Agenda of Environment and Community Committee

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Environment and Community Committee will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Tuesday, 18 July 2017

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

Environment and Community Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

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, CNZM, JP	IMSB Member Glenn Wilcox
	Cr Richard Hills
	Cr Denise Lee
	Cr Mike Lee

(Quorum 11 members)

Tam White

Senior Governance Advisor

13 July 2017

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156

Email: tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Terms of Reference

Responsibilities

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

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

· Natural heritage

· Parks and reserves

· Economic development

· Protection and restoration of Auckland’s ecological health

· Climate change

· The Southern Initiative

· Waste minimisation

· Libraries

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

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

· Activities of the following CCOs:

o ATEED

o RFA

Powers

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

(a) approval of a submission to an external body

(b) establishment of working parties or steering groups.

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

(iii) The committee does not have:

(a) the power to establish subcommittees

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

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

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

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

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

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

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

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

Members of the meeting

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

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

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

Independent Māori Statutory Board

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

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

Staff

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

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

Local Board members

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

Council Controlled Organisations

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

1 Apologies

Apologies from Chairperson P Hulse, Cr R Clow for absence and Deputy Mayor Cr Cashmore for early departure have been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 13 June 2017, 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 Governance 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.

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

6 Local Board Input

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

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

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Environment and Community Committee

18 July 2017

Auckland Council Submission to the Department of Conservation's Draft Threatened Species Strategy

File No.: CP2017/13314

Purpose

1. To approve a draft Auckland Council submission on the draft Threatened Species Strategy, recently released by the Minister and Department of Conservation for feedback by the end of July 2017.

Executive summary

2. The Minister and Department of Conservation have released a draft Threatened Species Strategy, and are calling for feedback by 31 July 2017. (See Attachment A).

3. A draft submission has been prepared for the Environment and Community Committee’s approval. (See Attachment B).

4. Auckland Council actively manages threatened species, through programmes on parks and surrounding land and in specialist facilities such as the Auckland Zoo and the Auckland Botanic Gardens. Additionally, it undertakes a range of more general activities which protect and enhance indigenous species habitat, such as activities on parks, transport corridors, through its support to community groups and regulation of activities on private land.

5. The strategy document is quite high level, and largely focused on identifying how existing government initiatives contribute to improved threatened species outcomes, although it does signal an enhanced species management programme.

6. The draft Threatened Species Strategy has the potential to impact on and support Auckland Council’s indigenous biodiversity activities.

7. Staff recommend a generally supportive submission, but seek more emphasis on the importance of supporting threatened species in natural environments, greater recognition of the role of councils and others in achieving effective threatened species management, some further detailing of some of the responses and tools outlined and recognition of a broader range of existing or required responses.

8. The draft submission also seeks greater prioritisation of resourcing species management by the Department of Conservation to address national priorities.

9. Staff also recommend that the submission seek further dialogue with the Department of Conservation to improve integration and alignment of its programmes and processes with those of Auckland Council’s, and to make sure implementation of the strategy is supportive of and supported by the Auckland Council’s activities.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the draft Auckland Council submission to the Department of Conservation’s draft Threatened Species Strategy with any required amendments

b) delegate final approval of the submission to the Environment and Community Committee Chair and Deputy Chair.

Comments

10. The Minister and Department of Conservation have released a draft Threatened Species Strategy and are seeking feedback on this strategy closing on 31 July 2017. (See Attachment A)

11. A draft Auckland Council submission (the draft submission) is attached (Attachment B).

12. The draft strategy’s purpose statement identifies that the strategy sets out the NZ Government’s plan to halt the decline of threatened species and restore them to healthy populations. It goes on to identify that its intention is to build on existing initiatives, and to identify ways to both address species that are faced with extinction, and to prevent others reaching that state.

13. The vision statement reiterates this purpose, and identifies its intention is “…to safeguard our vulnerable threatened species… by..establish[ing] some clear goals for increasing the number of threatened species we are working on, and prioritis[ing] some threatened and at risk species for intensive management to set them on a path to recovery by 2025.” The vision statement further elaborates that the growth of existing initiatives including Predator Free 2050, Battle for our Birds and War on Weeds are at the heart of success for the strategy. Emphasis is also placed on the need for effective partnerships with Māori, councils, communities, philanthropists, researchers and others.

14. These are supported by four main goals:

· Manage 500 species for protection by 2025 – a 40% increase on today – and 600 species for protection by 2030.

· Enhance the populations of 150 prioritised threatened and at risk species by 2025.

· Integrate Te Ao Māori (the Māori world view) and mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) into species recovery programmes by 2025

· Support research, particularly through the National Science Challenges, that helps us to better understand data deficient species.

15. It also identifies five themes necessary to significantly progress threatened species conservation in Aotearoa New Zealand. Explanatory text associated with these themes outlines that they collectively identify the importance of managing vulnerable species on public and private land, through the management of the ecosystems in which they are found and by developing and implementing innovative approaches informed by both science and Mātauranga Māori. The five themes are:

· Uniting against invaders on a landscape scale

· Managing ecosystems at scale to protect species

· Building our science and knowledge base

· Focusing beyond public conservation land

· Working together in partnerships

16. Auckland Council actively manages threatened species, through programmes on parks and surrounding land and in specialist facilities such as the Auckland Zoo and the Auckland Botanic Gardens. Additionally, it undertakes a range of more general activities which protect and enhance indigenous species habitat, such as those on parks, transport corridors and support for and regulation of activities on private land.

17. Council’s regional threatened species management programmes implement the Council’s strategic approach to biodiversity, as outlined in the Auckland Plan, the Unitary Plan and the Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy, and as further detailed in operational plans and programmes.

18. Threatened species programmes undertaken on parks including the Kōkako Management Area in Hunua Regional Park and surrounding land, the open sanctuary programmes on Shakespear Regional Park, with several threatened species including little spotted kiwi, dotterel and North Island robins, and in Tāwharanui Regional Parks, with species including takahē, brown kiwi, North Island saddleback and Duvaucel’s gecko. In the Waitakere Ranges activity focuses on the protection of several threatened species such as Waitakere rock koromiko, puha and New Zealand forget-me-not.

19. Local boards also play a role, consistent with their Local Board Plans, with several boards directly supporting threatened species management. For example the Great Barrier Local Board supports the management of the threatened plant, Leptinella tenella. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board has previously supported the management of native cucumber at Ōtuataua Stonefields in partnership with the Department of Conservation.

20. The Council undertakes or supports a range of other activities which support threatened species management, such as stream enhancements, and habitat restoration on parks, private land and transport corridors. This includes activities funded by local boards as part of their environmental work programmes, for example, the Rodney and Franklin local boards both support water quality improvements through establishing local funds to support landowners fence and plant streams from stock. The Great Barrier Local Board gave capital funding to trial Good Nature traps on the island. The Kaipātiki Local Board worked with its community to develop and implement a Pest Free Kaipātiki Strategy.

21. Some of the species that are identified in the draft strategy for more focused management programmes are the subject of current Auckland Council programmes. For example little spotted kiwi, kōkako, Duvaucel’s gecko and saddleback. The draft strategy has the potential to drive greater support and commitment from central government in the management of these species.

22. However, several of the species actively managed by Auckland Council are not identified in the draft strategy as priorities for management, for example Waitakere rock koromiko. Any changes in current Department of Conservation investment in threatened species management in the Auckland Region should be discussed before these are implemented.

23. The draft strategy is quite high level, and generally lacking in specifics. It places great emphasis on existing Government initiatives as key delivery tools, with a major focus on pest control, especially Predator Free 2050. The draft submission seeks increased clarity as to what new actions (if any) are proposed, and seeks that more emphasis be placed on the broad suite of responses required (additional to pest control).

24. The draft strategy presents the Department of Conservation as the national leaders of threatened species management. Although it recognises the important role of other players, including councils, it somewhat downplays these roles in the management of threatened species. Staff recommend that Auckland Council’s submission seeks to address the lower profile given to the role of others, including illustrating Auckland Council’s role in threatened species management, and the use of the tools outlined.

25. The draft submission also suggests that some of the discussion of approaches could be improved, where possible referencing the Council’s own practices. For example, by highlighting the role of the Unitary Plan.

26. Nevertheless, staff consider that the draft strategy is generally appropriate, and will support better outcomes for threatened species.

27. The submission outlines

a. a generally supportive response, acknowledging the release of the strategy as a display of leadership and the appropriateness of the tools and approaches outlined;

b. that the council is generally supportive of the animal species that have been selected for management partly because the department has used the same species prioritisation approach as is used by Auckland Council; although the rationale behind the plants selected is not clear.

c. that the council, however, considers that it is very important that the strategy does not drive a reduction in current or future support by the Department of Conservation for programmes that address species not identified in the strategy, or where management programmes are on sites away from those prioritised for action when these are undertaken to address regional and local priorities.;

d. that the council agrees that the existing pest control initiatives that are given prominence in the strategy are critical, but that a broader range of responses are required;

e. advocacy for increased funding for the department, to better address national priorities, including to manage more species than are proposed in the strategy;

f. how Auckland Council plays a role in threatened species management, as mandated by the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act, and including through both regional investment and Local Board initiatives, noting that the Council’s actions are driven by regional and local priorities, but these will frequently align with national priorities, including those in the Strategy;

g. a brief outline of the Council’s current use of the “tools” identified in the strategy, including some suggestions for how the strategy could both better describe these and outline future improvements in their use. (including regulation, and increasing collaboration and alignment);

h. greater explanation on how the goals in the strategy around integrating Te Ao Māori and Mātauranga Māori will be achieved;

i. that the discussion in the strategy about the threat of myrtle rust is now outdated;

j. that, in implementing the strategy, the Council would like to work more closely with the department to further align approaches and to address some existing difficulties experienced by Auckland Council (species translocations and handling requirements.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

28. Due to timing constraints, no specific feedback has been sought from Local Boards on this draft strategy and submission. However, as described in the comments section of this report several Local Boards are actively engaged and invest in threatened species management actions and those which promote broader biodiversity outcomes that will also support threatened species. In 2017/2018, the collective local board investment in pest management, biodiversity, and water quality initiatives will exceed $2 million.

29. However, while projects funded by local boards will frequently align with national initiatives, they are driven by local priorities, reflecting the outcomes agreed with local communities. Local Boards are strong advocates for increased national support for national priorities, while seeking greater support from the Department of Conservation for local actions. Both these points are reflected in the draft submission.

Māori impact statement

30. No direct feedback from Māori was sought in the preparation of this submission. However, some high level perspectives from mana whenua of Tāmaki Makaurau that have been provided to Council regarding protection of native species and management of exotics include:

· Iwi support and encourage policies and practices that promote the protection of on-going sustainability of threatened indigenous species of fauna and flora

· Iwi favour pest control methods that have maximum impact on the pest, but nil or minimal impact on the environment

· Iwi advocate for notification and consultation on major pest eradication programmes in a timeframe that allows for sufficient time to assess the programme objectives and methods.

31. The draft submission supports the promotion of Te Ao Māori and Mātauranga Māori in the strategy, but seeks greater clarification of how these will be given expression.

Implementation

32. The strategy has the potential to inform and support Auckland Council’s own actions in relation to threatened species management, in particular in relation to those species selected for new or enhanced management responses. Council’s actions in this area are to address the local and regional priorities it establishes for itself under the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act, in conjunction with the people of Auckland. Nevertheless, these will frequently align with national priorities as many local communities strongly support threatened species programmes, and greater cooperation and collaboration with the Department of Conservation and other players, such as is promoted in the strategy is critical.

33. However, it is also important that the Department of Conservation’s implementation of the strategy does not adversely impact on the council’s programmes which address different species to those identified in the strategy, or are in areas away from priority management sites identified by the Department of Conservation.

34. Staff consider that the release of the strategy presents a timely opportunity to seek increased collaboration and cooperation with the Department of Conservation. This is both in relation to species management programmes, and other areas of council activity such as requirements around translocations resulting from activities managed by the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Threatened Species Strategy	15
b ⇩	Draft Auckland Council Submission to Threatened Species Strategy	71

Signatories

Authors

Claire Webb – Principal Advisor Biodiversity, Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Jenny Fuller – Principal Analyst Natural Environment Strategy

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

18 July 2017

PDF Creator

Environment and Community Committee

18 July 2017

Wiri Prison - Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee

File No.: CP2017/13084

Purpose

1. To establish a sub-committee, including local board representation, to make two Auckland Council appointments to the Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee associated with the Wiri Prison, administered by the Department of Corrections.

Executive summary

2. The Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee was established under conditions set by the Board of Inquiry into the Wiri Men’s Prison. A summary of this requirement is attached as Attachment A.

3. The Council is to make at least two appointments to the Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee. In the previous term this was done by creating an ad-hoc sub-committee of the then Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, which met locally in Manurewa to make the appointments.

4. As this is a sub-committee, the committee may choose to appoint the chairperson of the sub-committee or leave that to the sub-committee to decide at its first meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) delegate making the appointment of two members to the Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee to an ad-hoc sub-committee comprising the chair, or deputy chair, of each of the Manurewa, Papakura, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards and up to two councillors from the southern wards

b) refer to the sub-committee as the “Environment and Community Committee’s Sub-committee to Make Appointments to the Wiri Prison Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee”

c) appoint up to two councillors from the southern wards to the sub-committee

d) consider appointing the chairperson of the sub-committee

e) note that the Independent Māori Statutory Board will have the right to make two appointments to the sub-committee

Comments

Background

5. In 2011, a Board of Inquiry reported on its hearings in relation to the men’s prison at Wiri. An outcome of this process was the establishment of a “Community Impact Forum” and a “Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee”. The social impact fund is to be at least $250,000 annually.

6. The Community Impact Forum has the role of discussing impacts arising from the corrections facilities and makes recommendations to the Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee. The committee decides how the fund should be allocated.

7. Details of the role of the Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee and qualifications of appointees are attached.

8. This committee has up to seven members:

· the chair is the chair of the Community Impact Forum

· at least two members appointed by the Minister of Corrections

· at least two members appointed by the Council

· up to two members co-opted by the committee itself.

9. The appointment of two council members needs to be decided for the current term.

Process for making new appointments

10. The appointment of the council members has not been allocated or delegated to local boards. In the previous term, the then Regional Strategy and Policy Committee established an ad-hoc sub-committee to make the appointments. The sub-committee was comprised of one of the ward councillors for Manurewa-Papakura, one of the ward councillors for Manukau, the chairs (or deputy chairs) of the Manurewa, Papakura, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards, and two IMSB representatives.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11. The Manurewa, Papakura, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local boards are affected. The Social Impact Fund was established as recognition of the impact of the operation of the Wiri Prison on local communities.

Māori impact statement

12. Mana whenua take part in the Community Impact Forum. There is also a Tangata Whenua Committee comprising representatives of affected iwi, which advises impacts on Māori to the Minister and also makes recommendations on projects for funding by the Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee.

Implementation

13. The four local boards will be asked to formally appoint their chair, or deputy, to the sub-committee. The Independent Māori Statutory Board will be advised of their ability to make two appointments to the sub-committee.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee	83

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

18 July 2017

Extension of the Tripartite Economic Alliance

File No.: CP2017/13087

Purpose

1. To seek approval to extend the Tripartite Economic Alliance for three years, and for a Memorandum of Understanding to be developed to formalise this extension; to be signed by the Mayors of Auckland, Los Angeles and Guangzhou at the third Tripartite Economic Alliance Summit in November 2017.

Executive summary

2. The Tripartite Economic Alliance (Tripartite) is a strategic alliance designed to set a new benchmark for how global cities engage and collaborate. The main objective is to deepen trade and political engagement between Los Angeles, Guangzhou and Auckland.

3. The Tripartite was launched in November 2014, when the Mayors from each city signed a joint Memorandum of Understanding in Guangzhou, China. Under this Memorandum of Understanding, Tripartite Economic Summits have been held annually on a rotational basis between the three cities.

4. The Tripartite has been a successful collaboration to date, deepening Auckland’s connections and visibility with two important partner cities, and gaining national and international recognition.

5. Opportunities from the summits have generated a broad range of potential deals for local companies, estimated by Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development to be worth approximately $30 million. Collaboration between the Auckland Council Group and central government in economic development and international diplomacy has also deepened under this agreement.

6. Guangzhou will host the third Tripartite Economic Summit this year (GZ17). It will be held from 8-10 November 2017. It is proposed that the Mayor will lead a business delegation to GZ17.

7. The three-year term of the Tripartite Economic Alliance will expire this year. Under the Memorandum of Understanding this term can be extended by agreement of the three parties. In consultation with key stakeholders, options for the future of the Tripartite have been assessed based on the interest from Los Angeles and Guangzhou; level of visibility for Auckland and its businesses in market; flexibility to focus on other cities in key markets; and the Council’s ability to commit time, resources and budget.

8. The preferred option is to renew the Tripartite for three years, with no exclusive summits, but with each city agreeing to leverage existing events in Guangzhou, Los Angeles and Auckland on a rotational basis. Business and city building Tripartite initiatives that support priorities in the Auckland Plan will be included in these events. This option is preferred by Guangzhou and Los Angeles and has in principle support of key stakeholders.

9. The preferred option will enable Auckland to reaffirm its high-level political and strategic commitment to deepening connections with Guangzhou and Los Angeles; allow Auckland to focus on other international partners/relationships in addition to the Tripartite; reduces the cost, time and resourcing of hosting and participating in annual summits; and allows Auckland to become more targeted and focussed in leveraging existing events.

10. Should the Committee approve this option, Global Partnerships & Strategy will work to finalise the details of the Memorandum of Understanding to formalise the extension, which will be signed by the three Mayors at GZ17.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) note that the Tripartite Economic Alliance has enhanced Auckland’s political, economic and trade relationship with two of Auckland’s most strategically relevant partner cities (Guangzhou and Los Angeles).

b) approve the extension of the Tripartite Economic Alliance for an additional three years, with no exclusive annual summits, but each city leveraging existing major trade/innovation events for delegations and initiatives on a rotational basis.

c) note that Los Angeles and Guangzhou agree in principal to extend the Tripartite Economic Alliance for a further three years and to the preferred option outlined in b) above.

d) approve the development of a Memorandum of Understanding to formalise the extension of the Tripartite Economic Alliance described in b) above, led by Auckland Council’s Global Partnership & Strategy team, to be signed by the Mayors of Auckland, Los Angeles and Guangzhou at the third Tripartite Economic Alliance Summit in November 2017 in Guangzhou.

e) note Auckland’s on-going engagement in the Tripartite Economic Alliance will be supported by existing operating budgets.

Comments

11. On 29 October 2014, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved Auckland’s participation and engagement in the Tripartite Economic Alliance (Tripartite) (Resolution Number REG/2014/125).

12. The Tripartite is aligned with objectives outlined in the Auckland Plan and Economic Development Strategy to make Auckland a vibrant, creative, internationally connected and export driven city^{^[1]}. It also complements New Zealand’s Business Growth Agenda goal of lifting the ratio of exports to gross domestic product to 40% by 2025.

13. The Tripartite enhances Auckland’s engagement and collaboration with two of its most significant international city partners. It is a purposeful move beyond the traditional sister-city model, to one focussed on ensuring existing city-to-city relationship efforts better align with the Auckland Plan and Economic Development Strategy.

14. Specific initiatives that fall under the Tripartite are owned by a number of Auckland stakeholders e.g. Auckland Council (the Global Partnerships and Strategy Unit manages Auckland’s strategic global engagement activity) and Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development (manages international business engagement).

15. Under the current Tripartite, the three cities host an annual rotational summit. Los Angeles hosted the inaugural Summit in 2015, Auckland in 2016, and Guangzhou will host GZ17 from 8-10 November 2017. It is proposed that the Mayor will lead a business delegation to GZ17.

Why this trio of cities?

16. Guangzhou and Los Angeles are two of Auckland’s oldest and most substantive city partnerships.^{^[2]} Deepening trade and economic connections complements the extensive people and cultural links between the three cities. The benefit of a trilateral approach is that it creates a platform that spans both sides of the Pacific and supports Auckland’s position as a gateway into Asia and North America.

17. Guangzhou is the capital and largest city in Guangdong Province. It is one of China’s top four ‘first-tier’ cities (alongside Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen); and one of China’s leading manufacturing and commercial hubs. It is located at the centre of Southern China’s most important trade zone which includes Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta – known as China’s Southern Gateway to the World. The Tripartite helps to support New Zealand’s overall trade goal to grow New Zealand’s two-way trade with China to NZ$30 billion by 2020^{^[3]}.

18. Los Angeles is the second largest city and number one import/export port in the United States. Los Angeles is a key gateway into both the US and to the Asia-Pacific region. New Zealand’s relationship with Los Angeles is long-standing and multi-dimensional. It is one of the main gateways into the United States for New Zealand businesses and tourists.

Outcomes

19. The Tripartite has been a successful collaboration among the cities to date, elevating Auckland status in both Los Angeles and Guangzhou. For example, at the time of attending the Auckland summit in 2016, Los Angeles’ Mayor Eric Garcetti had only undertaken four mayoral outbound visits; all to key trading partners for Los Angeles (China, Japan, Korea and Mexico).

20. Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development estimates opportunities from the Auckland summit have generated potential deals for local companies worth approximately $30 million^{^[4]}. Given the time required for business deals to conclude, the commercial results from the Los Angeles and Auckland summits will continue to be tracked.

21. Other initiatives facilitated under the Tripartite include substantive Memoranda of Understanding and strategic alliances between business and research institutions that cover ports, design and innovation. Attachment two provides a list of these arrangement and initiatives.

22. Since its inception, Auckland, Los Angeles and Guangzhou have received significant international interest regarding the tripartite model (e.g. enquiries have been fielded from Edinburgh, Busan and Washington DC). It has therefore served as a potential model for other international relationships initiated by Auckland Council with cities around the world.

23. The Tripartite has been recognised by awards both nationally and internationally:

· 2016 Friendship City Award for Exchange and Co-operation with China

· International Economic Development Council Annual Awards, Cleveland, US 2016. Excellence in Economic Development Silver Award recipient – Special Event

· NZ Sister Cities Award for the Best Business Project for the Auckland business delegation to Los Angeles 2015.

24. Collaboration between the Auckland Council Group and central government has also strengthened under the Tripartite. This collaboration was formalised through the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding to future proof Auckland’s working relationship with central government on global engagement. Signatories were Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development, Panuku, Independent Māori Statutory Board, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.

Measuring outcomes of summits

25. In the previous term of council, the Economic Development Committee endorsed a new reporting framework for the improved measurement and monitoring of outcomes of economic-led overseas delegations (Resolution Number CP2016/00669). The framework outlines the objectives, the key performance indicators and (where possible) the tangible outcomes achieved as a direct result of the delegation.

26. Under this framework, of the nine key performance indicators set for the Auckland Summit, six have been achieved, with the other three in progress. The results include a high level of overall delegate satisfaction with the event and business opportunities it created, investment opportunities for Auckland and the number of business matching meetings exceeding targets. More than 700 delegates attended the Auckland Summit, double the anticipated number of 350.

27. A survey of Auckland participants 18 months after the 2015 Los Angeles business delegation indicates that 82% of respondents believe the Tripartite has had substantial or moderate benefit for Auckland; 72% of respondents indicated that the Auckland-hosted Tripartite Summit substantially or moderately benefited their business; and 88% of respondents indicated that making new connections from both summits has had a direct benefit to their businesses.

Options for renewal

28. Given the outcomes generated from the Tripartite outlined above, Global Partnerships & Strategy has discussed the future of the Tripartite with key stakeholders^{^[5]}. Options have been assessed based on the interest from Los Angeles and Guangzhou; level of visibility for Auckland and its businesses in market; flexibility to focus on other cities in key markets; and the Council’s ability to commit time, resources and budget.

29. The options are:

Option 1	Renewal of the Tripartite for a further three years with annual summits on a rotational basis (status quo)
Option 2	Renewal of the Tripartite for a further six years with summits held every two years on rotational basis
Option 3 (preferred)	Renewal of the Tripartite for a further three years with no exclusive annual summits, but each city leveraging existing major trade/innovation events for delegations and Tripartite initiatives on a rotational basis
Option 4	Expand the Tripartite to include other international partner cities (either full participation or observer status)
Option 5	Do not renew the Tripartite

30. Under the preferred option, Auckland companies seeking to enter the China and United States markets could engage at selected Guangzhou and Los Angeles business and trade events e.g. SELECT LA Investment Summit. Delegations from Guangzhou and Los Angeles could be encouraged to attend the annual TechWeek in Auckland. Tripartite initiatives would be joined to these existing events.

31. The option enables Auckland to reaffirm a high-level political and strategic commitment to deepening economic connections with Guangzhou and Los Angeles, to focus on other international partners/relationships in addition to Tripartite; reduces the cost, time and resourcing of hosting and participating in annual summits; and to become more targeted and focussed in the leveraging events.

32. Guangzhou and Los Angeles prefer the recommend option and have in principle support of key stakeholders. Attachment One provides an analysis of all five options.

Budget

33. The Tripartite extension and Guangzhou summit will be delivered from Global Partnerships & Strategy’s and Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development’s operating budgets and from corporate sponsorship. The detailed costs of the extension will depend on the level of corporate sponsorship obtained for summits and associated initiatives.

34. The cost of attending the inaugural summit in Los Angeles was NZ$150,000. Former Mayor Len Brown, current Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore and Councillor Denise Lee led a business delegation of 43 Auckland businesses to Los Angeles.

35. The cost of hosting the Auckland Summit was within budget (NZ$550,000), of which NZ$300,000 was covered by corporate sponsorship from 13 partners.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

36. The Environment and Community Committee is responsible for international partnerships under the council’s economic development activity (reflecting the national and regional significance of these initiatives to Auckland). Local Boards can assist in supporting Auckland’s engagement with existing international partner cities, networks and forums.

37. The Tripartite has been developed in consultation with relevant Auckland stakeholders, and specific trade and economic initiatives which fall under the Tripartite will be implemented in consultation with Local Boards where opportunities arise.

Māori impact statement

38. Auckland’s unique Māori identity is a key point of difference in the world and provides competitive advantages. 27% percent of the national Māori economy is in Auckland, contributing NZ$4billion to Auckland’s economy. Māori participation and outcomes are therefore integral to Auckland’s economic development and the success of the Tripartite, in particular relating to brand, visibility, skills, investment and business.

39. The Tripartite was Auckland Council’s first international city agreement to be signed in Te Reo. Extension of the Tripartite will enable Auckland Council to continue to leverage its global connections to support and advocate for Māori business outcomes and foster opportunities for cultural exchange and entrepreneurship.

40. For example, collaborating with the Independent Maori Statutory Board, Council and Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development ensured Māori dimensions were incorporated throughout the Auckland Tripartite Summit in 2016. A waharoa (entrance) by artist Dr Johnson Witehira was designed and incorporated into all design elements of the Summit. The speakers programme included topics and panel discussions relevant to Māori business/economy, such as the inclusion of the inaugural mauri tū winner of the DigMyIdea Māori innovation challenge.

41. A number of other Māori business and cultural representatives have participated in Tripartite Summits, for example, Te Whānau O Waipareira Trust, WhānauTahi and Mika Haka Studios attended the Los Angeles Summit.

42. Auckland’s distinctive Maori identity will be an important element of the Tripartite, and Maori businesses will be invited to participate in GZ17. Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development’s Māori business team will continue to reach out to business to participate in future Tripartite initiatives, and key messages on the Māori economy and identity will be incorporated into Auckland’s future engagements, including collateral material.

Implementation

43. Global Partnerships & Strategy and Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development will continue to scope Auckland businesses, institutions and organisations to participate at GZ17. The committee will be updated on progress towards GZ17.

44. Global Partnerships & Strategy will develop the Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by the three Mayors in GZ17, with Auckland Council’s legal services input. The MoU will confirm a high-level political and strategic commitment for the three cities to deepen their trade and economic engagement. It is not intended to create binding legal or funding obligations on the cities.

45. To ensure engagement and relationship building at the city government level continues following the signing of the MoU, officials from the three cities will collectively meet via conference or video call every six months to ensure successful implementation. Identification of key events to leverage in Auckland, Los Angeles and Guangzhou will occur as part of the ongoing implementation of the Tripartite.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Options analysis	91
b ⇩	Memorandums of Understanding	93

Signatories

Authors

Louella Pitt – Advisor, Global Partnerships and Strategy

David Shamy - Principal Policy Analyst, Global Partnerships and Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

18 July 2017

Political representation on the AKL Paths Leadership Group

File No.: CP2017/13446

Purpose

1. To seek the appointment of a councillor to the AKL Paths Leadership Group.

Executive summary

2. AKL Paths is a joint initiative between Council and Auckland Transport to better activate Auckland’s shared paths and cycle ways.

3. The Auckland Paths (Greenways) Leadership Group was established in 2015 to provide guidance on this initiative. This group combines corporate partners, governing body and local board political representation, along with key community partners.

4. Confirmation of the Governing Body’s representative on the Group is required.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) appoint a councillor to the AKL Paths Leadership Group.

Comments

5. AKL Paths is a joint initiative between Council and Auckland Transport. It recognises an opportunity to better activate Auckland’s shared paths and cycle ways.

6. The initiative builds on the implementation of local boards’ greenway plans and the development of the cycle network over the past few years. It develops an identity that has the objective of encouraging active transport and connecting people with their local network of safer paths and cycle ways.

7. Council has secured a number of corporate project sponsors in Downers, Beca, Colenso BBDO and NZME and involvement of community organisations such as Bike Auckland. AKL Paths present the opportunity for the council group and partners/sponsors to co-ordinate and integrate a set of projects that deliver on a variety of outcomes; that tell Auckland’s story; bring communities together; and build connections between people, place and council.

8. The Auckland Paths (Greenways) Leadership Group was established in 2015. This group combines the corporate partners, governing body and local board political representation, along with key community partners. The group is co-convened by Stephen Town and David Warburton (CE of Auckland Transport).

9. This group has been successful in guiding the development of the AKL Paths initiative, and subsequent key areas of work. Looking forward the focus of the group will be on: implementing the digital and activation opportunities for paths; guiding development of cycle share; achieving programme delivery efficiencies; and supporting community-led initiatives. The group’s membership has recently been reviewed and confirmation of political representation on the group is being sought.

10. Cr Chris Darby has previously been the Governing Body representative on this group and has expressed an interest in continuing in this role.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11. The Local Boards have an interest in the Paths Imitative through the development and delivery of their greenway plans and desire to encourage active transport. Local Boards will also be involved in the activation of Paths in their local areas. To date, the Chair of the Waitemata Local Board, Pippa Coom, has been the Local Board representative on the AKL Paths Leadership Group.

Māori impact statement

12. Presentations on this initiative were made to the Auckland Transport Walking and Cycling Mana Whenua Group and the Parks, Sport and Recreational Central Iwi Engagement Hui around mid-2016.

13. Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Te Akitai Waiohua, Te Ahiwaru Waiohua, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Tamaterā and Waikato-Tanui were then updated on the proposed activations within Puketapapa, Mangere and Whau in late January 2017.

14. A presentation to the Southern Iwi Engagement Hui in February 2017 provided some background on this project, however, it was agreed a more strategic focus from Mana Whenua was required with the regional Kaitiaki forum. There have been initial attempts to engage through this forum but at this stage a formal presentation has not been provided to them.

Implementation

15. The implementation of the AKL Paths initiative is being managed through a number of work streams with representation from Council and Auckland Transport. These will endeavour to bring about efficiencies in the delivery of new path and cycle way developments and encourage greater use of the network through a range of activation techniques.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Annette Campion - Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

18 July 2017

Review of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012: Terms of Reference

File No.: CP2017/08531

Purpose

1. To seek approval of the terms of reference for a review of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

Executive summary

2. Community leases are one of the main instruments council uses to invest in the delivery of outcomes for Auckland. They are also one of the major ways Auckland Council partners with community organisations.

3. Auckland Council introduced the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 to support local board decision-making on community leases. It is timely to review them as community leases are provided for significant open space assets and are particularly relevant to the following projects:

· Sport Facilities Investment Plan – a significant proportion of current sport facilities are provided on council land

· Golf Facilities Investment Plan – community leases are the largest investments council makes in golf facilities.

4. This report seeks approval of terms of reference for a review of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012. The review will assess the efficacy of the guidelines in helping the council deliver the best possible outcomes for Auckland through community leases.

5. The review will be conducted in two stages:

· Stage One will review the application of the guidelines

· Stage Two will evaluate the fitness for purpose of the guidelines and develop recommendations to improve them.

6. Staff will use the evaluation principles developed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to assist the evaluation of the guidelines in Stage Two.

7. The review will take approximately nine months to allow sufficient time for desktop analysis, a literature review, surveys and targeted interviews, and formal local board consultation.

8. The end product will be a consolidated findings report that summarises the results of the review and any proposed changes.

9. Staff will seek feedback from local boards and key stakeholders in March-April 2018 before presenting the report to the Environment and Community Committee in May 2018.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the attached terms of reference for a review of Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

Comments

Background

10. The council currently has over 1,400 community leases. Around 90 per cent of the council’s current leases were granted by legacy councils before the amalgamation. The terms and conditions of these leases vary markedly.

11. Community leases allow community organisations to operate from council properties such as land and buildings, mostly with peppercorn rent. In return, community organisations are expected to provide services that deliver community benefits that align with council outcomes and priorities.

The Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012

12. In 2012, the council introduced the Community Occupancy Guidelines. The guidelines were based on good practice. They were developed in consultation with local boards and communities.

13. The guidelines aim to support local board decision-making on the allocation of leasing of community assets. They outline the eligibility criteria, the application process and provide guidance on standard terms and conditions.

14. The guidelines provide a basis for council staff to make recommendations on lease applications. Local boards make final decisions and may, at their discretion, consider applications on a case-by-case basis as they deem appropriate.

Drivers for the review

15. Community leases are one of the main instruments council uses to invest in the delivery of outcomes for Auckland. Investment through leases is larger as they lock-in significant value of council assets for a period of time for particular and sometimes exclusive, uses.

16. Community leases are provided for significant open space assets and are particularly relevant to the following projects:

· Sport Facilities Investment Plan – a significant proportion of current sport facilities are provided on council land

· Golf Facilities Investment Plan – community leases are the largest investments council makes in golf facilities.

17. Leases are also one of the major ways Auckland Council partners with community organisations. A review of current leases will provide systematic information to assist council capitalise on the opportunities of partnering in the future. It will also contribute to the Facility Partnerships Policy Project.

18. A review of the guidelines will help address these issues and assist strategic management and planning of council’s investment in open space and community facilities.

19. This report seeks approval of the terms of reference for the review (provided in Attachment A).

Objectives of the review

20. The review will focus on:

· assessing the efficacy of the guidelines in helping the council deliver the best possible outcomes for Auckland through community leases

· improving the guidelines to ensure consistency in assessing, granting and managing leases.

Methodology

21. The review will be conducted in two stages.

22. Stage One will review the application of the guidelines.

23. Staff will conduct a review of the leases granted after 2012 and any associated monitoring reports. There are around 150 leases that fall within this scope. The review will focus on the parks, sport and recreation types of leases (around 70 leases) in the first instance to gain some insights, before reviewing all 150 leases.

24. Stage One review will involve mainly desktop data analysis of all advice provided by staff and decisions made by local boards.

25. Stage One will take approximately four months to complete. While the analysis is labour-intensive and time-consuming, it will provide a rich body of knowledge of the current state of council’s investment through community leases. It will enable staff to explore matters including:

· the types of public and private benefits delivered through community leases and the alignment with council’s strategic goals

· the regional and inter-generational implications of long-term leases

· the range of operating and business models adopted by sport organisations

· consistency with relevant legislation, in particular the Local Government Act 2012, Reserves Act 1977, Human Rights Act 1993 and Bill of Rights Act 1990.

26. Stage Two will evaluate whether the current guidelines are fit-for-purpose and represent good practice.

27. The evaluation will include a literature review, surveys and targeted interviews with elected members and leaseholders. It will draw on the findings from the Facility Partnerships Policy Project.

28. Staff will evaluate the current guidelines against principles developed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).^{^[6]} A detailed description of the principles is included in the attached terms of reference.

29. A key deliverable of the review will be a consolidated findings report that consist of:

· a summary report of the literature review

· summary results of the evaluation of current guidelines

· any proposed changes to improve the guidelines.

Risk identification and mitigation

30. An initial assessment identified a number of reputational and operational risks council might face when undertaking the review. These risks will be mitigated through communication and engagement with key stakeholders and the public.

Table 1: Potential risks and mitigation

Risk	Type	Mitigation	Level of risk
The review may create expectations of rent increases for community organisations	Reputational	· Explain the purpose of the review · Any proposed changes on how rents are calculated will be subject to consultation with key stakeholders · Ensure the process is transparent and consistent	Low
The review will examine ways to increase transparency of community outcomes. This might mean extra processes and reporting requirements Community organisations might not have the capacity to meet the requirements	Operational	· Ensure expectations are managed at the lease application stage · Explain the reasons for having effective processes and reporting requirements · Simplify the current reporting processes and develop a step-by-step guide for community organisations	Low
The council is developing a new tool to measure and monitor outcomes of council investment^{^[7]} Stakeholders might be confused about the reporting requirements for the new tool and the requirements for community leases	Reputational and Operational	· Explain that a pilot project to test the outcome measurement tool is being undertaken before rolling it out to all council investments in sport facilities · Ensure the new outcome measurement tool and the process for leases are fully integrated before implementation · Ensure there are efficient reporting processes for community groups	Low

31. A full risk assessment will be conducted if any changes to the guidelines are identified.

32. Possible changes will be tested during the consultation with stakeholders and local boards in March 2018. Staff will put particular emphasis on understanding potential impacts on leaseholders and any flow-on impacts to the community.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

33. Staff will engage with local boards during the consultation on the proposed changes to the guidelines in early 2018.

34. Previous local board feedback on the Sports Facilities Investment Plan: Discussion Document highlighted:

· significant inconsistencies in how lease applications are assessed and managed

· inadequate monitoring and reporting of outcomes

· significant inconsistencies in lease terms and conditions, particularly regarding lease duration, rent and renewal terms.^{^[8]}

Māori impact statement

35. Staff have not engaged with Māori representatives specifically on the proposed terms of reference.

36. The review will consider options to improve the reporting and monitoring phase of the lease cycle, such as using performance measures to ensure outcome delivery. Staff will test the proposed changes with Māori representative groups as part of the consultation process.

Implementation

37. This report seeks approval of terms of reference for a review of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012. Once approved, the review will commence immediately. It will be a joint project between Park and Recreation Policy and Community Facilities.

38. Staff will engage with local boards and key stakeholders to seek their views on the findings report before presenting it to the Environment and Community Committee in May 2018.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Terms of Reference for review of Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012	103

Signatories

Authors

Nancy Chu - Policy Analyst

Natalia Tropotova - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

18 July 2017

Classification of Hampton Park, 334R East Tamaki Road, East Tamaki

File No.: CP2017/12453

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Environment and Community Committee to revoke an incorrect resolution passed by the Manukau City Council and pass a new resolution to declare two portions of Hampton Park described as Lots 2 and 5 DP 63604 as historic reserve under the correct section of the Reserves Act 1977.

Executive summary

2. In March 1985, Manukau City Council acquired Lots 2 and 5 DP 63604, which now forms part of Hampton Park, from a private land owner under the Local Government Act 1974. These two parcels were not acquired for reserve purposes under the Reserves Act.

3. In November 2008, Manukau City Council resolved pursuant to Section 16 (2A) of the Reserves Act to classify Lots 2 and 5 as historic reserve. Section 16 (2A) of the Reserves Act was the incorrect provision to use as it can only empower council owned land where such land is already held by the council under the Reserves Act. Due to this error Lots 2 and 5 still remain held under the Local Government Act 2002 and not as historic reserve.

4. Section 14 (1) of the Reserves Act is the section that empowers council owned land held under the 2002 Act to be declared to be a reserve within the meaning of the Reserves Act and should have been used by the council to declare Lots 2 and 5 as historic reserve.

5. Staff recommend that the committee revoke the incorrect resolution passed by Manukau City Council (see Attachment A) and pass a new resolution under the correct section (14(1)) of the Reserves Act declaring Lots 2 and 5 to be a reserve for historic purposes.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) note that the part of resolution III of CL/NOV/1214/08 (Classification of reserve – Hampton Park), passed by Manukau City Council on 27 November 2008, declaring Lots 2 and 5 DP 63604 to be classified as historic reserve incorrectly referenced section 16 (2A) of the Reserves Act 1977

b) declare Lots 2 and 5 DP 63604 (Certificates of Title NA20A/979 and NA20A/982 respectively) to be a historic reserve pursuant to Section 14 (1) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Comments

6. Hampton Park is located at 334R East Tamaki Road in East Tamaki and within the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area. The park is a significant heritage site situated on a volcanic cone, with the park and neighbouring church land making up the remaining 13 hectares of a 160 hectare farm established by Reverend Gideon Smales in the late 1850s. The park alone comprises 12 hectares which is made up of five separately defined land parcels described as Lots 1-5 DP 63604 (Attachment A).

7. Between 2008 and 2009 Manukau City Council arranged to declare or reclassify Lots 1-5 DP 63604 as historic reserve through a number of changes made under the Reserves Act (see Attachment B). Lot 1 was correctly declared by the council to be a historic reserve pursuant to Section 14 (1) of the Reserves Act, and Lots 3 and 4 were correctly reclassified by the Department of Conservation as historic reserve pursuant to Section 24 (1) of the Reserves Act. Lots 2 and 5 were intended to be classified by the council as historic reserve, but the incorrect section of the Act was used and as a result, Lots 2 and 5 still remain held under the Local Government Act.

8. Section 16 (2A) of the Reserves Act was the incorrect provision to classify Lots 2 and 5 as it can only empower a council to classify council owned land where such land is already held by the council under the Reserves Act. The council had acquired Lots 2 and 5 in March 1985 under the Local Government Act 1974 and did not acquire them for reserve purposes under the Reserves Act.

9. Section 14 (1) of the Reserves Act empowers any council owned land to be declared by a council to be a reserve within the meaning of the Reserves Act and should have been used by the council to declare Lot 2 and 5 as historic reserve.

10. Staff recommends that the committee revoke the incorrect resolution made by Manukau City Council and pass a new resolution declaring Lots and 5 to be historic reserve under the correct section (14(1)) of the Reserves Act. This action would enable all of the park to be protected under the Reserves Act and also comply with the classification requirements of the same Act.

11. The recommendations support the Auckland Plan strategic direction to ‘protect and conserve Auckland’s historic heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations’ by protecting the park for historic purposes under the Reserves Act.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. On 26 April 2017, staff held a workshop with Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board to discuss the overall proposal. A report was submitted to the board’s 16 May 2017 business meeting and the board passed resolution OP/2017/78 in support of the recommendations (Attachment C).

13. The recommendations support the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Plan 2014 outcome for ‘parks and facilities that meet people’s needs’ by protecting existing reserve land from development for the benefit of the current and future community.

14. There are no associated costs because no prior public advertising or local iwi consultation is required. This is because there is no statutory change being made to the reserve under the Reserves Act, i.e. the historic reserve classification will remain the same as will both the ownership and management of the reserve as a historic reserve.

Māori impact statement

15. There is no impact on local iwi because there is no statutory, use or ownership change being made to the reserve under the Reserves Act. Because the volcanic cone sited within the park is held under council ownership and not by the Crown, the cone is not subject to any treaty settlement implications.

Implementation

16. Provided the committee passes the two resolutions, the council’s Minister of Conservation delegate will sign a gazette notice declaring pursuant to Section 14 (1) of the Reserves Act that Lots 2 and 5 be declared a reserve within the meaning of that Act and be held for historic purposes.

17. Once the gazette notice has been published by the council in the New Zealand Gazette, Lots 2 and 5 will be automatically classified as a historic reserve by virtue of Section 16 (2) of the Reserves Act.

18. With completion of these steps, the establishment of Lots 2 and 5 as a classified historic reserve will meet the reserve classification requirements of the Reserves Act.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Maps of Hampton Park Lots 2 and 5 DP 63604	111
b ⇩	Manukau City Council resolution CL/NOV/1214/08	115
c ⇩	Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board resolution OP/2017/78	117

Signatories

Author

Dave Bayley - Specialist Technical Statutory Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

18 July 2017

Open space acquisitions in the 2016/17 financial year

File No.: CP2017/13300

Purpose

1. To provide a summary of all open space acquisitions in the 2016/17 financial year.

Executive summary

2. The open space acquisition budget for the 2016/17 financial period was $47.9 million. A total of $46.4 million was spent on 20 new parks and open space, covering a total land area of approximately 16.5 hectares.

3. Four acquisitions were approved under delegated authority totalling $1.2 million and covering a total land area of approximately 1.3 hectares.

4. Council acquired 10 new parks and open space, covering a total land area of approximately 13.7 hectares at no capital cost. The annual maintenance costs of this land are estimated to be $99,629 per annum. These costs are unbudgeted.

5. Staff recommend the development of a series of communication initiatives to highlight the new parks and open spaces acquired in the 2016/17 financial year for Aucklanders’ use and enjoyment.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the development of a series of communication initiatives to highlight the new parks and open spaces acquired in the 2016/17 financial year for Aucklanders’ use and enjoyment.

Comments

Background

6. The open space acquisition budget for the 2016/17 financial period was $47.9 million.

7. A total of $46.4 million was spent on 20 new parks and open space, covering a total land area of approximately 16.5 hectares. There was a budget variance of approximately three per cent. Table 1 below presents a summary of these acquisitions by local board area.

8. Operational costs for new parks and open spaces are provided for in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 as a percentage of the acquisition cost. The final cost will depend on the final extent of the land acquired and how the park is developed.

9. Local board will have decision-making responsibility for the design and development of any parks. This will include responsibility for developing and maintaining the parks.

Use of delegated authority

10. Four acquisitions were approved under delegated authority covering a total land area of approximately 1.3 hectares. Table 2 below presents a summary of these acquisitions by local board area.

Table 1: Open space acquisitions settled in 2016/17

Local Board	Suburb	Property location	Type of open space	Size (m²)	Capital Cost ($)
Devonport-Takapuna	Castor Bay	141 Beach Road	Addition to existing park	870	1,325,000
Devonport-Takapuna	Stanley Point	60A Stanley Point Road	Walkway	175	270,000
Franklin	Clevedon	184 Maraetai Coast Road	Coastal and Recreation	19287	3,200,000
Franklin	Beachlands	49 Jack Lachlan Drive	Neighbourhood Park	5723	1,200,000
Hibiscus and Bays	Orewa	126 Grand Drive	Neighbourhood Park	2385	1,725,000
Hibiscus and Bays	Hobbs Bay	100-124 Parkview Drive	Neighbourhood Park	3000	1,762,500
Howick	Flat Bush	428 Ormiston Road	Cycleway	321	156,000
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	Mt Wellington	1018B Great South Road	Addition to Regional Park	12000	855,000
Kaipātiki	Birkenhead	34 Park Avenue	Ecological/Conservation	12400	410,435
Papakura	Takanini	935 Papakura-Clevedon Road	Neighbourhood Park and Historic Reserve	8347	2,288,000
Papakura	Takanini	31 Airfield Road	Neighbourhood Park	4100	2,100,000
Papakura	Conifer Grove	1V Great South Road	Neighbourhood Park	5853	3,750,000
Papakura	Hingaia	158 Park Estate Road	Suburb Park	70000	6,020,000
Rodney	Huapai	95 Station Road	Neighbourhood Park	3000	1,800,000
Rodney	Huapai	57 Nobilo Road	Neighbourhood Park	2343	2,000,000
Rodney	Huapai	69 Nobilo Road	Neighbourhood Park	2588	2,200,000
Rodney	Riverhead	29 Dinning Road	Neighbourhood Park	5000	4,500,000
Upper Harbour	Hobsonville	17/17A Scott Road	Neighbourhood Park	4504	4,900,000
Upper Harbour	Hobsonville	129 Clark Road ¹	Sport Park		3,208,671
Waitākere Ranges	Swanson	19-25 O'Neills Road	Neighbourhood Park	3030	2,750,000
Total				164,926	46,420,606

¹Clark Road – $3.2m part payment for ongoing negotiations for 4ha of land for a sport park at Hobsonville.

Table 2: Open space acquisition approved in accordance with delegated authority in 2016/17

Local Board	Suburb	Location	Type of open space	Size (m²)	Capital cost ($)	Operational cost ($) per annum
Devonport-Takapuna	Stanley Point	60A Stanley Point Road	Accessway	175	270,000	existing asset
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	Onehunga	43 Galway Street	Conservation	600	Not settled	existing asset
Waitākere Ranges	Waitakere	8 & 8A Township Road	Township Park	842	Not settled	existing asset
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	Mt Wellington	1018B Great South Road	Addition to Hamlins Hill Regional Park	12000	855,000	existing asset
Total				13,617	1,125,000

Open space acquired at no capital cost

11. Council acquired 10 new parks and open space, covering a total land area of approximately 13.7 hectares at no capital cost under the Open Space Provision Policy. Table 3 below presents a summary of these acquisitions by local board area.

12. As this land was acquired at no capital cost funding will need to be allocated from within existing parks maintenance budgets so the ongoing costs can be met.

13. The consequential operational costs of maintaining the ten park and open spaces vested in council at no capital cost is estimated to be $99,629 per annum. The final cost will depend on the final extent of the land acquired and how the park is developed.

14. These ongoing costs need to be balanced against the acquisition of ten new parks at no capital cost.

Table 3: Open space vested in the council at no capital cost in 2016/17

Local Board	Suburb	Location	Type of open space	Size (m²)	Capital cost ($)	Operational cost ($) per annum
Hibiscus and Bays	Orewa	West Hoe Heights SHA	Neighbourhood park	4074	0	20,000
Hibiscus and Bays	Orewa	West Hoe Heights SHA	Scenic Reserve	84477	0	31,000
Howick	Whitford	40 Whitford Park Road	Recreation and Easement	32559	0	7,500
Manurewa	Manurewa	198 Mahia Road	Walkway	175	0	150
Papakura	Papakura	McLennan subdivision	Neighbourhood and Linear Park	5006	0	7,700
Rodney	Wellsford	375 Rodney Street	Open Space	1107	0	6,300
Rodney	Algies Bay	33&33A Martin Bays Rd	Neighbourhood Park	5100	0	15,000
Rodney	Parakai	56 Fordyce Road	Recreation	1418	0	7,400
Rodney	Riverhead	29 Dinning Road	Three accessways	590	0	4,500
Rodney	Ti Point	203-205 Ti Point Road	Walkway	1850	0	none ²
Upper Harbour	Albany Heights	79-95 Gills Road	Scenic Reserve	590	0	79
Total				136,946		99,629

Next steps

15. Staff recommend the development of a series of communication initiatives to highlight the new parks and open spaces acquired in the 2016/17 financial year for Aucklanders’ use and enjoyment. Existing channels such as Our Auckland and the council website will be used.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16. This is a process report for reporting purposes only.

Māori impact statement

17. This is a process report for reporting purposes only.

Implementation

18. The costs of the communication initiatives will be covered through existing budgets.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Roma Leota - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

18 July 2017

Summary of Environment and Community Committee information memos and briefings - 18 July 2017

File No.: CP2017/12124

Purpose

1. To note progress on the forward work programme. (Attachment A).

2. To provide a public record of memos, workshop or briefing papers that have been distributed for the Committee’s information since 13 June 2017.

Executive summary

3. This is regular information-only report which aims to provide public visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no decisions are required.

4. The following papers/memo were circulated to members:

· 30 May 2017 – Workshop re: Open Space policy

· 9 June 2017 - Briefing note re Pest Free Auckland

· 13 June 2017 – Workshop re: what future for golf

· 14 June 2017 – Workshop re: Urban forest strategy and Healthy Waters

· 28 June 2017 – UNESCO City of Music application update

· 30 June 2017 – Monthly Global Engagement Activity update

5. The workshop papers and any previous documents can be found on the Auckland Council website at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

· at the top of the page, select meeting “Environment and Community Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘View’;

· under ‘Attachments’, select either HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

6. Note that, unlike an agenda decision report, staff will not be present to answer questions about these items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive the information report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Environment and Community Committee forward work programme	125
b	9 June 2017 - Briefing note re Pest Free Auckland (Under Separate Cover)
c	30 May 2017 Workshop Open space policy (Under Separate Cover)
d	13 June 2017 Workshop what future for golf (Under Separate Cover)
e	14 June 2017 Minutes Urban forest strategy and Healthy Waters (Under Separate Cover)
f	28 June 2017 - UNESCO City of Music application update (Under Separate Cover)
g	30 June 2017 - Monthly Global Engagement Activity update (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

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

Environment and Community Committee

18 July 2017

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

That the Environment and Community Committee:

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

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

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

C1 Acquisition of land for open space - Ōrākei

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the report identifies land the council seeks to acquire for open space purposes.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C2 Acquisition of land for open space - Mangere

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

In particular, the report identifies land the council seeks to acquire for open space.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C3 Acquisition of land for open space - Clarks Beach

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

In particular, the report identifies land the council seeks to acquire for open space purposes.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

[1] Auckland Plan, Strategic Direction 6 – Priorities 3 and 5.

[2] Auckland and Guangzhou have been sister cities for 25 years (established in 1989). Auckland and LA have been sister cites for 43 years (established in 1971).

[3] A series of initiatives were announced during Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s visit to New Zealand, on 27 March 2017 that further support this goal. These included: the first round of China-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement upgrade negotiations to be held from 25-27 April in Beijing, China; an arrangement to establish a Chinese Cultural Centre in Auckland; and the signature of a Memorandum of Arrangement on Strengthening Cooperation on the Belt and Road Initiative. The Belt and Road Initiative is China’s flagship initiative driving its global connectedness. GPS is actively identifying opportunities for Auckland to leverage these initiatives.

[4] It is important to note that there are inherent challenges associated with qualifying/quantifying the commercial outcomes derived from Summits, due to commercial sensitivities.

[6] OECD (2009) ‘Guidelines for Projects and Programmes Evaluation’ https://www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/dcdndep/47069197.pdf

[7] Environment and Community Committee (April 2017) ‘Development of an outcome measurement tool to support the Sport Facilities Investment Plan’ [CP2017/03041]