Agenda of Environment and Community Committee

Environment and Community Committee

12 March 2019

Engagement on options in response to flood safety risk in Piha

File No.: CP2019/02333

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to consult the Waitākere Ranges Local Board, community and iwi on a long-list of options in response to a flood safety risk in Piha.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To respond to a high flood safety risk in Piha eight options that mitigate flood safety risk collectively to residents, the wider Piha community and visitors have been identified. These options seek to keep people away from floods, enhance readiness and responses to flooding, or keep floods away from people. The scope of the options do not impinge on private property rights or responsibilities.

3. Staff recommend that council consult the Waitākere Ranges Local Board, Piha community and landowners as well as Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua on these options.

4. Taking this approach will ensure that any future decision-making takes into consideration the views and preferences of all affected or interested parties.

5. There is a low people risk that taking the time to consult could add to the uncertainty and stress experienced by the Piha community following the flooding events. This is mitigated by engaging these people in the decision-making process.

6. Staff will report back to the Environment and Community Committee on 11 June 2019 with a summary of the engagement findings and decision of the next steps for the options.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) agree to engage the Waitākere Ranges Local Board, Piha community and landowners as well as Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua on a long-list of options in response to a high flood safety risk in Piha.

b) request a report back to the Environment and Community Committee on 11 June 2019 with a summary of the engagement findings and decision of the next steps for the options.

Horopaki

Context

7. Extreme rainfall events on 3 February and 28 April 2018 led to significant flooding at Piha.

8. On both occasions high water depths and velocities resulted in emergency evacuations and flooding at residential properties on Glenesk Road, Piha Campground and Piha Mill Camp. Access along Glenesk Road was also cut-off as water depths and velocities made it unsafe for wading or vehicles.

9. After these events Auckland Council undertook flood modelling and commissioned Tonkin and Taylor to produce an independent assessment. These analyses concluded that the Piha stream is subject to flash flooding, and that unsafe flooding may occur frequently.

10. The analysis also noted that Glenesk Road is likely to flood on an annual basis. Overtopping of some access bridges can be expected every other year. Flooding of approximately 10 buildings is likely in a five-year rainfall event, increasing to approximately 21 buildings in a 100-year event.

11. On 28 February 2019, a joint workshop of the Environment and Community Committee and the Waitākere Ranges Local Board was held to explain Tonkin and Taylor’s findings (publicly available as part of the ‘Summary of Environment and Community Committee Information’ report of this agenda.).

There is a high flood safety risk in Piha for a small number of people

12. There is a high flood safety risk for a small number of people at certain locations during extreme rainfall events in Piha. Attachment A highlights these risk areas.

13. There are four groups of people with a flood safety risk:

· residents with habitable floors within the floodplain (21 properties)

· neighbouring residents whose access is restricted by flooding in Glenesk Road

· members of the wider Piha community

· visitors to Piha.

14. The risk of drowning or injury is likely to arise when people undertake risky activities. These include driving and wading through floodwaters.

‘Local solutions to local problems’ is the accepted approach to flooding

15. The generally accepted approach to managing natural hazards, including flooding, is 'local solutions to local problems.’

16. Auckland Council acts in dual capacities as a regional council and territorial authority.

17. The council operates under a legislative framework for flood risk management that enables rather than requires specific levels of flood protection be achieved.

18. In its regional council capacity, Auckland Council maintains records of river flows, rainfall and past floods. We model water flows, warn of future flooding and provide emergency management.

19. As a territorial authority we collect information on flooding and are responsible for controlling buildings and the effects of land use to reduce flood risk. The key tools are set out in the Building Act 2004 and Resource Management Act 1991.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. This report primarily focuses on options that mitigate flood safety risk collectively to residents, the wider Piha community and visitors.

21. The scope of the options does not impinge on private property rights or on the private responsibilities and choices of individual property owners. For this reason the purchase of properties, an option raised by parts of the community, is not presented in this report.

22. A long list of possible collection options have been developed in response to the flood safety risk at Piha (see Table 1 below). This will enable engagement with all affected parties.

23. They include existing and new initiatives focussed on collective approaches to:

· help keep people away from floods

· enhance our readiness and response to floods

· physical works to keep floods away from people.

24. A number of the options can and may need to be combined. Implementing most of the options will be difficult. They will come at a cost to either individuals, the community or the region. There are financial, social and environmental trade-offs to consider. These trade-offs are outlined for each option as part of the assessment criteria.

25. Four of the options entail major flood protection and control works in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002.^{^[1]} ^{^[2]}

Table 1: Long list of options

Current situation to keep people away from flooding

· Option 1: Local responses to minimise the impact of storm events (status quo)

Enhancing readiness and response to flooding

· Option 2: Increase flood warning time

· Option 3: Enhance ways of warning people

· Option 4: Raise Glenesk Road

Physical protection works to help keep flooding away from people

· Option 5: Build a dam(s) to contain flood water

· Option 6: Build a tunnel to divert flood water

· Option 7: Widen the stream to increase water flows

· Option 8: Clear/dredge the stream from Seaview Road Bridge to the sea to increase water flows

26. Detailed descriptions of these options as well as their advantages and disadvantages is presented in Attachment B.

27. Staff developed assessment criteria to enable the comparison of all options. These criteria are unweighted and allow for objective assessment.

The extent to which each option:

· provides an effective response to the flood safety risk

· is able to be implemented in the short to medium-term

· helps preserve and protect the natural environment

· supports a resilient Piha community

· is cost effective for council, landowners and the Piha community given their roles and responsibilities in response to flooding.

28. All options are compared against the status quo in order to understand any additional benefits or impacts.

Table 2: Option assessment table

Option	Effectiveness	Achievability	Environmental	Social	Cost
Option 1: Local responses to minimise the impact of storm events (status quo)
Option 2: Increase flood warning time			No impact
Option 3: Enhance ways of warning people			No impact
Option 4: Raise Glenesk Road			X		X
Option 5: Build a dam(s) to contain flood water		XXX	XXX		XXX
Option 6: Build a tunnel to divert flood water		XXX	XXX		XXX
Option 7: Widen the stream to increase water flows		XX	XX		XXX
Option 8: Clear the stream from Seaview Road Bridge to the sea to increase water flows	Slight change	X	X		X

29. Options 1, 2 and 3 score favourably against the assessment criteria. As a suite of options they respond to the flood safety risk, have a positive impact on the community and are cost-effective for all stakeholders.

30. However, engagement with Waitākere Ranges Local Board, Piha community and landowners as well as Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua will be vital.

31. It is important to ascertain the views and preferences of all persons likely to be affected by, or who have an interest in, these collective responses to the flooding safety risk in Piha.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32. There are no council group impacts at this stage of option development.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

33. The 2018 storm events have had a pronounced impact on the Piha community. Some residents were evacuated by emergency services and were displaced from their homes.

34. There have been long-term impacts on the Piha community. People have had to cope with considerable stress and ongoing concerns about the safety of their families and property. Uncertainty and the likelihood of future flooding creates further stress.

35. Council is working to reduce uncertainty, by sharing information about the flooding risk, including the Tonkin and Taylor reports. It is also facilitating resilience planning.

Flooding can have a disproportionate impact on some households

36. Socio-economic factors can influence a community’s capacity to anticipate risk and adapt to increased flood risk. There is also a relationship between socio-economic status and the ability to cope with, and recover from, floods. People with low incomes and those living in rental accommodation are more vulnerable and take longer to recover.

The Waitākere Ranges Local Board are strong advocates for the Piha community
37. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board is working to support Piha residents.

38. The local board will be engaged on the range of options. It has decision-making responsibility for local community and park assets, including leasing and change of use.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39. The report proposes engagement with Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua in accordance with the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. The costs of engagement are estimated to be $20,000. These costs can be met within current allocated budgets. No decision on options is being made. Financial implication of any options will be considered as part of future decisions.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

41. People risks are one of the council’s standard risk categories. Specifically, they relate to the health, safety and wellbeing of staff, customers and the community. There is a low people risk that taking the time to consult could add to the uncertainty and stress experienced by the Piha community following the flooding events. This is mitigated by engaging these people in the decision-making process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. Staff will report back to the Environment and Community Committee on 11 June 2019 with a summary of the engagement findings and decision of the next steps for the options.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Piha flood risk	17
b ⇩	Detailed options analysis	19

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

12 March 2019

Safe Communities Accreditation for Auckland: Approval of Application

File No.: CP2019/01168

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the Auckland Safe Communities accreditation application (Attachment A).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In June 2016, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolved for Auckland to become an accredited Safe Community and write to the Safe Communities Foundation of New Zealand (SCFNZ) to initiate the accreditation process (REG/2016/33).

3. The SCFNZ defines a Safe Community as “a place that is attractive to live, work and visit…It increases community well-being by creating an infrastructure in local communities to increase action by building local partnerships and collaborative relationships”.

4. The application has been prepared by 12 organisations with a community safety and injury prevention focus who, coordinated by council, have come together as the Safety Collective, Tāmaki Makaurau, Auckland (Safety Collective).

5. A governance group led by Councillor Collins, has signed off the application and is providing strategic direction for the accompanying operational and implementation work, which is underway.

6. The SCFNZ has conducted a preliminary assessment of the application and indicated that it is sufficiently developed to move to the next stage of sign-off by council and partners, and for formal review by the SCFNZ assessment team. Additions and alterations through the review process may be integrated into the final document.

7. On 21 February 2019, the Community Development and Safety Committee endorsed the draft application (COM/2019/1).

8. Following approval, the application will be submitted to SCFNZ for assessment and accreditation.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the Auckland Safe Communities accreditation application (Attachment A to the agenda report).

Horopaki

Context

9. In June 2016, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolved for Auckland to become an accredited Safe Community and write to the SCFNZ to initiate the accreditation process (REG/2016/33).

10. In January 2017, the Safety Collective was established to develop the application. Coordinated by Auckland Council, it includes the following organisations with a community safety and injury prevention focus:

· Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)

· Auckland Emergency Management (AEM)

· Auckland Transport (AT)

· Department of Internal Affairs (Office of Ethnic Communities)

· Drowning Prevention Auckland

· Health Promotion Agency

· Ministry of Health (MoH)

· New Zealand Police

· Safekids Aotearoa

· Safer North Community Trust

· Safer West Community Trust.

11. In April 2018, staff updated the Community Development and Safety Committee on the progress of Auckland’s application to become an accredited Safe Community. A project manager commenced in October 2018 to advance the accreditation process, including the development and implementation of the operational model.

12. In 2018, a governance group was formed as the decision-making body for the collective. Its membership is drawn from Accident Compensation Corporation, Ministry of Health, New Zealand Police, and Auckland Council. Led by Councillor Collins, the governance group has signed off the application and is providing strategic direction for the accompanying operational and implementation work, which is underway.

13. The SCFNZ has conducted a preliminary assessment of the application and indicated that it is ready for sign-off by council and partners, and for formal review by the SCFNZ assessment team.

14. On 21 February 2019, the Community Development and Safety Committee endorsed the draft application (COM/2019/2).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. The SCFNZ defines a safe community as a place that is attractive to live, work and visit. A safe community is a liveable community, where people can go about their daily activities in an environment that without fear, risk of harm or injury. It increases community well-being by creating an infrastructure in local communities to increase action by building local partnerships and collaborative relationships. A safe community is about wellbeing, building strong, cohesive, vibrant, participatory communities.

16. The Safe Community model is internationally recognised as an effective intervention that provides a consistent platform for collaboration on projects that deliver evidence-based safety and injury prevention strategies at a local and regional level. It is recommended as an effective approach by the World Health Organisation.

17. Auckland is the largest local government authority in Australasia to seek Safe Communities accreditation. It will join more than 20 other local authorities across New Zealand who have this status, representing more than 50 per cent of New Zealanders, including Wellington and Christchurch. International cities such as Melbourne also have this status.

18. Auckland Council has a lead role as the host agency and for coordination of the accreditation and its implementation, however the initiative belongs to the Safety Collective.

19. The range of community safety and injury prevention programmes currently carried out across Tāmaki Makaurau by the Safety Collective members can be themed as follows:

· reducing alcohol related harm

· child injury prevention

· community connectedness/resilience

· road safety/policing

· violence/crime prevention

· water safety.

20. There is considerable scope for the further development and integration of programmes and initiatives that address Auckland’s needs for improved community safety and injury prevention. For example, addressing the five-year trend for road deaths and serious injuries in Auckland, which has increased by 67 per cent from 486 in 2013 to 813 in 2017. This growth in road trauma exceeds the growth in the Auckland population and vehicle kilometres travelled over the same time period and is three times higher than the national road trauma growth.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. AEM and AT are represented on the Safety Collective. Synergies include AEM’s building of resilience for Auckland to ensure that communities are prepared for any risks and hazards that could impact them, and AT’s co-leadership of RoadSafe Auckland, the Road Safety Strategy and locally co-ordinated Road Safety Action Plans.

22. Staff from council’s Research Investigation and Monitoring Unit (RIMU) are assisting with the development of a monitoring and evaluation framework that the Safety Collective can use to determine its own effectiveness and that of interventions intended to improve community safety and reduce preventable injury and death.

23. Safe Communities accreditation could provide a framework for local responses to anti-social behaviour and safety issues across the Auckland region.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

24. Staff presented to the Local Board Chairs Forum on 11 February 2019 about the Safe Communities accreditation application and the opportunities it presents for community safety and injury prevention work programmes across local boards. Feedback was sought on whether the range of community safety and injury prevention programmes currently carried out across Tāmaki Makaurau adequately address the needs of local boards and their communities.

25. The Safe Communities accreditation aligns with local boards’ priorities on community safety and injury prevention as per their 2017 Local Board Plans and 2018/2019 work programmes.

26. Work will shortly commence on a proposed implementation plan to follow on from accreditation, addressing the methods of local engagement, and priority setting. Local boards will be engaged on this as details are developed, and before the operational model is put in place.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. Case studies included in the Safe Communities accreditation application demonstrate how Māori are disproportionately reflected in many community safety and injury statistics. For example, Safekids Aotearoa in research for its “Check for me before you turn the key” programme found that it is predominantly Māori and Pasifika children who are killed in driveway incidents.

28. The Terms of Reference for the Safety Collective require the collective to recognise and advocate for Te Tiriti o Waitangi by enabling Māori to contribute to decision-making to address the inequities between Māori and non-Māori community safety and injury prevention outcomes across Auckland.

29. The Safety Collective will support and recognise the value of Māori mātauranga, tikanga and approaches in case studies and effective strategies. Together, these are expected to make a meaningful impact over time on community safety and injury prevention outcomes as they relate to Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. The MoH has provided funding to council for project management and staffing costs associated with obtaining the Safe Communities accreditation. Discussions are underway with ACC, who have indicated an interest in exploring funding options for the implementation of the post-accreditation work. Further funding implications will be explored during the implementation planning phase once accreditation has been obtained.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. The timeframe for submitting the application to the SCFNZ is March 2019 and a decision on obtaining accreditation is May 2019. There are the following reputational and financial risks for council, if the indicated timeframes are not met:

Risk

Mitigation

· Reputation with stakeholders (agencies and community groups who form the Safety Collective, including the MoH who have funded the work), and the SCFNZ could be negatively affected, as they have invested considerable time and effort to progress the application.

· Close working relationships with stakeholders, and the agreement of Councillor Collins to chair the group as a demonstration of Council’s commitment to the process.

· Close collaboration with the SCFNZ, to ensure the application is well prepared and regularly reviewed throughout the process.

· Funding to support implementation may not be secured, at all or in time for the 2019/2020 financial year.

· Working closely with ACC, as a Safety Collective member and likely funder of the bulk of implementation costs.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. Following approval by the committee, the Safe Communities accreditation application will be submitted to the SCFNZ in late March 2019.

33. Assessment and approval from the SCFNZ is expected by May 2019. In the interim, the Safety Collective will develop an operational model for implementation following accreditation.

34. Following accreditation, staff will report to the committee on the accompanying operational and implementation work.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Safe Communities accreditation for Auckland application	55

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Wayne Levick - Project Manager, Safe Communities

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

12 March 2019

PDF Creator

Environment and Community Committee

12 March 2019

Adoption of the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029

File No.: CP2019/01422

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is reviewing its Regional Pest Management Strategy 2007-2012 to update the council’s approach to pest management in the region. The review has taken into account requirements of the Biosecurity Act reform in 2012, changes in pest species in the region, political feedback, community expectations, and the available implementation budget.

3. The proposed Regional Pest Management Plan (“the proposed plan”) was publicly notified for submissions in February-March 2018, alongside the Long-Term Plan 2018-2028.

4. The proposed plan sets objectives and rules to manage pests in the region, primarily to protect Auckland’s priority ecosystems and threatened species and primary production. The proposed plan relies on a variety of statutory and non-statutory actions to do this. These include enforcement, delivery of pest control by council, education and behaviour change programmes.

5. A total of 1,324 submissions were received during the consultation period. In accordance with section 75(2) of the Biosecurity Act 1993, Attachment B to this report sets out the staff advice for accepting or rejecting submissions on the proposed plan, grouped by submission theme. Overall, submissions contained a strong level of support for the proposed plan, except for cat management, where approximately 75 per cent of submitters were opposed.

6. Staff consider that most changes needed are minor and often technical in nature. These do not materially affect the overall nature of the proposed approach. Programmes where staff have made more substantive changes in response to the feedback received include parks, Hauraki Gulf Islands, possums and cats.

7. Existing council budgets and the natural environment targeted rate approved by the Governing Body in May 2018 (resolution GB/2018/91) provide for the implementation of a Regional Pest Management Plan similar in scope and scale to the proposed plan. However, the final approved total funding envelope (general rates plus targeted rate) is approximately 80 per cent of the estimated cost to implement the full proposed plan. To ensure the plan can be delivered within existing budgets it has been scaled back by:

· reducing the original extent of parkland included in the Significant Ecological Area parks programme, to include 94 per cent of original on-park land and 36 per cent of original buffer land (see maps in Attachment D)

· reducing the original extent of proposed rural possum control from all rural land to 50 per cent

· reducing the original extent of proposed pest plant management in the Hauraki Gulf, while maintaining controls for moth plant on Waiheke, Rakino and Aotea Great Barrier.

8. Despite the above amendments, the final plan will still be a substantial increase on what was being delivered under the legacy Regional Pest Management Strategy.

9. Staff have made several changes to the proposed approach to cat management, to mitigate submitters’ concerns while still achieving adequate protection for threatened species. The main changes recommended are to:

· change the term ‘pest cat’ to ‘unowned cat

· provide more certainty on cat control areas by clarifying that unowned cat control will only be carried out in rural areas with threatened species present

· amend the ban on feeding unowned cats on parks to apply only to parks with threatened species present.

10. All changes by staff have been incorporated in the amended plan in Attachment A and are covered by recommendation (e) to adopt the operative plan.

11. Auckland Council is required to make several sequential resolutions to comply with the Biosecurity Act 1993 for the adoption of a Regional Pest Management Plan. A schedule of assessments against key provisions of the Biosecurity Act is contained within Attachment C.

12. In summary, the assessments demonstrate compliance with sections 72, 73, 100 (2), 74, 75 and 100T of the Act. Sections 72 to 75 relate to satisfaction with the consultation process, preparation, requirements and decision-making on the plan. Sections 100(2) and 100T require councils to determine the funding mechanisms for implementation and council’s capacity to be the management agency.

13. The Biosecurity Act requires the Council to make decisions on these requirements sequentially, which is reflected in the recommendations in this report.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) determine that it is satisfied that the consultation that has taken place in relation to the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 complies with section 72(1) of the Biosecurity Act 1993

b) approve the preparation of a final plan in accordance with section 73(1) of the Biosecurity Act 1993;

c) determine under section 100(1) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 that Auckland Council is the management agency for the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029;

d) determine that it is satisfied that the contents of the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 meet the requirements of section 74 of the Biosecurity Act 1993;

e) adopt the final Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 (Attachment A to the agenda report)

f) incorporate by reference the Pest Free Warrant conditions for commercial transport operators moving people or goods within the Hauraki Gulf Controlled Area as part of the final Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 under part 6 of the Biosecurity Act.

g) adopt the agenda report and attachments as Auckland Council’s report under section 75 of Biosecurity Act.

h) determine under section 100T of the Biosecurity Act 1993 that the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 will be funded by a combination of general rates (approximately $85m over 10 years) and targeted rates (approximately $161m over 10 years);

i) delegate to the Chair of the Environment and Community Committee the power to edit the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 to correct any identified errors or typographical edits, and to give effect to changes to the final plan requested by the Committee at this meeting.

Horopaki

Context

14. The Regional Pest Management Strategy 2007-2012 (still operative) was prepared by the former Auckland Regional Council and is the main statutory document implementing the Biosecurity Act in the region. It provides a statutory framework for the management of pests in Auckland.

15. Auckland Council is reviewing the Regional Pest Management Strategy 2007-2012 to update the council’s approach to pest management across the whole region. This review has taken into account requirements of the Biosecurity Act reform in 2012, changes in pest species in the region, costs and benefits of pest control options, political feedback, community expectations and available implementation budget.

16. The review process has involved iterative engagement and consultation with elected members, mana whenua, stakeholders and the public, including on a 2015 public discussion document. This early consultation informed the drafting of a proposed Regional Pest Management Plan.

17. At its meeting on 14 November 2017, the Environment and Community Committee approved the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan (“the proposed plan”) for public consultation alongside the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 during February – March 2018 (Resolution ENV/2017/ 162).

18. During this consultation period 1,324 submissions were received on the proposed plan. A summary of submissions is included as Attachment B. This includes feedback themes, proposed staff responses and recommended amendments to the proposed plan.

19. The next step is to adopt an operative Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 (“the operative plan”), taking into account issues raised through the submissions process.

Statutory process considerations

20. Auckland Council is required to make several sequential resolutions in order to comply with the Biosecurity Act 1993. At the 14 November 2017 meeting of the Environment and Community Committee, the council determined that it was satisfied that the proposed plan complied with the following sections of the Biosecurity Act:

· section 100D(5) (defining the scope of review)

· section 70 (requirements on structure and content of the plan)

· section 71 (various requirements that collectively ensure the plan will effectively and fairly achieve the outcomes sought).

21. Following these determinations, the council is now required to make several sequential resolutions on the operative plan under this Act. These determinations which must be made to adopt the operative plan are reflected in the recommendations in this report. Staff advice on compliance with these statutory requirements is contained in Attachment C of this report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback summary – Support for all key elements

22. The proposed plan contains over 400 pest species for control. Much of the proposed plan is structured around defendable geography and high ecological value sites, such as offshore islands, Hunua and Waitākere Ranges and other high value parkland. Other components of the plan apply regionally, but with delivery often prioritised to support high value sites.

23. During the consultation period a total of 1,324 submissions were received. This represents a significant increase on the approximately 400 submissions that were received on the 2015 discussion document.

24. The consultation feedback form included eight questions regarding the key structural elements of the proposed plan. As shown in Table 1 below, submissions contained a strong level of support in relation to these topics. A range of other topics were raised in response to a final open-ended question. Key themes included cat management and new bans of species which are addressed later in this report.

Table 1: Submission statistics – Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan Questions 1-8

Approach in proposed plan	Response to question regarding view of proposed approach	Approx count	Approx per cent
Q1 - Parks Control and monitoring of pest plants and animals on council parkland with Significant Ecological Areas. Coordination of pest plant management by council, transport corridor agencies and private land occupiers through enforcement in buffers around parks.	Full or partial support	582	58
	Full or partial do not support	58	6
	Other/neutral comment	366	36
Q2 - Kauri dieback Regulatory and increased hygiene measures to slow spread, particularly keeping kauri dieback out of currently non-symptomatic areas (prioritising Hunua and Hauraki Gulf islands).	Full or partial support	587	64
	Full or partial do not support	73	7
	Other/neutral comment	264	29
Q3 - Hauraki-Gulf Islands Human-assisted spread of pests to Hauraki Gulf Islands reduced by a range of rules including mandatory pest free warrant programme for transport operators.	Full or partial support	689	70
	Full or partial do not support	137	14
	Other/neutral comment	161	16
Q4 - Great Barrier Island Outstanding natural values protected by managing existing pests at high value sites and preventing new pests from establishing on the island.	Full or partial support	560	66
	Full or partial do not support	58	6
	Other/neutral comment	236	28

Q5 - Kawau Island Multispecies eradication of wallabies, possums, rats and stoats.	Full or partial support	586	64
	Full or partial do not support	105	12
	Other/neutral comment	220	24
Q6 - Waiheke Island Multispecies eradication of rats, stoats and feral pigs.	Full or partial support	545	65
	Full or partial do not support	58	7
	Other/neutral comment	238	28
Q7 - Possums Expansion of existing possum control efforts to entire rural mainland.	Full or partial support	592	67
	Full or partial do not support	93	10
	Other/neutral comment	194	22
Q8 - Freshwater pests Reduction of human-assisted spread across region. Protection of two highest priority lakes (Tomarata and Rototoa)	Full or partial support	503	69
	Full or partial do not support	47	7
	Other/neutral comment	188	25

25. As Table 1 shows, for some elements of the plan (e.g. parks) a high proportion of submissions provided ‘other’ feedback or neutral comments. This is because the feedback form for the proposed plan did not specifically ask submitters if they supported or opposed the plan’s direction for each element. Instead it asked for open-ended public feedback. Because of this, many submissions did not specifically express support or opposition to each element.

26. Most ‘other’ comments were operational in nature and consistent with the approach taken in the proposed plan (e.g. emphasising the importance of supporting community groups when implementing the plan). Minor amendments have been made in response in some places.

27. In accordance with section 75(2) of the Biosecurity Act 1993, Attachment B sets out the staff advice for accepting or rejecting submissions on the plan, grouped by submission theme. The proposed changes staff have made for kauri dieback, Aotea/Great Barrier Island, Kawau Island, Waiheke Island and freshwater pest management are minor and do not materially affect the overall nature of the proposed plan. More substantive proposed changes made in other sections (parks, Hauraki Gulf Islands, possums, cats and new species) are described below.

28. All amendments to the plan described in staff advice below and in Attachment B are covered by the formal recommendation (e), to adopt the operative plan.

Feedback on parks and resulting amendments to plan

29. Expanding scope of approach: Many submissions requested that the proposed approach be expanded in some way. Common requests for expansion included expanding to all council parkland, Department of Conservation land, covenanted private land, or the addition of more pest plant species.

30. The sites included in the proposed plan exceed those for which such a programme can be implemented within the natural environment targeted rate. As such there is insufficient funding available to further expand council’s pest management programme.

31. To address this fiscal constraint, staff have amended the plan by prioritising sites for protection based on biodiversity value, current pest plant burden (i.e. cost to control) and social equity of access to well-maintained parkland across the region. The retained programme represents 94 per cent of the original on-park area and 36 per cent of the original buffer area. This is because selection criteria preferred larger parks with less edge relative to core area.

32. Maps in Attachment D show the comparison between the extent of parkland included in the proposed plan relative to the amended plan. Staff note that the available funding will provide for implementation of protection over the retained area gradually over the 10-year lifetime of the plan.

33. Despite the above amendments, the final plan will still be a substantial increase on what was being delivered in parks under the legacy Regional Pest Management Strategy.

34. Legacy rules for pest plants on property boundaries: The proposed pest plant rules around parks represent a change in approach from those contained within the legacy Regional Pest Management Strategy. Some submitters, including Federated Farmers, requested the retention of legacy rules requiring land occupiers to control gorse, woolly nightshade or ragwort along their property boundaries.

35. In respect to woolly nightshade and ragwort, staff have not changed the plan as such rules are neither technically effective nor affordable. However, in respect to gorse, staff have included re-instatement of a gorse boundary rule to apply only when the affected land is being used for commercial primary production.

36. Staff consider this is appropriate and affordable because gorse has a different dispersal biology to the other species considered. The amended approach will have relatively low cost to serve because it is limited to commercial primary production land (see Attachment B for further discussion).

Hauraki Gulf Islands

37. Staff have made changes to the pest plant programmes set out for the Hauraki Gulf Islands in the draft plan. These changes will ensure the operative plan is affordable within the natural environment targeted rate and address species-specific technical issues raised in submissions. Specifically, recommended changes are:

· Amend the moth plant land occupier rule to apply only to Waiheke and Rākino, instead of throughout the inner Hauraki Gulf as originally proposed.

· Remove Madeira vine and mile-a-minute from inner Hauraki Gulf site-led programmes.

38. These changes do not affect the management of these species on Aotea/Great Barrier, which retains its own separate programmes for each of these species.

Possums

39. The most common changes requested by submitters in relation to the proposed rural mainland possum control programme were for the programme to be increased beyond that proposed - either by inclusion of urban areas as well, or by extending the objective to eradication rather than suppression to low levels.

40. The proposed plan already contained a separate programme for urban possum control. As the two programmes are fundamentally compatible, staff have amended the plan to include a single mainland-wide progressive containment programme for possums, instead of the two separate programmes.

41. The extent of rural possum control has been reduced from all rural Auckland to approximately 50 per cent of rural Auckland. Because this reduced control is still consistent with the programme type in the proposed plan, no changes have been made to the plan to accommodate this budget reduction. The approach is also still consistent with council’s longer-term aspirations towards possum eradication.

42. Staff consider that an eradication goal is not affordable within the available budget. Therefore, the plan has not been amended in this way.

43. Staff will incorporate advances in control methods over the 10 years of the plan, to ensure the region is best placed to pursue eradication into the future. Collaboration with neighbouring regions will also be important.

Other issues – Cat management and new pest species

44. A final open-ended question provided an opportunity for submitters to comment on any of the other aspects of the proposed plan (such as the strategic section of the document or region-wide programmes). Comments were received on a diverse range of issues and these are summarised, along with staff responses in Attachment B.

45. Of the changes suggested, most are relatively minor in nature. However, the following paragraphs address two submission topics in more detail;

· cat management (due to the number of non-supportive submissions received)

· the inclusion of new pest species in the plan (due to its potential for creating a risk of a legal challenge from the nursery industry).

Cat management for biodiversity protection

46. Approximately half of all submitters (around 600) mentioned cats. Of these, approximately one quarter were in support of the proposed approach and three quarters were opposed. Because the consultation form did not ask a specific question about cats, the views of the other half of submitters who did not mention cats are unknown.

47. Key feedback themes among un-supportive submitters are outlined below, along with a description of how these concerns have been addressed by staff recommendations in the final plan (Attachment A). An options analysis for cat management changes is also set out in Attachment E to this report.

Feedback theme one: The term and definition of pest cat

48. Describing cats: Submitters expressed concern that the term ‘pest cat’ is offensive, inappropriate and may enable animal welfare abuse. Staff have changed the plan, so that the term 'pest cat' is replaced with 'unowned cat'. Staff consider ‘unowned cat’ provides the most clarity in terms of the person responsible for the cat, and is likely to be more publicly acceptable than some alternatives considered in Attachment E.

49. Defining unowned cats: The underlying definition in the plan remains tied to the absence of a microchip and accompanying registration on the Companion Animal Register. Alternative options for defining the cats to which the plan applies were considered by staff, including the legacy approach of ‘feral’ cats. Options analysis is set out in Attachment E.

50. Submitters were concerned that microchips may fail, endangering responsibly owned cats. The risk of microchip failure can be managed operationally (e.g. by advising cat owners to consult vets regarding reliable brands). The plan has also been amended to give cat owners the alternative option of identifying their cat with a collar showing the owner’s name and address. Owners also have the option of keeping their cats indoors during unowned cat control.

Feedback theme two: Spatial extent of proposed cat management

51. The proposed operational approach was to manage unowned cats at high biodiversity value sites, not region-wide.

52. Submitters were concerned that the proposal provided powers which would enable much more cat control than the stated approach of a small number of sites targeted to high biodiversity value. Submitters felt that new sites might be created at any time and they sought assurance that control sites would not be created unannounced near communities with pet cats.

53. Staff have amended the plan to provide more certainty on where cat management might take place. Areas for live-capture unowned cat trapping would be linked to the presence of threatened native animals (birds, reptiles or amphibians). Four options were considered as shown in Attachment E.

54. Staff have amended the plan to include option 2 (map 2), to strike a balance between protecting threatened species and mitigating public concern. This option would provide for unowned cat control to be undertaken only in rural areas, to protect any ‘Threatened’ bird, reptile or amphibian species.

55. The plan retains a small number of sites with a zero tolerance for cats. These are mainly pest-free offshore islands, and fenced or intensively managed sanctuaries for reintroduced species (e.g. Tawharanui). In most instances this is a continuation of current practice.

56. Prior to the start of any cat control communities will be extensively notified to ensure that cat owners have the opportunity to micro-chip or otherwise identify or contain their cats.

Feedback theme 3. Ban on feeding cats on council parkland

57. The proposal included a ban on feeding cats on council parkland containing Significant Ecological Areas.

58. Submitters were concerned that the ban on feeding cats on Significant Ecological Areas of parkland would result in adverse welfare outcomes for those cats. The ban was also seen as not being justified on ecological grounds, as submitters felt Significant Ecological Areas primarily reflect vegetation habitat value rather than presence of native animal populations.

59. Staff have amended the plan so that the ban on feeding cats on parkland is aligned with parkland containing threatened animal species instead of Significant Ecological Areas. Alternative options considered are set out in Attachment E.

60. This is consistent with the proposed approach to cat control outlined above and should mitigate submitters’ concerns about cat welfare. However, it will still provide an additional tool to assist in managing unowned cats where threatened species are present. This will protect council’s investment in threatened species management.

61. Further details in relation to these and other more minor proposed amendments to the cat management programme are addressed in Attachment B of this report.

Inclusion of new pest species in the proposed plan

62. The proposed plan included 55 plants and 11 animals that had not previously been classified as statutory pests in the Auckland region. This was because preventing the sale of potential pest species is an effective early intervention that can avoid future environmental impacts and management costs.

63. Submissions were received both in support and opposition of new species additions, with overall more submissions in favour than against. The total number of submissions (approximately 50) on this theme was relatively small, and the opinions of other submitters on this topic are unknown. However, People’s Panel research suggests that if people understand that a species could be invasive there is strong support for sales to be banned.

64. Submissions opposing new pest additions commonly cited the following reasons:

· commercial value to industry (which for some species exceeds $500,000 per annum in the Auckland region)

· value to gardeners, landscapers or pet owners (note that the proposal does not require removal of existing specimens, only banning sale of new individuals)

· dispute relevance or quality of evidence for that species being a problem.

65. In most instances, staff have retained the approach from the proposed plan. However, staff have included a phase-in period for new pests to allow time for industry to adjust. The phase-in period has been set at one year for plants to which there were no objecting submissions, three years for short-form agapanthus, and two years for all other commercial species (plants and animals) (see Attachment B for further detail).

66. Staff will work with nursery and pet industries to assist with a smooth transition to the new framework. This support can include ‘plant me instead’ identification and promotion of non-invasive alternatives.

67. For a small number of species, staff have made the following changes based on issues raised in submissions (refer Attachment B for justification):

· Remove dragon tree from plan in recognition of its value to industry, along with its endangered status in native range, and biological characteristics.

· Amend regulation of Furcraea to allow for some species in this genus to still be sold. This will regulate the most invasive species but allow the main commercial species to still be sold.

· Provide an exemption for two sterile cultivars of Taiwan cherry to be sold. These are not an invasion threat because they don’t set viable seed.

68. Submissions were also received requesting addition of further new species as pests in the plan including:

· myrtle rust (approximately 30 submissions)

· marine pests (approximately 40 submissions)

· over 30 additional plants currently available for sale (approximately 30 submissions)

· a further six animal species (including dogs, bird species and insect species) (approximately 10 submissions).

69. Staff do not recommend adding any of these new species to the plan at this stage. This is due to Biosecurity Act process requirements as well as general principles of consultation. Specifically, it would not be fair to introduce new pest plants at this stage which were not included in the draft plan, as other submitters have not had a chance to comment on their inclusion.

70. However, staff do acknowledge that some suggested new species are worthy of further consideration for management under the Biosecurity Act. Over the lifetime of the operative plan it is open to council to add new species through a partial plan review under s100D of the Biosecurity Act. Staff may schedule a partial plan review to address these and other issues within the next two years.

71. Further details on submissions and staff advice relating to new pests are addressed in Attachment B to this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

72. Submissions on the proposed plan were received from Auckland Transport and Auckland Botanic Gardens. Staff also discussed the proposed plan with staff from Watercare. Implications of the plan for each of these entities and Auckland Zoo are outlined below.

Auckland Transport

73. Auckland Transport must comply with rules requiring land occupiers to remove pest plants. The proposed buffer areas around high value parkland are the most notable of these rules, although the proposed plan also contains a small number of other such requirements in rural areas. These rules will replace existing land occupier obligations under the legacy Regional Pest Management Strategy 2007-2012 (still operative).

74. Auckland Transport submitted in support of the plan overall and the Significant Ecological Area parks programme specifically. However, Auckland Transport noted implementation issues that were both financial and operational (e.g. where plant removal may adversely affect bank stability).

75. From April 2019, Community Facilities will take over responsibility for maintaining green spaces in the road corridor on behalf of Auckland Transport. The accompanying budget transferred from Auckland Transport is insufficient to meet all land occupier obligations under either the legacy Regional Pest Management Strategy or the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029.

76. Enforcement of the proposed parks buffer programme is intended to be phased in across the park network gradually over the lifetime of the plan. Staff from Biosecurity are assisting Community Facilities to refine estimates of the budget required to comply with the forthcoming plan. These will be available to inform annual plan decisions for 2020/2021.

Watercare

77. Watercare land in the Hunua Ranges and Waitākere Ranges falls within the Regional Pest Management Plan Significant Ecological Areas parks programme. At these and other smaller Watercare sites, Watercare must comply with land occupier requirements to manage pest plants. However, Watercare will also need to address actual and perceived risks relating to herbicide use within the catchments supplying drinking water to the region.

78. Rayonier New Zealand Ltd Matariki Forests (hereafter “Matariki Forests”) own a cutting right in Hunua, purchased from Watercare. Matariki Forests submitted to request kauri dieback hygiene requirements in Hunua be amended to ‘all practicable steps’ in recognition of operational realities which may make the required standard difficult for forestry operations to attain. Staff have retained the proposed rule as it stands, to be supplemented by discussions with Matariki Forests to agree conditions for an exemption.

Auckland Botanic Gardens and Auckland Zoo

79. Both Auckland Botanic Gardens and Auckland Zoo hold current or new pests within their collections. Both facilities offer excellent opportunities to educate the public about biosecurity issues. As is the existing case, exemptions can be granted to ensure that pest risks are robustly managed while also enabling these facilities to continue to offer quality education and recreational experiences.

80. Both Auckland Botanic Gardens and Auckland Zoo fall within the sites or buffers proposed for retention within the Regional Pest Management Plan Significant Ecological Areas parks programme. Staff consider that operational implications of this can be managed adequately through cross-council collaboration and phasing in of the Significant Ecological Areas parks programme.

81. Auckland Botanic Gardens submitted on some additional pest issues, such as inclusion of new pests, based on their technical expertise in plants. These submission points have been considered in the overall analysis presented in Attachment B to this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

82. Many of the programmes in the Regional Pest Management Plan are regional in nature and impacts will be similar throughout the region. However, some programmes focus on protecting high value ecosystems which are clustered particularly in Waitākere, Hunua and Hauraki Gulf islands. Therefore, these parts of the region will especially benefit from the investment (in terms of environmental and associated socio-cultural outcomes) but will also bear more of the costs (i.e. needing to comply with rules).

83. In October 2018 staff attended workshops with all local boards to present an overview of submissions on the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan. Staff’s proposed approach for responding to this public feedback was also presented.

84. Local boards then provided formal feedback in November and December 2018 through resolutions at business meetings. The full resolutions from each local board are shown in Attachment F. Local board feedback was largely supportive of approaches recommended by staff, with the exception of the Waitākere Ranges local board which requested substantive changes to increase recognition of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area.

85. Staff acknowledge both the national significance of the area and the particular biosecurity challenges it faces. However, staff also consider that the mechanism by which these challenges should be addressed is essentially the same as that for other mainland park areas (i.e. the parks site-led programme and region-wide progressive containment programmes focusing on high value areas). For brevity, staff have not repeated this approach in two separate sections, one for Waitākere and another for all other parkland. Staff have included additional text in the plan to more explicitly highlight the importance of the Waitākere Ranges and how it will be protected by the plan.

86. Local board feedback is set out in full along with corresponding staff advice in Attachment B to this report. Key themes include:

· suggestion of additional sites for prioritisation of pest plant management on parkland

· suggestion of additional sites for kauri dieback management

· acknowledgement of the importance of high values sites on private land

· requests for council to work with large organisations such as Housing New Zealand Corporation and Kiwirail to enforce land occupier obligations

· requests for retention of the legacy boundary rules for pest plants

· requests for herbicide or toxin use to be minimised.

87. 13 local boards provided feedback on topics related to cat management. All 13 local boards noted the need for more effective communications and engagement on this topic to address public concerns.

88. Five boards noted support for staff proposals for changing the plan to mitigate submitters’ concerns in relation to cat management as described earlier in this report. Six local boards proposed an alternative approach to cat management including using the term ‘wild’ rather than ‘pest’ cat, suggesting the programme only applies to feral cats and suggesting the programme only includes live trapping and/or non-lethal methods.

89. Two local boards requested further controls on cats including phasing out ownership of Bengal cats and mandatory de-sexing, microchipping and reflective collars on Great Barrier Island.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

90. Under the Biosecurity Act a specific purpose of a regional pest management plan is to provide for the ‘protection of the relationship between Māori and their ancestral lands, waters, sites, wāhi tapu, and taonga, and to protect those aspects from the adverse effects of pests’.

91. Kanohi ki te kanohi (face to face) engagement has been undertaken with interested mana whenua in the Auckland region throughout the development of the plan, at multi-iwi hui and individually. Themes arising from earlier mana whenua engagement informed development of the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan including (but not limited to), the importance of building the capacity of mana whenua to directly undertake pest management in each rohe, the importance of education and community pest control and the need for the plan to be visionary and bicultural, reflecting Te Ao Māori and Te Reo.

92. Aligned with consultation on the proposed plan, staff attended the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Hui in March 2018 and the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum in April 2018. Staff also had one-on-one meetings (either in person or by teleconference), by request, with representatives from Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara (Ngā Maunga Whakahī), Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Maru.

93. Written submissions on the proposed plan were received from the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum, three individual iwi organisations (Te Kawerau ā Maki, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, and Te Uri o Hau), and Te Tira Whakamātaki (the Māori Biosecurity Network). Some common themes raised in these submissions and discussions included:

· requests for further expansion of pest management throughout the landscape in addition to the high value sites protected in the proposed plan

· requests for increased acknowledgement in the plan of the value of rāhui and other ecological customs and mātauranga (knowledge)

· comments on operational methods (e.g. toxins)

· requests for meaningful involvement of mana whenua in operational implementation of the plan, including opportunities for capacity building and economic development.

94. All written submissions from mana whenua, and corresponding staff advice, are addressed in Attachment B to this report.

95. As was the case for the 2015 discussion document, all headings in the proposed plan were translated into te reo Māori, as were all names of native species, and some key sections of text. A mana whenua representative has since reviewed all translations and provided additional translations where necessitated by new headings being inserted in the document in response to submissions. The operative plan will be updated with these translations accordingly.

96. Staff will continue to grow engagement with mana whenua as partners throughout the implementation of the plan and wider natural environment targeted rate projects. Opportunities to achieve Māori outcomes include:

· kaitiaki participation in advisory and governance discussions

· Māori leading the scoping and delivery of some projects

· a structured programme to build capacity and capability across iwi to work alongside council in their capacity as kaitiaki for the natural environment, potentially starting with rangatahi

· developing key performance indicators for targeted rate funded programmes that reflect mātauranga Māori perspectives

· iwi involvement in local environmental projects delivered in their rohe.

97. A strategic assessment is currently being completed to identify and further scope opportunities to integrate Māori outcomes into work programmes. The strategic assessment will enable council staff to work with mana whenua and mataawaka to develop a mutually agreed implementation plan for the targeted rate.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

98. Section 100T of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires the council to decide to what extent it should fund the implementation of the plan from a general rate, a targeted rate, or a combination of both. In doing so, the council must have regard to the factors set out in section 100T(2). These address the extent to which it is fair to fund the plan from specific types of properties and rates (general or targeted) (refer Attachment C for detailed analysis).

99. Consultation on the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan and the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 were aligned. This ensured that submitters could consider the programmes in the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan alongside wider council spending decisions, such as how much money should be allocated to hard infrastructure, libraries, and other public amenities.

100. Overall, public feedback supported Auckland Council making a higher investment in environmental outcomes. Accordingly, in May 2018 the Governing Body approved an additional investment of $311 million through the natural environment targeted rate (resolution GB/2018/91).

101. Based on the council’s decision to introduce the natural environment targeted rate, staff have developed a plan which can be funded by a combination of general rates ($85 million over 10 years) and targeted rates ($161 million over 10 years). Staff advice on the factors specified in section 100T is set out in Attachment C of this report.

Scaling back of elements of the plan

102. The funding provided by this targeted rate and other existing council budgets provides for the implementation of a Regional Pest Management Plan similar in scope and scale to the proposed plan. Some elements of the proposed plan do need to be scaled back to fit within the available funding. The council cannot adopt an aspirational plan that cannot be fully implemented, as s74(d) of the Biosecurity Act requires council to be satisfied that adequate funding is likely to be available.

103. As described above, staff have made some changes to the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan to enable the plan to be implemented within the available funding. These include reducing the number of parks included, reducing the extent of rural possum control and reducing the extent of pest plant management within the Hauraki Gulf.

104. Despite the above amendments, the final plan will still be a substantial increase on what was being delivered under the legacy Regional Pest Management Strategy.

Positive outcomes of investment in pest control

105. The proposed pest control actions described in the plan are supported by extensive cost-benefit analysis (Attachment D to CP217/23161). This analysis considered monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits of each pest species and scenarios for managing those pests.

106. Implementation of the Regional Pest Management Plan also has financial implications for green assets managed by council or other parties. In the absence of adequate pest control, the state of these assets will continue to decline, with potential for significant losses in the medium to long term. Such assets are of considerable value to Auckland.

107. The annual net flow of ecosystem services from assets protected by the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan is substantial (e.g. staff estimate $274 million - $424 million over the lifetime of the plan for Significant Ecological Area parkland and $390 million - $508 million for Hauraki Gulf islands).

108. Total economic valuation of the natural environment targeted rate overall (which includes but is not limited to implementation of the Regional Pest Management Plan) is estimated to have a net benefit of $734.2 million, with a corresponding benefit cost ratio of 2.8.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

109. There are environmental, legal and political risks associated with the review of the Regional Pest Management Plan.

110. Environmental: Continued investment at historic levels risks loss of species and ecosystems in the mid- to long-term. The Regional Pest Management Plan seeks to address this risk through programmes targeting protection of sites of high ecological value.

111. Legal: Section 76 of the Biosecurity Act permits those who submitted on the proposed plan to apply to the Environment Court within 15 working days of public notice of the council’s decision on the plan under section 75(3). The following matters can be the subject of an appeal:

· any aspect of the plan:

· whether the plan is inconsistent with the national policy direction:

· whether the process requirements for a plan in the national policy direction, if there were any, were complied with.

112. As set out in Attachment C, staff are satisfied that the requirements of the Biosecurity Act have been met.

113. Political: Pest management often involves conflicting value positions. Many pests, regardless of the magnitude of their ecological or economic impacts, may be prized by sections of society (e.g. as a garden plant, pet, recreational hunting or fishing resource, or for commercial gain). Public views may be polarised in relation to the acceptability of control methods, such as toxins or lethal control of animals.

114. In particular, the management of cats has drawn a range of strong responses both in support of and opposition to the proposals. A proactive communications and engagement plan aimed at locally affected communities will mitigate this risk. The amendments described in this report may also go some way to mitigating concerns. Regardless, a solution that is acceptable to all submitters is not possible to achieve. Staff consider that the recommended amendments to cat management in the final plan will provide a reasonable balance between ecological protection and animal welfare concerns.

115. Statutory: A National Pest Management Plan for kauri dieback is being developed. There is a risk of inconsistencies between this plan and the Regional Pest Management Plan. This situation can be addressed, if needed, through a partial plan review under section 100D of the Biosecurity Act.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

116. Once approved, section 75 of the Biosecurity Act requires a copy of the analysis report to be provided to every submitter, and that public notice of Council’s decision on the plan is made, including where the plan can be read.

117. Operational implementation will then commence. Staff will work with affected parties to enable a smooth and reasonable transition from the legacy provisions.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

Due to the size and complexity of Attachments A and B they have been published

under separate cover at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/ > Environment and Community Committee 12 March 2019 > attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Final Mahere ā-Rohe Whakahaere Kaupapa Koiora Orotā mō Tāmaki 2019-2029 Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029, including track changes from the proposed plan (529 pages) (Under Separate Cover)
b	Regional Pest Management Plan - Submissions analysis report pages) (280pages) (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇩	Biosecurity Act Assessments	217
d ⇩	Maps of Significant Ecological Area parkland	227
e ⇩	Options analysis for cat management changes in response to submissions	229
f ⇩	Local board resolutions in response to public feedback on the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029	235

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Imogen Basset, Biosecurity Principal Advisor

Phil Brown, Biosecurity Manager

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie, General Manager Environmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

12 March 2019

Tennis Auckland Region - Redevelopment of ASB Tennis Arena - Grant Allocation

File No.: CP2019/00991

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To obtain confirmation from the Environment and Community Committee of the grant allocations to Tennis Auckland Region Inc. for the proposed staged redevelopment of the ASB Tennis Arena.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Tennis Auckland Region Inc. (Tennis Auckland) facility known as the ASB Tennis Arena, is located within the Auckland Domain on land leased from Auckland Council in accordance with the provisions of the Auckland Domain Act 1987 (the Act) and the lease issued pursuant to the Act.

3. Tennis Auckland wishes to undertake a staged redevelopment of the site to replace aging infrastructure (primarily stands) and add a retractable roof structure, as funding permits.

4. Replacement stands will enable the seating capacity to be increased to 3500, thereby meeting the minimum requirements of the WTA (Women’s Tennis Association) and ATP Tour (Association of Tennis Professionals).

5. The priority for Tennis Auckland is to increase the seating capacity to meet the minimum requirements to ensure future tournaments are secured for Auckland, ahead of the tournaments being allocated to rival cities.

6. International competition to host tournaments is fierce and Auckland is currently fending off challenges from other cities for the rights to host the tournaments. Increasing seating capacity to 3500 is critical to Tennis Auckland’s future bids to secure tournaments.

7. The terms of the lease require Auckland Council (as landlord/landowner) approval for the demolition of any part of the existing tennis facility, and the construction of new facilities. Separately, Tennis Auckland is seeking updated resource consent and building consent.

8. The Auckland Domain Committee considered the request from Tennis Auckland Region Inc. to redevelop the site and resolved to support the redevelopment plan subject to obtaining the necessary consents.

9. Tennis Auckland is seeking council approval to use the $5.5 million of grant funding towards the redevelopment of the South and West stands that would meet the minimum seating requirements of ATP / WTA.

10. Subject to Tennis Auckland obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals, it is recommended that the committee support Stages 1A and 1B of the redevelopment of the ASB Tennis Arena to ensure it meets the 3500 minimum seating requirements that will ensure the retention of future ATP/WTA tournaments. It is noted that a retractable roof is planned for later development stages within the next five – ten years.

11. It is also recommended that the committee confirm the grant funding of $5.5 million, be split between the stages as: Stages 1A ($2 million), and Stage 1B ($3.5 million).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) acknowledge the work undertaken by Tennis Auckland Region to progress a redevelopment plan that increases seating capacity to the minimum requirements of the international professional tennis bodies, with the view to securing future tournaments in Auckland.

b) confirm and approves the $3.0 million grant incorporated into the 2012 Long Term Plan for the redevelopment of the West and South stands - Stages 1A and 1B of the revised development plan.

c) approve the allocation of $2.5 million from allocated grant funding to the redevelopment of the West and South stands - Stages 1A and 1B of the revised development plan.

d) delegate the General Manager Parks, Sport and Recreation to prepare a Development Funding Agreement documenting the grant to Tennis Auckland Region, noting that the total grant pool of $5.5 million is recommended to be allocated as: $2.0 million to Stage 1A, and $3.5 million to Stage 1B.

Horopaki

Context

12. Tennis Auckland has previously advised Auckland Council of its intention to redevelop the ASB Tennis Arena. Originally works were to be undertaken to coincide with the Next Generation of Australia development in 2009/2010, however these did not proceed. Subsequent iterations of the designs were developed, and presentations made to council to consider further grant funding options.

13. In 2018, Tennis Auckland reviewed and revised its proposed redevelopment plans and is now seeking to prioritise the re-development of two stands to increase seating capacity to 3500. A retractable roof structure is still proposed, but this will be several years away from commencing, and is contingent on raising additional funds to complete this work.

14. Based on earlier proposals, Auckland Council has approved grants totalling $5.5 million towards the redevelopment of the ASB Tennis Arena that included the provision of a retractable roof structure.

15. The ASB Classic Tournaments ensure Tennis Auckland operates a sustainable business model and any surplus from the tournaments is invested into community tennis. Tennis Auckland’s community programme includes: development programmes for 9500 primary school aged children, services to 8400 members across 52 clubs, club competitions for 1264 inter-club teams, performance pathways for over 100 promising young players and three public tennis facilities in Glen Innes (Scarbro Tennis Centre), Manukau (Manukau Tennis Centre) and Mount Eden (Nicholson Park).

16. The ASB Classic tournaments result in economic benefit of over $11.95million per year to Auckland, made up of: operating costs spent with local suppliers, food and beverage spend during the tournaments and visitation impact.

17. Significant international exposure is also received from the tournaments, WTA and ATP reports indicate that the television audience for the two weeks is 24.5million (2018 figures). The WTA and ATP reports also indicate that total broadcast hours across the two weeks are 1730 hours and the social media reach of the four most high-profile women at the 2019 ASB Classic was 19.5million.

18. The full redevelopment is proposed to occur in four stages over about eight years as detailed in the table below.

STAGE	TIMING	NATURE OF WORKS	COST ($millions)	OVERALL COSTS ($millions)	FUNDED Y/N Partial
1A		Total budgets cost of Stage 1A (incl. fees and consents already fully funded)	$10.555
1A	Pre 2019	Less costs already incurred and fully funded by Tennis Auckland	($2.798)		Yes, fully
1A	2019	Balance of Costs to Demolish and Rebuild the West Stand	$7.758	$7.758	Yes
1B	2020	Rebuild the South Stand	$9.118	$9.118	Partial
		Subtotal 1A and 1B (net of fees)	$16.875
2	2023	Rebuild the North and East Stands		$5.000	No
3	2026	Construct the roof structure		$11.000	No
		TOTAL Gross Cost Stages 1A, 1B, 2 and 3		$35.673
1A		Total budgets cost of Stage 1A (incl. fees and consents already fully funded)	$10.555

19. There are two issues for consideration by Auckland Council:

· Whether to approve the demolition and subsequent development of part of the existing structure (considered and approved by the Auckland Doman Committee on 19 February 2019), and

· Whether to approve the allocation of the Council grants to the construction of two stands.

20. The new stands constructed as part of Stage 1A will increase capacity to the minimum of 3500; provide new female toilet facilities; a communications room; and an Uninterrupted Power Supply room.

21. The Tennis Auckland Project Plan anticipates awarding the construction contract with the preferred contractor in March 2019, the anticipated start date for construction is 1 April 2019, and the practical completion date for Stage 1A is 31 October 2019.

22. As Tennis Auckland is still fundraising for Stage 1B, no details of proposed construction dates have been provided for 2020. Tennis Auckland has stated that if insufficient funds have been raised to finance Stage 1B, the design may be changed and /or commencement date will be deferred until all funds have been secured.

Decision-making authority

23. The ASB Tennis Arena is located within Auckland Domain on a site leased from Auckland Council to Tennis Auckland Region Inc. Auckland Domain is governed by its own legislation: the Auckland Domain Act 1987 and is administered by Auckland Council in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

24. In 2008, the Act was amended to allow Auckland Council to enter into a lease with Tennis Auckland to enable the sub-leasing and redevelopment of part of the site in conjunction with Next Generation Clubs of Australia. This redevelopment was completed in 2011 but excluded the redevelopment of the Tennis Auckland facilities.

25. Decisions relating to most matters concerning the Auckland Domain have been delegated to the Auckland Domain Committee, including items of expenditure up to $2 million. For items exceeding this value, the matter must be referred to the relevant committee, in this instance, the Environment and Community Committee.

Assessment of significance

26. The ASB Tennis Arena is the host venue of the annual ASB Classic, part of the WTA (Women’s Tennis Association) and ATP Tour (Association of Tennis Professionals (men’s)) – both international events. The tournaments draw much local and international interest.

27. The redevelopment of the ASB Tennis Arena is significant, not only because it is the only New Zealand venue for WTA /ATP world tour events, but also due to the overall scale and value of the works being undertaken, and because it is located within Auckland Domain, being one of the premier parks in New Zealand.

28. Notwithstanding the importance of the site, the redevelopment of the tennis facility has been planned for many years; funders (including Auckland Council and its predecessor) have considered the proposed development on several occasions, and when the legislation was amended in 2008 the future redevelopment of the site was signalled through public notification as part of the Select Committee and legislative process.

Previous decisions

29. Auckland Council has previously considered requests from Tennis Auckland for financial assistance towards the redevelopment of the ASB Tennis Arena.

30. Of total funding allocated of $5.5M, $3M was allocated in the 2012-2022 Long Term Plan and a further $2.5M agreed in principle in 2016, subject to a number of terms and conditions being met.

31. In all previous deliberations, financial support has been granted based on the proposal including the redevelopment of the stands and a retractable roof structure.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Approvals

32. The lease requires Tennis Auckland to obtain Council’s prior written approval (as landowner) for any building work which alters the external appearance of the facility. Additionally, Tennis Auckland must obtain Councils prior written approval to pull down or remove any part of the tennis centre.

33. Council cannot withhold its consent arbitrarily or unreasonably if the conditions within the lease are met.

34. On 21 February 2019 the Auckland Domain Committee met and resolved as follows:

Resolution number ADC/2019/1

MOVED by IMSB Chair D Taipari, seconded by Cr D Simpson:

That the Auckland Domain Committee:

a) note the work undertaken to progress a redevelopment plan that increases seating capacity to the minimum requirements of the international professional tennis bodies, with the view to securing future tournaments in Auckland.

b) approve in principle the redevelopment of the ASB Tennis Arena South and West stands subject to specific conditions and final funding approval of the Environment and Community Committee.

c) delegate authority to the General Manager Community Facilities to formalise land owner approval and set specific consent conditions.

d) recommend to the Environment and Community Committee that Council funding of $5.5 million be confirmed for the redevelopment of the South and West stands (Stages 1A and 1B) subject to terms determined by that committee.

e) note that the recommendations relate to Stage 1A and 1B only as defined in this report, and that subsequent stages of work will require further approval.

CARRIED

35. Tennis Auckland has revised its proposed redevelopment plans and is now seeking to prioritise the re-development of two stands to increase seating capacity to 3500. Tennis Auckland have sought that the funding be allocated as follows:

Stage	Costs	Auckland Council	Tennis Auckland	Other funders	Total Funding
1A	$10.555 M	$4.000 M	$1.198 M	$ 7.350 M	$12.548 M
1B	$9.118 M	$1.500 M	$2.000 M	$4.050 M	$7.550 M
Totals	$19.673 M	$5.500 M	$3.198 M	$11.400 M	$20.098 M

36. As $2.798 million of fees and consent costs have already been fully funded by either Tennis Auckland and/or other grant funders, the net cost to complete Stage 1A is reduced to $7.758 million. The recommended split of Auckland Council funding is:

Stage	Costs (net of costs already paid)	Auckland Council	Tennis Auckland	Other funders	Total Funding
1A	$7.758 M	$2.000 M		$ 5.758 M	$7.758 M
1B	$9.118 M	$3.500 M	$2.000 M	$3.618 M	$9.118 M
Totals	$16.875 M	$5.500 M	$2.000 M	$9.168 M	$$20.098 M

37. If Auckland Council confirms its funding for this redevelopment, the Development Funding Agreement which documents the grant funding will incorporate all the conditions to be met to satisfy the terms of the lease, plus adds other conditions precedent that must be met prior to the construction contract being let; demolition commencing; or the release of any funding from Auckland Council.

38. These conditions cover matters such as, but not limited to:

a. The total amount of the grant and how it is to be split between the stages

b. All regulatory approvals that must be obtained and provided to Council

c. All designs must be presented to Council to review (as landowner/landlord)

d. Comprehensive construction budgets must be produced and agreed with Council

e. Sufficient funding to cover the budgeted cost of the development must be secured before demolition or construction can commence

f. An agreement with Council that details how any cost over-runs will be covered and by whom.

39. Tennis Auckland has applied for, and is awaiting resource and building consents for the proposed works.

40. It is noted that funding for Stage 1B will need to be fully secured and confirmed by February 2020 to enable demolition and construction to commence to be completed in time for the 2021 tournaments.

41. Council funding should be made available to each of Stages 1A and 1B to enable these to proceed, however access to the funds would only be available once evidence produced that each stage had been fully funded.

Proposed development

42. The current redevelopment plan is detailed below and illustrated in the plans included as Attachment A.

43. Originally conceived as one development, Tennis Auckland has determined that its current priority is ensuring there is sufficient seating within the arena to accommodate 3500 people, thereby meeting the WTA/ATP minimum requirements for seating.

44. International competition to host tournaments is fierce and Auckland is currently fending off challenges from other cities for the rights to host the tournaments. Increasing seating capacity to 3500 is critical to Tennis Auckland’s future bids to secure tournaments.

45. Tennis Auckland intend to undertake the redevelopment of the site in four stages, with the first two stages (1A and 1B) being undertaken in 2019 and 2020 respectively.

46. Tennis Auckland still needs to secure the balance for funding for Stage 1B. Should insufficient funds be raised to allow construction to commence in early 2020, Tennis Auckland has advised it will defer the works until all funding has been gained, and/or amend the plans for Stage 1B to ‘down-spec’ the works to come within the available budget.

47. Subject to fundraising, Stage 2 will involve the construction of a further two new stands, and Stage 3 will be the installation of the roof structure. Although signalled for 2023 and 2026 respectively, these stages are conditional on raising funds to undertake the work.

Funding

48. In addition to Auckland Council, Tennis Auckland has secured the support of several large funders, Foundation North, Lottery Grants Board, and Major Events NZ. In several instances, the on-going support of these funders is contingent on Auckland Council confirming its grant funding.

49. The conditions attached to some of the secured funding requires that the funding be expended by certain dates otherwise the grants will lapse. In many instances, the funding has already been ‘rolled-over’ several times.

50. If Auckland Council funding is withdrawn or reduced, there is a significant risk that other funders will withdraw their funding support and the whole project will not proceed.

51. It is important for Tennis Auckland to be able to illustrate to the WTA/ATP that it is actively working towards increasing seating capacity to 3500 in the foreseeable future so that future tournaments are secured.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

52. Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development support the ASB Classis Tournaments through event funding support.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

53. The Auckland Domain Committee was established to ensure the interests of both the Governing Body and the Waitemata Local Board were considered jointly and to facilitate decision making across both interested groups.

54. The resolutions of the Auckland Domain Committee, listed in paragraph 34 above, support the redevelopment and allocation of the recommended funding.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

55. Tennis Auckland advised it consulted with the following Iwi – Ngati Whatua Orakei, Ngai Te Ata Waiohua, Ngati Tai ki Tamaki, Ngati Maru. No further or subsequent consultation has occurred (since 2015).

56. Auckland Council has not undertaken any engagement with relevant Iwi regarding the proposed Tennis Auckland development.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

57. Funding of $5.5 million has been previously approved and / allocated subject to approval for the Tennis Auckland development.

58. The $3million allocated through the 2012-2022 LTP across years two, three and four has been accrued, the further $2.5million allocated in principle subject to conditions has been provided for through existing budgets in 2018/2019; namely the former facility partnership fund.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

59. Tennis Auckland is confident of raising the funding for Stage 1B by 2020. However, this remains a risk until the required funds to complete the various stages of work are secured.

60. Auckland Council’s funding is critical to underpinning other funding grants for the project. Any further deferral of the redevelopment could result in the withdrawal of grants from other funders. Therefore, it is important for Tennis Auckland to commence the project, through a staged approach, in 2019 to deliver 3550 seat capacity by 2021.

61. Any further delay for the redevelopment is likely to result in cost increases, requiring further fundraising will be required and a further extension of the timetable.

62. Tennis Auckland currently has an exemption for not meeting the venue seating capacity (3500) and the commencement of Stage 1A and 1B is aimed at ensuring the future retention of the tournaments in Auckland.

63. Staff recommend that to minimise the risks of Council’s investment, that $2 million is allocated to Stage 1A, and $3.5 million to Stage 1B. The recommended Council funding split across stages 1A and 1B will ensure that there is foundation funding that supports the fund raising plan for Stage 1B.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

64. If the grant funding is confirmed, a Development Funding Agreement will be prepared detailing the terms and conditions precedent to be met prior to demolition commencing, and any construction occurring.

65. Tennis Auckland needs to obtain all consents necessary to enable the development to occur. Copies of the consents must be provided to Auckland Council (as landlord) prior to any works commencing.

66. Tennis Auckland must provide evidence that all the conditions precedent contained in the Auckland Council funding agreement have been satisfied.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Tennis Arena Redevelopment Plan: Stage 1A	279

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Leigh Redshaw - Strategic Funding Advisor

Sharon Rimmer - Manager Sport and Recreation

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

12 March 2019

Proposed land exchange at Cadness Loop Reserve, Northcote

File No.: CP2019/01999

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval of the proposed exchange of 525m² of Cadness Loop Reserve, Northcote with 525m² of Housing New Zealand Corporation land in Cadness Street.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To enable decision-making about the proposed land exchange, staff called for objections in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

3. The council received one objection out of a total of eight submissions. This submission states that the land exchange is not necessary and that the reserve is already fit-for-purpose.

4. The current layout of Cadness Loop Reserve does not align with the Open Space Provision Policy. It is surrounded by roads on all sides, which creates potential safety issues and hinders access. The narrow shape of the current reserve also constrains use.

5. The proposed land exchange is deemed to be a high priority when assessed against the council’s policy.

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

7. The land exchange will be considered by the Finance and Performance Committee on 19 March 2019. Under delegated authority, the committee will need to authorise the disposal of 525m² of land within Lot 393 DP 48335 to complete the land exchange.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the exchange of 525m² of land in Cadness Loop Reserve (subject to survey) with 525m² of the land at 68-74 and 76-82 Cadness Street, Northcote (subject to survey) owned by Housing New Zealand Corporation.

b) recommend to the Finance and Performance Committee that, under delegated authority, it authorise the disposal of 525m² of land within Lot 393 DP 48335 to complete the land exchange.

Horopaki

Context

8. On 13 September 2018, the Environment and Community Committee approved the public notification of a proposed land exchange in Northcote under section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 [ENV/2018/122 refers]. The proposal entailed an exchange of 525m² of Cadness Loop Reserve with 525m² of land at 68-74 and 76-82 Cadness Street, Northcote, owned by Housing New Zealand Corporation.

9. At the same time, the committee also approved the acquisition of additional land from Housing New Zealand and Auckland Transport to increase the size of the reserve from 1755m² to 3178m². This was to create a neighborhood park that would align with the Open Space Provision Policy.

10. Figure 1 below illustrates the proposed reconfiguration and extension of the reserve:

Figure 1: Proposed reconfiguration and extension of Cadness Loop Reserve

11. The existing reserve land that council owns consists of section 5 and 6. Council will acquire section 1 and 4. Section 5 will be exchanged for section 7 under the Reserves Act 1977.

12. Staff publicly notified the proposed land exchange between 6 December 2018 and 25 January 2019.

13. A total of eight submissions were received during the public notification period. Only one submission opposed the land exchange.

14. Consultation was also undertaken with 11 iwi identified as having mana whenua association with Cadness Loop Reserve. None of the iwi groups objected to the land exchange including 10 groups who did not respond.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. Section 15 of the Reserves Act requires council to consider the objections to any proposal.

16. The solitary objector expressed a view that the land exchange is not necessary and that the reserve is already fit-for-purpose.

17. Staff reviewed these comments and note that the current layout of Cadness Loop Reserve does not align with the Open Space Provision Policy. The reserve is presently surrounded by roads on all sides, which creates potential safety issues and hinders access. The narrow shape of the current reserve also constrains use.

18. Staff recommend that the Environment and Community Committee approve the proposed land exchange. It is deemed to be a high priority when assessed against council policy (see Table 1 below).

19. The land exchange will improve safety and access to Cadness Loop Reserve by reducing the number of roads on its boundaries.

20. The land exchange will also allow council to provide a squarer-shaped reserve, which will provide increased recreational opportunities, including a ‘kick-around’ space.

Table1: Assessment of the proposed land exchange in relation to Cadness Loop Reserve

Park type: Neighbourhood Park (Cadness Loop Reserve)				Number of new dwellings: 900 (300 existing dwellings are being replaced by 1200 new dwellings)
Density: High				Number of new residents^{^[3]}: 2700
Unitary plan zone: Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone				Size of proposed acquisition: Land exchange – approx. 525m²; acquisition of stopped road – approx. 657m²; acquisition of land from Housing New Zealand to increase the size of the reserve – approx. 539m²
Independent valuation: N/A				Settlement: 2018/2019

Potential future features:		Playground:			Trees
Acquisition Criteria	Comment					Overall Rating
Meeting community needs, now and in the future	High priority as: · the proposed land exchange and acquisitions will increase the capacity of Cadness Loop Reserve and meet the provision targets in the Open Space Provision Policy.					ü *High priority for acquisition*
Connecting parks and open spaces	Not a priority as: · the reconfigured and enlarged reserve will not connect existing parks or open space.
Protecting and restoring Auckland’s unique features and meanings
Not a priority as: · the land has no known significant ecological, historic heritage, landscape, geological or cultural values.
Improving the parks and open spaces we already have
High priority as: · the land exchange and acquisitions will improve safety and accessibility as well as the functionality of Cadness Loop Reserve, which is located in a high-density area (as defined in the Open Space Provision Policy).
Development Costs:
Operational Costs:
Local boards decide how local open space is developed. No development or concept plans have been prepared. Capital expenditure is allocated through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.			Up to $10,000 per annum for the reconfigured park. Maintenance costs for parks and open space land covered by Community Facilities’ operational budgets provided through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

21. Road stopping that will increase the size of Cadness Loop Reserve is being implemented by Auckland Transport.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

22. On 15 August 2018, the Kaipātiki Local Board resolved to support the notification of the proposed land exchange (resolution number KT/2018/166).

23. On 20 February 2019, the following resolution was passed where the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) recommend that the Environment and Community Committee approve the exchange of 525m² of Cadness Loop Reserve (subject to survey) with 525m² of the land at 68-74 and 76-82 Cadness Street, Northcote (subject to survey) owned by Housing New Zealand Corporation, to deliver a direct connection between the Cadness Loop Reserve and the Northcote Greenway.

b) note that the playground and basketball court are outside of the land exchange process, however the local board has an expectation that the playground and basketball court will be reinstated into the newly configured reserve at no cost to the local board.
(Resolution number KAI/2019/5).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

25. Additional benefits include:

· demonstrating Auckland Council’s commitment to the Active Protection (Tautiaki Ngangahau) Principle of the Treaty of Waitangi; and

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

26. The Reserves Act 1977 requires equity of exchange. Subject to approval, this will be achieved as there will be a ‘like for like’ exchange in land area.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

28. Further information will be provided to the submitter to address their concerns.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29. The land exchange will be considered by the Finance and Performance Committee on 19 March 2019. Under delegated authority, the committee will need to authorise the disposal of 525m² of land within Lot 393 DP 48335 as part of the land exchange.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Phillip Shaw - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

12 March 2019

Submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) technical report “Process Heat in New Zealand: Opportunities and barriers to lowering emissions”.

File No.: CP2019/01922

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek endorsement of the staff submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) report “Process Heat in New Zealand: Opportunities and barriers to lowering emissions”.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In January 2019, MBIE and EECA published a technical paper, “Process heat in New Zealand: Opportunities and barriers to lowering emissions.” Feedback was sought to understand if the technical report represents process heat use, and the opportunities and barriers to lowering process heat emissions from a user’s perspective. The paper identified that 40 per cent of New Zealand’s emissions are from the energy sector, with process heat responsible for 27 per cent thereof. The report highlights that process heat is an important focus area in New Zealand’s transition to a low carbon economy.

3. Process heat is the thermal energy used to manufacture products in industry. Use of process heat in industries contributes to approximately 20 per cent of Auckland’s emissions from the industrial sector (13 per cent), commercial sector (5 per cent) and agricultural sector (2.8 per cent). For context, the industrial sector contributes around 26 per cent to the local economy, equivalent to around $22 billion annually. Two distinct challenges that face this sector over the next thirty years are a diminishing natural gas supply and achieving Auckland’s emissions reduction targets.

4. In February 2018, the Environment and Community Committee approved the development of Auckland’s Climate Action Plan (ENV/2018/11). This plan will set a pathway to rapidly reduce Auckland’s emissions to keep within a 1.5°C target, while ensuring the region is resilient to future challenges. Process heat users in Auckland are both significant contributors to Auckland’s local economy and the emissions footprint. Therefore, addressing the challenges facing process heat users is an important area in the plan that will require a coordinated approach with central government to support the sectors’ transition to a resilient low emissions economy.

5. Auckland Council commissioned the Energy Research Group from the University of Waikato to understand and analyse the use of process heat in the region. Some of the key recommendations from this research that are included in the submission to MBIE and EECA, are:

· Targeted efficiency gains could only provide between 1 to 5 per cent reduction in energy use and emissions.

· Process heat in the low to medium temperature range (20 to 200°C), which accounts for approximately 70 per cent of Auckland’s process heat, could transition to electricity.

6. The submission to the MBIE was a staff submission, delivered on their deadline of 22 February 2019, without full political endorsement due to time constraints. The submission included a request to provide additional information or amended recommendations as necessary after political endorsement.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) retrospectively endorse the staff submission on process heat to MBIE’s and EECA’s technical document, ‘Process Heat in New Zealand: Opportunities and barriers to lowering emissions’.

Horopaki

Context

7. In January 2019, MBIE and EECA published a technical paper, “Process heat in New Zealand: Opportunities and barriers to lowering emissions.”

8. The report focusses on the transition to a low emissions economy by improving energy productivity and increasing renewable energy in industry. Key points addressed and highlighted in the New Zealand based research were:

· Process heat accounts for 34 per cent of New Zealand’s energy consumption.

· Energy sector contributes to 40 per cent of New Zealand’s emissions, with process heat responsible for 27 per cent thereof.

· Approximately 56 per cent of process heat is made through the burning of fossil fuels, predominantly coal and gas.

· Approximately 68 per cent of process heat is generated by boiler systems.

· The wood, pulp and paper manufacturing sector use the most process heat related energy.

9. The report lists a series of opportunities and barriers for process heat in New Zealand; some of the examples of the barriers listed were:

· the cost of emissions is not fully priced,

· there is a lack of information or aversion to new technologies in some industries,

· the electrical energy cost is high compare to other fuel sources,

· the woody biomass as an alternative source has an underdeveloped and complex supply chain.

10. Some of the opportunities listed were self-generation from renewable sources and hydrogen as a low emissions fuel source for process heat.

11. Process heat used in Auckland industries contributes to approximately 20 per cent of Auckland’s emissions from the industrial sector (13 per cent), commercial sector (5 per cent) and agricultural sector (2.8 per cent). For context, the industrial sector contributes around 26 per cent to the local economy, equivalent to around $22 billion annually. Two distinct challenges that face this sector over the next thirty years are a diminishing natural gas supply and achieving Auckland’s emissions reduction targets.

12. Auckland council is currently leading the development of Auckland’s Climate Action Plan (ENV/2018/11). This plan will set a pathway to transition the region towards a 1.5°C warming target. The action plan will address both emission reduction pathway and building resilience for the impacted industries in collaboration with government.

13. In 2017, Auckland Council commissioned the Energy Research Group from the University of Waikato to understand the use of process heat in the region. The research report, “Process heat emissions and energy use in the Auckland region”, explored process heat in the Auckland context, analysing the main industries that use process heat and their process temperature bands (low, medium and high). The report identified the opportunities and barriers to reducing the associated emissions.

14. The main findings and recommendations of Auckland’s report that were also part of the staff submission to MBIE and EECA are:

· Process heat accounts for 20 per cent of Auckland’s energy consumption.

· Process heat is used in three main sectors: industry (13 per cent), commercial (5 per cent) and agriculture (2.8 per cent).

· Approximately 54.7 per cent of process heat is supplied through natural gas.

· The Primary Metal and Metal Product manufacturing sector uses the most process heat in the region.

· Targeted efficiency gains could only provide between 1 to 5 per cent reduction in energy use and emissions. Targeting efficiency alone does not account for greater opportunities for greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

· Process heat in the low to medium temperature range (20 to 200°C), which accounts for approximately 70 per cent of Auckland’s process heat, could transition to electricity. The transition could be enabled through a combination of new technology (e.g. high temperature heat pumps) and process optimisation.

· The remaining process heat that cannot be transitioned to electricity is high temperature (200 to 400+°C). The use of electricity for high temperature process heat is currently not technically or economically feasible. New Zealand’s supply of natural gas is predicted to drop steeply after 2022, suggesting that natural gas be prioritised for industries that require high temperature process heat.

15. The final section in the MBIE and EECA report covers the future use of hydrogen in process heat. Hydrogen is not currently financially feasible, even with a carbon price exceeding $100 per ton of carbon. The report suggests this analysis should be revisited if major changes occur to the carbon or electricity price. The staff submission added that any further analysis should also consider the ramifications of a 100 per cent renewable electricity grid and future requirements to replace natural gas for process heat.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Process heat is a significant source of emissions in the Auckland region. Auckland’s Climate Action Plan will therefore address reducing process heat related emissions in collaboration with government.

17. The research by University of Waikato identified three temperature bands, low, medium and high, and offered different solutions and challenges for each of these types of process heat.

18. Through this research, the Chief Sustainability Office has developed a list of recommendations for the region to reduce emissions from process heat that has been included in the process heat submission to MBIE and that will feed into the development of the climate action plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. Auckland Council is a user of process heat in the operation of its buildings and facilities. The relevant Auckland Council divisions and teams are currently investigating opportunities to address reducing emissions from process heat.

20. Ports of Auckland is investigating the feasibility of using hydrogen in its processes, with a hydrogen pilot trial currently underway in partnership with Auckland Council.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

21. The submission timeline presented a challenge in gathering a complete understanding of local board views. However, the Chief Sustainability Office has engaged with all local boards on the development of Auckland’s Climate Action Plan. Local boards have been briefed on Auckland’s emissions profile, with process heat highlighted as a high emitting area. The local boards will be engaged again in workshops as part of the development of Auckland’s Climate Action Plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. Iwi management plans (IMPs) have been consulted and highlight the importance of this kaupapa to mana whenua and to Māori. The IMPs identify climate change as a critical issue to be addressed in Auckland and the issue of emissions reduction as a fundamental component of this. A variety of interests are highlighted by iwi in the IMPs and specific areas that link to process heat are:

· participation in the development of domestic & global climate change policy,

· encouraging and supporting local energy efficiency initiatives.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. There are no direct financial implications related to this submission.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. A risk associated with the submission is that MBIE and EECA may not take Auckland Council’s position into account. The lack of central government support regarding process heat will present challenges to Auckland Council in reducing its process heat emissions. This is considered a low risk due to the strong relationship and alignment of Auckland’s Climate Action Plan development and central government’s expected Zero Carbon Bill.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25. Any changes agreed by the committee will be communicated to EECA and MBIE after 12 March 2019.

26. MBIE and EECA will integrate the feedback into the future development of process heat strategy and policy in New Zealand.

27. Auckland council will continue its work with central government for a coordinated approach on process heat, as part of development of Auckland’s Climate Action Plan.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Process heat technical paper submission	293

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Parin Thompson - Principal Specialist Sustainability & Climate Mitigation

Anita Holmes - Sustainability & Resilience Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Environment and Community Committee

12 March 2019

Komiti Taiao a Hapori Hoki /

ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY COMMITTEE FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME 2018

This committee deals with strategy and policy decision-making that relates to the environmental, social, economic and cultural activities of Auckland as well as matters that are not the responsibility of another committee or the Governing Body

Committee Priorities:

1. Clearly demonstrate that Auckland is making progress with climate change adaptation and mitigation and taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

2. Enable green growth with a focus on improved water quality, pest eradication and ecological restoration

3. Strengthen communities and enable Aucklanders to be active and connected

4. Make measurable progress towards the social and community aspects of housing all Aucklanders in secure, healthy homes they can afford

5. Grow skills and a local workforce to support economic growth in Auckland

The work of the committee will:

· Deliver on the outcomes in the Auckland Plan

· Be focused on initiatives that have a high impact

· Meet the Council’s statutory obligations, including funding allocation decisions

· Increase the public’s trust and confidence in the organisation.

Area of work

Reason for work

Decision or direction

Expected timeframes

Quarter (month if known)

Edited 6 November 2018

Jan-Mar 2019

12 Feb

12 March

Apr-Jun 2019

9 April

14 May

11 June

Jul-Sep 2019

9 July

13 Aug

10 Sept

Oct-Dec 2018

16 Oct

13 Nov

4 Dec

Strategic approach to Climate Change

To demonstrate that Auckland is making progress with climate change adaptation and mitigation and taking action to reduce emissions.

Strategic direction will be provided in the coming months.

Progress to date:

A summary of activities to prepare for climate change was given in the presentation on 8/8/17 meeting.

Report was considered on 20/2/18, resolution ENV/2018/11

Dec 18 – approval for consultation

Feb – Mar 19 - targeted public engagement

Apr 19 – feedback presented to elected members

Jun 19 – final strategy for adoption

Progress to date
report was considered December 2018 meeting. Res ENV/2018/170

· Stakeholder briefing for symposium February 2019

· Committee workshops February 2019

· Auckland Climate Symposium March 2019

· Develop draft plan March – May 2019

· Draft plan to committee for input and adoption June 2019

· Public consultation of draft plan July – August 2019

(Dec)

Low carbon living

To deliver on Low Carbon Auckland Plan commitments by the design and implementation of awareness raising and incentives programmes to reduce household, community, business and schools carbon emissions by approximately 50% of current levels.

Strategic direction and endorse programmes as part of the Low Carbon Auckland Plan implementation.

Progress to date:

Report was considered at 20/2/18 meeting. Res ENV/201811 report back in Dec 18 for a decision. Independent Advisory Group (IAG) was approved. Chairs Planning and Env & Community Cttees, an IMSB member and the Mayor’s office to decide on the membership of the IAG.

(Feb)

(Sept)

(Dec)

Low Carbon Auckland / Climate Change Mitigation

Four-yearly review of strategic action plan due in 2018; increased engagement with and commitments via C40 Cities membership; development of proactive policy agenda to central government emerging

Climate Plan Workshop:

Risks and vulnerabilities (June)

• Committee workshop on risks and vulnerabilities

• Communication strategy for broader public engagement

• Local Board workshops

• Mana whenua engagement (integrated throughout)

• Stakeholder workshops

Prioritisation criteria and identified actions (Jul/Aug)

• Cost benefit and total value analysis

• Agree prioritisation criteria

• Review all actions

• Draft plan

• Draft plan to committee (Dec 2018

• Consultation (linking to other plans, approach tbc)

• Updates to action plan

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

• Final Adoption of Climate Plan (Mar 09)

Decision and endorsement of strategic direction

Progress to date:

Report was considered at 20/2/18 meeting. Res ENV/201811 report back in Dec18 for a decision. Independent Advisory Group was approved.

Workshops scheduled: 4/7/18 and 26/09/18. An update was on 12/06/18 meeting agenda.

Report reapplication for C40 Cities membership was considered at 13/11/2018 meeting. Res ENV/2018/149 reapplication for membership was approved

(Mar)

(Dec)

Urban Forest Strategy

Strategic approach to delivering on the wider social, economic and environmental benefits of a growing urban forest in the context of rapid population growth and intensification.

Decision on strategic direction and endorsement of strategy.

Progress to date:

A workshop was held on 14/06/17. Report was considered on 12/09/17 ENV/2017/116 a full draft of the strategy was considered 20/02/18, res ENV/2018/12 with a report back on the results of the LIDAR and an implementation plan on costs and benefits in Aug 2018. An update was included in the 14 Aug agenda regarding several workstreams covered by the 18 high level implementation actions. A report on a full progress on implementing the strategy will be in August 2019.

(Aug19)

Allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund

Decision making over medium and large funds from the Waste Minimisation and Innovation fund in line with the fund’s adopted policy. Funds to contribute towards council’s aspirational goal of zero waste to landfill by 2040.

Full review of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund will be undertaken. Outcomes provided with the section 17a review report in March 2019.

Decision on the annual allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund for the 2018-2019 financial year.

Decision: Approval of allocation of September 2016 funding round Resolution ENV/2016/19 Item C5. Approval of grants in Dec 17

Progress to date:
Report was considered on 4/12/18 to note allocations for the 2018/2019 small to med September funding round, res ENV/2018/176. Item C1 approval of medium to large grants September 2018 round

(Mar)

Auckland’s water strategy

The health of Auckland’s waters is a critical issue. Both freshwater and marine environments in Auckland are under pressure from historic under-investment, climate change and rapid growth. The draft Auckland Plan 2050 identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions.

Decision and strategic direction and priorities as part of the Auckland Plan.

Consider the development of an Auckland’s waters strategy to be adopted for consultation December 2018.

Progress to date:

A report was considered on 12/06/18 to approve the proposed scope, timeframe and budget for the development of the strategy. Res ENV/2018/78

Key milestones:

· June 2018 – develop a strategic summary of water related outcomes, identify integrated water outcomes,

· July-Oct 2018 – high level regional options are developed and assessed for the five draft themes – consultation with mana whenua

Progress to date:

A Report was considered December 2018 - discussion document ahead of public consultation Res ENV/2018/168.

Key timeframes:

· Public consultation on discussion document 17 Feb – 17 March

· Public engagement feedback to committee, April 2019

· Draft options for the finalisation of Auckland’s water strategy, and associated work programmes to be present to committee in June 2019

(Jun)

(Dec)

Regional Pest Management Plan review

Statutory obligations under the Biosecurity Act to control weeds and animal pests.

To ensure that the plan is consistent with the national policy direction and up to date.

Decision and strategic direction on weed and plants that will be subject to statutory controls.

Consider submissions received on the draft plan in mid 2018 and adopt the final plan by December 2018.

Progress to date:

Decision: Agreed to the inconsistencies in ACT at the 14 Feb 2017 ENV/2017/7 Item 12

Workshops held on 4/04/17, 3/05/17 and 27/09/17

Draft plan was approved for consultation in Nov 2017

Funding for implementation of the proposed RPMP through LTP.

A memo was distributed and is attached to the July agenda.

Key milestones:

· workshops with local boards on public feedback – September - October 2018

· engagement with mana whenua – September – October 2018

· workshop with Environment and Community Committee – October – November 2018

· formal feedback from local boards at business meetings – October – November 2018

· approval of final plan by Environment and Community Committee – March 2019

(Mar)

(Jul)

(Nov)

Inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan

To ensure the plan is consistent with Auckland Council’s:

- proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

- current and future marine biosecurity programmes

- response to SeaChange – Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan.

Decision on the development of the discussion document for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan for public consultation.

Progress to date:

A memo was distributed on 31/05/18 advising the committee on the Auckland Council’s participation in the development of a discussion document for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan, through the Top of the North Marine Biosecurity partnership.

(Nov/Dec)

Allocation of the Regional Natural Heritage Grant

Decision-making over regional environment fund as per the grants funding policy and fund guidelines

Decision on the annual allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund for the 2018-2019 financial year.

Progress to date

Allocation of the Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant for the 2017-2018 financial year was made on 6 Dec 2016_ENV/2016/11 Item 15

(Dec)

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management is being implemented, with periodic reporting to council committee on progress, and responding to ongoing central government refinement of the framework for achieving water outcomes.

In December 2018 further decisions will be sought under the national policy statement, including:

· approve final targets for swim-ability of major rivers in the Auckland region

· approve the updated Progressive Implementation Plan for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

Progress to date:

Council submission was approved on Central Govt. Clean Water Consultation 2017 process: Minutes of 4 April ENV/2017/54 Item 12. Follow up is required for resolution b) – a workshop held on 14 June. A supplementary submission on the Clean Water Consultation package was made on 25 May 2017, Item 14 13/06/17

Decision ENV/2018/14 on engagement approach for consultation on the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management in Feb 2018.

A report was considered on 26/6/18 : Res ENV/2018/78

· June 2018: develop strategy

· July to Oct 2018 – High level regional options are developed and assessed for the five draft themes in consultation with mana whenua, local boards and key stakeholders.

· Dec 2018- Draft Auckland's waters strategy presented to Environment and Community Committee for approval for release for public consultation

· Feb to Apr 2019 - Targeted public engagement on the draft Auckland's waters strategy in February to March 2019.

· Apr 2019 - Feedback analysed and presented to elected members in April 2019

· Jun 2019 - Final strategy presented to Environment and Community Committee for adoption

(Dec)

Food Policy Alliance

To consider food policy alliance

Decision on food policy alliance

(Mar)

TBC

Auckland Growing Greener

Statutory obligations under the Resource Management Act, Biosecurity Act and Local Government Act.

Consideration of items to give effect to the adopted commitment of Auckland Council to grow greener.

Strategic direction and oversight into council’s role to improve the natural environment, and to endorse proposed incentives.

This may include endorsing:

· a framework to ensure planning and growth decisions are underpinned by relevant environmental data

· proposed incentives for green growth

· recommendations arising from a current state statutory obligations review.

Hunua Aerial 1080 Operation

Provide information on outcomes of the Hunua 1080 aerial pest control operation

To note outcomes of the Hunua 1080 aerial pest control operation.

(Nov)

Parks, Sports and Recreation

Sport and Rec Strategic Partnership Grant to Aktive Auck Sports Rec

Approval of $552,000 strategic partnership grant to Aktive Auck & Sport to deliver on agreed priority initiatives.

2019 reporting schedule:

· January 2019 - Interim report from 1 July – 31 December 2018

· June 2019 - confirm 2019/20 priorities, outcomes and measures

· July 2019 – Annual report from 1 January 2019 – 30 June 2019

· September 2019 - Audited Financial Statements from 1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019

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

Progress to date:

Report was considered 5/12/17 Resolution ENV/2017/186 – report back against KPI every six months.

A report was considered on 10 July 2018 to approve the strategic partnership grant of $552,000 per annum for a three-year term (2018-2021) Res ENV/2018/90

A funding agreement will be prepared for Aktive that ensures clear accountability and KPIs for each of the four geographical areas (North, West, Central and Southern) for the investment. (TBA)

Te Motu a Hiaroa (Puketutu Island)

Status update on the Te Motu a Hiaroa Governance Trust

To note further update on progress of the governance trust.

(Oct/Nov)

Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan

Status report on implementation plan

Direction on future options for sport and recreation.

(Nov)

Sports Investment Plan

Council’s strategic approach to outcomes, priorities and investment in sports

Decision on issues papers

Draft Plan approval

Finalise and adopt investment plan – approval of guidelines

Progress to date:

Evaluation of current sports facilities investments and proposed changes was adopted on 14 March, resolution ENV/2017/39 Item 13 with the final draft investment plan to be adopted prior to consultation.

An outcome measurement tool to support the Sports Facilities Investment Plan was considered and agreed at the 4 April 2017 meeting. Resolution ENV/2017/50 Item 9 The findings of the pilot will be reported in mid-2019 seeking a decision on the roll-out model.

(2019)

(Nov)

Golf Investment Plan

Council’s strategic approach to outcomes, priorities and investment in golf.

Decision on issues papers

Draft Plan approval

Finalise and adopt investment plan

Progress to date:

A workshop was held on 12 Sept and information is available on OurAuckland.

(Dec)

Indoor Courts

Strategic business case for indoor courts investment

Decision on investment approach

(Nov)

Western Springs Community School Partnership

Improve Community Access to school facilities

Decision on Business and Investment in indoor court facility at Western Springs

Progress to date:

The report was considered in May. Resolution ENV/2017/71 A business case will be prepared to outline the opportunity to fully invest in the indoor court development and can consider as part of the LTP 2018-2028.

(May)

Growth Programme

Update on proposed growth funding allocation for 2018-2020

Decision on growth funding allocation

Regional Sport and Recreation grants programme 2018/2020

Review of previous grants allocation and recommendation for next round

Decision on sport and recreation grants programme objectives and approach

Progress to date:

Approved on 12 Sept the 2018/2019 grants programme to proceed in accordance with the Community Grants Policy suggested outcomes and assessment matrix. Applications open 30/10/17 close 8/12/17 ENV/2017/119 Workshop in April 2018. Report was considered on 8/5/18 and resolved ENV/2018/57 .

Approved applications for 2019/2020 funding round on 25/1/2019 and close on 8/3/19 for allocation from July 2019.

(May)

(Sep)

Review of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012: TOR

The review will assess the efficacy of the guidelines in for the council to deliver the best possible outcomes for Auckland through community leases

Decision on the terms of reference for the review of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012

Progress to date:

The TOR was approved for the review to commence and will report back in ~~May~~ July 2018 subject to TLP.

An update memo was circulated in August 2017 in response to feedback from the July 2017 meeting. Joint workshop with local board chairs held 20/6/18.

Report was considered November 2018 and resolved ENV/2018/150

(Nov)

Active Recreation Investment and Visitor Experience

Council’s strategic approach to outcome, priorities and investment for active walking, cycling, waterways and visitor experience on open space, parks and regional parks

Decision on scope and phasing

(Aug)

Takaro – Investing in Play discussion document

Development of a play investment plan

Decision on approval for public release

Progress to date:

Approved on 16/05/17 for public release the discussion document and will report to E&C for approval in late 2017

Takaro was approved for release on 20 Feb 2018

A report back by August 2018 for approval to initiate public consultation

(Feb)

(Oct)

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

To approve variation to incorporate land purchased at Piha to be known as Taitomo Special Management Zone as part of the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park

Decision on approval to a variation

Progress to date:

Approved on 20/2/2018 Res ENV/2018/15 report

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.

(tbc)

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The Southern Initiative (TSI)

Provide an update on the TSI approach, priorities and achievements.

Strategic direction of the TSI approach to social and community innovation in south Auckland

Global Engagement Strategy

Provide an update and direction of Auckland Council’s global engagement strategy and priorities. It has been three years since a new strategic direction was introduced, progress on this strategy will presented.

Funded

Strategic direction of Auckland Council’s global engagement strategy and priorities

Progress to date:

Monthly global engagement updates are published on each agenda

Options to expand revenue streams for sport facilities investment

Provide strategic direction to expand revenue streams to fund future sports facilities investment in the draft Sports Facilities Investment Plan

strategic direction to expand revenue streams to fund future sports facilities investment in the draft Sports Facilities Investment Plan

Progress to date:

A report was considered in Aug. Res ENV/2017/121

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY, CULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Community Facilities Network Plan

Update on progress and report back on strategic business case for central west.

Decision on indicative business case for central west

Progress to date:

A progress report was considered on 14 March. Resolution ENV/2017/36 Item 11 to report back on an indicative business case for investment in the central-west area.

(Mar)

(July)

Auckland Sport Sector: Facility Priorities Plan

Develop and endorse the Sports Facilities Investment Plan to enable Auckland Council to take a more co-ordinated approach to its sports facilities investment.

Decision on the Auckland Sport Sector : Facility Priorities Plan.

Decision on sector’s investment priorities and investigate potential funding options.

Progress to date:

The plan was endorsed on 12 Sept ENV/2017/118. Staff to report back on priorities and potential funding options.

(Sept)

Homelessness

Implementing Regional Policy and Strategy resolution to progress work around Council’s strategic position on addressing homelessness

(note this work will be informed by discussions at the Community Development and Safety Committee)

Decision on scope

Decision on role and direction addressing homelessness

Progress to date:

Approved the scope policy 14 Feb Item 17

Auckland council’s position and role was considered at the August meeting report item 12. Staff to report back with an implementation plan. Resolution ENV/2017/118 of preferred position and role

(Aug)

TBC

Facilities Partnerships Policy

Identify the range of current council approaches to facility partnerships, issues, opportunities and agree next steps

Decision on facility partnership approach

Decision to adopt Facility Partnership Framework in December 2017

Update was given at 14 February meeting on Phase 1. Approval was given on the proposed timelines for Phase 2 : Minutes 14 February Item 14 preferred option

A report seeking approval to engage on a draft facility partnerships policy on 12/06/18. Resolution ENV/2018/74

Progress to date:
A report seeking approval of the Facility Partnerships Policy. Res ENV/2018/173

Implementation plan

· January – March 2019 policy summary released

· April – June 2019 implement initial operational guidance and systems

· July 2019 detailed operational design and testing continues. Benefits realisation plan developed

(Dec)

Citizens Advice Bureaux Services

Review of the Citizens Advice Bureaux Services

RSP decision in April 2016 (REG/2016/22)

Decision on review results

Progress to date:

Report was considered at 20 Feb meeting. Decision: lies on the table. A supplementary report was considered on 10 April 2018, Res ENV/2018/48 and with changes for an updated funding model to be agreed by 1 April 2019

(Feb)

(Feb/Mar19)

Social and Community Housing Strategy and initiatives

Strategic overview of social and community housing initiatives. Wider housing portfolio and spatial outcomes of council’s role in housing is led by the Planning Committee.

Affordable Housing Intervention

Understanding NZ and international interventions to address affordable housing

Decision on future Auckland Council approaches to affordable housing interventions

Te Kauroa – Library Strategy

Libraries and Information is carrying out a change programme (Fit for the future) to accelerate the implementation of this 2013-2023 strategy (approved by the Governing Body)

Direction relating to priorities and to receive update on strategic direction and implementation progress

Approve an expanded and improved regional mobile library service

Progress to date:

workshop held on 7 March with local board chairs. Workshop notes were attached to the 10 April agenda

(Sep)

Central library strategic review

A strategic review of the Central Library has been commissioned to understand how the current building can meet future need and demand for services, asses the Central Library’s current and potential future role in the region, and guide decision making about future investment and development opportunities

Decide direction and receive the strategic review

Libraries

Work around the integration with customer services

Decision on matters relating to regional aspects of the proposed integration (local boards will decide on local outcomes)

Intercultural Cities Network

Consideration of a proposal to join the Intercultural Cities Network to support implementation and monitoring of progress on ‘Inclusive Auckland’ actions.

Decide whether Auckland should be a member of the network

(Dec)

Investing in Aucklanders (Age Friendly City)

Identify issues and opportunities for an inclusive friendly city (Regional Policy and Strategy resolution REG/2016/92)

Strategic direction on the approach to a friendly, inclusive, diverse city.

Progress to date:

Update reports were circulated on 18 April 2018 and 14 Dec 2017. Staff report findings and the proposed next phase in 2018.

A report on the Findings was considered on 12/06/18 meeting. Resolution ENV/2018/75 approval for up to five inclusion pilots.

A report back on the advantages and any obstacles to Auckland becoming an Age Friendly City as part of the World Health Organisation’s Global Network.

(Jul)

Social Enterprise approaches for youth and long term unemployed

Improved understanding of social enterprise reach, impacts, costs and benefits

Strategic direction on councils approach to social enterprise.

(Jul)

Youth volunteer programmes

Intervention assessment of youth volunteer programmes on long term education and employment – understanding impacts, costs and benefits

Strategic direction on interventions approach

(Jul)

Events Policy

A review of what is working well and what isn’t

(Sep)

Grant Policy Monitoring

Audit of the application of the Grants Policy

Decision on audit results

Toi Whitiki Strategy

Targeted analysis of social return on investment on specific art and culture investment

(Dec)

Public Art Policy

Review of the Public Arts Policy: what’s working what’s not.

Decisions relating to major public arts

Decision on review results

Progress to date:

The report was considered on 14/08/18. Resolution ENV/2018/103 : report back on implementation within 18 months

(Apr)

Current Development Contribution revenue and expenditure – funding for open space purposes

Highlight the new parks and open spaces for Aucklanders’ use and enjoyment

A report was considered on 14/08/178 on Open Space acquisition in 2017/18 financial year. resolution ENV/2018/104 to report back on DC revenue and expenditure by funding area for open space purposes based on current based on the current DC policy.

Tbc

Investigation in North-west Community Provision

Investigation to identify any current gaps in services or facilities or in the future

Decision on the investigation findings

Progress to date:

A report was considered on 13/10/18 on the findings. Res ENV/2018/131. Staff will progress the key moves outlined in the report.

LEGISLATION/CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

National Environmental Standards

Council response on the National Direction for aquaculture expected following scheduled release of consultation document in April 2017. The National Direction is likely to address matters relating to re-consenting, bay-wide management, innovation and research, and biosecurity.

Direction

Committee agreement to a council submission on the National Direction for Aquaculture

LAND ACQUISITIONS
Strategic acquisition issues and opportunities	Understanding current acquisition issues and options.		Q3		Q4		Q1		Q2
Land acquisition for stormwater purposes	Delegated responsibility of the committee. To acquire land for stormwater management and development purposes, to either support a structure plan or ad-hoc development.	Decision to acquire land. Reports will come to committee as required. Next report will be in Feb 2018 seeking authority to carry out compulsory acquisition of land in the Henderson area for a flood prevention project.	Q3 (Feb)		Q4		Q1		Q2
OTHER
Long-term Plan	Informing the development of the 2018-2028 Auckland Council Long-term Plan		Q3	Q4		Q1		Q2

[1] These are defined as physical structures that are owned by local authorities and are designed to protect urban and rural areas from flooding from rivers and includes ancillary works such as channel realignment or gravel removal.

[2] There are non-financial performance measures and reporting requirements for major flood protection and control schemes under the Act.

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

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Environment and Community Committee - forward work programme	299
b ⇨	20190306_International Relations Unit memo (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	20190228_Workshop: Piha flooding response (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	20190220_Workshop: water work programmes of central government and Auckland Council (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	20190212_Refresh of Global Partnerships and Strategy Unit and Global Engagment Activity Update - February 2019 (Under Separate Cover)

Author	Maea Petherick - Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

There is a high flood safety risk in Piha for a small number of people

‘Local solutions to local problems’ is the accepted approach to flooding

Flooding can have a disproportionate impact on some households

The Waitākere Ranges Local Board are strong advocates for the Piha community 37. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board is working to support Piha residents.

Decision-making authority

Assessment of significance

Previous decisions

Approvals

Proposed development

Funding

The Waitākere Ranges Local Board are strong advocates for the Piha community
37. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board is working to support Piha residents.