Agenda of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

1 Apologies

Apologies from Cr AM Filipaina, Cr LA Cooper and Deputy Mayor PA Hulse have been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 3 July 2014, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

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

5 Public Input

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

5.1 Earthship Biotecture - Passive, solar, off-the-grid, sustainable housing - Mesepa Edwards and Will 'Ilolahia

Purpose

1. Mesepa Edwards and Will ‘Ilolahia wish to speak to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee with regard to ‘Earthship Biotechture’ – passive solar, off-the-grid and sustainable housing.

2. They appeared before the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee at its meeting on 9 July 2014, where their concept was supported.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) thank Mesepa Edwards and Will ‘Ilolahia regarding ‘Earthship Biotechture’ – passive solar, off-the-grid and sustainable housing.

6 Local Board Input

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

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

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

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Notices of Motion

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

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 August 2014

Draft Community Facilities Network Plan

File No.: CP2014/14045

Purpose

1. To seek the committee’s endorsement of the draft Community Facilities Network Plan for local board engagement and stakeholder consultation during August and September 2014.

Executive summary

2. The purpose of the Community Facilities Network Plan is to guide council’s provision of community facilities for the next 10 years and beyond. The key drivers are to:

· optimise the use and efficiency of existing facilities

· address gaps and needs for community facilities now and into the future

· meet current and future demand arising from population growth and changing user expectations.

3. In March 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved the development and scope of the network plan (REG/2014/37) to address future provision of community centres, venues for hire, arts and cultural facilities, aquatic and leisure facilities.

4. During March and April, workshops with local boards and key stakeholders were undertaken to present findings from the current state review and to seek input on key components. A workshop with the governing body was held in May.

5. A draft Community Facilities Network Plan (network plan) has been developed (Attachment A). There are three key components of the draft network plan:

· Strategic framework – specifies the outcomes council is seeking from its investment in community facilities aligned with the Auckland Plan, Local Board Plans and other strategic priorities; and articulates the council’s key objectives for future provision.

· Provision framework – guides council’s approach for the provision of community facilities in the future.

· Action Plan – over 50 recommended actions to investigate areas where potential gaps in provision have been identified and to investigate existing facilities where issues affecting their performance have been identified.

6. Most of the recommendations in the network plan will require detailed community or sector based investigation to determine the appropriate response. It is proposed that any future investment in community facilities will be determined following detailed investigation which provides clear evidence of need, options analysis and a robust business case. Detailed process guidelines to ensure a consistent approach to these investigations has been developed (appendix 2 in draft network plan).

7. The draft network plan is an aspirational plan with actions for implementation over the next 10 to 20 years. The ability and timeframe to implement these actions is dependent on the decisions made through the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) on the budget available for investment in community facilities. This report outlines investment scenarios prepared for inclusion in the LTP process which can be considered by the governing body.

8. Engagement with local boards, advisory panels and key external stakeholder groups on the draft network plan is scheduled for August and September. Feedback will be incorporated into the final plan which is scheduled to be reported to the governing body by December 2014.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) endorse the draft Community Facilities Network Plan to guide council’s provision of community facilities, noting the timing and implementation of the plan will be subject to budget considerations as part of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 process

b) support engagement with local boards, advisory panels and key external stakeholder groups on the draft network plan, with the feedback to be reported to the governing body

c) forward this report to all local boards for their information.

Comments

9. Community facilities contribute to building strong, healthy and vibrant communities by providing space for people to connect with each other, socialise, learn skills and participate in a range of social, cultural, art and recreational activities. Community facilities contribute to improved lifestyles and a sense of belonging, identity and pride among residents.

10. To realise Auckland’s vision to be world’s most liveable city, the network of community facilities will need to improve, evolve and increase to keep pace with Auckland’s growth and diverse population. The network plan has been developed to guide council’s provision and investment of community facilities to meet community needs, both now and into the future.

11. The draft network plan aligns with strategic directions and transformational shifts outlined in the Auckland Plan, and has been informed by local board plans and relevant strategic action plans, including the Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan, Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan, Thriving Communities Strategy and Children and Young People’s Strategic Action Plan.

12. The scope of the network plan includes community centres, venues for hire (community or rural halls), arts and culture facilities, aquatic and leisure facilities. The network includes facilities owned by council and facilities owned by third-parties which are supported by council and are available for community use.

13. There is a wider picture of community facility provision which also contribute to meeting community needs. Delivering a successful network of community facilities will involve identifying opportunities to work across all providers, looking for partnership opportunities and solutions to best meet community needs. While facilities like libraries, sport clubs, community leases, schools, churches and marae are not included in the recommendations of the network plan, these facilities will be considered fully in the localised and detailed assessments undertaken in the implementation of the network plan.

14. The first stage in developing the network plan was a review of the current state to identify what facilities we have, who uses them, how they are used, how they are operated and key issues associated with this provision. A high level presentation of key findings from the current state review was presented to this committee in March 2014. These key findings are included in the draft network plan and have informed the proposed provision frameworks and actions. The full current state report is a companion document to the network plan and available on request.

15. Key challenges that the network plan seeks to address are:

· There are gaps and duplication in provision across the region which will require decisions on where new facilities should be developed and potentially where underperforming facilities which are no longer meeting community need could be divested or repurposed

· Some facilities are not fit for purpose due to the quality, design or layout

· There are a number of aging facilities that will require investment to remain operational or divested if they are no longer suitable to meet community needs

· Across the board there is a need to improve the financial sustainability of community facilities to reduce the overall cost of provision

· There are a variety of other providers of community facilities across Auckland which needs to be considered as part of future provision

· There is a need for thorough and consistent planning to properly understand community needs and determine the most appropriate response to these needs. In some cases a facility response may be not the best solution and other options such as partnerships, programming or marketing may achieve the desired outcomes

· Auckland is growing and becoming more diverse and the network of community facilities will need to be flexible enough to respond to changing community needs.

Draft Community Facilities Network Plan

16. The draft network plan sets out a strategic framework for community facilities to articulate why council invests in the provision of community facilities, the desired outcomes from this investment and the key objectives for future provision. The strategic framework is aligned with the Auckland Plan, local board plans and relevant strategic action plans.

17. Proposed common purpose for community facilities: Vibrant and welcoming places at the heart of where and how communities connect and participate.

18. The draft network plan sets out four proposed key objectives to guide and underpin the future provision of community facilities:

· Undertake robust and consistent planning to ensure future decisions on the provision of community facilities are based on clear evidence of needs and assessment of all options

· Maintain, improve and make the best use out of existing community facilities where they continue to meet community needs and investigate the future of facilities that no longer meet community needs

· Provide flexible and multi-purpose facilities that are co-located and/or integrated with other community infrastructure

· Look for opportunities to leverage and support partnerships.

Future Provision Framework

19. The draft network plan proposes provision frameworks for each type of community facility to guide council’s approach to the provision of new facilities in the future.

Community Centres

20. The proposed provision approach for community centres is to continue to maintain and deliver community centres at the local level across the region, recognising the important role they play in meeting local community need for spaces to deliver a wide range of community, recreation, learning, events, and arts and culture activities.

21. It is proposed community centres will serve local catchments of up to 5 km (approximately 15 minutes travel time) with a minimum population size of 20,000 residents. This reflects the current levels of provision and is in keeping with international benchmarks. New community centres should be sized between 600-800 metre² to ensure they have the flexibility to accommodate a wide range of activities and need. In rural areas, where there is lower population size, existing halls could be activated with programming.

22. Based on this proposed provision framework, the following potential areas of need for new community centres have been identified for further investigation:

· Ormiston (Flatbush)

· North-West corridor (Westgate, Massey North, Hobsonville Point)

· North Pukekohe

· Manurewa (quality and level of existing provision is low)

· Papakura (Takanini, Hingaia)

Venues for hire

23. There are a wide range of providers of venues for hire and many existing venues have low utilisation and/or issues impacting on their performance. In order to optimise the overall community facility network, it is proposed the council does not invest in any more stand-alone venues for hire. Instead, it is proposed that bookable space is included in flexible multi-purpose community centres (new or existing/redeveloped), guided by community needs assessments. Other options should be explored including partnerships or encouraging other organisations (such as schools, sports clubs and churches) to make bookable spaces available for community use.

24. Venues for hire is an area of the community facility network where there is potential for divestment or repurposing for other activities. Repurposing could include introducing programming to create a community centre, arts and culture facility or youth facility, converting to a community lease, or transferring the asset to a community organisation.

Aquatic and Leisure Facilities

25. The proposed provision framework for aquatic and leisure facilities is through a hierarchy of local, destination and regional facilities to support participation in a range of sport and recreation activities from casual play through to competitive sport. The provision framework is supported by actual catchment analysis of council’s aquatic and leisure facilities.

26. At the local level, it is proposed facilities should serve catchments up to 5km in distance. Potential gaps for investigation are identified in areas outside the catchments of existing facilities, where overall participation is less than the Auckland average and where population density meets target thresholds as outlined in the plan. It is proposed to develop an affordable design model to reduce the design and build costs without compromising the quality or viability of new facilities.

27. Destination and regional facilities will serve larger catchments 10km plus and only a limited number of facilities are required to serve the region. These facilities should be assessed on a case by case basis where there is clear evidence of demand.

28. Based on the proposed provision framework the following potential areas of need for new aquatic and leisure facilities have been identified for further investigation:

· Western corridor from Mt Albert to Glen Eden – aquatic and leisure facility

· Ormiston (Flatbush) – aquatic and leisure facility

· North-west corridor (Westgate, Massey North, Hobsonville Point, Kumeu) - aquatic

· Central city area – investigate partnership opportunities for leisure facility

· Warkworth and surrounding area – aquatic and leisure facility (noting the small population size may impact on demand and type of facility required)

· Waiheke Island - aquatic facility (noting the small population size may impact on the demand and type of facility required)

· Indoor court facilities across the region to provide for indoor sports

· Regional aquatic and indoor sport facility.

Arts and Culture Facilities

29. It is proposed the future provision of arts and culture activity at the local level will focus on enabling local expression through programming rather than building dedicated arts facilities. Future provision will be included as part of flexible multi-purpose community centres (new or existing/redeveloped) guided by community needs assessment. Focus will be placed on integrating appropriate space and programming within the existing network, or partnering with others to provide suitable space.

30. For destination and regional facilities, it proposed that council supports a network of facilities to meet sector and audience demand. The future provision of both destination and regional facilities should be determined by robust investigation on a case-by-case basis. In particular, council should only intervene when the private sector does not and opportunities for partnerships with sector, private and government should be explored.

Action Plan and Implementation

31. The draft network plan includes over 50 recommended actions to undertake investigations for the future provision of community facilities. This includes actions related to existing facilities as well as potential new facilities.

32. All recommended actions will require detailed community or sector based investigation to determine the appropriate response. It is intended that any future investment in community facilities will be determined following detailed investigation which provides clear evidence of need, options analysis and development of a robust business case. Detailed process guidelines to ensure a consistent approach to these investigations have been developed (Appendix 2 of draft network plan: Community Facilities Development Guidelines). The guidelines are consistent with the gateway process being developed by the Enterprise Project Management Office to be rolled out across council.

33. For some existing facilities, investigation is required to understand in more detail how the facility is operating and meeting community needs and to determine the appropriate response. There are a variety of responses the investigation could identify:

· Changing the way the facility is managed or operated such as new programming, marketing or new management model.

· Identifying the facility is no longer required for the original activity and could be re-purposed for a new activity or function.

· Identifying the facility is no longer required and could be divested.

· Identifying the facility needs to be redeveloped or improved and should be considered for investment.

34. For potential areas for new facilities, a similar investigation process is required to understand needs, test the feasibility of different options and assess the business case for a facility. The outcome of this investigation may identify a non-asset solution is required such as a partnership or supporting a non-council facility.

35. The actions in the draft network plan have been ranked according to the urgency of completing the investigation, which is based on consideration of the following factors:

· Urgency to address condition issues with existing facilities

· Need to respond to major catalysts impacting on existing facilities

· Opportunities for rationalisation or partnerships

· Identified as an existing gap in the network

· Timing and scale of projected growth

· Located in a spatial priority area.

36. Feedback from the governing body and local boards may change the ranking of actions in the final plan. The ability and timeframe to implement the actions is dependent on the level of budget available through the council’s LTP.

37. As council will not have the capacity to invest in all community facility projects, the draft network plan also provides prioritisation criteria to assist the governing body prioritise investment into community facilities once the investigation process has identified the appropriate response. The criteria will be used to assess the strategic benefits of the project, the importance of investing in a specific area and the project outcomes.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

38. Cluster workshops with local boards were undertaken in March and April. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an overview of the network plan, present information on the current state and to seek feedback on key components of the network plan. Key feedback themes from the local board cluster workshops were:

· Need to maintain and improve current network of community facilities, taking care of existing facilities as the first priority.

· Local boards strongly support the need and intent to be fully involved in the facility planning process.

· Decisions for investment in community facilities needs to be based on clear evidence of need.

· Planning for community facilities needs to take a holistic view across all provision and providers, looking for opportunities for partnerships and to coordinate delivery.

· There was a range of views on needing to address gaps, population growth, capacity issues and failing assets.

· Some local boards felt that different delivery models are appropriate for different communities to achieve the best results.

· Community facilities need to be accessible and inclusive for all sectors of the community.

· Community facilities need to be multi-purpose, flexible and integrated to deliver multiple community outcomes or benefits.

· Recognise that community facilities contribute to building a sense of place and making Auckland a more liveable city.

· Identified a range of operational issues that need to be addressed.

39. It is proposed that engagement is undertaken with each local board in August and September seeking their feedback on the draft network plan.

Maori impact statement

40. The provision of community facilities contributes to improving wellbeing among Maori communities by providing spaces to connect, socialise, learn skills and participate. For all community facility types Maori are represented as users. At aquatic facilities Maori make up 14% of users (compared to 9% of the population), 11% of leisure facility users and 9% of community centre users. Maori are under-represented as users compared to the Auckland population at arts and culture facilities.

41. Community facility user surveys and catchment studies has collected a range of information from all types of users including Maori users, which has informed the network plan and proposed actions. The network plan has also been informed by submissions and feedback received on the strategic action plans for community development, arts and culture and sport and recreation. The consultation process for these strategic action plans included a number of hui with iwi, which has provided input on the provision of community facilities.

42. Given the context of the network plan and the information already received through the user surveys and iwi consultation on the strategic action plans, it is not proposed to undertake any further specific engagement with Maori or other community facility users.

43. The broader picture of community facility provision recognises that marae and kohanga reo are important social infrastructure for Maori and the community. Officers from Te Waka Angamua are currently scoping a project to address the future provision and development of marae facilities. Opportunities for aligned provision and/or partnerships with marae facilities should be considered as potential options to meet community needs.

Implementation

44. The draft network plan is an aspirational plan for the next 10 to 20 years which outlines what needs to be investigated and undertaken to deliver a network of community facilities to meet community needs. The ability and timeframe to implement the actions is dependent on the level of budget available through the council’s LTP 2015-2025.

45. Through the LTP process, the governing body will consider the amount of funding available for investment in community facilities. To deliver the network plan this will need to include both operational funding to undertake the required investigation (needs assessment, feasibility and business case) and depending on the outcome of each investigation, capital funding or operational funding to implement the recommended response.

46. It is proposed that any capital funding for major upgrades or building new community facilities should be held in a regional investment fund and allocated to specific projects once a business case is approved.

47. It is proposed that any capital budgets in the existing LTP (assuming these are retained) that are not already contractually committed or attached to projects that have substantially progressed (to a point where deferral could undermine council’s reputation), will be included in the new regional investment fund. These funds would then be available for reallocation to the highest priority projects identified in the network plan following business case approval.

48. A number of scenarios have been developed for consideration in the LTP 2015-2025 to outline possible levels of investment in community facility provision (summarised in the table). The financial implications in the table are based on comparison with the current level of CAPEX in the LTP 2012-2022 for community facilities, assuming this is maintained and available for reallocation and investment in accordance with the recommendations of the Community Facilities Network Plan. Financial estimates for each different scenario have been prepared and included in material provided as part of the LTP process.

Scenario	Scenario 1 Minimal investment	Scenario 2 Status Quo investment	Scenario 3 Targeted new investment	Scenario 4 Significant new investment	Scenario 5 Aspirational
Description	High priority existing facilities	All existing facilities	High priority facilities & gaps	All facilities & high priority gaps	All facilities & all gaps
Investigate and invest in existing facilities with urgent condition issues	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Investigate potential divestment of existing facilities	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Investigate and invest in other existing facilities with fit for purpose issues		ü		ü	ü
Investigate and invest in high priority provision gaps			ü	ü	ü
Investigate and invest in other provision gaps					ü
Financial implications across 10 years of LTP	CAPEX saving	CAPEX neutral	Additional CAPEX required	Additional CAPEX required	Additional CAPEX required

49. The next steps for the network plan are engaging with local boards, advisory panels and key stakeholder groups (regional sport organisations) who have an interest in council’s community facilities. Given the context of the network plan and the information and feedback already received through the user surveys and strategic action plans, it is not proposed to undertake any specific engagement with facility users or the general public.

50. The engagement process will be completed by October. Depending on the level of feedback to be incorporated, the final plan will be reported to the governing body in December 2014.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Draft Community Facilities Network Plan (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Anita Coy-Macken - Principal Policy Analyst – Central

David Shamy - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 August 2014

Gambling Working Party - new regulations for the distribution of class 4 (pokie) gambling grants to communities

File No.: CP2014/14759

Purpose

1. To report back on a gambling working party’s deliberations regarding new government regulations to control the distribution of grants from class 4 (commonly known as “pokie”) gambling, and present recommendations based on feedback from the working party.

Executive summary

2. The Minister of Internal Affairs has recently acquired the power to make new regulations specifying the amount of class 4 grants money that must be returned to the area from which it came, and to set out how areas will be identified and defined for that purpose

3. The Minister recently announced that regional council areas will be used as the areas into which grants must be distributed, and the rate of return to those areas will be 80%. New regulations implementing that decision are expected to be issued later this year.

4. A gambling working party, established by minute REG/2013/10, has reviewed information regarding class 4 gaming machine proceeds in Auckland, and the current rate of return of class 4 grant money by local board area.

5. The new regulations could increase the amount of grant money flowing to community and sport groups in Auckland as a whole, but there are significant inequities in the distribution of class 4 grants within the region that the Minister’s proposal would not overcome.

6. The working party has developed a proposal which would address those inequities by defining areas, within Auckland, for the return of class 4 gambling grants.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) endorse the working party’s proposal to define areas within Auckland, as presented in the appended map, whereby a proportion of grants derived from the proceeds of class 4 gambling in those areas would be returned to them

b) endorse the option of advocating for a 90 percent return of grant money to the defined areas, instead of the 80 percent currently proposed by the Minister of Internal Affairs

c) endorse the option of advocating for a different rate of return to the area identified as CGI on the map (comprising the City Centre and Gulf Islands), of either 40 percent or 45 percent

d) delegate to the chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee to write to the Minister of Internal Affairs advocating that the proposed regulations be amended in accordance with the committee’s response to recommendations (a) to (c) above

e) note that the grants data for Auckland will be published on a web portal

f) note that the findings of the working party will be reported to local boards.

Background

7. In 2012 Auckland Council made a submission to the commerce select committee on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill (also known as the “Flavell Bill”). A core purpose of the Flavell bill was to address a perception that Māori and Pasifika communities are “…disproportionately targeted and often severely harmed” by electronic gaming machines. Among other things, the bill sought to:

“…return at least 80% of (the) funds generated by gamblers’ losses on local pokie machines back into the charitable organisations that are meeting priority needs in the same local authority area as the venue and within the same local authority ward, local board subdivision, or community board area.”

8. Auckland Council’s submission was developed by a working party of councillors, local board and Independent Māori Statutory Board members [minute RDO/2012/76]. The final submission was endorsed by the Governing Body [minute GB/2012/105]. The submission supported the intention of the bill to make the distribution of proceeds from class 4 gambling fairer and more transparent, but did not support the mechanism proposed by the bill – which would have involved local authorities directly in the distribution of funds.

9. The bill was enacted on 13 September 2013 as the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Act. It did not specify a rate of return or define the areas into which class 4 grants funding must be returned in legislation; instead it provided the Minister of Internal Affairs with new powers to make regulations for those purposes.

10. During the 2013 local government election period, the Department of Internal Affairs issued a consultation document on proposed changes to the regulation of class 4 gambling, including those matters.

11. Council staff submitted feedback on behalf of council, based on the earlier submission regarding the Flavell Bill, which had proposed that “gambling policy areas” should be established within Auckland, but it did not propose what those areas might be. Auckland Council’s submission on the regulations therefore asked that the Minister defer making a decision to allow local authorities time to consider the issues.

12. On 5 December 2013, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee endorsed that submission and established another working party, similar in composition to the earlier one [minute REG/2013/10]. The working party’s purpose is to develop council responses to government proposals to reform the class 4 gambling sector, including:

i) developing a definition of areas and rates of local return for Auckland, in anticipation that the Minister may seek further input on this matter

ii) respond to any further consultation documents on changes to existing regulations that may be forthcoming

iii) inform the development of a submission on further changes to gambling legislation agreed by cabinet.

g) The gambling working party met on 9 May, to consider the definition of gambling grant return areas for Auckland, and again on 16 June 2014 to consider the current distribution of grants funding by Local Board Area.

h) Between those two meetings, on 20 May 2014, the Minister of Internal Affairs announced, that the new regulations will come into force around September 2014 and that

“Societies will… have to distribute 80 per cent of gaming machine net proceeds in the same regional council area in which the proceeds were generated.”

13. The working party had considered and agreed on a definition of areas at its first meeting, prior to the Minister’s announcement. The working party did not agree that using regional council areas as the basis for returning class 4 grants to the communities of origin was appropriate for the Auckland region, given the size of each area.

Identifying areas

14. At its first meeting the working party first agreed to criteria for defining grant return areas within Auckland, which were that areas should be:

i) contiguous and based on local board boundaries

ii) similar in terms of Gaming Machine Proceeds (GMP) per head and average deprivation index

iii) maintain existing licensing trust boundaries

iv) identify and resolve significant equity issues or disparities (outliers).

15. Staff presented a chart showing the relationship of GMP per capita to deprivation index for all local boards in Auckland (Attachment A).

16. The central city area was identified as an outlier and charted separately because it is distinctly different, in terms of both deprivation index and GMP per capita, from the rest of the Waitemata local board area.

17. It is likely that a large share of GMP generated in the City Centre is acquired from visitors and non-residents. It would follow that a larger share of grant money generated in the City Centre should be distributed across the region rather than being returned to this area.

18. Great Barrier Island is also an outlier, as it is the only local board area that has no class 4 venues and generates no GMP.

19. Otherwise the chart shows a clear correlation between GMP per capita and deprivation: class 4 venues generate more funding in poorer communities, compared to wealthier ones.

Proposed areas

20. On the basis of the agreed criteria, the chart and its underlying data, the working party agreed on a proposal for creating seven areas within Auckland to which the grants derived from class 4 gambling in those areas should be returned. The grouping maintains a similar correlation between GMP per capita and deprivation to that which already exists at local board level. A map of the proposed areas is appended (Attachment B).

21. Staff subsequently produced a chart of non-club GMP per capita and deprivation index, according to the proposal, showing how the proposed groupings maintain a similar correlation between GMP per capita and deprivation index to that which exists among local boards (Attachment C).

22. The working party made one amendment to a draft proposal that had been developed by staff. The initial proposal included separate area comprised of the Devonport-Takapuna and Kaipatiki local board areas. This group was amalgamated with the Rodney, Hibiscus and Bays and Upper Harbour group to form a new group and is shown as NOR on the map.

23. The table below shows how the proposed grouping of contiguous local board areas provides a broad parity in terms of GMP per capita and deprivation index.

Areas	Local Boards	GMP per capita	Avg dep index
Northern (NOR)	Hibiscus and Bays	$106.86	3.4
	Rodney	$88.73	4.0
	Upper Harbour	$137.33	3.0
	Devonport-Takapuna	$75.24	3.4
	Kaipatiki	$174.75	4.7
	NOR Total	$120.20	3.7
Western (WST)	Henderson-Massey	$140.49	6.7
	Waitakere Ranges	$109.77	4.3
	Whau	$131.49	6.5
	WST Total	$131.13	5.8
CBD and Gulf Islands (CGI)	CBD	$636.91	7.4
	Waiheke	$90.74	6.8
	Great Barrier	-	9.0
	CGI Total	$499.75	7.8
Isthmus North(INO)	Waitemata (exc. CBD)	$33.02	3.9
	Orakei	$44.19	2.7
	Albert-Eden	$101.30	5.1
	INO Total	$65.99	3.9
Isthmus South(ISO)	Maungakiekie-Tamaki	$232.90	7.2
	Puketapapa	$62.05	5.9
	ISO Total	$159.33	6.6
South-South East(SSE)	Howick	$160.20	3.6
	Franklin	$103.22	3.9
	SSE Total	$140.86	3.8
The Southern Initiative (TSI)	Mangere-Otahuhu	$221.35	8.9
	Otara-Papatoetoe	$263.92	8.6
	Manurewa	$195.69	7.5
	Papakura	$252.18	6.8
	TSI Total	$230.52	7.9

24. According to the cabinet paper which sought approval for the new regulations, the regional council areas were selected because:

“This option will allow societies more flexibility than a (territorial authority) definition in choosing how to distribute their funding. Smaller rural communities can apply for grants from a wider pool of money. Larger organisations that operate across TA boundaries will better be able to access funding. National organisations will be able to access funding for purposes that benefit specific regions.

“A disadvantage of this option is that there will be less certainty that the geographic distribution of grants will closely match where the funding was raised…”

25. However, neither the cabinet paper nor its accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement mentioned Auckland specifically. Neither suggests that Auckland might be treated differently from the rest of New Zealand, because of its population size.

26. The grouping proposed by the working party creates areas, within Auckland, that are similar in population size to regional council areas elsewhere in New Zealand. The smallest of the proposed grant distribution areas (CGI) has a larger population than the smallest regional council (Westland), and the largest of them (NOR) is only exceeded in population size by the Waikato, Wellington and Canterbury regions.

27. Based on these proportions, the proposed areas would achieve the same outcomes, within Auckland and for New Zealand as a whole, which the Minister sought when he chose regional council boundaries to define class 4 grant return areas.

Rates of local return for grant monies

28. The gambling working party had an opportunity to review the current distribution of grant money by local board area in the Auckland region, but did not offer specific feedback on the Minister’s proposal to choose a rate of return of 80% to the identified areas.

29. Obtaining robust information to analyse the current distribution of class 4 gambling grants money posed significant problems. On the matter of the quality of grants data, the Regulatory Impact Statement accompanying the Minister’s cabinet paper noted that:

“While the Department (of Internal Affairs) has assessed the impact of different options on the sector, the analysis in this RIS is constrained by the lack of information on… the geographical distribution of grants by Class 4 gambling operators.”

30. Current regulations require that the class 4 operators which distribute grants must publish the details of grants applications received on their individual websites, at least every six months, including whether or not a grant was made and the amount granted in each case. There is no requirement for a government agency to collect this information, so it cannot be obtained under the Official Information Act.

31. The Problem Gambling Foundation (PGF) has collected the information from websites and other publications since 2004 and it was willing to share this with council. However the data comprised only the name of the class 4 operator; the name of the recipient; the amount of the grant, the local authority area (or areas) where the grant was applied; and the general purpose for which the grant was made.

32. Council staff obtained the complete database from PGF and applied a variety of techniques to identify where grants had been distributed in Auckland – principally by matching the data with information from the companies office register of incorporated societies and charitable trusts.

Current class 4 grant distribution by local board

33. A chart was produced showing the relationship between deprivation index and the percentage return of grants per capita for the 2012 calendar year (Attachment D).

34. The chart provides some evidence that poorer areas tend to get a lower share of grants than the others. This is caused largely by a cluster of four local boards with an average deprivation level above 7 and low grant returns: Mangere-Otahuhu, Otara-Papatoetoe, Manurewa and Maungakiekie-Tamaki.

35. Another key feature of the chart is the wide range of rates of return among the local boards with an average deprivation level below 7. These range from 32% (Howick) to 176% (Albert-Eden), showing a great deal of variability in the amount of class 4 grant funding returned to the areas, regardless of deprivation level.

Current class 4 grant return to Auckland as a whole

36. The data also showed that, for the 2012 calendar year, the rate of return of grants to Auckland as a whole was 70%. The GMP for the whole region was $214.6 million, meaning that the grants available should total $61.6 million, when calculated at 41% of GMP, which is the industry average.

37. On this basis, Auckland will have made donations totalling $26.4 million to other places in New Zealand – a contribution of more than $18 each, for every person in the region.

38. Regardless of whether the Minister would accept a proposal to create grant return areas within Auckland, the current proposal to lift the rate of return to 80% should provide some benefit to Auckland as a whole.

Distribution by proposed class 4 grant return areas

39. Another chart shows how the proposed areas would distribute pokie grant funding within Auckland under two scenarios: 80% return and 90% return per area (Attachment E).

40. The higher percentage return rate provides a greater benefit, in terms of total funds returned, to the poorer areas that have the highest GMP. However it would also constrain the amount of funding available for redistribution within the region, and limit the amount of funding available for regional and national organisations.

41. The table below indicates the amounts of money that would be involved, based on 2012 grants data.

Different rate of return for CBD and gulf islands group

42. A final chart provides a scenario in which the area comprising the CBD and gulf islands group (CGI) would obtain a return commensurate with that of other areas (Attachment F).

43. The scenario is based on half the rate applied to the other areas (i.e. 40% or 45%), allowing a higher remainder (of 60% or 65%) from the CGI group to be distributed to regional and national organisations. This reflects an assumption that a large share of proceeds generated in the CBD come from non-residents and visitors to that area – and therefore a larger share of the grant money generated in the CBD should be redistributed to other areas.

44. The table below indicates the difference this would make in monetary terms.

45. This variation distributes a higher total sum for redistribution within the Auckland region and to regional and national organisations, under the 80% or 90% rates of return. With a 90% rate, it also ensures that high-deprivation areas receive a substantially higher level of class 4 grant funding than they have in the past.

Next Steps

46. The recommendations in this report reflect a view that the Minister’s proposed regulations do not provide for the intended outcome of producing a fairer and more equitable distribution of class 4 grants funding, within Auckland.

47. The Minister is not under any obligation to receive further information or advice from Auckland Council. However until the regulations are actually promulgated, there is still an opportunity to advocate for a change of position, especially if the government does not move to confirm the regulations until after the forthcoming general election.

48. Advocacy activities might include:

· a letter from chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee to the Minister of Internal Affairs, expressing Auckland Council’s position on the matters raised above

· further letters to individual members of parliament representing the Auckland region, and/or to the opposition members of parliament shadowing the Internal Affairs portfolio.

Other matters

Publishing Auckland grants data online

49. The gambling working party has agreed that the grants information compiled to inform its deliberations should be published on an interactive web portal, to assist central government policy-makers as well as community groups, researchers, philanthropic organisations and the public to obtain a better appreciation of where grants are distributed in Auckland, and for what purposes.

Local board views and implications

50. Local Board members were represented on the gambling working party. The information presented in this report will be reported to Local Boards that wish to receive it.

Maori impact statement

51. The local board areas with a high proportion of Māori residents are among the most deprived. They are also the areas that produce the highest amounts of gaming machine proceeds, and receive a smaller share of the grant money they produce than other areas.

52. Within the Auckland region, the proposed new regulations are unlikely to achieve the original objective of the Flavell bill. They provide no assurance that Māori (and Pasifika) communities will receive an equitable share of the pokie grant revenue they produce.

Implementation

53. The recommendations will incur no additional implementation costs.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Non-club GMP per capita vs average deprivation index	23
b View	Map of proposed grant return areas	25
c View	Proposed areas: non-club GMP per capita vs average deprivation index	27
d View	Estimated return per capita vs average deprivation index (2012 grants)	29
e View	Proposed areas: annual return per capita (80% or 90%)	31
f View	Proposed areas: annual return per capita (CGI: 40% or 45%)	33

Signatories

Authors

David Hay - Principal Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Team Leader, Regionwide Social Policy

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 August 2014

Updated information on the development of alcohol licensing fees

File No.: CP2014/14969

Purpose

1. To provide the committee with new information about estimated costs and revenue associated with alcohol licensing and seeks the committee’s endorsement that the council continues to use the fees set by central government.

Executive summary

2. In August 2013 the Governing Body considered a report estimating that the draft alcohol licensing fees set by central government would result in a funding shortfall of around $4 million each year. They resolved that work continue, to allow the council to set its own fees through a bylaw based on operating data collected over three months (January – March 2014), and implementing the fees by 1 July 2014.

3. Since that time, Alcohol Licensing has looked at the effect of the income received since the implementation of the government default fees (18 December 2013) against the costs incurred. Current analysis suggests that a shortfall is not anticipated on an annual basis. Accordingly it is recommended that the council continue with the default fees for the time being and not seek to set its own fees for 1 July 2014 as proposed earlier.

4. This report provides updated cost and revenue figures and a wider analysis of the factors to be considered in pursuing a bylaw to set licensing fees. It is recommended that cost and revenue information should continue to be monitored, and reported to this or another appropriate committee by February 2015.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) note that the governing body received a report in August 2013 that estimated alcohol licensing costs could exceed estimated revenue by approximately $4million each year, based on the information available at that time

b) note that more recent information indicates the default licensing fees (set by central government) currently recover the majority of the council’s relevant costs

c) agree that the council should continue to apply the default alcohol licensing fees set by central government for the time being, and not seek to put its own fees in place for 1 July 2014 through a bylaw

d) request that a further report is provided to this or another appropriate committee or the governing body by February 2015 or thereabouts.

Discussion

The alcohol licensing fee structure of the Act

5. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act came fully into force in December 2013. Applications for new licenses, and renewals of existing licenses, are now processed under this Act.

6. There are two sets of regulations associated with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act that are relevant to fees. These are the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 2013 and the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fee-setting Bylaws) Order 2013. Together with the Act, these regulations provide a prescriptive structure for fees by specifying the cost / risk categories that licensed premises must be placed into, from “very low” to “very high”. The assessment factors and weights that must be applied are also specified.

7. The regulations also set out fee amounts for each category that can be used by each council in New Zealand. These are referred to as the “default fees”. These range from $368 to $1,207.50 for premises applications, with annual fees ranging from $161 to $1,437.50 each year. This compares to an application fee only of around $760 under the previous Act (that was also set by central government).

8. The council is able to adjust the fee amounts in each of those specified categories for premises application fees. As with similar regulatory fees, the council can only recover its appropriate costs through those fees. To set its own fees, the council adopts a bylaw that specifies the fees.

Previous estimate of cost and revenue

9. A report on estimated costs and revenue for alcohol licensing services was provided to the governing body in August 2013. That report was based on information available then and included an assessment that costs could exceed revenue by around $4 million each year, if the council relied on the fee amounts set by central government rather than setting its own fee amounts.

10. At the meeting the governing body resolved (GB/2013/83), in part:

“Agree that the council should progress towards setting its own alcohol licensing fees for premises and other licences, to be ready to take effect from 1 July 2014, subject to final regulations issued by central government”;

And also:

“Request that officers report back to the governing body, or a relevant committee, early in 2014, with options and recommendations for a bylaw that will set alcohol licensing fees based on full or partial cost recovery, that the revenue and financing policy is amended accordingly, and that appropriate provision is included in the 2014/2015 annual plan process.”

11. The report noted the uncertainty for both costs and revenue. At that time, only a draft of the fee structure and amounts had been released by central government.

12. In addition, some of the costs were, and are, difficult to estimate.

13. There are certain costs that are able to be projected with relative certainty as they are effectively fixed costs. These fixed costs account for the inspectorate and the District Licencing Committee (DLC) administration.

14. The major unknown variable is the costs associated with the frequency and duration of DLC hearings. This is driven by the number and complexity of the objections received and so is not within council’s control. It was projected that there could be objections against up to 40% of all new premises applications; up to 30% for all special licence applications and up to 20% for managers certificates.

15. These figures were arrived at noting the importance of alcohol matters to the community generally, and that licensing applications in particular can attract significant community interest. The minister had stated that under the new legislation licenses would be “harder to get and easier to lose” and so it was anticipated that there could be a substantial increase in objections once the new act was fully in force.

Current assessment of costs and revenue and need for the council to set its own fees

16. The new licensing system has been operating for almost eight months (as of the end of July 2014). At present the DLCs have held only a fraction of the number of hearings that were projected to eventuate under the new act. There have been objections to only 4% of applications across all types (compared to the earlier estimate of 20% to 40%). This may not provide a clear forecast of the true extent of a year's operations as recent controversy involving the issue of some licences may increase community interest in the objections and hearings process.

17. The total licensing fee revenue to date for January 2014 to June 2014 is $1,510,000. This revenue has been generated from the default fees.

18. It should be noted that the amount received from the default annual fees this year will be less than that in subsequent years. This is due to central government giving premises licensees a waiver on paying an annual fee this year if they had paid an application fee in the 12 months prior to the commencement of the Act on 18 December 2013.

19. The cost to deliver these services for January to June 2014 (excluding corporate overheads) is set out in the table below. Revenue is currently covering costs, and has done so for the last few months.

Table 1: Summary of licensing costs (Jan 2014 to June 2014)

Summary of Licensing Costs
Costs To Serve: Inspectorate	777,000
Costs To Serve: Administration Services support to Inspectorate and DLC	251,000
LCS Business Support and Management overhead	176,000
Costs to Serve: DLC Staff, Member and Running Costs	250,000
Total Licensing Costs	1,454,000

Note: These costs do not include the Corporate overhead for the same period which was $999,000

20. Based on this updated information, it is recommended that the council continue to apply the default fees for the time being, while continuing to monitor costs and revenue as noted below.

21. Of note for the coming year (July 2014 to June 2015), the budgeted Cost to Serve: Licensing and Compliance Services (LCS) Administration Services support, and the LCS Business Support and Management overhead will increase from $844,800 to some $1,950,000 per annum. These costs reflect the actual costs associated with support of the Alcohol Licensing process and are assessed in a manner consistent with the regulation. Over the next 6 months we will refine actual costs and complete any efficiency gains. This improved understanding will better inform our recommendations on fee setting in 2015.

Ongoing monitoring of costs and revenue and Operational variables

22. There are significant variables associated with the DLC costs. In particular, contested applications may rise to a higher level; they are currently very low. LCS expects that as the community becomes more aware of the Act and its licensing criteria, so they will become more involved in the licensing process.

23. The effort expended by those involved in the process (for similar activities) may reduce over time. For example, inspector times, administration times, chair and panel times may improve with increased experience, and as they become more familiar with the new requirements. We expect this to occur over the next 16 months.

24. Process improvements will also add increased benefits. These improvements will take at least another 6 months to realise.

25. Actual objection rates and revenue and cost information will continue to be monitored, and further reports can be provided as necessary. It is proposed that a report is provided for February 2015, or earlier if necessary.

Development of the council’s own fees (if necessary)

26. As further information is obtained it may be that a fees bylaw should be put in place. Putting this bylaw in place is expected to take around five months, once the proposed fee amounts are known. This timeframe would allow the council to follow the targeted consultation process outlined in the act, and allow some level of wider input from the public and licensees. Ideally the bylaw process would be aligned to the annual plan process.

27. The process of putting these fees in place must recognise the matters covered in previous paragraphs and the requirements of the Act.

28. Not all the costs shown above can be recovered from fees set by a bylaw. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (section 402(1)(b)) limits costs that can be recovered using a bylaw to

“The total costs to territorial authorities of the performance by their district licensing committees of their functions” and “the total costs to territorial authorities of inspectors employed or contracted by them…”

29. We have received advice that based on this section of the Act the LCS Business Support and Management overhead and the Corporate overhead are not recoverable through a fee bylaw. So while the default fees revenue from January to June 2014 covered the LCS Business Support and Management overhead of $176,000, that cost could not be factored into any fee set by a bylaw.

30. Any proposal for the council to set its own fees must recognise these limitations and other risks.

31. It is noted that other large councils around the country are waiting for a period of bedding in before they review their cost and revenue information. Many are also seeing what impact the local alcohol policy will have on their licensees.

32. The industry is likely to be critical of increasing fees. Many small and medium business owners are now facing higher Food licence and Alcohol licence costs. This may be compounded if alcohol licensing fees are raised again so soon after they were raised (for many licensees) by central government.

33. The fee-setting bylaw can be made under a particular consultation process. While this process is more targeted to those most affected and is shorter, it may not align with expectations from some sectors, including individual licensees. The options for engaging with industry stakeholder groups, licensees and other groups will need to be considered if a decision is made for the council to set its own fees.

34. Council will need to be confident in the actual cost and revenue information and the modelling of this. Setting fees too high is a potential risk to reputation.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

35. This report relates to approaches to regulatory fees. The view of local boards has not been sought for this report. Local boards are involved in wider alcohol-related work.

Maori impact statement

36. This report does not raise any specific issues relating to Māori. Wider alcohol-related work has included the involvement of various iwi and related groups, and this would help inform the approach needed for any later decision about setting fees.

Implementation

37. The recommendations in this report do not trigger the council’s policy on significance.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Graham Bodman - Manager Licensing and Compliance Services
Authorisers	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Comments

Background

Kauri

7. Kauri (Agathis australis) is one of New Zealand’s largest endemic tree species, and can be very long-lived, with some specimens up to 2000 years old. Ecologically, Kauri is a keystone species with a profound influence on surrounding plant communities. Culturally, Kauri is considered a taonga species by many Māori. Socially, Kauri is an iconic species and an integral part of New Zealand’s identity.

8. Economically, Kauri has supported people since their arrival here. To European pioneers, the felling and milling of Kauri was a significant industry for a growing population. Kauri provides high quality timber which is light, strong and versatile. Kauri provides large volumes of unblemished timber as the trees shed their lower braches on maturity. Kauri timber was put to a wide range of uses including housing, furniture and boat building. Large areas of Kauri forest were cleared for agriculture. Kauri gum was collected for use in a variety of products including varnishes and linoleum. Gum was collected by bleeding live trees and by digging in areas where forests had previously stood. Today there is a small continuing timber industry. Areas of Kauri forest and large specimens in particular are important tourist attractions.

9. Growing naturally only in the upper half of the North Island, Kauri have already experienced substantial range restrictions as a result of historical clearance. Less than 1% of original Kauri forest now remains, both nationally and in the Auckland region.

10. Within the Auckland Region, significant remnant Kauri populations occur in many regional and local parks and on private properties, most notably in the Hunuas, Waitākeres and on offshore islands in the Hauraki Gulf. Significant remnants of Kauri forest can also be found in north Auckland.

11. Kauri dieback is the key threat and management issue for remaining Kauri populations.

Kauri Dieback

12. Kauri dieback is a deadly disease caused by a new to science organism with the interim designation of Phytophthora taxon Agathis (PTA). Kauri dieback appears to be host-specific to Kauri, and causes a range of symptoms including collar rot, lesions bleeding gum, yellowing leaves, canopy thinning, and tree mortality. It affects trees of all ages from seedlings to mature trees. There is no known cure for Kauri dieback.

13. Kauri dieback is soil and water-borne. Research to date indicates that human activities are key causes of spread. Since its identification, Kauri dieback has spread to many of the Kauri populations within the Auckland Region, including the Waitākere Ranges, Awhitu, Great Barrier Island, and several bush reserves in north Auckland. Kauri dieback is still notably absent from the Hunua area and several offshore islands in the Hauraki Gulf. Within infected areas of the Waitākere Ranges and north Auckland there are still discrete areas of healthy Kauri.

14. The extinction of Kauri as a species would have significant cultural, economic, social and environmental costs. Culturally, the extinction of Kauri would have significant impacts on the relationship of Māori with their ancestral taonga. The loss of Kauri would also mean the loss of an iconic and emblematic species. Socially, the loss of Kauri would reduce many Aucklanders’ enjoyment of the natural environment and recreational opportunities.

15. The direct economic costs of loss of the current Kauri timber industry nationally were estimated in 2009 at between $65.7m and $154.6m net present value. The potential cost of Kauri dieback to tourism was estimated at up to $48 m/year in 2013. The economic cost of recreational opportunities threatened by Kauri dieback in Northland was estimated in 2013 at $1.03 m/year. The equivalent figure for Auckland may be lower but is still likely to be substantial. It is proposed that a full estimate of the costs of the loss of Kauri to Auckland be carried out as part of the cost/benefit analysis required to propose Kauri dieback as a pest in the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan.

16. Kauri is a key-stone species, having a profound effect on its ecosystem through its modification of surrounding soils. Ecologically, the loss of Kauri would lead to considerable ecosystem modification with the loss of canopy structure, changes in soil type, changes in the types of other plants and animals inhabiting the forest and the food web interactions among these species. Alternative replacement canopy tree species do not have equivalent function or impact. This would have profound effects on biodiversity, ecosystem processes and landscape values. Kauri stores up to 1000 tonnes of carbon per hectare, meaning loss of Kauri forest could result in carbon release valued in 2013 at up to $162.5m.

Draft Auckland Kauri Dieback Management Strategy

17. Auckland Council currently undertakes a range of activities to manage Kauri dieback under a range of planning documents. Activities undertaken include:

· surveillance and monitoring for Kauri dieback

· vector control and impact management

· research

· regulation

18. Further detail on each of these activities can be found in the implementation section of the Draft Auckland Kauri Dieback Management Strategy.

19. Auckland Council is a partner in the national Kauri Dieback Long Term Management Plan 2010 - 2014 along with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), the Department of Conservation (DOC), Tāngata Whenua and Northland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty Regional Councils.

20. Auckland Council also undertakes Kauri dieback activities in accordance with the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010, the Regional Parks Operations Plan and the Auckland Council Kauri dieback Communications and Engagement Plan 2013-2104. Council has included Kauri dieback vector controls in the earthworks and vegetation provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. In addition, Council is currently reviewing its Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) and proposes to include Kauri dieback as a pest in that plan.

21. The Kauri dieback control group (comprising staff from the Biosecurity, Regional and Specialist Parks, Local and Sports Parks, Biodiversity, and Natural Heritage teams) has identified the need for an overarching strategy to ensure that the Kauri dieback management activities and planning undertaken by Council are co-ordinated and aligned with the Auckland Plan outcomes and Council’s transformational shifts.

22. The overarching objective of the Draft Auckland Kauri Dieback Management Strategy is to prevent or minimise the adverse effects of Kauri dieback. Five methods are identified to give effect to that objective. They are:

· partnership with mana whenua

· participating in the joint agency Kauri Dieback Long-term Management Programme

· regulation

· management of Auckland Kauri lands

· advocacy and research

22. The draft Strategy provides detail and explanation on each of those methods. The majority of the draft Strategy comprises a table of implementation activities with supporting detail on each. The draft Strategy includes a monitoring section with one overarching outcome and five outcomes for each method. The overarching outcome is that:

“Kauri Forests continue to exist and their ecological viability is maintained in the Auckland Region.”

23. It is proposed that the draft Strategy be reviewed on an annual basis.

Consideration

Auckland Plan Outcomes and Transformational Shifts

24. The Draft Kauri Dieback Management Strategy makes a significant contribution to the achievement of Council’s key transformational shifts and the achievement of the Auckland Plan’s outcomes.

25. Strategic Direction 7 of the Auckland Plan addresses environmental issues and includes directive 7.5 which requires that significant ecosystems and areas of indigenous biodiversity are protected and restored across public and private land within the region. The Auckland Plan sets three relevant targets:

· ensuring no regional extinctions of indigenous species

· ensuring no loss in the area of significant landscape, natural character and natural features

· reducing vulnerability of identified ecosystems to ensure a 95% chance of ecosystem viability in 2040

26. Kauri dieback threatens the achievement of all those targets. The loss of Kauri would be a regional extinction. Because of Kauri’s keystone role ecologically, the dieback of Kauri flows on to significant losses in terms of biodiversity, ecosystem viability, landscapes and natural character.

27. The management of Kauri dieback therefore contributes significantly to the Auckland Plan outcome of a Green Auckland. Because of the cultural, recreational, social, current economic and future economic significance of Kauri the Kauri Dieback Management Strategy contributes to the achievement of a healthy, prosperous, culturally rich and creative, beautiful Auckland that is loved by its people.

28. The Draft Kauri Dieback Management Strategy demonstrates Council’s strong commitment to environmental action and green growth.

Local board views and implications

29. Kauri dieback is a local, as well as a regional and national issue. As part of the initial round of consultation with Local Boards for the Regional Pest Management Plan Review Biosecurity and Natural Heritage Policy staff have been consulting on Kauri dieback at workshops and local board portfolio holder meetings. There has been uniform approval for Council continuing to address Kauri dieback. This includes highly urban local boards such as Waitematā and Puketāpapa where board members have shown strong interest in Kauri dieback and its management.

30. Franklin, Waitākere, Rodney and Kaipatiki Local Boards can be considered to be more directly affected by Kauri dieback. Board members have demonstrated strong concern regarding the effects of Kauri dieback and have been supportive of continued Council efforts to manage the disease.

31. The Strategy includes working with local boards as part of the Communications and Engagement activity detail. This includes aligning work with the Waitākere Local Board funding of a FTE position to work on Kauri dieback management in that area.

Māori impact statement

32. Kauri dieback is considered to pose a significant threat to the relationship of Māori with their ancestral taonga.

33. The Strategy recognises this by placing a strong emphasis on meaningful partnership with mana whenua. In part, this partnership is given effect to through continued participation in the Joint Management Agency which includes a Tāngata Whenua Roopū to represent tāngata whenua in the leadership team and all workstreams. This partnership is also given effect to through the consultation that has been undertaken or will be undertaken for the plans and documents that give effect to the Strategy (e.g. the existing Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 and the to-be-developed Regional Pest Management Plan 2015 to 2025).

34. Independent of these documents, the Strategy requires continued commitment to engagement and communication with mana whenua. The Strategy has been reviewed by staff at Te Waka Angamua who advised it was excellent and that they had no additions to make. The partnership with mana whenua will also be given effect to through the development of an Auckland Iwi Engagement Plan, with the assistance of Te Waka Angamua.

Implementation

35. The Strategy contains a mix of existing practices and possible additional interventions. Any additional interventions are still be evaluated and costed. Recommendations arising from this evaluation and the associated cost implications will be reported back in the future for Councillor’s consideration.

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 August 2014

Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel - Approval of Work Programme 2014/2015

File No.: CP2014/16644

Purpose

1. To approve the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel’s work programme for the 2014/2015 financial year.

Executive summary

2. In December 2013 the Governing Body considered a report on the role and functioning of council’s democratic panels. They resolved to re-establish an Ethic Peoples Advisory Panel.

3. The terms of reference of the demographic panels require that panels prepare and adopt an annual work programme, which is then approved by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee.

4. At its second meeting the panel adopted a draft work programme, which this reports now submits to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for approval.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel’s work programme for the 2014/2015 financial year.

Comments

5. The terms of reference for the council’s demographic panels require that the panels prepare and adopt an annual work programme. These work programmes should be integrated wherever possible with the other panels’ work programmes. The Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel’s work programme is the first one to be referred to this committee.

6. The Governing Body appointed the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel at a meeting on 1 May 2014 (Resolution no.GB/2014/42). The panel held its first meeting on 18 June. At this meeting the panel received a report and presentation on the council’s strategy and policy forward programme. The panel also received a presentation on relevant statistics and demographics from the 2013 census.

7. On the basis of the information presented, the panel chose the key areas on which it wishes to focus, and which are most significant to Auckland’s various ethnic communities. The Chair also conducted an informal poll by email of members’ preferences to help prioritise the areas of interest. Staff used this information to prepare a draft work programme (attachment A) and referred the draft back to the 23 July panel meeting for review. With minor changes the work programme was adopted (Resolution no. ETH/2014/16).

8. The key priorities for the panel for the next year are:

- Engagement

- Community grants policy

- Community facilities policy

- Community development

- Children and young persons.

9. The panel will focus its work in these priorities. It will provide input into the development of policies. At other times it will focus on engagement or implementation of the programmes and policies, depending on the project stage. Some of the sub-programmes will be on-going and others will drop off the list as they are completed. As the other panels develop their programmes, synergies and overlaps will be identified and the work programme will be further refined.

10. All five demographic panels will, over the next few months, develop work programmes for referral to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee. The format will be similar and will form the basis of the panels’ regular reporting to the committee. The work programmes will drive a large part of the reports that the panels consider. There will be a limited capacity for the panels to address emerging issues or deal with other issues that the council, including council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and local boards, refer to them.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11. Several aspects of the work programme relate to local board activities and the local boards will be involved as appropriate. The panel has received a report and briefing on the Local Boards Plan process.

Māori impact statement

12. Some of the programmes will have overlaps with council’s Māori outcomes, however the confirmation of the work programme will not have any significant impact on Māori.

Implementation

13. Upon approval by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee the work programme will become the key focus of the panel’s support of council’s outcomes.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel - Recommended Work Programme	67

Signatories

Authors

Bruce Thomas - Principal Advisor Panels

Anaru Vercoe - Manager, Community Policy & Planning

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

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