Agenda of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

01 September 2016

Disposals Recommendation Report

File No.: CP2016/17251

Purpose

1. This report seeks approval to revoke the reserve status and dispose of six council owned properties that Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) considers suitable for sale.

Executive summary

2. Panuku is required to identify properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale to a combined value of $75 million by 30 June 2017. Capital receipts from the sale of surplus properties contributes to the Auckland Plan outcomes and the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

3. The first site presented in this report, 63 Flanshaw Road, Te Atatu South is a narrow parking reserve. The rationalisation process for this site commenced in 2015. Consultation with council and its CCOs, iwi authorities and the Henderson-Massey Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service uses have been identified for this property through the rationalisation process and the feedback received has been supportive of the proposed reserve revocation and disposal. Due to this, we recommend this site be divested. Site specific detail, including information and feedback gathered through the rationalisation process, is contained in Attachment A of this report.

4. The second site presented in this report, 8R Gee Place, Māngere is a long, narrow strip of reserve land. The rationalisation process for this site commenced in December 2015. Consultation with council and its CCOs, iwi authorities and the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service uses have been identified for this site through the rationalisation process and the feedback received has been supportive of the proposed reserve revocation and divestment. Due to this, Panuku recommends this site be divested. If approval is obtained to dispose of this site, the reserve status of the land would need to be revoked. Site specific detail, including information and feedback gathered through the rationalisation process, is contained in Attachment B of this report.

5. The third site presented in this report, Lot 19 DP 62409 Crisp Avenue, Pukekohe site is a small, narrow accessway reserve that has been incorporated into the adjoining landowners’ property. The rationalisation process for this site commenced in December 2014. Consultation with council and its CCOs, iwi authorities and the Franklin Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service uses have been identified for this site through the rationalisation process and the feedback received has been supportive of the proposed reserve revocation and disposal. Due to this, we recommend divestment. Site specific detail, including information and feedback gathered through the rationalisation process is contained in Attachment C of this report.

6. The fourth site presented in this report is part of 7 Eastview Road, Glen Innes. The subject strip of land is an accessway comprising approximately 85m² which leads to the larger reserve, known as Eastview Reserve. The rationalisation process for this site commenced in February 2016. Consultation with council and its CCOs, iwi authorities and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service uses have been identified for this site and the feedback received has been supportive of the proposed reserve revocation and divestment of this site. Due to this, we recommend that this site be disposed of to the adjoining landowner, who has expressed an interest in purchasing the site. Site specific detail, including information and feedback gathered through the rationalisation process is contained in Attachment D of this report.

7. The fifth and sixth sites presented in this report, Lot 6 DP 112259 Epping Road and Lot 5 DP 112259 Lincoln Road, Henderson are long strips of land that were vested as local purpose (plantation) reserve upon subdivision. The rationalisation process for these sites commenced in December 2015. Consultation with council and its CCOs, iwi authorities and the Henderson-Massey Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service uses have been identified for these sites through the rationalisation process and the feedback received has been supportive of the proposed divestment. Due to this, we recommend these sites be divested. Site specific detail, including information and feedback gathered through the rationalisation process for both sites, is contained in Attachment E of this report.

8. If approval is obtained to dispose of the subject sites, the reserve status of each site would need to be revoked in accordance with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977, including public advertising.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the reserve revocation and disposal of the land at:

i) 63 Flanshaw Road, Te Atatu South comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being Lot 14 Deposited Plan 67687 comprising approximately 584m² contained in certificate of title NA35A/582, on the basis that this site is not serving a park or open space function and is not required for council’s current or future service requirements;

ii) 8R Gee Place, Māngere more or less being Lot 36 Deposited Plan 61861 comprising approximately 1,166m², on the basis that this site is not serving a park or open space function and is not required for council’s current or future service requirements;

iii) Lot 19 Deposited Plan 62409 Crisp Avenue, Pukekohe comprising approximately 111m², on the basis that this site is not utilised for council purposes and is not required for council’s current or future service requirements;

iv) Part of 7 Eastview Road, Glen Innes comprising approximately 85m² more or less being Lot 375 Deposited Plan 43832 and Lot 22 Deposited Plan 51028 contained in computer freehold register 22B/348 and 9D/1445, on the basis that this site is not serving a park or open space function and is not required for council’s current or future service requirements;

v) Lot 6 Deposited Plan 112259 Epping Road, Henderson comprising approximately 1,233m², on the basis that this site is not required for council’s current or future service requirements; and

vi) Lot 5 Deposited Plan 112259 Lincoln Road, Henderson comprising approximately 1,045m², on the basis that this site is not required for council’s current or future service requirements;

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

Comments

9. Panuku and the Auckland Council’s Land Advisory Services team work collaboratively on a comprehensive review process to identify properties in the council portfolio that may be suitable to sell. Once identified as a potential sale candidate Panuku takes the property through a multi stage engagement process.

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

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

12. The Heritage Unit is invited prior to the EOI process to flag any sites of particular archaeological merit that need to be assessed further. Panuku also engages with the Closed Landfills and Contaminated Land Response team prior to the EOI process commencing to ensure any possible contamination issues that may be associated with a property are identified.

13. Once a property has been internally cleared of any service requirements, Panuku then consults with local boards, mana whenua and ward councillors. All sale recommendations must be approved by the Panuku board before a final recommendation is made to the governing body.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

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

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

21. The feedback obtained during engagement with relevant mana whenua groups about the subject sites is contained in Attachments A and E of this report.

Implementation

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

23. If approval is obtained to dispose of the subject sites, the reserve status of the land would need to be revoked in accordance with section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977. Public notification is required for a proposal to revoke a reserve, with such notice to include the reason for the proposal. This will provide the public with an opportunity to submit comments or objections to the proposal. If any objections are received, they will be referred back to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for consideration. The decision of the Committee must be forwarded to the Department of Conservation for completion of the revocation process.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	63 Flanshaw Road, Te Atatu South property information	19
b View	8R Gee Place, Māngere property information	23
c View	Lot 19 DP 62409 Crisp Avenue, Pukekohe property information	29
d View	Part of 7 Eastview Road, Glen Innes property information	33
e View	Lot 6 DP 112259 Epping Road and Lot 5 DP 112259 Lincoln Road, Henderson	39

Signatories

Author

Letitia McColl, Team Leader Portfolio Review, Portfolio Strategy, Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Marian Webb – Manager Portfolio Strategy, Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Development Auckland

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

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

01 September 2016

Māori Language Policy and Māori Language Implementation Plan 2016-2019

File No.: CP2016/17813

Purpose

1. To adopt the Māori Language Policy and the companion Māori Language Implementation Plan 2016-2019.

Executive summary

2. The Māori language is used at Auckland Council in civic ceremonies, publications, signage, correspondence and verbal communication. The purpose of the Māori Language Policy (the Policy) is to direct and guide the quality, clarity and consistency of use of the Māori language in Auckland Council. It directly contributes to the Auckland Plan outcome, a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world. The Policy is not designed to drive engagement protocols and practice.

3. The Māori Language Implementation Plan is a companion to the Policy and provides more detail on the outcomes of the Policy, priority action areas and targets. Together, the Policy and implementation plan develop and implement a Māori Language Framework that focuses on four outcomes:

· Te Reo te Kitea – Māori language that is visible

· Te Reo te Rongohia – Māori language that is heard

· Te Reo te Kōrerohia – Māori language that is spoken

· Te Reo te Ākona – Māori language that is learnt

4. It is intended that implementation will influence council’s practises and over time transform the place of of te reo Māori, the Māori language in Tāmaki Makaurau, Auckland through the celebration, protection, revitalisation and integration of the Māori language in council business.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) adopt the Māori Language Policy, as attached to the agenda report.

b) adopt the Māori Language Implementation Plan 2016-2019, as attached to the agenda report.

c) note that the Māori Language Implementation Plan 2016-2019 will evolve and be refined over time in partnership with the local boards, Council Controlled Organisations, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board secretariat.

Comments

Māori Language Policy

5. The Policy provides a practical means for Council to fulfil its commitments and obligations to Māori and to recognise te reo as a cultural taonga unique to New Zealand.

6. The purpose of the Māori Language Policy is to direct and guide the actions of Auckland Council, in relation to the celebration, integration, protection and revitalisation of the Māori language in council business. Auckland Council aims to:

· Ensure that anyone who receives or uses Auckland Council’s services or contributes to the democratic process has the choice to do so in Māori or English.

· Encourage the use of the Māori language in the community.

7. The Māori Language Policy is underpinned by the following principles:

· Māori language is a cultural treasure which is at the heart of Māori identity.

· Dialects reflect tribal identity and considerations have been made in the policy.

· Because the Māori language is an official language of Aotearoa, it shall receive equal status to the English and Sign languages.

8. The Policy and Implementation Plan introduces a framework, principles and conventions on council’s use of the Māori language in naming and signage, among other things. The principles and conventions are consistent with those adopted by the Tāmaki Collective for the Tūpuna Maunga Authority.

Development of the Policy and Implementation Plan

9. In 2014, work to develop a policy and implementation plan began. A literature and legislative review, and a review of the Tāmaki Collective policy on Māori language were undertaken.

10. Integral to the development of the policy was engagement with and endorsement by mana whenua leaders recognised by their iwi for their abilities, position and whakapapa, including cultural knowledge. The Pukenga Rōpū or expert panel members who contributed and provided quality assurance were Hauauru Rawiri (Marutūahu, Ngāti Paoa), Dame Nganeko Minhinnick (Waiohua, Ngāti Te Ata), Haahi Walker (Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara), and Rahui Papa (Waikato, Te Whakakitenga o Waikato).

11. In March 2016 feedback was sought on the draft policy and implementation plan from the wider council family including Local Board Services, Democracy Services, Auckland Transport, Panuku Development, Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development, COMET Auckland, Auckland Libraries, Arts Community Events, Customer Services and Workplace Strategy, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB).

12. The IMSB Treaty Audit 2015 recommended that the Te Reo Māori Framework and Māori Place Names Policy be finalised. This Policy and Implementation Plan respond to that recommendation.

Alignment with council strategy

13. The Policy describes council’s approach for the use of the Māori language. The Policy is necessary to ensure there is consistency, accuracy, appropriateness and relevance, and that relationships with Māori are managed and sustained.

14. The key strategic driver for council’s role in the protection and revitalisation of the Māori language is contained within the Auckland Plan with its bi-lingual vision for the city “Te pai me te whai rawa o Tāmaki, the world’s most liveable city.” The key Auckland Plan outcome relevant to the revitalisation of the Māori language is “A Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. Without the Māori language, Māori identity ceases to exist.

15. The Policy aligns with Ngā Reo o Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Languages Strategy developed by COMET Auckland, which describes ways to strengthen and improve the use of the Māori language. In May 2015 COMET Auckland established a languages working group to implement Ngā Reo o Tāmaki Makaurau. Council staff are working with COMET to identify actions that progress both the Policy and strategy.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16. There is general agreement for the need to have a policy which provides direction and support for the use of the Māori language. There is apprehension from some local boards to fully implement a policy that they feel is not strongly relevant to the ethnic profile of their community.

17. Local application of the Policy was discussed by four local boards. Those local boards are using their August meetings to develop formal feedback, and this will be tabled at the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting. Application of the Māori language policy for those local boards will also be considered in the Local Board Plan priorities for 2017-2020. The following themes have been identified from local board feedback:

· Budget implications for dual signage and staff support from Te Waka Angamua are uncertain.

· Learning and development for elected members and staff needs improvement

· Leadership in the use of the Māori language needs strengthening

· A target of 5 per cent Māori name options for roads, parks and facilities is too low

· Need for support from council staff to provide quality advice to elected members and other staff on all aspects of the Māori language

18. Six local boards requested further reports and work to be done with them and their communities. One local board plans to incorporate the Policy into their relationship agreement with iwi. One local board expressed an interest to speak to the committee in support of the policy

Māori impact statement

19. The Māori language is one of three official languages of New Zealand and is unique to New Zealand. But the number of people who are able to hold a conversation in Māori is declining. Central Government recognises the role it has in promoting and contributing to the use, visibility, and status of the Māori language.

20. Auckland Council through its ceremonies, meetings, services, signage, communications and community reach is in a position in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland to give visibility to, and assist with revitalising the Māori language. The Māori language is an Independent Māori Statutory Board priority. The Policy and implementation plan will contribute to a number of Māori Plan cultural and social domains such as Māori heritage being valued and protected and taonga Māori are enhanced or restored in urban areas. The IMSB consider that the Policy positively contributes to the celebration, protection, integration and revitalisation of the Māori language.

21. Within the Māori language are many nuances that pertain to the history of a place and the flora and fauna. Council’s contribution through the Māori language policy and implementation plan is greater than visibility and normalisation of the language. It will ensure Auckland’s Māori history and knowledge remains part of Auckland’s story, now and in the future

Implementation

22. The implementation plan describes the outcomes sought and potential action areas but does not include budget implications. A number of the actions, such as dual language signage, will be absorbed as part of overall capex costs and will not require additional funding. More specific budget requirements will be requested through normal budget processes, including the Annual Plan and Long-term Plan.

23. More detailed planning will occur to define initiatives which will support the outcome areas. These initiatives will all be assessed for feasibility subject to the requirements and restrictions of the individual department, media or communication channel, and budgetary and logistical implications for the organisation and ratepayers.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Maori Language Policy	49
b View	Maori Language Implementation Plan	57

Signatories

Author

Rama Ormsby - Paewhakatere Iho Kawe Tikanga, Principal Advisor Tikanga Maori

Authorisers

Sarah Howard - Manager Effectiveness for Maori

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

01 September 2016

World Health Organisation Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities

File No.: CP2016/12277

Purpose

1. To report back on the merits and implications of Auckland Council membership of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities; and to seek a decision on options in relation to this.

Executive summary

2. On 2 June 2016 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee supported in principle Auckland becoming a WHO Age-friendly City. This report responds to a request for staff to investigate and report back on its merits and implications.

The WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities approach has two components:

· the Network: The purpose is to foster the exchange of experience and mutual learning between cities and communities worldwide.

· the Framework: The purpose is to engage cities to become more age-friendly, to tap into the potential and contribution of older people, and to improve their wellbeing.

3. Joining the Network would involve formal political commitment, development and implementation of an action plan using the Framework with allocated resources, engagement of older people, establishing a governance structure and cross-sectoral collaboration. It does not involve accreditation.

4. Auckland’s older population is predicted to increase from 11.5 per cent in 2013, to 19 per cent by 2046. Quality of life research is currently underway to address the limited evidence available on older people in Auckland.

5. The Auckland Plan, and other council strategies, make provision for recognising the changing needs, contributions and value of older people.

6. Two options are presented for consideration:

· option 1: Utilise existing council strategic frameworks and processes to progress a more friendly city for a range of populations, including older people; and

· option 2: Auckland Council seeks membership of the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities.

7. Option 1 is recommended for the following reasons:

· the timing would fit with:

o the quality of life research findings

o the Auckland Plan review

o the opportunity for the incoming council to consider a more intentional approach within the context of other strategic priorities

· the intent of the Framework could be applied to older people and more inclusively to benefit a range of populations (such as children and young people, Māori, Pacific, migrants, people with disabilities, the rainbow community)

· it applies the intent of the framework in an integrated way with potential for greater reach, impact and value for money

· membership of the Network can be considered later when further work has been undertaken.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) agree that Auckland Council is committed to the intent of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Age-friendly Cities and Communities Framework for Aucklanders aged 65 years and over.

b) agree that many Auckland populations could benefit from the intent of the WHO Age-friendly Cities and Communities Framework:

i) to be friendly, and to tap into each population’s potential and contributions to improve their wellbeing; and

ii) that there are shared issues across populations, as well as those which are unique to each.

c) agree to progress Option 1: Utilise existing council strategic frameworks and processes to progress the intent of the Framework (a more friendly city for a range of populations, including older people) for consideration by the incoming Council.

d) direct staff through the delegations of the Chief Executive to start implementing Option 1 by identifying issues and opportunities to progress the intent of the Framework across a range of populations and report back to the appropriately delegated committee.

Comments

Background

8. On 7 October 2015, the Auckland District Council of Social Services presented on issues for older Aucklanders in the public input section of the Community Development and Safety Committee. Following the presentation, the Committee requested advice from staff on the process and cost of becoming an age-friendly city (COM/2015/57).

9. On 30 March 2016 information on the process and cost of becoming a World Health Organisation (WHO) Age-friendly City was presented to the Community Development and Safety Committee. The Committee recommended that the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee proceed with accreditation of Auckland as an age-friendly city (COM2016/28).

10. The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee supported the recommendation in principle and agreed that staff investigate and report back on the merits and implications of Auckland becoming a WHO Age-friendly City (REG/2016/35).

Issues relating to older Aucklanders

11. The population of Aucklanders aged 65+ is growing proportionately faster than any other age group. Auckland’s older population is predicted to increase from 11.5 per cent in 2013, to 19 per cent by 2046.

12. A review of local, national and international research and literature identified the following issues to be particularly relevant to older people and an ageing population:

· health and wellbeing – as people age health issues and disability increases

· loneliness and isolation – can increase with age and lead to poor quality of life outcomes

· transport and mobility – as people age the ability to move around decreases giving rise to concerns for safety and access to services and facilities

· positive imaging and attitudes – there is a lack of positive imaging of older people which can lead to low self-esteem and prejudices

· economic contribution and impact – the community can under-value and fail to maximise the contribution of older people

· material wellbeing – some older people are at higher risk of material hardship and this is likely to increase.

13. Limited evidence means that the extent to which these issues are experienced by older people in Auckland is currently not well understood. Research on the quality of life for this population is underway. Findings will inform the Auckland Plan review. Baseline data will be established and indicators will be monitored over time.

Strategic context and current initiatives for older people

14. The priority populations identified in the Auckland Plan are children and Māori. The Auckland Plan also recognises the contribution and changing needs of older Aucklanders through Strategic Direction 1: Create a strong, inclusive and equitable society that ensures opportunity for all Aucklanders; and in Directive 1.12 Recognise and value the contribution of older people to the community.

15. Other council strategies and plans such as the Disability Operational Action Plan and Te Toa Takatini identify a number of practical actions across the council family that are likely to benefit older people. All local board plans include outcomes for older people, with variable actions between local boards. A range of other commitments captured in various strategic documents to undertake actions or initiatives can also be expected to benefit older people.

16. Under these plans, the key council initiatives focused on older people, also include:

· research and monitoring such as research on the quality of life survey,

· programmes and services such as sport and recreation programmes like ‘Never too old’, delivered through community facilities and partners

· provision of housing for older people

· grants and funding to community organisations such as Age Concern

· empowering communities includes older people.

17. Outside council, there are other strategies and approaches for older people, to be considered:

· the national Positive Ageing Strategy which has been adopted by other councils (Thames-Coromandel District Council)

· the Community Connects approach promoted by the Office for Seniors (Napier City Council)

· a range of other models focused on older people which are being adopted (Tauranga Age Friendly City Strategy, Wellington Positive Ageing Strategy).

Overview of WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities

18. The WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities approach has two components:

· the Network: The purpose is to foster the exchange of experience and mutual learning between cities and communities worldwide. There are 302 member cities including New York, Manchester, Belfast, Portland, Barcelona, Canberra and Toronto. Hamilton City Council and New Plymouth District Council have resolved to join the network.

· the Framework: The purpose is to engage cities to become more age-friendly, to tap into the potential and contribution of older people, and to improve their wellbeing. Eight interconnected domains are identified to help address barriers to wellbeing and improve general participation of older people

19. The process to achieve positive outcomes for older people is flexible, with domains and tools that can be adapted and tailored to meet the needs and realities of a particular city and its communities.

20. To become a member of the Network Auckland Council would need to show a commitment to becoming age-friendly through:

· formal commitment by the Mayor and political support including an application and formal letter indicating commitment to the Network cycle of continual improvement;

· operational commitment through the development of an age-friendly plan and initiatives across the various domains;

· engagement and involvement of older people and cross-sectorial collaboration in development and delivery of the plan; and

· establishment of an approved governance structure such as a steering group, made up of key stakeholders to oversee the development, delivery and implementation of an age-friendly Auckland action plan. This could be appointed by the council, or delegated to an appropriate authority to establish; and

· allocation of resource for development and implementation of an age-friendly plan.

21. It is not an accreditation or certification of age-friendliness. There is no membership fee associated with joining the network

22. Further details on the process and requirements for Network membership are included in Attachment A.

Options in relation to the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities

23. Two options are presented for consideration:

· option 1: Utilise existing council strategic frameworks and processes to progress a more friendly city for a range of populations, including older people; and

· option 2: Auckland Council seeks membership of the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities.

24. Option 1: Utilise existing council strategic frameworks and processes to progress a more friendly city for a range of populations, including older people.

25. There is provision under the Auckland Plan to address the needs of older people. The current review presents an opportunity to decide to take a more intentional approach to the council’s activities in supporting older Aucklanders. Other strategic documents and plans, and a range of established initiatives also contribute to better outcomes for older people. The focus on older people could be strengthened and aligned as these are reviewed.

26. Option 1: Advantages, disadvantages, risks and cost implications:

Advantages
· Allows the incoming council to consider a more intentional approach in the future. · Development could involve working with a diverse range of populations which could contribute to better outcomes. · Potentially better value for money. · Aligns with, and supports, an integrated approach across council strategies and policies. · Will respond directly to the findings of recent/current Auckland research. · Can be delivered within existing resources. · Provides flexibility within existing strategic frameworks and processes. · Builds on established initiatives. · Could draw from and align with relevant external frameworks and approaches, including the WHO Framework. · Membership of the WHO Network can be considered when further work has been undertaken.
Disadvantages
· Integration across a range of plans and strategies may reduce visibility of response to the needs of older people. · Limited resources targeted at improving outcomes for older people. · May not maximise the potential and contributions of older people. · There is little evidence of the effectiveness of this approach. · Would need to design a new approach, including an evaluation framework.
Risk	Mitigation
If there is limited intentionality and an ad hoc approach continues, then it may be less effective.	Address through Auckland Plan review.
If Auckland Council is not well prepared to respond effectively to emerging needs, any poor outcomes may be exacerbated.	Consideration of demographic changes including growth through the Auckland Plan review.
If commitments to older people are not explicit, then current service provision levels may be reduced.	Quality of life research will provide an evidence base to enable council to assess current commitments against need.
Cost implications
Stage 1: Identify and report back on issues and opportunities, reprioritisation within baseline Stage 2: Develop framework (if decision made) across populations, 1.5-2 staff, and $75-100,000 ( communications, engagement, research) reprioritised within baseline Stage 3: Unknown. Need to implement agreed approach, continued delivery of existing/planned services within baseline, and any new funding requirements could be reallocated and/or reprioritised through existing budgets, or through business cases as part of the work planning process

27. Option 2: Auckland Council seeks membership of the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities.

28. This option involves council committing to a process of ongoing improvement towards creating an age-friendly environment following the Framework. It will require allocating resources to develop and implement an action plan and monitoring progress on this.

29. Option 2: Advantages, disadvantages, risks and cost implications:

Advantages
· Provides an established and internationally recognised process. · Assuming this approach is effective, is likely to result in outcome improvements for older Aucklanders. · There is flexibility for the action plan to be tailored to reflect the local context and any constraints (including budget constraints), to build on current/planned initiatives, and to target areas of greatest need. · Greater visibility of council’s response to the needs of older people. · Potential to enhance council’s reputation and connections internationally with network members · Encourages collaboration with external agencies and partners. · Provides an evaluation framework to measure and track effectiveness and value for money. · Provides formal global linkages with international networks and information. · Membership can be sought at any time in the future.
Disadvantages
· The Network has existed for only six years. It is too early for conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of the WHO framework, or on outcomes for member cities. · Requires dedicated resource to develop the plan, which is likely to be similar to developing a regional strategy. · Is likely to require additional ongoing resource for implementation, coordination and monitoring progress, but the costs of implementation won’t be known until the action plan is developed. · It may be premature to commit to a particular framework before the findings of the quality of life research are available.
Risk	Mitigation
Reputational risk if there is limited buy-in from the incoming council, then the requirement for political commitment may not be met.	Reconsider membership of the network when further work has been undertaken and the new council is in place.
If insufficient resources are applied to developing, implementing and monitoring the plan then this could reduce impact and effectiveness.	Reprioritise development costs within existing budgets. Any additional resources could be addressed through budget proposal processes.
If the council does not successfully implement the age-friendly action plan, then the council’s reputation and credibility may be adversely affected.	Maintain focus on older people within a broader, integrated approach and communicate this to key stakeholders.
If the action plan is developed in isolation, then it may be disconnected from relevant established plans and strategies.	The WHO Framework is flexible to enable alignment with local plans and strategies.
If resources are committed to a course of action with unknown cost implications, this may raise expectations for implementation which cannot be met.	Prioritise implementation actions within the plan, and address resource requirements through budget proposal processes.
If insufficient resources are applied to developing, implementing and monitoring the plan, this could reduce impact and effectiveness.	Reprioritise development costs within existing budgets Any additional resources could be addressed through budget proposal processes.
Cost implications
Stage 1: Seek membership of WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities and develop action plan,1.5-2 staff, and $75-100,000 (communications, engagement, research), reprioritised within baseline Stage 2: Unknown. Implement action plan, continued delivery of existing/planned services within baseline and any new funding requirements could be reallocated and/or reprioritised through existing budgets, or through business cases as part of the work planning process

30. Assessment of the options is summarised below:

Criteria	Option 1	Option 2
	Utilise existing council strategic frameworks and processes to progress a more friendly city for a range of populations, including older people.	Auckland Council seeks membership of the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities in the short term.
Intentional approach	Could be developed within this approach as part of the Auckland Plan review. Opportunity to draw on and align with relevant strategies and approaches.	A clear intentional approach. There is a risk of misalignment with relevant strategies and approaches.
Timing	Takes account of: · The need for buy-in from the incoming council · Opportunities in the current Auckland Plan review · Will be informed by the quality of life research results	May be premature in relation to: · Buy-in from the incoming council · Availability of key research · Auckland Plan review · Membership of the network can be considered later when further work has been undertaken.
Improved outcomes for older people	Effectiveness is unknown, but defining outcomes and developing effective approaches to achieve these would be central to this approach.	The framework is well established internationally, but effectiveness is unknown. Robust and sensible approach, likely to improve outcomes for older people. Provides an evaluation framework to measure and monitor effectiveness.
Improved outcomes for wider populations with shared issues	A more integrated approach has the potential for greater effectiveness across a wider group of populations. This represents greater value for money.	Does not address issues for other populations.
Responding to the needs of Aucklanders	Responds directly to relevant research, and aligns with existing strategies and plans.	Flexible approach enables responsiveness to local needs and preferences.

31. Staff recommend Option 1 for the following reasons:

· it applies the Framework to a wider range of populations with potential to address shared and unique issues for priority populations in an integrated way with potentially more impact

· the timing takes account of:

o the quality of life research findings

o the Auckland Plan review

o the importance of buy-in from the incoming council.

· any Framework development costs for Option 1 represent better value for money

· membership of the Network can be considered later when further work has been undertaken.

32. In summary, many populations such as youth, Māori, Pacific, migrants, people with disabilities, and the rainbow community face challenges similar to the issues those who are over 65 face. There are potentially several populations whose wellbeing would benefit from efforts to achieve a friendly city which tap into their potential and contributions.

33. The recommended option would recognise both the shared issues, and those unique to each population. It would provide an opportunity for an integrated response with potentially greater benefits for a broader range of people. This may also provide opportunities to achieve better value for money as the process will benefit a larger number of people.

Consideration

Seniors Advisory Panel

34. The Seniors Advisory Panel is a strong advocate of the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities. The panel’s work programme includes advocacy for Auckland joining the Network as a key priority. Panel members have attended many of the committee meetings (refer paragraphs 11-13) in support of Auckland becoming a member of the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities.

Local board views and implications

35. The geographic distribution of older Aucklanders is varied. There are greater numbers of older people in the local board areas of Hibiscus and Bays (16,017), Howick (15,993), Ōrākei (11,901) and Henderson-Massey (11,388).

36. The percentage of older people in local board areas range from 6.4 per cent in Waitematā to 22.4 per cent on Great Barrier Island.

37. All local board plans include outcomes for older people, with variable actions between local boards.

38. Three local boards Hibiscus and Bays, Ōrākei and Upper Harbour have all made reference to supporting age-friendly cities in their current work programme.

39. If Auckland Council supports Option 1, local boards will continue to provide for older Aucklanders in their communities in a range of ways including opportunities through local facilities, delivering events and funding organisations and projects. There would be opportunities to align with the agreed approach.

40. If Auckland Council supports Option 2 and joins the Network, local boards will be expected to contribute to the development and delivery of an age-friendly Auckland action plan. This would be a region-wide action plan with local flexibility to meet the needs of local communities.

Māori impact statement

41. In the 2013 Census older Māori made up 4 per cent of the Auckland 65+ population.

42. The Māori population is projected to remain structurally youthful, however the actual numbers of older Māori will increase.

43. Older Māori are concentrated in the south Auckland area, with relatively high numbers living in Papakura East, Pukekohe North and Mangere Bridge.

44. Focusing efforts on the wellbeing of older Māori is warranted in light of the health and socio-economic disparities faced by Māori across the lifespan. Older Māori have lower levels of equity, income and rely heavily on superannuation.

45. Addressing the wellbeing of older Māori requires recognition of the specific cultural meanings attributed to elder age and wellbeing and their contribution. The Māori world view of ageing does not take a ‘deficit’ view of ageing as deterioration, dependency and vulnerability. For many, ageing is part of a positive life course transition that increases a person’s standing in a community. However this view may not reflect the typical experience of older Māori and their families.

46. Kaumātua (elder) have important functional and symbolic roles in relation to the transmission of tikanga (customs and protocols), kaupapa (topic, issue), and whakapapa (genealogy). The role of Kaumātua can be demanding in terms of time and personal resources to actively participate in community events such as tangihanga (funeral) and hui (gatherings).

47. For these culturally specific attributes, consideration should be given to the wellbeing of current and future Māori elders in Auckland. Māori elders will be supported by age-friendly initiatives particularly those that are targeted to meet their needs and foster cultural identity.

48. Option 1: would align with Te Toa Takatini’s holistic approach, and could incorporate the five wellbeing streams. In addition, development of a “friendly city” approach which taps into the potential and contributions of key populations, could directly incorporate core Māori principles such as Manaakitanga.

49. Option 2: The WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities recognises the integrated nature of wellbeing which is congruent with Māori holistic concept of wellbeing. It also recognises and provides the flexibility to cater to diversity within the older population.

Implementation

50. If the committee decides on Option 1, implementation would be considered through the Auckland Plan review and/or other strategic documents. Staff would also report back to the appropriately delegated Committee on issues and opportunities to progress the intent of the Framework across a range of populations. The report back can be undertaken within existing resource baselines.

51. If the committee decides on Option 2, application to join the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities would be progressed. The required would be initiated with work towards development of an action plan. Funding requirements for development could be reallocated and/or reprioritised through existing budgets or business cases through annual and Long-term Plan processes. Further detail is provided in Attachment A.

52. For both options, any additional implementation and monitoring costs would need to be considered through future annual and Long-term Plan processes.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Process for joining the World Health Organisation Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities	81

Signatories

Author

Rebecca Kruse - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

01 September 2016

Approval of the scope of the Weed Management Policy Review

File No.: CP2016/14760

Purpose

1. To approve the scope of the Weed Management Policy review initiated at the Regional Strategy and Policy committee on 7 July 2016.

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Weed Management Policy (the policy) was adopted on 15 August 2013. The purpose of the policy is to “guide the management of weeds in Auckland’s parks and open spaces, including the road corridor”. The policy applies to council and all council- controlled organisations.

3. At the Regional Strategy and Policy committee on 7 July 2016, the Mayor requested a review of the policy and its implementation.

4. Key issues identified during consultation on the scope of this review included:

· ambiguity in the interpretation and application of the policy objectives in decision-making processes;

· the need for a decision-making hierarchy to allow the most appropriate weed treatment approach be taken for each weed control site;

· the need to improve reporting on how weed management is implemented across Auckland;

· the need for the policy to be applied regionally yet still respond to community and organisational priorities.

5. An operational review of current weed management practices across the council family was carried out in December 2015. This identified key areas for improvement including refining contracts to focus on desired levels of services and developing a weed management manual to guide best practices.

6. In line with these findings, it is recommended that the Regional Strategy and Policy committee approve the scope of a focused review of the Weed Management Policy and its implementation.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) request the Chief Executive to undertake a review of the Weed Management Policy and report back to the relevant committee, by mid-2017

b) approve the scope of the Weed Management Policy review as follows:

i) the purpose and objectives of the policy and guidance on their interpretation and application to weed management practice;

ii) recommendations for practice improvement identified as part of the operational review completed in December 2015;

iii) current weed management practice by council and council-controlled organisations;

iv) guidance on the selection of different methods and techniques for different circumstances;

v) improvements in reporting on the implementation of the policy.

Comments

Weed Management Policy

7. The Auckland Council Weed Management Policy (the policy) was adopted on 15 August 2013. The purpose of the policy is to “guide the management of weeds in Auckland’s parks and open spaces, including the road corridor”. The policy applies to the council and all council controlled organisations.

8. Weeds are managed for diverse reasons such as biosecurity and biodiversity outcomes, infrastructure protection, the visual amenity of parks, maintenance of facilities and to reduce any negative impacts on human health. The weed management policy applies to all scenarios for managing weeds and covers all methods used to control weeds.

9. The Weed Management Policy includes an action plan to guide implementation.

Implementation of the Weed Management Policy

10. Most of the tasks from the Action Plan have been completed or are now underway; including:

· establishing a Weed Management Political Advisory Group of elected members to oversee the implementation of the policy;

· establishing a Best Practice Reference Group of technical experts from industry, research organisations and the community to advise the council on best practice for weed control;

· carrying out an operational review outlining current weed management practice and suggesting areas for practice improvement (completed in December 2015);

· establishing a new, comprehensive no-spray register that combines the separate registers currently in place.

11. An operational review of current weed management practices across the council family was carried out in December 2015. This review provided a snapshot of council’s weed management practices at the time of completion. It also identified a number of key areas for improvement such as changing contracts as they expire so that weeds are treated to a level of service rather than a time-bound cycle of management and developing a weed management manual outlining the best methodologies for dealing with common weed species.

Issues with the Weed Management Policy raised by members of the public

12. Agrichemical use in urban environments, including road corridors, is a concern for some members of the public due to either chemical sensitivity or health problems they believe are associated with agrichemicals (see, for example, the petition presented to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 7 July 2016).

13. Members of the public have made complaints to council raising concerns about inadequate weed and vegetation control in public spaces.

Preliminary consultation to inform the review scope

14. Preliminary consultation to understand the issues with the policy, and to help focus the proposed review scope, has been held with:

· the Weed Management Political Advisory Group

· the Best Practice Reference Group

· Auckland Transport

· Watercare

· Auckland Council staff, including from biosecurity, regional parks, community facilities.

15. The main issues that were raised during these initial discussions were:

· ambiguity in the interpretation and application of the policy objectives in decision-making processes;

· the need to establish a decision-making hierarchy to control approaches that allow the most appropriate weed treatment approach be taken for each weed control site;

· the need to improve reporting on how weed management is implemented across Auckland;

· the need for the policy to be applied regionally yet still respond to community and organisational priorities.

Scope of the review

16. Some of the issues mentioned above have already been identified as part of the recently completed operational review, or are encompassed in on-going improvements to weed management operations.

17. The review presents the opportunity to:

· evaluate the recently completed operational review, and on-going actions;

· link the policy objectives to weed management operations and practice;

· clarify what guides decisions on the appropriate methods to control weeds, and for what purpose;

· provide greater transparency and clarity to the public on weed management activities across council and council-controlled organisations.

18. Staff recommend that the following be included in the scope of the review to address the issues and opportunities raised.

· the purpose and objectives of the policy and guidance on their interpretation and application to weed management practice;

· recommendations for practice improvement identified as part of the operational review completed in December 2015;

· current weed management practice by council and council-controlled organisations;

· guidance on the selection of different methods and techniques for different circumstances;

· improvements in reporting on the implementation of the policy.

19. The community facilities department is currently in the process of renewing many of the community facilities maintenance contracts, including those for local parks. The department is working with local boards to determine service specifications, including those for weed management that will be reflected in the new maintenance contracts. To ensure these contracts will best reflect the proposed policy directions, there will be continued engagement with community facilities throughout the review process.

Consideration

Stakeholder and community participation

20. Community views on weed management issues have been considered in developing the scope of the review. These views have been represented through:

· the Weed Management Political Advisory Group;

· the Best Practice Reference Group;

· the petition presented to council on 7 July 2016;

· feedback received through council’s weed management email inbox.

21. Stakeholders and communities will be able to provide further feedback during the public consultation process that forms part of the review.

Local board views and implications

22. Local board chairs are members of the Weed Management Political Advisory Group and have represented local board views in that forum. Issues raised have included the ability of local boards to decide on alternative methods for weed control and how this would be funded, and the need for more information on weed management to be shared with the public. Local boards will be given an opportunity to provide further feedback during the review process.

23. As stated above, local board members are also involved in the parallel process to renew council’s community facilities maintenance contracts, which includes weed management in local parks.

Māori impact statement

24. This review is an opportunity for mana whenua to have their values and principles reflected in the policy.

25. A presentation was made to the Infrastructure and Environmental Services mana whenua (kaitiaki) hui on 12 August 2016 to advise them on the proposed review, and to seek expressions of interest in further involvement in the review process.

26. Mana whenua present expressed strong interest in council’s weed management practices. Their input will be sought throughout the review process.

Implementation

27. Once the scope is confirmed, the focus will be on further information collection and analysis by a cross-council group. This will include further engagement with councillors, Best Practice Reference Group, local boards and mana whenua. The expected timeframe for this is between September and December 2016.

28. It is anticipated that there will be some form of public consultation in February 2017.

29. After considering feedback, council staff will report back to the relevant committee of the whole on the outcomes of the review, currently anticipated in June 2017.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Paula Vincent - Senior Analyst, Natural Environment Strategy

Authorisers

Barry Potter – Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

01 September 2016

2015/2016 Animal Management Annual Report

File No.: CP2016/15133

Purpose

1. To receive an update on the activities of the Animal Management Unit and to note the completion of the 2015/2016 Animal Management Annual Report prepared pursuant to the s10A of the Dog Control Act 1996.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council’s Animal Management is the largest operation of its type in Australasia. It has operated under a service model since November 2014 and comprises a field operation and shelter services.

3. Highlights of the 2015/16 year include:

· The registration of 106,706 dogs, the highest ever recorded in Auckland.

· The consistent re-homing of all adoptable dogs through the Animal Management Shelters, up from 98% last year.

· 99.2% of priority one requests were responded to within 60 minutes. This equates to 14,835 of the 40,360 service requests received.

· 1,245 dogs were processed through the Menacing Dog Amnesty announced in April 2016 as a direct response to a series of serious dog attacks on young children.

4. Key focus for 2016/2017 include:

· Confirming an intelligence-led proactive compliance programme focused on areas of high risk and high harm. This will be complemented by a package of incentives and education opportunities for responsible dog owners.

· Working collaboratively with Central Government and other agencies to promote de-sexing as a long term priority to reduce numbers of unwanted dogs, and to change behaviour of owners and dogs, generating responsible ownership and reducing nuisance and harm.

· Animal Management will continuously review and improve health and safety procedures and practice. A focus for 2016 will be to review the personal safety equipment used by our staff and managing our response in identified high risk locations.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) receive the 2015/16 Animal Management Annual Report.

b) note that the Animal Management Annual Report is required under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 and staff will provide the 2015/16 report to the Secretary of Local Government.

Comments

Animal Management strategic direction

5. The primary legislative responsibility of Animal Management is the enforcement of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act). The Act gives territorial authorities the powers to regulate dogs, enforce controls and penalise irresponsible dog owners. This involves responding to and investigating breaches of the Act, and the use of various enforcement tools to help achieve compliance, as well as educating and informing dog owners and the community about the Act and Council bylaws.

6. The Animal Management Operational Strategy 2015-2025 covers four main activity areas: customer experience, animal welfare, community experience plus regulation and enforcement. The last two activities have direct significance in the reduction of dog attacks. The Animal Management team is also guided by their internal Operational policy and procedures manual.

7. The key objectives of the strategic direction for Animal Management are:

i) Keeping Aucklanders safe from animal related nuisance and harm

ii) Keeping dogs a positive part of the life of Aucklanders

iii) To give each of the dogs in our care the best possible chance at a positive outcome

iv) To create the world’s most liveable city and exceptional value for money for Aucklanders.

Operations

8. The Animal Management team has now completed a full calendar and financial year of operating as a single regional internal unit. This all in-house model includes field and shelter services, supported by a regional dispatch team as well as dedicated specialists.

9. There has been a total savings for field services of $1.05 million over 2015-2016 with the in-house model compared to 2014/2015.

10. Animal Management manages a total of five Animal Shelters. Each shelter is responsible for the care of impounded animals, managing animals subject to legal prosecutions, reuniting dog with their owners and the re-homing of all adoptable dogs that have been unclaimed or surrendered.

11. Across the region there are four teams of Animal Management Officers (AMOs). These teams are responsible for all field services within the department which includes the reactive response to complaints about dogs at large or causing nuisance, ensuring compliance with the Dog Control Act 1996, and encouraging responsible dog ownership.

12. The dedicated Animal Management dispatch team has the ability to visually track an AMOs location and availability at all times. GeoOp, the software system used by dispatch, allows the capture of information relating to RFS response times, AMO efficiency, travel time, ‘hot-spot’ areas and meaningful statistics. These are used to measure efficiency and trends and ensure that the most appropriate Officer will be sent to each request taking into account location and experience.

Key results

13. The shelters combined impounded 8,614 dogs in 2015-2016, where an average of 58% were reunited back with their owners.

14. One hundred percent of dogs deemed suitable for adoption were re-homed, up from 98% last year. A total of 636 dogs were re-homed, over 230 more than in 2014-2015. This is testament to the dedication and determination of the team to ensure every adoptable dog is rehomed and to the collaborative approach to work with other agencies and rescue groups.

15. A total of 40,360 requests for service were received by the Animal Management field team where 14,835 were recorded as requiring a priority one response (within one hour). Priority one requests for service includes dog attacks (on people and other animals), animals on motorways or open roads and assistance to Police. Officers responded to 99.2% of the priority one requests were responded to within this optimal timeframe, far exceeding our own service delivery target of 95%.

Menacing breeds

16. Auckland Council has a long-standing operational policy not to adopt dogs classified as menacing under the Dog Control Act. The policy settings are drawn from the Dog Control Act. The current version of the operational policy was determined in 2014/15 post the in-housing of the Animal Management operation. It is a consolidation of legacy policies and a reaffirmation of a long-standing practice that is consistent with territorial authorities nation-wide.

17. Menacing breeds were identified as a risk and incorporated in 2003 amendment to the Dog Control Act, under schedule 4. This amendment included the American Pit-Bull terrier type of dog. The Act is very clear and makes it illegal to import them, requires them to be muzzled in public, and stipulates that local authorities may order them to be de-sexed.

18. The adoption of dogs from our shelters contributes to keeping dogs as a positive part of the life of Aucklanders, and keeping Aucklanders safe from animal related nuisance and harm. Menacing types of dogs are over represented in our impounding, aggression and prosecution statistics than that of the general dog population.

Prosecutions

19. Animal Management treats dog attacks seriously and are specialists in both the investigation and prosecution of serious incidents. In 2015-2016 Auckland Council took 197 prosecutions against dog owners for dog related incidents.

20. Evidence of harm caused by menacing dogs is overwhelming. Most Animal Management prosecutions relate to section 57(2) Dogs attacking persons or animals, section 57A Dogs rushing at persons, animals or vehicles and section 58 Dogs causing serious injury. From councils prosecution stats for 2015-2016, 38% of the dogs involved in prosecutions were of predominant American Pit Bull Terrier type.

Table 1: Prosecutions by breed and location

Predominant Breed in prosecution (incl. cross breeds)	Central	North	South	West	Total
American Pit Bull Terrier type	16	2	25	32	75
Staffordshire Bull Terrier	4	6	12	10	32
German Shepherd	1	4	6	5	16
Bull Mastiff	1	3	6	4	14
Labrador	1	4	1	2	8
Shar-pei	1	2	2	3	8
Siberian Husky	-	1	1	4	6
Fox Terrier	-	2	2	1	5
Huntaway	1	1	1	2	5
Rottweiler	1	-	3	1	5
Bull Terrier	1	-	1	2	4
Australian Kelpie	-	-	1	1	2
Border Collie	-	1	-	1	2
Boxer	-	-	1	1	2
Bulldog	-	-	-	2	2
Rhodesian Ridgeback	-	2	-	-	2
Australian Blue Heeler	-	1	-	-	1
Blue Heeler	-	-	1	-	1
Doberman	-	1	-	-	1
Dogue De Bordeauz	1	-	-	-	1
Griffon	-	-	-	1	1
Kerry Blue Terrier	1	-	-	-	1
Red Heeler	-	1	-	-	1
Shih-tzu	1	-	-	-	1
Smithfield	1	-	-	-	1

Pro-active initiative - menacing dog amnesty

21. A menacing dog amnesty was implemented on 23 April 2016 as a direct response to a series of serious dog attacks on young children. In all instances the offending dog was of an American Pit Bull Terrier type, most were unregistered.

22. Menacing dog owners with unregistered dogs were encouraged to take part in the amnesty with the incentive to comply by offering for $25 de-sexing, registration, micro-chipping and a muzzle. These represented an approximate 90% discount to the normal cost of the service.

23. The amnesty was held over a ten week period from April until 30 June.

24. As a result of the amnesty, 1,245 dogs were bought forward by their owners to be de-sexed. This not only prevents unwanted litters, but also has the benefits of reducing wandering and aggression related offences.

Pro-active initiative – Operation Phoenix

25. A widespread intelligence-led proactive compliance campaign followed the conclusion of the amnesty. The initiative takes a tough stance on all unregistered and non-compliant dogs encountered, resulting in their seizure and the infringement of the owners.

26. Within the first four weeks of the campaign a further 80 dogs were seized for non-compliance with the menacing classification and a further 38 dogs registered on site.

Table 2: Summary of Operation Phoenix results

Category	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Total
Seized for non-compliance S33	28	23	19	10	80
Compliance provided (de-sexing certificate sighted)	11	16	32	12	71
Dead	11	9	8	3	31
Gone No Address (GNA)	64	51	35	23	173
Follow ups (dogs inside or put in vehicles and driven off)	19	14	9	16	58
Registered on the site	10	11	7	10	38
Dogs uncontrolled /not contained.	8	16	6	4	34
Pro Active – Section 42 seizures	0	8	0	5	13
Pro Active - Registration	0	6	0	5	11
Amnesty related	4	1	0	5	10
	155	155	116	93	519

27. Operation Phoenix is ongoing. After the initial intense targeting we will continue to monitor and maximize compliance through our standard optional practices. This enables strict enforcement where dog owners demonstrate an unwillingness to comply. We would expect to see a shift of enforcement to more enabling activity over time.

Pro-active initiatives – stakeholder engagement and promotions

28. The issue of unwanted dogs creates a number of social issues, including safety concerns where stray dogs are concerned, welfare concerns for unwanted dogs and high rates of euthanasia in shelters (both council and welfare organisations). As well as the de-sexing of the amnesty dogs, the final work on a MOU for a joint ongoing de-sexing partnership with the SPCA Auckland, providing reduced cost de-sexing for community card holders is underway. Over time the aim is to stem the flow of irresponsible breeding and rearing, ensuring that dogs in Auckland form a positive part of homes and communities.

29. Promotion of Auckland Council Animal shelters as a first point of contact for people wanting to adopt a dog saw ‘Walk your human’ and ‘Doggy speed dating’ campaigns held over the summer months. 636 dogs were rehomed this year from the five shelters – over 230 more than last year.

30. Increasing public awareness on how to be safe around dogs is a key focus area for Animal Management, and has a particular emphasis on children and people working in the community. Auckland Council partnered with Colenso and Pedigree to develop and launch the Pedigree Dog Safety App. This interactive adventure app teaches children and their parents how to be safe around dogs. There have been nearly 3,500 unique downloads of the app.

Future focus

31. Animal Management will continue with targeted and proactive campaigns; increasing the uptake of registration, allowing the identification of the dogs and their owners and to allow proactive follow up on any future non-compliance. The enforcement of obligations and restrictions on the owners of high risk dogs will be a key focus in the coming year. This applies to both dogs automatically determined as menacing in schedule 4 of the Act and dogs whose behavior leads to their classification as menacing or dangerous.

32. In the short term the effect of some of these initiatives is likely to be that council becomes aware of and involved with a larger number of unwanted and un-socialised dogs, with an unfortunate corresponding increase in impounding and euthanasia. Over time, the aim is to stem the flow of irresponsible breeding and rearing and ensuring that dogs in Auckland form a positive part of the community. It is anticipated that this approach to compliance will result in a reduction of reactive work over time and enable sustainable and positive proactive services as Auckland grows and intensifies.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

33. Some local boards areas (predominantly in South and West Auckland) are over represented in incidences of dog aggression, roaming and unregistered dogs resulting in a high number of impounds. These areas have been identified and targeted in the menacing dog amnesty and project Phoenix. Animal Management plans to further engage proactively with the local boards of these areas to increase awareness of serious animal related harm.

Māori impact statement

34. This report does not focus on Māori communities or local Iwi specifically, however the development of a Māori responsiveness plan is underway to identify effective methods to engage with Māori for dog safety and responsible dog ownership.

Implementation

35. There are no implementation issues as this is an annual report presentation.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	2015/2016 Animal Management Annual Report	93

Signatories

Author

Rochelle Deane, Principal Specialist, Animal Management

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

01 September 2016

The Southern Initiative Update

File No.: CP2016/16955

Purpose

1. To update the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on the progress of The Southern Initiative.

Executive summary

2. This report provides an update on The Southern Initiative’s social and community innovation activities and outcomes since it last presented to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in August 2015.

3. The update focuses on five highlight areas of:

· Creating quality employment opportunities through Māori and Pasifika Trades Training

· Strategically using council family procurement to improve social and economic outcomes

· Leveraging council assets to maximise their value for communities and council

· Partnering for innovation to tackle complex social and economic challenges

· Harnessing technology as an enabler of change.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) receive The Southern Initiative update.

Comments

4. The Southern Initiative last presented to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in August 2015.

5. This report provides an update on the highlights of The Southern Initiative’s social and community innovation activities and outcomes in the last 12 months.

6. Over the last year, The Southern Initiative has built both a team and a solid platform for creating transformation. By focusing its efforts, making the most of current resources and partnering, The Southern Initiative is building momentum and delivering impactful activities for enduring change.

7. The Southern Initiative is contracted by the Tertiary Education Commission to manage and deliver a Māori and Pasifika Trades Training project. Of the 16 Māori and Pasifika Trades Training across the country, The Southern Initiative is the only non-tertiary education organisation managing a programme. Its collaboration with employers also makes it a unique model. Of the 190 enrolments this year, 104 were Māori (55 per cent), 86 were of a Pasifika ethnicity (45 per cent) and 13 per cent were female. Of Māori trainees, 23 per cent reported mana whenua iwi affiliations, 29 per cent were from non-mana whenua iwi, and the iwi affiliation of 48 per cent was unknown. Trainees have gone on to employment in utilities, plant operation, traffic management, technical operators, administration and tunnelling.

8. The Southern Initiative is gaining considerable traction in using council-family’s procurement to deliver quality employment (facilitated by Māori and Pasifika Trades Training) and enterprise opportunities for South Auckland residents. For example, The Southern Initiative is working closely with Auckland Transport to develop socio-economic clauses for capex tenders (City Rail Link and Manukau Bus Interchange).

9. South Auckland has a wealth of social infrastructure and assets, such as open spaces and community facilities. The Southern Initiative is working with communities and council colleagues to do more with current assets; creating better outcomes for communities and maximising value for money for council and rate payers. For example, we are supporting community change agents to transform latent facilities and open space in Manurewa, Papakura and Māngere.

10. Collaborating to create innovation in tackling complex social and economic challenges is one of The Southern Initiative’s strengths. For example, The Southern Initiative has partnered with the Auckland Co-Design Lab (itself a central government and council partnership) on a number of projects of importance to South Auckland such as driver licensing, the ‘attitude gap’ between young people and employers and early years parenting.

11. The constant advances in, and increasing uses and impact of, technology is a world-wide mega-trend. One of South Auckland’s many assets is the creative talent of the local population. Through a number of initiatives, including hosting Net Hui 2016, the itsNoon crowd sourcing platform and #makerhood, The Southern Initiative is supporting South Auckland residents to engage with and harness technology as it becomes increasingly important to social and economic development globally.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. The chairs of the local boards in The Southern Initiative area (Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Manurewa and Papakura) and adjoining local boards (Howick and Franklin) are members of The Southern Initiative Joint Steering Group. The Southern Initiative also presents at each bi-monthly meeting of the southern local board chairs.

13. The Southern Initiative works with local boards to support social entrepreneurs and community change agents in each of their local areas.

Māori impact statement

14. The 2013 census identified that Māori make up 20.7 per cent of the population in The Southern Initiative catchment area. A number of The Southern Initiative’s projects will have a direct and positive impact on Māori, such as the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training, strategic procurement advice, early years work and support of marae- and iwi-based social entrepreneurship initiatives.

15. Mana whenua are actively involved in the governance of The Southern Initiative. Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau and Papakura Marae are members of the steering group for the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training project.

16. In the last 12 months, The Southern Initiative has actively sought to build its capability and capacity in Māori responsiveness. More than half of The Southern Initiative’s staff are Māori which has enabled the team, as a whole, to build its knowledge of Te Ao Māori and whānau ora, and strengthen and widen its connections and relationships into mana whenua and other Māori communities.

Implementation

17. South Auckland is a unique opportunity that requires a unique response. Building strong relationships and trust is a priority and The Southern Initiative actively collaborates across the council family, communities, non-government organisations, central government agencies and businesses.

18. With its small and agile team, The Southern Initiative focuses on leveraging the council-family’s current resources to deliver the innovative initiatives required to catalyse and deliver change.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Gael Surgenor - GM - Southern Initiative

Authorisers

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

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

Author	Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer