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, Cr MP Webster and Cr SL Stewart 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, 3 March 2016, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

4.1 Fluoride Free NZ petition

Purpose

1. Kane Titchener will be in attendance to present the petition by Fluoride Free NZ.

Prayer of the Petition

2. We the undersigned require the Council to, in relation to those residents in the Franklin Ward townships of Buckland, Patumahoe, Clarks Beach, Waiau Beach and Glenbrook Beach who receive reticulated water:

1. consult with those residents in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner regarding the addition of fluorides to their water supply, as required under section 14 and Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

2. immediately cease adding fluorides to their water supply (this constituting medicating these residents without their consent) until such consultation has taken place.

We reject the illegal medication of these residents by a private water company, accepted by the Auckland Council on 3 March 2016, in breach of the consultation requirements of the Local Government Act.

Signed by Fluoride Free NZ

3. As of Wednesday, 30 March 2016 no signatures accompany the petition.

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) receive the petition from Fluoride Free NZ and thank Kane Titchener for his attendance.

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.

5.1 Robin Houlker - potential reserve revocation, 49 Nihill Crescent

Purpose

1. Robin Houlker wishes to address the committee on the potential reserve revocation at 49 Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay.

Executive Summary

2. Robin Houlker will present on the potential revocation of reserve status of a council owned property at 49 Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay. Ms Houlker is concerned about the development occurring on Codrington Crescent and the relationship to the Nihill reserve.

3. 49 Nihill Crescent is one of the subject properties to be discussed at Item 9, Reserve revocation and disposal recommendation report.

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) thank Robin Houlker for her presentation.

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

07 April 2016

Reserve revocation and disposal recommendation report

File No.: CP2016/04952

Purpose

1. To seek approval to revoke the reserve status and dispose of two non-service council owned properties that Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) considers suitable for sale.

Executive Summary

2. Panuku is required to identify properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale to a combined value of $40 million by 30 June 2016. Panuku and the Council Corporate Finance and Property team work collaboratively on a comprehensive review process to identify such properties. Capital receipts from the sale of surplus properties contribute to Auckland Plan outcomes by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

3. The first site presented in this report, 49 Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay is a long, narrow strip of land contiguous to several residential properties. The site was vested as reserve on subdivision in the 1920s. Half of the site remains a plantation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977. 49 Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay has now been through the agreed consultative process including organisation wide internal officer consultation, local board and iwi engagement. No alternative service uses were identified during the consultation process and the feedback received was supportive of the proposed divestment of this site. Site specific detail, including information and feedback gathered through the rationalisation process is contained in Attachment A of this report.

4. The second site presented in this report, 12R Birdwood Avenue, Papatoetoe is a landlocked strip of road reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977. An adjoining landowner is encroaching on the site. 12R Birdwood Avenue, Papatoetoe has now been through the agreed consultative process including organisation wide internal officer consultation, local board and iwi engagement. No alternative service uses were identified during the consultation process and the feedback received was supportive of the proposed divestment of this site. Site specific detail, including information and feedback gathered through the rationalisation process is contained in Attachment B of this report.

5. As half of 49 Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay and 12R Birdwood Avenue, Papatoetoe are reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977, the reserve status of the land would need 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.

Recommendation/s

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 49 Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay described as Lot 2 Deposited Plan 21200 comprising approximately 875m² contained in certificate of title NA30A/1311, as it is surplus to council requirements.

b) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the disposal of the portion of 49 Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay described as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 20245 comprising approximately 809m² contained in certificate of title NA30A/1310, as it is surplus to council requirements.

c) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the revocation of the reserve status and disposal of 12R Birdwood Avenue, Papatoetoe described as Lot 4 DP 47128 comprising approximately 374m², as it is surplus to council requirements.

d) agree that the final terms and conditions be approved under the appropriate delegations.

Comments

6. Panuku and the Corporate Finance and Property team work collaboratively on a comprehensive review process to identify properties in the council portfolio that may be suitable to sell. Once identified as a potential sale candidate Panuku takes each property through a multi-stage engagement process.

7. The first phase of the process involves engagement with all council departments and relevant Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs). This consultation establishes whether a property is needed for a future funded project or whether it must be retained for a clear strategic purpose. This is determined by an Expression of Interest (EOI) process whereby council and CCO staff can request that all or part of a property is retained. Alternatively, there may be a request that the property be encumbered or covenanted as part of the disposal process. If the EOI sets out a robust financial analysis and evidence based rationale to retain a property, then the EOI is endorsed.

8. If the reasoning is more subjective a thorough business case is required. An inter-disciplinary steering group comprised of senior managers meets to assess business cases. This provides an opportunity for properties to be considered in a cohesive and integrated manner by relevant council departments and CCOs.

9. The Heritage Unit is invited prior to the EOI process to flag any sites of particular archaeological merit that need to be assessed further. Panuku also engages with the Closed Landfills and Contaminated Land Response team prior to the EOI process commencing to ensure any possible contamination issues that may be associated with a property are identified. The EOI process also provides the Māori and Strategy Relations team the opportunity to flag any issue that is of particular relevance to Māori in connection with the potential disposal of a site.

10. Once a property has been internally cleared of any service requirements, Panuku then consults with local boards, ward councillors, mana whenua and the Independent Maori Statutory Board.

11. All disposal recommendations must be approved by the Panuku Board before a final recommendation is made to the governing body.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

12. Local boards are informed of the commencement of the rationalisation process for specific properties. Following the close of the EOI period, relevant local boards are engaged with. Panuku attend workshops with the relevant local board and provide information about properties being rationalised in its local board area. A report is subsequently prepared for the local board business meeting so that its views can be formalised.

13. If a local board wishes to retain a site, its views are considered by Panuku and if necessary referred to relevant council departments for consideration. The local board may be asked to prepare a business case which sets out the service need that will be met by retaining the site, along with how the service use will be funded. Panuku and relevant council departments or CCOs work with local boards in preparing the business case. The business case is then considered by the cross council steering group. If the business case is accepted and funding is identified, the property is transferred back to the service portfolio. If the business case is not accepted, the business case is included in the report to the governing body for a political decision.

14. The views of the relevant local boards about the subject sites are contained in Attachments A and B of this report.

Māori impact statement

15. The importance of effective communication and engagement with Māori on the subject of land is understood. Panuku has a robust form of engagement with mana whenua groups across the region. Each relevant mana whenua group is contacted independently by email based on a contact list which is regularly updated. Each group is provided general property details, including a property map, and requested to give feedback within 15 working days. Contacts are sent reminder notices a week out from the due date, and alerted of the passing of the due date in the week following if no feedback has been submitted. Confirmation of any interest expressed is sent in writing and recorded for inclusion in the disposal recommendation report. A feedback spreadsheet is provided to facilitate responses. Any requests for extensions of a due date are handled on a case by case basis.

16. Panuku’s engagement directs mana whenua to respond with any issues of particular cultural significance the group would like to formally express in relation to the subject properties. We also request express notes regarding any preferred outcomes that the group would like us to consider as part of any disposal process.

17. From discussions with our Māori and Strategy Relations team we are developing an understanding of what could amount to a ‘matter of significant cultural relevance’ to iwi. We are also developing a range of reasonable outcomes that could be employed when such a matter of cultural significance is raised in relation to a potential disposal property. Possible outcomes could include commemoration or physical acknowledgment in the form of plaques or other mutually agreed means of recognition. In the event of any issues of particular cultural significance being raised, Panuku will work with the relevant council departments to assess the merits of any such requests and keeps the interested parties informed along the way.

18. Mana whenua groups are also invited to express potential commercial interest in any sites and are put in contact with Panuku’s Development team for preliminary discussions if appropriate to the property. This facilitates the groups’ early assessment of the merits of a development opportunity to their iwi. In the event a property is approved for sale all groups are alerted of the decision, and all groups are alerted once a property comes on the market.

19. Lastly a report is presented to the Independent Māori Statutory Board ahead of presenting any recommendations to sell to the Finance and Performance Committee detailing how Māori have been engaged throughout the process.

20. Iwi views are summarised in Attachments A and B of this report.

Implementation

21. As part of the overall review process each property is also assessed to see if there are any impediments to sell or if there is a prescribed legal way in which it must be sold. The last stage of the process is triggered once a resolution to sell is obtained. This involves a robust ‘add value’ assessment as part of the development of the final sales strategy. There is specific attention applied to the possible suitability of the site for housing purposes.

22. Reserve revocation of the part of 49 Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay that is currently vested as plantation reserve and for 12R Birdwood Avenue, Papatoetoe will need to be undertaken pursuant to section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977. Public notification is required for a proposal to revoke a reserve, with such notice to include the reason for the proposal. This will give the public the opportunity to consider the proposal and submit comments or objections. If any objections are received, they will be referred back to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for consideration. The decision of the committee must be forwarded to the Department of Conservation for completion of the revocation process.

23. 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.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Property information for 49 Nihill Crescent, Mission Bay	15
b View	Property information for 12R Birdwood Avenue, Papatoetoe	21

Signatories

Authors

Letitia McColl - Senior Advisor Portfolio Review, Portfolio Strategy, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

David Rankin – Director, Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Development Auckland

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 April 2016

Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated Funding for 2016-2018

File No.: CP2016/04927

Purpose

1. To approve funding to Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx) for 2016-2018.

Executive Summary

2. Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABx) operate in the Auckland region as individual legal entities, with 12 bureaux operating across 31 sites.

3. The current strategic relationship and funding agreements end June 2016. New agreements are currently being negotiated.

4. Ongoing funding is committed in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 adopted by the Governing Body on 25 June 2015.

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve funding of $1.796 million on an annual basis for Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx) for 2016-2018, and note that the provision for this expenditure is included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

Comments

Background

5. ACABx is an umbrella organisation supporting the operation of 12 bureaux from 31 sites across the region.

6. On 5 April 2012 the Regional Development and Operations Committee approved the development of a strategic relationship agreement between Auckland Council and the proposed ACABx entity. The final details of the agreement and supporting funding agreement were approved by the Social and Community Development Forum on 28 May 2013.

7. On 20 June 2013 the Regional Development and Operations Committee approved funding of $1.672 million per annum for CABx from 2013-2016 as provided for in the Long-term Plan 2013-2023.

8. The ACABxboard is made up of representatives from across Auckland’s bureaux. It was established in 2012. The agreement was formally signed on 11 July 2013.

9. The aims of ACABx are:

· To ensure that individuals do not suffer through ignorance of their rights and responsibilities, or of the services available; or through an inability to express their needs effectively

· To exert a responsible influence on the development of social policies and services, both locally and nationally.

10. The funding agreement and the strategic relationship agreement will both expire on 30 June 2016.

11. A new strategic relationship and funding agreement are being negotiated for the period 2016-2018.

12. It is proposed that the committee allocate to ACABx funding of $1.796 million per annum for 2016/17 and for 2017/18.

13. Ongoing funding is committed in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 adopted by the Governing Body on 25 June 2015.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

14. The local board is a primary stakeholder in any local Citizens Advice Bureaux. The relationship between local boards and local CABx is based on collaboration and includes but is not limited to, reporting to local boards on service usage and other matters of interest, informal updates and check-ins.

Māori impact statement

15. The Auckland Council – ACABx relationship contributes to the strategic priority for Māori in the Auckland Plan “Create a strong, inclusive and equitable society that ensures opportunity for all Aucklanders” by supporting the provision of equitable access to targeted advice and information.

16. The Empowered Communities Approach aligns to and reflects council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework as an integral part of community development practice when working with organisations such as CABx when supporting whanau.

Implementation

17. If funding is approved, a funding agreement will be finalised and the grant paid to ACABx in four instalments over the next two years. The strategic relationship agreement will be renegotiated through to 30 June 2018.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Carole Blacklock - Specialist Advisor – Partnering and Social Investment Community Empowerment Unit

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 April 2016

District Licensing Committee recruitment process

File No.: CP2016/05160

Purpose

1. To agree a process and timeframe for recruiting new District Licensing Committee chairs and members.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council’s District Licensing Committee (DLC) contracts are due to expire in October 2016.

3. The DLC pool is currently made up of 11 chairpersons and 20 members located across the Auckland region. They are contracted by Auckland Council but act independently to make decisions on alcohol licence applications. Staff form individual DLCs by selecting either one chair or one chair and two members from the pool, depending on the type of application. The region-wide pool enables DLCs to be formed based on the location and expertise of the members.

4. A review of the DLC structure in June 2015 resulted in the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee deciding to retain the region-wide pool but reduce the number of chairs and members from October 2016, due to a lower than expected workload.

5. On 15 March 2016, the Hearings Committee considered a proposal for recruiting a new DLC before October 2016 when chairs and members’ contracts expire. Because the expiry of DLC contracts coincides with the local government election, the proposal involved the appointment of two selection panels (made up of senior staff and Independent Māori Statutory Board members) to decide selection criteria, interview candidates and recommend a list of candidates to the Hearings Committee for approval.

6. The Hearings Committee requested that a report be brought to an upcoming Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting outlining different options to appoint the new DLC, including the option of extending the term of current chairs and members.

7. This report sets out three approaches to appoint a new DLC. Two approaches result in new DLC members being recruited before the end of their contracts, however those approaches would limit the opportunity for newly elected councillors to make changes to the DLC after the local government election.

8. The report recommends that the committee adopt option three, which proposes that the term of current chairs and members be extended to mid-2017 and that a preferred appointment process, including forming a selection panel comprised of councillors who are members of the Hearings and Regulatory and Bylaws committees, an IMSB member and staff, be reported to the incoming Governing Body.

9. Recommended draft criteria for candidate selection are attached (attachment A). A range of stakeholders including elected members, reporting agencies and staff have an interest in alcohol licensing and the DLC recruitment process, and will be invited to provide feedback on the draft criteria for candidate selection.

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve extending the current District Licensing Committee contracts to mid-2017.

b) agree that staff will report to the incoming Governing Body after the October 2016 election with a proposed process and timetable for District Licensing Committee recruitment.

c) endorse the District Licensing Committee draft selection criteria for consultation.

Comments

Background and structure

10. In 2013, Auckland Council established its first District Licensing Committee (DLC) to consider and determine alcohol licence applications under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

11. In August 2013, the Governing Body approved the option of a region-wide pool of approved persons as the preferred structure for forming DLCs. DLC chairs and members are contracted by Auckland Council but act independently to make decisions on alcohol licence applications. The current pool of chairs and members were appointed for their expertise and experience relating to alcohol licensing matters and their ability to make robust and independent decisions.

12. The structure of the DLC was reviewed after a year of operation and on 5 June 2015 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee agreed to retain the existing region-wide pool but reduce the number of chairs and members from October 2016.

13. The workload of the DLC since its inception has been significantly lower than expected. For example, approximately one per cent of applications go to a public hearing, compared with an anticipated 15 per cent.

14. Based on recent application volumes, staff recommend that five chairs and 10 members be recruited to the new DLC pool. This equates to a workload of 15-20 hours per week for chairs and 3-5 hours per week for members, based on a 48-week year.

15. Although the chairs and members will not be utilised full-time, the recommended numbers allow for even geographic representation across Auckland and alternatives for when chairs/members are on leave or when there are multiple hearings in one week.

16. Under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, DLC chairs and members can be appointed for a term (and further terms) of up to five years. The duration of Auckland Council’s first appointed DLC was three years, which is the standard duration for independent commissioner contracts.

17. The timing of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 coming into effect has meant that DLC contracts currently expire during the local government election. Elected members are responsible for making recommendations and decisions on the appointment of DLC chairs and members, which means that the recruitment process needs to be completed in advance of October 2016 or delayed until early 2017 to ensure that these decisions can be made while committees are in session.

18. On 15 March 2016, the Hearings Committee considered a proposal for recruiting a new DLC before October 2016. To ensure best practice, the proposal followed a similar process to that used in previous DLC recruitment and in the recruitment of independent resource management commissioners, which involves the use of selection panels. Selection panels bring together the various skills needed from a cross-sector of the organisation and share the workload associated with a large recruitment exercise. Selection panels’ responsibilities include deciding selection criteria, interviewing candidates and recommending a list of candidates to the Hearings Committee for approval.

19. Previous selection panels for DLC recruitment included councillors, staff and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member. The proposal to the Hearings Committee involved the appointment of two selection panels made up of senior staff and Independent Māori Statutory Board members, but didn’t include councillors, due to the increased workload leading up to elections and the risk of perceived conflict for councillors who have stated positions or previously been involved in alcohol-related decision-making.

20. The Hearings Committee requested that a report be brought to an upcoming Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting outlining different options to appoint the new DLC, including the option of extending the term of current chairs and members.

Selection panels and criteria

21. The options below set out various proposals for the composition of the selection panel. All options include senior staff members. Senior staff members bring specific expertise to the DLC recruitment process, including a deeper understanding of legislation, proficiency in recruitment processes and experience in the day-to-day administration of the DLC.

22. Options two and three below include an Independent Māori Statutory Board member on the selection panel, who will provide valuable input into criteria relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and community awareness, and assess candidates against those criteria.

23. Options two and three also propose the inclusion of two councillors who are members of relevant committees on the selection panel. Relevant committees for this term would be the Hearings and Regulatory and Bylaws committees. Members of these committees offer a region-wide perspective and provide a specific skillset in relation to hearings proceedings that would be beneficial to the recruitment process.

24. The options do not recommend local board representation on the selection panel due to the risk of perceived conflict. Local boards hold the delegation to object to alcohol licence applications on behalf of Auckland Council and some boards have participated as interested parties to DLC proceedings. In addition, eight local board chairs or members currently sit on the DLC as chairs or members. Staff also propose that feedback is sought from local boards on the selection criteria through the local board chairs forum.

25. The selection panel will:

· finalise criteria for candidate selection

· review advertisement content, position description and contracts/service agreements

· review about 60 expected applications and shortlist candidates

· conduct approximately 30 interviews of 1 ½ hours duration

· decide final candidates for recommendation to the Hearings Committee (options one and two) or the relevant committee after the election (option three).

26. To manage the workload associated with conducting approximately 30 interviews over one or two weeks, it is recommended that selection panel members divide into two panels and conduct interviews in parallel.

27. A key aspect of a robust recruitment process is the establishment of criteria for candidate selection. For example, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 specifies that DLC members must have experience relevant to alcohol licensing matters, but not such an involvement with the alcohol industry that they could not perform their duties without bias.

28. It is important that all parties to the alcohol licensing process have confidence in the skills of the DLC members and their ability to determine matters in an impartial way. Reporting agencies (Police, Medical Officer of Health and the Inspectorate), elected members and staff across council have had experience with the DLC since its inception and can provide valuable input into criteria for candidate selection.

29. Draft criteria for DLC candidate selection are provided as Attachment One. This report seeks the committee’s endorsement of the draft selection criteria for consultation with current DLC members and the other key stakeholders noted above.

Recruitment process and timeframes

30. The table below sets out the proposed process and alternative timeframes for DLC recruitment. The process (what and who) remains the same for all options, however the original timeline was the timeline reported to the Hearings Committee and relates to options one and two, and the alternative timeline relates to option three.

What	Who	Original timeline (options one and two)	Alternative timeline (option three)
Approval of recruitment process and establishment of selection panel	· Relevant committee or Governing Body	15 March 2016	December 2016
Agree criteria for candidate selection	· Selection panel · Key stakeholders	March-April 2016	April 2016 and Jan-Feb 2017
Advertise for DLC applications	· Selection panel · Relevant staff	May 2016	March 2017
Shortlist applications	· Selection panel	June 2016	March 2017
Interview candidates	· Selection panel	June/July 2016	April 2017
Approve final candidates for appointment	· Relevant committee or Governing Body · Chief Executive for DLC commissioner appointments	August 2016	April/May 2017
Offer and award contracts	· Democracy Services staff	September 2016	May 2017
Contract start date	· DLC chairs and members	16 October 2016	May/June 2017
Training and induction	· DLC chairs and members	October-December 2016	June-July 2017

Options

31. Staff have identified three options for DLC recruitment, which are set out below.

32. Option one

Proceed with the original timeline, and appoint a selection panel comprised of senior staff members only (Manager Democracy Services, General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services, Manager Litigation and Regulatory and Manager Public Law).

Pros	Cons
Faster appointment of a DLC that is fit-for-purpose according to workload volumes	Limited scope of expertise by having no councillor or IMSB representation on selection panels
No need to extend contracts (no additional administrative burden)
Reduced risk of conflict in relation to alcohol matters

33. Option two

Proceed with the original timeline and appoint a selection panel comprising two councillors who are members of relevant committees, an Independent Māori Statutory Board member and four senior members of staff (Manager Democracy Services, General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services, Manager Litigation and Regulatory, Manager Public Law).

Pros	Cons
Faster appointment of a DLC that is fit-for-purpose according to workload volumes	High workload for councillors in the lead-up to elections
No need to extend contracts (no additional administrative burden)	Risk of perceived conflict if councillors appointed to the selection panel have publicly expressed views in relation to alcohol licensing
The selection panel represents a broader cross-section of perspectives, expertise and experience

34. Option three

Extend the current DLC contracts to mid-2017 and recommend to the incoming Governing Body that it:

· approves the process for DLC recruitment according to the alternative timeline; and

· appoints a selection panel comprising two councillors who are members of relevant committees, an Independent Māori Statutory Board member and four senior members of staff (Manager Democracy Services, General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services, Manager Litigation and Regulatory and Manager Public Law).

Pros	Cons
Better aligns DLC recruitment with the electoral cycle, i.e. councillors will be choosing the DLC that will be in operation throughout their political term	Current DLC chairs and members will continue to have a low workload until a new DLC is appointed
The selection panel represents a broader cross-section of perspectives, expertise and experience	Risk of perceived conflict if councillors appointed to the selection panel have publicly expressed views in relation to alcohol licensing
Enables the involvement of newly elected councillors

Discussion and recommendation

35. The key benefit of option one, which is to recruit the new DLC before existing contracts expire, is that it will better align the DLC membership with workload volumes. However it only involves staff in the recruitment process and the Hearings Committee has indicated that it wants the involvement of councillors and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member, which occurred in the last DLC recruitment.

36. Option two includes the participation of councillors who are members of relevant committees and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member, however the recruitment timeframe puts additional pressure on councillors in the lead-up to elections.

37. Under options one and two, it is also uncertain which councillors will stand and be re-elected. Newly elected councillors will have limited opportunity to make changes to the DLC if the recruitment process is completed before their political term begins.

38. Option three enables newly elected councillors to be involved in recruiting a DLC that will be making alcohol licensing decisions throughout their political term.

39. Under options two and three, there are conflict risks associated with councillor involvement in the DLC recruitment process. However these risks can be mitigated by not appointing councillors to the selection panel if they have perceived conflicts in relation to alcohol licensing.

40. From a staff perspective, option three has the most significant impact on workload, due to independent resource management commissioner recruitment falling at the same time. Auckland Council currently has 55 independent resource management commissioners whose contracts expire at the end of June 2017. Recruitment for these commissioners follows a similar process to DLC recruitment, but on a much larger scale.

41. If option three is approved, staff will endeavor to stagger the DLC and independent resource management commissioner recruitment to ensure that the workload can be distributed evenly over the first six months of 2017.

42. Given the above considerations, on balance, staff recommend option three.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

43. Eight local board chairs and members currently make alcohol licensing decisions as members or chairs of Auckland’s District Licensing Committee.

44. Local boards also have the ability to object to alcohol licence applications under delegated authority from the Governing Body. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Manurewa, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Papakura local boards have objected to approximately 15 applications to date.

45. Local boards have provided a significant amount of input and feedback on the operation of the DLC through the DLC review. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Manurewa and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local boards in particular have advocated for local representation on DLCs and have expressed an interest in the DLC recruitment process.

46. These factors create a significant risk of perceived conflict. To help manage this risk staff recommend that local board members are not appointed to the selection panel for DLC recruitment. Staff consider that it is important for local boards to be given the opportunity to provide feedback on DLC selection criteria and propose that feedback is sought through the local board chairs forum.

Māori impact statement

47. DLC matters are of interest and importance to Māori given the impact of alcohol on Māori communities.

48. Staff consider that it is important for a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board to be appointed to the DLC selection panel. This will enable involvement in setting criteria relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and community awareness, and assessing candidates against those criteria.

Implementation

49. The cost of DLC recruitment will be met within existing operational budgets.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft criteria for District Licensing Committee selection	35

Signatories

Authors

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

07 April 2016

Auckland Council Submission on the Freshwater Reforms 2016, Next Steps for Freshwater Consultation Document

File No.: CP2016/05236

Purpose

1. To advise the Regional Policy and Strategy Committee of the Freshwater reforms 2016 - the government’s proposed next steps to improve management of freshwater and seek approval for an Auckland Council's submission in response to the Next Steps for Freshwater Consultation Document.

Executive Summary

2. In 2011, the government released the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM). The NPSFM requires councils to manage freshwater in an integrated and sustainable way, while providing for economic growth within set water quantity and quality limits. In March 2013, the government released the document Freshwater reform 2013 and beyond. It outlined the government's proposals for ongoing reform to the way that freshwater is managed. In July 2014 the government introduced amendments to the NPSFM, which became effective from 1 August 2014.

3. On 20 February 2016 the government announced the next step in its process of freshwater management reform through the release of its Next steps for freshwater Consultation Document (Consultation Document). The proposed reforms in the Consultation Document include:

· amending the NPSFM regarding: exceptions to national bottom lines for significant infrastructure; mandatory macroinvertebrate monitoring; water quality requirements in intermittently opening and closing lagoons; and, the meaning of ‘maintain or improve overall water quality’;

· excluding stock from water bodies through regulation;

· economic use of freshwater - requiring more efficient use and good management practice;

· iwi rights and interests;

· changing the focus of the freshwater improvement fund.

4. Submissions on the Consultation Document close on 22 April 2016. Feedback was sought from the following interests:

· staff from the various council departments and CCOs;

· Local Board members – requested 29 February 2016;

· Mana whenua and the Independent Māori Statutory Board – requested 29 February 2016;

· Rural Advisory Panel – requested 2 March 2016.

5. The Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum (supported by Watercare) invited council staff to discuss the Consultation Document at a meeting on 14 April 2016. No other feedback was received from mana whenua at the time of finalising this report for committee consideration.

6. Feedback was received from the Rural Advisory Panel’s representative for Federated Farmers.

7. In summary, council’s draft submission:

· supports the proposed amendments in principle.

· recommends that the extent of community health and well-being be recognised in consideration of exceptions to national bottom lines for significant infrastructure.

· recommends including measures of macroinvertebrate diversity and abundance in the NPSFM as a guideline value.

· supports consideration of contaminant discharges in urban areas and encourages government to continue to work with council to develop good management practices and water sensitive design (WSD).

· supports a preference for iwi and hapū relationship based arrangements rather than legislative requirements/process.

· supports changing the focus of the freshwater improvement fund to allow consideration of improvements in the management of urban freshwater bodies.

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve the attached submission, including any amendments agreed by the committee, in response to the Ministry for the Environment's ‘Next Steps for freshwater Consultation Document '.

b) delegate authority to the Chair of the committee to approve any final amendments to the submission resulting from changes agreed at the meeting.

Comments

8. The government recently released a discussion document relating to its proposed next steps for freshwater reforms. It is seeking feedback on proposed changes to the way freshwater is managed. The reforms aim to improve management of freshwater.

9. In 2009, the government began wide-ranging, long-term improvements to how freshwater is managed. The government established the Land and Water Forum to advise it on freshwater reform. The Land and Water Forum work has resulted in four reports.

10. In 2011, the government released the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM). The NPSFM requires councils to manage freshwater in an integrated and sustainable way, while providing for economic growth within set water quantity and quality limits. At the time the NPSFM was introduced, it was acknowledged that more direction and guidance would be needed to help councils implement the NPSFM. This included the March 2013 release of the government’s document entitled Freshwater reform 2013 and beyond, which provided an indication of how proposed reforms could be achieved.

11. In July 2014 the government introduced amendments to the NPSFM, which became effective from 1 August 2014. These included: the concept of Te Mana o te Wai; two compulsory values (ecosystem health and human health for recreation); a new National Objectives Framework and national bottom lines for water quality related to compulsory values. There were also changes relating to exceptions to national bottom lines for naturally occurring processes and existing infrastructure; accounting systems for quality and quantity; and, monitoring of progress towards achieving freshwater objectives.

12. On 27 November 2015 the fourth Land and Water Forum report was released. It covered how to maximise the economic benefits of freshwater while managing within water quality and quantity limits. It also recommended; exclusion of livestock from waterways; addressing a number of urban issues; and, approaches to recognising and providing for iwi of rights and interests in freshwater.

13. Subsequently, on 20 February 2016 the government announced the next step in its process of freshwater management reform through the release of its Next steps for freshwater Consultation Document (Consultation Document). The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) website provides access to the Consultation Document and supporting material. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/fresh-water/reform-programme/freshwater-reforms-2016 .

14. The reforms consider amending the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management regarding the impacts of significant infrastructure, mandatory macroinvertebrate monitoring, water quality requirements in intermittently opening and closing lagoons, and the meaning of ‘maintain or improve overall water quality’. They also consider stock exclusion, economic use of freshwater, iwi rights / interests and freshwater funding. These proposals are discussed in further detail below along with an explanation and information from the MfE summary.

Consultation Document Proposals

15. Significant infrastructure includes large structures like dams that affect river flows or the availability of water downstream. The NPSFM allows councils to set freshwater objectives below a national bottom line if the infrastructure is listed in Appendix 3 of the NPSFM.

16. Allowing freshwater objectives to be set below a national bottom line because of the impacts of significant infrastructure can allow the potential for the significant benefits of this kind of infrastructure to be recognised. The proposal provides further direction on what evidence councils or infrastructure owners should provide to support government decisions on the inclusion of specific significant infrastructure in Appendix 3 of the NPSFM.

17. Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) scores the presence of aquatic insects living in a freshwater ecosystem. It can be used as a way of assessing the ecological health of rivers. Higher MCI scores generally indicate better river condition. The government proposes to make the use of the MCI mandatory for monitoring so there is a consistent approach to measuring the ecological health of rivers.

18. Intermittently closing and opening lakes and lagoons (ICOLLs) are coastal lakes and lagoons that open up to the sea from time to time. It is currently not clear whether the lake attributes in Appendix 2 of the NPSFM apply to ICOLLs. The government proposes to amend the NPSFM so that water quality attributes, including their national bottom lines, apply to ICOLLs.

19. The NPSFM requires that overall water quality must be ‘maintained or improved’ within a region. The provision is intended to allow some flexibility when councils set objectives by using trade-offs, or ‘unders and overs’, across a region. Freshwater management units (FMU) were introduced in the NPSFM 2014 to define the areas for managing water. They may be a water body, multiple water bodies or part of a water body. The government proposes to change the objective to ‘maintain or improve’ to within an FMU rather than across a region. It also proposes to clarify there is flexibility to maintain water quality.

20. Excluding stock from a water body can improve water quality. Water quality and the risk to human health are affected by stock faeces and urine. The government proposes to introduce regulations that would require farmers to ensure their stock cannot enter streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands.

21. There are a number of proposals related to more efficient use of freshwater and good management practice. The government proposes to develop technical efficiency standards. Technical efficiency standards will define the amount of water that would be used by an efficient user. They will help address over-allocation, and free up water for new users. Councils will be required to apply the technical efficiency standards over time to all consents.

22. The government proposes to consult with industry to develop good management practice standards for discharges of contaminants to water. Good management practice (GMP) standards will set measures, such as for the acceptable amount of diffuse nitrogen discharges in different climates, soils and uses. In catchments that are at or approaching full allocation, councils will be required to apply standards over time.

23. Also proposed is a package of measures to better enable transfers between users so allocated water and discharge allowances can move to higher valued uses is proposed. This is expected to increase the economic value that we get from the available resource.

24. The NPSFM requires that councils phase out and avoid further over-allocation. The government proposes guidance on different methods of addressing over-allocation of water quality and/or quantity.

25. The government recognises that effective implementation of the existing freshwater management system will require councils to spend more on science, monitoring, management, and enforcement. It proposes to increase the ability of councils to recover costs from water users for monitoring, enforcement, research and management.

26. There are a number of proposals related to iwi rights and interests in freshwater. The NPSFM currently refers to Te Mana o te Wai. More context about the meaning of Te Mana o te Wai and its importance in the NPSFM is proposed.

27. Every iwi and hapū has associations with particular freshwater bodies. The government proposes a requirement for councils to identify iwi and hapū relationships with freshwater bodies and reflect their values for those water bodies through their planning process. The government also proposes to amend the RMA to establish provisions for a new rohe (region or catchment)-based agreement between iwi and councils for natural resource management – a ‘mana whakahono a rohe’ agreement. The mana whakahono a rohe will be initiated by iwi through notice to the councils. An iwi participation arrangement (IPA) is a provision under the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill that was introduced into Parliament in December 2015. An IPA will require councils to invite iwi to discuss and agree on how iwi may participate in planning. Mana whakahono a rohe in this context is an alternative to an IPA. It differs from an IPA in that it can be initiated by iwi.

28. Water conservation orders (WCOs) protect New Zealand’s outstanding geothermal or freshwater bodies. The government proposes to amend the RMA to provide a greater role for iwi, ensure WCOs are better integrated into regional planning processes and allow councils to recommend WCO be created over an outstanding water body that has been identified through regional planning. The government also proposes to allow the Minister to consider recommendations under a streamlined procedure.

29. Most iwi and councils will need additional capacity and improved capability to ensure these proposals can be implemented and are effective. It is proposed MfE facilitate and resource programmes over the next several years to build this capacity and capability.

30. Papakāinga is a form of housing development which occurs on multiple-owned Māori or ancestral land. The government will consider if additional funding is required to develop or improve water infrastructure at marae and papakāinga.

31. In 2014, the government announced that it would allocate $100 million over 10 years to buy and retire selected areas of farmland next to important waterways to create an environmental buffer that helps improve water quality. The government proposes to retain the intent of this funding commitment, but to broaden the focus of the funding to include other initiatives beyond purchasing land for retirement. The new fund will focus on supporting projects that will help water users move to managing within environmental limits. The fund will focus on projects that deliver clear environmental benefits.

Submission process

32. Submissions on the Consultation Document close on 22 April 2016.

33. Staff from across Auckland Council/CCOs, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board provide feedback on the Consultation Document.

Draft submission

34. The submission supports the proposed reforms in principle. The proposed reforms will help Auckland Council to improve freshwater outcomes.

35. Direction on exceptions to national bottom lines for significant infrastructure

It is recommended that the extent of community health and wellbeing be specifically recognised in the information requirements for determining exceptions for significant infrastructure. This information would be important to secure the significant benefits to the community that municipal water dams provide.

36. Mandatory macroinvertebrate monitoring

The most appropriate way to include measures of macroinvertebrates in the NPSFM is as a guideline value that is indicative of stream ecological health. In addition, the proposed submission notes that there are other measures that could be used to gauge stream ecological health, and some consideration of those should be made.

37. Water quality requirements in ICOLLs

There is support for proposed amendments to the NPSFM to clarify that lake water quality attributes, including their national bottom lines, apply to ICOLLs.

38. Meaning of ‘maintain or improve overall water quality’

There is support for applying the requirement to maintain or improve overall water quality within a freshwater management unit (FMU). It is considered to be a rational and practicable approach, in that water quality outcomes are more likely to be quantified at a smaller geographical scale than a region wide approach.

39. Stock exclusion through regulation

There is support for the proposed requirements and deadlines for excluding stock from water bodies. It is recommended that consideration be given to making the date for Dairy Support (third party grazing) 2020, to be consistent with Dairy Support (owned by a dairy farmer). Applying more tailored rules to achieve water outcomes above national regulations is supported, particularly as it recognizes geographic location and stocking characteristics.

40. Economic use of freshwater

There is support for the proposal to develop technical efficiency standards and good management practice. The government should continue to work with councils that have large urban areas to develop good management practices and water-sensitive design (WSD) in particular, to address freshwater quality degradation from urban land use. There is support for investigating measures to better enable transfers between users. There is support for guidance on a range of methods to address over-allocation rather than rules. There is also support for the proposal to increase the ability of councils to recover costs from water users for monitoring, enforcement, research and management. It is understood that the introduction of new regulations for stock exclusion would be subject to further consultation by central government.

41. Iwi rights and interests

There is support for the proposal to provide more context about the meaning of Te Mana o te Wai and the requirement for regional councils to identify iwi and hapū relationships with freshwater bodies through their planning process. It is recommended that relationship based arrangements rather than legislative requirements/process should be pursued. There is support for better integrating water conservation orders (WCOs) with regional water planning processes and allowing for increased iwi participation and decision-making on WCOs.

42. Funding to improve water infrastructure at marae and papakāinga

There is support for the proposal for additional government funding to develop or improve water infrastructure for marae and papakāinga. It is recommended that any funding assistance to improve water supply should ensure that there is also adequate wastewater treatment and disposal capacity.

43. Freshwater improvement fund

There is support for broadening the focus of freshwater improvement funding beyond retiring farm land. The new criteria should allow consideration of improvements in the management of urban freshwater bodies.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

44. A review of local board plans indicates that they all identify outcomes to be achieved relating to environmental protection and conservation. The majority consider waterways and harbours to be a priority, and local boards seek to protect their health and quality. Some local boards also identify working with mana whenua, to protect and enhance the natural environment, waterways and harbours, as a priority.

45. All local boards were provided an opportunity to contribute their views on the Freshwater reforms 2016 Next Steps for freshwater Consultation Document.

46. Responses have been received from Henderson-Massey, Ōrākei, Hibiscus and Bays and Waitematā Local Boards. The views expressed are generally, and sometimes specifically, in alignment with the proposed Auckland Council submission. Several views also raise additional matters.

47. Combined précis of local boards' additional views are:

· Managing our aging stormwater and wastewater network that is both separated and non-separated is a challenge (Waitematā).

· Council receives complaints of poor water quality in lagoons (Hibiscus and Bays).

· The loss and degradation of urban streams should not necessarily be balanced through enhancements in rural streams (Hibiscus and Bays).

· MfE should help and support urban areas, cities and communities to achieve the vision for freshwater through water sensitive design (Waitematā).

· MCI may not be the appropriate indicator of stream ecological health in all circumstances (Hibiscus and Bays).

· Avoid piping streams and ephemeral watercourses (Henderson-Massey).

· Propose a timeframe of 2025 for all types of stock exclusion, except pigs which should be July 2017 as proposed (Henderson-Massey).

· All water should be paid for through a volumetric charge. Water permit applications for large volumes should be compelled to produce water management plans (Henderson-Massey).

· If a consent is not being utilised it should be open for transfer (Henderson-Massey).

· All forms of transport should have targeted costs re pollutants going into freshwater systems (Henderson-Massey).

Māori impact statement

48. Auckland Council is engaging with mana whenua to deliver Auckland’s freshwater programme. A review of mana whenua feedback on the draft Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) indicated they sought further integration of mana whenua values and interests, and opportunities for engagement when giving effect to the NPSFM.

49. All iwi/hapū on the council’s kaitiaki contact list were advised of the government’s Freshwater reforms 2016 Next Steps for freshwater Consultation Document. They were advised of the Ministry for the Environment’s proposed public meetings and to contact the relevant council staff if they had questions. A meeting with staff of the Independent Māori Statutory Board was held.

50. The Chair of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum has invited council staff to attend the Forum meeting on 14 April 2016 to provided assistance by discussing the Freshwater reforms 2016 Consultation Document. No other mana whenua or Independent Māori Statutory Board views were received. Any formal views received by mana whenua before the council submission is finalised will be attached to it.

General

51. The members of the council’s Rural Advisory Panel (RAP) were provided an opportunity to contribute their views. A response was received from the Federated Farmers RAP representative. The Federated Farmers’ response is summarised below:

· It would be better to have a National Policy Statement requiring local authorities to have rules in place to manage livestock exclusion by a certain date.

· There is a concern council proposes to support the government’s livestock exclusion proposal given cross sector agreement was reached on provisions in the PAUP.

· While there is general support for more efficient use of freshwater and good management practice there is concern regarding how rights and interests might come to be recognised, and how trading might be provided for.

· Council staff do not explain what Te Mana o Te Wai means and how having it as a platform for discussions on freshwater differs from the current process - however, the concept does not cause any concern.

· The appropriateness of iwi/hapū participation in freshwater governance and management is accepted, but there should be equivalent opportunities for anyone.

· Local authorities already have the ability to make informal or formal partnerships with iwi authorities; conversely having agreements regarding iwi/hapū participation in freshwater governance and management setting out how iwi and the local authorities are going to work together has some merit.

· It would be extremely concerning if the increased opportunities proposed for iwi participation in freshwater governance and management mean that there will be an erosion of the democratic processes by which decisions in resource management matters have customarily been made.

Implementation

52. There is a statutory requirement for councils to give effect to the NPSFM and other regulations that government introduces, such as those that are proposed relating to stock exclusion. There could be additional costs to local authorities depending on the final form of the proposed freshwater reforms and how they are implemented. Some of the proposed reforms are expected to be funded by government. The reforms include a proposal to increase the ability of councils to recover costs from water users for monitoring, enforcement, research and management.

53. Auckland Council previously supported exceptions for significant infrastructure. In Auckland there are large municipal water supply dams that are critical to community health and wellbeing.

54. Auckland Council uses MCI and previously supported its introduction in the NPSFM as water quality alone does not reflect aquatic ecosystem health.

55. There are a number of small ICOLLs in the Auckland region. The proposal to apply the NPSFM so that national bottom lines apply to such water bodies is not expected to be problematic.

56. Potential trade-offs in water quality across a region would be difficult to quantify. There is potential for trade-offs in water quality across a region to result in an inequitable burden across the rural and urban land-users. The proposed amendments reduce this potential for such trade-offs across the region.

57. A national approach to stock exclusion through regulation would be efficient in terms of the planning process. It would introduce a nationally consistent minimum approach. Councils will still have the ability to apply stock exclusion rules more widely where they see this as necessary or desirable to achieve better freshwater outcomes. It is anticipated that councils will be required to classify land in terms of slope to determine where national stock exclusion regulations apply.

58. Currently there are no WCO in the Auckland region. It is not anticipated that the WCO related proposals will be particularly relevant to Auckland.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Submission from Auckland Council to the Ministry for the Environment - Freshwater Reforms 2016, Next Steps for Freshwater, Consultation Document	45

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Millar, Principal Sustainable Catchments

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

07 April 2016

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee Work Programme 2015/2016 - April Update

File No.: CP2016/00080

Purpose

1. To report progress against the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (RSP) forward work programme during the period August 2015 - March 2016, and outline the forward programme for the period April - September 2016.

Executive Summary

2. The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee adopted a forward work programme in August 2015, to assist the committee to deliver on its priorities and manage work flow. This report tracks the progress against the work programme It highlights the key decisions that the committee has made in the last seven months, and provides an update of the programme extended to September 2016.

Recommendation

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) note progress against the forward work programme from August 2015 – March 2016, and note the updated programme to September 2016.

Comments

3. The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee adopted a forward work programme in August 2015, to assist the committee to deliver on its priorities and manage work flow. All committees of the whole and most reporting committees have now adopted forward work programmes. This is one of a range of initiatives that are part of the council’s quality policy advice programme, and responds to elected member requests to improve the quality of advice provided.

4. The majority of the reports on RSP Committee agendas since August 2015 have been directly related to the work programme. As noted, when the programme was adopted, there will always be unanticipated reports but these have been the exception.

Key decisions August 2015 – March 2016

5. The committee has made a number of significant decisions since adopting the programme. These include:

a. adopting Auckland Growing Greener – te pai te whai rawa o Tāmaki: our commitment to environmental action and green growth (October 2015)

b. adopting the Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan(October 2015)

c. approving the coastal management approach for the Auckland Region (December 2015)

d. approving forward work programmes until October 2016 for the:

o Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee

o Arts, Culture and Events Committee

o Community Development and Safety Committee

o Environment Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

o Economic Development Committee (approved until July 2016)

e. Approving a council submission in response to the Ministry for the Environment’s ‘A New Marine Protected Areas Act: Consultation Document’.

Work programme to September 2016

6. The work programme has been updated and extended to September 2016 (Attachment A). Items that have been completed, or are no longer progressing, have been removed from the programme. There is one addition to the programme which is the Air Quality Action Plan.

7. The committee will continue to make important decisions in the first half of 2016. Examples include a new policy for Business Improvement Districts (scheduled for May 2016), priority actions for the Sports Facilities Network Plan (scheduled for June 2016), and approval of a Greenways Network Plan (scheduled for the second half of 2016).

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

8. Local board forward work calendars were developed in early 2016 and adopted in March 2016. The calendars aim to support local boards’ governance role and include scheduling items for input to regional decision making, for example the Regional Pest Management Plan Review.

Māori impact statement

9. The projects and processes reported to this committee have a range of implications for Māori which are considered when the work is reported. Formal monitoring of progress on expenditure and delivery of Māori transformational activity is undertaken through the Finance and Performance Committee.

Implementation

10. Staff will continue to monitor reporting to the committee against the agreed work programme.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Regional Strategy and Policy Committee forward work programme to September 2016	57

Signatories

Authors	Sanchia Jacobs - Executive Officer
Authorisers	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Chairperson	Cr George Wood, CNZM
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Members	Cr Cameron Brewer	Mr Kris MacDonald
	Mayor Len Brown, JP	Cr Calum Penrose
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr John Watson
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr Penny Webster
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Mr Glenn Wilcox
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse
	Cr Denise Krum
	Cr Mike Lee

Authors	Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer