Agenda of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

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, 2 July 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	Mr 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	Mr Glenn Wilcox
	Cr Denise Krum

(Quorum 11 members)

Barbara Watson

Democracy Advisor

25 June 2015

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8105

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-controled 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

02 July 2015

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 7

2 Declaration of Interest 7

3 Confirmation of Minutes 7

4 Petitions 7

5 Public Input 7

5.1 Otahuhu Mainstreet & Commercial Association presentation on Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) programme 7

5.2 Wiri Business Association presentation on Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) programme 8

6 Local Board Input 8

7 Extraordinary Business 8

8 Notices of Motion 9

9 Registration of Interest for the Expansion of Rural Broadband 11

10 Earthquake-Prone Building Legislation Update 17

11 Establishment of a Weed Management Policy Implementation Political Advisory Group 21

12 Productivity Commission Inquiry "more effective social services" 23

13 Information Items 35

i) Local approvied product policy implementation

ii) Strategy and policy forward programme update

14 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Apologies

Apologies from Cr LA Cooper, Cr C Fletcher and member Kris MacDonald 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 June 2015, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

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

5 Public Input

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

5.1 Otahuhu Mainstreet & Commercial Association presentation on Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) programme

Purpose

1. Richette Rodger, Commercial Town Manager, will give a presentation on the Otahuhu Mainstreet & Commercial Association’s recent successes and barriers to realising their goals.

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) thank Richette Rodger, Commercial Town Manager for Otahuhu Mainstreet & Commercial Association, for her presentation.

5.2 Wiri Business Association presentation on Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) programme

Purpose

1. Audrey Williams, Manager of the Wiri Business Association, will give a presentation on the association’s recent successes and barriers to realising their goals.

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) thank Audrey Williams, Manager of Wiri Business Association, for her presentation.

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

02 July 2015

Registration of Interest for the Expansion of Rural Broadband

File No.: CP2015/11755

Purpose

1. To update the committee about progress on the Economic Development Committee resolution number ECO/2015/9 regarding development and submission of a registration of interest supporting the expansion of broadband services in rural Auckland, following the announcement of central government funding on 12 March 2015.

2. To provide an overview of Auckland Council’s Registration of Interest, including how this document was developed.

3. To seek approval for Auckland Council’s Registration of Interest to be submitted to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment by 5pm Friday, 3 July.

Executive Summary

4. On 12 March 2015 central government announced an additional $152 to $210 million to extend Ultrafast Broadband (UFB) coverage, $100 million to extend Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) coverage, and $50 million to address mobile black spots.

5. Central government invited local government to register their interest in improved coverage of broadband services to rural communities by 3 July 2015. This includes providing information about underserved rural areas, prioritising communities, and indicating what the local authority is willing to commit to in order to facilitate the deployment of infrastructure under these programmes.

6. Staff have developed a registration of interest for the funding programmes with oversight from a political working party comprising Councillors Anae, Cashmore, Cooper and Webster.

7. In addition to a registration of interest, staff will explore submitting a supplementary Digital Enablement Plan to central government on 18 September 2015 identifying ways to achieve economic and social benefits from coverage delivered through these programmes.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve Auckland Council’s Registration of Interest for submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

b) note that staff are developing a Digital Enablement Plan, as per the direction of the Economic Development Committee, in support of the registration of interest, and in line with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s recommendation.

c) endorse staff to continue to work with the members of the Broadband political working party to develop alternative approaches to supplying broadband in rural Auckland.

Comments

Context

8. In 2011 central government announced funding for two nationwide broadband upgrade programmes, the Ultrafast Broadband (UFB 1) programme and the Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI 1). On 12 March 2015 central government announced an additional $152 to $210 million to extend Ultrafast Broadband coverage (UFB 2), $100 million to extend Rural Broadband Initiative coverage (RBI 2), and a $50 million Mobile Black Spot Fund (MBSF).

9. Funding for the UFB extension will be drawn from the Future Investment Fund, with funding for the RBI extension and Mobile Black Spot Fund being drawn from the Telecommunications Development Levy.

10. Local authorities were invited to register their interest in supporting the allocation of this funding by providing information about communities that would benefit from an upgrade, as well as information about the support they can provide to expedite the rollout of broadband infrastructure, should funding be allocated.

11. On 24 March 2015 the Economic Development Committee passed resolution number ECO/2015/9 directing staff to prepare a registration of interest (ROI) for the expansion of broadband services in rural Auckland, and to establish a political working party to oversee the development of that document. The members appointed to that working party include
Cr Anae, Cr Cashmore, Cr Cooper and Cr Webster.

Analysis Undertaken

12 The information used to develop Auckland Council’s ROI was collected through community engagement supported by geospatial analysis. An initial list of communities and stakeholders was developed through direct engagement with the Franklin, Rodney, Waitakere Ranges, Waiheke, and Great Barrier Local Boards. In addition, a process to engage with the wider community occurred with the assistance of Auckland Council’s Communications and Engagement team.

13 Geospatial analysis was used to define each community as a candidate area, and to collate data for each of those areas. In some instances smaller communities were grouped together to allow greater synergies and the creation of a stronger case. The resulting candidate areas are subsequently now represented in Council’s registration of interest.

14. UFB 2 candidate areas include rural settlements and areas within the metropolitan urban limit (MUL) that are outside the UFB 1 footprint. RBI 2 candidate areas are areas outside of the UFB 1 footprint that were identified through feedback as experiencing access issues.

Engagement Process

15. Consultation with Auckland’s rural communities took place between 29 April and 29 May 2015, generating 299 individual responses from 92 communities including:

· 40 communities in the Rodney Local Board area

· 22 communities in the Franklin Local Board area

· 12 communities in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area

· 3 communities in the Waiheke Local Board area

· 15 communities in the Great Barrier Local Board area.

16. Collectively this feedback helped identify communities that would benefit from an upgrade under the UFB 2, RBI 2, and Mobile Black Spot Funds.

17. For the purposes of the ROI these communities have been grouped into candidate areas that Council believes would qualify for investment under UFB 2, RBI 2, or the Mobile Black Spot Fund. Within each of these programmes the candidate areas have been prioritised. A prioritised list of candidate areas is included in the ROI document.

18. The candidate areas for all three funds were prioritised using total population, total number of businesses, and population density.

Auckland Council Commitments

19. Officers understand that Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s decision regarding the allocation of funds will be influenced by the cost of deploying broadband infrastructure as well as the social and economic benefits. To this end Auckland Council’s ROI also includes information about the support that Auckland Council can provide to support an expedient rollout of broadband infrastructure.

20. It is inappropriate that community and/or Council funding is allocated toward upgrading privately-owned, revenue-generating infrastructure. At the same time, the total cost of these infrastructure upgrades is beyond what communities can afford. The proposed approach to facilitating deployment therefore focuses on reducing development barriers where practical, and providing a fair and accurate representation of the needs of Auckland’s rural communities.

21. The Resource Consents department has committed to streamlining consenting processes including pre-application meetings, key account management and global consenting where appropriate.

22. Auckland Transport have committed to working with providers through an established UFB team to maintain consistency, improve coordination and provide certainty around the application of fees and conditions for corridor access.

23. Staff have also provided relevant information about existing infrastructure that may be used to deploy new broadband infrastructure, as well as an ongoing commitment to work with the successful suppliers to improve awareness and uptake of broadband services.

24. Network operators have also been invited by central government to submit on the ROI, with a Request for Proposals stage in mid-August. This will be followed by an evaluation and candidate selection process before contracts are awarded to suppliers in late 2015.

Digital Enablement Plan

25. The Economic Development Committee also requested that staff prepare a Digital Enablement Plan in line with central government’s recommendations. The digital enablement plans identify the support that local authorities are able to provide to enhance the uptake and effective use of better broadband services where they are made available. These are due 18 September 2015 following the submission of the ROI.

26. The ROI process is also an opportunity to provide comment regarding rural broadband issues in general, and in particular to comment on the scope and scale of the funding and allocation process.

27. To that end, a draft cover letter has been developed in support of Auckland Council’s registration of interest. This has been reviewed by the Political Working Party and:

· Notes the process by which Auckland Council’s ROI was developed

· Provides general demographic information regarding rural Auckland

· Highlights the scope of broadband issues in rural Auckland

· Comments on gaps in, and issues with, the first rural broadband initiative (RBI 1)

· Highlights that communities often have limited choice – having to choose between paying full retail for limited broadband, or discontinue service altogether

· Comments on the risk of continued under investment in broadband infrastructure in rural areas once central government funding is no longer available.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

28. The Franklin, Waitakere, Rodney, Waiheke, and Great Barrier Local Boards are generally supportive of the opportunity to see additional central government funding allocated to support upgrades to broadband in their areas, however the boards are also aware that the funding is not sufficient to meet the needs of all their communities. These local boards continue to experience the most limited access to broadband infrastructure in Auckland and any investment in upgrades or extension to that infrastructure will have a significant impact on health and wellbeing, and social and economic development.

29. All five local boards noted above have provided information regarding the needs of communities, and helped to identify key stakeholders in those communities that could help support developing Auckland Council’s ROI. These local boards were engaged at the outset of the development of the ROI and have been updated regularly.

Māori impact statement

30. For Māori in rural Auckland the opportunity to access good quality broadband services represents a significant social and economic opportunity. Central government has previously discussed the role connected Marae play in the 21^st century. This includes, but is not limited to, their role as centres of learning. There are also significant health benefits for the community if Whanau Ora are connected to good quality broadband.

31. More generally the opportunity to access contemporary broadband at home and at work means equitable access to education and work opportunities.

32. In developing the ROI, key Iwi across rural Auckland were identified with support from Te Waka Angamua. This included Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Rehua, Ngāti Manuhiri, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, and Te Kawerau a Maki. These groups were approached for input, and staff intend to continue to work with iwi as the government funding process develops.

Implementation

33. The information in the ROI will be used by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to understand the needs of communities, and to evaluate the costs and benefits of investing in broadband upgrades for those communities. An important part of this will be understanding the support that council can provide to expedite the deployment of broadband infrastructure. This evaluation will take place at a national level.

34. The information in Auckland Council’s ROI, along with that from other local authorities, will be made available to suppliers (network operators e.g. Chorus) during the “Supplier Request for Proposals” stage of the process to enable them to tender for coverage areas.

35. All funding is administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Crown Fibre Holdings, and awarded to the successful suppliers. Auckland Council has no part in decision-making, funding or implementation of the infrastructure deployment.

36. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has invited local authorities that submit a registration of interest on 3 July to develop a Digital Enablement Plan that supports their registration of interest. The Plan is an opportunity to further detail the support that council can provide for the uptake and use of better broadband services and may influence central government’s allocation of funds. At this stage Auckland Council’s Digital Advisors intend to submit a Digital Enablement Plan on 18 September 2015. This will be developed with the elected members that formed the political working party overseeing the registration of interest and will be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Registration of Interest (ROI) Support response (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Anthony Acres - Digital Advisor

Robert Lundberg - Digital Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

02 July 2015

Earthquake-Prone Building Legislation Update

File No.: CP2015/12367

Purpose

1. To provide the committee with an update on the present state of the earthquake-prone building legislation, currently tracking through parliament. This report follows on from Auckland Council’s submission to the Select Committee on the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Bill 2013, made on 14 April 2014 (REG/2014/51).

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council’s policy on earthquake-prone buildings has been in effect since November 2011. The policy sets out the actions of the council and the expectations of building owners with regard to this matter, such as the types of structure the council will assess and the timeframes for owners to respond to council reports on a building’s seismic performance.

3. Proposed changes by the Minister for Building and Housing to the draft Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Bill 2013 are expected to alter policy requirements. Officers advise that in the interim it would be prudent for council to consider suspending certain provisions of its existing policy until the new legislation comes into effect and a formal revision of the policy can be carried out.

4. The key proposal is to suspend the provisions of Auckland Council’s Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2011-2016 that relate to the Council completing assessments on all pre-1976 commercial and large residential structures by 2015. It is recommended council does not proactively assess any additional buildings over and above those that have been assessed to date, unless they are of unreinforced brick masonry (UBM) construction. It is also recommended that the three month timeframe for finalizing assessments with building owners is suspended unless the buildings are of unreinforced brick masonry (UBM) construction.

5. The basis of these recommendations is that:

· With significant uncertainty at present as to the final shape of the earthquake-prone building legislation, it would be prudent to hold off on conducting work that could in the near future become redundant.

· By suspending or modifying the aforementioned provisions in our existing policy we would reduce potentially unnecessary expenditure by building owners whose buildings may not require assessing for earthquake risk under the new regulations due to their construction or age.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) suspend the provision of Auckland Council’s Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2011-2016 that relates to the Council completing assessments on all pre-1976 commercial and large residential structures by 2015, unless they are of unreinforced brick masonry (UBM) construction.

b) suspend the provision of Auckland Council’s Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2011-2016 that relates to building owners being granted three months to provide feedback before provisional assessments are finalized and that council will not finalize any assessments with a rating over 33 per cent of the new building standard (NBS) unless they are of unreinforced brick masonry (UBM) construction.

c) request council staff engage with Local Government New Zealand on wider issues of the proposed legislative change and support involvement of staff in the Regulation Redevelopment Task Group.

d) distribute the report to local boards and the Independent Maori Statutory Board for their information.

Comments

6. The Auckland Council policy on earthquake-prone buildings sets out that the council will carry out assessments on all pre-1976 commercial or large residential structures across the Auckland region, provide provisional copies of those reports to owners, and allow them a period of typically three months to provide feedback that might be used to change the provisional rating. These provisional reports are subsequently to be finalized and placed on the property files, with any that are deemed to possess an insufficient seismic performance capacity (<34%) given a period between 10 and 30 years in which to carry out upgrading work or otherwise address the risks posed by the building in the event of an earthquake.

7. To date approximately 7500 assessments have been carried out across Auckland and approximately 1000 buildings have been identified as being earthquake-prone.

8. A considerable amount of new data on Auckland’s built environment that has been collated in the process of the assessments has revised the possible scope of work under our existing policy. Under present council policy objectives, there are potentially another 5000 seismic assessments still to complete. These assessments are predominantly small-scale industrial buildings.

9. Of significant relevance to this is the recent announcement by the Minister of Building and Housing regarding the management of earthquake prone buildings ahead of an expected
1 July release of the Select Committee’s report back to Parliament on its consultative process. In this announcement, the Minister has indicated several possible changes to the Building Act that would considerably change the course of our earthquake-prone building work. The key changes for Auckland are:

· New Zealand is to be categorised into three seismic zones of risk from high, to medium to low, with Auckland being recognized as a low risk zone. The risk zoning will affect the timeframes and criteria for assessing and upgrading buildings.

· The scope of buildings requiring assessment will be reduced to those that pose the greatest risk. The focus will be on the older unreinforced masonry buildings.

· Specific exclusion of farm buildings, retaining walls, fences, monuments, wharves, bridges, tunnels and storage tanks from the need for assessment.

· The timeframes for the assessments and strengthening will be based on risk. With Auckland being a low risk zone, council would have 15 years to identify potential earthquake-prone buildings. Building owners would then have 12 months from council’s identification to commission an engineering assessment and submit it to the council. For any building deemed earthquake-prone, the owner will have 35 years from the confirmation that the building is earthquake-prone in which to carry out the work or otherwise demolish the building. Heritage buildings may have a further 10 years to upgrade or demolish.

· Where substantial alterations or upgrades are carried out to an earthquake-prone building, a building consent will not be granted unless building work is undertaken so that the building (or affected part) is no longer earthquake prone.

· There will be a publicly available register and website listing all earthquake-prone buildings.

· Buildings will be required to have notices at their entrance stating where they are below the minimum standard. It is intended that such information will include the actual per cent of the new building standard with a red notice for those under 20 per cent and orange below 34 per cent. This is consistent with the draft provisions of the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Bill consulted on in 2014.

10. While the likelihood of further consultation by the government on the Amendment Bill has been indicated as low, Auckland Council has been asked to partake in a Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) led group tasked with developing the regulations that would underpin the revised legislation. It is important to note, however, that there are also two more readings of the Bill in Parliament still to occur before it can pass into effect.

11. With significant uncertainty at present as to the final shape of the earthquake-prone building legislation, it would be prudent to hold off on conducting work that could in the near future become redundant.

12. By suspending or modifying the aforementioned provisions in our existing policy we would reduce potentially unnecessary expenditure by building owners whose buildings may not require assessing for earthquake risk under the new regulations due to their construction or age.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

13. Local boards have not been consulted with regard to the proposed recommendations. It is recommended that this report be distributed to all local boards for their information. Once there is further clarity on the outcomes of revised legislation, officers will be able to brief boards on any issues that may have particular effect in their local board area.

Māori impact statement

14. This policy submission has no specific impact upon Maori different to the general populace.

Implementation

15. Market forces will likely continue to drive much of what is occurring with regard to seismic performance assessments in Auckland. The recommendations if carried out will reduce council’s involvement in driving activity on this matter until at least such time as a new policy is put in place subsequent to implementation of the Amendment Bill.

16. Staff expect council will still receive seismic performance assessments from building owners undertaken on their own accord, and intend to review and process them as per current procedures. Owners who are waiting on a council assessment on a non-UBM structure will need to engage the services of their own engineer to carry out a seismic assessment if they wish to obtain such a report for other purposes.

17. It is intended that, subject to the committee’s agreement to the recommendations of this report, action be taken immediately to modify council’s internal process and policy where necessary. Notification of the changes will be limited to updating the council website and I-Know system, while individual owners will be updated as they make contact with us. This course of action is expected to provide the most reasonable approach with the uncertainty around the final form of the legislation.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Kevin Jackson - Team Leader Resolutions

Authorisers

Ian McCormick - Manager Building Control

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

02 July 2015

Establishment of a Weed Management Policy Implementation Political Advisory Group

File No.: CP2015/12400

Purpose

1. To recommend the establishment of a political governance group to oversee the implementation and delivery of the Weed Management Policy (WMP).

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council adopted a Weed Management Policy (WMP) for parks and open spaces in August 2013 (resolution number RDO/2013/137). This policy is supported by an action plan which sets out 32 tasks and actions that Auckland Council will carry out to implement the vision and objectives of the WMP. The implementation of the policy was expanded to give full effect to the definition of ‘parks and open spaces’ and consequently includes all members of the Auckland Council family.

3. Collectively, local and sports parks, Auckland Transport, Watercare Services, regional and specialist parks, stormwater, and environmental services are working together to implement 26 of these 32 action points. For example, as a priority the council group has completed an operational review of all weed management practices across the council family. This review has identified opportunities for improvements in current Auckland Council and council controlled organisations’ weed management practices.

4. Two of the outstanding WMP action points are to establish a governance group ‘to oversee the implementation and delivery of the Weed Management Policy’ and to establish a best practice reference group to ‘ensure that the weed management policy and all operational programmes maintain international best practice.’ The policy outlines that the formation of the governance group is to be determined by the governing body.

5. The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (RSP) has responsibility for strategies and policies associated with the environment, social and cultural activities. As such, RSP is the appropriate committee to consider the proposed governance group which will comprise representatives from the governing body, the Independent Māori Statutory Board and local boards.

6. It is proposed that the Chair of the RSP will chair the political advisory group. The proposal is that the political advisory group involves up to six councillors, between 6 and 10 local board representatives and a representative from the Independent Māori Statutory Board. The political advisory group will have a quorum of three councillors and three local board members.

7. The final makeup of the political advisory group will take into account the geographical spread of both councillors and local board representatives. However, if an aspect of the implementation requires additional representation from elected members the political advisory group will be in a position to co-opt members as needed.

8. In parallel, the WMP best practice reference group will be established from 1 July 2015 and invitations will be sought via an expression of interest process. The selection panel for the best practice reference group will consist of the project lead, Auckland Council Biosecurity Manager, council’s Chief Operating Officer and the Chair of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee.

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve the establishment of a political advisory group comprising the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee chair and up to five other councillors, a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board and between six and 10 local board members to provide oversight of the implementation of Auckland Council’s Weed Management Policy.

b) note that the Weed Management Policy best practice reference group will be established in parallel from 1 July 2015, via an expression of interest process.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Mara Bebich - Stakeholder Liasion Manager

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

02 July 2015

Productivity Commission Inquiry "more effective social services"

File No.: CP2015/12214

Purpose

1. To seek the committee’s retrospective endorsement of Auckland Council’s submission to the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry on “More effective social services”.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council delivered a submission to the Productivity Commission’s “More effective social services” Inquiry on Wednesday 24 June 2015 (Attachment A).

3. The submission was signed by the chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee.

4. Due to timeframes set by the Productivity Commission, officers were unable to present the submission to Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for endorsement prior to the required date for submission.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) retrospectively endorse Auckland Council’s submission to the Productivity Commission’s “more effective social services” Inquiry.

Comments

5. The Productivity Commission’s “More effective social services” Inquiry focuses on ways to improve productivity and generate better outcomes for New Zealanders from the Government’s investment in social services. These services include social housing, employment services, and programmes to reduce crime.

6. The key messages of Auckland Council’s submission were:

· The system stewardship approach described in the draft report is an important opportunity for a multi-sector partnership that includes central government, iwi, local government, community and private sector organisations.

· The Treaty of Waitangi represents an opportunity to partner with Māori to design and deliver social services in a way that moves beyond a compliance-based approach to Treaty ‘obligations’, to a genuine partnership approach.

· The draft report understandably takes a Government-centric approach. However council sees real benefits from a more holistic, multi-sector approach to the design, development and implementation of the draft report’s findings.

· Collective Impact is a model for multi-sector collaboration that could inform such an approach.

· The demand side of social services can only reform as fast as the supply side can respond, therefore more consideration is needed to build capacity and capability in the social services supply chain and support the community and private sector to help shape the reforms.

· A one size fits all approach to social service delivery does not necessarily work in the Auckland context and this aligns well with the draft report’s emphasis on devolution.

· Local government does not play a major role in social service delivery; however councils can provide a vital enabling role in support of government agencies through local knowledge, expertise and relationships.

· Auckland Council in general and local boards in particular can play an intermediary and trusted advisor role in supporting the devolution of services from the national, to the regional, to the local level.

· Mana whenua and mataawaka organisations play a central role in developing innovative new approaches to social service delivery. A strong bicultural character to these reforms will be important to support this development.

· There are risks that community organisations do not survive the transition from charity to a more commercial model and that there is an important strategic opportunity to proactively invest in the transition to ensure continuity of provision and the retention of institutional knowledge and expertise.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

7. Due to the timeframes of the Productivity Commission, consultation with each of the boards was not possible, however the draft submission was circulated to local boards for feedback and comments were incorporated into the submission.

8. The submission was drafted with awareness of the importance of issues such as the Empowered Communities Approach, and is consistent with input from local boards on this initiative.

9. In general, local board feedback supports improved collaboration and engagement between central and local government around meeting the needs of specific populations. A more devolved approach has the potential to support this outcome, but only if community organisations are involved in the reform process and supported through the changes outlined in the “More effective social services” draft report.

Māori impact statement

10. Due to timeframes set by the Productivity Commission, there has been no direct engagement with mana whenua or maatawaka, however the draft submission was circulated to Te Waka Angamua and the Independent Māori Statutory Board for feedback and comments were incorporated into the submission.

11. There are a large number of Māori organisations that would be affected by the reforms that are proposed in the “More effective social services” draft report. Auckland Council is concerned that these organisations may be not be involved or supported in the transition described by the Productivity Commission.

12. The draft report explicitly mentions the Whānau Ora programme as an example of the innovative approaches that the Productivity Commission would like to see more of. There may be important opportunities for mana whenua or maatawaka organisations to play a leadership role in implementing the changes outlined in the “More effective social services” draft report. Recognition and representation are vital for this opportunity to be realised.

Attachments