Agenda of Regulatory and Community Safety Committee

Regulatory and Community Safety Committee

13 August 2024

Regional Community Safety work programme

File No.: CP2024/10947

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee with an update on the regional community safety work programme 2023 / 2024 within the Community Impact Unit and confirm the future reporting schedule.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has a role as both a partnership facilitator and service delivery agency with community safety outcomes. Auckland Council contributes to community safety in a range of ways and has a role in improving perceptions of community safety and increasing public confidence.

3. The council’s contributions to community safety can be themed across three spheres of influence:

· direct design of the built environment and service delivery

· regulatory mechanisms such as consenting and enforcement

· operational work programmes, responses and strategic relationships and funding.

4. The Community Partnerships and Investment team sits within the Community Impact Unit. It has 1.6 full time equivalent to realise positive community safety outcomes for both the region and the city centre.

5. Staff have a clear purpose statement that defines activities that have an impact on positive community safety outcomes. The key activities undertaken by the team over the 2023 / 2024 year include:

· provision of advice, building capacity and facilitating community safety responses where appropriate

· collaborating with partners to improve data collection and use of evidence

· mobilising and leveraging investment to support communities most in need

· effective partnership engagement for collective impact and advocacy.

6. Staff propose six monthly reporting (February and August) to the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee that provides relevant data, trends and themes, and an opportunity for committee members to engage in priority setting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee:

a) whiwhi / receive the update on the regional community safety work programme 2023 / 2024 delivered by the Community Partnerships and Investment team

b) ohia / endorse a six-monthly reporting process (February and August), including a review of key data and themes connected to community safety, and aligned to the reporting on the City Centre Community Safety Action Plan

Horopaki

Context

7. As with any large city, issues relating to community safety and crime in Auckland are common and consistent. These issues are frequently complex and vary from low level anti-social behaviour to more intimidating and consequential criminal behaviour.

8. Improving safety and increasing community confidence is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted approach. Success relies on several different participants working together in partnership: local and central government agencies, businesses and business associations, New Zealand Police, community groups, social and private sector organisations, town centre users and residents all play a part.

9. Auckland Council has a range of explicit and implicit roles in terms of supporting and improving community safety and these are delivered in partnership with a range of organisations across central government, businesses, residents, academic and not-for-profit sectors.

10. The last couple of years has seen an increase in reported crime, particularly impacting the central city.

11. As negative public perception of community safety has increased over the last two years, central and local government have responded with investment to address these issues, particularly in the city centre. The development of the City Centre Community Safety Action Plan is a specific example of this focus.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. The main issues that are covered by the term anti-social behaviour where the council has some engagement include:

· nuisance and noise

· aggressive begging

· nuisance issues relating to people sleeping rough - e.g. blocking pathways with possessions

· threatening and intimidating behaviour or harassment

· drug and alcohol issues - e.g. dealing, drunkenness

· property damage - e.g. graffiti

· theft / shoplifting and pickpocketing

· illegal rubbish dumping and litter

· trespassing

· transport offences, such as illegal parking, irresponsible use of pathways e.g. electric scooter, skateboarding.

13. How the community can report and address these issues is communicated on the council’s website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/safetyhub

14. Outside of the areas where council has some direct role, key crime issues of particular prominence over the last year include gang related violence and youth crime (e.g. ram raiding).

15. Council does not have an explicit delivery role in these issues but we support actions to ensure relevant partners have the resources required to address these or provide community development investment to key communities.

Data trends and perceptions of safety

16. According to New Zealand Police figures, overall rates of victimisation within Auckland have increased from 2019 to 2023. This has coincided with the introduction of the 105 reporting number (May 2019), wide-ranging adoption by retailers of the Auror software (2019) and changes to police family violence offence codes (2019).

17. Victimsation data collected over the last two years shows that the overall rate for the region has remained stable, while the rate for the central city has decreased.

Left

Figure 1: Victimisation trend for the Auckland region, excluding the central city (April 2022 – April 2024)

Figure 1: Victimisation trend for the Auckland central city (April 2022 – April 2024)

18. The Quality of Life Project survey was initiated over 20 years ago in response to concerns about the impacts of urbanisation on the wellbeing of residents and communities. It occurs every two years. For Auckland, results are captured at a local board level.

19. In 2020, 90 per cent of Auckland respondents stated they felt safe in their town centre during the day. In the 2022 survey, this perception of safety measure was recorded at 80 per cent. Those from Upper Harbour and Devonport-Takapuna Local Board areas were at the high end (88-89 per cent) while respondents from Manurewa, Waitākere Ranges and Waitematā were at the lower end (71-72 per cent). Data for 2024 is expected to be released later this year and included in future reporting.

The council’s community safety remit

20. Thematically, the council has three overlapping spheres of influence:

· direct design and services

· regulatory compliance, monitoring and enforcement

· operational work programmes, responses and strategic relationships.

Direct design and services

21. The council’s significant streetscape and design programme, with projects such as the Downtown, Karangahape Road, Takapuna, Onehunga and Papatoetoe upgrades illustrate our direct design and delivery function to create not only functional, fit for purpose streets but also safer spaces in the central city and other town centres.

22. A number of design guidelines help to create more appealing and safer spaces. Principles such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) are integrated into the projects ensuring spaces are safer through improved access and maintenance. The greater opportunities for people to be present attracts more people which in turn supports surveillance and encourages ownership of the space.

Regulatory mechanisms such as consenting and enforcement

23. As well as considering applications for consent under the Resource Management Act and the Building Act relating to development throughout the city, council delivers a number of programmes and activities to help achieve compliance with the various statutes and bylaws that apply in the area. This includes:

· deployment of compliance officers, both routinely and in response to specific issues

· responding to and facilitating solutions to complaints

· development of relevant bylaws, including the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013

· funding of community patrols.

Operational work programmes, responses and strategic relationships

24. Operational teams within the council hold relationships with a wide range of agencies and leverage these for shared approaches to community safety. This includes leading cross-sector collaborative groups such as the Central City Community Safety Taskforce or representing council on external groups and forums such as the Resilience to Organised Crime in Communities steering group.

25. The goals of these representations and actions are strategically aligned to Ngā Hapori Momoho / Thriving Communities Strategy 2022-2032, the Auckland Plan and Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau which recognise community cohesion and wellbeing are key elements of creating safe communities.

26. Working across the region, including a specific focus on the central city, our mahi contributes to making Auckland a safe place where all communities can participate and thrive. Over the last year the Community Partnerships and Investment team has supported community safety outcomes across the following areas:

· providing advice, building capacity and facilitating responses where appropriate

· collaborating with partners to improve data collection and use of evidence

· mobilising and leveraging investment to support communities most in need

· effective partnership engagement for collective impact and advocacy.

27. Examples of the activities above include design and management of collaborative responses for hot spots and emerging safety issues and leveraging investment opportunities by partnering with the council services and external stakeholders such as the police ethnic liaison team, social sector groups and homelessness response. The team builds networks across the region to ensure the free flow of information and remove barriers for implementing interventions.

Regional Community Safety Fund

28. The Community Partnerships and Investment team manage the annual Regional Community Safety Fund which is distributed to community safety organisations around Tāmaki Makaurau. This fund services long-standing partnerships as well as maintaining flexibility for catalytic investment to support new initiatives or organisations in need of assistance.

Table1: Allocation of the Regional Community Safety Fund over 2023 / 2024 financial year.

Purpose	Organisations	Amount
Community wardens and patrols	Various (Community Patrols New Zealand, Pacific Wardens)	$185,000
Safer neighbourhoods	Neighbourhood Support	$50,000
Youth crime prevention	TYLA Youth Develpoment Trust	$20,000
Safer ethnic communities	Social Cohesion Forum	$18,000
Building bonds between Māori and migrant communities	Social Cohesion Forum	$5000
Building Pacific Wardens capacity	Tāmaki Makaurau Pacific Wardens	$40,000
Summer safety programme - "Operation Speedo”	Various	$5309
Community safety training and capacity building	Various	$1000
Safer communities – regional boarding house safety	Kāhui Tū Kaha	$49,000
TOTAL		$373,309

29. An additional one-off fund of $2 million was administered by the Community Partnerships and Investment team, known as the Local Crime Prevention fund. This funding was allocated to local boards and Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) by the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee (resolution number RSCCC/2023/24). The purpose of the fund was to activate new, or strengthen existing, community-led partnerships that focus on youth crime prevention and town centre / retail crime prevention through a CPTED lens.

Priorities for 2024 / 2025

30. In the next 6-12 months key activities and areas for development include:

· The Auckland City Centre Advisory Board through the City Centre Targeted Rate will fund a project to improve data and inter-agency information sharing to assess the impact of the City Centre Community Safety Action Plan.

· A review and evaluation of interventions from the Local Crime Prevention fund to measure and compare impacts from local board and BID allocations.

· Assisting a partnership initiative between NZ Police and Safety Collective staff to align differing approaches to alcohol across police districts and local government.

31. Supporting implementation of the night-time economy programme led by Tātaki Auckland Unlimited. This includes:

· Lighting improvements and safe transit routes for pedestrians between key areas (eg Wynyard - downtown - Karangahape Road)

· Continued advocacy, support and evaluation of efficacy of an improved CityWatch programme that provides visible security and passive surveillance to the central city and deployment throughout the region.

· Maintain and continue business as usual activities such as providing advice, facilitation, capacity building, and mobilising and leveraging investment.

Future reporting schedule

32. Staff recommend that formal reporting on regional community safety initiatives as outlined above to the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee is aligned with reporting on the city centre safety plan, which will occur every six months. It is proposed that this is provided in February and August.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33. Endorsement of this report has no impact on the Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri Auckland’s Climate Plan.

34. As this report is for monitoring and information the decision does not impact on emission levels and does not require mitigation or adaptation activities.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35. The Community Partnerships and Investment team work with a significant number of council colleagues and CCOs which influence community safety outcomes, including:

· Proactive Compliance

· Community Partnerships and Investment

· Regional Homelessness Lead

· Parks and Community Facilities

· Office of the Mayor

· City Centre Programmes

· CAYAD – Community Action on Youth and Drugs

· Libraries and community hubs

· Eke Panuku

· Auckland Transport

· Tātaki Auckland Unlimited.

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

Local impacts and local board views

36. The Community Partnerships and Investment team has a regional focus and supports the broader ecosystem of staff delivering services at a local level where specific community safety factors emerge.

37. The portion of the Local Crime Prevention Fund distributed amongst local boards is administered through the local board work programmes. The quarterly reporting from the local board work programmes provide regular and direct channel for Community Wellbeing staff to relay safety related concerns raised by local board members.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38. The New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey by the Ministry of Justice identified Māori adults were more likely to experience victimisation across all offence types.

39. Funded interventions developed with kaupapa Māori principles improve community safety outcomes and have a positive impact on Māori communities in Tāmaki Makaurau. Examples of kaupapa Māori interventions include funding to Kāhui tū Kaha and support for ngā Wātene Māori (Māori Warden groups).

40. The City Centre Community Safety Action plan outlines the importance of mana whenua and mataawaka partnerships and how honouring Te Tiriti helps to create an inclusive, thriving and safe city centre. Specifically, this includes:

· Support Māori-led organisations: partner with Māori-led organisations to deliver programmes that support safe communities and wellbeing, e.g. Māori wardens.

· Iwi engagement: ensure that council and partners are engaging iwi in policy and direction setting for safety across the motu.

· Visibility: ensure that Te Ao Māori is visible in the urban design and planning of the physical environment.

41. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy, which guides investment into regional grants programmes, contains a specific objective to support the delivery of Māori outcomes, contributing to increased social and economic wellbeing for Māori. This is considered in the design and decision making relating to community safety grants.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42. Services and programmes provided by Auckland Council are generally funded through the Long-term Plan budget or the local board locally-driven initiatives (LDI) work programmes.

43. The council’s annual investment in community safety groups and initiatives through the Regional Community Safety Fund helps secure additional central government funding, for example the Local Crime Prevention fund.

44. There are no additional financial implications for the council regarding endorsement of this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

45. To ensure the success of the activities an impact framework identifies the data and metrics used to evidence impact, and this is reviewed by the team every six months.

46. A regular reporting cycle will provide oversight of progress and updates to the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

47. The Community Partnerships and Investment team will work with committee and council staff to design and implement the reporting structure.

48. The timing of reporting will be aligned with the city centre community safety action plan reporting schedule and proposed to be in February and August.

49. If endorsed, the next report to the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee will be in February 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Duncan McLaggan – Manager Community Partnerships and Investment

Michal Dziwulski – Senior Advisor Community Safety

Authoriser

Rachel Kelleher - Director Community

Regulatory and Community Safety Committee

13 August 2024

City Centre Community Safety Action Plan

File No.: CP2024/10615

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee’s endorsement of the City Centre Community Safety Action Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The City Centre Community Safety Action Plan (the plan) is attached to this report for endorsement (Attachment A).

3. The plan's purpose is to provide greater coherency around the collective work within the council group and its partners, as well as to identify and address priority areas for further action, focus and where appropriate, investment. This plan is important for the city centre as it aims to address crime and safety concerns, enhance public confidence and trust, support economic prosperity and promote partnerships, social connectedness and inclusion.

4. The plan has been prepared with input from many groups including the Centre City Community Safety Taskforce, the City Centre Advisory Panel and partners such as NZ Police and Auckland City Mission.

5. Overall, there is a balance of safety, security and social wellbeing outcomes. Many of the initiatives within the plan are activities funded and underway across the council group and its partners.

6. A set of current priorities have been identified as areas of focus for the next 6-12 months and are currently being delivered upon. These priorities include:

· advocacy to central government on key issues

· ‘Together for Tāmaki Makaurau’ partner collaboration

· city centre safety hubs

· expansion of CityWatch

· audit of, and investment in, central city lighting

· increased community support and outreach

· enhanced CCTV monitoring

· night-time economy programme.

7. An update on the development of the plan was provided to the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee meeting on 9 April 2024 meeting.

8. The plan is conceived as a ‘living document’ and will be updated regularly to reflect changing priorities and activities.

9. The City Centre Community Safety Action was endorsed unanimously by the Waitematā Local Board at its 23 July 2024 meeting resolution number WTM/2024/112.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee:

a) ohia / endorse the City Centre Community Safety Action Plan.

Horopaki

Context

10. Improving safety and increasing community confidence in the city centre is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach. Success relies on several different participants working together in partnership: local and central government agencies, business and business associations, NZ Police, social sector, community groups, private sector, city users and residents all play a part.

11. Auckland Council, together with the lead agency for the regeneration of the city centre, Eke Panuku, worked together with colleagues across the council group and with external partners to develop and deliver the plan, which underpins a coordinated approach to managing community safety and anti-social behaviour.

12. The objective of this plan is to provide coherence and community confidence around the collective work within the council group and our partners to:

· promote a stronger joint agency approach to safety and anti-social behaviour in the city centre with clear accountabilities, roles and funded actions

· provide greater confidence in the work that we are collectively doing

· identify gaps in the collective safety work programme, enabling these to be addressed and funded via a joint agency approach.

13. The need for a rapid response to city centre safety issues has resulted in many initiatives identified through this plan being undertaken already, either by the council group or its partners.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14. Community safety, security and wellbeing are important to the enjoyment, experience and success of the city centre. Addressing community safety issues has been a key focus of the council group, particularly considering the increased rates of crime and anti-social behavior witnessed across the city and within the city centre following the Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns.

15. A multifaceted and inter-agency approach is required across local and national government, not-for-profit / for purpose organisations and community groups, private sector organisations and city users all play a part.

16. While immediate and short-term responses are needed, it is also important that there are responses to the underlying systemic issues. Perceptions matter as they influence how people feel about living in and accessing parts of their city, as well as the range of interventions available and the potential consequences of these interventions.

17. It is important that safety, security, wellbeing and anti-social behaviour are addressed with a package of linked interventions, both short term and long-term in nature. Targeting the underlying causes, such as poverty and inequality is also critical.

What does the data say?

18. Data on crime is taken from NZ Police. This compares an average of the most recent available three months (February - April 2024) to the average of those three months a year prior. This shows that incidents of theft and burglary have decreased by 32 per cent from the same period in 2023 and have halved since its peak in January 2023. Incidents of assault have also decreased, down by 23 per cent compared to the same period in 2023. The data is for the Auckland Central East, West, City Marinas and Harbourside.

The role of Auckland Council

19. The council group’s role is important as a coordinator and facilitator, bringing together a joint agency response driving better synchronization and accountability across all the various agencies who play a role in this complex space. In addition to our coordination and facilitation role, Auckland Council has several explicit and implicit roles in terms of supporting and improving community safety and these are delivered in partnership with a range of organisations across central government, businesses, residents, academic and not-for-profit sectors.

20. Thematically, the council has three overlapping spheres of influence:

· direct design, e.g. CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design)

· regulatory compliance, monitoring and enforcement

· operational work programmes, responses and strategic relationships such as CCTV, security patrols, business partnerships, community initiatives, key relationships such as police, residents’ groups, business groups, iwi.

City Centre Community Safety Action Plan

21. Community safety plans are a common international approach that aim to provide a clear articulation of the responsibilities of local government as well as the critical work of key partners.

22. The City Centre Community Safety Action Plan is framed under three recognised realms of community safety at the neighbourhood level:

· protection through urban and spatial design

· protection through the management of the quarter / neighbourhood

· protection through social connectedness.

23. This provides a balance of safety, security and social wellbeing outcomes. Many of the initiatives within the plan are activities that are already funded and underway across the council group and its partners.

24. During the plan's development, additional initiatives were identified to respond to the current reality and perception of safety. These priorities include:

· advocacy to central government on key issues – this includes mental health, drug and alcohol harm, and housing

· ‘Together for Tāmaki Makaurau’ – collaboration and improved communication between private, voluntary and professional patrols and wardens.

· safety Hubs – realising the value of these physical safety hubs for volunteer patrols and local communities.

· expansion of CityWatch – at least two-year expansion trial of the CityWatch team from 6 to 18 personnel, covering a wider geographic area and times of the day.

· audit of, and investment in, central city lighting

· community support and outreach – increased investment in groups that provide social and wellbeing support

· enhanced CCTV monitoring

· night-time economy programme – deliver a programme of initiatives to improve the night-time environment and economy.

25. The plan was the subject of significant engagement in the development and draft stages. Led by the Community Partnerships and Investment team, the engagement process provided opportunities for input from a broad range of council and CCO teams, elected members, City Centre Advisory Panel, NZ Police, community organisations, the Centre City Residents Group, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Houkura – IMSB, universities and business associations. Engagement opportunities occurred between April and June 2024, and included focus groups, one-to-one interviews, written feedback, and workshops.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26. Endorsement of the City Centre Community Safety Action Plan has no impact on the Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. A significant number of council teams and CCOs influence community safety outcomes. They contribute to and are accountable for a range of activities in the plan. Council group kaimahi and teams providing input into, and delivery of the plan include:

· Compliance

· Community Partnerships and Investment

· Regional Homelessness Lead

· Parks and Community Facilities

· Office of the Mayor

· City Centre Programmes

· CAYAD (Community Action on Youth and Drugs)

· Central Hub – Central Library and Ellen Melville Centre

· Eke Panuku Development Auckland

· Auckland Transport

· Tātaki Auckland Unlimited.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. Improving public safety and perceptions of safety is recognised by the Waitematā Local Board as a key challenge for this term. “The local board plan supports a larger regional response to this issue that collectively seeks to improve safety and wellbeing and seeks to work with central government and community partners to support initiatives and programmes to respond to this” (Waitematā Local Board Plan 2023).

29. The board provided indicative verbal feedback to the draft plan at a workshop on 11 June 2024. Written feedback was also provided by some local board members.

30. Updates based on this feedback have been incorporated into the final version. This includes:

· stronger reference to the advocacy role of council and partners on mental health, drug and alcohol treatment, and housing

· stronger reference to, and advocacy for, investment in city centre policing

· ensuring reference to a broader range of ethnic communities in terms of community building.

31. The plan was endorsed unanimously by the Waitematā Local Board at its 23 July 2024 meeting (resolution number WTM/2024/113).

City Centre Advisory Panel

32. At its 29 April 2024 meeting, the City Centre Advisory Panel endorsed (resolution CCAPC/2024/7) an additional allocation of City Centre Targeted Rates (CCTR) funding. This was for $2 million per year for the next two years to support improvements to community / visitor safety as a short-term fix, in addition to existing ongoing efforts. This was undertaken as part of the panel’s feedback and advice on the city centre targeted rate investment priorities for 2025 - 2031.

33. Informed by the safety plan priorities, staff have worked with the panel and partners to develop this investment proposal. The panel endorsed the safety plan and the targeted rate investment proposal at the 24 June meeting 2024 (resolution number CCAP/2024/14).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34. Recognising and supporting the role of mana whenua and their cultural and historical bonds to the land are an important element of a safe and thriving city centre.

35. Key areas of focus for improved outcomes in the plan include:

· support Māori-led organisations - partnering with Māori-led organisations to deliver programmes that support safe communities and well-being

· iwi engagement - ensuring that council and partners are engaging iwi in policy and direction setting for safety in the central city

· visibility - ensuring that te ao Māori is visible in the urban design and planning of the physical environment in the central city

· Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Houkura - IMSB reviewed and provided feedback on the plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. Services and programmes provided by Auckland Council are generally funded through the LTP budget or the local board Locally-Driven Initiatives (LDI) work programme.

37. As noted above, the City Centre Targeted Rate (CCTR) is providing an additional $2 million per year for the next two financial years to support extended investment into targeted areas including the expansion of CityWatch patrols, an additional three full-time staff to support outreach and social support through the Auckland City Mission, continuation of the Street Guardians programme, and a data and accountability role to establish an impact framework for the plan.

38. Services led by partner organisations are a mix of either fully funded, partially funded or volunteer led programmes. The funding status is outlined in the plan.

39. It is likely that the delivery and monitoring of the plan will highlight areas and activities for which additional funding would be beneficial. These will be reviewed and reported on at a regular interval.

40. There are no additional financial implications for the Regulatory and Safety Committee in relation to endorsement of the plan.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

41. To ensure the plan's success, a data and accountability role is being established that will develop agreed metrics and reporting.

42. A regular six-monthly reporting cycle will provide oversight of progress and updates to the governance, advisory and service delivery partners.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

43. Recruitment of Advisor Community Safety Outcomes and establishment of key outcomes metrics.

44. Review of the city centre targeted rate safety investment settings six monthly to ensure the funding is effectively realising positive community safety outcomes.

45. Regular updates will be provided to the Regulatory and Safety Committee on progress on initiatives as set out in the plan. These are proposed to be six monthly in line with reporting on regional community safety activities.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	City Centre Community Safety Plan

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Duncan McLaggan – Manager Community Partnerships and Investment – Auckland Council

Simon Oddie - Priority Location Director City Centre – City Centre Lead – Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Ian Wheeler - Chief Operating Officer – Eke Panuku Development Auckland

David Rankin - Chief Executive - Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Rachel Kelleher - Director Community

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Property Details
b ⇨	Resolution RSCCC-2024-28

Regulatory and Community Safety Committee

13 August 2024

Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 13 August 2024

File No.: CP2024/10782

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update of all current resource consent appeals lodged with the Environment Court.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report provides a summary of current resource consent appeals to which the Auckland Council is a party. It updates the report to the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee on 4 June 2024.

3. If committee members have detailed questions concerning specific appeals, it would be helpful if they could raise them prior to the meeting with Robert Andrews (phone: 09 353-9254) or email: robert.andrews@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) in the first instance.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee:

a) receive the Resource Consents Appeals: Status Report 13 August 2024.

Horopaki

Context

4. As at 26 July 2024, there are 36 resource consent appeals to which Auckland Council is a party. These are grouped by Local Board Area geographically from north to south, as set out in Attachment A. Changes since the last report and new appeals received are shown in bold italic text.

5. The principal specialist planners - resource consents, continue to resolve these appeals expeditiously. In the period since preparing the previous status report on 17 May 2024, there have been two new appeals lodged and four resolved.

6. The new appeal from P J and M L Dale is to conditions of a retrospective resource consent associated with the construction of a seawall within an esplanade reserve adjacent to their property at 284 Point Wells Road, Point Wells. The conditions require the undertaking of landscape planting within the reserve to mitigate adverse coastal character and amenity effects associated with the wall.

7. The Trustees of DOKAD Trust, Successors and Nominees including Peter Mawhinney seek to appeal a resource consent for two dwellings, two minor dwellings and two home occupations. The council believes this appeal has no merit as no decision has been made. The application is on hold awaiting further information that the appellant claims is a refusal of consent and has appealed on that basis.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. To receive the report as provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

9. The report provides an update of consent appeals and seeks no resolution or consideration of the merits associated with them.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

10. Not applicable.

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

Local impacts and local board views

11. Not applicable.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

12. The decision requested of the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee is to receive this progress report rather than to consider the relevance to Māori associated with each of the appeals at this time.

13. The Resource Management Act 1991 includes a number of matters under Part 2, which relate to the relationship of Tangata Whenua to the management of air, land and water resources. Maori values associated with the land, air and freshwater bodies of the Auckland Region are based on whakapapa and stem from the long social, economic and cultural associations and experiences with such taonga. These matters where relevant are considered with the resolution of the resource consent appeals.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

14. Environment Court appeal hearings can generate significant costs in terms of commissioning legal counsel and expert witnesses. Informal mediation and negotiation processes seek to limit these costs. Although it can have budget implications, it is important that Auckland Council, when necessary, ensure that resource consents maintain appropriate environmental outcomes and remain consistent with the statutory plan policy framework through the appeal process.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

15. Not applicable.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

16. Not applicable.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Resource Consent Appeals as at 26 July 2024

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Robert Andrews - Principal Specialist Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Rachel Kelleher - Director Community

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Regulatory and Community Safety Committee Forward Work Programme - 13 August 2024

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Hearings held, hearing panels and hearing outcomes July 2023 – June 2024

Regulatory and Community Safety Committee

13 August 2024

Objection to wastewater works at 38c Fairdene Avenue

File No.: CP2024/09370

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To hear and determine an objection to proposed wastewater works at 38c Fairdene Avenue Henderson, pursuant to section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A developer has obtained approval from the council to connect a new development at 42 Fairdene Avenue, Henderson, to the public wastewater connection located on 38b and 38c Fairdene Avenue.

3. The proposed works involve the construction of a 1.6m long 150mm diameter pipe below the shared driveway of 38b and 38c Fairdene Avenue (see Attachment A – Engineering Planning Approval). Once constructed, this pipe will be vested in the council as a public wastewater asset.

4. The owner of 38c Fairdene Avenue has refused the developer access to their property for this purpose. Council-led efforts to facilitate an agreement have been unsuccessful.

5. A site inspection and assessment for the pipe considered the following alternative options:

a) Option one: extending the public network approximately 1.6 metres from 38b and 38c Fairdene Avenue’s shared accessway (recommended option)

b) Option two: extending the public network approximately 1.6 metres at a sub-optimal gradient from 38c Fairdene Avenue’s accessway

c) Option three: extending the public network approximately 110 metres from the public carriageway outside of 28 Fairdene Avenue

d) Option four: do nothing.

6. Option one is recommended because the route does not interfere with existing services, is the least disruptive to landowners, and provides the best outcome for the public network.

7. The council has determined that the works constitute necessary public wastewater works. It has issued a notice under section 181(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 informing the landowners of its intention to construct the works as a council project.

8. The landowners have lodged a written objection to the works (Attachment A). During facilitation, the owner confirmed that the do not want a manhole in front of their driveway or garage, and does not agree to pipes on her section (Attachment B).

9. This report recommends that the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee endorse the proposed public wastewater works at 38b and 38c Fairdene Avenue (option 1) to manage the wastewater effects of the approved development at 42 Fairdene Avenue.

10. If the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee determines that the works should proceed, construction will begin within three months (weather dependent). It is proposed that the pipe will be installed by open trenching with the installation of a new wastewater manhole. The works will take approximately 10 days to complete.

11. It has been explained to all the affected property owners that they have the right to claim injurious affection (if established) under the Public Works Act 1981.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee:

a) Whakaae / agree to hear and determine the objections by the owner of 38c Fairdene Avenue, according to clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002

b) whakatau / resolve that the council will proceed with the extension of the public wastewater network from 42 Fairdene Avenue via 38b and 38c Fairdene Avenue as shown in Attachment A – approved engineering plans, according to clause 1(e) of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Horopaki

Context

12. Auckland Council is responsible for managing and maintaining the public wastewater network in Auckland, much of which is located on private land.

13. Section 181(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 empowers the council to ‘construct works on or under private land or under a building on private land that it considers necessary for sewage and wastewater drainage’.

14. Such works require either the prior written consent of the owner of the land, or that the council follows the process set out in Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

15. Schedule 12 requires that affected owners and occupiers are provided with a description of the proposed works, including plans, and are given the opportunity to object to the works within one month of notification.

16. If an objection is made, a hearing must be arranged. After hearing objections, the council must then determine to either abandon the works proposed, or proceed with the works proposed, with or without any alterations that the council thinks fit.

Enabling wastewater management on 42 Fairdene Avenue

17. A developer has been granted resource consent by Auckland Council’s regulatory department to subdivide a property at 42 Fairdene Avenue. A condition of that resource consent is that the new development connects to the public wastewater system.

18. The developer has obtained engineering approval to connect the subdivision to the existing public wastewater line located within 38b and 38c Fairdene Avenue’s shared accessway, see Attachment A.

19. It is proposed that a 1.6 metre long, 150mm diameter wastewater pipe is constructed through open trenching. This method is proposed due to the minimal piping length and the requirement to install a new wastewater manhole on the existing line, which will require excavations within the shared accessway.

20. All excavation and removal of any vegetation or landscaping will be fully re-instated upon completion of the works.

21. The new pipe will be vested in Auckland Council as a public wastewater asset to be owned and maintained by Watercare once it is connected to the wastewater network.

Objections received from landowners at 38c Fairdene Avenue

22. Negotiations between the developer and the landowner to start the works began in May 2022. The owners of 38a and 38c Fairdene Avenue have refused to allow the developer to connect to the wastewater network via these properties.

23. The developer applied to council to provide facilitation services to help reach an agreement with the landowner. Facilitation commenced in October 2023, however no agreement was reached.

24. The council then assessed the developer’s works and determined that the works are necessary public works and qualify as a council project under the powers of the Local Government Act 2002. This enables public works to be undertaken on private land without the owner’s consent, provided the requirements of the Act are met.

25. The council issued notices to the affected landowners of its intention to carry out the works under section 181 of the Local Government Act 2002, dated 20 March 2024.

26. Following the issuing of this notice, the council has continued to communicate with the landowners, however an agreement has not been reached.

27. Pursuant to schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002, the landowners had until 20 April 2024 to formally object to the section 181 notice. The owners of 38a and 38c Fairdene Avenue lodged their objection on 16 April 2024.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

28. The council is empowered to construct works on private land that it considers necessary for wastewater drainage. When determining the best option, the council looks at a range of possible options to achieve the required wastewater outcomes for the public good, and at the same time, to carefully balance any impacts on individual property owners.

29. The council analysed three alternative alignments for connecting the development at 42 Fairdene Avenue to the public wastewater system (see Attachment C).

30. These options were:

· Option one: extending the public network approximately 1.6m from 38b and 38c Fairdene Avenue’s shared accessway (recommended option)

· Option two: extending the public network approximately 1.6m from 38c Fairdene Avenue’s accessway

· Option three: extending the public network approximately 110m from the public carriageway outside of 28 Fairdene Avenue

· Option four: do nothing.

31. These three options were analysed against relevant criteria as shown below in Table 1.

Table 1. Analysis of alignment options against various criteria

	Option one (Orange in Attachment C) Recommended	Option two (Blue in Attachment C)	Option three (Purple in Attachment C)	Option six Do nothing
Interference with existing services	Minor	Minor	Major	Not applicable
Disruption to property owners	Medium	Medium	Major	Not applicable
Cost (CAPEX & OPEX)	$	$	$$$	Not applicable
Route to existing wastewater network	Direct – 5m (38b & 38c Fairdene Avenue)	Direct – 5m (38c Fairdene Avenue)	Indirect – 100m (Carriageway outside of 28 Fairdene Avenue	Not applicable
Ability for third- party properties to connect to proposed infrastructure	Moderate	Moderate	Good	NA Not applicable
Access for future maintenance	Good	Good	Good	Not applicable
Constructability risk	Low	Medium	High	Not applicable
Compliance with Council code of practice	Good	Medium	Poor	Poor
Duplication of existing wastewater infrastructure	Low	Low	High	Not applicable

Most positive

Moderate

Most negative

Key

Analysing options for wastewater management at 42 Fairdene Avenue

32. Option one considered the open cut installation of approximately 1.6m of wastewater pipe to a new manhole on the existing public wastewater line within the accessway of 38b and 38c Fairdene Avenue. This option is recommended as it does not duplicate the existing wastewater infrastructure in the area, is compliant with the Council Code of Practice and has the lowest constructability and maintenance risk.

33. Option two considered the open cut installation of approximately 1.6m of wastewater pipe to the existing wastewater manhole (which was unable to be located due to existing vegetation and planter boxes) within 38c Fairdene Avenue’s accessway. This option is considered ‘second best’ as the existing wastewater manhole is at a higher level along the existing wastewater network, resulting in at gradient which is considered too shallow and would be non-compliant with Watercare's network standards.

34. Option three considered the installation of approximately 110m of wastewater pipe under 28-40 Fairdene Avenue’s accessways. This option involves the longest length of piping and will result in the disruption to at least seven different property owners, including 38a, 38b and 38c. The installation risks and on-going maintenance costs for this option are considered high due to the duplication of existing infrastructure, the required length of pipe and three additional manholes.

35. Option four considered doing nothing. This involves leaving the developer to continue to negotiate with the owner alone. This option is not supported, as it means the developer is more likely to pursue substandard options for extending the wastewater network that do not comply with the Wastewater Code of Practice. It also increases the likelihood of infrastructure failure which would impact third party properties.

36. As demonstrated by the assessment set out in Table 1 above, option one is the preferred option for the following reasons:

a) the route does not interfere with any existing services

b) the route is the least disruptive to landowners

c) the location of the works does not affect any existing structures on the landowners’ properties, resulting in minimal disturbance

d) the land proposed to be crossed is a driveway and not land that could be developed for housing or other structures

e) the pipe route is the practical and direct and provides the most optimal outcome for the public network

f) the route does not duplicate existing wastewater infrastructure.

Negotiating with the landowners

37. Negotiations with the landowners have been ongoing since May 2022. Initially negotiations were held directly between the developer and the landowners, with the council becoming involved from October 2023 onwards.

38. The council has attempted to engage with the landowners to offer advice on the proposed works and broker an agreement, refer to facilitation log Attachment D.

Summary of objections received

39. Table 2 below details the grounds upon which the landowners objects to the works and Healthy Waters response, see Attachment B Objection letter.

Table 2. Summary of objections

Objection points

Response from Healthy Waters

The Owners of 38c have objected to the proposed works on the basis that they are ‘not happy for the neighbor to undertake the proposed drainage extension works on their property’.

The proposed connection has been deemed necessary for any further development on the section at 42 Fairdene Avenue, Henderson. As per the approved Engineering Planning Approval, a connection is required. Auckland Council has assessed and recommended the most optimal route for all parties involved.

This objection is considered a civil matter and does not give weight to Auckland Council’s assessment and/or the decision to approve the works.

Recommended wastewater management option

40. Staff recommend that construction of the proposed wastewater works proceed at 38b and 38c Fairdene Avenue.

41. The works are necessary to enable development at 42 Fairdene Avenue and to meet the council’s wastewater standards. Works are expected to take up to 10 days to complete and staff will work with the landowners to ensure minimal disruption occurs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

42. Auckland Council adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan on 21 July 2020. Some of the key elements of the plan include how we will adapt to climate change, taking a precautionary approach and preparing for our current emissions pathway and the prospect of a 3.5 degrees warmer region.

43. One of the expected consequences of rising global temperatures is increased and more intense rainfall. To contribute to increasing Auckland’s resilience to climate change, the Auckland Council Wastewater Code of Practice requires all new infrastructure to be designed to deal with these expected impacts and severe weather events.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

44. Watercare has approved the preferred option. No other services will be impacted by the preferred option.

45. The pipe once constructed will be vested in the council and will form part of the public wastewater network to be maintained by Watercare.

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

Local impacts and local board views

46. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has not been consulted on the proposed wastewater works, as the pipe will be constructed on private land.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

47. The developer has not consulted local iwi on the proposed wastewater works outlined in this report.

48. Improved water quality for Tāmaki Makaurau is a priority for mana whenua. The recommended option will contribute to a better functioning wastewater management system, reducing the impact of the development on water quality.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

49. If approved, the pipe will be constructed by the council, with costs of the works to be paid for by the developer upfront. The recommended option is the most cost effective for the council, as it involves the shortest and most direct pipe alignment to operate, maintain and renew.

50. The council will be responsible for any proven injurious affection to private land pursuant to section 181(6) of the Local Government Act 2002, and the Public Works Act 1981. The likelihood of an injurious affection claim being brought is considered low, see Table 3. As part of the works costs the developer will be required to supply to the council a bond to remain in place for two years following completion of the works. This will cover any potential claim by the landowners for injurious affection.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51. Staff have undertaken a systematic risk assessment during a thorough investigation of the four different options proposed for the wastewater connection at 42 Fairdene Avenue. Through this assessment, a preferred method has been recommended which poses the least risk for Auckland Council and the neighbouring third-party properties and provides the most optimal wastewater solution for 42 Fairdene Avenue.

52. Key risks and proposed mitigations relating to the endorsement of option one is shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Risks and mitigations arising from Option one: extending the public network approximately 1.6m from 38b and 38c Fairdene Avenue’s shared accessway

Risk	Likelihood and consequence	Mitigation
Legal risk – objectors argue that this is in fact a private pipe and Auckland Council ought to use section 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 instead of section 181 Local Government Act 2002.	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Medium	The pipe will be vested in the council once constructed and will form part of the public wastewater system which the council is responsible for maintaining. It is being built to the council’s standards for public wastewater infrastructure and will serve a wider catchment as the area develops further.
Financial risk – if the landowner appeals the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee’s decision, the council may become liable for the cost of defending a District Court case.	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Medium	Given that the Regulatory and Community Safety Committee and District Court’s decision-making discretion is limited only to questions of the works being necessary and compliance with legal process, and not matters of compensation, it is considered unlikely that an appeal would be brought. Even if it was, the risk of the council losing on appeal is considered low, due to the works being necessary, and the section 181 process being followed correctly. If the landowners are unsuccessful in any legal challenge, they may be liable to pay court costs.
Compensation – the landowners could seek injurious affection (if evidenced) through the Land Valuation Tribunal, arguing that the public works have reduced the value of their property.	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Low	The potential for an injurious affection claim is considered low. The anticipated value of any such claim is considered low for the following reasons: The proposed pipe does not involve the taking of any land. The house is sufficiently distant from the works. The pipe predominantly follows the grassed boundary of the affected property. The proposed methodology will result in minimal excavation around the manhole and pipe resulting in a small area being impacted by the works that will be reinstated to its current condition. The applicant will be required to provide to council a bond sufficient to cover any potential claim for injurious affection prior to the works commencing. If the landowners are unsuccessful with any claim, they will be liable to pay court costs.
Infrastructure risk – low quality assets being vested to the council.	Likelihood: Low Consequence: Medium	The work will be undertaken by an approved council contractor who will have in place sufficient insurance to cover the risk of failure and in compliance with the engineering consent.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53. If the Regulatory Committee determines to proceed with the project (under Schedule 12 clause 1(e)(ii)), the next step will be to notify the Landowner in writing of the council’s intention to proceed with the works. The work is proposed to be undertaken in June 2021.

54. The Landowner has up to 14 days to lodge a further appeal to the District Court. If this occurs, then the council’s Legal Services team will support this process. If no appeal is lodged, the council would look to proceed with the works in mid-late 2024.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Engineering Planning Approval
b ⇨	Facilitation log
c ⇨	Objection letter
d ⇨	Options analysis

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Thomas Parsons – Intermediate Healthy Waters Specialist

Leighton Gillespie – Principal Delivery Special Projects

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Resilience and Infrastructure

Rachel Kelleher - Director Community

Chairperson	Cr Josephine Bartley
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Ken Turner
Members	Houkura Member Edward Ashby
	Houkura Member Ngarimu Blair
	Cr Julie Fairey
	Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM
	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Kerrin Leoni
	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
Ex-officio	Mayor Wayne Brown
	Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, JP

Resolution Number	Item	Status
RSCCC/2024/46	Findings from review of Council's Cemetery Bylaw and Code	In progress, as requested by the committee: · development of a report in response to the ‘2024 Review Findings Report: Auckland Council Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw and Code 2014’, for the committee’s consideration in the last quarter of this year. · report will complete a statutory bylaw review, develop options for improvements, and include a proposal on the preferred option.
RSCCC/2024/47	Findings from review of Council's policy and bylaw on dogs	In progress, as requested by the committee: · development of a report in response to the ‘2024 Review Findings Report: Auckland Council Policy and Bylaw on Dogs 2019’, for the committee’s consideration in the last quarter of this year. · report will develop options for improvements and include a proposal for public consultation on the preferred option.
RSCCC/2024/48	Findings from joint review of Auckland's traffic-related bylaws	In progress, as requested by the committee: · development of a report in response to the ‘2024 Review Findings Report: Auckland traffic-related bylaws’, for the committee’s consideration in the last quarter of this year. · report will develop options for improvements related to vehicle use and parking on Auckland Council controlled roads and public places and include a proposal for public consultation on the preferred option.

Date	Subject
03/07/2024	Hearings held, hearing panels and hearing outcomes July 2023 – June 2024

Author	Phoebe Chiquet-Kaan - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Rachel Kelleher - Director Community