Agenda of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

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.

Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB)

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

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

· Other 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.

Council-controlled organisations (CCOs)

· Representatives of a Council-controlled organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the CCO.

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had 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, 2 July 2015, 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 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day 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 6.2 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 one (1) day’s 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 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

6.1 Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board - Lemauga Lydia Sosene

Purpose

1. Lemauga Lydia Sosene, Chair of the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board wishes to address the committee with regard to two items on the agenda, namely the District Licensing Committee report and the Information Item on Boarding Houses.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) thank Lemauga Lydia Sosene, Chair of the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board for her verbal presentations.

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

06 August 2015

The Southern Initiative Update

File No.: CP2015/14736

Purpose

1. To provide an update on The Southern Initiative (the Initiative), including its current activity, new work and emerging projects.

Executive Summary

2. The Southern Initiative was last presented to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in April 2015. The April report focussed on the findings of the operational review. This report is to update the Committee on progress in the Initiative since that date.

3. The purpose of the Initiative is to facilitate positive change and improve quality of life through innovation, strategic action and investment. It is one of two place-based priorities derived from the Auckland Plan. An operational review, completed in February 2015, recommended the Initiative focus on three primary strands – Community and Social Innovation, Investment and Urban Development.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) receive The Southern Initiative Update Report.

Comments

4. The Southern Initiative is one of two place-based initiatives prioritised in the Auckland Plan (the other being the City Centre). It is an area identified as having significant potential alongside high social need. An operational review of the Initiative, completed March 2015, recommended focussing on community and social innovation, investment/collaboration and urban development

5. The Southern Initiative covers four local board areas: Māngere-Ōtāhuhu; Ōtara-Papatoetoe; Manurewa and Papakura. Local Boards are represented on the joint steering group for the Initiative, alongside local councillors and mana whenua. Councillor Alf Filipaina is the steering group chairperson.

6. The Auckland Plan identified priority focus areas for The Southern Initiative. Priorities identified for the first 10 years are:

· Early, strong family attachment and learning opportunities that set children up for success at school and in life

· Clear pathway for further education training or employment for every young person leaving school

· Create an outstanding international gateway and destination area

· Economic development and jobs for local people

· Housing development in Māngere and Manurewa

· Increased services and use of public transport

· Increased arts, culture, recreational and sport activities

· Raised educational achievement

· Dramatically improved health outcomes.

7. The information below provides a summary of the key highlights in recent months and activity under specific priority areas.

Key Highlights include:

8. In October 2014 Auckland Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to collaborate on developing and delivering the Auckland Co-design Lab. The Co-design Lab has been established to use collective impact, co-design and other innovative approaches to address complex social and economic challenges. The Lab is funded by Treasury and co-located with The Southern Initiative in Manukau. Co-design lab projects (known as challenges) confirmed to date are redesigning the Graduated Driver Licensing System and early years – ensuring children get the best start in life.

9. Attraction of central government funding to deliver aligned priorities, including Māori and Pasifika Trade Training Infrastructure Consortium. This is the only Māori and Pasifika Trade Training programme in New Zealand that is not based within a tertiary training institution. A contract with the Ministry of Health, for provision of two Healthy Families Programmes in The Southern Initiative area has also been agreed. Further investment opportunities are on the horizon.

Recent Activity

10. Early Years. This is confirmed as a flag-ship challenge of the Co-design Lab and The Southern Initiative. A foundational piece of work is underway to identify current research and successful initiatives in south Auckland. A research project to understand the lived experience of families of young children in the south is also being developed. The Southern Initiative is leading a related project with kohanga reo on different service design methods to build capacity and capability and to increase enrolments and improve outcomes for whanau. This project is a partnership with Te Puni Kokiri.

11. The Ministry of Social Development has provided $100,000 funding towards the early years challenge and the Ministry of Education is also supporting the work. Plunket and ProCare, major providers of services and support in the early years area, are collaborating with the early years challenge.

12. Young people and job pathways. A proposal to change and expand the Māori and Pacific Trades Training contract, to include technical careers in infrastructure, has been presented to the Tertiary Education Commission. Employer engagement, with significant relevant employers, is progressing well, as demonstrated at a recent business breakfast at the airport Novotel. Open Polytech, the tertiary provider, are exiting at the end of the year. Arrangements are progressing with Te Tai Poutini and Manukau Institute of Technology as the new tertiary providers.

13. Joint scoping of a youth employment campaign is underway along with a cross-council strategy to ensure a joined-up approach to youth employment (i.e. with Youth Connections, cadetships, the graduate and intern programme, ATEED Employers’ Pledge).

14. Economic development and local jobs. The Initiative continues to work with ATEED and other Council departments regarding local procurement opportunities, such as opportunities in youth and local employment, catering, local reserve maintenance and community recycling centres.

15. Field work is being undertaken with Manurewa Marae and Makaurau Marae on economic and tourism development. This is a pilot initiative to generate marae-led enterprise. A forum with mana whenua was held recently, and there was a strong interest in this approach.

16. The Southern Initiative is utilising a digital platform to crowd-source creative content from south Aucklanders to generate pride and dispel myths about south Auckland. There is an abundance of creative talent in the south that can be tapped to provide content for campaigns, communication and exhibitions.

17. International gateway and transport. The Initiative is part of a steering group investigating the development of a skills hub (on-site re/training) at the airport. Employment for south Aucklanders, as part of the Auckland Airport expansion, is a very real opportunity. The Airport is engaged with The Southern Initiative and is keen to leverage off its work, particularly through the Māori and Pacific Trades Training Initiative.

18. Arts, Culture sport and recreation/improved health outcomes. The Tamaki Healthy Families Programme is delivered via an alliance between three partner organisations - Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau, The Southern Initiative – Auckland Council, and Alliance Health Plus Trust. The Ministry of Health is also a member of the Alliance. The Healthy Families Alliance group meets regularly, key management personnel have been employed, a service level agreement is at the final draft phase and the recruitment of the remaining positions will take place within the next month.

Future Focus

19. Over the next 12 months The Southern Initiative will build off the foundational work in: employment and skills; community-led enterprise and entrepreneurship; strategic procurement; digital and makerspace opportunities; implementation of Healthy Families; and collaborations with central government, including the Co-design Lab and the early years challenge. The future focus will also include: community-led housing; healthy housing; and maximising opportunities in the airport development for local jobs and youth employment. The Southern Initiative will establish a community innovation fund to leverage matched contributions which support priority focus areas.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

20. Local boards have been involved in The Southern Initiative since it started and are represented in the governance structure.

Māori impact statement

21. The 2013 census identified that the Māori make up 20.7 per cent of the population in The Southern Initiative catchment area. A number of Southern initiative projects will have a direct and positive impact on Māori, in particular the Māori and Pacific Trades Training Project, the Healthy Families Programme, the kohunga reo early years work and the marae economic development project.

22. Both mana whenua and mataa waka are actively involved in the governance of the Initiative. Mana whenua are represented on the joint steering group of the Initiative. The Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau are partners in the Tamaki Healthy Families Alliance. Tamaki Iwi Collective and Papakura Marae are members of the steering group for the Māori and Pacific Trades Training project.

Implementation

23. From 1 July 2015 the Long-term Plan budget of $1.5 million per annum for The Southern Initiative has come into effect. Recruitment of a team to deliver on this investment is currently underway. With additional human resource The Southern Initiative will be able to significantly increase delivery and leverage further opportunities.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Leora Hirsh - Principal Advisor, Southern Initiative

Authorisers

Gael Surgenor - Director, Community and Social Innovation - Southern Initiative

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

06 August 2015

Mayoral-led Auckland Business Delegation to Los Angeles, June 2015

File No.: CP2015/14784

Purpose

1. To inform the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee of the Mayoral-led Auckland Business Delegation to Los Angeles in June 2015. A presentation will be made to the committee by council staff and some of the business delegates in support of this report.

Executive Summary

2. Mayor Len Brown, accompanied by Councillors Denise Krum and Bill Cashmore, led a business delegation representing 43 Auckland businesses to Los Angeles (LA) from 9-13 June 2015.

3. In addition to the activity in Los Angeles, a short side trip was made to New York City by the Mayor, Sir Bob Harvey and the Manager Global Partnerships and Strategy to attend the World Cities Summit Mayoral Forum 2015 hosted by the Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio.

4. In LA the business delegation attended the inaugural Tripartite Economic Alliance Summit (Tripartite Summit) and related meetings. This follows the signing of the Tripartite Economic Alliance between Auckland, Guangzhou and LA in November 2014^{^[1]}. The Tripartite Summit hosted by the Mayor of LA, Eric Garcetti, provided Auckland delegates with the chance to meet with the Mayors of LA and Guangzhou and engage with their respective delegations to explore business and investment opportunities.

5. The key objectives of the visit for the delegates were to connect Auckland businesses to opportunities in LA and Guangzhou, attract investment and create more jobs in Auckland.

6. Survey feedback received from Auckland’s delegates demonstrates the value of Auckland Council managed overseas visits – 100 per cent of respondents indicated that they would participate in a council-led delegation in the future.

7. All business delegates met their own costs for participating in the delegation^{^[2]}. The cost for Auckland Council family representatives was covered within existing budgets.

8. The business delegates achieved tangible outcomes during the LA visit. These will help create jobs in Auckland and generate more business in LA and Guangzhou for Auckland-based companies. The three mayors also agreed to a joint work programme with a focus on ports collaboration, tourism linkages and technological opportunities. The Ports of Auckland, the Port of LA, and the Guangzhou Port Authority signed a strategic partnership to formalise tri-port collaboration and engagement.

9. Council’s Global Partnerships and Strategy (GPS) team worked with LA and Guangzhou counterparts, the Auckland Council family (in particular, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED), and also Auckland Transport and Waterfront Auckland), New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to deliver this activity. These partnerships were critical to the success of the visit.

10. The Tripartite Economic Alliance (Tripartite) supports the central government’s ‘Business Growth Agenda’ goal of lifting the ratio of exports to gross domestic product to 40 per cent by 2025^{^[3]}.

11. The next Tripartite Summit will be hosted in Auckland in May 2016. Planning is underway for the delivery of that event which will be led by ATEED and supported by GPS.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) acknowledge that the Tripartite Economic Alliance is a strategic opportunity for Auckland to enhance its economic and trade relationship with Guangzhou and Los Angeles - dynamic, vibrant and strategically relevant Asia-Pacific cities.

b) note the survey feedback received from Auckland’s delegates demonstrate the value of Auckland Council managed overseas visits – 100 per cent of respondents indicated that they would participate in an Auckland Council delegation in the future.

c) note that the successful delivery of Auckland’s participation in the inaugural Tripartite Summit in Los Angeles was a direct result of partnership with Auckland Council-controlled organisations (ATEED, Waterfront Auckland, Auckland Transport and the Ports of Auckland), as well as NZ Inc agencies the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.

d) note that Auckland will host the second Tripartite Summit in May 2016. It is an opportunity to promote Auckland as an ideal destination for business, investment, tourism, education and innovation.

e) note the Tripartite Economic Alliance Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is owned by the council’s governing body. Councillors will have the opportunity to participate in the Auckland-hosted Tripartite Summit.

f) note that the costs associated with operationalising the MoU is covered by existing Auckland Council and relevant council-controlled organisation budgets.

Comments

12. The Mayor of LA, Eric Garcetti, hosted the inaugural Tripartite Summit from 11-12 June 2015. The theme of the Summit was ‘Innovation – Commercialism and Connectivity’.

13. Mayor Brown, accompanied by Councillors Bill Cashmore and Denise Krum lead 43 Auckland businesses to participate in the Tripartite Summit.

14. In addition to LA, the mayor was invited to be a distinguished speaker at the Mayors Forum in New York which provided a unique opportunity to profile Auckland directly to approximately 120 mayors and city leaders. Other meetings in New York were arranged with various stakeholders to discuss collaboration opportunities and share best practice. The range of stakeholders met with included education leaders, philanthropic agencies that work with cities on various social and economic issues, key city leaders that Auckland has existing relationships, and the former Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg to discuss city environment initiatives.

15. In LA, the business delegates represented a cross-section of Auckland’s priority growth sectors including capital and investment, manufacturing and distribution, media and entertainment^{^[4]}. Businesses included large Auckland-based companies (Fletcher Building and Auckland International Airport), as well as recently established start-ups such as Latch Limited focused on web digital development.

16. The Tripartite Summit and other related events in LA provided an opportunity for Auckland delegates to connect with their Guangzhou and LA business counterparts and engage on trade and investment opportunities. The programme included: the Tripartite Summit, tailored business sector meetings, site visits, business briefings and forums from government and business representatives, sector networking events and individual business matching meetings. The programme overview and an Auckland delegation list is attached to this report (see Attachments A and B).

The opportunity to partner with Guangzhou and LA

17. Guangzhou and LA are two of Auckland’s most well-established and economically important sister cities^{^[5]}. The Tripartite’s value proposition is that it provides a strategic and geopolitical platform to facilitate business, government, cultural and social connections between three dynamic Asia-Pacific cities.

18. The benefit of a trilateral approach is the creation of a platform that spans both sides of the Pacific, and supports Auckland’s position as a strategic gateway into Asia and North America.

19. This initiative is supported by Auckland’s key NZ Inc. partners (MFAT and NZTE). The Tripartite supports central government’s aspirations for its largest economic centre / region i.e. Auckland, and its broader geopolitical interests in two of its most important trading partners - the United States and China.

20. Guangzhou has a population of 14 million people and a gross domestic product (GDP) of approximately US$248 billion. It is the capital and largest city in Guangdong Province, China. Guangzhou is one of China’s top ‘first-tier’ cities, as well as one of China’s leading manufacturing and commercial hubs^{^[6]}. The city is at the centre of South China’s most important trade zone including Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta – China Southern’s Gateway to the World. Enhancing Auckland’s trade and economic relationship with one of China’s most dynamic cities is a key priority, especially in the areas of screen and digital, tourism, education, infrastructure and environmental services^{^[7]}.

21. Auckland’s partnership with Guangzhou under the Tripartite supports the Government’s goal to grow New Zealand-China’s two-way trade to NZ$30 billion by 2020^{^[8]}.

22. Los Angeles has a population of 9.9 million people (3.8 million in the City of Los Angeles) and a GDP of approximately US$577.5 billion. It is the second largest city and the number one import/export port in the United States. The city is the main gateway into the United States (for New Zealand businesses and tourists), as well as the Asia-Pacific region (for many American businesses and exporters).

23. Auckland’s engagement with LA under the Tripartite is a strategic opportunity to sharpen the trade, economic and investment connectivity around sectors of mutual interest, for example, film, televisions and applied technologies. NZ Inc. (MFAT and NZTE) support and endorse Auckland’s enhanced trade and economic engagement with LA.

Outcomes for the Auckland delegates

24. Survey feedback from the Auckland business delegates indicate they got immense value from participating. Many of the Auckland delegates are now ready or close to being ready to explore and expand into LA and Guangzhou. The results report that the Auckland delegation made a total of 318 leads through engaging / networking with contacts at the Tripartite Summit and other related events attended in LA. Also, 100 per cent of respondents indicated that they would participate in an Auckland Council delegation in the future.

25. Some of the immediate success stories include:

· Screen Auckland, held discussions with LA and Guangzhou counterparts and identified potential new production opportunities. Screen Auckland is actively pursuing these opportunities that could create jobs worth tens of millions to the Auckland economy in the long term.

· Digital Water, an Auckland-based water meter company secured a meeting with the LA Department of Water and Power’s (LADWP) senior executives - a meeting they were unable to achieve on their own. LADWP is planning a trial of the company’s water meters in LA. The meters will help LADWP with its water management plans during the current period of severe drought and imposed water restrictions.

· HRV, a manufacturer of ventilation equipment met with a Chinese counterpart at the Tripartite Summit. They are now working together to explore new global business opportunities and addressing growing demand in China for world-class technology.

· Astrolab, an Auckland high-tech business incubator will partner with an LA-based business incubator to provide a new beachhead and stepping stone for Auckland biotech companies to commercialise and expand into the American market.

· IQ Commercial, expects new sales to North America to grow by at least 20 per cent in the coming year. It has already been reported publicly that the company anticipates an increase in profit from the sales and new partnerships secured in LA.

· Flux Animation, meetings with LA-based studios have led to the launch of several projects supporting new jobs already created at the Auckland headquarters.

26. Overall, the Tripartite Summit enhanced Auckland’s trade and economic relations, created export opportunities for the participating businesses and also enabled Auckland to share its expertise and knowledge in areas such as water management and clean/green technologies. The media release on the 2015 Tripartite Summit reporting on Auckland-based business outcomes is attached to this report (see Attachment C).

27. Collaboration was important to the success of the Auckland business delegation to LA. Council’s Global Partnerships and Strategy (GPS) team coordinated and worked with its LA and Guangzhou counterparts, the Auckland Council family (ATEED, Auckland Transport and Waterfront Auckland), NZTE and MFAT.

Work programme

28. Auckland’s participation in the Tripartite will be managed through a work programme of activity coordinated by the council’s GPS team. The work programme is sponsored by the council’s Chief of Strategy and governed by a steering group consisting of the Mayor’s Office, GPS, ATEED and Ports of Auckland. The governance structure sits horizontally across the various projects directly managed by the relevant areas of the council family, for example, the Auckland-hosted Tripartite Summit in 2016 (ATEED), Ports Alliance (PoAL) and Urban Design Alliance (Auckland Design Office). The purpose of this approach is to wrap a programme structure around the council family’s collective Tripartite efforts, track and measure progress, report on activity and various projects in an effective manner, as well as document results in a transparent way. The council’s governance structure for the Tripartite’s work programme is attached to this report (see Attachment D).

29. The cost of the work programme will be covered within existing budgets.

Next steps

30. Annual Tripartite Summits will be held on a rotational basis between the three cities. Planning is already underway for the Auckland hosted Tripartite Summit to be held in May 2016. Guangzhou will host Auckland and LA delegations in 2017. These provide a platform for the mayors and attending business leaders to develop and secure new business opportunities, review progress, and renew the collective commitment for the three partner cities to continue to collaborate with each other on trade and economic initiatives.

31. Tripartite Summits and the wider work programme present an opportunity for the Auckland Council family and relevant NZ Inc. partners to collaborate and work together. Central government’s involvement, especially through NZTE and MFAT, is essential to ensuring Auckland’s engagement in the Tripartite is sucessful, and delivers tangible outcomes for the government’s broader engagement with China and the United States.

32. The Tripartite was discussed at the recent Auckland Central-Local Government Forum attended by Prime Minister John Key, and chaired by Mayor Brown and Minister Paula Bennett. Minister Stephen Joyce noted that both governments can collaborate on the 2016 Tripartite Summit in Auckland, drawing on NZTE and MFAT’s network of contacts in Guangzhou and LA. The government recognises that as the largest regional economy, Auckland has a significant role to play in contributing to its ‘Business Growth Agenda’ goal of lifting the ratio of exports to gross domestic product to 40 per cent by 2025^{^[9]}.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

33. The governing body is responsible for international partnerships under the council’s economic development activity (reflecting the national and regional significance of these initiatives to Auckland). Local Boards can assist in supporting Auckland’s partnerships with existing sister cities. The Tripartite has been developed in consultation with relevant Auckland stakeholders, and specific trade and economic initiatives which fall under the Tripartite will be implemented in consultation with local boards where opportunities arise.

Māori impact statement

34. There is an active and on-going commitment to engage with Māori business, cultural and iwi representatives in order to identify ways to enhance and deepen Auckland’s international connectivity and engagement through the Tripartite. A number of Māori business and cultural representatives joined the delegation to LA, for example, Te Whānau O Waipareira Trust, Whānau Tahi, Poutama and Mika Haka Studios. They all provided positive feedback on their participation in the delegation.

35. There will be other business and cultural opportunities for Māori through the Tripartite, for example, opportunities to pursue initiatives that are of mutual interest to the indigenous people of the three cities, participate as Auckland representatives/delegates in the annual Tripartite Summits, including the Auckland-hosted 2016 Summit, as well as other business and cultural opportunities that advance the interests of Māori and the people of Guangzhou and LA.

Implementation

36. As the owners of the Tripartite Agreement the council’s governing body will have the chance to participate in the Auckland-hosted Summit in May 2016.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Programme overview	19
b View	Delegation List	21
c View	Media release 2015 Tripartite Economic Alliance Summit Auckland Outcomes	25
d View	Tripartite governance structure	29

Signatories

Author

Sanchia Jacobs - Manager Global Partnerships

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

06 August 2015

Report back on elected member tour of waste facilities in Adelaide

File No.: CP2015/12264

Purpose

1. To share information and insights from a resource recovery study tour to Adelaide, South Australia in May 2015.

Executive Summary

2. Envision NZ organised and led a study tour of waste facilities in Adelaide from 20 to 22 May 2015.

3. The tour group included local government officials, not for profit groups, businesses, individuals, the chair of council’s Waste Strategy and Policy Oversight Group (Councillor Wood) and three other members of the group (Councillors Cashmore and Cooper and Independent Maori Statutory Board Member Wilcox).

4. This report is written to support the chair of the committee and his colleagues on the study tour to share information and insights from the Adelaide visit and how these could be relevant to Auckland.

5. Adelaide in South Australia is a city with a comparable population to Auckland and some waste services (for example, a resource recovery network) that are similar to those proposed in council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP).

6. The focus of the tour study was to gain insights into how South Australia is achieving 77.4 per cent diversion of waste from landfill and recycling over 80 per cent of beverage containers.

7. Key insights from the tour included the:

· Importance of strong local government leadership and a comprehensive waste strategy and vision to achieve effective waste diversion.

· Importance of providing sufficient incentives and disincentives for residents and businesses to reduce their waste, including a levy on waste to landfill (this is set at $57 Australian dollars per tonne in South Australia, as compared to $10 in New Zealand).

· Value of having a resource recovery network which involves both commercial businesses and charities and offers residents convenient options to dispose of waste

· Effectiveness of container deposit legislation in encouraging recycling of bottles

8. In general, insights from the tour suggested that if Auckland Council maintains momentum in implementing the WMMP, it can match, or even exceed, South Australia’s achievements in regards to waste diversion and recycling.

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) note the information included in the ‘South Australian Resource Recovery Study Tour May 2015’ report.

Comments

Background

9. Envision NZ organised and led a study tour to Adelaide, Australia from 20 to 22 May 2015 in association with the South Australian state agency, Zero Waste South Australia, and a not for profit organisation, Keep South Australia Beautiful.

10. The focus of the tour was to gain insights into how South Australia is achieving 77.4 per cent diversion of waste from landfill and recycling over 80 per cent of beverage containers.

11. These insights will inform Auckland Council’s implementation of its own Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) 2012, which sets an aspirational goal of zero waste to landfill by 2040. This will be achieved through the development of a resource recovery network and major changes in waste services.

12. The tour group included local government officials, not for profit groups, businesses, individuals, the chair of council’s Waste Strategy and Policy Oversight Group (Councillor Wood) and three other members of the group (Councillors Cashmore and Cooper and Independent Maori Statutory Board Member Wilcox).

13. Adelaide is a city comparable to Auckland in terms of size (population around 1.3 million) and strategic direction. It adopted a zero waste strategy over 10 years ago and since then has implemented a range of waste minimisation initiatives which have achieved high waste diversion rates. These include:

· three bin kerbside collections (including refuse, recycling and organic waste)

· business recycling

· product stewardship initiatives (including a container deposit system that has been running for 40 years)

· community and business-run collection depots

14. Since many of the services provided in Adelaide are similar (although not identical) to those proposed in Auckland Council’s WMMP, a tour of Adelaide provided numerous insights into how the plan can best be successfully implemented.

Sites visited

15. The comprehensive tour included visits to a range of facilities that make up the South Australian resource recovery system, including:

· Wingfield Waste - a Resource Recovery Precinct.

· Welland Waste - one of the local beverage container buy-back depots and recycling centres that make up a network of such facilities.

· Statewide Recycling Super Collector - a commodity (bottles, cans etc) consolidator.

· ARR Adelaide Resource Recovery- a site handling and processing high volume commercial and demolition waste.

· Buckland Park compost processing plant – a state of the art composting facility.

· Easte Waste and Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority (NAWMA) transfer station - regional subsidiaries of six southern Australian councils.

16. The tour also included presentations by Zero Waste South Australia officials on their highly effective diversion recycling programmes and community and industry engagement strategies.

Insights gained

17. The tour provided elected members with a good understanding of the waste and recycling industry in Adelaide and an opportunity to discuss the community and business implications of a zero waste strategy with senior staff from the state’s waste authority: Zero Waste South Australia (www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au).

18. Key learnings gained from the study tour are outlined below. In addition, a brief report by Envision NZ on the tour outlining some key insights generated is provided as Attachment A to this report.

Importance of strong leadership and a visionary strategy

19. The strong leadership and vision provided by South Australia’s state government has created an environment which has fostered collaboration and innovation in the waste industry and buy-in from the general public.

20. In 2003, South Australia was inspired by New Zealand’s Zero Waste Strategy 2002. South Australia adopted a similar visionary strategy and has since been consistent in their implementation of this.

21. South Australia’s success in waste diversion demonstrates how adopting a strategy and following through with consistent implementation can result in significant achievements.

Importance of incentive and disincentives

22. Tour members observed that a combination of incentives and disincentives in South Australia have fostered innovation and encouraged significant waste reductions.

23. For example, a levy of $57 Australian dollars per tonne of waste sent to landfill provides a significant incentive for businesses and residents to reduce their waste. It also increases the capacity of the state to fund waste minimisation initiatives. In comparison, New Zealand’s levy on waste to landfill is currently only $10 per tonne.

24. Along with other factors, this has contributed to the development of a network of businesses operating resource recovery facilities throughout Adelaide and neighbouring cities. This network ensures that no matter what waste residents or businesses have, there is always a resource recovery option within a reasonable distance that is cheaper than landfill. This is consistent with Auckland Council’s vision for the Auckland resource recovery network.

25. Transfer stations also provide a range of reuse and recycling facilities and are proactive in encouraging the public to do the right thing. This wide distribution of multi-material resource recovery options results in over 70 per cent of South Australia’s waste being recovered for reuse or recycling.

Value of container deposit legislation

26. South Australia has had a container deposit scheme for over 40 years. The tour visited two sites (Welland Waste, a privately owned recycling centre and one operated by the South Australian Scouts), where they saw the public returning bottles, cans and Tetra-Pak containers and receiving payment. Container deposit legislation has been a key factor in South Australia achieving a recycling rate for bottles of over 80 per cent.

27. Tour members also learnt that the success of the South Australian deposit scheme has also inspired Northern Territory to enact their own scheme in recent years.

28. South Australia has the lowest litter rates in Australia and this has been attributed to the impact of the state’s container deposit scheme.

Commercial enterprises operated by local government can add value

29. Regional subsidiaries, which are commercial enterprises owned and operated by local government, are a unique South Australian initiative where two or more local authorities set up a joint venture company to compete in the market, offering a range of waste and resource recovery services.

30. The tour visited East Waste a wholly owned subsidiary of Eastern Waste Management Authority, owned by six South Australian councils. The company provides services on a competitive basis to its six owner councils and also to client councils.

31. These visits, along with those to businesses involved in the resource recovery network, highlighted to tour members that a key part of reducing waste to landfill in Auckland will be to ensure that businesses, as well as not for profits, and residents, all have the opportunity and are motivated to engage in waste reduction initiatives.

Conclusion

32. In general, elected members gained considerable insights from the tour in regards to effective implementation of the WMMP.

33. The tour highlighted that numerous initiatives included in Auckland Council’s WMMP, such as the development of a resource recovery network and the introduction of a three bin kerbside collection, will contribute to significant diversion of waste from landfill if successfully implemented.

34. If Auckland Council maintains momentum in implementing the WMMP, it can match, or even exceed, South Australia’s achievements in regards to waste diversion and recycling.

35. Elected members also observed that local government efforts in regards to waste minimisation need to be complemented by activity at a national level. The tour highlighted the need for Auckland Council to continue its advocacy to central government on key issues such as an increase in the national levy on waste to landfill and the need to develop and implement comprehensive container deposit legislation.

36. Learnings regarding the value of engaging the commercial sector in waste reduction, suggested council should also advocate to the government to ensure that the commercial sector has the same waste minimisation obligations as local government.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

37. Local boards were not consulted on in regards to this report or tour. However, local boards receive regular updates on implementation of the WMMP through quarterly performance update reports from the Infrastructure and Environmental Services department.

38. Local boards are also regularly engaged with and involved in specific projects that form part of the implementation of the WMMP. For example, a number of local boards have funded trials or scoping studies for resource recovery facilities in their area, including Albert-Eden, Puketāpapa, Waitematā, Whau, Henderson-Massey) Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, and Papakura.

Māori impact statement

39. It is recognised that the tangata whenua world view reflects the WMMP’s emphasis on an integrated life cycle approach to the management of natural resources and the concepts of zero waste, waste recovery and waste minimisation.

40. Member Wilcox from the Independent Maori Statutory Board participated in this tour and the insights gained.

Implementation

41. There are no specific implementation issues arising from this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	South Australian resource recovery study tour summary May 2015	37

Signatories

Authors

Ian Stupple - Manager Waste Solutions

Parul Sood - Waste Planning Manager

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

06 August 2015

Community Facilities Network Plan

File No.: CP2015/12965

Purpose

1. To seek approval of the Community Facilities Network Plan and associated Action Plan, which will guide council’s investment in the provision of community facilities. The report also presents recent feedback from local boards.

Executive Summary

2. Community facilities are vital to local communities. They provide space where people connect, socialise, learn and participate in activities. This contributes to improved lifestyles and a sense of belonging, identity and pride among residents.

3. Council has a network of over 350 community facilities across the region which represents significant ratepayer investment. This requires council to take a strategic approach to how it provides community facilities in the future.

4. The Community Facilities Network Plan (the network plan) is a long-term aspirational plan to guide council’s investment in the provision of community facilities over the next 20 years. It introduces a strategic approach to the planning and provision of community facilities to keep pace with Auckland’s growing and diverse population.

5. The network plan provides direction for the development of new facilities, major upgrades of existing facilities, optimisation and potential divestment of facilities no longer meeting community needs. The goal is to deliver strategically placed and integrated community facilities for Aucklanders.

6. The scope of the network plan includes arts and culture facilities, community centres, libraries, pools and leisure centres and venues for hire (community and rural halls).

7. The strategic direction articulated in the network plan will be implemented by a comprehensive set of actions outlined in the associated action plan.

8. To focus resource in the short term (1-3 years), actions have been prioritised. Actions with funding in the first five years of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 will be progressed first, along with network priority actions in spatial priority areas and actions with opportunities for optimisation.

9. The action plan will be updated annually to reflect progress and re-evaluate priorities where necessary. Local boards will be involved in the delivery of these actions.

10. The majority of local boards, 18 out of 21, have formally resolved to support the network plan. Orakei and Hibiscus and Bays local boards did not explicitly resolve to support the network plan but noted the robust and transparent approach. Only Waiheke Local Board, resolved to reject the network plan.

ecommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve the Community Facilities Network Plan (Attachment A) and Action Plan (Attachment B), noting the action plan will be updated annually as part of ongoing implementation.

Background

11. Council has a network of over 350 community facilities which includes arts and culture facilities, community centres, libraries, pools and leisure centres and venues for hire (community and rural halls).

12. This represents a significant level of ratepayer investment. It requires council to take a strategic approach to how it provides and invests in community facilities in the future.

13. In an increasingly tight fiscal environment the need to control costs, maximise value for money and balance the demands of growth makes this even more important.

14. The Community Facilities Network Plan has been developed to provide this strategic direction. Work began on the network plan in 2013 with a comprehensive current state review. This included analysis of current provision in Auckland and provision approaches in comparative New Zealand and international cities.

15. The key milestones in the development of the network plan have been:

February 2014	Completion of current state review and research
March 2014	Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (REG/2014/37) Approval of timeframes to develop the Community Facilities Network Plan and presentation of current state and research findings
March 2014	Local board cluster workshops Presentation on current state and research findings and discussion of key issues
May 2014	Governing body workshop on the first draft network plan
June 2014	Local board briefing on the first draft network plan
August 2014	Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (REG/2014/98) Endorsed draft Community Facilities Network Plan for engagement with local boards and key stakeholders
August – Sept 2014	Workshops with local boards, advisory panels and key stakeholders on the draft network plan
October - Nov 2014	Report to all local boards seeking formal feedback on the draft network plan and providing a summary of key stakeholder feedback
December 2014	Scope of the network plan extended to include libraries Local Board briefing on libraries research
February - March 2015	Workshops with local boards on revised draft network plan including libraries
June – July 2015	Report to all local boards seeking support of the draft network plan

Comment

16. Aligned with the Auckland Plan, local board plans and relevant strategic action plans, the network plan articulates why council provides community facilities.

17. Community facilities contribute to building strong, healthy and vibrant communities. They provide space where people can connect, socialise, learn and participate in a range of social, cultural, art and recreational activities. This contributes to improved lifestyles and a sense of belonging, identity and pride among residents.

18. The development of the network plan has identified a number of challenges and opportunities for future community facility provision.

19. Challenges include:

· gaps and duplication in current provision

· fit for purpose issues with existing facilities

· demands of a growing and diversifying population

· rising cost of maintaining the network

· improving the financial sustainability in the delivery of community facilities

· security of suitable land for community facility development.

20. Opportunities include:

· greater integration in the planning and delivery of community facilities

· maximising the benefits of existing facilities

· optimisation of community facilities to support community outcomes

· partnerships in delivery of community facilities

· supporting community-led planning, design, development and governance

· utilising standardised design to minimise costs.

21. To respond to the identified challenges and opportunities, four objectives in the network plan articulate a new approach for the provision of community facilities:

· undertake integrated and coordinated planning across all types of community facilities to ensure future decisions are based on clear evidence of needs and assessment of all options

· maintain, improve and make the best use of our existing network of community facilities where these continue to meet community needs

· focus investment on developing fit for purpose, integrated and connected community facilities

· explore opportunities to leverage and support partnerships with other providers.

22. Collectively, the application of these objectives will provide a better customer experience for residents, a more sustainable and affordable network and will address growth in both greenfield and existing urban areas.

23. The provision frameworks in the network plan outline the outcomes, functions and provision approach for each type of community facility. This will guide the identification of gaps, how we respond to growth and specify the development of fit for purpose facilities.

24. The strategic direction in the network plan will be implemented by a comprehensive set of actions outlined in the associated action plan. There are four categories of actions namely: strategic improvements, projects due to be or recently completed, actions to be investigated and business improvements. These actions have been assessed against criteria in the network plan (see section 5.2) to determine network priorities.

25. Implementation of actions will include detailed investigation, involving the local board and the community. The network plan includes guidelines for the investigation process.

Local board views and implications

26. The network plan has been developed through several iterations. At each stage, local boards have provided feedback through workshops and formal reports. This feedback has helped shape the network plan.

27. Most recently, the draft network plan was reported to all local boards seeking their support. The majority of local boards, 18 out of 21, have resolved to support the network plan.

28. Two boards (Orakei and Hibiscus and Bays) did not explicitly resolve to support the network plan but noted it provides a robust approach and transparency to the council’s decision making and management of community facilities.

29. Only one local board (Waiheke) resolved to reject the network plan.

30. Many local boards also provided additional feedback on the network plan which is recorded in full in Attachment C, along with the staff response.

31. Much of this feedback can be addressed through implementation, is already covered by the network plan, or has been addressed through minor amendments. In some cases the feedback was on matters outside the scope of the plan.

32. General themes from this feedback are summarised below along with staff responses:

General themes	Staff response
Support for the transparent and strategic approach to guide council’s investment in the provision of community facilities	· Noted.
Emphasis on the need to review and update the plan and provide adequate funding for implementation of priority actions	· Action Plan will be updated annually to reflect progress and re-evaluate priorities. · Funding for implementation will be determined through long-term plan and annual plan processes.
Funding for asset maintenance and the need for equitable funding across the network	· Strategic Asset Management Plan will guide council’s approach to maintaining and operating community facilities. · Maintaining existing community facilities is a strategic objective of the network plan.
Requests to amend wording of specific sections and actions	· Minor changes to wording in the network plan and Action Plan to address feedback and improve clarity.
Amend schedule and map of facilities to reflect changes in the network and classification of facilities	· Schedule of facilities is appended to the Action Plan and will be updated as part of implementation. · New action 121 to review and update the schedule of facilities and mapping on an on-going basis.
Requests to include other actions in local boards areas relating to sport or leased facilities	· These actions/projects will be included in the Sport Facility Network Plan or addressed as part of Action 11 to investigate and plan for leased facilities.
Requests to include non-council community facilities in the schedule of facilities and map	· A list of non-council community facilities has been compiled and will updated on an on-going basis.

33. As noted, Waiheke Local Board resolved to reject the network plan as it relates to the Waiheke Local Board area. A summary of the board’s feedback, along with the staff response, is summarised below:

Waiheke LB Feedback	Staff response
Recommends the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee requests a more tailored approach for Waiheke in recognition of its remoteness and inability of residents to access off-island facilities without excessive cost and time implications	· A separate approach for each local board would undermine overall transparency and not provide a mechanism to address competing demands across multiple local boards. · The ability to determine priorities across the network is important in light of the constrained financial environment.
Network priority criteria are heavily weighted on categories such as network contribution, catchment size and demand which disadvantage Waiheke.	· Forty percent of the network priority criteria relates to importance in the local community and includes geographic isolation, level of alternative provision and local board priority (see section 5.2).
Requests the Community Facilities Network Plan has flexibility to make an exception on Waiheke to the regional aquatic facilities’ approach due to the island’s isolation.	· Action Plan includes an action for a pool in Waiheke. This is not a network priority when considered against other actions. · Officers are assisting the local board to identify alternative delivery responses, including partnership opportunities.

Māori impact statement

34. Section 2.2 of the network plan outlines how the council will implement the Māori Responsiveness Framework in relation to the planning and development of community facilities.

35. The provision of community facilities contributes to improving wellbeing among Māori communities by providing spaces to connect, socialise, learn skills and participate. Māori are users of all types of council’s community facilities. At aquatic facilities Māori make up 14% of users (compared to 9% of the population), 11% of leisure facility users and 9% of community centre users.

36. Māori are under-represented as users at arts and culture facilities compared to offer groups within the Auckland population. To address this council’s operational teams are developing programmes and activities that aim to increase use and participation by Māori.

37. The implementation of the network plan will improve provision and accessibility to community facilities across the region. This should have a positive impact on Māori, particularly in areas such as Papakura, Manurewa and Henderson–Massey where there are higher densities of Māori residents. The network plan has identified priority actions to improve provision in these areas.

38. The broader picture of community facility provision in section 1.3 recognises that marae and kohanga reo are important social infrastructure for Māori. Officers from Te Waka Angamua are scoping a project to address the future provision and development of marae facilities. Opportunities for aligned provision and/or partnerships with marae facilities will be considered in the implementation of the Community Facilities Network Plan.

Implementation

39. The Community Facilities Network Plan is aspirational and provides a road-map for council’s investment in community facilities over the next 20 years.

40. The ability and timeframe to implement the network plan and actions depends on the level of budget allocated for community facilities in long-term plan and annual plan processes.

41. The action plan includes capital funding allocated to specific community facility projects through the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP).

42. In the current tight fiscal environment council needs to focus its attention on the highest priorities. In the short-term, the actions to be progressed first are those that:

· have capital funding in the first five years of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025

· are network priority actions in spatial priority areas

· are network priority actions with opportunities for optimisation.

43. The action plan will be updated on an annual basis to reflect progress and re-evaluate priorities where necessary. The governing body and local boards will be informed about progress.

44. An implementation framework is being developed to coordinate and monitor the delivery of the network plan and associated actions across the various council departments that have responsibility for planning, developing and operating community facilities.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Community Facilities Network Plan (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Community Facilities Network Action Plan (Under Separate Cover)
c View	Local board resolutions (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

David Shamy - Principal Policy Analyst

Anita Coy-Macken - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

06 August 2015

District Licensing Committee work programme

File No.: CP2015/14662

Purpose

1. To endorse a work programme that captures the opportunities for improvement identified through the recent review of the District Licensing Committee.

Executive Summary

2. On 4 June 2015, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee considered the findings of a review of the structure of District Licensing Committee (DLC). The committee agreed to retain the current DLC structure, but reduce the number of chairs and members from October 2016.

3. The committee also resolved that a work programme be developed to capture the opportunities for operational improvement that were identified through stakeholder feedback received during the review (REG/2015/39).

4. Since June 2015, further consultation has occurred with key stakeholders on priority areas and suggested actions for improvement. Many actions are now underway and the work programme has been developed with a strong focus on continuous improvement. This report seeks the committee’s consideration and approval of the proposed work programme.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) endorse the District Licensing Committee work programme as set out in Attachment A, which responds to the opportunities for improvement that were identified through the District Licensing Committee review.

Comments

Background

5. In August 2013, the Governing Body approved a region-wide pool as the preferred structure for the District Licensing Committee (DLC), but resolved that a review of the structure (the review) would be conducted after a year of operation (GB/2013/82).

6. Staff began the review in early 2015, which involved seeking feedback from a wide range of internal and external stakeholders including local boards, applicants, objectors, reporting agencies, DLC chairs and members and staff. The findings of the review were reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (committee) on 4 June 2015.

7. During the course of the review, staff received a significant amount of feedback which was outside the scope of the review but which signalled opportunities for operational improvements. The committee resolved that a work programme be developed that captured these improvement opportunities (REG/2015/39). A proposed work programme is appended to this report as Attachment A for the committee’s consideration and approval.

Stakeholder feedback

8. The work programme responds to specific feedback received by key stakeholders during the DLC review, including:

· the need for more information and guidance about how to object, the hearings process and evidential requirements

· concerns about the formality of hearings, in particular the venues and hearings process

· the desire for more education and training of local boards, DLC chairs and members, objectors and other interested parties

· the need for greater flexibility of DLC hearings

· the need for greater consistency and more user-friendly documents and processes (internal and external)

· a strategic focus on enforcement and giving more prominence to initiatives such as the graduated response model

· a desire for better access to alcohol licensing information.

9. The specific feedback is grouped into key themes or priority areas for action within the proposed work programme to enable a targeted response. The priority areas are:

· education and information

· DLC hearings

· administration/procedures

· licensing and compliance

· legislative change

· DLC chairs and members.

10. In June and July 2015, local boards, staff and a selection of stakeholders (reporting agencies, DLC chairs and members, Health Promotion Agency) were consulted on priority areas and specific actions for the work programme. In addition, workshops were held with the Manurewa, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local boards.

11. Through the further consultation process, no amendments were sought to the priority areas, however some specific actions were requested such as quarterly information reports to local boards, the development of case studies for training purposes, making the Totara room in the Manukau Civic building more welcoming and less formal for DLC hearings and providing in-depth induction training for new elected members. These specific actions will be implemented by staff where operationally feasible.

Continuous improvement

12. There are a number of existing work streams and projects that staff have recently commenced, which already go some way towards addressing concerns raised through the review. The proposed work programme reflects those current actions and provides for further activities, reflecting the importance of continuous improvement.

13. Examples of actions that are already being undertaken include:

· a greater focus on ensuring DLC members with links to the local board area or general area (North/South/West/Central) are appointed to hearings where possible

· improved access to licensing applications, hearings agendas and decisions on the Auckland Council website

· publication of all DLC decisions through the New Zealand Legal Information Institute’s (NZLII) website, which is freely available to the public

· development of a set of guidelines for objectors and applicants, in conjunction with the Health Promotion Agency, which are due to be published

· quarterly DLC members’ forums and bi-monthly Chairs’ meetings, which focus on training and information sharing

· a more strategic focus on the enforcement of licence conditions by the inspectorate.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

14. Local boards played an important role in providing feedback on the initial DLC review and all boards were invited to provide feedback on the draft work programme.

15. A selection of local boards that had provided substantive feedback on the initial review were offered the opportunity to have workshops on the proposed work programme. Workshops were held with the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Manurewa local boards to receive feedback and discuss the draft work programme in more detail.

16. The feedback on the proposed work programme was generally positive with boards welcoming the opportunity to engage directly with DLC members through attendance at quarterly DLC Forums.

17. The proposed work programme takes into account the concerns and suggestions expressed by local boards.

Māori impact statement

18. This report proposes a work programme to achieve improvements to the functioning of DLCs. These improvements will help to improve community engagement with DLCs; support DLCs with improved administration and information provision; and increase understanding and awareness around enforcing licence conditions. Māori community members, business owners and DLC members will benefit from this work programme. Opportunities to work with local marae on the broader alcohol programme particularly in the local board areas that have shown strong interest in the work programme, will be explored.

Implementation

19. If the work programme is approved, further actions will be developed by staff according to the priority areas and implemented where operationally feasible.

20. The costs of the work programme will be met within existing operational budgets.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft District Licensing Committee work programme	4

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth McKenzie - Principal Advisor Hearings

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

06 August 2015

Auckland Council Submission on the Proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry

File No.: CP2015/14821

Purpose

1. To approve Auckland Council’s submission to the Ministry for Primary Industries on the Proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry.

Executive Summary

2. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is seeking views on the proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF). Due to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) taking on resource management and water reforms, MPI has led this work since 2013 and is leading the current consultation on the NES- PF.

3. The currently proposed NES-PF seeks to change how plantation forestry activities are managed under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). If implemented, an NES-PF would replace all existing district and regional plan rules for managing plantation forestry, which includes activity-specific rules ranging from permitted to discretionary.

4. The aim of the proposed NES-PF is to provide a nationally consistent approach that is responsive to local environments. The proposed NES-PF will lessen the standards that have been set in Auckland for the past decade. Auckland Council has produced a guideline (Technical Publication No.223), specifically for forestry occurring within the Auckland environment. This guideline was developed with forestry industry input, and this document will become redundant. Accordingly, if implemented, Auckland Council staff concerns primarily relate to:

• Erosion Susceptibility Classification

• Lack of a national guidance document to accompany the proposed NES-PF

• Consideration of localised soils in rules

• Ambiguity in the rules

• Riparian setbacks and vegetation clearance and disturbance; and

• Threatened species.

5. Should MPI dismiss concerns raised by Auckland Council (and others) and implement the NES-PF, there are limited areas where all councils can bring in rules that are more stringent. Such rules would be able to address localised environmental, social and cultural variability and also recognise in particular circumstances existing legislation, such as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS).

6. However, the ability of councils to apply greater stringency is not only tightly constrained by the NES-PF limiting these areas, but will also require a plan change process at considerable cost to council, with no added value.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve Auckland Council’s attached submission, including any amendments sought by the committee, on the proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry produced by the Ministry for Primary Industries.

b) authorise the delegation of any final changes to the submission to the Chair or other nominee of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee.

Comments

Context

7. Plantation forestry is New Zealand’s third-largest export industry, providing employment for more than 18,000 people. Within the Auckland region, there is approximately 50,000 hectares of plantation forestry, which only represents 3 percent of the national total. Forestry operators have observed that the varying policies and rules of individual councils throughout the country have led to much uncertainty and confusion. The government believes this unnecessarily costs the industry time and money.

8. In response to these concerns, MfE published a discussion document on the NES-PF in September 2010. The intent of the proposed standard at that time was to improve national consistency in local authority plan rules relating to plantation forestry and provide certainty for those involved in the management of plantation forests. As such, an NES-PF will replace the existing regional and district rules and also the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) rules, in the regulation of forestry operations.

9. The proposed NES-PF includes activity-specific rules ranging from permitted to discretionary, that cover the following forestry activities:

• afforestation

• pruning and thinning-to-waste

• earthworks

• river crossing

• forestry quarrying

• harvesting

• mechanical land preparation

• replanting.

10. Following consultation on the initial 2010 discussion document, a number of working groups were established by MfE to provide feedback and to recommend changes. A revised NES-PF was released in May 2011.

11. The 2011 submission from Auckland Council opposed the revised draft NES-PF, raising a number of concerns, including:

• perceived attempt to override or distort the potential implementation of a higher level Resource Management Act instrument (e.g. NPSFM)

• no justification as to why earthworks, quarrying and river crossings, undertaken within a forest should be managed differently to earthworks, quarrying and river crossings undertaken outside a forest

• extensive range of forestry activities (including earthworks, works in beds of rivers and quarrying) that this NES-PF can potentially be applied to

• adoption of a predominantly activity-based approach in favour of an RMA effects-based approach

• lack of recognition given to the sensitivity of any associated receiving environments

• use of data from the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (mapped at an inappropriately small scale of 1:50 000) to determine erosion susceptibility classifications

• extensive use of ambiguous, uncertain and therefore potentially unenforceable terms in many permitted activity conditions; and

• undermining good practice approaches as set out in the Auckland Council Technical Publication No.223, Forestry Operations in the Auckland Region – A Guideline for Erosion and Sediment Control, September 2007.

Changes to the NES-PF

12. Following the 2011 submission process, the proposed NES-PF has come some way closer to addressing the issues raised by Auckland Council. MPI state they have aimed to improve the practicality and effectiveness of some of the permitted activity conditions, MPI do not consider that the proposed NES-PF will change the permitted baseline^{^[10]} for similar non-forestry activities.

13. The ability provided to councils to be more stringent in some areas seeks to address conflicts with the intent of the NPSFM and NZCPS. However, MPI states:

If a council chooses to exercise greater stringency (where an NES-PF allows this to occur), it would be required to go through the plan change or preparation process set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA. This process involves community and iwi consultation and submission processes. An evaluation report also needs to be prepared, outlining why the NES-PF provisions would be insufficient to meet the requirements of the RMA and how additional stringency through plan rules would achieve this.

14. Applying greater stringency will generate a cost to council, ratepayers and the forestry sector, by having to go through the plan change process. The cost of this process is unable to be quantified at this point.

Summary of Auckland Council Feedback

15. Attachment A is the proposed Auckland Council submission using the formal template provided by MPI. Many of the questions are repetitive, however feedback has been provided where applicable to highlight council’s concerns. These concerns relate to areas where council would not be able to apply more stringent rules and identified gaps in the currently proposed NES-PF. The main feedback within the submission is summarised as follows:

Erosion Susceptibility Classification

16. The Erosion Susceptibility Classification (ESC) method has been used to classify areas of New Zealand as low, moderate, high or very high in terms of the risk of erosion. Council staff are concerned that the risk here does not take into account the effects of the erosion. Areas such as Gisborne have been identified as very high risk and this is due to the prevalence of sand and mudstone, which is easily eroded. Auckland has been largely identified as low risk, despite the high prevalence of fine particle silt and clay that dominates the region. While it may not be as easily eroded as sandstone, the adverse environmental effects of clay particles being discharged into either a freshwater stream or low energy estuarine environment, are much greater than the effects of sandstone being washed into high energy marine environments on the east coast.

17. Most commercial forests in Auckland discharge to low energy estuarine systems. Council staff are concerned that the changes to managing forestry nationally will lessen the standards that have been operating in Auckland for the past decade. The forestry industry in Auckland have been operating from the guidance of TP223 for 10 years, resulting in sediment discharges being managed to a standard that meets the ongoing expectations of improved water quality for the region.

18. The proposed NES-PF makes an assumption about erosion susceptibility under forest cover being similar to pastoral cover. This is a key concern of council staff. MPI state that the risk of erosion in a plantation forest is less than pasture, over the life cycle of a plantation forest. This seems to average out the erosion risk within a forestry block, which does not represent the environmental risk of sedimentation directly after deforestation. The massive yield of sediment generated during harvesting and post harvesting can cause acute effects (that can be sub-lethal or lethal) to the health of bottom dwelling aquatic species which can have a legacy effect. As commercial forestry tends to be established on challenging terrain and topography, i.e. Land Use Capability classes 6-7 (versus Land Use Capability classes 1-6 typically for grazing land), this seems a misguided comparison.

Lack of a National Guidance Document to Accompany the NES-PF

19. MPI states that environmental practices among commercial forest owners are generally good because of the voluntary adoption of industry environmental codes of practice. While this is true in some areas, it is certainly not the case in most (as in Auckland’s experience). Many of the compliance issues that councils face are as a result of the lack of a guidance document or technical publication for erosion and sediment controls.

20. Auckland Council staff are concerned that having designed a guideline (TP223) specifically for forestry in Auckland, with forestry industry input (and which has gained general acceptance from the Auckland based forestry industry), that this document will now effectively become redundant.

21. Auckland Council’s current rules require an ESC plan to be submitted and it is assessed for suitability against TP223. If the controls are not up to standard, the plan is deemed inappropriate and amended controls are suggested to the applicant. Auckland Council staff are concerned that without a standard, reference or any kind of minimum specification within the proposed NES-PF permitted activity criteria, landowners/foresters will be able to implement any kind of control, regardless of efficiency, suitability or performance outcomes.

Consideration of Localised Soils in Rules

22. The rules in the proposed NES-PF do not consider differences in soil types. This is especially important for Auckland, particularly north Auckland as the predominant soils in these areas are dominated by Waitemata Group sediments and mudstones, which form highly weathered and leached Ultic soils (formerly known as northern yellow-brown earths). The high clay content of the soils can cause relatively high amounts of fine sediment to be generated by surface erosion.

23. Auckland experiences high rainfall levels and is known to have more erodible lithology with its clay-rich soils than other parts of the country, all of which result in the generation of sediment loss from land to water. Sediment is arguably the most significantly adverse pollutant entering water bodies and fine sediment loss from clay-rich soils is far more detrimental as it takes longer to settle out of suspension. Fine clay particles smother feeding and spawning habitats, reduce visibility for in-stream biota, affect oxygen levels, alter temperature and can clog the gills of fish. Consequently, greater protection of areas susceptible to suspended sediment and sedimentation needs to be considered.

24. In Auckland, guidelines (such as TP223) for erosion and sediment control for forestry operations exist to suit the challenges that meet the region’s requirements to manage, amongst other things, these clay-rich soils during harvesting activity. In its current form, the proposed NES-PF will make these guidelines redundant.

Ambiguity in the Rules

25. Many questions arise when reading through the permitted activity rules and controls proposed under the NES-PF. For example, if only one road within a large area of works breaks a certain slope threshold, does the entire site then become subject to the rule? Will there be a percentage cut off (e.g. in Technical Paper No.90 - Erosion and sediment control guidelines for land disturbing activities, 10% of a site must be over a 15 degree slope before a certain rule is triggered). A further example is what this slope refers to; is it the contributing catchment? Is it the area where the physical works are to occur? Is it the slopes either side of the works?

26. There are many issues that are open to interpretation and without definition. This lack of clarity will likely lead to lengthy and unnecessary discussions between regulators and landowners/foresters.

Riparian Setbacks and Vegetation Clearance and Disturbance

27. The proposed riparian setbacks for planting are 5 metres for streams less than 3 metres wide and 10 metres for streams greater than or equal to 3 metres wide (except where a smaller setback is required to meet the conditions of a regional pest management strategy).

28. The proposed setbacks are for perennial rivers or streams only and many of the streams in the Auckland region are not only less than 3 metres wide, but are also intermittent (flowing only at certain times of the year). Research has shown that these streams have significant biodiversity value and the PAUP specifies a minimum 5 metre riparian setback for intermittent streams. It is recommended that this should be reflected in the proposed NES-PF.

29. The definition of what perennial rivers or streams means needs to be tighter, as currently it includes ‘…a series of discrete pools that provide habitats for the continuation of the aquatic ecosystem,’ but provides no indication as to the size of these pools. Further, the operation section of the earthworks permitted activity rules give some protection to ephemeral streams, which is not carried through to any of the other relevant permitted activity rule areas.

30. The general conditions for vegetation clearance and disturbance state that ‘indigenous vegetation may be damaged, destroyed or removed provided it … is incidental damage to riparian vegetation that will readily recover within five years.’ The term ‘incidental damage’ is considered ambiguous and is not defined within the proposed NES-PF. The stated period of five years will still allow for significant adverse effects to occur.

Threatened species

31. The proposed general conditions to identify and protect threatened or at risk species are considered to be insufficient. Currently, the general conditions in the proposed NES-PF require that ‘where indigenous bird species with a classification of Nationally Critical or Nationally Endangered … are known to nest…’ This not only excludes any threatened species that is not a bird that may inhabit plantation forest or rely on plantation forests for feeding/roosting/nesting (such as lizards, bats and invertebrate species), but also excludes all species that are categorised as Nationally Vulnerable. Further, it excludes all categories that come under At Risk species, which includes declining and relict populations.

32. There are plantation forests in the Auckland region where bats are known to inhabit or rely on the area for feeding (e.g. Riverhead) and there are likely to be other populations inhabiting or using plantation forest areas which are yet to be identified.

33. There are a number of lizard species which are known to inhabit plantation forests including pine forest, both in Auckland and nationally. The majority of these lizards are either Nationally Threatened, At Risk and/or regionally threatened in Auckland.

34. Numerous bird species that are either threatened or at risk both regionally and nationally will be excluded by confining the general conditions to apply to only Nationally Critical or Nationally Endangered bird species.

35. It is recommended that the general conditions should be extended to require that where a site is known to, or is likely to provide habitat (either for roosting/nesting or as a reliable feeding source) for threatened or at risk species that:

a) survey and monitoring is implemented to confirm the presence and/or abundance of a species, and identify requirements to protect the species and its habitat (where habitat protection is appropriate); and,

b) that the necessary measures are implemented to protect these sites from disturbance either by avoiding susceptible areas or by undertaking the activity outside of the nesting season.

Genetically Modified Organisms

36. The proposed NES-PF includes provisions permitting afforestation and replanting using genetically modified tree stock, where it has been approved by the Environmental Protection Authority under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.

37. These activities are currently prohibited in the PAUP. The provisions in the proposed NES-PF do not provide the power for councils to manage any potential effects of genetically modified tree stock on the environment.

38. Auckland Council’s submission (Attachment A) has not addressed this difference. The committee’s views on this matter can be reflected in the final submission as may be required.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

39. Plantation forestry are located in the Rodney, Hibiscus and Bays, Waitakere Ranges, Great Barrier, Waiheke and Franklin local board areas. Some of these local boards have identified forestry-related outcomes and initiatives in their local board plans.

40. Given the short timeframes for council to respond to the submission, local boards were invited to input and provide informal feedback on the key elements of the submission.

41. This report requests that the committee delegate any final changes to the submission to the Chair or other nominee of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee. This will provide additional time for the local boards to provide input and comment on the submission before the submission closing date of 11 August 2015.

Maori impact statement

42. MPI has sought views nationally on the proposed NES-PF, with several public meetings and hui. Iwi and hapu therefore have a direct route to contribute their concerns into the proposed NES-PF process.

43. In addition to the opportunity provided by MPI to iwi and hapu, an invite to provide input into the submission was circulated on 14 July 2015 to approximately 23 contacts for iwi/hapu within the Auckland region. Feedback on the draft submission was requested to be received by 27 July 2015.

44. Any iwi and hapu feedback received will be summarised and tabled when this report is presented to the committee on 6 August 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).

Implementation

45. MPI will analyse all submissions before preparing advice for Ministers with recommendations for the proposed subject matter of an NES-PF. MPI will also evaluate the proposal under section 32 of the RMA and this evaluation will assess the extent to which the objectives of an NES-PF are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA.

46. The Ministers are likely to receive the report on the outcome of this consultation and the section 32 evaluation by late 2015. If the decision is to proceed with an NES-PF, the regulations will be drafted and would likely be publically notified in the Gazette during the first quarter of 2016, then come into effect later that year.

47. If the NES-PF proceeds, MPI will be responsible for the implementation phase of the NES-PF at a national level. Once the implementation phase is complete, councils will be responsible for giving effect to the NES-PF and enforcing its requirements.

48. Should council wish to apply rules that are more stringent than the proposed NES-PF, as stated in point 13 above, this is likely to come at a cost to council and the ratepayer, both in terms of time and money. Forestry operators will also have to dedicate further time responding to these issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry - Template for Submitters	75

Signatories

Author

Tyler Sharratt – Specialist, Sustainable Catchments, Natural Environment Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

06 August 2015

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee Forward Work Programme

File No.: CP2015/14749

Purpose

1. To enable the committee to agree a twelve month forward work programme, to be reviewed on a six-monthly basis.

Executive Summary

2. This report recommends a twelve month forward work programme for the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (RSP). The purpose of the programme is to enable the committee to manage its workflow, deliver on its priorities and support the activity of the five RSP reporting committees. It also provides direction to the advisory work staff will need to undertake to enable the committee’s decision making and support committee oversight of key projects.

3. The work programme is part of a package of governance changes recently introduced across council committees and follows the adoption of a revised Committee Terms of Reference by the Governing Body in May 2015. The Auckland Development Committee adopted a twelve month forward work programme in June 2015, a programme for the Finance and Performance Committee is being developed.

4. A proposed programme that aligns with the RSP committee’s delegations and Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) funding is appended to this report as Attachment A.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) agree to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee 2015/16 work programme under Attachment A.

b) note that the work programme will guide the work of the committee over the next twelve months, be updated monthly and reviewed approximately every six months.

Comments

5. The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (RSP) delegations state that the committee is responsible for strategy and policy decision making associated with environmental, social, economic and cultural activities with final approval of strategies and policies not the responsibility of other committees or the Governing Body.

6. The delegations include a number of key responsibilities and powers which give effect to the above including the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, overview of strategic projects such as the Southern Initiative and the Hunua Project and the acquisition and disposal of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities.

7. The RSP Committee also has five reporting committees and is responsible for working with those committees to set and or approve their policy work programmes. The reporting committees are: Arts, Culture and Events; Parks, Recreation and Sport; Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage; Community Development and Safety; and Economic Development.

8. This report recommends a twelve month forward work programme for the RSP Committee to consider with a proposal to review this work programme on a six-monthly basis. The purpose of the programme is for the committee to ensure that it is delivering on its priorities and to manage its workflow.

9. The executive leadership team (ELT) has proposed that all committees should have agreed forward work programmes by the end of 2015. The programme for the Auckland Development Committee was approved in June 2015 and a programme for the Finance and Performance Committee is being developed.

10. This forward work programme planning is part of a package of governance changes recently introduced to improve the quality of governance and supporting advice. These changes include:

· Ensuring that the majority of reports to committees require governance decisions, rather than being for information. The RSP Committee has had an information item report section on the agenda since May 2015. Moving forward the RSP agenda will match the Auckland Development Committee with a new standard report which provides an electronic link to non-confidential memos and workshop material distributed since the previous meeting to ensure that it is on the public record.

· Increasing the chief executive’s financial delegations which will help reduce reporting to committees.

· Reducing meeting frequency for reporting meetings to provide time for a focus on strategic priorities and more opportunity for workshops. Regularly scheduled workshops will be used for a combination of briefings and to provide political guidance to the policy development process.

11. A draft work programme is attached (Attachment A). The draft programme includes an explanation of why the work is being undertaken, the committee decisions required, the fit with committee delegations and LTP implications, where appropriate.

12. New work not currently listed on the proposed programme will be generated from time to time. This work will be assessed against existing priorities and considered by the committee as needed. Staff will provide a brief justification for any work being reported that is not part of the agreed work programme.

13. The programme covers six categories of work that fit with the committee’s delegations:

Strategy and Policy Development

14. This covers the key strategies and policies currently in development as per the council Strategy and Policy work programme. The majority of the strategy and policy work programme, development and implementation (see below), falls within the scope of the RSP Committee.

15. This includes the ongoing work on council’s Local Alcohol Policy, the finalisation of the Community Facilities Network Plan, the delivery of the Regional Pest Management Plan and the environmental strategic action plan, Auckland Growing Greener.

Strategy and Policy Implementation

16. This covers the implementation of the key strategies and policies approved by the committee to date. A primary responsibility, as per the delegations, is the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Regulatory or Legislative Change

17. The purpose of this work is to deliver what is needed to support council’s regulatory functions, such as the District Licensing Committee work programme, or to respond to legislative change.

18. Council’s contribution to legislative change will vary from partner, co-designing change, through to stakeholder and or submitter. Where a submission is provided to central government in response to proposed changes, such as the current Earthquake Prone Buildings Amendment Bill or the Productivity Commissions’ investigation into social services, staff will engage with the committee, local boards, the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) and mana whenua whenever possible for their input.

19. When timeframes prohibit wider engagement, staff will work with the chair and deputy chair of RSP to ensure political oversight, with submissions then reported to RSP for retrospective approval.

Strategic Initiatives or Projects

20. Other than the Southern Initiative which is specifically mentioned within the delegations of this committee, this category also includes new initiatives or projects resulting from the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025.

21. The immediate focus for the committee is coastal erosion with a workshop scheduled in August followed by a more detailed proposal to the committee in late 2015. There is also agreed LTP work that will be delivered to the committee for consideration such as that on Greenways and the Manukau Harbour.

22. In addition, ongoing oversight of the Hunua Project, the implementation of the Empowered Communities model and the Weed Management Policy will be reported to RSP.

Operational activities including land acquisition or disposal

23. The primary rationale for this work is to manage the acquisition or disposal of land for stormwater or open space purposes. Decision making by RSP regarding open space is specifically required where the value exceeds the delegation of the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee (being $5 million) and for stormwater acquisitions under the Public Works Act.

Other

24. There may be other matters reported to the committee from time to time. These are difficult to programme as they arise out of committee resolutions or external processes. Consequently there is flexibility within the proposed RSP work programme to allow consideration of these items on a needs be basis.

25. In addition to the items on the programme, there will be workshops or briefings on relevant issues or items within the programme that need to be developed with the committee prior to final decision making. An electronic link to non-confidential presentation material will be provided in the following month’s RSP agenda within the monthly summary of information memos and briefings’ report.

26. As part of the review process, there is an opportunity for the committee to consider whether there are any gaps in draft programme, or any projects that the committee does not consider a priority. However, the proposed programme at this time mainly reflects commitments already made by the council and funded in the LTP. Any significant new work that is currently un-budgeted would require an assessment of LTP and resourcing impacts.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

27. The intention is that formally adopting committee work programmes will help to inform local board work programmes over time. The Local Board Services team are also working with local boards to develop work programmes aligned to local board plans and agreements and the annual operational work programmes agreed with council departments and CCOs.

28. In addition, as part of the commissioning work stream within the Quality Advice programme, a review of local board reporting and business meeting agendas is under way to improve the quality of reports to local boards and to reduce the scale of reporting to local boards. This compliments the work undertaken to review governing body committees and terms of reference.

Māori impact statement

29. The projects and processes being reported to this committee will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the specific work programmes are developed and reported. The adoption of a forward work programme may inform the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) work programme but no specific engagement with the board was undertaken for the purposes of writing this report.

30. Ongoing engagement and partnership with the IMSB, mana whenua and mataawaka will continue as part of the specific work required for each of the work programme activities. Current examples include mana whenua engagement and collaboration with the Hunua Project and council’s weed management work on Maunga. Specifics in regards to effective Māori communication and engagement, the contribution to Māori well-being and the development of Māori capacity within programmes will be detailed on a project by project basis.

Implementation

31. Once approved, staff will review the programme approximately every six months and report to the committee with proposed changes for their consideration.

32. All bar one of the proposed items on the work programme are funded in full or in part from within existing LTP work programmes.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Regional Strategy and Policy Committee Forward Work Programme to 2016	89

Signatories

Author	Claire Richardson – Executive Officer COO
Authoriser	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

[1] In October 2014, The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved Auckland formalising its participation and engagement in the Tripartite Economic Alliance by signing the Memorandum of Understanding (Resolution Number REG/2014/125)

[2] This included travel; transfers; accommodation; meals; insurance; incidental costs and any personal meetings/engagements (including business to business/personal gifts).

[3] The Government’s Business Growth Agenda goals are outlined: www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/business-growth-agenda

[4] Other priority sectors include transport, culture, education and research.

[5] Auckland and Guangzhou have been sister cities for 25 years (formalised in 1989). Auckland and LA have been sister cities for 43 years (formalised in 1971).

[6] The other ‘first-tier’ cities are Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen.

[7] Environmental services also include clean technologies and water/wastewater services.

[9] The Government’s Business Growth Agenda goals are outlined: www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/business-growth-agenda

[10] The “permitted baseline” is a discretionary test applied by decision makers when determining whether certain effects are relevant for a proposed activity. The test can be applied where an activity that requires resource consent under a district or regional plan is truly comparable in nature and effect to another activity that is permitted under that plan or an NES. This could mean that a decision maker, when considering a consenting decision, may disregard adverse effects of a proposed activity that are the same or similar in nature to those effects which are derived from a permitted activity under the NES.

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

Author	Barbara Watson - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer