Agenda of Environment and Community Committee

1 Apologies

Apologies from Deputy Chairperson A Filipaina and Cr E Collins 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, 14 November 2017, 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 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.

5.1 Public Input: Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Inc. - Diane Taylor

Purpose

1. To address the committee in relation to the role of Auckland Citizens Advice Bereaux in Auckland.

2. Diane Taylor, Chair of the Auckland Citizens Advice Bereaux will be in attendance.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive and note the public presentation from Diane Taylor, Chair of Auckland Citizens Advice Bereaux.

5.2 Public Input: Waitemata Low Carbon Network - Frances Palmer and Dr Grant Hewison

Purpose

1. Frances Palmer and Dr Grant Hewison, Waitemata Low Carbon Network will address the committee on the following:

· ‘in light of the Paris Agreement targets and the new Government’s commitment to zero net emissions by 2050, we would like to ask and encourage Auckland Council to reconsider its commitments to reduce emissions by 40% by 2040 and make a more appropriate commitment aligning with these targets.

· we note that the Mayor and Council have made recent commitments through the Local Government Leader’s Climate Change Declaration 2017 and as a member of C40.

· we note that the opportunity to make greater commitments (and resource the actions needed to achieve them) can be made through the Auckland Plan Refresh and the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

· we would also like to encourage Auckland Council through the Long Term Plan to ‘refresh’ the Auckland Low Carbon Plan. In this regard, while the Low Carbon Auckland Report 2016 scorecard shows Auckland and the Auckland Council Group is achieving results in certain areas, in others neither the city nor the Council are doing so.’

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive and note the public input from the Frances Palmer and Dr Grant Hewison, Waitemata Low Carbon Network regarding the Auckland Low Carbon Plan.

5.3 Public Input: Northland Waste - Ray Lambert

Purpose

1. To address the committee in relation to the roll out of the current Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

2. Ray Lambert, Northland Waste will speak on the following areas:

· Cost/Benefit Analysis of proposed initiatives

· Impact on private service provision and associated equity issues

· Transparency around Council service provision

· Costs of community Group vs Private provision

· Specific Impact on Rodney Ratepayers.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive and note the public input presentation from Ray Lambert, Northland Waste regarding the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

5.4 Public Input: Waitakere Experience networking group, Pip Mandis

Purpose

1. Pip Mandis, Chair, Waitakere Experience networking group will speak regarding the impact kauri dieback is having on the Waitakere Ranges’ health and its economy.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive and note the public input presentation from Pip Mandis, Chair Waitakere Experience networking group regarding the impact kauri dieback in the Waitakere Ranges.

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

05 December 2017

Kauri Dieback Management - Waitākere Ranges Regional Park

File No.: CP2017/25295

Purpose

1. To respond to calls for Auckland Council to take more action to protect kauri in the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park and consider options for managing access to kauri dieback areas in the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park.

Executive summary

2. In response to concerns about the increase of diseased kauri in the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park, Auckland Council has received calls from mana whenua, community groups and partners to take more action to protect kauri in the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park.

3. As mana whenua, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority and Settlement Trust has communicated their intention to place a rāhui on the park in early December 2017 and has asked for Auckland Council to support a Controlled Area Notice (empowered by the Biosecurity Act) to close access to the park. The idea of closures has received significant support from community groups including the Tree Council and Forest & Bird.

4. Auckland Council can potentially close or restrict access to all or part of the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park. Council could do this as landowner, given landowner rights are within its own decision-making powers, or it could do so in conjunction with seeking implementation by the Ministry of Primary Industries of a Controlled Area Notice under the Biosecurity Act. A Controlled Area Notice would not ban access directly but can be used to manage the movement of a disease through more tailored controls and is backed with better enforcement powers.^{^[1]}

5. While council has the potential to implement closures, any such decision requires careful balancing of a range of considerations, especially implementation and resourcing. The park is of significant environmental and ecological importance, high cultural significance, and is in high demand for recreational activity, which in turn supports a range of tourism and other regional outcomes. Implementing and enforcing closures would have an impact on these outcomes, could have flow on impacts to other parks and would be challenging to enforce.

6. Council’s proposed response to manage kauri dieback is included in the draft Regional Pest Management Plan. Investment options – including significant increases for this activity - which give effect to the draft plan will be considered as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-28.

7. The council has only undertaken limited engagement on closure approaches. Given the significant impacts, a more comprehensive engagement and consultation approach would be required to ascertain the views of people likely to be affected by or have an interest in the decision.

8. While the Long-term plan 2018-2028 is consulted on it is recommended that Auckland Council supports the principles of the rāhui and endorses an option to continue with the existing enhanced work programme, with the addition of some targeted closures of tracks (Option Three).

9. The recommended option allows risk of disease spread to be reduced while enabling continued use of the park by concessionaires and visitors. Risks can be mitigated by actively managing hygiene stations and increased education through the council’s summer ambassador programme.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) note that the council’s proposed response to manage kauri dieback is included in the draft Regional Pest Management Plan, and that funding to enable the council to deliver on this plan will be considered as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-28

b) note that the increase in diseased kauri within the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park has led to calls for Auckland Council to support a rāhui and closure of the park to protect the species

c) support the principles of the rāhui placed on the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park by Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority and Settlement Trust, noting that the protection of the Waitākere Ranges is of high importance to both entities.

d) endorse Option Three ‘continue with the existing work programme plus undertake some targeted closures of tracks within the park’ to manage the spread of the disease and protect healthy trees

e) note that Option Three will allow the continuation of events and concessions on non-closed tracks, with existing conditions relating to Kauri dieback management including education and strict hygiene measures

f) agree that this management approach be reviewed following the consultation and final outcomes of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and Regional Pest Management Plan processes.

Comments

Kauri dieback disease in the Auckland region

10. Kauri dieback disease (Phytophthora agathidicida) is specific to New Zealand kauri and can kill trees of all ages. There is currently no cure for this disease.

11. Within the Auckland region kauri dieback disease is present throughout the Waitākere Ranges regional parkland, in some western local parks, isolated sites on the Awhitu peninsula, DOC reserves at Pakiri, Logue’s Bush (Tomarata), Albany and Okura Bush (Long Bay), and on many areas of private land. Large areas of the Auckland region remain kauri dieback-free including south-eastern parts of the region such as the Hunua Ranges, on private and council land on the North Shore, northern regional parks and Gulf Islands (excluding Great Barrier Island).

12. As landowner and the unitary authority, Auckland Council recognises the need to manage invasive species such as kauri dieback and protect significant ecological areas and taonga, including the Waitākere Ranges, through the operative Regional Pest Management Strategy, the draft Regional Pest Management Plan and Regional Parks Management Plan 2010.

13. Auckland Council’s role in managing kauri dieback disease has been recognised by the Environment and Community Committee through its endorsement of the draft Regional Pest Management Plan for consultation, which includes a programme for kauri dieback. This plan will be notified for public feedback in parallel with the Long-term Plan in early in 2018.

14. Auckland Council is also part of the national Kauri Dieback Programme. The programme is a collaborative partnership between the Ministry for Primary Industries, which co-ordinates the programme, and the kaitiaki of those areas where kauri are found – tangata whenua (via the Tangata Whenua Roopu), Department of Conservation, Waikato Regional Council, Northland Regional Council, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and Auckland Council.

15. The national programme coordinates kauri dieback research, supports a consistent branding of kauri dieback efforts across affected areas and provides guidance to the partners on approaches to kauri dieback management. The programme has not yet formed a collective view on when restricting access to kauri areas is appropriate, but plans to do so in the near future. Auckland Council’s decision on how to manage access in the Waitākere Ranges may have implications for other partners in the programme.

Waitākere Ranges Regional Park

16. In 2016 Auckland Council completed a five-yearly survey in the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park, with findings and recommendations from this survey finalised in 2017. This report was the first study in New Zealand to compare kauri dieback distribution within the same forest over a five-year period (Attachment A).

17. The results from the survey concluded that over the five-year period kauri dieback infestation in the park has more than doubled from 7.9 per cent to 19 per cent. Similarly, the percentage of kauri trees that are possibly infected has also increased over the same period from 1.9 per cent to 4.6 per cent.

18. The park is now the most heavily diseased area known in New Zealand and over half the substantial kauri areas contain symptoms of infection (refer Appendix Five in Attachment A for map of disease distribution). Infestation in the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park is greatest in those areas with highest foot traffic.

19. While much progress has been made on reducing the risk of kauri dieback spread and survey results shows that public awareness of the disease is growing, these actions have not prevented the spread of the disease within the park. It is also clear that many park visitors do not comply with either the track closures or the boot cleaning requirements. Further work could be done to reduce risk. For example, many of the tracks in the ranges have seasonally muddy surfaces that increase the risk of the disease spreading.

20. Auckland Council has received calls to take more action to protect kauri in the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park. Correspondence from Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority & Settlement Trust, as mana whenua of the Waitākere Ranges, has communicated its ‘wish to take forward a combined rāhui supported by a Controlled Area Notice (empowered by the Biosecurity Act) before the end of this year.’ The rāhui has received considerable support from community groups such as the Tree Council and Forest & Bird.

Decision-making framework

21. In addition to the management measures already carried out, Auckland Council can potentially close or restrict access to all or part of the Waitakere Ranges Park. Council could do this as landowner, and, or in conjunction with seeking implementation by the Ministry of Primary Industries of a Controlled Area Notice under the Biosecurity Act. Council’s landowner rights are within its own decision-making powers. A Controlled Area Notice would not ban access directly, but can be used to manage the movement of a disease through more tailored controls and is backed with better enforcement powers.^{^[2]}

22. While council has the potential to implement closures, any such decision requires careful balancing of a range of considerations. The park is of significant environmental and ecological importance, high cultural significance, and is in high demand for recreational activity, which in turn supports a range of tourism and other regional outcomes. Implementing and enforcing closures also has resourcing impacts, and could have flow on impacts to other parks.

23. In this matter, there is no legal requirement for council to act, but neither are there any substantial legal impediments to acting. If a Controlled Area Notice is sought, then a strong case must be made for the Ministry of Primary Industries to act under the Biosecurity Act.

Access Management Options

24. Options for a more integrated approach to track improvements is most likely to improve management of the disease in the Waitākere Ranges. These options involve significant increases in investment and have been presented to decision makers as part of the development of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

25. In response to calls from mana whenua and communities to do more to support the protection of kauri in the Waitākere Ranges, ahead of any Long-term Plan 2018-2028 decisions, staff have developed the following options for the committee’s consideration:

· Option One. Do nothing - cease management of kauri dieback disease in the Waitākere Ranges and focus investment on non-symptomatic kauri areas.

· Option Two. Continue with status quo - the existing work programme of education, hygiene station upgrades, some track maintenance and surveillance, and progressing the proposed responses in the draft Regional Pest Management Plan and Long-term Plan.

· Option Three. Continue with the existing work programme plus undertake some further targeted closures of tracks and areas within the park over 2017/2018. (Recommended)

· Option Four: Close all medium and high risk tracks within the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park, with the option of progressively reopening them as the risk is reduced.

· Option Five. Close the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park using the council’s ability as the landowner or by seeking the Ministry of Primary Industries support to implement a Controlled Area Notice under the Biosecurity Act, and give statutory effect to Te Kawerau a Maki’ request for a rāhui.

26. Each option has been analysed against council’s responsibilities, cost, and probable kauri protection outcome as described below:

Option One – Do Nothing

27. This option would involve stopping kauri dieback management in the Waitākere Ranges and reinvesting the funding into other disease-free areas.

28. This option is not considered appropriate as Auckland Council has a statutory responsibility under both the Biosecurity and Resource Management acts and as a landowner to manage and prevent the spread of invasive species. Ceasing the disease management in the ranges would increase the risk to other sites such as the Hunua Ranges.

29. The operational budget for Waitākere specific kauri dieback activities could be allocated to protecting areas of non-symptomatic kauri areas for example the Hunua Ranges.

Option Two - Continue with Status Quo - Existing Work Programme

30. The proposed draft Regional Pest Management Plan seeks to improve the council’s policy response to kauri dieback, and funding to ensure successful implementation of the plan being sought through the Long-term Plan 2018-28.

31. In the interim the 2017/18 workplan has been expanded in response to the survey results and report recommendations, in addition to communication and engagement activities and management of hygiene stations the work programme includes:

· investigating the use of phosphite injections as a means of reducing disease impact on trees in a parkland context

· implementing a kauri ambassador programme at high use and or high risk sites to educate park visitors and encourage them to use the cleaning stations along with other activities to increase awareness of the disease

· undertaking a risk assessment of tracks

· installation of additional hygiene stations, and

· bringing forward the maintenance work on six high risk tracks to improve surface condition.

· While this option will reduce the risk of disease spread and will enable continued use of the park by concessionaires and visitors, a number of high risk tracks will remain open and will continue to pose a risk to the spread of the disease within and outside of the Waitākere Ranges.

32. This option can be funded from within existing operational budgets and staff levels.

Option Three - Continue with the existing work programme plus undertake some targeted closures of tracks and areas within the park. (Recommended Option).

33. This option would include the delivery of the existing work programme as noted in Option Two along with targeted closure of a number of tracks within the regional park. Temporary track closures are proposed for seven additional high-risk tracks and five additional tracks where closure will result in better use of hygiene stations or to protect non- symptomatic kauri areas. This option could also provide for additional temporary closures in the future.

34. This option also includes the permanent closure and disestablishment of nine tracks which were temporarily closed in 2012.

35. The proposed changes to track access within this option are as per the following table:

Table One – Proposed Track Access Changes Under Option Three

New temporary closures

Change from temporarily closed to permanently closed

Status Quo

(continued temporary closure)

· Goodfellow

· East Tunnel Mouth

· Filter

· Ferndown

· Andersons

· Hillary Trail Swanson link temporary closure^{^[3]}.

· Christies

· Pukematekeo

· Quarry (Partial)

· Twin Peaks

· Upper Huia Dam

· Wainamu Bush

· Zion Ridge

· Robinson Ridge

· Walker Kauri

· Taumata

· Lucy Cranwell

· La Trobe

· Nugget

· Bob Gordon

· Nihotupu Ridge

· Summit (lower section)

· Farley

· Manchester Unity Block (note – no formal tracks but known usage)

36. This option will offer greater benefit than Option Two in reducing the risk of disease spread and will enable continued use of the park by concessionaires and visitors. While a number of tracks will be closed under this option, a small number of high risk tracks will remain open and will continue to pose a risk to the spread of the disease within and outside of the Waitākere Ranges. This risk will be mitigated by actively managing hygiene stations and education through the council’s summer ambassador programme.

37. This option would provide the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of disestablishing and permanently closing tracks ahead of wider track closures and can be funded from within existing operational budgets and staff levels.

Option Four – Close all high and medium risk tracks within the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park, with the option of progressively re-opening as track maintenance and upgrades have been complete.

38. Under this option, high and medium risk tracks would be closed and off-track activities would be prohibited unless authorised. High and medium risk tracks would be re-opened once they were deemed low risk, as track maintenance and upgrades have been completed.

39. Noting the popularity, significance, scale of the park, and communities who border the park, closing the medium and high risk tracks would be challenging due to these tracks comprising the highest visitor and concessionary activity. This approach would result in some of the adjoining communities having little or no practical access to the park.

40. Closing the medium and high-risk tracks would likely increase use of low risk tracks some of which are currently free of kauri dieback disease. This approach would require a comprehensive programme of awareness and engagement, physical closure of targeted carparks where this is feasible and track entry points, and compliance monitoring and enforcement.

41. The benefit of Option Four would be the targeted closure of those tracks that pose the greatest risk to the spread of the disease.

Option Five - Close the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park and give support to the rāhui, with the potential to re-open areas deemed low risk or as track maintenance and upgrades have been complete.

42. Under this option, the whole park would be closed. All of the challenges and considerations for Option Four also apply to Option Five but with an increased level of impact as under this option there would be no access to the park.

43. Both options four and five will affect a range of activities and commitments including:

· education programmes with schools and activities such as the summer bat walks

· sporting events

· a large number of discretionary permits covering sporting and community events, filming and photography and research.

· Approximately 100 approved commercial concessions which include the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park

· Recreational activities including campsite bookings

· Pest control programmes.

44. Under both options there would be potential to re-open areas deemed low risk over time, for example as track maintenance and upgrades have been complete. However, given the uncertainties of the science, and the significant impact that these decisions would have, these options need careful consideration.

45. The council has only undertaken limited engagement on closure approaches. Given the significant impacts, a more comprehensive engagement and consultation approach would be required to ascertain the views of people likely to affected by or have an interest in the decision.

46. Discussions with the Ministry for Primary Industries about the option of issuing a Controlled Area Notice as one mechanism for managing the disease the park have been undertaken. The Ministry has noted that a notice over an area like the Waitākere Ranges could be difficult to enforce and that there are no comparable examples to draw from. Applying for a Controlled Area Notice requires a detailed proposal to be submitted to the Ministry.

47. Implementation of options four and five would require significant additional resource. If a Controlled Area Notice was used as the mechanism for managing the spread of the disease across the whole park, indicative cost estimates are around $200,000 for the first year. This does not include the additional staff resource that would be required and there would be further ongoing costs depending on the level of compliance and the pace at which areas could re-opened.

48. In considering options four and five it is also important to note that while the survey results provide strong evidence that the disease is prevalent along and adjacent to the track network (including pest control baiting lines) and that movement by people is likely to be the most important factor, the data also indicates that other vectors may contribute, such as water and feral pigs, about which we know much less.

49. If closure of the park was able to be effectively implemented, it is expected that this option would give the most protection to kauri of any of the options.

Financial

50. The 2017/18 operational budget for delivering the regional kauri dieback management programme is $637,000. This includes an allocated budget of $303,000 plus $334,000 of re-prioritised funding. This budget does not include the cost of permanent staff involved in delivering the programme, routine maintenance and upgrades of tracks or the servicing of hygiene stations included in the maintenance contracts managed by Community Facilities.

51. Delivering Options Two and Three including targeted closures can be delivered within existing budgets and staff time.

52. As described above, implementation of options four and five will require significant additional resource. There is no comparable application of a Controlled Area Notice to draw from but following discussions with the Ministry of Primary Industries the initial cost of closing the whole park is estimated to be in the range of $200,000 for year one. This would include developing the plan, operational costs and a comprehensive engagement programme. It does not include additional staff time, any legal costs or regulatory costs or the ongoing cost of maintaining the closure. These additional costs could exceed $400,000.Total costs would become more certain following the development of a detailed operational and compliance plan. This is unfunded in the current budgets and would need to be part of Long-term Plan considerations.

Conclusion

53. Given the uncertainty of effectively being able to implement a full closure of the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park, staff recommend a change in management to Option Three. This option will provide a greater level of protection than Option Two with implementation likely to be more achievable in effectively managing the targeted closures.

54. Option Three also provides the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of permanently closing and disestablishing tracks to manage the disease before a significant change in investment is made. This information could also feed into a broader review of the track network within the Waitākere Ranges to support future management decisions.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

55. All local boards have a strong interest in the protection and restoration of Auckland’s natural environment, and have allocated investment to such in their local environmental work programmes.

56. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has indicated a strong interest in the management of kauri dieback, in particular through its local board plan outcome ‘Our unique natural habitats are protected and enhanced’. One of the local board’s key initiatives in its local board plan is to fund kauri dieback awareness-raising.

57. To support this initiative the Waitākere Ranges Local Board has, since 2014/15, funded a part-time kauri dieback coordinator to supplement the regional programme locally through localised education, community engagement and awareness-raising. In addition to this role, the local board has also advocated to the council and central government for additional funding and resources to go towards the protection of kauri (resolution WTK/2017/124).

58. All local boards considered kauri dieback as part of the consultation under the draft Regional Pest Management Plan. Ten local boards expressed an interest in kauri dieback disease, nine of which were supportive of the proposed approach in the plan to ‘implement regulatory controls and increased hygiene measures to slow spread, particularly prioritising keeping kauri dieback out of currently disease-free areas.’

59. Through the consultation on the draft Regional Pest Management Plan, the Waitākere Ranges Local Board reiterated its position on the need for a specified approach for the Waitākere Ranges and the need for a serious attempt to halt the spread of kauri dieback through more investment on the ground.

60. Owing to the timelines for this agenda report, it has not been possible to seek formal feedback from the Waitākere Ranges Local Board on the options presented here. It is noted that based on previous decisions and positions that the Waitākere Ranges Local Board has a strong interest in this topic, including access to the park. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board will speak to this agenda report in the local board section of the committee meeting.

Māori impact statement

61. Kauri is a keystone species which supports a distinct New Zealand forest ecosystem, sustaining indigenous flora and fauna. Kauri is a taonga species, and Auckland Council in partnership with Māori, have a responsibility for the protection of the spiritual, economic and ecological values associated with this taonga and the ecosystems it supports.

62. The Waitākere Ranges Regional Park lies within the rohe of Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua, which is acknowledged in the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

63. The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 imposes obligations on Auckland Council to maintain processes to provide opportunities for mana whenua Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau ā Maki to contribute to Council decision-making processes in its implementation of the Act. This is in addition to the Council statutory obligations to Māori under the Local Government Act and the Reserves Act. As some of the parcels of land within the Regional Park are reserves, this requires the Council to give effect to principles of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi in its administration of the land. The principle of active protection, such as the protection of a taonga species, is particularly relevant here.

64. The Waitākere Ranges are known to mana whenua as Te Wao Nui a Tiriwa (The Great Forest of the Tiriwa). Until the late 19th Century ‘Waitākere‛ was a localised name referring to the Waitākere River Valley – Te Henga area. The special relationship Te Kawerau ā Maki has with the ranges been acknowledged in various aspects of the park, such as the Arataki Visitor Centre, pou whenua in a number of park locations and the pā harakēkē planting at Pae o te Rangi.

65. Council has been in discussion with Te Kawerau ā Maki about how to address the kauri dieback challenge in the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park and Te Kawerau has been providing support to joint communications on the kauri dieback kaupapa to protect the ranges. On 26 October 2017 council received correspondence clarifying the Te Kawerau ā Maki position on kauri dieback within the Waitākere Ranges (Attachment B). This correspondence seeks council support for a rahui which the iwi plan to undertake in December.

66. Within this correspondence Te Kawerau ā Maki highlighted that the lands and forest in the Waitākere Ranges are considered to be their heartland, and are of the highest cultural significance to them. The Te Kawerau tikanga is that kauri are tūpuna and a central part of a healthy forest in terms of ecology but also in terms of mauri and wairua. In addition to specifics around the rāhui Te Kawerau also noted that they have had several discussions with other iwi who have healthy kauri in their forests, particularly at Hunua with whom they have communicated their intention to close the Waitākere forest this year. They have indicated that other mana whenua have been supportive of a rāhui to date.

67. Council has also been in correspondence with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua on this topic.

Implementation

68. If council chooses to adopt Option Five – closing the park, there are significant implementation considerations that would need to be explored in greater detail including the range of legal implications and a more fully scoped cost and or benefit analysis. If the preference is to use a Controlled Area Notice, the Ministry of Primary industries have indicated they would require a proposal outlining the purpose, objectives, details on movement controls, timeframes, how public notification and engagement will be achieved, exceptions and would need to be confident that the issuing of the notice will achieve the intended objectives. Neither options four of five could be implemented immediately as both require significant development and planning and work with the Ministry for Primary Industries.

69. To support future management of the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park, staff will undertake a broader review of the track network, taking into account kauri dieback disease, track use and requirements of park visitors.

70. Options one, two and three can be implemented from within existing budgets. Options four and five would require additional budget to be implemented.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitākere Ranges Kauri Dieback Survey Report	21
b ⇩	Te Kawerau a Maki Correspondence to Auckland Council	61

Signatories

Authors

Rachel Kelleher - Manager Regional Parks, Community Services

Phil Brown - Manager Biosecurity, Infrastructure & Environmental Services

Authorisers

Mace Ward – General Manager, Parks, Sport and Recreation

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

05 December 2017

Low Carbon Auckland: 2018 Review and Update

File No.: CP2017/24710

Purpose

1. To approve the approach to the 2018 review and update of Low Carbon Auckland: Auckland’s Energy Resilience and Low Carbon Action Plan.

Executive summary

2. In 2014 Auckland Council adopted Low Carbon Auckland: Auckland’s Energy Resilience and Low Carbon Action Plan (ENV/2014/16 and REG/2014/72) and agreed a full review and update by 2018.

3. Low Carbon Auckland sets out a pathway to meet the emissions reduction target of the Auckland Plan (40 per cent by 2040) and guides the first stage of transforming to a low carbon, energy resilient future.

4. To date, Low Carbon Auckland has delivered actions across five main areas: transport, energy, the built environment, waste, and agriculture and forestry. A summary of progress can be reviewed in Attachment A.

5. This progress summary shows that a review and update is required to refresh momentum and improve governance, collaboration and the mandate for action.

6. Despite progress through Low Carbon Auckland, region-wide emissions have increased. Between 2009 and 2015 (latest data available):

· net emissions have increased by 2.1 per cent

· gross emissions have increased by 7.1 per cent.

7. The current Low Carbon Auckland monitoring framework does not adequately enable us to measure impact.

8. A full review and update is therefore timely to:

· create a better monitoring framework

· reflect new commitments made by Auckland since 2014

· incorporate emerging national and international priorities (e.g. the Paris Agreement; New Zealand government’s intention to set a target of net zero by 2050)

· address new regional climate change evidence

· ensure that Auckland gains momentum toward our targets and that our approach is fit for purpose.

9. In addition to the above, and through our membership of C40 Cities (AUC/2015/197), Auckland Council committed to develop an adaptation strategy for the region.

10. It is proposed that adaptation be incorporated into the review and update of Low Carbon Auckland instead of being approached as a separate task. This will establish an integrated approach to climate change, in line with international best practice.

11. The review and update will be facilitated by Auckland Council, working with public, private and voluntary sectors and drawing in expertise as appropriate.

12. Auckland Council is uniquely placed to lead and facilitate this multi-party work, whilst also benefitting directly from improved collaboration, learning from sectoral experts and developing opportunities for co-financing and resourcing of actions.

13. An Independent Advisory Group is proposed to support the process and development of the updated plan. The panel will consist of nationally recognised climate change leaders and experts to provide insight, check and challenge throughout and ensure that we deliver the best outcomes and value for Aucklanders.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the proposed approach to review and update Low Carbon Auckland and incorporate an adaptation strategy for the region.

b) agree the creation of an Independent Advisory Group, to provide guidance, challenge and evaluation of the review and update of Low Carbon Auckland.

Comments

14. In 2014, Auckland Council adopted Low Carbon Auckland: Auckland’s Energy Resilience and Low Carbon Action Plan. The plan sets out a 10-year action plan and 30-year pathway to meet the emissions reduction target in the Auckland Plan (40 per cent by 2040).

15. It was co-developed with key partners and representatives from Central Government, industry, academia, research institutions, NGOs, and the wider Auckland community.

16. Low Carbon Auckland has delivered multiple outcomes and provides a guide to support Auckland’s transformation into a successful, energy resilient, low carbon city through actions in five main areas; transport, energy, the built environment, waste and agriculture and forestry.

17. A summary of progress can be reviewed in Attachment A.

18. Of the 101 actions identified:

· 21 per cent are now completed

· 30 per cent have either stalled or are undeliverable in their current format due to either a lack of ownership or a shift in priorities and understanding

· the remaining actions (50 per cent) are rated as ‘in progress’, however many of these are behind schedule (26 per cent).

19. It is therefore timely to undertake the review and update to refresh momentum and improve governance, collaboration and the mandate for action.

20. From 2009 to 2015, Auckland’s population increased from 1,421,700 to 1,569,900 residents and GDP increased from $69,775 million to $81,048 million.

21. By comparison, net emissions in 2015 were 6.5 tCO₂e per capita, a 20 per cent decrease since 2013, demonstrating decoupling of emissions from population growth.

22. However, during the same time period, Auckland’s net emissions overall increased by 2.1 per cent whilst gross emissions increased by 7.1 per cent.

Current and emerging research and evidence

23. On a national level, there is an increasing amount of evidence and direction-setting research relating to climate change; this includes:

· the Atmosphere and Climate Environmental Report launched in Auckland on 19 October

· the current Productivity Commission inquiry on the transition to a low-emissions economy

· reports by GLOBE-NZ and Vivid Economics

· the work of the national Adaptation Technical Working Group.

24. Much of this work is underpinned by New Zealand’s commitment to the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature increase by 1.5°C.

25. The Government has stated a commitment to enacting a Zero Carbon Act, with a target of becoming a carbon-neutral economy by 2050.

26. Auckland plays an increasingly significant role in delivering on these ambitions and benefiting from the transition to low-emissions.

27. This year, Auckland Council commissioned research with Waikato University to better understand the energy usage in the industry sector as this represents 34% of Auckland’s emissions profile.

28. The report identifies opportunities for emissions reductions and the technology and infrastructure requirements to support the reductions, which can inform future planning.

29. In August 2017 the Environment and Community Committee was presented with an initial summary of activity to prepare for climate change.

30. The review highlighted many successes, but also demonstrated that climate change considerations are not universally integrated into council and wider council family activities and decisions, particularly as they relate to the long-term stresses that climate change will bring.

31. In September 2017 the implications of climate change across the water cycle was presented to the committee as part of work being done on an integrated approach to Auckland’s water. Because this is a high priority for council, the risks and vulnerabilities in relation to climate change across the region need to be better understood.

32. To better address all these considerations, Auckland Council, Watercare, Auckland Transport, Panuku and the three Auckland-area DHBs jointly commissioned the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) to provide insights into how Auckland’s climate is likely to change.

33. The insights will deliver the best available evidence to support decision making and underpin a broader risk and vulnerabilities assessment for the region. The report will be launched with a media briefing on 6 December 2017. A summary of the technical document is in Attachment B.

C40 Cities

34. Auckland’s membership of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (AUC/2015/197) commits us to global leadership and innovation in climate adaptation and mitigation. It also enables the region to benefit from C40’s research, best practice and resources.

35. New evidence and modelling from C40 and consulting firm, Arup, for Auckland suggests that, to align with the Paris Agreement, the region should aim toward climate neutrality by 2050.

36. Our C40 Cities membership also commits us to undertake a risk and vulnerability assessment and develop an adaptation strategy.

37. However, international best practice now integrated into C40 participation standards recommends combining adaptation and mitigation activities into climate action plans to maximise efficiencies and opportunities for cities and regions.

Options

38. Staff have identified three options, with benefits and dis-benefits, for the review and update of Low Carbon Auckland. The options are:

a) Do nothing (i.e. Low Carbon Auckland expires in 2018 and no adaptation strategy is developed)

b) Review and update Low Carbon Auckland and develop a separate adaptation strategy

c) Integrated climate change adaptation into the review and update of Low Carbon Auckland

Option	Benefits	Risks
a) Do nothing	· No resource requirement for plan development. · Onus on all of council and council-controlled organisations to embed climate-related work into business as usual, in order to meet existing requirements.	· We are already seeing climate-associated costs increasing, such as maintenance and repair due to severe weather events and the implications of coastal change, which will increase further into the future without adequate consideration of climate change in decision making. · Given new emerging evidence and progress to date, Low Carbon Auckland will not deliver the required level of emissions reductions in its current state with emissions continuing to rise. · May leave council open to substantial future costs and risks of litigation through not addressing the implications of climate change despite known impacts. · Failure to meet commitments including C40 and LGNZ Leaders Declaration. · Coordinating cross-council work could be challenging and potentially incur costs.
b) Refresh Low Carbon Auckland and develop a separate adaptation strategy	· Clear delineation between mitigation and adaptation. · Known Low Carbon Auckland brand maintained. · Adaptation strategy will not be burdened by any shortcomings of Low Carbon Auckland that have been identified.	· Increased number of ‘climate change’ strategies overall and lack of joined up approach weakening each and leading to stakeholder fatigue. · Multiple activities address both mitigation and adaptation with a higher risk of duplication between strategies, e.g., green infrastructure. · Reduced opportunities to build a clear business case and prioritisation criteria for key actions that demonstrate multiple benefits. · Greater resource requirement, both financially and with regards to staff time.
c) Integrate adaptation into the Low Carbon Auckland review and update Recommended option	· A more collaborative and joined-up approach, enabling clearer communication and maximising benefits for health, resilience, emissions reduction, environment and economy. · Coordinated stakeholder engagement to maximise resources and deliver efficiencies. · Enables a change to a systems-based approach in line with international best practice, new and emerging evidence and with greater opportunities to deliver the scale of emissions reduction and resilience needed. · Greater coordination across associated strategies and framework directions (e.g., Coastal Management Framework; Water Strategy; Natural Hazards Management Action Plan; Urban Forest).	· Potential loss of recognised Low Carbon Auckland brand, as adopted by council in 2014, given the final plan may need a new title to reflect climate change action more broadly. · Will require resourcing for delivery and implementation to ensure a collaborative approach, but through delivering in partnership, duplication is reduced and efficiencies delivered.

Option

Benefits

Risks

a) Do nothing

· No resource requirement for plan development.

· Onus on all of council and council-controlled organisations to embed climate-related work into business as usual, in order to meet existing requirements.

· We are already seeing climate-associated costs increasing, such as maintenance and repair due to severe weather events and the implications of coastal change, which will increase further into the future without adequate consideration of climate change in decision making.

· Given new emerging evidence and progress to date, Low Carbon Auckland will not deliver the required level of emissions reductions in its current state with emissions continuing to rise.

· May leave council open to substantial future costs and risks of litigation through not addressing the implications of climate change despite known impacts.

· Failure to meet commitments including C40 and LGNZ Leaders Declaration.

· Coordinating cross-council work could be challenging and potentially incur costs.

b) Refresh Low Carbon Auckland and develop a separate adaptation strategy

· Clear delineation between mitigation and adaptation.

· Known Low Carbon Auckland brand maintained.

· Adaptation strategy will not be burdened by any shortcomings of Low Carbon Auckland that have been identified.

· Increased number of ‘climate change’ strategies overall and lack of joined up approach weakening each and leading to stakeholder fatigue.

· Multiple activities address both mitigation and adaptation with a higher risk of duplication between strategies, e.g., green infrastructure.

· Reduced opportunities to build a clear business case and prioritisation criteria for key actions that demonstrate multiple benefits.

· Greater resource requirement, both financially and with regards to staff time.

c) Integrate adaptation into the Low Carbon Auckland review and update

Recommended option

· A more collaborative and joined-up approach, enabling clearer communication and maximising benefits for health, resilience, emissions reduction, environment and economy.

· Coordinated stakeholder engagement to maximise resources and deliver efficiencies.

· Enables a change to a systems-based approach in line with international best practice, new and emerging evidence and with greater opportunities to deliver the scale of emissions reduction and resilience needed.

· Greater coordination across associated strategies and framework directions (e.g., Coastal Management Framework; Water Strategy; Natural Hazards Management Action Plan; Urban Forest).

· Potential loss of recognised Low Carbon Auckland brand, as adopted by council in 2014, given the final plan may need a new title to reflect climate change action more broadly.

· Will require resourcing for delivery and implementation to ensure a collaborative approach, but through delivering in partnership, duplication is reduced and efficiencies delivered.

39. Option C is the preferred option as it enables:

· prioritisation of actions across multiple outcomes

· greater opportunities for innovation to address challenges and opportunities

· delivery of maximum value for every action

· streamlining of processes to reduce stakeholder fatigue and save money.

Financial implications

40. Financial costs for option 2 (separate approaches) are estimated at $220,000.

41. Financial costs for option 3 will mainly be for stakeholder engagement and workshop facilitation. This is estimated at $140,000 (excluding staff time).

42. Option 3’s coordinated approach represents a saving to council and partners of around $80,000.

43. Identified cost will cover governance, workshops and facilitation, consultancy for evaluation and modelling work, design and edits. It is anticipated that costs will be met through current operating budgets and partner contributions, including C40 Cities. A similar partnership funding approach was used to co-commission the NIWA climate projections.

44. Many actions identified through the updated plan will result in implementation costs. To support this:

· a full review of climate financing opportunities and models will be undertaken

· all actions will have an associated cost benefit analysis to assess and demonstrate value in the short to long term

· all actions will outline associated implementation costs.

45. Costs associated with the Independent Advisory Panel are included in the costs of both options 2 and 3.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

46. The update will require local insights and engagement with local boards throughout.

47. A communication and engagement strategy for local boards will be developed with local board advisors. This will build on current and ongoing work in developing local board low carbon action plans and building community resilience across the region.

Māori impact statement

48. The review and update will integrate learning from the Māori Working Group established through Low Carbon Auckland. Māori stakeholders will be engaged throughout the process to increase awareness and promote and integrate Mātauranga Māori across the plan.

49. Climate change will affect areas over which Māori have kaitiakitanga; impacting ecosystems, shaping community vulnerability and resilience and linking to economic outcomes.

50. Increasing water scarcity and temperatures will impact Māori communities and businesses, including fisheries and forestry. Cultural sites may also be at risk from rising seas and coastal inundation.

51. Given the diverse climate sensitivities that exist for Māori across Auckland and New Zealand there is a clear need to know more about the implications (and risks) of a variable and changing climate on different iwi/hapū/whānau.

Implementation

52. Updating the plan will take an evidence-informed approach, including a full evaluation of Low Carbon Auckland’s development and delivery.

53. In addition, development will include stakeholder engagement, increased understanding of climate risks and vulnerabilities, a review of existing strategy and policy and will draw on international expertise through the C40 network.

54. The indicative key steps in the review and update of Low Carbon Auckland are provided in Table 1 with a view for completion by summer 2018/19.

Key stages	High level action summary
Stage 1: Governance and Evidence	• Proposed approach to committee • Establishment of Steering Group and Informal Advisory Group • Review of Low Carbon Auckland • Climate risk and vulnerability assessment based on projections • Identification of current state, gaps and best practice in relation to mitigation and adaptation • Cross-council strategy and policy review • Stakeholder analysis
Stage 2: Action identification	• Committee workshop on risks and vulnerabilities • Communication strategy for broader public engagement • Local Board workshops • Mana whenua engagement (integrated throughout) • Stakeholder workshops
Stage 3: Prioritisation	• Committee workshop on prioritisation criteria and identified actions • Cost benefit and total value analysis • Agree prioritisation criteria • Review all actions • Draft plan
Stage 4: Consultation and approvals	• Draft plan to committee • Consultation (linking to other plans, approach tbc) • Updates to action plan • Adoption of updated plan by council (Proposed December 2018)

Key stages

High level action summary

Stage 1:

Governance and Evidence

• Proposed approach to committee

• Establishment of Steering Group and Informal Advisory Group

• Review of Low Carbon Auckland

• Climate risk and vulnerability assessment based on projections

• Identification of current state, gaps and best practice in relation to mitigation and adaptation

• Cross-council strategy and policy review

• Stakeholder analysis

Stage 2:

Action identification

• Committee workshop on risks and vulnerabilities

• Communication strategy for broader public engagement

• Local Board workshops

• Mana whenua engagement (integrated throughout)

• Stakeholder workshops

Stage 3:

Prioritisation

• Committee workshop on prioritisation criteria and identified actions

• Cost benefit and total value analysis

• Agree prioritisation criteria

• Review all actions

• Draft plan

Stage 4:

Consultation and approvals

• Draft plan to committee

• Consultation (linking to other plans, approach tbc)

• Updates to action plan

• Adoption of updated plan by council (Proposed December 2018)

55. In addition, establishing an Independent Advisory Group is proposed, consisting of high level experts in climate change and policy from across New Zealand.

56. This group will provide greater surety in Auckland’s approach whilst providing a strong academic and business link regionally and nationally, supporting implementation of the plan.

57. If the recommendations in this report are approved, membership of the panel will be proposed to the Environment and Community Committee at a later date.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	An overview of Low Carbon Auckland progress this year	73
b ⇩	Summary of NIWA climate projections for Auckland	89

Signatories

Author

Sarah Anderson - Principal Specialist Sustainability and Climate Resilence

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

05 December 2017

Proposed Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

File No.: CP2017/21926

Purpose

1. To approve the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste for public consultation.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council’s first waste management and minimisation plan set an aspirational vision of achieving a Zero Waste Auckland by 2040. Initial priority was placed on waste services that are more directly managed by the council, such as kerbside refuse, recycling and inorganic collections.

3. New services have been rolled out, including an annual on-site inorganic collection for households and a change from bags to bins in the south. Some planned service changes are yet to be introduced, such as a kerbside collection service for food scraps in urban areas, and a regionally consistent pay-as-you-throw refuse collection. These are programmed to happen over the next three years.

4. Between 2010 and 2016, household waste decreased by 10 per cent per capita. At the same time, there have been large increases in commercial waste, especially construction and demolition waste. As a result, total waste to landfill has increased by 40 per cent per capita.

5. The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 is now due for review. Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, a new version must be adopted by 20 June 2018.

6. Three options for the future direction of waste policy in Auckland have been evaluated.

· Option one: continue with the status quo

· Option two (recommended option): continue with current activities and expand the focus of the plan to include the 80 per cent of waste to landfill that is not directly controlled by the council

· Option three: invest in residual waste technologies such as large scale incinerators.

7. The first option would have a similar cost to the council’s existing budgets for waste management but will not meet our responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to minimise waste in the Auckland region. The third option would require significant investment.

8. Option two is preferred as it provides scope to achieve significant reductions in waste to landfill. It can be achieved within the council’s existing per annum rates allocation of $91 million (excluding GST) to waste activities, but assumes an increase of the waste levy. Any change in waste levy would require a policy change by central government to progressively increase the waste levy from $10 per tonne. As the waste levy increases, more funds will be available for investment in diversion infrastructure. Council would work closely with the government to determine the requirements for Auckland.

9. In line with this options analysis, the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working together for Zero Waste 2018 (‘the draft waste plan’, see Attachment A) proposes to continue delivering the actions identified in the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012, and to expand activities that address the 80 per cent of waste that is commercially managed.

10. The draft plan puts a particular focus on three waste streams that have been identified as a priority through the Auckland Council Waste Assessment 2017 (Attachment B). These are commercial construction and demolition waste, organic waste and plastics. The draft waste plan emphasises partnership and engagement with other sectors to address these waste streams.

11. Services that will continue to be delivered by the council include completing the transition to consistent kerbside services and establishing the resource recovery network. These activities can all be delivered within existing budgets.

12. The draft waste plan also identifies the importance of advocacy to central government. Policy changes at central government level will be necessary to achieve waste to landfill reductions. Changes sought include an increased waste levy and new product stewardship schemes (for example for beverage containers, tyres and electronic waste).

13. If the council adopts and approves the draft waste plan, it will go to special public consultation concurrently with the council’s Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process. This also involves establishment of a hearings panel to hear views and receive feedback on the draft waste plan.

14. Once the final version is adopted, the draft waste plan will form the basis for Waste Solutions’ work planning for the next six years.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) adopt the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste, as the statement of proposal, pursuant to section 44 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and sections 83 and 87 of the Local Government Act 2002, for the purpose of undertaking formal consultation in accordance with the special consultative procedure.

b) approve that the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste be made publicly available for consultation on 28 February 2018 with the consultation period ending on 28 March 2018 (the “Consultation Period”).

c) approve that the Auckland Council Waste Assessment be made publicly available with the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste, for public consultation pursuant to section 50 (3)(a) and 44(e) of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

d) note that public consultation will occur concurrently with the special consultative procedure for the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

e) appoint a hearings panel comprised of two to four elected members and one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, of which one is appointed as chairperson of the panel, to hear views and receive feedback on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste and make recommendations to the Environment and Community Committee.

f) delegate to the chairperson of the Environment and Community Committee the power to make a replacement appointment to the hearings panel in the event that any member appointed by the committee under resolution (e) is unavailable.

g) note that public feedback will be recorded and received through spoken interaction/New Zealand sign language interaction in relation to the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste at public engagement events during the consultation period and that the content thereof will be reported to the hearings panel.

h) recommend that the Governing Body delegate authority for spoken interaction at public engagement events during the consultation period in line with any such delegation made in respect of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and/or Auckland Plan refresh.

i) authorise the chairperson of the hearings panel in consultation with the General Manager Waste Solutions to make any minor edits or amendments to the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste to correct any identified errors or typographical edits or to reflect decisions made by the Environment and Community Committee, the hearings panel or the Governing Body.

Comments

Legislation and purpose

15. Auckland Council is required to adopt a waste management and minimisation plan under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. It is part of our responsibility to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation in Auckland.

16. The council is required to review its waste management and minimisation plan every six years. The new waste management and minimisation plan must be adopted by 20 June 2018.

17. A new draft waste assessment (see Attachment B) and a draft waste management and minimisation plan entitled Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste (Attachment A) have been prepared for public consultation.

The Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012

18. The Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan was adopted in 2012. It set an aspirational vision of achieving zero waste to landfill by 2040.

19. The plan placed initial priority on the waste services that are more directly managed by the council, which account for approximately 20 per cent of all waste to landfill in Auckland.

20. Achievements under the plan include:

· a 10 per cent reduction in household waste – from 160kg per person in 2010 to 144kg per person in 2016.

· a 30 per cent reduction in waste from the council’s own administrative offices.

· delivery of standardised domestic waste and recycling services region-wide to help Aucklanders minimise their waste and reduce their waste disposal costs. Changes include introduction of:

o the new on-site inorganic collection

o commingled 240 litre recycling bins across the region

o bins for refuse in the south

o pay as you throw tags for refuse in the west, and

o a food waste collection trial on the North Shore.

· roll out of the first five of twelve community recycling centres across the region. These centres are diverting useful materials from landfills, creating jobs, offering training, and connecting people with their communities.

· successful development of community-led, council-supported initiatives generating local waste minimisation efforts, and associated benefits in community development, training and employment.

21. Some service changes agreed under the 2012 waste plan are still to be completed, most notably, a kerbside collection service for food waste in urban areas and pay-as-you-throw charging for kerbside refuse collections using a bin tag across Auckland. Plans for these services envisage a full roll-out in the next two to three years.

22. With these initiatives coming into effect, waste minimisation targets for council-managed waste services are on track to being achieved.

Findings of the Waste Assessment

23. A waste assessment was carried out to review progress, forecast future demand for waste services, and identify options to meet future demand. The draft Waste Assessment is shown in Attachment B and will be included in the consultation process.

24. The Waste Assessment reports that, at the same time as the council was achieving savings in its own services, total waste to landfill from Auckland has increased by 40 per cent between 2010 and 2016. This is largely due to construction and demolition waste. The amount of plastic and organic waste going to landfills has also increased.

25. In 2016, Auckland sent 1.646 million tonnes of domestic and commercial waste to landfill, more than one tonne for every Aucklander. Kerbside refuse makes up 14 per cent of the waste that goes to landfill. Much of this waste could potentially be diverted to other uses.

26. Barriers to waste minimisation in Auckland include the low cost of landfilling compared to diverting waste to other productive uses, the lack of financial incentives to divert waste from landfill, the lack of influence by the council over the 80 per cent of waste that is commercially managed, and rapid population growth.

27. Three priority waste streams are identified in the Waste Assessment, based on their contribution to landfill. These are the commercial waste streams of construction and demolition waste, plastics, and organic waste.

28. The Waste Assessment identifies and evaluates three options for the future, to guide the direction of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 (see pages 134 to 155 of Attachment B). These are:

· option one: to continue with the status quo

· option two: to expand the focus of council activity to include the 80 per cent of waste to landfill that it does not directly control

· option three: to invest in residual waste technologies such as large scale incinerators.

29. The first option would not meet the council’s responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to minimise waste in the Auckland region and has therefore been discounted. The last option could drive greater waste diversion from landfill, but would require significant investment from external sources and would require a redefinition of the council’s definition of Zero Waste to allow for incineration.

30. It is recommended that the council adopt the second option as this has the potential to significantly reduce total waste to landfill, and can be undertaken within the current funding envelope, provided the waste levy is increased.

Proposed direction for the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste

31. The proposed vision of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste is:

‘Auckland aspires to be Zero Waste by 2040, taking care of people and the environment, and turning waste into resources’.

32. It is proposed that Zero Waste is maintained as an aspirational target, continuing to set an ambitious horizon for the council’s activities. Achieving high diversion rates in Auckland (in the order of 80 per cent as achieved in exemplar city, San Francisco^{^[4]}) would be a successful response to such an aspirational target.

33. Three goals are proposed:

· minimise waste generation

· maximise opportunities for resource recovery

· reduce harm from residual waste.

34. Three targets are proposed, slightly updated from the three current targets of the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012:

· total waste: reduce by 30 per cent by 2027 (no change)

· domestic waste:

o reduce by 30 per cent by 2021 (extension of date from 2018 to align with the roll-out of the food scraps kerbside collection service)

o after 2021, reduce domestic kerbside refuse by a further 20 per cent by 2028 (from 110kg to 88kg per capita per year)

· the council’s own waste:

o reduce office waste by 60 per cent by 2024 (target doubled from current waste plan)

o work across council to set a baseline for operational wastes, and by 2019, put these in place (new target).

35. The draft waste plan identifies the actions that will be undertaken over the next six years. The priority actions that will have the biggest impact on waste reduction include:

· Continued delivery of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012, including the transition to consistent kerbside services and establishment of the Resource Recovery Network.

· A focus on addressing the 80 per cent of waste that the council does not directly influence through:

o advocating to central government for a progressively higher waste levy

o advocating to central government for product stewardship (for instance for beverage containers, tyres and electronic waste)

o addressing construction and demolition waste (for instance through waste avoidance and resource recovery plans, a waste brokering service and working with large developers such as Housing New Zealand)

o addressing commercial organic waste (food waste and green waste)

o addressing plastics that are being sent to landfill.

36. Achieving policy changes at central government level will be essential to achieving waste to landfill reductions in Auckland. The proposed targets rely on a higher waste levy and product stewardship schemes being put in place. Throughout the actions, there is a strong emphasis on partnership and engagement with other sectors. Staff will work closely with central government to communicate Auckland’s waste related infrastructure needs and ensure any waste levy increase is signaled well in advance so industry can make appropriate investment decisions. Staff propose the levy be applied across all disposal facilities with differentiating rates between inert and other waste materials. If we are unsuccessful in achieving a higher waste levy and setting up product stewardship schemes, we will not be able to deliver on our targets and goals.

37. In recognising the unique nature of the Hauraki Gulf Islands, the council has created the Tikapa-Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan, a specific waste plan reflecting the aspirations of the island communities and mana whenua. This is included as an appendix to the draft waste plan.

Financial considerations

38. Of the three options considered in the Waste Assessment, options one and two are achievable within the existing per annum rates allocation of $91 million (excluding GST). Option two is reliant on a progressive increase of the waste levy in addition to the existing rates allocation. Option three was assessed by SLR consultants as requiring an additional total capital expenditure budget in the order of $900 million - $1,000 million to invest in residual waste technologies.

39. The actions proposed in the draft waste plan can be achieved within the proposed existing budget envelope. As new arrangements for domestic collection services become business as usual, new activities will become possible within the budget. We shall be able to reprioritise our internal resources to focus on opportunities for waste minimisation within commercial waste streams.

40. Funding for waste services comes from a mixture of:

· commercial charges (including pay-as-you-throw domestic refuse collections, which will be progressively introduced across Auckland)

· rates funding

· revenue from the waste levy (this is a $10 per tonne waste levy that is administered by the Ministry for the Environment, 50 per cent of which is distributed to territorial authorities, amounting to $6.1 million for Auckland Council in 2016).

41. The mix of council revenue will change as the proposed new services are introduced. Currently, households in the former Papakura, North Shore and Waitakere areas pay an average of $135 on pay-as-you-throw refuse services (bags and now bins). This is a direct and visible connection between how much waste a household generates and how much it pays.

42. By contrast, households in the former Auckland and Manukau areas pay $117 as a targeted rated for refuse disposal. There is no direct correlation between the targeted rate and the amount of waste generated. This targeted rate will be removed as the former Auckland and Manukau areas migrate to the pay-as-you-throw system.

43. A new targeted rate of approximately $67 is proposed to be introduced for the food scraps collection, and this is proposed to be consulted on through the Long-term Plan process. This targeted rate will apply only to urban households who are eligible for the service. Increasing the targeted rate is the most appropriate funding choice for the service as only residential ratepayers will receive the service and will be the main drivers of its costs.

44. The changes to collection services will give households more control over how much they spend on waste disposal by making the refuse service into a pay-as-you-throw service and give them a new service for food scraps. This allows the householder to divert food scraps and reduce the waste refuse they would pay for.

45. The overall impact on households will vary according to how effectively householders make use of the recycling and food scraps collection services, and how frequently they set out their refuse bin. By making full use of the recycling and food scraps collections, and waiting until refuse bins are full, they’ll be able to reduce how often they set out their refuse bin.

46. Assuming a fortnightly set-out rate for refuse bins, residents in the urban parts of the former Papakura, North Shore and Waitākere areas, who will receive the new food scraps collection service, will have a net cost increase of approximately $27 per year. Residents in the former Auckland and Manukau areas, who will shift to pay-as-you-throw refuse disposal and receive a new food scraps collection, will have a net cost increase of approximately $45 per year (see Figure 1 below).

47. The pattern of set-out rates can also be expected to change. In rates-funded areas, refuse bins tend to be set out weekly, regardless of whether they are full or not. In pay-as-you-throw areas, households are more likely to put out their refuse only when the bag or bin is full.

Figure 1. Changes to Household Urban Waste Costs

Section 17A Value for Money Review of Waste Services

48. The independent review of the draft waste plan coincides with the Section 17A Value for Money review of domestic waste services. This programme, initiated under the Local Government Act 2002, has reviewed the cost-effectiveness (or value) of current arrangements for the governance, funding, and delivery of infrastructure and services.

49. The review ‘found a range of positive indicators that value is being delivered by Auckland Council’s domestic waste services.’ It identified three main areas of opportunity to deliver value for money:

· more emphasis on commercial waste

· greater economic discipline

· a more commercial approach to delivery and contracting of waste services.

50. Twelve recommendations for waste services were endorsed by the Finance and Performance Committee on 6 November 2017 (FIN/2017/154). The feasibility and timeframe for implementing the recommendations of the review are to be formally reported back to the Finance and Performance Committee by 27 February 2018. This said, the review’s recommendations have been considered in the draft waste plan.

Stakeholder engagement

51. Auckland Council has developed strong collaborative relationships with stakeholders in implementing the first waste management and minimisation plan. Seven pre-consultation workshops were held with waste stakeholders, including community recycling centre operators, the Zero Waste Guardians Group, students, the waste and recycling industry, and the construction and demolition sector. These were attended by approximately 70 people.

52. A full summary of the stakeholder workshops is included as an appendix to the Waste Assessment. Key points of note include:

· general support for increasing the waste levy and a desire to see joint submissions and advocacy efforts with other councils and the waste industry

· wide-ranging support for council advocacy for a Container Deposit Scheme

· majority support for the food scraps collection, with some questions about the choice of a food-only service, requests for assurance that home composting will still be supported by the council, and assertions that gas capture in landfills is an efficient means of generating renewable energy

· general support for continuing to develop the resource recovery network, including expanding services to businesses

· a need for better data on construction and demolition waste and widespread support for site waste avoidance and resource recovery plans

· universal support for extending the council’s in-house waste reduction targets, with comments on the need to develop supporting procurement practices.

53. A survey was sent to the council’s advisory panels, and four responses were received. All of these responses indicated support for the proposed direction regarding product stewardship, the proposed priority waste streams, and council leadership in reducing its own waste. The only point of variable response was regarding increasing the waste levy, where the risk of increased dumping was a concern for one of the respondents. A further suggestion was made regarding the need for schools to take a lead in their own waste minimisation efforts.

54. The Waste Assessment has been reviewed by the Medical Officer of Health. Their feedback is provided as an appendix to the Waste Assessment, and is generally supportive of the proposed approach. Some of the concerns raised include:

· caution when introducing user pays for domestic refuse disposal

· adequately addressing hazardous waste disposal

· assurance regarding processing of animal waste not transmitting bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)

· location of processing facilities to ensure no health issues are created.

55. The public will have the opportunity to have their views heard at one of the public engagement events that will be held across Auckland from 28 February to 28 March 2018 as part of a joint engagement process for the draft Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the Auckland Plan refresh, the draft Regional Pest Management Strategy and the draft waste plan.

56. Staff will attend the events to record the views of the public on the draft waste plan, and these will be reported to a hearings panel to enable it to consider these during its deliberation.

57. In addition to the public events referred to above, it is recommended that a hearings panel be appointed to hear from submitters who indicate that they would like to present their views more formally to the council. The hearings panel would receive and consider:

· any written feedback received on the draft waste plan

· any views presented to the hearings panel

· any report to the hearings panel on the views of the public recorded at any of the public engagement events held during the consultation period.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

58. Local boards are integral to the success of the draft waste plan, particularly in working with local communities to promote waste minimisation.

59. Workshops were held with local boards between September and November 2017. At the time of finalising this report, formal feedback has been received from eighteen of the twenty one boards. Any additional feedback received after the agenda closing date will be circulated separately.

60. The local boards were generally very supportive of the proposed approach. Some of the different issues raised include:

· ensuring that construction and demolition initiatives do not raise the costs of construction in Auckland

· focusing on incentives ahead of levies

· supporting greater inclusion of mana whenua and mataawaka perspectives in the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste

· extending the kerbside collection of food scraps to major rural townships

· addressing concerns over the management and consenting of cleanfills

· the importance of education

· working with communities and volunteers

· a desire to work more closely with the private sector

· proposing stricter penalties for dumping of waste and littering, and

· a request to consider incineration as it may be necessary to achieve zero waste.

61. These points have been addressed within the draft waste plan, and will be taken into account when developing work programmes. Staff will continue to liaise with local boards to ensure their concerns are addressed.

Māori impact statement

62. There is a strong alignment between the approach of the draft waste plan and Te Ao Māori.

63. Good working relationships have been developed with mana whenua and mataawaka in implementing the first waste management and minimisation plan. With support from Auckland Council, Para Kore ki Tāmaki has worked alongside marae to identify the most effective way of diverting para (waste) from Papatūānuku.

64. Auckland Council is committed to ensuring Māori values and world views are also represented in the draft waste plan. Two hui were held with mana whenua (27 July 2017 and 3 August 2017), and one with mataawaka (28 July 2017) to seek their input. Participants provided detailed feedback on the proposed direction and contributed Māori perspectives for inclusion in the document.

65. Specific actions proposed in the draft waste plan include:

· expanding Para Kore ki Tāmaki

· supporting established Para Kore marae to take a leadership role in waste minimisation initiatives within their rohe

· working with mana whenua and mataawaka to explore opportunities for their participation in waste minimisation and resource recovery initiatives.

Implementation

66. Subject to endorsement from the Environment and Community Committee, the draft waste plan will be made publicly available for consultation currently with the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process. The public will be able to provide feedback (and request to be heard by the hearings panel) or present their views at one of the public engagement events from 28 February to 28 March 2018.

67. Under the provisions of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the new waste management and minimisation plan must be adopted by the Governing Body before 20 June 2018.

68. Once adopted, the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste 2018 will form the basis of Auckland Council’s work on waste for the next six years. Monitoring frameworks and regular reporting to the Environment and Community Committee will ensure transparency.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 - 192 pages (Under Separate Cover)
b	Auckland's Waste Assessment 2017 - 509 pages Due to the size of this attachment: Auckland's Waste Assessment 2017 - 509 pages, an e-copy can be obtained from Democracy Services). A hard copy is available for viewing by elected members on Level 26, 135 Albert Street, Auckland and will be available on Level 2, Auckland Town Hall at the Environment and Community Committee meeting on 5 December 2017
c	Local board feedback on the direction of the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 - 18 pages (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Julie Dickinson, Acting Waste Planning Manager

Parul Sood - Acting General Manager Waste Solutions

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

05 December 2017

A strategy for Auckland's urban ngahere (forest)

File No.: CP2017/24512

Purpose

1. To approve the draft strategy for Auckland’s urban ngahere (forest).

Executive summary

2. Auckland is changing rapidly in terms of population growth, increased urbanisation and greater intensification.

3. As Auckland grows, our natural environment is put under greater pressure. Creating and protecting urban trees and vegetation - Auckland’s urban ngahere (forest) - is therefore becoming increasingly essential to counteract the pressures and impacts of these changes to maintain a quality, healthy and people friendly urban environment.

4. A critical strategic gap was identified and a draft strategy for Auckland’s urban ngahere, for current and future generations, was developed (Attachment A).

5. The purpose of the strategy is to have a deliberate, strategic approach to creating an urban ngahere over many years, rather than assuming it will happen by itself.

6. The framework for the strategy was approved by the Environment and Community Committee on 12 September (ENV/2017/116) and consists of a vision, main objectives, key mechanisms and a set of supporting principles.

7. As part of the strategy’s implementation framework, 18 high-level actions are identified to deliver the strategy. These actions, as directed by Committee in September (ENV/2017/116), were developed using input and feedback received throughout the process.

8. In line with the ambitions of other world class cities and based on a cost benefit analysis for implementation, the strategy has the objective of growing canopy cover to 30 per cent (across Auckland’s urban area) with no local board areas less than 15 per cent.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the strategy “Together growing Auckland’s urban ngahere for a flourishing future”, as identified in Attachment A of the agenda report.

b) authorise the Chair, Deputy Chair and an IMSB Member to review, make minor revisions and approve the final strategy for public release.

Comments

Background and process to date

9. Auckland’s urban ngahere (forest) is defined as the network of all trees, other vegetation and green roofs – both native and naturalised – in existing and future urban areas^{^[5]}.

10. This network is an important part of Auckland’s identity (e.g. pohutakawa fringing the coastline, trees as part of special character places and areas), and Auckland’s cultural heritage (e.g. taonga trees).

11. Yet as Auckland grows, our green space is put under greater pressure. Development tends to reduce the canopy cover at the same time as more people share fewer green spaces.

12. A well-managed, flourishing and healthy urban ngahere has a wide range of evidence-based benefits that include community health and well-being, environmental, cultural and economic benefits.

13. Impacts and pressures on Auckland’s urban ngahere include:

· rapid population growth and urbanisation

· changes to the Resource Management Act (2012) i.e. removal of tree protection

· ongoing challenges with weed and pest control

· the threat of diseases such as kauri dieback and myrtle rust

· potential future challenges caused by climate change.

14. The benefits of an urban forest are increasingly essential in counteracting the associated pressures of growth in urban Auckland.

15. A majority of Aucklanders stand to gain in some way from the benefits of a flourishing urban ngahere as most Aucklanders live and work in urban areas.

Development of the strategy

16. Development of a draft strategy began in July 2016, incorporating a variety of existing programmes and initiatives, identifying critical strategic gaps and involving councillors, local boards, teams across the council family, mana whenua and community groups.

17. The framework for the strategy was approved by the Environment and Community Committee on 12 September (ENV/2017/ 116) and consists of:

· a vision

· main objectives

· key mechanisms

· a set of supporting principles.

Identification of high-level actions

18. Eighteen high-level actions are identified as part of the strategy’s implementation framework (Attachment A; implementation framework). As directed by Committee in September (ENV/2017/116), these actions were developed using input and feedback from previous workshops and engagements with mana whenua, local boards and councillors. There was also further internal engagement across the council family and an additional hui with mana whenua.

19. The actions identify the need for ongoing engagement and partnerships (e.g. mana whenua, local boards, communities) to determine more detailed area-specific implementation actions.

Cost benefit analysis

20. Staff carried out a preliminary analysis to estimate the costs and selected benefits (Appendix B) for the urban ngahere on public land. This is to gain further insight into the following four scenarios:

Current state: Allow for an ongoing decline of the canopy cover of Auckland’s urban ngahere.

Restore to 2013 baseline: Stabilise the ongoing decline of the canopy cover by restoring it back to the baseline of 18 per cent of urban land area in 2013.

Improving: Grow the canopy cover to 22 per cent of urban land area, with a focus on addressing inequality.

World class: Aim to significantly grow the canopy cover to 30 per cent of urban land area in line with ambitions of other world class international cities.

21. For both ‘Improving’ and ‘World Class’ scenarios:

· the cost benefit analysis assumes an upfront investment over the first five years to implement the strategy and plant new trees. The benefits selected for analysis are realised as the canopy cover grows over time

· it is assumed that ongoing annual maintenance costs would rise in line with the increased number of street and park trees

· for both scenarios the estimated annual benefits significantly exceed the costs. The ‘Improving’ scenario requires less upfront investment and has lower ongoing maintenance costs but delivers a lower level of ongoing benefit each year than the ‘World Class’ scenario.

22. Based on these results, and in line with the ambitions of other world class cities, the strategy has the objective of growing canopy cover to 30 per cent (across Auckland’s urban area) with no local board areas less than 15 per cent.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

23. Local boards views were obtained from presentations to local board advisors and local board chairs and three local board cluster workshops.

24. Local boards have been generally supportive of the proposed strategy. These views were summarised in the previous report to the Environment and Community Committee on 12 September (CP2017/18710).

25. The proposed strategy identifies ongoing engagement with local boards to identify more detailed area-specific implementation actions.

26. Local boards may wish to draw on the strategy to develop their own specific approach to its implementation, particularly given different local contexts, (e.g. canopy cover, pressures, opportunities); local needs, (e.g. more emphasis on protecting than growing in local board areas with a higher canopy cover), and local funding opportunities.

Māori impact statement

27. The proposed strategy has been developed in collaboration with mana whenua. With their direct input into its development, Te Ao Māori principles were applied to the design and implementation of the strategy. This will result in the recognition and application of Mātauranga Māori when the strategy is implemented.

28. Mana whenua views expressed at the three workshops (attended by Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Paoa, Te Ākitai Waiohua and Ngāti Tamahoa) and a separate meeting with Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, included:

· support for the development and contents of the strategy

· a preference for the use of native species in the absence of strong rationale for the contrary

· a desire for the use of wording and visuals recognised by mana whenua

· recognition of the value of the urban ngahere for holistic individual and community well-being.

29. The proposed strategy identifies ongoing engagement to identify more detailed area-specific implementation actions.

Implementation

30. The 18 high level actions in the strategy are grouped under three themes:

· ‘knowing’ actions – having better data and understanding

· ‘growing’ actions – increasing the canopy and leveraging partnerships

· ‘protecting’ actions – direct and indirect ways to better protect trees.

31. The ‘knowing’ and ‘protecting’ actions require mainly staff time. However some actions, such as establishing a database and street tree surveys, would require additional funding to implement.

Funding to increase the canopy cover (‘growing’ actions)

32. The strategy contains a number of principles that were adopted by the Environment and Community Committee on 12 September 2017(ENV/2017/116).

33. These principles will be applied to council’s current spending on tree planting and maintenance. This means a ‘strategic lens’ will be applied to current spending to get more value for money and specifically contribute to the objectives of the urban ngahere. This will support restoring canopy cover to the 2013 baseline and does not require additional funding.

34. However, to achieve the objective of 30 per cent canopy cover (or anything beyond the 2013 baseline) will require additional funding. Staff will need to do further work to understand these costs and benefits, opportunities for funding and will report to Committee once this work is completed.

35. In addition to making better use of existing funding, additional funding can be sought from a number of sources:

· the contribution local boards are able to make at a local level

· external funding through partnering with others or through philanthropic funding

· through the Long-term Plan.

36. A good example of leveraging partnerships is the partnerships established through the Mayor’s Million Trees programme. This programme has been able to deliver 170,000 new plantings in the first year.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - draft strategy for Auckland's urban ngahere	111
b ⇩	Attachment B - cost benefit analysis	141

Signatories

Authors

Matthew Blaiki - Senior Sustainability&Resilience Advisor

Sietse Bouma - Team Leader – Natural Environment Strategy

Parin Thompson – Principal Specialist Climate Mitigation

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

05 December 2017

Sport and Recreation Strategic Partnership Grant to Aktive Auckland Sport & Recreation for 2017/2018

File No.: CP2017/24349

Purpose

1. To approve the $552,000 strategic partnership grant to Aktive Auckland Sport & Recreation for 2017/2018.

Executive summary

2. Council’s region-wide investment programme in sport and recreation supports the implementation of the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (the Action Plan) to encourage Aucklanders to be more active more often. The investment programme includes the strategic partnership grant.

3. In 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 Aktive - Auckland Sport & Recreation received a strategic partnership grant, to support the implementation of the Action Plan.

4. Four priority initiatives were identified in partnership with Sport New Zealand and Aktive being volunteers, sector capability, school/community partnerships and sector engagement in the Sports Facility Network Plan (now known as the Auckland Sport Sector: Facility Priorities Plan).

5. Annual accountability reports received from Aktive confirm good progress has been made against the identified priorities.

6. This report recommends the release of the 2017/2018 strategic partnership grant to Aktive to continue to deliver on priority initiatives from the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

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

- Organisational capability

- Skilled and growing volunteer base

- Fit-for-purpose network of facilities

- Facility partnerships.

Comments

Strategic Direction

7. Auckland Council aligns our sport and recreation regional investment to the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (the Action Plan), supporting Aucklanders to be more active, more often. This support includes the provision of facilities and open space, delivering programmes and sector investment.

8. Aligned to outcomes sought in the Action Plan Aktive has been working collaboratively with Sport NZ, Auckland Council, Regional Sports Trusts and others to co-create a new delivery approach to address declining participation rates.

9. This new delivery model involves a community led approach to programme development in prioritised neighbourhoods and suburbs. Community sport partners will directly involve communities in shaping targeted participation options and connect programmes and facilities with potential participants.

10. This approach will be led in communities around Auckland by Aktive and their community sport partners with implementation already underway.

Previous Aktive Investment

11. In 2015/2016 the Action Plan - Senior Leaders Implementation Group identified priorities for years one to three of implementation of the plan. Four key initiatives were identified for the Auckland Council to drive through investment into Aktive:

· volunteer development and retention

· sport sector engagement and buy in to develop the Sport Facility Network Plan (now known as the Auckland Sport Sector: Facility Priorities Plan)

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

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

12. In 2016/2017 the priorities were refined to:

· co-ordinated sector engagement into the Sport Facility Network Plan

· capability building of recreation and sport organisations

· active membership of the school/community partnership project

· development of a volunteer action plan

13. The end of year report has been received from Aktive which demonstrates progress has been made against each of the 2016/2017 priorities. These outcomes were delivered both by Aktive regionally and significantly through coordinated investment into the delivery network of Regional Sports Trusts (RSTs).

14. Examples of tangible outcomes as a result of this partnership grant from the region included:

· 155 stakeholders across 50 codes engaged in the development of the Auckland Sport Sector: Facility Priorities Plan

· A series of regional governance capability development workshops attended by over 123 leaders in sport

· Capability building initiatives delivered directly into 29 community sport organisations

· 101 Auckland secondary schools audited in regard to their sporting facilities to determine both current and potential community access opportunities

· 13 targeted schools engaged with for new community facility sharing opportunities

· A strategic volunteer planning report developed identifying approaches to volunteer management including infrastructure and investment

Future Investment Recommendations

15. The key priority areas for 2016/2017 funding were longer-term strategic priorities and therefore it is recommended that the 2017/2018 funding is used to continue their development and increase the focus on implementation of the developed programmes. These priorities include:

· Organisational capability: increase organisational capability of recreation, sport and community organisations through the delivery of community sport and a focus on targeted communities of activity. This will include identifying opportunities to enhance the performance of community based organisations.

· Facility partnerships: develop a framework and resources to support sustainable partnerships between the community and schools for access and use of recreation and sport facilities

· Fit-for-purpose network of facilities: support the implementation of the Auckland Sport Sector: Facility Priorities Plan – this was formally known as the Sports Facility Network Plan

· Skilled and growing volunteer base: increase infrastructure and investment in personnel engaged in volunteer management through the implementation of best practice initiatives including guiding principles to support the future sport and recreation volunteering needs of Aucklanders thereby enabling and supporting participation.

16. Council staff will develop a funding agreement that ensures clear accountability and KPIs for the investment, aligned to the identified priorities areas. Progress will be reported as part of the Action Plan updates.

17. Aktive would be required to distribute funds regionally to their community sport partners based on population weightings.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

19. Through the Auckland Approach to Community Sport delivery partners are strongly encouraged to collaborate with local boards that contain communities of activity in order to gain a more connected and cohesive approach to community led delivery.

Māori impact statement

20. The Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan recognises the critical importance of connection with Māori. The plan includes actions focussing on improving the health and well-being of Māori. Initiative 3.2 is to develop Te Whai Oranga – Māori Sport and Recreation Framework which identifies how to support improved health and wellbeing for Māori. 7.2 develop and support marae based sport and recreation facilities in response to evidence of demand.

21. In the identification of communities of activity delivery partners will be seeking opportunity to work with Māori, prioritising outcomes in these communities.

Implementation

22. Following Committee approval to release the strategic partnership grant of $552,000, a funding agreement will be prepared for Aktive that ensures clear accountability for the 2017/2018 investment.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Joanne Macmillan - Senior Advisor Sport and Recreation

Dave Stewart - Manager Sport & Recreation

Authorisers

Rob McGee - Manager Leisure – Parks, Sports and Recreation

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

05 December 2017

Land exchange at Hillary Crescent, Belmont and Northboro Reserve

File No.: CP2017/22323

Purpose

1. To seek approval to exchange parts of Northboro Reserve with adjacent private land.

Executive summary

2. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whai Rawa Limited as part of their proposed Hillary Block development seek to exchange 3510m² of their land with 1802m² of Northboro Reserve (refer Attachment A).

3. Public notification of the proposed land exchange under the Reserves Act 1977 resulted in 57 submissions being received. 12 submissions were within scope of the Reserves Act 1977. The remaining relate to matters to be considered during resource consent processes.

4. 10 submissions raised objections to the proposed land exchange. Five provided reasons: concern about loss of reserve land and poor access to the reserve. These submissions are largely mitigated by the proposed land exchange which provides improved land area and access.

5. Staff recommend that council accept the proposed land exchange as it will:

· increase public open space to a net increase of 1708m²

· provide higher quality open space that enables a greater range recreation activities

· ensure wider and safer access-ways into the reserve.

6. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board supports the proposed land exchange.

7. There is a low risk of objectors seeking a judicial review if the council proceeds with the land exchange. A key mitigation is council communication about the reasons for the decision.

8. The proposed land exchange should be recommended to the Finance and Performance Committee for a final decision. If approved, staff will publish a notice in the New Zealand gazette and register the notice with Land Information New Zealand.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) recommend that the Finance and Performance Committee approve the proposed land exchange of 1802m² at Northboro Reserve, Belmont with 3510m² of private land at Hillary Crescent, as follows:

i) disposal of area 1 LOT 72, area 2 LOT 69, area 3 LOT 15, area 4 LOT 72 (refer Attachment B)

ii) acquisition of areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (refer Attachment C)

b) agree that the General Manager Community and Social Policy, under delegation from the Chief Executive, approve the final location, configuration and size of the land exchange components during the consent processes for the Hillary Block subdivision.

Comments

Background

9. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whai Rawa Limited (Whai Rawa) propose to develop the 8.4 hectare site, commonly known as the Hillary Block. A total of 300 new dwellings will be built in place of the existing 82 houses over a five year period commencing in 2018.

10. In order to achieve efficient land use, Whai Rawa seeks to exchange 3510m² of their land with 1802m² of Northboro Reserve (refer Attachment A).

11. The proposed land exchange comprises the following components:

· relocation and reconfiguration of three existing narrow access-ways into Northboro Reserve to improve sightlines and physical access into the reserve

· exchange of an existing 1370m² steep access-way into Northboro Reserve with 1370m² of level land adjacent to Hillary Crescent to form a pocket park

· vesting of an additional 1708m² of public open space.

Public notification

12. The Environment and Community Committee approved public notification of the proposed land exchange under section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 [ENV/2017/38].

13. A total of 57 submissions (34 objections) were received during the public notification period between 28 July and 28 August 2017. A summary of submissions is set out in Attachment D.

14. 12 submissions were assessed as being within scope of the Reserves Act 1977 and directly related to the proposed land exchange. Of this number:

· five submitters did not provide any particular reasons for their objections

· two submitters requested additional information which has been provided

· five submitters raised specific objections.

15. The objections raised in the five submissions largely relate to concerns about the loss of reserve land and concerns about access into Northboro Reserve. These concerns are outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Specific objections to the land exchange

Objections	Staff assessment
One submission raised concerns about loss of reserve land-loss and separation of land (pocket park).	The proposed land exchange would lead to: · an increase in reserve land (1708m²) · improved amenity and visual relief provided by the pocket park. The creation of the new pocket park will lead to the separation of open space. This is largely offset by the above benefits.
Three submissions raised concerns about poor access to the reserve.	· four existing access points into Northboro Reserve will be replaced by four new and improved access-ways · the location of new access points will be at similar locations to current access-ways · the proposed land exchange will improve access and amenity (including width, slope, surface and planting).
One submission raised concerns about insufficient access to reserve for maintenance vehicles.	Existing vehicle access from Northboro Road to the reserve will be retained.

19. Staff have assessed these objections and note that the proposed land exchange will result in increased open space, additional recreation opportunities, improved amenity, visual relief and improved access into Northboro Reserve.

20. The creation of the new pocket park will lead to the separation of open space. This is largely offset by the above benefits.

21. The remaining objections related to matters arising from housing development, such as increased density and the associated effects of increased traffic to the surrounding roads. These objections relate to the Resource Management Act 1991 and will be dealt with in the resource consent process.

Iwi consultation

22. 12 iwi identified as having mana whenua associations with the site were consulted.

23. One iwi expressed a general objection to the proposed land exchange. Further clarification was sought on the reasons for that objection, but no further information was provided.

24. One iwi supported the proposed land exchange. Four iwi had no issues with the exchange. No responses were provided by six other iwi.

Assessment of proposed land exchange

25. Land exchanges are assessed against the criteria in the council’s Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy.

26. Proposed land exchanges are prioritised according to the highest rating achieved.

27. Table 2 below provides a summary of the assessment of the proposed land exchange.

Assessment conclusion

28. Staff recommend the proposed land exchange. It is a high priority when assessed against the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy. The issues raised in submissions are largely mitigated by the proposed land exchange.

29. The benefits of the proposed land exchange are:

· increased open space to a net increase of 1708m²

· additional recreation opportunities, improved amenity and visual relief provided by the proposed pocket park within a medium to high density residential development

· widened and improved access-ways into Northboro Reserve with lower slope gradients, improved surfacing and planting

· additional native species planting to the coastal edge of Northboro Reserve which will enhance the coastal estuarine ecology and visual amenity.

Risk

30. There is a low risk of the objectors seeking a judicial review of council decision-making processes if the council proceeds with the land exchange. This will be mitigated by clear communication by the council about the reasons for the committee decision.

Financial implications

31. There are no financial implications arising from the proposed land exchange. Whai Rawa will bear all costs associated with processing the land exchange, as well as design, all consents and construction of the proposed new entrances and pocket park.

Table 2: Assessment of proposed land exchange – Hillary Crescent, Belmont
Park type: Pocket Park and improved reserve entrances				Number of new lots: 340
Density: Medium-high				Number of new residents^{^[6]}: 1020
Unitary plan zone: Mixed housing suburban				Proposed additional reserve area: 1708m²
Valuation: N/A				Settlement: Development commencing 2018


Potential future features:		Walking connections			Barbeque facilities
		Playground			Nature / ecological features

Criteria	Comment					Overall rating
Meeting community needs, now and in the future	High priority as: · proposed pocket park and widened entrances will provide visual relief within a medium to high density residential development · Provides opportunities for play and passive recreation, as well as a green community hub.					ü *High priority for exchange*
Connecting parks and open spaces	High priority as: · replaces three existing narrow entrances with widened access-ways to Northboro Reserve including better slope, surfacing and planting · creation of logical public access-ways through street network linking proposed Pocket Park with the existing Northboro Reserve.
Protecting and restoring Auckland’s unique features and meanings	High priority as: · new native species planting to coastal edge along Northboro Reserve will enhance special qualities of coastal estuarine ecology.
Improving the parks and open spaces we already have
High priority as: will improve access amenity and safe egress to Northboro reserve.

					1.
Development costs: N/A			Operational maintenance costs:
Local boards decide how local open space is developed. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whai Rawa Limited (Whai Rawa) will meet all costs for design, consents and construction of all proposed entrances and pocket park.			Park maintenance is estimated at the following annual costs: · $1000 – all new entrances and planting within Northboro Reserve. · $5000 – new pocket park.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

32. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board supports the proposed land exchange, resolving at its meeting on 21 November 2017 [DT/2017/245] that it:

a) recommends the Environment and Community Committee approve proposed land exchange at Northboro Reserve, Belmont with private land immediately adjacent in Hillary Crescent

b) notes that the proposed land exchange will result in an overall increase in reserve land (1708m²) available for the Belmont community

c) notes that the proposed land exchange will create significant improvements to access amenity (width, slope, surface, planting), reserve amenity and visual relief through the development of a pocket park.

Māori impact statement

33. Consultation with 12 mana whenua iwi was undertaken during the consultation period. An additional three weeks was provided to ensure all iwi were given sufficient opportunity to consider and respond to the proposed land exchange.

34. The provision of quality parks and open spaces facilitates Māori participation in outdoor recreational activity.

35. Additional benefits include:

· demonstrating the council’s commitment to the Active Protection (Tautiaki Ngangahau) Principle of the Treaty of Waitangi

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

Implementation

Land exchange and new reserves development

36. The council has delegation under section 15(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 to authorise or decline the exchange of any reserve or any part(s) of a reserve for any other land.

37. Subject to the approval of the Finance and Performance Committee, council staff will work directly with Whai Rawa to undertake the processes required to exchange the land. This will include publishing a notice in the New Zealand gazette and registering the notice with Land Information New Zealand.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Reserve Comparisons	241
b ⇩	Reserve land to be disposed	243
c ⇩	Land to be acquired	245
d ⇩	Submissions summary	247
e ⇩	Submissions analysis	249

Signatories

Authors

Richard Mann - Principal Policy Analyst

Emma Golightly - Team Leader - Parks and Recreation Policy

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

05 December 2017

Public notification submissions summary

Proposed Land exchange at Hillary Crescent, Belmont

1. Public notices advising of Auckland Council’s intention to exchange the reserve land were placed in the New Zealand Herald, North Shore Times and on council’s website on 28 July 2017 calling for any objections to the proposal to be made in writing to council by 28 August 2017.

2. A total of 57 submissions were received during the consultation period. The ratings of the responses are set out in Table 1.

Table 1: Response rating of submissions received

b) Rating	c) Total	d) Percentage
e) Strongly agree	f) 8	g) 14%
h) Agree	i) 9	j) 16%
k) Neutral	l) 3	m) 5%
n) No rating provided	o) 3	p) 5%
q) Disagree	r) 8	s) 14%
t) Strongly disagree	u) 26	v) 46%

Submissions Analysis

3. The submissions from those who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposed land exchange fall in two distinct categories:

· Reserves Act 1977 matters (12 submissions)

· Resource Management Act 1991 matters (22 submissions).

4. Council is required to consider objections that relate to Reserves Act 1977 matters in making its decision on the proposed land exchange.

Reserve Management Act 1977 matters

5. Of these 12, five did not provide any particular reasons for their objections. This makes it difficult for the council to consider the merit of their objections in its decision-making.

6. The remaining seven submissions provided more detail and are assessed as requiring specific responses to their objections:

· one submission objected to reserve land loss and a separation of the proposed new pocket park

· four submissions objected to the poor quality of reserve access

· two objected on the basis of requiring more information.

7. Analysis of these submissions concluded that the five objections with specific reasons have little merit. The proposed reserve concept plans clearly set out an overall gain of reserve land, including improved access and amenity.

8. The objecting submissions and response are set out in Table 2, including the action to be taken to address the two submissions which required more information.

Table 2: Specific submission responses

w) Objection	x) Response
y) Reserve land-loss & separation (pocket park)	z) An increase of reserve land (1708m²), improved reserve amenity and visual relief (of pocket park) resulting from the land exchange.
aa) Poor reserve access	bb) Improvement to access amenity (width, slope, surface, planting). Location of new access points at similar locations to previous entrances.
cc) Poor reserve access	dd) Improvement to access amenity (width, slope, surface, planting). Location of new access points at similar locations to previous entrances.
ee) Closure of reserve access	ff) Four existing access points into Northboro Reserve will be replaced by four new and improved access-ways.
gg) Required more information	hh) Letter with accompanying information pack to be supplied.
ii) Required more information	jj) Letter with accompanying information pack to be supplied.
kk) Concerned with insufficient access to reserve for maintenance vehicles	ll) The existing maintenance vehicle access from Northboro Road direct to the reserve will be retained.

Resource Management Act 1991 matters

9. Twenty-two submissions relate to Whai Rawa’s proposed development of their land for medium to high density housing and the associated effects of increased traffic to the surrounding roads. These objections fall outside the scope of the Reserves Act 1977. They are Resource Management Act 1991 matters that will be dealt with as part of Whai Rawa’s resource consent.

Iwi consultation

10. Consultation was undertaken with 12 iwi identified as having mana whenua associations with the site. A rating summary of iwi position on this matter is set out in Table 3.

Table 3: Response rating of all mana whenua iwi

mm) Rating	nn) Total	oo) Percentage
pp) In support	qq) 1	rr) 8%
ss) Have no issue	tt) 4	uu) 33%
vv) No response provided	ww) 6	xx) 50%
yy) Object	zz) 1	aaa) 8%

11. One submitted an objection to the proposed land exchange but did not provide a reason for their objection. It is difficult to consider this objection as there is no further detail provided, however it appears to be a general objection rather than a specific issue with the proposed land exchange.

Environment and Community Committee

05 December 2017

Reserve Revocation Report - Properties Cleared for Sale

File No.: CP2017/24551

Purpose

1. To report on the results of the notification of the proposals to revoke the reserve status under s.24 of the Reserve Act 1977 of three properties cleared for sale, and to seek approval to submit a request to the Minister of Conservation to uplift the reserve status on each property.

Executive summary

2. 145A West Tamaki Road, Glen Innes is a plantation reserve that comprises approximately 111m². The Finance and Performance Committee approved the disposal of this site in July 2017 (FIN/2017/97).

3. 63 Flanshaw Road, Te Atatu South is a long narrow and undeveloped parking reserve that comprises approximately 584m². The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved the disposal of this site in September 2016 (REG/2016/91).

4. 51 Stamford Park Road, Mount Roskill is vested as recreation reserve and comprises two areas of land totalling 1,721m². The Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved the disposal of the property in July 2016 (REG/2016/52).

5. Panuku Development Auckland has undertaken iwi and public notification under s.24 of the Reserve Act 1977 on the three properties. No objections were received for 145A West Tamaki Road and 51 Stamford Park Road, but one objection was received on 63 Flanshaw Road, Te Atatu South.

6. The concern of the objector was that the land should be sold to the adjoining primary school. Panuku confirmed to the objector that the Ministry of Education had reviewed this opportunity but did not wish to acquire the land. The objection has not been withdrawn.

7. Panuku Development Auckland now seeks a formal resolution from the Environment and Community Committee to approve the recommendation to request to the Minister of Conservation that the reserve status over the three properties be uplifted.

8. Property descriptions, details of the notification process and the outcomes are set out in Attachments A to E.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) agree to submit a request to the Minister of Conversation to uplift the reserve status of the following properties:

i) 145A West Tamaki Road, Glen Innes comprised of an estate in fee simple of 111m²more or less being Lot 6 DP 41864 contained in computer freehold register CT-20B/1223;

ii) 63 Flanshaw Road, Te Atatu South comprised of an estate in fee simple of 584 m² more or less being Lot 14 DP 67687 contained in certificate of title NA35A/582.

iii) 51 Stamford Park Road, Mount Roskill comprised of an estate in fee simple of 1,721m²more or less being Sections 48, 71, 103, 104 and part sections 54 and 106 on SO 419816 contained in computer freehold register 538486.

Comments

9. 145A West Tamaki Road, Glen Innes is a vacant, narrow 111m² site vested in the former Auckland City Council in 1955 as a plantation reserve. In April 2015 Council’s Parks and Recreation Policy team confirmed it was not required for recreation purposes and was cleared for sale by the Finance and Performance, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory.

10. 63 Flanshaw Road, Te Atatu South is a long narrow and grassed site totalling 584m² site. It was vested in trust in the Waitemata City Council by the Housing Corporation of New Zealand in 1982 for a local purpose (parking) reserve, subject to the Reserves Act 1977. It was cleared for sale by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes.

11. 51 Stamford Park Road, Mount Roskill comprises two parcels of reserve (recreation) land. One part totals 1,012m² and the other 709m². The land is left over from the creation of the Keith Hay Park’s shared path and is fenced off from the balance of the land held in the title.

12. Property descriptions and the details of public and iwi notification processes, together with the outcomes for each of these properties are set out in Attachments A, B and C of this report. The submission received for 63 Flanshaw Road and the response to the objector are set out in Attachments D and E.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13. The Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of 145A West Tamaki Road, Glen Innes at its 28 March 2017 business meeting.

14. The Henderson-Massey Local Board endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of 63 Flanshaw Road, Te Atatu South at its 19 May 2016 business meeting.

15. The Puketapapa Local Board endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of two parcels of 51 Stamford Park Road, Mount Roskill land at its March 2016 business meeting.

Māori impact statement

16. Panuku notified all the relevant Mana Whenua iwi authorities of the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the properties and the responses to this engagement are contained in Attachments A, B and C of this report. In summary, no objections were received from mana whenua.

Implementation

17. If the committee resolves to recommend proceeding with the application to revoke the reserve status of the properties, council officers will forward the resolution to the Department of Conservation together with the objection received.

18. If the Minster approves the request, notices will be published in the New Zealand Gazette authorising the revocations, and these will be submitted to Land Information New Zealand for the issue of titles.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	145A West Tamaki Road	259
b ⇩	51 Stamford Park Road	261
c ⇩	63 Flanshaw Road	265
d ⇩	Submission - Flanshaw Road	267
e ⇩	Response to Submission - Flanshaw Road	269

Signatories

Author

Nigel Hewitson - Team Leader Property Disposals

Authorisers

Ian Wheeler - Director Portfolio Management

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

05 December 2017

2017/2018 Regional Environmental and Natural Heritage Grant Programme allocation

File No.: CP2017/23252

Purpose

1. To consider grant recommendations for the 2017/2018 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants programme funding round.

Executive summary

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

3. The programme focuses on supporting strategic regional initiatives that deliver on any of four outcome categories: sustainable living, conservation, healthy waters and kaitiakitanga (see Attachment A for the grant framework).

4. The budget available from the fund for the 2017/2018 funding round is $399,710. The programme received 54 applications for the 2017/2018 funding round, requesting a total of $1,610,708. Two applications were found ineligible as they did not meet the grant programme eligibility criteria for regional significance.

5. The assessment was completed through a three-stage process that included: an eligibility assessment and subject matter allocation, a subject matter assessment against Regional Environment and Natural Heritage assessment criteria and a panel meeting to confirm funding recommendations. Applications were also assessed on their ability to contribute to Māori outcomes by an internal subject matter expert in Te Ao Māori.

6. Following the assessment of applications, it is recommended that 24 applications are supported with grants, including four multi-year projects, for a total value of $525,080.

7. This includes $399,710 of funding in 2017/2018 and an additional $79,355 to be granted in 2018/2019 and $46,015 in 2019/2020 for the multi-year projects. Recommended grants range from $3,000 to $40,000 in value, with an average grant of $16,654.

8. It is also recommended that a further 28 applications be declined. Projects are recommended to be declined for a variety of reasons, in most instances due to their relatively lower contribution towards regionally significant outcomes. As there is a limited project budget, a number of high quality applications are recommended to be declined (see further detail in Attachment B).

9. Of the 24 applications recommended for support, 21 of the applications directly contribute towards protecting, restoring or enhancing Auckland’s regionally significant natural heritage areas, and a further three applications encourage and support Aucklanders to adopt environmentally sustainable lifestyles.

10. Four applications contribute towards achieving Māori outcomes, specifically around kaikiakitanga, where mana whenua are empowered and recognised in their customary kaitiaki role.

11. Once approved, applicants will be notified of funding decisions as soon as practical. Once notified successful grant recipients will have 12 months to three years to complete their projects, depending on the grant term. At the end of this term recipients will be required to meet project accountability requirements detailing how funding has been used and what has been achieved through their project.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the grant allocations for the 2017/2018 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant programme funding round, as listed below and in Attachment B of the agenda report:

Applicant	Project title	Amount allocated	Term
EcoQuest Education Foundation	Locating bat roost sites in the Hūnua Ranges, Auckland	$51,030 including: (2017/2018: $19,000; 2018/2019: $16,015; 2019/2020: $16,015)	Three years
Whakaupoko (West Franklin) Landcare	Predator free - We do	$85,000 including: (2017/2018: $35,000; 2018/2019: $25,000; 2019/2020: $25,000)	Three years
The Forest Bridge Trust	CatchIT Schools and CatchIT Communities	$30,000	One year
Community Waitākere Charitable Trust	Pest Free Te Atatu	$20,000	One year
Motutapu Restoration Trust	Ecological restoration - site preparation	$20,000	One year
Waiheke Conservation Collective - Predator Free Waiheke	Waiheke mustelid control - a component of Predator Free Waiheke	$40,000	One year
The Forest Bridge Trust	Fencing Hoteo forest remnants, riparian margins and wetlands	$40,000	One year
Conservation Volunteers New Zealand	Ecological enhancement of the Awaawaroa Wetland Reserve	$24,000	One year
Beyond the Fence	Beyond the fence	$10,000	One year
Community Waitākere Charitable Trust	Long tailed bat radio tracking in the Waitākere Ranges	$53,340 including: (2017/2018: $20,000; 2018/2019: $33,340)	Two years
Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi Incorportated	Translocation of elegant gecko from Hūnua Quarry to Tiritiri Matangi	$15,000 (2017/2018: $5,000; 2018/2019: $5,000; 2019/2020: $5,000)	Three years
Sustainable Coastlines Charitable Trust	Love your coast Tāmaki Makaurau	$15,000	One year
Friends of Okura Bush Incorporated	Okura community property pest plan	$20,000	One year
Urban EcoLiving Charitable Trust	Tread Lightly caravan	$15,000	One year
Project Litefoot Trust	LiteClub - Auckland	$23,000	One year
Windy Hill Rosalie Bay Catchment Trust	Spark me up - Phase 3	$4,000	One year
Ian Bristow	Revegatating Kaikiore	$6,000	One year
Motuihe Trust	Motuihe nursery 2018	$3,000	One year
Matuku Link	Matuku link infrastructure requirements	$7,000	One year
Mark O'Connell	Lake Kereta Significant Natural Area foreshore and lake regeneration.	$4,000	One year
Eastern Bays Songbird Project Incorporated	Protecting songbirds in Eastern Bays by community predator control	$20,000	One year
Neil Naran	Fencing to protect waterways	$10,000	One year
Sir Rob Fenwick	Awaawaroa pest control	$4,710	One year
Maskell Trust	Auld Farm Significant Ecological Area protection project	$5,000	One year

Comments

Grant programme purpose and outcomes

12. The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant programme supports the implementation of the Auckland Plan, Auckland Council’s Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy, the Regional Pest Management Plan, and the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. In particular outcomes from these plans supported by this grant programme are:

· the mauri of the natural environment is in optimum health

· our natural heritage is valued by all Aucklanders

· our natural resources are sustainably managed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grant programme criteria and budget for 2017/2018 financial year

13. In July 2016, the Environmental Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee adopted the reviewed Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme framework, which describes the fund criteria, exclusions, investment approach and timing of funding (resolution ENV/2016/51). This grant programme framework has been applied for the 2017 funding round. Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant’s projects need to meet at least one of the programme’s outcomes which are grouped under four categories:

· sustainable living

· conservation

· healthy waters

· kaitiakitanga

14. The grant programme framework and the specifics of the fund criteria are attached to this report as Attachment A.

Funding and applications received

15. Auckland Council invests an annual budget of $488,710 into the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants fund. As shown in the table below, the budget available for the 2017/2018 funding round is $399,710. This is because a portion of this budget ($89,000) has already been committed to multi-year applications through the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 funding rounds.

16. Table 1 also shows the number and total value of applications received, declined and recommended for funding since 2015/2016.

Table 1. Funding available and committed from 2015/2016 to 2017/2018

	2015/2016	2016/2017	2017/2018
Budget	$488,710	$461,810	$399,710
Number of applications received	63	73	54
Total value of grants requested	$1,357,052	$1,791,750.25	$1,610,708
Number of applications recommended for funding	42 applications recommended for funding, 3 of them multi-year 13 declined 7 ineligible	33 applications recommended for funding, 7 of them multi-year 36 declined 4 ineligible	24 applications recommended for funding, 4 of them multi-year 28 declined 2 ineligible
Value of grant allocation	Range: $1,500 to $40,000 Average grant: $11,636	Range: $1,000 to $35,000 Average grant: $14,500	Range: $3,000 to $40,000 Average grant: $16,654

Timing and promotion

17. The Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant programme has one annual funding round. In the 2017/2018 financial year, the fund opened on 1 August 2017 and closed on 11 September 2017. Applications were assessed by subject matter experts during October and November 2017.

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

Assessment process

19. Applications were assessed through a four-stage process:

i. Applications were assessed against grant programme eligibility criteria and allocated for merit assessment according to the outcomes of the fund, as shown below in Table 2.

Table 2. Categorisation of applications across Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant outcomes

Outcome category	Number of applications
Sustainable living	6
Conservation	38
Healthy waters	8
Kaitiakitanga*	7
Ineligible	2

*Applications that deliver on the kaitiakitanga category can also deliver under any of the other three categories, so the total numbers shown do not sum to 54.

ii. Subject matter experts for each of the categories were allocated applications for assessment against the criteria shown below in Table 3. As a result of this assessment process, each application was given an assessment score out of 100 which was used to rank applications from highest to lowest.

Table 3. Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant assessment criteria

Criteria	Weighting
Project impact	40
Connectivity	20
Applicant capacity	20
Māori outcomes	10
Value for money	10
Final score	100

iii. Māori outcomes were assessed by an internal subject matter expert in Te Ao Māori. The assessment evaluated to what extent the project empowered mana whenua as kaitiaki and the integration of Te Ao Māori within the project methodology and goals.

iv. A panel of these subject matter experts considered all applications against the outcome areas and recommended grant allocations based on the final scoring. Higher scoring applications were more likely to be funded, although other key criteria were also considered such as replicability of the project and ability for it to be scaled up across the region.

20. The panel developed funding recommendations for the Environmental and Community Committee’s consideration as described in Attachment B of this report and summarised in the report recommendations.

Summary of applications received

21. A total of 54 applications were received requesting $1,610,708 in funding, with a total applicant contribution of $1,162,623. Following assessment of applications against grant programme criteria, two applications were deemed ineligible as they did not meet criteria for regional significance.

22. Table 4 shows the number of applications per grant programme outcome area, the amount requested, and the applicant contribution towards the projects. This does not include the ineligible applications.

Table 4. Funding requested across Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant programme outcomes

Outcome area	Amount requested	Applicant contribution
sustainable living	$271,726	$147,312
conservation	$1,100,518	$781,129
healthy waters	$203,964	$207,682
Total	$1,576,208	$1,136.123

Multi-year projects

23. The fund provides grants as either one-off or multi-year project grants (maximum of three years) with applicants providing a project plan for the entire period of funding applied for.

24. A total of 19 applicants applied for multi-year funding requesting a total of $1,601,024 over the three year period. As shown in Table 5, the total amount requested for the current funding round is $616,463, and the applicant contribution is $290,502.

Table 5. Distribution of multi-year applications across Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant programme outcomes

Outcome area	Number of applications	Amount requested	Applicant contribution
Sustainable living	2	$79,598	$52,225
Conservation	16	$496,365	$201,097
Healthy waters	1	$6,000	$10,780

Funding recommendations

25. It is recommended that 24 applications are supported with grants, including four multi-year projects, for a total value of $525,080.

26. If approved, the budget granted in 2017/2018 will be $399,710 plus an additional $79,355 from 2018/2019 and $46,015 from 2019/2020 to support the multi-year projects.

27. Recommended grants range in value from $3,000 to $40,000 in value, with an average grant of $16,654.

28. Most successful applications were recommended for partial funding, taking into account value for money, project budgets, ability to scale project and access to other resources. Table 6 below shows funding allocation to each grant programme outcome area.

Table 6. Summary of Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant allocations by outcome area

Outcome area	Number of applications	Amount granted in 2017/2018
Sustainable living	3	$53,000
Conservation	18	$291,710
Healthy waters	3	$55,000
Total	24	$399,710

29. Project assessment and further scoring, reflects how well projects align to grant priorities and how the project implementation would have a positive contribution towards protecting and enhancing Auckland’s significant natural heritage areas or how the project promotes behavioural change for Aucklanders to adopt a more sustainable lifestyle.

30. A high proportion of the projects recommended for funding are focused on achieving conservation outcomes (75 per cent). This reflects the focus of applications received in the funding round, as 70 per cent of applications received contribute to conservation outcomes.

31. While the proportion of sustainable living projects recommended for funding (12 per cent) reflects the focus of applications received in the funding round (11 per cent), prior to the 2018 funding round staff will further refine the assessment process to provide greater balance particularly with regards to behaviour change projects.

32. It was found that four projects would contribute towards Māori outcomes, and three would promote more sustainable lifestyles.

33. Four applications are recommended for multi-year funding, these recommendations are based on high assessment scores (≥90), representing a strong alignment with the grant objectives, high applicant capacity and best-practice project design.

Table 7. Recommendation for multi-year funding allocation

Application ID	Applicant	Project title	Score	2018	2019	2020
17/1833	EcoQuest Education Foundation	Locating bat roost sites in the Hūnua Ranges, Auckland.	100	$19,000	$16,015	$16,015
17/1807	Whakaupoko (West Franklin) Landcare	Predator Free - We Do	98	$35,000	$25,000	$25,000
17/1832	Community Waitākere Charitable Trust	Long Tailed Bat Radio Tracking in the Waitakere Ranges	90	$20,000	$33,340
17/1859	Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi Incorporated	Translocation of Elegant Gecko from Hunua Quarry to Tiritiri Matangi	90	$5,000	$5,000	$5,000

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

35. It is also recommended that a further 28 applications be declined. Most of the applications recommended to be declined have merits and would contribute to the delivery of Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grant outcomes. However, due to limited funding availability, some rank lower than other applications and some quality applications had to be declined.

Match funding

36. A 50 per cent matched funding (applicant contribution) approach is encouraged for the Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant to ensure that the council grants continue to leverage private investment and funding from other providers. However the framework includes provision for applicants to request grants of up to 100 per cent of the total project costs in exceptional circumstances.

37. Following assessment of project budgets and potential environmental outcomes, funding for applications recommended this year do not exceed more than 50 per cent of total project costs in any case.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

38. The Community Grants Policy provides for local boards to operate their own local grants programmes. Local boards may choose to fund local environmental projects and activities, some of which may complement the grants provided at regional level, or vice versa.

39. Information on funding allocation and successful applicants will be provided to all relevant local boards, following the approval of the Environment and Community Committee.

Māori impact statement

40. All grant programmes aim to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Māori. Input from the Independent Māori Statutory Board was sought to ensure that it would capture Māori outcomes.

41. One of the four regional outcomes categories relates specifically to Māori concepts and capacity. Seven applicants, predominantly involved with waterway protection and conservation projects, were identified as contributing towards Māori concepts.

42. Māori outcomes were assessed by an internal subject matter expert in Te Ao Māori. The assessment evaluated to what extend the project empowered mana whenua as kaitiaki and the integration of Te Ao Māori within the project methodology and goals.

43. Four applications recommended for funding were identified during the assessment process as contributing towards Māori outcomes. Of the applications recommended for support, the greatest contribution towards Māori outcomes was identified with 17/1833 Locating bat roost sites in the Hūnua Ranges, Auckland. This project will provide unique opportunities for mana whenua, (Ngāti Pāoa, Ngāti Whanaunga), to collaborate on mātauranga Maori to strengthen their kaitiakitanga role in protecting taonga of the long-tailed bats.

Implementation

44. Once approved, applicants will be notified of funding decisions as soon as practical. Once applicants have been notified, successful grant recipients will have 12 months to three years to complete the proposed project work. At the end of this grant term recipients will be required to meet project accountability requirements detailing how funding has been used and what has been achieved through their project.

45. Unsuccessful applicants will be issued with a decline letter. These applicants will also be offered the opportunity to work with council staff on applications for future funding rounds.

46. Budget allocation for this grant was confirmed under adoption of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. The annual budget for this grant is $488,710. The funding recommendations presented in this report recommend full allocation of the 2017/2018 fund.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme Framework 2017-2018	283
b ⇩	Funding recommendations for Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Fund 2017/2018 round	287

Signatories

Authors

Sonia Parra - Environmental Funding Coordinator

Fran Hayton - Environmental Funding Advisor

Sophie Heighway – Acting General Manager Environmental Services

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

05 December 2017

Allocation of Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund Grants - September 2017

File No.: CP2017/24609

Purpose

1. To receive an update regarding allocation of funds to medium and large (over $5,000) grant applications received for the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund September 2017 funding round.

Executive summary

2. The Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund was established as one of the key initiatives of the Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. The aim of the fund is to support projects that will help achieve the vision, targets and strategic objectives of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012, including waste minimisation and the diversion of waste from landfill in Auckland.

3. The fund is focused on four key outcome areas: resource recovery, commercial waste, organic waste, and community action and behaviour change. It focuses on seed funding new waste minimisation activities, either by implementing new initiatives, or a significant expansion in the scope or coverage of existing activities, and may provide a contribution of up to 50 per cent of the total project cost.

4. In the September 2017 funding round, the fund has $32,518 available to distribute to small grants (less than $5,000) and $647,604 for medium and large grants (over $5,000).

5. Decision making for small grants is delegated to the General Manager Waste Solutions, whilst decision making for medium to large grants is delegated to the Environment and Community Committee.

6. In the September 2017 funding round, 102 grant applications were received requesting over $2.4 million. Of these applications, 37 were for small grants, and 65 were for medium and large grants (of which eight were multi-year applications).

7. All applications were checked for eligibility then assessed and reviewed by a panel of council staff with expertise in waste minimisation. Assessments were undertaken in line with the fund’s criteria including strategic alignment, waste minimisation, community participation or benefit, value for money, and quality of proposal (see Attachment A - Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund Guidelines). Of the 65 medium and large applications, two were deemed ineligible during eligibility checks as they did not meet the eligibility criteria in Attachment A, two were withdrawn, and two further applications were deemed ineligible during panel assessments.

8. It is recommended that 30 applications (including four multi-year applications) are supported totalling $615,794. The rationale for recommending either funding or declining each application are outlined in the confidential report to the 5 December 2017 Environment and Community Committee meeting titled ‘Confidential: Allocation of Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund Grants – September 2017’.

9. The allocation of $615,794 towards grants leaves $31,810 from the medium and large grants funding pool unallocated, which will be carried forward to the 2018/2019 financial year for allocation.

10. This does not present a risk as the grant funding comes from the national waste levy which is administered by the Ministry for the Environment. This means that any funds that are not distributed in the current year can be rolled over to the next financial year’s grant budget. This is recommended, as it is preferable to retain funds for high quality projects received in future years, rather than funding projects which may not achieve desired outcomes solely to achieve full allocation of the fund.

11. The allocation of the grants for the September 2017 funding round will be presented for approval in the confidential section of the 5 December 2017 Environment and Community Committee meeting.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive an update regarding allocation of funds to medium and large (over $5,000) grant applications received for the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund September 2017 funding round.

b) note that allocations for the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund September 2017 will be presented for decision in the confidential section of this meeting.

Comments

Background

12. The Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund was established to support initiatives that will help achieve the vision, targets and strategic objectives of Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan by reducing waste from landfill.

13. The Auckland Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 establishes the purpose of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund as:

· to promote or achieve waste management and minimisation

· to reduce waste to landfill in accordance with the objectives of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

· to foster new ideas and encourage community participation in reducing waste to landfill.

14. A contribution of up to 50 per cent of the project total may be funded, and grants may be used to support a wide range of initiatives, from education programmes to building resource recovery infrastructure, with a focus on seed funding for new initiatives. Applications are open to community groups, local businesses, iwi and other Māori organisations, schools, and other community-based organisations operating in Auckland.

15. Auckland Council wants to target priority waste streams, reduce harm to the environment and improve efficiency of resource use. The Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund aims to do this by supporting new initiatives that complement and enhance existing programmes or address gaps or opportunities. Funding is allocated through four outcome areas:

· resource recovery initiatives and facilities

· commercial waste

· organic waste

· community action and behaviour change.

Funding rounds

16. A total of $50,000 of the annual Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund budget is targeted for small grants of up to $5,000 in value. This amount is distributed over two funding rounds each year (April and September), with decisions on applications delegated to the General Manager Waste Solutions.

17. Each year an additional $450,000 of funding also becomes available for medium and large grants (over $5,000 in value) which are distributed in one funding round (September), with decision making delegated to the Environment and Community Committee. These applications can be for a single year or multiple years. The maximum amount that can be funded for medium to large grants is $50,000 per project, but larger projects may be considered on merit at the discretion of the council. Multi-year applications can be funded for up to $50,000 per project, per year (for a maximum of three years).

18. Funding for the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund comes from the national waste levy (currently set at $10 per tonne) which is administered by the Ministry for the Environment. This means that any funds that are not distributed in the current year, or have been left unclaimed upon expiry of the grant they were allocated to, can be rolled over to the next financial year’s grant budget.

September 2017 funding round

19. In 2017, $155,122 of unallocated or returned funding from previous financial years has been rolled over and included in this funding round. Of this, $7,518 is for the small grants, and the remaining $147,604 is for medium and large grants. Therefore, funding available for distribution to small grants is $32,518 and $647,604 for the medium and large grants.

20. In the September 2017 funding round, 102 applications were received requesting a total funding amount of $2,488,912.

21. Seven applications were accepted after the closure of the funding round, as the applicants encountered issues during submission. All seven late applications fall within the medium to large grants, and funding is recommended for six of these.

22. Four applications were deemed ineligible under the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund guidelines, with two being deemed ineligible during eligibility checks due to the project dates falling into 2017 (prior to decision dates), and another two applications being deemed ineligible by the panel as they did not meet the eligibility criteria as outlined in Attachment A. Two applications were withdrawn by the applicants.

23. Thirty-five eligible applications were for small grants, the majority of which were focused on waste minimisation in schools and kindergartens, community gardens and community-led initiatives.

24. Sixty-one eligible applications were received for medium and large grants (including eight multi-year applications). Applications were spread across all four priority outcome areas (resource recovery and facilities, community action and behaviour change, commercial waste and organic waste).

25. Funding requests were received from a wide variety of applicants, including businesses, social enterprises, community groups, marae and educational facilities. Community-led solutions to waste minimisation featured strongly in this funding round.

Figure 1. Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund applicant organisation breakdown

Note: Applicants have been categorised in Figure 1 based on their organisation type, and in some cases this may differ from legal status. For example, a school that listed their organisation type as an educational institution may have a legal status as a charitable trust.

Assessment and scoring

26. All funding applications are assessed for eligibility against the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund Guidelines, as provided in Attachment A. Applications are then assessed by a panel comprised of council staff, who score applications against the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund assessment criteria. These include:

· strategic alignment with Auckland’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

· waste minimisation

· community participation and/or community benefit

· value for investment

· quality of proposal.

27. Applications which are recommended for funding generally have an overall score of over 50 out of 100. High scoring applications are typically either:

· strategically aligned with Auckland’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

· have high potential to minimise or divert waste from landfill, or

· have a high level of community engagement and benefit.

28. To support panel assessments, feedback was sought from local boards who provide local knowledge of applicants, and project alignment with local board priorities.

29. Feedback on technical elements of projects was also sought from subject matter experts within council. These subject matter experts drew on their expertise in particular areas of waste minimisation (for example, composting and reduction of food waste) to assess whether projects are likely to achieve positive outcomes.

Recommendations regarding allocation of funds

30. The funding recommendations included in the confidential report to the 5 December Environment and Community Committee meeting were developed in line with the fund guidelines, priorities and agreed funding principles.

31. Of the 61 eligible applications, it is recommended that the Environment and Community Committee allocate grants to 30 applicants from the medium and large grant funding pool, meaning that $615,794 be allocated of the $647,604 available.

32. All recommended projects are well aligned with the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan’s strategic objectives, provide new ways to minimise waste, and demonstrate that they are working towards being self-sustainable.

33. The applications being recommended for funding address one or more of the four funding outcome areas of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund (resource recovery initiatives and facilities, commercial waste, organic waste, and community action and behaviour change), and scored highly on assessment criteria.

34. The amount of funding recommended under each application has been decided in line with eligibility criteria as outlined in Attachment A, the scoring guide, and indications given by the applicants as to whether lesser amounts of funding will still be beneficial to their projects. The rationale for either accepting or declining applications has been included as part of the confidential report.

35. Of all medium and large grant applications received, 33 applications, including two applications deemed ineligible at panel stage, are recommended to be declined for reasons such as:

· insufficient information provision

· projects not demonstrating high waste minimisation outcomes

· low potential for community engagement or benefit

· weak alignment with strategic objectives of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

36. If the recommendations under the confidential report are approved, $31,810 will be carried forward from the medium and large grant funding pool to the next financial year and be available for allocation in 2018/2019.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

37. Local boards have a strong interest in waste minimisation and play a key role in promoting the fund to their network and communities.

38. Local board members were asked to provide informal feedback on Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund applications from their area, in particular, relating to their local knowledge of applicants and how well grant applications aligned with local board priorities.

39. In total, nine local boards provided feedback on applications which was largely supportive. Their feedback was taken into consideration to determine the final recommendations.

40. Local boards will be informed about the results of the funding round and successful applications from their local board areas in December 2017.

Māori impact statement

41. A guiding principle of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund is to support waste minimisation projects which enable Māori, in their role as kaitiaki, to participate in co-management of resources and support sustainable development of Māori outcomes, leadership, community and partnerships.

42. In the 2017/2018 financial year, facilitation of project scoping meetings at Papatūānuku Kōkiri Marae, Hoani Waititi Marae and Ōrākei Marae were undertaken to increase the uptake of the fund by Māori.

43. In this funding round, eight applications were received from groups who have been identified as mana whenua or part of the Māori community, which is an increase of six applications on those received last year.

44. Further work is needed to increase awareness and uptake of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund by Māori. This will be an ongoing focus of the fund in 2018/2019, and further work will be undertaken on how best to do this, in consultation with council staff with knowledge in Te Ao Māori.

Implementation

45. Once approved, applicants will be notified of funding decisions as soon as practical. When successful grant recipients have signed a grant agreement they will be able to begin their proposed project. At the end of the grant term, recipients will be required to meet project accountability requirements detailing how funding has been used and what has been achieved through their project.

46. Unsuccessful applicants will be issued with a decline letter. These applicants will also be offered a written evaluation upon request, and the opportunity to work with council staff on applications for future funding rounds.

47. The funding and administration of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund can be managed through existing budgets provided by the national waste levy.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund Guidelines	313

Signatories

Authors

Helen McCabe Waste Planning Advisor (Initiatives)

Julie Dickinson, Waste Planning Manager

Parul Sood, General Manager Waste Solutions

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

[1] Council holds most of the park in “fee simple” under the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 and subject to the regional parks provisions of the LGA. This allows Council, as landowner, to restrict access, subject to the usual LGA decision-making processes. Some pockets are held as scenic and recreation reserves under the Reserves Act, which includes specific authority for closures where required, in the case of scenic reserves under section 55 to improve or allow for regeneration of the reserve, and for both scenic and recreation reserves (sections 53 and 55) where “considered desirable or necessary for the proper and beneficial management, administration and control of the reserve.” As the park area is a patchwork hundreds of land titles, where specific track or area closures are contemplated, due diligence on those individual titles would be required to more accurately advise.

[2] Council holds most of the park in “fee simple” under the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 and subject to the regional parks provisions of the LGA. This allows Council, as landowner, to restrict access, subject to the usual LGA decision-making processes. Some pockets are held as scenic and recreation reserves under the Reserves Act, which includes specific authority for closures where required, in the case of scenic reserves under section 55 to improve or allow for regeneration of the reserve, and for both scenic and recreation reserves (sections 53 and 55) where “considered desirable or necessary for the proper and beneficial management, administration and control of the reserve.” As the park area is a patchwork hundreds of land titles, where specific track or area closures are contemplated, due diligence on those individual titles would be required to more accurately advise.

[3] Following Andersons protection area. Anderson track temporary closure means the removal of the link to Peripatus and Swanson Pipeline tracks which have had recent track upgrades

[4] SLR Consultants March 2017. Waste Management Options Review and Modelling – Executive Summary Review for Auckland Council.

[5] Future urban areas are identified in the ‘Future Urban Land Supply Strategy’ adopted by council’s Planning Committee on 4 July 2017.

[6] Based on the average household size of 3.0 in Auckland at Census 2013.

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

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