Agenda of Environment and Community Committee

Environment and Community Committee

10 September 2019

Auckland Film Protocol consultation feedback and recommended changes

File No.: CP2019/16257

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide a summary of public feedback on the draft Auckland Film Protocol, and to adopt the Auckland Film Protocol 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is reviewing the Auckland Film Protocol (the Protocol). The Protocol sets out:

· the commitment of the Auckland Council Group to supporting filming in Auckland;

· expectations and rules that filmmakers must abide by when filming in Auckland; and

· provides guidance for filmmakers on the process for approval to film in Auckland.

3. The purpose of the review was to update the Protocol to better reflect the emerging trends, issues or opportunities that should be addressed. Content of the Protocol was reviewed against legislation referenced in the document and against policies and plans of the council group to identify areas where the Protocol should be updated.

4. A revised draft of the Protocol was reported to the Environment and Community Committee in June 2019 for consideration and was approved for public consultation (resolution number ENV/2019/73).

5. Public consultation was undertaken over three-weeks (21 June to 12 July 2019). A total of 74 submissions were received during the public consultation period. Overall, most submitters were supportive of Auckland Council’s film‑friendly approach and most felt that the Protocol does enough to manage the impact of filming on residents, businesses, public open space, the environment and historic and cultural heritage. However, some submissions identified several key themes/areas of concern and staff are proposing some changes to address these. The proposed changes to the draft the Protocol are shown in track changes in Attachment B.

6. This report provides a summary of feedback from public consultation, from local boards and proposed changes to the draft The Protocol to address submitter feedback. Submission themes and proposed amendments are set out in Attachment A. The key changes recommended in response to public feedback are:

· Natural environment: include stronger messaging about the importance of respecting Auckland’s natural environment, that film permits may be subject to conditions to manage impacts and/or that filming may be subject to restrictions where these impacts cannot be appropriately managed.

· Native species: include stronger messages around the potential impact of filming on native species, such as birds and that filming permits may be subject to conditions to manage impacts and/or that filming may be subject to restrictions where these impacts cannot be appropriately managed.

· Kauri dieback: amend to ensure that conditions may be placed on film permits in any public open space (controlled by Auckland Council) where kauri are present.

· Drones: include additional guidance on the use of drones around native birds and in proximity to other users of public open space and adjoining private properties.

· Impact on access to public open space: include stronger messages around the need for filmmakers to be respectful of other users of public open space and state that once granted, film permits give limited permission to occupy public open space.

· Compliance and enforcement: include stronger messages around the requirement for filmmakers to comply with the council policies, plans, bylaws and the terms and conditions of their film permit.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) receive the summary of feedback obtained during public consultation and from local boards on the draft The Protocol.

b) approve, subject to further direction from the Committee, the proposed amendments to the Protocol shown in Attachments A and B of the agenda report.

c) adopt the amended The Protocol 2019 in Attachment B of the agenda report

d) delegate approval to the Chair of the Environment and Community Committee the power to edit the Protocol 2019 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.

e) delegate to the Manager Creative Industries, Screen Auckland, the authority to make any minor changes to the Protocol to ensure accuracy, as well as alignment with legislation and policies of Auckland Council

Horopaki

Context

7. The Protocol was adopted by the Regional Development and Operations Committee (resolution number RDO/2013/27) on 14 March 2013. A review of fees for filming in the Auckland Region was undertaken in 2014 and a new set of region‑wide charges was recommended; providing a simplified and harmonised range of charges. The Governing Body adopted a region‑wide schedule of film fees and revised The Protocol on 28 May 2015 (resolution number GB/2015/36).

8. Since the Protocol was adopted in 2015 there have been several changes to legislation and to Auckland Council’s policy and planning framework. The purpose of the review of the Protocol was to:

· ensure that the Protocol is up-to-date; and

· identify emerging trends, issues or opportunities to be addressed in the Protocol.

9. Content of the Protocol was reviewed against legislation referenced in the document and against policies and plans of the Auckland Council group to identify areas where the Protocol should be updated. Engagement with staff involved in the process of assessing and approving film permit applications, from across the Council group, was undertaken to inform the review and proposed amendments to the Protocol.

10. Workshops were held in September and October 2018 to engage with local boards that experience a high volume of filming. A memo outlining the proposed amendments to the Protocol was circulated to all local boards for information.

11. Engagement to inform the preparation of the revised draft Protocol was also undertaken with mana whenua, staff of the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority, the screen sector and with the public through the People’s Panel.

12. The revised draft of the Protocol was approved by the Environment and Community Committee for public consultation in June 2019 (resolution number ENV/2019/73). Public consultation was undertaken over a three-week period from 21 June to 12 July 2019. During the consultation period 74 submissions were received on the draft The Protocol. A summary of submissions is included in Attachment A, including key submission themes, proposed staff responses, recommended amendments to the draft The Protocol and submitter demographics.

13. The summary of key submission themes and proposed staff amendments to the draft The Protocol was reported to local boards August 2019 business meetings. A summary of key feedback from local boards on the proposed changes to the Protocol is included in local impacts and local board views section of this report.

14. The next step is to adopt the revised the Protocol 2019, considering concerns raised through the submission process.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Consultation summary

15. Consultation on the revised draft of the Protocol took place from 21 June to 12 July 2019. The consultation was promoted on the Auckland Council Have Your Say webpage, in Our Auckland and through Auckland Council and ATEED social media channels. The consultation was promoted to the screen sector by email and at an ATEED sector meeting.

16. A total of 74 submissions were received; this represents a substantial increase on the 21 submission which were received in response to the 2015 review of the Protocol. Of the submissions received, 72 were submitted using the online form and 2 non‑form hardcopy submissions were received.

17. Submitters were asked to identify if they worked in the screen sector or not, with:

· 29 submissions (39%) received from individuals or organisations that identified themselves as working in the screen sector

· 45 submissions (61%) received from individuals or organisations that do not work in the screen sector.

18. The questions included in the online consultation form varied depending on whether the submitter identified themselves as working in the screen industry or not. A series of closed questions were asked of non‑screen sector individuals and organisations. A summary of the responses to these questions is shown in Table 1 and shows that:

· the majority respondents are supportive of Auckland Council’s film‑friendly approach and that;

· most respondents think that the Protocol does enough to manage the impact that filming has on residents and businesses, on public open space and historic and cultural heritage.

Table 1: Feedback on the Protocols management of the impacts of filming

Question	Response	Percentage of regional submissions (number of respondents is shown in brackets)
Do you support Auckland Council's film‑friendly approach?	Yes	75% (33)
	Partially	20% (9)
	No	5% (2)
Do you think the Protocol does enough to manage the impact of filming on residents and businesses?	Yes	56% (18)
	Partially	19% (6)
	No	25% (8)
Do you think the Protocol does enough to manage the impact that filming has on our public open space and environment?	Yes	53% (23)
	Partially	33% (14)
	No	14% (6)
Do you think the Protocol does enough to manage the impact of filming on our historic and cultural heritage?	Yes	62% (26)
	Partially	29% (12)
	No	10% (4)

19. The main reasons given by those who supported Auckland Council’s film‑friendly approach are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of key reasons for supporting Auckland Council’s film‑friendly approach

Theme	Summary of key submission points
Economic	· generates employment and economic growth; · benefits communities and local businesses; · benefits a broad range of trades and industries; · attracts investment and businesses to Auckland.
Cultural and creative	· has cultural benefits allowing and supporting the telling of stories visually; · supports the creative economy and enables people to find a future in the creative industries; · It’s fun and exciting to see Auckland on the screen.
Promotion and tourism	· promotes and showcases Auckland to the world; · creates a positive image of Auckland.

20. Table 3 shows the key reasons that respondents gave for partially supporting Auckland Council’s film‑friendly approach.

Table 3: Summary of key reasons given for partially supporting Auckland Council’s film‑friendly approach.

Theme	Summary of key submission points
Impact on access	· the impact on resident, including parking restrictions, road closures and ability to use public open space while filming is taking place need to be considered and managed; · need to ensure that film‑makers are respectful of other users of public open space.
Notification of filming	· there needs to be enough notification to ensure that residents and businesses are aware of open space being used for filming and are not unreasonably inconvenienced.
Impact on the natural environment and native species	· need to consider and manage the impact that filming has on the natural environment and on native species; · importance of ensuring that the natural environment is treated with respect; · need to balance the cumulative impacts of filming on the natural environment and native species.
Equity	· need to ensure that fees for commercial use of public places are fair.

21. The key reasons given for not supporting Auckland Council’s film‑friendly approach were:

· the cost to ratepayers of enabling filming;

· that there is not enough protection for individuals, businesses and residents affected by filming being carried out on private property.

22. A series of open‑ended questions were also included to provide further information about a range of other topics. Staff have worked through submissions to determine any changes to be recommended for the final revised The Protocol. Attachment A identifies key themes and submission points along with proposed staff responses.

23. A summary of the most common public submission themes and the proposed staff responses are shown in table 4; with a more detailed summary of key public submission included as Attachment A.

Table 4: Summary of key submission themes and proposed staff responses.

Key themes	Summary of proposed responses
Use of drones for filming	Include additional guidance on the use of drones around native birds and in proximity to other users of public open space and adjoining private properties.
Impact on natural environment	Include stronger messaging about the importance of respecting Auckland’s natural environment, that film permits may be subject to conditions to manage impacts and/or that filming may be subject to restrictions where these impacts cannot be appropriately managed.
Kauri dieback	Amend to ensure that conditions may be placed on film permits in any public open space (controlled by Auckland Council) where kauri are present.
Impact on native species	Include stronger messages around the potential impact of filming on native species, such as birds and that filming permits may be subject to conditions to manage impacts and/or that filming may be subject to restrictions where these impacts cannot be appropriately managed.
Impact on access to public open space	Include stronger messages around the need for filmmakers to be respectful of other users of public open space and state that film permits give limited permission to occupy public open space.
Compliance and enforcement	Include stronger messages around the requirement for filmmakers to comply with Auckland Council policies, plans, bylaws and the terms and conditions of their film permit.
Health and safety	Amend to enable production companies to arrange alternative timeframes for the submission of a site-specific health and safety plan by agreement with Screen Auckland.
Notification	Screen Auckland to consider operational approaches to achieving wider public notification.
Impact on business	No change to the Protocol. The protocol is intended to provide a framework that enables decisions to be made on a case‑by‑case basis.
Equity	No change to the Protocol. Fees for commercial use of public open space are set under the Auckland Council Trading and Events in public places bylaw 2015 and amended through the long-term plan and annual plan.

24. Staff also recommend that a few other corrections and minor changes are made to the Protocol, such as ensuring alignment with the requirements of the Waste Management and Minimisation bylaw 2019 adopted on 22 August 2019 (Resolution number GB/2019/83). In response to the bylaw staff are currently working through operational arrangements to require some film proposals to prepare a waste minimisation plan as part of their film permit application. All recommended minor amendments to the Protocol are also shown in track changes in Attachment B.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Engagement with staff involved in the process of assessing and approving film permit applications, from across the Council group, was undertaken to inform the review and proposed amendments to the Protocol. This included engagement with Auckland Transport, Panuku Development Auckland, and with council’s relevant teams (community facilities, region‑wide planning, social policy and bylaws, visitor experience and heritage).

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. Landowner approval is required to film on any public open space in the Auckland region. Local boards are responsible for landowner approvals for local parks and reserves. Engagement with local boards that experience a high volume of applications for film permits was undertaken in September and October 2018 to inform the review of the Protocol. A summary of the key engagement themes was reported to the Environment and Community Committee in July 2019. A memo outlining the recommended changes to the draft The Protocol was sent to all local boards for information.

27. In August 2019 a summary of public feedback and the proposed response to public feedback was reported to all local boards. Local boards provided formal feedback through resolutions at the August business meetings. The full resolutions from each local board are shown in Attachment C. Waitākere Ranges Local Board also provided written feedback, during the public consultation period, in response to the draft The Protocol; this feedback was considered in conjunction with submissions received during public consultation.

Summary of local board feedback

28. Local boards were generally supportive of the changes that have been made to the Protocol in response to public feedback. Several local boards specifically noted their support for strengthened provisions or messaging around:

· respecting and protecting Auckland’s natural environment

· protecting native species such as native birds

· kauri dieback

· guidance on the use of drones, including for the protection of native species and to ensure the privacy of other users and neighbours of public open space

· ensuring ongoing access to public open space and respecting other users of public open space

· compliance with Auckland Council policies and bylaws

· encouraging filmmakers to support Auckland Council’s zero waste goals

29. Local boards were also supportive of the Protocol continuing to promote the use of local businesses during filming and the continued reimbursement of fees for filming on local parks to local board budgets for reinvestment in those parks.

30. Whilst generally supportive of the changes staff propose be made to the Protocol in response to public submissions, there are a few areas where local boards request further amendments to the Protocol. A summary of key feedback and proposed responses to feedback is shown in Attachment D. Changes made to the Protocol in response to feedback from local boards is shown in blue text in Attachment B.

Sector response to the revised version of the Protocol

31. In response to the revised version of the Protocol reported to local boards for feedback at August business meetings, a few screen sector associations and individuals have provided feedback. Although this feedback was provided after the public consultation on the Protocol was completed, it is included as Attachment E for information.

32. A summary of the key concerns expressed by the screen sector in this feedback are shown in Table 5. The summary focuses on feedback made in response to changes made to the Protocol after public consultation was completed.

Table 5: Summary of key feedback from the screen sector in response to proposed changes to the Protocol.

Feedback

Summary of proposed response

Environmental emphasis

The deletion of the word “sensitive” from the heading of section 3.9, now entitled “Protecting natural environments”.

The sector has expressed concern that the removal of the word sensitive and the more general emphasis on protection of the natural environment may result in a more prohibitive approach to filming by enabling landowners to say no to filming more often based on environmental concerns.

The revisions made to section 3.9 of the Protocol in response to public consultation included strengthening this section and broadening it to refer to Auckland’s natural environment more widely.

Whilst the public consultation showed that many submitters felt that the Protocol provides enough protection for the environment, there was also feedback from many submitters noting that protecting the natural environment is important and more could be done.

The deletion of the word sensitive was intended to reflect the amendments of section 3.9 to refer more generally to the natural environment and was not intended to result in a more prohibitive approach.

In response to sector concerns staff recommend that the word sensitive is retained in section 3.9.

Drone use for recces

The sector expressed some concern that drone use for recces requires a film permit and that activity associated with a recce must be low impact.

Recces are undertaken before a film permit application is submitted, given this staff believe that it is reasonable to expect that any activity associated with a recce should be low impact as low impact film activity often may not require a film permit.

Drone use for filming was a key submission point made during public consultation. All drone use for commercial or organised filming requires a film permit.

Staff recommend no change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. ATEED has an ongoing relationship with several mana whenua and mataawaka groups, across its whole portfolio of activity. To inform the review of the Protocol the 19 Iwi Authorities were invited, in writing, to inform the review. In relation to film permit applications Māori views and input may be obtained in several ways where there is a potential impact on particular land or sites. This is usually coordinated either by the film facilitator, or through the relevant parks manager.

34. Specific processes are in place for the tūpuna maunga, with all commercial filming on the maunga requiring the approval of the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (Tūpuna Maunga Authority). Screen Auckland facilitates all requests for approval to film on the tūpuna maunga. Approval to film will be subject to conditions and restrictions set by the Tūpuna Maunga Authority. Meetings were held with the Tūpuna Maunga Authority to inform them of the review and ensure that proposed amendments are consistent with the Authority’s own policies.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. The proposed amendments to the Protocol do not impact on existing levels of service and will not impact on operational budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36. There is a risk that there will be some level of negative reaction to the revised The Protocol from the screen sector. Screen Auckland will work with the sector to inform them of the changes to the Protocol and of any operational implications.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37. Once approved the revised The Protocol 2019 will be made available on the Screen Auckland website and promoted to the screen sector by email and more widely through social media channels.

38. Operational implementation will have effect from adoption. Staff of Screen Auckland will work with affected parties to enable a smooth transition.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Key submission themes and responses (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Auckland Film Protocol (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Local Board feedback and resolutions on the proposed changes to the Auckland Film Protocol (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Summary of key local board feedback and recommended amendments to the draft Auckland Film Protocol (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Feedback from the screen sector on the track change version of the Auckland Film Protocol on August local board business meeting agendas (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Marie Jenkins – Screen Facilitation Manager

Authorisers

Jasmine Millett - Manager Creative Industries

Koro Dickinson - Executive Officer

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	David Lange Memorial catalogue listing	27
b ⇩	David Lange Memorial letter of offer	29

Environment and Community Committee

10 September 2019

HomeFit assessment for the Retrofit Your Home programme

File No.: CP2019/16258

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve for consultation a change to the Retrofit Your Home Programme, to introduce mandatory HomeFit assessments for all Retrofit Your Home applications with a value over $2,000

2. To recommend to the Governing Body that this proposed change be included in the consultation document for the Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The Retrofit Your Home programme provides finance to Auckland homeowners for clean energy, insulation or heating retrofits, which are repaid through a targeted rate.

4. Currently, when homeowners apply to the Retrofit Your Home programme, they typically only receive advice from one supplier for a single intervention (e.g., insulation). They do not receive advice about the optimal combination of interventions to improve their building performance. Improving building performance generates health, environmental and financial benefits for homeowners.

5. Staff analysed four options for encouraging homeowners to engage in a broader assessment of how to make their homes warmer and drier.

6. All options for change involved engaging in a partnership with the New Zealand Green Building Council and using their HomeFit assessment and certification process. This is a tool for assessing the performance of residential homes. It involves an online checklist and an assessment by a specialist.

7. Options considered ranged from the status quo (i.e., no HomeFit assessment required) to making HomeFit assessments mandatory for all applications, regardless of value.

8. Staff recommend option three: Partnering with New Zealand Green Building Council to support high volume delivery of HomeFit assessments, by making HomeFit assessments a mandatory requirement for all Retrofit Your Home applications over $2,000 (all prices excluding GST).

9. Under option three, the cost of a HomeFit assessment would be approximately $260 over a nine-year repayment schedule. This will impact on approximately 87 per cent of all applications to Retrofit Your Home, or 2,350 homeowners per annum (based on average loan uptake).

10. Staff recommend that the threshold for mandatory HomeFit assessments is set at $2,000 (rather than for all applications of any value). This is because for applications under $2,000 the $260 fee would represent a significant proportion of the finance applied for by homeowners.

11. Since the Retrofit Your Home programme is managed through a targeted rate, introducing the HomeFit assessment must be consulted on through an Annual Plan. Staff recommend that the Environment and Community Committee recommend this change to the Governing Body for inclusion in the consultation document for the Annual Plan 2020/2021.

12. The additional cost to homeowners of the mandatory HomeFit assessments is approximately $611,000 per year. This will be managed within the existing debt cap for the programme of $35 million.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve, subject to consultation, that the following changes be made to the Retrofit Your Home programme:

i) that a New Zealand Green Building Council HomeFit Assessment be required for all Retrofit Your Home applications with a value greater than $2,000 (excluding GST)

ii) that the cost for assessment and certification of approximately $260 (excluding GST) associated with the HomeFit assessment be included in the Retrofit Your Home applicant’s balance and paid back through the Retrofit Your Home targeted rate.

b) recommend that the Governing Body include the proposed changes to the Retrofit Your Home programme and the associated targeted rate in the consultation document for the Annual Budget 2020/2021

c) note that final decisions on the proposed changes to the Retrofit your Home programme associated targeted rate will be made by the Governing Body (or relevant committee) as part of the decisions on the Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Horopaki

Context

13. The Retrofit Your Home programme was originally established by Waitākere City Council to provide a financing option for homeowners to install insulation and clean heating. It was extended across the Auckland region in 2011.

14. Auckland Council is one of ten councils around New Zealand that currently offers a Retrofit Your home-type scheme (commonly referred to as a voluntary targeted rate scheme).

15. The programme provides homeowners with access to a loan of up to $5,000 finance towards energy efficient retrofits. This is recovered through a targeted rate on the property for a maximum period of nine years.

16. To date, Retrofit Your Home has supported over 23,700 homeowners. It currently delivers funding support to around 2,800 Auckland homes each year.

More comprehensive advice to homeowners would increase effectiveness

17. The only advice Retrofit Your Home applicants currently receive is that delivered by the supplier. This means homeowners do not always receive comprehensive advice from an independent expert about the best combination of interventions for their house.

18. Home performance rating tools educate and inform homeowners about what defines optimal energy performance and a healthy living environment. They also establish a clear pathway for homeowners to achieve those outcomes. Improving building performance generates health, environmental and financial benefits for homeowners.

19. Research conducted by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy found that homeowners are more likely to implement more than one energy efficiency retrofit if they are aware of:

· the multiple opportunities for improving building performance; and

· the benefits of having a permanent record of building performance certification that can be used to show their home meets a quality standard.

HomeFit rating tool for residential buildings

20. The New Zealand Green Building Council offers a user-friendly ‘tool’ to assess the performance of homes and how this can be improved. This tool is called HomeFit.

21. A strategic partnership with New Zealand Green Building Council to provide HomeFit assessments would support Auckland Council’s objective of educating homeowners about the multiple options available for improving energy efficiency and air tightness of homes.

22. Several councils around the country are either already using HomeFit as the recognised benchmark for building performance or plan to adopt it in future.

23. The Wellington Regional Healthy Housing Response Group, which comprises Hutt, Porirua, and Wellington City Councils, Kāpiti Coast District Council and Wellington Regional Council, have committed to using HomeFit as the minimum standard for measuring progress towards their goal of all homes being warm, dry and safe by 2025.

24. Dunedin City Council, Hutt City Council, Porirua City Council and Wellington City Council are also undertaking initiatives to train their social housing providers on HomeFit.

25. Both Dunedin and Wellington Regional Councils have voluntary targeted rate loans and are considering adding a HomeFit assessment to their loan approval process.

26. While there are not yet any results from these programmes using HomeFit, council staff will share information and learnings with other local authorities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

HomeFit assessment and certification process

27. A HomeFit assessment involves an expert providing the homeowner with impartial advice on how to:

a) improve the energy efficiency and air tightness of the home;

b) reduce energy costs; and

c) prioritise interventions based on energy efficiency and return on investment ratios.

28. HomeFit includes two components:

· a free online self-assessment tool (checklist) designed to educate homeowners on how to achieve HomeFit certification

· an independent HomeFit assessment to verify that the home meets the HomeFit criteria.

29. If a home meets the HomeFit criteria, it is awarded certification. Homes that fail to meet the criteria are provided with a comprehensive report detailing the upgrades required to achieve certification.

30. The market price of HomeFit is $300 (all prices excluding GST) to the homeowner. If a HomeFit assessment is included in the Retrofit Your Home programme, New Zealand Green Building Council has agreed to discount the fee to $260. This discount is possible because of the volume of demand that the Retrofit Your Home programme can generate, i.e. a minimum of 2,000 HomeFit assessments per year.

Options considered for introduction of a HomeFit assessment

31. Four options for encouraging homeowners to engage in a broader assessment of building performance through use of HomeFit were analysed.

· Option one: Status quo - No HomeFit assessment required. Council continues to promote voluntary use of the Eco Design Advice, the free HomeFit online self-assessment checklist and other self-help resources.

· Option two: Require all Retrofit Your Home applicants to complete the free HomeFit online checklist. Recommend a HomeFit assessment as an optional choice. The cost would not be discounted and require an up-front payment of $300.

· Option three: HomeFit assessments be mandatory for all Retrofit Your Home applications over the value of $2,000. The cost would be discounted to $260 and homeowners would repay the cost through the targeted rate.

· Option four: HomeFit assessments be mandatory for all Retrofit Your Home applications regardless of value. The cost would be discounted to $260 and homeowners would repay the cost through the targeted rate.

32. Options three and four both require Annual Plan consultation because they involve changes to a targeted rate.

33. Under all four options, if the home achieves HomeFit certification this will be recorded on the Land Information Memorandum report.

Analysis of options against criteria

34. As shown in Table 1, these options were analysed against four criteria. These were:

· more Aucklanders have access to home performance advice and commission multiple retrofits - making their homes warmer, drier and more energy efficient

· the likelihood of HomeFit building certification being achieved

· the level of upfront cost to homeowners

· the probability of a reduction in Retrofit Your Home loan uptake.

Table 1. Options for increasing ‘whole of home’ assessments by loan applicants

Option	More people access home advice	Building certification achieved	Least upfront cost to applicants	Least impact on loan uptake
Option one: No assessment required. Council promotes Eco Design Advice, optional HomeFit and online information sources.	û	û	üü	üü
Option two: Applicants required to complete HomeFit online check. HomeFit certification assessment is optional.	û	û	û $300 upfront payment if homeowner opts-in	ü
Option three: Mandatory HomeFit certification assessment for all applications over $2,000. Cost of $260 included in homeowners Retrofit Your Home financing.	üü	ü	ü $260 - paid back over nine years	ü May have a slight impact on uptake
Option four: Mandatory HomeFit certification assessment for all applications, regardless of value. Cost of $260 included in homeowners Retrofit Your Home financing.	û May have a significant impact on loan uptake - reducing no. of people receiving home advice and doing multiple retrofits.	û May have a significant impact on loan uptake – reducing no. of buildings achieving certification.	ü $260 - paid back over nine years	û May have a significant impact on uptake

Key

Low outcome

Moderate outcome

Positive outcome

üü

35. As Table 1 shows, options one and two scored poorly on the potential to have more people accessing comprehensive home improvements advice and commissioning multiple retrofits.

36. Option four was considered but discarded for two reasons. Firstly, it could reduce uptake – staff considered the cost of the HomeFit assessment should not represent a significant proportion of the total value of the Retrofit Your Home application. Secondly, Retrofit Your Home application figures for 2018/2019 indicate only 13 percent of applications were for a value below $2,000.

Recommended option: Include a mandatory HomeFit assessment for all applications over $2,000

37. Option three scored well against all criteria but could potentially impact on Retrofit Your Home uptake by creating an additional cost for homeowners.

38. However, staff consider this is unlikely as the upfront cost to homeowners is quite minimal, since the $260 will be paid off through the targeted rate over a nine-year period.

39. Option three should have no impact on the number of applications that can be supported by the council. Even though it will increase the cost of each application, this can be managed within the $9 million annual Retrofit Your Home budget.

40. On balance, staff recommend option three because it will:

· provide comprehensive building performance advice to more Aucklanders, at a manageable cost, improving the energy performance and living quality of Auckland homes;

· increase the probability of homeowners undertaking multiple interventions to improve the energy performance and air tightness of their homes;

· establish a defined building performance benchmark and a clear pathway to achieving certification;

· ensure that Aucklanders are supported to comply with any future legislation relating to national building performance standards, by getting homeowners on the path to building performance certification.

Climate impact statement

41. The programme has achieved a carbon emission saving of approximately 2,915 tonnes of CO2-equivalent, and resulted in warmer, drier, healthier homes for Auckland residents.

42. The recommended changes in this report will contribute to climate change mitigation through increasing carbon emissions savings. This will be achieved through increased awareness and promotion of building performance certification, with the result being a higher number of energy efficient homes in Auckland.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

43. There are no expected impacts on council-controlled organisations from the changes recommended in this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

44. While local boards have not been consulted on the specific changes recommended in this report, local boards recently provided feedback in support of climate change mitigation and adaptation through engagement on council’s draft Auckland Climate Action Framework.

45. Nine local boards are also currently funding complementary programmes to promote energy efficiency and healthy homes in their areas. These include Albert Eden, Great Barrier, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Puketāpapa, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

46. The recommended changes in this report are not expected to have significant impacts on Māori compared to other Aucklanders. Around 11 percent of those participating in the Retrofit Your Home programme are Māori – a similar proportion to the percentage of Aucklanders who identified as Maori in the 2013 census (11 per cent).

47. Staff will work with the Independent Māori Statutory Board to explore ways to promote the programme to Māori homeowners.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48. The recommended change has no significant implementation cost for the council as the assessments will be carried out by suppliers who will be billed directly by the Green Building Council.

49. The change will increase the average value of Retrofit Your Home applications by $260 from $2,800 to $3,060. This represents a total additional cost to homeowners of approximately $611,000 per year (excluding GST and interest).

50. This can be managed within the $9 million annual Retrofit Your Home budget (as the council usually supports $6 to $7 million of applications a year). Staff will also manage demand within the total programme debt cap of $35 million.

51. Staff are exploring alternative financing options for Retrofit Your Home. An update on alternative financing options will be provided to the appropriate committee in 2020

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

52. A summary of key risks and mitigations associated with the recommendation to introduce a mandatory HomeFit assessment are provided below in Table 3.

Table 3. Risks and mitigations associated with introducing mandatory HomeFit assessment

Risk	Likelihood and consequence (L-Low, M-Medium, H-High)	Mitigation
Suppliers do not support the scheme	Likelihood: M Consequence: M	Staff will engage suppliers to ensure buy-in and support
Customers have a negative perception of mandatory assessments	Likelihood: M Consequence: M	Communications and information supporting the process will be included in the application documentation. Suppliers will be trained to describe the benefits of home performance assessments and certification
High assessment failure rate leads Aucklanders to question the scheme	Likelihood: M Consequence: M	The council will manage customer expectations, through communicating that the objective of mandatory assessments is not ‘pass/fail’; it is to educate Aucklanders about how to improve their home health and energy efficiency. Much of New Zealand's housing stock is sub-standard. The HomeFit Assessment will help homeowners identify what they can do to improve building performance.
Perceived conflict of Interest If the supplier of Retrofit interventions is also a HomeFit assessor, the council will need to manage any actual and perceived conflict of interests.	Likelihood: M Consequence: M	Involving New Zealand Green Building Council as an accreditation body will add impartiality to building performance assessments undertaken by suppliers. The NZ Green Building Council will manage the training, quality assurance and accreditation of HomeFit assessors. This will include managing conflicts of interest.
Impact on uptake	Likelihood: L Consequence: M	Staff will closely monitor any impact of the assessment on uptake. If uptake falls significantly the contract with New Zealand Green Building Council will give the council the right to revoke the change.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53. If Environment and Community Committee approve the proposed change, staff will put the proposed changes to the Retrofit your Home programme and the associated targeted rate to the appropriate committee of council in December 2019 for inclusion in the consultation document for the Annual Plan 2020/2021.

54. If approved through the Annual Plan 2020/2021 process, the new assessments will be introduced from 1 July 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Rikki Stancich - Senior Low Carbon Specialist

Sophie Heighway - Sustainability Initiatives Manager

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie - General Manager Environmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Koro Dickinson - Executive Officer

Environment and Community Committee

10 September 2019

Submission on proposed product stewardship schemes for priority products

File No.: CP2019/15191

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve Auckland Council’s draft submission on the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation on proposed product stewardship schemes for priority products.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Ministry for the Environment is consulting on proposed priority products and priority product stewardship scheme guidelines (see consultation document in Attachment A).

3. A product stewardship scheme shifts the main responsibility for recovery, recycling and disposal from local government to private industry, incorporating the costs of disposal into the product price.

4. The consultation document proposes introducing product stewardship schemes for six identified priority products: Tyres, electrical products, agrichemicals, refrigerants, farm plastics and packaging (beverage containers are specifically mentioned).

5. Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 recognises product stewardship as an important component of achieving zero waste. It identifies advocacy for product stewardship as one of nine key priority actions to be addressed.

6. Staff have developed a draft submission in alignment with the waste plan (see Attachment B). The draft submission includes the following points:

· support for the scope of the six priority products identified by the Ministry for the Environment

· support for the proposed guidelines for priority product stewardship scheme design

· suggestion of other products that should be considered for product stewardship, including plastic and packaging from commercial sources and cardboard and paper packaging.

7. Due to the constrained timelines for developing the draft submission, local board feedback had not been received by staff at the time of writing. Staff will provide any local board feedback received to the Environment and Community Committee for their consideration at their meeting on 10 September 2019.

8. Staff recommend that the committee approve the draft submission, and delegate authority to the Chair to approve any further minor changes.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the draft council submission on Proposed Priority Products and Priority Product Stewardship Scheme Guidelines and its submission to the parliamentary process

b) delegate approval to the Chair of the Environment and Community Committee to make any minor amendments to the submission

c) nominate an elected member to speak to the submission, if required.

Horopaki

Context

9. The Ministry for the Environment has released a consultation on proposed priority products and priority product stewardship scheme guidelines (see Attachment A). Submissions on the consultation document are due by 4 October 2019.

10. Product stewardship is the responsible management of the environmental impact of a product. It aims to reduce the impact of manufactured products at all stages of its lifecycle. It shifts the main responsibility for recovery, recycling and disposal from local government to private industry, incorporating costs into the product price.

11. This means that when consumers buy a product new they pay slightly more. These funds must be used by the producer to cover the costs of disposing responsibly of the product.

12. To date, no mandatory product stewardship schemes have been introduced in New Zealand by the government.

13. While voluntary schemes exist for some products, such as soft plastics, glass packaging, agricultural chemicals (and packaging), used oil and paint, they are not available nation-wide. They have also had limited effectiveness in terms of reducing the volumes of these materials sent to landfill.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. Auckland Council staff have developed a draft submission on the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation document (see Attachment B).

15. The draft submission is informed by public and local board feedback received by the council through consultation in March 2018 on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 and the draft Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

16. This feedback showed strong support, with 84 per cent of submitters on the draft waste plan agreeing or strongly agreeing with the council advocating for product stewardship. Nine local boards (Albert-Eden, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Papakura, Rodney, Upper Harbour and Waitematā) also specifically mentioned their support for this.

17. As a result, priority action 2 of the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 outlines the need for Auckland Council to advocate to central Government for product stewardship. This will ensure that the responsibility for end-of-life disposal shifts from ratepayers to producers and consumers.

18. Actions 98 to 100 of the plan also outline specific actions we will take relating to product stewardship and priority products - beverage containers, electrical waste and tyres.

19. Auckland Council is also a member of the Territorial Authority Forum which is an officer led sector group of WasteMINZ. It is made up of 64 city and district councils from around New Zealand. The forum was established to create consistency and efficiency amongst territorial authorities through sharing knowledge and best practice.

20. The forum’s Waste Management Manifesto calls for mandatory product stewardship for three key waste streams; tyres, E-waste and agricultural chemicals and plastics. It also calls for a container deposit scheme to be introduced as a product stewardship scheme.

Process for establishing product stewardship schemes

21. The Ministry for the Environment consultation document proposes a co-design approach be taken, involving industry, community and product stakeholders, to establishing regulated product stewardship schemes for priority products.

22. A two-stage process is proposed:

· In stage one the Ministry is consulting on the proposed declaration of six priority products. This includes ministerial guidelines to clarify expected outcomes and attributes of accredited priority product schemes.

· In stage two, the Ministry will consult progressively from 2019 to 2021 on proposed Waste Minimisation Act 2008 regulations for each priority product group.

23. Auckland Council’s draft submission supports the co-design approach but notes that community groups and not-for-profits may lack the resources to adequately engage in this process. It suggests the Ministry resource these groups to participate, in order to secure this important balance of views and expertise.

24. The draft submission also advocates for the Ministry for the Environment to engage and work with mana whenua during Stage Two of the consultation process. This will enable Māori participation in decision-making as per the Ministry’s Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations.

Priority products for product stewardship schemes

25. Six priority products have been selected by the Ministry for the Environment for declaration as suitable for product stewardship schemes.

26. The products proposed are shown below in Table 1, along with the council’s response to the scope of each product group.

Table 1. Scope of proposed priority products and the council’s response to each

Priority product scope	Auckland Council response
Tyres	Supports – The proposed scope for end-of-life tyres is likely to capture all tyre types capable of creating harm to the environment.
Electrical and electronic products	Supports – The proposed scope is likely to capture all electronic products likely to cause harm to the environment. Suggests that when a product stewardship scheme is developed a fuller definition of e-waste be established.
Agrichemicals and their containers	Supports – The agrichemicals and containers included in the scope capture the products and packaging of concern. Also welcome the addition of household pest and weed control products. Unwanted household chemicals present the same risk to people and the environment as agrichemicals so should be handled in the same way.
Refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases	Supports – The proposed scope will capture the substances capable of creating harm to the environment and is aligned with the council’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Farm plastics	Supports – The proposed scope will capture the farm plastics capable of creating harm to the environment.
Packaging, including beverage containers	Supports –The proposed scope for packaging will capture the major components creating harm to the environment. Compostable plastics are also suggested for inclusion. The submission also advocates for a Container Deposit Scheme to be introduced for beverages. This is a specific type of product stewardship scheme which provides a small refund to incentivise people to return used beverage containers for recycling.

27. As shown in Table 1, the council’s draft submission supports the scope for all six products. Three of the six products (beverage containers, electrical waste and tyres) are included in the council’s waste plan as priorities for product stewardship advocacy.

28. Tyres, e-waste and agricultural chemicals and plastics are also listed in the Territorial Authority Forum’s Waste Management Manifesto, which the council has adopted.

29. Disposing appropriately of some of these products (such as illegally dumped tyres) also creates a significant cost to the council. For example, while Auckland Council tries to redistribute most e-waste items collected through our inorganics service this is not always possible. 12,700 items of e-waste collected through our inorganic collection have had to be re-processed since July 2017. Re-processing alone cost ratepayers $105,000, with further costs for collection.

30. While refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases are not identified as a priority in either the waste plan or the forum’s manifesto the draft submission supports their inclusion. A product stewardship scheme for these products is aligned with the council’s net emissions by 2050 goal, as identified in the draft Auckland Climate Action Framework.

31. Finally, staff support the scope for farm plastics in the draft submission. While these are not identified as a priority product in the waste plan, they are a significant source of waste to landfill and more solutions are needed for rural waste streams.

Expanding list of priority products

32. Auckland Council’s draft submission also calls for the Ministry to establish two more product groups as priority products.

Commercial sources of plastics and packaging

33. The draft submission notes that the council is concerned about the lack of diversion opportunities for plastics and packaging from business/commercial sources, as these generate large volumes of waste.

34. For example, the council’s current estimates are that around 200,000 tonnes of total plastic entering landfill each year are from construction activity. LDPE building wrap is also a significant source of waste and can be recycled in the same way as agricultural silage wrap.

35. Including products like these, which are produced in large volumes and have similar recycling methodologies to other priority products, may increase the scale and feasibility of on-shore reprocessing solutions for mixed plastics.

Paper and cardboard packaging

36. The draft submission asks that paper and cardboard packaging be included as an additional product category.

37. The recent restrictions on export of paper and cardboard to China have put local authorities and recyclers under severe pressure across the country.

38. A mandatory product stewardship scheme would ensure that manufacturers design paper and cardboard packaging to be part of the circular economy. It will also help to support development of on-shore processing solutions.

Recommendation – Approve the draft submission

39. Staff recommend that the committee approve the draft submission. Introducing product stewardship schemes will have many benefits, including:

· responsibility for end-of-life disposal moves from ratepayers to producers and consumers

· the creation of incentives for products to be designed for reuse and recycling, adopting a more circular approach to product use

· product stewardship schemes create a situation where value is placed on items even when they are at the end of their usable life.

· business and employment opportunities at a local level in response to re-use and recycling infrastructure needs.

Climate impact assessment

40. The draft submission is aligned to the council’s goal, set in the draft Auckland Climate Action Framework, to get Auckland to zero net emissions by 2050.

41. While not as significant as emissions from transport, emissions from waste in landfill are relatively easy to address through simple changes to our waste practices.

42. Most goods go through a linear process: make, use, dispose. Time, money and resources go into making products, but the ‘use’ stage can be surprisingly short given how much energy and materials they take. Then goods are disposed of, usually to landfill.

43. Adopting a circular approach to the design and use of goods aims to make the best use of resources, with products that are made to last and “made to be made again”. Not only does a circular approach reduce carbon from a landfill perspective but it also ensures that the value of embedded carbon in items is not so easily wasted.

44. By advocating for product stewardship schemes, which encourage more responsible design of products and re-use and recycling of products, the draft submission will contribute to both reducing emissions from waste in landfill and saving embedded carbon.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

45. No significant impacts on other members of the council group from the consultation document or draft submission have been identified by staff at this stage.

46. Council’s Waste Solutions staff will work with the Ministry for the Environment on the product stewardship guidelines through the co-design process. They will inform other parts of the council family about any potential impacts on their business.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Local impacts

47. Through product stewardship scheme, items are less likely to be illegally dumped or to become litter, which has a positive impact on local communities. In particular, reducing illegal dumping of tyres will have a positive impact on rural communities.

48. There is also potential for local community recycling centres to be collection points for products once product stewardship schemes have been established.

Local board views

49. Local boards were asked to provide feedback through development of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 on whether Auckland Council should advocate to the government for product stewardship schemes.

50. Thirteen local boards provided feedback on the draft plan. Nine of these boards (Albert-Eden, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Papakura, Rodney, Upper Harbour and Waitematā) specifically identified their support for product stewardship.

51. Staff also sent a memo to local boards in August 2019 and a copy of the draft submission, advising them of the opportunity to give formal feedback on this consultation. At the time of writing, no feedback from local boards had been received.

52. Staff will provide any local board feedback received by 9 September 2019 to Environment and Community Committee for their consideration on 10 September 2019. The committee can request that changes be made to the draft submission to incorporate local feedback.

53. Any local board submissions received after 10 September will be attached to the council’s submission but will not be referenced in the text of the submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. Through development of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 engagement process, Auckland Council committed to five actions guided by mana whenua and mataawaka. Relevant priority actions include ensuring that resource use and waste management occurs in a manner consistent with Te Ao Māori, protection of waterways and ecology which receive waste and wastewater, and the protection of Papatūānuku.

55. The introduction of product stewardship schemes is likely to have a positive impact in terms of environmental protection, particularly the protection of waterways (ie reduction of plastic litter) and the reduction of harm.

56. Product stewardship schemes align well with Te Ao Māori as they recognise the traditional system in which nothing was wasted – everything was able to be returned back to Papatūānuku without detriment to the whenua, awa or moana.

57. Feedback from Māori also shows strong support for product stewardship. Approximately, 12 per cent of submitters on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 identified as Māori. 81 per cent of these agreed or strongly agreed that Auckland Council should advocate for product stewardship schemes. Key relevant themes in their comments included provision of more resources and support for Māori waste reduction initiatives, advocating for product stewardship (particularly a container deposit scheme), action to reduce use of plastic and illegal dumping and a focus on construction and demolition waste.

58. In recognition of this strong interest by Māori, and the significance of the topic to them, the council’s draft submission highlights the need for mātauranga and tikanga Māori to be incorporated into product stewardship solutions and decision-making processes.

59. The draft submission also advocates for the Ministry for the Environment to engage and work with mana whenua during Stage Two of the consultation process, resourcing and enabling Māori participation in decision-making as per Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations. This will ensure that the implementation of product stewardship schemes will occur in a way that works well for Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

60. The introduction of product stewardship schemes is expected to have positive financial implications for Auckland Council and ratepayers. Shifting the costs and responsibility for end-of-life disposal of items to producers and consumers means that the burden does not only fall to ratepayers, as it does through the current approach.

61. There is also an opportunity for Community Recycling Centres and community organisations to financially benefit from product stewardship schemes. This could occur either through:

· groups acting as drop off facilities who can access a handling fee

· charitable donation collections (ie charities collecting items in bulk and receiving the refund fee as a donation upon returning the items).

62. There is likely to be a focus on re-use and recycling infrastructure needs as a result of the introduction of product stewardship schemes. This presents business and employment opportunities at a local level as well as opportunity for investment.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

63. Staff do not consider there are any direct risks to council arising from the draft submission. However, there is a risk to the equity of product stewardship schemes if a Te Ao Māori and community focused approach is not implemented during the co-design process.

64. The draft submission aims to mitigate this risk, through advocating that mana whenua, local government and community representatives are engaged appropriately and included during the co-design.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65. If approved, staff will provide the draft submission to the Ministry for the Environment by 4 October 2019. Auckland Council has requested to be considered as a key stakeholder in stage two of the co-design process for product stewardship schemes.

66. Updates will be provided to the appropriate committee of the council and local boards on development of product stewardship schemes as these are progressed.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Proposed priority products and priority product stewardship scheme guidelines: Consultation 2019 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Auckland Council's draft submission on the Proposed priority products and priority product stewardship scheme guidelines' consultation (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sophien Brockbank - Team Leader Strategic Planning

Authorisers

Parul Sood - General Manager Waste Solutions

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Koro Dickinson - Executive Officer

Environment and Community Committee

10 September 2019

Proposed changes to the legacy Waitākere City Council septic tank pump-out targeted rate and service

File No.: CP2019/16237

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve for consultation proposed changes to the legacy Waitākere City Council septic tank pump-out service and associated targeted rate, and

2. To recommend to the Governing Body that the proposed changes be included in the consultation document for the Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. In 1998, in an effort to improve water quality, the legacy Waitākere City Council established a targeted rate for property owners with septic tank systems to fund a three-yearly pump-out of their system. These properties now sit within the Waitākere Ranges, Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour local board areas.

4. There are 3,461 onsite wastewater systems across 3,210 properties in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area that receive this service, at an annual rate of $198.43 (including GST) per onsite wastewater system. These onsite wastewater systems comprise septic tanks, long drops, grease traps and greywater systems, but not other systems.

5. Public feedback about the proposed removal of the septic tank pump-out service and associated targeted rate was sought during consultation on the Annual Budget 2019/2020.

6. Waitākere Ranges Local Board and residents indicated strong support for retaining the pump-out service. Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour Local Boards and residents did not indicate a strong desire to retain the service in their areas.

7. Following consultation, the Governing Body resolved to retain the pump-out service and associated targeted rate until June 2021 (resolution GB/2019/40). They asked staff to provide options for a future model to respond to the feedback received from the Waitākere Ranges area, including advice on costs and the appropriate level of rate (resolution GB/2019/40).

8. Two options have been developed:

· Option A – a three-yearly pump-out service that continues the current service at an approximate cost of $277 per year, per system (including GST) in the Waitākere Ranges area only

· Option B – a three-yearly pump-out service with an additional enhanced inspection of the entire onsite wastewater system to ensure compliance with the current standards at an approximate cost of $314 per year, per system (including GST) in the Waitākere Ranges area only.

9. Both options seek to recover the full cost of delivering the service, which includes council’s overhead, via a targeted rate. Costs included in this report are the likely estimate, not the maximum estimate.

10. The two options were assessed against various criteria such as their convenience for residents, potential to improve water quality, local board views, cost and risk to the council.

11. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board preference is that the pump out service be retained, and an enhanced inspection provided as in option B. However, they recommend overhead costs and the cost of the enhanced inspection be covered by general rates or funded by the water quality targeted rate (see resolution WTK/2019/107).

12. Staff have considered the board’s recommendation and note that it would not be equitable for regional rates to continue to subsidise a private service. Property owners outside the Waitākere Ranges pump-out programme area would be subsidising those in Waitākere. This would include the 36,000 properties outside of the Waitākere Ranges local board area that have onsite waster systems who individually pay the full cost of pump-out and inspection of their onsite wastewater systems.

13. Staff consider that the pump-out service does not provide any additional public benefit to enhance water quality. Staff consider the regional wastewater compliance programme, as funded by the water quality targeted rate, the best way to address water quality issues.

14. While option B is more convenient for homeowners it will cost homeowners more and carries more cost uncertainty and perceived liability to the council.

15. Overall, staff recommend option A, a pump out service funded by a cost recoverable targeted rate which is like the service currently provided. Both options are expected to have a similar impact on water quality outcomes.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve, subject to consultation, that the current legacy Waitākere City Council septic tank pump-out service be limited to properties within the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area after 30 June 2021, and that the associated targeted rate be revised to fully recover the cost of the service;

b) recommend that the Governing Body include the proposed changes to the current legacy Waitākere City Council septic tank pump-out service and the associated targeted rate in the consultation document for the Annual Budget 2020/2021;

c) note that final decisions on the service and the associated targeted rate will be made by the Governing Body (or relevant committee) as part of the decisions on the Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Horopaki

Context

16. To improve water quality, the legacy Waitākere City Council established a targeted rate for property owners with septic tank systems to fund a three-yearly pump-out of their system.

17. It currently services 4,228 systems across the Waitākere Ranges, Henderson-Massey, and Upper Harbour local board areas.

18. There are 3,461 systems across 3,210 properties in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area that currently receive this service. In 2019/2020 the annual rate is $198.43 (including GST) for each onsite wastewater system belonging to the relevant property. Where properties have multiple systems, they pay a corresponding number of targeted rates. 196 properties have two systems and 24 properties have more than two systems.

19. Property owners with onsite wastewater systems outside the pump-out programme area, approximately 36,000 properties, are required to privately arrange and pay the full cost of pump-out and inspection of their onsite wastewater systems.

Regional compliance programme for wastewater systems

20. The Auckland Unitary Plan sets the inspection frequency and requires property owners to provide their service records to council upon request. A primary system (septic tank) must be inspected every three years. A system must be pumped-out when 50 per cent of the tank’s volume is occupied by sludge and solids.

21. A region-wide water quality targeted rate was introduced in July 2018. Two per cent of this rate funds a wastewater compliance programme which will:

· build and monitor a database of all permitted onsite wastewater systems (primary, secondary, and advanced)

· work with industry to improve their practices

· educate property owners on the impact their system can have on the environment

· emphasizes the property owner’s responsibility to keep their system functioning well to avoid water contamination

· fund additional compliance staff to monitor system maintenance.

22. The water quality targeted rate compliance programme currently involves targeted investigations in priority areas around Auckland which have shown poor water quality results in Safeswim analysis. Properties in Piha, Little Oneroa, Huia, and Te Henga have been investigated so far.

23. As part of investigations, compliance staff request inspection records from property owners and follow up with enforcement actions if maintenance issues are not addressed. These investigations have shown low compliance with system maintenance, with most properties not having their systems suitably inspected and maintained. Prior to investigations, 10 per cent of properties in the Piha investigation area had compliant inspection records. As a result of the investigations, 98 per cent of properties now have compliant records.

24. From 2021, staff aim to be able to use a database to request inspection records from all property owners with permitted onsite wastewater in the Auckland region - approximately 40,000 properties.

25. The inspection currently offered through the septic tank pump-out targeted rate is not enough for these compliance purposes. This means property owners must pay an additional fee (usually $100 to $180, depending on the system and company) to a private company for a service, consistent with all other properties across Auckland.

26. With the compliance programme being delivered in targeted areas, staff considered the scope of the legacy Waitākere septic tank pump-out service and identified that it:

· services approximately half the onsite wastewater systems in the local board areas

· only pumps the sludge out of the septic tank, long drop or grease trap

· cannot include secondary or advanced systems

· does not cover the inspection or maintenance of all system components

· set the expectation that property owners do not need to do any further inspections or maintenance of their systems in between pump-outs.

Consultation on ending the targeted rate through the Annual Budget 2019/2020

27. In the Annual Budget 2019/2020 consultation process, submitters were asked to indicate their support for six proposed changes to targeted rates and fees, including removal of the Waitākere septic tank pump-out targeted rate.

28. In the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area, 253 people provided general feedback on the regional targeted rates proposals.

29. 184 of these submitters specifically mentioned the septic tank pump-out targeted rate. Of these, 7 per cent (12 people) supported removal of the rate and 93 per cent (172 people) opposed the removal of the rate.

30. The Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour Local Boards both supported the removal of the septic tank pump-out targeted rate in their local board areas from 1 July 2021 (see attachment A, resolutions UH/2018/116 and HM/2019/11).

31. Due to this strong support from Waitākere Ranges residents for retaining the septic tank pump-out targeted rate, the Governing Body resolved to retain the service and associated targeted rate until June 2021. They also asked staff to provide options for a future model for a new contract from 1 July 2021 (resolution GB/2019/40).

32. The options that staff have considered all involve restricting the septic tank pump-out targeted rate to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area. All properties currently paying the rate will receive the current pump-out service prior to the contract expiring.

Timelines

33. The current contract for the pump out service is due to expire on 1 July 2021. To enable procurement on any option a council decision is needed no later than 30 June 2020.

34. Due to the timing of the 2019 local government elections, the committee is asked to forward the endorsed option to the Governing Body for inclusion in the draft 2020/2021 Annual Budget.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Options analysis – Preferred approach to providing the pump-out service

35. Feedback on the Annual Budget 2019/2020 showed both public concern for water quality and strong support for the septic tank pump-out service in the Waitākere Ranges as a convenience to homeowners. Staff have considered these factors, as well as potential risks, in assessing the options.

36. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has advocated to retain the service, noting that it ensures best practice of a three-yearly pump out of septic tanks (resolution WTK/2019/107).

37. Two feasible options for the Waitākere Ranges septic tank pump out scheme have been developed:

· Option A: a three-yearly pump-out, equivalent to the current service

· Option B: a three-yearly pump-out and an enhanced inspection of the entire onsite wastewater system to ensure compliance.

38. The costs of the service (including labour, sucker truck, disposal and contractors’ costs) and council costs (including contract administration and management and the cost of managing the rate) have been estimated as per Table 1 below.

39. Staff have analysed the two options against key criteria such as cost, likely impact on water quality, convenience to rate payers, local board views and noted risks or assumptions for each.

40. In each option it is assumed that regional compliance monitoring will apply to all wastewater systems from July 2021, and that the service will only apply to properties within the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area.

41. Staff have also sought feedback from the Waitākere Ranges Local Board, who provided their views through resolutions at a business meeting on 22 August 2019 (resolution WTK/2019/107).

Table 1. Analysis of options for pump-out service against key criteria

Option	Rate per system (inc GST)		Water quality	Convenience	Local board view	Risks and assumptions
Option A: pump-out of primary systems (recommended)	$277 per year Over three years: Service cost: $571 Council cost: $259 Total: $830		Moderate: Multiple factors contribute to water quality. Additional service needs are the responsibility of the owner.	Moderate: Additional inspection must be booked separately. Additional maintenance may be required.	Not preferred: Local board supports retaining a pump-out but believes the increased cost should be funded in another way.	Property owners will arrange additional inspections to meet regional compliance requirements.
Option B: pump-out and enhanced inspection of primary systems	$314 per year Over three years: Service cost: $682 Council cost: $260 Total: $942		Moderate: Multiple factors contribute to water quality. Additional maintenance needs are the responsibility of the owner.	High: Service would provide full 3-yearly service and inspection requirements. Additional maintenance may be required.	Preferred: Local board supports providing both a pump-out and enhanced inspection. Recommends the increased cost of the pump-out and the inspection be funded in another way.	Council will be liable for the cost of failure if any issues with the system are not picked up during inspection. Potential higher cost to manage and respond to complaints (staff and contractor time). The cost estimate is more subject to change than option A as it requires putting in a new service.
Options Eliminated
Ceasing the service		This was not considered due to the strong support from local residents and the direction from the Governing Body to develop an alternative option.
Status quo – a pump out programme at the same cost as 2019/2020		The local board has requested that the service be provided at the same cost as in 2019/2020. An objective of targeted rates is for the cost of the service to be covered by the rate. The contract rates for the service will need to be re-negotiated to reflect the change in geographical scope (from a larger catchment to a smaller more distant one) of service. The contract also needs to reflect additional contract management costs to be incurred by council in managing this local rate and service (for instance due to increased waste disposal fees). This means a status quo option is not practicable.
Servicing all types of onsite systems		Several contracts would be needed under this option, due to the complexity of advanced systems which, in some cases, can only be inspected by staff qualified by the manufacturer. Due to the complexity of engaging multiple suppliers through different contracts, and the increased pricing that would result, this option is not practicable.
Regionwide service for all system types		This was eliminated as it would be complex to implement and create a significantly increased cost for all owners of onsite wastewater systems.

Increased cost for both options

42. Both proposed options cost more than the status quo. This is because properties that are easy to access and closer to the Rosedale disposal plant are cheaper to service, and therefore subsidise the higher cost of more remote rural properties in areas. There are more remote properties in Waitākere Ranges than in the Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour local board areas.

43. Reducing the number of properties serviced through the pump-out programme from the 4,228 systems currently serviced to the 3,461 in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area will also reduce the service’s efficiency of scale.

44. The proposed rates also fully recover the council’s costs – in 2018/2019 the council absorbed approximately $100,000 of additional costs from delivering the septic tank pump-out service.

Both options will have similar impacts on water quality

45. As faulty onsite wastewater systems are only one contributor to water quality issues, it is difficult to estimate how much changes to the pump-out service, as proposed in option B, will change water quality in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area.

46. Sampling shows that despite the current pump-out programme, there is human faecal contamination in many waterways in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board Area. This could come from septic tanks, advanced systems not covered by the pump-out programme, overloaded public systems, or people not using toilet facilities.

47. The pump-out programme, as it is currently delivered, guarantees that the tank is pumped out. It does not guarantee that the system is suitably treating wastewater or that all faults are repaired. If property owners do not do maintenance in-between pump-outs and part of the system is not functioning properly, contamination can occur. This is the case for both Options A and B (which both involve only visiting properties once every three years).

48. Water quality testing prior to compliance investigations in Piha (May 2018) showed sites with human faecal contamination in wet and dry conditions. Compliance staff then contacted property owners to request proof that inspections and maintenance had taken place. Once records showed that 98 per cent of properties were compliant, follow-up water quality testing showed no sites with human faecal contamination in dry conditions. These results indicate that, despite the pump-out service being provided in this area, human faecal contamination was only reduced after compliance action was taken in the area.

49. The regional compliance monitoring programme funded by the water quality targeted rate will require that all property owners arrange inspections, and undertake any maintenance and repairs, regardless of system type. In turn, this will contribute to enhanced water quality, as demonstrated by the targeted investigations. Staff consider this programme to be the best way to address water quality issues.

50. Based on the data from compliance investigations, staff do not believe that either the current pump-out programme or option B will offer additional public benefit to regional water quality. The primary benefit is increased convenience to the property owner.

Recommended Option A– Provide a pump-out only service in the Waitākere Ranges

51. Within the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area, staff identified that both options are likely to have a similar impact on water quality for the reasons outlined above. Under both options, properties will receive regular pump-outs.

52. Both options will cost more than the current targeted rate because:

· they will cover the full cost to council for administering the service

· the service area is reduced, removing the properties that were cheaper to service.

53. Option B is likely to be more convenient for homeowners as they will receive both the pump-out and inspections at the same time and will not have to organise their own inspections.

54. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has also indicated that they support delivery of an enhanced inspection, as included in option B. It is their view that this will contribute to improved water quality and be responsive to the special protective provisions of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

55. However, option B also has some significant drawbacks. These are described below.

56. Increased cost and cost variability - option B will cost at least $37 more per system per year. Due to the potential variability of inspections, it is difficult to establish a fixed cost per property, as the layout for each onsite wastewater system will vary depending on the location of the disposal field. Staff are undertaking pilot studies to develop some non-invasive inspection techniques to identify disposal field location (such as thermal imaging) but are unlikely to have a proven methodology in place for contract negotiations.

57. Costings in this report assume that one contractor could complete the enhanced inspection at the same time as the pump-out. However, if an enhanced inspection is introduced then suppliers may need to provide the inspections and pump-out separately due to the different skill sets and equipment required. If the tender process reveals the need for additional staff, increased training or additional visits, the current estimated service cost of $314 may significantly increase.

58. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board believe the cost of enhanced inspections should be absorbed by general rates or the water quality targeted rate. The assessment from staff is that it would not be equitable for regional rates to continue to subsidise a private service.

59. Council liability for systems failures - the systems are private assets and the responsibility for maintenance and repair sits with the owner. If the council is inspecting these systems, there is a risk of assumed liability if part of that system fails following a council-run inspection. This would not only result in increased requests for service and management of potential complaints outside of the contract scope, but also potentially complicate compliance actions if required.

60. Contractor capacity - all contractor staff would need to be skilled for the higher level of inspection, which industry has advised to council is typically above the current skills required of sucker truck operatives.

61. For these reasons staff recommend option A - a three-yearly pump-out of septic tanks in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area only.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

62. Council’s Healthy Waters team continues to work closely with both Watercare and Regulatory Services to improve water quality outcomes. Specifically, in this area staff are working collaboratively on compliance of permitted sites through the water quality targeted rate work programme.

63. Relevant council staff (Healthy Waters, Finance, and Licensing and Compliance) have worked collaboratively to consider the future of this rate so that there is alignment with the objectives and work of the water quality targeted rate.

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

Local impacts and local board views

64. The Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour Local Boards will be affected by this proposal. Through the Annual Budget 2019/2020 consultation process both boards indicated support for removal of the septic tank pump-out targeted rate from their local board areas (resolutions UH/2018/116 and HM/2019/41 are shown in Attachment A).

65. Both Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour Local Boards received a memo in July 2019 about the proposal to remove the rate and service from their areas. This memo asked them to indicate if they wished to provide further feedback. Neither local board has provided any further feedback.

66. Any proposal to expand or reinstate the previous targeted rate to include other areas would require full consultation with impacted boards and communities and would not be able to be completed in time for the finalisation of the 2020/2021 Annual Budget.

Waitākere Ranges Local Board views

67. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board had a workshop with staff to discuss the detail of the options, and then passed resolutions at a business meeting on 22 August 2019 (resolution WTK/2019/107). The full text is shown below:

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) recommends the Environment and Community Committee supports a status quo option of continuing to provide the septic tank pump out service to residents within the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area through a targeted rate

b) notes that the proposed option A in the report is to:

i) change the boundary of the Waitākere rural sewage targeted rate area to properties within the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area only

ii) move to a full cost recovery model for the targeted rate which increases the cost

c) notes that the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 contains special protective provisions which requires Auckland Council to have regard

d) notes that the pump out system was introduced by the Waitākere City Council to improve water quality

e) recommends overhead costs be covered by general rates or alternatively, funded by the Water Quality Targeted Rate paid by owners who are part of the sceptic tank pump out programme. Council services are often a mix of funding sources.

f) recommends enhanced inspection costs be covered by water quality targeted rate to reflect the environmental benefits associated with enhanced monitoring

g) considers that retaining the septic tank pump out service for Waitākere Ranges area will:

i) ensure best practice of a 3 yearly pump out of septic tanks

ii) act as a control group for other rural areas while studies are underway to better understand the causes of poor water quality in our harbours, beaches and streams. Many of the polluted beaches are in areas with reticulated sewage

iii) help take the rural community with us while we seek to improve water quality across the region, where the major focus is on urban infrastructure improvements

iv) provide the chance to review the septic tank pump out contract to look for efficiencies and improvements.

68. Staff have considered the board’s recommendation to absorb the council costs and additional inspection cost, rather than making the rate fully cost recovered from the property owners receiving the service.

69. Notwithstanding the regional importance of the Waitākere Ranges, the assessment from staff is that it would not be equitable for regional rates to continue to subsidise a private service. Property owners outside the Waitākere Ranges pump-out programme area, approximately 36,000 properties, pay the full cost of pump-out and inspection of their onsite wastewater systems.

70. As stated above, staff’s analysis is that the pump-out service does not provide any additional public benefit to enhance water quality. Staff consider the regional wastewater compliance programme, as funded by the water quality targeted rate, the best way to address water quality issues

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

71. Preventing waterway contamination is of high importance to Māori. Te Kawerau ā Maki have provided feedback that they support the regional compliance work being delivered by the water quality targeted rate in their rohe.

72. Four mana whenua groups with interests in the affected area were advised of the proposed changes by email on 16 August 2019:

a. Te Kawerau ā Maki have indicated their preference for option B due to risk of neglected and failing systems and the cumulative implications this will have on local environments. They did not provide specific feedback on the pump-out rate during the 2019/2020 Annual Budget consultation.

b. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua have asked to be updated on the outcome of this meeting.

c. no comment was received from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei or Ngā Maunga Whakahī o Kaipara prior to the completion of this report.

73. Staff acknowledge the preference of Te Kawerau ā Maki, however note that environmental outcomes are more likely to be improved through the regional wastewater compliance programme, as discussed in this report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

74. The cost of the current three yearly pump out for each system is $198.43 (including GST) per annum, an increase of $3.89 from 2018/2019.

75. Auckland Council absorbed approximately $100,000 of additional costs from delivering the septic tank pump-out service in 2018/2019. The existing targeted rate would need to increase to cover these costs, regardless of any changes to the service level and scope from 1 July 2021. The new rate should cover all known costs of council administering the pump-out programme and estimated costs have been calculated to reflect the cost of administrating this service. Components of the total cost of the expected rates under both options are summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Cost components of proposed Waitākere Ranges Septic Tank Programme Options

	Cost type	Total programme cost over one year (inc GST)	Total programme cost over three years (inc GST)	Rate per system per year (inc GST)	Rate per system over 3 years (inc GST)
Council costs	Total Healthy Waters staff costs	$214,666	$643,998	$62	$186
	Council overhead costs	$86,263	$258,789	$25	$75
	Total council administration costs	$300,929	$902,787	$87	$261
Contractor costs	Option A: pump out only	$659,333	$1.98m	$190	$570
Contractor costs	Option B: pump out and inspection	$785,833	$2.36m	$227	$681
Total costs	Total costs Option A	$960,262	$2.88m	$277	$831
Total costs	Total costs Option B	$1.09m	$3.26m	$314	$942

76. Under option A, homeowners will also have to arrange their own inspections with a private company every three years. This usually costs between $100 and $180.

77. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board requested that the absorb the overhead costs ($258,789 over three years) and some or all of the enhanced inspection costs ($379,500) be covered by the water quality targeted rate to reflect the associated environmental benefits (resolution WTK/2019/107).

78. Staff from Finance and Healthy Waters do not recommend absorbing these costs as it would set an unfair precedent for the management of other targeted rates in the region.

79. If option B was offered, there would be no need for additional monitoring of those systems which would have been provided under the wastewater compliance programme with the regional water quality targeted rate. As such, the Waitākere Ranges local board have recommended that the cost of that monitoring be removed from the total pump-out rate. For the average property, paying a water quality targeted rate of $66 per annum, this would equate to a saving of $1.20 per annum. If option B is approved by the committee, staff support removing this monitoring cost

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

80. The risks and potential mitigations for both options are shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Risks and mitigations septic tank pump out options Waitākere Ranges

Risks

Mitigations

Option A

No water quality improvement from investment

The current pump-out service by itself has not been shown to have a significant impact on water quality.

Compliance enforcement is being introduced to better address wider septic tank issues, particularly regular inspections and maintenance when faults occur. With this option property owners will be required to arrange their own inspections with a private company every three years.

Option B

Inspection limitations

The enhanced inspection will be considered enough for compliance purposes as an assessment of the function of the system. However, it will not assess whether the system is being used as originally designed.

Additional compliance auditing of the inspection records would be required to monitor quality of inspections and compare current system (as built) to designed system (consent).

Council liability for failures under enhanced inspection

If a council-provided inspection declares a system as compliant, and part of the system subsequently fails, the council could be held liable for repair or replacement costs, which could be significant.

This risk is difficult to mitigate because the council will hold legal liability for systems functioning effectively.

It is more appropriate for private companies to hold this risk and the mitigation is suggested to occur through not recommending this option.

Cost uncertainties

This option provides a new service and the cost is then more subject to change, depending on the outcomes of the tender process. Costs included in this report are the likely estimate, not the maximum estimate.

These risks can be mitigated through the contract negotiation and on-going management of the rate, and through additional work being undertaken under the water quality targeted rate.

Staff have been working closely with suppliers to understand costs

Both options

Reputational risk

Both options incur a cost increase, and a reasonable proportion of the cost is a result of internal council costs. Fully recovering the cost of the service is perceived to not recognise the public good provided by the service.

The council could absorb some of these internal costs. They would be passed on in the general rates. This recognises the public good benefit of actions improving water quality, given the high value of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area to all Aucklanders.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

81. The committee’s decision on the preferred option will be recommended to the appropriate committee of Auckland Council for inclusion in the 2020/2021 Annual Budget process.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local Board Resolutions	59

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Elizabeth Johnson - Senior Healthy Waters Specialist

Andrew Chin - Head of Healthy Waters Strategy

Authorisers

Craig Mcilroy - General Manager Healthy Waters

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Koro Dickinson - Executive Officer

Environment and Community Committee

10 September 2019

Auckland Council Sea Change Political Reference Group progress update for Hauraki Gulf outcomes

File No.: CP2019/15349

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To report on Auckland Council group’s progress against its agreed 2017 work programme to advance council’s shared vision with the Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan, which seeks to improve outcomes in Tikapa Moana / the Hauraki Gulf.

2. To review the scope, value and need for the Auckland Council Sea Change Political Reference Group.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan (the Sea Change plan) was released in December 2016.

4. At the Planning Committee’s direction, and as approved by the Environment and Community Committee, staff prepared an agreed council group work programme to advance shared objectives with the Sea Change plan. Additionally, the Auckland Council Sea Change Political Reference Group (the political reference group) was established in late 2017 to provide oversight and guidance to council group staff on the work programme.

5. Staff have recently completed a 2019 progress update (Attachment A), to evaluate progress made against the 2017 work programme. The council group is undertaking a significant amount of work in line with the vision and shared objectives of the Sea Change plan.

6. The council group has also maintained relationships and regular interaction with other agencies in the Hauraki Gulf and the Hauraki Gulf Forum throughout the past two years, at both elected representative and staff levels.

7. Recognising the potential to further integrate council group activities to improve outcomes for the Hauraki Gulf, it is recommended that the political reference group continues through to December 2020. It is proposed this group be renamed to the Auckland Council Hauraki Gulf Political Reference Group. Membership is also proposed to be broadened to include the Chair or Deputy Chair from the Finance and Performance and the Regulatory Committees, to further integrate council functions, beyond environment, community and planning functions.

8. An updated Terms of Reference that reflects the above is attached (Attachment B).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) acknowledge Auckland Council group’s progress against the agreed 2017 work programme to advance shared outcomes with the Sea Change plan.

b) approve the continuation of an Auckland Council political reference group to oversee the Auckland Council group’s activities of consequence to the Hauraki Gulf, with the following changes, as incorporated within the updated Terms of Reference:

i) an increased focus on cross-functional council integration between environmental, planning, regulatory and financial disciplines, including broadened councillor membership to reflect these functions

ii) an adjusted title being the Auckland Council Hauraki Gulf Political Reference Group to reflect a broader range of activities with a bearing on Hauraki Gulf outcomes.

c) reaffirm the ongoing need for the council group to consider and prioritise aspirations and actions for the Hauraki Gulf in all relevant activities to achieve desired positive outcomes, consistent with statutory obligations and strategic directions.

d) delegate to the Chair of the relevant committee authorisation of any membership changes to the Auckland Council Hauraki Gulf Political Reference Group.

Horopaki

Context

Background of the Sea Change Plan

9. The Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan (the Sea Change plan) was released in December 2016, following development by an independent Stakeholder Working Group over the preceding three years.

10. The Sea Change plan’s vision is to ensure that the mauri of the Hauraki Gulf is strong, and it is vibrant with life, productive, and supports healthy and prosperous communities.

11. The Planning Committee meeting of 2 May 2017 (PLA/2017/50) acknowledged the shared vision and intent of the Sea Change plan and Auckland Council’s goals, following the public release of the Sea Change plan.

12. At the direction of the Planning Committee, and with input from across the council group, staff prepared a proposed work programme between May and September 2017. Objectives of the Sea Change plan were assessed against current and planned council activities and considered funding and prioritisation of new activities. The Environment and Community Committee meeting of 12 September 2017 (ENV/2017/115) approved (subject to funding) the proposed work programme as council’s initial response.

Background of the Auckland Council Sea Change Political Reference Group

13. The Planning Committee meeting of 2 May 2017 also resolved to form an Auckland Council Sea Change Political Reference Group. The political refence group’s Terms of Reference and membership were subsequently approved at the 12 September 2017 Environment and Community Committee meeting, with the purpose being:

a) oversight and guidance to council group activities focusing on prioritisation and integration of work programmes and outcomes

b) where possible, integrate the council group work programme with the work programme of other agencies in the Hauraki Gulf and Hauraki Gulf Forum.

14. The Terms of Reference indicated that the group should report back to the parent committee, the Environment and Community Committee, by September 2019, at which point the scope, value and need for the group should be reviewed. This report is the first time since its inception that the political reference group has reported back to the Committee.

15. The initial membership of the political reference group was agreed at the 12 September 2017 Environment and Community Committee meeting and consisted of: Councillors Hulse, Filipaina, Cashmore, Darby and Wayne Walker, Independent Māori Statutory Board member Liane Ngamane and Waiheke Local Board member John Meeuwsen.

16. Subsequently, consistent with discussion at the Environment and Community Committee, additional local board representatives from mainland local boards bordering the Hauraki Gulf (Franklin, Rodney, Hibiscus and Bays, and Central Isthmus representation) were added. The group’s Terms of Reference and membership were finalised in December 2017.

17. The group has met five times since it was finalised, where the progressive embedding of the 2017 work programme has been discussed.

18. In accordance with their Terms of Reference, the group has provided oversight and guidance to staff on activities identified in the work programme. The group has encouraged departments and council-controlled organisations (CCOs) to enhance their initiatives, improve integration of complementary projects, and tailor work programmes to recognise further opportunities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Progress against the 2017 work programme

19. Staff have recently assessed progress against the 2017 work programme, noting the wide range of council group activities that contribute to shared objectives with the Sea Change plan. This is presented in the 2019 progress update, appended as Attachment A.

20. The 2019 progress update highlights the significant amount of work the council group has undertaken to improve outcomes for the Hauraki Gulf. The breadth of council group activity in the Hauraki Gulf aligns with objectives of the Sea Change plan, and many of these activities have progressed significantly in two years.

21. Additionally, the stocktake of activities has been beneficial in identifying and demonstrating the range of council departments and CCOs working towards shared outcomes and undertaking complementary activities. The council group’s response to the Sea Change plan has enabled more aligned and integrated working towards shared aspirations. This could be improved further to seek multiple wins through initiatives whose primary aim may not be central to Hauraki Gulf outcomes.

22. While many of the council group’s activities contribute to the objectives identified in the Sea Change plan, not all these activities were initiated as a direct response to the plan. There are many statutory and non-statutory drivers for the activities in the 2017 work programme, of which the Sea Change plan is one. The council group has a much broader reach into the community of the Auckland region than possible through one initiative, and several of these other initiatives have long lead-in times.

Integration with other agencies in the Hauraki Gulf and the Hauraki Gulf Forum

23. The second aspect of the political reference group’s Terms of Reference is to integrate the council group work programme with the work programmes of other agencies in the Hauraki Gulf and the Hauraki Gulf Forum, where possible. The council group interacts with other agencies and the Hauraki Gulf Forum regularly, through a variety of means.

24. Five Governing Body members and two local board members from the Hauraki Gulf Islands represent Auckland Council on the Hauraki Gulf Forum. Central government ministries, other councils within the Waikato region, and tangata whenua are also represented. Council staff are members of the technical officers’ group for the Forum, enabling inter-agency coordination at a staff level. Staff provide a constituent party report at each meeting of the Forum, to provide an update on council’s activities associated with the Hauraki Gulf.

25. Council’s 2019 progress update was presented by the political reference group Chair, Deputy Chair and Lead Officer to the Hauraki Gulf Forum at its 19 August 2019 meeting. The aim was to inform the Forum and acknowledge the positive outcomes sought for the Hauraki Gulf. The presentation was well received by Forum members.

Office of the Auditor General report

26. The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) undertook an audit of the process used to develop the Sea Change plan, as it was considered the first attempt at marine spatial planning in New Zealand and used unique collaboration mechanisms. The OAG report, entitled ‘Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari: Creating a Marine Spatial Plan for the Hauraki Gulf’, was published in December 2018.

27. The key findings of the OAG report included observations of limited consultation of interests beyond the Stakeholder Working Group members, and limited consideration by the Stakeholder Working Group of what agencies were already doing, and how agencies would implement the published plan.

Central Government approach to Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari

28. On 22 November 2018, central government announced the establishment of a proposed Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC). The role of the MAC is to provide the Department of Conservation (DoC) and the Ministry for Primary Industries a sounding board and independent advice during the development of a government response strategy to the Sea Change plan. The MAC held its first meeting on 30 July 2019 and is intended to be in place for one year.

29. The final terms of reference for the MAC have not yet been publicly released, but advice from DoC is that the MAC will focus on the central government responsibilities of conservation and fisheries management.

Proposed Auckland Council Hauraki Gulf Political Reference Group

30. The existing political reference group acknowledges that Hauraki Gulf aspirations are being progressed through various initiatives. The Sea Change plan is one important reference point amongst a range of strategies, plans and activities with a bearing on the Hauraki Gulf.

31. Since the 2017 council group work programme was agreed, several additional activities have been initiated that contribute to improved Hauraki Gulf outcomes. An example is the America’s Cup 36 programme, which will transform the waterfront area and initiate various legacy and leverage projects across a wider geographic area.

32. The 2017 work programme only includes activities that respond to objectives and/or themes in the Sea Change plan. Some council group activities and programmes that have a significant impact on Hauraki Gulf outcomes, such as development with coastal implications, were not fully considered in the Sea Change plan. Various council-supported community initiatives to improve Hauraki Gulf outcomes have been ongoing for several years but were also not considered in the Sea Change plan. Embracing these other initiatives should lead to greater synergies, awareness and collective buy-in.

33. In recognition of the above points, it is proposed that the political reference group oversee a broader range of initiatives and considerations important to securing positive outcomes for the Hauraki Gulf. It is recommended the current title of the Auckland Council Sea Change Political Reference Group be renamed to the Auckland Council Hauraki Gulf Political Reference Group.

34. It is proposed that the membership on the political reference group be broadened to include representation (Chair or Deputy Chair) from the Regulatory and Finance and Performance Committees, along with the current representation from the Environment and Community and Planning Committees (or equivalent committee of the whole), along with Independent Māori Statutory Board and Local Board representation. This will enable further integration of a wider array of council group and community activities and aspirations. Such cross-functional integration may also assist in ensuring consideration of Hauraki Gulf outcomes through the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 preparation process.

35. Governing Body membership on the political reference group will be determined based on Chair and/or Deputy Chair roles of the relevant committees.

36. Where existing local board members on the political reference group are re-elected, it is recommended their membership is retained for continuity purposes. Where an existing local board member is not standing or is not re-elected, a replacement will need to be nominated and agreed, encompassing mainland and islands representative(s) as appropriate.

37. It is recommended that the newly constituted political reference group continues for one year, with at least two meetings proposed (approximately March & July 2020), and reporting back to the Environment and Community Committee by December 2020.

38. The changes proposed to the political reference group going forward are summarised in Table 1 below. The updated Terms of Reference are appended as Attachment B.

Table 1: Proposed changes to the existing Auckland Council Sea Change Political Reference Group following the October 2019 elections

Changes	August 2017-September 2019 (Current)	October 2019-December 2020 (Proposed)
Name	Auckland Council Sea Change Political Reference Group	Auckland Council Hauraki Gulf Political Reference Group
Purpose	Consider Sea Change plan as it informs council group activity in the Hauraki Gulf	Consider broader range of initiatives (including Sea Change plan) that advance Hauraki Gulf outcomes
Membership	Linkages between principally two key committees, and Independent Māori Statutory Board and Local Board members, along with interested councillors	Emphasis on further integration across core council committee functions, including regulatory and finance committees, and Independent Māori Statutory Boar and Local Board members
Duration	September 2019 review date in current Terms of Reference	Extend given evolving link with central government initiatives and need for further integrated thinking within council group over next 12 months
Reporting	Environment and Community Committee	Appropriate committee of the whole

39. Recommended areas of focus for the political reference group’s meetings include:

a) cross-functional integration (regulatory, finance, planning, environment and community), with a focus on closing the ‘policy loop’ on council activities

b) links to central government initiatives (e.g. growth and urban development, Essential Freshwater, aquaculture, Treaty Settlements)

c) how initiatives at a local scale affect broader scale outcomes, and whether this is being adequately recognised

d) growth programmes and their impacts and opportunities for the Hauraki Gulf

e) ensuring that council group asset management plans, business cases and procurement practices better reflect how Hauraki Gulf and broader environmental outcomes are secured over the longer term.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

40. As with some council departments, activities undertaken by Watercare, Auckland Transport, Panuku and ATEED influence outcomes for the Hauraki Gulf, in both positive and potentially negative ways. These four CCOs inputted (largely planned) activities to the 2017 work programme. They were invited to provide updates on these activities during the 2019 review process and responded to varying degrees.

41. Many CCO activities are aligned with the objectives of the Sea Change plan. Such activities were not necessarily initiated as a direct response to the Sea Change plan, but in response to a variety of drivers, of which the Sea Change plan is one. Accelerating some of these programmes may be necessary to meet expectations. This will require an evaluation of how that can be done, and reprioritisation to address core responsibilities.

42. Auckland Transport has previously presented to the political reference group on their response to road runoff and associated contaminants. Road runoff continues to be a significant source of pollution of receiving waters in the Auckland region, so it is important that mitigating this remains an ongoing priority for both council and Auckland Transport.

43. In general, there is a clear need for Auckland Council and its CCOs to better assess the impacts of their activities on the values of the Hauraki Gulf, and to respond accordingly.

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

Local impacts and local board views

44. Fifteen local boards have a boundary on the Hauraki Gulf and its tributaries, with two, Waiheke and Aotea / Great Barrier, encompassing key features of the Hauraki Gulf. All local boards were provided a brief written overview of the Sea Change plan and the council group’s response in June 2017 and May 2019.

45. Five local board members are currently included on the political reference group, including four mainland members from local boards bordering the Hauraki Gulf, and one Islands member (representing Waiheke and Aotea / Great Barrier). Local Board representation is intended to continue for the proposed Auckland Council Hauraki Gulf Political Reference Group.

46. There is the opportunity for local boards to include in their 2020 Local Board Plans further initiatives that support improved outcomes for the Hauraki Gulf. Local Boards could usefully look at how their environmental initiatives link together with other neighbouring initiatives at a catchment scale.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

47. Mātauranga Māori and the perspective of mana whenua were woven throughout the Sea Change plan, with four of the 14 members of the Stakeholder Working Group representing mana whenua. Several hui to consider Mātauranga Māori input were held throughout the plan’s development.

48. The Sea Change plan reflects the holistic view and interrelationships that mana whenua, mataawaka and, to an extent, the broader community have with the coastal environment. Bringing together the council group’s activities to highlight the shared goal of improving the Hauraki Gulf, and other coastal environments, is an example of a more integrated approach to coastal environmental management.

49. Mana whenua representatives were invited to contact council staff should they wish to discuss the council’s approach to responding to the Sea Change plan, through progress memos provided in July 2017 and May 2019. This is in addition to direct mana whenua and mataawaka involvement in specific council group activities.

50. The political reference group membership includes a representative of the Independent Māori Statutory Board. Representation is intended to continue for the proposed Auckland Council Hauraki Gulf Political Reference Group.

51. Treaty claims negotiations with central government are ongoing for iwi and hapū with interests in the Hauraki Gulf. These settlements may continue to change the cultural, economic and political landscape in Hauraki and Tāmaki Makaurau.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

52. With the duration of the political reference group being proposed until December 2020, funding of activities in the Hauraki Gulf will largely remain the same as it is currently. Preparatory work for the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 will begin during this time, providing an opportunity to consider funding and reprioritisation of future focus areas to improve Hauraki Gulf outcomes. The political reference group may be able to provide oversight and better integrate positive Hauraki Gulf outcomes into proposals put forward during this process.

53. Achieving positive outcomes for the Hauraki Gulf does not necessarily require additional funding. Positive outcomes can be achieved through re-prioritising council group funding and resources or through ceasing funding of activities that may result in limited value for money or negative impacts. Similarly, internalising costs within overall project objectives will provide for more durable outcomes in future years. Improvement of underlying systems may also highlight opportunities to improve Hauraki Gulf outcomes. Taking a more holistic and integrated approach to any initiative should prevent unintended consequences.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

54. Potential risks to council of not continuing a political reference group for Hauraki Gulf outcomes over the next year include:

a) missed opportunity to integrate regulatory and finance functions with planning and environment functions through a broadened membership on the group

b) missed opportunity to give effect to the more integrated and holistic approach envisaged by the Auckland Plan 2050 and the Sea Change plan

c) missed opportunity to influence the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 and other internal initiatives to prioritise positive outcomes for the Hauraki Gulf

d) failure to continue to embed consideration of Hauraki Gulf outcomes in work programmes of the council group, particularly where Hauraki Gulf impacts are not a significant consideration but should be

e) missed opportunity to strategically align and canvass council group’s work programmes of consequence to the Hauraki Gulf, with other agencies and central government’s response strategy, which will be progressed over the following year with support from the Ministerial Advisory Committee.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

55. Following a decision on the future title, purpose and membership for the proposed Auckland Council Hauraki Gulf Political Reference Group, this group is proposed to meet for the first time in March 2020.

56. The process of nominating and agreeing new members, where existing membership changes, will need to be done following the October 2019 elections and prior to the newly constituted political reference group’s first meeting. For efficiency purposes, it is recommended the Chair of the relevant committee of the whole is delegated to authorise any such changes arising from the local body elections.

57. It is proposed the reference group should report back to the relevant committee of the whole in December 2020. The report back may include:

a) an outline of the improved integration between the council group’s environmental, planning, regulatory and finance functions

b) how identified gaps in departmental and CCO awareness and responses can be addressed

c) a review of how the council group has aligned with and influenced central government initiatives in the Hauraki Gulf, as it relates to council responsibilities

d) identification of proposed priority areas for the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 process and other future council group initiatives, to enhance positive outcomes for the Hauraki Gulf

e) an overview of positive outcomes for the Hauraki Gulf that have been achieved and/or enabled through the political reference group.

58. It is not recommended, at this stage, that the political reference group will need to continue for more than one year.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	2019 Progress Update - Auckland Council group activities contributing to shared objectives with the Sea Change plan	69
b ⇩	Updated Terms of Reference - Auckland Council Hauraki Gulf Political Reference Group	79

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Rebecca Forgesson - Analyst - Strategy

Dave Allen - Manager Natural Environment Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Koro Dickinson - Executive Officer

Environment and Community Committee

10 September 2019

Dedication of Road Reserve - Maraetai

File No.: CP2019/16537

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the dedication as a legal road of a road reserve located at 46R Carlton Crescent Maraetai under Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Road reserves held under the Reserves Act are often situated on the city fringe or the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) as it is known under the Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part). This preserves the route for a future road to connect future development through an existing development’s road network when the RUB is extended.

3. Under the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP), the RUB was extended to rezone land at 1 Maraetai Coast Rd, Maraetai that was previously rural.

4. The owner of the land is currently applying for a resource consent to subdivide the land into residential lots.

5. Physical and legal road access to the land can only be achieved via a local purpose road reserve at 46R Carlton Crescent, Maraetai.

6. The road reserve was originally vested in the Crown by a private owner on subdivision of the larger block in 1926 and then transferred to Manukau City Council in 1977.

7. It is proposed to dedicate the road reserve as a legal road so that the subdivision of the property at 1 Maraetai Coast Rd may proceed.

8. A Licence to Occupy 46R Carlton Crescent will need to be granted to the developer before the reserve has been dedicated as a road to enable its construction to Auckland Transport (AT) standards. The Licence to Occupy may be approved under officer/staff delegation.

9. The developer has agreed to place signage on the road reserve once the resource consent has been granted and as far ahead of construction as possible to let neighbours know what will be happening on the site.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) approve the dedication as legal road pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977, the road reserve situated at 46R Carlton Crescent being Lot 2 Deposited Plan 19097 upon approval being granted by Auckland Transport to accept the road into the Transport Network.

b) note that prior to the dedication as a legal road, an occupation licence will be granted to the developer of the adjoining property (to the east) for the purpose of undertaking earthworks and construction of the road.

Horopaki

Context

10. The Reserves Act 1977 provides for land to be reserved and preserved for certain purposes. One of those purposes is for future road development.

11. Road reserves held under the Reserves Act are often situated on the city fringe or the RUB as it is known under the AUP. This preserves the route for a future road to connect future development through an existing development’s road network when the RUB is extended.

12. The property at 46R Carlton Crescent was one of several reserves created on early subdivision of land at Maraetai in 1926 for road purposes. Legally described as Lot 2 DP 19097, it was originally vested in the Crown. The road reserve is shown circled red on the deposited plan in the figure below.

13. In 1977, the land was vested in the former Manukau City Council pursuant to the provisions of Section 44 of the Counties Amendment Act 1961 for road reserve, subject to the Reserves and Domains Act 1953.

14. Pursuant to section 38 of the Municipal Corporations Amendment Act 1971, the council resolved to request a new title. Record of Title NA35D/1312 was issued on 22 March 1977.

15. The title states that the land is subject to the Reserves and Domains Act 1953, but that statute was replaced by the Reserves Act 1977 under which such reserves were automatically classified for their intended purpose.

16. In 2017, a consent was granted for the subdivision of the rural property at 3 Maraetai Coast Road to create a super lot (Lot 1) which became known as 1 Maraetai Coast Rd, (as shown outlined blue on the plan below). The new title created for 1 Maraetai Coast Rd was subsequently sold to a developer for residential development. The subdivision plan is appended to this report as Attachment A.

17. The developer is currently in the process of preparing an application for a subdivision consent on 1 Maraetai Coast Rd, that will require access via 46R Charlton Crescent, being the only point where physical and legal access may be gained to the site. The terrain on the boundary adjoining Maraetai Coast Rd is too steep to form a road, and the current legal access to the property (from Colson Lane) is not wide enough to support traffic from the proposed level of development. A preliminary subdivision plan of housing lots is appended to this report as Attachment B.

18. Through the consenting process, AT may grant approval for the road reserve to be included into the Transport Network provisional upon the developer constructing the road to the appropriate standards.

19. A Licence to Occupy 46R Carlton Crescent will need to be granted to the developer before the reserve has been dedicated as a road to enable its construction to AT standards. The Licence to Occupy may be approved under officer/staff delegation.

20. The developer has agreed to place signage on the road reserve once the resource consent has been granted and as far ahead of construction as possible to let neighbours know what will be happening on the site.

21. Section 111 of the Reserves Act provides for land that was vested in the council for the purposes of a road reserve to be dedicated as a road by council resolution:

111 Road reserve may be dedicated as a road

(1) Where any land is vested in the Crown or in any local authority for the purposes of a road reserve and the land is required for the purposes of a road, the land may be dedicated as a road by notice under the hand of the Minister or, as the case may be, by resolution of the local authority, and lodged with the District Land Registrar.

(2) For the purposes of this section the term road includes any road, street, access way, or service lane; and the expression road reserve has a corresponding meaning.

22. Also, it is worth noting that three other road reserves (shown below) are at the final stages of being dedicated at neighbouring Beachlands – 20R, 52R and 92R Karaka Rd – permitting considerable development to the South.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

23. The dedication of the road reserve will enable the subdivision of 83 lots to proceed, providing additional housing.

24. The dedication will not proceed immediately but only after the developer has completed its obligations under the subdivision consent.

25. The decision sought is in keeping with the AUP.

26. The dedication as a legal road is in accordance with the classification of the reserve.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. Auckland Transport will have to be satisfied with the standard of construction of the road before it will accept it into the roading network. This will be dealt with through the consenting process. Dedication will only proceed following approval of the construction of the road.

28. No other groups are impacted by the decision sought.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. The Franklin Local Board was sent a memo advising the members of this report concerning a road reserve in its area, and the proposed change to the roading network because of the development at 1 Maraetai Coast Rd.

30. Feedback received will be tabled at the committee meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. In May 2018, consultants acting for the owner/developer consulted with both the Makaurau Marae Maori Trust and Ngati-Te-Ata who did not raise any cultural concerns and deferred their interest to Ngai-Tai-ki-Tamaki.

32. In June 2018, Ngai-Tai-ki-Tamaki were consulted regarding the overall development proposal due to the relative proximity of the marae to the residential land. No concerns were expressed about the residential development.

33. An archaeological assessment report prepared for the property in August 2018 did not note anything of cultural significance on the property.

34. While the consultation was not specific to the proposed dedication of road reserve (the subject of this report) it was included in the preliminary plans for the overall development.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. All costs in relation to the subdivision and construction of the road (on the road reserve) will be met by the developer, including surveying of the road if it is required.

36. Auckland Transport will be responsible for future maintenance of the road once formed.

37. The former Manukau City Council policy - for use of road reserves by developers - required developers to pay consideration for the land when it was to be formed as road serving their subdivision. This provision was challenged by a developer of a subdivision and that council waived the requirement in certain circumstances following a review. It was determined that when land is vested as a road reserve and is held for a future public road - then the council could not demand compensation (when it is dedicated as a public road). Consideration is only payable if the land is sold, after revocation of the reserve status, upon a road reserve having been deemed no longer required for a future road.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

38. No risks have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

39. Upon a positive resolution being passed to declare the land road, and a resource consent is granted (to the developer), council will issue a ‘licence to occupy’ to the owner of 1 Maraetai Rd. This will allow for construction of the road on the road reserve.

40. At the completion of the subdivision, council’s engineer will inspect all aspects of the subdivision including the construction of the road. On construction being found satisfactory, the appointed engineer may accept the road on behalf of AT.

41. Council’s Legal Services will then apply to Land Information NZ to publish a notice in the NZ Gazette declaring the land as road. This also involves ministerial consent from the Department of Conservation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Subdivision Plan Super lot	89
b ⇩	Subdivision Plan Housing lots	91

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Allan Walton - Principal Property Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Koro Dickinson - Executive Officer

Environment and Community Committee

10 September 2019

Submission to the Department of Conservation on Te Koiroa o te Koiora - proposals for a biodiversity strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand

File No.: CP2019/16801

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To request input into the Auckland Council submission on the Department of Conservation’s Te Koiroa o te Koiora discussion document on proposals for a biodiversity strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand.

2. To delegate approval of the submission to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment and Community Committee, and an Independent Statutory Māori Board member from that committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The Minister for Conservation has released Te Koiroa o te Koiora Our shared vision for living with nature, a discussion document for proposals for a biodiversity strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand (link), seeking submissions by 22 September 2019.

4. A new national biodiversity strategy will be non-statutory and replace the 2000 strategy entitled Our chance to turn the tide. The new strategy will provide direction and guidance for New Zealand’s biodiversity system, covering all ecological domains extending to the outer edges of the Exclusive Economic Zone.

5. Auckland Council plays an important role in the biodiversity system out to its jurisdiction of the 12-nautical mile limit.

6. Auckland Council staff are preparing a submission to the Department of Conservation. Staff are supportive of the need for a new biodiversity strategy along with the vision, values and principles. However, staff have identified several missed opportunities and areas for improvement in response to the discussion document.

7. Staff invite elected members to provide input to the submission by 13 September 2019. The Auckland Council submission will be developed incorporating feedback from elected members, local board members and Mana Whenua.

8. As the submission is still being developed and the closing date is prior to the next committee meeting, delegation is sought for the Chair, Deputy Chair and an Independent Statutory Māori Board member to approve the final submission.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) delegate approval of the Auckland Council submission on the Department of Conservation’s Te Koiroa o te Koiora discussion document on proposals for a biodiversity strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment and Community Committee, and an Independent Statutory Māori Board member from that committee.

Horopaki

Context

9. In August 2019, the Minister for Conservation has released Te Koiroa o te Koiora Our shared vision for living with nature, a discussion document for proposals for a biodiversity strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand (link), seeking submissions by 22 September 2019.

10. The new biodiversity strategy will replace the current strategy, Our chance to turn the tide from 2000. The new strategy will be non-statutory and will provide direction and guidance for New Zealand’s biodiversity system and contribute towards the global response to declining biodiversity.

11. The Department of Conservation (DOC) are seeking views and feedback on:

· a new 2070 matapopore/vision for biodiversity;

· a set of long-term outcomes and principles founded on mātāpono/values from Te Ao Māori supported by Mātauranga Māori and science;

· a series of goals to 2025, 2030 and 2050 to measure success; and

· five system shifts to implement the biodiversity strategy in its first five years, including proposed initial actions.

12. The strategy will cover all ecological domains including freshwater, land and the marine environment extending to the outer edges of the Exclusive Economic Zone. Auckland Council’s jurisdiction only extends out to the 12-nautical mile limit.

13. Following consideration of feedback, DOC will develop the new biodiversity strategy for the Minister of Conservation. Cabinet will approve the final strategy, so it can be in place for 2020.

14. The National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity will be consulted on separately in October/November 2019.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. Auckland Council staff have considered the Te Koiroa o te Koiora discussion document and identified the following key themes to form the basis of the Auckland Council submission:

a) support the overall intent, vision, values and principles of the proposals for the national biodiversity strategy, however the discussion document lacks logic to understand how the different parts of the framework are linked to achieve the vision. This needs to be clarified.

b) the document does not link well with other government initiatives such as urban development, freshwater, resource management system review and biosecurity 2025. Auckland Council staff consider this is a missed opportunity.

c) missed opportunities include the need for stronger links with climate change impacts on biodiversity, picking up on the urgency expressed through recent public support for change, and urban biodiversity opportunities.

d) the proposed five key system shifts for implementation are not considered to be sufficiently transformative to achieve the vision.

16. Attachment A expands on these key themes.

17. Elected members are invited to provide feedback on the key themes identified, or other aspects of the discussion document, to staff by 13September 2019.

18. The submission will incorporate feedback from elected members, local board members and Mana Whenua. Due to time constraints this report requests delegation to sign-off the final Auckland Council submission.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. Auckland Council staff with roles in biodiversity management are contributing to development of the submission. Watercare staff have indicated an interest in contributing to the draft submission.

20. As this is still a discussion document the future impacts of a new national biodiversity strategy are yet to be determined. However, it is likely to have resource implications.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. The reporting timeline is insufficient to enable local boards to provide formal feedback to inform this report. Local boards were notified of the proposed submission opportunity with a memo on 13 August 2019 and provided with key themes for the submission on 30 August 2019. Informal feedback from local boards to staff was requested by 9 September 2019.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. The discussion document proposes that the new national biodiversity strategy is founded on mātāpono/values from Te Ao Māori supported by Mātauranga Māori and science. These values are highlighted throughout the discussion document with specific long-term outcomes and goals identified for Māori.

23. Mana whenua representatives were notified of the proposed submission opportunity with a memo on 15 August 2019 and invited to provide feedback by 9 September 2019.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. There are no financial implications arising from approving a draft submission. The implications of a future national biodiversity strategy are yet to be determined.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

25. If Council does not make a submission, the Minister of Conservation will not be apprised of Auckland Council’s position on the proposals for the national biodiversity strategy.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. The final draft submission will be circulated on 17 September 2019 to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment and Community Committee, and an Independent Statutory Maori Board member from that committee for review and approval.

27. The Auckland Council submission will be submitted to DOC on 20 September 2019 (the closing date is Sunday 22 September 2019).

28. DOC will develop a new biodiversity strategy, taking account of submissions and feedback from regional workshops, for the Minister of Conservation. Cabinet will approve the final biodiversity strategy.

29. In 2020, DOC will commence discussions on implementation of the strategy.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Key themes for Auckland Council submission response on Te Koiroa o te Koiora	97

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Debbie Hogan - Principal Analyst- Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Koro Dickinson - Executive Officer

Environment and Community Committee

10 September 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)
						FY18/19			FY19/20
						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
Strategic approach to Climate Change	To demonstrate that Auckland is making progress with climate change adaptation and mitigation and taking action to reduce emissions. Next steps · Develop draft plan March – May 2019 · Draft plan to committee for input and adoption June 2019 · Public consultation of draft plan July-August 2019			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 – Res ENV/2019/71 Jul 19 – Draft submission Climate Change Response Amendment Bill - Res ENV/2019/109 Progress to date report was considered December 2018 meeting. Res ENV/2018/170 Workshop scheduled 23 May 2019 Progress to date Report on Auckland’s Climate Action Framework:Consultation draft and approach was considered on 6/11/2018, resolution ENV/2019/71				Q4 (June)
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/2018/11 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.		Q3		Q4	Q1
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		Q3		Q4	Q1
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 TBC.		Q3		Q4	Q1 (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 April 2019 - email to committee re: small grants round opening 1 April to 30 April. A copy of the memo is attachment C of the Summary of Environment and Community Committee Information – updates, memos and briefings – 9 April 2019 report. – April agenda.		Q3 (Mar)		Q4	Q1
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 Workshop – April water discussion document, and to foreshadow and seek the councillors’ input on the contents of the report that will be coming to them in June Progress to date: · A report was considered June 2019 – adopt the Our Water Future ō Tātou Wai Ahu Ake Nei framework Res ENV/2019/75				Q4 (June 19)
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. 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 · 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 Progress to date: 12 March 2019 report to consider the adoption of the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2019. Adoption was approved and the motion was put in parts:ENV/2019/22 – ENV/2019/32		Q3 (Mar)		Q4	Q1
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. Next steps: · Memo to local boards and mana whenua with the final discussion document and plans for informal public consultation February – March 2019 · Informal public and key stakeholder consultation March – May 2019 · Feedback and recommended next steps reported back to participating councils, including Environment and Community Committee and the Upper North Island Strategic Alliance July 2019			Decision on the development of the discussion document for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan for public consultation. 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. Progress to date: 12 February 2019 report To approve the discussion document for an inter-regional marine pest pathway management plan, ahead of informal public consultation between March and May 2019. Res ENV/2019/9				Q4 (July)
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. 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 Progress to date Report Item 16 to December 2018 committee to approve grant recommendations for the 2018/2019 Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grant programme funding round. Res ENV/2018/175 Report to 10 July 2019 to approve an increase in the Regional Historic Heritage Fund. Res ENV/2019/123		Q3		Q4	Q1
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 Next steps: · public consultation on the Auckland Water Strategy discussion document 17 February to 17 March · public engagement feedback presented to elected members – April 2019 · Draft options for the finalisation of the Auckland Water Strategy, and associated work programmes to be presented to the Environment and Community Committee – June 2019			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 ENV/2019/75 Progress to date: Report Item 9 to December 2018 committee meeting- To approve the Auckland Water Strategy discussion document, ahead of public consultation from 17 February 2019 to 17 March 2019. Res ENV/2018/168		Q3		Q4 (June)	Q1
Food Policy Alliance	To consider food policy alliance			Decision on food policy alliance		Q3 (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.		Q3		Q4	Q1
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.		Q3		Q4	Q1
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.		Q3		Q4	Q1
Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan	Status report on implementation plan			Direction on future options for sport and recreation.		Q3			Q1
Sports Investment Plan	Council’s strategic approach to outcomes, priorities and investment in sports Next Steps: · public consultation February to March 2019 · final approval of plan will be sought June 2019 · Implementation of the plan will occur in stages over the next three to five years, depending on council budgetary and planning processes.			Decision on issues papers Draft Plan approval Finalise and adopt investment plan – approval of guidelines 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. Progress to date: December 2018 report - Item 13 To approve the draft Increasing Aucklanders’ participation in sport: Sport investment plan 2019-2039 for public consultation in early 2019. Resolution ENV/2018/172 Report July 2019 Adoption of the Sport Investment Plan Resolution ENV/2019/93		Q3		Q4 (June 2019)	Q1
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. Report back 2020		Q3		Q4	Q1
Indoor Courts	Strategic business case for indoor courts investment			Decision on investment approach		Q3		Q4	Q1
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 2017. 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.		Q3		Q4	Q1
Growth Programme	Update on proposed growth funding allocation for 2018-2020			Decision on growth funding allocation					Q1
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. Report at 11 June 2019 Committee meeting resolution ENV/2019/76		Q3		Q4 (June)	Q1 (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 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		Q3		Q4	Q1
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		Q3		Q4	Q1 (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 reported to committee approved for release on 20 Feb 2018 A report back by August 2018 for approval to initiate public consultation		Q3			Q1 (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.					Q1 (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		Q3	Q4			Q1		Q2
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		Q3	Q4			Q1		Q2
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		Q3	Q4			Q1		Q2
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. Progress to date Report Item 9 April 2019 to approve the revised Community Facilities Network Plan Action Plan (2019) including implementation progress and status of existing actions from 2015 to 2018, and to confirm actions for the period 2019 – 2021. Res ENV/2019/48		Q3 (Mar)	Q4			Q1		Q2
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.						Q1		Q2
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		Q3	Q4			Q1 (Aug)		Q2
Facilities Partnerships Policy		Identify the range of current council approaches to facility partnerships, issues, opportunities and agree next steps Next steps: · 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		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: December 2018 - report seeking approval of the Facility Partnerships Policy. Res ENV/2018/173		Q3	Q4			Q1		Q2
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 Report was considered at 14 May meeting. funding model decision Res ENV/2019/58		Q3 (Feb)	Q4			Q1		Q2
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.				Q3	Q4			Q1		Q2
Affordable Housing Intervention		Understanding NZ and international interventions to address affordable housing		Decision on future Auckland Council approaches to affordable housing interventions		Q3	Q4			Q1		Q2
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		Q3	Q4			Q1 (Sep)		Q2
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		Q3	Q4			Q1		Q2
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)		Q3	Q4			Q1		Q2
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		Q3	Q4			Q1		Q2
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.		Q3	Q4			Q1 (Jul)		Q2
Social Enterprise approaches for youth and long term unemployed		Improved understanding of social enterprise reach, impacts, costs and benefits		Strategic direction on council’s approach to social enterprise.		Q3	Q4			Q1 (Jul)		Q2
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		Q3	Q4			Q1 (Jul)		Q2
Events Policy		A review of what is working well and what isn’t				Q3	Q4			Q1 (Sep)		Q2
Grant Policy Monitoring		Audit of the application of the Grants Policy		Decision on audit results		Q3	Q4			Q1		Q2
Toi Whitiki Strategy		Targeted analysis of social return on investment on specific art and culture investment				Q3	Q4			Q1		Q2
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		Q3	Q4 (Apr)			Q1		Q2
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. Progress to date: A report will be considered at 13 August committee meeting								Q2
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.		Q3	Q4			Q1		Q2
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	Q3	Q4			Q1		Q2
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

Environment and Community Committee

10 September 2019

Demographic advisory panels' achievements in the 2016-19 term

File No.: CP2019/09103

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To note the achievements of the demographic advisory panels this term.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Demographic Advisory Panels have helped with council’s engagement with Tāmaki Makaurau’s diverse peoples, as well as meet the challenges of our region’s super diversity, by:

· Providing feedback on council’s strategies, policies, plans, bylaws and projects

· advising the council on ways to communicate and engage effectively with diverse communities

· bringing to the attention of the council any matters that the panels consider to be of importance for, or concern to, their communities.

3. The Demographic Advisory Panels provided advice and advocacy through:

· their open meetings and closed workshops

· integrated panel meetings on topics of common interest

· newly-established integrated panel meetings with the Governing Body and the Executive Leadership Team

· a new initiative of co-hosting with the Community Development and Safety Committee on a theme of importance to each panel.

4. The panels also facilitated a range of community forums and open meetings and used social media and digital tools to support the council’s communications and engagement efforts with diverse communities.

5. This report provides an overview of the work of the demographic advisory panels over the term. Each panel has prepared its own end of term report, which provides more detail in the attachments (see Attachments A-F). A representative from each of the panels will attend the meeting to present their reports.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) note the report on the demographic advisory panels for the 2016-2019 term.

Horopaki

Context

6. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 S (9) specifies that one of the roles of the Mayor of Auckland is to ensure there is effective engagement between the Auckland Council and the people of Tāmaki Makaurau, including those too young to vote. The Mayor has the power to establish processes and mechanisms for the council to engage with the people of Tāmaki Makaurau, whether generally or particularly (for example, the people of a cultural, ethnic, geographic, or other community of interest).

7. The demographic advisory panels are one of the ways we comply with this legislative requirement, and they help us understand and meet the challenges of super diversity by:

· reviewing and commenting on the content of council’s strategies, policies, plans, bylaws and projects

· advising council on ways to communicate and engage effectively with diverse communities

· bringing to the attention of council any matters that the panels consider to be of importance for or concern to their communities.

8. Auckland Council has six demographic advisory panels: Disability Advisory Panel, Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel, Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel, Rainbow Communities Advisory Panel, Seniors Advisory Panel and the Youth Advisory Panel.

9. The demographic advisory panels’ terms of reference define the objectives and scope of the panels’ work and are based on governing body resolutions.

10. The term of the six demographic advisory panels ends on 12 September 2019.

Meetings and work programmes

11. Panels hold monthly meetings which have been a combination of open meetings and closed workshops. The latter have allowed informal discussion between panels and council staff in early stages of policy and plan development.

12. Two or three integrated panel meetings have been held each year where all panel members were invited to come together to discuss key topics of common interest such as the Auckland Plan refresh, the Long-term Plan and Age Friendly Auckland.

13. From 2018, some of these integrated panel meetings have been held with the Governing Body and the Executive Leadership Team as a way of fostering more strategic connections between the panels and the council. Themes for the meetings have been identified in partnership with the panel chairs and have included transport and housing.

14. Panels have also nominated members to participate in cross-panel working groups on topics such as elections.

Panel priorities for the 2016-2019 term

15. In 2017 the panels developed their own work programmes with a focus on areas of importance to their respective communities. These work programmes were approved by the Environment and Community Committee and provided a framework for the panels in determining which council areas of work to get more actively involved with.

16. Priorities included housing, civic participation, environment, public transport, diversity and inclusion, accessibility and community safety.

Co-hosting the Community Development and Safety Committee

17. During 2019, a new approach was trialled, where each panel co-hosted with the Community Development and Safety Committee a meeting on a key theme of importance to their community. The goal was to include authentic voices of the community, possibly those not normally heard by the council, that would reinforce the issues and theme that the panel wished to present.

18. The topics covered in order of presentation were:

· Seniors Advisory Panel on a smart age friendly Auckland

· Pacific Peoples Panel on a Pacific friendly Auckland

· Disability Advisory Panel on accessible housing

· Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel on an inclusive future for Auckland

· Youth Advisory Panel on transport accessibility, affordability and safety

· Rainbow Communities Advisory Panel on belonging and participation.

Communication and engagement

19. The panels have been encouraged to support the council in its communication and engagement with diverse communities and to engage with their communities by organising community forums or by inviting the public to attend open meetings. These were intended to better inform the council of current community voices and to facilitate discussion between the council and diverse communities on council issues.

20. The panels organised a range of different types of events such as:

· The Disability Advisory Panel held fully accessible disability hui to support and encourage disabled people who may not normally be able to participate in council processes to engage through round table discussions.

· The Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel held open meetings around the region, inviting their communities to attend and to participate in round table discussions. Also, the panel created and launched a microsite to share stories from the community about the future of Tāmaki Makaurau.

· The Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel supported the Health and Hygiene Bylaw review process by facilitating a ‘Tatou Talanoa’ fono (meeting) to discuss council’s approach to tatou and a Youth Fono to discuss employment pathways to council.

· The Rainbow Communities Advisory Panel commissioned a piece of engagement research to understand the rainbow communities’ priorities and inform the panel’s work programme

· The Seniors Advisory Panel hosted a community forum to gain input into the council’s Auckland Plan and Long-term Plan consultations and co-hosted a series of events to support work on the council’s work to become an Age-Friendly Auckland.

· The Youth Advisory Panel organised a range of events and activities including a pub quiz, supporting the elections team with engagement at university events as well as encouraging a range of youth groups to present at open meetings.

21. Advisory Panels have also been proactive in using social and ethnic media, as well as their networks to share council news and to communicate with their communities.

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

Local impacts and local board views

22. While the panels have been set up to advise on regional strategies, plans and policies, several of the panels have involved local boards in community-based open meetings and community forums.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23. Each panel, except the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel and Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel, has at least one member with lived experience in Te Ao Māori and knowledge of the contemporary issues facing Māori communities.

24. Advisory panels’ work programmes are aligned with the Auckland Plan that focuses on enabling Māori aspirations through recognition of Te Tiriti O Waitangi.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25. Demographic advisory panels’ term ends on 12 September 2019, one month prior to the 2019 local government elections. A report to the September Governing Body meeting will outline the findings of a panel review to inform the incoming mayor and governing body on a future form of council’s engagement with diverse communities for the 2019-2022 term of council.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Disability Advisory Panel Report (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel Report (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Rainbow Communities Advisory Panel Report (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Seniors Advisory Panel Report (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Youth Advisory Panel Report (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel Report (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carol Hayward - Principal Advisor Panels

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Koro Dickinson - Executive Officer

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

Date	Subject
15/08/2019	Auckland Council staff feedback on proposals for an updated threat management plan for protecting Hector’s and Māui Dolphins
21/08/2019	Memorandum extension to consultation dates for Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Framework
22/08/2019	Memorandum product stewardship – waiting confirmation if the draft priority consultation submission needs to be added to this memo
27/08/2019	Memorandum SafeSwim 2018/2019 end of season update
29/08/2019	Memorandum Project Hunua 2018
30/085/2019	Memorandum International Relations

Date	Subject
8/08/2019	Haumaru Housing Workshop - CONFIDENTIAL
13/08/2019	Kaipara Moana Remediation workshop - CONFIDENTIAL

Author	Suad Allie - Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Koro Dickinson - Executive Officer