An apology from Cr C Casey has been received.

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, 5 December 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: Low Carbon Auckland Plan - Grant Hewison

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Grant Hewison on behalf of Low Carbon Auckland will provide further information regarding the approach to the 2018 review and update of Low Carbon Auckland Plan.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive and note the presentation from Grant Hewison regarding the Low Carbon Auckland Plan.

5.2 Public Input: Response to the 'A strategy for Auckland's urban forest’ report - Wendy Gray

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Ms Wendy Gray will present her response in relation to the ‘A strategy for Auckland’s urban forest’ report. A copy of the presentation and background information in support of Ms Gray’s address is attached as Attachment A.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive and note the presentation from Wendy Gray in relation to the strategy for Auckland’s urban forest.

Attachments

a Background information and presentation .......................................... 237

5.3 Public Input: 10 year urban forest restoration plan: Rob Thomas

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Rob Thomas, elected member, Waitemata Local Board will present his response in relation to the strategy for Auckland’s urban forest.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive and note the public input from Rob Thomas, elected member, Waitemata Local Board in relation to the strategy for Auckland’s urban forest.

Attachments

a Presentation ........................................................................................ 257

5.4 Public Input: Citizens Advice Bureaux services review - Diane Taylor and Gary Nicholls

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To address the committee in relation to the Citizens Advice Bureaux services review. The following speakers will address the meeting:

· Diane Taylor - Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux

· Gary Nicholls – Auckland Justice of the Peace.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive and note the public input presentations from Diane Taylor, Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux and Gary Nicholls – Auckland Justice of the Peace regarding the Citizens Advice Bureaux services review.

6 Local Board Input

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

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

6.1 Local Board Input: Illegal Dumping in Manurewa - Angela Dalton, Chairperson

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Angela Dalton, chairperson Manurewa Local Board wishes to address the committee in relation to illegal dumping which is a huge problem in the Manurewa area. The presentation is attached as Attachment A.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive and note the local board input presentation from Angela Dalton, Chair, Manurewa Local Board regarding illegal dumping in the Manurewa area.

Attachments

a Presentation ........................................................................................ 277

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

20 February 2018

Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux Services

File No.: CP2018/01322

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve the approach to Auckland Council’s funding relationship with the Citizen Advice Bureaux for the provision of services to Aucklanders from 2018/2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. A review of Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) services in Auckland has been undertaken following a resolution by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in April 2016.

3. Auckland Council funded Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx) $1.839 million in 2017/2018. ACABx distributes the funds to bureaux.

4. Options for CAB services were developed to address the opportunities and issues raised from the regional relationship and from local boards during the review.

5. The recommended option:

· Seeks to change the population-based funding model to achieve more equitable distribution of funding by including up to date population estimates, usage and deprivation

· improve accountability and strengthen relationships

· as part of the strategic relationship agreement review the number and location of CAB sites across the region within the current funding envelope.

6. The proposed approach will be implemented through a three-year funding agreement with ACABx and the joint development of a Regional Network Provision Framework with the CAB.

7. It is recognised that the required changes are significant for CABs as volunteer-based organisations. Council staff will work with CABs to support the changes for the future sustainability of the service.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the negotiation of a three-year funding agreement 2018-2021 with Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated conditional on:

i. a review of the population-based funding model that incorporates up-to-date population estimates for all local board areas where the population can access a CAB site and allocates funding on the basis of 70% population, 25% usage and 5% deprivation

ii. improved reporting and access to consistent data on the service provided at regional and site level

iii. meeting the requirements of a local relationship framework to support strengthened and more strategic relationships between local boards and bureaux

iv. finalising a new strategic relationship agreement 2018-2021 with Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated that will support the development of a Regional Network Provision Framework. This framework will include reviews of the number and location of bureau sites across the region to address service gaps and opportunities.

Horopaki / Context

The review

8. CAB received council funding of $1.839 million for 2017/2018 to provide communities with access to information, advice, referral and client advocacy services.

9. Currently there are 31 Auckland CAB sites in 18 local board areas, with over 900 trained volunteers fielding approximately 300,000 enquiries per annum; 78% of the service is delivered face-to-face. A map of the sites is provided in Attachment A.

10. On 7 April 2016 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolved to:

“seek information from staff regarding a review of the service after consultation with the 21 local boards on the issues raised by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board regarding Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx) funding, to achieve greater equity and fairness, taking into consideration social issues in local communities across Auckland.” (REG/2016/22)

11. The review scope included:

· assessing CAB service alignment to council strategic priorities, local board plans and policies

· equitable service provision with Aucklanders’ access to the CAB services and CAB response to growth and change in Auckland’s communities

· equity of funding for bureaux across Auckland and the basis for how funding is distributed

· assessing the value of CAB services

· determining how the council interacts and engages with bureaux and governance needs with regard to CAB reporting and accountability.

12. Throughout the review staff have engaged with Citizens Advice Bureau New Zealand (CABNZ) and ACABx to keep them fully informed. The review has not involved all stakeholders, for example staff have not sought the input of individual bureaux or CAB clients.

13. Local boards have provided input to the review through two rounds of engagement.

Figure1: Review process

14. Formal resolutions from 20 local boards are provided in Attachment B. Great Barrier Island Local Board does not have a CAB and has not provided input.

Current funding relationship

15. ACABx was established in 2013 as a board made up of representatives from across Auckland bureaux.

16. Auckland Council and ACABx have a Funding Agreement and a Strategic Relationship Agreement. Both the current agreements expire on 30 June 2018 and the outcome of the council’s review will be reflected in any new agreements negotiated.

17. ACABx distributes the council funding to bureaux using a population-based funding model which replaced previous funding arrangements by legacy councils. There has been a four year phased implementation of population-based funding resulting in a decrease of funding to CAB Auckland City and CAB Waitakere and an increase of funding to CAB North Shore and northern CABs. The funding impact on southern CABs, excluding Papakura, is less clear as they previously received a small operational grant from Manukau City Council and were staffed by council employees.

Table 1: Funding allocation to bureaux by ACABx 2017/2018

Cluster	Cluster population (2013)	Bureaux	ACABx distribution of council funding
Cluster 1	99,795	Helensville	$ 39,104
		Wellsford	$ 37,102
		Hibiscus Coast	$ 50,097
Cluster 2	236,550	CAB North Shore (5 sites)	$ 299,381
Cluster 3	228,675	CAB Waitakere (5 sites)	$ 289,415
Clusters 4/5	382,605	CAB Auckland City (10 sites)	$ 484,288
Cluster 6	401,619	Māngere	$ 84,355
		Manurewa	$ 80,189
		Pakuranga + Botany (A)	$ 95,581
		Papakura	$ 83,769
		Ōtara	$ 84,212
		Papatoetoe	$ 80,189
		Total	$ 1,707,682

Note:

Ōtāhuhu Agency does not receive any regional funding through ACABx, other than that provided to CAB Māngere. ACABx received funding of $1,838,606. The amount distributed excludes CPI adjusted funding of $27,172, ACABx fees of $36,229 and $67,524 rental fees held towards Auckland Council lease payments.

18. Council’s regional funding to ACABx is used to fund CAB salaried staff and office costs and covers between 75-90% of bureaux running costs.

19. Local boards provide support to CAB through accommodation as the majority of bureaux are located in council facilities. In 2015/2016 other council support to CAB including accommodation, utilities and maintenance costs, and discretionary grants was approximately $745,000.

20. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board advocated to ACABx for additional funding to establish an Ōtāhuhu Agency in 2015. The request was declined by ACABx as this would have involved a redistribution of the existing regional funding. Under the ACABx funding model CAB Māngere received $84,355 in 2017/2018 as its share of funding based on the population of southern cluster 6 area. To establish and maintain a CAB service from the Tōia Ōtāhuhu Recreation Precinct the local board has funded CAB Māngere $81,333 from 2015-2018 independent of the regional funding agreement.

21. CABNZ receives support from central government for their national systems which they advise provides the equivalent of $25,000 a year support to each CAB site through information and communications technology and learning and development for volunteers.

22. The Lottery Grants Board provides funding for the national systems and $5,500 a year directly to each CAB site to support their operations.

23. Immigration NZ funds the Language Connect service. Seven Auckland CAB sites receive $10,000 a year from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to deliver the face to face settlement information service, Migrant Connect. The sites are Browns Bay, Northcote, New Lynn, Central Auckland, Eden-Albert, Manurewa and Pakuranga.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

24. Information on the structure of the CAB in Auckland, access channels to CAB services, the top 10 interview categories and the hours of operation and number of enquiries per CAB site for 2016/2017 is provided in Attachment C.

25. Council’s grant to CAB services supports the Auckland Plan (strategic direction one) to create a strong, inclusive and equitable society that ensures opportunity for all Aucklanders. It is also consistent with the Empowered Communities Approach, where individuals, whānau and communities have the power and ability to influence decisions. CAB services are viewed by most local boards as contributing to local board plan outcomes, such as connected communities, employment and housing.

26. The following aspects are working well:

· Most local boards consider the services are of high value to the community.

· Council funding is leveraged as services are delivered by well trained, approachable, multi-lingual and knowledgeable volunteers.

· People are connected with information and services otherwise out of reach, especially for migrants, older people, international students and lower socioeconomic groups.

· Under the strategic relationship agreement between the council and ACABx:

o Council and ACABx have worked to strengthen the partnering relationship

o CABNZ has provided leadership to support sharing of CAB data and improved accountability and reporting on the service.

27. The following issues were identified:

· The need for better connections between local boards and bureaux to support improved two-way communication.

· The need for better bureaux data and information on trends and emerging issues at regional and site level.

· Inequity in distribution of funding of bureaux and service sites across the region.

· Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board have requested that ACABx should direct regional funding to the Ōtāhuhu agency.

· The ACABx funding model treats the local board areas of Upper Harbour and Franklin that do not have a CAB differently. CAB North Shore receives funding for the Upper Harbour Local Board area. The Franklin Local Board area is not included in the funding model.

· The inability of the service to be responsive to growth and community need:

o It is unclear whether there is good awareness of the services across all communities, and better outreach may be needed to targeted groups that are currently under-represented as users (e.g. some migrant groups, young people, rural communities).

o Local boards identified new CAB sites to be considered at Clendon, Drury/Paerata, Howick, Ormiston, Pukekohe and Takanini. ACABx is of the view that capped council funding has constrained the ability to open new sites in growth areas or where there are service gaps.

· Elected members have raised the view that central government should provide more funding to CAB. CAB data shows that over 25% of interviews are around consumer law, education, health, citizenship and immigration, employment rights, tax, income support, and housing. In addition a significant proportion of legal enquiries and Justice of the Peace (JP) appointments are government-related. Combined regional and local Auckland Council funding is approximately $2.5 million annually and central government and lotteries funding to Auckland CABs is approximately $1,015,500 annually.

· Council and ACABx acknowledge that there has been limited progress on regional level change under the current strategic relationship agreement. ACABx is a membership organisation and influences rather than directly controls local service provision.

· The Auckland Justices of the Peace Association provides 65 service desks across Auckland, including at courts, libraries and all 31 CAB sites. The association has advised that its members carry out 520,000 appointments annually taking oaths and declarations, witnessing signatures and certifying copies. Neither the association nor CAB can confirm the total number of JP-related enquiries through CAB. Most CAB sites field a high number of JP enquiries but in the collection of data this is not differentiated from the standard CAB services. The Auckland Justices of the Peace Association wrote to council on 26 January 2018 requesting funding of $100,000 to cover the costs of service provision by its members, see Attachment D.

Options

28. Draft options for Auckland Council’s funding relationship with the CAB were developed in response to the issues and opportunities raised.

Table 2: Draft options

Option 1: Enhanced status quo	Enhancements are a refined funding model, reporting improvements and strengthened local relationships
Option 2: Locally driven	Transfers responsibility for existing budget to local boards
Option 3: Regional service provision	Collective review of funding levels and number and location of service sites

Feedback on draft options – Local Boards

29. Local boards provided feedback on the draft options in the second round of input.

Table 3: Local board feedback

Option 1: Enhanced status quo

Preferred by nine local boards*

Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Waitākere Ranges, Whau

Option 2: Locally driven

Preferred by two local boards on the basis that local issues can be reflected in the funding relationship

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Waiheke

Other boards viewed this option as likely to exacerbate service gaps if some local boards decide not fund bureaux

Option 3: Regional service provision

Preferred by four local boards as it enables a full assessment of service need and funding level to determine a new approach to future CAB service provision, required funding and the number and location of service sites*

Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōrākei, Waitematā

*Two local boards (Papakura and Puketāpapa) supported aspects of Options 1 and 3.

30. Rodney Local Board did not have a preference as it considers this a regional matter. Upper Harbour Local Board did not support any options, requesting that a sub-regional funding option be developed. Albert-Eden Local Board and Great Barrier Local Board have not provided feedback on the options.

Feedback on draft options – CAB

31. CABNZ and ACABx have been briefed on the draft options being considered and ACABx has also sought feedback from its member bureaux.

32. CABNZ and ACABx prefer a version of Option 1: Enhanced status quo, which involves improved reporting and local relationships.

33. ACABx is concerned that Option 2: locally driven, could result in a return to the legacy council situation where there were significant funding inequalities between bureaux. Option 2 would also increase the administrative burden on CABs and Auckland Council.

34. CABNZ are concerned about the level of change, uncertainty and effort involved in Option 3: Regional service provision.

35. CAB feedback on Option 3: Regional service provision, included concern about the role of Auckland Council, “We believe that Council direction of regional service development would place the provision of service at risk given that CAB is an autonomous organisation of volunteers.”

Recommended option

36. Analysis of the options is provided in Attachment E.

37. Staff have merged parts of Options 1 and 3 as the best approach to achieve more consistent regional service delivery. This new recommended option would make improvements within the current arrangements and provide a mechanism to consider the future network provision across the region within the current funding envelope.

38. Based on the information available the current level of funding is considered adequate. The operational grant from council includes an annual inflation provision. All of the bureaux have reserves and none are running at a deficit.

39. Under this approach, ACABx will need to take a long-term view of site location in order to achieve the optimal number of sites within the current funding envelope. CAB will need to be innovative about service sites and consider rationalising some sites to accommodate opening any new sites.

40. It would involve:

· Negotiating a three-year funding agreement 2018-2021 with ACABx conditional on changes to the population-based funding model, improved reporting and meeting the requirements of a local relationship framework between local boards and bureaux.

· Negotiating a new strategic relationship agreement 2018-2021 with ACABx to support the development of a Regional Network Provision Framework by council, CABNZ, ACABx and bureaux that reviews the number and location of bureau sites across the region to address service gaps and opportunities.

Proposed changes to funding model

41. The ACABx population-based cluster funding model could be improved by including up to date population data and being consistent in the treatment of local board areas where the population can access a CAB site.

Table 4: Proposed changes to the population-based funding model

Current model

Proposed change

Description

Census 2013 population data

(source: Statistics NZ)

Annual population estimates

(source: Statistics NZ)

Use the local board area population adjusted each year to reflect changes in population estimates provided by Statistics New Zealand

Upper Harbour Local Board population factored into funding cluster 2 (CABNS)

Franklin Local Board population excluded

Split Upper Harbour local Board population 50/50 between clusters 2 (CABNS) & 3 (CABWai)

Include Franklin Local Board population in cluster 6 (southern CABs)

Consistent treatment of local board areas where the population can access a CAB site. Acknowledge that Upper Harbour residents are likely to access services at both CABNS and CABWai

Note: Excludes Great Barrier Island

42. Applying these changes to the 2017/2018 funding allocation would result in a decrease in funding to northern CABs, CAB North Shore and CAB Auckland City and increase in allocation to CAB Waitākere and southern CABs.

43. Several local boards consider that areas of high deprivation should get more funding as there is increased and more complex need. CAB do not have evidence on the significance of deprivation as a driver of service demand. The locally driven initiatives budget of local boards (other than Waiheke and Great Barrier Island) is allocated based on population (90%), deprivation (5%) as well as the size of the local board area (5%). The 5% weighting for deprivation could be included within the funding model for CAB as it has been used in the council context as a way to approximate additional need.

44. Usage of the service (as measured by enquiries) could be included as a proxy to reflect the other factors that drive service demand. This is a very broad measure and does not take into account the different types of enquiries managed by bureaux and the overall time spent with clients. Its inclusion would achieve more equitable funding and should be an incentive for CAB to collect robust data on its services consistently across sites.

45. Based on these changes, three alternative funding models for the allocation of funding through ACABx were considered:

Model A: Funding allocated based on 100% population (updating the population-based model as per Table 1)

Model B: Funding allocated based on 70% population and 30% usage

Model C: Funding allocated based on 70% population, 25% usage and 5% deprivation

Table 5: Alternative funding models

Funding Model	A 100% population	B 70% population 30% usage	C 70% population 25% usage 5% deprivation
Cluster 1 Northern CABs	$ 120,156	$ 106,214	$ 107,168
Cluster 2 CAB North Shore	$ 249,178	$ 255,352	$ 250,448
Cluster 3 CAB Waitakere	$ 302,942	$ 321,189	$ 318,248
Cluster 4/5 CAB Auckland City	$ 475,810	$ 506,794	$ 502,823
Cluster 6 Southern CABs	$ 559,595	$ 518,133	$ 528,995
Total	$ 1,707,682	$ 1,707,682	$ 1,707,682

Note: Based on 2017/2018 funding distributed.

Figure 2: Change in allocation from 2017/2018 actual funding

46. Model C is proposed as it addresses many of the issues identified in the review and can be implemented for 2018/2019.

47. The model does not explicitly provide additional funding for the Ōtāhuhu agency, although if applied for 2017/2018 would result in an increased funding allocation of $20,700 for cluster 6 southern CABs.

48. The model does not allocate funding for new sites. The fixed funding envelope and cluster funding based on population, usage and deprivation encourages CAB to consider the overall number and location of sites to serve Aucklanders.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

49. Feedback was sought from local boards on the three draft options. Nineteen boards provided feedback. Local board views are attached in Attachment B.

· Broadly, local boards in the north and west preferred Option 1: Enhanced status quo.

· No central boards preferred Option 1: Enhanced status quo, either supporting Option 2: Locally driven, Option 3: Regional service provision or aspects of both Options 1 and 3 (Puketāpapa).

· Southern boards preferred Option 1: Enhanced status quo or Option 3: Regional service provision.

50. The recommended option will see the development of a local relationship framework and better data to support more strategic relationships between local boards and CAB sites in their area.

51. Local boards will have the opportunity to be involved in the development of a Regional Network Provision Framework.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

52. For 2016/2017, Māori comprised eight per cent of users of CAB services, ranging from 2.5 per cent of users in the central Auckland/Waiheke cluster to 13.2 per cent in south/east Auckland cluster.

53. CAB services are available to all, and there is limited targeting of services to particular groups, including Māori.

54. The internal council review conducted by staff has not involved all stakeholders. As staff have not sought the input of individual bureaux or CAB clients, no specific engagement with Māori was undertaken.

55. The recommended option will not address more responsive local CAB service provision, which is the responsibility of individual bureaux.

56. The proposed changes to the funding model includes a 5% deprivation component. Higher proportions of Māori live in areas with higher deprivation scores.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

57. ACABx received $1.839 million for 2017/2018, which includes an annual inflation provision. This expenditure is included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

58. Under the recommended option the total funding to CAB services would remain unchanged other than a continued provision for inflation.

59. Council’s funding agreement with ACABx would introduce a funding allocation model to clusters based on 70% population, 25% usage and 5% deprivation to achieve a more equitable distribution of the funding across Auckland.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

60. Not addressing the future network provision is a risk for the sustainability of the CAB service in Auckland.

61. ACABx is concerned that too much change to the service and sites may make it difficult to retain and recruit the volunteers who deliver the service. Any changes to sites will need to be managed carefully.

62. Council has a long standing relationship with the CAB. The development of the Regional Network Provision Framework will be reflected in the new strategic relationship agreement between council and ACABx and will also involve CABNZ, individual bureaux and local boards.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

63. To implement the recommended option a three-year funding agreement 2018-2021 and strategic relationship agreement 2018-2021 will be negotiated with ACABx.

64. It is recognised that the required changes are significant for CABs as volunteer-based organisations. Council staff will work with CABs to support the changes for the future sustainability of the service.

65. Some phasing in the introduction of the new funding model may be required to reduce any negative impacts from funding changes on bureaux.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux sites February 2018	23
b ⇩	Local Board Input	25
c ⇩	CAB structure and services in Auckland	61
d ⇩	Auckland Justices of the Peace funding request	65
e ⇩	Analysis of the options	67

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Carole Blacklock - Specialist Advisor - Partnering and Social Investment, Community Empowerment Unit, Arts, Community a

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

20 February 2018

Low Carbon Auckland: 2018 Review and Update

File No.: CP2018/00541

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / 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) with a view to a full review and update by 2018.

3. Low Carbon Auckland focuses on meeting 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. To date, it has delivered actions across five main areas: transport, energy, the built environment, waste, and agriculture/forestry (http://tinyurl.com/LowCarbAkl17).

4. Given the progress made and the focus on emissions reductions, there are only relatively small improvements that can be made under the current Low Carbon Auckland. An updated and refreshed plan will enable Auckland to make genuine progress towards emission reduction and climate resilience.

5. Through our membership of C40 Cities (AUC/2015/197), Auckland Council is committed to developing an adaptation strategy for the region to prepare for the impacts of climate change. It is proposed that this is incorporated into the review and update of Low Carbon Auckland, instead of being approached as a separate task. This will establish a coordinated approach to climate change, in line with international best practice, not just emissions reduction.

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

· incorporate an adaptation strategy for the region and a robust monitoring framework;

· identify and prioritise current programmes that will deliver the greatest impact in addressing climate change and will ensure value for money for current and future Aucklanders;

· reflect new commitments made by Auckland since 2014 and incorporate emerging national and international priorities (e.g. the Paris Agreement and New Zealand government’s intention to set a target of net zero emissions by 2050);

· address new evidence to inform decision making, such as the NIWA climate projections report for Auckland and our updated greenhouse gas emissions inventory, both released late last year.

7. The review and update will be facilitated by Auckland Council, working with public, private and voluntary sectors and drawing in expertise as appropriate to enable learning from sectoral experts and developing opportunities for co-financing and resourcing of actions.

8. 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.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the approach for the review and update of Low Carbon Auckland, as shown in the table at paragraph 33 of the report, to include both a mitigation and adaptation strategy for the region

b) agree that the update of Low Carbon Auckland be presented to the Environment and Community Committee for decision by December 2018

c) agree to the creation of an Independent Advisory Group, to provide on-going guidance, challenge and evaluation of the review and update of Low Carbon Auckland

d) delegate the decision on the membership of the Independent Advisory Group to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment and Community Committee.

Horopaki / Context

9. 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).

10. 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.

11. 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).

12. Since 2009, Auckland’s population and Gross Domestic Product have increased. C0₂ emissions have also increased but the C0₂ increase per person has slightly declined. This is a small but positive trend and the proposed update will refresh momentum and improve governance, collaboration and the mandate for action.

13. In addition, the Government has stated a commitment to enacting a Zero Carbon Act, with a target of becoming a carbon-neutral economy by 2050 (net zero emissions). This has been further defined within Government’s 100-day plan for climate change with a view for a Zero Carbon Bill to be presented to the House of Representatives in October 2018.

Preparing for climate impacts (adaptation)

14. In August 2017 the Environment and Community Committee was presented with an initial summary of activity to prepare for climate change. Many successes were highlighted but it 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.

15. To better address these considerations, Auckland Council, Watercare, Auckland Transport, Panuku and the three Auckland-area District Health Boards jointly commissioned the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) to provide insights into how Auckland’s climate is likely to change^{^[1]}.

16. 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 was launched with a media briefing on 6^th December with representation from the Chief Sustainability Office, CDEM, Healthy Waters, Engineering and Technical Services and NIWA’s Chief Scientist.

C40 Cities

17. 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.

18. 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.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

19. Staff have identified three options for the review and update of Low Carbon Auckland. The options are:

1) Status quo (i.e. Low Carbon Auckland remains and no adaptation strategy is developed)

2) Review and update Low Carbon Auckland and develop a separate adaptation strategy (current commitment)

3) Integrate an adaptation strategy into the review and update of Low Carbon Auckland

Option	Benefits	Risks
1.) Status quo	· No additional 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.	· Increasing climate-associated costs, such as maintenance and repair, through inadequate joined-up decision making. · Given new evidence and progress to date, Low Carbon Auckland will not deliver the required level of emissions reductions. · 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. · Does not address appetite across stakeholders to improve joint working in this area and missed opportunities to identify potential co-financing across sectors.
2.) Refresh Low Carbon Auckland and develop a separate adaptation strategy	· Clear delineation between mitigation and adaptation. · Known Low Carbon Auckland brand maintained. · Adaptation strategy addresses identified gaps of Low Carbon Auckland.	· Increased number of ‘climate change’ strategies overall and lack of joined up approach, potentially weakening each and leading to stakeholder fatigue. · High risk of duplication between strategies, leading to confusion. · Reduced opportunities to build a clear business case and prioritisation criteria for actions that demonstrate multiple benefits and value for money. · Greater resource requirement, both financially and with regards to staff time.
3.) Integrate an adaptation strategy into the review and update of Low Carbon Auckland Recommended option	· A more collaborative and joined-up approach, enabling clearer communication and opportunities to deliver improved value for money · Coordinated stakeholder engagement to maximise resources and deliver efficiencies. · Enables greater opportunities for innovation and to build capacity to deliver the scale of emissions reduction and resilience needed. · Greater coordination across associated strategies and frameworks (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 that 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. · Potential confusion if some actions need to be completed prior to adoption of update plan.

Option

Benefits

Risks

1.) Status quo

· No additional 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.

· Increasing climate-associated costs, such as maintenance and repair, through inadequate joined-up decision making.

· Given new evidence and progress to date, Low Carbon Auckland will not deliver the required level of emissions reductions.

· 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.

· Does not address appetite across stakeholders to improve joint working in this area and missed opportunities to identify potential co-financing across sectors.

2.) Refresh Low Carbon Auckland and develop a separate adaptation strategy

· Clear delineation between mitigation and adaptation.

· Known Low Carbon Auckland brand maintained.

· Adaptation strategy addresses identified gaps of Low Carbon Auckland.

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

· High risk of duplication between strategies, leading to confusion.

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

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

3.) Integrate an adaptation strategy into the review and update of Low Carbon Auckland

Recommended option

· A more collaborative and joined-up approach, enabling clearer communication and opportunities to deliver improved value for money

· Coordinated stakeholder engagement to maximise resources and deliver efficiencies.

· Enables greater opportunities for innovation and to build capacity to deliver the scale of emissions reduction and resilience needed.

· Greater coordination across associated strategies and frameworks (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 that 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.

· Potential confusion if some actions need to be completed prior to adoption of update plan.

20. Option 3 is recommended as it enables:

· prioritisation of actions across multiple outcomes and embeds value for money approach

· greater scope for innovation and collaboration to address challenges and opportunities

· identification of opportunities for co-financing of actions

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

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

21. The update will require local insights and engagement with local boards throughout to reflect the diversity of the Auckland region. In some cases, local solutions will be required and these will be worked through with Local Boards.

22. Working with Local Board Advisors, staff propose that local board views are sought at key stages throughout the process, including through workshops held in June. These workshops will build on and complement broader Local Board engagement such as through the Sustainability Initiatives team, Parks and CDEM.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

24. 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.

25. 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 from inception through to delivery.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

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

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

29. 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.

30. Many actions identified through the updated plan will result in implementation costs. These costs may or may not be able to be found within existing budgets and could form part of Annual Plan and prioritisation discussions. To support this:

· a full review of 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.

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

32. Risks are discussed as part of options appraisal and so are not repeated here.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

33. The indicative key steps in the review and update of Low Carbon Auckland are provided in Table 1 with a view for completion by December 2018:

Key stages	High level action summary
Stage 1: Initiation and Research	• 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 • Review all actions against prioritisation criteria • Draft plan
Stage 4: Consultation and approvals	• Consultation draft to committee • Consultation (linking to other plans, approach tbc) • Updates to action plan and consultation report • Adoption of updated plan by council and partners

Key stages

High level action summary

Stage 1:

Initiation and Research

• 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

• Review all actions against prioritisation criteria

• Draft plan

Stage 4:

Consultation and approvals

• Consultation draft to committee

• Consultation (linking to other plans, approach tbc)

• Updates to action plan and consultation report

• Adoption of updated plan by council and partners

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

35. If the recommendations in this report are approved, it is proposed that membership of the group will be agreed by the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment and Community Committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Sarah Anderson - Principal Specialist Sustainability and Climate Resilence
Authoriser	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

20 February 2018

A strategy for Auckland's urban ngahere (forest)

File No.: CP2018/00045

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / 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 as one way to counteract the pressures and impacts of these changes to maintain a quality, healthy and people friendly urban environment.

4. Whilst work is underway to better understand the trends of Auckland’s urban ngahere, anecdotal evidence suggests it is likely in decline.

5. A draft strategy for Auckland’s urban ngahere (Attachment A) was developed to meet a strategic gap to create and maintain an urban ngahere for current and future generations.

6. Given the contribution trees in the urban area make to many evidence-based benefits, the purpose of the strategy is to have a deliberate, long-term and strategic approach to creating and maintaining an urban ngahere, rather than assuming it will happen voluntarily.

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

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

9. 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 the canopy cover to 30 per cent (across Auckland’s urban area) with no local board areas less than 15 per cent.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the strategy “Together growing Auckland’s urban ngahere for a flourishing future”, as per Attachment A of the agenda report, incorporating any final changes resolved by the Committee.

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

Horopaki / Context

The need for a strategy for Auckland’s urban ngahere

10. 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^{^[2]}.

11. 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). It is also important in the daily lives of Aucklanders as it plays a significant part in providing basic urban amenity.

12. 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.

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

14. 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.

15. An urban ngahere is increasingly essential in counteracting the associated pressures of growth in urban Auckland.

16. The strategy focuses on urban public land – such as parks and streets – as a starting point as this is where council can unlock the greatest impact in the first instance.

17. 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.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Strategy development and contents

18. 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.

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

· a vision

· main objectives

· key mechanisms

· a set of supporting principles.

20. After approval of the framework, eighteen high-level actions were identified as part of the strategy’s implementation framework (Attachment A; implementation framework). As directed by Committee in September 2017 (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.

21. The eighteen 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.

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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.

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

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe / Local impacts and local board views

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

27. 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 2017 (CP2017/18710).

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

29. 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.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

30. Auckland’s urban ngahere is an important part of Auckland’s cultural heritage. In addition to environmental, social and economic benefits, urban ngahere represent traditional supermarkets (kai o te ngahere), learning centres (wānanga o te ngahere), the medicine cabinet (kapata nongoā), schools (kura o te ngahere) and spiritual domain (wairua o te ngahere). They also represent landing places of waka (canoe) and birth whenua (to Māori, it is customary to bury the whenua or placenta in the earth, to return it to the land).

31. 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.

32. Mana whenua views expressed at the three workshops (attended by Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Paoa, Te Ākitai Waiohua and Ngāti Tamaoho) and a separate meeting with Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, 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.

33. The proposed strategy identifies ongoing engagement with mana whenua to identify more detailed area-specific implementation actions.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

35. 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.

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

37. To achieve the objective of 30 per cent canopy cover with no local board areas less than 15 per cent (or anything beyond the 2013 baseline) will require additional funding.

38. Staff will do further work to understand these costs and benefits, and opportunities for funding and will report to Committee once this work is completed.

39. 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.

40. 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.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

Maintaining the status quo or allowing further decline

41. Work is underway to better understand the trends of our urban ngahere (e.g. 2017 LIDAR surveys), but anecdotal evidence suggests that Auckland’s urban ngahere is declining.

42. Returning to the status quo (i.e. current approaches) risks the loss of the benefits of an urban ngahere.

43. Likewise, loss of Auckland’s urban ngahere would affect Auckland’s identity and may impact on Auckland’s environmental and cultural values (e.g. taonga trees) and historic heritage places and areas. It means more people yet fewer trees and the benefits they bring.

44. A further decline of Auckland’s urban ngahere is not in line with national ambitions to plant more trees and vegetation and/or ambitions expressed in regional plans and strategies such as the Auckland Plan, Auckland Growing Greener, the Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy and Low Carbon Auckland. Not meeting these ambitions poses a reputational risk to council.

45. Attempts to replace the ecosystem services lost because of a declining urban ngahere (e.g. reducing air pollution, reducing the rate and volume of storm water runoff, securing soil and preventing landslides, reducing energy costs for heating and cooling, providing shading in summer, carbon sequestration) would require funding.

46. The costs to replace these services are likely substantially higher than the costs for protecting and maintaining the current urban ngahere. Moreover, some ecosystem services (e.g. landscape and amenity, natural character, access to nature, recreation opportunities) can only be provided by the urban ngahere.

47. One outcome of the proposed strategy is an improvement in our understanding of existing and future pressures on Auckland’s urban ngahere. These include potential impacts of climate change and pests and diseases (such as myrtle rust and kauri dieback). Without additional knowledge it may be difficult to identify appropriate management measures.

Adopting the proposed strategy

48. Additional funding is required to achieve the proposed objective of 30 per cent canopy cover, with no local board areas less than 15 per cent (or anything beyond the 2013 baseline). This additional funding is particularly for new planting and increased ongoing maintenance costs for trees on public land (see financial implications sections).

49. Council staff will do further work to identify opportunities for funding, but there is a risk that additional funding may not be forthcoming.

50. As a minimum, applying the ‘strategic lens’ of this strategy to current spending on tree planting and maintenance will be a step in the right direction.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

52. Staff will do further work to understand the costs and benefits of achieving the objective of 30 per cent canopy with no local board areas less than 15 per cent and to identify opportunities for funding.

53. This will be reported to Committee once the work is completed.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A: Draft Strategy for Auckland's urban ngahere (forest)	83
b ⇩	Attachment B: Urban ngahere cost benefit analysis	113

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Parin Thompson - Principal Specialist Climate Mitigation

Matthew Blaikie - Senior Sustainability&Resilience Advisor

Sietse Bouma - Team Leader - Natural Environment Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

20 February 2018

Engagement Options for Implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

File No.: CP2018/00565

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve the recommended engagement approach for both the implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and consequential changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Improving water quality outcomes is a priority for the Environment and Community Committee, with workstreams across council focused on areas such as policy, infrastructure and investment, and regulation.

3. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management falls within the ‘policy’ workstream of Auckland’s water work programme but has impacts on most of the other workstreams.

4. The national policy statement requires regional councils and unitary authorities to set freshwater objectives and quality and quantity limits. This must be done “through discussion with communities, including tangata whenua”.

5. Once objectives and limits have been identified, the council then needs to initiate plan changes to incorporate these, and other consequential changes, into the Auckland Unitary Plan.

6. The council needs to determine its engagement process with stakeholders and communities for these plan changes. Council staff considered three options, based on those included in the Resource Management Act 1991:

· Option one: standard consultation process

· Option two: standard consultation process, supported by enhanced engagement on ten integrated watershed plans (see map in Attachment A).

· Option three: collaborative planning process (for more detail see Attachment B).

7. Option two, the standard consultation process, supported by enhanced engagement, is recommended as the best option as it provides significant opportunities for community involvement.

8. It also ensures that plan changes are viewed in the wider context of Auckland’s water management, through a coherent and consistent engagement approach (see a detailed options analysis in Attachment C).

9. Specifically, this option allows engagement on the setting of objectives and limits to be integrated into, and enhanced by, discussions with Aucklanders on other water related issues, programmes and projects.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the use of the standard consultation process (Schedule 1, Resource Management Act), supported by enhanced engagement, to implement changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan required for the full implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

b) note that the standard consultation process (Schedule 1, Resource Management Act), supported by enhanced engagement, will be managed within existing operational budgets and staff resourcing.

Horopaki / Context

10. Improving water quality outcomes is a priority workstream for the Environment and Community Committee. In September 2017 the committee received a presentation on the strategic approach to Auckland’s water. This outlined the context for the range of actions council is undertaking to deliver better water quality outcomes in partnership with the communities of Tāmaki Makaurau. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater management falls within the ‘policy’ workstream of council’s work but impacts on a number of other workstreams.

11. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management was gazetted on 12 May 2011 (and subsequently updated in 2014 and 2017) and the Auckland Unitary Plan must give effect to it.^{^[3]}

12. Council is required to fully implement the national policy statement by December 2025. It states that Auckland Council must work with communities and tangata whenua to establish specific freshwater objectives and freshwater quality and quantity limits^{^[4]}. These objectives and limits will then be incorporated into the Auckland Unitary Plan via a formal plan change process and will likely result in consequential changes across the plan to ensure they can be implemented.

13. Council is implementing the national policy statement under the Wai Ora - Healthy Waterways Programme and is using integrated watershed planning as the primary tool for communicating with stakeholders. A map of the ten watersheds is shown in Attachment A.

14. Integrated watershed planning is an inclusive planning effort to manage land and water for improved water outcomes at a watershed level. It considers all components of the water cycle, both surface and ground waters, and the interactions between them.

15. Integrated watershed plans consider stakeholders’ values for water within the watershed and the issues that need to be managed to meet these values. They can include both regulatory (such as limits) and non-regulatory mechanisms (such as behaviour change initiatives and infrastructure investment) to achieve desired water outcomes.

16. The first iteration of the watershed plans will be completed by 2020 to ensure sufficient time to progress the required plan changes. The watershed plans will identify community values, issues, objectives, and actions required to meet these objectives. The plans are designed to be adaptive as the nature and extent of water issues is always evolving.

17. To support this engagement, initial information on the current state of the ten watersheds was made publically available through the Auckland Council website in November 2017.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Engagement options

18. Before beginning engagement, council must decide which approach to use. Three engagement options have been developed and analysed for the committee’s consideration as follows:

· Option one: Undertake a standard consultation process (in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1(3) ‘Consultation’ of the Resource Management Act 1991)

· Option two: Undertake a standard consultation process (in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 1(3) ‘Consultation’ of the Resource Management Act 1991), supported by enhanced engagement

· Option three: Undertake a collaborative planning process (in accordance with Part 4 of Schedule 1 ‘Collaborative planning process’ of the Resource Management Act 1991).

Option one: Standard consultation process

19. The standard consultation process is the default option for the preparation and change of plans or regional policy statements. This process uses a targeted approach to engagement where councils obtain community or stakeholder feedback on analysis, issues, alternatives and discussions. Council staff then develop plan provisions and make recommendations to governance entities prior to public notification.

20. Setting objectives and limits to both freshwater quality and quantity requires higher value participation and greater community engagement than the standard consultation process as the issues are complex, and many key stakeholders want to be involved. A significant amount of time is required to achieve a quality outcome.

Option two: Standard consultation process supported by enhanced engagement (recommended approach)

21. The standard consultation process can be effectively strengthened with enhanced engagement. This may involve working with the public to make sure that their concerns are reflected in decisions; or the development of a draft plan released for an informal feedback stage prior to the notification of the plan. Enhanced engagement enables council to hear from sectors of the community who would otherwise not be able to or want to engage in a statutory process, and was the process followed to develop the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan in 2012 and 2013.

22. This option is appropriate for addressing complex issues such as obtaining feedback about a draft plan or canvassing a range of views early in a longer planning process. Through this engagement the identification of potential issues needing to be considered in the next stages of planning can occur.

23. In the context of implementing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, the engagement process will identify options for objectives and limits for water quantity and quality to be incorporated into the Auckland Unitary Plan. This will be achieved through the development of integrated watershed plans, with input from stakeholders, and through making these publically available at intervals throughout the process.

Option three: Collaborative planning process

24. Part 4 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act has been amended to enable councils to adopt a collaborative planning process as an alternative to the standard consultation process. The collaborative planning process brings people with different views together in a group to resolve contentious planning matters early in the planning process.

25. The Resource Management Act details the approach that councils must apply if using a collaborative planning process. This is:

· the council establishes a collaborative group or groups and the group(s) provides a consensus position which must ‘be given effect to’ in the plan by the council

· an independent review panel appointed by the council hears submissions and provides a report with recommendations to the council

· the council must decide whether to accept or reject each recommendation in the report

· where a recommendation is rejected, the council must develop an alternative position

· appeals to the Environment Court by way of re-hearing are limited.

26. A detailed overview of the collaborative planning process is set out in Attachment B.

27. Before deciding to use a collaborative planning process, the Resource Management Act requires that the council considers whether the community has the capacity and motivation to be involved throughout the collaborative process (which can take up to several years).

28. The number of collaborative groups allowed for is not prescribed under the Resource Management Act. Theoretically, one group could be established to address plan changes across the entire region, or one group for each watershed, or a larger number of groups working at a smaller, water catchment scale.

29. Whilst some regional councils have adopted collaborative planning approaches for their implementation of the national policy statement, these were prior to the introduction of the collaborative planning process into the Resource Management Act. Subsequently, recommendations from collaborative working groups have been incorporated into plan change processes that have then followed the standard consultation process (Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act).

Options analysis

30. The three options described above have been assessed against a range of criteria, including:

· level of influence that the community has over the planning or decision making process

· representation of the community through the process

· efficiency and effectiveness.

31. A detailed analysis of the options is shown in Attachment C.

32. Option One: the standard consultation process implements minimum public participation requirements under the Resource Management Act but provides limited opportunities for public participation. It is the least empowering for communities compared to the broader public participation of the other options.

33. It is not well suited to setting objectives and limits in relation to freshwater quality and quantity as the issues are complex, and there will be a high level of community interest.

34. This option can be funded from within existing regional Healthy Waters and Plans and Places operational budgets and staff time.

35. Option two: the standard consultation process supported by enhanced engagement, through the integrated watershed planning process, meets statutory requirements and allows for a good level of engagement on both plan change and wider water related matters, enabling the public to provide informed feedback. It allows engagement to be tailored to specific stakeholders at different stages of the programme whilst providing relevant information to the general public throughout.

36. This option would enable the outcomes of community engagement to be met without excessive time and effort. This option can be funded from within existing regional Healthy Waters and Plans and Places operational budgets and staff time.

37. Option three: the collaborative planning process would meet statutory requirements and may enhance the level of community involvement in discussions on water. However, it separates plan change discussions from the wider water conversation. This means collaborative groups would be tasked with making recommendations on potential plan changes in isolation from other potential solutions to water management issues. This could undermine integrated decision making and community efforts to engage in the process.

38. This option also has significant cost and time implications. To allow full discussion and consensus, more time needs to be allocated to the process. This runs the risk of council not delivering on its obligations within the timeframes of the national policy statement. In addition, given the diverse range of stakeholders and the complexity of Auckland’s water issues, it would be difficult to achieve appropriate representation and a one size fits all model for collaborative groups to suit all parts of the community and region.

39. Overall, the results of the options analysis demonstrated that the second option (standard consultation supported by enhanced engagement) was the best, as it would provide for quality input from the community while also being more efficient.

Recommended option

40. It is recommended that option two (Standard consultation process supported by enhanced engagement) is endorsed by the committee to allow council to fully implement the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and consequential changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan, as it:

· ensures that plan changes are viewed in the wider context of Auckland’s water management, through a coherent and consistent engagement approach

· produces quality plan outcomes as the community are involved in shaping it

· is an agile process using a range of engagement techniques to involve all sectors of the community

· enables the community to submit better informed submissions than the standard process without enhanced engagement, therefore reducing time and cost during the hearing and decision-making process.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

41. Many local boards have identified water quality as being of significance to their communities. A range of projects and programmes are already being implemented by local boards, supported by council staff, to improve water quality.

42. Workshops to brief local boards on the Wai Ora - Healthy Waterways Programme and the development of integrated watershed plans were undertaken in October and November 2017. These workshops explored how local boards can best contribute to the programme within the watersheds. This feedback will be incorporated into engagement plans for each watershed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

43. For Māori everything has a mauri (life-force) and water has an inherent mauri which needs to be healthy to sustain ecosystems and support cultural uses. The national policy statement provides a framework for recognising and incorporating mana whenua values for water into council’s policy development.

44. Feedback and input from mana whenua has been sought on the development of Wai Ora - Healthy Waterways Programme through monthly Infrastructure and Environmental Services mana whenua hui, and through targeted engagement to develop a regional water values framework.

45. The regional values framework drew on the current and previous mana whenua engagement (such as engagement on the Auckland Unitary Plan). Subsequent mana whenua input has guided the development of the framework and assisted staff in identifying and describing values. Mana whenua are currently working with staff to further embed a Māori world view into the programme.

46. Engagement with mana whenua will continue throughout the life of the Wai Ora - Healthy Waterways Programme and in the development of objectives and limits to be incorporated into the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

47. Should the committee endorse the engagement approach recommended in this report, engagement will be managed within existing operational budgets and staffing within the Healthy Waters and Plans and Places departments. As plan change options are developed, expertise of staff across other council departments will be drawn upon, as required.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

48. It is critical that consultation with tangata whenua and the community formally commences to ensure momentum to progress full implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management by December 2025.

49. Failure to undertake appropriate consultation could result in:

· not getting the information needed to inform the identification of freshwater objectives and freshwater quality and quantity limits

· compromised and poor quality policy outcomes

· criticism from stakeholders who feel that they have not had the opportunity to comment, and that there is a bias or predetermination of views

· lack of buy-in to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

50. Option one: the standard consultation process does not give stakeholders and communities sufficient opportunity to input into the development of freshwater objectives and limits. As a result, there is a greater risk of communities not buying in to the subsequent plan changes, which may lead to legal challenges to these.

51. Option two: the standard consultation process, with enhanced engagement, minimises the above risks.

52. Option three: the collaborative process, carries the risk of an expensive and protracted consensus building process that will not enable the council to implement plan changes by the required date.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

53. Once the engagement method has been approved, staff will undertake both targeted and wider public consultation. The integrated watershed planning process will be the primary mechanism to provide an enhanced level of engagement to the standard consultation process.

54. Engagement is being undertaken to support the following phases of integrated watershed plan development:

· Confirm water values and current state - November 2017 to April 2018

· Prepare objectives and develop scenarios - May 2018 to June 2019

· Develop watershed action plans (defining both regulatory and non-regulatory actions) - July 2019 to December 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Map of Auckland's Ten Watersheds	125
b ⇩	Overview of the Collaborative Planning Process	127
c ⇩	Options Analysis of Engagement Process	129

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Jonathan Benge - Wai Ora Partnerships Team Manager

Craig McIlroy - General Manager Healthy Waters

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

20 February 2018

Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 – variation to incorporate land at Piha into the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park

File No.: CP2018/00433

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek council approval to a variation to incorporate land purchased at Piha to be known as Taitomo Special Management Zone as part of the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The land at Piha comprising 78 ha was purchased by council in 2014 as an addition to the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park. As well protecting a number of unique natural features the land offers the opportunity to complete the missing link in the Hillary Trail between Mercer Bay and Piha.

3. A draft concept plan was promulgated in 2016. Public submissions highlighted the fire risk on the land and sought to have a fuller policy framework for land management. A draft variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 containing fire-risk management policies was notified in May 2017 and 32 submissions was received.

4. The submissions supported the general direction taken in the variation which placed emphasis on:

· retention of the wilderness and natural qualities of the location

· minimising the impacts of visitor infrastructure

· ensuring that visitors were aware of the risks posed by the high coastal cliffs, sensitive ecological features and cultural significance of the land

· giving priority to weed control and fire-risk management ahead of the development of new track systems.

5. Three independent commissioners (Messrs Hill, Kapea and Rowan) considered the written submissions and heard from 4 submitters (see Attachment B).

6. A number of submitters made a strong plea for the council to adequately resource the vegetation management and fire-risk reduction measures on the land. The commissioners endorsed this request.

7. Subsequent to the hearing Fire and Emergency New Zealand requested a change to the planned location of the water tanks to be available for fire-fighting purposes on the land. The new location would improve the fire-fighting capacity on the land and would service fire-fighting on adjoining private properties

8. The draft variation and accompanying map has been amended to incorporate the commissioners’ recommendations (see Attachments C and D).

9. Kauri dieback issues relating to the Waitakere Ranges are addressed in a separate report.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) Approve the variation to incorporate land at Piha, being Pt. Allot 4482, Pt DP 3134 and 3135 into the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 as part of the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park as recommended by the independent commissioners.

b) Approve the amendment to the variation as to the location of the fire-fighting tanks as shown on the map accompanying the variation and the removal of reference to the ‘dipping dam’ in Policy 13.

c) Approve the name of the parkland as Taitomo.

d) Note the Manager, Regional Parks, will prepare an integrated vegetation management and fire–risk reduction plan in consultation with the local community and report back on the resourcing needs for its effective implementation.

Horopaki / Context

The land

10. The land at Piha comprising 78 ha was purchased by council in 2014 (Pt. Allot. 4482, Pt. DP 3134 and 3135) as an addition to the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park (see Attachment A). The land adjoins the southern end of Piha beach and contains a number of unique visitor attractions, such as the ‘Gap’ beach, a coastal blow hole and a herb field of the rare selliera repens, known as the ‘tennis court’. The area has high cultural significance to Te Kawerau a Maki who own the adjoining Taitomo Island, being the only remaining land in their ownership on the west coast. The purchased land offers the opportunity to complete the missing link in the Hillary Trail between Mercer Bay and Piha.

Consultation

11. A draft concept plan was released for public comment in November 2016. A number of submitters raised concerns relating to the fact the land consists of coastal scrubland infested with gorse and other weed species that are vulnerable to fire. The land has been the subject of a number of fires in the past. The submitters called for stronger policy direction on the management priorities, especially around vegetation management and visitor management. For these reasons it was resolved (ENV/2017/70) that the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 (RPMP) be formally varied to include specific policies to deal with these issues.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Nature of the variation

12. The RPMP sets out the general policies for managing the regional parks network. It also contains specific policies for each park, and in some cases, includes special management zones where it is necessary to apply specific management approaches to protect sensitive environments or retain special visitor experiences, such as the feeling on remoteness and wilderness. The Environment and Community Committee resolved (EVN/2017/70) that the land at Piha should be managed within the scope of the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010.

Submissions

13. 32 submissions were lodged on the variation. There was strong support for the general direction taken in the variation which placed emphasis on the following matters;

i) The retention of the wilderness and natural qualities of the location by minimising the impacts of visitor infrastructure while ensuring that visitors were aware of the risks posed by the high coastal cliffs, sensitive ecological features and cultural significance of the land.

ii) To give priority to weed control and fire-risk management ahead of the development of new track systems.

14. A number of submitters raised concerns about the risk of kauri dieback spread on the land. It should be noted that the proposed tracks do not venture close to existing kauri on the land and the creation of the Hillary Trail link will allow trampers to avoid using the current route which uses tracks that contain kauri.

Commissioners’ recommendations

15. Four submitters were heard by commissioners Hill, Kapea and Rowan who made the following observations;

i) That the primary management focus should be on the protection and enhancement (restoration) of the land's wilderness qualities and natural features, while recognising and providing for the ancestral relationship that Maori have with this area.

ii) The need to address fire risk, including the control of gorse which assists in the rapid spread of fires.

iii) Enabling visitors to experience the wild nature of this part of the regional park with its unique heritage features in a dramatic natural landscape while undertaking informal recreation, including a limitation on organised events.

iv) Acknowledging that, while visitor safety needs to be a priority, visitors will need to recognise that this land contains features such as coastal cliffs, steep slopes, narrow tracks and wāhi tapu that pose a considerable level of risk to them, and a high degree of personal responsibility will be required so as not to 'clutter' the park with a plethora of signage and safety barriers.

v) Supporting visitor infrastructure to be kept to a minimum to protect the area's natural and cultural qualities and designed to have a low impact on the environment.

vi) That there should be more active involvement of adjoining landowners, iwi, special interest / community /NGOs groups and other agencies such as Department of Conservation and Fire and Emergency New Zealand in the management of the area.

16. The commissioners made the following formal recommendations;

“That the Environment and Community Committee:

Incorporate the attached Variation into the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 (RPMP) relating to 78 Hectares of land at Piha (formerly known as the Byers Block),purchased for addition to the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park.

Accept the Hearings Panel's recommended changes to the notified draft variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan (in the attached Variation).

Accept the submissions to the extent that recommended changes to the notified draft variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan have been made in relation to those submissions.”

17. The commissioners also recommended the council endorse the naming of the purchased land as ‘Taitomo” which has been suggested by Te Kawerau a Maki.

18. The commissioners’ report is attached as Attachment B and the recommended variation and accompanying map are attached as Attachments C and D.

Subsequent amendments

19. Subsequent to the hearing, Fire and Emergency NZ have recommended that the tanks to be installed for fire-fighting purposes be located closer to Piha Road rather in the middle of the land, as originally shown on the map accompanying the variation.

20. Their reasons for this being that the original central location could put fire fighters at risk and the new location would better assist with protecting adjoining private residences on Piha Road. They also re-evaluated the value of the existing dipping-dam and concluded it was of little value for fire-fighting purposes.

21. For these reasons it is recommended that reference to the ‘dipping dam’ in policy 13 be removed and the new location of the tanks be shown on the accompanying map (see Attachment D). The new location for the tanks does not materially affect over-looking neighbours as the requirement to have these visually screened with vegetation remains.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

22. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board made formal submissions to the draft concept plan and to the variation and were represented at the hearings by the chair of the board. Their submission reflected similar concerns raised by a number of other submitters.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

23. All iwi with mana whenua interests in the Waitākere Ranges were notified of the intention to prepare the variation. Te Kawerau a Maki indicated their special interest in the land and has been engaged from the outset in the development of the draft concept plan and variation, including site visits to discuss issues of interest and concern.

24. Taitomo Island, adjoining the parkland, is the only remaining land owned by Te Kawerau a Maki on the west coast of the Auckland region and is culturally significant. Te Kawerau a Maki has been engaged in the development of interpretation of the cultural features and cultural importance of the land. Parks Sports and Recreation will continue to work with Te Kawerau a Maki on measures to ensure park visitors respect the cultural sensitivity of the site (Kia tupato – waahi tapu) and stay away from Taitomo Island.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

25. It should be noted that many submitters pointed to the need to ensure that the fire-risk management strategies contained in the variation are adequately resourced. The hearings commissioners therefore recommended; “That the Committee, when it adopts the variation, also make a recommendation that the Council appropriately funds and resources this park to enable the Special Management Area policies to be implemented.”

26. The variation will be implemented as part of the general administration of the RPMP utilizing the existing operational budget for the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park. However, no additional budget is available for the implementation of the variation with respect to vegetation management and fire risk management. Any capex expenditure required to deliver this a plan will require other currently approved projects to be re-prioritised.

27. The Manager, Regional Parks will prepare a vegetation management and fire-risk mitigation plan to be reported back with an estimated of the costs of implementing an integrated vegetation management and fire-risk reduction strategy, for the consideration of the committee.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

28. As highlighted above, the land purchased at Piha has been the subject of previous bush fires and will continue to pose a risk to adjoining properties unless measures are taken to mitigate these risks. This poses reputational risks to council and imposes costs of remediation after fires. It is a requirement of the variation to prepare a vegetation management plan in consultation with the local community and Fire and Emergency New Zealand. It is therefore recommended that the vegetation management plan be prepared with an estimate of the costs of implementing an integrated vegetation management and fire-risk reduction strategy.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

29. The Manager, Regional Parks will prepare a vegetation management a fire-risk mitigation plan and will report this back to the committee with an estimate of the costs of implementing an integrated vegetation management and fire-risk reduction strategy.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location Map	139
b ⇩	Taitomo Hearings Panel Report	141
c ⇩	Taitomo Variation as recommended by Hearings Panel	161
d ⇩	Variation Map	167

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Neil Olsen - Service and Asset Planner

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

20 February 2018

Corban Reserve Stormwater Upgrade - Compulsory Land Acquisition

File No.: CP2018/00575

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To receive an update regarding compulsory acquisition of land near Corban Reserve for a stormwater project.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. A stormwater pipe that runs through a closed landfill in Corban Reserve has been identified as posing a significant health and safety risk to the public and council staff.

3. Monitoring shows that the pipe is collecting methane gas from the closed landfill at levels which are potentially explosive if ignited. Leachate from the closed landfill is also infiltrating the stormwater pipe, resulting in discharge of heavy metals to the Opanuku Stream.

4. In addition, a steel stormwater pipe downstream of the landfill has been identified as being at risk of collapse, putting some residential dwellings at risk of flooding.

5. Council is managing these risks through various measures, such as a ventilation system to safely disperse gases from the landfill and a contingency plan to manage the potential collapse of the steel pipe. However, a longer-term solution to both risks is needed.

6. To eliminate these risks, stormwater must be diverted upstream of the closed landfill and the existing landfill pipe decommissioned. Work to line the downstream steel pipe is also required.

7. In developing a solution to this problem, a ‘do nothing’ option was not considered due to the health and safety risk posed. Three potential alignments for the project were considered before identifying a preferred option.

8. The preferred option is a tunnelled pipe along Border Road to Opanuku Stream.

9. This project can only be delivered if council are able to acquire land in the area. It is Auckland Council’s preference to negotiate the sale of the required land on a willing seller, willing buyer basis. Council has made various approaches to landowners over the last six months but has not been able to negotiate a purchase.

10. Given the criticality of this project in eliminating known health and safety risks, it is recommended that authority be delegated to the chief executives of Auckland Council and Panuku Development Auckland to compulsorily acquire the required land for the project. Delegated authority to dispose of any remaining land following construction is also sought.

11. The details of the specific land recommended for compulsory acquisition will be considered in the confidential section of the 23 February 2018 Environment and Community meeting. Financial implications of the recommended purchase are also discussed in more detail.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) note that delegation of authority for compulsory acquisition of land near Corban Reserve will be considered in the confidential section of this meeting.

Horopaki / Context

Health and Safety Risks of Pipe Through Decommissioned Landfill

12. A section of the Waitaro Stream was previously piped to allow for a landfill at the current location of Corban Reserve on Henderson Valley Road. In the early 1980s this landfill was then decommissioned and capped.

13. The closed landfill is recognised as a high risk closed landfill and is actively monitored as such. The landfill site poses a significant ongoing health and safety risk due to the presence of landfill gases, in particular methane, which often accumulates at higher than acceptable concentrations within the stormwater pipe at the base of the landfill.

14. Methane gas at particular concentrations can cause asphyxiation and is potentially explosive if ignited. A fatality previously occurred at the site during upgrade works to the stormwater pipe due to a methane gas explosion in the late 1990s.

15. On-going monitoring by council indicates that periodically methane collects within the stormwater pipe periodically. This presents a small risk to members of the public who use the park, but a greater risk to council operational staff who are involved in monitoring the site and cleaning out a nearby culvert. Low concentrations of methane have also been detected in the piped stormwater network downstream, which serves the residential area to the west of Henderson Valley Road.

16. Leachate from the closed landfill is also infiltrating the stormwater pipe, resulting in elevated heavy metals and levels of ammonical nitrate being discharged to the Opanuku Stream.

Flooding Issues and Downstream Pipe Condition

17. The creation of the landfill has also resulted in flooding issues from stormwater. The landfill is much higher than the surrounding residential properties, blocking the natural overland flowpath. When the inlet is blocked with debris, the rear sections of the surrounding residential properties are flooded.

18. Downstream of the landfill, the stormwater network consists of a brick-lined section across Henderson Valley Road and a steel pipe through the residential area downstream. The steel stormwater pipe, similar to the recently collapsed Clark Street culvert in New Lynn, has been found to be in poor condition.

19. The downstream steel pipe is prone to corrosion and has recently been assessed as being in ‘critical’ condition with a rating of Grade Four (Grade Five being imminent failure) and therefore at risk of collapse within the next five years. Residential dwellings and surrounding properties are at risk of flooding should this occur.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options to Reduce Risks

20. The existing stormwater line from upstream of Corban Reserve to Opanuku Stream presents health and safety, environmental and flooding risks. It is also causing flooding of properties upstream of the landfill site when inlet blockages occur.

21. Council is managing these risks in the short-term through various measures, such as close monitoring of the landfill site and the use of a ventilation system in Corban Reserve to safely disperse gases over reserve land. A contingency plan to manage collapse of the steel pipe is also being developed. However, a more permanent solution is needed.

22. Analysis conducted by council staff indicates that construction of a new stormwater pipeline and decommissioning the piped section through the closed landfill is the only way to effectively eliminate these risks. The stormwater network downstream of the landfill also requires lining to prevent a potential collapse.

23. The stormwater diversion must take place first so that the decommissioning of the landfill pipe and works downstream can be done safely. Options for achieving these outcomes are discussed in more detail below.

Options Analysis

24. An option of doing nothing was discounted, because it would not address the significant health and safety risks.

25. Three pipe alignments to divert the upstream stormwater network were initially developed and these options were thoroughly assessed against a wide range of criteria, including:

· ability to resolve health and safety issues from collection of methane gas

· ability to improve water quality

· reduced risk of flooding

· ability to cater for future upstream development

· ability to convey stormwater to desired levels of service

· constructability

· level of disruption to residents and traffic during construction

· maintenance access

· project cost.

Preferred Option

26. The preferred option is a tunnelled pipe along Border Road to Opanuku Stream. More details of the proposed options and alignment are provided in the confidential section of the 23 February 2018 Environment and Community meeting.

27. This was selected as it has a number of benefits, including:

· improving water quality through reducing discharge of leachates to Opanuku Stream

· eliminating the health and safety risks associated with the stormwater pipe through the closed landfill,

· results in the least disruption to local residences during construction

· is estimated to cost the least to construct.

Recommended Decision

28. This option can only be delivered if Auckland Council is able to purchase land in the project area. Council has attempted to negotiate purchase of this land over the last six months but has not been successful.

29. Auckland Council as a local authority is empowered to acquire land under Section 16 of the Public Works Act 1981. Auckland Council, as the local authority, also has the powers to compulsorily acquire land under Section 18 of the Public Works Act.

30. Given the criticality of this project in eliminating known health and safety risks, it is recommended that the committee delegate authority for compulsory acquisition of the required land to facilitate construction of the proposed stormwater network and future maintenance.

31. While compulsory acquisition can be a slow process, it provides certainty of acquisition, timeframes and process, ultimately allowing the project to continue.

32. Delegated authority to dispose of remaining land following construction works is also recommended.

33. Recommendations relating to the specific land required are included in the confidential report to the 23 February 2018 Environment and Community meeting.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

34. The project site is located within the Henderson-Massey Local Board area. Feedback on the proposed stormwater upgrade was sought from the local board in June 2017. The board expressed general support for the project and requested that it specifically be cognisant of the health and safety issues associated with the site. As outlined above, health and safety risks are a key driver of the proposed stormwater upgrade and decisions recommended in this report.

35. This project is also aligned with the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan Outcome: Natural spaces are valued and restored and objective ‘The water quality of our streams and tidal areas is improving.’ In particular, it will result in significant water quality improvements to the Opanuku Stream and receiving waters through elimination of leachate discharge.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

36. Mauri (life force), is a fundamental concept of the Māori worldview. The state of mauri is an indicator of overall environmental, cultural and social wellbeing. All water sources have an inherent mauri that can be diminished or enhanced.

37. The proposed works will result in significant water quality improvements by eliminating discharge of leachate to the Opanuku Stream. This is aligned with the desires of mana whenua who, in their role as kaitiaki, have asked council to improve water quality and enhance the mauri of waterways in the Auckland region. It also responds to mana whenua feedback requesting a reduction in discharge of leachates from closed landfills to waterways.

38. The project brief was provided to mana whenua for review in October 2016 and updated in January 2018. No feedback on the specific project has been received to date.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

39. Financial implications of the compulsory land acquisition and cost of the stormwater project are discussed in more detail in the confidential section of the 23 February Environment and Community Committee agenda.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

40. Risks associated with compulsory land acquisition are discussed in more detail in the confidential section of the 23 February Environment and Community Committee agenda.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

41. If the recommendations of the confidential report are approved, council will begin the compulsory land acquisition process. Once the required land has been purchased the full stormwater project will be delivered.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Amelia Cunningham - Principal Healthy Waters Design

Craig McIlroy - General Manager Healthy Waters

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

20 February 2018

Approach to Meeting National Air Quality Standards

File No.: CP2018/00884

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for an improved approach to managing Auckland’s compliance with national air quality standards.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is responsible for managing Auckland’s air quality. Central government has established maximum levels for key air pollutants through national air quality standards. It is council’s responsibility to ensure these are met.

3. The last time Auckland did not meet the national standard for particulate air pollution (PM₁₀) was in 2013.

4. If Auckland’s air quality continues to meet the national PM₁₀standard until August 2018, it will no longer have the status as a polluted air shed.

5. A key way to mitigate the risk of non-compliance with the national air standards is to focus on initiatives which progress particulate emission reductions, particularly from domestic indoor heating.

6. Staff do not consider that progress with particulate emission reduction requires additional regulatory measures at this point in time. Staff consider that there is a need to take action to on air quality to:

· improve public knowledge and action

· increase monitoring and reporting

· prepare for future challenges.

7. There is an ongoing risk of non-compliance with the national air standards. This is mitigated by the actions identified in the report.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) agree to an improved approach to managing Auckland’s particulate air pollution, which includes:

i) continuing to apply current regulatory and non-regulatory measures for managing particulate air pollution, to maintain the current positive trends in Auckland’s air quality and home heating choices

ii) improving the council’s communication, monitoring and reporting of air quality issues

iii) continuing to investigate further regional air quality tools so that the council can move quickly to respond to future changes in air quality trends.

Horopaki / Context

8. Auckland Council is responsible for managing Auckland’s air quality. Central government has established maximum levels for key air pollutants through national air quality standards which include:

· specific design standards for new enclosed wood burners; the design standards have applied since 2005 (see Attachment A)

· a maximum level for particulate matter smaller than 10 microns, called the national PM₁₀ standard (see Attachment C) where one exceedance per annum is allowed.

What are we doing?

Current measures for maintaining positive trends in Auckland’s air quality and home heating choices

9. It is council’s responsibility to ensure the national air quality standards are met.

10. Compliance with the national air quality standards in Auckland is impacted by air pollution from several sources. The 2016 annual contribution to particulate air pollution was 49% from transport, 42% from domestic indoor heating and 9% from industry.

11. Natural sources such as pollen, sea spray and windblown dust can also cause non-compliance with the national particulate standard (for PM₁₀).

12. Key regulatory and non-regulatory measures the council undertakes to manage emissions from vehicle, industry and domestic indoor heating include:

· regional air quality rules in the Unitary Plan

· the Outdoor Fire Safety Bylaw 2014 and the Air Quality Bylaw for Indoor Domestic Fires 2017

· application of national and regional design standards for new and replacement domestic fireplaces through the building consent process

· information on air quality issues and the use of indoor domestic fireplaces, through direct advice from council staff and the website

· information on clean heating and access to finance for upgrading home insulation and home heating, through council’s Retrofit Your Home programme

· monitoring the city’s air quality at seven permanent monitoring sites (shown in Attachment B) and publishing the city’s air quality trends in a State of Auckland: Air quality report card, the next update to be published in 2018.

13. To help manage vehicle emissions both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have:

· increased the focus on public transport options, electrified trains, commuter cycle ways etc.

· developed non-regulatory action plans for reducing carbon emissions and improving sustainability (see Attachment D for a summary of key actions from both reports):

o Auckland Council’s Low Carbon Auckland (2014)

o Auckland Transport’s Sustainability Framework (2016).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

What’s the current problem?

Level and number of exceedances of the national standards have declined significantly

14. Auckland’s level of particulate air pollution has been decreasing over the last 20 years, mainly due to:

· newer vehicles generating lower emissions

· higher standards for vehicle fuels

· households moving to lower emissions home heating.

15. The level and number of exceedances with particulate standards has declined significantly over the past 10 years.

16. The last time Auckland did not meet the national standard for particulate air pollution was three exceedances in 2013.^{^[5]} A large area of Auckland was therefore classified a polluted air shed.

17. Since 2013, there have been no further exceedances, and the highest PM₁₀ pollution levels recorded in Auckland’s urban area have been steadily dropping. Our buffer for emission concentrations that peak over the national limit has steadily improved since 2014 as shown below:

Year	Highest PM₁₀ reading
2014	45
2015	39
2016	39
Jan-June 2017	30 Data not yet available for July-Dec 2017

On track for polluted air shed status to be removed and industry restrictions lifted

18. If Auckland’s air quality continues to meet the national PM10 standard until August 2018, it will no longer have a polluted air shed status. Current restrictions on industry activity will be lifted. At the moment new industrial emitters cannot establish until they have proven that their emission will not increase the city’s overall particulate air pollution level by more than 2.5 µg per m³. This is modelled and subject to the resource consent process.

19. Once the air shed is no longer classified as polluted new industrial emissions are subject as normal to the Unitary Plan rules only. There has been a decline in heavy industrial activity in Auckland. Auckland’s growth expectations are in the service sector and not in heavy industry.

The level of uncertainty about ongoing compliance with the national air standard is decreasing

20. The level of uncertainty about ongoing compliance with the national air standard has been reducing annually as emissions decrease. However there is still ongoing risk of non-compliance to be mitigated.

21. This risk is highest in winter; mainly from the seasonal increase in domestic indoor heating emissions (see Figure 1). Over the last 20 years, approximately half of Auckland’s exceedances of the national PM₁₀ standard have occurred in winter and are most likely when:

· there is more pollution from indoor fireplaces

· calm/cold weather conditions, when emissions are trapped and accumulate (see Figure 2)

· in areas which experience a combination of emissions from more than one source (i.e. domestic fires, transport, industry and natural sources).

22. There is also a risk of non-compliance from sea spray, dust, pollen and fireworks. These are very difficult to predict or manage and can occur throughout the year. Future risk related to Auckland’s growth and potential increases in vehicle emissions also needs to be considered.

Figure 1: Seasonal differences in PM₁₀ emissions in Auckland (in 2011)

Figure 2: The effect of local weather conditions on levels of particulate air pollution

What can we do?

23. A key way to mitigate the risk of non-compliance with the national air standards is to focus on initiatives which progress emission reductions particularly from domestic indoor heating.

24. Staff do not think that the current emission level requires additional regulatory measures at this point in time. Staff consider that there is a need to take action to:

· improve public knowledge and action

· increase monitoring and reporting

· prepare for future challenges.

ACTION: Improve public knowledge and action

25. The level of particulate air pollution from Auckland’s indoor fireplaces has decreased from 13,855 kg per day in 2001 to 8828 kg per day in 2017 (on average), a reduction of 36 per cent. The number of indoor fireplaces in use in Auckland has decreased from 115,850 in 2001 to 99,435 in 2017, as homeowners have shifted to other types of home heating.

26. Residents making small changes in how they use their fireplaces and choosing to upgrade their older fireplaces, has the potential to reduce the level of particulate air pollution in Auckland, with associated health benefits.

27. In mid-2016, Auckland Council completed research on Aucklanders’ perceptions about the city’s air quality, the use of indoor fireplaces and their views about potential policy measures. Attachment E provides some background information about that research. The key findings are summarised below.

Some key insights from Auckland Council’s 2016 research:

There is a weak connection between Aucklanders’ perceptions of air quality and their own home heating choices. Overall, air quality is quite low on the list of people’s concerns :

· people tend not to report their neighbours’ smoky fireplaces, due to a lack of knowledge about what they can do about it and a desire to maintain friendly neighbourly relations

· need for further education about how to minimise smoke when using a fireplace; and about the importance of not burning wet firewood or treated wood (i.e. tantalised or painted wood)

· Research participants identified three major barriers to moving to cleaner heat choices:

o the cost of upgrading home heating

o the recent history of power cuts in Auckland, which makes people reluctant to switch to electricity-based heating systems

o tenant/landlord relations (particularly for the tenants).

· low levels of awareness about the financial assistance provided by Auckland Council through its Retrofit Your Home programme, and by central government through the Warm Up NZ: Healthy Homes grant scheme

· further regulatory measures for managing indoor fireplaces, there would need to be adequate time for homeowners to adjust to new/higher standards.

28. In response to the research findings, the council could improve the way it communicates air quality information during different times of the year. Key messages would include:

· maintain indoor fireplaces to reduce smoke

· burn dry, untreated firewood

· upgrade home insulation and home heating to clean heat when possible

· maintain vehicles so that they run more efficiently with less emissions

· upgrade to lower emissions vehicle when possible.

29. Targeted information and community education would include:

· advice to designers and homeowners about lower emissions home heating options, as part of the council’s building advice and consent services

· air pollution “hot spot” campaigns encouraging homeowners to upgrade their older indoor fireplaces and to access financial assistance, such as the council’s Retrofit Your Home and central government’s Warm Up NZ: Healthy Homes grant scheme

· assistance to homeowners with the most polluting types of indoor fires, to increase uptake of home insulation and clean heating.

ACTION: Increase monitoring and reporting

30. Actively tracking Auckland’s air quality trends and evidence about the health impacts of air pollution, would enable council to track changes and respond in a timely way. This includes:

· establishing internal reporting procedures: frequent updates of the city’s particulate air pollution based on quality and timely data; improving procedures for alerting relevant council and elected members to changes in emissions and air pollution

· annual reporting: about Auckland’s air quality trends, changes in air quality regulations, using information provided by the council’s air quality monitoring and national air quality reports.

31. Having up-to-date air quality information would enable the council to respond quickly if the need for stronger measures is triggered in the future.

ACTION: Prepare for future challenges

32. The council could adopt a future-focused perspective, which foresees the possibility that council may need to respond quickly to improve air quality by introducing new regulatory or non-regulatory tools.

33. This will be underpinned by our increased monitoring and reporting. Council will be able to move quickly to strengthen what works, change what isn’t working, and introduce measures that work better.

34. The triggers for investigating new tools would be:

· a change from Auckland’s current trend of decreasing PM₁₀pollution levels

· the number and level of exceedances of the national PM₁₀ standard, where analysis showed this to be part of a trend, rather than a one-off event ^{^[6]}

· the national air quality regulations are amended to include a higher (more stringent) standard for particulate pollution

· new evidence about the health impacts of particulate air pollution.

35. Staff would keep a watching brief on national air quality policy and retain a working knowledge of other local government initiatives, such as:

· dry wood certification schemes

· regulating the burning of low sulphur coal

· low/no interest rate loans, clean heat and vehicle emission subsidies and grants

· awareness campaigns and education initiatives

· regulating the phase out of old wood burners and fireplaces.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

36. All local board plans for 2017 noted the importance of sustainability and environmental health. Nine local boards contained specific focus on air quality/sustainability (see Attachment F).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

37. Health research in New Zealand has identified that certain groups within our population are more affected by air pollution than others, including Māori. Reducing air pollution would improve health outcomes for Māori.

38. Mana Whenua have on previous occasions expressed views on air quality as follows:

· support for managing Auckland’s indoor fires to meet the national air quality standards

· concern that if Auckland’s air shed is polluted, the region risks additional restrictions on the use of indoor fires (as set out in the national air quality regulations)

· concern that restrictions on fireplaces could impact lower socio-economic groups

· regulatory measures to be complemented with hardship grants/dispensations.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

39. The recommendations assume no change to current baselines. Implementation has been tailored to leverage existing resource and communication channels. This may impact resource availability for other work.

40. Ngā raru tūpono / Risks40. There is an ongoing risk of non-compliance with the national air quality standards. This is mitigated by the actions identified in the report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

41. If the approach is approved, staff will develop communications material about air quality actions that the public can undertake this winter.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Regulating air quality in New Zealand and Auckland	183
b ⇩	Auckland Council's air quality monitoring sites in 2017	185
c ⇩	Background information on air pollution in Auckland	187
d ⇩	Auckland Council's Low Carbon Auckland and Auckland Transport's Sustainability Framework	197
e ⇩	Auckland Council's 2016 research on community perceptions about air quality and home heating issues	199
f ⇩	Local board views about air quality and sustainable lifestyles	201

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Catherine Temple - Policy Analyst

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

20 February 2018

Tākaro - Investing in play: Release of consultation feedback

File No.: CP2018/00892

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve the public release of a report summarising the results of consultation on the Tākaro – Investing in play discussion document.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. In order to respond to population growth and demographic change, Auckland Council is developing a plan for how it invests in play.

3. In May 2017, the council released a public discussion document highlighting a series of issues in the way the council currently invests in play. The document also sought input on how the council should alter the way it invests in play, taking into account funding constraints and changing community expectations.

4. Feedback generally affirmed the issues outlined in the discussion document, and supported the creation of an investment plan. Feedback emphasised:

· that play spaces should cater to people of all ages and abilities

· that the council should invest more in flexible, challenging, unstructured forms of play

· that the council should use criteria or principles to prioritise future investment

· the use of community partnerships to expand the public play network

· greater monitoring and evaluation to understand the impact of investment.

5. Staff have prepared a report (Attachment A) summarising the results of the consultation. The report will form the basis for the development of a draft investment plan.

6. There is a risk that consultation on the discussion document has raised unrealistic expectations as to what the investment plan will be able to deliver. These expectations will be managed through further public consultation on the draft plan before it is adopted by the council.

7. As part of closing the loop on this phase of public consultation, staff recommend that the Committee approve the public release of the feedback summary report. This will build trust with stakeholders by demonstrating how their feedback has been heard.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the public release of a report summarising analysis of consultation on the Tākaro – Investing in play discussion document (Attachment A).

Horopaki / Context

8. Auckland Council is developing a plan for how it invests in play. The plan will clarify council’s high-level vision and strategy for play, and will provide a set of decision-making and evaluation tools to assess which types of investment will best meet the current and future needs of Auckland’s diverse communities.

9. On 16 May 2017, the Environment and Community Committee approved the release of a discussion document as the first step in developing Tākaro – Investing in play.

10. The key messages of the discussion document were that:

· the council invests in play because it delivers a range of health, social, environmental and economic outcomes

· the way the council currently invests in play is not meeting the needs of all Aucklanders

· there are opportunities to deliver a wider, more flexible, more exciting range of play experiences than we currently do

· creating an investment plan for play will help the council to understand the full range of investment options, and the relative costs and benefits of each.

How we consulted

11. Engagement on the discussion document took play between 29 May and 23 September 2017. A range of engagement activities were undertaken to encourage the public to have their say.

· Public submissions: Public and expert views were collected through email submissions and the council’s Shape Auckland website.

· Local board workshops: Staff held cluster workshops with the local boards and this was followed up with formal feedback by resolution. Six individual local boards requested follow-up workshops.

· Advisory panel workshops: Staff presented to the council’s Young Peoples, Disability, Seniors, Ethnic Peoples and Pacific Peoples Advisory Panels.

· Mana whenua hui: Mana whenua views were collected at a regional hui on parks and open space provision.

· Citizen panel survey: Staff also surveyed members of the council’s citizen panel. This allowed us to reach a wider range of households, including large numbers of parents.

12. In response, the council received the following public feedback:

· 82 public submissions

· 21 resolutions from local boards

· 1 feedback note from hui with mana whenua

· 5 feedback notes from workshops with advisory boards

· 2675 survey responses from the People’s Panel.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Summary of consultation feedback

13. The results of the public consultation will form the basis for the development of the initial draft of the investment plan.

14. Staff have prepared a report (Attachment A) summarising the results of the consultation. The key messages of the report are described below.

There is support for a new approach to investment

15. Overall, submitters supported the creation of an investment plan for play. Many welcomed council taking a fresh look at why and how it invests, and clarifying its future commitment to play. Feedback also supported:

· the development of investment criteria to help prioritise investment

· the use of partnerships to expand the public play network

· greater monitoring and evaluation to understand the impact of play investment in communities.

Investment should serve people of all ages and abilities

16. Feedback indicated that current investment is too focused on providing play for young, able-bodied children. Submitters want the council to provide play for people of all ages and abilities, including children over eight years of age, youth and the elderly.

Should the council pursue equity of access or equity of outcomes?

17. The most contentious issue was over how the council should allocate any new play funding at a regional level.

18. Submitters were divided over whether the council should seek to address disparities in regional social and economic outcomes by prioritising investment in high deprivation communities.

19. Feedback emphasised that any funding prioritisation must take population growth and intensification into account, while ensuring that rural or remote communities are not overlooked.

Table 1: sample of verbatim quotes from submissions

“There should be a range of spaces catering to the diverse needs of the community.”

“Council play spaces need to balance the needs of children for safe access, inclusion and supervision, with the need to be able to take risks, experience danger and accept challenge.”

“Our village is having to fund and organise its own play area. I find quite shocking that nothing has been provided for.”

“As our city's housing becomes more intensified…public play space becomes more important for all our population. We owe it to our children to provide them with outdoor space to explore, have fun and extend themselves.”

“Even those playgrounds that appear to be for older kids actually provide very little challenge or risk.”

“Would be good to move away from the safe plastic and wood playgrounds to something more exciting. Encourage risky play and getting back to nature.”

There is public appetite for a more diverse range of play experiences

20. Feedback emphasised that council should invest in more challenging and creative modes of play; including nature play, adventure play, as well as temporary, pop-up open space activations.

21. Feedback also highlighted that people are seeking more flexibility in where and when they play. Feedback supported the council continuing to provide a range of differently-sized and equipped play spaces within communities.

The council needs a more sophisticated approach to risk

22. Feedback indicated that the council’s attitude to health and safety is risk averse. Public play spaces feel too sanitised, and fail to provide challenge to any but the youngest children.

23. Submitters said the council should allow children, their parents and caregivers freedom to exercise personal responsibility and judgement in navigating foreseeable risks.

24. However, submitters still see a clear role for council in protecting the public from hazards through good maintenance and investment in safety facilities, such as signage and fencing.

Investment needs to be more responsive to local context

25. Feedback emphasised that communities and mana whenua should play a bigger role in the design, delivery and maintenance of local play areas, and that decisions for how, where, and what to invest in are best made locally. Submitters warned against creating a policy which seeks to standardise play provision across the region.

26. Feedback emphasised that play spaces need to recognise and celebrate the diverse local histories, cultures and environments, and urged greater use of Māori design and universal accessibility principles in the development of play spaces.

Publishing the results of public consultation

27. To conclude this phase of public consultation, staff recommend that the Committee approve the public release of the feedback summary report. This will help to build trust and understanding amongst submitters by demonstrating how their views have been heard.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

28. Local boards hold decision-making and budget responsibility for the establishment of playgrounds and other improvements in local parks, within parameters set by the governing body.

29. Local boards expressed mixed views on the value of creating a play investment plan. Feedback highlighted:

· support for the plan to include a high-level regional vision for play

· support for many of the individual concepts expressed in the discussion document, including that play should be more inclusive, accessible and locally responsive

· support for the plan including a range of investment tools and examples to strengthen local decision-making and open space network planning

· concern that the plan could bind local boards to a single regional approach, limiting their ability to respond to local needs

· opposition to any reallocation of existing budgets to achieve regional objectives.

30. Staff acknowledge local boards’ concerns, and recognise that support from local boards will be essential to the ultimate success of the investment plan.

31. Staff will work closely with local boards in the development of the draft plan. This help to ensure the right balance is struck between regional and local outcomes, while also confirming policy consistency with the current governance framework.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

32. The provision of quality play has board benefits for Māori, including the promotion of good health, the fostering of strong family and community relationships and connection to the natural environment.

33. Feedback from Māori was generally supported the main concepts expressed in the discussion document. It emphasised that the council should create play spaces which are culturally secure, physically active and sources of balanced environmental and economic innovation.

34. Feedback particularly emphasised that the design of play spaces should celebrate local history and identity. Submitters noted that this would help to anchor communities by strengthening connection to whakapapa and sense of place, and to promote intergenerational and cross-cultural learning.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

35. There are no financial implications associated with release of the consultation report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

36. The main risk relates to managing public expectations. The process of consultation is likely to have raised expectations as to the scope, scale, and speed of change the plan will help deliver.

37. This risk will be addressed by conducting the further public consultation on the draft plan before it is adopted by the council.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

38. Subject to Committee agreement, the report summarising the results of public consultation will be published on the council website and circulated to local boards.

39. Staff will then work to develop an initial draft of investment plan. This draft will then be refined through a process of targeted consultation with local boards and mana whenua. This is likely to take several months through mid-2018.

40. Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of this, staff will report back to the Committee by August 2018 to seek approval to initiate public consultation on the draft plan.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Tākaro – Investing in play: Analysis of consultation feedback (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

William Brydon - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

[1] http://www.knowledgeauckland.org.nz/publication/?mid=1748&DocumentType=1&

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

[3] Section 62(3) Contents of regional policy statements, Resource Management Act 1991.

[4] A limit is the maximum amount of resource use that enables a freshwater objective is to be met. This may relate to flows, capacity of aquifers or contaminants.

[5] The maximum allowable level of particulate air pollution has been set at 50 µgm of particulates per m³over a 24-hour period.

[6] If an exceedance of the PM₁₀ standard is considered to be a one-off event and caused by sources outside the council’s control (such as a forest fire), then the council is able to seek an exception from the Ministry for the Environment. Under this approach, the council would start investigating additional regulatory measures before the second exceedance, as a second exceedance would mean that Auckland’s urban area would become a “polluted air shed”.

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	20180220_Update re Tripartite Economic Alliance Summit 2017	211
b ⇩	Environment and Community Committee Forward Work Programme	221
c ⇨	20171220_ Update on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	20171214_Memo re Update on progress to become a friendlier city for all Aucklanders (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	20171221_Global Activity Memo (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	20180111_Memo re: Seniors Quality of Life (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	20180131_Memo re: Myrtle Rust Update (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	20180220_Safeswim update (Under Separate Cover)

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