principles has been a major component of the LAPP development.  It is considered that the current draft LAPP achieves this balance through using the best evidence base possible to minimise harm while not being overly restrictive.

21.     The second trade-off is related to the density of retail outlets.  If there is a very low density of outlets and/or large areas with no access to products and a demand for them there is a risk of creating an illegal trade in the products with consequent supporting of criminal enterprise.  When the opposite occurs and there is a high outlet density you have a risk of price competition creating cheap products that lend themselves to being used in high quantity by vulnerable populations.  It follows then, that these users would then experience higher harm from the increased consumption.  Ensuring there is an appropriate balance between these trade-offs has been a core component of the options analysis.

Options for the LAPP

22.     Six options were considered for the LAPP.  Three of these were rejected at the first stage of option development as they were not considered to meet the requirements of a successful LAPP.  The remaining three options were developed further and presented to stakeholders and Local Boards for consultation.  These three options were:

·     limiting to the CBD and town centres,

·     limiting to industrial zones and

·     limiting to specified areas.

23.     During consultation there was almost universal preference for the specified areas option (see Attachment A appendix 1 for a summary of feedback).  It was generally felt that both the town centre and the industrial zone option had more draw backs than advantages.  Even amongst the few groups who preferred another option, the specified area option was the second choice.  It was also acknowledged by at least one group that while they preferred another option for their area the specified place option was likely the best for Auckland as a whole.

24.     Staff have analysed the local board and stakeholder feedback and associated research evidence to develop the preferred option presented below.

Preferred option for the LAPP

25.     The preferred option for the LAPP would prevent the sale of approved psychoactive substances in the following specified areas:

·     high deprivation, as defined by the Ministry of Health’s Deprivation Index score of 8, 9 or 10 indicating the bottom 30% according to deprivation

·     neighbourhood centers, as defined by the unitary plan

·     within 300m of a high school

·     within 100m of a primary school

·     within 300m of the mental health or addiction treatment center

·     within 500m of an existing retail licence.

26.     Attachments B to F (Appendix 2a-d) contains maps showing the areas that would be covered by the proposed restrictions.

Why high deprivation?

27.     There is a scarcity of information and research on the impact of psychoactive substances at a social or group level.  In the absence of a body of research, the preferred approach is to use studies that looked at the effects of similar substances.  There is a significant body of literature on the effect of alcohol, smoking and other substance use.  One effect that stands out from the research is that social areas with high levels of deprivation experience more harm from substance use than those areas with low deprivation.  When this finding is combined with availability theory, which states that decreasing the availability of a substance will tend to reduce its use, there is a strong case that preventing the sale of psychoactive substances in high deprivation areas will have a greater impact on harm than in lower deprivation areas. 

28.     There is a risk that this approach will create large enough voids in substance availability that it will become attractive to criminal enterprise to attempt to fill them with illegal activity. 

29.     It is considered that this option would provide a good trade-off between the rights of consumers to purchase legal products and the intent of the act, to minimise harm.

Why Neighbourhood centres?

30.     These small groups of shops within residential areas are locations that are frequently accessed by vulnerable people.  Youth travel to them to purchase goods, and people struggling with addictions or mental health issues find these accessible locations.  Preventing the sale of psychoactive substances in these locations will serve to limit the availability to vulnerable populations.

Why schools?

31.     The youth council representatives and a number of treatment providers both considered that the use of these substances in high school aged youth was a considerable problem.  One provider thought that around half of the youth they were seeing had problems with these substances. 


32.     Consistent with the previously mentioned availability theory, reducing the access to substances is likely to result in a reduction in use.  To achieve this reduced availability the 300m zone around secondary and 100m zone around primary schools is considered to strike a god balance between restricting freedoms and protecting vulnerable people.  The smaller zone around primary schools is considered to be appropriate as the children at these schools are less likely to be able to purchase substances due to their age. 

Why treatment centres?

33.     As with schools and high deprivation areas; limiting the availability of these substances to vulnerable people is likely to be the most practical approach to minimising harm.  Both mental health treatment centres and addiction treatment centres serve people who would be considered particularly vulnerable to the effects of these substances.  Many of the treatment providers expressed a strong preference that they should not be for sale close to any mental health treatment centre. 

34.     Treatment centres are more likely than schools to shift location or for a new operation to open.  If a new treatment centre moved or opened close to an existing psychoactive substance retailer the shop would not be expected to close.  It would be considered far too onerous an expectation for an existing business to stop trading if a new sensitive site opened nearby.  This decision is not final; with all retail licences being reviewed every three years there will be an opportunity to reconsider the suitability of a location.  This position is supported by the Ministry of Health, Psychoactive Substance Regulatory Authority and internal legal staff. 

Why restrictions on how close a shop can be to another shop?

35.     Research in New Zealand and overseas has clearly established a link between the density of alcohol outlets and the alcohol related harm experienced by the local communities.  It is considered reasonable to assume that there is a high likelihood of a similar link for psychoactive substances.  Thus a density control is considered appropriate to assist the other measures to minimise the harm experienced by users of these substances.  Council staff are working on developing a risk rating similar to the rating used by the Ministry of Health to assess alcohol licences.  This rating would allow licence applications for the sale areas to be prioritised based on the risk of harm they pose.

Why nothing else?

36.     For each area considered for inclusion as a sensitive site there needs to be a trade-off between the freedom that is removed and the benefit gained from the decision.  There were a number of areas considered as possible sensitive sites where it was difficult to reconcile the potential benefit with the restriction required to achieve it.  Potential sites that did not meet the criteria for inclusion were churches, playgrounds, public spaces, libraries and community centres.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

37.     Workshops on the three proposed options have been held with all of the local boards except for Great Barrier, Waiheke and Orakei local boards who declined to be involved in the process.  Of the remaining 18 local boards Whau declined to attend the workshop and did not provide any feedback. 

38.     Of the 17 local boards who took part in the LAPP workshops 13 endorsed the specified place option as their preferred option.  Four boards that for local reasons preferred either the town centre or industrial option as they felt it provided tighter restrictions in their areas.  All of these local boards also provided the specified areas as their second option acknowledging that it was unlikely that all local boards would opt for their preferred option.  The Hibiscus and Bays local board declined to provide a preferred option.  A summary of individual local board feedback is provided in Attachment A (appendix 1).

Maori impact statement

39.     Māori are over represented amongst the groups of vulnerable people likely to be affected by using approved psychoactive substances.  This over representation has two effects.  Firstly getting the right option for the LAPP to maximize harm reduction will be more effective for Māori.  Secondly, any solutions need to be designed in close collaboration with Māori to ensure they are workable and support wider initiatives aimed at improving Māori outcomes.

40.     A workshop has been undertaken with representatives from Hapai Te Hauora Tapui an agency representing Māori health providers in the Auckland region.  Council staff will be working with the Independent Māori Statutory Board and Hapai Te Hauora Tapui to set up hui for iwi feedback.  Information from the workshop and hui will be central to the development of the LAPP.

General

Wider engagement - internal

41.     Internal workshops have been held with representatives from Community Safety and Development, Bylaws and Compliance, Planning, Policy, Economic Development, Youth Strategy and Legal Services.

42.     Internal feedback supported the specified areas option.  It was generally felt that while both the town centre and industrial options had some very useful points they also had a number of significant issues.

Wider engagement - External

43.     A number of workshops with external stakeholders have been conducted.  These workshops have involved representatives and feedback from the following agencies: NZ Police, Auckland Regional Public Health Services, Hapai Te Hauora Tapui, Auckland District Health Board, Counties-Manakau District Health Board, Waitemata District Health Board, Salvation Army, St John, Auckland City Mission, Community Alcohol and Drug Services, Odessey house, Ministry of Health, NZ Drug Foundation and Higher ground.  A workshop and meetings were also held with representatives from the industry including STAR trust which represents interests in both the retail and manufacturing sector.  Feedback was also sought from Youth local board representatives.

44.     The operational agencies including DHB’s and NZ Police were strongly opposed to the town centre option feeling it would result in significant exposure for vulnerable people.  They also saw security issues in the industrial zone option that they felt would be a significant issue.  Due to these concerns they preferred the specified areas option.

45.     Treatment agencies such as CADS and Odessey house also supported the specified area option for similar reasons to the operational agencies.  They also were concerned that the industrial zone option would place the majority of shops in communities that did not have the resilience to cope with the problems they might bring.

46.     A summary of all the feedback is presented in Attachment A (appendix 1).

Financial and resourcing implications

47.     There is $90,000 budgeted for the 2014/2015 financial year to undertake the special consultative procedure and for publications and promotion. 

Implementation

Next steps

48.     If the proposed second round of consultation is agreed it will be completed by early September 2014.  The final draft policy will be presented to the REG Committee for approval at the 9 October meeting.  If the draft policy is approved the special consultative procedure will begin in November.

Step

Estimated timeframe

1. Stakeholder engagement on draft option

Officers will seek feedback from internal, external and political stakeholders on the approved draft LAPP option.

July – September 2014

2. Final draft LAPP for special consultative procedure

Officers will then present a final draft policy to RSPC for approval for consultation.

9 October

3. Special consultative procedure

Officers will follow the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of Local Government Act 2002. This will include public submissions and hearings.

November 2014

4. Adopt final policy

Following the hearings the draft will be finalised and presented to RSPC for adoption.

March 2015

5. Implementation and review

A copy will be sent to Ministry of Health after it has been completed. The LAPP will then be reviewed every five years in accordance with section 69 of the Act. 

Ongoing

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Appendix 1 - Feedback summary

85

bView

Appendix 2 - Option impact overview

95

cView

Appendix 2a - Option impact North

97

dView

Appendix 2b - Option impact West

99

eView

Appendix 2c - Option impact East

101

fView

Appendix 2d - Option impact South

103

 

Signatories

Authors

Michael Sinclair - Team Leader, Regionwide Social Policy

Callum Thorpe - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 











Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 



Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 

Submission in response to the Ministry for the Environment discussion paper “Priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention: A discussion document”

 

File No.: CP2014/13138

 

Purpose

1.       To seek retrospective approval of a submission to a recent Ministry for the Environment discussion document on product stewardship.  The submission, on proposed regulatory intervention and priority product declarations, will be lodged with the Ministry on 2 July 2014.

Executive summary

2.       The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) recently released a discussion document entitled Priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention: A discussion document (the discussion document).  The discussion document outlines a number of proposals in relation to product stewardship by setting regulatory interventions for four product groups.

3.       Product stewardship requires parties to accept responsibility for the environmental effects of their products. Encouraging product stewardship is a key aspect of meeting the target of zero waste to landfill included in the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.  As such, a submission supporting the discussion was submitted to MfE.

4.       The officer submission supports the proposed regulatory interventions, recommends a fifth product be included (packaging); strongly suggests that household batteries are included in the electronic and electrical product grouping and recommends the five product groups be given priority product status.

5.       This report recommends that the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee retrospectively approve that submission.  A copy of the submission is appended at Attachment A.

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approve retrospectively the Auckland Council’s submission to the Ministry for the Environment’s Priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention discussion document.

Comments

Background

6.       The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) recently released a discussion paper, Priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention: A discussion document and are seeking submissions relating to possible regulatory intervention for specific waste streams. Regulatory interventions include the declaring a product to be a “priority product” for product stewardship.

7.       In product stewardship schemes, any party involved in the life of a product (such as a producer, brand owner, importer, retailer or consumer) may accept responsibility for the environmental effects of their products – from production to disposal.  At present, there are some voluntary product stewardship schemes such as PaintWise and Agrecovery.  However, the Minister for the Environment does have the authority under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to declare a product a ‘priority product’ requiring. the development of a product stewardship scheme


8.       The recent MfE discussion paper suggested regulatory intervention for specific waste streams, include declaring a product to be a “priority product” for product stewardship.  The four products are
-     
electrical and electronic equipment
-      tyres
-      agrichemicals and farm plastics; and
-      refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases.

9.       Due to the short timeframes allowed for submissions, officers were unable to secure committee endorsement of council’s submission before the deadline of 2 July 2014.  An “officer-only” submission (see Attachment A) will be lodged with MfE on 2 July 2014.  The following commentary provides a summary of the main submission points.

Main submission points

Priority waste stream criteria

10.     The discussion document suggested a set of criteria for determining product groups for regulatory intervention. The officer submission generally agrees with the criteria but suggests that a weighting or ranking be allocated against each criterion. The submission also recommends that the criteria “industry readiness” should be unaffected by industry willingness. If these two points are adopted, the conclusion is that the assessment of the packaging product group would change. The submission recommends that packaging should be included as a product group for regulatory intervention.

Priority product declaration and timing

11.     For the five product groups, the submission urges the Minister for the Environment to act quickly to declare priority product stewardship status, with an expectation that the declaration occurs by the end of 2014. A rapid declaration is encouraged due to the level of consultation, review and discussion that has already occurred for each product grouping, the length of time required to establish a product stewardship scheme (which will allow sufficient time for regulation development ), and the urgent need from industry to know that regulation will occur.

12.     Currently responsible businesses are deterred from participating in industry led initiatives in waste as they will be economically disadvantaged by participation. Free riders (businesses which benefit from product stewardship schemes without participating) have meant that existing voluntary schemes have failed to be effective.

Costs and benefits to council if mandatory product stewardship is implemented

13.     The submission proposes that mandatory product stewardship is likely to be beneficial to councils and reduce the public costs associated with end of life management of waste. Manufacturers are the entities most able to influence product design changes, in order to minimise the adverse impacts of their products. Mandatory schemes encourage good design as they spread the onus of environmental and public health protection from being solely a council concern, to partial responsibility being held by the industry itself.

Scope of priority product declaration

14.     The submission makes recommendations on the scope of the priority product status for each product grouping. Household batteries are recommended for inclusion in the electrical and electronic grouping based on work undertaken by Auckland Council and a community / industry battery workgroup. The submission also recommends that the proposed greenhouse gas product grouping be expanded to include ozone depleting and other synthetic greenhouse gases. Additional recommendations are also made on the scope for tyres, agricultural chemicals and farm plastics and packaging.

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15.     Local boards were advised of this submission via a memo and feedback sought. At the time of writing, specific feedback had been received from Rodney and Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Boards.  Both boards were supportive of the submission.

16.     Feedback from the Rodney Local Board noted that agrichemical waste is often disposed of inappropriately.  The Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board feedback is appended at Attachment B.  In addition, the Manurewa Local Board have previously discussed the importance of product stewardship in reducing waste to landfill.

Maori impact statement

17.     Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is in alignment with Tangata Whenua world view on waste management and minimisation.  In particular, the view that waste is a resource which could be reused recycled or viewed as a recoverable resource.
The attached submission supports this view.  A copy of this report will be sent to the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

Implementation

18.     There are no immediate implementation issues arising from this report, however, officers will monitor the progress of the proposed regulations to ensure that any implementation or operational implications are understood.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Auckland Council Submission Product Stewardship Priority Products (Under Separate Cover)

 

bView

Memo - Maungakiekie Tamaki LB Feedback Product Stewardship Submission

109

      

Signatories

Authors

Parul Sood - Manager Waste Planning

Mara Bebich - Stakeholder Liasion Manager

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 

Heritage Incentives Policy Framework

 

File No.: CP2014/13427

 

Purpose

1.       To inform the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee about the process to date to develop the Auckland Heritage Incentives Policy Framework and seek political endorsement for the proposed next steps.  During the last political term, the Parks Recreation and Heritage Forum resolved to progress the development of a single Heritage Incentives Policy for Auckland to address issues of inconsistency between legacy council approaches (PH/2012/104)This framework will establish a suite of non-regulatory incentives (tool-kit) to support the delivery of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Auckland Plan, the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, the Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy, the draft Historic Heritage Plan and the Draft Regional Pest Management Strategy.

Executive summary

2.       This policy work will recommend to the council a package of tools to incentivise proactive and effective management of natural and historic heritage assets.

3.       The legacy councils all provided some proactive support to landowners of these assets, including (variously) grants, rates relief and technical support and advice.  To date, there has been some consolidation of these various approaches, including a draft Community Grants Policy that has been developed for consultation which would provide for (amongst other things) regional grants for natural/environmental and historic heritage management. 

4.       However, it is recommended that a comprehensive review of the best way to encourage landowners to adopt best practice approaches to the management of natural and historic heritage resources is undertaken.  This will provide a framework in which to identify the best range and mix of non-regulatory tools to achieve this result, to both inform current activities of the council, such as the LTP review; and to provide a long-term framework for the council to promote, support and build the capacity of those landowners who are the stewards of these heritage assets.

5.       It is generally recognised that non-regulatory incentives are a vital tool to support and encourage local communities, mana whenua, and individual land owners to be actively engaged in the enhancement, protection and restoration of Auckland’s natural and historic heritage.  Non-regulatory incentives are inducements for behavioural and management changes which improve the condition of natural and historic heritage and harness voluntary co-operation of landholders and reduce effort to monitor and enforce protection measures.  This is an opportunity to propose fresh approaches while recognising and consolidating the successful work already delivered by multiple teams across council.

6.       Activities within the scope of this work include the enhancement, conservation and protection of biodiversity, natural features (geological/geomorphological) soil, water quality, and landscape amenity (natural heritage); restoration, maintenance and conservation for historic sites, structures, buildings and other places, as well as archaeological sites and sites of cultural and spiritual significance to mana whenua (historic and cultural heritage).  The review is investigating a range of non-regulatory incentives (tool-kit) of existing and new schemes to encourage and incentivise active stewardship.

7.       Examples of new approaches (or existing approaches with the potential to be modified or expanded) include rates relief mechanisms, advice, technical assistance, targeted behaviour change and environmental education to build community capacity, endorsements (e.g. treasure islands (the promotion of heritage value of the Hauraki Gulf Islands), industry involvement; and endorsement of best practice suppliers through procurement.


8.       Targeted consultation is planned with local boards, mana whenua and elected members, starting in July, to inform the development of a discussion document.  Concurrently, staff will be providing input to the draft Long-term Plan budget development process.  Feedback on the Community Grants Policy will also be used to inform the development of the Heritage Incentives Framework.

9.       Following the development of the discussion document for consultation, the draft policy would be presented to elected members (Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee and Auckland Development Committee) for endorsement during October and November 2014.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      endorse the planned approach for the development and implementation of the heritage incentives policy framework.

Comments

Statutory and Strategic Context

10.     Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the protection of both natural and historic heritage is a matter of national importance which must be recognised and provided for (s6).  Councils (district, regional and unitary) also have the specific function of maintaining indigenous biodiversity.  Historic and natural heritage resources are identified and protected in the council’s RMA plans (operative regional and district plans, and the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).  Incentives are identified in the PAUP as tool to achieve the purposes of this Act and the objectives and policies of the PAUP.

11.     The Local Government Act 2002 empowers the council to provide assistance to property owners to promote the protection, conservation and enhancement of heritage resources.  It is acknowledged that many landowners need support to ensure valued heritage and environmental resources are well managed.  Additionally, the targeting of incentives to those resources protected through regulation will improve the delivery of the council’s regulatory functions.

12.     Incentivising good management of heritage resources aligns with the Auckland Plan in several ways, in particular the directives to “Empower the community and tangata whenua in the identification and stewardship/kaitiakitanga of our heritage places” (4.7); and to “...ensure ecosystems and biodiversity on public and private land are protected and restored.” (7.5). Additionally, active and effective management of heritage resources will contribute to the transformational shift to “strongly commit to environmental action and green growth.”  Protection and enhancement of heritage assets will contribute to Auckland becoming the world’s most livable city.

13.     The majority of Local Board Plans support natural and historic heritage as a top priority, and local boards play a major role in the delivery of incentives.

14.     Community action is key in controlling and eradicating pest species, and is critical for the successful implementation of the council’s Regional Pest Management Plan.

15.     The council’s Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy and draft Historic Heritage Plan both identify that a partnership approach between the council and community is needed.

16.     The primary focus of the policy development is to identify the best range of incentives to support items or features scheduled in the PAUP, such as Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) and Historic Heritage Places.  However the tool-kit would be applicable to broader situations such as riparian planting, fencing and stock exclusion.  An expectation that the council will support these regulatory provisions with non-regulatory tools is apparent in the submissions received to the PAUP.


17.     Specifically, the intention is to:

·    influence and integrate with other work streams (including to ensure that any proposed heritage grants scheme(s) align with the overarching framework established by the draft Community Grants Policy)

·    support the regulatory framework set out in the Unitary Plan to protect and conserve regionally significant natural and historic heritage and ensure that incentives are directed at priority targets

·    research and evaluate Auckland Council’s, national and international approaches for delivery of incentives in order to identify an incentive programme to address the related goals of equity, public certainty and confidence in the programme

·    evaluate incentives provided by external agencies and further develop collaborative partnerships

·    identify best practice incentive options

·    engage with external stakeholders and external agencies, leverage opportunities for partnering

·    establish a new framework

·    engage with local boards, mana whenua, the Independent Māori Statutory Board, council committees and advisory panels.

18.     To date, there has been input to the development of the draft Community Grants Policy for public consultation, to help ensure the purpose, outcomes and criteria for grants funding have been addressed effectively in that policy.

19.     A selection of rates remission options are currently being modelled by GIS and Finance Teams to enable assessment of the issues and options for rates remissions, for consideration during the LTP process.

20.     Evidence based research (including literature reviews) of Auckland Council’s, legacy approaches, national, and international best practice is on-going.  Results to date indicate that all local councils in New Zealand offer some form of heritage incentives - mainly free technical advice, grants, consent fee waivers and rates relief.  Best practice overseas indicates that major tax incentive schemes have proven to be highly successful, specifically in the United States and much of mainland Europe.  United Kingdom and the Netherlands have generous grant schemes which help balance stringent heritage protection laws; and Australian states have a mixture of approaches.

21.     Engagement with key stakeholders has been started, including with the Heritage and Rural Advisory Panels.  Key staff involved in the development and implementation of legacy approaches have been canvassed including through semi-structured interviews, focusing on what worked well and what recommendations for different approaches they would make.

22.     The key messages from all engagement and research to date is that:

·    not “one size fits all”, and a combination of incentives is required

·    specific, measurable outcomes and targets are important to ensure incentives are effective and efficient

·    regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms are interlinked.

Next steps

23.     In support of the framework, a multi-criteria analysis is being developed, drawing on information derived from input across council (including council staff, advisory panels, local boards, mana whenua, Iwi, the Governing Body and relevant committees), to confirm the scope of non-regulatory incentives (tool-kit) to be assessed, and then to check the effectiveness of different incentives and combinations of incentives in delivering a range of identified outcomes.


24.     A targeted questionnaire with land and property owners of historic and/or natural heritage assets (who have already received some form of assistance) to establish which incentives worked well and ranking of other preferences (incentives) is about to be started.  This external survey will ascertain recipients’ views of the range of incentives currently offered by Auckland Council (and/or legacy councils).

25.     Engagement with external agencies is underway, both to identify the range of actions being undertaken by others, and to determine how other agencies rank effectiveness of their tools. Some examples of external agencies are Horticulture NZ, Federated Farmers and Community Partnership Funds.

26.     Targeted consultation will be carried out with mana whenua, local boards, and elected members both prior to and after the release of a discussion document starting in July 2014 through workshops and hui.

27.     The results of the multi-criteria analysis, along with the other research and investigations underway or planned, will inform an issues and options discussion document for engagement and consultation

28.     It is intended to draft a policy proposal to present to committees for consideration towards the end of 2014.

29.     The review is being carried out through a cross council process led by Environmental Strategy and Policy in collaboration with Infrastructure and Environmental Services; Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting; Community Policy and Planning; Research, Consultation and Engagement; Research Investigations and Monitoring; Information Services and Legal Services.  Costs of the review for the 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 financial year will be met from existing budgets.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30.     Staff will be consulting with local boards to gain their views and in-put, starting in July 2014.  The Orakei Local Board have requested through the PAUP submission process that rates relief be provided to landowners of SEAs.

Maori impact statement

31.     The role of mana whenua as kaitiaki of natural and historic heritage will be recognised in the development of non-regulatory incentives mechanisms.  Consultation with Iwi and mana whenua will be on-going during the policy development process.

Implementation

32.     This project facilitates the delivery of an Auckland-wide heritage incentives policy for historic heritage and natural heritage working with teams’ across-council and external stakeholders. Once adopted, an implementation plan will be developed to promote the operationalisation of the suite of incentives.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Jenny Fuller - Team Leader Natural Heritage, Enviromental Strategy and Policy

Authorisers

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 

Ministerial local government elected members group

 

File No.: CP2014/14043

 

Purpose

1.       To agree that the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Committee seek nomination to the joint Ministerial-Local Government Elected Members’ Group that will consider the regulations regarding earthquake-prone buildings.

Executive summary

2.       At recent meetings between the Honorable Nick Smith, Minister of Housing, and the Central Government-Local Government Forum, the Minister explained that the regulations would be developed concurrently with the Building (Earthquake-prone buildings) Amendment legislation. He also confirmed that he wanted central and local government to work together on the regulations to ensure they were fit for purpose.  He asked that a working group be formed, comprising Ministerial representatives and local government elected members.

3.       As Chair and Deputy Chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, Councillors Wood and Anae wish to be involved in this Ministerial-Local Government Elected Members’ group.  Councillor Wood led the Auckland Council team that submitted to the Select Committee hearing the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      agree that the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee seek nomination to the joint Ministerial-Local Government Elected Members’ Group that will consider regulations relating to the new earthquake-prone buildings legislation.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

LGNZ Overview - Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill

117

 

Signatories

Authors

Barbara Watson - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Marguerite  Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 

Technical publications from the Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit (RIMU)

 

File No.: CP2014/12693

 

Purpose

1.       To report on technical publications produced by the Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit, 1 January to 30 June 2014.  The report is for information only.

Executive summary

2.       This report summarises Auckland Council technical publications produced from 1 January to 30 June 2014. The report also notes for the committee’s attention, three topical publications:

2013 census profiles

Industry snapshot for Auckland: construction and engineering

Measuring the value created by Auckland Museum’s Moana - My Ocean exhibition: a social return on investment (SROI) analysis

3.       Technical publications are produced on a range of topics reflecting Auckland Council’s current research and strategic priorities as well as its statutory environmental monitoring responsibilities.

4.       Auckland Council works with external organisations such as other local authorities, crown research entities, commercial consultants and technical organisations on the preparation of some technical publications.

5.       Publications are produced using the Auckland Council technical publication policy, which specifies three document series: internal report or working report series (IR or WR), policy or guideline document series (PG) and technical report series (TR).  The Peer Review Panel reviews all technical publications.

6.       Following publication, printed technical publications are available for loan and reference from Auckland Council libraries and electronic versions are published on the Auckland Council website.

7.       Copies of the technical publications noted in this report are available from the Manager, Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit (RIMU), Auckland Strategy and Research Department.

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      notes the list of Auckland Council technical publications 1 January to 30 June 2014

b)      agrees that the report be forwarded to all local boards for their information.

Comments

8.       Auckland Council publishes a range of technical publications so that evidence, results and advice from its research, investigations and monitoring programmes are available publicly. Technical publications are non-statutory documents and are reviewed by the Auckland Council Peer Review Panel before publication.  External organisations including other local authorities, crown research companies and expert consultants contribute to research published as council technical publications.  Technical publications are available on the Auckland Council website.

9.       The Committee is asked to note the following topical publications in particular:


10.     2013 census profiles

i.) A series of reports explaining 2013 census results for Auckland.  The series includes a profile of all Auckland, one for each local board and one for the Southern Initiative area. A profile on Auckland dwellings and households is also available.  Topics for profiles in preparation include children and young people, older Aucklanders and Auckland employment.

ii.) A website for 2013 census Auckland results is also available at www.censusauckland.co.nz

iii.) Auckland Council (2014). Auckland dwellings and households; Auckland profile; Local board profiles; The Southern Initiative profile. Initial results from the 2013 census. Auckland Council 2013 census report series, 2014

11.     Industry snapshot for Auckland: construction and engineering

i.) A report on Auckland’s construction and engineering sector. The sector comprises 19,495 businesses with 64,239 workers generating $2.2 billion each year of GDP - 4 per cent of Auckland’s total GDP and 8.8 percent of its jobs. The sector includes construction, civil engineering and services companies that develop land, build new buildings and create new infrastructure.

ii.) Wilson, R A (2014). Industry snapshot for Auckland: construction and engineering. Auckland Council technical report, TR2014/016

12.     Measuring the value created by Auckland Museum’s Moana - My Ocean exhibition: a social return on investment (SROI) analysis

i.)  Auckland Council researchers worked closely with Auckland Museum staff on an evaluation of the Museum’s Moana - My Ocean exhibition. The evaluation investigated what type and how much value was created by the exhibition and whether the exhibition provided a positive return on investment, by calculating how much value was created for every dollar spent on delivering the exhibition.

ii.) The report concludes that the value created by Moana - My Ocean exceeded the delivery investment: For every dollar invested, $4.66 of social, environmental and economic value was created.

iii.) Allpress, J A, Rohani, M and Meares, C (2014). Measuring the value created by Auckland Museum’s Moana - My Ocean exhibition: a social return on investment (SROI) analysis. Auckland Council technical report, TR2014/014

13.     A list of technical publications arranged in six subject groups – 2013 census, air quality, community and economics, environmental monitoring, harbours and estuaries, land use – follows in the table below.

List of technical publications, 1 January to 30 June 2014

Title and report number

Author

Description

Purpose

2013 census

Auckland dwellings and households. Initial results from the 2013 census

RIMU

Results, analysis and commentary on data about Auckland dwellings and households from the 2013 census.

Census results reporting

 

Planning and community assessments including quality of life analysis

 

Advice for the Housing Project Office

Auckland profile. Initial results from the 2013 census

RIMU

Results, analysis and commentary on data about Auckland from the 2013 census.

Census results reporting

 

Planning and community assessments including quality of life analysis

 

Advice for the Housing Project Office

Local board profiles. Initial results from the 2013 census

RIMU

Results, analysis and commentary on data about each Auckland local board from the 2013 census.

Census results reporting

 

Informs local board plans

 

Planning and community assessments including quality of life analysis

 

The Southern Initiative profile. Initial results from the 2013 census

RIMU

Results, analysis and commentary on data about the Southern Initiative area from the 2013 census.

Census results reporting

 

Planning and community assessments including quality of life analysis

 

Air quality

2012 home heating survey results

 

TR2014/011

Stones-Havas, T

A report on the methodology and results of a survey of home heating undertaken by Auckland Council in August 2012.

 

State of the environment monitoring

 

Air quality monitoring

 

Compliance with national environmental standards

Investigations into reducing emissions from heavy duty diesel vehicles in Auckland

 

TR2014/018

Kuschel, G

Motor vehicles are a significant contributor to air pollution in Auckland, with diesel vehicles contributing to almost 81 per cent of vehicle related air pollution.

 

In 2003 the Auckland Regional Council began investigating emissions reductions options for heavy duty diesel vehicles. This report reviews the initiatives investigated from 2003 to 2010, and summarises the findings.

State of the environment monitoring

 

Air quality monitoring

 

Compliance with national environmental standards

 

Community and economics

Green jobs in Auckland – an update

 

WR2014/002

 

Tuatagaloa, P

The report updates the discussion paper Green jobs: potential in the Auckland region (Catherine Murray, 2008), using the latest results from Auckland Council’s economic futures model.

Economic Development Strategy monitoring

 

Auckland economy assessment

 

Informs the development of the Auckland Energy Resilience and Low Carbon Action Plan

Industry snapshot for Auckland: construction and engineering

 

TR2014/016

 

Wilson, R A

A report on the Auckland construction and engineering sector.

 

Economic Development Strategy monitoring

 

Auckland economy assessment

 

Advice for ATEED and the Housing Project Office

Measuring the value created by Auckland Museum’s Moana - My Ocean exhibition: a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis

 

TR2014/014

 

Allpress, J A Rohani, M Meares, C

A report on the results of a social return on investment (SROI) analysis of Auckland Museum's Moana - My Ocean exhibition.

Community collaboration

 

Evaluation of arts and culture related projects

Milford retail centre report: current and future retail

 

TR2014/017

 

Fairgray, S

The North West Planning team commissioned this report to inform the development of the Milford Local Area Plan. It is a customised report for the Milford centre drawing from the RIMU Auckland retail economic evidence base prepared in 2013 to inform the Auckland Unitary Plan retail policy direction. (See Auckland retail economic evidence base TR2013/046)

Planning advice

 

Informs the development of the Milford Local Area Plan

 

Local board advice

Valuing artists in Auckland: a report on a survey of Auckland artists 2013

 

TR2013/057

 

Aust, J

The report summarises the results of an online survey of Auckland artists, August 2013.

 

Community development

 

Auckland economy assessment

 

Informs the development of the arts and culture strategic action plan

“We all get along.” Social cohesion in three Auckland suburbs

 

TR2013/052

Meares, C Gilbertson, A

A report on a study assessing social cohesion in three Auckland suburbs -  Albany, New Lynn and Papatoetoe.

Planning and community development

 

Advice for local boards

 

Quality of life assessments

 

Liveability monitoring

 

Environmental monitoring

Assessing the carbon abatement reduction potential in Auckland’s energy resilience and low carbon action plan

 

TR2014/005

Arup

 

An update and overview of Auckland Council's energy resilience and low carbon action plan.

Auckland Plan directive

 

Climate change advice and awareness

 

Energy planning

Sources of faecal contamination at Karekare, Piha, North Piha and Te Henga lagoons: a pilot study

 

WR2014/004

Noble, A

The objective of this pilot investigation is to determine what faecal sources are contaminating the Karekare, Piha, North Piha and Te Henga lagoons.

Community health

 

Water quality

 

Identifying sources of contamination in waterways

Testing and applying the MarHADS tool in the Auckland Council region

 

TR2014/004

MacDiarmid,A

Stenton-Dozey, J

Roulston, H

A report on the Auckland trials of the marine habitat assessment decision support tool (MarHADS) conducted by NIWA in selected Auckland locations. For example, mangrove forests in the Whangateau and Tamaki estuaries.

State of the environment monitoring

 

Science collaboration and alliances

Harbours and estuaries

Marine sediment contaminant monitoring: organic contaminant data review 2003-2010

 

TR2014/001

Mills, G

A report on data about organic contaminants in marine sediments. The data was collected in the Auckland Council’s sediment contaminant monitoring programme, 2003-2010.

State of the environment monitoring

 

Advice on the consequences of urban development and its environmental effects

Waiuku Estuary: aquatic environment information review

 

TR2014/003

Mills, G

The report reviews and summarises environmental data and trends, and identifies environmental monitoring information gaps for the Waiuku Estuary.

State of the environment monitoring

 

Local ecological information for local boards

Land use

Auckland’s elite and prime land similar messages and continued trade-offs 54 years later

 

TR2013/050

 

Curran-Cournane,F

Vaughan, M

Memon, A Fredrickson, C

A report on the amount of elite and prime land that has been lost to urban development in Auckland.

Land use monitoring

 

Housing capacity assessment

 

Data for the Auckland Housing Accord

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14.     Local Boards were not consulted on the preparation of this report. It will be circulated to all Local Boards for their information. All technical reports referenced are available from Auckland Council libraries, website or direct from the Manager Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit.

Maori impact statement

15.     The Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit liaises with the Auckland Council Maori Strategy and Relations Team, Te Waka Angamua, for appropriate iwi inputs into the design and purpose of research projects and the resulting technical publications.


 

Implementation

16.     Not applicable

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Tony Edhouse - Researcher

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and Research

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 July 2014

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) 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.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

C1       Mt Albert Aquatic Centre - Governance Review and Remedial Works

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

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.

s7(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.

s7(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 report contains confidential information about another organisation's financial position and commercial activities..

s48(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.

   



[1] MS = Mt Smart, WS = Western Springs, EP = Eden Park