I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 5 February 2015

9.30am

Level 2 Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr George Wood, CNZM

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Anae Arthur Anae

 

Members

Cr Cameron Brewer

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

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Barbara Watson

Democracy Advisor

 

29 January 2015

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8105 / 021 710 159

Email: barbara.watson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 

** This meeting will be webcast live – www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz  **

 


 


 

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee will deal with all strategy and policy decision-making that is not the responsibility of another committee or the Governing Body i.e. strategies and policies associated with environmental, social, economic and cultural activities. Key responsibilities will include:

 

·         Final approval of strategies and policies not the responsibility of other committees or the Governing Body

·         Setting/ approving the policy work programme for Reporting Committees

·         Overviewing strategic projects, for example, the Southern Initiative (except those that are the responsibility of the Auckland Development Committee)

·         Implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

·         Operational matters including:

o   Acquisition and disposal of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities

o   Stopping of roads

o   Public Works Act matters.

 

Powers

 

(i)      All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

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

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

(ii)      Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii)     Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee

(iv)    Power to establish subcommittees.

 


 

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·         Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·         Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·         Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·         In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·         The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·         However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·         All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Staff

 

·         All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·         Only staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·         Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB)

 

·         Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain.

·         Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Council-controlled organisations (CCOs)

 

Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the CCO.

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        9

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   9

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               9

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          9

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    9

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          9

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                9

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                        10

9          Updated information on the development of alcohol licensing fees to replace default fees set by central government                                                                                          11

10        Regional filming charges review - Proposed charges and amendments to the Auckland Film Protocol                                                                                                                15

11        Approval of Block Offer 2015 Council Submission                                                 63

12        Auckland Council Submission on Health (Protection) Amendment Bill              85

13        Auckland Council submission on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3)             99

14        Demographic Panels - Approval of Work Programmes 2015 - Disability Advisory Panel                                                                                                                                     109

15        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


1          Apologies

 

Apologies from Mayor LCM Brown, Cr C Darby and Cr MP Webster 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, 4 December 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.

 

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

 

 

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

05 February 2015

 

Updated information on the development of alcohol licensing fees to replace default fees set by central government

 

File No.: CP2015/00237

 

Purpose

1.       To provide an account of expenditure and revenue associated with providing alcohol licensing services for Auckland, and to obtain in the interim an agreement to continue to use the fees and charges regime set by central government.

Executive Summary

2.       The default licensing fees set by central government enables the recovery of the majority of the council’s relevant costs associated with alcohol licensing activities.

3.       The Local Alcohol Policy, once adopted, may add to council’s operating costs, resulting in a deficit greater than currently experienced.  Addressing this shortfall would require the development of a specific bylaw.

4.       Council is obligated to report annually the costs and revenue related to alcohol licensing activities.  This mechanism would be the means to determine whether council continue with the default fees prescribed by regulation, or whether a revised fees regime is required to meet any increased costs incurred as a result of the implementation of the Local Alcohol Policy.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      note that the majority of council’s relevant costs were recovered from the existing default licensing fees regime for the twelve months to December 2014.

b)      confirm the continuance of the default licensing fees regime.

c)      review the default licensing fees regime after a suitable period of time has elapsed following the implementation of the Local Alcohol Policy.

Discussion

Prior reporting and alcohol licensing fees

5.       Central government, through regulation associated with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2013 determines the quantum for fees associated with the administration of the Act.

6.       Fees range from $368 to $1,207.50 for premises applications. Annual fees vary from $161 to $1,437.50 each year.

7.       Council may adopt its own fees through the setting of a bylaw.

8.       The committee previously considered this matter at its August 2014 meeting (refer CP2014/14969), where it resolved in part (refer REG/2014/101):

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.

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

9.       The total licensing fee revenue to date for January 2014 to December 2014 is $3,699,000. This revenue has been generated from the default fees.

10.     It should be noted that the amount received from the default annual fees last year was less than will be received in subsequent years.  This is due to central government giving licensees that operate premises a waiver on paying an annual fee last year if they had paid an application fee in the 12 months prior to the commencement of the Act on 18 December 2013.  That waiver ended on 18 December 2014.

11.     The cost to deliver alcohol licensing services for January to December 2014 (excluding corporate overheads) was $3,993,000 as set out in the table below.

12.     At present the District Licencing Committees (DLCs) have conducted fewer hearings than initially projected.  There have been objections to only 1% of applications across all types (compared to the earlier estimate of 20% to 40%).

13.     Accordingly revenue is currently $294,000 short of covering total costs.

14.     The regulation does not permit the recovery of the departmental or corporate overhead.

Table 1: Summary of licensing costs - Jan 2014 to Dec 2014

Summary of Licensing Costs

Costs To Serve: Inspectorate

(able to be recovered through bylaw)

1,656,000

Costs To Serve: Administration Services support to Inspectorate and DLC

(able to be recovered through bylaw)

947,000

Costs to Serve: DLC Staff, Member and Running Costs (able to be recovered through bylaw)

608,000

LCS Business Support and Management overhead

(NOT able to be recovered through bylaw)

782,000

Total Licensing Costs

3,993,000

Ongoing monitoring of costs and revenue and operational variables

15.     There are significant variables associated with the DLC costs. In particular, the development of the draft Local Alcohol Policy is likely to affect the scope of DLC operations and could impact on the rate of contested applications requiring a hearing.

16.     Council is required by regulation to make publicly available a report annually on costs and revenue related to alcohol licensing activities. A further report on this matter will be provided to this or another appropriate committee if the financial information indicates that the council should consider setting its own licensing fees through a bylaw, as provided for under the act. A suitable period after the adoption of the Local Alcohol Policy is suggested.

17.     Development of a specific bylaw would take approximately five months, once a proposed fee regime is determined.  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 a future annual plan process.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

18.     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 the consultation on the draft Local Alcohol Policy.

Maori Impact Statement

19.     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.

General

20.     The recommendations in this report are based on continuing the current approach and using an existing national framework. They are assessed as having a low relative level of significance in terms of the council’s significance and engagement policy.

Implementation Issues

21.     This report recommends that the current approach continue and so has no implementation issues.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Rob Abbott  - Manager Alcohol Licensing  

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

Regional filming charges review - Proposed charges and amendments to the Auckland Film Protocol

 

File No.: CP2014/29598

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval to consult on the proposed charges for filming in public places and related changes to the Auckland Film Protocol.

Executive summary

2.       The charges for filming in public places are currently based on legacy council charges and have not been increased for at least four years. These charges are inconsistent across the region and can be difficult for customers and staff to apply. Gross revenue from these charges was around $150,000 for the 2013/2014 year.

3.       A new set of charges is proposed to apply across Auckland. The new charges are 15 to 30 per cent higher than the legacy charges with the greatest impact being on major impact filming projects. Input from the public and key stakeholders will be sought through a simplified consultation process in accordance with section 82 and 82A of the Local Government Act 2002.

4.       The proposed charges would be reflected in an updated Auckland Film Protocol.  Other minor amendments have also been included.

 

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approve for public consultation the proposed charges for filming in public places.

Type of area

Low impact

Medium impact

High impact

Major impact

Park

$50

$400

$800

$1600

Road

$50

$400

$800

$1600

Footpath or berm

$50

$350

$700

$1300

Other public places

$50

$400

$800

$1600

b)      approve for public consultation the amended Auckland Film Protocol (Attachment C).

c)      delegate to the Chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee and the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws; together with the Manager Screen Auckland, the authority to make any changes to the proposed amended Auckland Film Protocol to reflect decisions from this meeting or to correct minor errors, prior to it being released for public consultation.

d)      note that the proposed charges for filming in Auckland’s public places seek to support improvements in customer service and reporting on filming activity and have been developed with input from local boards and other key stakeholders.


Comments

Background

5.       The Auckland Film Protocol[1] was adopted by the council in 2013[2]. The protocol states that the council will welcome film-making, and sets out the council’s expectations for film-makers to carry out their activities responsibly. In adopting the protocol the Regional Development and Operations Committee also resolved to:

b)      support further work to investigate a regional approach to the setting of film fees, including a process to seek local board views on any proposed regional approach. Any proposed regional approach would be then subject to Strategy and Finance Committee approval.

6.       Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development (ATEED) is a Council Controlled Organisation. ATEED operates the “Screen Auckland” office; whose role is to attract filming to Auckland and help ensure filming happens in a responsible way, consistent with the aims of the protocol. Screen production activity represents around $700M annual turnover and around 6000 jobs in the Auckland Region[3].

7.       Current charges for filming in public places are based on legacy approaches as shown in table 1 below. These fees range from $150 to $500 per day although fees are generally higher for regional parks and high/major impact filming projects. Approximately $150,000 in filming fees was collected in the 2013/2014 financial year. This is estimated to recover around 38 per cent of the cost of the film facilitation service.

Table 1: Current fees – typical daily charges

Area

Typical charges – Parks and Streets

Former Rodney District

$276 / half-day, $403 / day

Former North Shore City

$173 / half-day, $345 / day

Former Auckland City (1)
Also used in former Franklin and Papakura Districts

Low/Med: $175 - $350 / day

High: $350-$700 / day

Major: $700-1235 / day

Former Waitakere City

$154 / half day, $308 / day

Former Manukau City (1)

$150 - $500 / day

Regional parks

Varies with impact - typically $500 to $2000 /day

(1) Charges for these areas based on impact, assessed as Low, Medium, High or Major, depending on the number of crew, vehicles, equipment and the activity that is being filmed

Consideration

8.       The current charges can make it difficult for the council to maximise the benefit Auckland receives from responsible film-makers as they:

·    have not been revised for at least four years

·    use a range of approaches and are inconsistent across Auckland

·    can be difficult to apply in some cases.

The proposed charges

9.       A new set of charges has been recommended to apply across the Auckland region; providing a simplified and harmonised range of charges that better reflect their impact. The proposed charges are set out in table 2.

Table 2: Proposed charges for filming on different types of public places (daily charges)

Type of area

Low impact

Medium impact

High impact

Major impact

Park

$50

$400

$800

$1600

Road

$50

$400

$800

$1600

Footpath or berm

$50

$350

$700

$1300

Other public places

$50

$400

$800

$1600

Notes:

1)  The table above specifies daily rates. Half day rates (at half the charge) will also be available.

2)  Student and charitable filming applications are often low impact and are usually not charged for their approvals.

3)  Figures above include GST

10.     The applicable charge will still depend on the type of public place being used, the impact on that place and the duration of filming. The assessment of impact is based on the number of people, range of equipment, traffic impacts, the level of building activity needed and other impacts on people, businesses and the environment. The assessment of impact is carried out on a case by case basis.

11.     The proposed charges take account of the principles set out in the council’s revenue and finance policy. They are 15 to 30 per cent higher than current charges with the greatest impact being on major impact filming projects. (Note: most filming projects occur in the former Auckland City Council area which has some of the highest fees currently).The new fees are expected to recover around 54 per cent of the costs to handle filming requests. This level of cost recovery is considered appropriate given the nature of filming and the wider economic and cultural benefits that filming brings to Auckland. The charges have been set on the basis of maximising the overall benefit to Auckland.

12.     The proposed charges are similar to the charges that apply in other New Zealand and international cities that Auckland typically competes with for filming. A summary of this comparison is included in Attachment A. These charges are considered likely to be accepted by the film industry, noting Auckland’s other characteristics.

Key considerations for the charges

13.     Three key considerations in determining these chargers were:

Using a higher level of cost recovery

14.     Many of the council’s licensing charges are based on achieving full or close to full cost recovery (e.g. recovering 80 to 100 per cent of costs). This applies for example to street trading, which can appear to have some similarities to filming in public places. Under this approach the charges would be approximately double those set out in table 2.

15.     This level of cost recovery is not recommended because that level of charges would mean Auckland would appear as a more expensive filming destination than most of the comparison cities. This would impact on ATEED’s ability to attract international productions to Auckland as these productions typically have a very wide choice of countries and cities to film in, many of which offer some form of film facilitation or incentives. Higher charges would also create a barrier for local productions and give some productions a greater incentive to attempt filming without applying for a permit.

16.     Filming has several key differences from street trading or other notionally similar activities which were factored into the analysis against the council’s funding policy.

·     Filming activity does not require public involvement or visibility (unlike trading), and its negative impacts are often of very short duration.

·     The wider strategic, economic and cultural benefits are significant, as filming represents a global, high-tech, high-value and internationally connected industry

·     Setting filming charges too high can defeat the intent of the council’s funding of ATEED as an economic development agency to help grow Auckland’s economy

·     Setting filming charges too high could conflict with the strategic film-friendly direction set in the Auckland Film Protocol.

Setting different charges for different types of parks

17.     Different charges could be specified for various types of local parks and for regional parks. This would allow a local board to specify special or premium parks and to select a slightly higher charge for those parks. It would also recognise the different types of environments and management approach for regional parks.

18.     This was favoured in seven of the 12 detailed discussions held with local boards. Generally this approach was seen as providing a better connection between the impact on the community and the recompense that the council receives (and which can potentially mitigate that impact). It could also limit the use of some parks.

19.     However, this was not supported in the discussions with the other five local boards and is not recommended by staff. It would add further complexity to the approach and the distinction between local and regional parks is not always readily apparent to film-makers and so is not customer friendly. Several local boards noted that all parks are important.

Rental or location charge for public place

20.     Another option that was considered was to more clearly separated the administrative charge from a rental use or location charge for the temporary occupation of public space. This would lead to a standard charge for considering and issuing an approval for filming, and a separate location charge that could vary widely depending on the type of area being used for filming.

21.     This is not recommended by staff as it leads to a much more complex approach for setting and applying the charges. This would increase the administrative resource required but it would not lead to any increase in overall revenue. This is not warranted given the overall annual revenue of around $150,000.

Changes to the Auckland Film Protocol

22.     As filming charges are set out in the Auckland Film Protocol, it needs to be amended to reflect the new charges. Further minor changes are also proposed to reflect that the relevant unit within ATEED has now been renamed as “Screen Auckland” (formerly “Film Auckland”), to simplify the language in some sections and to refer to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The proposed amended protocol is included as Attachment C.

Local board views and implications

23.     Information on the proposed approach has been provided to all local boards, and a series of workshops has been carried out over September to November 2014 to outline the proposed approach and seek input to it. This included a workshop early in October which all local board economic portfolio holders were invited to, and individual discussions with 12 local boards. Feedback from these discussions has been summarised in Attachment B.


24.     The discussions with local boards indicated support for the aims of the review and for the proposed approach to simplify and slightly increase the charges. Local boards also requested improved reporting on filming activity and better ways to compensate local businesses and communities for the disruption that filming can involve. As noted above, some local boards supported being able to identify their premium parks and apply higher charges for filming in those parks.

25.     Local boards also noted that processes around filming approvals must continue to align with the preference for each local board for managing the activities that take place in their local parks and communities.

Maori impact statement

26.     ATEED has an ongoing relationship with several mana whenua and mataawaka groups, across its whole portfolio of activity. In relation to film production specifically, Māori views and input may be obtained in several ways where there is a potential impact on particular land or sites. This is usually coordinated either by the film facilitator, or through the relevant parks manager.

27.     Specific processes are currently being developed for the maunga, working alongside the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority and consistent with the priorities and views of the Maunga Authority. This includes considering the charges that may apply for activities on the maunga.

28.     Story-telling is an important part of Māori culture, and film-making is an established medium for this. One example is the recently released feature film “The Dead Lands”. This Māori action film set in early New Zealand was shot entirely in Auckland, with the key location being the historic Otuataua Stonefields in Mangere. The film screened at the prestigious Toronto Film Festival, where it was named one of the top 10 films of the festival. The New Zealand Film Commission has nominated The Dead Lands for an Academy Award (an Oscar) for “Best Film in a Foreign Language”.

29.     More generally, the screen production industry is a significant employer, including of youth. The overall proposal to improve processes for responsible filming in Auckland is expected over time to lead to more opportunities for Aucklanders, including Māori.

Next Steps

30.     The Auckland Film Protocol and proposed fee changes will be advertised by public notice and made available via the ShapeAuckland website.  Submissions will be open for a period of 4 weeks between February and March 2015 and stakeholders will be invited to share their views on the changes during this period.  This will support the council in making its final decision by 1 July 2015.

31.     The proposals in this report are of relatively low significance when assessed against the considerations in the council’s significance and engagement policy. Formal consultation on the proposed charges and protocol is therefore planned to be carried out in accordance with sections 82 and 82A of the Local Government Act 2002. This process is simpler than the special consultative procedure.

Implementation

32.     ATEED will manage the implementation of any changes to filming charges or processes and work alongside other departments and CCOs as necessary.


 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Comparison of charges from other cities

21

bView

Comments from local board discussions

23

cView

Auckland Film Protocol

25

 

Signatories

Authors

Richard Stuckey - Principal Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

Approval of Block Offer 2015 Council Submission

 

File No.: CP2014/29708

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks that the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approve an Auckland Council submission to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment on the areas proposed to be offered for petroleum exploration permit applications in 2015 (‘Block Offer 2015’).

Executive Summary

2.       The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is currently consulting with iwi/hapu and with local authorities (including Auckland Council) on areas it proposes to offer up for prospective oil and gas exploration through an annual tender process (called Block Offer 2015).  Consultation began on 14 November 2014 and closes on 9 February 2015.

3.       The government ran a similar consultation process last year (Block Offer 2014) proposing to include several large areas off the west coast of the North Island.  Notably, this included areas extending to within 6 nautical miles of the shore and overlapping with the North Island West Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary.  This Sanctuary was established to help protect the critically endangered Maui’s dolphin. 

4.       The Auckland Council lodged a submission to Block Offer 2014 that was approved by the Governing Body (GB/2013/138 14 November 2013).  A letter from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board to the Minister of Energy and Resources was also accepted as a late submission.  These council submissions raised concerns about potential environmental risks, with particular concern raised about the need to amend block offer areas to lie at least 12 nautical miles offshore to avoid risks to the remaining Maui’s dolphin population.  The final decision by the Minster was to not amend the proposed North Island west coast areas, as existing protections were considered to adequately address council submissions.  In December 2014 exploration permits were granted, including an area overlapping the Sanctuary.

5.       This year’s Block Offer 2015 proposes broadly similar release areas as Block Offer 2014.  Given the substantial similarities between both Block Offers, it is proposed that the Auckland Council submission build on and reiterate the main points raised in last year’s approved submission.

6.       The proposed Auckland Council submission on Block Offer 2015 seeks five responses:

1)      That the government provide a consistent response by removing any overlap of proposed Block Offer release area with the North Island West Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary as they have for the Banks Peninsula Marine Mammal Sanctuary.

2)      That the shoreward boundary of proposed release ‘offshore Taranaki area (15TAR-R1)’ be amended to be at least 12 nautical miles offshore so that it avoids the North Island West Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary, Maui’s dolphin habitat, and potential adverse effects on Maui’s dolphins.

3)      That exploration activities adhere to the Department of Conservation’s guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals, including within 20 nautical miles of the Marine Mammal Sanctuary.

4)      That in recognition of the sensitivity of potentially impacted areas, the government take action, including in assessing tenders, to ensure that risks of oil spills and other discharges are minimized, particularly in areas close to the coast.

5)      That government support integration with council RMA processes by continuing to keep iwi and local authorities informed of the permitting process and, where appropriate, sharing analysis and data.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approve the attached submission, including any amendments sought by the committee, in response to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s ‘Block Offer 2015’ consultation.

Discussion

Background

7.       Background information on block offers is provided in Attachment C, which covers the block offer process, including consultation on Block Offer 2015 and the regulatory framework for oil and gas exploration.

Proposed Block Offer 2015 Release Areas

8.       A map of all the ‘release areas’ proposed for Block Offer 2015 is appended as Attachment A.  A map of the two large areas most relevant to Auckland Council is appended as Attachment B.

9.       The ‘offshore Taranaki basin (15TAR-R1)’ covers 61,485 km2 and overlaps with Auckland’s coastal marine area by approximately 125 km2.  NZP&M[4] advise that the entire basin covers 330,000 km2 on and offshore, is prospective for oil, gas and condensate, and has been producing oil and gas commercially since the early 20th century.  The basin produces from about 20 fields.  It has been actively explored by a wide range of companies, but is still considered to be relatively underexplored and to have significant interest in its offshore potential.  The larger offshore Northland - Reinga - New Caledonia basin (15NRN-R1) covers 187,852 km2 and extends to the northwest of the Auckland region.  NZP&M advise that this basin is large and relatively unexplored, but believe it to be prospective for oil and gas and with many similarities to the Taranaki Basin.

Comparison of Block Offer 2014 and 2015 proposed areas

10.     The proposed shoreward boundary of the ‘offshore Taranaki (15TAR-R1)’ area is largely unchanged from that previously released for tender in last year’s Block Offer 2014.  In particular the area still overlaps with the territorial sea boundary and the North Island West Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary (defined by the 12 nautical mile limit - see Attachment B).

11.     The proposed ‘offshore Northland - Reinga - New Caledonia (15NRN-R1)’ area does not extend into waters inside the 12 nautical mile boundary and is further seaward than last year’s Block Offer 2014 area (which extended to within six nautical miles offshore).

Auckland Council’s submissions on last year’s Block Offer 2014

12.     NZP&M accepted two council submissions on last year’s Block Offer 2014 consultation, one approved by the Auckland Council Governing Body (resolution GB/2013/138, 14 November 2013) and one from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board.

13.     Auckland Council’s submission on Block Offer 2014 requested amendments to the proposed areas.  In particular the submission sought changes to address the potential environmental impacts of exploratory surveys upon the critically endangered Maui’s dolphin habitat and to address wider potential oil spill risks and other sources of discharge upon significant and vulnerable west coast areas. 


14.     Local Boards were unable to contribute to the council’s previous submission because the Block Offer 2014 consultation period coincided with the local body elections.  The Waitakere Ranges Local Board wrote to the Minister outlining the recognised significant value and sensitivity of the west coast areas potentially exposed to risks from petroleum exploration and production, expressing their unanimous opposition to the allocation of petroleum permits in the proposed area.  This was accepted by NZP&M as a late submission.

Minister’s response to council submissions on Block Offer 2014

15.     No changes were made to the Block Offer 2014 areas in response to Auckland Council submissions.  Ministry officials considered that oil and gas activities are not incompatible with the presence of marine mammals and that sufficient existing protections were in place for the marine environment to ensure effective protection from the potential effects of oil and gas activities[5]

16.     In response to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board’s concerns the Ministry1 considered there was insufficient justification to make an exclusion of such significant scope and that adequate environmental protections are provided by the existing regulatory regime.

Clarifying the Minister’s different responses to Marine Mammal Sanctuary overlaps

17.     Unlike the response to Auckland Council submissions, the proposed Block Offer 2014 area in south-eastern New Zealand[6] was amended by the Minister to remove an overlap with the Banks Peninsula Marine Mammal Sanctuary.  The sanctuary protects the threatened Hector’s dolphin which is closely related to the Maui’s dolphin.  The Minister’s final decision to remove the overlap was contrary to the Ministry’s1 recommendation (to the Minister) for no amendment to be made in response to the request in submissions from Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury Regional Council to exclude the sanctuary. 

18.     His Worship the Mayor wrote to the Honourable Simon Bridges, the Minister of Energy and Resources, requesting an explanation.  The Minister responded that many factors are taken into account, each decision is unique and does not reflect a judgment on the respective importance or value of the sanctuaries.  The high prospectivity of the overlapping parts of the North Island West Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary was an influencing factor.  The Minister considered that potential risks were able to be adequately addressed by the existing regulatory requirements and processes and, provided that petroleum exploration was undertaken in a responsible way, such activity is not incompatible with the presence of the Maui's and Hector's dolphin habitats. 

Permits Granted following Block Offer 2014 process

19.     On 9 December 2014 the Minister announced the petroleum exploration permits (PEP) granted for Block Offer 2014.  These include four areas within the offshore Taranaki and Northland-Reinga-New Calendonia basins off the Taranaki/Auckland/Northland west coast.  The total permitted area involved is 7550 km2 (PEP 57057 at 2121 km2, PEP 57080 at 2446 km2), PEP 57070 at 1618 km2, PEP 57075 at 1365 km2).  Permit PEP 57057 overlaps (by 55km2) with the North Island West Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary.

Auckland Council’s proposed submission on Block Offer 2015

20.     The council’s proposed submission (Attachment D) acknowledges that the ‘offshore Northland - Reinga - New Caledonia (15NRN-R1)’ area is proposed to lie seaward of the 12 nautical mile territorial sea boundary.  However, it also identifies that the ‘offshore Taranaki (15TAR-R1)’ area is largely unchanged from that previously released for tender in 2014 and still overlaps with the territorial sea boundary, the North Island West Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary and part of the Auckland region’s coastal marine area. 


21.     The proposed submission also acknowledges the Minister’s position explaining his decisions in response to council submissions on last year’s block offer round.  However, the proposed submission respectfully explains that Auckland Council considers that a more precautionary approach should be taken to protecting the important and vulnerable values and uses of the North Island’s west coast, and particularly the marine mammal sanctuaryConsequently the arguments presented in the council’s previous submission (to Block Offer 2014) remain relevant to Block Offer 2015 proposed areas. 

22.     The proposed submission on Block Offer 2015 seeks five responses:

1)      That the government provide a consistent response by removing any overlap of proposed Block Offer release area with the North Island West Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary as they have for the Banks Peninsula Marine Mammal Sanctuary.

2)      That the shoreward boundary of proposed release ‘offshore Taranaki area (15TAR-R1)’ be amended to be at least 12 nautical miles offshore so that it avoids the North Island West Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary, Maui’s dolphin habitat, and potential adverse effects on Maui’s dolphins.

3)      That exploration activities adhere to the Department of Conservation’s guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals, including within 20 nautical miles of the Marine Mammal Sanctuary.

4)      That in recognition of the sensitivity of potentially impacted areas, the government take action, including in assessing tenders, to ensure that risks of oil spills and other discharges are minimized, particularly in areas close to the coast.

5)      That government support integration with council RMA processes by continuing to keep iwi and local authorities informed of the permitting process and, where appropriate, sharing analysis and data.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

23.     The overlap of the consultation period with the Christmas to New Year period has reduced opportunities to incorporate local board feedback into this report.  A copy of the draft submission along with accompanying explanatory notes was circulated to all local boards for comment on 23 December 2014 and recirculated on 5 January 2015.  Feedback on the draft submission was requested by 22 January 2015.

24.     The proposed Auckland Council submission includes comment on the difficulties imposed upon local government democratic process by the timing of the Block Offer consultation period and requests that the Minster consider moving future consultation to avoid periods when councils will struggle to deliver the necessary formal response.

25.     At the time of writing this report Papakura, Waitakere Ranges, and Puketapapa Local Boards have responded in support of the draft submission.  Franklin Local Board has indicated a response is being prepared.

26.     Papakura Local Board particularly support the proposed second submission point (shift past at least 12 nautical miles to avoid Maui’s dolphin impacts) and more generally express concern that any exploration activities should be acceptable and viable in environmental terms and that the impact of any permitted activities is comprehensively monitored.


27.     The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has produced a document very similar to their submission letter sent to the Minister last year during Block Offer 2014 consultation.  The Local Board does not support any form of oil exploration off the west coast of Auckland because of the risks associated with it and asks that the precautionary principle be adopted to protect the coastline of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and the surrounding coastal marine area.  They strongly support the proposed Auckland Council submission but provide further information - on the environmental sensitivity and value of the potentially affected west coast area - that expands on the proposed fourth submission point (minimise oil spill risks to sensitive west coast values and uses).

28.     Puketapapa Local Board strongly supports the Waitakere Ranges Local Board position and the proposed Auckland Council submission.  They have provided a document that expands on several of the proposed submission points.

29.     It is proposed to refer to the local board feedback within the Auckland Council submission and to also include their documents as attachments.

30.     Any further local board feedback received will be summarised and tabled when this report is presented to the Committee on 5 February 2015.  Additional local board feedback on the draft submission will also be incorporated into the final submission (e.g. a summary of responses and/or by appending responses to the council submission).

Maori Impact Statement

31.     NZP&M are required by the Crown Minerals Act, via the associated Minerals Programme for Petroleum 2013, to consult with iwi and hapu on the proposed release areas.  Iwi and hapu therefore have a direct route to contribute their concerns into the Block Offer process.  The Minister may then exclude areas from the Block Offer process where these have been identified by iwi or hapu as having particular significance and sensitivity.  Once permits are granted permit holders are also required to provide an annual report to the Minister on their engagement with potentially affected iwi and hapu.

32.     In addition to the opportunity for direct involvement above, a copy of the draft Auckland Council submission, along with accompanying explanatory notes, was circulated on 23 December 2014 to approximately 30 contacts for iwi/hapu within the Auckland region and recirculated on 5 January 2015.  Feedback on the draft submission was requested by 22 January 2015.

33.     To date the Heritage and Environment Manager for Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority has responded with an interim offer of tentative support for the council’s submission while the authority reaches a formal position.

34.     Any further feedback received will be summarised and tabled when this report is presented to the Committee on 5 February 2015.  Iwi/hapu feedback on the draft submission will also be incorporated into the final submission (e.g. a summary of responses and/or appending responses to the council submission).

General

Significance Policy

35.     The requested decision on approval of the submission has been assessed as not significant in terms of the council’s Significance Policy.

Implementation Issues

36.     The Auckland Council has the opportunity to restate its concerns about the potential risks of offshore west-coast oil and gas exploration (and production) to the government.  The Block Offer 2015 submission period closes at 5pm on Monday 9 February 2015.  Final decisions on the effect, if any, of the submission points on Block Offer areas released for tender in 2015, along with the ultimate granting of any exploration permits in early 2016, rest with the Minister of Energy and Resources. 

37.     Council officers will monitor the NZP&M Block Offer 2015 process and will inform the relevant council bodies of any significant developments. 

38.     It is worth noting that the current drop in international oil prices is likely to reduce the appetite of exploration companies to investigate new oil and gas areas.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Block Offer 2015 Proposed Release Areas

69

bView

Block Offer 2015 Areas relevant to Auckland Council

71

cView

Block Offer Background

73

dView

Auckland Council Proposed Submission Block Offer 2015

75

     

Signatories

Authors

Dominic McCarthy, Principal Specialist Environmental Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor, General Manager: Auckland Plan, Strategy and Research

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

Auckland Council Submission on Health (Protection) Amendment Bill

 

File No.: CP2014/29604

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval for Auckland Council’s submission to the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill, specifically regarding the commercial provision of artificial ultra-violet (UV) tanning services.

Executive Summary

2.       The Ministry of Health has requested submissions on a proposal to amend the Health Act 1956 to ban the commercial provision of artificial UV tanning services to people under 18 years of age and to improve provisions for the management of infectious diseases.

3.       The Auckland Council submission as drafted supports the proposed amendment to the Health Act 1956 to ban the supply of artificial UV tanning services to individuals under 18 years of age.

4.       The submission also recommends:

·     Nation-wide controls for the provision of artificial UV tanning services

·     Nation-wide regulation for the use of other UV emitting devices with an associated risk of burn, such as the use of pulsed light and laser devices due to associated high risks to the customer.

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approve the Auckland Council submission to the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill (Attachment A).

Discussion

 

Background

5.       The Health (Protection) Amendment Bill (the Bill) passed its first reading in November 2014 and submissions on the Bill are due by 13 February 2015. The amendments to the Health Act 1956 proposed in the Bill include introducing a ban on the provision of commercial artificial UV tanning services to people under 18 years of age and to improve provisions for the management of infectious diseases.

6.       Previously, during the Auckland Council review of bylaws that addressed health and hygiene risks, commercial sun-bed services were identified as a high risk service. A licensing requirement for operators was introduced through the Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013, and a code of practice was developed to regulate sun-bed services. Commercial services undertaken by health practitioners in the practice of their profession were exempted from the requirements of the bylaw and code of practice as health practitioners are already regulated by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003.

7.       The code of practice minimum standards incorporated standards from AS/NZS 2635: 2008 Solaria for Cosmetic Purposes (AS/NZS 2635: 2008).


Auckland Council submission

8.       The submission focuses on the proposed artificial UV tanning provisions. It supports the proposed amendments to the Health Act 1956 to ban the supply of artificial UV tanning services to those aged under 18 years. The submission also supports the ability for a healthcare provider to administer therapeutic treatment from a UV emitting device to those aged under 18 years for the purposes of medical treatment prescribed by a medical practitioner.

9.       The council’s experience in developing the Health and Hygiene Bylaw and Code of Practice 2013 has demonstrated the need for greater controls to manage public health risks of artificial UV tanning services over and above a minimum age requirement. Accordingly, the submission recommends amendments to the Bill to:

·     Provide for the introduction of nation-wide mandatory controls on the operation of artificial UV tanning services

·     Implement controls equal to or more stringent than the current regulation in Auckland

·     Develop and implement such controls with a sense of urgency due to the seriousness of potential harm to the public and

·     Introduce nation-wide regulation for other UV emitting devices (such as pulsed light, and laser treatment) due to a potential risk of burn to the customer.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

10.     All local boards were consulted in 2012 regarding the proposal of an 18 year age limit for sun-bed use and the appropriateness of regulating the industry. Feedback received at that time indicated thirteen local boards agreed an age limit of 18 years for sun-beds was appropriate, while two local boards disagreed, and five provided mixed responses.

Maori Impact Statement

11.     The bill does not specifically focus on Māori as users of artificial UV tanning services or as business owners. As Auckland is already enforcing the bill’s proposed age limit of 18 years through its Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013, and if there were Māori sunbed operators in Auckland, the impact on Māori businesses specifically in relation to this bill is considered minimal.

Implementation Issues

12.     There are no implementation issues associated with this submission.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Auckland Council Submission to Health (Protection) Amendment Bill 2015

87

Signatories

Authors

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Toni Ferdinands - Principal Policy Analyst

Emma Pilkington - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

Auckland Council submission on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3)

 

File No.: CP2015/00070

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks retrospective endorsement of Auckland Council’s submission to the Government Administration Committee on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3).

Executive Summary

2.       The Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) (the Bill) passed its first reading on 6 November 2014 and submissions were called for on 11 November.  The Bill’s purpose is to increase transparency of grant-making, reporting and management; reduce potential conflicts of interest; and simplify compliance and appeals processes.

3.       A submission [refer to Attachment A] has been lodged on behalf of Auckland Council, in order to meet the 30 January 2015 due date.  The submission is based on previous gambling-related submissions and was developed in conjunction with the Class 4 Gambling Working Party.  The Class 4 Gambling Working Party has delegated authority to “respond to any further consultation documents on changes to existing regulations that may be forthcoming, and inform the development of a submission on any further changes to gambling legislation” (Resolution No. REG/2013/10, 5 December 2013).

4.       Auckland Council’s submission supports the Bill overall and gives its full support to the following topics:

·    Reducing conflicts of interest

·    Improving transparency of management company operations

·    Simplifying compliance with publication requirements

·    Ensuring the Act’s appeals process is efficient.

5.       Auckland Council’s submission requests amendments to the following two topics:

·    Transparency of grant-making by societies

·    Simplifying compliance with the venue payments system.

6.       Auckland Council’s submission does not support the proposal to reduce costs associated with licensing by lengthening the timeframe for renewal.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      retrospectively endorse the submission made to the Government Administration Committee on behalf of Auckland Council in the matter of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3).

Discussion

Maori Impact Statement

7.       Statistics show that Māori are more likely to be problem gamblers and experience wider social impacts from gambling than most other ethnic groups.  The Bill does not directly reduce or increase gambling-related harm to Māori.

8.       The Independent Māori Statutory Board provided input through the Class 4 Gambling Working Party and feedback on previous gambling-related submissions.

Local Board Views and Implications

9.       Local board input was provided through involvement in the Class 4 Gambling Working Party and feedback on previous gambling-related submissions.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Auckland Council Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) submission

101

 

Signatories

Authors

Rebecca Turner - Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 








Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

Demographic Panels - Approval of Work Programmes 2015 - Disability Advisory Panel

 

File No.: CP2015/00323

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval of the Disability Advisory Panel’s work programme for the 2015 financial year.

Executive summary

2.       On 30 October 2014 the Governing Body (Resolution GB/2014/124) appointed a Disability Advisory Panel for the remainder of the electoral term.

3.       As required in the demographic panels’ terms of reference, the Disability Advisory Panel has adopted its annual work programme, which is now presented to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for approval (Attachment A).

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approve the Disability Advisory Panel’s work programme for the 2015 financial year.

Comments

4.       In December 2013 the Governing Body considered the role and functions of the council’s demographic panels, and resolved to continue to have a Disability Advisory Panel to provide advice to Council. (Resolution GB/2013160).

5.       The original Disability Advisory Panel continued to meet from the start of this council term, with the last meeting held on 15 September 2014. During August and September 2014 a new panel was recruited. It was appointed by the Governing Body on 30 October 2014.

6.       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 Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel’s work programme in August 2014, and the Seniors and Pacific Peoples Advisory Panels’ work programmes in September 2014.  The Youth Advisory Panel’s work programme was approved by the committee on 9 October 2014.

7.       The Disability Advisory Panel adopted its work programme on 15 December 2014 (Resolution DIS/2014/84).  The key priorities for the panel for the remainder of the 2014/2015 financial year are:

-     Employment

-     Transport

-     Accessibility

-     Housing

-     Consultation (including the Long-term Plan).

8.       The panel will focus its work on its chosen priorities and provide input into the development of council policies relating to those priorities. With all the demographic panels now having work programmes, synergies and overlaps with the other demographic panels are being identified.

9.       In the first eight months of this council term, the outgoing disability panel advised on matters that were part of the previous work programme , or on which the council specifically sought input.  These included:

-     The inclusive employment forum

-     Auckland Transport’s draft Code of Practice

-     Auckland Transport’s parking discussion document

-     Community facilities network plan

-     Community grants policy

-     Local alcohol policy

-     Arts and culture strategic action plan.

10.     The panel’s new work programme will drive which reports the panel will consider in priority.  There will be a limited capacity for the panel to address emerging issues or deal with other issues that the council, council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and local boards refer to the panel.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11.     Several aspects of the Disability Advisory Panel’s work programme relate to local board activities and the local boards may seek advice on these matters.  The panel has received a report and briefing on the Local Board Plan process.

Māori impact statement

12.     Some of the Disability Advisory Panel’s work programme overlaps with work programmes already underway in respect of Māori outcomes. The panel may give advice on these.

Implementation

13.     The work programme will be implemented immediately following approval by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Disability Advisory Panel Work Programme

111

 

Signatories

Authors

Bruce Thomas - Principal Advisor Panels

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

 


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

PDF Creator


Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

05 February 2015

 

PDF Creator



[1] Available from: http://www.aucklandnz.com/screen/film-protocol

[2] Report to the Regional Development and Operations Committee: “Final Auckland Film Protocol”, 14 March 2013, File No.: CP2013/03636 and RDC/2013/27.

[3] Statistics New Zealand estimate.

[4] New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals (NZP&M, part of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment)

[5] The Ministry’s ‘Report on consultation in relation to Block Offer 2014’

[6] ‘offshore Great South and Canterbury Basins 14GSC-R1’