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, 5 November 2015

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

George Wood, CNZM

 

Deputy Chairperson

Anae Arthur Anae

 

Members

Cr Cameron Brewer

Mr Kris MacDonald

 

Mayor Len Brown, JP

Cr Calum Penrose

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Dick Quax

 

Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Penny Webster

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

Mr Glenn Wilcox

 

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

 

 

Cr Denise Krum

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Louis Dalzell

Democracy Advisor

 

29 October 2015

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8135

Email: Louis.dalzell@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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·           Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·           Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·           Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·           In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·           The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·           However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·           All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

·           Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·           Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

 

·           All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·           Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·           Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

·           Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

 

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

5.1     Fluoridation of the Onehunga Water Supply                                                    7

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          8

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

9          Extension of Regional Pest Management Plan to December 2016                          9

10        Auckland Council Submission: Building (Pools) Amendment Bill                       11

11        Manukau Harbour Update                                                                                          51

12        Reports Pending Status Update                                                                                65

13        Information Items                                                                                                         77  

14        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Apologies

 

Apologies have been received from Mayor Len Brown and Cr Christine Fletcher.

 

 

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, 8 October 2015, 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 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day 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.

 

5.1       Fluoridation of the Onehunga Water Supply

Purpose

1.       Richard and Robyn Northey wish to address the committee to request the fluoridation of the Onehunga area water supply. The water supply covers an area similar to but slightly larger than the former Onehunga Borough Council area.

Executive Summary

 

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      receive the presentation by Richard Northey and Robyn Northey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 6.2 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 one (1) day’s 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 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

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

 

 

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

05 November 2015

 

Extension of Regional Pest Management Plan to December 2016

 

File No.: CP2015/21444

 

  

Purpose

1.       To extend the expiry date of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) by 12 months to 17 December 2016.

Executive Summary

2.       The Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan gives effect to the Biosecurity Act 1993 in the region.  It provides a strategic and statutory framework for managing plant and animal pests in Auckland, including rules and compliance mechanisms.  The Plan is due to expire on 17 December 2015. 

3.       The plan is currently being reviewed as required by the Act. The committee approved the discussion paper for stage one review consultation on 8 October 2015.

4.       Keeping the existing plan operative is important to allow council to continue to manage pests in Auckland while the new plan is prepared. Under section 83(19) of the Biosecurity Reform Act 2012, council can extend the expiry date of its plan by up to 12 months.  Council has previously extended its plan in this way. 

5.       The Committee is requested to extend the plan for another 12 months to 17 December 2016. In extending the expiry date, council must be satisfied that there is no significant effect on any person’s rights or obligations (section 100G(4) of the Biosecurity Act).  Extending the date of the RPMP does not change any of its provisions and therefore does not alter or affect any person’s rights or obligations under the plan.

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      extend the expiry date of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan by 12 months from 17 December 2015, to 17 December 2016.

Comments

Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan

6.       The current Auckland RPMP is a legacy plan prepared by the former Auckland Regional Council under the Biosecurity Act 1993.  The purpose of the RPMP is to “provide a strategic and statutory framework for efficient and effective management of plant and animal pests in the Auckland region”.  The RPMP identifies over 200 pest plant species and 39 animal pests and sets out a range of responses for these pests, including rules prohibiting distribution or release of specified pests and requirements for landowners to control some species on their land.

7.       The plan is being reviewed both to update it and to incorporate new legal requirements such as the National Policy Direction on Pest Management (NPD), which defines the type of pest management programmes that plans can contain. Council has 16 months (until February 2017) to review its plan and formally propose a new one. Once a new plan is proposed the current plan remains in force until the proposed new plan becomes operative.

8.       The RPMP was originally due to expire in 2012.  Council has extended it on three previous occasions (to December 2013, December 2014 and December 2015 respectively) as the review was delayed to await the NPD.  Extending the expiry date has enabled council to avoid producing a proposed RPMP only to have to commence another review once the NPD came into effect.  The NPD has now been gazetted.

9.       Keeping the current plan operative provides for the effective management of pests in Auckland and prevents actions by individuals that could place economic, ecological, and Māori values at risk from the adverse effects of pests.

Progress with review

10.     The Regulatory and Policy Committee approved a discussion document for consultation on 8 October 2015. The proposed plan should be ready for council approval in the second half of 2016. A consultation period and hearings will follow, with the new plan timed to become operative in early 2017.

Effect on rights or obligations

11.     In extending the RPMP, council must be satisfied that there is no significant effect on any person’s rights or obligations. Extending the expiry date of the plan does not change any of its provisions and therefore does not alter or affect any person’s rights or obligations under the plan.

12.     This approach is consistent with the overall intent of section 18 of the Biosecurity Reform Act which creates interim processes for the review and extension of regional pest management plans.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13.     The RPMP applies at a local as well as a regional scale. Many local boards fund pest control programmes. Local board views were sought as part of the initial review process through workshops and meetings with environment portfolio holders.  The discussion document will be placed on local board agendas. The extension provides for ongoing pest management while consultation occurs.

Māori impact statement

14.     Pursuant to the Biosecurity Act, one of the primary purposes of pest management plans is to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of pests on the relationship between Māori and their culture, traditions, ancestral lands, waters, sites, wahi tapu and taonga.  The Biosecurity Act requires council to be satisfied in reviewing the Auckland RPMP that consultation with affected tangata whenua has occurred and impacts on Maori considered. Initial consultation with Maori has occurred through a series of individual and combined hui. The recommended extension allows further engagement and consultation with Māori as part of the Auckland RPMP review process.

Implementation

15.     The recommended extension of the Auckland RPMP expiry date provides for the continued implementation of the current RPMP.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Helen  Sharpe - Biodiversity Specialist

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

Auckland Council Submission: Building (Pools) Amendment Bill

 

File No.: CP2015/22416

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek approval from the Regional Strategy & Policy Committee (Committee) of the draft Auckland Council submission on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill.

Executive Summary

2.       Parliament’s Local Government and Environment Committee recently invited submissions on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill (Bill).  The Bill will repeal the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (FOSPA) and incorporate new pool safety measures into the Building Act 2004.  A copy of the Bill is attached to this report as Attachment A.

3.       The Auckland Council’s (Council) Building Control department is supportive of the amendments proposed by the Bill, which will alter the existing swimming pool safety regime, but has identified several issues with the Bill that it considers should be revisited by the Local Government and Environment Committee.

4.       A draft submission on the Bill has been prepared by Council’s Building Control department, in conjunction with Legal Services.  A copy of the draft submission is attached to this report as Attachment B.

5.       Feedback on the draft submission was sought from local boards on 13 October 2015.  A summary of the Local Board feedback received has been included in the body of this report in the ‘Local Board views and implications’ section.

6.       Council staff are now seeking approval from the Regional Strategy & Policy Committee in relation to the content of the draft submission so that it can be lodged with the Secretariat of Parliament’s Local Government and Environment Committee.

 

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approve the draft Auckland Council submission on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill so that it can be filed with Parliament’s Local Government and Environment Select Committee.

b)      delegate to the Chair of the committee the approval of any minor revisions to the Auckland Council Submission: Building (Pools) Amendment Bill, resulting from changes discussed at the meeting.

c)      approve that the Chair of the committee and a local board representative attend the select committee if needed, along with staff.

 

Comments

Background

7.       The Bill aims to “reduce the compliance burden currently imposed on pool owners and territorial authorities in relation to residential pools while maintaining child safety”.

8.       In order to achieve this aim the Bill proposes a number of amendments to the Building Act 2004, which will incorporate swimming pool safety provisions into a new Subpart 7A.  The purpose of new Subpart 7A is “to prevent unsupervised access to residential pools by young children”.  Following its enactment, the Bill will repeal the FOSPA starting from 1 January 2017.

9.       The Council’s Building Control department generally support the amendments proposed by the Bill, the incorporation of swimming pool safety provisions into the Building Act 2004 (new Subpart 7A), and the repeal of FOSPA.

10.     Some of the more significant changes proposed by the Bill are set out in paragraph 9 of a briefing note that was prepared and provided to local boards on 13 October 2015.  A copy of that briefing note is attached to this report as Attachment C.

11.     The draft submission prepared by Council staff (and which incorporates feedback from Local Boards) does however identify several issues.  It is recommended that these issues are raised with Parliament’s Local Government and Environment Select Committee as part of Council’s submission on the Bill.  The key issues identified and recorded in the draft submission relate to:

a.         Issues with some of the definitions used in the Bill:

i.   Staff believe there would be benefit in the committee reviewing a number of the definitions used in the Bill, in order to provide greater clarity for local authorities, pool owners and other users of the Act.

ii.  The key concerns are with the definitions of immediate pool area, spa pool, and hot tub and the definition of anniversary date.

b.       Potential difficulties with the periodic inspections of residential pools. The council has a number of concerns with the periodic inspection created by the bill, including the fact that:

i.   The Bill places mandatory obligation on every territorial authority to inspect “every residential pool within its jurisdiction, other than a spa pool, hot tub, or portable pool…once every 5 years, within 3 months before or after the pool’s anniversary date”.

ii.  Auckland Council’s current experience, after undertaking 3-yearly inspections of residential pools over the past five (5) years, is that approximately 65% of all pools do not comply as first instance with FOSPA requirements.

iii.  Because of the high levels of non-compliance with FOSPA discovered by the Council across the past five (5) years, staff believe that the proposed 5-yearly inspection timeframe should be replaced with a shorter timeframe.

12.     In terms of the Bill’s impact on pool owners, the existing swimming pool fencing requirements (contained in FOSPA but which will be incorporated into the Building Act 2004) will remain largely unchanged.  There may be an impact in relation to the new requirement for the Council to inspect pools every 5 years, and the ability of the Council to issue infringement notices (or take enforcement action) where there is non-compliance, but those impacts are supported in light of the Bill’s purpose and encouragement of voluntary compliance.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

13.     A copy of the draft submission (Attachment B) and a short briefing note (Attachment C) were circulated to the Council’s local boards on 13 October 2015.  The briefing note outlined the amendments proposed by the Bill and sought feedback/input from a Local Board perspective.

 

 

 

 

14.     At present the Council’s local boards have the delegated authority to determine swimming pool fence exemption applications (by way of Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committees).  As a result of the proposed amendments, and repeal of FOSPA, there will no longer be any ability to apply for exemptions. The implication of this is that local boards will no longer need to maintain Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committees.  This change will result in significant savings for the Council, in terms of both Council expense and elected member time.  The Council’s local boards are supportive of this change.

15.     As at 21 October 2015, feedback/input had been received from the following local boards (with a summary of their respective positions recorded below):

a.         Albert-Eden Local Board

i.        The Albert-Eden Local Board is in general support of the draft submission and has prepared written feedback for the Committee to consider.  A copy of the Albert-Eden Local Board feedback is attached as Attachment D.

b.         Hibiscus and Bays Local board

i.        The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board generally supports the Bill and the draft submission and has prepared written feedback for the Committee to consider.  A copy of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board feedback is attached as Attachment E.

ii.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board expressed concern at the 5-yearly inspection regime and indicated that a 3-yearly inspection cycle would be preferred.  This position is consistent with that incorporated into the Council’s draft submission.

c.         Franklin Local Board

i.        The Franklin Local Board has advised that it has no issue with the changes proposed by the Bill.

d.         Howick Local Board

i.        The Howick Local Board generally supports the content of the draft submission.  The concerns held by the Howick Local Board are consistent with the Council’s draft submission in that a more frequent inspection regime should be imposed that includes hot tubs and spa pools.

e.         Rodney Local Board

i.        The Rodney Local Board generally supports the Bill as proposed content of the draft submission.  A copy of the Rodney Local Board feedback is attached as Attachment F.

Māori impact statement

16.     The amendments proposed by the Bill are considered to impact on Māori as with the public at large and will continue to prevent unnecessary and avoidable child drownings.

17.     In communicating the legislative changes to pool owners in Auckland, the Council will be preparing a guidance document (and associated media releases) which will be made available on the Council website and communicated to the public at large, including to Māori.

Implementation

18.     Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Building (Pools) Amendment Bill

15

bView

Auckland Council darft submission

31

cView

briefing note to local boards

39

dView

Albert-Eden Local Board Feedback

43

eView

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Feedback

45

fView

Rodney Local Board Feedback

47

     

Signatories

Authors

Wolfgang Nethe - Team Leader, Compliance& Enforcement

Authorisers

Tim Weight – Manager Inspections, Building Control

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 
















Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 




Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 



Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 



Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 




Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

Manukau Harbour Update

 

File No.: CP2015/20987

 

  

Purpose

1.       To update the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on progress against Long-term Plan resolutions for the Manukau Harbour.

Executive Summary

2.       As part of its decision-making on the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025, the Governing Body requested staff to ‘identify the current, whole-of-council integrated programme of work related to the Manukau Harbour’, along with recommendations for the future programme of work, including ‘the option of hydrodynamic modelling’ (resolution GB/2015/31).

3.       This report presents an update on work to date to progress these resolutions, including the current operational and strategic work programmes related to the Manukau Harbour (Attachment A) and proposed steps to explore hydrodynamic modelling for the Manukau Harbour in the current financial year.

4.       Overall the planning, scoping and feasibility work is on track and is being progressed within existing council work programmes. Future work based on the proposed scoping study will likely require additional budget consideration and/or prioritisation. Any options developed will be discussed with both the Manukau Harbour Forum and Regional Strategy and Policy Committee ahead of decision-making and include consultation with mana whenua.

 

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      endorse the current Manukau Harbour work programme.

b)      note that regional funding has been committed to fund and complete a scoping and feasibility study for hydrodynamic modelling in the Manukau Harbour this financial year.

c)      note that options for the potential implementation of hydrodynamic modelling will be presented following the completion of the scoping study, and a review of conclusions from that study.

 

 

Comments

5.       As part of the Long-term Plan consultation process, a number of groups advocated for increased investment and attention to be given to the Manukau Harbour. Requests were wide-ranging and included requests from the local boards, which are members of the Manukau Harbour Forum, for a hydrodynamic model of the harbour, a significant submission from the Manukau Harbour Restoration Society, mana whenua aspirations for a greater investment in the harbour and general commentary around more attention and investment to be given to the Manukau Harbour.

 

 

 

 

6.       In consideration of the adoption of the Long-term Plan, the Governing Body requested that staff ‘identify the current, whole-of-council integrated programme of work related to the Manukau Harbour’, along with recommendations for the future programme of work, including ‘the option of hydrodynamic modelling’ as per the resolutions copied below:

Item 13-3(d) and (e) Environmental Management & Regulation

d) staff be directed to undertake the following, with the Manukau Harbour Forum:

i.        identify the current, whole-of-council integrated programme of work related to the Manukau Harbour;

ii.       identify the scope and cost of hydrodynamic modelling of the Manukau Harbour;

iii.      present options and recommendations for the future programme of work in the Manukau Harbour, including the option of hydrodynamic modelling of the harbour;

iv.      work with and discuss this work programme with the Manukau Harbour Forum prior to reporting back with recommendations to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee;

v.       that $400,000 be set aside (within existing budgets) to undertake hydrodynamic modelling within the first three years of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, subject to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee decisions in (iv) above, noting that unless additional money is provided, reprioritisation of projects will need to occur.

vi.      staff be directed to report back to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on the outcome of the work undertaken in (d) above with a view to approving any additional funding that may be required as part of the Annual Plan 2016/2017.

7.       Since May 2015 staff have been working on progressing these resolutions under three main themes (current work programme, future work programme and hydrodynamic modelling) and progress to date is as described in the following paragraphs.

Work Programme

8.       The governing body requested the ‘whole-of-Council integrated programme of work related to the Manukau be identified. The nine Manukau Harbour Forum member boards recently adopted a Manukau Harbour Forum Vision that ‘The Manukau Harbour is recognised and valued as a significant cultural, ecological social and economic treasure/taonga.’

9.       This vision has provided a framework for categorisation and development of a work programme for the Manukau Harbour. Operational and strategic policy projects of relevance to the Manukau have been noted against the four outcome areas (cultural, economic, ecological and social) included in the vision statement. This live document has identified over 49 council-funded programmes of work and projects as detailed in Attachment A to this report.

10.     The governing body resolution to identify projects ‘relevant’ to the Manukau Harbour allowed for the development of a wide-ranging work programme, including both operational and strategic policy projects. It is important to note that this work programme is not a strategic programme of work for the Harbour, but rather a compilation of existing activity relevant to the harbour.

11.     The strategic programme of work relevant to the Manukau includes an upcoming state and trends report on the Manukau Harbour and its catchments, drawing on information collected as part of the regional state of the environment monitoring programme. A review is also being undertaken of the 1990 Manukau Harbour Action Plan to identify what actions from that plan have been completed, or incorporated into existing departmental work programmes.

12.     Operational projects include restoration activity in local parks and reserves neighbouring the Manukau, as well as along streams that feed into the Manukau. The work programme also includes activity within the wider harbour catchment such as water quality monitoring.

13.     The work programme includes projects funded at a regional level and through local boards’ locally driven initiatives (LDI) budgets. It also references work programmes managed by Council Controlled Organisations. In summary, these are planned in several activity areas noted under the following headings:

·          Strategy and Policy;

·          Water Quality;

·          Ecological Restoration;

·          Amenity;

·          Monitoring, 

·          Renewals, and

·          Infrastructure.

Future Work Programme

14.     The current work programme identifies a range of projects supporting cultural, economic, ecological and social outcomes. In developing their annual work programmes, it is recommended that Forum member boards continue to have regard to projects that impact on the Manukau Harbour.

15.     There is currently no up to date plan for the Manukau Harbour. The last action plan for the Manukau Harbour was released in 1990 and was developed over several years, with extensive research programmes undertaken to inform the action plan. Early assessments of this document have determined that it is focused on discharges, with less commentary on reducing sediment entering the Manukau. The review of the 1990 Action Plan may illustrate the need for an updated plan or other initiatives to be developed for the Manukau Harbour.

16.     An updated plan could provide for the integrated programme of work requested by the governing body and referred to in the Forum’s vision and strategy. This could better align investment and make use of partnerships with entities outside of the council family.

17.     At present, the Council’s plan for implementing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) was endorsed by the ‘Wai Ora Wai Maori’ Executive Steering Group on 6 October 2015[1]. The approach will be reported to the Regional Policy and Strategy Committee by December 2015.  The NPSFM requires community values for waterways to be identified (which are then translated from objectives into water quality and quantity limits and targets). Part of this assessment requires consideration of the marine receiving environment, as well as an understanding of the contaminant sources. The Manukau Harbour is nominally proposed to be a “Freshwater Management Unit” (FMU) for the purposes of the NPSFM and should be considered a possible tool for integrated planning and action to address the water quality issues in the Manukau. 

18.     Addressing environmental pressures impacting the Manukau will take significant financial and political commitment. To deliver the desired outcomes for the Manukau Harbour, efficient use of existing budgets is paramount. Having a clear solution pathway to improve the health of the harbour to guide financial investment would be highly beneficial.

19.     At this stage, pending the outcome of any strategic planning and NPSFM activity it is recommended that the future programme of work for the Manukau remain similar to that illustrated in Attachment A, with the addition of a hydrodynamic modelling scoping study.

 

 

Hydrodynamic Modelling

20.     Hydrodynamic modelling can provide predictions in water levels, tidal currents and waves across the harbour and model the complex movement of sediment and contaminants from their source to a deposition area within the harbour.

21.     The last comprehensive hydrodynamic model for the entire Manukau Harbour was undertaken in 1987, and technology and techniques have vastly improved since then.  Site specific hydrodynamic modelling studies have been undertaken in the south eastern Manukau Harbour or Pahurehure Inlet by NIWA in 2008 (TR 2008/49 to TR 2008/59), the northern side of the Manukau Harbour by the University of Auckland in 2007, and by WaterCare for the treatment plant discharges at Puketutu Island and Clarks Beach in 2008 and 2013 respectively. 

22.     A hydrodynamic model with input data on sediment and other contaminants has the potential to assist the design and delivery of targeted interventions to reduce sediment and contamination in the harbour. The hydrodynamic model could support this work through identification of which catchments are contributing the largest sediment loads into waterways, which could then inform which catchments need to be targeted for greatest sediment control.

23.     The model could also predict the rate of sediment deposition (and erosion) of the harbour floor. This has the potential to inform management of the Manukau Harbour and can assist in the NPSFM process, as attributes for sedimentation are being developed by the Ministry for the Environment.

24.     It is important to consider the model as a tool that can inform where sediment is derived from and its impact on the environment. However, the model will need to be embedded in a strategic framework of environmental action for the Manukau Harbour to inform on-the-ground action to deliver the aspirations of Iwi and stakeholders.

25.     A hydrodynamic model for the harbour is a complex and likely a multi-staged undertaking. It is recommended that a comprehensive scoping study is undertaken to determine what specifically a hydrodynamic model of the Manukau will deliver, alongside verification of the potential costs and project staging.  Specifically the scoping study will identify:

·    the currently available datasets

·    gaps in available data

·    further data requirements

·    the availability; relevance and quality of data, and

·    staging, costs, effectiveness and outcomes sought from the potential model.

26.     Given the investment, and potential re-prioritisation that this model may entail, this scoping study is a critical and informative prerequisite to the development of a hydrodynamic model for the Manukau Harbour. This scoping study will be completed prior to any further work. It will identify funding sources for feasible modelling work.

27.     The scoping study, totaling $20,000, will be supported by equal funding contributions from the Stormwater, Environmental Services, Research and Evaluations (RIMU), and Natural Environment and Strategy units within the 2015/16 financial year.

28.     Once this scoping study has been completed it will be further discussed with the Manukau Harbour Forum and mana whenua to inform consideration of options for funding the wider model, investment in the Manukau and wider strategic planning for the harbour before decision-making by the council.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

29.     This report has been specifically discussed and developed with input from the Manukau Harbour Forum. The Manukau Harbour Forum (MHF) is a sub-regional multi-board group made up of the nine boards who border the Manukau Harbour. It has developed and funded a three-year work plan to give effect to the objectives of the MHF. The four objectives of the MHF are:

·        Raise the profile of the Manukau Harbour as a significant cultural, ecological and economic asset

·        Have a robust knowledge base to support integrated management

·        Champion and advocate for the development and implementation of planning frameworks and projects to support integrated management of the Manukau Harbour

·        Ensure there are sufficient resources, including officer input and budget, to support the Forum to deliver on the adopted Manukau Harbour Forum vision.

30.     All local boards bordering the Manukau are committed to supporting the objectives of the Manukau Harbour Forum through both direct funding of the Forum work programme and through water and land quality work which impact on the waterways and harbour. These activities are captured in the work programme attached to this report as Attachment A.

31.     Through the Long-term Plan local boards were clear in their commentary on the Manukau, with support across a number of boards for planning and action to improve water quality in the Manukau Harbour. Specifically Franklin, Papakura, Manurewa, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Waitākere Ranges and Puketāpapa Local Boards advocated for spatial planning and action for improving water quality in the Manukau Harbour, with hydrodynamic modelling being seen as key to informing action. In addition, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board detailed a desire to focus on improving the health of fresh water streams to aid the clean-up of the Manukau Harbour.

32.     The actions proposed in this report have been discussed with the Manukau Harbour Forum in both workshops and business meetings. A similar report to this one was presented to the forum on 12 October 2015. The proposal to scope the hydrodynamic model was well supported with the Forum noting their unanimous position as per the following resolutions: 

Resolution number MHFJC/2015/28

MOVED by Deputy Chairperson S Toms, seconded by Member CM Elliott:

That the Manukau Harbour Forum:

a)      Notes the current projects of relevance to the Manukau Harbour.

b)      Notes that regional funding has been committed to fund a scoping and feasibility study for hydrodynamic modelling in the whole of Manukau Harbour specific to sediments and contaminants to be completed this financial year with a view to completing a hydrodynamic model on the harbour as per d) v) of  resolution GB/2015/31.

c)      Notes that options for the implementation of hydrodynamic modelling will be presented following the completion of the scoping study, and a review of conclusions from that study.

33.     Further to this meeting the Forum have detailed their position and support for the proposal in the attached letter from the Chair of the Manukau Harbour Forum, Jill Naysmith (Attachment B)

34.     In summary the preference of the Forum is for hydrodynamic modelling to take place either concurrently with the development of a strategic plan, or to be undertaken independently of a plan with a view that the model could be a key precursor to a marine spatial plan.

Māori impact statement

35.     The Manukau Harbour and its streams represent significant cultural value to a number of iwi and hapu and to Aucklanders as a whole. The connection with the Manukau Harbour is a reflection of the important role that this special place plays in Auckland’s history and community. All receiving waters have cultural significance to local iwi due to the mauri (life force) of the water, as well as historical significance.

36.     Mana whenua regard the Manukau Harbour as a significant taonga (treasure). It is also seen as a pataka kai or food bowl for the whanau, hapu, iwi and wider community that call its shoreline and surrounding environs home. Mana whenua have a natural role as kaitiaki or guardians of the harbour and the wider environment.

37.     In 1982 Nganeko Minhinnick (now Dame Kahurangi Nganeko Minhinnick) and Te Puaha ki Manukau brought claims to the Waitangi Tribunal relating to the deterioration of the Manukau Harbour and its environs. The Waitangi Tribunal's Manukau Report of 1985 found that the Crown had failed to recognise Tiriti ō Waitangi rights to land and traditional seafood resources and had not provided the protection promised.

38.     This report also stated that an affirmative action plan was needed to clean up the harbour. It laid a foundation to forge new relationships between Māori living near the harbour, local government bodies, businesses and the wider community.

39.     Consultation and engagement with Māori is undertaken on specific projects within the work programme described in the attached where required. Some projects are specifically co-delivered with mana whenua such as the Industry Pollution Prevention programme in Wiri with Ngati Tamaoho, for example.

40.     In addition, mana whenua noted support for work to improve water quality in the Manukau as part of their submissions on the Long-term Plan. Mana whenua specifically commented on the need to improve water quality in the Manukau and described a desire to achieve co-governance of specific environmental resources such as the Manukau Harbour

41.     Any future programme of work for the Manukau, including the development of a strategic plan, will have regard to pending Tiriti ō Waitangi discussions with Manukau Harbour mana whenua.

42.     There is potential for Māori to be involved in the future co-management of the harbour to facilitate kaitiakitanga of the harbour and deliver iwi aspirations. Potential social and cultural wellbeing outcomes may also be achieved through identifying employment and capacity building opportunities in future work programmes.

43.     The Manukau Harbour Forum has committed to meeting with mana whenua up to three times per year, with a hui planned to occur before the end of the calendar year. This will provide an opportunity to discuss this work programme and the proposed hydrodynamic modelling with iwi at that hui.

Implementation

44.     Work to date has been delivered from within existing council work programmes and resources. As detailed in the hydrodynamic modelling section, the scoping study will be completed at a cost of $20,000, prior to any further work, to identify funding sources for this modelling work. The scoping study will be jointly funded through contributions from the Stormwater, Environmental Services, Research and Evaluations (RIMU), and Natural Environment Strategy units.

45.     The outcomes of the scoping study will be discussed with the Forum and mana whenua prior to the development of options for decision-making and funding for any hydrodynamic modelling. It is anticipated that these options would then be presented to the appropriate committee of council sometime from May 2016.

46.     No new funding is available to support hydrodynamic modelling. This means any future options for funding will need to provide recommendations on the re-prioritisation of council work programmes to identify funding for the modelling work.

47.        Similarly, no specific funding is available for the development of a new strategic plan. However staff are currently reviewing the outcomes of the 1990 action plan and are committed to working with the Manukau Harbour Forum on the development of a strategic approach.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Manukau Harbour Programme of Work 2015/16

59

bView

Letter from Chair Manukau Harbour Forum to Chair Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

63

     

Signatories

Authors

Emma Joyce - Relationship Advisor

Dr Jarrod Walker, Senior Scientist, Research & Evaluation

Authorisers

Barry Potter, Director, Infrastructure & Environmental Services

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 



Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 



Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

Reports Pending Status Update

 

File No.: CP2015/22213

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To update the committee on the status of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolutions from October 2015, requiring follow-up reports.

Executive Summary

2.       This report is a regular information-only report that provides committee members with greater visibility of committee resolutions requiring follow-up reports (Attachment A). It updates the committee on the status of such resolutions. It covers committee resolutions from October 2015 and will be updated for every regular meeting.

3.       This report covers open resolutions only.

4.       The committee’s Forward Work Programme 2015/2016, is also attached for information (Attachment B).

 

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      receive the reports pending status update.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Reports Pending Status Update - 5 November 2015

67

bView

Forward work programme to August 2016

69

     

Signatories

Authors

Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

PDF Creator



Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

PDF Creator



Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 November 2015

 

Information Items

 

File No.: CP2015/21465

 

  

Purpose

1.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that have been distributed to committee members since 8 October 2015.

Executive Summary

2.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no decisions are required.

3.       The following memos were circulated:

·     12 October 2015 : Update on demographic advisory panels’ work programmes

·     28 October 2015 : Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2014/2015 – Progress against actions attachment

4.       The following information only reports are attached:

·     Strategy and Policy Forward Programme Update

·     Auckland Natural Hazards Risk Management Action Plan Update

5.       These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

at the top of the page, select meeting “Regional Strategy and Policy Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘View’;

Under ‘Attachments’, select either HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’

6.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about these items referred to in this summary.  Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      receive the summary of information memos since 8 October 2015.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Update on demographic advisory panels’ work programmes (Under Separate Cover)

 

bView

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2014/2015 – Progress against actions attachment (Under Separate Cover)

 

cView

Strategy and Policy Forward Programme Update (Under Separate Cover)

 

dView

Auckland Natural Hazards Risk Management Action Plan Update (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

     

    



[1] The internal name for the NPSFM project within the Auckland region is Wai Ora Wai Maori.