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, 7 July 2016

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

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

 

1 July 2016

 

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

07 July 2016

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          7

4.1     Glyphosate on Auckland's roads and parks petition                                      7  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

5.1     Hana Blackmore - use of chemicals in Auckland's public areas                    8

5.2     Tricia Cheel, Friends of Sherwood                                                                    8

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          8

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                9

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          9

9          Political working party and contingent delegated authority for approval of Auckland Council’s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2)    11

10        Position on Local Government New Zealand remit to advocate for increased funding of community policing and policing Levels                                                                  13

11        Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme review                   19

12        Reserve revocation and disposal recommendation report                                    31

13        Update on the implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach       37

14        Reports Pending Status Update                                                                                53

15        Information Items                                                                                                         57  

16        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

17        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                                 59

C1       Land acquisition for stormwater purposes Tāmaki College                                  59  

 


1          Apologies

 

An apology from Cr LA Cooper has 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, 2 June 2016, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Petitions

 

4.1       Glyphosate on Auckland's roads and parks petition

Purpose

1.       Georgina Blackmore will be in attendance to present a petition regarding the use of glyphosate on Auckland’s roads and parks and table an open letter to Auckland Council.

Prayer of the Petition

2.       We are calling on Auckland Mayor Len Brown and the Chairman of Auckland Transport, Dr Lester Levy, to immediately stop the use of the toxic herbicide glyphosate (commonly known as Roundup) which has recently been re-classified by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as a Class 2A probable human carcinogen.

3.       As of Wednesday 29 June 2016, 3,696 signatures accompany the petition.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      receive the petition from Georgina Blackmore on the use of glyphosate on Auckland’s roads and parks.

 

 

 

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       Hana Blackmore - use of chemicals in Auckland's public areas

Purpose

1.       Hana Blackmore wishes to address the committee.

Executive summary

2.       Hana Blackmore will speak on the topic of policy, transparency and accountability in decision-making around the use of chemicals in Auckland’s public areas.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      receive the presentation and thank Hana Blackmore for her attendance.

 

 

 

5.2       Tricia Cheel, Friends of Sherwood

Purpose

1.       Tricia Cheel, Co-ordinator for Friends of Sherwood, wishes to address the committee.

Executive summary

2.       Tricia Cheel will present her views on Auckland Council’s Weed Management Policy.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      receive the presentation and thank Tricia Cheel, Co-ordinator for Friends of Sherwood, for her attendance.

 

 

 

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

07 July 2016

 

Political working party and contingent delegated authority for approval of Auckland Council’s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2)

 

File No.: CP2016/13955

 

  

Purpose

1.       To appoint a political working party to work with staff to provide direction on the development of Auckland Council’s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2).

2.       To also delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee to approve the submission should it be required by 28 July 2016.

Executive summary

3.       The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2) (also known as the Better Local Services Bill) has been referred to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee. Submissions to the Bill close on 28 July 2016.

4.       A Regional Strategy and Policy Committee workshop on the Bill will be held at 1.30 pm on 7 July 2016 following the Committee meeting. The workshop will discuss the Bill generally as well as implications for Auckland Council and the Auckland region.

5.       This report seeks the appointment of a political working group to provide direction to staff on the development of Auckland Council’s submission to the Bill.

6.       The draft submission would ordinarily be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for approval at its meeting on 4 August 2016. However, this date is after the close of submissions on 28 July 2016.  An extension for receiving Auckland Council’s submission has been sought from the Select Committee but it is not certain when the outcome of our request will be known or whether the extension will be granted.

7.       In the event that the extension is not granted by the Select Committee, the report also seeks delegations to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee to approve Auckland Council’s submission on or before 28 July 2016. The delegation would only be exercised if the Select Committee does not grant an extension for Auckland Council’s submission. If an extension is granted, Auckland Council’s draft submission will be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for approval on 4 August 2016.

8.       Input and comment from local boards, mana whenua, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board received through the development of Auckland Council’s submission on the Bill will be considered by the political working party. Input received before 27 July 2016 will be attached to the submission where requested.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      note that the submission period for the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2) closes on 28 July 2016 and council has requested an extension to that submission period.

b)      appoint a political working party to provide direction to staff on the development of Auckland Council’s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2).

 

c)      delegate authority to approve Auckland Council’s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2) by 28 July 2016 to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the committee, to be exercised only in the event that the Local Government and Environment Select Committee does not grant an extension of time for Auckland Council’s submission.

d)      note that Auckland Council’s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2) will be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Author

Wayne Brown - Lead Strategic Advisor Strategic Scanning

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 

Position on Local Government New Zealand remit to advocate for increased funding of community policing and policing levels

 

File No.: CP2016/12560

 

  

Purpose

1.       This report seeks approval of a Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) remit to advocate for increased Government funding of community policing and increased policing levels.

Executive summary

2.       Community safety and policing is a key area of focus for many local authorities. Accordingly, LGNZ is seeking a remit from its members, at the Annual General Meeting on 24 July 2016, to advocate for more Government funding of community policing and increased policing levels.

3.       It is recommended that Auckland Council vote in support of the LGNZ remit. This is argued on the basis of no increased Government investment in community policing and police numbers. This is a particular problem for Auckland because of its significant and ongoing population growth and the positive correlation between population size and the need for police officers.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      agree that Auckland Council vote in support of a remit for Local Government New Zealand to advocate for increased Government funding of community policing and increased policing levels.

 

Comments

Background

4.       Concerns have been raised about Government funding of the New Zealand Police (‘Police’), which has resulted in static sworn police staffing levels and is purportedly having a detrimental impact on community safety. Laurence Yule, Mayor of Hastings and Chair of LGNZ, and Grant Nicholls, Deputy Commissioner District Operations (Acting) of the Police, recently debated this issue in the media.

5.       LGNZ is seeking a remit from its members, at the Annual General Meeting on 24 July 2016, to advocate for more Government funding of community policing and increased policing levels. The draft text of the proposed LGNZ resolution is as follows:

“That LGNZ advocate to Government for it to provide increased resourcing to the Police to ensure adequate police staffing and coverage can be provided to New Zealand communities, and that Police commanders are not forced to compromise community policing services due to budget constraints.”

6.       Community safety and policing levels was also raised at a recent ‘LGNZ Zone One’ meeting where local authorities noted increasing pressure to fund local safety initiatives such as security patrols or closed-circuit television across New Zealand. Councillor Penny Webster represented Auckland Council at the Zone One meeting.

7.       On 13 June 2016, Councillor George Wood, in his capacity as Chair of the Regional Policy and Strategy Committee, requested the development of policy advice to allow Auckland Council to adopt a formal position on the LGNZ remit.

8.       Auckland Council is committed to improving community safety and residents’ perceptions of safety. There are mixed results against targets outlined in the Auckland Plan. While total offences in the Auckland region have dropped significantly, public perceptions of safety have decreased. These perceptions are most pronounced in central city areas where only 42 per cent feel safe after dark (a small increase from 38 per cent in 2012).

Table 1: Progress against Auckland Plan outcomes

Target

Progress

Reduce the rate of total criminal offences per 10,000 population from 939 in 2010 to 800 in 2040

On-target: In the year ended December 2014, the rate was 755

Increase residents’ perceptions of safety in their neighbourhoods from 68% in 2010 to 80% by 2030

Off-target: Public perceptions of safety have decreased since 2010

While a high proportion of Auckland respondents reported feeling ‘very safe' or ‘fairly safe' in their own home after dark (87%) in 2014, this proportion dropped to 42 per cent when considering their safety in the city centre after dark, and 55 per cent when thinking about walking alone in their neighbourhood

Source: Wilson, R., Reid, A and Bishop, C (2015). Auckland Plan targets: monitoring report 2015.

Auckland Council technical report, TR2015/030

9.       Auckland is ranked ninth out of 230 cities worldwide for personal safety according to the Mercer 2016 Quality of Living rankings.

LGNZ Remit

10.     It is recommended that Auckland Council vote in support of a LGNZ remit to advocate for increased Government funding of community policing and increased policing levels.

11.     There is value in a united approach to this issue, rather than individual local authorities actively lobbying for increased police numbers within their jurisdictions. The downside to this approach is that Auckland’s case for increased investment will need to be balanced against demands from other local authorities.

12.     Approximately 18 other local authorities have signalled support for the remit.

Evidence Base

13.     A range of data underpins the recommendation that Auckland Council supports the extension of the LGNZ remit.

No increased Government investment in community policing or increasing police numbers

14.     According to Parliamentary debates the number of General Duty Constables or authorised officers has decreased by 18 per cent since 2009.[1] The Police Association has also argued that reductions in non-constabulary staff have placed additional workload pressures on sworn officers.

15.     There is a positive correlation between population size and the need for police officers.[2] Frontline staff in particular play a central role in ensuring community safety.

16.     In 2014/15 there were 8,907 sworn or authorised officers in New Zealand. This equates to one sworn officer for approximately 515 people. The ratio of police to population is low in comparison to other jurisdictions.

·   In 2014, the ratio in Australia was around 1:340. Further, in Queensland, which has a similar population size and urban/rural split to New Zealand, the ratio was around 1:333.[3]

·   In 2014, the ratio in England and Wales was 1:431.

17.     While Police received additional funding of $299.2 million as part of Budget 2016, no additional funding was allocated to community policing or increasing police numbers. Government investment was allocated as follows:

·   $279.9 million for pay increases

·   $8.2 million for the development and operating costs of the child protection register

·   $6.4 million to allow compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009

·   $4.7 million to cover the first two years of operating costs for the Justice and Emergency Services Precinct in Christchurch.

18.     It is reasonable to expect that Government will adequately fund the Police to effectively perform core functions and that the number of frontline staff will keep relative pace with population growth. However, Police would argue that per capita ratios are a simple metric which does not account for efficiencies or productivity gains through the use of information and communications technology.

Investment across the three Auckland Police Districts

19.     Models for deployment of police vary across the world. In addition to population, the factors that drive the level and composition of police staff include:

·   crime rates

·   geography and operational environment

·   quality and efficiency of the existing force

·   mix of skills required to respond to the environment (for example, sufficient staff with IT skills to tackle cyber-crime)

·   community, political and leadership expectations about the level and quality of services.

20.     Auckland Council would be justified in advocating for increased police resourcing across several of these criteria. For example, the Auckland region is currently experiencing exponential population growth and the crime rates in the Auckland and Counties Manukau Police Districts are higher than the national average. Fraud and financial crime rates are particularly high in the Auckland Police District, which requires specialist competence. Further, community performance expectations, including about response times and resolutions rates, are not being met.

21.     Government investment in law and order, which includes Police, is a useful proxy measure. According to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (2013) per capita law and order investment in Auckland is lower than the national average. The most significant difference is in the level of investment in operating expenditure.

Table 2: Crown law and order expenditure in Auckland versus the New Zealand average

Expenditure Type

Where

$ Million

% Share

$ Per capita

Capital expenditure

Auckland

61

5%

77

New Zealand

256

n/a

58

Operating Expenditure

Auckland

1,164

30%

772

New Zealand

3,845

n/a

867

Total

Auckland

1,225

35%

849

New Zealand

4,101

n/a

925

Source: Stephenson, J., (2013). Regional government expenditure: Estimates of core crown spending by region

NZIER report to MBIE and Treasury

22.     However, this may need to be balanced against recent investments in the Auckland Neighbourhood Policing Team and 10 ‘regional hotspots’. Operational practices have also changed with a marked increase in foot patrols in 2016.

Resolution rates across the three Auckland Police Districts

23.     Over the last 20 years the resolution rates across the three Auckland Police Districts have remained significantly lower than national averages. This gap is most pronounced in the Auckland Police District where there was a 12.5 per cent difference in 2014.

Figure 1: Resolution rates – average across the Auckland, Counties Manukau and Waitemata Districts versus the New Zealand average

Source: Statistics New Zealand – Annual Recorded Offences for the latest Calendar Years (ANZSOC)

http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7410

Consideration

Local board views and implications

24.     Local boards take a keen interest in community safety issues and some invest in preventative activities to reduce crime or its impact in their communities. Local boards have also invested in building and maintaining effective relationships with police.

25.     Due to significant time constraints staff have not had the opportunity to engage with local boards. Auckland Council decision-making responsibilities, as outlined in the Long-Term Plan, call for local board input into regional strategies, policies and plans, including official Auckland Council submissions.

Māori impact statement

26.     A key outcome of the Māori Plan is “safe and connected whanau and communities.”

27.     Māori are disproportionately represented as victims of crime. While Māori make up 15 per cent of New Zealand’s total population, 47 per cent of Māori have been victims of crime. This compares to 37 per cent of New Zealand Europeans.

28.     Due to significant time constraints staff have not had the opportunity to engage with Māori about the proposals in this report. However, Auckland Council’s advocacy in support of effective community policing and community safety partnerships appear to be consistent with the Māori Plan.

Implementation

29.     Council representatives will be able to draw upon the evidence during any debate at the LGNZ Annual General Meeting and any future ‘Zone One’ meetings.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader

Nadia De Blaauw - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 

Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme review

 

File No.: CP2016/12751

 

  

Purpose

1.       To adopt the 2016/2017 Regional Environmental and Natural Heritage (RENH) grant programme framework.

Executive summary

2.       The Regional Environmental and Natural Heritage (RENH) grant programme was established to empower Aucklanders to protect, restore, enhance and live sustainably within the natural environment of Tāmaki Makaurau.

3.       The first funding round of RENH was held in September and October 2015, with a budget of $488,702 and the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee (ECCNH) made decisions on allocation of this budget. 42 applicants were given grants.

4.       On approving grant allocations at its 2 December 2015 Meeting, ECCNH passed the following resolution (ENV/2015/33).

b)   request that for future funding rounds, staff put in place a process that clearly identifies measurement and assessment of all fund outcomes, but specifically, outcomes 1 and 6 in Table 3, page 21 of the agenda report, as it relates to Māori outcomes.

5.       Following this resolution, a full review of the grant programme has been undertaken. This review addressed the committee’s request for staff to have in place processes to provide for the measurement and assessment of applications against fund outcomes, specifically,

·   outcomes 1 - The mauri of the natural environment is in optimum health.

·   outcome 6 - Mana whenua are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised in their customary Kaitiaki role, and participate in the co-management of natural resources.

6.       As a result of this review, staff have updated the grant framework, including the grant assessment process and assessment criteria to support and enable outcomes, including those for Māori. Recommended changes to the grant framework include:

·   Updating the regionally significant criteria

·   Reframing assessment criteria

·   Creating a panel to assess applications, including specialists in assessing Māori outcomes.

7.       It is recommended that the committee adopt the updated RENH grant programme framework (attachment A). Adopting this framework will allow for the 2016/2017 RENH funding round to be open for applications from 1 August 2016 to 31 August 2016.

 

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      adopt the 2016/2017 Regional Environmental and Natural Heritage grant programme framework.

b)      delegate to the Chief Executive the power to make further minor changes to the grant framework and assessment criteria as deemed necessary.

 

 

Comments

Background

8.       The Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme (RENH) was established to provide:

·        support to Aucklanders to protect, restore and enhance Auckland’s environment with a focus on our most significant natural heritage;

·        encouragement and support Aucklanders to adopt environmentally sustainable lifestyles.

9.       Budget allocation for RENH was confirmed under adoption of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. The annual funding budget for RENH in the 2016/2017 financial year is $488,710.

2015/16 Funding Round

10.     The first funding round of RENH was held in September and October 2015, with a budget of $488,702 available to be allocated to grant recipients

11.     A total of 63 applications were received, requesting over $1.3 million towards environmental and sustainability projects.

12.     After assessment, 42 applications were recommended for funding to the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee (ECCNH) with grants totalling $488,702.

13.     In approving this allocation of grants on 2 December 2015, ECCNH also requested that for future funding rounds, staff put in place a process that clearly identifies measurement and assessment of applications against all fund outcomes, specifically outcomes 1 and 6 (resolution ENV/2015/33).

Review of RENH grant programme

14.     All aspects of the RENH programme were reviewed after the first funding round.

15.     To achieve best practise, it is proposed that a number of changes are made to the RENH grants processes and framework, which sets out the purpose of the grants scheme and how this scheme is administered. These changes include:

·   Updating the regionally significant criteria

·   Reframing assessment criteria

·   Creating a panel to assess applications, including specialists in assessing Maori outcomes.

16.     These three changes are discussed in more detail below.

Update to regional significance criteria

17.     A project is not able to be funded under RENH unless it meets criteria for regional significance. It is recommended that the 2015/2016 regional significance criteria are redefined in the 2016/2017 framework to be based on the following:

·   sustainable living

·   biodiversity

·   healthy water

·   kaitiakitanga.

18.     These changes add clarity for potential applicants and reduce duplication between criteria. 

19.     The 2016/2017 criteria for regional funding are provided in Attachment A and table one demonstrates the proposed changes to regional significance criteria.

 

 

 

Table one: Changes to regional significance criteria

2015/2016 regional significance criteria

2016/2017 regional significance criteria

·   The effective management and protection of threatened species and their habitat, and Auckland’s threatened ecosystems.

·   Council’s efforts to connect communities of interest and encourage integrated biodiversity management at a landscape scale. 

·   Protection of regionally significant sites of indigenous biodiversity.

·   Strategic management of plant and animal pests in the Auckland region

·   Protection, improvement and/or the restoration of streams, waterways and riparian margins within priority catchments.

·   Regionally focussed initiatives that promote sustainable living, including energy efficiency, adoption of low carbon technologies, a reduction in the number and length of vehicle trips, sustainable design and best practice, water conservation and increased accessibility of healthy and affordable food.

 

Sustainable living

·     The project is innovative and reflects best practice methodology in particular behaviour change principals.

·     There is clear evidence that the project will motivate and empower Aucklanders to adopt more environmentally sustainable lifestyles.

·     The proposed delivery mechanisms for the project reflect maximum “reach” for the funds to be invested.  

Biodiversity

·     The project contributes to effective management and protection of threatened species and their habitat, or threatened ecosystems.

·     The project contributes to protection of regionally significant sites of indigenous biodiversity or geological forms, and the site is listed as a Significant Ecological Area or should be.

·     The project contributes to management of plant and animal pests in the Auckland region, as listed in the Regional Pest Management Strategy.

Healthy Water

·     Protection, improvement and/or the restoration of waterways, through community collaboration or significant stock exclusion.

Kaitiakitanga

·     The project empowers mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki for Auckland’s natural environment.

 

Reframing assessment criteria

20.     Changes to how applications are assessed, scored and weighted are also recommended.

21.     Reframing of assessment criteria allows for clearer assessment of applications against fund outcomes, including outcomes 1 and 6. Additionally, there are a range of application types received through RENH, and this updated assessment approach provides for greater parity during assessment of applications.

22.     The key assessment criteria to be considered, and changes from 2015/2016 criteria, are highlighted in table two below. Criteria now includes a specific weighting for Māori outcomes, which were previously not clearly reflected in assessment criteria.

 

 

 

Table two: Changes to assessment criteria

2015/2016 assessment criteria

2016/2017 assessment criteria

Alignment with Strategic Priorities (40%)

·    Purpose

·   Outcomes

·   Criteria (regional significance)

 

Project Analysis (40%)

·   Need for funding

·   Project effectiveness or viability

·   Cost benefit analysis

·   Project use of best practice work methods

 

Applicant capacity (20%)

·   Delivery of projects previously supported with grants

·   Overall capability and capacity

·   Level of collaboration with others

Project impact (40%)

·   The extent to which the project positively impacts the mauri of the natural environment, including through best practice, project design and measurability, long term benefit and risk mitigation.

·   The extent to which the project motivates and empowers Aucklanders to adopt more environmentally sustainable lifestyles.

 

Connection (20%)

·   The extent to which the project connects the community of interest with the environment.

 

Māori outcomes (10%)

·   The extent to which the project supports the achievement of Māori outcomes for mana whenua and the wider Māori community in relation to the environment of Auckland.

 

Applicant Capacity (20%)

·    Confidence that the project team can deliver on the proposed project.

 

Value for money (10%)

·    This includes good return on investment, applicant contribution and financial feasibility.

 

Panel assessment

23.     To better measure and assess applications against outcomes it is proposed that a panel approach is adopted. In selecting panel members we will ensure that the panel as a whole has the necessary breadth of subject matter expertise required to assess all types of applications. This includes expertise required to assess applications for Māori outcomes under RENH, and to guide the rest of the panel in assessment of these outcomes. Attachment B provides an overview of the grant process.

Measurement and assessment for outcomes 1 and 6

24.     As described above, in December 2015 ECCNH asked that staff put in place a process to clearly assess and measure applications against grant programme outcomes, specifically:

·   Outcome 1: The mauri of the natural environment is in optimum health

·   Outcome 6: Mana whenua are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised in their customary kaitiaki role, and participate in the co-management of natural resources.

25.     During the review it was found that there were a number of opportunities to improve how we articulate Māori outcomes to Aucklanders, how these are assessed, and by whom.

26.     To ensure that Maori outcomes are better assessed a number of changes have been made to the grants process and framework. These are described below.

 

 

 

 

Outcome 1: The mauri of the natural environment is in optimum health.

27.     As shown above in Table Two, assessment criteria have been altered so that holistically, they focus on the ability of projects to positively impact on mauri of the natural environment.

28.     This is detailed with the regional significance criteria being adjusted in 2016/2017 so that they specifically reference kaitiakitanga as a key eligibility criteria, specifically that ‘The project empowers mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki for Auckland’s natural environment.’ 

29.     As shown above in Table Three, the assessment criteria have also been altered so that ‘Project impact’ which has a weighting of 40 per cent, is focused on the ability of projects to positively impact the mauri of the natural environment.

30.     These two changes mean that applications which demonstrate they have the potential to enhance the mauri of the natural environment are more likely to be funded.

Outcome 6: Mana Whenua are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised in their customary Kaitiaki role, and participate in the co-management of natural resources. 

31.     As detailed above in Table Two, the regional significance criteria has been adjusted in 2016/2017 so that they include empowering mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki for Auckland’s natural environment.

32.     Maori outcomes have also been given separate weighting as part of the assessment criteria. This criterion considers the extent to which a project empowers mana whenua to act as kaitiaki, values Te Ao Māori, and specific reference to outcomes 1 and 6.

33.     The creation of a panel including a specialist with the ability to assess the contribution of applications to Māori outcomes will also ensure these outcomes are more accurately measured.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

34.     Consultation with local boards on this report has not been undertaken.

35.     Local boards will be provided with updated information about the RENH before this year’s funding round opens. They will continue to play a key role in promoting the grant scheme within their networks and communities.

36.     The review of the 2015/2016 RENH grant programme identified opportunities for greater local board involvement in the funding process.  After the 2016/2017 funding round closes, staff will invite feedback from local board members about applications, capturing local knowledge of applicant groups and alignment of projects with local board priorities. Their feedback will be taken into consideration by the RENH panel during assessment, thus being reflected in recommendations made to the committee.

37.     Local boards will be informed about the results of funding rounds and successful applications from their local board areas.

Māori impact statement

38.     This report recognises that positive environmental outcomes are interwoven with Māori outcomes. Specifically the RENH outcome areas provide opportunities for Aucklanders to develop community led initiatives which positively affect the mauri of the natural environment, and empower mana whenua to act in their role as kaitiaki.

39.     The development of the Community Grants Policy, which established the RENH, involved public consultation on the draft policy including with attendance at four mataawaka and mana whenua hui. These hui provided guidance for both the Community Grants Policy and the operation of the grants scheme. The review of RENH clarifies the operational matters of grant application assessment against Māori outcomes.

40.     Input from Independent Māori Statutory Board staff has been provided for this review, including input into the refined regional significance and assessment criteria, as well as the proposed assessment process.

41.     As detailed above, a number of improvements are recommended to the grant framework to ensure projects contribute to Māori outcomes, in particular the inclusion of kaitiakitanga as a regional significance criterion; and assignment of specific weighting to Māori outcomes in the assessment criteria.

42.     The current grant priorities and processes will be continually reviewed in particular with reference to Te Toa Takitini – Māori Responsiveness High Performing Council portfolio to reflect the developing understanding of council about its contribution to Māori wellbeing.

43.     Staff have begun seeking advice from the Independent Māori Statutory Board staff and Te Waka Angamua while developing a communications plan for the next funding round of the RENH, to ensure effective promotion of this fund to Māori and support to potential applicants

Implementation

44.     If adopted, the 2016/2017 funding round for the RENH will open for applications on 1 August and close on 31 August 2016. 

45.     Funding recommendations will be reported to a committee of council in December 2016.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

RENH 2016/2017 Grant Programme Framework

25

bView

RENH Assessment process

29

     

Signatories

Author

Fran Hayton - Environmental Funding Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 




Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 

Reserve revocation and disposal recommendation report

 

File No.: CP2016/12311

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek approval to revoke the reserve status and dispose of two parts of a larger, council owned site at 51 Stamford Park Road, Mt Roskill, which Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) considers suitable for sale. 

Executive summary

2.       Panuku is required to identify properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale to a combined value of $45 million by 30 June 2017.  Capital receipts from the sale of surplus properties contribute to Auckland Plan outcomes by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects. 

3.       The subject sites presented in this report comprise two parcels of 51 Stamford Park Road, Mt Roskill.  The entire site is a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.  The balance of this site is to remain in council ownership as a reserve. 

4.       The rationalisation process for the two parcels of land commenced in August 2015.  Consultation with council and its CCOs, iwi authorities and the Puketāpapa Local Board has now taken place.  No alternative service uses were identified during the consultation process and the feedback received was supportive of the proposed reserve revocation and divestment of the subject parcels of land. 

5.       Final revocation of the reserve status will be subject to completing the statutory requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 and Local Government Act 2002, including public advertising. 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the revocation of the reserve status of two parcels of 51 Stamford Park Road, Mt Roskill, comprising approximately 1,721m2 comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being sections 48, 71, 103, 104 and part sections 54 and 106 contained in SO 419816 contained in computer freehold register 538486, on the basis that these two parcels are no longer required as reserve.

b)      approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the disposal of two parcels of 51 Stamford Park Road, Mt Roskill, comprising approximately 1,721m2 comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being sections 48, 71, 103, 104 and part sections 54 and 106 contained in SO 419816 contained in computer freehold register 538486.

c)      agree that the final terms and conditions be approved under the appropriate delegations.

 

Comments

6.       Panuku and the Corporate Finance and Property team work jointly on a comprehensive review of council’s property portfolio.  One of the outcomes of the review process is to identify properties in the council portfolio that are potentially surplus to requirements and that may be suitable to sell.  The subject site was identified as potentially saleable through the review process.

7.       Once a property has been identified as potentially surplus, Panuku engages with council and its CCO’s through an expression of interest process, to establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is required for a future funded project.  Once a property has been internally cleared of any service requirements, Panuku then consults with local boards, mana whenua and ward councillors.  All disposal recommendations must be approved by the Panuku Board before it makes a final recommendation to the Auckland Council governing body. 

Property information

8.       The subject sites form two parts of 51 Stamford Park Road, Mt Roskill, which is a 3,878m2 council owned site that comprises a number of irregularly shaped parcels.  51 Stamford Park Road was acquired by the Crown for the extension of State Highway 20 through Mt Roskill during the 1970s and 1980s.  The Crown required part of Keith Hay Park for the motorway, and in 2005 entered into an agreement with Auckland City Council to acquire the land and vest adjoining land as recreation reserve. 

9.       51 Stamford Park Road is a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.  The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan zoning for the entire site is Mixed Housing Suburban. 

10.     The entire site was reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Policy team in 2015.  The two subject parcels of land were identified as not being required by Parks.  The balance of the site is predominately formed as a walking and cycleway, and is to remain in the Parks portfolio.

11.     The first part of 51 Stamford Park Road proposed for divestment is a vacant, flat 1,012m2 section.  The site is currently landlocked.  However adjoining landowners have expressed interest in purchasing the site.  Alternatively, access to the site could potentially be gained via an easement over an adjoining driveway.  The site is large enough to be subdivided into two lots.  A recent valuation has provided an indicative value of approximately $600,000 to $675,000 for this site. 

12.     The second part proposed for divestment is a vacant, flat, 709m2 section.  A recent valuation has provided an indicative value of approximately $500,000 to $550,000 for this site. 

Internal consultation

13.     The rationalisation process for the subject parts of this site commenced in August 2015.  No expressions of interest were received during the internal consultation process and no issues were raised.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14.     The Puketāpapa Local Board endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and divestment of the subject parcels of land at its March 2016 business meeting.

Māori impact statement

15.     12 iwi authorities were contacted regarding the proposed divestment of 51 Stamford Park Road, Mt Roskill.  The following feedback was received; noting that some feedback received is commercially sensitive and cannot be included in this report.

i)        Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua

No site specific feedback received for this site, noting that as per earlier conversations with Te Runanga representatives, it is understood that any cultural significance considerations will be raised at hapū level and that all Ngāti Whatua hapū have been contacted about properties in their rohe.

 

 

ii)       Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara

Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara has confirmed their focus on interests in the north west of Tāmaki Makaurau, with a particular focus on Helensville. They defer to Ngāti Whatua o Ōrākei for sites in the Mt Roskill area.

iii)      Ngāti Whatua Ōrākei

          Ngāti Whatua ōrākei has confirmed they have no commercial interest in this site.

iv)      Te Kawerau a Maki

Te Kawerau a Maki has confirmed they have no commercial interest in this site but noted the site lies within the shadow of Pukewiwi (Mt Roskill). Outcomes should include protection of the viewshaft and retention of soils on/near the site.

v)      Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki has drawn attention to their recent settlement and signaled an increased interest in council owned property that may come available for sale in their rohe.

vi)      Ngāti Tamaoho

          No feedback received for this site.

vii)     Te ākitai - Waiohua

          Te ākitai has expressed potential commercial interest in this site.

viii)    Ngāti Te Ata - Waiohua

No site specific feedback received for this site; however Ngāti Te Ata has expressed general cultural interest across Tāmaki Makaurau, has potential commercial interest in any council owned land that comes available for sale in their rohe and notes specific association with the south western area of Auckland, focusing around Manukau and the western coastline.

ix)      Ngāti Paoa

          Ngāti Paoa has reinforced their desire to be kept in the loop for property disposals.

x)      Ngaati Whanaunga

No feedback received for this site.

xi)      Ngāti Maru

          No feedback received for this site.

xii)     Ngāti Tamatera

          No feedback received for this site.

Implementation

16.     The results of the rationalisation process are that the subject sites are not required for current or future service requirements.  As such, Panuku recommends the divestment of the subject parcels of land.  Should a resolution be obtained approving the divestment of these sites, Panuku will seek to dispose of the sites in a manner which enables a housing outcome on both sites.

17.     As the entire site is a reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977, should the subject sites be sold the reserve status of these parcels would have to be revoked.  It is a Department of Conservation requirement (in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977) that the sale proceeds from reserves are placed in reserve accounts so that funds can be used to acquire other land for reserve purposes or for maintenance of existing reserves. 

18.     The entire site is subject to section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981.  However, the land has been significantly changed by the public work for which it was originally acquired and therefore is likely to be exempt from offer back pursuant to section 40(2)(b) of the Public Works Act 1981

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Images of 51 Stamford Park Road, Mt Roskill

35

     

Signatories

Authors

Letitia McColl - Senior Advisor Portfolio Review, Portfolio Strategy, Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Marian Webb - Manager Portfolio Strategy, Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Development Auckland

David Rankin - Director, Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Development Auckland

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 



Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 

Update on the Implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach

 

File No.: CP2016/13383

 

  

Purpose

1.       To update the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach structure and model, including progress against outcomes.

Executive summary

2.       At its 4 June 2015 meeting, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee requested a report on the implementation of the empowered communities structure and model, including progress against outcomes.

3.       The implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach (ECA) is being led by the Community Empowerment Unit which became operational on 1 October 2015.

4.       The ECA will be fully operationalised in the Community Empowerment Unit during FY2016/2017, with a further phased roll out of the approach across the whole of council.

5.       The Community Empowerment Unit is leading the organisational strategy initiative ‘Enabling Council’ which will be a key tool for embedding the ECA across the whole of the organisation.

6.       For FY2016/2017 the Community Empowerment Unit’s focus will be on:

·        delivering FY2016/2017 work programmes

·        leading the organisational strategy initiative “Enabling Council”

·        developing the ECA practice framework which will provide guidance and parameters within which the whole of council can work in ways which are more empowering of communities

·        implementing the evaluation plan

·        conducting a line by line review of regional spending to deliver cost savings, better alignment with the ECA and improve regional consistency. 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      receive the update report on the implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach.

 

Comments

Background

7.       On 4 June 2015, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolved to:

a)     endorse the implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach which will result in a new operating model for the Community Development and Safety unit

b)     request that progress against outcomes, implementation of the structure and operation of the model be reviewed and reported back to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in February and July 2016

c)     endorse that additional funding to deliver locally driven initiatives be considered as part of the 2016/2017 Annual Plan. (Resolution number: REG/2015/41).

8.       The ECA provides a clear strategic direction for a whole of council shift to working in ways that are more empowering of communities. The approach:

·        provides a framework to enable council to deliver services in a more effective and empowering way

·        supports community-led development and builds on the Thriving Communities’ Action Plan Ngā Hāpori Momohi (April 2014)

·        involves a shift away from direct service delivery to supporting community-led initiatives, with a view to embedding a new way of working across the council family

·        encourages flexibility to meet the varying requirements of communities and local boards, rather than taking a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

Implementing the approach

Organisational Strategy

9.       The Organisational Strategy brings together Long-term Plan commitments, the requirements of the Auckland Plan and the internal infrastructure required to meet the needs of our customers and communities and deliver the best value for Aucklanders.

10.     The Enabling Council initiative is one of five new initiatives focused on communities. It will define how council can become an ‘enabling council’ that works with communities to share and grow their role in the decisions that affect them. It is led by the Community Empowerment Unit, with staff involved in other work streams to ensure integration of an empowered communities lens and approach across the broader strategy.  This will be a key part of the implementation of the ECA across the Council family.

Practice framework

11.       An ECA Practice Framework will be developed to provide guidance to support the whole of council implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach. Practice frameworks provide a roadmap and boundaries for staff to ensure consistent practice is applied.

12.       While the Practice Framework is being developed, the Community Empowerment Unit’s Practice team are developing initial practice, processes and concepts to enable staff to extend their skill sets and develop their practice and thinking to align with the ECA.  This work will inform the final framework.

Evaluation framework

13.       A three year plan to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the Empowered Communities Approach is being developed and implemented by the Centre for Social and Health Research Outcomes and Evaluation (SHORE) and Whariki Māori research group (Massey University).

14.       The evaluation plan will assess the effectiveness of the implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach across the organisation and whether the ECA objectives are being achieved.

15.       A cross-council evaluation advisory group has been established, convened by the Research, Investigation and Monitoring Unit (RIMU) and including representatives from Community Empowerment, Te Waka Angamua, Local Board Services, Transformation and Community and Social Policy. The purpose of the evaluation advisory group is to guide the evaluation design and monitor the implementation of the evaluation plan.

16.       Data collected in 2016 will provide a baseline and be used to provide feedback to improve the development and practice of the ECA across council. The learnings will be used to deepen the understanding and application of the enabling council culture shift required to effectively implement ECA.

17.       Further comparative data will also be collected in 2017 and 2018 to assess the impacts and effectiveness of the empowered communities approach.

18.       The evaluation plan was signed off in June 2016 and implementation has commenced.

FY2016/2017 local board work programmes

19.       FY2016/2017 local board work programmes have been developed applying an ECA lens. This is the first step to embed the approach across the organisation.

20.       The following examples from the work programmes demonstrate the ECA:

·        partnering with Community Waitākere to support the preparation of community-led neighbourhood plans around Parrs Park and Hoani Waititi Marae 

·        partnering with Plans and Places to support community-led planning of a  comprehensive Kumeu/Huapai centre plan; facilitating community-led placemaking processes in Helensville, Warkworth and Wellsford

·        partnering with Waste Solutions to build capacity of community groups to establish the Resource Recovery Network. For example, in relation to the Great North Road site, facilitate, mediate and build capacity of community groups that could tender for the future operation of the facility

·        increasing investment in community gardens by developing infrastructure and capacity of community groups managing existing gardens

·        influencing and coordinating engagement with mana whenua and “hard to reach” diverse communities  involved in planning Spatial Priority Areas

·        identifying opportunities for community-led or co-designed projects that deliver social wellbeing and/or social procurement, enterprise, employment and training

·        activating the community in the development of 2017-2020 Local Board Plans through civic participation workshops and community led engagement activities.

21.       These examples demonstrate implementation of the ECA to achieve the following outcomes:

·        communities and local people having greater control and influence over things they care about

·        people from diverse backgrounds engaging meaningfully and participating in public and community life

·        enhanced Māori development by council working together with mana whenua, mataawaka, marae and other Māori organisations

·        local initiatives designed and delivered locally

·        increased capacity and capability of voluntary and community groups improved community outcomes through council and communities working together in joined up ways.

Review of Regional Budgets

22.     Cost savings required from the Community Empowerment Unit implementation were $1.6million in FY2015/2016, increasing to $2 million per annum from FY2016/2017.

23.     In order to achieve this additional $400,000 in savings, some current funding arrangements will need to be discontinued. A line by line review of the unit’s regional budget will be undertaken in the first quarter of the financial year.

 

 

 

Establishment and Transition

24.       As reported at the June 2015 Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

A transition period will be necessary with the model implemented from July to December 2015. It is expected that the new model will be fully embedded by FY 2016/17 with learnings from the first 6-12 months shaping the full implementation”.

25.       The Community Empowerment Unit was established to lead and operationalise the ECA. The unit became operational on 1 October 2015.

26.       Although the unit retained a number of staff from the previous Community Development and Safety unit, 28 out of the 72 staff (almost 40 per cent) were newly recruited. It took until January 2016 to complete this recruitment and training. 

27.       Establishing the new approach and operating model in the middle of the financial year meant having to deliver work programmes developed under the previous operating model which did not align to the ECA. Delivering these work programmes while developing new practices and tools to support the ECA required flexibility and resourcefulness. This negatively impacted on the timing of delivery.

28.       Key successes for the Community Empowerment Unit during FY2015/2016 include:

·        identifying 14 key initiatives for delivery from January 2016 to June 2017 which will put the foundations in place to enable the Empowered Communities Unit to lead the roll out of the ECA throughout the council family

·        having the Enabling Council initiative accepted as one of 13 key organisational initiatives

·        preparing a kete (toolkit) of ECA resource materials to support other parts of council and the community to understand and implement the ECA

·        developing 2016/2017 local board work programmes that are founded on local board plan priorities and the ECA

·        hosting two open days for elected members and community groups

·        Youth Connections hosting a successful JobFest with 75 employers and over 2000 registered young people attending. One month on, 50 youth have been employed as a direct result of JobFest

·        Youth Connections have refined their operational model and now have one key project across each of 11 local boards that are funded through a combination of council, Tindall Foundation and local boards. In some cases, other philanthropic funding has also been leveraged

·        investing approximately $2.2 million in community and business organisations through approximately 85 contracts and funding agreements

·        continuing to support the Community Development and Safety Committee

·        undertaking a co-design process to develop options for support of youth voice groups which they have told us they have valued highly

·        delivering the majority of the 2015/2016 local board work programme.

 

 

 

 

 

 

29.     The Empowered Communities Approach is changing both the work of council and our interaction with communities. Below are a sample of these examples from local board areas:

Project

Overview

Tamaki Touched (Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board)

The first locality pilot of a nationwide initiative that aims to increase positive engagement between the New Zealand Police, social services and communities of high deprivation through a whanau-centred sports competition. Led via a partnership between Ruapotaka Marae, the New Zealand Police and Touch NZ.

Community Action Youth And Drugs (CAYAD) supported the project through:

·   brokering relationships between local stakeholders

·   empowering local ownership through the training and employment of residents to coordinate the competition

·   providing technical advice to achieve community safety outcomes.

As a result of this project 180 people from a variety of ages participated in a healthy activity spanning six weeks and a shift in youth perception of police has been reported.

Glen Eden Transition Town (Waitākere Ranges Local Board)

 

The Glen Eden Transition Town is an informal community group of volunteers that focus on waste reduction, community food production, environmental restoration and local sustainable transport initiatives in Glen Eden.

 

In response to changes to park maintenance practices, which saw agro-chemicals used by council contractors, the group approached the local board offering to manually weed control 500 metres of the Waikumete Stream Cycleway on Savoy Park.

 

Community Empowerment staff brokered conversations between Glen Eden Transition Town, the Parks, Sport and Recreation department and the local board.  All parties worked through a number of perceived barriers (e.g. operational requirements, health and safety and public liability insurance) and a positive outcome was reached. Glen Eden Transition Town are now able to undertake spray free maintenance of the cycle way and adjacent park land. This will be piloted and reassessed after one year.

Homelessness

 

Council continues to respond to homelessness through a range of activities aligning with the ECA. These activities directly benefit people who experience homelessness or rough sleeping through:

 

·   partnering with the Auckland City Mission and Salvation Army Waitākere for the delivery of their outreach service to link rough sleepers to social service providers

·   developing a homeless services website which will enable people experiencing homelessness to access information on services and support available

·   developing a plan for enhancing public amenities (24 hour showers, lockers and toilets) in the city centre through the Aotea Quarter Framework

·   supporting the Rough Sleeping Steering Group and Lifewise to lead the exploration of applying Housing First models for delivery in Auckland

·   funding the Court Working Group to oversee an evaluation of the New Beginnings Court/Te Kooti o Timatanga Hou to gather evidence on the benefits of therapeutic courts for homeless people

·   funding Community Housing Aotearoa to improve the coordination of existing emergency housing services and to strengthen the emergency housing network

·   funding Kahikatea (a community group of Māori people who have experience of homelessness) to deliver a hikoi from Te Pane-o-mataoho (Māngere Mountain) to Puketāpapa tanga a Hape (Pukeiti/Puketāpapa). 

Youth voice initiative

 

The Community Empowerment Unit led a team of council staff and young people to develop operating models which would align local youth voice groups better to the ECA.

Future operational models were developed using a co-design process. The process was informed by insights gathered from the young people about their needs when engaging with local decision-making. Models were presented to local boards in May and June 2016.

Concepts to enable youth led activity and support the proposed operating models were workshopped with young people and local board members. The final concepts were tested at the Youth Advisory Panel Youth Summit where the feedback received was very positive, with the majority stating that young people felt listened to and that this was reflected in the proposed models.

Te Whangai Trust and the Te Auaunga Awa Stormwater project
(Puketapapa Local Board)

The Community Empowerment Unit has been providing considerable support to Te Auaunga Awa: Walmsley and Underwood Reserves Stormwater Project.  

One outcome over the last three years has been the formation of a partnership between Auckland Council, Te Whāngai Trust and Wesley Intermediate which will see the establishment of a native nursery at the school.  The nursery will operate as a social enterprise growing plants, some of which will supply Te Auaunga Awa project and providing the planting and plant maintenance services required for the project.  The nursery will provide training and employment opportunities predominantly to local residents who are not in training, employment or education.

A key milestone for the nursery was reached at the end of June with a pōwhiri to welcome Te Whangai Trust to Wesley Intermediate and a hui with local community organisations to identify collaborative opportunities.​
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30.     As requested by the Local Board Chairs forum, local boards were given the opportunity to provide feedback on their experiences of the implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach. Boards were asked:

·        What worked well in the initial stages of the rollout?

·        How would boards know if the approach was working well in their area?

·        What has been the impact of transitioning to the new approach?

·        What are the key barriers to the effective implementation of the approach?

·        How can the Empowered Communities Approach be embedded across council?

31.     Ten boards formally resolved their feedback (Attachment A) with eight boards opting to provide informal feedback. Three boards indicated that they considered it too early to be providing feedback on the approach.

32.     Common themes in the feedback include:

·        the strategic broker roles are working well; the boards support the co-location of brokers in the local board offices and the broad focus of their roles in developing relationships and identifying opportunities in the community

·        the impact of the transition period was a reduction in service levels that affected the delivery of the 2015/2016  local board work programme priorities, particularly youth voice/panels and safety work

·        the approach is not well understood across the council and there is a need to have council wide champions at a senior leadership level to embed the approach and to encourage greater organisational integration and collaboration for more positive community outcomes

·        greater transparency and visibility of the practice hub is needed as well as clarity as to how these staff support the delivery of local board work programme activities

·        better communication to build an improved understanding of the ECA with elected members, staff and community as well as uptake of the ECA with elected members

·        concerns that a reduction in funding will negatively impact communities and that communities may not have the capacity to respond to the new approach without more resource or funding.

33.     Staff will respond to the boards on the feedback provided as well as using the feedback to inform the approach going forward.  Apart from the impacts of the transition process itself, many of the issues apparent from the feedback would be improved through clear and regular communication. This issue has been recognised within the unit and is one of the new key initiatives.

Māori impact statement

34.     Responding to Māori aspirations in practical and effective ways is one of the five key focus areas of the ECA.

35.     Initiatives that respond to Māori aspirations are included in the current year work programme and in the 2016/2017 work programme. For example, staff have leveraged off previous work at Ruapotaka marae and developed four social enterprise initiatives at the marae. These will have a positive impact on the local Māori community and strengthen the relationships with mana whenua and mataawaka through the historical and cultural content of the initiatives.

 

36.     Council funded Kahikatea (a community group of Māori people with experience of homelessness) to deliver a hikoi from Te Pane-o-mataoho (Māngere Mountain) to Puketāpapa tanga a Hape (Pukeiti/Puketāpapa).  This connects Māori with experiences of homelessness with their tikanga, history and each other, recognising the benefit that this has on hauora/wellbeing.

37.     Work programme initiatives such as neighbourhood planning around Parrs Park/ Hoani Waititi Marae support Māori to ensure their aspirations lead council programming.

38.     On 25 May 2016, staff presented details of the ECA evaluation process, including a kaupapa Māori methodology, to a mana whenua information hui. Feedback received from the hui was positive and identified factors to consider for potential case studies for inclusion in the evaluation process.

39.     Lifting the capability of all Community Empowerment Unit staff to be fully responsive to Māori will be a focus for the unit over the next twelve months and is one of the 14 key new initiatives for the unit. 

40.     Recruitment is underway for two specialist roles in the Practice Hub who will hold a Māori focus within the Community Empowerment Unit emphasising partnering, investment and research, innovation and best practice.

Implementation

41.     The ECA will continue to be implemented and evaluated with the model operational in the Community Empowerment Unit.

42.     Staff have developed an Empowered Communities kete and checklist for other parts of the organisation to better understand good practice when applying the ECA to their business. An engagement and communication plan to support its use across the organisation is in development.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Local Board Resolutions

45

     

Signatories

Author

Christine Olsen - Community Empowerment Manager

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 

Reports Pending Status Update

 

File No.: CP2016/13490

 

  

 

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 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

55

bView

Forward work programme 2016 (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Author

Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 

Information Items

 

File No.: CP2016/13495

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos, information reports, or briefing papers that have been distributed to committee members since 27 May 2016.

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 memo was circulated:

·          Update on the Smokefree Policy Review Project, 17 June 2016

·          Manukau Harbour update, 29 June 2016

·          Strategy and Policy Forward Programme update, 30 June 2016

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

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

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

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

5.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the item referred to in this summary.  Committee members should direct any questions to the author.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      receive the summary of information memos since 27 May 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Update on the Smokefree Policy Review Project (Under Separate Cover)

 

bView

Manukau Harbour update (Under Separate Cover)

 

cView

Strategy and Policy Forward Programme update (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Author

Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

      

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 July 2016

 

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       Land acquisition for stormwater purposes Tāmaki College

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

In particular, the report contains sensitive information relating to land acquisition that might prejudice council's position in negotiations if released.

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] An authorised officer has limited powers to perform narrow functions.

[2] International City/County Management Association. (2013). ‘An analysis of police department staffing: How many officers do you really need?’ ICMA

[3] Australian Productivity Commission. (2016). Annual Report on Government Services. Australian Government.