Agenda of Council - 5 August 2015

Council

5 August 2015

Description: sdclogo

Wyndham Services and Facilities Investigation

Record No: R/15/7/12153

Author: Bobbi Brown, Group Manager Tourism, Events and Community

Approved by: Rex Capil, Group Manager, Policy and Community

☐ Decision ☒ Recommendation ☐ Information

Introduction

Venture Southland has been requested by the Southland District Council (SDC) to facilitate a review of facilities and SDC service provision requirements for Wyndham. Venture Southland and SDC staff have been working collaboratively to advance this project in a Project Team and this report proposes a process and methodology forward. A Communications Plan is also being developed to complement the agreed process forward. This will facilitate on going awareness and engagement from all stakeholders.

Background

1 It has been recently identified that two SDC owned buildings situated on the main street of Wyndham (Balaclava Street) require significant earthquake strengthening. Seismic assessments indicate that the former SDC area office building has a rating of 5 – 8% of the current building standards and the building which houses the current museum has a rating of 17%.

2 The former SDC area office building (also known as the old BNZ bank building) is no longer being used by Council (a temporary facility has been established across the road). However, the museum is still open to the public and operating out of the other building albeit for limited hours (Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday 2 – 4pm).

3 While it is accepted that the issue of the buildings needs to be addressed, it is also acknowledged that it is timely to look at Council’s service provision and possible delivery methods. Another key objective is to gain an understanding of future community needs and demands and communities of interest to assist with overall planning. Please refer to the Project Brief (R/15/4/7255).

4 To date, there has been initial scoping of the situation and general discussion within the Project Team, which consists of staff from Venture Southland and SDC as well as the local Councillors and the Wyndham Edendale Community Board chairperson. The issues and options have been presented to the Executive Leadership Team (30 April 2015) and discussed with Councillors at a workshop (3 June 2015).

5 The Customer Services Manager, Janet Thomas, has recently undertaken an Area Office consistency tour. Her observations regarding the Wyndham Area Office were as follows:

· The staff were doing a great job making the best of the current temporary facility – it was welcoming (while smaller than the previous office) and they were dealing with a range of customer enquiries.

· On the day of her visit, it was very well utilised with people taking out books from the library, using the public computers and paying dog registrations (and rates on other days).

· To enlarge the role of the library/area office and meet customer needs as suggested by the local librarian, some reasonably quick fixes could be undertaken such as the purchase of a photocopier that could be utilised by customers and the addition of an eftpos machine and receipting facilities (this is currently underway).

Suggested Methodology

6 A process and methodology forward is now suggested in this report and endorsement is being sought from Council to proceed.

7 The proposed methodology involves six steps and will require approximately 6 months to implement (the Christmas period has been considered). It is proposed that Venture Southland facilitate the process as suggested below, alongside the Project Team:

Step 1: Gain an understanding of the Situation (August 2015)

· Involves a desk top review of the current Situation Analysis, the Roving Museum’s report on Wyndham Museum, seismic assessments & proposed changes to legislation, the area office review and any other relevant documents.

· Consideration is given to SDC future service delivery options with regards to Area Office core service requirements and Library provision requirements (refer to preliminary work undertaken in relation to this topic).

· Consideration is given to a ‘community hub’ concept in relation to future service delivery options for Council services and how this may impact on physical building resource requirements in the future.

· Analysis and assessment is required to consider the extent of the wider community of interest the required services are provided for – possibly considering an agreed functional hierarchy model for council service and library provision.

Step 2: Gain Insights from Staff to help formulate options forward (September 2015)

Consultation with SDC/Venture Southland staff, Edendale/Wyndham Community Board and museum representatives (one on one interviews)

Step 3: Identification & Analysis of Possible Scenarios (October 2015)

A number of key scenarios and options to be identified for further investigation and consultation. Staff to undertake preliminary analysis of scenarios considering findings and feedback from Steps 1 and 2.

Step 4: Local Community Engagement (November 2015)

Presentation of the options and scenarios to the local community and feedback sought (methodology to be confirmed)

Step 5: Analysis of Feedback and Development of an Issues and Options paper (December 2015)

Consultation with the Project Team and Executive Leadership Team.

Step 6: Presentation of the Issues and Options Paper to Council (January/February 2016)

Decision made on options forward and implementation able to then begin.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

8 The museum building is currently open to the public (albeit for limited hours). Staff will check the legalities of this from a Council and public safety perspective.

9 The Government is currently developing a more targeted approach to dealing with earthquake prone buildings throughout the country. This involves categorising geographic areas into high, medium and low risk zones. Wyndham is likely to be categorised as a low risk seismic zone and it is unsure yet exactly what that may mean. It also appears that the Government is also looking at retaining provisions for an extension of 10 years for listed heritage buildings and exemptions from strengthening for some low risk, low occupancy buildings like country halls in parts of rural New Zealand.

10 The seismic assessment for the museum building indicates it is rated 17% of the new and acceptable building standard. Once the proposed legislation becomes law there may be a need to have this assessment peer reviewed if this is challenged and especially if one scenario and option forward involves museum activities remaining in this building and strengthening being required.

Community Views

11 There is significant interest in this project from the community for a number of reasons.

· The local community is certainly interested in the level and type of library and Council service that will be provided – it is currently a very well utilised service considering the shortened opening hours (Tuesday 2-5pm, Thursdays 2–5 and 6.30-8pm and the last Friday of rates quarter 2-5pm). An Area Office / Library service within the town complements the other businesses as has it brings foot traffic into the main street.

· There is also significant support for the local museum. The community see the value of the collections within the museum and the importance of this collection for the retention and celebration of their local history and identity.

· While there is a general understanding of the health and safety implications associated with the current state of the museum building, there is also an awareness that it is not an easy or ‘quickly actioned’ task to pack up the museum and shift. There would need to be external assistance to action this and this may involve a person who is suitably qualified in heritage spending a period of time cataloguing the collection.

· The Wyndham Museum Committee is a dedicated group of volunteers who have indicated they are struggling for membership and this is one reason why the museum has limited opening hours. The Regional Heritage Committee is currently undertaking research around the pressures on the volunteer network which delivers and protects heritage at a community level and this may be of relevance to this project.

· Wyndham has a static, but ageing population and has a rest home situated in the township (one of the few rest homes in the District). This demographic sector of the community need to be considered in future planning. For example factors that arise with an aging population could be issues such as limited mobility and social isolation. Services such as a library are also a social outing for many older people and often provides an avenue for social interaction.

· There is also a need to consider continued interim SDC Area Office and Library service provision (e.g. renewal of the lease currently housing the service). Kevin McNaught has indicated that the lease has recently been re-signed securing the building for another year through till the end of June 2016.

· It is considered by many that a significant portion of Wyndham has poor internet service and cell phone coverage. While it is hoped future upgrades and enhancements occur, this does provide some limitations when considering possible future options for delivering services.

Costs and Funding

12 The cost of implementing this methodology and investigating this project will be absorbed within operational budgets of Venture Southland. However there may be some future costs which are unknown at this stage and which may need to be covered e.g. a possible peer review of the seismic assessments if it is deemed to be necessary.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Wyndham Services and Facilities Investigation” dated 20 July 2015.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c) Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d) Approve the suggested methodology as outlined in this report to investigate the provision of services and facilities in Wyndham.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Council

5 August 2015

Description: sdclogo

Potential Variation to Proposed District Plan 2012 - Implementation Matters

Record No: R/15/6/11149

Author: Courtney Ellison, Senior Resource Management Planner - Policy

Approved by: Bruce Halligan, GM - Environment and Community

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 The purpose of this report is to outline some potential changes to be made to the
Proposed District Plan, in particular around some implementation matters which have arisen since the plan has had legal effect and been implemented by the Resource Management team.

Executive Summary

2 With the implementation of the Proposed District Plan, some potential improvements that could be made to the plan have been identified.

3 To make the changes suggested in this report, a variation would have to be undertaken in accordance with the process outlined in the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991. This process includes public notification with two opportunities for the public to make submissions, and a hearing for the submitters to speak on their submission.

4 At the Resource Management Committee (RMC) meeting held on 26 June 2015, the Committee endorsed the preparation of a draft variation to the Proposed District Plan.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Potential Variation to Proposed District Plan 2012 - Implementation Matters” dated 17 July 2015.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

d) Approves staff commencing the preparation of a draft variation to the Proposed District Plan to clarify Plan provisions.

Content

Background

5 With most of the Proposed Plan now having legal effect, some implementation issues have arisen. Some small changes could be made to the plan to improve the clarity and efficiency of the rules in achieving the outcomes intended with the plan.

6 The potential amendments that could be made include changes to:

• The Urban and Fiordland/Rakiura Zone rules around earthworks affecting sites
listed in the historic heritage schedule, to align with the resolution agreed with Heritage New Zealand as part of its appeal on the associated Rural Zone provisions.

• The definitions, in particular the definition of property, and other associated definitions to assist in the interpretation of the Rural Zone dwellings rule, the definition of farmers’ markets, distribution lines and networks, and adding a definition for notional boundaries in relation to the noise provisions.

• The formatting and rewording of the Industrial Zone rules for consistency with the other similar clauses in the plan.

• The signage rules to clarify interpretation, the relationship between the different aspects of the rule and to be clear which criteria apply.

• The Fiordland/Rakiura Zone rules to clarify the cascade of rules, and what activity status applies when certain criteria of the permitted or controlled activities cannot be met.

• The General Urban Standards to remove standards where consent would be required anyway to avoid confusion around the activity status that applies, and clarify what height recession plane rules apply within the Commercial Precincts.

• The planning maps to illustrate wastewater treatment facilities in a consistent manner.

• The provisions relating to ‘other buildings’ in the Rural Zone, in particular how above ground effluent tanks are provided for.

7 There may also be other potential changes that arise throughout the development of the variation which would also be included. For example, Heritage New Zealand recently registered the Tamatea Dusky Sound Historic Area, and this could therefore be included in the heritage schedule of the plan through this variation process.

Issues

8 As outlined in the introduction of this report, those aspects of the Proposed District Plan that have not been appealed now have legal effect and therefore the rules and interpretation of the plan is now being applied. This has highlighted some areas where the plan could benefit from some improvements.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

9 Any changes to the District Plan will be required to follow the variation process as outlined in the RMA Act 1991. This process includes assessing the benefits and costs of the changes through a Section 32 report, public notification of the changes, submissions and hearings, with the final decisions of the Council being subject to appeal.

Community Views

10 Community views would be sought through the formal consultation process outlined in the First Schedule of the RMA. This includes two opportunities for making submissions, and the opportunity for submitters to speak on the content of their submissions at a hearing.

Costs and Funding

11 There are costs associated with undertaking a variation, including staff time, consultation costs, printing/distribution of documents, public notices and hearings. The work would be undertaken within current District Plan budgets.

Policy Implications

12 The District Plan should always be reviewed to ensure it meets the requirements of the community and is achieving its intended outcomes. This proposed variation is intended to continue to ensure the District Plan is clear and easy to use.

Analysis

Options Considered

13 Council has the following options:

• Option 1: Retain the current provisions.

• Option 2: Proceed with a variation to make changes to the plan which further clarify how the plan is to be interpreted.

14 Each of these options is explored further below.

Analysis of Options

Option 1

Advantages	Disadvantages
· No plan change/variation would be required.	· Any uncertainty that there is currently with the provisions of the plan will continue, and there will be a reliance on informal internal procedures to ensure consistency amongst the planners.

Option 2

Advantages	Disadvantages
· More certainty and consistency in the implementation of the District Plan.	· None.

Assessment of Significance

15 It is not considered that these potential changes to the Proposed District Plan are significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because they are only intended to improve the clarity of the District Plan provisions.

Recommended Option

16 It is recommended that Option 2 is endorsed and that a draft variation is prepared to address those issues outlined in this report.

Next Steps

17 If Council approves of a variation being undertaken the process would be as follows:

• Develop a draft variation and undertake the Section 32 cost benefit analysis.

• Report to RMC with the draft variation and Section 32 report, seeking a recommendation to Council to approve the variation for public notification in accordance with the RMA.

• Report to Council seeking approval to notify the variation in accordance with the RMA.

• Publicly notify the variation for submissions.

• Summarise submissions received.

• Publicly notify the Summary of Submissions, for further submissions.

• Staff prepare Section 42 Recommending Reports for the hearings.

• Hearings.

• Hearing panel to make and release decisions, which are then subject to appeal.

18 It is anticipated that the preparation work and reporting could be undertaken over the remainder of this year and a Variation could be notified by February next year. Decisions could then be released by about September 2016.

19 Council will note that another report has also been prepared for this meeting outlining another variation which could be progressed in relation to the Rural Settlement Areas.
If Council endorsed both variations proceeding, they could be notified together to reduce costs and staff time associated with the public notification and submission process.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Council

05 August 2015

Description: sdclogo

Potential Variation to the Proposed District Plan 2012 - Rural Settlement Areas

Record No: R/15/6/11159

Author: Courtney Ellison, Senior Resource Management Planner - Policy

Approved by: Bruce Halligan, GM - Environment and Community

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 The purpose of this report is to outline a potential change to be made to the Proposed District Plan, to create a new ‘Rural Settlement Area’ providing for townships that are currently within the Rural Zone.

Executive Summary

2 Decisions on the Proposed Southland District Plan 2012 were released in October 2014 and identified that a future piece of work was required to address how the development of townships such as Orepuki and Gorge Road which are currently zoned Rural could be better provided for.

3 The new plan imposes some constraints for these townships in terms of setbacks from other dwellings and some boundaries as well as other activities in the Rural Zone. It is suggested that a variation could be progressed to establish a Rural Settlement Area Overlay for the Rural Zone to facilitate future growth of townships such as Orepuki.

4 Matters that would need to be considered include the boundaries of any settlement areas, effluent disposal, servicing, setbacks from other dwellings or property boundaries, hazards, and provision for the continuation of rural activities.

5 The different options available to Council are outlined in this report along with the process that would need to be followed, including requirements under the Resource Management Act (RMA), should a variation be progressed.

6 At the Resource Management Committee (RMC) meeting on 26 June 2015, the Committee endorsed a variation being progressed for Orepuki, and also recommended a potential variation be discussed with the Gorge Road Community Development Area (CDA) Subcommittee to determine whether they also would like to have a Rural Settlement Area apply to Gorge Road. Council staff have discussed the potential variation with Ray Waghorn, Chair of the Gorge Road CDA and the CDA is supportive of the proposed changes also applying to Gorge Road.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Potential Variation to the Proposed District Plan 2012 - Rural Settlement Areas” dated 17 July 2015.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

d) Approve the scoping and drafting of a variation to the Proposed District Plan to create a new Rural Settlement Area for Orepuki and Gorge Road.

Content

Background

7 The review of the Southland District Plan has recently been undertaken, and aside from a few provisions that have been appealed, the Proposed District Plan 2012 is largely operative. The Proposed District Plan retained the Rural zoning over a number of townships such as Orepuki, Athol, Fortrose, Garston, Gorge Road etc. but the rules associated with building a dwelling in the Rural Zone have changed. In particular the ability to construct one dwelling per certificate of title is now subject to the other criteria being met including the need to provide a 150 metre separation between dwellings. There are also other potential constraints, for example in Orepuki, the part of the township to the west of State Highway 99 is also covered by the Visual Amenity Overlay which imposes additional criteria relating to setbacks from roads and building materials. This has raised the potential need for a change to be made to those rules to better provide for the ability for new dwellings to be constructed in these townships, thereby assisting the future consolidation and growth of these settlements.

8 A potential zoning change for Orepuki and Athol has been discussed since 2006, where a report was presented to Community Boards (CBs) and the RMC investigating a potential plan change to make some townships an Urban Resource Area. While the CBs endorsed a plan change going ahead, a plan change was not progressed for Orepuki as it was considered there was sufficient provision of vacant land to meet the community needs until 2026, there was a lack of demonstrated demand, the undesirability of urban sprawl along the coast and the impact this would have on the visual landscape. Work was also undertaken in 2008 for a potential plan change in Athol but this plan change was not progressed as a change in the Community Development Area (CDA) membership resulted in a loss of support for such a change.

9 Brian McGrath, on behalf of the Orepuki CDA Subcommittee lodged a submission on the Proposed District Plan requesting a more permissive regime, and greater provision for the development of existing rural residential settlement areas. The Hearing Committee’s decision was to retain the general approach of the Proposed District Plan as notified, but recognised that a specific piece of work was required to look at how rural residential areas such as Orepuki could be better provided for within the plan, to facilitate the future growth of these areas around the existing settlements.

10 Potentially the Rural Settlement Area approach could also be applied to Dipton, Drummond, Fortrose, Garston, Limehills/Centre Bush, Thornbury, Waikawa, Woodlands and Curio Bay in the future if there was a demonstrated demand. There is also additional background work (e.g. assessing the on-site wastewater requirements and capabilities) that would need to be undertaken to include any of these areas in the Rural Settlement area, therefore these areas have not been recommended to be included in this variation.

Issues

Effluent Disposal

11 One of the potential constrains on development is the ability for each site to adequately dispose of wastewater on-site. Reports have been prepared by Environmental Consultant Veena Lal-Boon, which considers what the potential constraints are in Orepuki and what wastewater requirements there might be.

12 With the exception of Athol, no assessment of the on-site wastewater requirements and capabilities has been undertaken to date for other towns which might be covered by a Rural Settlement Overlay in the future. This is further work that would need to be undertaken should Council decide to progress with scoping a variation for those other townships.

13 Effluent disposal is required to be disposed of in accordance with the New Zealand Standard 1547:2012 “On-site Domestic Wastewater Management”. Environment Southland also requires a 50 metre setback from potable water abstraction points. Environment Southland records confirm there are two potable water abstraction points in Orepuki which will need to be considered as part of any development proposals.

14 Gorge Road is the only township identified in this report that has a community wastewater scheme. Therefore any rules in a variation for ‘Rural Settlement Areas’ around disposal of wastewater would need to acknowledge the different requirements of the different townships.

Servicing (Power and Telephone)

15 A further matter to be considered is that currently the provision of services such as power and telephone are not required for land use applications (eg to build a dwelling on an existing title), however it is expected that they will be provided for all new allotments created through a subdivision. It is not anticipated that this current practice would change with this proposed variation.

Other Development Constraints

16 Under the Proposed District Plan there are a number of new setbacks which apply to dwellings in the Rural Zone. The setbacks/provisions of particular relevance to these rural townships are:

· 150 metres from another dwelling in separate ownership (or consented dwelling or building platform)

· 4.5 metres from the boundary of any other road (other than a State Highway where the speed limit is greater than 80 km/hr)

· Within the Visual Amenity Landscape Overlay, 20 metres from the boundary of any formed road, and 4.5 metres from the boundary of any unformed road

· Building platforms and access not to be on the seaward side of the Coastal Hazard Line.

As part of a variation, some of these setbacks could be removed or reduced, however consideration would still need to be given to matters such as the coastal hazards, and the impact on the landscape.

Hazards

17 While the Flood Hazard Overlay is not currently referred to in the permitted activity criteria for dwellings in the Rural Zone, the risk of flooding in these townships will need to be considered as part of the variation, as several of the identified townships are currently covered by the Flood Hazard Overlay in the Proposed District Plan Maps.

18 For some of the settlements, such as Orepuki, potential for future coastal movement, and the proximity of development to the coast is another important matter to be considered. There is the potential for further coastal movement inland to adversely affect residential development and dwellings approved under the Building Act are expected to have a 50 year durability. A Coastal Hazard Line is shown on the Proposed District Plan maps and needs to be considered for those sections close to the coast.

Rural Activities

19 The Orepuki CDA, at its meeting on 12 May 2015, raised the matter of how dwellings would be affected by surrounding rural activities. For most of the rural type activities, there are already setbacks within the permitted activity rules which would minimise the effect of those activities on the township. For example, intensive farm buildings, gravel extraction and cleanfills have setbacks from dwellings or property boundaries that would prevent them from locating within or near to the proposed township boundaries without requiring consent.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

20 Any changes to the District Plan will be required to follow the variation process as outlined in the RMA 1991. This process includes assessing the benefits and costs of the changes through a Section 32 Report, public notification of the changes, submissions and hearings, with the final decisions of the Council being subject to appeal.

Community Views

21 Staff have met with members of the Orepuki CDA Subcommittee, and attended its meeting on 12 May 2015 to discuss the issues that would need to be considered as part of any plan change.

22 Following the RMC meeting on 26 June 2015, staff discussed the proposed changes to the plan with Ray Waghorn, chair of the Gorge Road CDA Subcommittee. Mr Waghorn indicated that the CDA members were supportive of Gorge Road being included in these proposed changes to the plan for rural settlement areas.

23 Should a variation be progressed, staff would continue to seek input from CDA members of the relevant townships as any changes are developed. The views of the community would be sought through key stakeholder consultation prior to any variation being notified, and they would again have an opportunity to provide feedback through the formal submission process under the RMA.

Costs and Funding

24 There are costs associated with undertaking a variation, including staff time, consultation costs, printing/distribution of documents, public notices, and hearings. There may also be the need to engage external experts such as a landscape architect to review the rules in relation to the Visual Amenity Landscape in some of the townships, and an environmental consultant to look at wastewater requirements for those towns that have not yet been investigated. The work would be undertaken within current District Plan budgets.

Policy Implications

25 As outlined in the introduction of this report, the decisions on the Proposed District Plan identified further work to be undertaken in relation to rural settlements. It was also identified in the Resource Management Activity Profile for the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 that the regulatory framework for rural townships was an area likely to need to be addressed in the next few years.

26 It is also likely that any amendments to the District Plan would result in less restrictive plan rules for these areas than there are at present.

Analysis

Options Considered

27 With regard to the establishment of rural settlements, Council has the following options:

· Option 1: Retain the current plan approach, with the Rural Zone provisions continuing to apply across all rural settlements.

· Option 2: Proceed with a variation to provide for Orepuki and Gorge Road only as Rural Settlement Areas and develop specific rules for those areas. This option does not preclude Council from deciding to progress plan changes in the future for other rural townships.

· Option 3: Process with a variation to establish Rural Settlement Areas with associated rules for three or more of the following townships: Orepuki, Athol, Dipton, Drummond, Fortrose, Garston, Gorge Road, Limehills/Centre Bush, Thornbury, Waikawa, Woodlands and Curio Bay.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Retain the Status Quo

Advantages

Disadvantages

· No further work or costs would be incurred with regard to any variation.

· Consent would be required for every dwelling in Orepuki, and several other similar townships resulting in unnecessary costs and delays.

· Development would be ad-hoc with no incentive for development to be clustered around existing settlements.

Option 2 - Proceed with a variation for Orepuki and Gorge Road

Advantages

Disadvantages

· A variation can be prepared specifically addressing matters relevant to Orepuki and Gorge Road.

· Less restrictive rules making some types of development easier.

· This would facilitate consolidation and growth of the Orepuki and Gorge Road townships, rather than the potential for residential development to occur in more isolated locations further from the town as has occurred in the recent past.

· Other similar townships in the District, such as Athol etc will continue to require resource consent.

· There may be a perception of inequity amongst townships to progress such a change only in two of the townships.

Option 3 - Proceed with a variation for three or more of the Rural townships

Advantages

Disadvantages

· A proactive and consistent approach across the District would be implemented.

· Costs and resources, including staff time would be minimised by only going through the process once, rather than for each township

· The process may be delayed, as further background work is undertaken for those townships that have not previously been investigated.

Assessment of Significance

28 It is not considered that these potential changes to the Proposed District Plan are significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because they are looking to address additional restrictions that have already been imposed through the Proposed District Plan. The proposed changes will also be subject to a public consultation process under the RMA, giving the communities and the wider public the opportunity to have their say and affect the overall outcome of the variation.

Recommended Option

29 It is recommended by staff and the Resource Management Committee that Council proceed with Option 2, a variation to address implementation issues, and provide for Rural Settlement Areas with associated rules for Orepuki and Gorge Road. This does not preclude Council from undertaking a variation or plan change in the future for any other townships in the District where there was a demand for such changes and the Rural Settlements Areas framework set up by this proposed variation could be used as a template for this.

Next Steps

30 If Council approves of a variation being undertaken the process, and associated timeframes, would be as follows:

· Develop a draft variation in consultation with the Orepuki and Gorge Road CDA Subcommittees and undertake the Section 32 cost benefit analysis.

· Report to RMC with the draft variation and Section 32 report, seeking a recommendation to Council to approve the variation for public notification in accordance with the RMA.

· Report to Council seeking approval to notify the variation in accordance with the RMA.

· Publicly notify the variation for submissions.

· Summarise submissions received.

· Publicly notify the Summary of Submissions, for further submissions.

· Staff prepare Section 42 recommending reports for the hearings.

· Hearings.

· Hearing panel to make and release decisions, which are then subject to appeal.

31 It is anticipated that the preparation work and reporting could be undertaken over the remainder of this year and a Variation could be notified by February next year. Decisions could then be released by about September 2016.

Attachments

a Report to Council - 5 August 2015 - Attachment: Rural Settlement Maps View

Council

05 August 2015

COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE POLICY

1. PURPOSE

This policy has been developed to provide clarity regarding grants and donations allocated by Southland District Council on an annual basis.

2. BACKGROUND

Southland District Council provides financial assistance to community organisations and individuals through a variety of mechanisms including, but not limited to,
one-off grants, scholarships, bursaries, ongoing grants, discretionary grants and donations.

A large majority of this is managed by Venture Southland on behalf of Council, and allocations of funding decided on twice-yearly by the Allocations Committee.
This Committee also manages funding from Creative New Zealand and Sport NZ, on behalf of Council.

This policy also covers the grants and donations made by Council and includes
one-off grants that Council may decide on through the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan process.

It also includes grants to community groups which Council believes provide a social benefit and assist in the purpose of local government in terms of public good.

The policy was approved by Council on xxx and is scheduled to be reviewed again in 2018. Council may decide to review the policy at any time before then.

3. POLICY DETAILS

Southland District Council will provide funding to a Community Grants pool and the level of funding each year will be subject to the consultation process of the
10 Year Plan/Annual Plan.

The Allocations Committee will receive applications from community organisations and individuals for the Community Initiatives Fund, the District Heritage Fund,
the Creative Communities Fund, Sport NZ Rural Travel Fund and the
Northern Southland Development Fund in March and September of each year.
The Committee will meet twice a year to make decisions and award grants.

Venture Southland, on behalf of Southland District Council, will also administer the scholarships, bursaries, prizegiving awards and debating competitions’ funds put aside by Council for the Southland District residents and ratepayers. A Scholarship and Bursaries Subcommittee is established to conduct interviews and make the final decisions.

Southland District Council will maintain a fund for one-off grants as decided in the
10 Year Plan/Annual Plan process. These grants will be consulted on in the
10 Year Plan/Annual Plan process.

Southland District Council will provide ongoing funding to organisations it has decided meet certain needs of the community and these organisations are Citizens’ Advice Bureau, Gore Counselling Service, Life Education Trust, St John Ambulance, Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Trust, Toimata Foundation, Cycling Southland - Tour of Southland and SPCA.

4. TYPES OF GRANTS

4.1 Community Initiatives Fund

4.1.1 Purpose

The Southland District Council Community Initiatives Fund is available to support the development of:

• Community facilities or amenities including:

- Community Centres/Halls/War Memorials

- Local reserves and picnic areas

- Playgrounds

- Walkways and tracks

- Sports fields

- Swimming pools

- Changing room facilities associated with the above.

• Sport and recreational opportunities.

• Community programmes, activities or events.

The aim of the fund is to support community facilities, amenities programmes, activities and events at a local level.

4.1.2 Eligibility

The fund is available to Community Boards, Community Development Area
Subcommittees, non-profit community organisations and local committees to apply. Assistance for other initiatives outside the above broad categories may be provided at the discretion of the Allocations Committee.

4.1.3 Allocation Conditions and Criteria

Funding is not provided retrospectively and this is a subsidy-based funding scheme.
This means the applicant group must contribute towards the cost of the project.

Applications must include the completed application form and any other
supporting information. All applications will to be administered through the
Allocations Committee distribution process - with applications closing 31 March and
30 September each year.

Level of assistance is based on the merit of the project and potential benefits to the community as determined by the Committee.

In the case where the applicant is based outside of the Southland District - the allocation is assessed on the proportion of members and/or beneficiaries from the District.

4.2 Creative Communities

4.2.1 Allocation Conditions and Criteria

The proposed project must meet one or more of these three funding criteria:

• Broad community involvement - the project will create opportunities for local communities to engage with and participate in arts activities.

• Diversity - the project will support the diverse arts and cultural traditions of local communities, enriching and promoting their uniqueness and cultural diversity

• Young people - the project will enable and encourage young people
(under 18 years) to engage with and actively participate in the arts.

4.3 Sport NZ Rural Travel Fund

4.3.1 Purpose

The Rural Travel Fund is designed to assist with transport expenses associated with participating in regular local competitions.

4.3.2 Eligibility

Sports clubs and school based clubs with young people aged between 5-19 years are eligible to apply. Individuals are not eligible to apply.

Applications for assistance to attend regional or national events are not eligible.

4.3.3 Allocation Conditions and Criteria

Funding is not provided retrospectively and this is a subsidy-based funding scheme.
This means that groups must contribute towards the costs of their project.

4.4 Northern Southland Development Fund

4.4.1 Purpose

The purpose of the fund is to reflect the substantial community support
Meridian Energy received for Project White Hill and to offset any perceived loss of amenity values resulting from the development of the White Hill Wind Farm and to provide for the creation, maintenance and enhancement of facilities, amenities and programmes for the long term betterment and advantage of the people of the Northern Southland community to enable them to provide for their social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being.

The funds are to be applied towards charitable or community purposes that:

• Relate to creation, maintenance and enhancement of community facilities, amenities and programmes within the designated geographic area

• Develop facilities, amenities and programmes to provide for the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of residents within the Northern Southland Development Fund Area

• Relate to the refurbishment and operational requirements of facilities and amenities within the Northern Southland Development Fund Area.

Up to $10,000 is available for distribution each funding round.

4.4.2 Eligibility

Those eligible to apply need to be recognised community groups and organisations within the designated geographic area or for projects for the benefit of residents within the designated geographic area represented by the Northern Southland Development Fund Area.

4.4.3 Allocation Conditions and Criteria

Funding is not provided retrospectively and this is a subsidy-based funding scheme - organisations must contribute a reasonable amount towards the costs of their project.

Applications close 31 March and 30 September each year and will be considered by a local representative working group, which will then submit recommendations based on the applications to the Southland District Council Allocations Committee.

Priority will be given to assisting new ventures and developments, particularly those which provide ongoing benefit. Where projects are of equal merit, levels of previous assistance may be considered when establishing priority.

4.5 District Heritage Fund

4.5.1 Purpose

The Southland District Heritage Fund is to support the conservation of heritage collections and encourage the development and application of professional museum standards to heritage collections held within the Southland District Council boundaries.

4.5.2 Eligibility

The fund is available to public benefit entities based within the boundaries of the Southland District Council which hold heritage collections or items.

The fund is available to assist with the day-to-day running of the local museum, heritage centre or similar type organisation including:

Operational activities:

• Routine building maintenance

• The attainment of professional museum standard

• Staff training.

4.5.3 Allocation Conditions and Criteria

Funding is not provided retrospectively and funding is not provided for the operational costs associated with the provision of i-SITE services.

The total fund available for distribution each year is $60,000.

Priority will be given to applications that demonstrate the following:

• The collection or items are of significance to the Southland District

• The collection provides significant benefit to the public as opposed to private benefit

• The applicant is following good sector practice around collection management and is aiming to improve its standards. One example of this would be the adoption of a Collections Management Policy

• The relevant financials and budgets show sound planning practices are in place

• The applicant is working with other organisations, which may include museums or heritage centres, to share resources where possible

• There is an urgent need for financial support to prevent damage or deterioration to the collection.

Ohai Railway Fund

See separate policy 10/7/5/1, 240/10/5/5. The fund is managed by the Ohai Railway Board.

Stewart Island Rakiura Visitor Levy

See separate policy 140/20/1/4. The fund is managed by the Stewart Island Visitor Levy Fund Committee.

Other Grants

Southland District Council provides grants to organisations which it has deemed provides important services for the whole of the Southland District on an ongoing basis. These organisations are St John Ambulance, Citizens’ Advice Bureau,
Gore Counselling Service, Life Education Trust, Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Trust, Toimata Foundation, Biodiversity Southland, Cycling Southland - Tour of Southland and SPCA. These grants remain within Council responsibilities and are administered by the Communications and Governance Manager and other staff.

One-off grants are decided on through the 10 Year Plan/Annual Plan process. Organisations which seek funding of this type have their request included in the
10 Year Plan/Annual Plan, which goes out to all Southland ratepayers and residents for consultation. Council then makes a decision on these grants based on the submissions made by the public.

Those receiving $10,000 or more through this process must write an annual outcomes report to Council on the outputs and benefits of the programme/organisation to Southland residents.

Scholarships and Bursaries

Southland District Council elected Councillor family members are not eligible to apply for scholarships in any category (family members include children/grandchildren).

All applicants address details will be checked against the Southland District Council rates database to ensure residential criteria is satisfied.

The decisions of the Scholarship and Bursaries Subcommittee are final and no discussion will be entered into.

A quorum of three (3) Scholarship and Bursaries Subcommittee members must be present during all applicant interviews/discussions and final decision-making.

An additional Councillor be nominated to provide back-up attendance for the Committee should any member be unable to attend the scholarship interviews.

Schools will be asked to publish advertisements for all scholarships in school newsletters.

Valmai Robertson Arts Scholarship

This scholarship is to encourage and assist Southland District Council residents and ratepayers wishing to increase their skills through the attendance of development courses, workshops, projects or study in the Arts.

This scholarship acknowledges the substantial contribution and commitment over more than 50 years to the field of dance by Valmai Robertson of Blackmount.

The scholarship may be awarded for any of the following Arts, but not limited to:

Speech	Drama	Vocal	Writing
Dance	Music	Visual Arts	Craft Arts

Council has established a contestable fund of up to $2,500 annually.

The actual amount granted to any individual and the number of grants awarded may be increased or decreased within the set limit, at the discretion of the Scholarship and Bursaries Subcommittee after considering the merits of the applications.

The Scholarship and Bursaries Subcommittee may, at its discretion, decline to allocate the full amount available in any one year if, in its opinion, the number or quality of the applications does not reach the required standard.

In awarding the scholarships the Scholarship and Bursaries Subcommittee will take into account the commitment of the individual, the potential benefits to the individual from participation and, if applicable, the potential benefits to the community.

The applicant, or if dependent, the applicant’s parent/s or caregiver/s, must currently be residents or ratepayers in the area administered by the Southland District Council and have been so for a minimum period of two consecutive years.

All applicants will be interviewed and are required to provide examples of their work, where appropriate. Applicants are encouraged to ensure their availability to attend an interview on the date stated, as no alternative date will be available.

Centennial Bursary

Two bursaries will be awarded with successful applicants receiving $2,000 each.

The conditions of the bursary are:

(a) Applicants must be academically qualified for admission to a tertiary educational institution.

(b) The bursaries are awarded annually and can be held for one year only.

(c) Applicants are restricted to those about to commence the first year of tertiary education. This includes mature students.

(d) The applicant, or in the case of dependent children, the applicant's parent/s
or caregiver/s must currently reside in the area administered by the
Southland District Council and must have been so for a minimum period of two consecutive years.

(e) No restriction will be placed on the particular course of study followed.

Applicants will be judged on the following criteria:

(a) Character and personal involvement in community activities.

(b) An understanding of the functions and responsibilities of local government.

(d) In awarding the scholarships the Scholarship and Bursaries Subcommittee will take into account the commitment of the individual, the potential benefits to the individual from participation and the potential benefits to the community.

Applications must contain the following data:

(a) Applicant's full name, age, address and telephone number.

(b) If dependent - parent/s' or caregiver/s’ full name/s.

(c) Applicant’s or if dependent parent/s' or caregiver/s’ present address and any other address occupied by them during the last two years.

(d) Particulars of applicant's educational qualifications.

(e) Particulars including amounts, of all other bursaries and scholarships held, including any State bursaries and scholarships.

(f) Full details of tertiary course proposed to be followed.

(g) A paper of between 300 - 500 words indicating the applicant’s understanding of the functions and responsibilities of Local Government. Must be typed.

(h) A paper of between 300 - 500 words titled “Where I would like to be in five years’ time”. Must be typed.

(i) Two written character references must be supplied.

Southland District Council Eric Hawkes Memorial Outward Bound Scholarship

The purpose of the scholarship is to encourage and increase self-responsibility, confidence and motivation and to help build positive relationships with colleagues and others.

The scholarship covers:

• Two Outward Bound courses per year - one standard course, for those aged 18 - 26 years, and one compact course for residents of the Southland District aged 27 years and over.

The Scholarship and Bursaries Subcommittee is given the discretion to vary the category of sponsorship if in its opinion this is warranted due to the relative merits of the candidates in the various categories.

Southland District Council Eric Hawkes Memorial

Staff Outward Bound Scholarship

The Scholarship’s purpose is to sponsor one staff member to Outward Bound each year and to encourage and increase self-responsibility, confidence and motivation and to help build positive relationships with colleagues and others.

The Scholarship and Bursaries Subcommittee will award the scholarship to the applicant who would most benefit from the personal development opportunity within the Outward Bound framework. Also the Scholarship and Bursaries Subcommittee will recognise potential individual strengths, as well as the applicant’s commitment to the Southland District Council.

Prizes for Senior School Prizegivings

Southland District Council gives $75 per school for a senior school prize for the six schools in the Southland District.

Year 8 Debating Contest

Southland District Council pays $50 to each school each time they are required to travel to participate in the debating contest.

Southland District Council pays the school hosting the Year 8 Debating Contest final $200 to be directed towards supper costs.

Southland District Council sponsors a Year 8 Debating Contest annually by providing trophies and certificates for both the winner and runner-up teams.

5. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The overall activity will be managed by the Communications and Governance Manager. Venture Southland will manage the process of the allocations grants.

Allocation decisions are made by the appropriately delegated committee or subcommittee in respect of each grant, scholarship or bursary.

6. ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS

Council’s policies on the Ohai Railway Fund (reference 10/7/5/1, 240/10/5/5) and the Stewart Island Rakiura Visitor Levy (140/20/1/4) should be read in conjunction with this policy.

7. REVISION RECORD

Date	Version	Revision Description
«Type Date»	«Version»	«Revision»
«Type Date»	«Version»	«Revision»
«Type Date»	«Version»	«Revision»

Council

5 August 2015

Description: sdclogo

Request for Funding Support for Aeromagnetic Survey of Southland - Venture Southland

Record No: R/15/7/11492

Author: Bruce Halligan, GM - Environment and Community

Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 The purpose of this report is to seek a decision from Council as to whether to provide the $108,731 of funding requested by Venture Southland towards the overall $686,000 cost of the Aeromagnetic Survey of Southland project

Executive Summary

2 Councillors will recall the recent presentation by Mr Steve Canny of Venture Southland in relation to the proposed Aeromagnetic survey of Southland project.

3 During this presentation, Mr Canny made it clear that confirmation of funding or otherwise is sought from Environment Southland (ES), Southland District Council (SDC), Invercargill City Council (ICC) and Gore District Council (GDC) by the end of August 2015.

4 Hence, the purpose of this report is to provide the opportunity for Councillors to consider this issue and decide whether SDC wishes to support it financially, or not.

5 Mr Canny advised that such funding could potentially be split across two years in both 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 financial years, to reduce the funding impact in a single year.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Request for Funding Support for Aeromagnetic Survey of Southland - Venture Southland” dated 28 July 2015.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

d) Determines to provide this funding, occurring across two financial years at $54,365.50 per financial year for the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 financial years, with this funding to be provided from the District Operating Reserve.

e) Determines that this funding be conditional upon the production by 1 December 2015 of a detailed information management and dissemination plan to outline how this information will be stored, updated, utilised and made available to the public and other stakeholders.

Content

Background

6 Councillors will recall the recent presentation by Mr Steve Canny of Venture Southland in relation to the proposed Aeromagnetic survey of Southland project.

7 To summarise this, government has committed $6 million to acquire and analyse aeromagnetic data across specific parts of Southland, Otago and Marlborough, to provide a greater understanding of the geological structures in these areas.

8 There is a one-off opportunity as part of this process for the four councils - ES, ICC, GDC and SDC to contribute further funding to this project to extend the coverage to the Southern Southland, Southern Gore and Invercargill City areas, with the total cost of doing so being $686,000.

9 Further information is attached in Appendix 1 for Councillors’ information.

10 It is proposed, on a population pro rata basis, that this funding be spilt as follows:

· Environment Southland 50% of total cost $343,000.00

· Gore District Council $44,247.00

· Southland District Council $108,731.00

· Invercargill City Council $190,022.00

11 At the time of writing this report, the status of funding decisions from the other councils is as follows:

· Environment Southland - the amount requested triggers ES’s Significance Policy being over $300,000 and hence ES proposes to consult on this amount as part of its 2016/2017 Annual Plan process. ES’s 2015-2025 Long Term Plan signals that this will be occurring. Following discussions with Ken Swinney at ES, there is a possibility that ES may provide a letter of intent to New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals signalling support in principle, subject to the outcome of formal consultation processes.

· Invercargill City Council - Councillors have resolved to provide the funding requested.

· Gore District Council - Councillors have resolved to provide the funding requested.

Issues

12 Some key issues for Councillors to consider are as follows:

The potential benefits to the District from the Council supporting this project financially

13 Some key potential benefits of the Aeromagnetic survey as they relate to the Southland District are as follows:

· Obtaining better quality natural hazards information, particularly in relation to geological hazards such as fault lines and areas of potential geological slipping which could be avoided and/or mitigated when considering potential future developments.

· This information could also better inform Council submissions to central government in the future around issues such as earthquake-prone building legislation and natural hazards management.

· Better identification and quantitative and qualitative information relation to Southland’s water resources, which could be of significant value for the District’s community water supplies in the future.

· This information could be combined with topoclimate information to provide potential land purchasers/developers with comprehensive climate/soils/geological mapping which could help enhance regional economic prosperity in the future and/or mitigate the potential for future land use intensification in areas where such intensification is more likely to lead to future significant environmental issues.

How the Council would provide the funding requested, if the decision is made to support the project financially:

14 Unlike ICC and ES, the SDC did not receive a submission to its draft 2015-2025 Long Term Plan seeking funding support for this project.

15 Hence, no such funding has been incorporated into the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan and there is no funding currently specifically earmarked for the Council’s requested $108,731 contribution.

16 However, unlike ES, the quantum of the funding requested is not such that it triggers the statutory requirement for any specific public consultation process under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

It is suggested that this project be funded from the District Operating Reserve based on $54,365.50 per annum in the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 financial years.

How, if the survey proceeds, the information will be provided to participants and made available to the public/users in a meaningful format:

17 If the project proceeds, it would be important to ensure that the information which is forthcoming from it is made available in a format, or formats, which will maximise the benefits flowing from it in the future.

18 There could be limited benefits from the project if the information provided ended up being provided in a format which only experts can understand and interpret locally. Ideally this information would be widely available to the public and those who may benefit from its use, to maximise its value for the Southland community.

19 Also, in terms of the provisions of Section 44A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, this information would become information which Council holds for the purposes of a Land Information Memorandum (LIM report) and hence would be required to be made available as part of any LIM requested. If this was to occur, again it would need to be provided in a format which is meaningful for the customer who has requested the LIM.

20 To date, limited information has been provided as to how these aspects would be managed, although Mr Canny has indicated that Venture Southland has committed up to $100,000 towards “geological and hydrological interpretation” by GNS (Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences).

21 There appears to be a lack of clear information at this stage on the specifics of how the information will be made available and in what format. Hence, Recommendation (e) above suggests that that this funding be conditional upon the production of a detailed information management and dissemination plan to outline how this information will be stored, updated, utilised and made available to the public and other stakeholders.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

22 As referred to above, this information if gathered would then become information which Council holds in terms of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

23 It is considered that the Council has the discretion to make a decision on the funding as sought at this time if it wishes to do so, without any mandatory requirement for further consultation in terms of its Significance and Engagement Policy under the Local Government Act 2002.

Community Views

24 As explained above, SDC residents and ratepayers have not at this stage been provided with any formal opportunity to express their views on this matter as it was not included in the draft 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.

Costs and Funding

25 The overall cost to Council would be $108,731, and it is suggested that this be funded from the District Operating Reserve, spread over the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 years. I have confirmed with Chief Financial Officer Anne Robson that the reserve is able to accommodate this request.

Policy Implications

26 There are no specific policy implications. This request has been discussed relative to the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy above.

Analysis

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Provide the funding requested over two financial years 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 at $54,365.50 per annum, funded from the District Operating Reserve

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Takes advantage of this one-off shared opportunity.

· Will refine regional knowledge in key areas of natural hazards and water resources.

· Will ensure that the project proceeds.

· Will meet the requested deadline for funding confirmation of the end of August.

· Will require provision of funding not previously budgeted.

· No formal opportunity for SDC ratepayers/residents to express their views.

· Not all of the four councils have confirmed support as yet.

Option 2 - Defer decision until after 2016/2017 Annual Plan consultation

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Will provide an opportunity for SDC residents and ratepayers to express their views.

· If supported, would enable the funding to be provided with greater certainly that it is supported by the community

· Could jeopardise the project because not all required funding confirmed by the end of August 2015 deadline.

Option 3 - Not provide the requested funding

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Does not require commitment of unbudgeted expenditure.

· Removes possibility of procedural challenge around funding.

· Removes issues relating to how/in what form the information is provided and how the information will be disseminated/ made available to the public.

· Potentially could jeopardise the project, and thereby the one-off opportunity to obtain valuable information on the District via this shared process.

· Potentially could jeopardise the funding already committed by the other councils, if there is not unanimous support from all councils.

· Could make securing future support from central government for other shared projects in the future more difficult.

Assessment of Significance

27 As referred to above, this matter is not considered significant in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy included in the final 2015-2025 Long Term Plan. Hence, no formal public consultation process is considered to be legally required in the Council reaching its decision on this funding support.

Recommended Option

28 Option 1 - the provision of the requested funding of $108,731 from the District Operating Reserve, spread over two financial years (2015/2016 and 2016/2017 at $54,365.50 per year) is recommended.

Next Steps

29 Depending on the decision on this matter, Venture Southland will need to be advised formally in writing, including reasons.

Attachments

a Aeromagnetic Survey of Southland - Venture Southland - 20 May 2015 View

Council

05 August 2015

Description: sdclogo

Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015

Record No: R/15/6/11161

Author: Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by: Bruce Halligan, GM - Environment and Community

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 To adopt the draft Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015.

Executive Summary

2 Problems at the designated freedom camping site at Waikawa prompted the need for an amendment to Council’s Camping Control Bylaw 2012. A number of our towns have expressed interest in becoming recognised “motor home friendly towns”, and a review of the bylaw was necessary to enable these towns to achieve this. A public survey undertaken by Council has raised a number of other issues.

3 The draft bylaw achieves the following:

· Standardises with the NZMCA model bylaw.

· Resolves the Waikawa Domain freedom camping issue.

· Resolves the concerns of the Southern Rural Fire Authority.

· Adds designated sites for self-contained camping.

· Introduces new default rules.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015” dated 24 July 2015.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

d) Determines that it is satisfied that -

(i) the bylaw is necessary for one or more of the following purposes:

(1) to protect the area:

(2) to protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area:

(3) to protect access to the area; and

(ii) the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem in relation to that area; and

(iii) the bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

e) Adopts the statement of proposal and summary of information concerning the draft Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 - Attachment A.

f) Directs that the statement of proposal, summary of information and a description of how persons interested in the proposal can present their views to Council be publicly available at all Council offices, libraries and on the Council’s website for a period of not less than one month.

g) Publicly notifies and invites submissions on the proposal commencing Saturday, 8 August 2015 and closing at 5.00 pm on Tuesday, 8 September 2015.

h) Sets the period of Tuesday, 27 October 2015, to hear any person who wishes to present his or her views to Council.

Content

4 Abbreviations and definitions:

Act: Freedom Camping Act 2011

CBs and CDAs: Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees.

DOC: Department of Conservation

Freedom camp means to camp (other than at a camping ground) within 200 m of a motor vehicle accessible area or the mean low-water springs line of any sea or harbour, or on or within 200 m of a formed road or a Great Walks Track, using one or more of the following:

(a) A tent or other temporary structure:

(b) A caravan:

NZMCA: New Zealand Motor Caravan Association

Self-contained vehicle is a vehicle that is designed to completely meet the ablutionary and sanitary needs of the occupants (including water for drinking and cooking) for a minimum of three days without requiring any external services or discharging any waste. They have the following:

1. Fresh water supply

2. A sink

3. Toilet

4. Holding tank

5. An evacuation hose

6. A sealable refuse container (with lid)

Background

5 On 1 April 2015, the Policy Review Committee endorsed a review of Council’s Camping Control Bylaw 2012.

6 A public survey was undertaken from 6 June 2015 to 6 July 2015.

7 Key results from all 446 responses is in Attachment B.

8 Key points from the survey include:

· The most striking result of the survey is that the greatest concern with freedom camping is non-self-contained camping (77%) and the least concern is
self-contained camping (6%).

· Particular issues of concern with freedom camping are litter, toilet waste, insanitary camping practices, and irresponsible campers.

· 69% believe that freedom camping provides significant economic benefit.

· Most respondents feel that self-contained camping should be generally permitted, and the opposite for non-self-contained camping.

· 59% believe that rubbish facilities should be provided at designated sites.

· About 50:50 concerning instant fine versus a tourist friendly approach.

Views of the CBs and CDA Subcommittees

9 Seven CBs and CDAs submitted survey forms. Key results are shown in Attachment C. These respondents had much stronger views on non-self-contained camping. In my discussions with CBs and CDAs, the prevailing view was that non-self-contained camping was the issue of concern, and that it should be prohibited in townships. A number showed interest in designating sites for self-contained camping, recognising that
self-contained campers are generally responsible and also the potential economic benefit in attracting them to stay over in their towns.

Views of District Residents

10 In filtering the survey for District residents only, the results were more-or-less the same as the whole.

11 The only difference of note was that residents had a moderately stronger preference for carparks and walking tracks to be prohibited for freedom camping.

Views of accommodation providers

12 Some key points from accommodation providers:

· Freedom camping was causing significant issues in their communities and that it is quite a problem.

· Has little economic benefit in their communities.

· Generally only favour beaches, lakefront, and riversides being permitted for freedom camping.

· Generally support rubbish containers being provided at designated sites.

· All agree with the instant fine compliance approach.

Views of retailers

13 There were an insufficient number of responses to draw any conclusions.

Issues

14 There are a number of issues relating to this review that are discussed below.

Issue 1 - Extent of the problem

15 Most people view non-self-contained camping as the issue of greatest concern, and self-contained the least concern. This is supported by issues of concern that are associated with non-self-contained camping, being litter, toilet waste, insanitary camping, and irresponsible campers.

16 The survey did not explore reasons why some respondents felt that freedom camping is not a problem. In my view the reason why freedom camping is not a problem in some areas is because of existing effective regulation:

· Freedom camping is not a problem in some of our towns because it is prohibited under our bylaw.

· In other towns it is not a problem because campers are directed to a nearby designated site.

· In Te Anau it is not a problem because of the prohibition and also effective enforcement.

17 During informal consultation, no new problem hot spots were identified. Some concerns were raised about some areas on State highway land, such as at Jollies Rest and McCrackens’ Rest. However this is outside of Council’s control, as advised from the NZTA State Highway Control Manual (2013):

“This [Freedom Camping] Act only applies to land controlled or managed by territorial local authorities and so it is not considered that this either applies to state highways or can be delegated to local authorities. In particular the Act gives powers to local authorities to set wide-ranging controls on camping on public land. However, since it is generally held that local authority bylaws do not apply to state highways as they do not have powers of control, it is not expected that their bylaws apply in this case either so must not refer to state highways. It is possible that any such reference could render the bylaw invalid.”

Issue 2 - New designated sites for self-contained camping

18 As mentioned above, some CBs and CDAs have recommended new designated sites for self-contained camping. A summary of all local changes to local freedom camping rules is in Attachment D.

19 Vehicles complying with NZ Standard 5465:2001 Self Containment of Motor Caravans and Caravans can be identified by a current warrant sticker placed on the inside left front window, as follows:

$Description: P:\Data\Capture.JPG$

Issue 3 - Waikawa

20 There has been concern that the use of the Waikawa Recreation Reserve is causing rubbish and effluent disposal problems due to large volumes, and associated costs are increasing. Further relevant matters are that the Slope Point cell tower is ‘opening’ up the area; and if Haldane Road is sealed then this could result in more traffic. Venture Southland Group Manager Tourism, Events and Community, Bobbi Brown, advises that visitor numbers are up this season and more growth is expected especially when an internationally appealing product like Curio Bay Natural Heritage Centre is complete, and so the freedom camping problem is expected to worsen.

21 This issue is proposed to be resolved in the draft bylaw by limiting the site to self-contained camping only, and reducing the size of the designated site.

Issue 4 - Motor Home Friendly Towns

22 In November 2013, the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association (NZMCA) prepared a Model Freedom Camping Bylaw in consultation with Local Government New Zealand, DOC and Department of Internal Affairs, and is available for download from the LGNZ website.

Some of our communities such as Otautau, Riverton and Winton have expressed interest in being designated as motorhome friendly towns by the NZMCA. The NZMCA has advised that for Southland District Council towns to achieve motor home friendly status, Council would need to resolve NZMCA concerns with the current SDC bylaw.

23 The draft bylaw is standardised with the NZMCA model bylaw. Once the bylaw is adopted, our townships will be able to progress discussions with the NZMCA.

Issue 5 - Concerns from Southern Rural Fire Authority (SRFA)

24 Chief Executive of the Southern Rural Fire Authority, Mike Grant, recommends that open fires are prohibited at designated camping sites, other than in safe on-site facilities.
This prohibition would not include gas cookers/BBQs.

25 Mr Grant also recommends that key safety messages are incorporated into the bylaw as conditions of use of designated sites.

26 The symbol for prohibition of open fires will be incorporated into Council’s maps, and also on-site signage at selected designated sites as advised by the SRFA.

$Description: P:\Data\Capture.JPG$

Issue 6 - Default rules

27 Clutha and Queenstown are examples of councils that prohibit non-self-contained camping. This creates legal problems for traditional activities such as scout camps, white baiters, and family camping.

28 The survey gives support for introducing default prohibition rules such as:

· Urban/residential, town centres, business and industrial (already mostly prohibited anyway under the current bylaw)

· Roads and roadsides

· Playgrounds and cemeteries.

29 In introducing these default prohibition rules, Council will have the ability to move campers on from these types of places.

30 Camping on roads and roadsides should be generally prohibited to protect the safety of the campers (eg a child being run over) and also the hazard that the vehicle may pose to road users. 60% of survey respondents agree with this.

31 Survey respondents had strong views on prohibition at playgrounds and cemeteries. This is because these types of places are considered unsuitable for freedom camping.

32 Default rules are not proposed for places such as riversides, parks and beaches, as survey respondents would support. This will continue to permit traditional camping activities such as scout camps, white baiters, and family camping.

33 Walking tracks and carparks are areas where there was about 50/50 support for prohibition or not. A number of carparks are prohibited anyway due to being within township prohibition zones.

34 Sports grounds, and signposted lookouts and picnic areas, have been added to the default prohibited area list in the bylaw, though the public was not asked about these areas (by omission). The public will have an opportunity to submit on this proposal during the special consultative procedure.

Issue 7 - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail

35 Mike Barnett, consultant who is planning the trail on behalf of Council, advises that it is not planned to have freedom camping along the cycle trail, and DOC does not want freedom camping within the Eyre Mountains Park along the cycle trail. Campers will stay in camping grounds along the trail being Mavora lakes, Mossburn, Lumsden, Athol, and Kingston.

Issue 8 - Reserves

36 Some of Council’s designated freedom camping areas are on Reserves. Freedom camping on Council reserves is prohibited under the Reserves Act 1977, unless permitted by Council in either the District Wide Reserve Management Plan or the camping bylaw. This plan is scheduled to be reviewed next year, and this will be the time to consider whether camping should be permitted at more of Council’s reserves.

Issue 9 - Enforcement

37 A patrol service will continue to be needed in the Te Anau Basin. There may be a demand for more services elsewhere. The Te Anau Community Board has indicated that the current tourist friendly approach there should continue.

38 The proposed bylaw may reduce the adverse effects of freedom camping in the District.
For example the proposed change in Waikawa may eliminate any need for a compliance service.

39 Individual complaints can be resolved by either of Council’s Environmental Health or
Area Engineer teams. If local communities wish to establish a patrol service similar to the one in Te Anau, then a report would be presented to Council for authorisation, at which time Council could decide on the method of funding.

Issue 10 - Economics

40 Survey participants gave considerable feedback concerning economic issues. A number of participants felt freedom camping should be encouraged to support the retail and vehicle service industry; others were against to support the accommodation industry.

41 Some townships recognise the potential economic benefits and this was a consideration in choosing to have designated sites for self-contained campers.

42 The effects of a camping bylaw on the micro/macroeconomics of freedom camping are well beyond the scope of this report and appear to be highly complex; and advice of overall benefit to residents cannot be given from the various options to Council. Some of the economic factors are:

· Retail expenditure by campers and flow on effects

· Accommodation expenditure and flow on effects

· The type of freedom camping rule may result in an increase of campers visiting and for longer periods, or the opposite

· Costs in maintaining designated sites

· Costs in managing the adverse effects of freedom camping

· NZ wide trends, international tourism factors and perceptions

· Population trends

· Industry trends, eg, more providers of self-contained hire vehicles

· Supply/demand.

Issue 11 - Donations at designated sites

43 Technically a donations box would mean that a designated site would require a camping ground license from Council. This is not unsurmountable but an issue that would need to be worked through by the Environmental Health team if this was planned.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

44 In conducting this review, I have made reference to “A guide to freedom camping bylaws under the Freedom Camping Act 2011”, prepared by Chen Palmer and commissioned by the NZMCA, and publicly available on the NZMCA website.

45 Section 11(2) of the Act requires:

A local authority may make a bylaw under subsection (1) only if it is satisfied that—

(a) the bylaw is necessary for 1 or more of the following purposes:

(i) to protect the area:

(ii) to protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area:

(iii) to protect access to the area; and

(b) the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem in relation to that area; and

(c) the bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

46 Paragraphs (a) to (c) are discussed below.

Purposes of the proposed bylaw

47 The restrictions in the proposed bylaw are necessary for the following purposes:

(i) To protect the area –

· Local township rules

· Prohibition in urban zones, playgrounds, cemeteries, walking tracks, picnic areas

· Fire safety rules

(ii) To protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area –

· Prohibition on roads

(iii) To protect access to the area –

· Prohibition on car parks, boating areas, sports grounds, lookouts

Is the Bylaw an appropriate and proportionate response

48 The proposed bylaw is the best available solution to the problems that have been identified. Local communities have clearly advised of their desire to be protected from the adverse effects from non-self-contained camping in particular. Most communities are generally supportive of self-contained camping but wish to confine this activity to designated sites so that any adverse effects can be effectively managed.

49 Even with the new proposed restrictions in the draft bylaw, the District will remain relatively permissive to freedom camping:

· Permitted on vast areas of Conservation land (except where DOC expressly prohibits or restricts to self-contained)

· Permitted on Council controlled land at designated sites, parks, riversides, and most beach areas (except on beaches where high tide covers the whole beach, eg Colac Bay)

· Self-contained camping permitted in many of our townships at designated sites, spread all round the District

· Back country camping on Council controlled land is permitted as it is not ‘freedom camping’ by definition

· Low cost camping at DOC camping grounds.

Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA)

50 Under Section 18(1) of the NZBORA:

• Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.

51 A limitation on a right or freedom may be consistent with the NZBORA where it is demonstrably justified under Section 5 of that Act. This report summarises the assessment completed by Council staff that justifies the reasonable limits on rights of freedom, on the basis of the protection of public areas, health and safety of the people who may visit the areas, and access to those areas.

Community Views

52 A public survey was completed to seek the views of the public. Staff consulted with all of the CBs and CDAs. If Council adopts the draft, then the public will be formally consulted using the special consultative procedure.

Costs and Funding

53 There will be costs associated with new signage. This bylaw will not mean that compliance services will be necessary across the entire district, though some communities in time may request a compliance service.

Policy Implications

54 There are no policy implications.

Analysis

Options Considered

55 The option is whether or not to adopt the draft Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - To adopt the draft Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 with any amendments as Council sees fit

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Addresses concerns of our communities. · Enables some of our communities to progress discussions with the NZMCA concerning motor home friendly town recognition. · Will enable the Council to move along campers who are camping in unsuitable and unsafe areas. · Will continue to enable freedom camping in the District.	· Negative feedback from members of community that disagree with the direction that the bylaw is taking. · Costs of implementation.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Addresses concerns of our communities.

· Enables some of our communities to progress discussions with the NZMCA concerning motor home friendly town recognition.

· Will enable the Council to move along campers who are camping in unsuitable and unsafe areas.

· Will continue to enable freedom camping in the District.

· Negative feedback from members of community that disagree with the direction that the bylaw is taking.

· Costs of implementation.

Option 2 - Status quo

Advantages	Disadvantages
· The current Camping Control Bylaw 2012 is not required to be reviewed until 19 September 2022.	· The current Camping Control Bylaw 2012 does not meet the current expectations of some of our communities

Assessment of Significance

56 This review is considered to be not significant in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Recommended Option

57 To adopt the draft Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015, with any amendments as Council sees fit.

Next Steps

58 The draft will go out for public consultation. Hearings will be organised once the submission period has closed.

59 It is proposed that the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 will be adopted at Council’s meeting on 28 October 2015 subject to any changes which may result from the public submission process, and come into force on 31 October 2015.

Attachments

a Statement of Proposal - Draft Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 View

b Summary of Survey Responses View

c Summary of Survey responses from CBs and CDAs View

d Summary of changes to local camping rules View

Council

05 August 2015

Description: sdclogo

Dryfe Street Stormwater Renewal

Record No: R/15/5/7955

Author: Mark Simpson, Project Engineer

Approved by: Ian Marshall, GM - Services and Assets

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 This report is to consider the recommendation from the Nightcaps CDA Subcommittee for funding the proposed renewal of the existing stormwater main along Dryfe Street in Nightcaps.

Executive Summary

2 The objective of this report is to outline the recommendation from the Nightcaps CDA Subcommittee on the funding for renewing the existing stormwater pipeline within Dryfe Street, Nightcaps.

3 The Nightcaps CDA Subcommittee have approved awarding the works to Te Anau Earthworks Ltd and is recommending to Council that a loan is raised to fund the budget shortfall of the project which is outside of the Subcommittee’s delegation.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Dryfe Street Stormwater Renewal” dated
27 July 2015.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

d) Approves the project to proceed for a total project cost of $130,055.45 excluding GST.

e) Approves raising a loan over a 25 year period to fund the projected shortfall for the work of $90,055.45 excluding GST to be repaid via an increase to the local township rate for the Nightcaps CDA.

Content

Background

4 The objective of this report is to outline the recommendation from the Nightcaps CDA Subcommittee for funding the proposed Dryfe Street stormwater renewal.

5 Over recent months there has been flooding/ponding of stormwater along Dryfe Street. Members of the CDA Subcommittee asked Council staff to investigate the condition of the stormwater pipeline and the stormwater flooding that has been occurring in Dryfe Street.

6 The investigation found that the existing 150 mm diameter pipe that was laid in 1955 was in poor condition with displaced joints, root intrusion and sediment blockages along the main between Moffat Street and Johnston Road.

7 The Subcommittee approved for the works to be tendered with approval for the funding and the works to take place once the exact costs are known. Council’s Water and Waste Department tendered the works and presented the Subcommittee with a recommendation on the preferred tenderer and the total project costs at its meeting on 14 July 2015.

Issues

8 The proposed contract works involve replacing the existing 150 mm diameter pipeline with a 225 mm diameter pipeline in a similar alignment including all associated structures from Moffat Street to Wamphray Street including Dr Woods Park. The tender also included a Provisional Item for renewing the main up to Johnston Road. Please refer to the Appendix for a plan and long section of the works.

9 The Nightcaps CDA Subcommittee has approved awarding the works to Te Anau Earthworks Ltd and the use of $40,000 from the general reserve to fund part of the works with the remaining shortfall requiring raising a loan to fund it. The work has not been budgeted for and is not included in the Long Term Plan so any additional funding for the works falls outside of the Nightcaps CDA Subcommittee’s delegation and requires Council approval to proceed.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

10 This project is being undertaken in accordance with the statutory processes and to fulfil Council’s statutory obligations set out in the Local Government Act 2002.

Community Views

11 The work to date has been undertaken at the request of the Nightcaps CDA Subcommittee to help remedy existing surface flooding issues; all work will be confined to within the road reserve. Prior to the works starting all affected property owners will be notified along with a notice of works being placed on the SDC website and other appropriate media outlets. The proposed project is not currently in the Long Term Plan.

Costs and Funding

12 The Water and Waste Department requested tenders for the work: four tenders were returned with the lowest conforming tender being Te Anau Earthworks Limited’s tender with a price of $116,555.45 excluding GST. Te Anau Earthworks’ tender was found to have some minor errors amounting to approximately $30 in the scheduled rates and it missed the contingency sum off its tender form price. These errors do not affect the order of tenders and Te Anau Earthworks has confirmed its tender remains open for acceptance as tendered. Please refer to the Appendix for the tender evaluation spread sheet.

13 Based on Te Anau Earthworks tender price including the Provisional Item of renewing the main to Johnston Road the total cost of the project to the Nightcaps CDA came to $130,055.45 excluding GST, this included pre-construction investigation, surveying and Council administration and supervision fees.

14 To fund this work a number of options were presented to the Subcommittee with differing effects on the local rate. The Subcommittee has decided on the option to use $40,000 from the general reserve to fund part of the works with a loan being raised to fund the shortfall. The loan will be serviced by raising the local township rate and increasing the stormwater activity fund within the local rates, the beautification activity fund will be decreased by the same amount to allow for a minimal raise in the local township rates. The beautification funds will be offset by part of the McGregor Park annual mine income which is allowed under the rules for using the mine income for reserve land.

15 A loan period of 25 years is proposed to keep the annual repayment costs low, longer repayment periods were not considered due to the amount of interest that would be paid over the period.

16 The Nightcaps CDA Subcommittee approved the use of $40,000 from the general reserves to fund part of the works at its meeting on Tuesday, 14 July 2015. Due to the work not being budgeted for in the 10 Year Plan, raising the loan falls outside of the Subcommittee’s delegation and is therefore recommending to Council to approve raising a loan to cover the budget shortfall. The below table shows a breakdown of the loan repayments based on current rating units.

Description of works	Loan Amount	Total Yearly Repayments	Funds from Beautification rates	Amended yearly repayment	Rating units	Cost per unit
Without Provisional Item	$60,576	$4,622.56	$3,774	$848.56	204	$4.16
With Provisional Item	$90,055	$6,878.23	$3,774	$3,104.23	204	$15.22

17 The loan repayments and changes to the local rate will be set at the Nightcaps CDA Subcommittee’s estimates meeting later in the year and take effect in the 2016/2017 rating year.

Policy Implications

18 The proposed option takes into consideration the Council’s Long Term Plan and Annual Plan by maintaining drainage systems to protect public and private property during periodic rainfall events.

Analysis

Options Considered

19 Of the three options tabled at the Nightcaps CDA meeting on 14 July 2015 the Subcommittee needed to decide to award the works to Te Anau Earthworks Ltd and to proceed with or without the Provisional Item of renewing the main to Johnston Road. The Subcommittee approved to proceed with the Provisional Item and to award the works to Te Anau Earthworks Ltd for the tendered price of $116,555.45 excluding GST.

20 Based on the current rating units this option would add an additional cost to the ratepayer of around $15.22 excluding GST ($17.50 including GST) which will increase the uniform charge for the Nightcaps CDA by 13% from $118.01 to $133.23 excluding GST with the stopping of the Beautification portion of the township rate.

21 The following is an analysis of the recommendation of raising a loan and servicing it through a raise in rates (Option 1) against doing nothing (Option 2).

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Raising a loan to fund works

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Only a small rates increase to the ratepayer.

· Entire stormwater line will be replaced with a lifespan of between 80-100 years.

· Use of McGregor Park mine income to offset Beautification activity fund will slow the growth of the reserve funds.

Option 2 - Do not approve raising loan

Advantages

Disadvantages

· No immediate increase or adjustment to rates.

· Could allow for the build up of local stormwater reserves to undertake the work in the future.

· Works could not take place at present.

· Condition of the main will deteriorate further.

· Increase the chances of surface flooding during rain events.

· Increase the chances of pipe collapse causing ground failure.

· If left construction costs could be higher.

· A loan could still be required in the future.

Assessment of Significance

22 Upon assessing the proposed recommendation against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, Water and Waste Services believes that the recommendation constitutes a significant decision.

23 This is based on the recommendation having an increase on the local township rate of more than 10% per rating unit.

Recommended Option

24 The officer recommends that Council approves Option 1 involving raising a loan to fund the projected shortfall of $90,055.45 excluding GST with the loan being serviced from raising the local rates and adjusting the local stormwater activity fund.

Next Steps

25 Upon Council’s approval to raise a loan the works including the Provisional Item will be awarded under delegated authority by the Group Manager Services and Assets to Te Anau Earthworks Limited. Contract documents will then be prepared and a commencement date for the works agreed to.

26 At the Nightcaps CDA Subcommittee estimates meeting later in the year the loan repayments and changes to the local rate will be finalised by the Subcommittee to take effect in the 2016/2017 rating year.

Attachments

a Dryfe Street Stormwater Renewal - Construction - Tender plans View

Council

5 August 2015

Description: sdclogo

Management Report

Record No: R/15/7/12564

Author: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

☐ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒ Information

Chief Executive

Regional Development Strategy

1 Work is continuing with the Regional Development Strategy Project.

2 The project was initiated so that the region could build a common view as to the current state of the local economy and what might be needed to drive the economic and social development of the region in the future.

3 A draft of the proposed Strategy has been developed and will be considered at the final Steering Committee meeting on 27 July. The draft identifies a small number of fundamental areas of development and proposes a highly focused programme of activity on these areas. They involve lifestyle (such as urban renewal in Invercargill), industry extension (specifically in agriculture, tourism and international students) and innovation of new industries that can help expand the local economy.

4 Once approved by the Steering Committee the final report will be presented to the Mayoral Forum.

Milford Opportunities Project

5 Southland District Council (SDC) is liaising with key agencies including Department of Conservation, NZ Transport Agency, Environment Southland (ES), Milford Development Authority, Iwi and local MP Todd Barclay to scope a multi-agency project to consider future opportunities for building on the NZ tourism icon - Milford Sound. Key drivers for the project include:

· To develop an understanding of the opportunities for increasing the economic returns from tourism to Milford Sound, Fiordland and New Zealand.

· To understand and develop a strategy to manage the pressures being placed on infrastructure as a result of projected increases in visitor numbers to Milford.

· To understand the opportunities to enhance access to Milford Sound and Fiordland’s natural heritage in a sustainable manner.

· To develop an approach to how Te Anau, Southland and NZ Inc build on opportunities created by the Milford icon as a visitor attraction.

· To enhance product development and packaged product opportunities for Te Anau and Southland and differentiate international and domestic visitor attraction opportunities.

· To foster brand development opportunities and marketing campaigns for Te Anau as the ’gateway’ to Fiordland National Park and Milford.

6 The project is in the concept development and scoping stages.

Local Government Funding Review

7 The final report in the LGNZ Funding Review was released on 21 July. This follows on from the earlier Local Government Funding Review discussion paper which was released in February. This original paper was designed to stimulate debate and consultation on various funding issues, opportunities and constraints in New Zealand.

8 Submissions received on the original discussion paper have been considered by the LGNZ Working party who have now issued a final document, entitled ‘10-point plan: incentivising economic growth and strong local communities’.

9 The final document is deliberately written as a high level ‘manifesto’ document which places a focus on key actions needed to provide an environment for incentivising and trialling good ideas, ensuring greater funding flexibility for councils as well as a stronger relationship between local and central government and other key partners. The manifesto is led by four guiding principles and outlines 10 key proposals which LGNZ will be advocating for with the aim to stimulate discussion and action on improving the range of funding tools available to the sector.

Local Government Risk Management Agency

10 An establishment board has been formed to assess whether a new Local Government Risk Management Agency should be established.

11 The board will work the local government sector, Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management and The Treasury, to investigate the feasibility of a local government agency dedicated to risk management and insurance.

12 If it considers the proposed agency should be established, it will prepare a business case for Government and LGNZ consideration.

13 Alongside of this review central government is also looking at the existing funding arrangements between central and local government to restore certain infrastructure after emergencies, such as for water, wastewater, stormwater and river flood control. Under this arrangement, the government reimburses councils for up to 60% of certain restoration costs.

14 The arrangement has been in place since 1991 and hence it is considered timely to review the arrangement to ascertain whether its original policy aims are still appropriate and whether it is incentivising systematic risk management by local authorities. Lessons will also be drawn from recent emergency events such as the Canterbury earthquakes to inform the review.

Freshwater Treaty Settlements

15 The Waitangi Tribunal issued a report in 2012 which indicated that Iwi had the equivalent of ‘ownership’ rights in freshwater resources which were protected through the Treaty. The Crown are now involved in a negotiation process with the Iwi Leaders’ Forum to look at how the interests that Iwi have in freshwater might best be recognised.

16 While it is still very early in the negotiation process it is likely that there will be changes to the way in which freshwater resources are managed as a result of these negotiations. While freshwater resources are managed by regional councils they do have an impact on economic development activity and communities around New Zealand. Officers will be monitoring the national process and the potential local impacts.

Aquaculture

17 The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) released a report assessing the social and community effects of the Stewart Island aquaculture industry, which has now been in operation for 25 years, on Southland in June.

18 The report shows that the industry has had very positive effects on both the Stewart Island and Bluff communities with many of the individuals interviewed benefiting from a rise in personal income, skills and overall job satisfaction. Aquaculture processing in Bluff contributes 102 direct jobs and a further 30 jobs from supply chain businesses.
On Stewart Island 23 people are employed in direct jobs.

19 A copy of the full report is available on the MPI website.

3 Waters Project

20 The LGNZ 3 Waters project released an issues paper for consultation in August 2014. The paper extensively analysed three core issues facing the sector namely:

· investing to replace and renew existing assets;

· investing to meet rising standards and increasing expectations; and

· providing end-users with the right incentives to use water infrastructure and services efficiently.

21 These issues, and others, were tested through a series of workshops attended by 61 councils. The draft paper received around 30 written submissions from councils, central government, consultants and interested individuals and organisations. This engagement and feedback shows both a strong level of commitment and ownership of the issues and a commitment to improving outcomes over time.

22 The 3 Waters working group are now finalising a final position paper which is to be released in August. The paper is expected to advocate for development of a ‘strong, sector-led approach’ to the management of 3 Waters infrastructure but with an improved regulatory framework to assist the potable and wastewater service providers in addressing the key issues described above. Changes to the regulatory framework will also allow for greater monitoring of the performance of the sector.

LGNZ Performance Uplift Programme

23 LGNZ has been undertaking work to establish its proposed Performance Uplift Programme for the sector following release of the sector reputation work earlier this year. The programme will be focused on the following six priority areas:

· governance, leadership and strategy

· financial decision-making and transparency

· asset management and infrastructure

· engaging with business

· communicating and engaging with the public, and

· building a stronger relationship with central government.

Electricity Transmission Pricing

24 The Electricity Authority have released a Transmission Pricing Methodology (TPM) options working paper through which they are consulting on possible changes to the way in which electricity consumers pay for transmission line charges.

25 From a Southland perspective the changes being proposed are important as they will likely result in a lowering of the electricity network charges that are paid across the Southland region. While these savings are not likely to be large for the average residential consumer they could be as much as $50 million a year for the Tiwai Aluminium Smelter, a figure that would obviously make a big difference to the long term financial sustainability of the smelter.

26 Venture Southland (VS) is pulling together a submission to the Electricity Authority on their different pricing options. It is important that Southland has its say on this process so that our point of view can be heard and considered.

Environment and Community Group

27 Council is participating in a joint submission from the councils Waitaki south to recently announced proposed amendments to the Building Act in relation to earthquake prone buildings. This submission is likely to be largely supportive, as the recent announcements are significantly less onerous than the original proposals.

28 A new Manager has been appointed for Emergency Management Southland (EMS), Mr Angus McKay, who currently holds a senior role for the Auckland CDEM Group and brings with him considerable relevant experience. He commences on 27 July. In the interim, Ken Swinney from ES is the appointed Group Controller, with Bruce Halligan and Dean Johnston as Alternate Controllers. EMS is fortunate to have attracted an appointee of Angus’s calibre to this important role, replacing Neil Cruickshank who resigned to travel overseas on 3 July. Neil did an excellent job of establishing EMS as a new shared entity and getting it to the stage where recent capability assessments by the Ministry of Civil Defence and EMS have been largely very positive.

29 Building consent activity has slowed significantly in the last two months, although values are still running about $15 million ahead of this time last year. Officers are monitoring this closely, although if this continues there are likely to be opportunities to process consents for other South Island councils, as SDC has done at times during the last two years when capacity has allowed.

30 Southern Rural Fire Authority held a strategic session on 7 July at Gore District Council. Ian Marshall and Bruce Halligan attended as Board members. SRFA has also prepared a submission on the current Fire Service Review process, which Board members viewed and endorsed subject to some minor amendments. Local Government New Zealand is also submitting on this review as part of the local government sector.

Environmental Health

Keeping of animals

31 The Nightcaps CDA believes that the current Bylaw does not satisfy the requirements of the Nightcaps community and the meeting agreed to recommend to Council that an amendment to the Bylaw be made. The CDA is requesting the definition of animal to be expanded, to require fencing if sheep are to be kept on sections in the town, and limiting numbers of lambs/sheep on a section.

32 Environmental Health (EH) officers have completed some research on best practice animal bylaws, and has passed this on to Dunedin City Council who is currently reviewing its bylaw and Council will watch that process with interest. Officers will develop a report to Council on this matter and determine whether there is any benefit in making other amendments to the current bylaw.

Food premises

33 EH is meeting with staff from Gore and Invercargill Councils to plan for the implementation of the new Food Act 2014. Regulations to be released later this year will introduce a transition period for food premises, specifying when they must be operating under a food control plan. Next year a number of Council’s food premises, including all those with alcohol on licences (eg, taverns), will have to transfer over an 18 month interval.

Dog control

34 A big focus of the team will be the implementation of multiple dog licensing, should Council resolve to adopt this in the bylaw. Several hundred of our dog owners will have to obtain a licence by the proposed deadline of 30 June 2016. Staff will meet to plan the implementation of this new licence and will follow the same method as will be used in food premises above.

Resource Management

Proposed District Plan

35 Council has another consent order that has been signed off by the parties on the appeal by Mrs Muriel Johnston (Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu) regarding Taramea (Howells Point).

36 A Variation to the Proposed Plan has been notified to bring the Eweburn Plan Change into the Proposed District Plan. Council has previously made a decision on this in 2012 but due to the timing of the hearing and the notification of the Proposed Plan it was unable to be included earlier.

37 A substantial quarry on the Five Rivers - Mossburn Highway has been publicly notified. The quarry is for mining up to 250,000 m³ per annum of Serpentine with an unlimited timeframe.

Consents

38 There is an application at Five Rivers for constructing a substantial structure that will provide for the continuous housing of about 800 cows as well as having visitor viewing and facilities.

39 There may be another application for continuously housing around 1,600 cows at Otautau, Eastern Bush although this is yet to come through.

Area Offices

40 Area Office staff have been involved in a range of activities outside of their normal day to day work. These include:

· Preparation of submissions to the draft Dog Control Review

· Preparation of submissions to the draft Freedom Camping Control Review

· Assisting students involved in the Southland District Youth Council’s Leadlab project which involved the development of a possible shelter at the Riverton skatepark

· Assisting with the preparation of the Leadlab Ecoblitz community workday which involved young persons from across the District who worked with the South Coast Environment Centre on a variety of eco-projects throughout Riverton - considered a great success

· Preparation of nomination packs for the vacant Trustee position on the Milford Community Trust

· Preparation of the Milford Community Trust Annual Report to 30 June 2015

· Governance responsibilities associated with Inaugural meeting of the Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project Committee

· Involvement with Te Anau community with the Illumination of office for the Te Anau township Illumination month (July)

· Involvement with Stewart Island Promotions investigating capitalising on the visit by HRH Prince Harry to the Island

· Governance responsibilities with Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy Committee Allocation meeting.

Rural Fire

41 In 2012 the Government set up an independent Fire Review Panel to provide advice on New Zealand’s fire services, with the panel issuing its report in late 2012.

42 The Minister of Internal Affairs Hon. Peter Dunne earlier this year announced a separate review. The 2015 review widens the scope of the Fire Review Panel and builds on the work already undertaken. This review is considering matters including structure and funding of fire services (rural and urban), workforce engagement issues (particularly support for volunteers) and modernising fire services’ legislation. Current legislation was developed in the 1940s and 1970s. However, since that time the role of firefighters has changed considerably with less fires to deal with and more non-fire activities such as medical emergencies and motor vehicle accidents. This is common of all rural fire authorities in New Zealand. However, the legislation does not cover firefighters undertaking this work and it is currently carried out in ‘good faith’.

43 Three structural options are being considered in the discussion document as follows:

· Enhanced Status Quo - This option addresses the need to modernise the legislation, touches lightly on firefighter engagement issues but does not address the structure and funding of rural fire authorities.

· Coordinated Service Delivery - This option is about providing coordinated national support to all firefighters, clear leadership and governance. Decisions would be based on community needs and risk and would involve consultation with the community and stakeholders. It would also create a legal mandate for delivery of non-fire activities.

· One National Fire Service - This option will create a new organisation from rural and urban fire authorities. Rural and urban volunteer and career staff with different workforce skills and experience would all be necessary in the new organisation.

44 Submissions on the discussion document close on 10 July 2015.

Policy and Community Group

Community Governance Review Project

45 The Community Governance Review Project has now reached the point where there is a need to form a working group to develop the concept to the next stage.

In getting to this point the following steps and milestones have been achieved:

· Discussion at Council’s Strategic Direction Workshop - January 2015

· Discussion at Executive Leadership Team Strategic Direction Workshop - April 2015

· Discussion at Staff Forum - June 2015

· Community Governance Project - Issues and Options paper prepared and presented at Council Workshop - June 2015

· Discussion at the Community Board and CDA Chairs meeting - July 2015.

46 The next stage of this project is to develop the concept further, prepare a consultation document and deliver on an agreed implementation and engagement approach.

Community Planning Approach Review

47 An analysis and assessment paper has been prepared to review the current Venture Southland approach to community planning and ensure that it aligns with the approach to community development that SDC wishes to adopt in the future. This has involved an evaluation of the current community planning approach and consideration of a proposed community planning strategy and approach.

48 The next stage is to align where necessary, the future community planning approach with the work being undertaken on the Community Governance Review project.

49 Future community planning processes need to be developed within a clearly defined community of interest area and not necessarily be determined by geographic political boundaries.

50 Also planning processes should reflect and be determined by particular issues and/or themes and not necessarily be a community wide or whole of community approach.

51 Pressures and issues that could be identified as key drivers and influences of community planning processes in the future include:

• Declining communities and future infrastructure provision

• Economic development and how do we achieve a wider, more diversified economic base

• Facility provision and appropriate development requirements

• Historical tensions requiring the need to pull divided communities together and rebuild fractured Council-community relationships

• Council district-wide priorities and provision requirements in relation to localised issues and priorities.

52 The revised approach and framework is to reflect and represent:

· A long term vision

· An action plan

· A commitment to development

· An agreed approach for monitoring and implementation.

53 The SDC community plan approach is to:

· Enable communities to articulate their aspirations, needs and priorities

· Co-ordinate the actions of the SDC with those of public, private, voluntary and community organisations operating locally

· Influence and support the activities of those organisations so they effectively meet community needs and aspirations

· Contribute to the achievement of regional development with local goals and priorities that relate and link to district, regional and national objectives and priorities.

	Framework
Local	Community Plan Vision, Goals, Opportunities


District	LTP AMP District Plan


Partner Agencies	CTOS, Environment Southland and others


Regional	Southland Regional Development Strategy


National	Areas of priority with links to Southland Regional Priorities

54 The revised approach does not necessarily require a predetermined schedule or roll out for each community. The schedule of planning requirements will be more focused on need and demand relating to specific issues that then require a community planning process to be delivered.

55 As a priority for 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 consideration should be given to (in no particular order):

(i) Wyndham - Council Service and Public Facility Provision

(ii) Milford Opportunities - Implications for Fiordland, Te Anau and the wider district regarding infrastructure and product development opportunities

(iii) Ohai Nightcaps - Infrastructure and community service requirements based on socio demographic case study work being commissioned.

(iv) Stewart Island - Council Service and Public Facility Provision.

Southern New Zealand Cruise Destination Strategy

56 This project is progressing and involves VS, ES and SDC working in partnership to develop a Strategy, in consultation with appropriate stakeholders, that provides a framework for the development of Southern New Zealand as a cruise destination. It will identify:

· Opportunities to grow the number of visits and maximise the benefits of visiting cruise ships for Southland’s communities and economy

· Current and future challenges which are barriers to cruise ship visit growth and maximising the benefit of the industry including an assessment of the costs and levies associated with visiting Southland now.

57 VS has engaged a contractor to undertake the work and it is anticipated a Stakeholder Agency Workshop will be held on 6 August to continue to advance the project.

Venture Southland - Southland District Council Relationship Protocol

58 The protocol outlines how the SDC and VS relationship operates to ensure VS Community Development resource aligns with SDC’s priorities. The overall aim is to ensure that SDC and VS Community Development teams work together to support the councils and communities of interest in the delivery of regional and community development outcomes.

59 The protocol has been signed and is operational.

Stakeholder Communication and Community Engagement Forum

60 SDC Group Manager Policy and Community was invited to present at a National Forum on Stakeholder Communication and Community Engagement in Auckland on 28-30 July 2015. Other presenters included representatives from Fonterra, Hawkins Group, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Agency, Auckland Council, New Zealand Rugby Union, Contact Energy, Hamilton City Council, Carter Holt Harvey, Spark NZ Ltd, NZ Electoral Commission. The Forum covered the following themes and topics:

· Engaging stakeholders and communities through influencers and tailored initiatives

· Fostering community participation and building trust for sustainable relationships

· Linking effective stakeholder and community engagement strategies with project outcomes

· Measuring the value of stakeholder communication and community engagement.

61 The SDC Group Manager Policy and Community presentation was titled “Working Together for a Better Southland” and discussed:

· Where we have been with community engagement

· Where we are thinking we need to go

· How we are going to achieve the new direction.

Cycle Trail Official Partner Programme

62 SDC and VS staff have been working together on the Around the Mountains Cycle Trail Official Partner Programme, with documents now prepared ready for businesses to sign up. VS staff will soon visit communities on Stage One of the trail and sign up interested businesses.

63 The official partner programme is designed to acknowledge businesses and supporting industries which provide a high level of service or product to those using the cycle trail. It is open to all businesses with an interest in the trail. Official partners will make payment to council based on business type. They will be included in marketing and promotion of the Trail and will be able to use the official partner logo which shows they have met standards defined by the guidelines.

LeadLab

64 Council’s inaugural LeadLab Southland project has now wrapped up. The Ministry of Youth Development granted Council $5,000 in funding for the project, which aimed to help young people across the District turn project ideas to benefit their communities into a reality.

65 Sixteen young Southlanders took part in LeadLab. Youth Council’s 10 members were joined by six other young people chosen through an application process held at the start of 2015. LeadLab began with a leadership seminar at Council. It taught participants skills such as time and project management. The young people were then linked up with staff mentors - Alana Dixon, Tamara Dytor, James McCallum and Sarah Bedford from SDC, and Cathy Jordan and Julie Russell from VS. During the following two months staff mentors provided the young people with support and guidance as they worked on their projects. These included creating a memorial avenue of trees, hosting a technology workshop, holding a mental health awareness seminar, building a shelter at an existing skatepark, and creating a mural to promote Students Against Drunk Drivers (SADD). While not all of the participants were able to complete their projects in the two month timeframe, the vast majority are committed to completing their project.

66 LeadLab drew to a close with a community workday, held in Riverton. Strong community support for the workday came from junior students from Aparima College, members of the Riverton Community Board, volunteers from the South Coast Environment Centre, Riverton Lions, and Community House. More than 60 people took part on the day.

Services and Assets Group

General

67 The Group Manager Services and Assets attended the International Public Works Conference (IPWEA) held Rotorua 7-11 June. This was the first time the amalgamated Australasian IPWEA has held their biennial conference in New Zealand. It was also coordinated with a sister organisation IFME (International Federation of Municipal Engineering). IFME holds an annual international conference.

68 This was the first time this conference has been held in New Zealand. So the combined registrations numbered about 800 delegates from 14 countries. The programme included eight concurrent streams with 22 sessions in each stream. So a total of 176 technical papers as well as five keynote speakers. This included a keynote Presentation by His Excellency Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, President of Iceland. Overall it was an excellent conference with a wealth of information presented and available for future reference.

Around the Mountains Cycle Trail

69 Construction progress has been slow on the trail through May and June. Over a period of 73 days, 43 of them were affected by rain or snow. This just shows the importance of avoiding this time of year for construction. The resource consent appeal process is progressing. The Environment Court will hold a pre-hearing conference on 29 July to consider the next steps including whether the matter should proceed to mediation or a hearing.

Asset Management Plan Project

70 Planning has started for the next LTP preparation. Over years one and two of the period, asset management plan improvement projects will be carried out. Then the updating process starts again to lead into the development of the 2018-28 LTP.

Te Anau Airport Manapouri - Operations

71 The summer season at the airport has concluded (mid-May) with some positive results. These results are measured in aircraft landings and passenger number entering the region by air. Below are three graphs that best describe the outcomes for the last four seasons showing a modest growth. Again, although we get an income from each landing, the important contribution to the community is the increase in tourist numbers by air through the airport facility.

72 The information gathered by Lee MacGillivray, our Operations Manager, provides confidence that there is a steady growth in passenger numbers getting off inbound aircraft and contributing to the local economy from aircraft over and above 5,700 kg (large aircraft). Tauck Tours clearly provides most of our business at the airport and is a valuable client, although it is interesting to note that the number of aircraft requiring an airport ground handling structure to support their operations is on the increase.

73 Due to the nature of aircraft below this weight category, it is difficult to monitor and differentiate between tourists and private passengers.

Safety and Security

74 A review of our health and safety system was undertaken two months ago and found to be of a high standard.

75 4x4 bike training has been completed through written education and additional equipment has been purchased to ensure safety. A new bird scaring gun has been purchased and has proven to be an effective method of reducing risk of bird strike.

76 Additional work has been carried out to complete the requirements to cater for physically impaired persons. Fencing is now complete and now ensures the public cannot enter or tamper with the sewage station near the terminal building.

77 Further fencing of the helicopter area adjacent to the terminal area is required; the aero club will quote to have this completed.

Function Centre

78 Functions - This year the function centre has performed above budget and contributes to the community as a high standard venue.

SIESA (PowerNet):

People

79 Council has started a discussion with PowerNet regarding potential options for a succession plan, for the operating PowerNet staff in the power station on Stewart Island. In order to guarantee uninterrupted operations, Council and PowerNet need to develop a contingency plan.

Assets

80 The replacement Generator Set (Scania) for the old backup Generator Set (V12 Detroit Diesel, #5) has arrived on site at the SIESA power station. The unit has already been installed in its new place in the generator shed. Due to bad weather conditions the unit could not be shipped to the Island earlier.

81 Council, in collaboration with PowerNet, will present several potential technical proposals for a “Ring-Feed” solution for the electricity supply for Oban/Halfmoon Bay. This ring-feed should close the loop of the distribution network and should minimise the effects of a fault or a physical damage to the network. Since Oban could be supplied with electricity from either direction, the effects of an incident would be minimal and would not let people be stranded without power for many hours. Depending on the design and magnitude of the proposed solutions the costs for such a project can vary significantly.

82 Council and PowerNet will present different options with its individual risk analysis and its individual Cost/Benefit (value for money) analysis and the total project cost for each version to the Stewart Island Community Board for final decision and approval.

Projects

83 Several projects are proposed for approval:

· Ring-Feed Project

· Connection of backup Generator Set (Scania) to the grid

· Connection of the new 2,500L running tank with the power station and with the backup unit

· 3 Bay Pole Shed: Sound proofing, door system, security, etc

· Security for Power-Station: gate, fence, signs, cameras, etc

· Condition assessment for old diesel storage tanks (2 x 16,000L)

· New diesel storage tanks (double skinned) 2 x 20,000L

· Old backup unit: shipping to yard on mainland in Invercargill to facilitate the sale of the unit

Forestry (IFS):

Safety

84 There have been two incidents reported during this period for:

· Panel damage to a pruning contractor’s vehicle in Ohai during May. The contractor went to drive around a security gate and struck the back door denting it. The investigation has determined that the driver neglected to open the gate and instead chose an alternative means of access. They have been instructed to stop, think and make smarter decisions in future. The contractor has been charged for repairs to the gate and widening the side ditch as a result.

· There has been chemical drift onto a Dipton neighbour’s paddock during an aerial operation during March. The pilot appears to have flown into the boundary rather than along it and maintained no buffer. The operator didn’t follow instructions to protect at risk boundaries which were pre-flown, marked and discussed on the day. The neighbour has been notified and is comfortable with the situation at this stage. The aerial contractor will provide feed or redrilling if required by the farmer.

Assets

85 Inventory plotting work has recently been completed across the SDC’s estate. This programme has included measurements of the mid-rotation crop (ages 16+) and pre-harvest inventories for Waikaia at age 24. This work allows for the prediction of future timber yields and provides important information to the annual forest valuation and future harvest planning.

86 The 2015 forest estate valuation is currently being completed by a third party consultant, Chandler Fraser Keating Ltd. A draft will be prepared during July with the final valuation presented before August.

87 The 2015/16 harvesting programme, of approximately 40,000 tonnes is currently being prepared and reviewed. A marketing plan has been submitted to Council for the first sale at Dipton, of 13,000 tonnes. This is seen as a good block to start the programme, given its proximity to domestic mills, quality of wood and transport accessibility during the winter.

Asset Management Improvement Plan Update

88 The draft of the Estate Forest Management Plan has been provided to the Forest Operations Committee. This plan helps define the management, processes and systems required to manage the forestry estate.

Projects

· Options around public and recreational forest access are still to be worked through. IFS Growth is preparing recommendations for Council as a starting point.

Property:

Assets

Public Conveniences

89 Mossburn upgrade has been completed and the Garston upgrade almost completed. The new toilet at Athol has started and agreement has finally been reached with the landowner at Surfies’ Corner (Colac Bay), to acquire the land for the new toilet site.

Community Centres

90 Disposal documents for the Otautau town hall are currently being drafted by Council’s lawyer. Capacity calculations are being undertaken for those Council owned facilities, to ensure those that require evacuation schemes, have these in place.

Council Offices and Other Buildings

91 A new front counter is being installed at the Te Anau office to better restrict the current situation of free access to the work area of the office.

Water and Waste:

Te Anau Wastewater Update

92 The terms of reference for a peer review of the proposed upgrade option has been approved by the project committee and included in a request for proposals, which has been sent to five independent consultants. Closing date for responses is 21 July with successful respondent expected to be appointed by 7 August.

93 A short-term consent for continued discharge to the Upukerora and a discharge to air for the oxidation pond site is currently being processed by ES.

Curio Bay

94 Council is currently working with the Department of Conservation and the South Catlins Development and Environmental Charitable Trust, to implement a sustainable long term wastewater treatment solution for the reserve. This work is part of a wider project to help improve the overall visitor experience at the reserve.

95 Resource consent has been granted for an upgrade of the wastewater treatment facilities for the reserve, with the long term goal of also connecting the wider community. The treatment solution based on membrane technology would treat the effluent to an extremely high standard which is in keeping with the unique status of the area.

96 Funding for the project was approved as part of the 2015/25 Long Term Plan. Water and Waste staff are currently finalising a procurement plan and have appointed a Project Manager to manage the work on behalf of Council and the Trust.

Riverton Water Supply

97 Work has now been completed on the installation of a new borehole for Riverton water supply.

98 Following this a contract has been awarded to upgrade the treatment plant as to meet new Drinking Water Standards.

99 Stage One of chlorine dosing and aeration to correct pH and remove iron has now been completed. Further testing is being undertaken to enable finalisation of detailed design for Stage Two.

100 Stage Two scope has been agreed and detailed design of the membrane filtration plant has started.

Stormwater Consenting

101 ES is currently processing consent applications for 17 of Council’s stormwater schemes. Site visits for all schemes have been undertaken and at a follow-up meeting Council staff tabled what we believe to be appropriate monitoring and consent conditions consistent with the scale of the activities and the potential financial implications for a small ratepayer base.

102 An initial set of conditions was amended following a meeting in late September. Drafted conditions were tabled and consent conditions discussed. Suggested draft conditions were submitted to ES late March and as of are awaiting further feedback.

Wastewater Resource Consent Renewals

103 Applications have been lodged at ES for the following wastewater resource consents

· Ohai - currently seeking affected party written approval.

· Riversdale - pre-hearing meeting held February 2015, suggested draft conditions submitted to ES.

· Nightcaps - pre-hearing meeting held 28 April, draft conditions currently being drafted.

· Riverton Rocks - currently seeking affected party written approval.

Wastewater Projects

104 Two significant wastewater treatment projects currently underway:

· Te Anau and Winton Inlet Screens - all earthworks complete and screens installed with some outstanding electrical work at both sites and remaining pipework at Te Anau.

· Regional Desludging - preliminary work to construct water tight, lined earth bunds at Winton and Te Anau largely complete with actual desludging programmed to start at Winton in early July.

Health and Safety

105 Nothing new to report.

Wheelie Bin Three Strike Policy

106 Inspections have been undertaken since February although strikes were only applied from mid-April. Region wide over 200 first strikes have been applied with a low number of second strikes (less than 10), indicating people are starting to improve. Unfortunately, Council staff have had to apply one third strike and withdraw the service at one property in the District. We have photographic evidence of significant contamination in the bin and have fully documented records of each time a strike has been issued.

Operations and Community Services:

People

107 Operations and Community Services has two new staff members in Area Engineer roles:

· Moira Tinnock used to be the Work Scheme Coordinator has moved to the
role of Area Engineer since February. Moira has been trained and prepared for her new role by Kushla Tapper and other Area Engineers. During Kushla’s maternity leave Moira will manage all of Kushla’s area with all of its community responsibilities and projects. As member of the Foveaux Roading Maintenance Alliance Team she will also play a crucial part in the roading maintenance planning in her area. Moira is a quick learner and evolving rapidly and is already in full control of her new duties.

· Brendan Gray has taken over the Area Engineer position of Irwin Harvey, who left Council a few months ago. Brendan can look back on a long career of more than
16 years at Fulton Hogan, where he has had several roles in relevant areas of expertise. Brendan possesses a wealth of knowledge and expertise in all aspects related to roading maintenance, contract management, customer service, staff management and leadership. He is picking up the special Area Engineer trades very quickly and is evolving very rapidly as well. He is already a valued and fully functional member of the Area Engineer Team.

Work Schemes:

Assets

108 Currently no major changes to last financial year.

Next Steps:

109 Negotiations with Probation NZ for the new Financial Year 2015/16 are coming up shortly. Work Schemes will present a revised and upgraded Service Portfolio with our potential offer on “Work and Living Skills”.

110 The introduction of the new developed Health and Safety processes and documentation will be presented and discussed including:

· Hazard Register Outdoors

· Hazardous Goods Register

· Safe Form Document

· Site Safety Form

· Induction Documentation

· Work Scheme Compliance Calendar.

Projects:

· Mowing throughout the District

· Riversdale Community Housing Flat - two repairs

· Noxious control - reserves

· Wash-down and Spouting clean at housing units, halls and offices.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Management Report” dated 23 July 2015.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Council

05 August 2015

Application Number	Applicant		Address	Ward	Description of Application	Working Days (from receipt of all information)	Total Costs Incurred	Processing Officer	Decision Date
2013/53203		Edendale Primary School	22 Salford Street, Edendale	Waihopai Toetoes	Signage on the front fence at Edendale Primary School	14	540.00	Theresa Cameron	10/06/2015
2014/53014		G.O. Shopping Limited	257 Great North Road, Winton	Winton Wallacetown	To erect a display box on the existing building for retail.	16	675.00	Marcus Roy	2/06/2015
2015/53005		Caronvale Farm Trust	80 McPherson Road, Niagara	Waihopai Toetoes	Earthworks - rock extraction 60 000 m³	20	675.00	Kelwyn Osborn	4/06/2015
2015/53011		B D Clark and N J Clark	360 Downs Road North, Te Tipua	Winton Wallacetown	Earthworks - Gravel extraction 52,000 m³ over a 10 year period	15	780.00	Kelwyn Osborn	19/06/2015
2015/53019		G I Tong and K M Bellew	352 Lorne Dacre Road, Roslyn Bush	Winton Wallacetown	Rural subdivision - Three lot subdivision	13	1680.00	Marcus Roy	15/06/2015
2015/53034		Ryal Bush Transport Limited	125 Viner Road, Branxholme	Winton Wallacetown	Earthworks - Gravel extraction 1,600 000 m³ - replaced with Resource Consent 15/114	6	0.00	Theresa Cameron	2/06/2015 withdrawn
2015/53037		Minta Limited and M T Kane and T A Kane	2575 Winton Wreys Bush Highway, Wreys Bush	Waiau Aparima	Reopen the Wreys Bush Hotel	19	866.00	Marcus Roy	18/06/2015
2015/53047		L M Irwin Family Trust	431 Great North Road, Winton	Winton Wallacetown	Build a new dwelling	53	540.00	Kelwyn Osborn	19/06/2015
2015/53052		A W Marshall and K E Marshall	307 Waikawa Valley Road, Waikawa Valley	Waihopai Toetoes	Excavate and access track and fenceline	20	540.00	Theresa Cameron	10/06/2015
2015/53061		C M Withington and S C Howden and M S Thomas	1775 Winton Lorneville Highway, Makarewa North	Winton Wallacetown	Subdivision - Rural Subdivision - three new allotments - Split consent - Land Use Consent 360/10/15/62	24	720.00	Jennifer Green	24/06/2015
2015/53062		C M Withington and S C Howden and M S Thomas	1775 Winton Lorneville Highway, Makarewa North	Winton Wallacetown	To create three new building platforms- Split consent - Subdivision - three new allotments 360/10/15/61	24	720.00	Jennifer Green	24/06/2015
2015/53070		S L Botting and D J Botting	(TEMPORARY ADDRESS ONLY) 285 Sinclair Road	Mararoa Waimea	Build new dwelling	20	420.00	Theresa Cameron	3/06/2015
2015/53072		Taylor Made Container Homes Limited	180 Kennington Roslyn Bush Road, Roslyn Bush	Waihopai Toetoes	Converting shipping containers in to self-contained units	19	600.00	Olivia Krielen	19/06/2015
2015/53073		Leondale Trust	134 Kennington Roslyn Bush Road, Roslyn Bush	Waihopai Toetoes	Construct a wintering shed	12	480.00	Theresa Cameron	16/06/2015
2015/53074		Southland District Council	625 Allandale Road, Fairlight	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16	360.00 (NB one fee paid for all applications)	Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53075		Southland District Council	360 Cainard Road, Fairlight	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53077		Southland District Council	525 Allandale Road, Fairlight	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53079		A M Johnstone	28 Redan Street, Wyndham	Waihopai Toetoes	Section 127 application for land use consent 360/10/14/267 Conditions (c) and (d)	13	360.00	Marcus Roy	5/06/2015
2015/53080		Two Degrees Mobile Limited	14 Cowie Road, Browns	Winton Wallacetown	On land use consent - 360/10/12/149 Condition 1	16	360.00	Theresa Cameron	12/06/2015 withdrawn
2015/53081		Southland District Council	9 Cainard Road, Fairlight	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53082		Southland District Council	475 Hume Road, Fairlight	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53083		Southland District Council	25 Quoich Station Road, Athol	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53084		Southland District Council	8 East Road, Athol	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53085		Southland District Council	966 Athol Five Rivers Highway, Five Rivers - Parawa	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53086		Southland District Council	1222 Athol Five Rivers Highway, Five Rivers - Parawa	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53087		Southland District Council	87 Bixter Road, Five Rivers - Parawa	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53088		Southland District Council	94 Andrews Road, Five Rivers - Parawa	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53089		Southland District Council	1564 Athol Five Rivers Highway, Lowther - Five Rivers	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53090		Southland District Council	2 Ellis Road, Lowther - Five Rivers	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53091		Southland District Council	299 Five Rivers Lumsden Highway, Lumsden - Longridge North	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53092		Southland District Council	9 Saleyard Road, Castlerock	Mararoa Waimea	Right of way easement - Around the Mountains Cycle Trail	16		Marcus Roy	8/06/2015
2015/53093		S G Donald	62 Donald Road, Edendale	Waihopai Toetoes	Consent under the NES to remove 20 m³ of contaminated soil	24	540.00	Jennifer Green	25/06/2015
2015/53094		J Yates and J R Hansen	51 William Stephen Road, Te Anau	Mararoa Waimea	Erect a garage	7	0.00	Olivia Krielen	2/06/2015 cancelled
2015/53096		R G Thomas and R E Thomas	2 Sinclair Road, Te Anau	Mararoa Waimea	Section 127 application for subdivision consents 360/10/11/65, 360/10/11/66, 360/10/13/26 - Condition 1	18	360.00	Olivia Krielen	23/06/2015
2015/53097		Ultimate Hikes	142 Milford Track, Milford Track	Mararoa Waimea	Demolish existing buildings and construct new guest accommodation	20	675.00	Marcus Roy	29/06/2015
2015/53102		N S Graham and M E Graham	26 Union Street, Winton	Winton Wallacetown	New garage	12	420.00	Olivia Krielen	25/06/2015
2015/53109		Manildra Stockfeeds NZ Pty Ltd	226 Branxholme Makarewa Road, Branxholme	Winton Wallacetown	Industrial Subdivision - three lots	6	360.00	Marcus Roy	23/06/2015
2015/53112		Pioneer Generation Limited	2812 Blackmount Redcliff Road, Blackmount - Redcliff	Waiau Aparima	Change Condition 4 of Resource Consent 360/10/11/219	1	N/A – Sec 88	Dianne Williams	19/06/2015

Council

5 August 2015

Description: sdclogo

Proposed Transfer of Powers under the Building Act 2004 from the Department of Conservation to the Southland District Council

Record No: R/15/6/11150

Author: Bruce Halligan, GM - Environment and Community

Approved by: Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 The Department of Conservation (DOC) has approached the Southland District Council to take over various responsibilities and powers which it currently holds under the Building Act 2004. The Council’s consideration of this matter is hence requested.

Executive Summary

2 DOC is currently the Territorial Authority and Building Consent Authority for the various offshore islands identified in Schedule 1 of Appendix 1 to this report, under the provisions of the Building Act 2004 and subsequent amendments.

3 DOC has approached Southland District Council’s Building Control section to take over these functions, as DOC does not hold suitable in-house expertise.

4 There are relevant legislative provisions under both the Building Act 2004 and the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to such transfers of powers; with both pieces of legislation making provision for such transfer subject to compliance with statutory processes.

5 This is considered to be an appropriate transfer, and hence the Council’s approval of receipt of such transfer is now sought.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Proposed Transfer of Powers under the Building Act 2004 from the Department of Conservation to the Southland District Council ” dated 23 July 2015.

b) Determines that this matter or decision not be recognised as significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

d) Determines that in terms of Sections 213 and 233-235 of the Building Act 2004 and Sections 17 of the Local Government Act 2002 the Council approves the receipt of these transferred powers under the Building Act 2004 with respect to the offshore islands as specified in Schedule 1 of the attached agreement.

e) Determines that in reaching this decision, in terms of Section 17(4) of the
Local Government Act 2002 that it is of the view that the benefits of the proposed transfer to its District will outweigh any negative impacts of the proposal.

f) Determines that this transfer will be accepted following the conclusion of the consultation process being undertaken by the Department of Conservation under the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to the transfer of these powers.

g) Determines that, in terms of Section 17 (5) of the Local Government Act 2002, Council delegates to the Group Manager - Environment and Community authority to provide the necessary notice to the Minister of Local Government of the acceptance of this transfer and sign the final agreement document.

Content

Background

6 DOC is the administrator, under the Conservation Act 1987 and various other statutory instruments, of various offshore islands to the south of mainland New Zealand, being the Kermadec Islands, the sub-Antarctic Islands and the Three Kings Islands.

7 The individual islands which make up these groups are identified in Schedule 1 of Appendix 1 attached.

8 As well as having various conservation-related roles and responsibilities, DOC is also the Territorial Authority and Building Consent Authority under the Building Act 2004 and subsequent amendments.

9 There are a number of existing buildings and other structures on these islands, as identified on Schedule 2 of Appendix 1.

10 While DOC does not anticipate a radical increase in the number of such structures, it is anticipated that from time to time either DOC or various research agencies could require additions to existing structures, or new structures.

11 As could be seen as obvious, any such structures on these islands can be subject to very extreme climatic conditions, so hence it is very important that they are suitably robust.

12 Approximately 18 months ago, DOC contacted Council’s Manager of Building Control, Mr O’Connor, regarding the possible transfer of its Building Act 2004 functions to the Southland District Council; with the reason being that DOC itself had no in-house expertise to fulfil such functions and that therefore the transfer would be the most efficient and effective way to achieve a suitably robust regulatory regime.

13 Mr O’Connor and myself discussed this with the then Chief Executive, Mr Adamson, and we collectively considered that this transfer had merit in terms of assisting DOC, provided that suitable arrangements were in place whereby SDC was appropriately reimbursed for all time involved, and associated travel.

14 Subsequent to this, this matter has been discussed and progressed in more detail, and DOC’s legal team prepared the attached draft agreement for Council’s consideration. Mr O’Connor has updated the draft with current fees and charges, as outlined in Schedule 4 of Appendix 1.

15 While it is not anticipated that there will be a massive workload generated by the transfer of these functions, it is important that by SDC providing this assistance to DOC, the ratepayers of Southland District are not financially disadvantaged. In some instances, fulfilling these functions could require the engagement of external expertise which the Council does not hold in-house (e.g. an engineering review), and the agreement also makes provision for reimbursement of these costs, which are also included in Schedule 4 of Appendix 1.

16 I also anticipate that such transfer may provide wider professional development benefits for staff, as it will expose them to environments they would not normally have the opportunity to view and this experience could also be valuable for other parts of the District which also include similarly rugged environments. This also strengthens the current and ongoing strong positive working relationship which DOC and SDC have shared for many years. Such a relationship is important as over 40% of the land area of Southland District is administered by DOC.

17 The possibility of a “contract for service” type approach rather than a transfer of powers was discussed with DOC, but DOC signalled a preference for a formal transfer and a draft agreement has been prepared on this basis, as per Appendix 1.

Issues

18 Key issues to consider are:

(a) That this transfer, if accepted, will add to the Council’s future potential Building Act 2004 liabilities. However this is not considered to be a significant issue which would cause undue concern, when assessed against the wider Building Act 2004 potential liabilities across the wider District. Also, Section 214 of the Building Act 2004 and Clause 6 of the draft agreement cover apportionment and limitation of liability.

(b) That this transfer could involve staff being deployed in a remote environment where there are some additional health and safety issues. While worth noting, it is considered that these risks can be mitigated as any SDC staff would need to be accompanied by DOC staff when visiting these islands as they are not normally publicly accessible. DOC staff would hence then be able to brief SDC staff on any applicable hazards.

(c) That this transfer, due to its remote location, would reduce the staff availability in other parts of the District and hence potentially reduce customer service - particularly in busy periods. This issue has been discussed with DOC. The flow of work is not anticipated to be significant and DOC has signalled a timing willingness to conglomerate work so that visits can be as short and efficient as possible, and the charging regime in Schedule 4 encourages this. The “Specification of the Services” in the agreement outlines service delivery timeframes.

(d) Any potential issues or resistance from the owners of existing structures. It is understood that DOC is the owner of all current structures, or where not the owner has previously had an approval role prior to these being constructed as land administrator. This would not change under the proposed transfer regime.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

19 Sections 213 and 233-235 of the Building Act 2004 make provision for the transfer of Territorial Authority and Building Consent Authority powers as is proposed by this agreement.

20 Sections 17 and 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 are also relevant. While these provisions, particularly Section 17, normally primarily apply to transfers of powers between one council and another, they are also relevant in this instance.

21 Section 17 (4) requires that any authority receiving a transfer of powers be satisfied that:

“the benefits of the proposed transfer to its district or region will outweigh any negative impacts of the proposal”

22 For this reason, it is recommended that if the Council is supportive of the receipt of this transfer, then it makes a specific resolution under Section 17(4) to recognise that it has considered this - see Recommendation (e) in the Recommendations section of this report above.

Community Views

23 Sections 17(4) and Section 82 of the Local Government Act 1974 require that in making any decisions to transfer or receive powers, councils turn their minds to the appropriate level of consultation required in terms of Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

24 In this instance, DOC is the administrator of all the lands in question and is supportive of such transfer of powers and is in fact promoting it. As such it is considered that DOC are the primary party affected by and with an interest in the proposal.

25 DOC staff have advised that they will provide appropriate public notice of the intention to transfer these powers under the Local Government Act 2002 - see Appendix 2 attached. This will provide an opportunity for any party to express their view about the proposed transfer. Hence, it is not considered that wider public notification, nor calling for public submissions by SDC, is necessary as this would duplicate the DOC process and would also arguably extend it to parties who are not significantly affected by the proposal. However, it is also recommended under Recommendation (f) that this transfer not be formally accepted until the DOC consultation process has concluded.

26 There would be no significant practical difference to the effect of such transfer on a party/customer proposing to construct a building on any of these islands in the future, other than that they would then be applying to SDC for a building consent rather than DOC.

Costs and Funding

27 Costs of the Council exercising these functions under the Building Act 2004 would be charged to DOC in accordance with the charging regime specified in Schedule 4 of Appendix 1. DOC has signalled its agreement to this. Such schedule will require regular review by the Manager of Building Control and can form part of the annual review required by Schedule 5 in Appendix 1.

Policy Implications

28 There are no specific policy implications. All Council’s current existing policies under the Building Act 2004 would be applied in exercising these transferred functions. Primarily the functions being transferred are covered by legislative parameters, being the Building Act and the New Zealand Building Code.

Analysis

Options Considered

29 The options are to either or accept or reject the proposed transfer of these Building Act powers:

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Accept the proposed transfer

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Assists DOC as requested, creates efficiencies for the taxpayer.

· Strengthens the important positive ongoing relationship between DOC and SDC

· Ensures a robust regulatory regime for buildings on the relevant land.

· Provides professional development opportunities for SDC staff that they would not normally be exposed to.

· Additional liabilities, but this is covered in the proposed agreement and under Section 214 of the Building Act.

· Potential loss of service to other SDC customers - this is considered a minor risk/disadvantage for the reasons outlined above and having regard to small anticipated workload.

· Possibility of a third party opposing the transfer of powers. The DOC consultation process referred to above would provide an opportunity to express their views on this and DOC could then consider at the end of that process whether it still wished to proceed with the transfer.

Option 2 - Not accept the proposed transfer

Advantages

Disadvantages

· No additional potential liabilities.

· No potential for third party grievance with the transfer/ new regime

· Does not assist DOC as SDC have been requested to do.

· Creates inefficiencies for the taxpayer as DOC would have to make alternative arrangements, likely at an increased cost. For example as a BCA DOC would have to follow IANZ accreditation processes.

· Loss of opportunity for staff professional development.

30 It is considered in terms of Section 17(4) of the Local Government Act 2002 that for these reasons the benefits of the transfer would outweigh any negative impacts to
Southland District Council.

Assessment of Significance

31 This decision is not considered to be significant in terms of requiring a wider consultation process, particularly having regard to DOC giving public notice of the intention to transfer and that DOC are the primary party affected by the proposed transfer.

32 Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as included in the 2015-2025 10 Year Plan states that the Council will not engage when:

(b) The Council already has a sound understanding of the views and preferences of the persons likely to be affected by or interested in the matter (Section 82(4)(b) Local Government Act 2002).

The DOC consultation process referred to above will provide such understanding.

Recommended Option

33 Option 1 - It is recommended that the transfer of powers be accepted.

Next Steps

34 See recommendation above.

Attachments

a Appendix 1 - Minister of Conservation and Southland District Council Agreement (Legal Version) View

b Appendix 2 - Offshore Islands Consultation Decision View

Council

05 August 2015

Agreement

Parties

The Minister of Conservation (the Minister)

The Southland District Council (the Council)

Background

A. The Minister was nominated as the Territorial Authority (TA) for the Islands described in Schedule 1 of this Agreement (for the purposes of the Building Act 2004) under section 91 of the Building Amendment Act 2012, as from 13 March 2012. This section amended section 91(3) of the Building Act 2004 (the Act).

B. The TA for a district must also act as the Building Consent Authority (BCA) for its district (section 212 of the Act). The Minister is also performing nominal BCA functions on the basis of an immunity granted to it under section 92 of the Act. That immunity (under sections 212 and 215 of the Act) apply to the Minister until 14 September 2013.

C. The Minister is not a fully registered and accredited BCA, and is not able to perform all functions of a BCA under the Act. The Council however is a registered and accredited BCA.

D. This Agreement records the parties’ intention for the Minister to transfer its BCA functions to the Council, to enable a BCA to effectively discharge its functions in the district. This transfer is made pursuant to sections 213(1)(b) and 213(2)(a) of the Act.

E. The purpose of this Agreement is to specify, for the sake of clarity and certainty, the formal arrangement that exists between the parties for the transfer of both Building Consent Authority (BCA) and Territorial Authority (TA) functions from the Minister to the Council.

Operative Part

1. Transfer of Building Consent Authority Functions

The Minister hereby transfers all of its BCA functions to the Council under sections 213(1)(b) and 213(2)(a) of the Act, from the date of signing this Agreement, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The functions transferred are those described at Schedule 3.

2. Transfer of Territorial Authority Functions

(a) The Minister is the TA for the Islands, however by agreement, the Minister transfers those functions described at Schedule 3 to the Council (as another TA) under sections 233, 234, and 235 of the Act.

(b) The parties agree that in accordance with section 234(c) of the Act, that the transfer is desirable for reasons of efficiency and technical capability.

3. Term of Agreement

(a) The Term of this Agreement is 10 years from the date of both parties signing this Agreement, unless terminated beforehand in accordance with clause 13.

(b) The representatives, as part of their Annual Reviews described at Clause 8 and Schedule 5, shall review the Agreement for continuation during the Term, taking into account factors including the Council’s operating estimates.

4. Service Standards

(a) The Council agrees to perform the functions of the BCA under this Agreement, to the standards set out in the Schedules to this Agreement (“the Services”).

(b) The Council is not expected to perform any TA Service not described in Schedules 3 or 4.

5. The Councils’ BCA status

The Council shall maintain its biennial accreditation as a BCA and shall undertake audits of its TA functions as required by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.^{^[1]}

6. Limitation of Liability

The Council shall not be liable to the Minister in respect of the Services unless the Council has been negligent in providing the Services. In this case, the Council’s liability for losses and damages shall be limited to those that arise directly from its negligent acts or omissions in performing the Services, and shall not in any event exceed, in each instance, an aggregate of five times the fee paid by the Minister to the Council in relation to that particular component of work.

7. Representatives

(a) All enquiries in relation to this Agreement shall be referred to one or other (or both - depending upon the circumstances) of these parties, who are:

· The Councils’ representative: Kevin O’Connor (Manager Building Control),

· The Ministers’ representative: Brent Beaven, Conservation Services Manager for Southern Islands District

(b) The representatives may be replaced by a party and notified to the other party during the Term.

8. Variation and Review of Agreement

(a) Any agreed changes to this Agreement during its Term shall be subject to negotiation and agreement by both parties. It shall be recorded in writing and attached to, and form part of, this Agreement.

(b) Performance monitoring and management shall occur as part of the Annual Review, performed annually in accordance with the procedure at Schedule 5.

(c) The charge rates and fees included in this Agreement may be reviewed by the parties at any time by agreement, or in any of the following circumstances by the Council, if:

(i) Any statute, regulation or bylaw, or requirements of any authority results in a change to the cost of the actual performance of the Services to Council. In such case, the parties shall in good faith discuss an equitable and agreed adjustment to the cost and/or duration of the Services, or

(ii) Annually as part of the Annual Review described at Schedule 5. Proposed changes shall be reviewed and any required amendments to the rates discussed and must be agreed with the Minister on or before 10 December in each year.

9. Special Consultative Procedure

Section 234(a) of the Act provides that the Minister, in transferring its TA functions, is to use the special consultative procedure set out at sections 82 and 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. The Minister will take these required actions.

10. Conflict of Interest

Where the Council determines that there is an internal staff conflict of interest in any of the Services, it shall (on each instance that this occurs) take appropriate action in accordance with Section QA3 “Conflict of Interest” of its Quality Assurance Manual.

11. Invoicing

(a) The Council shall invoice the Minister monthly for Services completed in the previous month. The due date for payment shall be the 20th of the month following the month of issue of the GST invoice.

(b) If the Minister disputes any aspect of an invoice it must promptly provide reasons for withholding any disputed invoice sum to the Council, and make payment for any undisputed amount to the Council.

(c) Where an invoice, or part of an invoice, is not disputed and is not paid as required the Service Recipient must pay interest at the rate of 10% on the unpaid amount from due date to the date of actual payment.

12. Dispute Resolution Procedures:

(a) In the event that a dispute arises in relation to the Services, the representatives of the Service Provider and the Service Recipient shall use every endeavour to meet to resolve the dispute using informal mediation between the those representatives within 48 hours of both becoming aware of any dispute.

(b) If the dispute cannot be resolved by the Parties themselves within five working days, they must explore whether the dispute can be resolved by use of a mediator agreed by the parties and appointed by the President of the southland branch of the New Zealand Law Society. Such mediator being a member of LEADR or equivalent.

(c) If the dispute is not settled as above within 30 days then either Party may refer the dispute to arbitration by a sole arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitrator will be appointed by agreement between the Parties within 15 working days of written notice of referral by the referring party to the other or, failing agreement, by the President of the Southland branch of the New Zealand Law Society.

(d) No dispute arising gives either Party the right to suspend their obligations under the terms of this Agreement.

13. Termination of Agreement

(a) This Agreement may be terminated prior to its expiry by either party, for any reason, provided that party delivers to the other four weeks written notification of intention to terminate.

(b) Notwithstanding the above, the Minister may terminate this Agreement with immediate effect, or by providing notice, for any reason including:

(i)

Performance by the Council of the Services which does not meet the expectations of the Minister including those described at Schedule 3,

(ii)

Loss of accreditation or registration of the Council which affects or prevents its ability to perform the Services,

(iii)

If desired by the Minister to reflect any change in legislation or policy; or if the Minister wishes to transfer the performance of the Services to any other entity of its choice.

(d) On termination or expiry of the Agreement for whatever reason, the Minister shall reimburse the Council for all Services provided up until the date of termination.

14. Force Majeure

Should any event occur as a result of fire, flood, earthquake, storm, hurricane or other natural disaster, war, or any other act of this nature, which:

(a) Is beyond the control of either party; and

(b) Is neither directly nor indirectly caused by either party; and

then the Services will be suspended until such time that it becomes practicable to Council to recommence the Services. During any period of suspension no payment for any Services suspended shall be payable by the Minister.

15. Notices

(a) All demands, notices, requirements and consents etc that this Agreement authorises or requires, or that relate to this agreement, must be in writing and will take effect from receipt at the following addresses:

Southland District Council

15 Forth Street

PO Box 903

Invercargill 9840

Department of Conservation

33 Don Street

PO Box 743

Invercargill 9840

(b) Notices may be delivered:

· By hand or by facsimile, in which case a written confirmation of receipt is required, or

· By registered letter, or

· By email, in which case receipt will take effect upon receipt by the sender of the email message indicating that the email has been opened at the recipient’s terminal, provided that any communication received, or deemed received after 5.00 pm, or on a day which is not a working day in Southland, shall be deemed not to have been received until the next working day.

Agreement Signed:


For the Council		The Minister

Date:

/ /

Date:

/ /

Schedule 1

The Islands are:

(a) The Kermadec Islands.

(b) The sub-Antarctic islands, being:

(i) The Antipodes Islands

(ii) The Auckland Islands

(iii) The Bounty Islands^{^[2]}

(iv) Campbell Island (and the islands adjacent to it),

(v) The Snares.

(i) Great Island

(ii) South West Island

(iii) West Island

(iv) North East Island, and

(v) Several associated islets and rock stacks.

Schedule 2 – Buildings and Structures

Buildings and structures currently located on the included islands are listed in the Document docdm-1177161 Off Shore Building Register.

Schedule 3 – BCA & TA Functions transferred by the Minister to the Council

(a) BCA functions transferred:

- Processing including technical review, granting and final issuing of building consents applications once satisfied on reasonable grounds the proposed work meets the Building Code.

- Building record management and administration services in accordance with Section 216 of the Building Act for the islands listed in Schedule 1.

- Provide geographic map references for building locations and asset numbers for buildings on the islands listed in Schedule 1 for reference in the Councils’ records system.

- Requested further technical information from the applicant where necessary to determine on reasonable grounds that the proposed work meets the Building Code.

- Lapsing issued building consents where work has not commenced or alternative arrangements made within 12 months of the issued date.

- Provide specific structural, fire and geotechnical design review services through the Councils’ contracted consultant in accordance with its design and construction review policy.

- Undertaking inspections deemed necessary by the Council (provided that these have been agreed to by the Minister in advance in each case as per schedule 4(c)).

- Review Producer Statements and supporting photographs provided as supplementary or alternates means for determining reasonable grounds compliance with the Building Code.

- Issue Failed Inspection Notice or Notice to Fix where noncompliant building work is encountered.

- Issue the Code Compliance Certificate in response to a Form 6 Application for Code Compliance Certificate once satisfied on reasonable grounds that building work undertaken meets the issued consent documents.

- 24 month follow-up from issuing date where there has been no indication of progress with the building work.

- Issue Compliance Schedules for specified systems associated with a building consent.

(b) TA functions transferred:

- Processing Certificate of Acceptance applications including technical review of the completed work to be satisfied on reasonable grounds it meets the Building Code, issuing, declining or issuing subject to limitations.

- Requested further technical information from the applicant where necessary to determine on reasonable grounds that the proposed building work meets the Building Code.

- Undertaking inspections deemed necessary by the Council (provided that these have been agreed to by the Minister in advance in each case as per schedule 4(c)).

- Review Producer Statements and supporting photographs provided as supplementary or alternates means for determining reasonable grounds compliance with the Building Code.

- Receive and file Compliance Schedules issued by the BCA.

- Amend Compliance Schedules on request from the building owner or on own initiative.

- Review and record Building Warrant of Fitness provided by the building owner for the checking and maintenance of Compliance Schedule features.

- Investigate and report on un-consented building work.

- Issue Notice to Fix where necessary for un-consented and/or non-compliant building work.

- Investigate and report on dangerous and/or insanitary buildings.

- Issue dangerous and/or insanitary buildings notice as necessary.

- Record management and administration services in accordance with Section 12 (2) of the Building Act for the islands listed in Schedule 1.

Schedule 4 – Charges, Specification for the Services

Charges, Rates and Fees

(a) The charge rates and fees for the Services shall be those described below. These are fixed for the first 12 months of the Term of this Agreement.

(b) Any postage or courier charges necessary for the transfer of information will be additional to the total consent processing costs where this is deemed to be a more appropriate means of transfer than scanning or emailing of information.

(c) Should the Council deem it necessary to undertake site inspections, the Minister must first agree that any site inspection is necessary. If agreed, the Minister shall arrange and meet the cost of all travel, accommodation, meals and other disbursements associated with this.

(d) Any on-board accommodation shall include a work space with a power outlet where inspection recording and other reporting can be done during travel downtime.

Charges:

Service Provided: A. General	Fee GST Exclusive	Fee GST incl -15%
Building Control Officer per/hour charge including travel time during 8.00 am to 5.00 pm working hours.	$178.43	$205.20
Travel time outside 8.00 am to 5.00 pm working hours.		No charge
Building Control Administrator per/hour	$113.74	$130.80
Note: SDC building control activities receive 20% public good funded from rates. As the Department of Conservation does not pay rates, a 20% additional charge is included in the per/hour charge out rate above from that charged to the SDC ratepayer.
B. Associated costs
DBH levy - $2.01 per $1,000.00 for project values =/> $20,000.00		$2.01/$1 k
BRANZ levy - $1.00 per $1,000.00 for project values =/> $20,000.00		$1.00/$1 k
Public Service vehicle charge per/km	$0.80	$0.92
Courier Fees		Actual cost
C. Records management administration charge for the Schedule 1 listed islands
- Annual records management charge invoiced the first month of each new financial year. - Initial records management setup cost charged as one off cost at the signing of agreement.		$258.00 $515.00
D. Consultants specific design review charges
Standard design review	$260.00	$299.00
Further information request	$85.00	$97.75
Non-standard design review
Senior Engineer per/hour	$292.75	$336.66
Junior Engineer per/hour	$230.00	$264.50
Administrator per/hour	$114.25	$131.39
Public Service vehicle charge per/km	$0.80	$0.92

Specification of the Services

(a) The Council shall ensure ongoing quality of the Services by following its accredited Quality Assurance Manual at all times in work undertaken for the Minister.

BCA Quality Policy

The BCA is committed to the concept of sustaining and improving the quality of building control and associated services provided to customers based on professionalism, technical competency, care, attention and public accountability while complying with the Building Consent Authority accreditation regulations, the Building Act, and the Building Regulations.

The organisation will ensure this quality policy is understood and implemented by staff and contractors through regular coaching, internal audits, monitoring and assessment. An appropriate standard of technical skill will be maintained throughout the organisation together with an appropriate level of compliance with the organisation’s processes and procedures.

We will achieve this by endeavouring to:

1. make the process of applying for, and obtaining an approved Building Consent as simple and as easy as possible, without compromising technical accuracy;

2. treat all customers impartially, fairly, courteously and respectfully;

3. be responsive to the requirements of customers;

4. promote integrity, honesty and professionalism as a key element of all aspects of our business activities and relationships;

5. ensure the organisation’s decisions are based on good technical advice where required;

6. ensure necessary resources are available to support implementation of policy, procedures and systems to fulfil our statutory requirements;

7. enable the effective investigation and, where appropriate, implementation of customer or management initiatives concerning quality;

8. process all applications within the required statutory periods; and

9. ensure all work undertaken is within the identified technical competency and capability of appropriate staff and contractors;

10. reduce or at least maintain number of complaints relating to service delivery of BCA functions.

11. reduce or at least maintain number of claims against Council for BCA matters;

12. where customer satisfaction surveys are undertaken, increase or at least maintain levels of customer satisfaction of the BCA functions;

13. reduce the number of non-conformances from internal audits;

14. reduce the number of corrective actions from BCA accreditation assessments.

To meet these objectives, the organisation will ensure that the BCA applies the Quality Assurance System outlined in this Quality Assurance Manual which has been developed in accordance with the BCA Accreditation requirements.

Signature

(b) For BCA functions the following service delivery timeframes shall apply:

- Processing Building Consents.	20 working days
- Actioning review of further information received relating to a Building Consent placed on hold.	5 working days
- Provide specific structural, fire and geotechnical design review services for consent applications. < $500k value > $500k value	5 working days 10 working days
- Site Inspection deemed necessary by the Service Provider. Note: Service Recipient to provide travel, accommodation and meals.	As arranged
- Issue Failed Inspection Notice or Notice to Fix.	20 working days
- Form 6 Application for Code Compliance Certificate	As arranged
- Issue Compliance Schedules.	20 working days

- Processing Certificate of Acceptance (COA) applications.	20 working days
- Actioning review of further information received relating to a COA placed on hold.	5 working days
- Provide specific structural, fire and geotechnical design review services for a COA, < $500k value > $500k value	5 working days 10 working days
- Site Inspection deemed necessary by the Service Provider. Note: Service Recipient to provide travel, accommodation and meals.	As arranged
- Issue a Notice to Fix.	20 working days
- Amend Compliance Schedules	10 working days
- Review and record Building Warrant of Fitness.	10 working days
- Investigate and report on un-consented, dangerous and/or insanitary buildings. Note: Service Recipient to provide travel, accommodation and meals.	As arranged
- Issue dangerous and/or insanitary building notices.	20 working days

Schedule 5 – Annual Review & Performance Review

(a) The Agreement shall be reviewed annually by the parties (“the Annual Review”).

(b) Such review will include consideration of performance under this Agreement shall be managed via Annual Review to occur between the representatives at a mutually-acceptable date each December (unless otherwise agreed). Both representatives shall be responsible for undertaking all such reviews and for recording the findings of the same in writing.

(c) Annual Reviews will take the form of an assessment of all components including all deliverables described in this Agreement, measured against the Councils’ performance in meeting the requirements for quality assurance and timeliness of functions.

(d) When a party perceives that the Council has failed to meet any deliverable described in this Agreement then it shall be the joint responsibility of those parties to determine and administer the most appropriate remedy, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

Summary of Annual Review Findings

Service delivery timeframes:

<Enter>

Quality of information & documentation provided

<Enter>

Records management:

<Enter>

Cost of service:

<Enter>

Councils’ accreditation status:

<Enter>

Is Agreement content still current:

<Enter>

Council

05 August 2015

Description: DOC_logo_horizontal

Date:

To: Brent Beaven, Chris Jenkins

CC: Caroline Rain, Kevin O’Connor (SDC)

From: Steve Butler

Subject: Offshore Islands Building Control – Public Consultation

1 Approval required for method of Public Consultation

Background

A draft agreement docdm-1200474 has been developed for the Southland District Council (SDC) to perform building control functions for the Minister of Conservation for offshore islands for which the Minister is the Local Territorial Authority.

Public Consultation

DOC is a Territorial Authority (TA) for the purposes of limited functions contained in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). By being a TA, it is also deemed in limited respects to be a Local Authority (LA). Therefore it is required to follow the Special Consultative Process in relation to any matter such as a handover of TA functions (see s17(4)(a) LGA 2002).

DOC may decide the process that it considers is appropriate in the circumstances, all of the required factors can therefore be given appropriate weight and emphasis by it, having regard to the factors set out at s82(4) LGA 2002.

Simon Barr, Solicitor - Legal Services Team - Christchurch Office, has provided a guideline of what is required for the Consultative Process.

This guideline is extensive and is considered to be too demanding for the scale of the likely public interest in this proposed transfer of functions.

The Department and Metservice are the owners of most buildings on off-shore Islands administered by DOC. Metservice have no plans at this stage to build substantial structures or buildings so have little concern regarding the transfer to SDC.

Proposed consultative process

As the proposal to transfer functions mostly affects the Department it is proposed that a streamlined process be run.

This process would consist of:

· advertisements in Southland and Northland Papers, on the DOC website and possibly on the Southland District Council website. The advertisement would contain one departmental contact for further information.

· Background documents, including a summary of the proposal and the draft agreement, would be available for interested parties.

· Written submissions would be accepted by the Department’s contact person. A meeting with submitters would be arranged to allow for verbal submissions if requested.

Supporting documents for the consultation process are contained in: docdm-1306130

Approval

This memorandum recommends the use of a restricted consultative process as outlined above.

Approve / Not Approved

Name: ............................

Date: ...............................

Approve / Not Approved

Name: ............................

Date: ...............................
The following references and notes provide background to the Special Consultative Process

17 Transfer of responsibilities (LGA 2002)

· A local authority may not transfer a responsibility, or accept a transfer of a responsibility, unless—

· (a) it has—

· (i) included the proposal in its annual plan or draft long-term plan; or

· (ii) used the special consultative procedure; and

· (b) it has given prior notice to the Minister of the proposal.

82 Principles of consultation

· 4) A local authority must, in exercising its discretion under subsection (3), have regard to—

· (a) the requirements of section 78; and

· (b) the extent to which the current views and preferences of persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter are known to the local authority; and

· (c) the nature and significance of the decision or matter, including its likely impact from the perspective of the persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter; and

· (d) the provisions of Part 1 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (which Part, among other things, sets out the circumstances in which there is good reason for withholding local authority information); and

· (e) the costs and benefits of any consultation process or procedure.

78 Community views in relation to decisions

· (1) A local authority must, in the course of its decision-making process in relation to a matter, give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter.

(2) [Repealed]

(3) A local authority is not required by this section alone to undertake any consultation process or procedure.

(4) This section is subject to section 79.

79 Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions

· (1) It is the responsibility of a local authority to make, in its discretion, judgments—

· (a) about how to achieve compliance with sections 77 and 78 that is largely in proportion to the significance of the matters affected by the decision; and

· (b) about, in particular,—

· (i) the extent to which different options are to be identified and assessed; and

· (ii) the degree to which benefits and costs are to be quantified; and

· (iii) the extent and detail of the information to be considered; and

· (iv) the extent and nature of any written record to be kept of the manner in which it has complied with those sections.

(2) In making judgments under subsection (1), a local authority must have regard to the significance of all relevant matters and, in addition, to—

· (a) the principles set out in section 14; and

· (b) the extent of the local authority's resources; and

· (c) the extent to which the nature of a decision, or the circumstances in which a decision is taken, allow the local authority scope and opportunity to consider a range of options or the views and preferences of other persons.

(3) The nature and circumstances of a decision referred to in subsection (2)(c) include the extent to which the requirements for such decision-making are prescribed in or under any other enactment (for example, the Resource Management Act 1991).

(4) Subsection (3) is for the avoidance of doubt.

14 Principles relating to local authorities

· (1) In performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the following principles:

· (a) a local authority should—

· (i) conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner; and

· (ii) give effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and effective manner:

· (b) a local authority should make itself aware of, and should have regard to, the views of all of its communities; and

· (c) when making a decision, a local authority should take account of—

· (i) the diversity of the community, and the community's interests, within its district or region; and

· (ii) the interests of future as well as current communities; and

· (iii) the likely impact of any decision on the interests referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii):

· (d) a local authority should provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes:

· (e) a local authority should collaborate and co-operate with other local authorities and bodies as it considers appropriate to promote or achieve its priorities and desired outcomes, and make efficient use of resources; and

· (f) a local authority should undertake any commercial transactions in accordance with sound business practices; and

· (fa) a local authority should periodically—

· (i) assess the expected returns to the authority from investing in, or undertaking, a commercial activity; and

· (ii) satisfy itself that the expected returns are likely to outweigh the risks inherent in the investment or activity; and

· (g) a local authority should ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of its district or region; and

· (h) in taking a sustainable development approach, a local authority should take into account—

· (i) the social, economic, and cultural interests of people and communities; and

· (ii) the need to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment; and

· (iii) the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations.

(2) If any of these principles conflict in any particular case, the local authority should resolve the conflict in accordance with the principle in subsection (1)(a)(i).

Advice received from Simon Barr regarding Consultative Process

DOC is a territorial authority for the purposes of limited functions contained in the LGA 2002. By being a TA, it is also deemed in limited respects to be a Local Authority (LA). Therefore it is required to follow the SCP in relation to any matter such as a handover of TA functions (see s234(a) LGA 2002).

The principles of consultation (s82 LGA):

· DOC must perform consultation with persons who (a) will or may be affected by, or (b) those who have an interest in, the proposal.

· DOC is to provide the above class of persons with reasonable access to relevant information (this includes both the Summary of Information and the Statement of Proposal).

· These persons should be provided with a reasonable opportunity to present their views to the LA on the proposal.

· These views should be given due consideration by the LA in making the decision on the proposal.

DOC may decide the process that it considers is appropriate in the circumstances, all of the above factors can therefore be given appropriate weight and emphasis by it, having regard to the factors set out at s82(4) LGA 2002.

The Statement of Proposal (SOP):

· This is required. DOC must prepare a SOP and the presumption is that this may be made available for public inspection at (ie) National Office and also DOC’s Conservancy office in Invercargill.

· As advised, my view is that the SOP can reasonably constitute the two MOC decisions/recommendations already made on this issue, as they traverse and discuss all relevant issues.

· It may also be wise to include the proposed agreement between DOC and the SDC as part of the SOP. However note that if we/SDC have any issues with its proposed release (prior to being finalised) it is arguably able to be withheld under s9(2)(2)(i) or (j) Official Information Act 1982 (and possibly also under LGOIMA provisions).

The Summary of Information (SOI):

· Can be in a form determined by the LA.

· It needs to be made available to those who (a) will or may be affected by, or (b) those who have an interest in, the proposal.

· Needs to define the purpose of the consultation and the decisions that DOC/SDC want to make following the consultation.

· Needs to define the length and dates of the submissions period, being at least one month (ie: at least 30 days or 20 WD).

· Needs to define where and when the meeting will be held in order to hear peoples’ views on the scope of the proposal.

· Needs to state that peoples’ views will be considered by the decision maker before the decision on the proposal is made.

· Needs to refer to the fact that the SOP is available and how and when people can view this.

· Needs to be a fair representation of the matters contained in the SOP

An issue is how we determine what people “may be affected” by the proposal. However it would be reasonable to assume that it people contact us following the notification of the consultation period, then they “have an interest in” the proposal.

The Public Notice:

· Needs to invite submissions from the public and also invite them to attend the upcoming meeting where they will be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

· Define the above meeting date and the full submission period.

· Needs to briefly define the proposal and advise of the level of consultation being undertaken by the LA.

· Needs to include a statement of how interested people may request/obtain the SOI, and how they can inspect the full SOP.

AFTER the Public Notice has been published, but BEFORE the meeting occurs:

Send to any submitters a written acknowledgment acknowledging receipt of their submission, and advise them of the date/time of the meeting.

At/After the meeting:

· The submitters are allowed to speak to their submission and be heard with an open mind. Their views are to be considered before a decision on the proposal is made.

· After the meeting, submitters are to be written to, advising of the decision made and how their submission was/was not considered in doing so.

[1] The Council was re-accredited for its BCA functions in March 2015 and was last audited for its TA functions in October 2010 as part of the former Department of Building and Housings audit cycle for the South Island. The Council has not been required to undertake a TA audit since October 2010.

[2]^{, 3} Currently there are no structures or buildings on the Bounty and Three Kings Islands requiring management under the Building Act

Mayor	Mayor Gary Tong
Deputy Mayor	Paul Duffy
Councillors	Lyall Bailey
	Stuart Baird
	Brian Dillon
	Rodney Dobson
	John Douglas
	Bruce Ford
	George Harpur
	Julie Keast
	Ebel Kremer
	Gavin Macpherson
	Neil Paterson

Town	Changes
Balfour	Prohibit freedom camping within town boundary; new designated site for self-contained camping
Browns	Prohibit freedom camping within town boundary; new designated site for self-contained camping; permit self-contained camping at community centre carpark
Dipton	Prohibit freedom camping within town boundary; new designated site for self-contained camping
Edendale	Prohibit freedom camping within town boundary; new designated site for self-contained camping
Garston	Prohibit freedom camping within town boundary
Limehills/Centre Bush	Prohibit freedom camping within town boundary
Lumsden	New designated site for camping
Otautau	New designated site for self-contained camping
Riversdale	Prohibit freedom camping within town boundary; new designated site for self-contained camping
Riverton/Aparima	New designated sites for self-contained camping Notes: · Taramea Bay site is DOC land, but the land is controlled by Council. · Bath Road site is currently LINZ land, and is expected to transfer to Council ownership. Therefore the designation of this site is subject to this transfer.
Te Anau	New designated sites for self-contained camping; reduce size of prohibited area
Tokanui	Prohibit freedom camping within town boundary
Tuatapere	New designated sites for self-contained camping
Waikaia	New designated sites for self-contained camping
Winton	New designated site for self-contained camping
Woodlands	Prohibit freedom camping within town boundary
Wyndham	New designated site for self-contained camping

Existing Designated Camping Sites	Changes
Fortrose	Reduction in size of the two day site
Haldane	Reduction in size
Mandeville - Taylor Park	Reduction in size
Nightcaps	Reduction in size, change to self-contained only
Waikawa	Change to self-contained only; reduction in size

		No.	2015 $	No.	2014 $
1.	Dwellings	16	3,528,500	13	3,985,400
2.	Additions to Dwellings	16	516,500	24	926,000
3.	Commercial/Industrial Buildings	13	2,050,000	8	840,000
4.	Swimming/Spa Pools	0	0	0	0
5.	Heating Units	31	126,000	30	160,950
6.	Garages	5	91,357	4	45,000
7.	Farm Buildings	20	1,470,570	23	1,329,969
8.	Houses for Removal	5	148,000	7	494,400
9.	Cowsheds	1	30,000	3	800,000
10.	Miscellaneous	8	49,850	2	33,000
11.	Certificates of Acceptance	0	0	4	27,996
	TOTAL	115	8,010,777	118	8,642,715

	2015	2014	Variation %
Total consents for month	115	118	2.54-
Total consents for year	1,109	1,121	1.07-
Total project values for month	8,010,777	8,642,715	7.31-
Total project values for year	112,688,836	97,670,951	15.38

Average Residential Cost	220,531	306,569
Average House Area (m²)	239	257.25

Number of Inspections Carried Out	459	495

Chief Executive	Steve Ruru
Committee Advisor	Maree Fyffe

Advantages	Disadvantages
· None identified.	· Council will continue to fund all ownership liabilities.