Agenda of Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

11 June 2020

Regional Parks Management Plan Review

File No.: CP2020/04009

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve a comprehensive review of the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 (2010 plan) supports effective parks management, helps protect natural, cultural and heritage values, as well as guides activity and behaviour within parks held on behalf of Aucklanders.

3. The 2010 plan was adopted by the former Auckland Regional Council with a 10-year horizon and provided for a review at the end of this period.

4. Since then, Auckland has seen kauri dieback threaten kauri survival which has led to track closures. At the same time, more park land has been added, regional park visitor numbers have increased, and visitors are using new technology to experience the visit. A comprehensive review of the plan will strengthen alignment with current council strategies and priorities, consider increased environmental stresses including climate change, as well as changes in park use.

5. Approval is sought to initiate a comprehensive review of the plan, as set out in section 41(8) of the Reserves Act 1977, and consistent with the Local Government Act 2002, as well as the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. This requires a two-step statutory consultation process. A timeline including committee workshops and decision-points is provided in Table 1 of this report.

6. Local boards will be involved in the review. This approach is consistent and aligned with the Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws Agreed Principles and Processes 2019.

7. Engagement and consultation will involve and seek input from mana whenua and mataawaka, community partners, user groups, specialist sectors, service delivery partners and the public.

8. The scope of the review includes all regional parks in the 2010 plan (as listed in Attachment A) with the additions of:

· Motukorea / Browns Island

· Mutukaroa / Hamlins Hill

· newly acquired parks that do not yet have a management plan (Glenfern Sanctuary and the Mahurangi East extension)

· the land intended to be included in the Te Ārai variation to the 2010 plan (initiated under Resolution ENV/2017/144).

9. Land on Te Motu a Hiaroa / Puketutu Island, which is leased from Te Motu a Hiaroa Charitable Trust as a regional park, is not confirmed within scope of this review. Potential inclusion will be discussed with the Trust and reported back to this committee.

10. The potential inclusion of the Auckland Botanic Gardens within the scope of this review will be considered further as part of a 1 July committee workshop.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee:

a) approve the initiation of a comprehensive review of the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 following section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977

b) endorse the scope to cover the land managed as regional parks (outlined in Attachment A in this report dated 11 June 2020)

c) approve inclusion of the unfinished Te Ārai variation to the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 (initiated under resolution ENV/2017/144)

d) note that the inclusion of land on Te Motu a Hiaroa / Puketutu Island, which is leased as a regional park, is subject to discussion with the Te Motu a Hiaroa Charitable Trust and will be reported back to this committee

e) note that a committee workshop will be held on 1 July 2020 to discuss the engagement approach, issues for inclusion in a discussion paper to be approved by the committee on 20 August, and the potential inclusion of the Auckland Botanic Gardens in the review.

Horopaki

Context

11. The Governing Body has governance over regional parks (Schedule 1: Governance of Parks of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (LTP)). This responsibility is delegated to the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee.

12. The regional park network of more than 41,000 hectares of park land provides for the protection of intrinsic natural, cultural, heritage and landscape values, as well as offers outdoor recreational opportunities for all Aucklanders.

13. Since 2002, most regional parks have been included in one management plan to provide consistency and transparency.

14. The current plan was adopted by the former Auckland Regional Council in August 2010. The plan sets out the vision for the regional park network and a framework for how regional parks were to be protected, managed and developed over the decade.

Requirements for a review

15. Management plans guide the protection, appropriate use and development of parks. Ecological groups, volunteers, community and commercial lessees, infrastructure providers, council staff and CCOs use management plans to understand:

· direction for parks

· values on parks and how those values are protected

· how the council works with mana whenua in managing the parks

· issues affecting parks and how the council addresses those

· guiding principles and considerations for assessing new activities on parks.

16. The 2010 plan states that the plan should be reviewed after 10 years (i.2. 2020) to ensure an integrated management approach is taken across the regional parks network, reflect the current values, needs and aspirations of communities, including mana whenua.

17. There are statutory requirements to have a current management plan for specific parks within the regional park network:

· for land classified as recreation, scenic, scientific or historic reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 (applies to approximately 10% of regional park land)

· the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park section of the management plan is required to be reviewed every 10 years under section 20 of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (Waitākere Ranges Regional Park is approximately 40% of the regional park network).

18. The review must follow the statutory process for reserve management plans as set out in section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977, and the special consultative procedure in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The review scope

19. The review will identify how the 2010 plan needs to change to be fit for purpose for the next 10 years.

20. Engagement and consultation will ensure the revised plan reflects and responds to input from mana whenua, mataawaka, key stakeholders and the wider community.

21. The review will reflect and respond to:

· population growth and development within the region

· use of regional parks by a more diverse set of visitors, with changing expectations

· land more recently acquired or brought into the regional parks network

· the climate change emergency declared by the council (resolution ENV/2019/72) signalling a renewed focus on adaptation, protection and mitigation

· increased pressures on the environment including kauri dieback

· use of new technologies such as e-bikes and other small motorised vehicles, drones, or portable sound amplifiers.

22. The revised plan will:

· align principles and policies with the Auckland Plan, including Māori Outcomes, the Māori Plan and Issues of Significance

· reflect consideration of feedback received during the review and council priorities

· include guidance for management of emerging issues

· include all land managed as regional parks

· provide for coordination and integration of regional park management across the council group and our partners.

Clarifying the land covered by the review

23. We recommend that nearly all regional park land is included in this review, including:

· land within regional parks already included in the 2010 plan

· Mutukaroa / Hamlins Hill, which currently is a regional park outside of the 2010 plan

· adjacent land amalgamated into regional parks listed in the LTP Schedule 1

· recently acquired regional park land including Glenfern Sanctuary on Aotea / Great Barrier Island, the Mahurangi East extension (acquired in February 2020), and coastal land adjacent to Te Ārai Regional Park

· Motukorea / Browns Island, which is identified in the LTP Schedule 1 as under Governing Body governance, however noted separately to the regional parks list.

24. Land on Te Motu a Hiaroa / Puketutu Island is leased from Te Motu a Hiaroa Charitable Trust (made up of three mana whenua landowners) and co-managed by the trust and the council as a regional park. The potential inclusion of the area under the park lease will be explored with the trust and advice provided in subsequent reports.

25. The Auckland Botanic Gardens is managed under the Auckland Botanic Gardens Management Plan (2001). Staff are investigating inclusion of the Botanic Gardens in this review process. While it is a different type of park, it shares conservation and education outcomes with regional parks.

26. Staff are considering options and resourcing implications, and will provide advice at the 1 July committee workshop. The options will include:

· adding the Botanic Gardens in the regional parks management plan

· development of a separate plan that aligns with the regional parks management plan.

27. Attachment A lists the regional parks and adjacent land within scope of the review. Attachment B shows the location of regional parks.

Including the Te Ārai Variation in the review

28. In October 2017, the Environment and Community Committee notified its intention to develop a variation to the 2010 plan to bring new land to the north and south of Te Ārai Regional Park into the park and plan (ENV/2017/144).

29. Since then we have engaged with mana whenua, developers, the community and Rodney Local Board. We received feedback from 181 people and groups in 2018, which was used to develop a draft variation.

30. The following steps need to be completed before a draft variation can be notified:

· vesting of the land to the south of Te Ārai Point to the council

· after vesting, consideration of the future governance of adjacent local parkland (around Slipper Lake and Lake Tomarata)

· classification of several land parcels held under the Reserves Act.

31. We recommend including this variation in the 2010 plan review for efficiency and consistency.

32. We will update mana whenua, stakeholders and the community who have provided feedback on this variation of changes to the approach.

Proactive and inclusive engagement

33. The mana whenua, stakeholder and community engagement approach will be workshopped with the committee on 1 July 2020. Following workshop feedback, the draft communications and engagement plan will be presented for committee approval on 23 August. (See Table 1 below for the full timeline.)

34. The approach involves early and ongoing engagement with mana whenua to reflect the council’s commitments to Te Titiri o Waitangi.

35. The objective of the first round of consultation is to identify all issues and matters that need consideration when preparing the draft plan. A discussion paper will provide context to support discussion, debate and feedback.

36. The second round of consultation will be triggered by the committee’s approval to notify the draft plan. Consultation is expected to start in mid-2021 for a minimum of two months for written submissions followed by hearings.

Political process and estimated timeline

37. Table 1 outlines the plan review process and associated committee decisions.

38. Engagement on key issues may extend these indicative delivery timeframes.

Table 1: Review process, committee decisions and timeline

PACE Committee decisions, workshops, and related steps	Estimated times
DECISIONS: · Approve the initiation of a comprehensive review of the management plan (Reserves Act 1977, s.41(8)) · Endorse the parks in scope of the management plan	11 June 2020 (this report)
Identify local board interests	From 11 June 2020
Committee workshop: · Discussion paper of key issues · Engagement and communications approach	1 July 2020
DECISIONS: · Confirm land in scope · Approve public notification of the intention to prepare a management plan and invite written suggestions (Reserves Act 1977, s.41(5)) · Approve a discussion paper for release · Approve the communications and engagement plan	20 August 2020
Mana whenua, mataawaka, stakeholder and public consultation and input, and collation of responses Develop draft plan	September-October 2020 November 2020-March 2021
Local board workshops to review feedback and provide input	February-March 2021
Committee workshop: consider input and provide guidance for development of the draft plan	April 2021
Complete preparation of the draft plan for public notification	April-May 2021
DECISIONS: · Approve public notification of the draft plan for consultation · Regulatory committee to appoint a hearings panel (Reserves Act 1977, s.41(6))	June 2021
Public consultation and mana whenua and mataawaka engagement	July-August 2021
Collation of submissions and local boards’ feedback sought following submissions	September-October 2021
Hearings, and preparation of Hearings Panel report	November-December 2021
Committee workshop: briefing on Hearings panel recommendations for amending the draft plan	February / March 2022
DECISION: · Adopt the amended Regional Parks Management Plan 2022	April / May 2022

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

39. The extent and direction of the council’s response to climate change through the regional park management plan is a topical matter for this review.

40. The review provides an opportunity to reflect into regional parks management the priorities that will be set by the council’s response to the climate change emergency in its Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, which is currently under development after a round of public consultation (refer to the report CP2020/00938).

41. The 2010 plan directs some climate change adaptation and mitigation actions, including revegetation and sustainable farming practices. This review provides the opportunity to consider the role regional parks can take (within the purposes for which parks are held) to reflect the urgency and scale of action required across the region to meet a 2030 emissions reduction target.

42. The discussion paper will include options for regional parks that give effect to the climate change declaration.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

43. This review will involve subject matter experts across relevant areas of the council group to ensure alignment, integration and best practice in the development and implementation of the plan. Relevant areas within council include policy, heritage, environmental services, parks, facilities, and events management, Auckland Transport, Watercare, and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development.

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

Local impacts and local board views

44. Guidance for local board involvement is set out in the Local Board Involvement in Regional Policy, Plans and Bylaws Agreed Principles and Processes 2019. The steps for local board involvement in the review of the plan is set out in section 7.2 (general policies).

45. The review will be of interest to many communities, particularly (but not exclusively) communities near regional parks. Local Board Services has provided advice on how to engage with local boards on the review that will be of high interest to the community.

46. Under the agreed principles and practices, local boards receive a copy of this report at the same time the committee receives it. Staff will seek an indication of local board interest in being involved and tailor engagement with each board accordingly. Local boards will likely provide formal feedback to:

· inform development of the draft plan

· comment on amendments to the draft plan after reviewing written submissions.

47. Local boards will be provided with a summary of feedback from each consultation round to support them in forming their views.

48. A principle in the guidance is to maintain a balance between governance roles and efficiency of the process. We will seek feedback on key policies and matters that are new or changed, or of particular interest to local communities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

49. Mana whenua in Tāmaki Makaurau have deep connections and ancestral links with the whenua within the regional parks network, and an ongoing interest in their use and management.

50. The council works with mana whenua in many aspects of parks management. An example is the rāhui placed on the Waitākere Ranges by Te Kawerau ā Maki in 2017 due to kauri dieback, which was then followed by the council decision to close the forested areas within the Waitākere Ranges.

51. This review is an opportunity to strengthen the council’s relationships with mana whenua with respect to regional parks management. Revisions to the plan will be able to reflect changes that have occurred through Treaty settlements, the development of the Schedule of Issues of Significance to Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau and Māori Plan 2017, the council’s commitment to giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to delivering improved outcomes for Māori.

52. Staff will build on the partnerships and relationships expressed in the 2010 plan, as well as the positive operational relationships (on parks) which exist between council staff and mana whenua.

53. Key directions in the Māori Plan 2017 will be relevant to this review, in particular kaitiakitanga (sustainable futures), wairuatanga (distinctive identity) and manaakitanga (quality of life).

54. Areas of interest could encompass:

· opportunities to build Māori participation in parks management

· future directions of specific regional parks

· identification and treatment of wāhi tapu / sites of significance

· use of te reo Māori and Māori histories in parks

· recognition of customary rights

· connecting whānau and tamariki to parks to promote well-being

· economic development opportunities.

55. Important to note that Treaty settlement legislation has been passed for two of four iwi (Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki) who are mana whenua of the Hūnua Falls Scenic Reserve within the Hūnua Ranges Regional Park.

56. Once settlement legislation has been passed for the other two iwi (Ngaati Whanaunga and Ngāti Koheriki), ownership of the reserve vests jointly in all four iwi with the council continuing to administer the reserve. The legislation will require the council and the four owners to jointly prepare and approve the section of the management plan relating to the reserve when the council has the plan under review.

57. The timeframe for the remaining settlements is not known and the legislative provisions relating to the management plan are yet to take effect. If legislation is passed during the time that the plan is under review, staff will provide advice to the committee on what course of action should be taken for this section of the plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

58. The cost of the plan review will be met within existing budgets and resources, subject to confirmation of the 2020-2021 Annual Plan.

59. Revising the management plan does not commit the council to future expenditure. The feedback received during the review and direction in the management plan will guide priorities within available funding for regional parks.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

60. Table 2 sets out risks and mitigations in this review.

Table 2: Risks and mitigations in reviewing the Regional Parks Management Plan

Risk	Mitigation
If the review is not started now, the council will miss a statutory deadline in the Waitākere Heritage Area Act, which requires a management plan for the Waitākere Ranges to be reviewed every 10 years.	· Initiate the review, with formal notification of the intention to prepare a plan in August 2020, in time to meet the statutory deadline.
The review is likely to be of high interest to mana whenua, mataawaka and many parts of the community. There is a risk that interested or affected parties do not have capacity to be involved given timing and the Covid-19 pandemic emergency and need to focus on recovery activities.	· Identify with mana whenua and mataawaka their level of interest and capacity to participate and reflect in engagement approach. · Online promotion of the expected review process including opportunities for engagement after August 2020. · Inclusive and proactive approach to engagement when consultation starts ensuring barriers to participation are reduced.
The Long-term Plan 2021-2031 process, including the development of local board agreements, means timely local board involvement may be challenging.	· Identify local boards’ level of interest and capacity to participate and reflect in engagement approach.
Plan review may identify raised expectations for a higher level of facilities or services on parks.	· Manage expectations regarding review scope in communication with the public.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

61. Staff will prepare a discussion paper and engagement and communications plan for the committee’s consideration at its meeting on 20 August 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Regional parks in the Regional Parks Management Plan Review	21
b ⇩	Regional parks map	23

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jo Mackay - Project Manager

Matthew Ward - Service & Asset Planning Team Leader

Authorisers

Lisa Tocker - Head of Service Strategy and Integration

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

11 June 2020

Youth Centres Investigation

File No.: CP2020/04008

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the committee with an overview of council’s support to youth centres and non-council youth services, and to seek a decision on the preferred option for future support.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In response to agreeing to a one-off operational grant of $100,000 to Hibiscus Coast Youth Centre in 2018/2019, the governing body requested a review of council’s support to youth centres and youth services. The full report can be found in Attachment A.

3. Council has a child and youth strategy (I am Auckland) and policies that guide investment in community facilities and services, but currently no specific policy that guides provision and funding for youth centres.

4. Decision-making on youth facilities has been responsive across the region, with the distribution of council youth facilities reflecting legacy priorities and investment. More recent developments have been based on responding to local needs assessments.

5. The review identified 145 facilities across Auckland that are youth focused and/or regarded as youth centres.

6. Of these, only 10 are within council’s service levels (i.e. regarded as council youth facilities), the bulk of the rest are community leases to third parties.

7. The review also identified a range of funding for externally run youth activities and services, provided by local boards and through regional grant funding. The level of investment is generally proportionate to the youth population.

8. Although the provision of youth facilities and services varies across local board areas, the review did not identify strong evidence within council’s remit of gaps in provision. Where there are fewer facilities, there is often more funding to external youth providers.

9. Youth facilities are also supplemented by council’s more evenly distributed network of community facilities (such as leisure and community centres, libraries and swimming pools), which provide space and activities for young people.

10. While this review did not identify any significant problems with the status quo, staff have identified other options if council wishes to enhance its current level of support.

· Option 1: Status quo - decision-making continues to be flexible to respond to community needs, without specific provision guidelines or policy for youth facilities

· Option 2: Enhanced Status quo - new funding of $2.3 million per annum, as follows:

a. $2.1m allocated to local boards, according to existing funding formula, to support increased investment in local youth activity/provision

b. $200,000 for regional contestable grant funding for regional youth activities

· Option 3: Develop regional policy that sets provision guidelines for a network of youth centres, to ensure consistent decision-making and a possible minimum level of service

11. The benefits, risks and trade-offs associated with each option were considered and are set out in full in paragraphs 68 to 78 of this report.

12. Retaining the status quo (Option 1) is the staff recommended option. It means that decision-making continues to be flexible to respond to local community needs. The council and local boards can continue to support youth facilities and services, where this is a priority and when there is funding available.

13. The capacity of local boards to respond to local needs may be constrained by Locally Driven Initiatives funding and many competing demands on those funds. There can also be limited ability to re-prioritise Asset Based Service funding away from other services.

14. A key risk with the status quo (Option 1) is that the council will continue to receive unsolicited requests for funding from local organisations through annual plan and long-term plan processes. This may result in funding decisions that are perceived as unfair to other local communities that don’t take this approach and yet may have higher needs.

15. If there was an ability to increase investment in youth more broadly across the region and create greater equity in funding across local boards, there could be merit in Option 2 (new funding). However, the council is facing significant funding pressures resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic further decreasing ability to increase funding for youth at this time.

16. Option 3 (new regional policy) could provide greater consistency in youth facility provision and decision-making, there is significant risk to council. Developing regional policy and minimum service levels for youth centres may raise expectations across Auckland and have significant ongoing financial implications.

17. It is also not clear that investing in dedicated youth facilities is the most effective way of improving youth outcomes, over other mechanisms such as investing in targeted programmes and services.

18. Ensuring council’s community facilities target youth more effectively (in communities where this is needed) and delivering support services and activities through increased targeting in high deprivation areas for youth such as the Southern Initiative are likely to be more effective. Overall, this may be a better approach and more aligned to council’s existing community services and facilities.

COVID-19

19. The advice and recommendations in the attached investigation report are based on the full range of council supported youth activities and services available pre-COVID-19. We acknowledge this situation may have changed or will change as a result of the pandemic.

20. The wider impacts of COVID-19 on young people are still emerging, but they are likely to be significant for some, particularly in areas like employment and health and wellbeing.

21. Staff will review and monitor the impacts of COVID-19 on Auckland’s young people, including the impacts of changes or reductions in the council and central government investment in services and programmes.

22. These impacts will be reported back to committee as part of future I am Auckland implementation progress reports which monitor council’s existing support for youth.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee:

a) note the Youth Centres Investigation found that youth are generally well provided for by council with a wide range of services and initiatives being delivered though council owned or leased facilities.

b) note that on the face of it, the review did not identify strong evidence (within council’s remit) that there are gaps in youth provision. There is variation across local board areas and where there are fewer youth facilities, there is often more funding to external youth providers.

c) agree to Option 1: Maintain the Status quo: decision-making continues to be flexible to meet community needs, without specific provision guidelines or policy for youth centres.

d) note the advice and recommendations in this report are based on the range of council youth activities and services available pre-COVID-19. This situation may change as a result of the pandemic, including potential changes to council and central government services.

e) note that staff will report back on the impacts of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of Auckland’s young people as part of future I am Auckland implementation progress reports. The next report will come to this committee on 20 August.

Horopaki

Context

Background

23. On 31 May 2018, the governing body agreed to a one-off operational grant of $100,000 to Hibiscus Coast Youth Centre for 2018/2019. This decision prompted the governing body to request a review of council’s provision of support to youth centres and youth services, as part of the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 decision. (FIN/2019/53-xi).

24. For the purpose of this investigation youth centres are defined as facilities that:

· are dedicated to youth use with a depth of infrastructure and service offering in place to support youth.

· cater primarily to youth but that may also support the wider community.

25. Youth services are services that target youth, are primarily youth focused or run a youth only programme.

26. The governing body has delegated decision making for the development of regional policy to guide investment in new facilities. Current policies are the Community Facilities Network Plan, the Community Occupancy Guidelines and the Facilities Partnerships Policy. There is currently no policy that specifically guides council’s investment in youth centres.

27. Local boards can make discretionary decisions around their Local Driven Initiative funding which can be used to support local youth centres and services. Draft findings of the Governance Framework Review Service Levels and Funding project include that local boards should have similar flexibility around decisions on Asset Based Services funding.

28. Local boards have recognised that youth are a priority. The local board plans of 18 local boards highlight actions that support youth, and this is reflected in local board grant allocations.

Auckland’s youth population is growing and there are significant disparities in deprivation and achievement

29. There are over 250,000 youth (aged 12-24) in Auckland, representing 14% of the population^{^[1]}. This number is projected to grow by an additional 71,611 young people, to over 321,540 by 2041.

30. Some local board areas will reach or exceed Auckland’s youth population average by 2041, with substantial growth expected across five local boards, including the Southern Initiative local boards: Manurewa, Papakura, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu. Growth may increase community need in areas that have been identified by council as having high deprivation and need for additional support and services.

31. The Southern Initiative area is home to nearly a quarter of Auckland’s children and young people, as well as the highest population of Māori and Pacific Island youth.

32. Of Auckland’s young people who are ‘Not in Employment, Education or Training’, approximately 37% live in the Southern Initiative area. These youth are more at risk of becoming socially excluded with income below the poverty line and lacking skills to improve their economic situation^{^[2]}.

33. This impacts mental health. The Counties Manukau District Health Board has the highest proportion of youth suicide in Auckland. The Southern Initiative works to improve opportunities for young people in these high deprivation areas.

Council and central government have distinct and complementary roles in supporting youth wellbeing

34. I Am Auckland is council’s strategy for children and young people. It sets out outcomes for youth wellbeing.

35. An overview of progress implementing I Am Auckland was due to be presented to the PACE committee in April 2020 alongside this investigation report. Due to COVID-19 and the decision to consider only essential matters, it has been deferred until 20 August. It shows the breadth of activity council is already doing to support children and young people in Auckland.

36. The council supports youth through policies, actions and programmes that directly focus on the needs of young people. We deliver general and youth-focused programmes and services. These are run through our community centres, leisure centres, community events, arts and cultural activities, libraries and sports and recreation facilities.

37. In addition, we empower youth organisations and youth voice groups to build community capacity and capability. This work prioritises youth most in need across Auckland and act as primary prevention, by increasing youth wellbeing, belonging, inclusion and support.

38. There are clear provision guidelines for the council’s investment in its network of community facilities. This ensures local facilities respond to local community needs and priorities.

39. Central government plays a role in the wellbeing of our young people. It provides core social, educational, mental and physical health services and support.

40. These roles complement each other and help young people feel safe, cared for and equipped with knowledge, skills, values and opportunities to live happy and productive lives.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Council supports a significant number of youth facilities across the region

41. The investigation identified 145 facilities across Auckland, which have youth focused delivery. A large proportion of these are Scout/Girl Guide facilities that have leases on council land.

42. Of the 145, there are only 10 facilities that are within council’s service levels and considered as council youth centres.

43. In 2018/19 these 10 centres collectively received $1,812,870 of funding through grants, service agreements, and operational spend:

· Six are council-owned and operated or receive ongoing operational funding through service agreements from council

· Two are council-owned community facilities, within existing service levels, that have a strong youth focus

· Two are in council-owned buildings, provide dedicated youth programmes and activities, and receive some ongoing financial support.

44. Hibiscus Coast Youth Centre is on council land but is owned and operated by an independent trust. It was awarded one-off grants, administered under a service agreement, in 2018/2019 & 2019/2020. Hibiscus Coast Youth Centre is not currently a council in-service facility and there is no ongoing agreement for operational funding. It delivers a local youth service in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area, not a regional service.

45. A full breakdown of youth facilities within council service lines is provided in Table 1 below.

Centres for youth that council supports	Types of services offered	Type of Auckland Council support	Funding 2018/19	Total= $1,812,870
Dedicated Council-Owned & Operated Youth Centres or Facilities (incl. service agreements for operation)				$1,394,953
Zeal Education Trust – West Auckland	Afterschool hangouts, events, creative programmes, workshops, online crisis intervention	Council owned building + local community grants + local board grants + regional grants + service agreement	$163,172	$163,172
Roskill Youth Zone	Activities ranging from Street Art to Screen Printing, from Skate Board Building, from the Bike Kitchen to Bollywood Dance; Basketball Activities and Kids Zone	Council owned building + council operated	$82,257	$82,257
Marlborough Park Hall - Kaipātiki	Youth events and activities and youth health services	Council owned building + service agreement for Kaipātiki Youth Development Trust to operate	$122,750	$122,750
Howick Children’s and Youth Theatre Inc	Drama classes and productions for children and youth aged 5-22 years.	Council owned building + service agreement + local community grants	$71,628 (2019)	$74,078
Howick Children’s and Youth Theatre Inc			$2,450 (2019)	$74,078
Te Oro – Glen Innes	Music and arts centre for young people.	Council owned building + council operated	$498,582	$498,582
Tupu Youth Library - Ōtara	Dedicated library for young people with activities & programmes, homework help and hang-out space	Council owned building + council operated	$354,114	$354,114
Hibiscus Coast Youth Centre Incorporated (HCYC)	Providing wraparound youth services, activities and programmes	Council owned land (HCYC owned building) + service agreement for HCYC to operate (Note 18/19 & 19/20 only – no funding allocation 2020 onwards)	$100,000	$100,000
Council owned facilities with youth focus (within service levels)				$399,893
Panmure Community Hall	Community hall with a strong focus on delivery for young people, promoting wellbeing and safety in our communities and celebrating diversity	Council owned building + council operated	$75,000	$75,000
Ōtara Music Arts Centre (OMAC)	Home to Sistema Aotearoa, a youth development programme, and the annual Stand Up Stand Out (SUSO) music and dance competition for Auckland secondary schools, also recording studios and music lessons	Council owned building (arts facility) + council operated + local board support	$313,893 + $11,000 for Sistema Aotearoa operational grant	$324,893
Other examples of council owned facilities with youth focus				$18,024
Waiheke Youth Centre Trust	Drop in centre for youth ages 10-18 years. A safe place for providing food and activities.	Council owned building + local community grants Local board grants	$3024 (2019) $15,000 (2019)	$18,024
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Youth Group Hub	A youth hub that runs a variety of youth-directed programmes and workshops with a focus on the creative industry	Council owned building (Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Arts Centre) + supported by community arts broker	$0 (Note: community arts broker salary funded by Māngere-Ōtāhuhu LB)	$0

Table 1: Auckland Council owned youth facilities

Council provides significant support to youth organisations through provision of community leases

46. In addition to youth centres, council also supports youth services through 107 community leases. Of these 51% are held by Scouts and Girl Guides. Other types of youth services supported through community leases are in the areas of Health and Wellbeing (16%) and Youth Development (15%). See Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Breakdown of community leases

Almost all local board areas have youth facilities

47. Every local board, except Great Barrier, has youth facilities. Figure 2 below shows the distribution of youth centres and facilities across Auckland.

48. Overall, this investigation did not find evidence of lack of provision in youth facilities or services, even if they are not equally distributed across all local board areas.

49. The highest number of facilities are located in Albert-Eden and Devonport-Takapuna (predominantly Girl Guide or Scout buildings) and Waitematā. Located in the city centre, Waitematā’s youth facilities may attract and provide services to youth from all areas of Auckland.

50. The number of facilities in The Southern Initative areas vary, with Papakura having 3 centres (youth population 10,209^{^[3]}), while Māngere-Ōtāhuhu has 9 (youth population 18,384^{^[4]}).

51. The uneven distribution of youth centres is likely to be the result of funding decisions made by legacy councils and historic relationships with service providers.

52. More recent investment in youth focussed facilities (such as Te Oro, Panmure and Marlborough Park Hall) has been on a case-by-case basis, informed by local needs assessments in those communities.

53. The distribution of youth focussed facilities is also moderated by the general distribution of council services and facilities which are more evenly spread across the region.

54. Where fewer community leases held by youth centres, other facilities may exist that provide a space and activities for young people, such as libraries, community centres and sport and leisure centres.

Figure 2: Geographic spread of youth centres and facilities

Grants funding for youth services is generally proportionate to youth population

55. In addition to support for youth facilities, council also provides funding for externally provided youth activities and services.

56. Funding is allocated through the Regional Community Grants Scheme, as well as local board grants.

57. In 2018-2019, $320,330 in regional grants was provided to support the delivery of non-council youth initiatives and services. This equates to roughly 13% of regional grants.

58. A total of $472,343 (12%) of local board grants were provided to support the delivery of non-council youth initiatives. A total of $73,822 of this was in multi-board grants. The proportion of grants funding is in line with Auckland’s youth population (14%), although with the forecasted growth, investment will need to keep pace over the next few years.

59. One observation is that in areas where youth organisations hold a high proportion of community leases, a smaller proportion of local board grants funding is allocated to youth services.

60. Conversely, those with a higher proportion of grants funding for youth services and organisations, have fewer youth centres that hold community leases.

Regional grant funding for youth focused organisations with an Auckland-wide remit would be beneficial

61. Some organisations receive grants from multiple boards, often on an annual basis. The application and administrative process for these organisations, and council, is time and resource intensive. The table below shows the most common grants awarded to youth organisations by local boards in 2018/2019.

Organisation	Number of local boards	Number of grants	Total funding (2018/2019)
Youthline	17	36	$70,362
Spoken Word Youth Workshops	8	9	$18,400
Attitude Life Skills	9	10	$17,004
GirlBoss LEAD	4	4	$6,410
			$112,176

Table 2: Most common grant awarded by local boards

62. For organisations who provide region-wide services, and whose services are clearly valued, regional-level grant funding would be beneficial. These types of services do not necessarily fit into current regional grant categories e.g. arts and culture, community development or events.

63. More multi-board funding arrangements could be put in place. The options and processes for local boards to collaborate on multi-board services are also being explored as part of the Governance Framework Review Service Levels and Funding project.

No minimum provision for youth centres, funding decisions are responsive

64. Youth centres or youth service providers can apply to council for financial support through grants programmes, i.e. to run a programme or to support building maintenance. Usually this is managed at local board level, but requests for regional grants funding can also be made to the governing body, where an entity is delivering a regional service.

65. As there are no minimum service levels proposed for youth provision under the Governance Framework Review project or facility provision levels, such as for other community facilities, funding decisions are currently responsive, based on case by case assessment.

66. There is also no objective benchmark against which to assess need or equity for youth facility or service provision.

67. However, the Grants Policy, the Community Facilities Network Plan, the Community Occupancy Guidelines, and the Facility Partnerships Policy ensure that support and funding is awarded in line with the goals of I am Auckland, and the outcomes of the Auckland Plan. In addition, the status quo means that council and local decision making can be flexible and respond to community needs.

Options for future investment in youth facilities and services

68. If council wishes to do more than maintain the status quo, there are options for supporting for youth centres and services, these are set out with the status quo in Table 3 below.

Option

Benefits

Trade offs

1. Status quo - decision making continues to be flexible to respond to community needs, without specific provision guidelines or policy for youth facilities and services

· Decision making continues to be flexible and responsive to community needs

· Local boards retain discretion around allocation of funding to youth centres or services in their area according to local priorities

· May perpetuate unsolicited funding requests

· Ongoing responsive funding decisions and possible perception of inconsistency and inequity

· Competing local needs and limited local board budget may put youth provision under pressure by limiting the scope for supporting new initiatives or enhancing existing services

2. Enhanced status quo – new funding of $2.3m per annum, as follows:

a) $2.1m allocated to local boards to support increased investment in local youth activity/provision

· Local boards can better manage competing community needs

· Local boards can ensure funding decisions support longer-term local plans

· Creates a level of funding equity and the opportunity to address potential inequities in youth provision

· Reduce risk of unsolicited and ad hoc funding requests to annual and long-term plans

· Lack of clear evidence that additional funding is needed

· May set precedent for other groups – e.g. older Aucklanders

· Council’s current financial position, given the Covid-19 crisis, may not make additional funding either for local boards, or regional grants, a priority at this time

b) $200,000 for regional grant funding for regional youth activities

· Reduces administrative burden of numerous grant applications on both council and youth organisations with Auckland-wide remit

· Greater funding certainty for essential youth services, especially if strategic multi-year funding agreements can be reached

· May free up local board funding currently going to regional youth groups

· Current system might be working well by providing local connections and support

· Significant proportion of regional grants already support youth, and these funding arrangements may be impacted by a dedicated youth grants fund

· Greater use of multi-board funding agreements could be an alternative option

3. Develop regional policy that sets provision guidelines and develop a network of youth centres

· Ensures consistent and transparent decision making around youth centre provision

· Ensures all local board areas can meet a minimum level of service provision for youth.

· Significant financial implications of developing a network of youth centres

· Benefits are not clear – better youth outcomes may be achieved by providing a range of services and facilities that cater to the diverse needs and interests of youth

Table 3: Options for supporting youth centres and services

69. The findings of this investigation have not demonstrated a clear need to change the status quo (Option 1). While provision of youth facilities and services across the region varies, this review did not identify strong evidence (within council’s remit) that additional funding is needed for youth centres or that there are gaps in youth centre provision.

70. Retaining the status quo (Option 1) means that decisions continue to be flexible to respond to local community needs. It recognises that the council and local boards have the ability to support youth centres, facilities and services, if this is a priority in their area. Staff recommend this option.

71. The trade-off is that there may be on-going decision making for adhoc funding across the region. Furthermore, the capacity of local boards to respond may be constrained by limited Locally Driven Initiatives funding or Asset Based Service funding flexibility.

72. A key risk with the status quo (Option 1) is that it may perpetuate unsolicited requests for funding from local organisations through Annual Plan and Long-term Plan processes. This may result in funding decisions that are perceived as unfair to other local communities that may have higher needs, but don’t take this route or are less equipped to do so.

73. If the governing body supports increased investment in youth more broadly across the region and creating greater equity in funding across local boards, there could be merit in Option 2 (new funding).

74. Option 2 (new funding) would provide all local boards with an equitable amount of additional funding to allocate to youth activity, at their discretion. It would also provide for an additional $200,000 per annum for contestable regional grants funding for youth services.

75. The trade-offs are the lack of evidence that within council’s remit additional funding is needed and that allocating this specifically for youth may not reflect local needs and priorities. It could potentially create negative perception among other demographic groups who may also seek additional investment.

76. Council is facing significant funding pressures resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, further decreasing the ability to increase funding for youth at this time.

77. There is a significant risk to council with Option 3 (new regional policy). Developing regional policy that sets provision guidelines for youth centres could have significant financial implications. It is also unclear whether increasing the number of youth centres would in fact lead to greater positive outcomes for young people.

78. Other ways of delivering support services and activities and increased targeting of services in high deprivation areas for youth such as the Southern Initiative are likely to be more effective. As could investing in youth programmes or targeting services within existing community facilities aligning with the Community Facilities Network Plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

79. There are no climate impact implications arising from this decision.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

80. Departments across council have contributed to this investigation, providing data and insights, including local board, community and financial services.

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

Local impacts and local board views

81. A review of local board plans indicated that local boards are successfully delivering on a number the goals of I am Auckland. Most local boards see youth as a priority and support a wide range of programmes, activities and facilities for young people through their discretionary funding and grants.

82. This funding is limited and there are many competing needs locally. Given the projected growth of Auckland’s youth population, investment levels will need to be kept under review to ensure they continue to be proportionate.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

83. Māori children and young people experience disproportionate poverty in Auckland and live in households with lower than average income levels.

84. There are still significant educational, health and employment disparities for Māori children and young people in Auckland. For example:

· of 20 to 24-year olds, young Māori have a high unemployment rate (22.9% compared with 15.2% overall)

· the not in education employment or training (NEET) rate of Māori rangatahi aged 15 to 24 years old is 26.5% compared to 13.4% overall.

85. Areas with high Māori youth populations are likely to require greater funding for youth services and facilities to help address these inequities.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

86. The financial implications of the options are:

· Option 1 (status quo): has no additional funding implications. Any future response to ad hoc funding requests will consider the financial implication at the time

· Option 2 (increased funding): includes an in-principle proposal for $2.1m of additional local board funding for youth activity/provision and $200,000 contestable regional youth grants funding per annum. Any funding decision for this option would be considered along with other priorities through the usual Annual and Long-term Plan decision-making processes

· Option 3 (new regional policy): would require staff resource for policy and provision guideline development. It could have significant financial implications the quantum of this would be assessed during policy development. As with the existing Community Facility Network Plan, a business case will quantify the financial implication, costs and benefits on a facility by facility basis. Any funding decision would be informed by the business case along with other priorities through the usual Annual and Long-term Plan decision-making processes.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

87. The risks, impacts and mitigations for the recommended option is set out below (Table 4)

Risk	Impact	Mitigation
Option 1: Status Quo
Decision making around youth provision is responsive and may be perceived as inconsistent and inequitable	Inequitable funding allocations	Require all funding requests to demonstrate strategic alignment with both local board long-term plans, IAA and Auckland Plan outcomes
Youth service provision is inadequate due to competing needs at local board level	Youth don’t receive the support they need leading to poor social and wellbeing outcomes	Keep funding levels for youth services under regular review to ensure they keep pace with forecasted growth

Table 4: Risk table for recommended options

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

88. No further steps are to be taken in the short term for Option 1 (status quo), but the level of youth facilities provision and funding for youth activities will be kept under review as part of the monitoring of I am Auckland.

89. Staff will also review and monitor the impacts of COVID-19 on Auckland’s young people, including the potential impacts of any changes or reductions in council services and programmes as a result of council’s financial issues.

90. We will also keep track of any changes in central government policy that impacts and/or benefits young people, including any new investment that emerges.

91. These impacts will be reported back to committee as part of future I am Auckland implementation progress reports. The next report will come to the Committee on 20 August.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Youth Centre Investigation	39

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Cleo Matthews - Policy Analyst

Liz Civil - Manager Community Policy

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

11 June 2020

Proposed land exchange: Sidmouth Reserve

File No.: CP2020/06789

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval of the proposed exchange of part of Sidmouth Reserve for part of 10 Sidmouth Street, owned by Watercare Services Limited (Watercare), to enable the upgrade of a critical wastewater asset.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To inform decision-making, staff have assessed the proposed exchange of 369m² of land in Sidmouth Reserve within (Lot 1 DP 91987) with 369m² of land at 10 Sidmouth Street (Lot 2 DP 91987) against council policy and followed the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

3. Staff recommend approval of the proposed land exchange. It is a high priority when assessed against the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy (2013) because it will improve the amenity values and functionality of the reserve.

4. The land exchange would result in a net benefit for the community that uses the reserve, including:

· improved sightlines and physical access to the Mairangi Bay Beach Reserve through a widened accessway from Sidmouth Road, thereby improving safety

· improved amenity with the addition of a picnic table and seating area

· better connectivity with the open space network in the area

· enhanced configuration and landscaping of the combined sites to improve use of the open space.

5. Mana whenua did not oppose the land exchange, neither did the five submitters to the application for a resource consent under section 88(1) and (1A) of the Resource Management Act 1991.

6. In reviewing the joint application for the resource consent under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the land exchange under Section 15AA of the Reserves Act 1977, the independent hearing Commissioners have recommended that the land exchange be approved.

7. There is a medium delivery risk to Watercare if council does not approve the land exchange at this time as it will delay the upgrade of a critical asset in the East Coast wastewater network.

8. There is a low risk of a judicial review of Auckland Council decision-making processes if the land exchange proceeds. This can be mitigated by clear communication about the reasons for the land exchange.

9. If approved, the Finance and Performance Committee will consider disposal of 369m² of land in Sidmouth Reserve within Lot 1 DP 91987 to Watercare Services. This committee has the delegations to approve the disposal of assets.

10. The next step is to forward a copy of the resolution to the Minister of Conservation, or their delegate, for authorisation.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee:

a) approve the exchange of 369m² (more or less) of land in Sidmouth Reserve within Lot 1 DP 91987 held by Auckland Council with 369m² (more or less) of land at 10 Sidmouth Street (Lot 2 DP 91987) held by Watercare Services Limited as illustrated in Figure 2 of the agenda report.

b) recommend that the Finance and Performance Committee approve the disposal of 369m² of land in Sidmouth Reserve within Lot 1 DP 91987 to Watercare Services to complete the land exchange.

Horopaki

Context

11. Watercare applied for, and was granted, a resource consent to replace an existing wastewater pump station at 10 Sidmouth Street, Mairangi Bay [BUN 60332215 refers].

12. The pump station is a critical asset in the East Coast wastewater network, but it is no longer fit-for-purpose. A new pump station with greater capacity is required.

13. Watercare also made an application to exchange 369m² of its land at 10 Sidmouth Street (Lot 2 DP 91987) with 369m²of council-owned land at the adjacent Sidmouth Reserve (Lot 1 DP 91987). This land exchange is required in order to construct the new pump station.

14. Sidmouth Reserve is held under the Reserves Act 1977. It is designated an Informal Recreation Zone and is contiguous with Montrose Reserve.

15. The proposed land exchange is being considered under section 15AA of the Reserves Act 1977. The process has five key steps:

· a resource consent and land exchange are publicly notified under section 95A of the Resource Management Act 1991

· council has regard to any submissions that are made on the application during the public notification process outlined above and that relate to the land exchange

· council considers whether the land exchange would result in a net benefit for recreation opportunities for the community that uses, benefits from, or enjoys the reserve

· council, having completed the above steps, decides whether to authorise the exchange of the recreation reserve land

· a copy of the resolution supporting the land exchange is forwarded to the Minister of Conservation or their delegate for authorisation.

16. Completion of the land exchange involves both an acquisition of land by Auckland Council and a disposal of land to Watercare by Auckland Council.

17. The Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee has the delegations to approve the land exchange under the Reserves Act 1977 and the acquisition of the Watercare land.

18. The Finance and Performance Committee has the delegations to approve the disposal of the reserve land to Watercare.

Figure 1: View of the current pump station (left) and Sidmouth Reserve (right)

19. The proposed land exchange involves adjusting the boundaries of the council and Watercare blocks of land to accommodate a new wastewater pump station as illustrated below.

Figure 2: Proposed land exchange

20. If the exchange is approved, the new boundaries will result in a 1m²addition to the council reserve land due to modern survey techniques.

The proposed land exchange aligns with management and development plans approved by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21. Local boards are allocated decision-making responsibility for local parks, including reserve management plans, improvements and the use of, and activities within, these parks.

22. The proposed upgrade to the wastewater pump station is referenced in the Mairangi Bay Beach Reserves Management Plan (2015). This plan, which was subject to public consultation in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, provides the general direction for management and development of Sidmouth Reserve and other neighbouring reserves.

23. The Development Plan - Mairangi Bay Beach Reserves (2018) proposes a number of improvements to Sidmouth, Montrose and other neighbouring reserves (see Figure 3 below).

24. It notes that “…[a] land swap or establishment of an easement will need to be undertaken by Watercare to reflect the movement of the facility to the east and will therefore free up recreation reserve to the west to facilitate the implementation of the proposed reserve land and/or [Mairangi Bay Surf Lifesaving Club] storage facility.”

Figure 3: Development Plan - Mairangi Bay Beach Reserves, Map 5

1. Proposed Montrose Terrace carpark and Link Lane

2. Montrose Terrace and Sidmouth Street cul-de-sac

3. Montrose Terrace (beachfront road removal)

4. Mairangi Bay Reserve amenity enhancement

5. Bridge replacement and stream enhancement

6. Mairangi Bay Surf Life Saving Club clubrooms

7. Mairangi Bay Surf Life Saving Club storage facility

8. Watercare pump station upgrade

9. Seawall restoration

Watercare developed a concept plan to illustrate benefits of the land exchange

25. A concept plan has been developed by Watercare (see Figure 4 below) to illustrate benefits of the land exchange. It has the following key features:

· a wider accessway and connection to the Mairangi Bay Beach Reserve through a widened accessway from Sidmouth Road

· a picnic table and seating area

· better connectivity with the open space network in the area

· landscaping and planting to reflect the neighbouring reserve.

26. This concept plan was informed by the development plan approved by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

Figure 4: Mairangi Bay Pump Station Revised Landscape Concept Plan (March 2020)

Five submissions were received in response to the consent and land exchange application

27. Watercare’s application for a resource consent was publicly notified between 22 July and 19 August 2019 in accordance with section 95A of the Resource Management Act 1991.

28. Five submissions were received in response. Only one submission referenced the land exchange.

29. The Mairangi Bay Surf Life Saving Club did not object, but it raised concerns about a perceived lack of certainty of the outcomes, and the particular benefits that they would accrue, from the land exchange.

30. A summary of the submissions is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of submissions on the consent application

Submitter	Submission	Focus of the submission
Kate Madsen, Paua Planning on behalf of Mairangi Bay Surf Life Saving Club	Mairangi Bay Surf Life Saving Club acknowledges the need for the new pump station to improve wastewater management in the area and states that “…there is no opposition to the land exchange…” (paragraph 41). However, it raised the following issues in relation to the land exchange: · lack of certainty of outcomes for the surf club (paragraph 35) · requirement for a larger building footprint than currently proposed (paragraph 37) · lack of net benefit for the surf club (paragraph 40-41).	Resource consent application and the proposed land exchange.
Mark and Catherine Woodward	Raised concerns about the design of the pump station building.	Resource consent application.
Susan Andrews on behalf of Heritage New Zealand	Heritage New Zealand neither supports nor opposes the application. It seeks to ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the Archaeological Management Plan for the pump station.	Resource consent application
John and Margaret McDonald	Raised concern about the proposed height of the pump station building, height of trees/plants and the car park.	Resource consent application
Bruce Grigor	Raised concern that the design for the proposed pump station structure above and below ground may not comply with the Unitary Plan.	Resource consent application

Mana whenua were consulted on the land exchange and did not object

31. Staff engaged with 15 mana whenua groups with connections to the Mairangi Bay area, seeking input on the proposed land exchange. There was no opposition to the land exchange.

32. A detailed schedule of comments is attached to this report as Appendix A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

33. Staff have assessed the proposed land exchange against council policy, reviewed submissions in response to public notification of the consent application and assessed the benefits of Watercare’s proposal.

The land exchange is a high priority when assessed against council policy

34. Open space acquisition opportunities, including land exchanges, are assessed against the criteria of the council’s Parks and Open Space Acquisition policy (2013). Proposals are prioritised according to the highest ratings achieved.

35. A summary of the assessment for the proposed land exchange and reconfigured reserve is provided in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Assessment of proposed land exchange
Park type: Neighbourhood Park			Number of new lots: N/A
Density: Medium/High			Number of new residents: N/A
Unitary plan zone: Open space informal recreation			Proposed additional reserve area: increase 1m2^{– (}modern survey techniques)
Independent valuation: N/A			Settlement: Subject to Governing Body approval of the land exchange

Current features:		Informal recreation facilities
Potential future features:		Better access way		More amenities Improved planting
Criteria	Comment				Overall Rating
Meeting community needs, now and in the future	Not a priority as: · there is no significant increase in land area.				*High priority for exchange*
Connecting parks and open spaces	Medium priority as: · the proposed land exchange will enable a wider accessway into the park to improve safety and connection to the parking area and northern end of the reserve.
Protecting and restoring Auckland’s unique features and meanings	Not a priority as: · the land has no significant ecological, historic, geological or cultural values.
Improving the parks and open spaces we already have
High priority as: · the proposed exchange will improve amenity values and functionality of the park by creating space for the hard stand for surf club storage, a picnic table and seating area, improved planting and landscaping.

36. The land exchange is assessed as a high priority because it will improve the amenity values and functionality of the existing reserve.

There are two other factors to consider when assessing the land exchange

37. There are two factors to consider when assessing the land exchange in accordance with section 15AA of the Reserves Act 1977:

· any submissions on the reserve exchange that were received during the public notification process of the consent application

· the net benefit for recreation opportunities for the community that uses, benefits from, or enjoys the reserve.

The needs of the Mairangi Bay Surf Life Saving Club are addressed in the concept plan

38. The Mairangi Bay Surf Life Saving Club was the only submitter on the land exchange.

39. The surf club did not oppose the land exchange, but it raised some areas of concern regarding their storage requirements on the reserve.

40. Staff note that the storage facilities for the surf club are expressly addressed in the concept plan developed by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board (refer Figure 3).

The community will benefit from development of the reserve

41. In accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, the exchange must provide overall net benefits in recreation opportunities that out-weigh any adverse impact.

42. It does not require the net benefit to be significant, or more than a minor improvement.

43. Staff have assessed the proposed land exchange and note that it will increase the amenity and functionality of the recreation reserve.

44. There are clear benefits for the community from the concept plan provided by Watercare, including:

· improved sightlines and physical access to the Mairangi Bay Beach Reserve through a widened accessway from Sidmouth Road, thereby improving safety

· improved amenity with the addition of a picnic table and seating area

· better connectivity with the open space network in the area

· enhanced configuration and landscaping of the combined sites to improve use of the open space.

Independent Commissioners recommend the proposed land exchange

45. In reviewing the joint application for the resource consent under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the land exchange under Section 15AA of the Reserves Act 1977, the independent hearing Commissioners have recommended that the land exchange be approved.

46. The Commissioners consider that there is a clear net benefit for recreation purposes and that none of the expert evidence was challenged in any of the submissions received or in evidence from submitters at the hearing.

Staff recommend the proposed land exchange

47. Staff recommend approval of the proposed land exchange.

48. It is a high priority when assessed against the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy (2013) because it will improve the amenity values and functionality of the existing reserve.

49. There are net benefits for the community from the improved amenity values.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

50. The upgrade of Watercare’s asset will reduce spills of stormwater into the coastal marine environment.

51. The landscape development and planting by Watercare better suits the coastal environment.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

52. The land exchange will enable Watercare to upgrade critical wastewater infrastructure.

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

Local impacts and local board views

53. Parks and open spaces provide access to a range of activities and experiences for the community which lead to improved health and wellbeing.

54. The proposed land exchange is aligned with the Mairangi Bay Beach Reserves Management Plan (2015) and the Development Plan - Mairangi Bay Beach Reserves (2018).

55. The formal views of the local board on the land exchange have been obtained. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board [HB/2020/61 refers]:

a) supports the exchange of 369m² (more or less) of land in Sidmouth Reserve within Lot 1 DP 91987 held by Auckland Council with 369m² (more or less) of land at 10 Sidmouth Street (Lot 2 DP 91987) held by Watercare Services Limited as illustrated in Figure 2 of the agenda report

b) supports the disposal of 369m² of land in Sidmouth Reserve within Lot 1 DP 91987 to Watercare Services to complete the land exchange.

56. The local board also noted that it will consult with all stakeholders about future use of the reserve, including the Mairangi Bay Surf Club.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

57. Improved water quality from the wastewater pump upgrade and improved amenity values in the reserve will have positive effects for all local people, including Māori.

58. Mana whenua were consulted on proposed land exchange and there was no opposition to it.

59. Attachment A provides a summary of the responses received from mana whenua. The following section highlights key feedback:

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua noted that they support the proposed land exchange as part of their quest to support public good along with the collective efforts of Ngāti Whātua through managed growth and development.

· Ngāti Manuhiri noted it does not have any issues with the proposed exchange, provided the normal protocols are followed regarding accidental discoveries and recommended the use of native plants.

· Ngātiwai Trust Board noted that while Mairangi Bay is outside the iwi’s direct area of interest, it supports the proposed land exchange in principle because the objective is to improve water quality by limiting discharges.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

60. All costs associated with the wastewater pump upgrade and the landscape development plan illustrated in Figure 4 above will be met by Watercare.

61. The costs of operating and maintaining Sidmouth Reserve will remain the same for Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

62. A comprehensive risk assessment has identified two key risks.

63. There is a medium delivery risk to Watercare if council does not approve the land at this time as it will further delay the upgrade of a critical asset in the East Coast wastewater network.

64. There is a low risk of a judicial review of Auckland Council decision-making processes if the land exchange proceeds. This can be mitigated by clear communication about the reasons for the land exchange.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65. If the land exchange is approved, the next step is to forward a copy of the resolution to the Minister of Conservation, or their delegate, for authorisation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Mana whenua feedback	123

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ann-Marie Quinn - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

11 June 2020

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

11 June 2020

Acquisition of land for open space and exchange of reserve land – Māngere East and West

File No.: CP2020/05828

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to acquire and exchange open space in Māngere East and West.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report informs decision-making on a package of land acquisitions and exchanges to improve open space provision in Māngere East and Māngere West.

3. The land will provide recreational opportunities for current and future residents of two new large Kāinga Ora-led residential developments and neighbouring communities.

4. Staff recommend the following:

· acquisition of up to 2451m² of land on Molesworth Place for a neighbourhood park

· acquisition of up to 855m²of land on Ventura Street for connection/linkage open space that will connect to the above neighbourhood park and Tararata Creek

· notification of a proposed exchange of 101m² reserve land on Watchfield Close, which is used as a walkway to Moyle Park for a new walkway of 336m² on Watchfield Close

· notification of a proposed exchange of Mayflower Park (1619m²) for a new park (1620m²) located between Mayflower Close and Winthrop Way.

5. The acquisition of the neighbourhood park and associated connection/linkage open space has been assessed against council policy and is deemed to be a high priority.

6. The two proposed land exchanges are also high priorities because they will improve the amenity values and functionality of the existing reserves. Kāinga Ora has agreed to provide capital investment to develop the new walkway and park which will be created as a result of the land exchanges.

7. The Māngere-Otahuhu Local Board formally supported all staff recommendations for the acquisitions and exchanges at their 6 May 2020 business meeting.

8. Staff are requesting immediate approval to proceed with these transactions, as deferral could delay the Kāinga Ora housing development plans for Māngere West and Aorere Park. This could lead to Kāinga Ora opting to proceed without the proposed acquisitions or exchanges, resulting in poor open space outcomes for the community.

9. There is a low legal risk to council if it manages the land exchanges in accordance with section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977. Key aspects of this process include public and mana whenua consultation.

10. Kāinga Ora will manage delivery risk and any risk associated with their redevelopment projects in Māngere East and West.

11. If the proposed transactions are approved, staff will instruct Panuku Development Auckland to enter negotiations with Kāinga Ora to complete the proposed acquisitions in 2022. Staff will also move to publicly notify the proposed land exchanges in accordance with required statutory process.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee:

a) approve the acquisition of up to 2451m² of land on Molesworth Place (lots 111 DP 6159, 110 DP 65159 and 109 DP 65159) for a neighbourhood park

b) approve the acquisition of up to 855m²of land on Ventura Street (Lot 29 DP 57785) for connection/linkage open space that will connect to the above neighbourhood park and Tararata Creek

c) approve notification under section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 of a proposed exchange of 101m² of reserve land on Watchfield Close (Lot 36 DP 66356), which is used as a walkway to Moyle Park for a new walkway of 336m² on Watchfield Close (LOT 39 DP 66356), including capital investment by Kāinga Ora in the development of the new walkway

d) approve notification under section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 of a proposed exchange of Mayflower Park (1619m² / LOT 167 DP 55383) for a new park (1620m² / lots 134 and 160 DP 55383 and land from adjoining lots), including capital investment by Kāinga Ora, up to a maximum of $290,000 (excluding GST), in the development of the new park.

Horopaki

Context

There are opportunities to enhance open space provision in Māngere

12. Kāinga Ora is undertaking a major redevelopment in Māngere West. It is planning to replace 228 dwellings with approximately 930 new dwellings. This will provide housing for approximately 2106 additional residents.^{^[5]}

13. Kāinga Ora is also redeveloping the Aorere Park area in Māngere East. It will replace 136 dwellings with approximately 486 new dwellings and in so doing provide housing for approximately 1050 additional residents.

14. These developments present opportunities for Auckland Council to improve the amenity and functionality of existing open space and to address known gaps in provision.

15. Staff have worked with Kāinga Ora to identify four opportunities:

· acquisition of up to 2451m² of land on Molesworth Place for a neighbourhood park

· acquisition of up to 855m²of land on Ventura Street for connection/linkage open space that will connect the above neighbourhood park and Tararata Creek

· an exchange of 101m² of reserve land on Watchfield Close, currently a walkway to Moyle Park, for a new walkway of 336m² on Watchfield Close

· an exchange of Mayflower Park (1619m²) for a new park (1620m²).

There is shared decision-making for the acquisition of open space

16. The decision-making allocations for the acquisition of land for parks and open space is set out in Volume Two of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

17. The governing body is responsible for:

· the number and general location of all new parks and the prioritisation of major upgrades to existing parks (including sports fields within parks)

· acquisition and divestment of all park land, including the disposal or surplus parks, excluding any disposals and reinvestment made in accordance with the Service Property Optimisation Approach.

18. Local boards are responsible for the specific location of new local parks (including the prioritisation for acquisition) within budget parameters agreed with the governing body.

The land exchange process is set out in the Reserves Act 1977

19. Section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977 prescribes the process for a land exchange between reserves and other land. The process has four key steps:

· the administering body (in this case the council) publicly notifies its intention to undertake the land exchange and calls for objections in writing, allowing a period of at least one month for objections to be received

· following public notification, the administering body considers all objections to the proposed land exchange

· the administering body passes a resolution supporting the land exchange if it considers it appropriate to do so in light of the objections received

· a copy of the resolution supporting the land exchange is forwarded to the Minister of Conservation or their delegate along with the objections for authorisation.

20. Relevant mana whenua must also be consulted.

There is an opportunity to acquire open space to address a gap in provision

Molesworth Place and Ventura Street land acquisitions

21. Working with Kāinga Ora, staff have identified an opportunity to acquire up to 2451m²of land on Molesworth Place, Māngere West, adjacent to the esplanade reserve that runs along Tararata Creek.

22. This land could meet open space requirements for a neighbourhood park in this area. It would address a gap identified using the provision metrics in the Open Space Provision Policy (2016).

23. The acquisition of an additional 855m² of land on Ventura Street, also next to the Tararata Creek esplanade reserve, could provide pedestrian/cycling connections and links to Moyle Park.

24. The proposed location of these open space acquisitions is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Proposed open space acquisitions

A close up of a map

Description automatically generated

Kāinga Ora proposes a land exchange to enlarge and improve a walkway into Moyle Park

Watchfield Close land exchange

25. Kāinga Ora proposes an exchange, under section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977, of a walkway from Watchfield Close to Moyle Park (101m²) for a new walkway to be developed by Kāinga Ora from Watchfield Close to Moyle Park (336m²).

26. As part of its proposal, Kāinga Ora has agreed to meet the capital costs of developing the new walkway. This will include the following amenities:

· landscaping

· specimen trees

· hard surface treatments

· bollards

· LED lighting.

27. The images below show the existing walkway and an artist’s impression of the new walkway.

Figure 2: Existing walkway and concept design of the new walkway

A sign on the side of a building

Description automatically generated

28. If the land exchange proceeds all aspects of the design and development of the reserve will be approved by the local board.

Kāinga Ora proposes a land exchange to improve Mayflower Park

Mayflower Park land exchange

29. Kāinga Ora also proposes an exchange, under section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977, of Mayflower Park (1619m²) with a new park (1620m²) to be located between Mayflower Close and Winthrop Way (see Figure 3 and Figure 4 below).

Figure 3: Proposed land exchange of Mayflower Park and concept drawing

A close up of a map

Description automatically generated

30. Mayflower Park is an undeveloped pocket park in Māngere East.

31. Kāinga Ora proposes to provide a new park. The proposed park will be located on a new road between Mayflower Close and Winthrop Way. See Figure 4 below for a concept drawing.

Figure 4: Concept drawing of new park between Mayflower Close and Winthrop Way

A sign on the side of a road

Description automatically generated

32. As part of its proposal, Kāinga Ora has agreed to meet the capital costs of developing the new park up to a maximum of $290,000 (excluding GST). This will include the following amenities:

· landscaping

· specimen trees

· hard surface treatments

· bollards

· LED lighting.

33. If the land exchange proceeds all aspects of the design and development of the reserve will be approved by the local board.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Proposed acquisitions are assessed against council policy

34. Acquisition opportunities are formally assessed against the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy (2013) and the Open Space Provision Policy (2016). They are prioritised according to the highest rating achieved.

Molesworth Place land acquisition is deemed a high priority

35. The following table provides a summary of the assessment of the proposed neighbourhood park acquisition on Molesworth Place.

Table 1: Neighbourhood park open space assessment summary

Park type: Neighbourhood Park		Number of new lots: Approximately 702
Density: Medium		Number of new residents: Approximately 2106
Unitary plan zone: Residential - Mixed Housing Urban		Proposed size of acquisition: 2451m²
		Settlement: 2021/22 – budget available for acquisition

Potential future features:	Informal recreation		Playground
Acquisition Criteria	Comment			Overall Rating
Meeting community needs, now and in the future	High priority as there is a gap in open space provision in Māngere West (north of Elmdon Street and east and west of Tararata Creek).			ü High priority for acquisition
Connecting parks and open spaces	Medium priority as the land connects to an esplanade reserve. Acquisition of land on the other side of the creek is being recommended to form local connections.
Protecting and restoring Auckland’s unique features and meanings
Not a priority as there are no known ecological, historic heritage, landscape, geological or cultural values of significance.
Improving the parks and open spaces we already have
High priority as the proposed new park is connected to existing park land.
Development Costs:
Operational Costs:
Local boards decide how local open space is developed. Capital expenditure is allocated through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.		Median consequential operational costs for the undeveloped park is estimated at $5156 per annum. Allocated as a percentage of the acquisition cost through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

Ventura Street land acquisition is deemed a high priority

36. The table below provides a summary of the assessment of the proposed connection/linkage open space acquisition on Ventura Street.

Table 2: Connection/Linkage open space assessment summary

Park type: Connection/Linkage		Number of new lots: Approximately 702
Density: Medium		Number of new residents: Approximately 2106
Unitary plan zone: Residential - Mixed Housing Urban		Proposed size of acquisition: 885m²
		Settlement: 2021/22 – budget available for acquisition

Potential future features:	walkway/cycleway		Trees
Acquisition Criteria	Comment			Overall Rating
Meeting community needs, now and in the future	High priority as the subject site will increase accessibility of the proposed new neighbourhood park and contribute to meeting the open space provision targets.			ü High priority for acquisition
Connecting parks and open spaces	Medium priority as the subject site will provide a walkway/cycleway connection to an existing esplanade reserve and a link to a proposed neighbourhood park (subject to construction of a bridge).
Protecting and restoring Auckland’s unique features and meanings
Not a priority as there are no known ecological, historic heritage, landscape, geological or cultural values of significance.
Improving the parks and open spaces we already have
High priority as the subject site will provide access to an esplanade reserve in a medium density area.
Development Costs:
Operational Costs:
Local boards decide how local open space is developed. Capital expenditure is allocated through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028. Funding for a bridge to connect to the neighbourhood park will need to be allocated. Potentially this could be funded by development contributions.		Median consequential operational costs for the undeveloped park is estimated at $1861 per annum. Allocated as a percentage of the acquisition cost through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

Staff recommend the acquisition of both open spaces

37. Acquisition of the neighbourhood park and connection/linkage open space are both assessed as high priorities.

38. There is a gap in neighbourhood park provision in this area.

39. Staff recommend the acquisition of up to 2451m² of land on Molesworth Place (lots 111 DP 6159, 110 DP 65159 and 109 DP 65159) for a neighbourhood park. It would provide access to recreation for current and future residents in an area that will be intensified.

40. The neighbourhood park will enable the community to gather, socialise and recreate in a well-connected, highly visible neighbourhood park. The park will also increase pedestrian use of the esplanade reserve and improve safety through increased passive surveillance.

41. Staff also recommend the acquisition of up to 855m²of land on Ventura Street (Lot 29 DP 57785) for connection/linkage open space that will connect to the above neighbourhood park and Tararata Creek.

42. This open space will connect the community to recreation opportunities at the proposed neighbourhood park and forms part of the local board’s Greenways Plan to provide off-road walking and cycling connectivity.

Proposed exchanges are assessed against council policy

43. Land exchanges are assessed against the criteria in the council’s Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy 2013 and Parks and Open Space Provision Policy 2016. Proposed land exchanges are prioritised according to the highest rating achieved.

Watchfield Close land exchange is deemed a high priority

44. The following table provides a summary of the assessment of the proposed land exchange at Watchfield Close.

Table 3: Initial assessment of the proposed land exchange (Watchfield Close)

Acquisition criteria	Comment	Rating
Meeting community needs, now and in the future	High priority as the proposed land exchange would increase the accessibility and capacity of a reserve that serves an area of high growth.	High priority
Connecting parks and open spaces	Not priority as it will not connect existing open spaces.
Protecting and restoring Auckland’s unique features and meanings	Not a priority as there are no known heritage, cultural or natural values of significance located within the areas proposed for exchange.
Improving the parks and open spaces we already have	High priority as the proposed land exchange will improve the accessibility and functionality of existing open space.

Staff recommend the exchange of land at Watchfield Close

45. Staff recommend that the committee support public notification of the proposed exchange of the existing walkway on Watchfield Close (Lot 36 DP 66356), for a new walkway of 336m² on Watchfield Close (LOT 39 DP 66356). It is a high priority when assessed against council policy.

46. The proposed land exchange is expected to have positive benefits to the community, including improved access into Moyle Park and increased amenity values. It would also deliver increase in open space (235m²) as well as a safer, more visible walkway for current and future residents and the wider community.

Mayflower Park land exchange is deemed a high priority

47. The proposed proposed land exchange is a high priority when assessed against council policy as illustrated in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Initial assessment of the proposed land exchange (Mayflower Park)

Acquisition criteria	Comment	Rating
Meeting community needs, now and in the future	High priority as the proposed land exchange would increase the accessibility of the park that serves an area of high growth.	High priority
Connecting parks and open spaces	Not priority as it will not connect existing open spaces.
Protecting and restoring Auckland’s unique features and meanings	Not a priority as there are no known heritage, cultural or natural values of significance located within the areas proposed for exchange.
Improving the parks and open spaces we already have	High priority as the proposed land exchange will improve the accessibility and functionality of existing open space.

Staff recommend the exchange of land at Mayflower Park

48. Staff recommend that the committee approve public notification of the exchange of Mayflower Park (1619m² / Lot 167 DP 55383) for a new park (1620m² / lots 134 and 160 DP 55383 and land from adjoining lots).

49. The land exchange would result in a 1m² increase in council land. Accessibility will be markedly increased with road frontages on three sides. Development of the park by Kāinga Ora will improve amenity values and functionality.

50. The other benefits of the proposed land exchange are improved access and sightlines into the new reserve. Crime prevention through environmental design will create a safer, more visible space for the enjoyment of current and future residents and the wider community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

51. Vegetation on parks and open space can serve as temperature regulators through shade and evapotranspiration. Plants and woodlands can also process and store carbon, helping to offset the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

52. Parks and open space also act as collection points for surface and run-off water, reducing flood risks during storms.

53. Climate change is expected to bring increasing temperatures, rising sea levels and changing rainfall patterns. Park development proposals will need to reflect these effects and take into consideration the environmentally sensitive ways parks and open space must be managed to achieve their benefits. This includes energy and waste reduction and conserving water resources.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

54. Auckland Transport has actively supported the acquisition opportunity in Māngere West, through road stopping and an asset transfer in accordance with council policy.

55. Once acquisition has been completed, Customer and Community Services will be responsible for the development and ongoing maintenance of the site.

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

Local impacts and local board views

56. A gap in provision of open space has been identified in Māngere West. Provision of open space will provide recreation opportunities and community benefits.

57. The Māngere-Otahuhu Open Space Network Plan 2016 identified the area as a high priority area for creating public access from Molesworth Place to Tararata Creek Reserve.

58. Council and Kāinga Ora staff held a workshop with the Māngere-Otahuhu Local Board on 12 February 2020. The purpose of the workshop was to present preliminary recommendations on the proposals and to address any questions and concerns.

59. On 18 March 2020 a report containing final recommendations on the proposals was presented to the Māngere-Otahuhu Local Board for its formal feedback. The board made a resolution to defer the report to their April 2020 business meeting due to concerns with Tararata Stream.

60. On 6 May 2020 the Māngere-Otahuhu Local Board formally supported all recommendations at their business meeting for:

· Molesworth Place and Ventura Street acquisitions

· Watchfield Close land exchange

· Mayflower Park land exchange.

61. The local board also expressed concerns for COVID-19 impacts on the council’s Open Space Acquisition Budget for 2020/21 and delivery of Kāinga-Ora’s housing programme.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

62. The provision of quality parks and open spaces has broad benefits for Māori, including:

· helping facilitate Māori participation in outdoor recreational activity

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

63. The proposed land acquisitions do not contain any known sites or places of significance to mana whenua.

64. Mana whenua will be consulted on the land exchanges and about the development of the open space.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

65. The acquisition is planned and there is sufficient funding available in the Open Space Acquisition Budget to acquire the neighbourhood park and connection/linkage open space.

66. There is $66,351,267 allocated in 2022 under the Long Term Plan 2018-2028 when the acquisition is expected to take place.

67. The primary source of funding for open space acquisitions is development contributions (96%). Development contributions can only be spent for the purpose for which they are charged.

68. Kāinga Ora have agreed to meet the capital costs associated with the redevelopment of the two land exchange sites.

69. The funding anticipated to be drawn down in the 2021/22 or 2022/23 financial year.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

70. There is a low legal risk to council if it manages the land exchanges in accordance with section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977. Key aspects of this process include public and mana whenua consultation. Approval is sought to undertake this consultation.

71. Some delivery risks sit with Kāinga Ora, as there is no guarantee that the proposed land exchanges will be:

· approved by the governing body for notification

· supported by mana whenua through the consultation process

· supported by the public through the consultation process

· supported by the governing body following consultation

· authorised by the Minister of Conservation or their delegate.

72. Kāinga Ora will also manage any risks associated with their redevelopment projects in Māngere East and West.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

73. If the land acquisitions are approved, staff will instruct Panuku Development Auckland to undertake negotiations with Kāinga Ora.

74. If the land exchanges are approved, staff will publicly notify the exchanges in accordance with required statutory process.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Maclean Grindell - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

11 June 2020

Summary of Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee Information - updates, memos and briefings - 11 June 2020

File No.: CP2020/01448

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide a public record of memos, workshops or briefing papers that have been distributed for the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee’s (PACE) information since November 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3. The following papers/memos were circulated to members:

Date	Subject
14/11/2019	International Relations Unit memo – November 2019
12/02/2020	International Relations Unit memo – January – February 2020
12/02/2020	Acquisition of Mahurangi East Land (4 Jackson Crescent)
1/4/2020	Burial and Cremation Act 1964 submission
8/05/2020	Q Theatre COVID-19 trading position and funding request

4. The following workshops/briefings have taken place:

Date	Workshop/briefing
10/12/2019	PACE workshop - forward work programme
4/03/2020	PACE workshop – Regional Work Programmes (Growth Budget)
11/03/2020	PACE workshop – Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund
18/03/2020	PACE workshop – Burial and Cremation Act 1964 submission

5. These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

· at the top of the left page, select meeting “Park, Arts, Community and Events Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘view’;

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee:

a) receive the summary of the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee report – 11 June 2020.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	20191114_International Relations Unit memo (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	20200212_International Relations Unit memo (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	20200212_Acquisition of Mahurangi East Land (4 Jackson Crescent) (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	202004101_Burial and Cremation act 1964 submission (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	20200508_Q Theatre COVID-19 trading positon and funding request (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	20191210_workshop - forward work programme (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	20200304_workshop_Regional Work Programmes (Growth Budget) (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	20200311_workshop - Sport and Recreation Facility Investment Fund (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	20200318_workshop_Burial and Cremation Act 1964 submission (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Maea Petherick - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services

Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

11 June 2020

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

That the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee

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

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

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

C1 CONFIDENTIAL: Open space provision at Monte Cecilia Park, Hillsborough

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

In particular, the report contains legally privilaged information, and identifies land the council seeks to acquire for open space purposes.

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

In particular, the report contains legally privilaged information, and identifies land the council seeks to acquire for open space purposes.

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

In particular, the report contains legally privilaged information, and identifies land the council seeks to acquire for open space purposes.

s48(1)(a)

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

[1] Census, 2013 – population projections for Census 2018 have not yet been released.

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

Chairperson	Cr Alf Filipaina
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Dr Cathy Casey
Members	Cr Josephine Bartley	IMSB Member Tony Kake
	Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Tracy Mulholland
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Pippa Coom	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Angela Dalton	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr John Watson
	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP	Cr Paul Young
	Cr Shane Henderson
	Cr Richard Hills
	IMSB Member Mr Terrence Hohneck