Regional Strategy and Policy Committee OPEN AGENDA

Transcription

1 I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the will be held on: Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue: Thursday, 7 July am Reception Lounge Auckland Town Hall Queen Street Auckland OPEN AGENDA MEMBERSHIP Chairperson Cr George Wood, CNZM Deputy Chairperson Cr Anae Arthur Anae Members Cr Cameron Brewer Mr Kris MacDonald Mayor Len Brown, JP Cr Calum Penrose Cr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Dick Quax Cr Bill Cashmore Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM Cr Ross Clow Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE Cr Linda Cooper, JP Cr Wayne Walker Cr Chris Darby Cr John Watson Cr Alf Filipaina Cr Penny Webster Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO Mr Glenn Wilcox Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse Cr Denise Krum Cr Mike Lee (Quorum 11 members) Louis Dalzell Democracy Advisor 1 July 2016 Contact Telephone: (09) louis.dalzell@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contact the relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.

2

3 TERMS OF REFERENCE Responsibilities This committee will deal with all strategy and policy decision-making that is not the responsibility of another committee or the Governing Body i.e. strategies and policies associated with environmental, social, economic and cultural activities. Key responsibilities will include: Final approval of strategies and policies not the responsibility of other committees or the Governing Body Setting/ approving the policy work programme for Reporting Committees Overviewing strategic projects, for example, the Southern Initiative (except those that are the responsibility of the Auckland Development Committee) Implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Operational matters including: o o o Acquisition and disposal of property relating to the committee s responsibilities Stopping of roads Public Works Act matters Powers (i) All powers necessary to perform the committee s responsibilities. Except: (a) (b) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body responsibilities) where the committee s responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only (ii) Approval of a submission to an external body (iii) Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee. (iv) Power to establish subcommittees

4 Exclusion of the public who needs to leave the meeting Members of the public All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting. Those who are not members of the public General principles Access to confidential information is managed on a need to know basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role. Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role. Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items. In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final. Members of the meeting The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting). However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room. All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders. Independent Māori Statutory Board Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain. Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role. Staff All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain. Other staff who need to because of their role may remain. Local Board members Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area. Council Controlled Organisations Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

5 ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 Apologies 7 2 Declaration of Interest 7 3 Confirmation of Minutes 7 4 Petitions Glyphosate on Auckland's roads and parks petition 7 5 Public Input Hana Blackmore - use of chemicals in Auckland's public areas Tricia Cheel, Friends of Sherwood 8 6 Local Board Input 8 7 Extraordinary Business 9 8 Notices of Motion 9 9 Political working party and contingent delegated authority for approval of Auckland Council s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2) Position on Local Government New Zealand remit to advocate for increased funding of community policing and policing Levels Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme review Reserve revocation and disposal recommendation report Update on the implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach Reports Pending Status Update Information Items Consideration of Extraordinary Items PUBLIC EXCLUDED 17 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 59 C1 Land acquisition for stormwater purposes Tāmaki College 59 Page 5

6

7 1 Apologies An apology from Cr LA Cooper has been received. 2 Declaration of Interest Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have. 3 Confirmation of Minutes That the : a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 2 June 2016, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record. 4 Petitions 4.1 Glyphosate on Auckland's roads and parks petition Purpose 1. Georgina Blackmore will be in attendance to present a petition regarding the use of glyphosate on Auckland s roads and parks and table an open letter to Auckland Council. Prayer of the Petition 2. We are calling on Auckland Mayor Len Brown and the Chairman of Auckland Transport, Dr Lester Levy, to immediately stop the use of the toxic herbicide glyphosate (commonly known as Roundup) which has recently been re-classified by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as a Class 2A probable human carcinogen. 3. As of Wednesday 29 June 2016, 3,696 signatures accompany the petition. Recommendation/s That the : a) receive the petition from Georgina Blackmore on the use of glyphosate on Auckland s roads and parks. 5 Public Input Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker. Page 7

8 5.1 Hana Blackmore - use of chemicals in Auckland's public areas Purpose 1. Hana Blackmore wishes to address the committee. Executive summary 2. Hana Blackmore will speak on the topic of policy, transparency and accountability in decision-making around the use of chemicals in Auckland s public areas. Recommendation/s That the : a) receive the presentation and thank Hana Blackmore for her attendance. 5.2 Tricia Cheel, Friends of Sherwood Purpose 1. Tricia Cheel, Co-ordinator for Friends of Sherwood, wishes to address the committee. Executive summary 2. Tricia Cheel will present her views on Auckland Council s Weed Management Policy. Recommendation/s That the : a) receive the presentation and thank Tricia Cheel, Co-ordinator for Friends of Sherwood, for her attendance. 6 Local Board Input Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day s notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda. At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received. Page 8

9 7 Extraordinary Business Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if- (a) (b) The local authority by resolution so decides; and The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,- (i) (ii) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting. Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,- (a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if- (i) (ii) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but (b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion. 8 Notices of Motion At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received. Page 9

10

11 Item 9 Political working party and contingent delegated authority for approval of Auckland Council s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2) File No.: CP2016/13955 Purpose 1. To appoint a political working party to work with staff to provide direction on the development of Auckland Council s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2). 2. To also delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee to approve the submission should it be required by 28 July Executive summary 3. The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2) (also known as the Better Local Services Bill) has been referred to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee. Submissions to the Bill close on 28 July A workshop on the Bill will be held at 1.30 pm on 7 July 2016 following the Committee meeting. The workshop will discuss the Bill generally as well as implications for Auckland Council and the Auckland region. 5. This report seeks the appointment of a political working group to provide direction to staff on the development of Auckland Council s submission to the Bill. 6. The draft submission would ordinarily be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for approval at its meeting on 4 August However, this date is after the close of submissions on 28 July An extension for receiving Auckland Council s submission has been sought from the Select Committee but it is not certain when the outcome of our request will be known or whether the extension will be granted. 7. In the event that the extension is not granted by the Select Committee, the report also seeks delegations to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the to approve Auckland Council s submission on or before 28 July The delegation would only be exercised if the Select Committee does not grant an extension for Auckland Council s submission. If an extension is granted, Auckland Council s draft submission will be reported to the for approval on 4 August Input and comment from local boards, mana whenua, and the Independent Māori Statutory Board received through the development of Auckland Council s submission on the Bill will be considered by the political working party. Input received before 27 July 2016 will be attached to the submission where requested. Recommendation/s That the : a) note that the submission period for the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2) closes on 28 July 2016 and council has requested an extension to that submission period. b) appoint a political working party to provide direction to staff on the development of Auckland Council s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2). Political working party and contingent delegated authority for approval of Auckland Council s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2) Page 11

12 Item 9 c) delegate authority to approve Auckland Council s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2) by 28 July 2016 to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the committee, to be exercised only in the event that the Local Government and Environment Select Committee does not grant an extension of time for Auckland Council s submission. d) note that Auckland Council s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2) will be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 August Attachments There are no attachments for this report. Signatories Author Authorisers Wayne Brown - Lead Strategic Advisor Strategic Scanning Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer Political working party and contingent delegated authority for approval of Auckland Council s submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No. 2) Page 12

13 Item 10 Position on Local Government New Zealand remit to advocate for increased funding of community policing and policing levels File No.: CP2016/12560 Purpose 1. This report seeks approval of a Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) remit to advocate for increased Government funding of community policing and increased policing levels. Executive summary 2. Community safety and policing is a key area of focus for many local authorities. Accordingly, LGNZ is seeking a remit from its members, at the Annual General Meeting on 24 July 2016, to advocate for more Government funding of community policing and increased policing levels. 3. It is recommended that Auckland Council vote in support of the LGNZ remit. This is argued on the basis of no increased Government investment in community policing and police numbers. This is a particular problem for Auckland because of its significant and ongoing population growth and the positive correlation between population size and the need for police officers. Recommendation/s That the : a) agree that Auckland Council vote in support of a remit for Local Government New Zealand to advocate for increased Government funding of community policing and increased policing levels. Comments Background 4. Concerns have been raised about Government funding of the New Zealand Police ( Police ), which has resulted in static sworn police staffing levels and is purportedly having a detrimental impact on community safety. Laurence Yule, Mayor of Hastings and Chair of LGNZ, and Grant Nicholls, Deputy Commissioner District Operations (Acting) of the Police, recently debated this issue in the media. 5. LGNZ is seeking a remit from its members, at the Annual General Meeting on 24 July 2016, to advocate for more Government funding of community policing and increased policing levels. The draft text of the proposed LGNZ resolution is as follows: That LGNZ advocate to Government for it to provide increased resourcing to the Police to ensure adequate police staffing and coverage can be provided to New Zealand communities, and that Police commanders are not forced to compromise community policing services due to budget constraints. 6. Community safety and policing levels was also raised at a recent LGNZ Zone One meeting where local authorities noted increasing pressure to fund local safety initiatives such as security patrols or closed-circuit television across New Zealand. Councillor Penny Webster represented Auckland Council at the Zone One meeting. 7. On 13 June 2016, Councillor George Wood, in his capacity as Chair of the Regional Policy and Strategy Committee, requested the development of policy advice to allow Auckland Council to adopt a formal position on the LGNZ remit. Position on Local Government New Zealand Remit to Advocate for Increased Funding of Community Policing and Policing Levels Page 13

14 Item Auckland Council is committed to improving community safety and residents perceptions of safety. There are mixed results against targets outlined in the Auckland Plan. While total offences in the Auckland region have dropped significantly, public perceptions of safety have decreased. These perceptions are most pronounced in central city areas where only 42 per cent feel safe after dark (a small increase from 38 per cent in 2012). Table 1: Progress against Auckland Plan outcomes Target Reduce the rate of total criminal offences per 10,000 population from 939 in 2010 to 800 in 2040 Increase residents perceptions of safety in their neighbourhoods from 68% in 2010 to 80% by 2030 Progress On-target: In the year ended December 2014, the rate was 755 Off-target: Public perceptions of safety have decreased since 2010 While a high proportion of Auckland respondents reported feeling very safe' or fairly safe' in their own home after dark (87%) in 2014, this proportion dropped to 42 per cent when considering their safety in the city centre after dark, and 55 per cent when thinking about walking alone in their neighbourhood Source: Wilson, R., Reid, A and Bishop, C (2015). Auckland Plan targets: monitoring report Auckland Council technical report, TR2015/ Auckland is ranked ninth out of 230 cities worldwide for personal safety according to the Mercer 2016 Quality of Living rankings. LGNZ Remit 10. It is recommended that Auckland Council vote in support of a LGNZ remit to advocate for increased Government funding of community policing and increased policing levels. 11. There is value in a united approach to this issue, rather than individual local authorities actively lobbying for increased police numbers within their jurisdictions. The downside to this approach is that Auckland s case for increased investment will need to be balanced against demands from other local authorities. 12. Approximately 18 other local authorities have signalled support for the remit. Evidence Base 13. A range of data underpins the recommendation that Auckland Council supports the extension of the LGNZ remit. No increased Government investment in community policing or increasing police numbers 14. According to Parliamentary debates the number of General Duty Constables or authorised officers has decreased by 18 per cent since The Police Association has also argued that reductions in non-constabulary staff have placed additional workload pressures on sworn officers. 15. There is a positive correlation between population size and the need for police officers. 2 Frontline staff in particular play a central role in ensuring community safety. 16. In 2014/15 there were 8,907 sworn or authorised officers in New Zealand. This equates to one sworn officer for approximately 515 people. The ratio of police to population is low in comparison to other jurisdictions. In 2014, the ratio in Australia was around 1:340. Further, in Queensland, which has a similar population size and urban/rural split to New Zealand, the ratio was around 1: In 2014, the ratio in England and Wales was 1: An authorised officer has limited powers to perform narrow functions. 2 International City/County Management Association. (2013). An analysis of police department staffing: How many officers do you really need? ICMA 3 Australian Productivity Commission. (2016). Annual Report on Government Services. Australian Government. Position on Local Government New Zealand Remit to Advocate for Increased Funding of Community Policing and Policing Levels Page 14

15 Item While Police received additional funding of $299.2 million as part of Budget 2016, no additional funding was allocated to community policing or increasing police numbers. Government investment was allocated as follows: $279.9 million for pay increases $8.2 million for the development and operating costs of the child protection register $6.4 million to allow compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 $4.7 million to cover the first two years of operating costs for the Justice and Emergency Services Precinct in Christchurch. 18. It is reasonable to expect that Government will adequately fund the Police to effectively perform core functions and that the number of frontline staff will keep relative pace with population growth. However, Police would argue that per capita ratios are a simple metric which does not account for efficiencies or productivity gains through the use of information and communications technology. Investment across the three Auckland Police Districts 19. Models for deployment of police vary across the world. In addition to population, the factors that drive the level and composition of police staff include: crime rates geography and operational environment quality and efficiency of the existing force mix of skills required to respond to the environment (for example, sufficient staff with IT skills to tackle cyber-crime) community, political and leadership expectations about the level and quality of services. 20. Auckland Council would be justified in advocating for increased police resourcing across several of these criteria. For example, the Auckland region is currently experiencing exponential population growth and the crime rates in the Auckland and Counties Manukau Police Districts are higher than the national average. Fraud and financial crime rates are particularly high in the Auckland Police District, which requires specialist competence. Further, community performance expectations, including about response times and resolutions rates, are not being met. 21. Government investment in law and order, which includes Police, is a useful proxy measure. According to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (2013) per capita law and order investment in Auckland is lower than the national average. The most significant difference is in the level of investment in operating expenditure. Table 2: Crown law and order expenditure in Auckland versus the New Zealand average Expenditure Type Where $ Million % Share $ Per capita Capital expenditure Operating Expenditure Auckland 61 5% 77 New Zealand 256 n/a 58 Auckland 1,164 30% 772 New Zealand 3,845 n/a 867 Total Auckland 1,225 35% 849 New Zealand 4,101 n/a 925 Source: Stephenson, J., (2013). Regional government expenditure: Estimates of core crown spending by region NZIER report to MBIE and Treasury Position on Local Government New Zealand Remit to Advocate for Increased Funding of Community Policing and Policing Levels Page 15

16 Item However, this may need to be balanced against recent investments in the Auckland Neighbourhood Policing Team and 10 regional hotspots. Operational practices have also changed with a marked increase in foot patrols in Resolution rates across the three Auckland Police Districts 23. Over the last 20 years the resolution rates across the three Auckland Police Districts have remained significantly lower than national averages. This gap is most pronounced in the Auckland Police District where there was a 12.5 per cent difference in Figure 1: Resolution rates average across the Auckland, Counties Manukau and Waitemata Districts versus the New Zealand average Source: Statistics New Zealand Annual Recorded Offences for the latest Calendar Years (ANZSOC) Consideration Local board views and implications 24. Local boards take a keen interest in community safety issues and some invest in preventative activities to reduce crime or its impact in their communities. Local boards have also invested in building and maintaining effective relationships with police. 25. Due to significant time constraints staff have not had the opportunity to engage with local boards. Auckland Council decision-making responsibilities, as outlined in the Long-Term Plan, call for local board input into regional strategies, policies and plans, including official Auckland Council submissions. Māori impact statement 26. A key outcome of the Māori Plan is safe and connected whanau and communities. 27. Māori are disproportionately represented as victims of crime. While Māori make up 15 per cent of New Zealand s total population, 47 per cent of Māori have been victims of crime. This compares to 37 per cent of New Zealand Europeans. 28. Due to significant time constraints staff have not had the opportunity to engage with Māori about the proposals in this report. However, Auckland Council s advocacy in support of effective community policing and community safety partnerships appear to be consistent with the Māori Plan. Position on Local Government New Zealand Remit to Advocate for Increased Funding of Community Policing and Policing Levels Page 16

17 Item 10 Implementation 29. Council representatives will be able to draw upon the evidence during any debate at the LGNZ Annual General Meeting and any future Zone One meetings. Attachments There are no attachments for this report. Signatories Authors Authorisers Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader Nadia De Blaauw - Principal Policy Analyst Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer Position on Local Government New Zealand Remit to Advocate for Increased Funding of Community Policing and Policing Levels Page 17

18

19 Item 11 Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme review File No.: CP2016/12751 Purpose 1. To adopt the 2016/2017 Regional Environmental and Natural Heritage (RENH) grant programme framework. Executive summary 2. The Regional Environmental and Natural Heritage (RENH) grant programme was established to empower Aucklanders to protect, restore, enhance and live sustainably within the natural environment of Tāmaki Makaurau. 3. The first funding round of RENH was held in September and October 2015, with a budget of $488,702 and the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee (ECCNH) made decisions on allocation of this budget. 42 applicants were given grants. 4. On approving grant allocations at its 2 December 2015 Meeting, ECCNH passed the following resolution (ENV/2015/33). b) request that for future funding rounds, staff put in place a process that clearly identifies measurement and assessment of all fund outcomes, but specifically, outcomes 1 and 6 in Table 3, page 21 of the agenda report, as it relates to Māori outcomes. 5. Following this resolution, a full review of the grant programme has been undertaken. This review addressed the committee s request for staff to have in place processes to provide for the measurement and assessment of applications against fund outcomes, specifically, outcomes 1 - The mauri of the natural environment is in optimum health. outcome 6 - Mana whenua are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised in their customary Kaitiaki role, and participate in the co-management of natural resources. 6. As a result of this review, staff have updated the grant framework, including the grant assessment process and assessment criteria to support and enable outcomes, including those for Māori. Recommended changes to the grant framework include: Updating the regionally significant criteria Reframing assessment criteria Creating a panel to assess applications, including specialists in assessing Māori outcomes. 7. It is recommended that the committee adopt the updated RENH grant programme framework (attachment A). Adopting this framework will allow for the 2016/2017 RENH funding round to be open for applications from 1 August 2016 to 31 August Recommendations That the : a) adopt the 2016/2017 Regional Environmental and Natural Heritage grant programme framework. b) delegate to the Chief Executive the power to make further minor changes to the grant framework and assessment criteria as deemed necessary. Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme Review Page 19

20 Item 11 Comments Background 8. The Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme (RENH) was established to provide: support to Aucklanders to protect, restore and enhance Auckland s environment with a focus on our most significant natural heritage; encouragement and support Aucklanders to adopt environmentally sustainable lifestyles. 9. Budget allocation for RENH was confirmed under adoption of the Long-term Plan The annual funding budget for RENH in the 2016/2017 financial year is $488, /16 Funding Round 10. The first funding round of RENH was held in September and October 2015, with a budget of $488,702 available to be allocated to grant recipients. 11. A total of 63 applications were received, requesting over $1.3 million towards environmental and sustainability projects. 12. After assessment, 42 applications were recommended for funding to the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee (ECCNH) with grants totalling $488, In approving this allocation of grants on 2 December 2015, ECCNH also requested that for future funding rounds, staff put in place a process that clearly identifies measurement and assessment of applications against all fund outcomes, specifically outcomes 1 and 6 (resolution ENV/2015/33). Review of RENH grant programme 14. All aspects of the RENH programme were reviewed after the first funding round. 15. To achieve best practise, it is proposed that a number of changes are made to the RENH grants processes and framework, which sets out the purpose of the grants scheme and how this scheme is administered. These changes include: Updating the regionally significant criteria Reframing assessment criteria Creating a panel to assess applications, including specialists in assessing Maori outcomes. 16. These three changes are discussed in more detail below. Update to regional significance criteria 17. A project is not able to be funded under RENH unless it meets criteria for regional significance. It is recommended that the 2015/2016 regional significance criteria are redefined in the 2016/2017 framework to be based on the following: sustainable living biodiversity healthy water kaitiakitanga. 18. These changes add clarity for potential applicants and reduce duplication between criteria. 19. The 2016/2017 criteria for regional funding are provided in Attachment A and table one demonstrates the proposed changes to regional significance criteria. Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme Review Page 20

21 Item 11 Table one: Changes to regional significance criteria 2015/2016 regional significance criteria 2016/2017 regional significance criteria The effective management and protection of threatened species and their habitat, and Auckland s threatened ecosystems. Council s efforts to connect communities of interest and encourage integrated biodiversity management at a landscape scale. Protection of regionally significant sites of indigenous biodiversity. Strategic management of plant and animal pests in the Auckland region Protection, improvement and/or the restoration of streams, waterways and riparian margins within priority catchments. Regionally focussed initiatives that promote sustainable living, including energy efficiency, adoption of low carbon technologies, a reduction in the number and length of vehicle trips, sustainable design and best practice, water conservation and increased accessibility of healthy and affordable food. Sustainable living The project is innovative and reflects best practice methodology in particular behaviour change principals. There is clear evidence that the project will motivate and empower Aucklanders to adopt more environmentally sustainable lifestyles. The proposed delivery mechanisms for the project reflect maximum reach for the funds to be invested. Biodiversity The project contributes to effective management and protection of threatened species and their habitat, or threatened ecosystems. The project contributes to protection of regionally significant sites of indigenous biodiversity or geological forms, and the site is listed as a Significant Ecological Area or should be. The project contributes to management of plant and animal pests in the Auckland region, as listed in the Regional Pest Management Strategy. Healthy Water Protection, improvement and/or the restoration of waterways, through community collaboration or significant stock exclusion. Kaitiakitanga The project empowers mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki for Auckland s natural environment. Reframing assessment criteria 20. Changes to how applications are assessed, scored and weighted are also recommended. 21. Reframing of assessment criteria allows for clearer assessment of applications against fund outcomes, including outcomes 1 and 6. Additionally, there are a range of application types received through RENH, and this updated assessment approach provides for greater parity during assessment of applications. 22. The key assessment criteria to be considered, and changes from 2015/2016 criteria, are highlighted in table two below. Criteria now includes a specific weighting for Māori outcomes, which were previously not clearly reflected in assessment criteria. Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme Review Page 21

22 Item 11 Table two: Changes to assessment criteria 2015/2016 assessment criteria 2016/2017 assessment criteria Alignment with Strategic Priorities (40%) Purpose Outcomes Criteria (regional significance) Project Analysis (40%) Need for funding Project effectiveness or viability Cost benefit analysis Project use of best practice work methods Applicant capacity (20%) Delivery of projects previously supported with grants Overall capability and capacity Level of collaboration with others Project impact (40%) The extent to which the project positively impacts the mauri of the natural environment, including through best practice, project design and measurability, long term benefit and risk mitigation. The extent to which the project motivates and empowers Aucklanders to adopt more environmentally sustainable lifestyles. Connection (20%) The extent to which the project connects the community of interest with the environment. Māori outcomes (10%) The extent to which the project supports the achievement of Māori outcomes for mana whenua and the wider Māori community in relation to the environment of Auckland. Applicant Capacity (20%) Confidence that the project team can deliver on the proposed project. Value for money (10%) This includes good return on investment, applicant contribution and financial feasibility. Panel assessment 23. To better measure and assess applications against outcomes it is proposed that a panel approach is adopted. In selecting panel members we will ensure that the panel as a whole has the necessary breadth of subject matter expertise required to assess all types of applications. This includes expertise required to assess applications for Māori outcomes under RENH, and to guide the rest of the panel in assessment of these outcomes. Attachment B provides an overview of the grant process. Measurement and assessment for outcomes 1 and As described above, in December 2015 ECCNH asked that staff put in place a process to clearly assess and measure applications against grant programme outcomes, specifically: Outcome 1: The mauri of the natural environment is in optimum health Outcome 6: Mana whenua are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised in their customary kaitiaki role, and participate in the co-management of natural resources. 25. During the review it was found that there were a number of opportunities to improve how we articulate Māori outcomes to Aucklanders, how these are assessed, and by whom. 26. To ensure that Maori outcomes are better assessed a number of changes have been made to the grants process and framework. These are described below. Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme Review Page 22

23 Item 11 Outcome 1: The mauri of the natural environment is in optimum health. 27. As shown above in Table Two, assessment criteria have been altered so that holistically, they focus on the ability of projects to positively impact on mauri of the natural environment. 28. This is detailed with the regional significance criteria being adjusted in 2016/2017 so that they specifically reference kaitiakitanga as a key eligibility criteria, specifically that The project empowers mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki for Auckland s natural environment. 29. As shown above in Table Three, the assessment criteria have also been altered so that Project impact which has a weighting of 40 per cent, is focused on the ability of projects to positively impact the mauri of the natural environment. 30. These two changes mean that applications which demonstrate they have the potential to enhance the mauri of the natural environment are more likely to be funded. Outcome 6: Mana Whenua are empowered, enabled, respected and recognised in their customary Kaitiaki role, and participate in the co-management of natural resources. 31. As detailed above in Table Two, the regional significance criteria has been adjusted in 2016/2017 so that they include empowering mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki for Auckland s natural environment. 32. Maori outcomes have also been given separate weighting as part of the assessment criteria. This criterion considers the extent to which a project empowers mana whenua to act as kaitiaki, values Te Ao Māori, and specific reference to outcomes 1 and The creation of a panel including a specialist with the ability to assess the contribution of applications to Māori outcomes will also ensure these outcomes are more accurately measured. Consideration Local board views and implications 34. Consultation with local boards on this report has not been undertaken. 35. Local boards will be provided with updated information about the RENH before this year s funding round opens. They will continue to play a key role in promoting the grant scheme within their networks and communities. 36. The review of the 2015/2016 RENH grant programme identified opportunities for greater local board involvement in the funding process. After the 2016/2017 funding round closes, staff will invite feedback from local board members about applications, capturing local knowledge of applicant groups and alignment of projects with local board priorities. Their feedback will be taken into consideration by the RENH panel during assessment, thus being reflected in recommendations made to the committee. 37. Local boards will be informed about the results of funding rounds and successful applications from their local board areas. Māori impact statement 38. This report recognises that positive environmental outcomes are interwoven with Māori outcomes. Specifically the RENH outcome areas provide opportunities for Aucklanders to develop community led initiatives which positively affect the mauri of the natural environment, and empower mana whenua to act in their role as kaitiaki. 39. The development of the Community Grants Policy, which established the RENH, involved public consultation on the draft policy including with attendance at four mataawaka and mana whenua hui. These hui provided guidance for both the Community Grants Policy and the operation of the grants scheme. The review of RENH clarifies the operational matters of grant application assessment against Māori outcomes. Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme Review Page 23

24 Item Input from Independent Māori Statutory Board staff has been provided for this review, including input into the refined regional significance and assessment criteria, as well as the proposed assessment process. 41. As detailed above, a number of improvements are recommended to the grant framework to ensure projects contribute to Māori outcomes, in particular the inclusion of kaitiakitanga as a regional significance criterion; and assignment of specific weighting to Māori outcomes in the assessment criteria. 42. The current grant priorities and processes will be continually reviewed in particular with reference to Te Toa Takitini Māori Responsiveness High Performing Council portfolio to reflect the developing understanding of council about its contribution to Māori wellbeing. 43. Staff have begun seeking advice from the Independent Māori Statutory Board staff and Te Waka Angamua while developing a communications plan for the next funding round of the RENH, to ensure effective promotion of this fund to Māori and support to potential applicants Implementation 44. If adopted, the 2016/2017 funding round for the RENH will open for applications on 1 August and close on 31 August Funding recommendations will be reported to a committee of council in December Attachments No. Title Page A RENH 2016/2017 Grant Programme Framework 25 B RENH Assessment process 29 Signatories Author Authorisers Fran Hayton - Environmental Funding Advisor Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme Review Page 24

25 Attachment A Item 11 Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme Review Page 25

26 Attachment A Item 11 Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme Review Page 26

27 Attachment A Item 11 Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme Review Page 27

28

29 Attachment B Item 11 Regional Environmental Natural Heritage Grant Programme Review Page 29

30

31 Item 12 Reserve revocation and disposal recommendation report File No.: CP2016/12311 Purpose 1. To seek approval to revoke the reserve status and dispose of two parts of a larger, council owned site at 51 Stamford Park Road, Mt Roskill, which Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) considers suitable for sale. Executive summary 2. Panuku is required to identify properties from within council s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale to a combined value of $45 million by 30 June Capital receipts from the sale of surplus properties contribute to Auckland Plan outcomes by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects. 3. The subject sites presented in this report comprise two parcels of 51 Stamford Park Road, Mt Roskill. The entire site is a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act The balance of this site is to remain in council ownership as a reserve. 4. The rationalisation process for the two parcels of land commenced in August Consultation with council and its CCOs, iwi authorities and the Puketāpapa Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service uses were identified during the consultation process and the feedback received was supportive of the proposed reserve revocation and divestment of the subject parcels of land. 5. Final revocation of the reserve status will be subject to completing the statutory requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 and Local Government Act 2002, including public advertising. Recommendation/s That the : a) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the revocation of the reserve status of two parcels of 51 Stamford Park Road, Mt Roskill, comprising approximately 1,721m 2 comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being sections 48, 71, 103, 104 and part sections 54 and 106 contained in SO contained in computer freehold register , on the basis that these two parcels are no longer required as reserve. b) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the disposal of two parcels of 51 Stamford Park Road, Mt Roskill, comprising approximately 1,721m 2 comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being sections 48, 71, 103, 104 and part sections 54 and 106 contained in SO contained in computer freehold register c) agree that the final terms and conditions be approved under the appropriate delegations. Comments 6. Panuku and the Corporate Finance and Property team work jointly on a comprehensive review of council s property portfolio. One of the outcomes of the review process is to identify properties in the council portfolio that are potentially surplus to requirements and that may be suitable to sell. The subject site was identified as potentially saleable through the review process. Reserve revocation and disposal recommendation report Page 31

32 Item Once a property has been identified as potentially surplus, Panuku engages with council and its CCO s through an expression of interest process, to establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is required for a future funded project. Once a property has been internally cleared of any service requirements, Panuku then consults with local boards, mana whenua and ward councillors. All disposal recommendations must be approved by the Panuku Board before it makes a final recommendation to the Auckland Council governing body. Property information 8. The subject sites form two parts of 51 Stamford Park Road, Mt Roskill, which is a 3,878m 2 council owned site that comprises a number of irregularly shaped parcels. 51 Stamford Park Road was acquired by the Crown for the extension of State Highway 20 through Mt Roskill during the 1970s and 1980s. The Crown required part of Keith Hay Park for the motorway, and in 2005 entered into an agreement with Auckland City Council to acquire the land and vest adjoining land as recreation reserve Stamford Park Road is a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan zoning for the entire site is Mixed Housing Suburban. 10. The entire site was reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Policy team in The two subject parcels of land were identified as not being required by Parks. The balance of the site is predominately formed as a walking and cycleway, and is to remain in the Parks portfolio. 11. The first part of 51 Stamford Park Road proposed for divestment is a vacant, flat 1,012m 2 section. The site is currently landlocked. However adjoining landowners have expressed interest in purchasing the site. Alternatively, access to the site could potentially be gained via an easement over an adjoining driveway. The site is large enough to be subdivided into two lots. A recent valuation has provided an indicative value of approximately $600,000 to $675,000 for this site. 12. The second part proposed for divestment is a vacant, flat, 709m 2 section. A recent valuation has provided an indicative value of approximately $500,000 to $550,000 for this site. Internal consultation 13. The rationalisation process for the subject parts of this site commenced in August No expressions of interest were received during the internal consultation process and no issues were raised. Consideration Local board views and implications 14. The Puketāpapa Local Board endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and divestment of the subject parcels of land at its March 2016 business meeting. Māori impact statement iwi authorities were contacted regarding the proposed divestment of 51 Stamford Park Road, Mt Roskill. The following feedback was received; noting that some feedback received is commercially sensitive and cannot be included in this report. i) Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua No site specific feedback received for this site, noting that as per earlier conversations with Te Runanga representatives, it is understood that any cultural significance considerations will be raised at hapū level and that all Ngāti Whatua hapū have been contacted about properties in their rohe. Reserve revocation and disposal recommendation report Page 32

33 Item 12 ii) Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara has confirmed their focus on interests in the north west of Tāmaki Makaurau, with a particular focus on Helensville. They defer to Ngāti Whatua o Ōrākei for sites in the Mt Roskill area. iii) Ngāti Whatua Ōrākei Ngāti Whatua Ōrākei has confirmed they have no commercial interest in this site. iv) Te Kawerau a Maki Te Kawerau a Maki has confirmed they have no commercial interest in this site but noted the site lies within the shadow of Pukewiwi (Mt Roskill). Outcomes should include protection of the viewshaft and retention of soils on/near the site. v) Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki has drawn attention to their recent settlement and signaled an increased interest in council owned property that may come available for sale in their rohe. vi) vii) viii) ix) Ngāti Tamaoho No feedback received for this site. Te Ākitai - Waiohua Te Ākitai has expressed potential commercial interest in this site. Ngāti Te Ata - Waiohua No site specific feedback received for this site; however Ngāti Te Ata has expressed general cultural interest across Tāmaki Makaurau, has potential commercial interest in any council owned land that comes available for sale in their rohe and notes specific association with the south western area of Auckland, focusing around Manukau and the western coastline. Ngāti Paoa Ngāti Paoa has reinforced their desire to be kept in the loop for property disposals. x) Ngaati Whanaunga No feedback received for this site. xi) xii) Ngāti Maru No feedback received for this site. Ngāti Tamatera No feedback received for this site. Implementation 16. The results of the rationalisation process are that the subject sites are not required for current or future service requirements. As such, Panuku recommends the divestment of the subject parcels of land. Should a resolution be obtained approving the divestment of these sites, Panuku will seek to dispose of the sites in a manner which enables a housing outcome on both sites. 17. As the entire site is a reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977, should the subject sites be sold the reserve status of these parcels would have to be revoked. It is a Department of Conservation requirement (in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977) that the sale proceeds from reserves are placed in reserve accounts so that funds can be used to acquire other land for reserve purposes or for maintenance of existing reserves. 18. The entire site is subject to section 40 of the Public Works Act However, the land has been significantly changed by the public work for which it was originally acquired and therefore is likely to be exempt from offer back pursuant to section 40(2)(b) of the Public Works Act 1981 Reserve revocation and disposal recommendation report Page 33