I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Environment and Community Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 11 September 2018

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Komiti Taiao ā-Hapori Hoki /

Environment and Community Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Penny Hulse

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Alf Filipaina

 

Members

Cr Josephine Bartley

Cr Mike Lee

 

IMSB Member Renata Blair

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

IMSB Member James Brown

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Chris Darby

 

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

 

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

 

Cr Richard Hills

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Tam White

Senior Governance Advisor

6 September 2018

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156

Email: tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


 

Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

This committee deals with all strategy and policy decision-making that is not the responsibility of another committee or the Governing Body.  Key responsibilities include:

·         Development and monitoring of strategy, policy and action plans associated with environmental, social, economic and cultural activities

·         Natural heritage

·         Parks and reserves

·         Economic development

·         Protection and restoration of Auckland’s ecological health

·         Climate change

·         The Southern Initiative

·         Waste minimisation

·         Libraries

·         Acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and within approved annual budgets

·         Performing the delegations made by the Governing Body to the former Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum and Regional Development and Operations Committee, under resolution GB/2012/157 in relation to dogs

·         Activities of the following CCOs:

o    ATEED

o    RFA

Powers

(i)         All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a)        approval of a submission to an external body

(b)        establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii)         The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee,    where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii)        The committee does not have:

(a)        the power to establish subcommittees

(b)        powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)


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

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

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

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

6.1     Local Board Input - Dual naming - Whau Local Board                                    7

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

8          Te Kete Rukuruku and the Māori naming of parks and places                                9

9          Submission on proposed phase out of plastic shopping bags                             31

10        Proposal to expand and broaden the regional Mobile Library & Access service 99

11        Reserve Revocation Report - Properties Cleared for Disposal                            107

12        ICLEI conference - Cr Wayne Walker                                                                      129

13        Summary of Environment and Community Committee information - updates, memos and briefings - 11 September 2018                                                            131

14        Land acquisition for St Mary's Bay and Masefield Beach improvement project 155  

15        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

16        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               163

C1       CONFIDENTIAL: Land acquisition for St Mary's Bay and Masefield Beach improvement project                                                                                                 163

C2       Acquisition and exchange of open space land - Northcote                                 163

C3       Acquisition of Open Space - Massey                                                                      164

C4       Acquisition of Open Space - Red Beach                                                                 164  

 


1          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had 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 Environment and Community Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 14 August 2018, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

4          Petitions

 

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

 

5          Public Input

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Governance 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.

 

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

 

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.

 

6.1       Local Board Input - Dual naming - Whau Local Board

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       The chair, Tracy Mulholland and deputy chair, Susan Zhu will address the committee in support of the Dual naming. Refer to Item 8 of the agenda.  

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      receive the presentation and thank Tracy Mulholland and Susan Zhu for their attendance.

 

 

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.”


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

Te Kete Rukuruku and the Māori naming of parks and places

 

File No.: CP2018/09082

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an overview of Te Kete Rukuruku programme which includes the Māori naming of parks and places, as well as seek support for the inclusion of regional parks and cemeteries in the naming programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Te Kete Rukuruku is a programme involving the collection and telling of the unique stories of Tāmaki Makaurau.  A subset of this programme is the Māori naming of parks and places which involves the reclamation or identification of new Māori names and narratives across Tāmaki Makaurau. 

3.       Te Kete Rukuruku is a programme that responds to strong feedback from mana whenua about the current naming practices across Auckland Counci which are somewhat unpredictable and appear to place low priority and visibility on Māori naming and narratives.  

4.       The programme also responds to the Auckland Council Māori Language Policy adopted in 2016.  (see attachment A). 

5.       Te Kete Rukuruku is a partnership between the council and the 19 mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau.  Mana whenua have been actively working on the programme over 2017/18 and have now agreed on a new Māori naming process.

6.       The first phase of the programme is focussed on Māori naming of community parks within the decision-making responsibility of local boards.  All local boards were invited to join this programme in 2017.  Nine local boards elected to join the programme in 2017 and two more local boards have joined the programme in 2018.    

7.       There are 53 regional parks and cemeteries under the governance of the Environment and Community Committee of which 32% have an agreed Māori name.  This compares with a 9% average across all parks and places. 

8.       This report seeks endorsement in principle for the inclusion of the naming of regional parks and cemeteries in the overall programme.  A proposed implementation programme will be presented in the second half of 2019. 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      endorse Te Kete Rukuruku, including the Māori naming of parks and places, noting that this programme supports the visibility of te reo Māori, and seeks to capture/tell the unique Māori stories of Tāmaki Makaurau

b)      endorse in principle the inclusion of regional parks and cemeteries in Te Kete Rukuruku programme. 

 

Horopaki / Context

Strategic context

9.       Te Kete Rukuruku is a programme involving the collection and telling of the unique stories of Tāmaki Makaurau.  A subset of this programme is the Māori naming of parks and places.  This involves the reclamation or identification of new Māori names, and their associated stories, for parks and places across Tāmaki Makaurau.

10.     The programme represents a partnership between council and the 19 mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau. 

11.     Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within an Auckland local government context.

12.     These commitments are articulated in council’s key strategic planning documents including the Auckland Plan, the Long Term Plan, local board plans and the Unitary Plan.

13.     Auckland Council’s Māori Language Policy was adopted in 2016.  The policy recognises council’s commitment to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.  This policy recognises that the Māori language is a cultural treasure and an official language of Aotearoa.  It notes that the Māori language and culture forms a critical part of a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world.  Reclaiming or identifying new Māori names for regional parks and cemeteries that do not already have an agreed Māori name provides a significant opportunity to fulfil the policy intent. 

14.     Key outcome areas of the Māori language policy are:

·    Te reo tē kitea - Māori language that is visible

·    Te reo tē rongohia - Māori language that is heard

·    Te reo tē kōrerohia - Māori language that is spoken

·    Te reo tē ākona - Māori language that is learnt 

15.     The Māori language policy acknowledges that te reo Māori is an official language of Aotearoa and should receive equal status to English and NZ Sign Language.  The programme directly responds to the council’s Māori Language Policy.

16.     There were very few antecedent naming policies in place at the time Auckland Council came into being, however there were a number of different guidelines and practices.  New guidelines were put in place soon after the Auckland Council was formed.  These guidelines are currently under review.  These revised guidelines take on board the learnings from Te Kete Rukuruku.  It is expected these revised guidelines will be considered as part of omnibus management plan policy as these are developed with local boards. 

17.     The Regional Parks Management Plan includes a very clear naming policy (attachment B).  This policy is relatively consistent with the process developed through Te Kete Rukuruku. 

18.     The Environment and Community Committee are delegated decision making for naming of regional parks and most council controlled cemeteries across the region.  Local boards are delegated decision making for naming of most council controlled community parks and places.

Project scope 

19.     The scope of the Māori naming of parks and places programme, within the wider Te Kete Rukuruku programme, is defined as the naming, renaming or dual naming of parks and places throughout Tāmaki Makaurau.  

20.     The programme recognises there was a rich layer of Māori names that existed across Tāmaki Makaurau that can be reclaimed or contemporary names selected.  The programme provides an opportunity for Aucklander’s to learn te reo, Māori history and values relevant to places throughout Tāmaki Makaurau. 

21.     In line with the Māori Language Policy, reclaiming or identifying new Māori names for parks and places will have the following benefits:

·    accelerate the public visibility of the Māori language as a cultural treasure which is at the heart of Māori identity; 

·    contribute to the Māori language being visible, heard, spoken and learnt;

·    celebrate and create connections with the rich Māori heritage of Tāmaki Makaurau;

·    enable or support storytelling and interpretation of place and communities; and,

·    provide a practical means for council to fulfil its commitments and obligations to Māori.

22.     It is expected that, in most cases, Māori naming will be dual naming.  Dual naming means that a Māori name is added to the existing name thereby enriching the stories about that place, while not taking away from an existing name.  For the public, this means signs will present both names in line with the Māori language policy and signage guidelines, ie, the te reo Māori name will be presented first. 

23.     Dual naming also means that a Māori name, which is appropriate to the place, sits alongside another name that is not related in its meaning.  In other words the two names are not translations of each other but independent and unique. 

24.     The first phase of the programme is focussed on community parks and libraries.  Options for creating new or dual Māori names for regional parks, cemeteries, leisure centres and other community places are recommended as phase two and three of the programme in later years. 

25.     The Te Kete Rukuruku Māori naming of parks and places process demonstrates a best practice approach for naming in partnership with mana whenua.  This practice enables a commitment to a consistent process and a strong relationship between mana whenua and the decision makers of parks and places. 

26.     The following aspects are not included in the scope of the Te Kete Rukuruku programme although some of these may be progressed as separate projects parallel or following on from the programme:

·    the naming of features or assets within park or facility e.g. bridges and walkways;

·    English translations of messages within parks and places;

·    capital development;

·    gazetting of the name via the Geographic Board; and,

·    any change to Council brand. 

27.     The scale of the programme is significant.  It is estimated there are more than 4100 parks and places across Tāmaki Makaurau.  There are 22 council governance entities and 19 mana whenua governance entities. 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

28.     There are 53 regional parks and cemeteries under the governance of the Environment and Community Committee of which 32% have an agreed Māori name (a list of these names is included in Attachment D).  This compares with a 9% average across all parks and places.  Note: a larger percentage of parks and places around the region carry the same name as a street or locality that has a Māori name e.g. Tiri Reserve and Tiri Road.  For the purpose of this analysis names that follow a street name or are very common Māori names are not included in the calculation until they are confirmed as the most appropriate name.   

29.     The current approach to Māori naming is (in most cases) to look for opportunities to identify a Māori name as part of capital development works or when acquiring new parks or places.  This approach (the status quo) is likely to result in no change in percentage or only a few percentage points change in any given year noting that across the region there is a lot of growth and new parks - many of which are not being given a Māori name. 


 

 

30.     The current approach to Māori naming is seen as ad hoc and presents the following challenges:

·    it is often too late i.e. the naming occurs at the end of a project thereby losing the opportunity to settle the name in hearts and minds of all those involved in the project.  The opportunity is also lost for the name to inform the design and development of a place.

·    the process is often not clear and mana whenua may select a name only for it to compete with another name suggested from elsewhere in the community.  It is difficult and disrespectful to create a process whereby names that are gifted by mana whenua, being the Māori people with mana or authority in an area, to have their names considered as part of a naming competition.

31.     As noted earlier, the Regional Parks Management Plan includes a very clear naming policy (see attachment B).  While this policy is relatively consistent with the process developed through Te Kete Rukuruku there are three notable differences.

·    The first is that Te Kete Rukuruku seeks to proactively support a Māori name being given to most parks and places, including supporting a large number of dual names.

·    The second is that where a dual name is sought all mana whenua with an interest will be invited to provide a name and be supported to work through a process of providing a single name to council or, where this is historically accurate, multiple names.

·    Finally, where a dual name is sought council will commit, early in the process, to receive this name as a gift rather than making this subject to consultation with interest groups and the wider community.

32.     Also, where a mono-lingual Māori name is sought and consultation is deemed appropriate (this is at the discretion of the decision making body) the consultation will not be about the name given (which tends to invite inappropriate comment about the specifics of a Māori name) but rather about the intent to provide a mono-lingual Māori name.

33.     This programme is about moving away from the status quo and supporting council to make a transformational shift in the number of Māori names and the associated visibility of te reo Māori and the unique Māori narratives.  The options within the programme relate to pacing and the options for using various supporting processes. 

34.     The process shows the number of parks and places where mana whenua are invited to gift a name and narrative is at the discretion of the council.  The high-level process for the project is outlined in Attachment C.

35.     Participating local boards have all contributed funding toward the programme management and supporting mana whenua to research the names ($10,000 in the first year and $25,000 for the second year).  It is not yet clear how far the funding that the local boards have already committed to the project is likely to go as this will vary based on the significance to mana whenua of the sites chosen and their history.  Further advice on funding for the regional parks and cemeteries (part of the programme) will be reported back in 2019.

36.     As a general rule it is recommended that the first list of parks or places (tranche one) that the local boards agree to name are parks which are named after a street, not named or are new parks.  It is likely that most of the new Māori names adopted will be applied as dual names rather than replacing an existing name although this needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. 


 

 

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

37.     Eleven of the 21 local boards are participating in the programme at this time.  They are:

i)        Albert-Eden;

ii)       Henderson-Massey;

iii)      Hibiscus and Bays;

iv)      Kaipātiki;

v)      Māngere-Ōtāhuhu;

vi)      Manurewa;

vii)     Ōtara-Papatoetoe;

viii)    Puketāpapa;

ix)      Whau;

x)      Waitākere; and,

xi)      Papakura.

38.     Of these boards Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa, and Whau have passed formal decisions to commence the programme by inviting mana whenua to support the naming of a number of parks.  Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Puketāpapa are likely to have also passed resolutions in early September. 

39.     Boards that have not yet joined the programme will have the opportunity to consider this again in early 2019.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

40.     As noted earlier, the Māori naming of parks and places programme is a response to feedback from mana whenua.

41.     The proposed programme seeks to develop a good practice approach to Māori naming, through an agreed process in partnership between mana whenua and the relevant decision making body of council.   Through this partnership it is envisaged that relationships between mana whenua and council will be strengthened.

42.     It is recommended that the role of providing Māori names in Tāmaki Makaurau rests with mana whenua.  That is Māori who have mana and for which Tāmaki Makaurau is their tūrangawaewae (standing place) and they have whakapapa (a genealogical link) to the place. 

43.     This programme is expected to provide significant benefits to mātāwaka Māori and mātāwaka Māori organisations will be engaged and potentially become partners in the communication plan for the programme.  The increase in Māori language and stories will enable matawaka Māori to see and hear their culture and language being used in their community.  This is expected to increase their sense of belonging and connection.   It is also recognised that many Māori are yet to learn or are in the process of learning their language.  This programme will play a role in supporting this. 

44.     Approximately 20 hui (with 17 of 19 mana whenua) have occurred with mana whenua where the issues, opportunities and the scope of the programme have been discussed.


 

 

45.     By mid-May, this programme was formally supported by 12 of the 19 mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau.  At the time of writing a new programme structure had been proposed which included a joint steering group made up of four mana whenua reps and four council reps.  This was being considered by the mana whenua Kaitiaki Forum.

46.     The project team have also provided updates to the Independent Māori Statutory Board secretariat on progress.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

47.     Local boards participating in this programme in the first year paid $10,000.  This funded a programme manager, mana whenua engagement, research and database development, as well as supporting resources to progress the programme.

48.     In the 2018/19 year local boards have been asked to contribute $25,000.  The amount available from each participating local board varies.  The budget is needed to fund contract staff to support the programme, resource mana whenua for their research, names, narratives and project meetings, as well as data base development and some funding for communications.  While some assumptions have been made to estimate the project costs these will need to be tested as names are identified over the next six months.  One of the assumptions has been that effective communication with communities will be preferred over consultation; that will make the costs higher.

49.     The programme involves the gifting of names and narratives for nominated parks.  It does not include any capital expenditure.  Any new signage or capital works would occur over a number of years as signage renewals occur or if the local board sets aside budget to fast track upgrades to signage.

50.     The project team are working closely with the signage renewals team to align the signage renewals work programme with the adoption of Māori names.  This will enable the names to be seen, heard, learnt and spoken as soon as practicable.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

51.     A number of risks have been discussed during the scoping of this programme and most of these have been mitigated through project design. 

a)    The volume of names and narratives and the capacity to deliver on these.  The number of local boards participating in the programme, as well as the phasing work across the types of parks and places, has ensured the workload is paced over a number of years.  In addition, local boards are tending to take the approach to initially focus on easy wins.  Mana whenua have led the programme and have supported the pace of the programme.

b)    Māori translation of functional names for parks or places for example domain or esplanade adds a lot of complexity and could make Māori names quite long.  As noted earlier, a principle of the project is that the Māori name will not be a translation of the existing name.  There is no need to apply the functional name, and in general it is not expected that this will occur for park names.  However, this has occurred with libraries and may be considered for other places.  This will be discussed in future reports as part of the next phase of the programme. 

c)    Where there are multiple iwi interests there may be no agreement.  There are overlapping iwi interests across several parks and places.  In recognition of this, a principle of the project, as agreed by mana whenua, is that they will work together to provide a single name, except where there is more than one traditional name for a site.  However, it is noted that many of the Tūpuna Maunga (volcanic cones) have several traditional names (eg, Puketāpapa and Pukewiwi, which are both gazetted names that sit alongside the English name, Mt Roskill.  The council and the community has supported multiple Māori names in the past. 

d)    Digital naming only won’t gain traction and names will be lost.  It may take some time for the names to be ‘seen’ through signage renewals.  As an interim measure a GIS linked database has been developed that can be easily searched that will provide information on the origin of the existing name and the Māori name and narrative.  This information will be incorporated in council’s GIS and asset systems which will quickly ensure it is picked up by third parties and used across a number of council activities.  A web based information tool is being investigated and a communications strategy will promote the GIS data and web based information so that the community can have access to it.  It will also look to celebrate new names through publications, events and other means.

e)    Navigation confusion / way finding. This is a potential/perceived risk given the significant growth in Auckland and the number of new place names. The placement of names in GIS and other digital forums, as well as an effective communication plan, is expected to mitigate any actual or perceived risk. 

f)     Some local boards have had negative experiences with changing the names of parks within their local area.  In response to this concern the programme includes a research phase to ensure the origins of the existing names are well understood.  Where current names have a significant history they are generally not included in the first phase.  The predominant outcome is going to be the addition of names and associated rich narratives and will not involve the removal of names.  Where it is considered appropriate to replace a name, the local board will also need to carefully consider who the affected parties are and determine if community engagement is appropriate.  In all other cases, we propose that a strong public communications approach will enable the community to understand the process and enjoy the benefits of the additional name and narrative. 

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

52.     The potential list of regional parks and cemeteries to be included in the programme along with a process for communicating or engaging the community on the names will be reported back in the second half of 2019. 

53.     Once the next report is considered, and providing the programme is supported, mana whenua with an interest in these parks will undertake research and, where necessary, will work together to agree a single name and narrative to be gifted.

54.     In parallel with the mana whenua naming process, the project team will work closely with the council communications team to develop a tailored communications plan for regional parks and cemeteries.

55.     The project team will also continue to work closely with the signage renewals delivery team to seek opportunities for new Māori names to be part of signage renewals.

56.     Dual naming is expected to make up the largest number of new Māori names and, in general, it is expected that an effective communications programme to inform the community of the new names and narratives will be an appropriate approach. 


 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Māori language policy

17

b

Regional Parks Management Plan - park naming policy

25

c

High level process

27

d

List of Regional Parks and Open Cemeteries reporting to Governing Body

29

      

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Jane Aickin - Paeurungi Te Waka Tai-ranga-whenua

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

Submission on proposed phase out of plastic shopping bags

 

File No.: CP2018/15456

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To approve Auckland Council’s draft submission on the proposed mandatory phase out of single-use plastic shopping bags.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The New Zealand government are consulting on a mandatory phase out of single-use plastic shopping bags (see consultation document in Attachment A). The consultation period closes on 14 September 2018.

3.       Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 identifies plastic waste as one of three priority waste streams to be reduced. It also recognises the negative impacts plastic bag litter has on council’s recycling systems and our marine environments.

4.       The consultation document outlines the available options for managing these issues, which include a mandatory phase out, a charge on bags, a formal agreement between government and industry, and mandatory product stewardship.

5.       Council staff have prepared a draft submission on this proposal (see Attachment B). The draft council submission supports the proposal and makes the following key points:

·     That Auckland Council supports option one in the consultation document – a total and mandatory ban. The inappropriate consumption, use and discarding of plastic bags has significant impacts on Auckland’s natural environment and our waste collection systems.

·     The ban should apply to all retailers who distribute single-use plastic bags, rather than just the larger retailers. An incomplete ban will dilute the effectiveness of this behaviour change intervention on consumers.

·     Support for the current proposed definition that a single use plastic bag is one that includes handles, and is sold or distributed for the purposes of carrying sold goods

·     Support for the proposed six-month phase-out timeframe.

6.       The draft submission also identifies some areas where Auckland Council considers that further work and discussion is needed post-consultation. This includes how the ban will be effectively enforced. The submission outlines Auckland Council’s desire to be included in these discussions alongside the Ministry for the Environment to achieve suitable outcomes.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      approve council’s submission on the proposed mandatory phase out of single-use plastic shopping bags to the New Zealand Government.

b)      support council being heard to speak to this submission should the opportunity be presented.

c)      nominate an elected member representative to speak to this submission.

 

 


 

Horopaki / Context

7.       The New Zealand Government is seeking feedback on a proposed mandatory phase out of the sale or distribution of single-use plastic shopping bags. The phase out would be enacted through regulation under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and introduced over a six month timeframe. 

8.       The recognition by the Ministry for the Environment that over the longer term, plastic waste needs to be designed out of the system is aligned with council’s aspiration for zero waste. This recognition reinforces that Aotearoa New Zealand can be prosperous while creating an economy that is not reliant on externalising environmental harms, such as plastic waste, in our streams and oceans.

9.       Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 includes three priorities relating to plastic.

a)    The plan recognises plastic waste as a high priority for avoidance and has identified it as one of three priority waste streams to be addressed.

b)    Reducing litter is also a priority included in the plan. Managing plastic bags as littered items has a high resource and financial cost to council as well as the natural environment.

c)    The plan includes a priority relating to reducing marine litter and pollution from plastic waste. This priority was added to the draft plan as a result of significant public concern and feedback on this topic during the consultation period.

10.     A mandatory phase-out of plastic bags will be beneficial for achieving all three priorities.

11.     The contamination caused by the incorrect disposal of plastic bags by consumers in comingled recycling collection systems also has significant consequences. Plastic bags incorrectly disposed of in kerbside comingled recycling can slow or damage recycling processor’s equipment, affecting the quality of recyclate and increasing the processing cost.

12.     Auckland Council prioritises education and enforcement around recycling contamination to avoid the knock on effect of incorrect plastic bag disposal in kerbside recycling bins. A mandatory phase-out will reduce these impacts.

13.     As such, Auckland Council’s draft submission strongly supports a mandatory phase out or ban on the sale or distribution of single use plastic bags. The rationale for this, and more details of the submission, are outlined in the section below.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options analysis

14.     The Ministry for the Environment’s consultation document outlines a number of options for reducing the use of plastic bags, including a:

§ mandatory phase out;

§ levy, tax or charge;

§ deposit refund system. This puts a new cost onto a product, which is refunded to the consumer when they bring the material back for recycling;

§ formal agreement with government and industry, in which retailers are required to charge for bags; and

§ mandatory product stewardship scheme in which producers that put certain goods on the market are required to be responsible for environmentally sound end-of-life management of the product.


 

17.     The Ministry’s consultation document considers the pros and cons of each option in detail (see Attachment A). It concludes that the most effective option is a mandatory phase out of sale or distribution of single-use plastic bags through regulations under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

18.     Auckland Council’s draft submission does not include a detailed options analysis. However, it notes there are alternative reusable options easily available for use by the general public. The best way to prevent harm from plastic bags is to prevent them from being issued in the first place.

19.     Since a charge on plastic bags, a deposit refund system and a product stewardship scheme would all support the continued distribution of plastic bags, these options are not supported.

20.     The draft submission also does not support a voluntary programme or an agreement between industry and government. This approach would create an inequitable approach to the problem as some businesses or organisations will choose not to participate in a voluntary scheme.

Preferred option

21.     Of the potential options presented by the Ministry for the Environment, Option 1 - mandatory phase out of the sale or distribution of single-use plastic shopping bags is identified in council’s draft submission as the preferred option. This is because it provides the most effective and wide-reaching mechanism for addressing plastic bag issues.

22.     The submission also provides feedback on some other aspects of the proposal, as outlined below.

Other aspects of proposal

23.     Scope of ban: To be most effective, the ban should apply to all retailers who distribute plastic bags, rather than just the larger retailers. Small retailers should not be exempt as they contribute significant numbers of bags to the waste stream. A ban should also apply to those importing single use bags. An incomplete ban will dilute the effectiveness of this behaviour change intervention on consumers.

24.     Definition of plastic bags: The draft submission supports the current proposed definition that a single use plastic bag is one that includes handles, and is sold or distributed to the public for the purposes of carrying sold goods. It also agrees with the proposal to include degradable, bio-degradable, oxo-degradable and compostable bags in the proposed definition.

25.     However, the submission notes concern that the discussion document currently specifies a particular thickness of plastic bag. This may result in bag producers designing products to be just above this threshold. Council therefore supports broadening the definition to apply to single-use plastic bags of all thicknesses.

26.     Timeframe: The draft submission supports the proposal for a six-month phase-out timeframe as this is considered sufficient time to allow retailers and consumers to prepare and adapt, provided the program of behaviour change interventions is comprehensive.

27.     Education and enforcement: Council’s draft submission supports the description of offences, and the strength of the penalties for those outlined in the consultation document. The submission also supports the approach of the Environmental Protection Authority managing enforcement of this ban. It notes that the approach may have some implications for council resources and welcomes the opportunity to participate in further discussions with the Ministry around the best approaches to education and enforcement.

28.     Equity and opportunity: The council’s draft submission recognises that concerns have been raised regarding the need for a just transition for workers relying on plastic bag manufacture. However, it notes that the majority of single-use bags are manufactured off-shore and so local job loss is likely to be minimal.

29.     In fact, the broader move towards a circular economy has the potential to increase job creation. For example, there are a number of community groups across Auckland who create and distribute reusable bags to their local communities. The submission advocates that these community groups be taken into consideration by the Ministry as potential providers when engaging with retailers on practical options for alternatives to plastic bags.

30.     The submission also notes that the ban has the potential to reduce council litter clean-up costs and volunteer hours spent on litter clean ups.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

31.     The submission is aligned with the views of local boards who provided feedback on the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018, as summarised in Table One below.

Table One. Local board feedback related to plastic bags on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

Board(s)

Feedback

Albert-Eden, Hibiscus and Bays, Orākei, Papakura and Rodney Local Boards

Supported the reduction of environmental and marine pollution.

Waitematā Local Board

Supported working with central government to eliminate single use plastic bags.

Orākei Local Board

Supported the approach of working with businesses to try new approaches to reduce plastics going to landfill, particularly targeting specific plastics such as straws and plastic bags.

Manurewa Local Board

Supported encouraging businesses to reduce the number of plastic bags that are used, rather than legislative change. Concern was expressed regarding policy restrictions coupled with financial barriers making it difficult for Manurewa residents to dispose of their waste responsibly. This highlights the equity issues that will need to be considered during the mandatory phase-out.

Māngere-Otāhuhu Local Board

The board expressed the need to support people with large families and on lower incomes to meet targets set by Auckland Council in the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018. Similar support is likely to be needed in the transition to alternative bag options, as noted in the Ministry’s discussion paper.

Albert-Eden Local Board

The board supported the encouragement of local government to introduce product stewardship schemes. Although there is no product stewardship scheme proposed for plastic bags, the discussion paper notes that the ban is part of a move towards a circular economy, in which product stewardship will play a significant role.

32.     Local boards were also sent a memo on 27 August 2018 outlining the content of the consultation paper, Auckland Council’s draft submission, and explaining the process for them to make their own submission on the proposal.

33.     Any local board submissions received by 10 September will be tabled at the Environment and Community Committee meeting on 11 September for the committee’s consideration.

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

34.     The mandatory phase out of single-use plastic bags is consistent with the priorities and values that Maori have identified to Auckland Council through engagement on the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018. These include priorities such as protection of waterways and ecology which receive waste, as well as the protection of Papatūānuku.

35.     Relevant values include kaitiakitanga (our active obligation to sustain and restore our collective resources and manaakitanga (nurturing relationships, looking after people, taonga and taiao and fostering mutual respect).

36.     The ban also aligns with Te Ao Māori as it recognises the traditional system in which nothing is wasted – everything is able to be returned back to Papatūānuku without detriment to the whenua, awa or moana.  By reducing the prevalence of single-use plastic bags, this ban will support a move towards para kore (zero waste).

37.     The draft submission notes that mātauranga and tikanga Māori should be incorporated into solutions and decision-making by working with mana whenua, enabling Māori participation in decision-making consistent with the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This will ensure that the implementation of a phase-out works well for Māori. 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

38.     The financial costs of a plastic bag ban to Auckland Council are expected to be minimal.

39.     The perceived financial benefits to Auckland Council include a reduction in penalties paid for contamination of kerbside commingled recycling and a reduction in the costs of streetscape litter clean up by street maintenance contractors. 

40.     Financial benefits to other stakeholders include a reduction in damage caused by plastic bags on plant and equipment at the Visy Materials Recycling Facility, extended life of equipment, and reduced maintenance stoppages to clear bags entangled in the processing line. It is not possible to quantify these benefits at this time.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

41.     Making a submission on the consultation will not expose Auckland Council to any significant risks. Any potential implications for council in regards to enforcement and education will be mitigated through actively participating in the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation as they finalise the bill.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

42.     Auckland Council has requested to be able to present its submission and remain actively engaged in the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation process.

43.     An update will be provided to the Environment and Community Committee when a decision is made by the Ministry for the Environment on the proposed phase out.

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Consultation document: Proposed mandatory phase out of single-use plastic shopping bags

37

b

Auckland Council's draft submission on proposed mandatory phase out of single-use plastic shopping bags

93

     

 

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Parul Sood – Waste Planning Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

                                                                       

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written Submission

 

 

for the New Zealand Government

 

on the

 

Proposed mandatory phase out of single-use plastic shopping bags

 

 

14 September 2018


 

MIHI MIHI

 

1.         Ka mihi ake ai ki ngā maunga here kōrero,

2.         ki ngā pari whakarongo tai,

3.         ki ngā awa tuku kiri o ōna manawhenua,

4.         ōna mana ā-iwi taketake mai, tauiwi atu.

5.         Tāmaki – makau a te rau, murau a te tini, wenerau a te mano.

6.         Kāhore tō rite i te ao.

 

7.         I greet the mountains, repository of all that has been said of this place,

8.         there I greet the cliffs that have heard the ebb and flow of the tides of time,

9.         and the rivers that cleansed the forebears of all who came those born of this land
 and the newcomers among us all.

10.      Auckland – beloved of hundreds, famed among the multitude, envy of thousands.

11.      You are unique in the world.

 


 

Introduction

1.         The New Zealand Government is seeking feedback on a proposed mandatory phase out of the sale or distribution of single-use plastic shopping bags. The consultation document proposes a number of options, including a mandatory phase out through regulation under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. 

2.         Auckland Council commends the Minister and Ministry for the Environment for enacting powers within the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and for fulfilling the potential of the Act to proactively address environmental harms, aspects of the Act that are yet to be used.

3.         Aucklanders care deeply about the issue of plastic waste and, in particular, marine plastic. They expressed these concerns in considerable numbers through Auckland Council’s recent consultation process on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the Auckland Plan 2050 and the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

4.         The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 recognises these concerns and has identified plastic as one of three priority waste streams to be addressed.

5.         In the Auckland Plan 2050, Auckland Council supports a shift from a linear to a circular economy. 

6.         The recognition by the Ministry for the Environment that over the longer term, plastic waste needs to be designed out of the system is encouraging for zero waste. This recognition reinforces that Aotearoa New Zealand can be prosperous and still create an economy that is not reliant on externalising environmental harms, such as plastic waste, in our streams and oceans.

7.         Reducing litter is a high priority for Auckland Council and is outlined as one of the nine key priorities of Auckland’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. Managing plastic bags as littered items has a high resource and financial cost to councils as well as the natural environment. 

8.         Equally, the contamination caused by the incorrect disposal of plastic bags by consumers in comingled recycling collection systems has significant consequences. Plastic bags incorrectly disposed of in kerbside comingled recycling can slow or damage recycling processor’s equipment, affecting the quality of recyclate and increasing the cost of processing. Auckland Council prioritises education and enforcement around recycling contamination to avoid the knock on effect of incorrect plastic bag disposal in kerbside recycling bins and a mandatory phase-out will reduce these impacts.

9.         As such Auckland Council strongly supports a mandatory phase out or ban on the sale or distribution of single use plastic bags; this submission outlines the rationale for why Auckland Council supports Plastic Bag Intervention Option 1 – a total and mandatory ban.

10.       Should there be an opportunity to present this submission and be heard as part of this consultation process, Auckland Council would like to talk to this submission.

MANDATORY PHASE OUT

11.       The available options for managing plastic bags as outlined in the Ministry for the Environments consultation document include:

i.             a mandatory phase out,

ii.             a levy, tax or charge,

iii.            a deposit refund,

iv.           a formal agreement with government and industry, or

v.            mandatory product stewardship.

12.       As there are alternative, reusable options easily available for use by the general public, the best way to prevent harm from plastic bags is to prevent them from being issued in the first place.

13.       On this specific waste issue, Auckland Council does not support a voluntary programme or an agreement between industry and government. This approach would create an inequitable approach to the problem as some businesses or organisations will choose not to participate in a voluntary scheme.

14.       Of the potential options presented by the Ministry for the Environment, Auckland Council considers Option 1 - mandatory phase out of the sale or distribution of single-use plastic shopping bags to be the most effective and wide-reaching mechanism for addressing plastic bag issues.

15.       To be most effective, the ban should apply to all retailers who distribute plastic bags, rather than just the larger retailers. Small retailers should not be exempt as they contribute significant numbers of bags to the waste stream. A ban should also apply to those importing single use bags. An incomplete ban will dilute the effectiveness of the behaviour change effect of this ban on consumers.

SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS

16.       Auckland Council agrees with the current proposed definition that a single use plastic bag is one that includes handles, and is sold or distributed to the public for the purposes of carrying sold goods.

17.       The Ministry for the Environment consultation document proposes a definition of single-use plastic bags as:

“a new plastic bag (including one made of degradable plastic) which has handles and is below a particular level of thickness. The term ‘plastic’ and degradable’ (including biodegradable, compostable or oxo-degradable) would be defined in regulations with reference to international standards. The proposed phase out would apply to these bags when they are sold or distributed for the purpose of carrying sold goods.”

18.       In general Auckland Council agrees with the proposal to include degradable, bio-degradable, oxo-degradable and compostable bags in the proposed definition.

19.       As per evidence cited in the discussion document, there is value in the inclusion of heavier weighted bags. There is concern that including a thickness threshold may result in an opportunity for evasion of the legislation by companies adjusting their bag thickness to avoid the defined limits. Auckland Council is cautious about applying a weighting threshold and the implications would need to be carefully considered and market tested.

20.       Auckland Council is keen to continue working with the Government to address other sources of marine plastic in the future and the work happening in other jurisdictions. For example the EU has proposed from 28 May 2018 new rules covering 10 single-use plastic products and fishing gear that together account for 70% of the marine litter in Europe. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-3927_en.htm

TIMEFRAME

21.       Auckland Council agrees with the proposal for a six-month phase-out timeframe as the minimum timeframe that allows New Zealand to meet its World Trade Organisation Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement commitments.

22.       Given the established public and industry interest in the use of plastic bags, six months is considered sufficient time to allow retailers and consumers to prepare and adapt, provided the program of behaviour change interventions is comprehensive.

EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT

23.       Auckland Council has been engaging with community, environmental and business organisations since 2014 to seek voluntary measures that will reduce the harm associated with plastic bag issuance. This has resulted in broad consensus among these groups that in order to be effective and fair, any actions to reduce plastic bag issuance need to be at a national rather than a regional level.

24.       Auckland Council supports the description of offences, and the strength of the penalties for those offences outlined under Option 1. Following up consumer reports with investigations could be resource-intensive depending on the level of evidence required to issue penalties.  If, as suggested, the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is the delegated enforcement agency for this proposed legislation, assurances would be needed that the EPA will be sufficiently resourced to investigate and enforce compliance across the entire country.

25.       Auckland Council has some concerns around the knock on education and enforcement effect on council resources as a result of this introduced legislation. The submission welcomes the opportunity to participate in further discussions around the best approaches to education and enforcement.

OTHER: EQUITY AND OPPORTUNITY

26.       Auckland Council recognises that concerns have been raised regarding the need for a just transition for workers relying on plastic bag manufacture. Auckland Council notes evidence in the discussion paper that the majority of single-use bags affected by this ban are manufactured off-shore. In this case, local job loss is likely to be minimal. In fact, the broader move towards a circular economy has the potential to increase job creation, through direct remanufacturing of products, logistics, innovation and entrepreneurship (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015).

27.       The mandatory ban on plastic bags has the potential to reduce litter clean-up costs and volunteer hours. An Auckland Council survey of Sustainable Coastlines, SeaCleaners and the Harbour Clean Up Trust estimated volunteer hours if paid at the living wage in 2016 to have a value of $987,703. In the same survey, Auckland Transport and the NZTA each reported spending in excess of $1million a year on street cleaning contractors to clean up litter.  Although plastic bags are not the only waste stream collected in litter clean-ups, they are frequently found in collected waste. A reduction in expenditure on clean-ups could free up this money to be invested in other services.

28.       The consultation document notes the need for assistance for lower income consumers during the transition. Auckland Council notes that there are a number of community groups across the Auckland region that have received Waste Minimisation and Innovation funding, who create and distribute alternative bags to their local communities. Auckland Council would advocate that the community groups be taken into consideration as a provider when engaging with retailers on practical options for alternatives.

OTHER: MĀORI RESPONSIVENESS

29.       Through development of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 Auckland Council have engaged in extensive consultation with mana whenua and mataawaka on resource use and waste management.

30.       The proposed ban is consistent with many priority actions and values identified through this process. These include priorities such as ensuring that resource use and waste management occurs in a manner consistent with Te Ao Māori and protection of waterways and ecology which receive waste and wastewater. It also aligns with values such as kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga (nurturing relationships, looking after both people and taonga and taiao and fostering mutual respect)

31.       The ban is aligned with Te Ao Māori as it recognises the traditional system in which nothing was wasted – everything was able to be returned back to Papatūānuku without detriment to the whenua, awa or moana.  By reducing the prevalence of single-use plastic bags, this ban will support a move towards para kore (zero waste).

32.       Auckland Council recommends that mātauranga and tikanga Māori be incorporated into solutions and decision-making by working with mana whenua, enabling Māori participation in decision-making as per Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations. This will ensure that the implementation of a phase-out occurs in a way that works well for Māori. 

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

Proposal to expand and broaden the regional Mobile Library & Access service

 

File No.: CP2018/16496

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To approve a new way of delivering library services via an expanded regional Mobile and Access Service that is designed to have a more positive impact on a greater number of Aucklanders who need it most. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       In the previous LTP Governing Body funded the replacement of the central mobile library vehicle which has reached the end of its useful and economic life. This combined with last years ‘Fit for the Future’ library change has provided the opportunity to modernize and expand the service.

3.       The service has largely remained unchanged since amalgamation. It is underutilized and delivering poor value and less impact than it should.

4.       Rather than serving Aucklanders who can easily access a community library and trying to be everything to everyone as is the case currently, the new service will have a particular focus lifting literacy, improving access to information and reaching those who find it more challenging to access library services, especially children & young people and those who are socially or geographically isolated.

5.       The service will operate seven days a week, outside of traditional business hours and places. The changes are designed to reach more Aucklanders ‘when and where they are’ at places such as transport hubs, parks and campgrounds.

6.       Specific new roles have been created to reach and engage Māori, customers who are housebound, and to support, as well as resource, volunteers who run Auckland’s rural libraries.

7.       The two new vehicles and the three remaining mobile buses will have full digital capability and provide safer workplaces for staff.

8.       At the same time there will be a much greater emphasis on the quality of the service rather than the current focus on ‘frequency’.

9.       A summary of the shifts can be seen in ‘Appendix A – Evolution – the Mobile shifts’.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      approve the principles and direction contained in this report.

 

Horopaki / Context

10.     In the previous LTP Governing Body funded the replacement of the central mobile library vehicle which has reached the end of its useful and economic life. In its place, two smaller, modern and agile vehicles have been purchased that will reach more people and places. This new approach follows last years ‘Fit for the Future’ library change.  Together, these initiatives have been the genesis of an expanded and broader regional service.


 

11.     Although part of the wider library customer and information environment, which has experienced significant growth and change, the mobile library service has continued to be primarily a book lending service in urban Auckland, following fixed timetables in legacy areas.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

12.     The number of visits to mobile libraries is decreasing, most recently by 11.8% on the previous year. We need to transform the service to change this trend.

13.     Currently the four mobile libraries operate regular stops on fixed fortnightly schedules during business hours Monday to Friday, mainly in urban areas. They are, on average, ‘open’ only 47% of the total time available, mainly due to travel times between stops. Approximately 14% of stops are for longer than one hour. The length of visit indicates that customers are utilising the service for quick turnaround transactions rather than for other activities usually associated with modern library experiences. A new seven-day service with an emphasis on quality will have a more positive impact to more Aucklanders and do it more efficiently

14.     Despite children’s literacy being part of Libraries’ ‘reason for being’ just 14% of the total stops service pre-schools and schools. 40% of stops service elderly persons housing, and 46% are ‘general use’, mainly ‘street stops’. In 30% of cases less than 6 people use these street stops and well over 60% of street stop customers also use a community library.

15.     Mobile library services around the world are designed not for ‘convenience’ but to enable access to those who encounter barriers. The new service will have increased capacity to provide access to those who need it most by stopping poorly supported street stops that are a convenience for most. For those current customers who cannot access library services, we will arrange for them to be part of our Housebound programme.

16.     Mobile library buses are often barriers to access for many older Aucklanders with mobility issues. In future our staff will use a range of ‘pop up’ options to provide much greater levels of user-friendly service to more older Aucklanders in places such as rest homes, hospitals and pensioner housing.

17.     New roles will; support marae and kōhanga reo in order to lift literacy and collect and share Auckland stories and provide more capacity to attend Local Board and regional events. They will also unlock volunteer opportunities to expand the Housebound Service and better support rural libraries.

18.     Mobile librarians work alone most of the time currently and isolation is a key health and safety concern. The new service will improve this situation by enhancing staff connection, safety and wellbeing.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

19.     The direction and principles of this proposal were enthusiastically supported by the Seniors Advisory Panel at a workshop on 21 May.

20.     As a result of a presentation to the Local Board Chairs Forum (9 April 2018), Libraries offered to attend individual local board workshops in order to seek feedback. Of the 21 local boards, six preferred information by memo and 15 requested individual workshops (all completed). At the time of writing this report there have been 15 responses from local boards that had workshops. Of those, 13 of the 15 support the proposal. Two do not support mobile library services in either their current or proposed state. The summary is attached as ‘Appendix B – Local Board Feedback’.

21.     In addition, individual local boards have provided feedback that will help shape the service at a local operational level. The insights and knowledge have provided valuable connection opportunities staff were not previously aware of.

 

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

22.     The addition of new te reo speaking Māori role/s will have a positive impact. It will give council greater opportunity to build strong relationships at marae and Māori learning places that we are currently unable to engage with. 

23.     Opportunities include preserving, recording and sharing the stories of Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau, providing increased access to information and lifting literacy.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

24.     No additional funding is being requested and the support of this proposal will result in a more efficient service delivering better value and services of higher quality.

25.     The existing 2016/2017 capex budget provided for the retirement of the central mobile library bus from the fleet and replacement by suitable vehicle/s. No capex is required additional to that previously approved by Governing Body.

26.     Any increase in service provision over and above the status quo option will require additional regional opex. However, Auckland Libraries plans to shift existing regional funding from within the existing Libraries budget to any expanded regional mobile library service.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27.     The main risk is a perception that council is reducing service to those customers who currently receive mobile library services - at what are poorly used street stops that are proposed to cease. Data shows that the majority of customers at street stops also access a community library. Those customers who are unable to access a community library will be eligible for the Housebound service.

28.     Another risk is the perception that by not having a large mobile library bus going to retirement villages, rest homes, pensioner housing and the like, that Council is reducing services to senior Aucklanders. In fact, the larger vehicles are an impediment to access for many and instead senior Aucklanders will have greater access to a high quality experience at these places with the new service. The Seniors Advisory Panel endorses the principles and direction of this report.

29.     The risk of maintaining the status quo is a continued decline of use (and consequently poor value) to Aucklanders, at the same time as those who might benefit most from the service go without.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

30.     A transition to the new service is proposed to begin 1 October 2018 and adopted in full upon the delivery of the second new vehicle which is likely to be mid-November 2018.

31.     A communications plan is in place for customers, the public and local boards and the plan will be actioned if / when this report is approved.

32.     The service will iterate over time based on feedback from local boards, customers and opportunities to reach new customers. Usage data and patronage insights will be recorded, monitored and reported.

 


 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Appendix A - Evolution - the Mobile shifts

103

b

Appendix B – Local Board Feedback

105

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Darryl Soljan - Manager Customer Experience - North & West Libraries

Authorisers

Mirla Edmundson - General Manager Libraries & Information

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

Reserve Revocation Report - Properties Cleared for Disposal

 

File No.: CP2018/15860

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To report on the results of the notification of the proposals to revoke the reserve status under s.24 of the Reserve Act 1977 of four properties cleared for disposal, and to seek approval to submit a request to the Minister of Conservation to uplift the reserve status on each property.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Adj 155 Bombay Road, Bombay is a local purpose reserve of approximately 465 sq m. It was cleared for disposal by the Finance and Performance Committee on 24 October 2017 (FIN/2017/145).

3.       22R Clyde Road, Ōtara is an irregular-shaped vacant section of approximately 328 sq m. It was cleared for sale by the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 April 2018 (FIN/2018/60).

4.       66R Hallberry Road, Māngere is a rectangular vacant section of approximately 551 sq m. It was cleared for sale by the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 April 2018 (FIN/2018/60).

5.       9 Matama Road, Glen Eden is a narrow strip of approximately 80 sq m. It was cleared for sale by the Finance and Performance Committee on 12 December 2017 (FIN/2017/204).

6.       Panuku Development Auckland has undertaken iwi and public notification under s.24 of the Reserve Act 1977 on the four properties. No objections were received for 22R Clyde Road, 66R Hallberry Road and 9 Matama Road. Four objections were received for Adj 155 Bombay Road.

7.       The objectors requested that the council consider potential uses of the reserve for the local community. Panuku wrote to the four objectors on 31 July 2018 and again on 17 August 2018. One objector responded, but the objections have not been withdrawn.

8.       Panuku Development Auckland now seeks a formal resolution from the Environment and Community Committee to approve the recommendation to request to the Minister of Conservation that the reserve status over each of the four properties be uplifted.

9.       Property descriptions, details of the notification process and the outcomes are set out in Attachments A to G.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      agree to submit a request to the Minister of Conversation to uplift the reserve status of the following properties:

i)             Adj 155 Bombay Road, Bombay comprised of an estate in fee simple of 465 m² being Part Allotment 13 Parish of Mangatawhiri contained in certificate of title NA1608/42;

ii)            22R Clyde Road, Ōtara comprised of an estate in fee simple of 328 m² being Lot 183 DP 50724 contained in certificate of title NA41D/928;

iii)           66R Hallberry Road, Māngere comprised of an estate in fee simple of 551 m² being Lot 125 DP 49579 contained in certificate of title NA35D/1304;

iv)           9 Matama Road, Glen Eden comprised of an estate in fee simple of 80 m² being Lot 1 DP 98357 contained in certificate of title NA35D/1304.

 

Horopaki / Context

10.     Property descriptions and the details of public and iwi notification processes, together with the outcomes for each of these properties are set out in Attachments A to D of this report.

11.     Adj 155 Bombay Road, Bombay is a rhomboid-shaped, vacant section of approximately 465 sq m that was vested in the former Franklin County Council as a local purpose reserve upon subdivision in 1983.  It was cleared for disposal by the Finance and Performance Committee on 24 October 2017 (FIN/2017/145), subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes.

12.     22R Clyde Road, Ōtara is an irregular-shaped vacant section of approximately 328 sq m.  It was vested in trust in the former Manukau City Council as a recreation reserve in 1969.  It was cleared for sale by the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 April 2018, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes (FIN/2018/60).

13.     66R Hallberry Road, Māngere is a rectangular vacant section of approximately 551 sq m.  The land was vested in the former Manukau City Council as a local purpose (road) reserve upon subdivision in 1961. It was cleared for sale by the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 April 2018, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes (FIN/2018/60).

14.     9 Matama Road, Glen Eden is a narrow strip of approximately 80 sq m.  It was originally part of a larger property acquired by Glen Eden Borough Council in 1962, and was retained as an access way reserve when the adjoining land was disposed of in 1984.  It was cleared for sale by the Finance and Performance Committee on 12 December 2017, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes (FIN/2017/204).

15.     The property at Adj 155 Bombay Road received four submissions from members of the public. The submitters stated their objection to the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the property and requested that the council consider potential uses of the reserve for the local community.

16.     Panuku wrote to the four objectors on 31 July 2018 setting out the reasons behind the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the property and inviting them to withdraw their objections. Follow up letters were sent on 17 August 2018. One objector telephoned, but did not withdraw his objection. The submissions received and the responses to the objectors are set out in Attachments F and G. No submissions were received for the other properties.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

17.     Panuku recommends that the Environment and Community Committee request the Minister of Conservation to uplift the reserve status of the four properties on the basis that they are not required for reserve purposes. The revocation of reserve status is required if the disposal process is to be continued.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

18.     The Franklin Local Board endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of Adj 155 Bombay Road, Bombay at its 18 April 2017 business meeting.

19.     The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of 22R Clyde Road, Ōtara at its 21 November 2017 business meeting.

20.     The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of 66R Hallberry Road, Māngere at its 21 November 2017 business meeting.

21.     The Waitakere Ranges Local Board endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of 9 Matama Road, Glen Eden at its 10 August 2017 business meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

22.     Panuku notified all the relevant Mana Whenua iwi authorities of the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the properties and the responses to this engagement are contained in Attachments A to D of this report.

23.     Ngāti Tamaoho asked the reason for the proposed revocation of the Bombay Road reserve, and whether it could be returned to iwi. The correspondence with the iwi is set out in Attachment E. In summary, no objections were received from Mana Whenua.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

24.     If the status of reserve is lifted from the four properties, a plan change will be necessary for Adj 155 Bombay Road and 22R Clyde Road to change the open space zoning to an appropriate residential zoning in order to allow the highest and best value of the land to be realised.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

25.     If the reserve status of the properties is not revoked, it will not be possible to progress the disposal of any of them. The properties would remain in council ownership and would incur ongoing maintenance costs and management as open space.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

26.     If the committee resolves to recommend proceeding with the application to revoke the reserve status of the properties, council officers will forward the resolution to the Department of Conservation together with the objections received.

27.     If the Minster approves the request, a notice will be published in the New Zealand Gazette authorising the revocation, and this will be submitted to Land Information New Zealand for issue of titles.

28.     Panuku will then determine the best timeframe for the completion of the disposal process for the properties. Where necessary, Panuku will seek to change the zoning from open space to the most appropriate zoning on the advice of the Unitary Plan team.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Adj 155 Bombay Road - Property Details and Notification Process

111

b

22R Clyde Road - Property Details and Notification Process

115

c

66R Hallberry Road - Property Details and Notification Process

117

d

9 Matama Road - Property Details and Notification Process

119

e

Correspondence with Ngati Tamaoho

121

f

Objections received for Bombay Road

123

g

Example of response and follow-up to objectors

127

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Carl   May - Property Acquisitions & Disposals Advisor, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Nigel Hewitson - Manager Property Disposals, Panuku Development Auckland

Ian Wheeler - Director Portfolio Management, Panuku Development Auckland

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 


 


 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 


 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 


 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 


 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 


 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 


 


 


 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 


 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

ICLEI conference - Cr Wayne Walker

 

File No.: CP2018/16109

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       Cr Wayne Walker will provide a brief presentation on his recent experience at the ICLEI World Congress in Montreal.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      receive the presentation.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Tam White - Senior Governance Advisor

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

Summary of Environment and Community Committee information - updates, memos and briefings - 11 September 2018

 

File No.: CP2018/16818

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To note progress on the forward work programme (Attachment A).

2.       To provide a public record of memos, workshop or briefing papers that have been distributed for the Committee’s information since 14 August 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

4.       The following papers/memos were circulated to members:

·    20180806_Memo update on several workstreams related to trees in Auckland urban areas

·    20180905_Global Activity Memo – September 2018

Note that staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

5.       This document 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 “Environment and Community  Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘View’;

under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments”.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      receive the Environment and Community Committee information report – 11 September 2018.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Forward work programme

133

b

20180806_Aucklands urban trees update

143

c

20180904_Global Activity Memo - September 2018

153

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Tam White - Senior Governance Advisor

Authorisers

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

 

Komiti Taiao a Hapori Hoki /

ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY COMMITTEE FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME 2018

This committee deals with strategy and policy decision-making that relates to the environmental, social, economic and cultural activities of Auckland as well as matters that are not the responsibility of another committee or the Governing Body

 

 

 

Committee Priorities:

1.         Clearly demonstrate that Auckland is making progress with climate change adaptation and mitigation and taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

2.         Enable green growth with a focus on improved water quality, pest eradication and ecological restoration

3.         Strengthen communities and enable Aucklanders to be active and connected

4.         Make measurable progress towards the social and community aspects of housing all Aucklanders in secure, healthy homes they can afford

5.         Grow skills and a local workforce to support economic growth in Auckland

 

 

The work of the committee will:

 

·          Deliver on the outcomes in the Auckland Plan

·          Be focused on initiatives that have a high impact

·          Meet the Council’s statutory obligations, including funding allocation decisions

·          Increase the public’s trust and confidence in the organisation.

Area of work

Reason for work

Decision or direction

Expected timeframes

Quarter (month if known)

 

Edited 4 September 2018

Jan-Mar 2018

20 Feb

13 March

Apr-Jun 2018

10 April

8 May

12 June

Jul-Sep 2018

10 July

14 Aug

11 Sept

Oct-Dec 2018

16 Oct

13 Nov

4 Dec

 

Strategic approach to Climate Change

 

To demonstrate that Auckland is making progress with climate change adaptation and mitigation and taking action to reduce emissions.

Strategic direction will be provided in the coming months.

Progress to date:

A summary of activities to prepare for climate change was given in the presentation on 8/8/17 meeting.

Report was considered on 20/2/18, resolution ENV/2018/11 

Dec 18 – approval for consultation

Feb – Mar 19 -  targeted public engagement

Apr 19 – feedback presented to elected members

Jun 19 – final strategy for adoption

 

 

 

 

Q2

(Dec)

 

Low carbon living

 

To deliver on Low Carbon Auckland Plan commitments by the design and implementation of awareness raising and incentives programmes to reduce household, community, business and schools carbon emissions by approximately 50% of current levels.

Strategic direction and endorse programmes as part of the Low Carbon Auckland Plan implementation.

Progress to date:

Report was considered at 20/2/18 meeting. Res ENV/201811 report back in Dec18 for a decision. Independent Advisory Group (IAG) was approved. Chairs Planning and Env & Community Cttees, an IMSB member and the Mayor’s office to decide on the membership of the IAG. 

 

Q3

(Feb)

Q4

Q1

(Sept)

Q2

(Dec)

 

Low Carbon Auckland / Climate Change Mitigation

 

Four-yearly review of strategic action plan due in 2018; increased engagement with and commitments via C40 Cities membership; development of proactive policy agenda to central government emerging

Climate Plan Workshop:

Risks and vulnerabilities (June)

•           Committee workshop on risks and vulnerabilities

•           Communication strategy for broader public engagement

•           Local Board workshops

•           Mana whenua engagement (integrated throughout)

•           Stakeholder workshops

Prioritisation criteria and identified actions (Jul/Aug)

•           Cost benefit and total value analysis

•           Agree prioritisation criteria

•           Review all actions

•           Draft plan

•           Draft plan to committee (Dec 2018

•           Consultation (linking to other plans, approach tbc)

•           Updates to action plan

•           Adoption of updated plan by council (Proposed December 2018)

•           Final Adoption of Climate Plan  (Mar 09)

Decision and endorsement of strategic direction

Progress to date:

Report was considered at 20/2/18 meeting. Res ENV/201811 report back in Dec18 for a decision. Independent Advisory Group was approved.

Workshops scheduled: 4/7/18 and 26/09/18. An update was on 12/06/18 meeting agenda.

Q3

(Feb)

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Dec)

 

Urban Forest Strategy

 

Strategic approach to delivering on the wider social, economic and environmental benefits of a growing urban forest in the context of rapid population growth and intensification.

 

Decision on strategic direction and endorsement of strategy.

Progress to date:

A workshop was held on 14/06/17. Report was considered on 12/09/17 ENV/2017/116 a full draft of the strategy was considered 20/02/18, res ENV/2018/12 with a report back on the results of the LIDAR and an implementation plan on costs and benefits in Aug 2018. An updated memo was included in the 14 Aug agenda. 

Q3

Q4

Q1

(Aug)

Q2

 

Allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund

 

Decision making over medium and large funds from the Waste Minimisation and Innovation fund in line with the fund’s adopted policy. Funds to contribute towards council’s aspirational goal of zero waste to landfill by 2040.

Decision on the annual allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund for the 2018-2019 financial year.

Progress to date:
Decision: Approval of allocation of September 2016  funding round Resolution ENV/2016/19 Item C5. Approval of grants in Dec 17

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Auckland’s water strategy

The health of Auckland’s waters is a critical issue. Both freshwater and marine environments in Auckland are under pressure from historic under-investment, climate change and rapid growth. The draft Auckland Plan 2050 identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions.

Decision and strategic direction and priorities as part of the Auckland Plan.

Consider the development of an Auckland’s waters strategy to be adopted for consultation December 2018.

Progress to date:

A report was considered on 12/06/18 to approve the proposed scope, timeframe and budget for the development of the strategy. Res ENV/2018/78

Key milestones:

 

·          June 2018 – develop a strategic summary of water related outcomes, identify integrated water outcomes,

·          July-Oct 2018 – high level regional options are developed and assessed for the five draft themes – consultation with mana whenua 

 

Q4

(June)

 

Q2

(Dec)

 

Regional Pest Management Plan review

 

Statutory obligations under the Biosecurity Act to control weeds and animal pests.

To ensure that the plan is consistent with the national policy direction and up to date.

 

Decision and strategic direction on weed and plants that will be subject to statutory controls.

Consider submissions received on the draft plan in mid 2018 and adopt the final plan by December 2018.

Progress to date:

Decision: Agreed to the inconsistencies in ACT at the 14 Feb 2017 ENV/2017/7 Item 12

Workshops held on 4/04/17, 3/05/17 and 27/09/17

Draft plan was approved for consultation in Nov 2017

Funding for implementation of the proposed RPMP through LTP.

A memo was distributed and is attached to the July agenda.

Key milestones:

·          workshops with local boards on public feedback – September - October 2018

·          workshops with local boards on public feedback – September - October 2018

·          engagement with mana whenua – September – October 2018

·          workshop with Environment and Community Committee – October – November 2018

·          formal feedback from local boards at business meetings – October – November 2018

·          approval of final plan by Environment and Community Committee – March 2019

Q3

(Mar 19)

Q4

Q1

(Jul)

Q2

(Nov)

 

Inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan

To ensure the plan is consistent with Auckland Council’s:

-              proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

-              current and future marine biosecurity programmes

-              response to SeaChange – Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan.

Decision on the development of the discussion document for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan for public consultation.

Progress to date:

A memo was distributed on 31/05/18 advising the committee on the Auckland Council’s participation in the development of a discussion document for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan, through the Top of the North Marine Biosecurity partnership.

 

 

 

Q2

(Nov/Dec)

 

Allocation of the Regional Natural Heritage Grant

Decision-making over regional environment fund as per the grants funding policy and fund guidelines

Decision on the annual allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund for the 2018-2019 financial year.

Progress to date

Allocation of the Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant for the 2017-2018 financial year was made on 6 Dec 2016_ENV/2016/11 Item 15

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Dec)

 

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management is being implemented, with periodic reporting to council committee on progress, and responding to ongoing central government refinement of the framework for achieving water outcomes.

 

In December 2018 further decisions will be sought under the national policy statement, including:

·          approve final targets for swim-ability of major rivers in the Auckland region

·          approve the updated Progressive Implementation Plan for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

 

Progress to date:

Council submission was approved on Central Govt. Clean Water Consultation 2017 process: Minutes of 4 April ENV/2017/54 Item 12. Follow up is required for resolution b) – a workshop held on 14 June. A supplementary submission on the Clean Water Consultation package was made on 25 May 2017, Item 14 13/06/17

Decision ENV/2018/14 on engagement approach for consultation on the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management in Feb 2018.

A report was considered on 26/6/18 : Res ENV/2018/78

·          June 2018: develop strategy

·          July to Oct 2018 – High level regional options are developed and assessed for the five draft themes in consultation with mana whenua, local boards and key stakeholders.

·          Dec 2018- Draft Auckland's waters strategy presented to Environment and Community Committee for approval for release for public consultation

·          Feb to Apr 2019 - Targeted public engagement on the draft Auckland's waters strategy in February to March 2019.

·          Apr 2019 - Feedback analysed and presented to elected members in April 2019

·          Jun 2019 - Final strategy presented to Environment and Community Committee for adoption

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Dec)

 

Food Policy Alliance

To consider food policy alliance

Decision on food policy alliance

Q3

(Mar)

TBC

 

Q2

 

Auckland Growing Greener

Statutory obligations under the Resource Management Act, Biosecurity Act and Local Government Act.

Consideration of items to give effect to the adopted commitment of Auckland Council to grow greener.

Strategic direction and oversight into council’s role to improve the natural environment, and to endorse proposed incentives.

This may include endorsing:

·          a framework to ensure planning and growth decisions are underpinned by relevant environmental data

·          proposed incentives for green growth

·          recommendations arising from a current state statutory obligations review.

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Hunua Aerial 1080 Operation

Provide information on outcomes of the Hunua 1080 aerial pest control operation

To note outcomes of the Hunua 1080 aerial pest control operation.

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Nov)

 

Parks, Sports and Recreation

 

Sport and Rec Strategic Partnership Grant to Aktive Auck Sports Rec

Approval of $552,000 strategic partnership grant to Aktive Auck & Sport to deliver on agreed priority initiatives.

To approve the $552,000 strategic partnership grant to Aktive Auckland Sport & Recreation for 2017/2018

Progress to date:

Report was considered 5/12/17 Resolution ENV/2017/186 – report back against KPI every six months. 

A report was considered on 10 July 2018 to approve the strategic partnership grant of $552,000 per annum for a three-year term (2018-2021) Res ENV/2018/90

A funding agreement will be prepared for Aktive that ensures clear accountability and KPIs for each of the four geographical areas (North, West, Central and Southern) for the investment.

 

 

Q1

(Jul)

 

 

Te Motu a Hiaroa (Puketutu Island)

Status update on the Te Motu a Hiaroa Governance Trust 

To note further update on progress of the governance trust

 

 

Q1

(Jul)

Q2

(Oct)

 

Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan

Status report on implementation plan

Direction on future options for sport and recreation.

Q3

 

Q1

Q2

(Nov)

 

Sports Investment Plan

Council’s strategic approach to outcomes, priorities and investment in sports

Decision on issues papers

Draft Plan approval

Finalise and adopt investment plan

Progress to date:

Evaluation of current sports facilities investments and proposed changes was adopted on 14 March, resolution ENV/2017/39  Item 13 with the final draft investment plan to be adopted prior to consultation.

An outcome measurement tool to support the Sports Facilities Investment Plan was considered and agreed at the 4 April 2017 meeting. Resolution ENV/2017/50 Item 9 The findings of the pilot will be reported in mid-2019 seeking a decision on the roll-out model. 

 

Q3

Q4

(2019)

 

Q1

Q2

(Nov)

 

Golf Investment Plan

Council’s strategic approach to outcomes, priorities and investment in golf.

Decision on issues papers

Draft Plan approval

Finalise and adopt investment plan

Progress to date:

Confidential workshop held 13/06/17. Another workshop to be held (date to be advised)

Q3

 

Q4

Q1

(Sep)

Q2

 

Indoor Courts

Strategic business case for indoor courts investment

Decision on investment approach

Q3

Q4

Q1

(Aug)

Q2

 

 

Western Springs Community School Partnership

Improve Community Access to school facilities

Decision on Business and Investment in indoor court facility at Western Springs  

Progress to date:

The report was considered in May. Resolution ENV/2017/71 A business case will be prepared to outline the opportunity to fully invest in the indoor court development and can consider as part of the LTP 2018-2028 .

 

 

 

Q2

 

Growth Programme

Update on proposed growth funding allocation for 2018-2020

 

Decision on growth funding allocation

 

 

Q1

 

 

Regional Sports Grants

Improving monitoring and evaluation of sports grants

Decision on monitoring and evaluation framework

Q3

Q4

(May)

Q1

Q2

 

Regional Sport and Recreation grants programme  2018/2020

Review of previous grants allocation and recommendation for next round

Decision on sport and recreation grants programme objectives and approach

Progress to date:

Approved on 12 Sept the 2018/2019 grants programme to proceed in accordance with the Community Grants Policy suggested outcomes and assessment matrix. Applications open 30/10/17 close 8/12/17 ENV/2017/119 Workshop in April 2018. Report was considered on 8/5/18 and resolved ENV/2018/57 .

Approved applications for 2019/2020 funding round on 25/1/2019 and close on 8/3/19 for allocation from July 2019.

Q3

Q4

(May19)

Q1

(Sep)

 

 

Review of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012: TOR

The review will assess the efficacy of the guidelines in for the council to deliver the best possible outcomes for Auckland through community leases

Decision on the terms of reference for the review of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012

Progress to date:

The TOR was approved for the review to commence and will report back in May July 2018 subject to TLP.

An update memo was circulated in August 2017 in response to feedback from the July 2017 meeting. Joint workshop with local board chairs held 20/6/18. 

 

Q4

Q1

(Oct)

 

 

Active Recreation Investment and Visitor Experience

Council’s strategic approach to outcome, priorities and investment for active walking, cycling, waterways and visitor experience on open space, parks and regional parks

Decision on scope and phasing

Q3

Q4

Q1

(Aug)

Q2

 

Takaro – Investing in Play discussion document

Development  of a play investment plan

Decision on approval for public release

Progress to date:

Approved on 16/05/17 for public release the discussion document and will report to E&C for approval in late 2017

Takaro was approved for release on 20 Feb 2018

A report back by August 2018 for approval to initiate public consultation

 

Q3

(Feb)

 

Q1

(Oct)

Q2

 

 

Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 – variation to incorporate land at Piha into the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park

To approve variation to incorporate land purchased at Piha to be known as Taitomo Special Management Zone as part of the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park

Decision on approval to a variation

Progress to date:

Approved on 20/2/2018 Res ENV/2018/15    report

Manager, Regional Parks, will prepare an integrated vegetation management and fire–risk reduction plan in consultation with the local community and report back on the resourcing needs for its effective implementation.

 

 

Q1

(tbc)

 

 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

 

The Southern Initiative (TSI)

Provide an update on the TSI approach, priorities and achievements.

Strategic direction of the TSI approach to social and community innovation in south Auckland

 

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Global Engagement Strategy

Provide an update and direction of Auckland Council’s global engagement strategy and priorities. It has been three years since a new strategic direction was introduced, progress on this strategy will presented.

Funded

Strategic direction of Auckland Council’s global engagement strategy and priorities

Progress to date:

Monthly global engagement updates are published on each agenda

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Options to expand revenue streams for sport facilities investment

Provide strategic direction to expand revenue streams to fund future sports facilities investment in the draft Sports Facilities Investment Plan

strategic direction to expand revenue streams to fund future sports facilities investment in the draft Sports Facilities Investment Plan

Progress to date:

A report was considered in Aug. Res ENV/2017/121

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY, CULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

 

Community Facilities Network Plan

Update on progress and report back on strategic business case for central west.

Decision on indicative business case for central west

Progress to date:

A progress report was considered on 14 March. Resolution ENV/2017/36 Item 11 to report back on an indicative business case for investment in the central-west area.

 

Q3

(Mar)

Q4

Q1

(July)

Q2

 

Auckland Sport Sector: Facility Priorities Plan

Develop and endorse the Sports Facilities Investment Plan to enable Auckland Council to take a more co-ordinated approach to its sports facilities investment.

Decision on the Auckland Sport Sector : Facility Priorities Plan.

Decision on sector’s investment priorities and investigate potential funding options.

Progress to date:

The plan was endorsed on 12 Sept ENV/2017/118. Staff to report back on priorities and potential funding options.

 

 

Q1

(Sept)

Q2

 

Homelessness

Implementing Regional Policy and Strategy resolution to progress work around Council’s strategic position on addressing homelessness

(note this work will be informed by discussions at the Community Development and Safety Committee)

Decision on scope

Decision on role and direction addressing homelessness

Progress to date:

Approved the scope policy 14 Feb Item 17 

Auckland council’s position and role was considered at the August meeting report item 12. Staff to report back with an implementation plan. Resolution  ENV/2017/118 of preferred position and role

Q3

(Feb)

Q4

 

Q1

(Aug)

Q2

TBC

 

Facilities Partnerships Policy

Identify the range of current council approaches to facility partnerships, issues, opportunities and agree next steps

Decision on facility partnership approach

Decision to adopt Facility Partnership Framework in December 2017

Progress to date:

Update was given at 14 February meeting on Phase 1.  Approval was given on the proposed timelines for Phase 2 : Minutes 14 February Item 14 preferred option

A report seeking approval to engage on a draft facility partnerships policy on 12/06/18. Resolution ENV/2018/74  

Q3

(Feb)

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Dec)

 

Citizens Advice Bureaux Services

Review of the Citizens Advice Bureaux Services

RSP decision in April 2016 (REG/2016/22)

Decision on review results

Progress to date:

Report was considered at 20 Feb meeting. Decision: lies on the table. A supplementary report was considered on 10 April 2018, Res ENV/2018/48 and with changes for an updated funding model to be agreed by 1 April 2019

Q3

(Feb)

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Feb/Mar19)

 

Social and Community Housing Strategy and initiatives

Strategic overview of social and community housing initiatives. Wider housing portfolio and spatial outcomes of council’s role in housing is led by the Planning Committee.

 

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Affordable Housing Intervention

Understanding NZ and international interventions to address affordable housing

Decision on future Auckland Council approaches to affordable housing interventions

Q3

 

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Te Kauroa – Library Strategy

Libraries and Information is carrying out a change programme (Fit for the future) to accelerate the implementation of this 2013-2023 strategy (approved by the Governing Body)

Direction relating to priorities and to receive update on strategic direction and implementation progress

Approve an expanded and improved regional mobile library service

Progress to date:

workshop held on 7 March with local board chairs. Workshop notes were attached to the 10 April agenda 

Q3

Q4

Q1

(Sep)

Q2

 

Central library strategic review

A strategic review of the Central Library has been commissioned to understand how the current building can meet future need and demand for services, asses the Central Library’s current and potential future role in the region, and guide decision making about future investment and development opportunities

Decide direction and receive the strategic review

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Libraries

Work around the integration with customer services

Decision on matters relating to regional aspects of the proposed integration (local boards will decide on local outcomes)

 

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Intercultural Cities Network

Consideration of a proposal to join the Intercultural Cities Network to support implementation and monitoring of progress on ‘Inclusive Auckland’ actions.

Decide whether Auckland should be a member of the network

Q3

Q4

(Jun)

Q1

Q2

 

Investing in Aucklanders (Age Friendly City)

Identify issues and opportunities for an inclusive friendly city (Regional Policy and Strategy resolution REG/2016/92)

Strategic direction on the approach to a friendly, inclusive, diverse city.

Progress to date:

Update reports were circulated on 18 April 2018 and 14 Dec 2017. Staff report findings and the proposed next phase in 2018.

A report on the Findings was considered on 12/06/18 meeting. Resolution ENV/2018/75 approval for up to five inclusion pilots.

A report back on the advantages and any obstacles to Auckland becoming an Age Friendly City as part of the World Health Organisation’s Global Network. 

Q3

Q4

 

 

 

 

 

Q1

(July)

Q2

 

Social Enterprise approaches for youth and long term unemployed

Improved understanding of social enterprise reach, impacts, costs and benefits

Strategic direction on councils approach to social enterprise.

Q3

Q4

Q1

(Jul)

Q2

 

Youth volunteer programmes

Intervention assessment of youth volunteer programmes on long term education and employment – understanding impacts, costs and benefits

Strategic direction on interventions approach

Q3

Q4

Q1

(Jul)

Q2

 

Events Policy

A review of what is working well and what isn’t

 

Q3

Q4

Q1

(Sep)

Q2

 

Grant Policy Monitoring

Audit of the application of the Grants Policy

Decision on audit results

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Toi Whitiki Strategy

Targeted analysis of social return on investment on specific art and culture investment

 

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

(Dec)

 

Public Art Policy

Review of the Public Arts Policy: what’s working what’s not.

Decisions relating to major public arts

Decision on review results

Progress to date:

The report was considered on 14/08/18.  Resolution ENV/2018/103 : report back on implementation within 18 months

Q3

Q4

(Apr19)

Q1

Q2

 

Current Development Contribution revenue and expenditure – funding for open space purposes

Highlight the new parks and open spaces for Aucklanders’ use and enjoyment

A report was considered on 14/08/178 on Open Space acquisition in 2017/18 financial year. resolution ENV/2018/104 to report back on DC revenue and expenditure by funding area for open space purposes based on current based on the current DC policy.

 

 

 

Tbc

 

LEGISLATION/CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

 

National Environmental Standards

Council response on the National Direction for aquaculture expected following scheduled release of consultation document in April 2017. The National Direction is likely to address matters relating to re-consenting, bay-wide management, innovation and research, and biosecurity.

Direction

Committee agreement to a council submission on the National Direction for Aquaculture

 

 

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

LAND ACQUISITIONS

 

Strategic acquisition issues and opportunities

Understanding current acquisition issues and options.

 

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

Land acquisition for stormwater purposes

Delegated responsibility of the committee.

To acquire land for stormwater management and development purposes, to either support a structure plan or ad-hoc development.

Decision to acquire land. Reports will come to committee as required.

Next report will be in Feb 2018 seeking authority to carry out compulsory acquisition of land in the Henderson area for a flood prevention project.

Q3

(Feb)

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

OTHER

 

Long-term Plan

Informing the development of the 2018-2028 Auckland Council Long-term Plan

 

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

 

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

Land acquisition for St Mary's Bay and Masefield Beach improvement project

 

File No.: CP2018/15457

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update on the St Mary’s Bay and Masefield Beach water quality improvement project.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council is delivering the St Mary’s Bay and Masefield Beach water quality improvement project. This consists of a reconfiguration and renewal of its outfall network in Auckland’s Central Business District.

3.       The project will significantly reduce wastewater contamination of these beaches and replace existing aged and failed assets.

4.       The project is the first to be delivered under the Western Isthmus Water Quality Improvement Programme, funded from the new water quality improvement targeted rate.

5.       The resource consent application for the project has been submitted and a hearing will be held in September, with a decision expected by October 2018.

6.       The project requires construction of substantial permanent above-ground infrastructure to:

·     ensure safe and effective operations of the outfall network

·     future-proof this coastal infrastructure against future sea level rise and storm events.

7.       The above ground infrastructure required includes a pump station, overflow structure, odour control facilities and ancillary services and access.

8.       An overview of the project is provided in Attachment A of the report.

9.       An update on land acquisition for the project will be presented in the confidential section of the 11 September Environment and Community Committee meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a)      note the information contained in this report, on the St Mary’s Bay and Masefield Beach water quality improvement project, enables transparency on the topic due for discussion in the public excluded part of the meeting.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

Water quality in the western isthmus

10.     A combined network (which carries both stormwater and wastewater) services approximately 15,000 households in central Auckland, including St Mary’s Bay. The network is very close to capacity and combined overflows into the harbor are frequent, with increasing public concern regarding these.

11.     To address these issues in June 2018, Council adopted a Long-term Plan which includes a new water quality improvement targeted rate. This will generate $452 million over ten years, which will be matched by an investment of $404 million from Watercare, to fund an accelerated water quality improvement work programme.

12.     The Western Isthmus Water Quality Improvement Work Programme is the largest workstream funded through the targeted rate. It aims to progressively reduce wastewater overflows into the Waitematā Harbour from hundreds of events to six or less per outfall each year.

St Mary’s Bay water quality improvements

13.     The St Mary’s Bay catchment consists of a combined stormwater and wastewater system with pockets of separated systems. The St Mary’s Bay area experiences high frequencies of wastewater overflows from three engineered overflow points. Two further overflow points discharge directly onto Masefield Beach.

14.     As part of the transformation of Auckland’s waterfront into a more vibrant and liveable place, there is a strong desire for more recreational and contact activities in the area. This creates an urgent need to improve St Mary’s Bay’s water quality.

15.     A St Mary’s Bay water quality improvement programme took place in 2016 with input from Healthy Waters, Watercare Services Limited, Panuku, Westhaven Marina, Auckland Transport, NZ Transport Agency and other various stakeholder groups.

16.     The St Mary’s Bay and Masefield Beach improvement project was identified as a preferred initiative to enable tangible water quality improvements in the medium-term, while not precluding further improvements as additional remediation of the combined network occurs.

17.     The project involves the construction of a storage pipeline to capture and store current overflows and divert them to a new outfall structure at Point Erin. A new pump station within this structure will return flows to the sewer. When the capacity of the sewer is such that flows cannot be received, the system will discharge through a new sea outfall from Point Erin to a more dispersive receiving environment in the harbour.

18.     In addition to the new storage pipeline and outfall, new connections will be built at London Street and St Mary’s Park, along with new local connections and a rising main to existing wastewater infrastructure on Sarsfield Street.

19.     A key objective of this project is to achieve completion of construction by December 2020 before the America’s Cup in early 2021. This requires construction to start in early 2019.

20.     The resource consent application for the project has been submitted and a hearing will be held in September, with a decision expected by October 2018.

21.     A map and overview of the project, which have been provided to the public as part of the resource consent notification, are shown in Attachment A of the report.

22.     The project will have major benefits through:

·    reducing sewerage overflows in this area from over 200 to around 20 per year

·    reducing risks to public health from water contact

·    improving the aesthetics of beaches and the harbour

·    improving operation of the stormwater system

·    contributing to restoring the mauri of the harbour.

23.     It also reduces implementation risk for the full Western Isthmus Water Quality Improvement Programme as, through undertaking this project, further improvements to the combined network can take place without continued contamination of these beaches. This is important as the full suite of proposed solutions will take some time to implement.

24.     In the short-term the project will provide a combined outfall for both stormwater and wastewater. Long-term, however, as separation works are completed across the catchment its use will be primarily for stormwater management and dispersal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

25.     Options and analysis relating to land acquisition for the project will be presented in the confidential section of the 11 September Environment and Community Committee meeting.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board viewsLocal impacts

26.     As outlined above, this project will have significant benefits for people living in the local area as it will reduce the current level of pollution from combined outfall discharges to two local beaches: St Mary’s Bay and Masefield Beach. 

27.     This will reduce public health risk from the current baseline, enabling the bays to be safely used for recreation, and improve the aesthetics and water quality of the local beaches. It will also enable planned development to revitalise and transform these waterfront areas.

28.     During the public consultation and resource consent process, local residents have expressed strong support for these improvements to water quality. However, they have raised concerns relating to two main topics. These are:

a)   construction of the pipeline could impact on cliff stability and hence impact properties and structures on these properties.

b)   impacts from construction causing disruption to the local community.

29.     Advice received from a specialist tunneling engineer and geotechnical investigations is that there will be no impact on cliff stability from the construction of this pipeline. The alignment of the project has also been selected to minimise construction impacts on the local community as far as is practicable.

Local board views

30.     The Waitematā Local Board has been consulted with and briefed on this project through a series of workshops and memos since 2016. The local board has provided comments to the regulator on the Resource Consent application.

31.     The local board supported the project overall but highlighted the concerns raised by local residents regarding cliff stability, the visual impact of new infrastructure and disruption, and asked that these be addressed.

32.     Positive dialogue with the community and local board on these topics is ongoing ahead of the Resource Consent hearing in September 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

33.     Extensive consultation with mana whenua has taken place on this project. Mana whenua were involved in the development of the project scope during the initial St Mary’s Bay Water Quality Improvement programme in 2016.

34.     Following on from this, a formal mana whenua Project Working Group was established in 2017, with representatives from 10 iwi. Of these five iwi have attended regular Project Working Group sesssions including:

·    Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei

·    Ngāti Maru

·    Te Ākitai Waiohoua

·    Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

·    Ngāti Tamaoho.

35.     The other iwi involved have requested to stay updated and informed rather than attend. In addition to the Project Working Group sessions, individual hui were held as requested.

36.     This approach has resulted in the design of the project being consistent with mana whenua aspirations and iwi support for the Resource Consent application. One iwi, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, made a supportive submission on the Resource Consent. No iwi opposed it.

37.     The mana whenua Project Working Group will continue through the project life-cycle to ensure opportunities for mana whenua input and responsiveness are maximised.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

38.     Financial implications of land acquisition for the project will be discussed in the confidential section of the 11 September 2018 Environment and Community Committee meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

39.     Risks arising from land acquisition for the project will be discussed in the confidential section of the 11 September 2018 Environment and Community Committee meeting.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

40.     Next steps arising from land acquisition for the project will be discussed in the confidential section of the 11 September 2018 Environment and Community Committee meeting.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

St Mary's Bay and Masefield Beach water quality improvement project

159

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Craig Mcllroy – General Manager Stormwater

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

     

 


Environment and Community Committee

11 September 2018

 

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

 

That the Environment and Community 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       CONFIDENTIAL: Land acquisition for St Mary's Bay and Masefield Beach improvement project

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 commercially sensitive information relating to land acquisition which could prejudice council's position in negotiations.

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.

 

 

C2       Acquisition and exchange of open space land - Northcote

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)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

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 identifies land the council seeks to acquire for open space purposes.

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.

 


 

 

C3       Acquisition of Open Space - Massey

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)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

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 identifies land council seeks to acquire for open space.

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.

 

C4       Acquisition of Open Space - Red Beach

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)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

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 identifies land the council seeks to acquire for open space purposes.

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.