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

· 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

· Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

1 Apologies

Apologies from Mayor LCM Brown and Deputy Mayor PA Hulse have been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 5 November 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.

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.

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

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Notices of Motion

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

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 December 2015

Coastal Management Strategy for the Auckland Region

File No.: CP2015/18426

Purpose

1. To approve a coastal management strategy for the Auckland Region, associated principles and proposed approach for developing a collaborative decision-making framework for the strategy.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland is characterised by 3,200km of coast of high environmental, social, cultural and economic value. However, the complexity of coastal processes combined with the pressures associated with coastal erosion, climate change, future growth and limited funding pose significant management challenges for Auckland Council.

3. Feedback received during the development of the Long-term Plan 2015 – 2025 asked council to consider issues relating to coastal management and coastal erosion. Specific discussions on the Orewa Beach Esplanade Enhancement Project (OBEEP) highlighted this issue as a regional priority but also drew attention to the wider coastal management issues the region faces.

4. As a result of these discussions it was resolved ‘that the Governing Body note the urgent requirement to remedy erosion problems in Orewa and address this as part of a wider erosion, sea level rise and inundation study to be brought back to council by August 2015, noting that funding for consents is available.’ (Resolution number BUD/2015/53).

5. A workshop on coastal issues was subsequently held with members of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 6 August 2015, where key principles for a coastal strategy were discussed and agreed.

6. Following consideration of these principles a strategy for the region has been developed with a series of objectives and overarching principles. The aim of the strategy is to develop a best practice, operational coastal management strategy for Auckland. Recognising the need for a consistent and coherent approach, a decision making framework for further development is also proposed; a key element within which is providing for mana whenua, cultural and community values.

7. To support the effective implementation of the strategy, it is proposed that coastal compartment management plans (CCMPs) are developed to facilitate the development of sub-regional management approaches in specific areas. Selection of these approaches will be driven by an integrated assessment of the coastal system and a 100 year timeframe (as required by the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement) to encapsulate the key principles of the strategy.

8. CCMPs will be based on a series of additional tools identified in the wider strategy. This includes but is not limited to; acquisition of comprehensive asset data, development of council operational policy, robust technical guidance and associated design standards, and continued regional research in relation to coastal hazards and climate change. The draft coastal management strategy, further detailing this approach is appended as Attachment A to this report.

9. It is also proposed that a communication plan is developed to support this strategy and raise public awareness of coastal management issues including climate change.

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve the coastal management strategy for the Auckland Region and the associated supporting principles.

b) approve the use of coastal compartment management plans (CCMPs) as the key vehicle to implement a regional strategic approach to coastal management.

c) approve the development of a communication plan to raise public awareness of coastal management issues, including climate change.

Comments

The Auckland Coast

10. Auckland has the largest population density to coastline ratio in New Zealand. It is characterised by 3,200km of dynamic coastline, 21,000km of rivers and streams and 22 coastal regional parks.

11. Over the past decade, a significant proportion of Auckland’s development and supporting infrastructure has been concentrated towards the coast; with much of the urban part of the region sited on a narrow isthmus of land between the Manukau and Waitematā Harbours. Modification and development has been undertaken in a range of coastal environments including immediately landward of eroding soft sedimentary cliffs and on lowlands behind beach systems.

Problem Definition

12. There are a number of key coastal management challenges for Auckland Council going forward: a) Auckland’s coastal hazards; b) the changing coastline; and c) Auckland Council’s coastal management roles. Each of these aspects is briefly described below and further discussed in the attached draft coastal management strategy for the Auckland Region.

Auckland’s Coastal Hazards

13. Coastal hazards for Auckland exist, in the form of coastal erosion (including coastal cliff instability), coastal inundation and tsunami. The magnitude of their impact differs considering the diverse character of Auckland’s coastal margin, the dynamic nature of driving coastal processes, the influence and level of human modification and the future impacts of climate change.

Our Changing Coast

14. A key consideration for long term coastal management is the issue of changing risk over time. This highlights the need to understand and address the impacts of climate change, human modification and future growth.

15. Predicted climate change effects include sea-level rise, increased storminess and changes in rainfall patterns and intensity. Such effects have the potential to exacerbate existing coastal hazards including increased coastal erosion and land instability, and more extensive and frequent coastal inundation.

16. The scale and extent of modification of the Auckland coast is significant and coastal structures have historically been provided for in an ad-hoc manner. The above effects of climate change will place increasing pressure on these assets resulting in increased maintenance costs, reduced performance and in some instances failure. Considering the associated economic pressures, there is a need to carefully consider the appropriate maintenance and renewal requirements of existing structures, in contrast to the provision of new structures to ensure sustainable and holistic management of our coastline.

Council’s Coastal Management Roles

17. Auckland Council’s coastal management roles can be broken down into three key components; a) regulation, b) asset management; and, c) emergency management. With respect to our regulatory role, council’s response to coastal management, hazards and climate change is governed by a hierarchy of statutory documents as summarised in Appendix B of the attachment.

18. A distinct but somewhat complementary role of council is our responsibility as an asset manager. With respect to coastal management, assets include council’s coastal defences, esplanade strips, reserves and coastal infrastructure. Management of council’s coastal assets includes consideration of a broad range of factors including the regulatory framework, community, stakeholder and mana whenua values, funding availability, legal health and safety obligations and technical considerations. Integral to these considerations is adhering to the Local Government Act (2002) and the Reserves Act (1977).

19. Finally, Auckland Council has a role under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (2002) which has the purpose to improve and promote sustainable management of hazards and to provide for responses in an emergency.

The Need for a Strategic Approach

20. The importance of effective coastal management is emphasised by Auckland’s diverse and dynamic coastline combined with the region’s exposure to a range of coastal hazards. As noted above, the potential impacts of climate change will exacerbate such hazards and place increasing risk on Auckland’s coastal population, infrastructure and other assets.

21. The technical limitations and costs associated with reactive coastal management techniques highlight the need for sustainable management of our coasts. It is therefore imperative to carefully consider the future location, design life and purpose of new assets based on an appreciation of the entire coastal system.

22. Coastal management is often a sensitive topic given the diverse and sometimes conflicting social, economic and environmental values that the coastal environment provides. Determining an appropriate management response requires interactions with a range of stakeholders. With coastal and climatic issues presenting a significant future risk and management cost to Auckland, stakeholder needs must continue to be included in the decision making process to ensure a durable solution.

23. The above challenges highlight that a sensitive balance of coastal management approaches and options are required, covering a range of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ engineering solutions combined with more adaptive approaches. However, determining the appropriate approach requires the development of a comprehensive, holistic coastal management strategy.

Coastal Management Strategy

Aims and Objectives

24. The aim of the strategy is to develop a best practice, operational coastal management strategy for Auckland. Based on the problem definition and the outcomes from the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee workshop, a series of high level objectives have been identified for the strategy:

· Provide guidance on the process required to develop a strategic approach to coastal management in the Auckland region;

· Develop a decision making process that is clear, transparent, and takes account of diverse Auckland Council drivers;

· Enable a long-term, balanced perspective of coastal management and climate change issues to facilitate an environmentally and financially sustainable approach;

· Promote a sound understanding of coastal hazards, climate change and coastal assets in Auckland and provide and plan for sound technical information to facilitate robust and defensible decisions; and

· Promote public understanding of coastal hazards and climate change.

25. Key principles to underpin this strategy - developed with input from the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee - as detailed below:

· A systems approach – the awareness that the whole system needs to be considered for a strategic outcome.

· 100 year timeframe – the use of a longer time horizon to enable sustainable, strategic decision-making

· Time or event dependent options – the acknowledgement that the future vision for the coast may not be achieved in one step, and that interim measures are acceptable

· Climate change impacts embedded into approach – to ensure sustainability and resilience

· Appropriate technical solutions – consider a range of effective solutions, and communicate why they are or are not effective

· Principles need to be developed outside specific project issues

· Adopt a consistent decision making framework

26. To achieve the overarching aim, a series of key tools are required which embody these strategic principles. In summary, the key tools are:

· Coastal Compartment Management Plans,

· Asset Management Plans,

· Council operational policy,

· Enabling sustainable growth through technical guidelines and standards, and

· Continual information and knowledge.

27. In addition to the above tools, effective, ongoing communication with the public and stakeholders is essential. To achieve this, it is recommended that the committee approve development of a communications strategy centred around increasing public awareness.

Consultation and Collaboration

28. A collaborative approach is necessary across the council family, to ensure that we are managing coastal hazards coherently and strategically. A criteria for application has subsequently been promoted which includes; 1) developing a set of strategic principles; 2) engaging more widely across the council family; 3) identifying key internal and external stakeholders for future decision making and strategy development; and, 4) developing a wider communication strategy to promote public awareness.

29. Māori values, and engaging with mana whenua, will play a key part in the implementation of the coastal strategy. To recognise and provide for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu and tāonga the strategy proposes that Auckland Council:

· Recognise and involve mana whenua in the development of decision-making and planning processes as kaitiaki;

· Provide opportunities for an increased level of meaningful engagement around management of coastal resources and landscape responses;

· Engage mātauranga Māori and the Te Aranga design principles in the research and design of management systems.

30. The current challenge facing local government across New Zealand is how to shift attitudes and behaviours around adaptive coastal management solutions such as managed realignment or retreat. Recent discussions on coastal management options in the Auckland region have highlighted a need to increase Aucklanders’ understanding of coastal hazards and climate change.

31. The fifth and final objective of the strategy is to promote public understanding of coastal hazards and climate change. To support this objective and to build a more resilient Auckland it is recommended that a communications plan is developed to raise public awareness of coastal management issues. This plan will leverage off existing council platforms, particularly the wider communication strategy to raise public awareness of climate change led by the chief sustainability office and activities such as Civil Defence.

Conclusions

32. The coastal management strategy articulates the environmental, social, cultural and economic values of the Auckland coast. Its dynamic nature combined with the complexity of coastal processes and the future uncertainties associated with climate change and future growth impacts reinforces the need to manage the coast in an appropriate and sustainable manner.

33. The key conclusions of the strategy are as follows:

· A strategic approach to coastal management for Auckland Council is required when considering our key roles and responsibilities as asset owners, regulators and emergency management coordinators.

· Appropriate aims and objectives have been proposed and a series of tools to deliver them identified.

· Overarching principles to be embodied in all works associated with the coastal strategy have been developed and are clearly defined.

· The development of a decision-making framework and supporting technical guidance (including operational policy and design standards) to support option development and delivery is essential and needs to be further progressed in a collaborative and consultative way.

· Coastal compartment management plans are a key tool for implementing high-level strategic approaches (i.e. do nothing, protect, managed realignment and adapt) to managing our coastline. They offer flexibility in managing our variable coastline and identifying suitable approaches for current and future intervention decision-making.

· There is a need to invest in our continual understanding of coastal hazards and climate change to build on our current foundation to inform future decision making.

· A communications strategy is needed to raise public awareness of coastal management issues.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

34. Local boards have not yet been formally consulted in respect of developing this coastal strategy.

35. A number of local board plans (Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Rodney, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Waiheke) directly reference coastal issues, including erosion and the need to better manage coastal assets. Two local boards specifically state that they would like to see a regional approach taken to coastal erosion – Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Howick.

36. Discussions to date with local boards in regards to regionally significant projects, including Orewa Beach Esplanade Enhancement Project, Huia Domain and Karaka Harbourside seawall installation, have also confirmed strong support for the development of a region wide approach to prioritised coastal management. In addition, coastal erosion and coastal management were key advocacy points for some local boards during the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, leading to the resolution detailed above.

37. A series of workshops (and or forums) on specific coastal management issues have been held with some local boards. Further discussion on this strategy and coastal management will occur after adoption of this strategy. Consultation with local boards is intended to assist with determining local priorities and areas of high risk, as well as respective roles and responsibilities. In addition, discussions with local boards will enable confirmation of their levels of input to the wider strategy and coastal compartment management plans; including potential budgetary considerations.

Māori impact statement

38. The implementation of this region wide strategy will be of significant interest to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of Auckland’s natural environment. The relationship between natural resource management and cultural wellbeing, giving effect to kaitiakitanga and the integration of mātauranga Māori are central to this interest.

39. Māori values, and engaging with mana whenua, will play a key part in the implementation of the strategy, with important consideration given to mātauranga Maori, as well as the concepts of mauri and wai.

40. The strategy outlines a commitment to recognising and providing for the relationship of Māori culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu and tāonga. To ensure this is, it is proposed that council:

· Recognises and involves mana whenua in coastal management decision-making and planning processes as kaitiaki;

· Provide opportunities for an increased level of meaningful engagement around management of our coastal resources and landscape responses;

· Engage mātauranga Maori and Te Aranga design principles in research and design of coastal management systems.

Implementation

41. At this time, the actions identified within this report can be delivered through existing council resources and budgets.

42. However, there is potential for more investment to be required for specific projects and related management responses, depending on the results of the investigations, reviews and prioritisation exercises described in the strategy.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Auckland Coastal Management Strategy (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Sarah Sinclair – Chief Engineer

Paul Klinac – Team Manager Coastal Management Services

Natasha Carpenter – Senior Coastal Engineer

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 December 2015

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management - update to Auckland Council's Progressive Implementation Plan

File No.: CP2015/25147

Purpose

1. To adopt and publicly notify a revised “programme of time-limited stages” for implementing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM).

Executive Summary

2. The NPSFM requires Auckland Council to review and, if necessary, revise, adopt and publicly notify changes to its programme for progressively implementing the NPSFM by 31 December 2015.

3. Since Auckland Council adopted its current Progressive Implementation Programme (PIP) in 2012, the NPSFM has been amended to introduce national bottom lines for freshwater quality. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan has also introduced significant changes to Auckland’s freshwater management framework, new guidance has been issued on ‘water sensitive’ design, and staff have continued to learn from the approaches of other councils around the country.

4. Given the changes to the operating context since 2012, we recommend Auckland Council’s current PIP should be revised to:

a. Align objective and limit-setting processes with the planned (iterative) updating of the Auckland Unitary Plan and delivery timeframes for major projects, to avoid duplicated planning effort and community engagement.

b. Take a “mountains to the sea” approach and emphasise the connection between land-use, freshwater and coastal management programmes.

c. Introduce freshwater objectives and limits around the region via a series of changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan starting in approximately 2017 (providing for lead-in time to work with local boards, communities, mana whenua and other stakeholders). Under this programme the NPSFM will be fully implemented in Auckland by 2025. “Fully implemented” means objectives and limits for Auckland’s freshwater are in place and operative, and a catchment accounting, monitoring and reporting programme is in place – the task of achieving these limits and objectives is a longer, progressive task.^{^[1]}

d. Continue our engagement with mana whenua to determine how the framework proposed by Landcare Research Ltd ensures them an effective voice as Auckland‘s freshwater management programme develops.

e. Increase the focus on front-end engagement with local boards and communities, mana whenua and stakeholders through an initial process of “accounting for freshwater takes and contaminants”^{^[2]} before councillors make decisions on processes for setting objectives and limits, and introducing them into the Auckland Unitary Plan.

f. Prioritise management effort in sensitive areas, areas under immediate pressure or areas that have the potential to generate lessons that can be scaled-up and transferred across the region. Progressively cover the entire region through a series of stages – concentrating effort in two to four project areas at a time and using lessons from those areas to accelerate improvement in operational practices and Auckland’s planning and regulatory framework.

5. The overriding objective is to work towards freshwater outcomes within the context of the Auckland Plan. This paper however, is focused on the PIP statutory requirements and the process of setting objectives and limits in the Auckland Unitary Plan. The objectives and limits are a tool and part of the process towards getting outcomes; the programme is ultimately broader in scope.

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) adopt the updated Progressive Implementation Programme for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

b) approve public notification of the updated Progressive Implementation Programme before 31 December 2015.

Comments

6. Policy E1(f) of the NPSFM requires Auckland Council to review and, if necessary, revise, adopt and publicly notify changes to its programme for progressively implementing the NPSFM by 31 December 2015.

7. Auckland Council’s current Progressive Implementation Programme (PIP) was adopted in 2012 [CPO 2012/12964 Refers]. Several important changes to the operating context have occurred since 2012:

a. The NPSFM was amended in 2014 to include the National Objectives Framework. This installed a series of ‘national bottom lines’^{^[3]} for freshwater quality and introduced a series of additional steps to the process for setting freshwater objectives and limits.

b. Reforms to the Resource Management Act that were expected to provide a framework for undertaking collaborative objective- and limit-setting processes have stalled and guidance anticipated on these processes has yet to materialise.

c. A number of regions around New Zealand have advanced their PIPs (including, for example, Canterbury, Wellington and Waikato). The efforts of these councils have identified some challenges and highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to implementing the NPSFM – specifically ensuring collaborative processes have broad buy-in, and translating objectives and limits set through collaborative processes into regulatory plans.

d. Case law has begun to emerge that clarifies the interpretation of key aspects of the NPSFM (for instance, the requirement to “maintain or improve the overall quality^{^[4]} of freshwater with a region”), which has a bearing on operational decision-making.

e. Freshwater and land-use management practices have continued to evolve in response to a period of intense demand for residential properties in Auckland and against a backdrop of central government legislative reform – the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan has sought to integrate “water sensitive” principles and practices into operational and planning frameworks, and the Council has progressed a range of education, community engagement and environmental behaviour-change programmes.

f. Auckland Council environmental monitoring programmes have shown that:

i. Demand for freshwater continues to grow and freshwater quality continues to decline, even in some areas that have been the subject of intense and ongoing management programmes – suggesting the design and focus of some historical projects will need to change to meet the requirements of the NPSFM.

ii. Where effectively implemented, new approaches to freshwater management have had a positive impact on freshwater quality (e.g. in some parts of the Long Bay and Flat Bush catchments).

g. Planning practice in Auckland has continued to move towards greater ‘front-end’ engagement prior to formal processes, including through the use of collaborative processes (e.g. the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the SeaChange programme), governance amalgamation has enabled the development of a significantly more integrated planning framework, and the council’s understanding of what works for Auckland communities has grown with experience.

h. Mana whenua have begun to express their aspirations regarding freshwater outcomes and the nature of their involvement in plan- and decision-making processes – a picture of Auckland post-Treaty settlement has begun to come into focus.

i. Auckland’s communities have continued to emphasise the importance they place on clean, healthy coastal and marine environments.

8. Auckland Council’s current PIP targets full implementation of the NPSFM by 2019. Given the current status of the Auckland regulatory planning framework^{^[5]} and in light of the contextual changes referred to in paragraph 6 above, this is no longer achievable and staff recommend Auckland Council’s current PIP should be amended to:

a. Align objective- and limit-setting processes with the planned iterative updating of the Auckland Unitary Plan and delivery timeframes for major projects (e.g. scheduled asset renewal or development programmes and residential development or land release schedules) to avoid duplicated planning effort and community engagement.

b. Take a “mountains to the sea” approach and emphasise the connection between land-use, freshwater and coastal management programmes.

c. Introduce freshwater objectives and limits via a series of staged changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan starting in approximately 2017 and running to 2025 – noting that achievement of these objectives and limits will in many instances take longer.

d. Increase the focus on front-end engagement with Local Boards and communities, mana whenua and stakeholders through an initial process of “accounting for freshwater takes and contaminants”^{^[6]} before councillors make decisions on processes for setting objectives and limits and introducing them into the Auckland Unitary Plan.”

e. Prioritise management effort in sensitive areas, areas under immediate pressure or areas that have the potential to generate lessons that can be scaled-up and transferred across the region.

9. Revising management approaches and planning frameworks to be consistent with the NPSFM will be complex, resource intensive and time consuming. The government was aware of this when it adopted the NPSFM and allowed councils a reasonable timeframe to make the necessary changes – freshwater objectives and limits are to be in place and the management framework required by the NPSFM is to be fully implemented by 2025. Councils are able to extend this deadline to 2030 if they feel more time is needed to deliver a robust management framework.

10. The Council’s Wai Ora Wai Māori Freshwater Management programme has established a cross-council programme structure for implementing the NPSFM (see Figure 1). This structure has two key ‘limbs’:

a. Continual practice improvement – advancing water sensitive practice and integrating environmental stewardship and kaitiakitanga into actions to promote the direction set by the Auckland Plan.

b. Continually refining Auckland’s planning and regulatory framework – to provide clear performance criteria and introduce freshwater objectives and limits quantity over the next ten-year Unitary Plan cycle.

11. These two limbs are supported by an ‘acceleration programme’ that will coordinate and integrate council planning and operational actions in targeted areas around the region. This programme will run through a series of stages – concentrating effort in two to four project areas at a time and progressively covering the entire region.

Figure 1: Representation of the Wai Ora Wai Maori Programme

12. Each project within the acceleration programme will work through a series of key phases, (see Figure 2) wherever possible drawing on existing work and using existing networks, communication channels and operational procedures:

a. Work collaboratively with mana whenua, the community, and local stakeholders to develop a catchment accounting framework. This process will identify the current state of a freshwater body in terms of quality and level of extraction, the pressures on that freshwater body, existing management actions and their effectiveness, trends, future demands and emerging issues.

b. Provide advice to the governing body on the nature of engagement process that should be used to develop catchment objectives and limits. In some instances collaborative planning processes will be desirable, in others more conventional consultation processes may be more suitable.

c. Develop ‘outcome’ scenarios based on the values identified in the particular catchment and test the implications of these scenarios using the engagement approach directed by the governing body.

d. Confirm the desired objective for the catchment and translate this into limits and plan provisions for introduction to the Auckland Unitary Plan via a plan change.

Figure 2: Key phases of projects in the acceleration programme

13. Areas targeted by the acceleration programme will be distributed to ensure that work is progressing around the region. There will, however, be an initial emphasis on Auckland’s south (starting in Papakura and Pukekohe). This emphasis will move north to the catchments draining to the Manukau Harbour, then into the central isthmus and catchments that drain into the Hauraki Gulf and mouth of the Waitematā. The emphasis will then shift to the west (starting in Henderson and the Whau) and catchments that drain into the upper Waitematā, then to the north and catchments that drain to the Kaipara and Hauraki Gulf (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Initial areas of focus in the acceleration programme

14. Attachment A contains the proposed Progressive Implementation Programme, which, if adopted, is to be notified before 31 December 2015.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

15. Local boards have not been consulted directly on the proposed revision of the PIP. Staff have, however, engaged with local boards in the process of developing the implementation approach that underpins the revised PIP. Staff have worked with local board advisers to review local board plans and to ensure the interests of local boards were taken into account when developing this proposal.

16. Staff from Local Board Services participate actively in the Wai Ora Wai Māori programme’s cross-council managerial steering group, and programme teams will engage directly with local boards from the beginning of each targeted area project – using local board plans as a guiding framework.

17. Once the PIP has been approved and adopted, the Wai Ora Wai Māori Programme manager will draft a memo to local boards advising them of the approach. This will be followed up with a briefing to the Local Board Chairs Forum in February 2016, to provide an overview of the process and briefing on progress.

18. Various units across the council family undertake work that has a bearing on freshwater outcomes and the council’s progress in implementing the NPSFM, and these units regularly brief local boards. Staff will work to ensure these briefings are coordinated and integrated to avoid duplication of effort and communication.

Māori impact statement

19. Mana whenua have an ancestral relationship with freshwater and consider the mana and health of freshwater to be both a primary responsibility and key priority for the Council. The Wai Ora Wai Maori programme is committed to ensuring that mana whenua have an effective voice across the various tiers of the programme:

a) Mana whenua are represented in the programme’s Executive Steering Group via the participation of a member of the Kaitiaki Manager’s Forum, and play an active role in strategic direction-setting and decision-making. The implementation approach that underpins the revised PIP has been discussed with the Kaitiaki Manager’s Forum.

b) The interests of mana whenua are represented in the programme’s cross-council managerial steering group via Te Waka Angamua and through the input of specialist expertise under the Pukenga model.

c) Mana whenua will have the opportunity to actively participate in targeted area project teams and contribute to advice to the governing body on the design of engagement processes for setting objectives and limits in catchments around the region.

20. A core feature of the Wai Ora Wai Māori programme is that project teams will engage directly with mana whenua at the Hapū level and on the marae from the beginning of each targeted area project. This engagement will be guided by framework proposed by Landcare Research Ltd (Shaun Awatere, Mahuru Robb and Garth Harmsworth) for Auckland ‘s freshwater management programme.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Proposed NPSFM Progressive Implementation Programme for public notification	27

Signatories

Authors

Greg Holland, 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

03 December 2015

Draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) - approval to consult

File No.: CP2015/24847

Purpose

1. To seek approval to consult on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016).

Executive Summary

2. BID programmes are established to develop local business prosperity and local economic development. They are defined by a partnership agreement between individual business associations and Auckland Council, in which both parties agree to operate within the BID Policy. BID programmes are funded by Auckland Council collecting a targeted rate for core funding.

3. On 7 May 2015 the Budget Committee approved a review of the BID policy to be undertaken in collaboration with business improvement districts and local boards. The committee also approved a new service delivery model for Auckland Council BID Programme Team. Both need to be operational by 1 July 2016, as per resolution number BUD/2015/62.

4. The draft BID Policy (2016) includes two separate but linked parts:

· Part 1 – Policy – sets the rules “the what to do”

· Part 2 - Policy Operating Standards – “the how to do”

5. There are number of key differences between the 2011 and 2016 versions of the BID policy, including reviewing accountability; changes reflecting the new service delivery model and a clarification on roles and responsibilities of the Auckland BID Programme partners.

6. Business associations operating existing BID programmes, local boards and the governing body have had an initial opportunity to input into the development of V1.0 of the draft BID Policy (2016).

7. Staff are working to ensure that the policy aligns with Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework and have engaged with the Independent Māori Statutory Board Secretariat to discuss relevant opportunities to leverage the Auckland BID Programme.

8. Subject to the committee’s approval, consultation will occur with a range of internal and external stakeholders on V1.0 of the draft policy. This includes key sector and industry groups that are represented in BID programme areas.

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve the draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) V1.0 for consultation with existing Business Improvement District programmes and other stakeholders.

Comments

BID programmes

9. BID programmes are established to develop local business prosperity and local economic development. They are defined by a partnership agreement between individual business associations and Auckland Council, in which both parties agree to operate within the BID Policy. BID programmes are funded by Auckland Council collecting a targeted rate for core funding.

Draft BID Policy (2016)

10. On 7 May 2015 the Budget Committee approved a review of the BID policy to be undertaken in collaboration with business improvement districts and local boards. The committee also approved a new service delivery model for Auckland Council’s BID Programme Team. Both need to be operational by 1 July 2016, as per the Budget Committee resolution below:

Resolution number BUD/2015/62

MOVED by Chairperson LCM Brown, seconded by Cr AJ Anae:

That the Budget Committee:

a) approve Option 3, Differential Services, Needs Based Model, as the service delivery model for the Business Improvement District (BID) Partnership Programme from 1 July 2016.

b) approve the review of the BID Policy by 1 July 2016 to be undertaken in collaboration with Business Improvement Districts and local boards.

11. The BID Policy (2016) establishes the rules and responsibilities of the Auckland BID Programme and will replace the Auckland Region Business Improvement District Policy (2011), from the date of adoption by Auckland Council.

12. The BID Policy (2016) includes two separate but linked parts:

· Part 1 – Policy – sets the rules “the what to do”

· Part 2 - Policy Operating Standards – “the how to do”.

Consultation to date

13. The policy review process has included consultation with Auckland BID Programme partners and has comprised:

· Governing body:

o A memo was sent to councillors (and local board members) on 16 September 2015 outlining the purpose and proposed process for developing the policy

o An earlier draft of the BID Policy (2016) was work-shopped with members of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, local board chairs and local board economic development portfolio holders on 5 November 2015. This workshop provided a progress update and outlined the feedback received from both BID programmes and local boards to date.

· Local Boards:

o Following the memo to all local board members and councillors, staff provided a briefing to the Local Board Chair’s Forum on 28 September 2015

o During September and October 2015, staff attended 19 local board workshops to seek feedback on the proposed key themes for policy change. Waiheke and Great Barrier local boards did not require workshops but were sent workshop material for information

o Local board members have been sent a copy of the policy V1.0.

· Business associations (operating BID programmes):

o Two workshops were held in September 2015 (covering north/west and south/central respectively) to discuss key themes for policy change

o Draft policy V1.0 was sent to BID programmes on the 13 November 2015 for consultation until 18 December 2015. They will be informed of any changes to V1.0 made at this committee meeting

o Two meetings were held in November 2015, to run through the key aspects of the BID Policy (2016).

Next steps

14. External stakeholders will be sent V1.0 of the policy, (subject to approval for consultation). This includes key sector and industry groups that are represented in BID programme areas, including Property Council of New Zealand, NZ Council of Shopping Centre, Retail NZ, Auckland Chamber of Commerce, EMA and Hospitality New Zealand.

15. Feedback from external stakeholders and BID programmes will be reviewed by staff and this will help inform the development of the policy V2.0 during January 2016. Local boards will be offered the opportunity to provide formal feedback at their business meetings in February and March 2016. Staff will then hold a second workshop with Regional Strategy and Policy Committee members before seeking approval of the final proposed version of the policy at the 5 May 2016 committee meeting.

BID Policy (2016) - key differences from BID Policy (2011)

16. There are a number of key differences between the 2011 and 2016 version of the BID policy and they include:

a) Reviewing accountability – reflecting the need to address real issues that have arisen with BID programmes since the 2011 policy was adopted and to ensure that accountability measures remain effective in the new service delivery model

b) Changes reflecting the new service delivery model - more “automated” procedures – e.g. specific annual and monthly/bi-monthly reporting by BID programmes to Auckland Council

c) Clarification on roles and responsibilities - including:

· Governance (BID board) and management of BIDs (manager or contractor)

· Role of local boards and local board representatives on the BID board

· BID Programme Team – under the new model.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. Paragraph 13 outlines engagement with local boards on the draft BID policy to date. Local boards will be offered the opportunity to provide formal feedback on V2.0 of the policy at local board business meetings in February and March 2016.

Māori impact statement

18. Staff are working with Auckland Council’s Te Waka Angamua Department to ensure that the BID Policy (2016) aligns with the Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework. Feedback from this process will be incorporated into V2.0 of the policy.

19. Staff have engaged with the Independent Māori Statutory Board Secretariat to discuss the policy and opportunities to leverage the Auckland BID Programme.

20. Business associations, who operate BID programmes, are independent incorporated societies sitting outside Auckland Council. The BID Policy (2016) cannot impose any mandatory requirements for business associations to consider Māori impact as part of BID programme activities, although it encourages alignment between Auckland Council plans and policies (regional and local) and BID programmes. This includes Auckland Council’s responsibilities to Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi.

21. Paragraph 1.5 of the BID Policy 2016 (part 1) outlines the potential to leverage the Auckland BID Programme under the new operational model, working initially within Auckland Council to identify potential opportunities. For example, this could include working closely with key stakeholders and business associations to investigate and pilot opportunities to provide assistance to Māori businesses or facilitate Māori economic development.

Implementation

22. The BID Policy (2016) and the new BID Programme Team service delivery model will become operational on 1 July 2016.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	BID Policy (2016) - part 1 - Policy (Under Separate Cover)
b View	BID Policy (2016) - part 2 - Policy Operating Standards (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Stephen Cavanagh - BID Partnership Advisor

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 December 2015

Reserve revocation and disposal recommendation report - 24R Linwood Avenue, Forrest Hill

File No.: CP2015/22275

Purpose

1. This report seeks approval to revoke the reserve status of 24R Linwood Avenue, Forrest Hill and dispose of the property to a neighbouring land owner.

Executive Summary

2. The subject site is a non-utilised access way that leads to a larger recreation reserve known as Linwood Reserve. It was vested as a recreation reserve in 2006. The subject property has a desktop valuation of $10,000. A neighbouring property owner contacted council expressing an interest in purchasing the subject portion of the site.

3. The Parks Sport and Recreation department reviewed this site following the purchaser enquiry, against its Parks policy. It was found that the subject site does not provide any formed linkages to the Linwood Reserve and serves no useful public purpose for access or open space. It was confirmed that the Parks Sports and Recreation department does not require this strip of land to be retained.

4. The subject property has now has been through the agreed consultative process including organisation wide internal officer consultation, local board and iwi engagement. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board has opposed the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of this site. The other feedback received has largely been supportive of the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of this site.

5. Given this site is not required for current or future requirements, disposal to the adjoining landowner of this site appears to be the most appropriate way to deal with this site.

6. As this site is a reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977, the reserve status of the land would have to be revoked prior to any proposed disposal occurring. Final revocation of the reserve status would be subject to completing the statutory requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 and Local Government Act 2002, including public advertising.

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the revocation of the reserve status and disposal of the portion of Linwood Reserve located between 13 and 15 Woodstock Road, Forrest Hill described as part of Lot 251, Deposited Plan 53183 comprising approximately 130m² (subject to survey);

b) approve that the final terms and conditions be approved under the appropriate delegations.

Comments

7. Panuku and the Auckland Council Property department work jointly on a comprehensive review of council’s property portfolio. One of the outcomes of the review process is to identify properties in the council portfolio that are potentially surplus to requirements and that may be suitable to sell.

8. Once a property has been identified as potentially surplus, Panuku engages with council and its CCOs through an expression of interest process, to establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is required for a future funded project. Once a property has been internally cleared of any service requirements, Panuku consults with local boards, mana whenua, ward councillors and the Independent Māori Statutory Board. All sale recommendations must be approved by the Panuku Board before it makes a final recommendation to the governing body.

Property information

9. The subject site is a vacant strip of land of approximately 130m². The site sits between two residential properties at 13 and 15 Woodstock Road, Forrest Hill and is a non-utilised access way to Linwood Reserve. A neighbouring property owner has enquired with council about purchasing this site.

10. The subject site was previously owned, as part of a larger block of over 15 hectares, by Olympic Investments Limited. The larger block of land was subdivided and the property now known as Linwood Reserve was classified as a recreation reserve in 2006 by a resolution of the North Shore City Council. As a recreation reserve, the property is subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

11. The subject site is currently managed as an asset of the Parks Sport and Recreation department. Following an enquiry from a neighbouring property owner, it was reviewed in accordance with the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy by the Parks Sports and Recreation department. It was found that the subject site is not identifiable from the street as a separate parcel of land, serves no public purpose and is not regarded as an open space asset of council. Due to this, the Parks Sports and Recreation department confirmed that the subject strip of land may be released for disposal.

12. The rationalisation process for this property commenced in May 2014. Expressions of interest were sought from council and its CCOs in respect of this site. No alternative uses for this this portion of the site were identified during this process. The Heritage Unit was invited prior to the internal consultation process to raise any particular archaeological issues. The Closed Landfills and Contaminated Land Response team were also asked to assess this site prior to the internal consultation commencing to ensure any possible contamination issues were identified. Neither party has flagged any relevant issues. The internal consultation process also provided the Māori Strategy and Relations team the opportunity to flag any issue that is of particular relevance to Māori. No issues were raised.

13. The results of the rationalisation process to date indicate that this property is not required for current or future service requirements. Therefore, Panuku recommends the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of the subject site to the adjoining landowner.

14. As the subject site is a reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977, should the land be sold the reserve status would have to be revoked. It is a Department of Conservation requirement (in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977) that the sale proceeds from reserves are placed in reserve accounts so that funds can be used to acquire other land for reserve purposes or for maintenance of existing reserves.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

15. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board considered this item at its 20 October 2015 business meeting. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board resolved its opposition to the revocation of the reserve status and disposal of the subject site. The board also resolved:

· its’ view that reserves should be excluded from the Auckland Council Long Term Plan policy to obtain revenue from the sale of council property, except in situations where a compelling case has been made;

· that the Sunnynook/Forrest Hill area has had and continues to experience significant population growth, making it critical that all reserve land in that area is retained to assist in providing sufficient public open space for the anticipated growth;

· a recommendation to the governing body that, in future before internal evaluation is undertaken on disposal of reserves, that the local board is notified and initial input sought.

Māori impact statement

16. 10 iwi authorities were contacted regarding the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of 24R Linwood Avenue, Forrest Hill. The following feedback was received.

i. Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki Tribal Trust

Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki advised they have no further interest in this application and the proposal.

ii. Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority

Te Kawerau questioned the rationale of ‘giving’ away portions of reserve 50 years later and sought confirmation that the adjoining owner is to recompense council for the transfer of this land. Te Kawerau also have an issue insofar as council is willing to revoke reserve status on this land and transfer to fee simple private ownership, yet council will not do the same (despite having prior agreed to) for Te Kawerau a Maki marae land at Te Henga, which they say appears on the surface like a double standard.

In respect of the above, Panuku advised that when it receives an enquiry from a member of the public relating to the possible acquisition of council owned land, the query is referred to the relevant service department (in this case the Parks Sports and Recreation department) for review. Requests to acquire council land are assessed on a case by case basis, using the criteria set out in council’s Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy. Panuku Development Auckland is required through its statement of intent with the council to sell any surplus land at current market value. Should the subject site be approval for disposal, Panuku will not be gifting the land to the adjoining landowner.

iii. Ngati Whatua Orakei Trust