Agenda of Environment and Community Committee

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

This committee deals with all strategy and policy decision-making that is not the responsibility of another committee or the Governing Body. Key responsibilities include:

· Development and monitoring of strategy, policy and action plans associated with environmental, social, economic and cultural activities

· Natural heritage

· Parks and reserves

· Economic development

· Protection and restoration of Auckland’s ecological health

· Climate change

· The Southern Initiative

· Waste minimisation

· Libraries

· Acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and within approved annual budgets

· Performing the delegations made by the Governing Body to the former Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum and Regional Development and Operations Committee, under resolution GB/2012/157 in relation to dogs

· Activities of the following CCOs:

o ATEED

o RFA

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a) approval of a submission to an external body

(b) establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii) The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii) The committee does not have:

(a) the power to establish subcommittees

(b) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2).

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

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

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

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

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

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

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

Members of the meeting

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

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

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

Independent Māori Statutory Board

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

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

Staff

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

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

Local Board members

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

Council Controlled Organisations

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

1 Apologies

Apologies from Cr D Quax and Member James Brown have been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

There are no minutes for confirmation.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

5 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

5.1 World Masters Games 2017 - Jennah Wooten

Purpose

1. Ms Jennah Wooten, Chief Executive will provide a presentation to update the committee on the World Masters Games 2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive the presentation and thank Ms Jennah Wooten, Chief Executive, World Masters Games 2017 for her attendance.

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

6.1 Acquisition of open space land - Wellsford (Confidential) - Rodney Local Board

Purpose

1. To outline the Rodney Local Board’s view on the report ‘Acquisition of open space land – Wellsford’.

2. The Chairperson will speak when the item is considered during the confidential section of the meeting.

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Notices of Motion

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

Environment and Community Committee

06 December 2016

Establishment of a Waste Political Advisory Group

File No.: CP2016/23125

Purpose

1. To establish a political waste advisory working group to provide advice to officers on implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan was adopted on 20 June 2012. One of the supporting resolutions at the time of the Plan’s adoption was that the Governing Body establish a political advisory group of councillors to overview and guide the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

3. The Waste Advisory Group formed in 2012 and the Waste Plan Steering and Oversight Group formed in 2014 provided a platform to informally canvas and discuss issues that arose as preparation for the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan commenced. The Waste Advisory Group and Waste Plan Steering and Oversight Group ceased to exist following the 2013 and 2016 local government elections.

4. This report recommends that a new, similar group be established to provide informal advice on key issues which may arise as part of the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) establish the Waste Political Advisory Group comprising Councillor Penny Hulse as chair and other interested councillors, to provide oversight of the implementation of Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for the 2016-2019 electoral term.

b) invite a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board to join the Waste Political Advisory Group.

Comments

5. The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 legally requires local authorities to undertake a waste assessment and adopt a waste management and minimisation plan. Auckland Council adopted its first waste management and minimisation plan in 2012. The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan has an aspirational goal of zero waste by 2040. It is focussed on creating consistency of domestic waste services, initiatives and services to minimise waste, waste minimisation and community engagement programmes and advocacy for legislative change to enable great resource recovery.

6. One of the supporting resolutions at the time of the plan’s adoption (20 June 2012) was that the Governing Body establish a political advisory group of councillors to overview and guide the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (resolution number GB/2012/78).

7. A Waste Advisory Group was established in the 2010-2013 term of Auckland Council to provide an informal political forum, to support the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. Similarly the Waste Plan Steering and Oversight Group was established in the 2013-2016 term. The establishment of the groups was in recognition of the significant impact the agreed changes to waste collection services would have for Aucklanders.

8. This report proposes the establishment of a new Waste Political Advisory Group that will continue the role of the previous groups. In particular it would ensure political views are considered as part of the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan before decisions are sought from the governing body of Auckland Council.

9. The proposed group is not a decision-making entity. All decisions on matters to do with the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be sought from the appropriate governing body committee.

10. This report recommends that Councillor Penny Hulse, as chair of the Environment and Community Committee chairs the group and that other interested councilors be appointed to it. It also recommends inviting a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board to join the group.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11. Local boards are frequently invited to provide advice on the implementation of key aspects of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan through workshops and portfolio meetings. Key topics to date have included the waste bylaw, waste collection controls, proposed multi-unit development rules, and the development of the resource recovery network and community recycling centres.

12. A number of local boards are supporting the implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan through funding scoping studies and business cases to support the development of resource recovery network as well as local waste minimisation initiatives.

Māori impact statement

13. The tangata whenua world view reflects the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan’s emphasis on an integrated life cycle approach to the management of natural resources and the concepts of zero waste, resource recovery and waste minimisation.

14. Council partners and engages Māori on waste minimisation and resource recovery opportunities. For example Ngāti Whātua delivers the Para Kore Ki Tamaki programme which assists marae across the Auckland region to become zero waste. Thirty marae have been engaged in the programme. Participating marae typically achieve a 60-70 per cent diversion rate.

15. As tangata whenua values are at the core of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, inclusion of a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board is recommended to continue to guide this kaupapa.

Implementation

16. The recommendations contained within this report fall within the committee’s delegated authority and this report does not trigger the Significance Policy.

17. The group will meet informally and on a needs-be basis. Group coordination will be provided by Democracy Services and the Waste Solutions teams.

18. Finance and resourcing requirements are within current budgets.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Parul Sood - Manager Waste Planning

Mara Bebich - Relationship Manager, Infrastructure & Environmental Services

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

06 December 2016

Extension of Regional Pest Management Strategy

File No.: CP2016/22759

Purpose

1. To extend the expiry date of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan (The Plan) by 12 months to 17 December 2017

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan gives effect to the Biosecurity Act 1993 in the region. It provides a strategic and statutory framework for managing plant and animal pests in Auckland, including rules and compliance mechanisms. The Plan is due to expire on 17 December 2016.

3. The Plan is currently being reviewed as required by the Biosecurity Act. A new Regional Pest Management Plan will be publically notified in 2017.

4. Keeping the existing plan operative is important to allow council to continue to manage pests in Auckland while the new plan is prepared. Under section 83(19) of the Biosecurity Reform Act 2012, council can extend the expiry date of its plan by up to 12 months. Council has previously extended its plan in this way.

5. The committee is requested to extend The Plan for another 12 months to 17 December 2017. In extending the expiry date, council must be satisfied that there is no significant effect on any person’s rights or obligations (section 100G(4) of the Biosecurity Act). Extending the date of the Regional Pest Management Plan does not change any of its provisions and therefore does not alter or affect any person’s rights or obligations under the plan.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) extend the expiry date of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan by 12 months from 17 December 2016, to 17 December 2017.

Comments

Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan

6. The current Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan is a legacy plan prepared by the former Auckland Regional Council under the Biosecurity Act 1993. The purpose of the Regional Pest Management Plan is to “provide a strategic and statutory framework for efficient and effective management of plant and animal pests in the Auckland region”. The Regional Pest Management Plan identifies over 200 pest plant species and 39 animal pests and sets out a range of responses for these pests, including rules prohibiting distribution or release of specified pests and requirements for landowners to control some species on their land.

7. The Plan is being reviewed both to update it and to incorporate new legal requirements such as the National Policy Direction on Pest Management, which defines the type of pest management programmes that plans can contain. Once a new plan is proposed the current plan remains in force until the proposed new plan becomes operative.

8. The Regional Pest Management Plan was originally due to expire in 2012. Council has extended it on four previous occasions (to December 2013, December 2014, December 2015 and December 2016 respectively) as the review was delayed to await the National Policy Direction. Extending the expiry date has enabled council to avoid producing a proposed Regional Pest Management Plan only to have to commence another review once the National Policy Direction came into effect. The National Policy Direction has now been gazetted.

9. Keeping the current plan operative provides for the effective management of pests in Auckland and prevents actions by individuals that could place economic, ecological, and Māori values at risk from the adverse effects of pests.

Progress with review

10. A public discussion document was released in November 2015. Cost benefit analyses of potential programmes are currently underway as required by the National Policy Direction.

11. An inconsistency review, to determine any inconsistency of the current plan with the National Policy Direction, will be completed by February 2017. After this a new draft plan will be subject to a special consultative procedure over 2017 and eventually considered by the Environment and Community committee as per their delegations. A draft plan must be publically notified by December 2017.

Effect on rights or obligations

12. In extending the Regional Pest Management Plan, council must be satisfied that there is no significant effect on any person’s rights or obligations. Extending the expiry date of The Plan does not change any of its provisions and therefore does not alter or affect any person’s rights or obligations under the plan.

13. This approach is consistent with the overall intent of section 18 of the Biosecurity Reform Act which creates interim processes for the review and extension of regional pest management plans.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. The Regional Pest Management Plan applies at a local as well as a regional scale. Local board views were sought as part of the initial review process through workshops and meetings with environment portfolio holders. The discussion document was placed on local board agendas and some local boards provided feedback. Local boards will be further consulted prior to notification of the new plan. The extension provides for on-going pest management while the new plan is drafted.

Māori impact statement

15. Pursuant to the Biosecurity Act, one of the primary purposes of pest management plans is to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of pests on the relationship between Māori and their culture, traditions, ancestral lands, waters, sites, wāhi tapu and taonga.

16. The Biosecurity Act requires council to be satisfied in reviewing the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan that consultation with affected tangata whenua has occurred and impacts on Maori considered. Initial consultation with Māori has occurred through a series of individual and combined hui with mana whenua. Mana whenua have expressed strong interest in The Plan, and signaled their pest management priorities and concerns. The recommended extension allows further engagement and consultation with Māori as the new plan is developed.

Implementation

17. The recommended extension of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan expiry date provides for the continued implementation of the current Regional Pest Management Plan and for Auckland Council to exercise its statutory rights under the Biosecurity Act to manage pests.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Dr Imogen Basset – Acting Manager Environmental Advisory, Infrastructure & Environmental Services

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

06 December 2016

Appointment of Governing Body Representative to Ark in the Park

File No.: CP2016/23196

Purpose

1. To appoint two members from the Governing Body to the Ark in the Park Governance Group.

Executive summary

2. Ark in the Park is a conservation project in the northern part of the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park that is managed in partnership between Forest and Bird and the Auckland Council. By controlling non-native pests and predators, and reintroducing certain native species, it aims to restore the ecology of the area to its natural state

3. This flagship community partnership has been active for nearly 15 years. The project involves substantial volunteer efforts (over 9000 hours of activity last year) to achieve significant conservation outcomes in one of the Auckland’s most important ecological areas.

4. In 2014 Auckland Council and Forest and Bird signed a partnership agreement to renew the shared commitment to the open sanctuary project for a ten-year period, and identify the support each party offers. The partnership agreement is attached as attachment A to this report.

5. As specified in the partnership agreement, the management of the project is overseen by a governance group made up of two nominees from the Governing Body of the Auckland Council, one nominee from the Auckland Council Waitakere Ranges Local Board, one nominee of the Executive of Forest & Bird and two nominees of the Waitakere Branch of Forest & Bird.

6. Two councillors are required to be appointed to the Ark in the Park Governance Group for the 2016-2019 electoral term, and nominations are sought for these roles.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) appoint two councillors to the Ark in the Park Governance Group for the 2016-2019 electoral term.

Comments

7. The Ark in the Park Open Sanctuary Project aims to enhance biodiversity in the Waitakere Ranges, while conserving the natural, recreational, historical and cultural features of the Ranges. The project covers approximately 2100ha of the Upper Waitakere River catchment within Waitakere Ranges Regional Park.

8. Since the concept was initiated by Forest and Bird members in 1999, some of the achievements of the project include:

· Expansion of active animal pest control from an initial 250ha in 2002, to over 2100ha within parkland, and additional buffer areas exceeding 600ha.

· Successful establishment of a thriving population of North Island robin, following translocations of 83 birds since 2005. No further translocations of this species are required.

· Successful breeding and expansion of the kōkako population following on-going translocations of 47 birds since 2009. This year’s kōkako census located 20 founder (translocated) birds and 15 unbanded birds that have hatched locally. A further five chicks have been banded this breeding season.

· On-going translocation of whiteheads has resulted in successful breeding of the species as far afield as the vicinity of Arataki Visitor Centre on Scenic Drive.

· Overall maintenance of low animal pest numbers over the project area, allowing common forest bird species to be 50-100 % more numerous inside the Ark compared to surrounding areas.

· The number and input of volunteers continues to grow, with the ethnic diversity of volunteers increasing as well. The scope of activities carried out by volunteers is also expanding, with newer pursuits including native insect monitoring and tree canopy studies.

9. The Ark in the Park project is mandated under Auckland Council’s Regional Parks Management Plan (August 2010), with specific management policies in the Waitakere Ranges section of the management plan that provide for the project.

10. The Ark in the Park project helps council to meet the following Auckland Plan Directives:

Directive 7.4

Identify places of high natural heritage value, and where appropriate, protect, manage and expand public open space areas so they can be enjoyed by everyone.

Directive 7.5

Protect ecological areas, ecosystems and areas of significant indigenous biodiversity from inappropriate use and development, and ensure ecosystems and indigenous biodiversity on public and private land are protected and restored.

11. The Ark in the Park project contributes significantly towards achieving several of the Objectives of Auckland Council’s Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy. This strategy describes the Council's vision and objectives for biodiversity work, and was approved by Auckland Council’s Governing Body in July 2012.

12. The Ark in the Park partnership agreement (attachment A) specifies that a governance group for the project should be made up of two nominees from the Governing Body of the Auckland Council, one nominee from the Auckland Council Waitakere Ranges Local Board, one nominee of the Executive of Forest & Bird and two nominees of the Waitakere Branch of Forest & Bird.

13. The purpose of the Ark in the Park governance group is to oversee and review the overall direction of the project, approve the annual Ark plan and long term restoration plan, and when necessary, recommend the approval of the plans (including funding implications) to the appropriate governance bodies of Auckland Council and Forest & Bird.

14. Previous council representatives on the governance group have been Councillor Ross Clow, Councillor Wayne Walker and Waitakere Local Board Member Saffron Toms. Currently, the Forest and Bird nominees on the governance group are John Staniland and Robert Woolf, both of whom have a long association with the project. Until recently, outgoing Forest and Bird Chief Executive Officer Hōne McGregor filled the third position. In future this will be filled by Kevin Hague, the organisation’s new Chief Executive Officer.

15. The governance group meets twice yearly or as may be otherwise agreed between the parties. In practice, the meeting commitment over the last term has typically been once per annum.

16. Two nominees from the Governing Body of Auckland Council are sought to sit on the Ark in the Park Governance Group for the 2016-2019 electoral term, in accordance with the partnership agreement. It is recommended that nominated councillors have an association with the Waitakere Ranges and or an interest in management of the natural environment for the protection of indigenous biodiversity.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. The views of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board have not been specifically sought for this report. The partnership agreement for Ark in the Park also specifies that a nominee from Waitakere Ranges Local Board be appointed to the governance group, and an appointment to this position will be made separately with the local board.

18. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has identified an aspiration in their Local Board Plan 2014-2017 that ‘our unique natural environments are healthy and restored’. It also describes a number of environmental and community objectives such as ‘partnering with community organisations’, ‘we will encourage environmentally responsible lifestyles, including promoting volunteering, conserving water and energy’, ‘connecting with nature and people adopting responsible lifestyles’ and we take an integrated approach to the control of weeds and pests.’

19. To give effect to this aspiration the local board invests a significant component of their annual budget to local environmental projects that protect, restore and enhance the natural environment in partnership with their communities. The partnership with Ark in the Park strongly aligns with these aspirations and objectives.

Māori impact statement

20. A specific objective of the project is to “acknowledge the role of Te Kawerau a Maki as mana whenua for Te Wao nui o Tiriwa.”(Tiriwa’s great forest). This is achieved in practice chiefly by the project manager and Western Principal Ranger, Parks who liaise directly with Kawerau a Maki representatives to seek their input into the project and wider parks initiatives respectively.

21. Iwi involvement in the project to date includes attendance and ceremonial involvement with wildlife translocation events, such as the release of pōpokotea (whitehead) and kokako.

22. The current Ark in the Park five year plan includes the following goals in relation to iwi involvement:

- Seek opportunities to work with Te Kawerau a Maki

- Foster the relationship

- Provide opportunities for youth mentoring

- Recognise the role of Te Kawerau a Maki in communications about the project.

Implementation

23. The project is managed day to day by a full-time project manager employed by Forest and Bird. Auckland Council’s environmental services department has an annual budget of $46,710, which is paid to Forest and Bird and covers part of the salary for that role.

24. Operational funding for Council staff resource to support the Ark in the Park activities is funded from within the budgets of the environmental services and parks departments.

25. In addition to the governance group, a management committee consisting of council staff, Forest and Bird employees and project volunteers meets six times a year to guide Ark in the Park operations.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ark in the Park Partnership Agreement	25

Signatories

Author

Alastair Jamieson - Biodiversity Team Manager Regional, Infrastructure & Environmental Services

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

06 December 2016

2016/2017 Arts and Culture Regional Work Programme - Public Art Capital Expenditure Amendments

File No.: CP2016/23211

Purpose

1. To amend the public art component of the 2016/2017 Arts and Culture Regional Work Programme and receive an overview of the Arts and Culture Unit.

Executive summary

2. The Arts and Culture Unit is one of four business units of the Arts, Community and Events Department, alongside Community Empowerment, Community Places and Events.

3. In June 2016, the Arts, Culture and Events Committee approved the 2016-2017 Arts and Culture Regional Work Programme (ART/2016/21), which comprises:

· public art projects

· arts and culture festivals, events and programmes

· contestable grant schemes

· arts and culture collections and assets.

4. In addition to delivering the regional work programme, the Arts and Culture Unit is responsible for local arts and culture facilities, events, programmes and funding schemes. Staff will deliver a presentation on the Arts and Culture Unit’s work at the Environment and Community Committee meeting of 6 December 2016.

5. Amendments are requested to the public art capital expenditure component of the FY2017/2018 work programme due to forecast shifts in project work. These shifts require adjustments to budget allocations and project phasing.

6. The requested adjustments are cost neutral and do not change the FY2017/2018 public art budget envelope of $2,220,052 nor the estimated budget envelopes in FY2018/2019 ($2,340,000) and in FY2019/2020 ($2,475,000).

7. The overall impacts of these changes for FY2017/2018 are outlined below:

· decreasing the “build” programme budget by $207,332 to $1,497,668 (-12 per cent change)

· decreasing the “scoping” programme budget by $10,000 to $10,000 (-50 per cent change)

· increasing the “design” programme budget by $217,332 to $712,384 (+44 per cent change)

8. The requested amendments require approval at a committee level as they are beyond the delegated authority (ART/2016/21) of the Manager, Arts and Culture (within +/- 10 per cent of the budget for that item) or of the committee chair (within +/- 30 per cent of the budget for that item).

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive the presentation on the Arts and Culture Unit

b) approve the reduction of the “build” programme by $207,332 by conducting the following adjustments:

i) re-phasing of a portion ($60,000 value) of the Oakley Creek Stormwater project from FY2017/2018 to FY2018/2019,

ii) re-phasing of a portion ($10,000 value) of the Massey Westgate Library and Community Facility project from FY2017/2018 to FY2018/2019,

iii) re-phasing of a portion ($90,000 value) of the Greenways Tamaki Drive to Glen Innes project from FY2017/2018 to FY2018/2019,

iv) re-phasing of a portion ($100,000 value) of the Mt Albert Town Centre Upgrade project from FY2017/2018 to FY2018/2019,

v) re-phasing of a portion ($50,000 value) of the Pukekohe Interchange Arts Contribution project from FY2017/2018 to FY2018/2019,

vi) reduction of the Various Gift Offers budget from $100,000 to $50,000,

vii) Increase of the Public Art Infrastructure budget from $70,000 to $100,000,

viii) Increase of the Project Close Out budget from $10,000 to $77,668,

ix) increase of the Albany Stadium Pool Grounds budget from $100,000 to $155,000,

c) approve the re-phasing of a portion ($10,000 value) of the “scoping” programme from FY2017/2018 to FY2019/2020,

d) approve the re-phasing of a portion ($217,332 value) of the “design” programme from FY2018/2019 and FY2019/2020 to FY2017/2018,

e) note recommendations a), b), c) are cost neutral and do not change the FY2017/2018 public art budget envelope of $2,220,052 nor the estimated budget envelopes in FY2018/2019 ($2,340,000) and in FY2019/2020 ($2,475,000).

Comments

Arts and culture regional work programme

9. The Arts and Culture Unit is one of four business units of the Arts, Community and Events Department, alongside Community Empowerment, Community Places and Events.

10. In June 2016, the Arts, Culture and Events Committee approved the 2016/2017 Arts and Culture Regional Work Programme (ART/2016/21) (Attachment A).

11. The arts and culture regional work programme includes 38 public art projects at various stages: scoping, design and build.

Forecasting identifies need for budget allocation adjustments

12. Forecasting of the public art project portfolio in the second quarter identified required adjustments to phasing and, consequently, budget allocations between projects. The recommended changes arise largely to align with delayed timing of parent projects and an acceleration in the design phase timeline for the City Rail Link (CRL) project.

13. Budget allocation adjustments within the public art programme are routinely required due to the majority of projects being attached to larger infrastructure parent projects. Changes to parent projects’ timeframes, scope or budget demand similar or related adjustments to the accompanying public art components.

Impact of budget allocation changes

14. The overall impacts of these changes for FY2017/2018 are outlined below:

· decreasing the “build” programme budget by $207,332 to $1,497,668 (-12 per cent change)

· decreasing the “scoping” programme budget by $10,000 to $10,000 (-50 per cent change)

· increasing the “design” programme budget by $217,332 to $712,384 (+44 per cent change)

Recommended budget allocation changes

15. The requested amendments require approval at a committee level as they are beyond the delegated authority of the Manager, Arts and Culture (within +/- 10 per cent of the budget for that item) or of the committee chair (within +/- 30 per cent of the budget for that item) (ART/2016/21).

16. The requested adjustments are cost neutral and do not change the FY2017/2018 public art budget envelope of $2,220,052 nor the estimated budget envelopes in FY2018/2019 ($2,340,000) and in FY2019/2020 ($2,475,000).

17. The table below demonstrates how the proposed amendments affect the proportion of budget allocated to the ‘build’, ‘scope’ and ‘design’ phases.

18. Not adjusting the budgets as recommended in this report would have significant implications, for the public art work programme, including contractual implications. The effects of leaving the budgets as they currently stand include:

· the Albany Pool project would not be delivered

· the public art project budgets would no longer align with the parent projects’ budgets. This would result in insufficient funding in FY2018/2019 and FY2019/2020 for projects to be delivered according to current scope and outcomes.

· additional discovery/design work would not be undertaken for the City Rail Link (CRL) in FY2017/2018. This would reduce the level of resolved design detail in Auckland Transport’s tender documentation. This would limit opportunities to integrate public art in the CRL, and significantly increase the possibility of identified public art opportunities being excluded from scope due to insufficient detail. Conducting this additional discovery/design work post-tender would likely result in significant cost variations for the CRL project in the coming years.

19. The following table outlines the rationale for the adjustments recommended. ‘Re-phasing’ refers to shifting funds from one year to another without impacting the overall funding allocated against that programme/project. ‘Reduction’ and ‘allocation of additional funds’ alter the planned budget amount for that activity.

Programme / Project	Recommended Adjustment*	Rationale
Build Programme
Oakley Creek Stormwater	Re-phasing of a portion ($60,000 value) from FY2017/2018 to FY2018/2019	Re-phasing is done to align budget/timeline with the parent project
Albany Stadium Pool Grounds	Allocation of additional funds ($55,000 value) in FY2017/2018	Additional budget ($55,000 value) is required to meet the cost variance for the ground preparation and professional services.
Various Gift Offers	Reduction of funds ($50,000 value) in FY2017/2018	Fewer gift offers that require support were accepted / identified than originally anticipated.
Public art infrastructure	Allocation of additional funds ($30,000 value) in FY2017/2018	Additional budget is required to develop new portable arts assets for the POP FY2017/2018 programme that will promote community participation in accordance with ACSAP (Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan) priorities.
Massey Westgate library and community facility	Re-phasing of a portion ($10,000 value) from FY2017/2018 to FY2018/2019	Re-phasing is done to align budget/timeline with the parent project
Greenways Tamaki Drive to Glen Innes	Re-phasing of a portion ($90,000 value) from FY2017/2018 to FY2018/2019	Re-phasing is done to align budget/timeline with the parent project
Mt Albert Town Centre upgrade	Re-phasing of a portion ($100,000 value) from FY2017/2018 to FY2018/2019	Re-phasing is done to align budget/timeline with the parent project
Pukekohe Interchange arts contribution	Re-phasing of a portion ($50,000 value) from FY2017/2018 to FY2018/2019	Re-phasing is done to align budget/timeline with the parent project
Project Close-out	Allocation of additional funds ($67,668 value) in FY 2016/2017	Insufficient funds were allocated for the below mentioned projects from FY2016/2017. The proposed increase will correct the budget gaps for these projects: Pt Chevalier Town Centre, Wenderholm, Mangere Future Streets, Ronwood Ave Day, Bamfield Reserve, Mt Albert train station, Croftfield Lane Stormwater.
Scoping Programme	Re-phasing of a portion ($10,000 value) from FY2017/2018 to FY2019/2020	The forecast shows that these funds will not be required since some of the associated council projects are not ready for this phase. The recommendation is to re-phase them to FY2019/2020.
Design Programme	Re-phasing of a portion ($217,332 value) from FY2018/2019 and FY2019/2020 to FY2017/2018	Additional discovery/design work is planned to be undertaken for the City Rail Link (CRL) in FY2017/2018 so that concept and developed design of key elements is completed for inclusion in Auckland Transport’s tender documentation. This will secure the integration of public art across the network, reserving key sites and the opportunity to leverage the infrastructure build to showcase the widest range possible of New Zealand creative practice. By fast-tracking concept and developed design, these elements can be mandated in tender documentation allowing potential suppliers to price the work appropriately and mitigate value engineering risks. It will also reduce the risk of future cost increases/variations for the CRL project.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. Implementing the regional arts and culture work programme for 2016/2017 involves working with individual local boards throughout the year to identify synergies between the regional programme and local work programmes that align to local board plans and priorities.

21. Local boards are also key stakeholders in public art projects.

Māori impact statement

22. This report has no specific impact for Maori beyond that approved in June 2016, when the Arts, Culture and Events Committee approved the 2016/2017 Arts and Culture Regional Work Programme (ART/2016/21). The Arts and Culture unit is committed to working with iwi, Māori creative practitioners and other Māori groups.

Implementation

23. The Arts and Culture Regional Work Programme is being implemented within the annual plan. 2016/2017 budget.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	2016/2017 Arts and Culture Regional Work Programme	41

Signatories

Authors

Sarp Egene - Arts and Culture Project Lead

Naomi Singer - Arts and Culture Advisor

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

06 December 2016

Allocation of 2016 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Fund

File No.: CP2016/23250

Purpose

1. To consider and approve funding recommendations for the 2016/2017 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants programme funding round.

Executive summary

2. The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants programme is a contestable community grants programme designed to support the protection, restoration and enhancement of Auckland’s regionally significant natural heritage areas, as well as projects that encourage and support Aucklanders to adopt environmentally sustainable lifestyles.

3. Auckland Council invests an annual budget of $488,710 for the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants programme.

4. The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme is focused on supporting strategic regional initiatives delivering on four outcome categories: sustainable living, biodiversity, healthy waters and kaitiakitanga. To be eligible applications must meet the criteria for at least one of the four outcome categories. Table One below provides a summary of applications received and the funding recommendations for consideration by the committee.

Table One – Summary of 2016/17 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Fund Applications

2016/17 Fund Budget	The 2016/17 budget for the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage is $488,710. A portion of this budget ($26,900) was committed to multi-year projects under the 2015/16 allocation of funds. This leaves $461,810 available in the fund for allocation in 2016/17.
Applications received	73 applications were received requesting a total of $1,791,750.25.
Applications recommended	33 applications are recommended for funding totaling $461,810. The average grant recommendation is $13,641.97.
Ineligible applications	Four applications were deemed ineligible as they did not meet funding criteria.
Applications recommended for decline	36 applications are recommended for decline.
Match funding	The applicant contribution for all the applications recommended in this report exceeds the 50 per cent contribution expected from applicants. This contribution is either financial or costed in-kind support, equipment, time and/or other sources of funding and varies between applicants.
Multi-year funding	28 applications requested multi-year funding. Seven applications are recommended for multi-year funding, committing $99,900 in FY17/18, and $77,400 in FY18/19.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) Approve Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant allocations listed in Attachment A of this report and copied below:

Organisation / Individual name	Project Title	Total score	Funds recommended
Kaipatiki Project	Pest Free Kaipatiki Coordinator	100	$ 35,000
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc.	Wild Auckland, South-East Wildlink (SEW)	96	$ 20,000
Te Matuku Bay Landcare Group	Environmental Weed Control - Te Matuku Scenic Reserve	92	$ 15,000
Motutapu Restoration Trust	Protecting Motutapu's Home Bay Forest - controlling its weeds	92	$ 10,000
Waitakere Arts and Culture Development Trust.	TEMP an arts science outdoor experience agenda climate change	90	$ 35,000
The Whau River Catchment Trust	Kurt Brehmer Walkway MU2/MU3 Landslip	90	$ 19,000
PHAB Association Incorporated	Sustainability For All	90	$ 6,000
Shakespear Open Sanctuary Society Inc	Little Spotted Kiwi Re-introduction	88	$ 7,300
Motuihe Trust	Native plant propagation	88	$ 6,510
The Forest Bridge Trust	CatchIT Schools and CatchIT Communities	86	$ 35,000
Otakanini Topu Inc.	Kaipara Harbour fencing stage 2 - Waikare Ag Block	86	$ 20,000
Tat-Community Native Tree Nursery Recovery First	Tat-Community Native Tree Nursery Recovery First.	86	$ 20,000
Friends of Okura Bush Incorporated	Weeding Plan	86	$ 15,000
Beyond the Fence	Beyond the Fence - supporting the clusters	85	$ 15,000
North-West Partnership Group (NWW)	North West Wildlink (NWW) Partnership Project	84	$ 30,000
Project Litefoot Trust	LiteClub – Auckland	84	$ 25,000
Thomas & Mahrukh Stazyk	CUE Haven Restoration Project	84	$ 8,000
Forest & Bird, Waitakere branch	Habitat te Henga	84	$ 10,000
The Forest Bridge Trust	Fencing Forest Remnants, Riparian Margins and Wetlands in the Hoteo Catchment	82	$ 25,000
Papatuanuku Kokiri Marae	Sustainability Champions / Parawehi	82	$ 18,000
The Whau River Catchment Trust	Rosebank Peninsula Coastal Restoration Project Eastside	82	$ 10,000
Streamland Suffolks Limited	Protection of bush and retirement of sensitive erosion-prone slope areas in "ridge paddock"	82	$ 10,000
Motuora Restoration Society (Inc)	Restoration of Motuora	82	$ 5,000
Manaia Properties Ltd	Riparian Planting of the Mataia and Omaumau Streams	81	$ 1,000
Rakino Island Native Plant Nursery	Rakino Island Nursery	80	$ 10,000
Roseline Klein	Maungawhau - Weeding and planting below Clive road, Auckland Grammar School	80	$ 4,000
Windy Hill Rosalie Bay Catchment Trust	Spark Me Up' - research into the efficacy of electronic trap minding	78	$ 7,000
Ecomatters Environment Trust	Keen Green Connections -Linking people and places through environmental restoration	76	$ 15,000
Kevin Wragge on behalf of Rakino Community	Rakino Island Ecological Restoration Plan	74	$ 5,000
South Kaipara Landcare Incorporated	South Kaipara Pest Control Project	74	$ 3,500
Orama Christian Trust	Wharf catchment coastal margin Orama Oasis	74	$ 3,000
Kaipatiki Project Environment Centre	EcoFest North 2017	73	$ 10,000
NZ Native Forest Restoration Trust	Water level investigation and monitoring and continuation of weed and animal pest control.	73	$ 3,500

Comments

Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Purpose and Outcomes

5. The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme is intended to help deliver the outcomes set out in relevant Council environmental strategies and plans. This fund is in place to support the implementation of the Auckland Plan, Auckland Council’s Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy and the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. In particular it was established to achieve the following outcomes:

· The mauri of the natural environment is in optimum health

· Our natural heritage is valued by all Aucklanders

· Our natural resources are sustainably managed

· Our waterways, coastline, harbours, islands and marine areas are treasured

· A high number and diverse range of Auckland’s indigenous species and ecosystems are conserved: there are no regional extinctions of indigenous species and a reduction in the number of threatened or ‘at risk’ species

· Mana whenua are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised in their customary Kaitiaki role, and participate in the co-management of natural resources

· Aucklanders adopt sustainable lifestyles, including reducing use of non-renewable resources and minimising waste

· Auckland communities are involved in the stewardship of our biodiversity and other natural resources

· Aucklanders help to address climate change through carbon sequestration, adaptive land management and better soil management.

Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Criteria & Budget 2016/17

6. In July 2016 the Environmental Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee adopted a revised Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme framework, which describe the fund criteria, exclusions, investment approach and timing of funding (Resolution number ENV/2016/51). Regional Environment and Natural Heritage projects need to meet at least one of the grants programme’s regional outcomes grouped under the following four categories:

· Sustainable Living

· Biodiversity

· Healthy Waters

· Kaitiakitanga.

7. The outcomes framework and the specifics of the fund criteria are attached to this report as Attachment B.

8. Auckland Council invests an annual budget of $488,710 for the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grants programme. A portion of this budget ($26,900) was committed to multi-year projects under the 2015/16 allocation of funds meaning $461,810 is available in the fund for allocation in 2016/17.

9. The fund recommendations presented in this report seek to allocate the full balance of the remaining 2016-2017 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grants budget to 33 applications as described in this report.

Timing & Promotion

10. The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage has one annual funding round. In 2016/2017, the fund opened on 1 August and closed on 9 September 2016. Applications were assessed by subject matter experts during October and November 2016.

11. The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage was promoted through a number of existing processes and networks including Auckland Council web and social media sites, publications, hui, pest liaison and biodiversity groups, local board networks and emails to environmental stakeholders and partners. A series of workshop presentations were held across the region where applicants could be supported through the application process and request advice from council staff.

Application Assessment

12. Applications were assessed in a three stage process:

i. Applications were assessed against grant programme eligibility criteria and allocated for merit assessment according to the outcome category the project most closely aligned with.

ii. Subject matter experts assessed applications under the four outcome area against the assessment criteria. The assessment criteria and weighting is described in table two below.

Table Two – Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Assessment Criteria

Assessment criteria	Assessment considerations
Project Impact (40%)	· Positive impact · Project design and measurable objectives · Sustainability and risk mitigation
Connectivity (20%)	· Community engagement and empowerment · Benefit to the community · Community participation
Applicant capacity (20%)	· Delivery of projects previously supported with grants · Overall capability and capacity · Level of collaboration with others
Māori Outcomes (10%)	· Mana Whenua as kaitiaki · Valuing Te Ao Māori · Partnership with Mana Whenua
Value for Money (10%)	· Return on investment · Applicant contribution · Project budget

iii. A moderation panel of these subject matter experts considered all applications against the outcome areas and allocated funds based on the final scoring.

13. As a result of the assessment process, each application had an assessment score out of 100 which was used to rank applications from highest to lowest. The moderation panel has set funding recommendations for the committee’s consideration as described in Attachment A of this report and summarised in the recommendations table.

Summary of Applications Received

14. In total 73 applications were received requesting grants totalling $1,791,750.25. Application alignment with outcome categories (as identified by applicants) is summarised in table three below. Note that most proposed projects could potentially meet more than one outcome category, therefore the numbers in this table sum to more than the total number of applications.

Table Three – Distribution of applications across Regional Environment and Natural Heritage outcome categories

Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Outcome categories	Application meeting eligibility criteria
Sustainable living	24
Biodiversity	56
Healthy Waters	21
Kaitiakitanga	9

15. Following assessment of applications against grant programme criteria, four applications were deemed ineligible due to not meeting the criteria for regional funding.

Funding Recommendations

16. It is recommended that 33 applications are supported with grants totalling $461,810 ranging from $1,000 to $35,000 with an average grant of $14,500. Most applications were recommended for partial funding with funding recommendations set taking into account value for money, project budgets, ability to scale project and access to other resources.

17. It is also recommended that a further 36 applications are declined. Table four summarises the number of applications recommended for each outcome category noting that a number of applications contributed to more than one outcome category and therefore the percentages in this table sum to more than 100%.

Table Four – Summary of allocations recommended by Regional Environment and Natural Heritage outcome category

Regional Environment and Natural Heritage outcome category	No of applications recommended for funding	% of applications recommended
Sustainable living	8	33.3%
Biodiversity	25	44.6%
Healthy Waters	7	33.3%
Kaitiakitanga	5	55.5%

18. A large percentage of applications scored highly. However owing to the size of the fund and the number of applications, only those scoring 73 out 100 or above can be recommended for funding on this round.

19. While the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Framework provides for grants between $5,000 and $40,000 per annum, there is provision to award smaller grants for projects that meet the criteria for regional significance but only require moderate support. Where grants of less than $5,000 are recommended this is due to either a moderate funding request by the applicant or moderate investment from Council required to maximise a project’s potential environmental outcomes.

Match funding

20. A 50 per cent matched funding (applicant contribution) approach is encouraged for the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage to ensure that council grants continue to leverage private investment and funding from other providers. However the framework includes provision for applicants to request grants of up to 100% of the total project costs in exceptional circumstances. Following assessment of project budgets and potential environmental outcomes, funding for applications recommended do not exceed more than 50% of total project costs.

Multi –year funding

21. The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage provides grants as either one-off or multi-year project grants with applicants needing to provide a project plan covering the entire period of funding.

22. Twenty eight applications were received for multi-year funding with all requesting support for three years. Six are recommended for multi-year funding based on high assessment scores (>80%) representing strong alignment with Regional Environment and Natural Heritage objectives, high applicant capacity and excellent project analysis.

Table Five – Multi-year Funding Allocations

Application ID	Applicant name	Score	2017	2018	2019
16/1710	Kaipatiki Project	100	$35,000	$25,000	$15,000
16/1739	Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc.	96	$20,000	$20,000	$15,000
16/1727	Friends of Okura Bush Incorporated	86	$15,000	$10,000	$10,000
16/1703	Thomas & Mahrukh Stazyk	84	$8,000	$4,000	$3,000
16/1757	Forest & Bird, Waitakere branch	84	$10,000	$5,000	$1,500
16/1736	Rakino Island Native Plant Nursery	80	$10,000	$5,000	$3,000

Consideration

Local board views and implications

23. As part of the assessment process, feedback was sought from local boards in regards to project delivery, applicant capacity and previous funding use by the applicant. Seven local boards provided feedback on this funding round with five commenting on the projects they would like to be supported and how these projects aligned with their local board priorities. One decided not to provide comments and one concluded that there was not enough information for them to comment on.

24. Local boards are involved with promotion of the funding round and will receive a summary of funding decisions for their information.

Māori impact statement

25. All grant programmes should respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Māori. Input from the Independent Māori Statutory Board was sought in the development of the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grants programme. Māori outcomes have been assessed by internal council subject matter experts in Te Ao Māori.

26. One of the four regional outcomes categories relates specifically to Māori concepts and capacity. Nine applicants, predominantly involved with waterway protection and conservation projects, identified their projects as contributing towards kaitiakitanga – mana whenua are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised in their customary kaitiaki role. Five applications recommended for funding contribute towards Māori outcomes as they demonstrate opportunities for mana whenua to act as kaitiaki and contribute positively to the mauri of the natural environment.

Implementation

27. There are no implementation issues arising from this report. Budget allocation for the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage fund was confirmed under adoption of the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025. The annual funding budget for the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage fund is $488,710. The funding recommendations presented in this report recommend full allocation of the 2016/2017 fund.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Funding reccomendations for Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Fund round 2016-2017	55
b ⇩	Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme Framework 2016-2017	73

Signatories

Authors

Sonia Parra - Environmental Funding Coordinator

Fran Hayton - Environmental Funding Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

06 December 2016

Greenfleet conservation programmes on Regional Parks

File No.: CP2016/23332

Purpose

1. Seek to revoke a previous resolution of the Parks, Recreation and Sports Committee that endorsed the establishment of a partnership with Greenfleet to accelerate the ecological restoration programme on regional parks and put in place a new resolution that alters one of the conditions. The new condition would enable carbon sequestered through vegetation established through the programme to be noted on the relevant property title by way of an encumbrance.

Executive summary

2. Greenfleet’s ecological restoration programmes are funded by companies and individuals making donations to Greenfleet to off-set their carbon emissions through the planting of trees and native forest restoration.

3. Council agreed to establish a partnership with Greenfleet to carry out revegetation programmes on regional parkland subject to a number of conditions being met. One of these conditions was that no property rights are assigned beyond assuring the maintenance of the planting for 50 years.

4. Greenfleet is concerned that one condition prevents it from meeting its commitment to sponsors, in particular in regards to the sequestration of carbon through the establishment of a permanent forest, because no interest in the carbon for areas they have planted is recorded in a notice on the property title.

5. There are significant benefits to council in supporting the partnership with Greenfleet The programme enables the acceleration of revegetation on regional parks land, a lot of which is not currently resourced, and encourages more people to offset their carbon emissions.

6. The encumbrance would simply record the arrangement with Greenfleet on the title to relevant land.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) rescind resolution PAR/2015/79 of the Parks Recreation and Sport Committee related to entering a partnership agreement with Greenfleet.

b) authorise the General Manager Parks Sport & Recreation to negotiate a partnership with Greenfleet on regional parkland subject to a number of conditions:

i. be carried out at no net cost to the council and recognising the assignment of carbon credits on the areas to be re-vegetated.

ii. be fully consistent with council priorities and the objectives and policies relating to council conservation programmes, reserve management plans and land management practices, such as eco-sourcing plant material

iii. cover all aspects of revegetation requirements (for example fencing and weed control) for areas planted under this agreement

iv. be consistent with the particular land management objectives for each locality and meet any planning requirements, at no cost to the council

v. the agreement is non-exclusive to other partnerships for re-vegetation

vi. seeks to actively engage communities and volunteers

vii. enables an encumbrance recording Greenfleet’s interest in the carbon sequestered through vegetation established by the programme to be noted on the property title.

Comments

7. Council was approached by Greenfleet in 2015 for access to around 50ha of land to carry out revegetation programmes. Greenfleet is a not-for-profit organisation operating in Australia since 1997 who have extended their activity into New Zealand. It funds, carries out and maintains planting programmes on public and private land in order to restore natural ecosystems and off-set carbon emissions. These works are funded by companies and individuals who make donations to Greenfleet to off-set their carbon emissions through the planting of trees and native forest restoration.

8. The programme would benefit council by encouraging more people to off-set their carbon emissions and accelerate on-going re-vegetation of regional parks. There is over 500 hectares of land identified in the Regional Parks Management Plan for future re-vegetation that is not currently resourced. The current programme for regional parks achieves re-vegetation of approximately eight hectares of land per annum.

9. The Parks Recreation and Sport Committee at its meeting on 18 November 2015 (PAR/2015/79) authorised the Group Manager Regional and Specialist Parks to negotiate a partnership with Greenfleet on regional parkland subject to a number of conditions:

· Be carried out at no net cost to the council and recognising the assignment of carbon credits on the areas to be re-vegetated.

· Be fully consistent with council priorities and the objectives and policies relating to council conservation programmes, reserve management plans and land management practices, such as eco-sourcing plant material.

· Cover all aspects of revegetation requirements (for example fencing and weed control) for areas planted under this agreement.

· No property rights beyond assuring the maintenance of the planting for 50 years are assigned.

· Be consistent with the particular land management objectives for each locality and meet any planning requirements, at no cost to the council.

· The agreement is non-exclusive to other partnerships for re-vegetation.

· Seeks to actively engage communities and volunteers.

10. There has been considerable dialogue with Greenfleet over the past twelve months about the content of the legal documents required to establish the partnership and get the programme underway on specific sites. Greenfleet and council are currently negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding and a template Site Specific Agreement that will meet this purpose. Greenfleet is concerned to ensure that these documents provide them with the guarantees required to meet its commitment to its sponsors, namely, that their donations will result in the sequestration of carbon through the establishment of a permanent forest (which will be protected for at least 50 but preferably 100 years).

11. As it does in Australia, Greenfleet wishes to register an instrument against the title to the relevant land to give notice to the world of the revegetation arrangement in place with council. Greenfleet want to be protected from a sale of the relevant land to a third party who was unaware of the agreement with council. This is because where there is a bona fide purchaser of the land without notice of the agreement, the purchaser may not be bound by it. Greenfleet are adamant that it needs to protect its commercial position and obligations to its sponsors and is not prepared to assume that risk in a long term contract. From Greenfleet’s perspective, this is a condition precedent to the transaction occurring.

12. Legal counsel for Auckland Council on this matter (MinterEllisonRuddWatts) has advised that an encumbrance could be used for this purpose, subject to meeting Land Information New Zealand requirements. The registration of an encumbrance on titles is something that council does frequently to ensure performance of certain obligations and protect against this same type of issues. However, this mechanism appears to be inconsistent with the condition previously imposed by the committee of not assigning property rights beyond assuring the maintenance of the planting. Legal counsel has noted that such an encumbrance is not a “property right” per se because it does not convey any interest in the land; it is simply recording a notice of the arrangement with Greenfleet on the title to relevant land.

13. There are clear benefits to council from this partnership with Greenfleet proceeding, namely an increase in revegetation programmes, which outweigh any negatives associated with registering the encumbrance.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. Local Boards have not been consulted on this programme but would be consulted if any local parkland was considered as part of the programme.

Māori impact statement

15. Iwi have not been consulted on this programmes. Any specific proposal will be subject with the relevant mana whenua for the location.

Implementation

16. As this programme will be fully funded and managed by ‘Greenfleet’ there are no operational or budgetary implications for council apart from the forgoing of carbon credits on the areas covered by the programme. The benefits of advancing the councils conservation programmes will outweigh these costs.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Richard Hollier - Manager Regional Parks

Authorisers

Mark Bowater - Manager Parks

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

06 December 2016

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

C1 Acquisition of land for open space - southern Hingaia

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution