Agenda of Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Areas of Activity

· Provision of regional facilities and open space

· Regional frameworks for local facility and open space provision

· Encouraging healthy lifestyles through participation in sport and recreation sectors

· Facilitating partnerships and collaborative funding models across the sport and recreation sectors

· Performing the delegation made by the Governing Body to the former Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum, under resolution GB/2012/157 in relation to the Dog Policy

Responsibilities

Within the specified area of activity the Committee is responsible for:

· In accordance with the work programme agreed with the parent committee, developing strategy and policy, including any agreed community consultation, to recommend to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

· Acting as a community interface for consultation on policies and as a forum for raising community concerns, while ensuring community engagement is complementary to that undertaken by local boards

· Making decisions within delegated powers

Powers

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

(d) the approval of expenditure that is not contained within approved budgets

(e) the approval of expenditure of more than $2 million other than for land purchases which shall have a limit of $5 million

(f) the approval of final policy

(g) deciding significant matters for which there is high public interest and which are controversial

(h) the commissioning of reports on new policy where that policy programme of work has not been approved by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

Members of the public

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

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

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

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

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

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

Members of the meeting

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

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

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

Staff

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

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

Local Board members

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

IMSB

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

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

CCOs

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

Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee

20 July 2016

Sport and Recreation Investment

File No.: CP2016/14016

Purpose

1. To seek decisions on key elements of council’s region-wide investment programme into sport and recreation.

2. To approve the $175,000 Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme budget for 2016/2017.

3. To approve the $552,000 strategic partnership grant to the Aktive Auckland Sport & Recreation/Regional Sports Trust group for 2016/2017.

4. To seek approval of the Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme guidelines.

5. To seek direction on the future allocation of the residual legacy Hillary Commission Community Sport Fund.

Executive summary

6. Council’s region-wide investment programme in sport and recreation supports the implementation of the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (ASARSAP) to encourage Aucklanders to be more active more often. The investment programme consists of the Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme, strategic partnership grant and the proposed Community Access Scheme.

7. The report also covers the one off allocation of the legacy Hillary Commission funding.

Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme

8. The Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme was established in 2014 through the Community Grants Policy (CGP). A budget of $508,000 is available per annum to support projects and programmes that increase community participation.

9. Seven projects were funded in 2015/2016 with three as multi-year agreements, reducing the budget available for 2016/2017 to $175,000.

10. The 2016/2017 Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme received 19 applications requesting a total of $478,186. Six projects are recommended for funding, four are deemed a low priority, and nine are ineligible for funding under the CGP.

Strategic Partnership Grant - Aktive Auckland Sport and Recreation

11. In 2015/2016 Aktive Auckland Sport & Recreation received a strategic partnership grant, to support the implementation of ASARSAP.

12. Four priority initiatives were identified in partnership with Sport New Zealand and Aktive being volunteers, sector capability, school/community partnerships and sector engagement in the Sports Facility Investment Plan. Good progress has been made against the identified priorities.

13. This report recommends release of the 2016/2017 strategic partnership grant to Aktive to continue to deliver on priority initiatives from the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan.

Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme

14. Auckland Council inherited 14 sport and recreation operational funding agreements; 11 were deemed out of scope of the CGP. The Community Access Scheme guidelines provides guidance for these existing 11 relationships and is a framework to address existing and identified sport and recreation facility provision gaps via partnerships.

15. At the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee meeting on 18 November 2015, the draft guidelines were approved for local board and sector consultation. The consultation has been completed, and the guidelines updated to reflect the feedback received. Feedback was supportive of the intent and content of the guidelines, and of the partnership approach to a community accessible sport and recreation facility network

Future use of Hillary Commission Funding

16. In June 2002, Sport and Recreation New Zealand (SPARC, now Sport NZ) ceased the annual Community Sport Fund administered through councils. SPARC advised councils that any remaining funding could be used in a manner consistent with the desired outcomes of the fund. The legacy councils took a varied approach, with most using remaining funds for capital projects or allocated in grants to sport and recreation groups. At amalgamation Waitakere ($1.1M) and Auckland City Council ($1.389) had Community Sport funds remaining.

17. At the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee meeting on 18 November 2015, options for the use of the residual $2.5m Hillary Commission funding were approved for local board consultation.

18. This report provides local board and sector feedback on the options to allocate the residual Hillary Commission funding and seeks a recommendation on the future use of this funding.

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee:

a) approve the following allocation of funding from the 2016/2017 Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme budget, for the amounts and terms outlined below:

Organisation	Project purpose	Funding Allocation
Athletics New Zealand	Club development	$24,000
Aktive Auckland Sport & Recreation	Whitewater survival skills	$44,400
Mahitahi Trust	Iron Rangatahi	$18,000
Project Litefoot Trust	Club sustainability	$15,700
Auckland Badminton Association Inc.	Schools as hubs	$30,000
Harbour Sport	Regional bike co-ordinator	$42,900
TOTAL		$175,000

b) approve the release of the strategic partnership grant of $552,000 to Aktive Auckland Sport & Recreation to deliver on agreed priority initiatives from the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan.

c) adopt the Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme guidelines, noting that they have been amended in consideration of local board and sector feedback.

d) approve the allocation of the residual $2.5m Hillary Commission Community Sport Fund toward the implementation of the Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme with a priority, but not exclusivity given to identified need in the legacy Waitakere and Auckland City Council areas.

e) request Finance and Performance Committee release the residual $2.5m Hillary Commission funds from the special reserve account to the annual budgets as required following allocation decisions from PRS Committee.

Comments

Background

19. Auckland Council supports sport and recreation in many ways, including the provision of facilities and open space, delivering programmes and sector investment. Council’s region-wide sport and recreation investment programme supports the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (ASARSAP) to encourage Aucklanders to be more active, more often.

20. The sport and recreation investment programme consists of the:

i. Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme

ii. Strategic partnership grants,

iii. Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme.

Regional Sport and Recreation Grant Programme 2016/2017

21. The Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme provide ‘one-off’ project grants and multi-year strategic grants.

22. The programme supports the implementation of the ASARSAP by encouraging Aucklanders to be more active, more often, through grants for projects and programmes.

23. To be eligible for a regional grant, applicants must show that their application addresses regionally determined priorities and is regional in terms of scale, significance, impact or reach.

24. Seven organisations were funded in 2015/2016, including three multi-year (2 year) agreements. Details of the successful applications and an update on their projects implementation can be found in Attachment A.

25. Due to the multi-year agreements, the budget available for 2016/2017 is $175,000. To narrow the focus, additional priority was given to projects that:

i. Demonstrate innovative recreation programming; and/or,

ii. Help develop sustainable delivery models, tools and resources for sport and recreation.

26. Applications for the 2016/2017 Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme opened on 25 January 2016 and closed on 7 March 2016. From the 19 applications received, a total of $478,185 has been requested towards total overall project costs of $1,353,912. The round was oversubscribed by $303,185.

27. The applications were presented to the 13 April 2016 Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee workshop.

Assessment

28. Nine applications did not meet the funding eligibility criteria because they were not of regional impact and/or were capital expenditure requests.

29. Eligible applications were assessed against the Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme assessment matrix (Attachment B) by staff from Community and Social Policy, Te Waka Angamua and Parks Sports and Recreation. Further detail on the applications and the assessment is provided in Attachment C.

30. The strongly aligned applications demonstrate a good ability to deliver on the intended outcomes, target a regionally identified population and/or priority, and are organisations with a known history of quality delivery.

31. The partially aligned applications do not demonstrate as strong an alignment to the CGP outcomes, nor as strong evidence that the projects will increase participation.

32. After fully funding the strongly aligned applications there is $42,900 budget unallocated. Within the partially aligned applications Harbour Sport’s application for regional bike co-ordinators demonstrated the greatest potential to meet the grant programme’s outcomes. Staff have worked with Harbour Sport to address aspects of the proposal, including sustainability and methodology and a revised application has been submitted and is recommended for funding.

33. Three of the six recommended applications directly deliver Māori outcomes, and/or exhibit high participation of Māori, and three of the applications have aspects of their programmes delivered in areas with high Māori populations.

34. Five of the six recommended applications have a strong youth element.

Funding approach and priorities for 2017/2018

35. The 2017/2018 budget is $508,000. The funding round will open in late 2016 with reporting to committee in early 2017. The priorities for the fund are outlined in the CGP and align to the implementation of ASARSAP. In accordance with the CGP, applicants will be invited to submit an application for either a one-off project grant or a multi-year strategic grant.

36. After two years of funding rounds staff have identified that there would be benefit and greater outcomes achieved through a strategic multi-year funding approach with some partners. The 2017/2018 funding round will seek multi-year applications from cornerstone organisations within the sector, that have proven capacity and capability and where outcomes will be maximised via this approach.

Strategic Partnership Grant – Aktive Auckland Sport & Recreation

37. The Community Grants Policy outlines a number of grants areas that are out of scope of the policy, for example:

Grants provided as part of broader strategic relationships with key partner organisations operating regionally (e.g. Aktive and Citizens Advice Bureaux), where the service, role or expertise provided by the funded partner is key to the council delivering its own objectives and long term outcomes for that activity or sector.

38. Previous reports to council have outlined the Aktive/RST funding and activities including Aktive’s involvement on the ASARSAP– Senior Leaders Implementation Group. This group is responsible for ensuring wider sport and recreation sector engagement and commitment to delivering the plan.

39. The ASARSAP - Senior Leaders Implementation Group identified priorities for years one to three of implementation; four key initiatives were identified for the Aktive/RST 2015/2016 investment:

i. volunteer development and retention

ii. sport sector engagement and buy in to develop the Sport Facility Network Plan (now Investment Plan)

iii. programmes and services that improve sport sector capability including multisport and facility partnerships and viable business operating models

iv. development of school/community clusters to increase utilisation of school sport and recreation facilities by community.

40. A final report is due in August on the 2015/2016 year’s funding, however interim reporting and regular updates shows strong progress has been made against each of the initiatives.

i. A Volunteer Action Plan for the sector is under development and is due for completion in July 2017, ready for implementation.

ii. Aktive have been coordinating sector engagement into the Sports Facility Investment Plan.

iii. Local RSTs have been working with council staff in the support of many multi-sport and facility partnership projects to ensure quality, sustainable projects are developed and delivered.

iv. Aktive and the local RSTs have provided valuable input into the school/community partnership project underway with the MOE.

41. The key initiative areas identified for 2015/2016 funding are longer-term strategic priorities and therefore it is recommended that 2016/2017 funding is used to continue their development and implementation.

42. A funding agreement will be developed that ensures clear accountability and KPIs for each of the four areas. Progress will be reported as part of the ASARSAP updates.

Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme

43. Auckland Council inherited 14 sport and recreation operational funding agreements. Eleven of the funding agreements were deemed out-of-scope of the CGP due to their primary nature being community access grants to third-parties to deliver asset-based services.

44. The 29 July 2015 Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee approved the development of strategic region-wide guidelines for the allocation of sport and recreation grants outside the scope of the Community Grants Policy including community access/operating grants.

45. The draft Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme guidelines were approved at the 18 November 2015 Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee meeting for local board and sector consultation.

46. The purpose of the proposed Community Access Scheme is to leverage access to non-council operated facilities to support increased levels of sport and recreation participation and improve equity of access to opportunities. The scheme will support implementation of ASARSAP and the Sport Facility Investment Plan, which is currently under development. The aim is to obtain access to sport and recreation facilities where there are identified gaps in the existing network provided both by council and the sports sector, encourage greater use of existing assets and support multisport/shared use facilities.

47. The Community Access Scheme will enable council to move investment across Auckland in response to highest need/demand and invest strategically on a three yearly cycle aligned to the Long-term Plan (LTP).

48. Consultation on the draft guidelines has occurred with local boards, existing recipients, and key sector partners. Feedback was supportive of the intent and content of the guidelines, and of the partnership approach to a community accessible sport and recreation facility network. Local board resolutions (Attachment D), which include feedback on the legacy Hillary Commission funding dealt with later in this report, and feedback (Attachment E) have been incorporated into the final guidelines (Attachment F).

49. Key feedback was:

i. overall support for the intent, principles and priorities of the guidelines

ii. the need to align with local community preferences and priorities as outlined in local board plans

iii. minimal support for a reduction in investment over time, under the principle of ‘Sustainable facilities’ as this may have a significant impact on effective operations of some facilities and potentially increase costs to the end-user

iv. the principle ‘Fairness and equity of opportunity’ not clearly defining how the scheme will adopt this principle

v. the guidelines not stating whether the funding can be used for capital works. Local boards acknowledged this funding should be targeted at operational support however many noted there is currently a missed opportunity to invest via capital grants in return for securing community access, and would like to see the reinstatement of the facility partnership scheme.

vi. legacy arrangements need to be assessed in the same manner as every other potential partnership.

50. All feedback has been considered in updating the guidelines, with the key changes from the draft guidelines being;

i. addition of the need for the community access scheme to align to local board plans under the context and strategic alignment section

ii. the ‘Sustainable facilities’ principle has been removed

iii. the ‘Fairness and equity of opportunity’ principle has been reworded to ensure the guidelines reflect the intent of the scheme

iv. what we will and will not fund has been clearly defined, including capital works being ineligible

v. existing (legacy) agreements will be reviewed to ensure ongoing need and alignment.

Future use of Hillary Commission funding

51. In June 2002, Sport and Recreation New Zealand (SPARC, now Sport NZ) ceased the annual Community Sport funding. The fund was administered through territorial local authorities and supported sport and recreation projects and initiatives.

52. The fund was allocated to councils on a population basis and was distributed to the community through a combination of contestable grants and loans.

53. Following the end of the Community Sport Fund, SPARC advised councils that any remaining Community Sport funding held or returned via loan repayments could be allocated in a manner consistent with the desired outcomes of the fund.

54. At amalgamation Waitakere ($1.1 million) and Auckland City Council ($1.39 million) had remaining Community Sport Funds, due in the most part low interest loans made to sport clubs having since been repaid.

55. Four options were discussed at the Parks Recreation and Sport Committee workshops on 17 June 2015 and 14 October 2015 for the future use of the residual Hillary Commission fund and approved for local board consultation at the 18 November 2015 meeting. The options were;

i. Develop a new region-wide contestable sport and recreation grants programme

ii. Allocate as part of the existing region-wide contestable sport and recreation grants programme

iii. Allocate towards implementation of priority actions from ASARSAP

iv. Allocate as part of the proposed Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme

56. Local Board consultation has occurred, with feedback being sought around two key areas:

i. the Local Boards’ preferred option, and

ii. whether the funding should be allocated regionally or in legacy geographic areas.

57. 14 Local Boards were supportive of the funding being allocated as part of the proposed Community Access Scheme, with three boards (Whau, Henderson-Massey and Waitakere Rangers) preferring it be allocated towards priority local actions from ASARSAP and four boards (Papakura, Waiheke, Franklin and Hibiscus and Bays) not expressing a preference.

58. There were contrasting views on the geographic allocation of the funding, with ten Local Boards supporting allocation to legacy areas, eight supporting allocation across Auckland (albeit with two of these supporting a priority be given to legacy areas), and three stating no preference. Attachment D provides each Local Board’s resolutions.

59. The boards that advocated for the money to be allocated in the legacy areas supported a multi-board west and central approach to facilitate sub-regional decision-making.

60. Consultation was undertaken with Aktive and the local Regional Sports Trusts. Sport Waitakere provided formal feedback that advocated for the funding to be dispensed in the area for which it was originally allocated. Sport Waitakere would like to see the funding support the implementation of a west local board sport and recreation plan which could include partnerships under the proposed Community Access Scheme.

61. Allocating the funds to the Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme is identified as the preferred option. It will add to existing funding over a potential three to five year period, and provide support to develop partnerships for community access to non-council operated facilities in areas of existing or identified need, with a focus on reducing inequities of opportunity.

62. Additionally it is preferred that this funding be used to meet identified priorities across Auckland with a priority, but not exclusivity, given to identified need in the legacy Waitakere and Auckland City Council areas. This approach provides an opportunity to allocate the funding towards the highest priority sport and recreation facility needs while ensuring that west and central are prioritised if there are competing and equal priorities.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

63. Local Boards were consulted during the development of ASARSAP, which articulates how the priorities and strategic directions of the Auckland Plan will be implemented. The sport and recreation investment programme supports the implementation of ASARSAP.

64. Local boards were consulted through the development of the CGP. Local boards have noted that there are organisations and projects that do not qualify for local board funding and are therefore in need of a regional funding option.

65. Local boards have not been directly consulted on applications received through the Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme however it was workshopped with this committee to which local board chairs are invited.

66. Local boards and organisations with existing community access agreements have been engaged in on-going dialogue with Auckland Council staff about potential future change in community access agreements since amalgamation. Local boards were provided with an update on the draft Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme guidelines at the 23 November 2015 Local Board Chairs Forum. Workshops have also been held with all local boards that have existing community access funding relationships and any boards that specifically requested workshops.

67. Workshops have been held with the west and central boards as clusters and with a further four boards who specifically requested a workshop on the allocation of the residual Hillary Commission funding.

68. A report requesting feedback on the draft Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme guidelines and the options for allocating the residual Hillary Commission funding was presented to all local boards in June and July 2016.

69. Feedback from Local Board consultation has been included in the relevant sections of this report.

Māori impact statement

70. ASARSAP includes actions focusing on improving the health and well-being of Māori. Initiative 3.7 – Partner with regional Māori sports organisations to identify opportunities to increase participation by Maori in recreation and sport activities, including programmes in Te Reo, Māori settings and cultural activities.

71. ASARSAP key initiative 15.2 sets out the task for Te Waka Angamua and partners to lead the development of Te Whai Oranga – the Māori Sport and Recreation Plan. Te Whai Oranga and ASARSAP will guide delivery of specific programmes that will benefit Māori and improve delivery against outcomes.

72. All eligible regional sport and recreation grant applications were assessed for Māori outcomes. Three of the six applications recommended for funding align with Te Whai Oranga, the Māori Sport and Recreation Plan for Auckland. Examples are:

i. Enabling rangatahi leadership

ii. Increasing opportunities for Maori to participate in sport and recreation in supportive settings.

73. Staff from the Parks, Sport and Recreation department and Te Waka Angamua have worked with the Principal Advisor Social Outcomes - Independent Māori Statutory Board regarding the Community Access Scheme guidelines and there future implementation.

74. The Community Access Scheme will support Auckland Council’s commitment to Māori and support positive outcomes for Māori participation in sport and recreation through investing in eligible organisations that help achieve this objective. Matauranga Māori / Māori knowledge and world views will be respected. We will ensure that we:

i. Engage effectively with Māori to identify investment opportunities to increase access

ii. Provide appropriate capacity building support to those invested in to support increased Maori participation in sport and recreation.

Implementation

75. Following the 2016/2017 Regional Sport and Recreation Grant funding decisions by this Committee, all applicants will be notified of the outcome. Staff will support those that were partially aligned or ineligible to seek other funding options.

76. Funding agreements and KPI’s will be prepared for all successful Regional Sport and Recreation grant applications. All grants will be monitored and evaluated and reported to Committee in line with the CGP and Monitoring and Evaluation matrix. Māori outcomes will also be specifically reported.

77. Following Committee approval to release the strategic partnership grant of $552,000, a funding agreement will be prepared for Aktive that ensures clear accountability for the 2016/2017 investment.

78. The existing eligible community access agreements will be reviewed over 2016/2017 to determine appropriate funding amounts and levels of service for 1 July 2017 onwards. Relevant local boards will be involved in this process.

79. Pending budget availability, sports facility network gaps that could be filled via new partnerships will be reported to this committee in early 2017. Once priority gaps are approved respective local boards will be engaged in the selection of the best partnerships to ensure alignment to local outcomes with budget allocation from 1 July 2017

80. Implementation of the Hillary Commission funding will be via the community access scheme (paragraph 78) with additional priority given to west and central sports facility network gaps.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	2015/2016 Regional Sport and Recreation grants programme recipient update	19
b View	Regional Sport and Recreation grants programme assessment matrix	21
c View	2016/2017 Regional Sport and Recreation grants programme applications	23
d View	Local Board Community Access Scheme guidelines and Hillary Commission resolutions	27
e View	Local Board Community Access Scheme guidelines feedback	33
f View	Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme guidelines	43

Signatories

Authors

Ken Maplesden - Team Leader Local Partnerships

Emma Morgan - Principal Advisor Investment Programme

Authorisers

Sharon Rimmer - Manager Sport and Recreation

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee

20 July 2016

Te Whai Oranga – Māori Sport and Recreation Action Plan Update

File No.: CP2016/14942

Purpose

1. To provide an update on the development of Te Whai Oranga Māori Sport and Recreation Action Plan and outline the next stage of development of the Action Plan.

Executive summary

2. Te Whai Oranga – Māori Sport and Recreation Action Plan is a key deliverable of the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Aciton Plan 2014-2024. In September 2013 the Regional Development and Operations Committee endorsed the Sport and Recreation Action Plan including the development of a Māori Sport and Recreation Plan.

3. Council has been partnering with He Oranga Poutama ki Tāmaki (Sport Waitakere) to develop the plan.

4. Te Whai Oranga/ Pursuit of Health and Well-being has been defined, as the term that best encompasses ‘sport and recreation’ from a Te Ao Māori/ Māori World View.

5. In September 2015 the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee noted the draft development of the Māori Sport and Recreation Outcomes Framework. This is now referred to as Te Kāpehu Taka Ora – Compass for the Pursuit of Māori Health and Well-being (see attached).

6. The report will outline the next stage of development of the Action Plan.

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee:

a) note Te Whai Oranga - Māori sport and recreation action plan update.

b) endorse the next stage of development.

Comments

7. In September 2013 The Regional Development and Operations Committee endorsed the Sport and Recreation Action Plan including the development of a Māori Sport and Recreation Plan.

8. The plan is jointly developed with He Oranga Poutama ki Tāmaki. He Oranga Poutama/ Stairway to Well-being is a regional initiative delivered through Sports Waitakere. The He Oranga Poutama programme has a goal of “increasing participation and leadership as Māori in sport and traditional physical activity at community level”.

9. He Oranga Poutama ki Tamaki have a team of seven that cover the Tāmaki Makaurau Region. The six Kaiwhakahaere/ Coordinators and one Kaihautu/ Manager work across the four Regional Sport Trusts - Counties Manukau Sport, Sport Waitakere, Harbour Sport and Sport Auckland. He Oranga Poutama ki Tamaki have three key outcomes which are:

· kaiwhakahāere participating as leaders in their community

· increased opportunities for whānau to explore, learn and participate as Māori in sport and traditional physical recreation

· revitalisation and further development of sport and traditional physical recreation.

10. In September 2015 the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee noted the development of the draft Māori Sport and Recreation Outcomes Framework. This is now referred to as Te Kāpehu Taka Ora – Compass for the Pursuit of Māori Health and Well-being.

11. Staff have engaged with mana whenua, matawaka and Māori sport organisations and important stakeholders such as, One Voice and Aktive, including their Māori Advisory Group.

12. He Oranga Poutama and Aktive have undertaken a stocktake of current Māori focused activities and initiatives and mapped them to the draft framework. Feedback on alignment has been very positive.

13. Te Waka Angamua and Parks, Sport and Recreation have been working together to identify how the framework can inform future planning of activities and investment and how it will compliment ‘Te Waka Oranga – Parks, Sport and Recreation’s Māori Responsiveness Plan.

14. The next stage of development will focus on three critical areas;

· Engagement with Local Boards regarding the local application of the framework.

· Engagement across key Departments and CCOs regarding their potential contribution to the framework as part of Te Toa Takitini.

· Finalisation of the Action Plan, encompassing a 3 year implementation plan.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. Local Boards will play an important role of enabling Te Whai Oranga – Māori Sport and Recreation across our local communities. Engagement with Local Boards is planned for the next stage of developing the action plan.

Māori impact statement

16. Enabling Te Whai Oranga – Pursuit of Māori Health and Well-being is an important part of Council’s commitment to ‘lifting Māori social and economic well-being as outlined in the Auckland plan. In developing the action plan, benefits to Māori will include:

a. Increased influence of the framework to sport, recreation and community policy

b. Increased numbers of Māori active in sport and recreation.

c. Increased numbers of Māori leading and organising activities.

d. Increased awareness of self-identity and cultural awareness.

e. Contribution to improved health and wellbeing of families.

f. Increased knowledge and practice of traditional Māori games, recreation and sport.

g. Māori-led events (e.g. Iron Māori and partnership opportunities.

h. Enabling partnering opportunities with Māori sports organisations.

Implementation

17. A three year implementation plan, will be developed with He Oranga Poutama, Sports, Parks and Recreation to deliver on the framework.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Te Kāpehu Taka Ora – Compass frame to Te Whai Oranga o ngā whānau o Tāmaki Makaurau/Māori sport and recreation plan	49

Signatories

Authors

Veronica Thompson – Kaihautū, Whakatūturu Puni: Senior Advisor, Māori Effectiveness

Authorisers

Johnnie Freeland - Paearahi Matua - Manager

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee

20 July 2016

Appointment to Control and Manage Reclaimed Land - 19 Mona Ave, Mangere Bridge

File No.: CP2016/14601

Purpose

1. To approve the appointment of Auckland Council to control and manage Reclaimed Land at 19 Mona Avenue, Mangere Bridge, as a recreation reserve.

Executive summary

2. During the 1990’s and 2000’s, the former Manukau City Council (MCC) was involved with land that was illegally reclaimed (Reclaimed Land) located at 19 Mona Avenue, Mangere Bridge. Involvement included undertaking landscaping works. Refer to Attachment A for a location and site plan.

3. All procedures in terms of sections 245 and 246 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (dealing with reclamations), and special consent conditions to complete reclamation have now been complied with.

4. The Reclaimed Land was declared as Crown Land on 30 October 2014. In accordance with the consent conditions, the Reclaimed Land will be transferred from the Crown to the Department of Conservation (DoC). The proposal is that DoC will appoint Auckland Council to control and manage the Reclaimed Land as a recreation reserve.

5. It has been agreed with LINZ that on the basis of the substantial costs incurred by MCC in dealing with the issues surrounding the land in the past, the transfer of the Reclaimed Land to DoC then appointment to council for control and management of the Reclaimed Land, will be at nil consideration.

6. The Reclaimed Land forms part of the greenways network plan and will provide a connection between two adjoining esplanade reserves (Hastie Avenue Reserve and 18R Mona Avenue). The majority is grassed and provides opportunities for informal recreation and access to and along the coastal area. The land is currently maintained by the council.

7. The Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board provided their support at their February meeting. Approval is now sought from the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee to accept the appointment of Auckland Council to control and manage the Reclaimed Land as a recreation reserve.

Recommendation

That the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee:

a) approve the appointment of Auckland Council to control and manage the Reclaimed Land at 19 Mona Avenue containing an area of 1.2191 hectares more or less, being Lot 1 DP 417625, as a Recreation Reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Comments

8. In the 1990s and 2000s, illegally reclaimed land at 19 Mona Avenue, Mangere Bridge (Lot 1 DP 417625) was illegally occupied by a squatter and used as a rubbish tip. The former Manukau City Council (MCC) incurred substantial costs evicting the squatter and landscaping the land (refer to Attachments A and B for a location plan and site plan).

9. On 21 July 2008, CKL Surveying and Planning acting on behalf of Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) made an application to the former Auckland Regional Council (ARC) for a coastal permit under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 to retrospectively authorise the illegal reclamation.

10. On 4 February 2009, ARC made a recommendation to the Department of Conservation (DoC) on a Restricted Coastal Activity Consent Application.

11. On 10 March 2009, ARC granted the coastal permit (Application 35810) to LINZ to authorise reclamation of the land subject to a number of special conditions.

12. Upon the conditions being satisfied and the procedures under section 245 of the Resource Management Act 1991 being compiled with, LINZ will commence the transfer of the Reclaimed Land to DoC. If the council agrees DoC would then appoint Auckland Council for the control and management of the land.

13. On 17 June 2009, MCC received a formal notification from DoC of approval of the plan of survey for the reclamation pursuant to section 245 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

14. On 23 September 2009, the Crown Property Management at LINZ wrote to MCC to confirm whether the council still wished to secure the Reclaimed Land and to assume the satisfaction of Special condition 6. This condition requires the consent holder to place a 200mm layer of clean top soil over the site.

15. On 13 October 2009, MCC staff wrote to DoC requesting the transfer of the Reclaimed Land to the council to control and manage as a local purpose (esplanade) reserve at no cost. On 11 December 2009, MCC staff wrote to LINZ advising council’s desire to transfer the land to council at no cost on the basis of the substantial costs already incurred by MCC dealing with a wide range of issues pertaining to the land and achieving the desired outcome.

16. On 31 August 2010, LINZ further advised its requirement for council to either satisfy the Special condition 6 or to apply to ARC to withdraw the special consent condition before completion of the reclamation process.

17. On 10 August 2012, council wrote to LINZ attaching a copy of the confirmation from Consents and Compliance team that enough top soil has been laid to satisfy Special condition 6.

18. On 13 May 2013, council in its regulatory capacity issued a certificate to LINZ as Consent Holder certifying the reclamation of the land conforming under Consent Application 35810.

19. The Reclaimed Land was declared Crown land pursuant to its powers under section 32(1) of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, subject to the Land Act 1948 and vested in it the Reclaimed Land following publication of the declaration in the New Zealand Gazette on 30 October 2014.

20. The Reclaimed Land is approximately 1.2191 hectares in size, is generally flat, grassed and is currently maintained by the council. It has been identified as part of the greenways network plan and provides a link between two adjoining esplanade reserves, Hastie Avenue Reserve to the west and 18R Mona Ave to the east. It provides opportunities for informal recreation and access to and along the coast. High voltage transmission lines cross the land and it is subject to a designation under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan which seeks to protect the airport approach paths.

21. Discussions have been initiated with DoC with respect to what happens should the reserve, or any part of the reserve, be returned to the Crown and the appointment of Auckland Council revoked pursuant to Section 28 of the Reserves Act. This includes the potential for Auckland Council to receive compensation for the land lost, which shall be assessed under the provisions of Part V of the Public Works Act 1981.

22. Approval of the appointment to control and manage rests with the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee under delegation.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

23. The Reclaimed Land will be a local reserve. The local board will therefore have decision making responsibility for the reserve should the council be appointed for its control and management. This includes responsibility for its development and maintenance.

24. The ongoing operational costs for new parks are provided for in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025. The Reclaimed Land is currently being maintained by the council and budget has been allocated accordingly. The annual maintenance costs are approximately $8,000.

25. At their February 2016 meeting, the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board made the following recommendation (Resolution No. MO/2016/9);

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board recommend to the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee the appointment of Auckland Council to control and manage the Reclaimed Land at 19 Mona Avenue containing an area of 1.2191 hectares more or less, being Lot 1 DP 417625, as a Recreation Reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Māori impact statement

26. Iwi consultation was undertaken with Tahuna Minhinnick from Ngati Te Ata on the proposed transfer of the Reclaimed Land to the council for control and management as a local purpose (esplanade) reserve, by the Strategic Iwi Relations Manager of DoC in May 2014. There was no objection or issue received through the consultation.

27. As the consultation was undertaken in 2014, DoC has undertaken to further consult with Ngati Te Ata to confirm whether there are still no issues with the proposal and to address the change in classification from local purpose (esplanade) reserve to recreation reserve, which is considered more appropriate in terms of the purpose of the reserve. There has been some delay in undertaking the consultation as there is a new representative.

Implementation

28. Once LINZ has transferred the Reclaimed Land to DoC by setting it apart under the Land Act 1948 as a recreation reserve, DoC will classify the land under the Reserves Act 1977 for recreation purposes.

29. If the council is supportive, DoC will appoint Auckland Council to control and manage the Reclaimed Land.

30. LINZ will publish a gazette notice setting the land apart as a reserve under the Land Act, and DoC will publish a gazette notice classifying the reserve and appointing Auckland Council to control and manage under the Reserves Act.

31. Once a title for the reserve has issued, the gazette notice classifying and appointing the council to control and manage the reserve can be registered against the title, so the council’s appointment can be retained as a permanent public record.

32. It is anticipated that there will be no cost to the council for the appointment to control and manage process.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Location Plan - 19 Mona Ave, Mangere Bridge	79
b View	Site Plan - 19 Mona Ave, Mangere Bridge	81

Signatories

Author	Sophie Bell - Parks & Open Space Specialists Manager
Authoriser	Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee

20 July 2016

Sports Facilities Investment Plan – Analysis of Feedback and Submissions

File No.: CP2016/12144

Purpose

1. This report provides a summary of the feedback on the Sports Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document. Approval is sought to release the attached Sports Facilities Investment Plan: Analysis of Feedback and Submissions on the Shape Auckland website.

2. On the agenda for consideration, there is a second report – Key Components of Sports Facilities Investment Plan (refers CP2016/12613), which seeks approval of the proposed structure of the Plan as well as the primary desired outcome, investment principles, scope and focus of future council investment.

Executive summary

3. On 21 March 2016, Auckland Council released the Sports Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document and commenced an intensive four-week engagement process. The aim was to raise awareness and encourage debate to inform future investment in sports facilities.

4. The attached report provides a detailed analysis of feedback and submissions received from local boards, the sports sector and the public on the discussion document. The main sections of the report include:

i. current state and future challenges, including growth, funding and land supply constraints

ii. options to manage competing demand, including maximising utilisation and operational efficiencies as well as partnering and coordination with other investors

iii. specific comments on the Council’s future investment role, targets and principles, priorities and suggested actions

iv. cross-cutting themes from feedback received on the Sports Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document and the Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document

v. a list of actions by Auckland Council to respond to the feedback.

5. It is recommended the attached report be approved for releasing and the proposed actions be agreed. It is important to formally close the engagement process by publishing the findings and to explain Auckland Council’s response to the feedback.

6. Also on the agenda for consideration is the report Key Components of Sports Facilities Investment Plan. It seeks approval of the proposed structure and key elements of the Plan. Decisions on this report will inform the development of the Plan. We aim to have the Plan ready for consideration for the Parks, Recreation, and Sport Committee (or equivalent) in March 2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee:

a) agree to the release the Sports Facilities Investment Plan: Analysis of Feedback and Submissions (Attachment 1) on the ShapeAuckland website.

b) agree to the list of proposed Auckland Council actions to respond to the feedback (summarised in Tables 1 and 2 of this report).

c) note that the feedback and submissions on the Sports Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document will inform the ongoing development of the Sports Facilities Investment Plan.

d) note that another report Key Components of Sports Facilities Investment Plan is also on the agenda for consideration, which seeks approval of the proposed structure and key elements of the Plan.

Comments

Background

7. On 21 March 2016, Auckland Council released the Sports Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document and commenced an intensive four-week engagement process.

8. The discussion document presented evidence about the benefits of sports facilities, the current demand and supply trends, as well as existing funding patterns and challenges. It also included questions about what investment role Auckland Council should play in the future, where it should target its investment, possible investment frameworks and options to increase value for money.

9. The purpose of engagement was to increase understanding of the key issues and the possible impact of a regional investment approach to sports facilities on local boards and key stakeholders. It also provided an opportunity to collect additional data.

10. Feedback was gathered through workshops with all 21 local boards, meetings with council advisory panels and Aktive advisory groups, as well as four focus group workshops with over 40 representatives of sport and recreation organisations across Auckland.

11. A total of 121 email and online submissions were also received.

Analysis of feedback and submissions

12. Staff have prepared a detailed analysis of feedback and submissions. The report contains both qualitative and quantitative data. Direct quotes from a wide range of respondents have also been included to enrich the data.

13. Overall, there was general support across the feedback and submissions for the development of a Plan. Many supported a more defined investment role for Auckland Council, with a particular focus on ‘added value’ and the delivery of specific Auckland Plan outcomes.

14. There was also support for council investment to target increased community and youth participation in sport.

15. There was strong support for a principled approach to investment. Feedback and submissions supported the adoption of investment principles including: ‘accountability’, ‘affordability’, ‘co-investment/partnership’, ‘equity’, ‘evidence-based’, ‘flexibility’ and ‘outcome-based’.

16. The key themes from the feedback and submissions and the proposed response from Auckland Council are outlined in the following table.

Table 1: Key themes from engagement on the Sports Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document

Theme

Summary of feedback and submissions

Proposed response from Auckland Council

Current state and future challenges

· increasing demand for sports facilities as the Auckland population grows and diversifies, coupled with funding and land supply constraints

· problems with existing facilities, including fitness-for-purpose and scheduling issues

· concerns over the financial sustainability of sports clubs

· agreed – Auckland Council will consider opportunities to increase efficiency of existing facilities and ensure they are fit for purpose before building new ones

· noted – Auckland Council will consider the financial implications of its investment approach for sports clubs and will only support individual proposals if the investment is consistent with council’s investment scope and priorities

How to managing competing demand

Suggestions on how to respond to future demand and supply challenges include:

· leverage funding and partner with sports sector, government agencies, schools, the private sector and community to unlock other facilities for public use

· build efficient and flexible new facilities, such as multi-sport or multi-use facilities

· noted – Auckland Council will conduct partnership programmes with Sport New Zealand, Ministry of Education and Aktive

· agreed – the feedback will inform the Sports Facilities Investment Plan

Suggested actions for Auckland Council

In addition to adopting a strategic investment framework, the feedback suggested Auckland Council should also:

· source better quality data to inform robust investment decisions and ensure they deliver expected benefits

· addressing supply gaps of sports facilities

· agreed – the consultation has provided valuable information about demand and supply pressures and issues. Auckland Council will conduct further work to fill the information gaps

· agreed – the Sports Facilities Investment Plan will provide a strategic approach to evaluate and address gaps, without favouring particular areas, sports or groups

Auckland Council has sufficient data to show that there is a significant supply gap in indoor court facilities. A separate Indoor Court Facilities Investment Plan is being drafted to address the gap

17. The Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document was released for feedback at the same time as the Sports Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document. There are some common threads between the feedback provided on the two discussion documents.

Table 2: Cross-cutting themes

Theme	Summary of feedback and submissions	Proposed response from Auckland Council
Multi-sport and multi-use facilities	· prioritise investment in multi-sport and multi-use facilities to increase efficiency, participation and engagement with community	· noted – Multi-sport or multi-use facilities with demonstrated high efficiency are likely to be prioritised
Review of council leases to sports clubs	· review the terms and conditions of its leases to sports clubs and set clear expectations and requirements for facility upgrades and management · review legislation to remove red tape, particularly the regulations on commercial activities, noise and lighting controls.	· agreed – Auckland Council will conduct a review of its leases to sports clubs for using council land or sports facilities · noted – legislation change is the responsibility of central government. Auckland Council will consider issues raised and advocate for legislative change where necessary and appropriate
Address inconsistent approach to sports codes	· address Auckland Council’s inconsistent investment approach to sports codes, particularly regarding council’s user charges policies for indoor courts and sport fields	· agreed – work is already underway to review investment across codes

18. Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Analysis of Feedback and Submissions (refers CP2016/13900) is also on the agenda for consideration.

Risk and mitigation

19. In preparing the report staff have had to categorise and interpret the data. This could give rise to concerns about how the feedback and submissions were interpreted and whether the views of the respondents have been accurately reflected in the report. This risk is relatively minor and has been mitigated by the inclusion of direct quotes from a wide range of respondents.

20. The Sports Facilities Investment Plan will take approximately ten months to develop. There is a risk that respondents could expect more immediate results from the engagement process. This is mitigated by publishing the analysis of feedback and submissions report on ShapeAuckland. The report also clearly sets out what further actions council will be undertaking and how feedback will inform this work.

Next steps

21. Also on the agenda for consideration is the report Key Components of Sports Facilities Investment Plan. It seeks approval of the primary desired outcome, investment principles, scope and focus of future council investment that will form the policy statement underpinning the Plan. This report draws heavily upon the feedback and submissions as well as other research.

22. Staff will then work on the development of:

i. a decision-making framework that sets how the investment approach will be applied to deliver efficiencies, including the mechanisms for investment and means to compare investment proposals, as well as ongoing monitoring

ii. an implementation guide that aligns with financial, annual and long-term planning processes.

23. The views of local boards and other respondents will inform this work. Local boards will also be formally consulted on the draft Plan before its adoption. The draft plan will then be consider by the Parks, Recreation, and Sport Committee (or equivalent) in March 2017.

24. Council will also work alongside the sector to identify supply gaps in the sports facility network across Auckland.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

25. Workshops were held with all 21 local boards. Staff took notes of the feedback provided and these were sent back to the local boards for verification.^{^[1]} Five local boards provided additional information (Great Barrier, Franklin, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa and Waitākere Ranges) and four local boards made a formal response (Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtahuhu, Manurewa and Upper Harbour).

26. The main themes from local board feedback and submissions were:

i. council investment in sports facilities should support health, well-being and community outcomes (highlighted in 7 local board workshops)

ii. general support for the proposed investment principles, except ‘those who pay, benefit’ (feedback from 6 local board workshops suggested this be removed as it could be a barrier to participation)

iii. strong support for an investment focus on community sport (19 local board workshops) and young people in particular (8 local board workshops)

iv. strong support for investment in emerging sports with the potential for growth (17 local board workshops) with some differences of opinion as to whether council should invest in popular sports (feedback from 10 local board workshops indicated yes, while feedback from two suggested this was less of a priority)

v. support for investment in that appeal to particular cohorts such as sedentary groups or groups facing disproportionate barriers to participation (7 local board workshops), however, there was no consensus on which specific groups to target.

27. Nine local boards suggested place-based targets for council investment. The rationale was that the needs for central Auckland, rural areas, high growth and non-growth areas and the Hauraki Gulf Islands are markedly different. A number of local boards noted that the former Facilities Partnership Fund allowed for these sub-regional needs to be met and that a comparable mechanism is required.

28. The four formal submissions provided further information about council’s investment approach and particular needs for sports in the local board area.

Māori Impact Statement

29. Discussions were held with the Aktive Māori Sports Advisory Panel engagement on the Sports Facilities Investment Plan and at the Mana Whenua Information Hui. Staff met with the secretariat of the Independent Māori Statutory Board. The discussion document was also disseminated to various Māori sports organisations, including He Oranga Potama.

30. There was strong support for targets, indicators and measures to support Māori participation and build better partnerships with iwi to co-invest, co-own or co-manage sports facilities.

31. There was support for investment in mainstream sports that are already popular amongst Māori, for example, rugby, league and touch, as well as investment in traditional Māori sports such as ki-o-rahi and waka ama.

32. Feedback noted high Māori participation in sport and emphasised the importance of sustaining these participation rates. Investment to activate sedentary Māori, particularly those in the 18-24 year old age group, was prioritised. Investment in Māori youth was another area of focus so that this cohort has equitable and affordable access to sports and is able to participate ‘as Māori’.

33. Marae and whanau-centric venues, which serve as focal points for communities, were promoted as a way to further increase Māori participation. Investment in these venues could reduce costs and the need to travel, which are two of the main barriers to Māori participation. It would also enable the development of a strong facility-based identity and strengthen iwi and community interaction through sport. There was a suggestion that mana whenua could provide manaaki at these venues to support the social and cultural well-being of mataawaka.

Implementation

34. The feedback and submissions will inform the development of the Sports Facilities Investment Plan. The report Key Components of Sports Facilities Investment Plan, which is also on the agenda for consideration, will provide direction on the structure and key main elements of the Plan

.Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Sports Facilities Investment Plan - Analysis of feedback and submission	89

Signatories

Authors

Nancy Chu - Policy Analyst

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee

20 July 2016

Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Analysis of Feedback and Submissions

File No.: CP2016/13900

Purpose

1. This report provides a summary of feedback on the Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document. Approval is sought to release the attached Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Analysis of Feedback and Submissions on the Shape Auckland website.

2. The report also seeks approval of the proposed structure of the Golf Facilities Investment Plan (the ‘Plan’).

Executive summary

3. On 21 March 2016, Auckland Council released the Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document and commenced an intensive four-week engagement process. The aim was to generate debate and to receive feedback on options to improve participation, health and well-being, social and community, environmental and economic outcomes from council’s investment in golf.

4. A total of 94 responses were received. The attached report provides a detailed analysis of feedback and submissions received from local boards, golf sector partners, council-owned or managed golf courses, and the public on the discussion document.

5. Overall there was general support for the development of a Plan, including the proposed approach and scope. Views differed on ways to increase public access to golf courses and to increase golf participation as well as other uses. Views on measures to address the financial sustainability of council-owned or managed golf clubs also differed.

6. It is recommended that the analysis of feedback and submissions report be released on the Shape Auckland website. It is important to formally close the engagement process by publishing the findings and to outline how Auckland Council proposes to respond to this feedback.

7. An initial response is to determine the outline of the Plan. Staff propose that it includes three key components:

i. a formal policy statement setting out the vision, investment principles and the scope of council’s investment

ii. a decision-making framework that sets how the investment approach will be applied as well as ongoing reporting and monitoring

iii. an implementation framework that includes a case-by-case analysis of the 13 council-owned or managed golf courses.

8. This report also signals that a series of options papers will be developed on key issues so that decisions can be taken during the development of the Plan. We aim to have these papers ready for consideration by the Parks, Recreation, and Sport Committee (or equivalent) in early-2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee:

a) agree to release the Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Analysis of Feedback and Submissions (Attachment A) on the Shape Auckland website.

b) note that the feedback and submissions on the Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document will inform the ongoing development of the Golf Facilities Investment Plan.

c) agree that the Golf Facilities Investment Plan includes the following three components: Following research and in-depth engagement, staff seek agreement on the following outline of the Plan:

i) a formal policy statement setting out the vision, investment principles and the scope of council’s investment

ii) a decision-making framework that sets how the investment approach will be applied as well as ongoing reporting and monitoring

iii) an implementation framework that includes a case-by-case analysis of the 13 council-owned or managed golf courses.

d) note that options papers will be developed, so that key decisions can be taken during the development of the Golf Facilities Investment Plan, on the following issues:

i) multi-functional golf courses

ii) economic analysis, for example social return on investment or cost:benefit analyses

iii) review and alignment of lease terms and conditions, including rents

iv) financial sustainability of council-owned or managed golf clubs

v) incentives and disincentives to implementation.

Comments

Background

9. On 21 March 2016, Auckland Council released the Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document and commenced an intensive four-week engagement process.

10. The discussion document presented a range of data and outlined various options to increase participation, health and well-being, social and community, environmental and economic outcomes from the council’s investment in golf.

11. The purpose of engagement was to gather a range of viewpoints on how to increase the return on council’s investment in golf.

12. Feedback was gathered through the Shape Auckland website and email; through workshops with relevant local boards, meetings with council’s advisory panels, Aktive advisory groups, and golf sector partners, as well as discussions with council-owned or managed golf courses.

13. A total of 94 responses were received.

Analysis of feedback and submissions

14. Staff have prepared a detailed analysis of feedback and submissions. The report contains both qualitative and quantitative data. Direct quotes from a wide range of respondents have also been included to enrich the data.

15. Overall, there was general support across the feedback and submissions for the development of the Golf Facilities Investment Plan.

16. Respondents provided a wide range of ideas on how Auckland Council can maximise the benefits from its investment in golf. The most common suggestions included:

i. developing multifunctional golf courses

ii. adopting a hierarchy of golf facilities, although there was some uncertainty as to what this would entail

iii. increasing public access to council-owned or managed golf courses

iv. taking a consistent approach to lease terms and conditions, including rents

v. developing an annual environmental auditing tool.

17. Diverse viewpoints were expressed in response to some of the questions outlined in the Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document. There were different stakeholder perspectives regarding public access to council-owned or managed golf courses; increasing golf participation and other uses; and financial sustainability of golf clubs.

18. Golf clubs and golf sector partners raised concerns, including health and safety issues, about increasing public access to council-owned or managed golf courses. However, the majority of public respondents sought increased access to this open space.

19. There was considerable agreement as well as variation in how multifunctional golf courses could be developed. The majority supported walking, running and cycling trails. Open space activities, such as kite flying, cross-country running and dog walking were also well supported. Public feedback also proposed horse and pony trails, badminton, baseball, rugby, outdoor volleyball and Frisbee. Local boards and other stakeholders suggested sports such as orienteering, archery and pétanque. Whereas most golf clubs would consider merging with local bowls, croquet and tennis clubs.

20. Mixed views were expressed about the long-term financial sustainability of golf clubs. While there was general agreement on the need for a more consistent approach to lease terms and condition, views on an appropriate level of rent varied considerably. Public respondents supported increased council funding. A number of local boards suggested investing in asset renewal, a more standardised approach to clubs’ management and greater oversight. Clubs and golf sector partners sought financial assistance to offset some of the high maintenance costs associated with operating golf courses.

21. A number of respondents suggested increased investment in the delivery of economic and environmental outcomes, including:

i. golf tourism, including providing various options to attract out-of region visitors

ii. native planting, maintenance of golf courses, adopting water sensitive design.

22. While there was acknowledgement that there is a relative balance between current supply and future demand, some respondents called for council to investigate the opportunity cost of using council’s land assets for golf rather than other purposes.

23. Some of the above themes were also raised in feedback and submissions on the Sport Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document.

Proposed outline of the Golf Facilities Investment Plan

24. The purpose of the Plan is to formally review the performance of Auckland Council’s investment in golf.

25. The outline of the Plan largely mirrors the proposed structure of the Sports Facilities Investment Plan, with three components.

26. The first component is a policy statement. Good practice examples of investment plans typically contain a policy statement. This statement clearly states the investment objective or vision as well as the principles which guide decision-making. It is also important to clarify the scope and focus of council’s investment in golf.

27. Staff propose using the vision outlined in the Sport Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document. This was largely supported by all stakeholders. It is also recommended that the investment principles are aligned with the Sports Facilities Investment Plan.

28. The second component is a decision-making framework that supports the execution of the Plan. The framework will also consider any necessary reporting by golf clubs and council’s monitoring of investment returns.

29. The third proposed component is an implementation framework that includes a case-by-case analysis of the 13 council-owned or managed golf courses.

Next steps

30. Engagement on the Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document highlighted a range of different viewpoints. There are a number of options on how council could proceed with the investment approach, however, the implications and trade-offs need to be clearly understood. Accordingly, staff propose to develop options papers on the following issues:

i. multi-functional golf courses

ii. economic analysis, for example social return on investment or cost:benefit analyses

iii. review and alignment of lease terms and conditions, including rents

iv. financial sustainability of council-owned or managed golf clubs

v. incentives and disincentives to implementation.

31. Staff will work on the development of options papers over the coming months. It is expected that these will be considered by the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee (or equivalent) in early-2017. Decisions taken by the Committee will then inform the development of a draft Plan.

Risk and mitigation

32. In preparing the report staff have had to categorise and interpret the data. This could give rise to concerns about how the feedback and submissions were interpreted and whether the views of the respondents have been accurately reflected in the report. This risk is relatively minor and has been mitigated by the inclusion of direct quotes from a wide range of respondents.

33. The Plan will take approximately ten months to develop. There is a risk that respondents could expect more immediate results from the engagement process. This is mitigated by publishing the analysis of feedback and submissions report on Shape Auckland. The report also clearly sets out what further actions council will be undertaking and how feedback will inform this work.

34. There may be an expectation that Auckland Council will increase its investment in golf. However, the council’s intention is to firstly review existing investment. The risk can be mitigated through clear messaging about the purpose of the Plan and transparent decision-making as the Plan is developed.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

35. Workshops were held with nine local boards where council-owned or managed golf courses are situated. Staff took notes of the feedback provided and these were sent back to the local boards for verification.^{^[2]}

36. The Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document was also presented at a workshop with the Waiheke Local Board. However, only one member engaged in the discussion and their comments were not deemed to be representative of the whole local board.

37. Common views expressed in the feedback were:

i. support for shorter golf formats

ii. support for making council-owned or managed golf courses shared environments for golfers and non-golfers, including incorporating walking and cycling trails as well as sports activities, such as cross-country running and orienting

iii. recognition of the significant contributions made by volunteers at council-owned or managed golf courses

iv. calls for a consistent approach to lease terms and conditions, including rents

v. acknowledgement that there is a relative balance between current supply and future demand.

38. There were mixed views on options to improve community and social outcomes as well as to increase environmental outcomes.

Māori impact statement

39. The Aktive Māori Advisory Group was engaged on the Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document. It noted that Māori participation rates in golf are considerably higher in Auckland (10.3%) than the rest of New Zealand (less than 1%), however, the cost of golf was a barrier to participation.

40. The Plan will consider pricing as well as other options to increase participation, social and community outcomes for Māori. For example, one option could be to design a network of sustainable golf facilities that provides diversified experience to attract more Māori players of various skill levels.

Implementation

41. The feedback and submissions report will inform the development of options papers so that key decisions can be taken during the development of the Golf Facilities Investment Plan. We aim to have these papers ready for consideration by the Parks, Recreation, and Sport Committee (or equivalent) in early-2017.

42. Over the medium-term Auckland Council is expected to adopt a single investment approach covering sport, golf and indoor court facilities. This will require the resolution of issues specific to these facility types as well as clarifying the role of council and other investors in the provision of these facilities.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Golf Facilities Investment Plan: Analysis of feedback and submissions	139

Signatories

Authors

Natalia Tropotova - Policy Analyst

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee

20 July 2016

Key components of the Sport Facilities Investment Plan

File No.: CP2016/12613

Purpose

1. This report seeks approval of the proposed structure of the Sports Facility Investment Plan (the ‘Plan’). It also seeks approval of the primary desired outcome, investment principles, scope and focus of future council investment that will form the policy statement underpinning the Plan.

2. This is the second of two reports concerning the Plan. The first report provides a detailed summary of feedback from local boards, the public and the sports sector, which inform the proposals outlined in this report.

Executive summary

3. Auckland Council is taking a structured approach to its investment in sports facilities through the development of a Sports Facilities Investment Plan. Following research and in-depth engagement, staff seek agreement on the following outline of the Plan:

i. a formal policy statement setting out the primary desired outcome, investment principles and the scope of council’s investment

ii. a decision-making framework that sets how the investment approach will be applied to deliver efficiencies, including the mechanisms for investment and means to compare investment proposals, as well as ongoing monitoring

iii. an implementation guide that aligns with financial, annual and long-term planning processes.

4. Further, this report makes recommendations that will allow for the development of the policy statement, including the:

i. desired outcome of future council investment in sports facilities (participation)

ii. investment principles (accountability, equity, financial sustainability, and outcome-focused)

iii. focus of investment (community sport).

5. The other components of the Plan will be developed over the coming months. We aim to have the draft Plan ready for consideration for the Parks, Recreation, and Sport Committee (or equivalent) in March 2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee:

a) agree that the structure of the Sports Facility Investment Plan includes:

i. a formal policy statement setting out the primary desired outcome, investment principles and the scope of council’s investment

iii. an implementation guide that aligns with financial, annual and long-term planning processes.

b) agree that the primary desired outcome of future council investment in sports facilities is increased participation in sport with a view to:

i. enable participation amongst sedentary population groups

ii. increase participation in sports with a high growth potential

iii. sustain or increase participation in sports which currently have high participation rates.

c) agree that the investment principles underpinning the Sports Facility Investment Plan and which guide decision-making are:

i. accountability

ii. equity

iii. financial sustainability

iv. outcome-focused.

d) agree that future council investment focuses on community sport and ensuring a basic level of provision in fit-for-purpose sport facilities, unless a higher level of provision would increase participation or maximise use.

e) agree that future council investment will target core sport infrastructure (for example fields, playing surfaces, lighting, or structures required to play a sport) and ancillary infrastructure required for safe and sanitary public access (for example, toilets, changing rooms or equipment storage).

Comments

Background

6. Auckland Council has allocated approximately $1 billion in the Long-Term Plan 2012-2022 for investment in sport and recreation facilities.

7. In accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, Auckland Council must ensure prudent stewardship and efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of the region.

8. Auckland Council is proposing to take a structured approach to its investment in sports facilities. A Sports Facilities Investment Plan will enable council to strategically manage long-term demand for investment with finite resources and maximise the return on any investment.

9. This report makes recommendations about the proposed structure of the plan and key elements of the Policy Statement.

Proposed structure of the Plan

10. The purpose of the Plan is to take a structured approach to investment in sports facilities. It needs to show how Auckland Council will invest and to ensure that any investment delivers expected outcomes.

11. Good practice examples of investment plans typically contain a policy statement. This statement clearly states the investment objective or the outcome sought as well as the principles which guide decision-making. It is also important to clarify the scope and focus of investment.

12. The second main component of an investment plan is an outline decision-making that supports the execution of the plan. The decision-making framework specifies responsibility for the monitoring of results.

13. Establishing clear accountabilities and emphasising evidence-based advice across each stage of the investment cycle will also help deliver the council’s Organisational Strategy.^{^[3]}

14. Staff also propose to develop an implementation guide, which explains the processes for applying the investment approach.

15. These three components reflect many of the issues raised during the engagement process.

Recommendation (a)

Agree that the structure of the Sports Facility Investment Plan includes:

· a formal policy statement setting out the primary desired outcome, investment principles and the scope of council’s investment

· a decision-making framework that sets how the investment approach will be applied to deliver efficiencies, including the mechanisms for investment and means to compare investment proposals, as well as ongoing monitoring

· an implementation guide that aligns with financial, annual and long-term planning processes.

Development of the Policy Statement

16. The remainder of this report sets out proposals that relate to the Policy Statement component of the investment plan. Decisions are sought on the:

i. desired outcome of future council investment in sports facilities (participation)

ii. investment principles (accountability, equity, financial sustainability, and outcome-focused)

iii. focus of investment (community sport).

Investment outcomes

17. Staff propose that the primary outcome of future council investment in sport facilities should be increased participation. This aligns with the objective of the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan - Aucklanders being more active, more often - as well as the health and well-being outcomes in the Auckland Plan (see Figure 2 below).

Table 1: Increased participation as the primary outcome sought from investment

Advantages

Risk

· Singular investment focus

· Tight focus helps council manage finite resources

· Clearly signals council investment intentions and the outcome sought

· Provides certainty

· Complements the roles of Regional Facilities Auckland and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development, who focus on stadia and the economic potential of facilities

· Aligned with the strategic directions of SportNZ and Aktive

· Enables others to align investment

· Some investments may not happen if alternative funding sources are unavailable

· Council will have limited influence over the delivery of projects in which it does not invest

Mitigation: Advocacy and effective communication with other investors

18. Increased participation could be achieved by enabling participation amongst sedentary population groups. This has the potential to yield untapped benefits by increasing the pool of people who are active.

19. Increasing participation in sports with a high growth potential and sustaining or increasing participation in sports, which already have high participation rates will also contribute to the desired outcome. The first area of investment meets the changing needs of Auckland’s population. The second area of investment helps sustain existing participation levels.

20. These were strong themes from the engagement process. For example, the majority of stakeholders supported for investment to increase participation, particularly amongst young people. Approximately 45 per cent of submissions supported investment that appeal to sedentary groups. A total of 18 local board workshops signaled support for investment in small or emerging sports. While there was support for investment in popular sports at 10 local board or sector workshops.

Table 2: Investment areas

Proposal	Advantages	Risk
Sedentary groups	· Untapped opportunity to increase participation by targeting relatively inactive groups · High potential return (for example, health and social benefits) from getting sedentary people involved in sport	Sports facilities investment does not, in itself encourage sedentary people to become active Mitigation: Ensure investment in sports programmes also targets sedentary groups
Small or emerging sports	· Removes barriers to growth – without adequate access to facilities, there is a ceiling on participation growth · Supports participation growth amongst growing ethnic populations, who often have interest in non-traditional sports · Meet needs of current and future communities · Supports participation in sports where it may be risky for the private sector to invest · Enables investment in traditional Māori sports which have potential to increase participation and wellbeing	· These sports may have small numbers, so even though percentage growth is high, it may not result in significant increases in participation · Data for small sports is limited making it difficult to estimate potential Mitigation: Work with sports sector to improve data collection and increase the frequency of reviews of the performance of the investment
High participation sports	· Sustains participation rates · Represents value for money as small percentage increases in participation would result in large actual increases · Builds on existing sector capacity	These sports may not have the potential for further growth Mitigation: Work with sector to improve data collection and undertake periodic reviews of the performance of the investment

Recommendation (b)

Agree that the primary desired outcome of future council investment in sports facilities is increased participation in sport with a view to:

· enable participation amongst sedentary population groups

· increase participation in sports with a high growth potential

· sustain or increase participation in sports which currently have high participation rates.

Investment principles

21. Investment principles help guide decision-making. They help ensure consistency and allow for evaluation of investment decisions against delivery of the expected outcome. Clear principles also provide certainty about where council will focus its investment.

22. Based on engagement feedback and submissions, staff propose that the policy statement includes four key investment principles.

Table 3: Proposed investment principles

Principle	Description	Rationale
Accountability	Council will ensure public confidence by making transparent decisions, which demonstrate value for money	Strong local board support for this principle
Equity	Council investments will be made equitably to deliver fair access to facilities for all Aucklanders Equity may require unequal allocation or reallocation of investments in order to overcome inequalities	Strong stakeholder support for this principle, including local board, Māori and sector stakeholders Equity appeared to mean different things to different stakeholders, for example equity of investment allocation across local boards and sports codes or equity of access on the basis of age, ethnicity, gender, geography and socio-economic status
Financial Sustainability	Council will make investment decisions that support the long term financial sustainability of sports facilities, while being affordable to use and access	Strong sector support Feedback supported a principle that reflects the importance of affordability to the user
Outcome-based	Investments will be outcome-focuses, in particular on increasing participation	Received highest level of endorsement from all stakeholders

23. Additional principles such as ‘complementarity’, ‘evidence based’, ‘co-investment friendly’, ‘flexible’ and ‘consistent’ were supported by a number of stakeholders. However, it is recommended that these be incorporated into the decision-making framework as they provide direction as to how council will invest, rather than what it might invest in.

Recommendation (c)

Agree that the investment principles underpinning the Sports Facility Investment Plan and which guide decision-making are:

· accountability

· equity

· financial sustainability

· outcome-focused.

Investment scope and focus

24. Staff propose that future council investment provides a basic level of provision targeted at community sport, rather than high performance sport.

25. This approach is likely to maximise the health and social-inclusion benefits across the largest number of people. It also effectively positions council to meet the changing needs of communities.

Table 4: Proposed investment focus

Proposal

Advantages

Risk

Specialise in investment that enables broad community participation

· Ensures investment benefits diverse range of groups, notwithstanding ability or background

· Public investment is key to ensuring adequate provision of facilities

· Ensures investment in areas where Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development are less likely to focus

· Trade-offs between provision of facilities for community use versus high performance sport

· Investment in high performance sport can provide inspiration for young athletes or maximise the use of a facility

Mitigation: Prioritise community sport, but do not exclude investment in high performance if it delivers community benefits

Invest primarily in a basic level of provision

· Basic provision likely to be sufficient to meet the needs of the majority

· Cost-savings from a lower level of provision can be transferred to other priorities

· Trade-offs between provision of facilities for community use versus high performance sport

· Could reduce the use of the facilities as they might not have the standard to hold regional events, or to be hired out to sports teams for training

Mitigation: Prioritise a basic level, but do not exclude a higher level of provision if it will increase sports participation or maximise use

26. This proposal is consistent with the engagement feedback, which supported a more focused investment approach. Community needs was a priority identified at 20 Local Board workshops. However, some sport sector workshops suggested that investment in high performance facilities should not be excluded.

Recommendation (d)

Agree that future council investment focuses on community sport and ensuring a basic level of provision in fit-for-purpose sport facilities, unless a higher level of provision would increase participation or maximise use.

27. Some sports infrastructure is more critical to enabling sports participation and community access than others:

i. Core infrastructure (courts, fields, playing surfaces/structures, and lighting) is central to sports participation

ii. Ancillary infrastructure (toilets, changing rooms, equipment storage, and car-parking) enables safe and sanitary access for participants and spectators

iii. Incidental infrastructure (such as clubrooms and administration facilities) is not required for sports participation but exists for social and management purposes.

28. Given the proposed focus on increasing sports participation, staff recommend that the majority of investment be directed towards core infrastructure.

Table 4: Proposed investment in core infrastructure

Proposal

Advantages

Risk

Target investment at core and ancillary infrastructure

· Ensures that facilities required to enable and increase sports participation are provided

· Ensures public money not spent on infrastructure that primarily delivers private benefit to small group of users

· Investment in incidental infrastructure will not be a priority, even though they may help increase efficiency of core infrastructure and provide social or community benefits

Mitigation: Prioritise core infrastructure, but do not exclude incidental infrastructure

29. Investment in incidental facilities would not be a priority, but may be warranted if it would increase sports participation or maximise the use of a core facility. For example, investment in shared administration facilities or clubrooms in a multi-functional hub.

30. This approach may encourage sports clubs and other investors to focus their investment on ancillary infrastructure.

31. Eight local board workshops suggested that investment in core infrastructure is most important, followed by ancillary and then incidental infrastructure (if funding allows).

Recommendation (e)

Agree that future council investment will target core sport infrastructure (for example fields, playing surfaces, lighting, or structures required to play a sport) and ancillary infrastructure required for safe and sanitary public access (for example, toilets, changing rooms or equipment storage).

Next steps

32. The next step will be to develop the policy statement, which will underpin the Sports Facility Investment Plan.

33. Staff will also develop:

ii. an implementation guide that aligns with financial, annual and long-term planning processes.

34. The views of local boards and other respondents will inform this work. Local boards will also be formally consulted on the draft Plan before its adoption. We aim to have the draft Plan ready for consideration for the Parks, Recreation, and Sport Committee (or equivalent) in March 2017.

35. Council will also work alongside the sector to identify supply gaps in the sports facility network across Auckland.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

36. Informal feedback from local board workshops informed the policy proposals outlined in this report. Their views were gathered during engagement on the Sports Facility Investment Plan: Discussion Document. Workshops were held with all 21 local boards. Staff took notes of the feedback provided and these were sent back to the local boards for verification.^{^[4]}

37. Five local boards provided additional information (Great Barrier, Franklin, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa and Waitākere Ranges) and four local boards made a formal response (Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtahuhu, Manurewa and Upper Harbour).

38. While there were different views, feedback from local board workshops generally:

i. support investment in health, well-being and community outcomes

ii. support investment in community sport and young people in particular

iii. support the following principles: co- investment/partnership (10); evidence based (5); flexibility (4); affordability (3); complementarity (3) and consistency (2)

iv. support investment in emerging sports with the potential for growth (17) and popular sports (10)

v. support investment in sports in sedentary groups or groups facing disproportionate barriers to participation.

Māori impact statement

39. A range of stakeholders were engaged on the Sports Facility Investment Plan: Discussion Document. Feedback of specific relevance to the policy proposals in this report include:

i. support for affordability and equity as key investment principles

ii. support for investment in sports that are popular amongst Māori as well as traditional Māori sports, for example ki-o-rahi and waka ama

iii. support for investment that increase participation by Māori youth, in particular those between 18 and 24 years of age who are often have sedentary lifestyles, and to enable them to participate as Māori

iv. support for investment in Marae and whanau-centric venues, which serve as focal points for communities.

40. The proposals outlined in this report are consistent with Te Whai Oranga, in particular the objective of improved Māori wellbeing.

Implementation

41. Staff will draft the policy statement, which will underpin the Sports Facility Investment Plan, based on the decisions outlined in this report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader

Nadia De Blaauw - Principal Policy Analyst

Nancy Chu - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee

20 July 2016

Open Space Provision Policy

File No.: CP2016/14543

Purpose

1. To seek agreement of the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee for the draft Open Space Provision Policy and recommendation of the draft policy to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for adoption.

Executive summary

2. The draft Open Space Provision Policy has been developed to provide direction on the function, distribution, location and configuration of open space sought by the council.

3. Interim open space provision guidelines were adopted by the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee in August 2014. Since that time, the interim guidelines have been consulted on with a range of stakeholders and tested through application in acquisition and spatial planning processes.

4. In response to feedback from stakeholders and learnings from the application of the interim guidelines, staff recommend a substantially redrafted policy. Key changes between the interim guidelines and the recommended policy include:

i. improved alignment with the Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan

ii. increased emphasis on place-making and flexibility to respond to local context

iii. greater clarity on new open space funding principles and mechanisms

iv. removal of an area/population quantity provision target

v. greater direction on the provision of open space for organised sport

vi. enabling the provision of pocket parks when acquired at no cost to council

vii. increased targets for the provision of neighbourhood and suburb parks in medium density areas.

5. The draft Open Space Provision Policy, which incorporates all recommended changes is attached to this report (Attachment A).

6. The recommended changes increase the open space provision when compared with the interim open space provision guidelines. The provision set out in the interim guidelines informed budget provision for open space acquisition, development and maintenance in the 2015 Long Term Plan.

7. Achieving the recommended increase in provision for open space will have implications for open space budgets. Any changes in open space budget provision will be considered as part of future Annual Plan and Long Term Plan processes.

8. Decision making with regard to open space provision will continue to be made within the context and parameters of available budget. This may from time to time constrain council’s ability to deliver the level of provision set out in the draft policy.

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee:

a) approve the draft Open Space Provision Policy (Attachment A).

b) approve recommendation i – iii as set out in this report.

c) delegate to the Chair of the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee final approval of any additional changes to the draft Open Space Provision Policy that may be resolved by the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committeee.

d) recommend that the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee adopt the draft Open Space Provision Policy, incorporating any additional changes that may be resolved by the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee.

e) recommend the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee authorise the Manager Parks and Recreation Policy to make minor amendments and approve the final publication of the adopted Open Space Provision Policy.

Comments

Background

9. The Open Space Provision Policy (the policy) is a key tool to support implementation of the:

i. Auckland Plan 2012

ii. Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan 2013

iii. Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan 2013

iv. Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy 2013.

10. It will provide direction on council’s requirements for the provision of open space, including consideration of the function, distribution, location and configuration of the open space network.

11. The policy will inform a range of activities, including:

i. investment planning – providing clear direction for future level of service for open space, which in turn informs demand modelling, investment financial planning

ii. asset planning – providing measurable targets that can be used to current and future identifying strategic infrastructure requirements and investment requirements

iii. spatial planning – including council led structure plans and open space network plans, as well as developer led subdivision planning

iv. assessing open space acquisition opportunities.

12. In 2014, the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee adopted the Interim Open Space Level of Provision Guidelines for a trial period. During the trial period staff have undertaken consultation on the interim guidelines with local boards, the development sector and iwi.

13. The guidelines have also been tested by staff through application to a range of decision making processes, including:

i. providing input to structure plans and master plans, particularly for Special Housing Areas

ii. providing input to strategic planning projects, such as the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

iii. assessing open space acquisition opportunities.

Consultation feedback and learnings from testing

14. Feedback from the consultation process and the learnings from the application of the interim guidelines have informed the preparation of the draft policy.

15. While there was often a diverse range of views among those consulted on the specifics of the open space provision levels, there was strong support for council providing clear policy direction on open space provision.

16. In order to meaningfully respond to the consultation feedback and learnings from the testing of the interim guidelines, staff have undertaken a substantive redraft of the interim guidelines in order to produce the draft policy.

17. The draft Open Space Provision Policy (Attachment A) reflects the collective response to consultation feedback.

18. The responses to consultation feedback and learnings from the testing of the interim guidelines can be considered in two broad categories: general usability, structure and style of the interim guidelines and specific provision targets for open space.

19. Issues relating to general usability, structure and style are described below, with reference to how the draft policy responds to the issues raised. Issues related to specific provision targets are discussed in more detail within this report, and options provided for how council may respond to the specific issues raised.

General usability, structure and style

20. Many consultation responses related to the general usability of the interim guidelines, and included a wide range of suggested changes to the structure and style of that document.

21. Staff experience in applying the interim guidelines also highlighted a range of areas where the document could be improved to enhance clarity or provide direction that was not contained within the interim guidelines.

22. General usability comments have been summarised into four key themes below.

Place-making and flexibility

Feedback

23. Some local boards and council staff sought further emphasis within the policy on ensuring the open space network responds to local diversity and place making outcomes.

24. A number of local boards also thought the interim guidelines were too prescriptive and believed that the document should clearly provide for flexibility in decision making.

Response

25. The importance of local consideration of local context has been highlighted in the draft policy (refer How to use the policy (page 5) of the draft policy).

26. Part 1: Network Principles of the draft policy (pages 7-15) has been restructured around the four areas of focus set out in councils Parks and Open Space Strategic Action Plan. The principles emphasise qualitative and place-making outcomes when planning the open space network.

27. Wider parameters for provision measures have been introduced within Part 2: Provision Metrics of the draft policy (pages 17-26), which increase flexibility and diversity in the types of open space to be provided, while retaining sufficient detail needed to model future open space requirements.

Funding

Feedback

28. Some development sector and internal council stakeholders considered the guidelines should explain how council funds investment in open space and the relationship between the guidelines and development contributions.

Response

29. Part 2: Provision Metrics of the draft policy includes a section regarding councils funding of open space (pages 22-23). This section describes how council will seek to recover the costs associated with provision of open space to meet the needs of growth through charges on those undertaking development, primarily through the use of development contributions.

30. This section also highlights how development contribution charges are general apportioned across the different types of open space, and circumstances and mechanisms whereby council may agree to support open space provision over and above the levels set out in the draft policy.

31. Clarity is also provided that councils ability to acquire any specific area of land for open space at and given time is dependent on the budget available, the level of committed spend against that budget, the level of provision sought and the price of the land in question.

Quantity provision targets

Feedback

32. There was broad support of the direction to focus on improving the quality of existing parks rather than increasing the quantum of open space in the existing urban area.

33. Some development sector stakeholders sought more explicit guidance for the amount of open space to be provided in greenfield developments.

34. Internal council stakeholders thought having both distribution and quantity provision targets complicated assessing open space requirements, and that the distribution targets provided more useful direction.

Response

35. Part 1: Network Principles of the draft policy sets out qualitative network principles, while Part 2: Provision Metrics of the draft policy provides quantitative provision metrics. The application of both principles and metrics inform the function, distribution, location and configuration of the desired open space network.

36. In particular, the description of different open space typologies, indicative amenities and provision targets set out in Table 1 the draft policy (page 18-19) provide clear direction with regard to how much open space is required in residential areas of different density. The inclusion of any additional quantity targets, such as a fixed quantity per population as was included in the interim guidelines, would not meaningfully assist in planning or assessing open space network provision.

37. For this reason the draft policy does not include specific quantity provision targets other than those relating to size and distribution of different open space typologies.

Sports parks

Feedback

38. Some local boards sought further information on the provision of sports parks in existing urban areas.

39. Some development sector stakeholders also sought confirmation of the quantum of land for sports parks in greenfield areas.

40. Internal staff stakeholders suggested the guidelines should more generally outline the total quantum of land needed for organised sports in greenfield areas, rather than have specific targets.

Response

41. Part 2: Provision Metrics of the draft policy includes a section relating to the provision of land for organized sports (pages 20-21). The draft policy outlines the following approaches to providing land for organised sports in both greenfield and existing urban areas:

i. in existing urban areas the focus is on improving capacity within the existing open space network to provide for greater use

ii. in greenfield areas, sufficient land should be provided to meet the organized sport needs of the projected population.

42. The sports park typology that was in the interim guidelines has been removed, and the draft policy states that organised sport activities should be accommodated in suburb or destination scale parks. A plan that identifies the approximate quantum of land required for organized sport in each of the large Future Urban Zone areas is also included.

Specific provision targets for open space

43. Three main themes arose from consultation and testing relating to the proposed targets for different types of open space provision. These were in relation to:

i. open spaces smaller than neighbourhood parks (i.e. ‘pocket parks’)

ii. neighbourhood and suburb park provision in medium density residential areas

iii. recreational open space in business parks and industrial areas.

44. Each of these themes, policy options and recommended changes are outlined further below.

Pocket parks

45. The interim guidelines directed that council would not acquire and own new pocket parks (being parks smaller than a 3000m2 neighborhood park), and that these spaces should be retained in private ownership where landowners or developers desired them to be provided.

46. There were disparate views among stakeholders on whether council should acquire and own pocket parks. Some local boards and developers considered pocket parks provide for important social, amenity and recreation outcomes, particularly in high density areas. Other local boards considered pocket parks did not justify the expense to acquire and maintain, as they primarily only benefit immediately neighboring properties rather than the wider community.

47. Options in response to this issue include:

Option 1: No provision of pocket parks (interim guidelines position)

Retain the interim guideline policy that council will not acquire new pocket parks.

Advantages

· No capex cost to council for acquisition or development/renewals of pocket parks

· No opex cost to council for maintenance of pocket parks

Disadvantages

· Does not achieve recreation, social and amenity benefits sought by some local boards and developers

Risks

· Pocket parks may be delivered by developers without suitable long term ownership/management responsibility, which over time may lead to these areas being neglected and the overall quality of the ‘public realm’ being degraded

Risk mitigation

· Work with developers to ensure that appropriate ownership/management responsibility for non council owned open space is in place

Option 2: Voluntary provision of pocket parks

· Council would consider acquisition of pocket parks if offered at no cost to council.

· Pocket parks must meet criteria on location, size and configuration.

Advantages

· May provide recreation, social and amenity benefits sought by some local boards and developers

· Provides flexibility to developers in design and differentiation of developments

· No additional capex cost to council for acquisition or development of pocket parks

Disadvantages

· Increases overall opex costs for maintenance and capex for renewals

Risks

· Potentially inconsistent level of provision across developments of similar density

· Maintenance costs exceed budget provision

Risk mitigation

· Application of clear criteria for councils acceptance of pocket parks to ensure provision is within acceptable levels and affordable

Option 3: Required provision of pocket parks

· Council would require the provision of pocket parks and developers would be compensated for acquisition and development costs.

· Pocket parks must meet criteria on location, size, and configuration.

Advantages

· Provides recreation, social and amenity benefits sought by some local boards and developers

· Consistent level of provision across developments of similar density

Disadvantages

· Increases estimated capex costs for acquisition of open space in future urban zone areas by approximately $175m

· Increases opex costs for maintenance and renewal

Risks

· Provision of high levels of pocket parks which provide limited open space benefit, but high cost for acquisition and maintenance

Risk mitigation

· Application of clear criteria for councils acceptance of pocket parks to ensure provision is within acceptable levels and affordable

48. Option 2 is recommended, which enables council to accept the provision of pocket parks on the basis that:

· they are to be provided on a voluntary basis, at no cost to council

· satisfactory agreement is reached on their on-going maintenance

· they must be located in high-density residential areas or urban centers

· they are additional to the requirements for neighborhood parks

· they meet criteria relating to size, location and configuration to ensure they are of benefit to the immediately surrounding area.

49. This option provides flexibility to developers to provide additional open space provision in high density developments when desired, while providing the council with sufficient discretion to prevent the proliferation of open space of low value or that is primarily of private benefit.

50. Enabling provision on a gifting only basis is equitable given the benefit pocket parks generally accrues to the immediately surrounding development, and reduces the financial risks to council of acquiring land in high density areas.

Recommendation

Option 2

Enable the acquisition of pocket parks if provided at no cost to council and in accordance with criteria in relation to size, location and configuration, as detailed in Part 2 of the recommended Open Space Provision Policy (refer Table 1: Recreational and social open space, on Page 18 of Attachment A).

Neighborhood and suburb park provision in medium density (mixed housing) areas

51. The interim guidelines applied the lower density provision targets for neighborhood and suburb parks to the mixed housing urban and suburban zones.

52. Local boards, the development sector and internal staff stakeholders consider the high density provision targets for neighborhood and suburb parks (requiring a shorter walking distance) should be applied to medium density areas zoned mixed housing urban or suburban given the density of development that can be achieved in these zones. This would decrease the walking distance target for neighborhood parks from 600m to 400m, and for suburb parks from 1500m to 1000m, and increase the number of parks in these areas.

53. Options in response to this issue include:

Option 1: Retain low density provision target in medium density areas(interim guidelines position)

· Retain a provision target of a 600m walk to neighbourhood park in the mixed housing urban and suburban zones.

· Retain a provision target of a 1500m walk to suburb park in the mixed housing urban and suburban zones.

Advantages

· No additional capex for acquisition and development required as a result of increasing level of provision

· No additional opex for maintenance of new open space as a result of increasing level of provision

Disadvantages

· Does not achieve the level of recreation, social and amenity benefits sought by some local boards, developers and internal stakeholders

Risks

· New development areas are provided with a level of open space provision that is perceived to be inadequate for medium density areas

Risk mitigation

Option 2: Apply higher density provision target to medium density areas

· Apply a provision target of 400m walk to a neighbourhood park in the mixed housing urban and suburban zones.

· Apply a provision target of 1000m walk to a suburb park in the mixed housing urban and suburban zones.

· Note that this option is estimated to increase the quantity of recreational and social open space from 0.9 hectares to 1.2 hectares per 1000 residents (33% increase)

Advantages

· Achieves recreation, social and amenity benefits sought by local boards, developers and some internal stakeholders

Disadvantages

· Reduces percentage of existing population within the walking distance target to a suburb or neighborhood park from 90% (based on the interim guidelines) to 80% (based on the draft policy)

· Increases the estimated acquisition cost for open space in future urban zone areas by approximately 28% (over option 1)

· Increases opex requirements for maintenance and renewal

Risks

· Existing budgets are unlikely to be sufficient to meet the full cost of higher provision target in medium density areas, which may lead to developer frustration if council declines to acquire open space at the target provision level

Risk mitigation

· Review open space acquisition and development budget through the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan processes

54. Option 2 is recommended, which applies the same provision targets for access to a neighborhood park (400m walk), and a suburb park (1000m walk) to high density and medium density areas as identified by the mixed house urban and mixed house suburban zones in the unitary plan.

55. This option aligns the provision of recreational open space with the expectation of key stakeholders. It supports the establishment of livable medium density residential areas which are important to realising the quality compact city outcome sought by the Auckland Plan.

Recommendation

Option 2

Apply a provision target of 400m walk to a neighborhood park and 1000m walk to a suburb park in the mixed housing urban and suburban zones as detailed in Part 2 of the recommended Open Space Provision Policy (refer Table 1: Recreational and social open space, on Page 18 of Attachment A).

Recreational open space in business parks and industrial areas

56. The interim guidelines directed that council would not provide dedicated recreation open space in business parks and industrial areas.

57. Most local boards considered the council should provide for recreational open space, such as neighborhood parks, to serve business parks and industrial areas for workers. Some developers considered that private landscaping within these areas is important, and that recreational space should be provided privately within the sites.

58. Options in response to this issue include:

Option 1: Do not require dedicated recreational open space in business park and industrial areas (interim guidelines position)

Retain the interim guideline policy that council does not require provision of neighborhood parks in business park and industrial zones.

Note that council may choose to acquire open space within business and industrial zones where considered appropriate (e.g. sports field provision)

Advantages

· No additional capex for acquisition and development of open space

Disadvantages

· Recreation outcomes sought by local boards may not achieved

· Open space limited to connections, green infrastructure and conservation functions

Risks

· Business park and industrial areas have inadequate open space provided to meet the needs of employees

Risk mitigation

· Ensuring provision of appropriate private amenity and landscape within business park and industrial areas

Option 2: Apply neighborhood park provision targets to business park and industrial areas

Apply provision target of 600m walk to a neighborhood park in the business park and industrial zones

Advantages

· Recreation outcomes sought by local boards will be achieved

Disadvantages

· Increases the estimated cost of providing the open space network in future urban zones by approximately $34 million

· Capex costs cannot be funded by development contributions, requiring new budget allocation with alternative funding mechanisms to be established

Risks

· Creation of neighbourhood parks that offer limited benefit due to lack of resident population within catchment

Risk mitigation

· Ensure function, location, distribution and configuration of proposed neighbourhood parks realistically reflects

59. Option 1 is recommended, which does not require dedicated recreation open space to serve business parks and industrial areas. Council cannot collect development contributions for reserves from businesses, so the cost of providing dedicated recreational open space would need to be rate funded. Green infrastructure land, required to mitigate the effects of business land uses, are likely to provide recreational opportunities for workers without incurring the costs of acquiring dedicated recreational space.

Recommendation

iii

Option 1

Do not require provision of neighborhood parks in business park and industrial zones as set out in Part 2 of the recommended Open Space Provision Policy (refer 25 of Attachment A).

Financial Implications

60. The delivery of councils open space acquisition programme is influenced by four primary factors:

i. budget availability

ii. amount of land sought

iii. cost of that land

iv. timing of when acquisitions are settled.

61. Decision making with regard to specific acquisition opportunities is informed by consideration of these four factors.

62. In recent years, there has been significant escalation in the cost of land and a faster than anticipated rate of greenfield development within Special Housing Areas.

63. In response to these pressures, staff have managed the other factors within their control to ensure that the approved acquisition programme is delivered within the budget available, primarily through controlling the timing of when specific acquisitions are settled.

64. To date staff have successfully acquired open space at a provision level consistent with the interim guidelines within the budget available in the 2015 Long Term Plan.

65. While the draft policy increases the level of provision for open space over that anticipated in the interim guidelines, staff are confident that in the short to medium term the provision levels of the draft policy can be delivered within existing budgets.

66. Open space budgets, and the funding mechanisms for those budgets, will be reviewed through the preparation of the 2018 Long Term Plan. Future open space budget requirements will be informed by the adopted level of provision policy, alongside revised modelling in relation to cost of land, rate of growth, and optimal timing of acquisitions.

67. Provision of additional budget or reallocation of existing budget provision in time through the 2018 Long Term Plan may assist council to meet the provision level set out in the draft policy in a timely manner.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

68. Feedback from local boards on the interim provision guidelines is outlined in the section of this report on consultation and recommended changes.

Māori impact statement

69. All iwi groups in the region were invited directly to provide feedback on the provision guidelines and the work was highlighted at the monthly mana whenua information hui. Meetings were held with Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. The main issues raised in feedback from these groups included:

i. streetscape design is important to connect the open space network, particularly using street trees to enhance ecological connectivity, given the increasing density and infill nature of development

ii. further recognition is needed of the impact of sea-level rise and coastal erosion on future provision and access to coastal open space

iii. good public transport access and cycling and walking connections are particularly important for larger parks

iv. emphasis should be placed on protection of natural landscape features (such as ridgelines and streams) as well as providing views from open space

v. consider, in consultation with iwi, including sites of significance to mana whenua in the open space network when greenfield developments are being planned.

70. The issues above have been incorporated into the recommended changes to the provision guidelines.

71. The provision of quality parks and open spaces has benefits for Māori, including:

i. helping facilitate Māori participation in outdoor recreation activity

ii. helping make Auckland a green, resilient and healthy environment consistent with the Māori world view of ancestral connectedness with the natural world and their role as kaitiaki of the natural environment.

72. The open space network sought by the guidelines will assist to realise these benefits. There are no other specific impacts for Māori arising from the recommendation.

Implementation

73. Following adoption, the guideline document will be published and made available on council’s website for public distribution. It is recommended the committee authorise the Manager Parks and Recreation Policy to approve the final publication of the guidelines and make any minor amendments required as part of the publication process.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Open Space Provision Policy	191

Signatories

Author

Rob Cairns - Manager Parks and Recreation Policy

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki – General Manager - Community & Social Policy

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

[1] This does not consitute the formal position of the local boards.

[2] This does not consitute the formal position of the local boards.

[3] In particular: (1) Our citizens have a strong voice and are key in shaping Auckland; (2) Elected members are better supported to make high quality decisions for Auckland; and (6) We do more with less without compromising service and the customer experience.

[4] This does not consitute the formal position of the local boards.

Chairperson	Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Calum Penrose
Members	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr John Watson
	Cr Ross Clow	Member Glenn Wilcox
	Cr Chris Darby	Member Karen Wilson
	Cr Alf Filipaina
	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

Ex-officio	Mayor Len Brown, JP
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse