Agenda of Community Development and Safety Committee

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

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

9.30am

Council Chamber
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

Community Development and Safety Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Dr Cathy Casey
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
Members	Cr Anae Arthur Anae
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP
	Cr Alf Filipaina
	Member Kris MacDonald
	Cr Calum Penrose
	Member Josie Smith
	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr John Watson
	Cr George Wood, CNZM
Ex-officio	Mayor Len Brown, JP
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

(Quorum 6 members)

Maureen Koch

Democracy Advisor

17 September 2014

Contact Telephone: (09) 357 3096

Email: maureen.koch@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Areas of Activity

· Projects and programmes related to children and young people

· Regional frameworks for local community facilities

· Social implications of housing and accessibility (e.g. homelessness, provision of emergency housing, disability accessible housing) including operation of the council’s social housing

· Projects and programmes focused on specific sectors of the community e.g. seniors, migrants

· Safety and related community issues e.g. alcohol, graffiti, family violence, commercial sex, and injury prevention

· Facilitating partnerships and collaborative funding models across the community sector

Responsibilities

Within the specified area of activity the Committee is responsible for:

· In accordance with the work programme agreed with the parent committee, developing strategy and policy, including any agreed community consultation, to recommend to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

· Acting as a community interface for consultation on policies and as a forum for raising community concerns, while ensuring community engagement is complementary to that undertaken by local boards

· Making decisions within delegated powers

Powers

All powers necessary to perform the Committee’s responsibilities

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body responsibilities)

(b) where the Committee’s responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only

(d) the approval of expenditure that is not contained within approved budgets

(e) the approval of expenditure of more than $2 million

(f) the approval of final policy

(g) deciding significant matters for which there is high public interest and which are controversial

(h) the commissioning of reports on new policy where that policy programme of work has not been approved by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

1 Apologies

An apology from Cr LA Cooper has been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Community Development and Safety Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 13 August 2014, 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 GLBTI, Bruce Kilmister

Purpose

1. To provide members of the public an opportunity to address the Community Development and Safety Committee.

Executive summary

2. Bruce Kilmister, on behalf of Body Positive, will speak to the Community Development and Safety Committee regarding GLBTI issues.

Recommendation

That the Community Development and Safety Committee:

a) receive the presentation from Bruce Kilmister of Body Positive.

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.

Community Development and Safety Committee

24 September 2014

Community Safety Overview

File No.: CP2014/19631

Purpose

1. This report introduces a presentation updating the committee on key council community safety activity, including highlights, issues and future direction. It also presents key findings of a review of research on actual and perceived safety from crime in Auckland and implications for council’s safety related activity.

Executive summary

2. A decision was made by the committee chair in late August to move the community safety theme to the September meeting and The Southern Initiative theme to the November 2014 meeting. This was partially due to a resolution at the August committee meeting for safety reports to be brought to the next meeting.

3. A presentation will be made updating the committee on the major community safety activity of council, alongside a summary of related highlights, issues to note and proposed direction for this area of activity. The presentation will be included with the minutes from this meeting, as a public record.

4. Top level findings of just completed research on actual and perceived safety from crime in Auckland will also be presented, including implications for council’s safety related activity. This research is called Actual and Perceived Safety from Crime in Auckland: A Review and was compiled by council’s Research, Investigation and Monitoring Unit.

5. The directions developing for community safety involve:

· using the research findings above to engage internally within council and with external partners to make a greater difference together to community safety outcomes and perceptions of safety

· integrating safety perspectives across key council activity, including placemaking and urban design, parks and facilities, building community connection, special housing areas and spatial transformation projects

· creatively engaging those most affected in designing community safety responses, for example working with rough sleepers to prevent and reduce homelessness, engaging young people to design and lead graffiti education and prevention initiatives and town centre users in the Henderson Safer Town Centre Plan

· communicating a clear and integrated approach to community safety within council, alongside key partners.

Recommendation

That the Community Development and Safety Committee:

a) receive the report and presentation updating on key council community safety activities.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

6. Local Boards have not been consulted specifically on the general content of this report. All Local Boards have local community safety programmes in their adopted 2014/15 CDAC Work Programmes. The safety from crime research will be translated into a two pager for each local board and be provided to local boards along with the full report by the end of 2014.

Māori impact statement

7. Maori residents are more likely to live in areas in Auckland where reported crime rates are higher and perceptions of safety from crime are lower. Engaging Maori appropriately in developing and delivering community safety responses and supporting Maori led responses such as the Maori Wardens is a priority.

Implementation

8. There are no known implementation issues with regards to work covered in this presentation.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Manu Pihama – Community Safety Manager
Authoriser	Kevin Marriott – Acting Manager Community Development Arts and Culture

Community Development and Safety Committee

24 September 2014

The Henderson Safer Town Centre Plan

File No.: CP2014/18965

Purpose

1. To update the committee on the development of the Henderson Safer Town Centre Plan. This plan is being created through a community centred design process, to ensure a comprehensive response is generated that addresses local community priorities. Vanessa Neeson, Chairperson, Henderson-Massey Local Board will provide information from the Local Board’s perspective.

Executive summary

2. The Henderson-Massey Local Board area has recently experienced a spate of violent incidents, raising significant public concern. Three public meetings were held in Henderson during June/July 2014, hosted by the Henderson-Massey Local Board and sponsored by Mayor Len Brown. The meetings included representation from retailers, local agencies and community members. Young people in the area are also organising a hui to prioritise initiatives.

3. From these meetings it was agreed that council staff would coordinate a comprehensive response to acting on community priorities. A safety approach based on that used by the City of Melbourne was presented to the meetings and endorsed by participants as an approach that would suit Henderson.

4. Five council staff will be based in the Henderson Town Centre for the plan’s research phase. A retailer in Catherine Plaza has donated office space free of charge to the team for this purpose.

5. It is expected that in early 2015, a comprehensive Henderson Safer Town Centre Plan will be in place, overseen by the Henderson-Massey Local Board. This plan will be based on community identified priorities, develop innovative, inclusive responses to these priorities and is likely to contain insights applicable to other town centres. For these reasons it is proposed that the plan is presented to this committee in 2015, alongside insights and implications for other town centres and for relevant council activity.

Recommendation

That the Community Development and Safety Committee:

a) receive the Henderson Safer Town Centre report.

Comments

6. The Henderson-Massey Local Board currently monitors a safety plan that coordinates responses to issues impacting on the Henderson town centre. This plan provides the basis for addressing the immediate safety needs within the community, including the following:

• anti-social behaviour in Catherine Plaza, mainly involving young people, including loitering, drunkenness, intimidation and fighting

• a coordinated approach to maintenance and requests for service

• positive activation of the area through events

• hot spot remedial action, including the transport hub and some retail areas

• Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design assessments

• reducing school rivalries in the Henderson town centre

• integrating CCTV coverage.

7. This work requires closely coordinated responses with the police, voluntary safety patrols, alternative education agencies and retailers, but tends to perpetuate a ‘siloed’ rather than a comprehensive response.

8. The new safety plan for the Henderson town centre takes a community led approach, focused on town centre users. This builds understanding of what people in Henderson experience in regards to safety, the strategies they use to enhance their safety and what a safer community would look like to them.

9. The community-users will also be part of the solution phase, to ensure that their ideas are clearly articulated in safety planning. This will generate stronger community ownership and ensure that actions developed actually address community issues and needs.

10. The insights developed from community users will drive different responses from those traditionally employed. These responses can then be married to traditional and technical safety approaches, to provide a comprehensive safety plan for the Henderson town centre.

11. The Henderson Safer Town Centre Plan will be available in early 2015 and will follow a framework that reflects the ‘Beyond the Safe City’ approach used by the City of Melbourne (see http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/beyond-the-safe-city). It is expected that the user design research will identify responses that build:

• Integrated and evidenced based solutions that address causes and solutions to crime, violence, anti-social behaviour, injury and drug and alcohol issues. There is a strong focus on cultural, social and economic factors that impact on safety and wellbeing

• Partnerships that are strong and proactive, that coordinate mutual efforts to create safety outcomes. This concept encompasses the importance of social capital (developing trust, participation and common values) for local solutions

• Stronger communities that foster social connectedness, so that people from all walks of life feel that they belong and can participate in local community life

• Harm minimisation to reduce the adverse effects of drug and alcohol use for the individual and the wider community

• Prevention strategies that tackle the risk factors that cause crime, violence and injury

• Gendered responses that recognise that within all communities women and men have different benefits, access to power, resources and responsibilities and that this requires different strategies for women and men

• Crime Prevention through Environmental Design and technical support which ensures that the built environment and public spaces adhere to safety principles and that technical supports (e.g. CCTV) are in place as appropriate.

12. The above themes are all present in the Henderson town centre and when combined with the qualitative evidence from the community-user research, a comprehensive and creative safety response is likely to emerge.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13. Council staff have worked closely with the Henderson-Massey Local Board on safety issues. A safety plan was drafted for the local board in November 2013 and has been adopted as an interim response until the comprehensive Henderson Safer Town Centre Plan is completed. The chair of the local board has actively promoted and modelled a coordinated approach with a variety of community stakeholders, to ensure that safety mechanisms such as an increased police presence and a coordinated approach to voluntary patrols is undertaken. The chair has encouraged the business community to consider the formation of a business association and is coordinating cross council responses to traffic, environment and student issues. The local board will provide leadership for the plan and will oversee its implementation.

14. To assist the local board in this work, staff have commissioned a full CPTED report for the town centre so that technical advice from its recommendations can be incorporated into the Henderson Safer Town Centre Plan.

Māori impact statement

15. Three public meetings occurred as a result of the violent incidents in the community and Maori representation, including Hoani Waititi Marae, contributed to the debates and resolutions at each meeting. Representatives from the Maori community will participate in the community-user design and be part of the research process.

Implementation

16. This work involves two phases:

• The completion of the community-user design led process which will result in a draft plan to be presented to the local board in February 2015.

• The completion of the final Henderson Safer Town Centre Plan that is adopted by the local board around April 2015, with actions in the plan monitored by the local board on an ongoing basis.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Betty MacLaren - Team Leader Community Safety
Authoriser	Leora Hirsh - Manager Community Development and Partnerships South

Community Development and Safety Committee

24 September 2014

Update on Grafftiti Vandalism Prevention Services

File No.: CP2014/19633

Purpose

1. This report updates the Community Development and Safety Committee on the:

· implementation of the Auckland Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Plan

· delivery of graffiti vandalism prevention services across Auckland

· regional survey results

· prevention/education initiatives

· enforcement.

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Plan (the plan) was approved in 2012. Under the plan, new and improved graffiti vandalism prevention services commenced across Auckland on 1July 2013.

3. The prevention model within the plan identifies three key areas; education, eradication and enforcement.

4. Auckland Council graffiti vandalism service providers are:

North: Recreational Services Ltd

West: Tag Out Trust

Central: Civic Contractors Ltd

South: Manukau Beautification Trust

Enforcement Region-wide: Thompson and Clark Investigations Ltd.

5. Surveys and service performance results over the 2013 – 2014 year show a significant improvement in service levels and customer satisfaction, and a 13% decrease in the number of graffiti incidents across the region.

6. An education/prevention programme for graffiti vandalism is in development, based on local and international insights into graffiti vandalism, research and case studies.

7. Auckland Council’s approach to graffiti vandalism is attracting widespread interest and is currently being shared with Wellington, Christchurch, Hamilton, and Tauranga District Councils, to assist them with their strategies and programmes.

Recommendation

That the Community Development and Safety Committee:

a) receive the update on Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Services report.

Comments

Background

8. Graffiti vandalism was prioritised as a Mayoral 100 Project on the appointment of Mayor Len Brown and the establishment of Auckland Council. Graffiti vandalism is a particularly visible crime and any community impacted by the presence of graffiti vandalism is also vulnerable to:

· damaged civic pride

· increases in other types of offending behaviour

· negative perceptions of community safety

· weaker connectedness and sense of community.

9. The prevention of graffiti vandalism is essential to supporting communities to be safe and feel safe and directly aligns to supporting the Auckland Council vision of becoming the world’s most liveable city.

10. The establishment of Auckland Council presented the opportunity to develop a whole of council approach to graffiti vandalism prevention together with the implementation of a service delivery model that is leading edge.

11. On 22 March 2012, following engagement with the 21 Local Boards and endorsement from the Community Safety Forum, the Auckland Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Plan was formally adopted.

Eradication Services

12. New, improved and consistent services commenced on 1 July 2013. Most public assets and private residential street frontage walls and fences, including small business premises are now included within the scope of services provided by council.

13. The ‘Stoptags’ incident management system captures incident details and evidential photographs that support enforcement actions across the region.

14. Detailed performance reporting and measurement has enabled strong analysis of trends and patterns while highlighting the positive results that have been achieved.

Graffiti incidents and RFS

15. In 2013/14 there was a 13% reduction in graffiti incidents across the region. There was also a 36% drop in Requests for Service (RFS) compared to 2012/13, which indicates that contractors are proactively removing graffiti before it is seen by the public.

16. Local boards experiencing the biggest reduction in incidents were Orakei (-71%), Papakura (-50%), Franklin (-42%) and Waitemata (-36%).

Graffiti Ambience Survey

17. The graffiti vandalism prevention team commissioned Tasman Research and Consultation to conduct an independent survey of graffiti vandalism in each local board area. The survey scores the area on the amount of graffiti vandalism on assets in-scope of the eradication contracts, assets out-of scope of the eradication contracts and an ambient score which is graffiti that can be seen by the public regardless of who owns the asset.

18. The scoring table is as follows:

Rating	Description	Score
A	No graffiti is present in the area	100
B+	Some graffiti is present at or near one part of the transect but it is minor in extent and many people passing through would not notice it	90
B	Some graffiti is present throughout the transect but it is minor in extent and many people passing through would not notice it	80
B-	Graffiti is clearly visible to people at one part of the transect, but the rest is (mostly) clear	50
C	Graffiti is present throughout the transect and it would be clearly visible to people passing through	25
D	Graffiti is extensive over a large part of the transect and is clearly visible and obtrusive to people passing through. Some is visible from any point on the transect	0

19. The 2014 in-scope survey of graffiti vandalism in Auckland was 98 out of a possible 100.

20. The 2014 ambient survey of graffiti vandalism in Auckland was 94 out of a possible 100. In the 2013 survey the score was 91 and in the 2011 survey it was 85. The most significant improvements this year were in Mangere-Otahuhu (+17), Waitemata (+11), Rodney (+10), Waitakere Ranges (+8) and Henderson-Massey (+7).

cid:image009.png@01CFACF7.83954090

Enforcement Services

21. The regional graffiti vandalism enforcement service is delivered by Thompson and Clark Investigations Ltd.

22. Evidential reports relating to 48 graffiti vandals have been prepared and supplied to Auckland Police over the last year. Half that number is deemed to be recidivist offenders, while the other half is considered emerging offenders.

Community Support and Participation

23. Community participation is a critical component to effective graffiti vandalism service delivery and prevention. The significance of community participation is detailed within the plan and remains an important aspect of the approach.

24. Community participation is included within the eradication contracts, with specified community focused services/activity including:

· supporting and developing volunteers, community groups and adopt-a-spot locations

· providing free graffiti vandalism removal materials and equipment to volunteers, community groups and adopt a spot locations

· developing relationships with local volunteers and community groups

· fostering community pride, raising awareness of graffiti vandalism issues and involving communities in reducing and preventing graffiti vandalism in their neighbourhood.

25. To ensure continual improvement in community support and participation, each eradication provider is required to deliver an annual community initiatives plan. This is being monitored monthly and reviewed quarterly by Auckland Council.

Prevention / Education Initiatives

26. Visible graffiti has declined over the past few years and even more rapidly since the regional programme was implemented last July. However there are still around 100,000 incidents of graffiti being removed each year. Graffiti removal before the public sees it, is now very efficient, however graffiti is still a problem in the city. Council’s graffiti education programme is cultivating a prevention first approach to reduce graffiti incidents occurring. The philosophy behind this is that by reducing graffiti this way, money will be saved over time by requiring less eradication and enforcement services.

27. Based on international, national and Auckland based evidence of what is effective in graffiti education and prevention, two new strategies in development for the region are:

· a communications campaign targeted at residential and commercial property owners that provides advice on graffiti reduction strategies; and

· a youth led, activity focused approach in graffiti prone areas to create positive connections between young people and their communities.

Communication campaign

28. A regional communications campaign will target residential and commercial property owners and provide them with effective methods to reduce graffiti, which support placemaking and community building at the same time. The campaign could include:

· appropriate paint colours to use for quick removal by contractors

· planting techniques to restrict access to blank walls

· crime prevention through environmental design approaches, including lighting

· mural and public art opportunities with links to local artists and the Auckland Council Murals Toolkit.

· education around the cost of vandalism to the city.

29. The campaign will use written communication, online content and social media. Where appropriate, network groups will be established linking specialist staff, contractors, police, business associations and community members.

Youth led activities in hotspot locations

30. As part of efforts to improve perceptions of safety in high priority areas, staff will identify the 10 most prolific graffiti vandalism hotspot areas in the region based on the Stop Tags database records. Council staff will work with external organisations and community groups to rejuvenate spaces and activities for youth in appropriate sites within or around the hot spot areas.

31. The education programme contributes to two outcomes; young people have meaningful things to do and ways to express themselves; and public spaces are safe and vibrant. The programme will involve working with young people to activate selected public spaces through community-based projects.

32. Appropriate creative and social activities would be determined by the young people involved, but could include art, dance, music, sport, recreation, local film, community landscaping, fitness, games, community markets etc.

33. This programme is likely to achieve the two outcomes above and prevent graffiti vandalism in two key ways:

· engaging young people in social and creative activities can reduce the likelihood of them writing graffiti illegally. Creating positive connections with community will act as a protective factor against vandalism.

· transforming areas from graffiti hot spots into safer spaces where people enjoy spending time should reduce the likelihood of graffiti vandalism occurring there. By increasing the presence of community members and positive activities in public spaces there will be improved natural surveillance and an impression that the area is cared for.

34. The criteria identified for this programme includes:

a) must engage young people in design and delivery

b) must be at or near hotspots

c) must build on existing community leadership, networks and skills

d) not be a one-off event; rather an on-going and sustainable activation of space

e) does not include interventions that might increase graffiti vandalism (i.e. legal walls)

f) must engage with local residents and community members around the public spaces being activated, to encourage their involvement in the public space activation.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

35. All 21 local boards were engaged in the development of the Auckland Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Plan.

36. Regular communication has taken place at local board level during delivery of the plan and its associated services.

Māori impact statement

37. Maori are engaged in graffiti education and prevention initiatives, as well as graffiti removal through the contracted providers. The quick response to graffiti incidents benefits all communities, including those with high Maori populations.

Implementation

38. On-going management of The Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Programme is managed within Council, alongside an experienced network of service provider’s

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Brian Taylor - Community Safety Programme Manager
Authoriser	Kevin Marriott – Acting Manager Community development Arts and Culture

Community Development and Safety Committee

24 September 2014

Auckland Regional Methamphetamine Working Group

File No.: CP2014/18498

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to provide information on the activities of the Auckland Regional Methamphetamine Working Group’s and implications for council.

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Regional Methamphetamine Working Group (ARMWG) was established as a result of the Auckland Regional Methamphetamine Symposium hosted by Mayor Len Brown on 15 June 2011. It includes representation from central government, local government, the community sector and private sector.

3. The ARMWG Chairperson and council staff will deliver a presentation on ARMWG activities and achievements, noting implications arising for council.

Recommendations

That the Community Development and Safety Committee:

a) note that the Auckland Regional Methamphetamine Working Group (ARMWG) has developed a draft set of health and safety guidelines for organisations, such as Auckland Council, whose staff may visit a methamphetamine (meth) contaminated property

b) note that the existence of a New Zealand Standard could:

i) support the development of future by-laws or government regulations that deal with the issue of meth-contaminated properties, and;

ii) create an accreditation regime that would provide local authorities with greater confidence in working with meth-testing and clean-up service providers.

Background

4. The Auckland Regional Methamphetamine Working Group (ARMWG) was established as a result of the Auckland Regional Methamphetamine symposium held on 15 June 2011. It includes representation from central government, local government, social sector non-government organisations and the private sector.

5. The Community Action on Youth and Drugs (CAYAD) council staff are important members of the ARMWG group who also offer administration and facilitation support as well as some financial assistance.

6. ARMWG has two sub-groups: Improving Treatment and Healthy Housing and both have a focus on preventing supply. The housing group focuses on matters to do with meth-affected housing, including clandestine (clan) laboratories (labs) and properties contaminated by the illicit manufacture and or consumption of meth within them. The treatment group focuses on improving access into treatment and support services for people affected by meth.

7. Council’s principal interest in ARMWG involves the public health issues arising from meth-contaminated housing. Auckland Council staff members attend the Healthy Housing sub-group meetings from time-to-time including: Environmental Health, Health and Safety in Employment and Region-wide Social Policy staff.

Health and Safety Guidelines

8. Some council staff regularly visit properties in the course of their duties. They could face health and safety risks if they came across a clan lab in one of those properties.

9. The ARMWG group has drafted a set of health and safety guidelines that will assist staff to identify a property that might be being used, or may have previously been used, as a clan lab and respond appropriately in terms of protecting themselves and others.

10. The draft guidelines will be sent to WorkSafe New Zealand for consideration. It is hoped that they will be released for use by any organisation. The guidelines would be a point of reference for Auckland Council environmental health staff inspecting meth-contaminated properties.

11. The guidelines include information on how to make a police report if they find indications that a clan lab is or has been in operation at a property.

Clean-up standard

12. Under section 23 of the Health Act 1956 every local authority has a duty to “…improve, promote and protect public health within its district” and for that purpose every local authority is empowered and directed:

“…to cause inspection of its district to be regularly made for the purpose of ascertaining if any nuisances, or any conditions likely to be injurious to health or offensive, exist in the district;

“…if satisfied that any nuisance, or any condition likely to be injurious to health or offensive, exists in the district, to cause all proper steps to be taken to secure the abatement of the nuisance or the removal of the condition.”

13. Local authorities, property owners and tenants all have an interest in ensuring that the “proper steps” are taken in cleaning up meth-contaminated properties in New Zealand. While the Ministry of Health has produced guidelines, these have no legal standing and cannot be relied on as a basis for interventions to protect public health.

14. A number of issues have emerged from discussions at the ARMWG Healthy Housing group’s meetings, including:

· Conflicting views over which contamination testing methods should be relied on as a basis for intervention (there are a variety of methods, some much more accurate and expensive than others).

· Lack of clarity about the appropriate methods for remediating meth-contaminated properties, with conflicting information and variable levels of service being provided to property-owners and local authorities by clean-up service providers.

· A concern that “second-hand smoke” contamination may pose a health risk, which is different from the risk posed by toxic chemicals released during manufacture in clan labs.

· Concern that a focus on the remediation of housing might not encompass the safe remediation or disposal of soft furnishings, chattels, and meth-contaminated vehicles (i.e. from car-boot meth labs).

15. At an ARMWG meeting earlier this year the suggestion was proposed that a New Zealand Standard might address some or all of these issues. The idea was canvassed on a local government policy email list and met with support from a number of councils and Local Government New Zealand.

16. The Standards Act enables a standard to be legally incorporated by reference, in whole or by part, into government regulations and/or local authority bylaws.

17. The existence of a standard also means that manufacturers and service providers can be accredited, by an authorized accreditation agency. Councils could then specify the use of accredited suppliers to provide sampling, testing, clean-up and remediation work and have confidence that the work is properly done.

18. Local Government New Zealand has initiated a project to develop a standard focused on “healthy dwellings”, which will seek to:

· set thresholds for sampling and testing of meth-contamination

· set thresholds for remediation of meth-contamination

· provide the methodology for sampling and testing

· provide the methodology for remediation

· provide best practice for local authorities to follow

· provide the basis for accreditation for sampling and testing of meth-contamination

· provide the basis for accreditation for remediation of meth-contamination.

19. An initial scoping workshop will be held in Wellington on 30 September, including stakeholders from central and local government and the testing and clean-up industries. Auckland Council will be represented at this workshop.

ARMWG highlights

20. ARWMG members from the Auckland Council and Auckland Regional Public Health Service’s Environmental Health teams have successfully negotiated an inter-agency procedural agreement. The agreement offers a formal procedure for Auckland Council staff when they are notified of a meth-contaminated property by Police or if members of the public contact Auckland Council detailing symptoms of exposure to methamphetamine chemicals.

21. On 23 February 2013, Auckland Kapa Haka groups, Te Waka Huia and Te Manu Huia, partnered with Auckland Council and Auckland Regional Methamphetamine Working Group to promote their message ‘No P in Whanau, No Place for Drugs’ at the National Kapa Haka Competition 2013 Te Matatini. Te Waka Huia successfully won the national championship.

22. Council staff produced an article promoting the Alcohol and other Drug Helpline with a methamphetamine focus. This featured in the March 2013 publication of Our Auckland.

23. Councillor George Wood opened the ARWMG’s training day on Wednesday April 10 2013. At the day, a group member spoke highly of Councillor Wood’s contribution to reducing meth-related harm in the former North Shore City Council.

24. ARMWG is committed to reducing the supply of and demand for methamphetamine in Auckland and will continue to use a multi-agency collaborative approach to achieve this. They are currently reviewing the Ministry of Health’s guidelines for the remediation of clandestine laboratories.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

25. Local board views have not been sought on this matter.

Maori impact statement

26. There has been no information, to date, indicating that Māori are significantly more or differently impacted than other population groups.

Implementation

27. The Auckland Regional Methamphetamine Working Group will continue to update the committee on items that Auckland Council may have involvement in implementing.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Brian Taylor - Community Safety Programme Manager
Authoriser	Kevin Marriott – Acting Manager Community Development Arts and Culture

Community Development and Safety Committee

24 September 2014

Facing Future: Symposium on New Psychoactive Substances Update

File No.: CP2014/19632

Purpose

1. This report updates the Community Development and Safety Committee on the Facing Future: Symposium on New Psychoactive Substances and next steps arising.

Executive summary

2. In response to a request by council’s Political Working Group on New Psychoactive Substances (NPS), the Community Action Youth and Drugs team (CAYAD) hosted the Facing Future event on 18^th July 2014 at Sorrento in the Park. The event brought together a diverse range of stakeholders to share information and discuss issues surrounding the sale and consumption of NPS.

3. Although new psychoactive substances have been temporarily banned, community uncertainty exists as products are set to make a return to retail shelves when the regulations of the Psychoactive Substances Act are implemented. Facing Future provided a vehicle for discussion and supported the development of informed collective action to reduce drug related harm and improve the wellbeing of Auckland’s communities.

4. Evaluation feedback was positive and indicated that the objectives of supporting discussion, networking and willingness to work together to proactively address related issues were met.

5. Presentations and group discussions highlighted key activities underway or planned to reduce NPS harm. A CAYAD project team has prepared a six month New Psychoactive Substances Action Plan to build on these initiatives and continue dialogue.

Recommendation

That the Community Development and Safety Committee:

a) request that an update report on the progress of the New Psychoactive Substances Action Plan be provided to this committee in April 2015.

Comments

6. In April 2014, the Deputy Mayor facilitated a working group consisting of councillors, local board members and council staff to co-ordinate a council response to the issues surrounding psychoactive substances. The three streams of work included policy, bylaws and community responses. CAYAD was responsible for leading the community response and was directed towards informing, educating and connecting communities to reduce the harm associated with the products.

7. CAYAD took part in the Local Approved Products Policy (LAPP) stakeholder sessions. It became apparent that community groups and stakeholders were dealing with issues around the products in isolation and a united and connected approach was needed to reduce harm across the wider population.

8. Over 80 people attended the Facing Future Symposium, including representatives from the health, justice, local government, youth and community sectors. See Attachment A for the speakers, programme and list of attendees for the event.

9. Evaluation feedback from participants indicated that the symposium:

· Increased stakeholder ability to support communities to reduce harm from new psychoactive substances

· Increased knowledge regarding the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

· Increased understanding of Auckland Council’s LAPP.

10. A CAYAD project team has prepared a six month action plan based on insights arising from the Facing Future Symposium. The action plan includes:

· Engagement and mobilisation of community groups and relevant organisations to participate in the submission process of Auckland Council’s LAPP;

· Hosting a regional youth forum focusing on NPS to build youth awareness of related harm, as well as engagement within the LAPP process;

· Co-designing information resources on NPS related harm, the Psychoactive Substances Act and how to access help with Maori, Pasifika, migrant and youth communities;

· Exploring the creation of online webinar presentations and discussions by experts to build awareness and capacity of organisations and communities to respond to NPS related issues.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11. The CAYAD NPS project team is available to inform Local Boards regarding NPS related phenomena.

Māori impact statement

12. NPS related harm has a significant impact on Maori communities both urban and rural. Staff ensured Maori representation through organisational attendance and as speakers within the programme.

13. The name of the symposium Facing Future embodies the concepts of ‘past’ and ‘future’ which are often explained within Maori tikanga using bodily directions, the front of the body faces the ‘past’ while the back faces ‘future’. To ‘face’ the ‘future’ with one's back is intentional, as the future is an unknown. On the other hand, ‘past’ is knowable; it can be ‘seen’ in front of each of us, shaping our character and consciousness.

14. The CAYAD NPS project team will co-design information resources targeting Maori on NPS with Maori communities.

Implementation

15. The CAYAD NPS team proposes to report back to the committee on progress against the action plan in March 2015.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A CAYAD Psychoactive Symposium	31

Signatories

Author	Brian Taylor - Community Safety Programme Manager
Authoriser	Kevin Marriott – Acting Manager Community Development Arts and Culture

Author	Maureen Koch - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Kevin Marriott – Acting Manager Community Development Arts and Culture