Agenda of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 February 2014

Grass and Vegetation Management

File No.: CP2013/29154

Purpose

1. To provide an overview of grass mowing and vegetation management activities undertaken by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport. The report summarises responsibilities, levels of service and costs, and has been jointly prepared by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport, in response to a request from the Governing Body at its meeting of
21 November 2013.

Executive Summary

2. Across the region grass and vegetation management activities are undertaken by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport in parks and reserves, within the road corridor, and around community and recreation facilities.

3. To assist with the delineation of responsibilities between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport (AT), the respective Chief Executives documented agreements around the allocation of responsibilities in the road corridor. This meant grass berm maintenance in the road corridor was undertaken by AT, while the maintenance of street trees and street gardens was delivered by Auckland Council’s Parks, Sport and Recreation Department, to AT requirements.

4. A service level agreement between AT and the Parks, Sport and Recreation (PSR) Department identifies the split of responsibilities in more detail.

5. Grass mowing operations in parks are delivered by parks maintenance contractors, and contract specifications were standardised across the region with the commencement of new contracts in mid-2012. There were initial start-up problems with asset data integrity which impacted overall performance, mainly in the northern and southern areas, but these have now been addressed.

6. Grass mowing in the road corridor is undertaken by AT road corridor maintenance contractors. AT is progressively letting new road corridor maintenance contracts, and the new central area contracts commenced in July 2013. At this time, and in line with the 2013/2014 Annual Plan, the mowing of grass berms ceased in the urban areas of the former Auckland City Council. The cost saving was projected at $3m per annum. Most landowners within the central area are taking responsibility for mowing the grass berm outside their property. Where landowners cannot or refuse to do this, AT will periodically mow these areas to prevent them becoming overgrown and unsightly, however this will be to a lower standard than previously delivered by the council.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) receive the report.

Discussion

Grass mowing activities within Auckland Council

7. Across the region Auckland Council and Auckland Transport undertake grass mowing activities in a number of different areas:

· Parks and reserves – this includes local parks, sports parks, regional parks, cemeteries, high profile grassed areas in squares and plazas

· Road corridor – this includes traffic islands and medians, grass berms and roadsides and carparks

· Community and recreation facilities – this includes grassed areas around community libraries, halls, housing for the elderly, recreation and aquatic centres.

Delineation of responsibilities in the road corridor

8. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2010 provided for the establishment of Auckland Transport as a council controlled organisation. Auckland Transport has all the functions and powers of a road controlling authority and a local authority under the Land Transport Act 1998. To comply with this legislative framework, the Chief Executives from both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport documented an agreement for the allocation of responsibilities in the road corridor. The details were captured in two memos dated 14 October 2010 and 1 March 2011. With regard to street vegetation management, the following was agreed:

Delivery by Auckland Transport:

· Maintenance of grass berms

Delivery to Auckland Transport requirements by Auckland Council:

· Maintenance of street trees

· Maintenance of street gardens

· New tree planting.

Service level agreement between Auckland Council Parks Sport and Recreation Department and Auckland Transport

9. To provide further delineation of responsibilities in the road corridor, a service level agreement was created that identified where responsibility would lie for the maintenance of assets and service delivery functions in the road corridor. The service level agreement has been updated several times, and is pending approval of a further review. Each review and update creates better service definition and clarity of responsibilities. New maintenance contracts have been based on this split of accountabilities.

Grass mowing in parks

10. As part of the procurement of new parks maintenance contracts across the region, technical levels of service/contract standards were harmonised. Frequencies were used to provide additional clarity. The new parks maintenance contracts commenced in July 2012. During the start-up period there have been a number of asset data integrity issues which have impacted on overall performance. This included issues with grass mowing, particularly in the northern and southern areas. These asset and service level issues have been addressed and rectified.

11. The maintenance of grass areas around community and recreation facilities is included in the new parks maintenance contracts.

12. For passive turf there are seven turf maintenance standards, and two for sports turf. The majority of passive turf falls within the PM4 or PM5 grade (grass height range 50-100mm), dependent on the legacy council approach to agrichemical use. Sports turf grades are dependent on profile and use.

13. The table below illustrates the grass mowing contract standards and specifications.

14. Independent contractor performance auditing is based on the performance measures.

15. Across the region there are over 4,000 parks. The overall cost of mowing grass in these parks is around $10.5m per annum.

Grass mowing in the road corridor

16. Auckland Transport has been progressively letting new road maintenance contracts across the region. These contracts cover the carrying out of all road maintenance and renewal activities in the road corridor (including grass mowing and vegetation management).

17. On 1 July 2013 new road maintenance contracts commenced in the central area (Central East, Central and Hauraki Gulf Islands).

18. There are four mowing standards specified in these maintenance contracts:

Type A (75mm height)	Applies to all urban areas as identified in Volume 6: Contract Specific Requirements, Section 24 Mowing maps, grass plots within 50m of all town centres and minor shopping centres and small grassed areas such as all traffic islands and roundabouts within 30m of any intersection in the contract area and all grass areas in and around AT carparks, including berms adjacent to the carparks. Grass height before mowing shall not exceed 75mm and when mown shall be to within 20mm of the ground surface. Grass clippings shall be removed and disposed of but can be mulched on site by the Contractor provided the site was within specification at the time of mowing. (i.e. grass height over the entire site was less than 75mm). No grass is to be left in any open drain, water table, culvert inlet or outlet, or surface water channel, road shoulder or sealed surface.
Type B (100mm height)	Applies to all urban berms not maintained by the adjoining resident and where the adjoining property does not have legal access rights, all median and traffic islands not covered by Type A and islands in the heads of cul-de-sacs. It also covers all road berms adjacent to coastal areas and all rest areas, grass berm areas outside schools and Housing Corporation properties and in the specific areas listed in Volume 6: Contract Specific Requirements. Grass height before mowing shall not exceed 100mm and when mown shall be within 50mm of the ground surface. Grass clippings shall be removed and disposed of but can be mulched on site by the Contractor provided the site was within specification at the time of mowing (i.e. the grass height over the entire site was less than 100mm). No grass is to be left in any open drain, water table, culvert inlet or outlet, or surface water channel road shoulder or sealed surface road shoulder or sealed surface.
Type C (200mm height)	Applies to all rural roads with a Maintenance Priority grouping of MP1 to MP3 (inclusive) and to all other urban and rural road berms (MP1 to MP7) for sight visibility for road users. This will typically be in the vicinity of intersections and sharp bends and vehicle crossings and in front of guardrails etc. as detailed in Auckland Transport Drawings 15000/002 and 15000/003 in Section 37 of Volume 6: Contract Specific Requirements. Applies to all urban berms not maintained by the adjoining resident and where the adjoining property does have legal access rights and shall also apply to the control of vegetation in walkways, bridle paths, accessways, and service lanes. Type C mowing width shall be from the edge of the road shoulder to the boundary/fenceline, where practical, and shall include surface water channels and water tables, etc. Whilst the height of grass within this 2m wide strip on either side of the carriageway should not exceed 200mm in height, it should be noted that the height of vegetation within the surface water channels shall not exceed 100mm Grass height before mowing shall not exceed 200mm and when mown shall be to within 75mm of the ground surface. Grass clippings shall be removed and disposed of but can be mulched on site by the Contractor provided the site was within specification at the time of mowing. (i.e. grass height over the entire site was less than 75mm). No grass is to be left in any open drain, water table, culvert inlet or outlet, or surface water channel.
Type D (400mm height)	Applies to all rural roads with a Maintenance Priority grouping of MP4 to MP7 (inclusive). Type D mowing widths are detailed in Auckland Transport Drawings 15000/002 and 15000/003 in Section 43 of Volume 6: Contract Specific Requirements. Grass height before mowing shall not exceed 400mm and when mown shall be within 75mm of the ground surface from a point 2m from the edge of the metal shoulder to the boundary/fenceline, where practical. Except for berm areas where the vegetation that may affect sight visibility for road users, such as in the vicinity of intersections and sharp bends and vehicle crossings and in front of guardrails etc. as detailed in Auckland Transport Drawings 15000/002 and 15000/003 in Section 43 of Volume 6: Contract Specific Requirements. Vegetation control in these areas shall comply with Type C. Vegetation control will generally be by approved mechanical mowing methods, which may include flail mowing. The grass height in the adjacent surface water channels and water tables, and open drains shall not exceed 200 mm It shall also include trimming banks and shrubs or trees with a flail mower where meticulous pruning is not necessary (as identified by the Engineer). No grass is to be left in any open drain, water table, culvert inlet or outlet, or surface water channel road shoulder or sealed surface.

Grass berm mowing policy

19. During the development of the 2013/14 Annual Plan, Auckland Council made the decision to cease funding the mowing of grass berms in the urban areas of the legacy Auckland City Council area. Prior to this time Auckland Transport had continued the practice of the legacy council organisation and continued to mow the grass berms in this area.

20. The reason for this change was to standardise levels of service across the region and to reduce cost. Auckland City Council was the only one of the legacy council organisations to provide this service and the potential cost saving was assessed at $3 million per annum.

21. On the other hand the cost of providing this service across the whole Auckland region was assessed as an additional $12-15 million per annum.

22. It is our expectation that landowners will mow the berms directly outside their properties. Residents are asked to take pride in their streets, be good community citizens and ensure that the berms are mowed regularly. It should be noted however that we have no means of making them mow the berm other than to refuse to do it ourselves.

23. If landowners do not mow the berms outside their properties then Auckland Transport will periodically mow these areas to prevent them becoming overgrown and unsightly however this will be to a lower standard and less frequently than previously.

24. Auckland Transport has continued to mow grass berms in situations where:

· the berm is steep and mowing poses a significant safety hazard to the landowner

· the berm is not easily accessible from private property

· in town centres and shopping centres

· it is not reasonable to expect the adjoining landowner to mow the area

· in front of unoccupied properties where non-maintenance will result in a traffic or fire hazard and impact negatively on visual amenity.

25. In special circumstances, Auckland Transport may also consider mowing berms adjacent to private property if there are significant health or safety issues, accessing the berm is difficult or there is risk of damaging public assets.

NZ Transport Agency responsibilities

26. The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) is responsible for the mowing of grass within the motorway and state highway corridors.

27. The delineation of responsibilities between NZTA and Auckland Transport where state highways and local roads intersect at motorway interchanges has been substantially agreed by the parties and is documented on maps.

28. On rural state highways NZTA only carries out such vegetation control as is necessary to ensure:

· Adequate visibility

· General safety

· Drainage

· The elimination of a fire hazard or pest refuge

· Rest areas

· Control of noxious weeds.

29. NZTA mowing standards are similar to AT mowing standards, but have a greater allowable height variation. NZTA advise the urban motorway mowing frequency is 4-6 weekly.

30. The table below summarises the NZTA mowing standards:

Type 1

20-75mm

Medians on SH 20 Wiri Station Road and SH 18 Constellation

Type 2

Urban variation 20-150mm with maximum variation of 75mm above the 150mm nominated maximum height.

SH1 Silverdale Interchange

SH18

SH1 AHB – Greville

SH1 Ellerslie Panmure – Drury

SH 20 Puhinui Interchange to Queenstown Road

SH20 A and B

SH20 Wiri Station Road to Puhinui

SH1 AHB to EP

SH16

Type 3

Rural control standard 25-200mm

Drury – SH2 interchange

SH22

SH1 Greville – Puhoi

Hedges and overhanging vegetation

31. The maintenance of hedges and overhanging vegetation can be complicated by ownership and shared boundary issues. Hedges in parks are often planted along a boundary line, so there is shared maintenance responsibility between Council Parks and the private property owner. Typically Parks will maintain the top and park side of the hedge. There will be a similar shared maintenance responsibility if a hedge is planted along the boundary of a street to park or street to street walkway.

· Overhanging vegetation from private property - if the vegetation is planted on private property and is overhanging the public realm such as a road, footpath or walkway, then the private property owner is responsible for maintaining the vegetation so that it does not obstruct public access, or impede visibility of road signs or traffic lights. Council has the ability to serve a notice on the owner to trim the vegetation if this is required.

· Street to street walkways - if planting such as a hedge is located within a walkway running between two roads, then Auckland Transport maintains the vegetation. If the planting is on the boundary and it is not being maintained by the private property owner, then Auckland Transport will maintain it to ensure the walkway remains unobstructed.

· Street to park walkways - if planting is located within a walkway running between a road and a park, then Parks maintain the vegetation. If the planting is on the boundary then Parks will generally maintain the top and walkway side of the vegetation.

Consideration

Local Board Views

32. Local Board views have not been specifically canvassed in the preparation of this report. Some Local Boards have expressed an interest in investigating “meadows,” where grass may be left to grow in selected areas, thereby reducing maintenance costs.

Maori Impact Statement

33. Parks and open spaces contribute significantly to Maori well-being, values, culture and traditions. There has been no specific consultation with Tangata Whenua around the issues raised in this report.

General

34. Not applicable.

Implementation Issues

35. Most landowners within the central area are now taking responsibility for mowing the grass berm directly outside their properties. Where landowners cannot or refuse to do this Auckland Transport will periodically mow these areas so as to prevent them becoming overgrown and unsightly however this will be to a lower standard and less frequently than previously.

36. The concept of berm exemptions was also introduced where landowners could apply for Auckland Transport to mow the berms on their behalf. As a minimum standard of maintenance will now be undertaken by Auckland Transport in all cases the granting of an exemption is no longer necessary.

37. The start-up of the new road maintenance contracts has also impacted on the appearance of the network with some areas not being scheduled for mowing that have been mowed in the past. Considerable effort has gone into updating the mowing maps and schedules to ensure that the necessary work is undertaken, and this has resulted in a positive improvement.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Mark Bowater - Manager Local and Sports Parks

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 February 2014

Proposed draft Auckland Energy Resilience and Low Carbon Action Plan

File No.: CP2013/28898

Purpose

1. To seek the committee’s approval to release the draft Auckland Energy Resilience and Low Carbon Action Plan – titled ‘Low Carbon Auckland’, for informal feedback.

Executive Summary

2. The Auckland Energy Resilience and Low Carbon Action Plan (the ‘Action Plan’) is a collaborative, multi-stakeholder plan that will guide Auckland’s transformation towards an energy resilient future and deliver on the Auckland Plan’s aspirational target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40% by 2040.

3. The proposed draft Action Plan sets out a 30 year pathway and 10 year plan of action. It is structured around five areas of transformation: transforming the way we travel, transforming the way we use and generate energy, transforming our built environment and green infrastructure, transforming to zero waste, and transforming forestry, agriculture and natural assets. Green growth is a cross cutting theme and green growth opportunities are identified across these five transformation areas.

4. The 30 year pathway sets out 2020, 2030 and 2040 targets for each transformation area as well as key actions to be taken in the first ten years of implementation that will help to drive achievement of those targets. The draft Action Plan has been developed through a collaborative process, involving over 150 organisations under the leadership of a cross-sector steering group. This approach has fostered a strong sense of ownership and has enabled implementation to commence on a number of the actions.

5. A dedicated Māori Working Group was established to identify issues and opportunities of importance to Māori. This group has developed a stand-alone Māori Action Plan (Attachment B) and its actions have been woven into the draft Action Plan.

6. This report recommends the release of the draft Action Plan for informal feedback in March 2014. It proposes a report to the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee in April or May to outline feedback received, prior to seeking adoption of the finalised action plan by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in May or June.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve Attachment A, “Low Carbon Auckland Draft Action Plan”, to be released for informal public feedback

b) agree that any editorial amendments be delegated to the Chair or Deputy Chair of this committee and the Chief Planning Officer

c) note that this report be circulated to local boards, the Independent Māori Statutory Board and advisory panels for their information.

Discussion

Background

7. The Auckland Plan commits Auckland to transform to a liveable highly energy resilient, low carbon city through a focus on green growth. It sets bold targets (see figure 1) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2040 (based on 1990 levels). The Plan also sets a short-term target of a 10% - 20% reduction by 2020 and commits to working towards a 50% reduction by 2050. These align with national targets, and demonstrate the key role Auckland has to play in contributing to New Zealand’s efforts to curb global GHG emissions. The Auckland Plan also commits to support the national target of 90% of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2025.

8. Projections indicate that, without interventions, Auckland’s GHG emissions could increase by up to 46% by 2025, a faster rate of growth than for New Zealand as a whole. This will be driven by Auckland’s population growth and associated development, and an economy, urban form and lifestyle which are based on high energy consumption, especially transport and electricity.

Figure 1 Auckland Plan directives and targets

9. Achieving these targets requires decisive action and innovation that enables us to address future pressures and uncertainties. These include climate uncertainty, resource scarcity, volatile fossil fuel prices, and dependency on imported energy.

Proposed Draft Action Plan

10. The proposed draft Action Plan sets out a 30 year pathway and 10 year plan of action that will guide the first stage of Auckland’s transformation towards an energy resilient future and deliver on the Auckland Plan’s aspirational GHG reduction targets.

11. The draft Action Plan contributes to the achievement of several strategic directions in the Auckland Plan, including those relating to the economy (Direction 6), the environment - specifically waste (Direction 7), Urban Auckland (Direction 10) Infrastructure (Direction 12) and Transport (Direction 13). The draft Action Plan also supports priorities identified in some of the 21 local board plans including Waitemata’s commitment to develop a Local Carbon Action Plan and Great Barrier’s aspirations to position the island as a leader in new, sustainable and renewable technologies.

12. The Action Plan also works in conjunction with, and contributes to, a wide range of other strategies and plans. In particular, the Action Plan works alongside the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan which will establish an enabling regulatory framework; the Auckland Economic Development Strategy and its provisions for developing a low carbon eco-economy; and the Auckland Waterfront Plan in relation to its goal of leading sustainable urban transformation and renewal in Auckland.

13. The contribution of this draft Action Plan to achieving the 40% reduction target is shown in Figure 2. This ‘wedge’ diagram (Figure 2) shows the potential emissions abatement that can be delivered through each of the five transformations of the draft Action Plan relative to ‘business as usual’. A significant proportion of the emission abatement enabled through transforming energy supply and demand is delivered (and therefore allocated) to the built environment and green infrastructure.

Figure 2 Emissions abatement pathway to 2040

14. The draft Action Plan is structured around five areas of transformation. Each transformational area has a number of elements:

· Transforming the way we travel:

Element 1: Reducing the demand for travel.

Element 2: Increasing the use of public transport, walking and cycling.

Element 3: Improving transport efficiency to reduce the consumption of fuel.

Element 4: Moving away from the use of fossil fuels.

· Transforming the way we use and generate energy:

Element 1: Managing the energy demand.

Element 2: Developing Auckland’s low carbon energy options.

· Transforming our built environment and green infrastructure:

Element 1: Demonstrating leadership and creating quality exemplars of sustainable development to inspire.

Element 2: Sustainable design standards and stimulating demand for efficient, healthy and comfortable buildings.

· Transforming to zero waste:

Element 1: Increasing waste minimisation.

Element 2: Growing product design and responsibility.

· Transforming forestry, agriculture and natural assets:

Element 1: Growing the extent of urban and regional forests.

Element 2: Turning forest/ organic residue into energy.

Element 3: Enhancing local food production.

Element 4: Exploring marine sequestration potential.

15. The Auckland Economic Development Strategy states that the path to a high growth, low-carbon eco-economy supported by green growth is highly attractive as it creates prosperity, enhances our environment and delivers many social benefits. These benefits include resource efficiency, job creation, and poverty reduction. Green growth is a cross cutting theme of the draft Action Plan and green growth opportunities are identified across the five transformations.

16. The 30 year pathway sets out key milestones and targets ‘decade by decade’ (i.e. by 2020, 2030 and 2040) that are required to achieve the transformation and then outlines key actions in the first 10 years of implementation.

17. A series of ‘decade by decade’ interim targets have been established to guide implementation and to monitor progress. Achieving these targets will require significant change from ‘business as usual’.

18. Three phases of transformation are outlined in the draft Action Plan. The first decade involves establishing an enabling regulatory framework and stimulating market demand and uptake of new and emerging low carbon technologies. The second and third decades will be characterized by a rapid acceleration of action and scale-up of deployment.

Developing the draft Action Plan: An evidence-based approach

19. The development of the draft Action plan (see Figure 3) has been informed by independent technical analysis. The scope of the analysis included:

· Development of an emissions inventory and development of long term projections.

· Identification and assessment of critical energy and emissions reduction issues.

· An emission reduction projection or ‘pathway’ to deliver on the Auckland Plan’s aspirational emissions reduction target.

· An assessment of potential policy interventions and strategic response options.

Figure 3: A staged-approach to developing the draft Action Plan

Developing the draft Action Plan: A collaborative approach

20. The Action Plan is a plan for Auckland, not just Auckland Council. Its development has involved a collaborative process with business, community, NGOs and knowledge institutions. This has involved over 150 organisations under the leadership of a cross-sector steering group (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: A collaborative project governance model

21. The draft Action Plan has been developed through working with these key stakeholders in a number of cross-sector technical working groups. A dedicated Māori Working Group was also established to identify issues and opportunities of importance to Māori. The membership of the Māori Working Group is documented in the draft Action Plan.

22. This approach has fostered a strong sense of cross-sector ownership and commitment to the Action Plan which has enabled implementation to commence on 55 of the 113 actions. These include:

· Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, including provisions for sustainable building standards.

· Public transport: rail electrification, school travel plans.

· Warrant of Fitness trial for rental properties.

· Assessment of local food production and distribution capacity and potential self-sufficiency.

· Waste minimisation programmes including a city-wide organics collection scheme and a Mega-efficiency summit.

· Redevelopment of Wynyard Quarter as an eco-precinct model.

· Refurbishment of Auckland Council headquarters to Greenstar 5 rating.

· Assessment of Auckland’s Green Growth capabilities.

Consultation and engagement

23. Elected members have been engaged at key project milestones and progress has been reported quarterly to Auckland Plan Committee and now the Regional Policy and Strategy Committee, as part of the Strategy and Policy Forward Programme.

24. In June 2012 the discussion document - ‘Powering Auckland’s Low Carbon Transformation’ was presented to the Business, Pacific Peoples and Rural Advisory panels. In July 2012 the Auckland Plan Committee approved release of the discussion document for the purposes of seeking informal feedback.

25. The Discussion Document was well received, with strong support for the commitment, aspiration and general direction. Key themes from the feedback included:

· The need to establish an enabling regulatory environment and apply financial instruments to foster the adoption of low carbon technologies.

· Recognition of the significance of transport in achieving the Action Plan’s objectives. The feedback emphasised the need for greater integration between land use and transport planning, and the reprioritisation of transport funding towards public and active transport options.

· Risks of perverse outcomes, for example:

o Potentially negative impacts on the international competitiveness of businesses from increased mitigation costs

o Potential use of (i) productive land for growing biofuel feedstocks rather than local food production, and (ii) fossil fuels to provide additional electricity generation requirements to power electric vehicles.

· The need for more stringent targets, given the scale of reductions needed globally to avoid dangerous levels of climate change

· The need for council to lead by example, through its resource management functions and through its asset management, corporate operations and procurement practices.

26. This feedback, along with feedback from local boards, the governing body, central government departments, business and other stakeholders was used to develop the draft Action Plan.

27. An initial draft was workshopped with councillors and local board representatives on 19 June 2013 and an update was provided on 12 December 2013. The draft plan received strong support in terms of its scope, content and strategic direction. Key points of discussion at the workshop included:

· confirmation of the relative contribution of ‘Transforming to Zero Waste’ to the GHG reduction target

· confirmation that the transport-related targets are consistent with the Auckland Plan;

· connections should be made between the finalised Action Plan and local board action plans which have low carbon priorities

· the Māori Action Plan should be clearly reflected throughout the Action Plan.

Next Steps

28. The draft Action Plan will be released on the Auckland Council website for informal feedback in March 2014. The launch will be preceded by a feature in Element Magazine on 24 February. Informal feedback from the public will obtained via the People’s Panel.

29. Successful implementation will require sustained commitment to collaboration and cooperation by many players, including businesses, industry, government and communities. Feedback will therefore be sought from all organisations and groups who have contributed to this process as well as stakeholders who have been unable to participate.

30. It is proposed that:

· officers report to the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee in April or May 2014 to outline feedback received on the draft Action Plan

· officers report to the Regional Policy and Strategy Committee in May or June 2014 seeking adoption of the finalised Action Plan.

Consideration

Local Board Views

31. Local boards were sent a copy of the proposed work programme in early 2012 and asked to indicate their interest and the level of involvement they wished to have in the development of the draft Action Plan. A copy of the discussion document was sent to all boards and briefings provided to all interested local boards in July 2012.

32. An initial draft Action Plan was workshopped with councillors and local board representatives on 19 June 2013 and an update was provided on 12 December 2013.

33. A series of briefings for all interested local boards on the draft Action Plan is planned for the first quarter of 2014.

Māori Impact Statement

34. A Māori Working Group was established to assist council to:

· identify issues and opportunity areas for Māori in relation to energy efficiency, resilience and security and climate change mitigation.

· identify priority actions for the draft Action Plan.

· review recommended actions arising from all technical working groups.

· provide advice to the Steering Group on the working groups’ recommendations.

35. The Māori Working Group has developed a stand-alone Māori Action Plan (Attachment B) in response to these objectives. Based on the guidance of the Māori Working Group, the issues, actions and opportunities of importance to Māori have been woven into the draft Action Plan.

36. Some Māori organisations have already indicated a strong interest in being involved in implementation of the draft Action Plan. It is envisioned that many initiatives will provide opportunity for active Māori involvement and leadership.

Implementation Issues

37. Work has already begun on many of the key actions identified in the draft Action Plan. However, the multi-faceted nature of the draft Action Plan requires ongoing stewardship to ensure a broad network of public and private sector organisations and consumers are involved, engaged and contributing to outcome delivery. This must be accompanied by monitoring and reporting of progress against benchmarks and targets.

38. It is proposed that officers report to the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee in April or May 2014 outlining options for establishing governance arrangements for implementation.

Legal and Legislative Implications

39. There are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

40. There are no immediate implementation issues associated with this report. Financial and resourcing implications will be considered as part of the Long-term Plan 2015-25.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Low Carbon Auckland action plan (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Maori action plan (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Robert Perry - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and Research

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 February 2014

Auckland Council's submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3)

File No.: CP2014/00010

Purpose

1. To seek the approval of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for Auckland Council’s draft submission in response to the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3).

Executive Summary

2. Submissions on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) (the Bill) are due on 14 February. The Bill is part of the Better Local Government programme of reforms and builds on the 2012 amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). This report follows on from a paper that was presented to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in December 2013 that outlined the key components of the Bill.

3. Officers suggest that the majority of the Bill’s proposals are helpful and recommend that Auckland Council support them in its submission. In particular officers recommend that Auckland Council support the:

· provisions enabling councils increased flexibility to determine how they will consult with their communities

· requirement that long term plan (LTP) and annual plan consultation be based on specially prepared (and brief) consultation documents

· focus of annual plan consultation on key differences with the LTP

· mandatory preparation of 30 year infrastructure strategies

· provisions for the more effective use of technology in council meetings

· requirement that councils prepare a significance and engagement policy

· provisions enabling the take up of the local board model in other parts of the country as part of council reorganisation proposals.

4. Conversely, two of the Bill’s proposals on the current development contributions system will have a significantly adverse effect on council revenue and its ability to cope with expected growth in the decades to come. The Bill’s proposal to narrow the definition of community infrastructure will severely compromise the council’s ability to deliver planned infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing population. Officers have calculated that this change in conjunction with the impact of the external objections process will lead to a cumulative rates increase of 8.5 percent by 2021/2022. This will replace lost development contributions revenue that otherwise would have been used to meet the interest on debt taken on to invest in community infrastructure. In addition debt will rise by $480 million in the same time period. In effect this represents a subsidy from existing ratepayers to developers and new residents.

5. The proposal to introduce an external objections process, whereby independent commissioners are able to issue binding rulings on disputed development contributions decisions, also has the potential to impact adversely on Auckland Council finances and its ability to cater for growth. Officers estimate that the loss of revenue associated with the proposed review process (estimated at $3 million to $4 million per annum), and the costs of administering it ($ million per annum), will also need to be funded from rates.

6. These two amendments, and their proposed commencement dates, are the most far reaching and material of all the amendments contemplated in the Bill. As such they are the primary focus of the attached draft submission.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve the draft submission on the Local Government Act (2002) Amendment Bill (No 3)

b) approve the following policy positions as the basis for the submission on the Local Government Act (2002) Amendment Bill (No 3). That Auckland Council:

i. support provisions to enable local boards to be established elsewhere in New Zealand as part of local authority reorganisation proposals

ii. seek clarification as to whether the local board provisions set out in new sub-part 1A of the Bill are to apply to Auckland Council in the event of a reorganisation proposal

iii. suggest that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) be amended to be consistent with the Bill by confirming that local boards across New Zealand do not have separate legal standing from the council

iv. suggest the deletion of sections 23(2) and (3) from the LGACA as the obligations they set out in relation to the audited statements of local board are duplicated in the Bill

v. suggest that a restriction be included in the Bill and LGACA limiting successful local board candidates to membership of a single local board

vi. oppose provisions in the Bill that would enable governing body members to be appointed to sit on local boards in the event of a reorganisation

vii. support the removal of the mandatory requirement to use the special consultative procedure in most circumstances

viii. support the proposed changes to the special consultative procedure process itself

ix. suggest removal from other Acts of the mandatory requirement to use the special consultative procedure

x. support proposals to allow for the greater use of technology in council meetings but suggests that rules around the physical quorum required for meetings be addressed in council standing orders rather than legislation

xi. support changes to the consultation processes for the long term and annual plans

xii. support the requirement that councils develop a significance and engagement policy but request that the adoption date be pushed back to no later than 1 July 2015

xiii. support the requirement for councils to develop a 30 year infrastructure strategy

xiv. seek inclusion in the Bill of provisions to enable councils to specify, following appropriate community consultation, bylaw breaches that would be subject to an infringement notice

xv. support the general intent of new section 17A that councils review their service provision arrangements on a periodic basis but suggests the scope of the review be limited to significant public facing services, and that councils be given more discretion to determine how often they conduct the review

xvi. seek clarification of matters on potential legal challenges to the mana whenua selection body for membership of the Independent Maori Statutory Board

xvii. support the reinstatement in the LGACA of governing body responsibility for Auckland Council decision making for transport networks and infrastructure

xviii. suggest that a broader definition of what constitutes a working day, more in keeping with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and the Resource Management Act rather than the Local Government Act, be adopted in relation to the proposed independent objections process for development contributions

xix. seek changes to the definition of community infrastructure to include libraries, swimming pools, sports infrastructure and other public amenities

xx. seek an additional principle to allow councils to continue to perform an individual development contribution assessment based on category and geographical location

xxi. suggest that as an alternative to the proposed review process the Bill offers the option to councils to have their development contributions polices reviewed on an ex-ante basis, with subsequent disputes to be resolved on the basis of whether they are consistent with that policy

xxii. seek to amend the independent objection process to take into account the amended principles including the additional principle of averaging

xxiii. seek changes to the commencement date for the new community infrastructure definition to align with the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan

xxiv. seek a number of technical amendments to the development contributions provisions, as documented in the appended table to the draft submission.

c) agree that any editorial amendments be delegated to the Chair or Deputy Chair of this committee and the Chief Planning Officer.

Discussion

7. The discussion in this report is organised around the four main areas of focus of the attached draft submission:

· Local board proposals

· Planning and consultation proposals

· Miscellaneous proposals and matters not covered in the Bill

· Development contributions proposals

Local board proposals

8. The Bill allows for the creation of local boards in unitary authorities as part of future reorganisation proposals. It includes a range of provisions that closely resemble those in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) which established local boards in Auckland. The Bill explicitly states that these provisions do not apply to Auckland (although it is less clear whether they would apply in the event of a reorganisation proposal in Auckland) and thus the impact of the Bill on local boards in Auckland is limited.

9. There are several small inconsistencies between the local board provisions in the Bill (i.e. those which will apply to the rest of the country) and their equivalent in the LGACA (applicable only in Auckland). Most are inconsequential, however it is important to note two of these discrepancies. The first is the explicit statement in the Bill that local boards do not have separate legal standing from council. Officers recommend that the submission seek an amendment to LGACA that would provide this same level of certainty for Auckland. This would confirm that local boards are not permitted to be separate parties to legal proceedings. Secondly, there are provisions in the Bill that would enable governing body members to be appointed to sit on local boards in the event of a reorganisation, whereas no such allowance is made for local boards in LGACA. Officers believe this would risk blurring the roles of local boards and the governing body and therefore recommend that Auckland Council oppose this proposal in its submission.

10. Neither the Bill nor LGACA prevent candidates from sitting on more than one local board. For reasons of workload and the potential for perceptions of conflicts of interest to arise, officers recommend that the council seek amendments to the Bill and LGACA that would limit membership of just one local board. Under this proposal candidates would be entitled to stand for more than one board but would be required to choose a single board to sit on were they to be elected to more than one.

Planning and consultation proposals

11. The Bill makes a number of proposals for the planning and consultation provisions in the LGA. An underlying theme of many of these proposals is the increased flexibility they will provide councils to determine how they engage with their communities.

12. The special consultative procedure (SCP) will no longer be mandatory for a range of matters, including the annual plan, the establishment of a CCO, and in many circumstances, adopting, amending and revoking bylaws. Instead, for these matters councils will engage and consult with their communities on these matters using a set of principles proposed in the Bill (see section 82 and new sections 82A). The SCP itself is to be amended to allow more flexibility in the methods used to obtain the views of the community (including explicit allowance for the use of audio-visual technology. These changes will better enable councils to determine consultation methods that are most appropriate to the needs of their communities and the requirements of the matter at hand, as such officer recommend they should be supported.

13. Whilst the SCP will no longer be mandatory for most LGA processes, a number of other Acts will still require it to be used in specified circumstances. The Gambling Act (2003), for example, requires the SCP to be used when adopting and reviewing a class IV venues policy and the Dog Control Act (1996) requires use of the SCP by councils when they adopt or amend their dog control policy. In the interests of consistency officers recommend that Auckland Council seek appropriate legislative amendments to replace mandatory use of the SCP in other Acts with a requirement to use processes that are consistent with the principles set out in section 82 and the new section 82A for the LGA 02 processes.

14. The Bill introduces a new planning document for councils – a 30 year infrastructure strategy. The strategy is intended to provide a long term, integrated view, across several asset categories, of the long term infrastructure needs of a community. This will be a useful document in helping deliver the Auckland Plan and as such officers recommend that Auckland Council support it.

15. Officers also recommend that Auckland Council support several other provisions in the Bill on planning and consultation processes including:

· provision for attendance at council meetings, by councillors and other participants, via audio-visual links

· the new requirement that council’s prepare a significance and engagement policy

· the changes to the LTP and Annual Plan consultation processes. Most notably the requirement that councils consult on these documents using a consultation document rather than the draft versions.

Other provisions

16. The Bill includes a new requirement that councils review the cost effectiveness of their arrangements for the delivery of local public services, local infrastructure and the performance of regulatory functions on a triennial basis (as soon as possible following local body elections). While officers believe it is important that councils undertake periodic review of their service delivery arrangements the requirement to do so, as currently set out in the Bill, is potentially unduly onerous and may lead to contractual uncertainty amongst service providers. Consequently officers recommend that the submission request clarification that the review should cover only significant services and enable councils more discretion as to its timing.

17. The proposals to amend the LGA do not include provision for more effective use of infringement notices as an enforcement tool for council bylaws. The local government sector has long advocated that councils be empowered to specify, following appropriate community consultation, what bylaw breaches would be subject to an infringement notice. At the moment, the council lacks tools to enforce bylaws made under the auspices of the LGA, in a timely and appropriately scaled manner, having instead to resort to prosecution via the courts or rely on ineffective methods such as confiscating the equipment of car window washers. Officers recommend that Auckland Council use its submission to restate its previously agreed (see previous submissions on other aspects of the Better Local Government programme) position that the LGA make more effective provision for the use of infringement notices.

Development contributions

18. Aspects of the development contributions provisions in the Bill will transfer part of the cost of growth away from new ratepayers (through development contributions) to existing ratepayers.

19. The most significant proposal for Auckland Council is the narrowing of the definition of community infrastructure. The new definition will enable only community halls, play equipment on neighbourhood reserves and public toilets to be funded from development contributions. Councils will no longer be able to collect development contributions for libraries, swimming pools and community sports facilities built in response to growth. Instead the cost of these facilities will be borne by ratepayers.

20. Auckland Council currently has $480 million of investment planned in these facilities over the next 10 years in order to support growth. Without access to development contributions the council will need to meet the cost of servicing of the debt taken on to support this investment out of general rates. Cumulatively, rates will be 8.5 percent higher in 2021/22 than they otherwise would have been had the definition of community infrastructure remained unchanged. This represents a significant subsidy of new developments by existing ratepayers. Our debt will also increase by $480 million in the same time period. Officers therefore recommend that Auckland Council oppose this proposal and instead suggest that the definition of community infrastructure continues to include libraries, swimming pool, sports infrastructure and other public amenities.

21. The Bill also proposes to introduce an objections process whereby applicants who dispute the development contributions assessments are able to refer their complaint to independent commissioners who will issue a binding ruling. Officers are concerned that the proposed grounds for review focus on the individual characteristics of a development in isolation. The objection process as proposed fails to recognise that for a development contributions policy to remain workable there is a need for individual developments to be grouped together. This ‘averaging’ is fundamental to the operation of development contributions. It is estimated that the loss of revenue will be in the range of $3 to $4 million per annum and the additional administration costs around $1 million. This contributes to the overall rates increase noted above.

22. As an alternative to by-pass the full objection process, officers recommend that a process be established whereby councils can opt to have their development contributions policies assessed by independent experts every three years before adoption. The objection process would then only consider whether the development contributions policy has been applied correctly. This will give certainty to developers and councils, and will help ensure that councils adopt development contributions policies that are consistent with legislative requirements and, once approved, will help maintain their integrity.

23. As it stands the Bill proposes that most of its amendments for development contributions would take effect once Royal assent is gained, or soon after. Although some of the changes proposed can be relatively easily enacted others will require more time, particularly given the need to make amendments to the council’s development contributions policy. Officers therefore recommend that if the new definition of community infrastructure and the proposed objections process proceed, they both be subject to a commencement date of 1 July 2015.

Consideration

Local Board Views

24. A local board workshop will be held on 31 January. Local boards have until 13 February to provide any written comment on the Bill they wish to have appended to the draft submission. A verbal update on local board views can be provided to the committee.

Maori Impact Statement

25. Officers have worked closely with Te Waka Angamua but have not identified any provisions in the Bill that will have any specific impact on Maori over and above any impact they have on other parts of the community. Nor have any provisions in the Bill specifically focused on Maori being identified.

26. A separate but related piece of work is to commence shortly that will assess the possibility of reducing the development contributions charges payable by papakainga on the basis of the limited impact they may have on infrastructural assets.

Implementation Issues

27. There are no implementation issues associated with this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Council draft submission on the Local Government Act (2002) Amendment Bill (No 3) (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Robert Simpson - Principal Policy Analyst, Strategic Planning

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and Research

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 February 2014

Auckland Council Submission on the Proposed Amendments to the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management 2011

File No.: CP2014/00596

Purpose

1. To advise the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee of the Proposed Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 and discuss the approach to Auckland Council’s submission in response to the proposed amendments.

Executive Summary

2. In 2011 the government released the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) which requires councils to manage fresh water in an integrated and sustainable way, while providing for economic growth within set water quantity and quality limits. At the time of its introduction, it was acknowledged that more direction and guidance would be needed to help councils implement the NPSFM. In March 2013 the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) released the document Freshwater Reform 2013 and Beyond (Reform Document). It outlined the government’s proposals for reform of our freshwater management system. Auckland Council made a submission on that document.

3. On 7 November 2013 the government announced the next step in its process of freshwater management reform through the release of Proposed Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 (Discussion Document). The Discussion Document advances some of the elements of the reform package set out in the earlier, high-level Reform Document. The proposed amendments in the Discussion Document include:

· accounting systems for quality and quantity

· a new National Objectives Framework (NOF)

· compulsory values of ecosystem health and human health

· national bottom lines for compulsory values

· exceptions to national bottom lines

· clearer articulation of tāngata whenua values for fresh water

· monitoring of progress towards achieving freshwater objectives.

4. Submissions close to the Discussion Document on 4 February 2014. As it was determined that the first practicable date to obtain Councillor feedback would be 4 February 2014, an extension was requested. MfE granted an extension to 14 February 2014.

5. Staff from various council departments and CCOs were invited to provide feedback on the Discussion Document and a range of feedback was received. A memorandum on the Discussion Document was sent to Local Board members and feedback was sought from them. A hui was held with Mana Whenua to discuss Auckland Council’s NPSFM programme and the submission on the government’s proposed amendments. Feedback has been sought from Mana Whenua. Assistance has also been provided to Mana Whenua to develop their own submissions should they wish to do so. Feedback received is being collated and could form the basis of the Auckland Council submission.

6. The indicative policy direction of council’s submission is that it generally supports the proposed amendments in principle. However, there should be greater recognition of urban issues which are not well recognised or addressed in the Discussion Document. There may be some areas, such as the list of attributes associated with the values, that the council makes detailed submissions on. The inclusion of invertebrates (Macroinvertebrate Community Index) and sediment attributes in the NOF as soon as possible before 2016-2019 would be highly desirable.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) delegate responsibility for approving an Auckland Council submission on the Proposed Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 to Councillor Arthur Anae as Acting Chair and one other councillor.

Discussion

7. The NPSFM was gazetted by the Government in May 2011. Under the NPSFM, the overall quality of fresh water within a region must be maintained or improved while protecting the quality of outstanding freshwater bodies and protecting the significant values of wetlands. To achieve this councils are required to work with their communities, stakeholders and Mana Whenua to identify values, establish freshwater objectives, set freshwater quality limits for all bodies of fresh water, set environmental flows and/or levels for all bodies of fresh water, and establish allocation regimes for the use of the water.

8. In March 2013, the government released the document Freshwater Reform 2013 and Beyond. It outlined the government’s proposals for wide-ranging, staggered and long-term improvements to how fresh water is managed in New Zealand. This document covers three key areas of proposed reform: planning as a community; establishing a national objectives framework; and, managing within quantity and quality limits. A combination of immediate and future reforms were proposed for each of the three key areas. There were 27 reforms proposed. For each one there was an indication of how proposed reforms were expected to be achieved. These included changes to the Resource Management Act, regulation (changes to the NPSFM or introduction of National Environmental Standards) and the issuing of national guidance.

9. Auckland Council made a submission to the document Freshwater Reform 2013 and Beyond as reported to the Regional Development and Operations Committee in May 2013. In that submission Auckland Council:

· generally supported freshwater accounting systems provided they were flexible enough to accommodate regional and local requirements without imposing unnecessary costs

· generally supported the concept of a National Objective Framework and requested involvement in the development of the framework to ensure it was workable and suitable for regional decision making, values and environments.

10. On 7 November 2013 the government announced the next step in its process of freshwater management reform through the release of a Discussion Document. Some of the elements of the higher-level Reform Document are advanced in the recent Discussion Document. MfE’s website provides access to the Discussion Document, a useful summary and supporting material at: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/water/freshwater/nps-freshwater-management-amendment-proposals.html. A copy of the MfE summary is attached to this report as Attachment A. There are seven proposals for amendments to the NPSFM. These seven proposals are discussed below, along with an explanation and information from the MfE summary.

11. Proposal 1: Accounting for quality & quantity. The MfE summary of the Discussion Document states:

“The proposed changes to the NPS-FM will mean that regional councils know about all water takes and where contaminants are coming from. This information will help councils and communities make better decisions about how to manage fresh water. This information will also tell us whether there is headroom to use more of our freshwater resource, or whether we are already using more than the system can cope with sustainably.”

12. Amendments require council to:

· establish and operate water quality and quantity accounting systems

· update quality information every five years

· update quantity information annually

· ensure accounting information is available for limits setting and resource allocation

· undertake accounting with a two year phase-in period.

13. Water quality and quantity accounting systems systems will need to account for all water takes (including permitted, stock, domestic and unauthorised takes) and all contaminant sources (including diffuse discharges) for each “freshwater management unit” (FMU) (i.e. a single water body, part of a water body, or a group of similar water bodies).

14. Proposal 2: National Objectives Framework. The MfE summary of the Discussion Document states:

“In deciding what we value about fresh water, councils and communities will need to consider the impacts of different choices. The framework will provide a clear process for how to set freshwater objectives to provide for the community’s values. …

Disagreements about the science add costs and delays, and often end up in the courts. So the framework will provide the science once at a national level, where agreed, and reduce the amount of science work that councils have to do. …

The amended NPS-FM will initially contain Version 1 of the framework. More will be added to it in later versions as the scientific work is progressed.”

15. The proposed NOF sets a framework for councils when setting freshwater management objectives and limits (as the NPSFM already requires). The proposed NOF contains:

a) A set of freshwater values important to communities and tāngata whenua reflecting what is important to them (appendix 1 of the Discussion Document). These include ecosystem heath, human health, natural character, tāngata whenua values, fishing, food safety/security, recreational use, irrigation, water supply for various uses, hydro-electric power generation, fire-fighting and navigation values. A set of values is to be selected for each FMU.

b) A list of the associated “attributes and attribute states” that will need to be achieved to provide for the particular value (appendix 2 of the Discussion Document). These include chlorophyll, nitrate toxicity, ammonia toxicity total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, periphyton slime, E. coli bacteria, plantonic cyanobacteria and SGRG (suitability for Recreation Grade). It is indicated that there are other potential attributes that are under consideration for 2016-2019. These include sediment, invertebrates and heavy metals as well as others (page 21 of the Discussion Document). Attributes are essentially scientific benchmarks (like the concentration of a contaminant, for example) against which an FMU is to be managed. Attributes may be selected to four levels, A-D, representing descending order of water quality, depending on community aspirations.

c) An iterative process for how to set management objectives (policy CA1 of the Discussion Document). Objectives are intended environmental outcomes in an FMU and should provide for the values that communities hold for their freshwater. Objectives are goals or future desired states, not immediate standards. The Discussion Document implies a preference for numeric over narrative objectives.

16. Proposal 3: Compulsory values. The MfE summary of the Discussion Document states:

“Some of the values of fresh water are so important to New Zealanders that they should be provided for in all waterways. We all want our water to be healthy for aquatic life, and we want to be able to use it for recreation.

That’s why the Government is proposing to make ecosystem health and human health for secondary contact recreation (e.g., boating and wading) national values that must be protected across New Zealand. Communities can choose other values for their waterways too.”

17. Two of the values in the NOF will be made compulsory for each FMU: the “life-supporting capacity of freshwater ecosystems” and “safeguarding human health for secondary contact recreation”. Compulsory attribute states relate to each of those values.

18. Proposal 4: National bottom lines. The MfE summary of the Discussion Document states:

“The proposed changes add numeric bottom lines for the national values (ecosystem health and human health) so that everyone knows what level of water quality is needed to provide for them.

The quality of most of our waterways is already above these bottom lines. Communities will have to plan how to improve the health of the unacceptably degraded waterways over a manageable timeframe.”

19. National bottom lines constitute the minimum acceptable states for the attributes associated with the two compulsory values, unless an FMU comes within an exemptions framework (discussed below). Otherwise, where water quality in an FMU is below these minima, councils would be required to set objectives at or above the bottom line and set an initial limit on resource use.

20. Proposal 5: Exceptions to bottom lines. The MfE summary of the Discussion Document states:

“For a few waterways, it will not be possible to meet national bottom lines even over a long timeframe, so the proposed changes provide a way of deciding on exceptions to the bottom lines. The proposed grounds for exceptions are where a water body breaches a bottom line due to:

· natural conditions of the water body, e.g., a native bird colony nesting above a river which puts can use in their regional plans to provide for the E. coli bacteria in the river

· historical activities that have created impacts on water quality that can’t reasonably be fixed, even in the long term, without creating even worse environmental effects

· significant existing infrastructure (e.g., a dam) that affects a water body.”

21. An exemptions framework would allow objectives incorporating attribute states below national bottom lines in narrowly defined situations. Exemptions cover situations where it is not feasible or possible to improve water quality above a bottom line. Where this is due to natural processes or historic activities causing impacts that cannot be reversed, a council could propose exemptions. Exemptions relating to the existence or provision of significant infrastructure would be decided by government.

22. Proposal 6: Tāngata whenua values. The MfE summary of the Discussion Document states:

“Māori have a special relationship with fresh water, so it’s important that this is recognised. The proposed changes more clearly articulate tāngata whenua values for fresh water, including Te Mana o Te Wai. Tāngata whenua values are also part of the National Objectives Framework so they must be considered as part of decisions on managing fresh water. For example, regional councils, iwi and communities will need to consider whether they should manage a water body for mahinga kai.” (Mahinga kai means food gathering / places of food).

23. The proposed amendments seek to more clearly articulate tāngata whenua values for freshwater, Te Mana o Te Wai by: expanding the preamble, adding Te Mana o te Wai as a national value and potentially adding Te Mana o te Wai to NPSFM Objectives. The Discussion Document states that “Te Mana o Te Wai represents the innate relationship between te hauora o te wai (the health and mauri of water) and te hauora o te taiao (the health and mauri of the environment), and their ability to support each other, whilst sustaining te hauora o te tāngata (the health and mauri of the people).” The government is seeking feedback on how to implement such an expression.

24. Proposal 7: Monitoring. The MfE summary of the Discussion Document states:

“These proposed changes would make it clear that regional councils need to identify a range of representative sites in waterways at which to monitor progress towards, or achievement of, freshwater objectives. The additions also recognise that water quality needs to be monitored over long-term trends.”

Submission process

25. Submissions to the Discussion Document close on 4 February 2014. Early in the process it was determined that the first practicable date to report to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee and obtain councillor feedback would be at its meeting on 4 February 2014. An extension to the submission closing date was requested. MfE indicated that it will grant Auckland Council a short extension to 14 February 2014. The committee meeting on
4 February is an opportunity to obtain councillor feedback on an indicative policy direction to inform a council submission and seek delegation to the Acting Chair (Cr Arthur Anae) and one other councillor to approve the final submission (suggesting Cr Wayne Walker as he is the Chair of the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee).

26. Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) will be making a submission on the Discussion Document. It has invited individual councils to contribute to the LGNZ submission. At a meeting of the Council Regional Sector Group Policy Managers on 29 November 2013, it was suggested that individual councils need not make separate submissions. However, Auckland Council expects to make an individual submission in addition to the LGNZ submission, due Auckland’s unique characteristics (large urban environment and small streams that present different water quality challenges from those presented to many other councils) and to allow time to obtain feedback from Mana Whenua and councillors. It is anticipated that other councils will also be making individual submissions in addition the LGNZ submission.

27. Staff from relevant council departments (Environmental Strategy & Policy, Auckland Strategy & Research, Economic Development, Regional & Local Planning, Resource Consents, Infrastructure & Environmental Services and Te Waka Angamua) and CCOs (Watercare Services Ltd and Auckland Transport) were invited to provide feedback on the Discussion Document. A range of feedback was received from Environmental Strategy & Policy, Auckland Strategy & Research, Regional & Local Planning, Infrastructure & Environmental Services, Te Waka Angamua and Watercare Services Ltd. This feedback is being collated and could form the basis of the Auckland Council submission.

Indicative policy direction

28. The indicative policy direction is general support of the proposed amendments in principle. The proposed amendments will help Auckland Council to implement the NPSFM.

29. A major omission in the Discussion Document is that urban freshwater issues are not well recognised or addressed by the proposed amendments to the NPSFM. Preliminary analysis of available monitoring data has been undertaken to identify monitoring locations in Auckland that currently breach one or more of the proposed NOF bottom lines. This showed two clusters of sites; one in parts of the rural Franklin area and another in the Auckland urban area. It is clear that existing urbanisation has resulted in failures of the proposed national bottom lines. This creates a legacy issue in relation to managing these existing areas relative to the NOF and creates a challenge relating to the continued growth of Auckland. How can Auckland continue to grow without resulting in additional failures of the proposed national bottom lines?

30. Proposal 1: Accounting for water quality and quantity. There is support for better systems for collecting and collating good information on water takes and sources of relevant contaminants. There is a need for guidance to be produced on freshwater accounting systems, particularly for water quality.

31. Proposal 2: National Objectives Framework. There is support for a national set of values to assist in the overall implementation process and reduce duplication between regions. Additional values could be added, including: sensitive coastal receiving environments, urban stormwater conveyance and municipal supply. The states for those attributes currently proposed seem appropriate and are based on existing science. The NOF does not currently include an attribute for invertebrates or sediment. The proposed version 1 of the NOF does not include any biological indicators that reflect life-supporting capacity. It is indicated that invertebrates are a potential attribute under consideration for 2016-2019. The Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) is a widely used and recognised means of measuring life supporting capacity. It relates directly to the ‘ecosystem health’ value in the proposed NOF. Discharge of sediment and consequent effects on water quality are an issue in Auckland and throughout the other regions in New Zealand. The inclusion of invertebrates (MCI) and sediment attributes in the NOF as soon as possible, before 2016-2019, would be highly desirable. The inclusion of a partially populated NOF with these additional attributes at this stage is supported.

32. Proposal 3: Compulsory national values. There is support for the inclusion of ecosystem health and human health (secondary contact). No additional compulsory values are needed at this stage.

33. Proposal 4: National bottom lines. There is support for the inclusion of numeric bottom lines associated with values.

34. Proposal 5: Exceptions to national bottom lines. There is support for the inclusion of exceptions. The status of Auckland’s combined stormwater and wastewater networks under the proposed exceptions policy is unclear. Clarification of the interpretation of “historical activities”, “reasonably practical” in terms of reversing impacts and “significant existing infrastructure” is required to address this.

35. Proposal 6: Articulating tāngata whenua values. There is support for the increased recognition of tāngata whenua values through the inclusion of Te Mana o Te Wai in appendix 1 of the Discussion Document.

36. Proposal 7: Monitoring. There is support for the requirement to monitor policy outcomes to demonstrate measurable improvements.

37. Additional comments: There is support for linkages between land, fresh water and coastal water being explicitly recognised as proposed in the Discussion Document proposed amendments to policies A1, B1 and C2.

Consideration

Local Board Views

38. On advice from council’s Principal Local Board Advisor, a memorandum on the Discussion Document was drafted and sent to Local Board members. The memorandum was dated 11 December 2013. It provided information on the Discussion Document and the submission process. A broad policy direction for the council’s submission was provided. Local Board members were advised in the memorandum to contact the relevant council staff by 19 December 2013 if they wished to discuss the proposed amendments.

39. Two Local Board members contacted staff with comments. One of the responses supported Auckland Council making a submission and being part of the reform process by providing expertise and local experience concerning freshwater management issues. The comments in the other response touched on the interrelationship between fresh water, ecosystems, land use and development activities and the coastal environment. This feedback could be included in a submission from Auckland Council.

Maori Impact Statement

40. Auckland Council is engaging with Mana Whenua to help establish the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management (NPSFM) programme. Mana Whenua will be involved in programme implementation. A hui was held on 12 December 2013 to discuss Auckland Council’s NPSFM programme and the submission on the proposed amendments. A high level introduction to the proposed amendments was given and some initial feedback received. There was a request for further information to be provided early in 2014.

41. As a response to the request, a further memorandum was sent to Mana Whenua on 13 January to seek feedback and comments. Responses were requested by 24January 2014 for consideration and incorporation into the Auckland Council submission. The memorandum also provided information to assist Mana Whenua with the development of their own submissions on the proposed amendments, should they wish to do so.

General

42. There is a statutory requirement for councils to give effect to the NPSFM. The NPSFM programme has existing funding in the Long Term Plan. There could be additional costs to the programme depending on the final form of the amendments and how they are implemented. In addition it should be noted that there are likely to be operational costs to the council and the wider community in meeting water quality improvements required to meet National Bottom Lines set in the amendments to the NPSFM. When these are better understood they will be reported.

43. There are no further general considerations associated with this report.

Implementation Issues

44. There are no implementation issues associated with this report.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a View

Ministry of the Environment (MfE) Summary of Proposed Amendments to National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM)

(Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Millar – Principal Specialist Water Management

Authorisers

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 February 2014

Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Six Monthly Report

File No.: CP2014/00017

Purpose

1. This report is for information purposes and provides an update on activities in progress across council which are contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

Executive Summary

2. The implementation of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (‘the Act’) is being undertaken by a variety of Council departments across the range of objectives set out in the Act. These objectives are summarized in Attachment A. This report is in line with the resolution of the March 2012 meeting of the former Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) which recognised the importance of the programme of work being undertaken to implement the Act and requested that six monthly progress updates be prepared for the Waitākere Ranges Local Board and RDOC. A similar report was presented to the Local Board in December 2013.

3. The background to the programme and a general summary of progress is provided in the main body of the report, with further details provided in Attachment B. This describes work completed in the last financial year and actions for this financial year across the range of activities and projects identified.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) note the resolutions of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board regarding residual trap catch targets for possum control.

Discussion

4. The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area (WRHA) covers an area of approximately 27,770 hectares which encompasses the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park. The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 recognises the national, regional and local significance of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area, and promotes the protection and enhancement of its natural, cultural and historic heritage features for present and future generations. A summary of the Act’s objectives is set out in Attachment A.

5. The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Programme (“the Programme”) comprises all council-wide activities which contribute to the purposes of the Act, including ‘business as usual’ activities and projects specifically established under the Act. At its March 2012 meeting, the Regional Development and Operations Committee endorsed the Programme as a key initiative and resolved that officers should report on overall progress on a six-monthly basis to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board and Regional Development and Operations Committee.

6. An officer-level Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Programme Co-ordination Group (WRPCG) has been established to provide for exchange of information and to ensure that the relevant work streams and activities are co-ordinated and aligned. The WRPCG also provides a mechanism for prioritisation, monitoring and reporting progress that contributes to achieving the purpose and objectives of the Act.

7. Strict adherence to the six-monthly reporting cycle has not been possible due to the need to present a five-year monitoring report under the Act at the same time as the last six-monthly report was due, and the timetabling of Council meetings around the local government elections. To compensate for this, the current report covers the period since July 2012. Following the recent changes to Council’s Committees structure, reporting will now be to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee.

8. The attached summary table (Attachment B) provides a synopsis of progress on projects and activities for the 2012/2013 financial year and a look ahead to the opportunities and challenges and intended progress through the 2013/2014 financial year. Projects and activities have been grouped under topic headings which align with the WRHA’s heritage features and management objectives. These are:

· Planning and Communication– planning for, communicating about and implementation of the Act as a whole

· Landscape - activities aimed at protecting and enhancing the characteristic landscape of the foothills, rural and forested areas and coast

· Development and Consent Activity – management of subdivision and development within the context of the Resource Management Act, Reserves Act and Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act, which requires unitary, regional and district plans to give effect to the Act

· Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services – protection, restoration and enhancement of ecosystems by both Council and community

· Cultural and Built Heritage – this relates to both pre-and post-European settlement, including the relationships between tangata whenua and the heritage area, and the history of kauri milling and horticulture and viticulture

· Recreation Opportunities and Visitor Management - provision of facilities and services for enjoyment and appreciation of these heritage features, and management of visitor pressures and impacts.

9. Key points and highlights

· The first five year monitoring report has enabled a comprehensive stock take to be made of progress towards achieving the objectives of the Act and provides a stronger basis for future strategic planning and monitoring. The monitoring report has identified knowledge gaps in some areas which will need to be addressed before the next five year report, due in 2018

· Auckland Transport are preparing design and management guidance to address concerns relating to the landscape and amenity impact of road corridor infrastructure such as signs, footpaths, barriers and retaining walls in the road corridor

· The Proposed Unitary Plan incorporates specific provisions which give effect to the Act

· Kauri Die-back continues to be most significant threat to the WRHA and management initiatives to limit its spread are being extended

· Community initiatives to protect and restore native ecosystems continue to grow and are providing biodiversity, social and amenity benefits. Resourcing issues will need to be addressed if the Council is to support the demand for continued growth. Initiatives are also being developed to improve integration across Council-supported programmes

· Progress is being made on the preparation of a visitor management plan and the development of new recreational opportunities and facilities both inside and outside of the Regional Park.

Consideration

Local Board Views

10. This report was considered by the Waitākere Ranges Local Board at its meeting on 12 December 2013, where it was resolved as follows (Resolution number WTK/2013/251):

MOVED by Chairperson S Coney, seconded by Member S Toms:

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Receive the report.

b) Expresses its appreciation of the range of activities the Council is undertaking with regards to the implementation of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act programme and in particular the establishment of the programme coordination group.

c) Conveys to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee its concern that the residual trap catch (RTC) for possums has been raised from 2% to 5% with potentially significant impacts on the Waitākere Ranges eco systems and requests that funding be made available so the RTC can be reinstated to 2%.

d) Notes that a decision as to whether to proceed to a Local Area Plan for Bethells Beach/Te Henga will be made in 2014

11. This report and Attachment B have subsequently been amended in response to the local board’s resolutions and points of clarification raised at the 12 December 2013 meeting.

Maori Impact Statement

12. Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Whātua Nga Rima o Kaipara and Ngāti Whātua o Orakei have not been consulted specifically on this report. However regular consultation and engagement takes place on a range of individual projects and activities described in this report, and on matters of mutual interest in the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park. Development of processes which support stronger engagement of tangata whenua in decision-making in the heritage area is identified as a key workstream in the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area.

General

13. The report is part of a continuing process to implement the WRHA Act and to evaluate progress being made to achieve the objectives of the Act. It is consistent with the priorities of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board (as expressed through the Local Board Plan), and does not trigger the Significance Policy. This report is for Council reporting purposes and has not therefore been subject to a wider consultation process. There are no immediate financial or reporting implications. Any legislative or legal implications are considered and managed separately through the individual activities and projects concerned.

Implementation Issues

14. There are no direct implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Summary of Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act Objectives	41
b View	Summary of Activities and Progress	43

Signatories

Authors

Julian Watts - Principal Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 February 2014

The Legal Framework for Burial and Cremation in New Zealand – A First Principles Review.

Submitter organisation: Auckland Council

Submitter contact details: Catherine Moore

Manager, Auckland Cemeteries

Level 8, 8 Hereford St

Auckland

09 365 3193| catherine.moore@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Auckland Council manages 32 open cemeteries and 23 closed cemeteries as well as 3 crematoria throughout the region. Annually, we perform on average 2200 interments (ash and burial) and 2700 cremations at our facilities. Catering for the needs of people and families wishing to inter their loved-ones’ remains (either through burial or interment of ashes) places significant demands on Council’s financial and planning resources. That is particularly so given the cultural preference for burial over cremation by a growing sector of the population. In terms of resource pressures, one of New Zealand’s largest working cemeteries, Waikumete Cemetery, has on average 480 burials a year, but has been running short of space for some time. In the near future, either expanding its footprint or identifying new sites will become critical. Management of burial and cremation options, and meeting social needs and requests for alternatives, is an important issue for Auckland’s growth. Auckland Council is therefore pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the Law Commission’s Paper, and would welcome the opportunity to assist the Law Commission as it develops and refines its thinking in this area.

Part Two: Cemetery and Cremation Sector

1. Would you support opening the provision of cemeteries up to independent providers, such as those providing cemeteries for “eco” or “natural burials”, complementing the public cemeteries provided by local authorities?

Auckland Council supports opening the provision of cemeteries to independent providers subject to adequate safeguards being in place. Of particular concern is the situation where an independent provider can no longer manage a cemetery for whatever reason, and there is a need for a public agency to take over its management and maintenance. If that obligation were to fall on local authorities, this would be an unbudgeted burden on ratepayers. We do not consider the bonding provisions in the Resource Management Act allow local authorities to adequately guard against or mitigate this risk. They may provide a perverse incentive for independent providers to step away from a cemetery at the end of its saleable life and transfer the long term maintenance to local authorities, with little or no perpetual maintenance funds to support this.

An alternative could be that an industry levy is charged on all private providers and an endowment fund is set up to provide funding of last resort, rather than making an assumption that this should be a public agency obligation.

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provides for a cemetery special purpose zone which will apply to all operational cemeteries. Any new cemeteries will need to be rezoned by means of a plan change and associated concept planning process. Concept plans should address:

a) Protection and improvement of existing watercourses

b) Responses to natural topography and geotechnical stability

c) Maintenance of existing vegetation and ecologically sensitive areas

d) Protection and respect for historic heritage and cultural places

e) Habitats for flora and fauna

f) How the design provides for public safety

g) Sanctuary and places for quiet reflection

h) Integration with existing urban infrastructure such as roads, cycling and parks networks

i) How walking and cycling pedestrian networks within the cemetery connect into surrounding infrastructure

j) Appropriate development controls to achieve the above

Auckland Council supports a mandatory concept planning process for all new cemeteries.

There are an increasing number of eco-burial and natural burial sites being opened within public cemeteries across New Zealand. The eco-burial area at Waikumete Cemetery has now reached capacity and we are evaluating the location of a new area within that cemetery. A provisional eco-burial area at Manukau Memorial Gardens is also currently being investigated for suitability. Council supports the availability of such alternatives where there is likely to be an ongoing demand and the cemetery has sufficient burial capacity remaining. The character and location of the cemetery and the desires and preferences of the local community must also be taken into account when developing new sections within a cemetery. For example, it is highly unlikely that Auckland Council would develop eco-burial areas within all 32 open cemeteries for a variety of reasons including remaining capacity of a cemetery of less than 5 years, low demand from the local community and unsuitable soil or groundwater conditions. Similar practical considerations would need to apply in relation to any proposal by an independent provider seeking to offer “eco” or “natural burial” cemetery alternatives.

2. If so, do you think those establishing independent cemeteries should be limited to registered charities? Should independent cemeteries be allowed to make a profit?

With reference to the second of these questions, Auckland Council notes that all cemeteries need to make a surplus during their operational life, in order to fund their maintenance in perpetuity once the cemetery is closed and no longer generates revenue. If a dividend was returned to shareholders, then it is likely there will be a shortfall in budget for maintenance in the future. Evidence shows that surplus operational income needs to be invested wisely if a cemetery is to provide for ongoing future maintenance. The most pragmatic approach is to require that all independent cemeteries be registered charities specifically for cemetery purposes.

3. Should it be lawful for someone to be buried on private land, provided the necessary consents have been obtained?

Auckland Council does not support burial on private land in the Auckland region; however we note that it may be appropriate in other regions. Allowing burial on private land in Auckland would effectively lock up land in perpetuity within a region that is expecting massive growth, and which is becoming increasingly ethnically and religiously diverse and has a relatively high turnover in land ownership. There is a growing difference in the demographics, land value and land availability between urban NZ and rural NZ

In the Auckland context, land that was rural 30-40 years ago, for example the Albany area, is now a medium and high density urban residential and business area. The North Shore Memorial Park was once in the middle of this countryside and is now surrounded by residential development. It is difficult to predict the shape of development over extended time horizons, and burials on private land may restrict the future possibilities for land use and development.

Monitoring for compliance with resource consent conditions is a process with which local authorities are familiar, and for which they have established resources and mechanisms. Monitoring for compliance with parallel environmental standards and burial regulations, by contrast, would require local authorities to set up new regimes and processes for what may be an infrequent activity, thus raising efficiency and cost pass-on considerations.

Maintaining access to burial plots in perpetuity, even if ownership or use of the land changes, will also be an important consideration for the legislation.

From a future heritage perspective, there is a need to ensure that all burials on private land are accurately recorded on survey plans / Land Information Memoranda and other similar documents. Private burials should not occur on / or within recorded archaeological sites, and it is possible that, depending on the history of the relevant area, local Maori could have views on such burials.

4. Where practically possible, should local authorities be required to provide separate burial areas within public cemeteries for groups with specific religious or cultural burial requirements?

Auckland Council supports a requirement for local authorities provide separate burial areas to meet specific religious or cultural requirements. We recommend that local authorities be required to develop a policy and have standard criteria to assess these requests, to provide for transparent decision making. The legislation should allow for flexibility in the way that such areas are developed, funded and managed. However, this should not disadvantage communities who are less financially resourced and create inequalities.

With careful planning and a commitment from local authorities to meet the needs of their communities, it is possible to provide for cultural and religious needs within a public cemetery. Within the Auckland region, provision is already made for many cultural and denominational groups where demand is sufficient. While this makes it more difficult to manage land use we have an ongoing commitment to work with and meet the needs of our communities.

5. Do you think the law should establish minimum standards for the maintenance of cemeteries?

No, maintenance standards for cemeteries are a level of service issue that should be left to local authorities to agree with their communities through long term and annual plan processes. Legislation should address this at a very high level only, creating an obligation for local authorities and private providers to maintain grounds in a dignified and pleasant manner that allows the public safe access to gravesites. There should be a requirement that each cemetery has documented maintenance standards and records that are publically available.

The legislation must allow for a variety of styles of cemetery or for different standards to be appropriate in different areas of the same cemetery. For example, the wildflower sanctuary at Waikumete Cemetery is only cut twice a year in order to allow the wildflowers to go to seed and therefore maintain the health and diversity of the wildflower population.

6. Do you think there should be stronger legal provisions for the protection of historic cemeteries and grave sites?

Yes. Historic cemeteries should be managed as historic reserves under the Reserves Act 1977. The Act provides for recognition and protection of the values of a reserve through appropriate classification. Historic reserves are established primarily to protect and preserve in perpetuity places, objects and natural features of historic, archaeological, cultural, educational and other special interests. These are values that are typically associated with closed cemeteries. The Act also requires every reserve to have a reserve management plan. The management planning process aims to ensure that management of reserves is based on sound principles in accordance with the purpose for which it was classified and that, through consultation, the needs of the public are clearly identified. While there is provision in current legislation for this classification to be made when a cemetery is closed, we would support this being strengthened to a requirement.

It should be an offence to desecrate historic graves. Legislation and penalties should be strengthened both as a deterrent and to enable cost recovery to repair any damage.

Stronger legal provisions should cover pre and post-1900 graves (early C20th graves are now over 100 years old). Legislation should provide clearer guidance about where responsibility lies for historic cemeteries and grave sites (including maintenance and repair), especially where no descendants can be identified. Processes need to be streamlined where possible so that graves do not deteriorate further while authorities are sought to enable preservation of a grave site (whether by local authorities or descendants of the deceased).

The experience of Auckland Council in working to preserve grave sites at Symonds Street Cemetery is that the cost of obtaining the required specialist advice to inform an application for an archaeological authority can double the cost of restoration of a headstone and make such a project unaffordable for many families who would otherwise be interested. In addition, there has been significant deterioration of graves and vaults while the appropriate approvals have been sought. We recognize that this is an area where specialist advice is essential, but costs and time delays should not result in deterioration of such heritage assets beyond the point where it is feasible to preserve or restore them.

Additional Questions:

a) Do you agree that denominational burial grounds should be transitioned to the framework for independent cemeteries?

Yes, denominational burial grounds should be transitioned to the framework for independent cemeteries to ensure consistency across the sector. In many cases, denominational burial grounds no longer operate exclusively for one religious group and may act more like an independent or community cemetery. There should be consistent criteria for opening a cemetery regardless of the provider.

b) Do you agree that the management of community cemeteries should be overseen by local authorities rather than by central government, including giving them the power to appoint trustees?

Yes, we support this function being provided by local authorities. This would allow more integrated oversight of the provision of cemetery services across a local authorities district.

c) Do you agree that the underlying title of community cemeteries should be vested either in the local authority or the registered charitable trust appointed to manage the cemetery?

Yes. The underlying title of community cemeteries should be vested in the local authority or registered charitable trust to facilitate easy transfer when required.

d) Do you agree that the Environment Court, rather than the Minister of Health, should be able to approve the closure of cemeteries or burial grounds or a change in the use of the land?

No, we consider the approval of the closure of a cemetery or burial ground is principally an administrative exercise that does not require consideration of environmental matters.

Approval of a change in the use of land formerly used as a cemetery or burial ground may or may not require consideration by the Environment Court; depending on whether the proposed change raises environmental or resource consent issues.

e) Should the local authority power to remove unsafe monuments within public cemeteries override the heritage protection provisions in the Historic Places Act?

The Burial and Cremation (Removal of Monuments and Tablets) Regulations 1967 allow authorities to remove any dilapidated or neglected monument through a prescribed process. However, not all dilapidated or neglected monuments are unsafe. The legislation should define an unsafe monument and require cemetery providers to consider other means to address the safety risk that allow retention of monuments with historic values. Removal of the monument should be a last resort that is only undertaken on the advice of heritage specialists who are qualified to determine that the funerary architecture is both unsafe, and of insufficient historic merit to warrant renovation, as this removal could have a significant negative effect on the cultural heritage values of historic cemeteries. The Historic Places Trust should be involved in such a process to provide guidelines in the management of memorials similar to those provided by English Heritage (www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/caring-historic-graveyard-cemetery-monuments; http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/paradise-preserved/), The National Trust of Australia (New South Wales) (http://www.nationaltrust.org.au/Assets/9719/1/cemetery_conservation_guide.pdf) or The Department of Environment and Heritage of the Government of South Australia (http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/our-places/Heritage/Conserving_our_heritage).

f) What matters should be included as statutory default provisions for the sale of a burial plot?

g) What matters should be addressed in a model contract for sale of a plot?

h) At this point we are not proposing additional measures to address desecration of graves. In your view are the current provisions adequate?

Auckland Council has no view on questions f) and g). In relation to h, the answer is ‘No’. Council perceives that the majority of graves targeted for vandalism are within the historic parts of cemeteries e.g. The Symonds Street Cemetery and the historic sections of Waikumete Cemetery have both been targeted in the past two years. The heritage values of each are compromised every time vandalism occurs. Graves are often irrecoverably damaged, for example, the paint used in the Jewish Section of Symonds Street, has not fully come out and to remove it completely would affect the structure of the graves. In our view, current legislation may not be adequate to deter the desecration of graves. We recommend the legislation and penalties be stronger, with particular emphasis on the cost recovery for the repair of the graves, and effective punishment for those who perpetrate the damage.

i) What information and record-keeping obligations do you consider should apply to cemetery managers?

Cemetery managers should be obliged to keep records of all burials, disinterments and cremations that take place in their facilities. Minimum details should include:

· Full name of deceased

· Any previous names

· Ethnicity

· Date of birth

· Date of death

· Date of burial or cremation

· Depth of grave

· Cause of death

· Contact person for administrative matters

· Next of kin information

· GIS reference of grave location

· Link to multiple interments in the same plot

· Details of memorial or other permanent items placed at the grave site by the family

· Any complaints or correspondence with the family relating to the plot

· Any damage or vandalism to that plot

Cemetery managers should also be required to keep records of maintenance activities, capital developments and renewals, complaints from the public and families.

7. Do you think those who operate crematoria should be licensed? Please give reasons.

Auckland Council supports the licencing of crematoria operators and a mandatory code of practice to provide minimum levels of service and safety. A regular monitoring and inspection regime will provide public assurance that facilities are being operated in a safe, sensitive and appropriate manner. We support local authorities being responsible for monitoring the licencing regime. Much of the activity in a crematoria is unseen by the public and a licencing regime would provide the public with a level of confidence in the service being provided in much the same way as other licencing regimes do for public health and hygiene matters.

8. Do you think resource consents should be required for all new crematoria and should they be publicly notified under the Resource Management Act?

Publically notified resource consents should be essential for all new crematoria. The public will have varying levels of sensitivity about living and working in proximity to facilities for the disposal of human remains, and should have the opportunity to make representations.

A resource consent process also allows effects on air quality from the discharge of air pollutants to be addressed consistently and for maximum safe levels of pollutants to be identified, monitored and enforced.

9. Do you think there should be stronger regulatory controls over the operation of crematoria and the handling of human ashes by crematoria?

Yes, stronger regulatory controls over the operation of crematoria and the handling of human ashes would be appropriate. Auckland Council supports the development of national standards and a mandatory code of practice.

10. Do you think there is a problem with the availability of cremation services in any particular area of New Zealand?

We do not consider that there is a problem with the availability of cremation services in the Auckland region.

Additional questions:

a) In your view what are the most important elements in a licensing regime for example

· Verifying the suitability of crematorium operators

· Verifying standards and policies

· Verifying compliance through inspections and audit

· Mandating education and training requirements

· Other elements please describe

Auckland Council considers all the above elements to be important. In order of priority, any licensing regime should verify compliance through inspections and audit; require CCTV surveillance and monitoring of premises; verify the suitability of crematorium operators by criminal conviction check; mandate education and training requirements; and verify standards and policies.

b) In what circumstances should central or local government be able to require closure of a private crematorium?

The following circumstances should allow a crematorium to be closed either permanently or temporarily:

· Proof of criminal activity

· Non-compliance with resource consent conditions

· At any time when the crematorium operation is unsafe (e.g. following a natural disaster)

· On the recommendation of the Medical Officer of Health on the grounds of adverse public health or infectious disease issues

c) Which controls for the operation of crematoria and the handling of human ashes do you regard as most important? For example:

· Minimum and maximum time limits on carrying out cremation after receipt of the body;

· Security processes for holding the body prior to cremation;

· Limits on multiple cremations without consent;

· Treatment of ashes and limits on commingling ashes without consent;

· Retention and disposal of ashes by crematorium;

· Supervision of crematoria employees;

· Any other controls – please describe

Auckland Council considers all the above controls important. In addition we recommend that there should be controls over the standards of record keeping for crematoria and the handling of ashes, including a requirement to keep records of who the ashes were released to and the method and location of disposal.

d) If you have views and comments about any particular aspect of the regulatory framework for cremation, please outline these below. For example:

· Guidance, standards and codes of practice

· Regulations and approvals

· Licensing and inspections

· Education and training

· Resource consents and community consultation

· Any other aspect of the regulatory framework

We have no further comments on these issues.

Additional Comments

Burials in archaeological contexts

Consideration should be given to providing for a process in the legislation for the reburial of human remains/koiwi found in an archaeological context. Koiwi/remains can be found by members of the public or by archaeologists as a result of coastal erosion, earthworks for development, during archaeological excavations, or by members of the public coming across burial repositories in rock clefts or similar places. For example, in 2008-9, the remains of 88 individuals were found during the Northern Runway Development at Auckland Airport. At the other end of the spectrum, discarded fragmentary remains may be present in an occupation site. European burials may also be found outside formal cemeteries (for example in remote areas of settlement or in shipwrecks or where washed ashore from shipwrecks, as burials at sea) or as unrecorded graves in early cemeteries.

It is common practice for koiwi from archaeological sites to be reinterred without the Burial and Cremation Act being followed. Often the remains are reburied close to where they were found, and in some cases in a designated urupa.

A number of problems have arisen through time as a result of informal reburials of archaeological koiwi. These include:

· Inability of mana whenua groups (where multiple iwi have a declared interest) to reach agreement on which urupa or location they should be buried in.

· Reburial in a situation where they are disturbed again in the future (e.g. by coastline retreat), in some cases triggering a police inquiry, pathologist’s report and media interest, when agreed discovery protocols are not followed, or where they may be exposed to inappropriate activity. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9415949/Bones-discovery-interrupts-beach-weddings

· The reburial location not being recorded. This is a particular issue where the ownership or management of the land changes, since the presence of buried remains imposes constraints and obligations, and lack of knowledge of the burial location can result in inadvertent disturbance.

· Animal bones or European remains being reburied by Maori due to a process of identification not being followed e.g. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503426&objectid=11107055. In a recent Auckland case British casualties from a grave site associated with a historic shipwreck were taken away and reburied by Maori who had assumed the remains were of Maori origin, because heritage staff were not consulted. Burials in cemeteries can conversely be assumed to be European when the individual has a European name, but may in fact be Maori. Both situations can preclude the next of kin/descendants being identified, notified and having a say on the deposition of the remains.

· Important archaeological information regarding the burial context being lost because protocols have not been followed, or the opportunity for scientific study of the remains (where appropriate) being considered.

Another potential issue is for crime scenes to be disturbed. It is undesirable to impose unnecessary legal constraints and associated delays and costs on the process of reburial of koiwi. However, when human remains are buried outside a formal urupa or cemetery it is important that as a minimum, the location is recorded and information concerning the location/existence of the koiwi can be accessed by individuals with a legitimate interest (such as the landowner). The use of a crypt could allow future remains to be added without the need to dig and potentially disturb previous reburials. Detail concerning the process can be formalized in an inter-agency/mana whenua koiwi discovery protocol. The NZ Historic Places Trust needs to be consulted to ensure an integrated approach to these issues.

Limited or renewable tenure on burial plots and cremation memorials

Consideration should be given to providing for limited or renewable tenure of burial plots and cremation memorials in the legislation. Limited tenure plots are provided for in many other countries including some states in Australia. A move towards limited or renewable tenure would allow local authorities to manage the issue of limited space in existing cemeteries and the increasing cost of acquiring and developing new land for cemeteries. Over the medium to long term it could reduce the need to acquire new land for cemetery purposes. Ongoing licence fees from limited and renewable tenure provide an income stream to support the ongoing maintenance of gardens and grounds.

We recommend that in any move to limited or renewable tenure:

· Limited tenure is not mandatory; the option for burial in perpetuity should remain

· at the end of the tenure period families should have the option to renew the tenure if desired

· limited or renewable tenure should not be implemented retrospectively

· that the practice is regulated to ensure that human remains are treated with dignity and respect

Part Three: Funeral Services: The adequacy of the regulatory environment

11. Do you think those providing funeral services to the public should be required to proactively disclose the costs of the different components of their services? Please give your reasons.

Yes, at the time families are making funeral arrangements they are often stressed and grieving and being asked to make multiple decisions in a short time frame. Funeral costs can have a heavy financial burden on families and having access to information around pricing of services will allow people to make informed decisions. Funeral providers should also be required to disclose those services that are required by law and those which the family has discretion over, and to provide balanced information about the risks and benefits of each option so that families are able to make an informed decision.

12. Should those providing funeral services to the public be required to disclose their qualifications and whether or not they are accountable to an industry body responsible for enforcing standards and considering complaints?

Yes, those providing funeral services should be required to display their qualification certificates and evidence of affiliation with an industry body at their premises. This information should also be freely available to the public on a national searchable database with appropriate validation controls in place.

13. Do you think those providing funeral services to the public should have to demonstrate they understand the laws and regulations which apply to handling human remains and have access to suitable premises and transportation methods before being allowed to operate commercially?

Yes, we support licencing of funeral directors and embalmers.

Anyone wishing to set up a funeral company should be required to apply for a license to operate with an authority such as the Ministry of Health in partnership with the local authority whose role would be to audit and certify the business premises are fit for purpose. The licensing framework needs to also consider the requirements of religious and cultural groups who may use their own religious, cultural or private premises for the preparation of bodies that may not be identified as commercial, but which nevertheless need to meet similar minimum standards in terms of certification, hygiene and so on.

14. Do you have any other views about the way the funeral sector currently operates including whether there is a case for a mandatory code of conduct and complaints mechanism?

Auckland Council supports a mandatory code of conduct and complaints mechanism for the funeral sector. This would be in conjunction with licencing of funeral directors and embalmers.

The funeral sector deals with the public at a vulnerable time, and a mandatory code of conduct and complaints mechanism would provide protection for families who are grieving.

15. Do you think there is a case for requiring local authorities to provide a basic funeral service for those who wish to deal directly with a cemetery or crematorium?

In Auckland there are a large number of providers in the funeral services industry and as a result there is a good range of choices for families, including the ability to access a basic funeral service, and have a high level of family involvement if desired. As a consequence, we do not see a case for establishing formal requirements in this respect. We also note that families on occasion are managing the funeral process. An information guide or toolkit for self-directed funerals and the statutory requirements would assist families.

Part Four: Facilitating Decision making and Managing Disagreement

16. Do you think the process for resolving a serious burial dispute should be clarified in legislation? Please give reasons.

In Auckland Council’s experience, when burial disputes arise it is important that families and those who are assisting them have a clear process to follow. This is a time when emotions are running high, and clear statutory guidance would greatly assist resolution.

17. Any new statutory regime would need to reflect the values New Zealanders think should underpin the law in this area. For example, the wishes of the deceased have great moral force, but should they be legally binding? Or are the needs of the bereaved more or equally important? We are interested in the weight New Zealanders think should be given to the different values and interests involved in these decisions.

We do not have a formal view on this issue.

18. Irrespective of who makes the decision or what factors they take into account, there will be times when a serious dispute arises and access to a legal forum is needed. Do you support the option of giving the Family Court the responsibility for dealing with burial and cremation disputes?

Yes, we would support the Family Court being given the responsibility for dealing with Burial and Cremation disputes. The Family Court has systems in place to assist families to make decisions where there are differing opinions, and this would be an extension of that service. As these disputes need to be resolved in a timely manner it would be important that the Family Court was resourced appropriately to provide this additional service. We support provisions that reduce the cost of taking a dispute to court and ensure that all families have fair and equal access to dispute resolution and mediation services.

19. Do you support the option of giving the Māori Land Court concurrent jurisdiction in cases involving Māori customary law where all parties agree the dispute be heard in that forum?

Yes we support the concurrent jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court in cases involving Maori customary law where at least one party requests that involvement.

20. Do you support the option of giving the Family Court responsibility for dealing with disputes concerning memorialisation (for example the erection of headstones) or the custody of ashes?

Yes, we would support the Family Court being given this responsibility, especially if it is also the forum for dealing with Burial and Cremation disputes. The Family Court has systems in place to assist families to make decisions where there are differing opinions, and this would be an extension of that service.

21. Do you feel that scattering or burying human ashes in public places is problematic? If so what are the most appropriate measures for dealing with this issue?

The scattering or burying of human ashes in public places may be offensive to some New Zealanders. In particular, the release of ashes on beaches and waterways may be problematic. Public gardens are often utilised by families creating issues of plant survival and low levels of soil contamination from heavy metals. This is particularly the case in urban areas, for example the Parnell Rose Gardens in Dove-Myer Robinson Park. When ashes are returned to the family either by the funeral director or the local authority, it would be an appropriate time to offer some guidance about appropriate places for disposal of ashes and any restrictions in the area where disposal is proposed.

Additional Questions:

Scattering of Ashes

a) Is there a need for cultural or other reasons to designate particular public places where the scattering or burying of human ashes is either permitted or restricted?

Yes, the public need clear information about where it is permitted to scatter ashes. This could be in the form of a policy or guideline supported by a bylaw. It is likely that the only public places where we would designate this as a permitted activity would be in specified locations in cemeteries. Any guideline needs to also explain why this activity is offensive in some areas. Based on our experience, families do not set out to cause offense, but are focused on their needs and are unaware of the broader issues.

b) Is consultation with local iwi and hapu an effective way to ensure that this activity does not give cultural offense?

Consultation with local iwi and hapu would be essential prior to putting in place a policy or controls, and would be useful where there is a lack of clarity about a particular area. In Auckland there are a large number of iwi who may have interest in a particular area, and it can be difficult for the public to know who are the appropriate iwi or hapu to consult with. Local authorities should be required to consult with their local iwi or hapu to formally gain permission or have restrictions placed on scattering or burying ashes in public locations.

c) Do the public have enough guidance and information about this activity? How could this be improved?

As per a) above, a policy or guideline would assist, together with information on websites and from funeral directors and local authorities at the time that ashes are collected.

Disinterment of individual graves

a) Do you have any comments or views about the list of interests that should guide decision-making about disinterment? Are there any other interests that should be included?

b) Do you have any comments or views about the reform questions raised in relation to disinterment of individual graves?

We would support the Ministry of Health retaining a central role in the approval of a disinterment licence with the support of the courts. The involvement of the courts in each disinterment request would provide a level of transparency and consistency for all parties. As disinterment is so infrequent, and given that an error on the part of cemetery staff may be involved in the requirement for a disinterment, it would not be appropriate to have the cemetery manager approving the licence. The cemetery manager should still be involved in the decision making process, to ensure that issues such as the risk of damaging surrounding graves and monuments are addressed. If the Family Court becomes the forum in which disputes about burials, cremations and memorialisation are heard then it would seem logical that they would also have oversight of disinterment applications.

Chairperson	Cr George Wood, CNZM
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Members	Cr Cameron Brewer	Cr Mike Lee
	Mayor Len Brown, JP	Member Kris MacDonald
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Calum Penrose
	Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr John Watson
	Cr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO	Cr Penny Webster
	Cr Penny Hulse	Member Glenn Wilcox
	Cr Denise Krum

No.	Title	Page
a View	Urgent decision	57
b View	Submission to "The Legal Framework for Burial and Cremation in New Zealand - A First Principles Review'	63
c View	Report explaining council's submission on the legal framework for burial and cremation in New Zealand	79