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.

Environment and Community Committee

14 February 2017

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 7

2 Declaration of Interest 7

3 Confirmation of Minutes 7

4 Petitions 7

5 Public Input 7

5.1 Te Whau project - Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust 7

5.2 Acquisition of land for open space - Riverhead - Riverhead Residents and Ratepayers Association 7

6 Local Board Input 8

6.1 Acquisition of land - Riverhead - Rodney Local Board 8

7 Extraordinary Business 8

8 Notices of Motion 9

9 Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust MOU reveiw 11

10 Te Muri Regional Park - variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan 15

11 Friends of Auckland Botanical Gardens Expenditure Request 21

12 Regional Pest Management Plan - Determination of inconsistency with the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015 25

13 Proposed reclassification of a portion of Warkworth Show Grounds Reserve 29

14 Facility Partnerships Policy Project: findings and next steps 43

15 I Am Auckland 2017 Progress Update 51

16 Future Options for Safeswim Programme 59

17 Role of the council in addressing homelessness 61

18 Submission to Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill 67

19 Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2016 Submission 69

20 New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy 2017-2022 Submission 73

21 Appointment of a governing body representative to the Forestry Liaison Group 77

22 James Wallace Arts Trust - Joint Liaison Body Appointment 79

23 Information Report - 14 February 2017 115

24 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

25 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 117

C1 Acquisition of land for open space - Riverhead 117

C2 Acquisition of Land for Open Space - Flat Bush 117

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 6 December 2016, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

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

5 Public Input

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

5.1 Te Whau project - Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust

Purpose

1. The chair, Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust, Iris Donoghue and deputy chair Tony Miguel wish to address the committee in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding with Auckland Council and in support of the report.

2. Refer to item 9 of the agenda.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive the presentation and thank Iris Donoghue and Tony Miguel for their attendance.

5.2 Acquisition of land for open space - Riverhead - Riverhead Residents and Ratepayers Association

Purpose

1. To address the committee in relation to the acquisition of land, Riverhead.

2. The representative/s will be speaking when the item is considered during the confidential section of the meeting.

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 land - Riverhead - Rodney Local Board

Purpose

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

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

14 February 2017

Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust MOU reveiw

File No.: CP2017/00017

Purpose

1. To review and amend the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Auckland Council and the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust (the Trust) and provide an update on the delivery of Te Whau Pathway.

Executive summary

2. Te Whau Pathway is a proposed 13km shared path along the edge of the Whau River that will link the Manukau and Waitematā Harbours. The pathway project models collaboration between Auckland Council and the independent trust that was established to promote the project within the community and raise external funds for the physical build.

3. In June 2015 a Memorandum of Understanding between Auckland Council and the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust was established for the collaborative approach to the delivery of Te Whau Pathway. (Attachment A).

4. Clause 15 of the MOU requires an annual review of the MOU to make any amendments that the parties consider necessary.

5. One change is required in the MOU as the project sponsor has changed from John Dragicevich to Mace Ward. Clause 11 will be updated to reflect this change.

6. The MOU provides for staff resourcing and funding for professional services. The Trust requests this support is ongoing until the completion of the project.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the change to clause 11 of the Memorandum of Understanding between Auckland Council and the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust from John Dragicevich to Mace Ward as Council Project Sponsor and Contact Person.

b) endorse the Memorandum of Understanding including Council officer time to coordinate the project until project completion.

Comments

Te Whau Pathway

7. Te Whau Pathway is a proposed 13km shared pathway that will link the Manukau Harbour at Green Bay Beach to the Waitematā Harbour at Te Atatū Peninsula along the edge of the Whau River. The pathway will connect communities, cater for active travellers of all abilities on an easy gradient and improve the natural environment (attachment B).

8. The pathway will be part of the Auckland Cycle Network (ACN) and be built to Cycle Metro standards, which provides a high quality and traffic free segregated commuter route.

9. The Te Whau Pathway steering group is the decision making body for the project. The Steering Group holds monthly meetings and includes representatives from the project partners: Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, the Trust, Mana Whenua and community delegates.

The Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust

10. The Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust has been established to facilitate and promote the construction of Te Whau Pathway, assist in environmental restoration and celebrate the communities and history associated with the Whau River.

Memorandum of Understanding

11. An MOU between Auckland Council and the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust for the delivery of Te Whau Pathway has been in place for 20 months.

12. Clause 15 of the MOU requires an annual review of the MOU to make any amendments that the parties consider necessary.

13. Due to staff restructuring, the Project Sponsor and Contact Person for the project has changed from John Dragicevich to Mace Ward. This change needs to be reflected in the updated MOU.

14. There are no other changes to the MOU required.

Project resourcing

15. The Trust has raised $1,540,895 for the completion of stages 1 and 1A of Te Whau Pathway, which includes 2.8 kilometres of shared path in Archibald Park, Ken Maunder Park, Olympic Park and McLeod Park.

16. Auckland Transport funded the Te Whau Pathway Project Feasibility Report and is funding the Scheme and Preliminary Design for the pathway.

17. Auckland Council has funded professional services and resource consents for the on park land paths built to date from Parks growth funding capital expenditure.

18. The MOU (clause 3 (1)) provides for Council officer time and expense to coordinate the project funded by Auckland Council operational budgets.

19. The Whau and Henderson-Massey Local Boards have provided funding for professional services, ecological restoration and historical and cultural interpretation.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. Te Whau Pathway will run through the Henderson-Massey and Whau Local Board areas. Around 47,000 people live in the pathway catchment, including 6,000 students.

21. These two Local Boards fully support Te Whau Pathway and the work of the Trust. Both boards have given funds from their LDI opex funds to support Te Whau Pathway.

22. Representatives from the Whau Local Board and the Henderson-Massey Local Board sit on the Trust.

23. The Trust has met with the two boards on eight occasions since April 2015 to discuss the work of the Trust and progress on Te Whau Pathway project. Presentations on Te Whau Pathway have been made to both newly elected boards in late 2016.

Māori impact statement

24. Representatives from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Te Kawerau a Maki sit on the Te Whau Pathway Steering Group and are regularly consulted on matters affecting mana whenua.

25. A Kaiarataki (Māori design) consultant has been engaged to work with the consulting engineers on the preliminary design to ensure mana whenua views are incorporated into the pathway design.

26. Te Aranga Māori Design Principles workshops have been held with iwi representatives and the design consultants and the principles will be included in the pathway design.

Implementation

27. The MOU between Auckland Council and the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust is working well and the project is progressing on track and to budget.

28. On 21 February 2017 the draft scheme design will be available for review by the Steering Group. This draft will be used to carry out public consultation during February and March 2017.

29. In April 2017 an application to the New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) will be made for funds to build the pathway in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA).

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust Auckland Council MOU (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Te Whau Pathway Project Information Flyer (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author

Jacki Byrd - Te Whau Pathway Project Lead

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Ian Maxwell - Director Community Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

14 February 2017

Te Muri Regional Park - variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan

File No.: CP2016/22508

Purpose

1. To seek approval for a variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 to incorporate Te Muri Regional Park and make consequential changes to the Mahurangi Regional Park section of the plan, in accordance with the independent commissioners’ recommendations.

Executive summary

2. A variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 (the Plan) to include Te Muri Regional Park was initiated in mid-2015. This was to formulate management policies for the park to enable it to be formally opened to the public.

3. A total of 383 submissions were received on the draft variation. Most submissions sought the retention of the remote and natural character of the park and were strongly opposed to developing the central park road and a parking area behind the beach.

4. Many submitters raised concerns about the dangers of using Hungry Creek Road as an access to the park, especially the intersection with State Highway 1. A number of submitters supported Mahurangi Action group’s proposal for a bridge across the Pūhoi River and Te Muri Stream as part of a north-eastern coastal trail. The Puhoi bridge was strongly opposed by some submitters; in particular, mana whenua.

5. A major constraint to the variation is the fact that the intersection of Hungry Creek Road and the State Highway cannot be upgraded until the highway realignment is completed in 2022, at the earliest.

6. Staff recommended a number of amendments to the draft variation to address submitter’s concerns. These included retaining the primary access to Te Muri from Mahurangi Regional Parks by crossing the Te Muri Stream, and examining alternatives to a bridge across the Puhoi River, such as boat access and pedestrian routes along northern bank of the Puhoi River.

7. The commissioners heard 17 submitters on the draft variation in August 2016 and have largely endorsed the staff recommendations. Refer to the Commissioners report in Attachment A and the final variation in Attachment B.

8. The committee has the delegated authority to adopt variations to the Plan.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) adopt the recommendations of the independent commissioners in the ‘Te Muri variation - Commissioners report October 2016’, as set out in Attachment A.

b) approve the variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 to include Te Muri Regional Park, including the accompanying map, as set out in Attachments B and C.

c) approve consequential changes to the Mahurangi Regional Park section of the Regional Park Management Plan and map, as set out in Attachments D and E.

Comments

Background

9. A variation to the Plan is being undertaken prior to Te Muri Regional Park being formally opened to the public. The park covers 415 hectares and sits between Wenderholm and Mahurangi regional parks.

10. The Te Muri beachfront was purchased as regional parkland in the 1970s and has been managed as part of Mahurangi Regional Park. The beach frontage was accessed from Mahurangi by crossing the Te Muri Stream on foot. In 2010 a further 381.8ha behind the beach was purchased by council.

11. The Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee approved the initiation of this variation at its 9 June 2015 meeting. The intention to undertake this variation was publicly notified in mid July 2015 and comments were received from 140 people. These comments along with staff and political input guided the development of the draft variation.

12. The draft variation covers the addition of Te Muri Regional Park to Section 17 Parks Specific Management. This includes a park vision, park values, management focus, management policies and recreation use and activities. Consequential changes were also proposed to the Mahurangi section of the Plan to better enable access to Te Muri and remove reference to the Te Muri beachfront. No changes were proposed to the generic policy sections.

13. The Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee approved public notification of the draft variation to the Plan 2010 on the 11 November 2015.

14. The draft variation was publicly notified from mid-January 2016 to mid-March 2016. Key stakeholders, mana whenua, local residents and all those who provided feedback during the first round of consultation were notified of the draft.

15. Notification included information and a questionnaire on the Shape Auckland website, a public notice in the NZ Herald, the Rodney and North Shore Times and Mahurangi Matters and signs were placed on the beachfront area of the park. An open day was held at Te Muri on 20 February 2016, attended by approximately 70 people.

Submissions on the draft variation

16. In total, 383 submissions (including one late submission) were received. An overview of the submitters is included in the background section of commissioner’s report in Attachment A and a list of all submitters is included in Attachment F.

17. Ngāti Manuhiri provided a Cultural Values Assessment and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara provided a formal response to the variation. A meeting with Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara in April 2016 provided further verbal submissions.

18. Safe access to the park and the retention of the remote experience were by far the most prevalent themes in the submissions. A number of submitters also supported Mahurangi Action’s proposal to develop bridges across the Pūhoi River and Te Muri Stream as part of a north-eastern coastal trail.

Proposed changes to the variation

19. As a result of the submissions staff recommended a number of changes to the variation. These included deleting the policies proposing the development of the central park road and a parking area behind the beach.

20. Amendments were proposed to the vision to recognise the remote experience provided at the park. The revised vision for the park is:

‘Together with Wenderholm and Mahurangi regional parks, Te Muri forms a strategic coastal park network on the north eastern coast of the region. Te Muri retains its undeveloped natural character and offers visitors a relative sense of remoteness. As a farmed park it offers a wide range of individual and group-orientated active outdoor recreation pursuits in a picturesque setting with panoramic views over the Hauraki Gulf and islands. The park contains opportunities for kiwi bach escapes and remote camping close to a sandy beach offering safe swimming, kayaking and other beach related activities. The park is rich in cultural heritage and natural values and is an outstanding example of best practice land management which provides a context for environmental and cultural education and demonstrates effective conservation strategies.’

21. The Hearing’s report summarised all the submission points and included staff recommended amendments and a revised version of the variation. Initially 121 people indicated they wished to speak to their submissions, but this significantly reduced after the release of the hearing agenda which contained the staff recommendations.

The hearing

22. Seventeen submitters were heard by independent commissioners Barry Kaye (Chair) and Sheena Tepania on 16 August 2016 and 18 August 2016 at the council chambers at the Orewa Service Centre.

23. Matters heard by the commissioners largely related to access to the park and retaining the remote and natural character of the park. A major constraint is the fact that the intersection of Hungry Creek Road and the State Highway cannot be upgraded until the highway realignment is completed in 2022, at the earliest. Many submitters were concerned about access from Hungry Creek Road and were specifically concerned that the timing and staging of access to the park for activities such as walkers, cyclists and horse riding would be delayed by the upgrade of Hungry Creek Road and the improvements to the intersection with State Highway 1 (SH1).

24. Commissioners also heard submissions relating to:

· the management of and possible re-opening the Te Muri cemetery

· re-naming Te Muri Regional Park as Te Muri o Taririki Regional Park

· recognising Wenderholm, Te Muri and Mahurangi regional parks as one Mahurangi Regional Park

· independent recognition of Ngāti Rongo o Mahurangi and Nga Uri o Pomare as mana whenua. (This matter will be addressed outside the management planning process)

· providing additional camping options and locations

· safety issues with increased vehicle movements on Hungry Creek Road and Ngarewa Drive

· development of an arrival area at the Hungry Creek Road entrance to the park, once Hungry Creek Road has been upgraded

· Pūhoi River crossing options for access between Wenderholm and Te Muri regional parks, including boat access, land-based routes and bridges

· additional track links to Pūhoi Village

· consideration of Te Muri for horse riding and as a mountain biking destination.

25. The commissioner’s report, in Attachment A, includes recommendations regarding further amendments to the variation as a result of the hearing. The key recommendations made by the commissioners include :

· general agreement with most of the staff recommended amendments to the draft

· the decision to make Te Muri a mountain biking destination

· amendments to the controlled activity table relating to the location of provision for campervans and additional camping

· the timing and staging of access for recreational activities such as horse riding, mountain biking and investigation into the development of associated infrastructure

· opportunity to link trails to Pūhoi Village and adjacent regional parks

· consistency in the acknowledgment of mana whenua.

26. These recommendations have been incorporated into the amended draft variation for Te Muri Regional Park in Attachment B.

27. No further amendments were proposed as a result of the hearing to the Te Muri map in Attachment C, the Mahurangi Regional Park section of the Plan in Attachment D or the Mahurangi map in Attachment E.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

28. The Rodney Local Board Parks, Culture and Community Development Committee views were sought at a workshop prior to the initial round of public consultation.

29. The committee’s views were again sought at a second workshop in November 2015 following this initial round of public consultation. The committee’s views were formally endorsed at the Parks, Culture and Community Development Committee meeting on 2 November 2015 and were taken into consideration in the development of the draft variation.

Māori impact statement

30. At the initiation of this project mana whenua were contacted in June 2015 and invited to a hui. This included Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Wai, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, Te Kawerau a Maki, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Whanaunga and Ngāti Tamaterā.

31. Ngāti Manuhiri and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara had significant input into the development of the draft variation. This was achieved through hui and site visits with staff and through the provision of a cultural values assessment and submissions.

32. The variation acknowledges mana whenua’s relationship to the park. It identifies archaeological sites on the park, including the cemetery and urupa, and notes the importance of protecting these sites. It also enables the investigation of options for mana whenua to exercise their role as kaitiaki over sites of significance and to have involvement in the design of features on the park.

33. The variation and the decision of the hearings panel also sets out the expectation for future consultation and involvement of mana whenua during development of the park.

Implementation

34. Following this report all submitters will be advised of the committee’s resolutions. The final variation will be placed on the Shape Auckland website and the Plan will be updated on council’s website.

35. In addition to the new Te Muri section, an addendum will be added to the Plan of consequential changes relating to the addition of Te Muri to the regional park network. For example where the Plan talks about the number of regional parks.

36. The implementation of the Te Muri section of the Plan will be considered in the ongoing regional parks budgeting and development programme.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Commissioners report and recommendations on the Te Muri Regional Park variation (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Te Muri Regional Park variation (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Te Muri Regional Park map (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Mahurangi Regional Park consequential variation (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Mahurangi Regional Park West map (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	List of Submitters to the draft Te Muri Regional Park variation (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Annette Campion - Policy Advisor

Neil Olsen - Parks and Recreation Advisor

Dafydd Pettigrew - Parks and Open Space Specialist - Region Wide

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Ian Maxwell - Director Community Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

14 February 2017

Friends of Auckland Botanical Gardens Expenditure Request

File No.: CP2017/00268

Purpose

1. The Friends of Auckland Botanic Gardens (the Friends) request approval from the Environment and Community Committee to use tagged funds they hold for the purposes of meeting operational expenses for the next Sculpture in the Gardens exhibition. Currently these funds are held specifically for artwork purchases under the terms of their Garden Art Licence Agreement with Council.

Executive summary

2. The Friends have conducted the biennial Sculpture in the Gardens sculpture exhibition under the terms and conditions of the Friends Garden Art Licence Agreement first entered into with Auckland Regional Council on 11 February 2005 and subsequently renewed.

3. A clause in the current Friends Garden Art Licence Agreement states that ‘The Friends will retain the revenue received from the sale of artworks for the express purpose of purchasing artworks for permanent placement at the Gardens’.

4. The Friends currently hold $114,000 for the purpose of artwork purchases. They seek Council permission to utilise $74,000 of this fund to cover operational costs associated with running the next Sculpture in the Gardens exhibition scheduled to take place over three months from 11 November 2017 until 25 February 2018.

5. It is recommended that $40,000 will remain in the art acquisition fund for artwork purchases.

6. Sculpture in the Gardens has grown exponentially over the 10 years since the first exhibition took place in 2007, and costs have similarly increased. The funding campaign for the next exhibition has proved challenging for the Friends, necessitating this expenditure request.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) grant Friends of Auckland Botanic Gardens approval to utilise $74,000 of the funds held in their artwork acquisition account to cover operational expenses associated with the 2017/2018 Sculpture in the Gardens exhibition.

b) grant the Friends of Auckland Botanic Gardens further approval to retain earnings from commissions on sculpture sales during future Sculpture in the Gardens exhibitions, and to utilise this funding for the general purposes of running the exhibitions.

c) delegate the General Manager Parks, Sport and Recreation authorisation to negotiate with the Friends of Auckland Botanic Gardens a licence to operate future Sculpture in the Gardens exhibitions.

Comments

7. Over the past 10 years Auckland Botanic Gardens has grown to become one of Auckland’s most popular attractions with more than 900,000 visits per annum.

8. As with all botanic gardens internationally it features documented plant collections that deliver outcomes in education, conservation and research. The Gardens core objective is to engage people with plants and gardens, reflected in the strapline ‘Where ideas grow’. To achieve this outcome the plant collections are arranged creatively to optimise visitor interest and inspire ideas.

9. In recent years garden art has become an important embellishment of the gardens and a significant enhancement of visitor experience. Since 2007 the biennial Sculpture in the Gardens has become a feature of the Auckland art calendar, and a permanent collection of 21 significant sculptures is now on permanent display. Many of these permanent works were purchased by the Friends during previous Sculpture in the Gardens exhibitions and subsequently donated to the Botanic Gardens.

10. The most recent Sculpture in the Gardens ran from Saturday 28 November 2015 until Sunday 6 March 2016. Visitation during this period was 338,608.

11. Research conducted during the exhibition indicated that for 36% of all visitors the sculpture exhibition was the main reason for visiting. This equates to 122,000 visits.

12. Research undertaken during all five exhibitions consistently indicates that when the exhibition is running visitation to the Gardens is relatively even from all parts of the Auckland region. By comparison when the exhibition is not being held most visitation is from South Auckland. During the most recent exhibition slightly more visitors were from Central Auckland (26%) than from South Auckland.

13. 11.7% of visitors to the most recent exhibition were from overseas (39,600), and 4% of all visitors stayed in paid accommodation (13,500).

14. Importantly for future growth of the Gardens 67% of all visitors had not visited in past 6 months (226,867) and 24% had never visited (80,250). 40% of all respondents said that they would visit again within the next three months (135,780).

15. Visitation is evenly spread over different age groups.

16. Overall satisfaction with the exhibition was 93.8%.

17. Two artworks from the last exhibition were purchased for permanent display; Ratiti Mya by James Wright is located at the entrance to the Gondwana Arboretum, and Seek by Marte Szirmay is in the Rose Garden.

18. On 7 December 2016 the Advisory Panel for Art in Public Places, Auckland (APAPPA) endorsed the Auckland Botanic Gardens’ Public Art Guidelines. These guidelines sit under the umbrella of the Council’s Public Art Policy (the Policy) and take into account the character and context of the Gardens.

19. The framework underpins future administration of the art collection and stipulates that a Gardens Art Selection Panel should be appointed to consider and recommend all new public art acquisitions. Each new artwork must be consistent with the goal and outcomes of the Public Art Guidelines and Council’s Public Art Policy, and they must also be appropriate for display in the Botanic Gardens. The panel will comprise the following representatives:

· Manager, Auckland Botanic Gardens (Chair)

· President, Friends of the Auckland Botanic Gardens (or nominee)

· Manager, Public Arts or their representative

· One member of the Sculpture in the Gardens curatorial panel

· One member of the Advisory Panel for Art in Public Places, Auckland (APAPPA)

· Landscape architect with experience in the commissioning and integration of public art within landscape and architectural projects.

· Practising artist, or an arts advisor (gallery curator, art historian or other specialist expertise)

· Nga Toi Maori representation.

Consideration

20. The current Friends Garden Art Licence Agreement (June 2012) states in clause 5:

· The Friends will sell artworks on behalf of artists during each exhibition on terms to be negotiated between the two parties.

· Council will not impose any charge or levy on the commission received by the Friends for sales of artworks.

· The Friends will retain the revenue received from the sale of artworks for the express purpose of purchasing artworks for permanent placement at the Gardens.

· The Friends will maintain accurate accounting records for all artwork sales and the proceeds of these sales. These will be made available to Council within three months of the conclusion of each exhibition, or on request subject to reasonable notice being provided.

21. The Friends have honoured all the above undertakings since the first exhibition in 2007. However reallocation of part of the art acquisition fund to cover operational costs will partially allay the challenges they confront in funding the next exhibition.

22. The following terms and conditions will apply in any future Sculpture in the Gardens licence between Auckland Council and the Friends:

· Term of licence

· Process for selection of artworks

· Selection and purchase of permanent artworks

· Sale of artworks (including application of commissions earned on sales)

· Maintenance of artworks during exhibitions

· Health and safety compliance

· Indemnity against claims against Council resulting from the exhibition

· Licence renewal

Local board views and implications

23. Informal discussions have been held on the upcoming exhibition with members of the Manurewa Local Board. The board has been supportive of previous exhibitions including providing financial contributions to the past two exhibitions.

Māori impact statement

24. The Public Art Guidelines stipulate Nga Toi Maori representation is required on the art selection panel that recommends artworks for permanent display at the Botanic Gardens.

Implementation

25. If the Friends are granted authorisation to apply $74,000 of the art acquisition fund towards Sculpture in the Gardens operational costs they will prepare a business plan for the upcoming Sculpture in the Gardens exhibition.

26. A licence between Auckland Council and the Friends will be prepared that will outline the terms and conditions that will apply to Sculpture in the Gardens.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Auckland Botanic Gardens Public Art Guidelines (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author

Jack Hobbs – Manager Botanic Gardens

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

14 February 2017

Regional Pest Management Plan - Determination of inconsistency with the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015

File No.: CP2017/00280

Purpose

1. To determine that the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan 2007-2012 is inconsistent with the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015.

Executive summary

2. The Biosecurity Act 1993 s100E(3) requires that, following the approval of a National Policy Direction for Pest Management, councils must determine whether an existing Regional Pest Management Plan is consistent with the National Policy Direction, within the timing requirements specified by the National Policy Direction.

3. The current Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan was prepared by the former Auckland Regional Council in 2007. The expiry date of the current Regional Pest Management Plan has been extended annually to allow it to remain operative in anticipation of the National Policy Direction in 2015.

4. Clause nine of the National Policy Direction for Pest Management, gazetted in November 2015, requires an inconsistency determination within 18 months of the gazette date. The deadline for determination is therefore 17 February 2017.

5. The National Policy Direction 2015 provides a prescriptive approach to the types of programmes and outcomes that may now be used in Regional Pest Management Plans. The inconsistencies between the current Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan and the National Policy Direction total in the thousands, however one of the key types of inconsistency is the use of programme categories other than those permitted under the National Policy Direction.

6. Addressing the inconsistencies between the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan and the National Policy Direction cannot be addressed by minor amendment. Council must formally initiate a review by notifying a proposed plan prepared in accordance with s100D(5) prior to 17 December 2017. The proposed plan will also enable council to ensure current biosecurity risks are prioritised.

7. Work has commenced on a draft Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan, which will be presented at a councillor and local board member workshop in mid-2017. The draft plan for consultation will subsequently be reported to the Environment and Community Committee for approval.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) determine that the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan 2007-2012 is inconsistent with the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015.

b) note that it is necessary to resolve the inconsistencies with the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015, and that the changes cannot be addressed by minor amendment.

c) note the intention to formally initiate and notify a review of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan prior to 17 December 2017, in accordance with s100D(5) of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Comments

Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan

8. The current Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan was 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.

9. As the National Policy Direction was expected in 2015, the expiry date of the current plan has been extended annually by the Regional Development and Operations Committee in 2013, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in the 2013-2016 electoral term (resolution numbers REG/2015/91 and REG/2014/140), and the Environment and Community Committee in December 2016 (resolution number ENV/2016/6). The 2016 extension has allowed time for the assessment of the National Policy Direction implications, and for these implications to be incorporated into the development of a new Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan.

10. In accordance with the Biosecurity Act 1993 (s100E(3)), Auckland Council must identify inconsistencies between the current Regional Pest Management Plan and the National Policy Direction, gazetted on 17 August 2015, by 17 February 2017.

11. A key focus of the National Policy Direction is to improve Regional Pest Management Plans’ focus on outcomes, as well as achieve greater alignment among regions.

12. Staff consider the current Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan to be significantly inconsistent with the National Policy Direction. As the number of inconsistencies total in the thousands, a summary of one of the main inconsistencies has been provided in Table 1 below.

13. The National Policy Direction 2015 includes a prescriptive list of five pest programmes and corresponding outcomes. The current Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan uses pest programme types other than those permitted under the National Policy Direction (see Table 1).

Table 1. Comparison of programme types in Regional Pest Management Plan 2007-2012 and those permitted under the National Policy Direction 2015.

Pest programme types included in Regional Pest Management Plan 2007-2012	Pest Programme types permitted under National Policy Direction 2015
Total Control Pest Plants	Exclusion Pest Programme
Containment Pest Plants	Eradication Pest Programme
Surveillance Pest Plants	Progressive Containment Pest Programme
Pest Animals	Sustained Control Pest Programme
	Site-led Pest Programme

14. The Biosecurity Act 1993 s100E(5) requires that council initiates a review to address inconsistencies, if changes necessary to resolve those inconsistencies cannot be made by minor amendment. In this case, a review of the current Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan is required.

15. A review can be formally initiated by the proposal of a new plan. This must be completed prior to 17 December 2017 in order for the current Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan to remain operative while consultation on the proposal is undertaken.

Progress with development of new plan

16. A public discussion document was released by council in November 2015, providing a preliminary high-level opportunity for the community to indicate pest concerns. Cost benefit analyses of potential programmes are currently underway as required by the National Policy Direction.

17. Work has commenced on a draft Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan which will be presented at a councillor and local board member workshop in mid-2017. The draft plan for consultation will subsequently be presented to the Environment and Community Committee for approval, prior to public consultation on or before 17 December 2017.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. The Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan applies at a local as well as a regional level. 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 in 2015 and some local boards provided feedback, expressing a consistently high-level of interest in pest management, but reflecting locally-specific issues. Local boards will be further consulted prior to notification of the new plan. The current Regional Pest Management Plan remains in force while a draft plan is being developed.

Māori impact statement

19. Pursuant to the Biosecurity Act 2013, one of the 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.

20. The Biosecurity Act 2013 requires council to be satisfied in reviewing the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan that consultation with affected tangata whenua has occurred and impacts on Māori have been considered. Initial consultation with mana whenua has occurred through a series of individual and combined hui. Mana whenua have expressed strong interest in the plan, and signaled their pest management priorities and concerns. The inconsistency determination allows further engagement and consultation with Māori as the new plan is developed.

Implementation

21. The current Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan remains in force during this review process and is not affected by the determination. The inconsistencies identified will be addressed as part of the review of the plan. The analysis required to prepare a draft plan for the purpose of public notification is currently underway. The draft plan for consultation will be presented at an elected member workshop in mid-2017, and will subsequently be reported to the Environment and Community Committee for approval, prior to public consultation on or before 17 December 2017.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Dr Imogen Bassett – Acting Manager Environmental Advisory

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – General Manager Environmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

14 February 2017

Proposed reclassification of a portion of Warkworth Show Grounds Reserve

File No.: CP2016/22949

Purpose

1. To reclassify part of the Warkworth Show Grounds Reserve from a recreation reserve to a local purpose (community buildings and showgrounds) reserve.

Executive summary

2. Warkworth Showgrounds Reserve is subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. Part Section 96D Parish of Mahurangi forms part of the Warkworth Show Grounds Reserve (Attachment A).

3. In 2005 survey office plan (SO) 348663 was approved as to survey which divided Part Allotment 96D into two new sections described as Sections 1 and 2 SO 348663. The southern portion, defined as Section 1 and comprising 3.6965 hectares, is proposed to be reclassified from recreation reserve to local purpose (showgrounds) reserve (Attachment B).

4. Reclassification of Section 1 SO 348663 as a local purpose (community buildings and showgrounds) reserve will enable council staff to recommend the Rodney Local Board grant leases under the Reserves Act to the community and equestrian clubs currently occupying the land.

5. Where any reserve administering body, such as the Auckland Council, considers the existing purpose of a reserve under its administration needs to be updated to describe more accurately the activities within the reserve concerned, the council holds the powers under Section 24 (1) of the Reserves Act to change or reclassify the existing reserve purpose to a new and more appropriate reserve purpose.

6. All statutory requirements have been met with regard to the proposed reclassification of Section 1 SO 348663 in terms of public notification and iwi consultation. Subject to the Committee approval to the reclassification, council’s Minister of Conservation delegate will finally approve the reclassification and sign the gazette notice formally declaring the reclassification under the Reserves Act.

7. This report recommends that the Environment and Community Committee approve the reclassification of Section 1 SO 348663 from a recreation reserve to a local purpose (community buildings and showgrounds) reserve.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) resolve, pursuant to Section 24 (1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977, to reclassify Section 1 SO 348663 of the Warkworth Showgrounds Reserve from a recreation reserve to a local purpose (community buildings and showgrounds) reserve, subject to the completion of all statutory processes.

Comments

Background on land and legal mechanism for reclassifying Section 1 SO 348663

8. The Warkworth Show Grounds Reserve is located at 2 Great North Road (SH 1) just north of Warkworth Township (Attachment C).

9. Part Section 96D is held by the Crown through the Department of Conservation as a classified recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 and vested in the Auckland Council, in trust, for recreation purposes. The Crown reserves the right to cancel the vested powers held by council should Part Section 96D be required for redress by a successful claim made against the Crown pursuant to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The balance of the reserve is held in fee simple by the council.

10. In 2005 survey office plan (SO) 348663 was approved as to survey which divided Part Allotment 96D into two new sections described as Sections 1 and 2 SO 348663. The southern portion, defined as Section 1 and comprising 3.6965 hectares, was intended to be reclassified from recreation reserve to local purpose (showgrounds) reserve. There is no evidence confirming that the reclassification of Section 1 SO 348663 was ever completed.

11. Section 24 (1)(b) of the Reserves Act provides that council as the administering body may, by resolution, reclassify part of the reserve.

12. Public advertising of the council’s intention to reclassify Section 1 SO 348663 is required under the Reserves Act. A public notice was published in both the Nor-West News and the Rodney Times on 25 June 2015. Submitters were given one calendar month to respond to the proposal. No objections or submissions were received during this period.

13. Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 is the driver for iwi consultation with reserve lands and reads; “This Act shall so be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”.

14. Auckland Council is expected (and as good practice) to fulfil the obligations of Section 4 of the Conservation Act on behalf of the Crown as treaty partner when dealing with either council owned or council managed reserves. The 14 mana whenua as identified as having an interest in land in the Rodney Local Board area have been consulted with regard to the proposal to reclassify Section 1 SO 348663. No objections were raised during the consultation period.

15. Council staff from parks and community policy teams have been canvassed and are comfortable with the proposal to reclassify Section 1 SO 348663.

16. Portions of Section 1 SO 348663 are occupied by various groups and clubs including Kowhai Art and Craft, the Warkworth Agricultural and Pastoral Society and a number of equestrian users. The activities undertaken by these groups and clubs best fit within the reserve classification of local purpose (community buildings and showgrounds) reserve.

17. The Warkworth Show Grounds Reserve Management Plan adopted by the Rodney District Council in June 2004 recommended that leases be granted to Kowhai Art and Craft, the Warkworth Agricultural and Pastoral Society and equestrian users. The former council had also agreed with the Society that the portion of Section 1 SO 348663 occupied by the Society’s buildings would be reclassified as a local purpose (showgrounds) reserve.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. On 10 November 2014 the Rodney Local Board resolved to support the reclassification of Section 1 SO 348663 from a recreation reserve to a local purpose (community buildings and showgrounds) reserve (Attachment D).

Māori impact statement

19. With regard to proposed reclassification of land, it is council’s practice to consult with all iwi as identified as having an interest in land in a local board’s respective geographical area.

20. Iwi consultation took place between March and April 2015 with the 14 mana whenua contacts for the Rodney Local Board. Site meetings were held with Ngati Manuhiri and Ngati Whatua o Kaipara and both iwi responded in writing supporting the reclassification (Attachments E and F). The other 12 iwi deferred their interests to Ngati Manuhiri or Ngati Whatua o Kaipara, or advised that the reserve lay outside their area of interest, or did not respond.

Implementation

21. The cost implication for Auckland Council associated with the reclassification process are estimated at $100.00 for the publication in the New Zealand Gazette declaring the reclassification. This cost will be borne by the Community Facilities Department.

22. Reclassification of Section 1 SO 348663 as local purpose (community buildings and showgrounds) reserve will enable council staff to recommend the Rodney Local Board grant leases under the Reserves Act to the community and equestrian clubs currently occupying the land.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	GIS aerial view of Part Section 96D Parish of Mahurangi	31
b ⇩	Section 1 SO 348663	33
c ⇩	GIS aerial view of Warkworth Show Grounds Reserve	35
d ⇩	Resolution number RD/2014/267	37
e ⇩	Kaitiaki Report Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust	39
f ⇩	Kaitiaki Report Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust	41

Signatories

Author

Dave Bayley - Specialist Technical Statutory Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

14 February 2017

Facility Partnerships Policy Project: findings and next steps

File No.: CP2016/25314

Purpose

1. To update councillors on Phase 1 of the Facility Partnerships policy project (discovery), and seek endorsement to progress to Phase 2 (policy development).

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council provides a wide range of community facilities, including community centres, arts facilities, libraries, sports fields and swimming pools. Around 300 are owned and/or operated by community organisations through ‘facility partnerships’ with the council.

3. The Community Facilities Network Plan (adopted 2015) states the council will meet more facility needs through partnerships in the future, as a way of ‘doing more with less’ and empowering communities. However at present the council lacks a coherent policy for selecting and supporting facility partnerships.

4. In 2016, a cross-council team set out to discover how effectively we are partnering at the moment, and determine the need for policy work in this area.

5. The team identified that the council is partnering from a strong base:

· We have a clear mandate for partnership approaches and a desire to partner well.

· Our assets and resources are highly valued by the community.

· We’re starting to partner more strategically.

· We have skilled and passionate people working in this area.

· There are existing improvement initiatives to build on across council.

6. The team also found that there is significant room for improvement. A range of issues are currently preventing the council from realising the full potential of facility partnerships:

· There is no shared understanding of ‘partnership’.

· Many partnerships aren’t getting what they need to succeed.

· Council and its partners aren’t playing to each other’s strengths.

· Council needs to ‘partner on the inside’ if it is to partner on the outside.

· We don’t always count the true costs of partnership, or see the real value.

· We can't measure success without defining clear outcomes.

7. This report summarises the insights discovered during Phase 1, and the feedback received from council staff, partner representatives and elected members when these were presented in December 2017. The proposed approach to policy development (Phase 2) received strong support from participants and relevant teams across the council.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the proposed deliverables and timelines for Phase 2 of the Facility Partnerships Policy project, as outlined in Table 3 of this report.

b) request this report and attachments be circulated to all local boards for their information.

Comments

Background

8. Auckland Council provides a wide range of facilities that benefit the community, including community centres, venues for hire and rural halls, arts and cultural facilities, libraries, recreation centres, sports fields and swimming pools.

9. Most of these facilities are owned and directly managed by the council, but a substantial number – around 300 – are owned and/or operated by community groups, sports organisations and schools through some form of ‘facility partnership’ with the council.

10. The Community Facilities Network Plan (adopted in 2015) provides a road map for how the council will invest in community facilities over the next 20 years. The Sports Facilities Investment Plan, now in development, will fulfil a similar function for the sports sector.

11. In both cases, partnerships are a key component of the council’s provision strategy. The Action Plan that accompanied the Network Plan noted there is currently no consistent approach to identifying and supporting partnerships to deliver community facilities, and recommended policy work was undertaken to address this.

12. This action triggered the Facility Partnerships Policy Project. The project’s purpose is to ensure the council is well-positioned to capitalise on the opportunities and address the risks of partnering to deliver facilities in future.

Partnerships can deliver ‘more for less’ and empower communities

13. When successful, partnerships may achieve community outcomes more effectively and efficiently than direct delivery by the council. They can enable the council to leverage external funding and draw on the wider community’s resources, networks and expertise to deliver shared aims.

14. Partnerships can also support ‘community empowerment’, which is increasingly seen as a driver in its own right, above and beyond any potential financial savings that may be realised.

15. However, facility partnerships may fail to deliver value if they are poorly conceived or managed, and can expose both partners to substantial financial and reputational risk.

Facility partnerships portfolio: large, diverse and fragmented

16. Almost 300 existing facility partnerships have been identified region-wide across the community, arts, and sport and recreation sectors. These relationships are managed on the council’s behalf by different individuals and teams spread across the organisation.

17. Many of the existing arrangements were established through four legacy council facility partnership grants schemes that operated prior to amalgamation. The funding from these schemes was rolled into the $10 million Locally Driven Initiatives Capex Fund in 2015.

18. The bulk of the council’s investment in partnerships is via capital grants to help develop new facilities, and/or the provision of operational funding to assist with ongoing running costs. In addition, more than 130 partnerships benefit from a community (‘peppercorn’) lease.

19. The team undertook a stocktake to collect key information about the facility partnerships portfolio. However, some of the challenges which affect partnership working in general also made data collection difficult; in particular, the highly fragmented view of partners and partnership facilities across the many parts of the council that interact with them.

20. Additional information about the portfolio is provided as part of Attachment A.

Table 1 – Snapshot of the facility partnerships portfolio

Phase 1: ‘Design-led’ methodology provided richer understanding

21. Staff took a ‘design-led’ approach to discovering the strengths and weaknesses of the council’s current approach to facility partnerships. This entailed forming a multi-disciplinary team comprising staff from the planning, operations and governance divisions, with representatives from across the community, arts and sports sectors.

22. Rather than reviewing individual partnerships, the project team set out to uncover general insights into both the ‘human’ and ‘systems’ dimensions of entering and managing facility partnerships. In particular, we wanted to understand the partnership experience from the perspective of those already involved in these types of arrangements.

23. Phase 1 included:

· A stocktake of existing partnerships

· A scan of relevant local, national and international literature about partnering

· In-depth interviews with community partner representatives, elected members and council staff relating to a research sample of 10 facility partnerships

· Interviews with technical experts and partnership practitioners within council

· A highly visual, exhibition-style ‘walkthrough’ to gather feedback on draft findings from research participants, impacted staff and elected members.

Facility partnerships: both strengths and weaknesses identified

24. The team identified five key areas of strength and six key areas for improvement in the council’s current approach to facility partnerships. In summary, these were:

Our strengths: ‘We’re partnering from a strong base’

· We have a clear mandate for partnership approaches and a desire to partner well.

· Our assets and resources are highly valued by the community.

· We’re starting to partner more strategically.

· We have skilled and passionate people working in this area.

· There are existing improvement initiatives to build on across council.

Our weaknesses: ‘There is significant room for improvement’

· There is no shared understanding of ‘partnership’.

· Many partnerships aren’t getting what they need to succeed.

· Council and its partners aren’t playing to each other’s strengths.

· Council needs to ‘partner on the inside’ if it is to partner on the outside.

· We don’t always count the true costs of partnership, or see the real value.

· We can't measure success without defining clear outcomes.

Table 2: Sample of verbatim quotes from interviews

25. Full materials prepared for the Phase 1 ‘findings walkthrough’ are provided as Attachment A.

Feedback: strong support for Phase 1 insights and Phase 2 approach

26. The team’s assessment of the current approach received strong support from research participants, elected members and impacted council teams at the findings walkthroughs held in December 2016. Approximately 230 people attended the walkthroughs, and over 300 pieces of feedback were received.

27. The main themes that emerged are listed below, in order of the volume of feedback received on each topic:

· Sufficient resources: We need to prioritise partnerships as an organisation, and provide partners with sufficient resources to deliver the outcomes we expect.

· Strategic approach: We need to be more strategic in planning for and investigating facility options – what do we need, for who, where? – to guide decision-making.

· Empowering communities: Partnership is ultimately about community empowerment and community aspirations – ‘not getting what council might want, for less money’.

· Consistency: We need to establish a shared understanding of partnerships internally and use consistent terms, definitions and processes when dealing with partners.

· Collaboration: We need to get better at collaborating and communicating internally to provide joined-up support to partners.

· Simpler systems: We need to simplify and clarify our processes and systems to make the council easier to partner with.

· Sustainable partnerships: We need to understand and plan for the lifetime costs of a partnership, and/or help partners plot a pathway to sustainability.

· Smarter support: Providing non-financial support for partners (e.g. capability building) is a key way council can contribute to effective partnerships.

Phase 2: Next steps for policy and practice development

28. The walkthroughs also confirmed wide support for the team’s proposals for how to improve facility partnerships during Phase 2.

29. These include the development of a regional policy and decision-making framework involving relevant staff across the council, supported by an integrated programme of business process and practice improvements.

Table 3 – Proposed regional policy and decision-making framework (Phase 2)

Phase 2 deliverable	Purpose	Delivery
Facility Partnerships models	· Define and standardise a range of partnership types and arrangements.	April 2017
Facility Partnerships decision-making framework	· Establish a clear decision-making process for each partnership type. · Set criteria for evidence-based assessment of partnership proposals.	July 2017
Informal engagement with elected members on early draft		July / August 2017
‘Partnering as a practice’ guidelines	· Outline partnering principles, partner-centric values and behaviours. · Outline essential skills and competencies for practitioners.	August 2017
Facility Partnerships outcomes framework	· Create a fit-for-purpose monitoring and evaluation approach. · Enable Return on Investment (ROI) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) to inform decision-making and review.	September 2017
Formal engagement with elected members on full draft		Sept / October 2017
Adoption of Facility Partnerships Framework		December 2017

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30. Local boards have a strong interest in community facility provision, and hold decision-making and budget for partnership facilities within parameters set by the governing body.

31. Joint funding committees of local board members governed legacy facility partnership schemes until their discontinuation in 2015. Some local boards have signalled they will continue to provide grants to help develop new partnership facilities through their Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) Capex funding.

32. Local boards also allocate operational funding to support partnership facilities in their areas, via regional asset-based services (ABS) budgets and/or discretionary locally-driven initiative (LDI) budgets.

33. Staff interviewed nine local board members involved with the facility partnerships in our research sample. These interviews were not intended as formal or informal engagement with those local boards, but to ensure the team considered the governance perspective in relation to facility partnerships. Two councillors were also interviewed.

34. All elected members were invited to the findings walkthroughs in December and more than 30 local board members attended, including 10 local board chairs.

35. This report signals the start of formal political engagement with local boards and the governing body as we move from discovery to policy development.

Māori impact statement

36. Marae are specifically identified in the Network Plan as potential facility partners. Marae are a focal point for Māori social, economic and cultural development, and ‘enabling Māori aspirations for thriving and self-sustaining marae’ is an Auckland Plan priority.

37. Auckland Council operates a distinct Marae Development funding scheme and work programme, but investment provided in this way is not characterised as a ‘facility partnership’.

38. Māori understandings of partnership often differ to that of non-Māori. For many Māori, ‘partnership’ refers only to the unique relationship between Māori and the Crown governed by the Treaty of Waitangi. As a result, many Māori prefer to talk about ‘relationships’ rather than ‘partnerships’.

39. This may partly explain why no formalised ‘facility partnerships’ with marae were initially identified through this work, excluding the investment provided to 31 marae (14 mātāwaka and 17 mana whenua) through the Marae Development programme.

40. The council does hold some relationships with Māori that involve investment in community facilities other than marae. There are at least two sports partnerships involving organisations with a strong Māori focus, and the team were advised at a late stage of a small number of arrangements with (mātāwaka) marae that could be considered ‘facility partnerships’.

41. We intend to use these relationships as a starting point to explore Māori perspectives on facility partnerships during the next phase of work. The team will investigate whether there is a need for distinct advice, tools and processes to support the development and management of facilities within the context of Te Ao Māori.

Implementation

42. Next steps for the project (Phase 2) are outlined above in Table 3, paragraph 29. There are no anticipated implementation issues at this stage.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Facility partnerships policy project - cover and list of attachments (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Introducing facility partnerships (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	A snapshot of our facility partnerships portfolio (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Meet 10 facility partnerships (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Meet five people who partner (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	What does it mean to partner with Auckland Council? (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Four stories of partnership (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Facility partnerships - areas for improvement (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	A pathway to great partnering (Under Separate Cover)
j ⇨	Related work already underway (Under Separate Cover)
k ⇨	A sample of verbatim quotes - interviews and literature review (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author

Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

14 February 2017

I Am Auckland 2017 Progress Update

File No.: CP2016/24914

Purpose

1. To approve the development of an implementation plan and evaluation framework for I Am Auckland, the strategic action plan for children and young people.

Executive summary

2. I Am Auckland, Auckland Council’s strategic action plan for children and young people, was co-adopted by the council and the Youth Advisory Panel in 2013.

3. In 2016, a progress update was undertaken to reflect on how well Auckland Council and council-controlled organisations (CCO) have delivered on the seven goals of the plan. The full findings of the progress update are presented in the I Am Auckland Status Report (status report) in Appendix A.

4. Key achievements include:

· over two-hundred discrete actions, policies or programmes have explicitly focused on children and young people

· delivery has been high in the areas of ‘Goal 4: I am given opportunities to succeed and to have a fair go’, and ‘Goal 6: Auckland is my playground’

· the council family have begun to explicitly align their strategic documents to I Am Auckland

· some highly successful initiatives and some innovative new practice

· critical success factors of good practice were identified.

5. Areas for further focus include:

· achieving goal 7: All Rangatahi will thrive’ which is currently delivered on the least

· improving implementation and evaluation of outcomes

· focussing on education and employment outcomes for Māori and Pacific young people

· continue focussing on areas of the city with high numbers of young people, particularly in the south.

6. The publication of the status report and the creation of an implementation plan and an evaluation framework will further strengthen the organisation’s commitment to improve outcomes for children and young people.

7. It will also provide valuable insights for decision makers, council staff and other interested stakeholders to increasingly align their activity to the goals of the plan.

8. The status report can be published and an implementation plan and evaluation framework can be delivered within available council resources and budgets in the 2017/18 year.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) endorse the I Am Auckland Status Report for publication.

b) approve the development of an implementation plan and evaluation framework for I Am Auckland.

Comments

Background

9. In 2013 I Am Auckland (the plan) defined council’s commitment to children and young people. It established seven goals to help focus and align council’s work to create a city that puts children and young people first.

10. To assess council’s progress on implementing the plan, a progress update was undertaken in 2016. This included:

· refreshing the demographic profile of Auckland’s children and youth

· a stocktake of council’s children and youth activity

· profiling some of the council family’s good practice through case studies and snapshots.

11. A status report has been produced to present this up-to-date data and insights for future work. Key findings from the report are below. See Appendix A for the full status report.

Updated profile of children and young people in Auckland

12. Auckland is a young and diverse city and the number of young people is expected to grow. At the 2013 Census, there were over half a million children and young people (0 - 24 years old) living in Auckland, a third of all young people in New Zealand.

Figure 1: Number of people in each ethnic group, by age group (2013)

Source: Statistics New Zealand, Census of Population and Dwellings.

Notes: MELAA stands for Middle Eastern, Latin American and African. People could identify with more than one ethnicity, so these groups are not mutually exclusive.

13. The highest proportion of children and young people live in the Southern Initiative area. This area is home to nearly a quarter of Auckland’s children and young people. Howick and Henderson-Massey local board areas had the largest numbers of children and young people, 43,200 and 40,530 respectively.

Figure 2: Population heat map of children (0 - 14 years) for Auckland’s Urban Area (2013)

Figure 3: Population heat map of young people (15-24 years) for Auckland’s Urban Area (2013)

14. Many of our children and young people are doing well and thriving, but not all. Over a third (34%) live in areas of high socio-economic deprivation, a higher proportion than other age groups. This has implications for their health and well-being.

15. There have been some improvements in social outcomes across all ethnicities. However, Māori and Pacific young people, who make up more than a third of Auckland’s young people, continue to experience higher levels of disparity in education, health and employment outcomes.

Council family achieving the goals of I Am Auckland

16. The progress update found:

· over 200 discrete actions, policies or programmes explicitly focussed on children and young people have been undertaken by the council family since the plan was adopted

· strong commitment – different parts of the council family are delivering on a variety of goals, showing a strong commitment to deliver child and youth outcomes

· high delivery – the council family has delivered most heavily in two of the seven goal areas:

o Goal 4: “I am given equal opportunities to succeed and have a fair go”

o Goal 6: “Auckland is my playground”

These encompass traditional areas of focus for council e.g. skill development, sport, recreation, arts and culture.

· area for improvement – goal 7 “Rangatahi tū rangatira (All Rangatahi Will Thrive)” had the fewest initiatives, strategic documents, local board plans or funding criteria aligned with it. This goal includes action areas relating to rangatahi (youth) leadership and co-development of action with tamariki (children) and rangatahi

· not directly aligned – there is valuable activity which is indirectly supporting the goals of I Am Auckland

· strategic alignment – fourteen out of 64 new council-wide policies, plans and strategies have specifically referenced I Am Auckland and a majority of the rest have statements that align with at least one of the seven goals

· intentional engagement – there has been intentional co-design, co-leading and robust engagement with children and youth across the council family.

Figure 4: Number of activities delivered to the I Am Auckland goals

Figure 5: Council groups delivering on I Am Auckland goals 1 – 7

Good, Promising and Best Practice

17. A number of examples from across the council family were profiled either as a case study or a brief snapshot. Case studies are large scale, long-term, regional in scope and each has compelling evidence of their success. They include:

· Dare to Explore / Kia Māia te Whai - Auckland Libraries’ summer reading programme

· Career Pathways - council’s internal youth recruitment programme

· Auckland is my Playground - council’s Young Peoples’ Sport and Recreation Implementation Plan

· Youth Advisory Panel – council’s formal mechanism to receive regular advice from young people

· JobFest – a free one day youth employment event

· Enviroschools – an environmental education programme in schools that supports implementation of sustainability initiatives.

18. Snapshots showcase good, promising or innovative practice in each of the seven goal areas. These encompass both short and long-term projects, some local and others regional. Each highlights a good example of child and youth activity in one of the goal areas. They are:

· Goal 1 – Freyberg Square and Ellen Melville Centre Children’s Audit

· Goal 2 – Youth Zones and Youth Hubs

· Goal 3 – The Local Alcohol Policy

· Goal 4 – Māori and Pacific Trades Training

· Goal 5 – Walking School Bus

· Goal 6 – Workshops on the Wharf

· Goal 7 – Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Rangers pilot.

19. The critical success factors that underpin these case studies and snapshots include:

· intentional co-design or robust engagement with young people

· a collaborative approach that engages with a range of internal and external stakeholders, businesses, iwi, schools and community groups

· well-structured programmes with clear processes, good planning and adequate resources

· strong feedback and evaluation methods

· political and senior leadership support

· flexibility to adapt to particular circumstances

· a clear purpose and objectives

· strong guiding principles underpinning the approach and delivery.

20. These success factors can be used to inform future initiatives and project development, leading to improved practice across the council family.

High implementation but more focus on outcomes is required

21. There has been some excellent implementation by the council family. To further progress the vision of the plan a more tailored and focussed approach to implementation is required.

22. The plan’s goals are linked to the long-term, aspirational targets of the Auckland Plan. These targets indicate how outcomes for young people are improving over the long-term.

23. To provide insight on short to medium term progress towards meeting the goals of the plan, other outcome measures are needed. Some council groups are measuring individual activities, but there are no dedicated tools for measuring, monitoring or evaluating the plan.

24. Due to the lack of baseline data and the limited evaluation, the quality and the impact of current activity on children and young outcomes can only be partially understood. The next steps should include a dedicated action plan, regular oversight mechanism and consistent evaluation.

25. This report recommends the development of a full implementation plan and evaluation framework for I Am Auckland.

26. An implementation plan will:

· increase the visibility of child and youth outcomes

· reorient the council to deliver in priority areas

· create a schedule for monitoring progress

· reinforce accountability for action and define clear roles and responsibilities for delivery

· align with international and council best practice

· provide a good balance of enhanced action within current resources.

27. An evaluation framework with appropriate monitoring tools and short to medium term measures closely linked to activities will:

· provide a better understanding of the impact of council’s activities

· assist the council to better understand the overall success of I Am Auckland

· reveal progress towards achieving outcomes, without putting undue strain on organisational resources

· over time embed the practice of evaluation for child and youth activities

· provide insights that will enhance programme design and delivery.

28. If the status quo remains, the council will continue to have limited insight on the impact of its child and youth activities and limited information on how well the council family is delivering on its vision.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

29. The numbers of children and young people in local board areas have increased since the plan was adopted and are set to increase further. There is an opportunity for local boards to respond to this changing demographic in their areas.

30. Local boards are delivering on the goals of the plan to various degrees depending on local priorities. Local boards deliver action for children and youth outcomes through their local board plans, discretionary funding and grants.

31. When the status report is published, local boards will be able to use the findings to inform their 2017-18 Local Board planning, future strategic planning and direction setting.

32. Any results of future evaluation will create a better evidence base for staff to provide quality advice that will enhance local board decision making.

Māori impact statement

33. In 2013, among young people aged 0 to 24 years old 15.7 per cent are Māori and half of all Auckland Māori (52.4%) are under 25 years of age. Statistics New Zealand’s projections (medium series) suggest that the number of children and young people in Auckland will continue to increase over the next twenty years by another 26.5 per cent. This combined with high Māori birth rates suggested that issues affecting Māori tamariki and rangatahi will continue to be important into the future.

34. There are still significant educational, health and employment disparities for Māori children and young people in Auckland. For example:

· of 20 to 24 year olds, Māori young people have a high unemployment rate (22.9% compared with 15.2% overall)

· the not in education employment or training (NEET) rate of Māori rangatahi aged 15 to 24 years old is 26.5 per cent compared to 13.4 per cent overall.

35. Across the council family there are some positive activities underway for tamariki and rangatahi. Three of these are profiled in the status report:

· Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Rangers pilot

· Māori and Pacific Trades Training programme

· and in the development of Dare to Explore / Kia Māia te Whai - Auckland Libraries’ summer reading programme.

36. The plan’s Goal 7 “Rangatahi tū rangatira” contributes to enacting Auckland Council’s commitment to support rangatahi to flourish, particularly through rangatahi leadership and co-development of action with tamariki and rangatahi. This goal had the fewest aligned activities and is a priority for future focus. This area would benefit from a structured implementation plan with clear accountabilities in future.

Implementation

37. The status report can be published and distributed within available council resources and budgets. The implementation plan and evaluation framework can be designed and launched in the 2017/18 year.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	I Am Auckland Status Report (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Bonnie-May Shantz - Principal Policy Analyst

Oscar Casswell-Laird - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

14 February 2017

Role of the council in addressing homelessness

File No.: CP2017/00095

Purpose

1. To approve the scope of the policy work on the council’s role and position in addressing homelessness.

Executive summary

2. The Statistics New Zealand definition of homelessness includes people living in temporary accommodation, sharing a dwelling on a temporary basis and occupying uninhabitable housing as well as those who are sleeping rough or in cars.

3. Based on this definition, levels of homelessness in Auckland have increased by 26 percent over the last 8 years between 2006 and 2013 (not including uninhabitable housing). Evidence also shows that homelessness in Auckland is increasingly affecting working households and families.

4. In September 2016 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee requested that staff undertake further policy work to determine Auckland Council’s role and position in addressing homelessness, including emergency housing (REG/2016/90).

5. The proposed scope of the work is to provide advice on the potential roles of council in addressing homelessness in three general areas:

· prevention: opportunities to prevent Aucklanders from becoming homeless

· management: improving the experience of homelessness

· elimination: ways to support homeless Aucklanders into stable, long-term accommodation

6. Key deliverables to be reported back to the committee in April 2017 include:

· identification of the main causes and drivers of homelessness and its relationship to the broader housing system

· a review of the scale, severity and nature of homelessness in Auckland, and comparing it to similar international, high growth cities

· analysis of the international experience and what has worked to address homelessness

· engagement with the key players in the sector to identify the most effective roles for the council.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the scope of policy work on council’s role in addressing homelessness including, preventing, managing and eliminating homelessness in all its forms.

Comments

Auckland homelessness context

7. The Auckland Plan uses the broad definition of homelessness which has been officially adopted by Statistics New Zealand. This states that people are considered homeless if they have no other option but to live either:

· without shelter (e.g. sleeping rough or in vehicles)

· in temporary accommodation (e.g. emergency housing)

· in shared accommodation temporarily (e.g. “couch surfing”) or

· in uninhabitable housing (e.g. garages).

8. An estimated 20,296 Aucklanders were deemed homeless at the time of the 2013 census^{^[1]}. There were 771 people living without shelter, 3,175 people in temporary accommodation and 16,350 sharing accommodation temporarily.

9. These figures excluded those residing in uninhabitable dwellings as there is no official data source or count to establish the scale. However anecdotal evidence from council compliance officers suggests this number has increased significantly.

10. Homelessness is a complex problem with multiple causes and drivers. The scale and form of homelessness in Auckland has changed dramatically in response to a lack of affordable accommodation, narrowing eligibility for and availability of social housing, insecure tenancies and unadjusted levels of accommodation supplement.

11. Of the known national homeless population, 36 percent were in full or part time employment and 25 percent were in full or part time study. Sole parents were the highest household type affected, at 43 percent. A further 21 per cent were couples with children^{^[2]}.

12. Financial vulnerability is a key risk factor in homelessness. Housing is classed as unaffordable for 44 percent of renting Aucklanders^{^[3]}, indicating a large pool of potentially homeless.

Rationale for policy work

13. The Auckland Plan sets out a range of strategic directions which relate to homelessness. These include:

· Transformational shift: Substantially raise living standards for all Aucklanders and focus on those most in need

· Strategic direction: House all Aucklanders in secure, healthy homes they can afford

· Target: End rough sleeping (primary homelessness) in Auckland by 2020

· Directive: Explore all options to reduce homelessness, in partnership between the Auckland Council, central government and the community sector.

14. Despite the range of ongoing operational activity on homelessness, the council does not have an established policy position or role in addressing homelessness.

15. In response to this the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee requested at the 1 September 2016 meeting that staff “undertake further policy work to determine Auckland Council’s role and position in addressing homelessness, including the provision of emergency housing” (REG/2016/90).

16. The purpose of the policy work is to:

· provide advice on the most effective position and roles available to the council in preventing, mitigating and eliminating all forms of homelessness in Auckland

· make recommendations regarding future resourcing priorities in homelessness

· identify appropriate roles for the council in relation to other key stakeholders.

Council’s current activities

17. The council’s activities and investment in reducing and managing homelessness have increased over the last two years. This includes:

· operating expenditure of $830,000 over three years allocated in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 for emergency housing, homelessness and rough sleeping

· a contribution of $2,000,000 to upgrading the emerging housing provided at James Liston Hostel in 2015/16, and

· $1,000,000 contribution towards the Ministry of Social Development’s ‘Housing First’ initiative in Auckland in 2015/16.

18. These activities are operationally focused and do not address the council’s strategic role in relation to homelessness. In addition they are focused on those living without shelter or in temporary accommodation and do not address other forms of homelessness.

19. The Auckland Council Homelessness Action Plan 2012-2105 was an operational delivery plan developed to better coordinate inter-agency activity on homelessness. The time period of the plan is completed. Coordination of agencies and activities continue through the Rough Sleeping Steering Group.

Proposed scope

20. Work is now underway to investigate the council’s potential roles and position in addressing homelessness. However as this work arises from a request of the previous council, approval is being sought for the proposed scope of the work, set out below:

Scope	The scope of the work is to provide advice on the potential roles and position of the council and will: a) include all forms of homelessness: this will include people living without shelter, as well as people who are residing in temporary accommodation, sharing accommodation temporarily or living in uninhabitable housing b) address homelessness in three ways: - prevention: opportunities to prevent Aucklanders from becoming homeless - management: improving the experience of homelessness - elimination: ways to support homeless Aucklanders into stable, long-term accommodation Key deliverables include: · identification of the main causes and drivers of homelessness and its relationship to the broader housing system · a review of the scale, severity and nature of homelessness in Auckland, and comparing it to similar international, high growth cities · analysis of the international experience and what has worked to address homelessness · engagement with the key players in the sector to identify the most effective role for the council.
Timeframe	The results of the policy investigation will be reported to the Environment and Community Committee in April 2017.
Strengths	The strengths of the proposed scope are that it: · takes an integrated view of homelessness within the broader housing system · is aligned with the lived experience of many homeless Aucklanders who move between different forms of homelessness and in and out of homelessness · considers future as well as current homelessness · recognises that the council is only one stakeholder in addressing homelessness but does hold important levers.
Risks	The key risk of the proposed scope is that the policy work may identify an optimal role and position for the council which requires a greater or more ongoing financial commitment.

Next steps

21. Work to gather evidence, analyse options and interview stakeholders will occur throughout February and March. A report outlining the council’s potential policy position and roles in addressing homelessness will be provided to the Environment and Community Committee in April 2017.

22. A project to identify the most effective policies to increase the supply of affordable housing is also nearing completion and will contribute to the work on homelessness. The two projects may be reported jointly if the evidence demonstrates a strong correlation between supply of affordable housing and reducing homelessness.

23. The pace and focus of current activities, including the focus on the Housing First approach, will continue while the policy work is underway.

Consideration

24. Input to the project will be sought from a range of key stakeholders to understand views and identify opportunities. Stakeholder interviews will be held with representatives from government agencies, the community sector, Māori organisations and research institutions during the policy investigation process.

Local board views and implications

25. The interviews with key stakeholders will include a range of elected representatives including local board members in areas experiencing high levels of homelessness.

Māori impact statement

26. Māori are disproportionately affected by homelessness. In 2013, an estimated 32 percent of the homeless population were Māori. Just over four in every ten people on the social housing register is Māori^{^[4]}.

27. Māori are less likely than other ethnic groups to own their home and more likely to be residing in the rental sector. Rising costs of rents and insecure tenure raise the risk of homelessness.

28. A number of Māori organisations, most notably Te Puea Marae, have responded to the increasing numbers of homeless Aucklanders by offering short-term emergency housing.

29. The policy work will specifically address Māori experiences of homelessness and the council’s role and position from a Māori responsiveness perspective.

Implementation

30. The scope and timing of policy work on homelessness can be undertaken within existing baselines.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Rohan Bush - Manager Affordable Housing

Kimberley Howell - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

14 February 2017

Submission to Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

File No.: CP2017/00196

Purpose

1. To retrospectively confirm the political working party of Councillors Hulse, Denise Lee, Filipaina and Cooper and to formally approve the Auckland Council submission lodged with the Government’s Health Committee to the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill.

Executive summary

2. The Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill (Bill) amends Part 2A of the Health Act 1956 by inserting a power for District Health Boards to make decisions and give directions about the fluoridation of local government drinking water supplies in their areas. The Bill does not deal with the merits of fluoridation, it is concerned with who makes the decision on fluoridation.

3. The council’s submission supports the Local Government New Zealand submission (Attachment B) and specifically covers three main issues:

· The Director General of Health should have decision making responsibility on fluoridation as it is a matter of public health across the whole of New Zealand;

· In the event that the Government does not agree with the above recommendation, then decision making responsibility should be given to District Health Boards;

· Amendments are recommended to the Bill to ensure that all decision-making obligation on territorial local authorities in relation to fluoridation is removed

4. The Government called for submissions on the Bill on 7 December 2016, closing 2 February 2017. Given this timeframe over the Christmas/New Year break, it was not possible to take a submission through committee or consult with Local Boards or mana whenua.

5. Accordingly, the Deputy Mayor called for councillor expressions of interest for a political working group to consider the Bill. Councillors Hulse, Denise Lee, Filipaina and Cooper considered the matter and approved the attached submission for lodgement by 2 February 2017 (Attachment A). The submission is being tabled for the record and for the Environment and Community Committee’s retrospective approval.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) confirm the political working party of Councillors P Hulse, D Lee, A Filipaina and L Cooper to consider and lodge a submission to the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill by 2 February 2017.

b) approve the attached submission to Central Government’s Health Committee on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill.

Comments

6. The Bill amends Part 2A of the Health Act 1956 by inserting a power for District Health Boards to make decisions and give directions about the fluoridation of local government drinking water supplies in their areas. It does not deal with the merits of fluoridation, it is concerned with who should make the decision on fluoridation.

7. Local Government New Zealand has also submitted on the Bill (Attachment B). The submission is based on the remit passed at the 2014 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting: “Local Government New Zealand urges the Government to amend the appropriate legislation so that the addition of fluoride to drinking water supplies is not a decision that is left to the local authority and instead should be made by the Director General of Health”. Auckland Council supported this remit.

8. In summary, council’s submission makes the following points:

· Supports Local Government New Zealand’s submission;

· The Director General of Health should be the decision-maker on fluoridation, but, as a fall-back position, the District Health Boards should be the decision-makers;

· The Bill needs to clearly and unequivocally remove all obligations on councils to make decisions on fluoridation.

9. Submissions on the Bill closed on 2 February 2017. As there were no committees sitting prior to this, a political working group of Councillors Hulse, Denise Lee, Filipaina and Cooper considered the matter and lodged the council’s submission.

10. It is expected that the Health Select Committee will hear submissions within the next few months and then report back to Parliament by June 2017.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11. There has been no consultation with Local Boards in the preparation of this submission. The basis of the submission was the Local Government New Zealand remit in 2014 which was supported by Auckland Council.

Māori impact statement

12. At the time of writing this committee report there has been no analysis of the proposed change of decision-maker on Māori. A verbal report will be provided in committee.

Implementation

13. Watercare Services Limited is the water provider for Auckland and will have to comply with any decision made. This is no change from the status quo.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Auckland Council submission on Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill February 2017 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Local Government New Zealand Submission to Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill January 2017 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author	Megan Tyler - Executive Officer CPO
Authoriser	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

14 February 2017

Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2016 Submission

File No.: CP2016/25449

Purpose

1. To provide a brief overview of the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2016 and to seek retrospective endorsement for the joint Auckland Council/Auckland Transport submission.

Executive summary

2. The Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2016 (the Bill) is meant to encourage energy innovation in technologies and business models to allow New Zealand to respond to environmental and energy objectives.

3. The consultation timeline and committee schedule did not allow for a draft submission to be brought to committee before the consultation period closed. The Chair and Deputy Chair, on behalf of the committee, endorsed the submission in advance of the committee meeting.

4. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are committed to energy and transport innovation and emerging technologies and to leading by example in our own fleets and operations. While helping to actualise our own sustainability and climate goals in line with New Zealand’s international obligations under the Paris Agreement, doing so is also important in ensuring transport delivers on Auckland’s current and future growth challenges.

5. The attached submission is supportive of the general intent of the Bill and of encouraging increased electric vehicle uptake. Some provisions in the Bill, however – especially those regarding amendments to the Electricity Industry Act 2010 – raise concerns. The submission seeks to remedy those by suggesting amendments to the Bill.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) endorse the joint Auckland Council/Auckland Transport submission on the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2016.

Comments

6. The Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2016 (the Bill) is meant to encourage energy innovation in technologies and business models to allow New Zealand to respond to environmental and energy objectives.

7. The Bill amends the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act 1989, the Land Transport Act 1998, the Electricity Industry Act 2010 and the Road User Charges Act 2012.

8. While the attached submission provides greater detail, the main proposed changes to legislation, possible consequences and suggested changes are summarised in Table 1.

9. The Select Committee (Commerce Committee) will hear the Bill in the coming months and a report is due back to Parliament by 10 May 2017.

Table 1: Proposed legislative change, possible consequences, suggested changes

Bill	Proposed Legislative Change	Possible Consequences	Suggested Remedy
Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act 1989	Change to relevant levy structure to reflect Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority’s (EECA’s) broader role in promoting energy efficiency	Support	No change
Land Transport Act 1998	Enable (not require) road controlling authorities to allow Electric Vehicles to be used in special vehicle lanes	Support – although Auckland Transport does not currently intend to allow Electric Vehicles in special vehicle lanes due to other transport objectives	No change
Electricity Industry Act 2010	Possible indirect consequences in terms of interpretation of “works” under Electricity Act 1992	Potentially serious consequences for Auckland Transport and other road controlling authorities regarding rights to access road corridor	Amend to state nothing in the associated clause affects the Electricity Industry Act
	Does not clarify “status” of Electric Vehicle chargers and secondary network equipment for Electricity Industry Act purposes	Does not help resolve ongoing disputes with electrical distribution companies	Amend so Electric Vehicle chargers are not “works” for purposes of Electricity Industry Act
	Effects of Bill on electricity charging or pricing under the Commerce Act	Uncertainty of possible pricing impacts on activities such as operation of electrified rail network, buses, LED street lights; potential to slow uptake of technology	a) Remedy outside the Bill, as any structural change is a matter for legislation rather than the Commerce Act.
Road User Charges Act 2012	Proposed exemption from RUC for heavy electric vehicles	Support – although definition unclear	b) Amend to clarify definition to ensure benefits provided for genuine emissions reductions

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10. Given the regional nature of the implications of this Bill and the constraints on timing and turn-around before the submission deadline, Local Board views were not separately sought as part of the development of the submission.

Māori impact statement

11. At the time of writing this committee report there has been no specific analysis of the proposal on Māori, although it is considered that efforts to increase electric vehicle uptake through the legislative changes proposed in this Bill are likely to impact on Māori. A verbal report will be provided in committee. Council is committed to working through any future impacts and implications of the Bill on Māori as part of ongoing engagement and implementation of Low Carbon Auckland.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and other Matters) Amendment Bill 2016 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author

John Mauro - Chief Sustainability Officer

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

14 February 2017

New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy 2017-2022 Submission

File No.: CP2016/25450

Purpose

1. To provide a brief overview of the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy 2017-2022 and to seek retrospective endorsement of Auckland Council’s submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Executive summary

2. The New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy 2017-2022 (the strategy) sets the Government’s overarching energy efficiency policy direction; focuses on promoting energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy; and guides the five-year work programme of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA).

3. Energy efficiency policy is directly related to the Government’s Business Growth Agenda and the Government’s climate change commitments as a signatory of the Paris Agreement. This national context and strategic direction is mirrored locally in the Auckland Plan and Low Carbon Auckland action plan. Both national and local success is dependent upon the policy direction set in the strategy.

4. The attached submission encourages the Government to raise the level of ambition in the Strategy in order to deliver on existing commitments, recommends inclusion of additional actions and targets, suggests a range of policy opportunities, supports meaningful economy-wide targets, and suggests broadening from renewable electricity generation to renewable energy.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive and retrospectively endorse Auckland Council’s submission on the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy 2017-2022.

Comments

5. The New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy 2017-2022 (the strategy) is the fourth edition of a legally-required national strategy on energy efficiency and renewable energy prepared under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act 2000. It is meant to replace the strategy that expired in August 2016. The strategy is a companion to the longer term New Zealand Energy Strategy 2011-2021, which is the Government’s primary energy policy statement that sets the strategic direction for the role energy will play in the New Zealand Economy.

6. The strategy focuses on promoting energy efficiency, energy conservation and renewable energy and guides the five-year work programme of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA).

7. Energy efficiency and conservation policy is directly related to the Government’s Business Growth Agenda, which seeks to build a more competitive and productive economy. “Improving energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy to raise productivity, reduce carbon emissions and promote consumer choice” is one of the key inputs into the Business Growth Agenda.

8. As a signatory of the Paris Agreement, New Zealand is also committed to pursue efforts to achieve zero net carbon emissions this century.

9. The national strategic context is mirrored locally in the Auckland Plan directives to tackle climate change and increase energy resilience and the pathway and actions of the Low Carbon Auckland action plan. Auckland accounts for a significant portion (27 per cent) of New Zealand’s total gross greenhouse gas emissions (excluding agricultural emissions) and therefore has a critical role to play in New Zealand achieving its overall emissions reduction targets and meeting international obligations. In particular, transport and stationary energy combined equal approximately two-thirds of Auckland’s total emissions, so a strong strategy will help enable Auckland to reduce its emissions in these two sectors.

10. There are two submission periods for the strategy. The Auckland Council Chief Sustainability Office submitted in July 2016 on the purely technical nature of a targeted consultation document. It did not constitute a formal submission on behalf of Auckland Council. This submission constitutes the second and final submission period on the strategy. It was prepared and workshopped with the committee chair and deputy chair then signed and submitted by the chair to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (the Ministry). The Ministry will subsequently prepare a summary and analysis of submissions to be released along with a final strategy later in 2017.

11. Issues are outlined in more detail in the attached submission. In brief, the submission:

· Encourages the Government to raise the level of ambition in the strategy in order to deliver on its emissions reduction commitments in the Paris Agreement and in the changing energy context.

· Recommends inclusion of additional actions and accompanying targets to better reflect the range of opportunities and scale of change needed to achieve the strategy’s goal and to enable cities like Auckland to play a more critical role.

· Suggests a range of energy-related policy opportunities where Auckland seeks more specific actions, including the areas of whole-of-government procurement, shared mobility, design and performance guidelines for new and retrofitted buildings, electric vehicle uptake, and rail-based freight, among others.

· Supports the use of meaningful economy-wide targets and demonstration of targets related to trends, baselines and international best practice benchmarks.

· Suggests broadening the current renewable electricity generation target to encompass renewable energy.

12. Both Auckland Transport and Watercare contributed to this submission.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13. Given the regional nature of the implications of this Bill and the constraints on timing and turn-around before the submission deadline, Local Board views were not separately sought as part of the development of the submission.

Māori impact statement

14. At the time of writing this committee report there has been no analysis of the proposal on Māori, although, broadly speaking, energy efficiency, renewable energy and moving to a low carbon, energy resilient economy are likely to be of interest and impact to Māori. A verbal report will be provided in committee. Council is committed to working through any future impacts, opportunities and implications of the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy 2017-2022 on Māori as part of ongoing engagement and implementation of Low Carbon Auckland.

Implementation

15. If the replacement strategy is similar to the strategy that expired in August 2016, there will be no change to implementation for council, although many of the challenges detailed in the submission would remain. Incorporation of any of council’s suggestions into the strategy may result in benefits to Auckland – for example, greater support for technological innovation and skills development may provide greater opportunities for Aucklanders, increasing the stringency of the building code minimum performance levels may lead to positive energy efficiency and health benefits, and incorporating clear and measureable targets would drive the change needed to make progress toward committed goals.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Submission to MBIE on the draft NZ Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy: 2017-2022 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author

John Mauro - Chief Sustainability Officer

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

14 February 2017

Appointment of a governing body representative to the Forestry Liaison Group

File No.: CP2017/00187

Purpose

1. To appoint one member from the governing body to the Forestry Liaison Group.

Executive summary

2. The Forestry Liaison Group consists of forestry company representatives, other industry partners, contractors, and Auckland Council staff. It provides a forum to identify and progress forestry industry issues, and how they relate to Auckland Council activities. It allows representatives from the industry and council to discuss key issues and areas of concern.

3. The terms of reference for the Forestry Liaison Group (Attachment A) specify that membership includes representatives from the governing body and the Franklin and Rodney Local Boards. In the previous term, Councillor Wayne Walker was the nominated governing body representative and he also chaired the group.

4. This report requests that the committee appoints one councillor and an alternate to the Forestry Liaison Group for the current election term.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) appoint one councillor and an alternate to the Forestry Liaison Group for the 2016-2019 electoral term.

Comments

5. The Forestry Liaison Group was formed approximately 10 years ago. The purpose of the Forestry Liaison Group is to provide a forum to identify and progress industry issues, to provide updates on Auckland Council policy, regulation, non-regulatory programmes, and research or monitoring activities.

6. The group meets twice a year and provides opportunities for forestry industry representatives to network with a range of other industry representatives and Auckland Council staff.

7. The group has focused on topics such as the proposed rules in the Auckland Unitary Plan related to the forestry industry, resource consents and permitted activities, compliance and monitoring issues and best practice for sediment control.

8. Although in recent years, the Forestry Liaison Group has been a valuable forum for information sharing, industry participation of meetings has been sporadic. However, at the last meeting on 29 August 2016, those present reaffirmed their wish for the group to continue. The Forestry Liaison Group will appoint a chairperson at its next meeting, which is proposed for 24 February 2017.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

9. As detailed in the terms of reference, representation from Auckland Council elected members is agreed as one councillor (and an alternate) and one local board member (and an alternate) from both the Rodney and Franklin Local Boards.

10. The Franklin Local Board has appointed Alan Cole and Andy Baker as their representatives to this group, and the Rodney Local Board is currently working through the appointment process for their representatives.

Māori impact statement

11. In the Auckland region, some significant forestry areas are located on Māori land and the involvement of mana whenua in this group is important. The Forestry Liaison Group had one representative from the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) in the previous term. This role was undertaken by Member Glenn Wilcox. Staff will work with the IMSB to confirm their representative for this term.

Implementation

12. The Healthy Waters Department is responsible for the administration of the Forestry Liaison Group. The department is currently working with primary industry organisations to collaborate on matters relating to freshwater management. It is considered that the Forestry Liaison Group can provide a forum for specific engagement with the forestry sector in this regard.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Forestry Liaison Group - Terms of Reference (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author

Craig Mcilroy – General Manager Healthy Waters

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

14 February 2017

James Wallace Arts Trust - Joint Liaison Body Appointment

File No.: CP2016/23200

Purpose

1. To confirm Councillor Clow as a member of the Joint Liaison Body of the James Wallace Arts Trust.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is the owner of the Pah Homestead on Monte Cecilia Park. The James Wallace Arts Trust holds the largest private collection of modern art in New Zealand. The art collection is located in the homestead and is on public display.

3. The relationship between the trust and the council is based on a relationship agreement. A component of this agreement is a Joint Liaison Body which facilitates decision-making by the council and the trust.

4. The Joint Liaison Body is designed to support the partnership between the James Wallace Arts Trust and Auckland Council. It aims to meet quarterly to monitor the relationship opportunities and issues related to the operations of the TSB Bank James Wallace Arts Centre.

5. The council and the trust each appoint three members to the Joint Liaison Body. The relationship agreement set the initial council appointees to be a councillor, a Puketāpapa Local Board member and the Manager Community Development Arts and Culture (or nominee).

6. The former Arts, Culture and Events Committee appointed Councillor Clow to the Joint Liaison Body on 25 November 2015 as a result of a vacancy occurring. The position was previously held by Councillor Cathy Casey. Cr Clow wishes to continue in this role for this term of council. The relationship agreement states that appointments to the Joint Liaison Body will continue until revoked.

7. The Puketāpapa Local Board will decide who its representative will be at its meeting on 16 February 2017.

8. The relationship agreement is attached as Attachment A.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) note that Councillor Clow was appointed in the previous term of council to the Joint Liaison Body set up under the Relationship Agreement between Auckland Council and the James Wallace Arts Trust.

b) confirm that Councillor Clow’s appointment will continue for the remainder of the term.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

9. The Puketāpapa Local Board is represented in the membership of the Joint Liaison Body.

Māori impact statement

10. This is an internal appointment procedure under the relationship agreement between the council and the James Wallace Arts Trust. The relationship agreement notes a shared vision of valuing and fostering cultural diversity in line with the Auckland Plan. Council appointees to the Joint Liaison Body should ensure that the Arts Centre promotes Auckland Plan priorities that are meaningful to Maori.

Implementation

11. The appointment is effected by giving the TSB James Wallace Arts Trust notice of the appointment.

12. The Joint Liaison Body will meet prior to the end of the year, at a date yet to be confirmed.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Relationship Agreement with the James Wallace Arts Trust	81

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

[1] Amore, K (2016). Severe housing deprivation in Aotearoa/New Zealand: 2001-2013. He Kainga Oranga/Housing & Health Research Programme, University of Otago, Wellington

[3] Unaffordable housing is defined as households spending more than 30% of gross income on housing costs. Statistics NZ (2013) Household Economic Survey

[4] Ministry of Social Development (2016), Social housing purchasing strategy

Chairperson	Cr Penny Hulse
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Alf Filipaina
Members	IMSB Member James Brown	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Dick Quax
	Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr John Watson
	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, JP	IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox
	Cr Richard Hills
	Cr Denise Lee
	Cr Mike Lee

Author	Tam White - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer