Agenda of Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee

sdclogo

Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee

OPEN MINUTES

Minutes of a meeting of Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee held in the SDC Office, Lumsden on Monday, 11 April 2016 at 6pm.

present

Chairperson	Robin Scott
Deputy Chairperson	Karen Blakemore
	Evan Hankey
	Gary Maclean
	Chris Palmer
Councillor	Colin Walker John Douglas

IN ATTENDANCE

Committee Advisor

Rose Knowles

Community Engineer

Group Manager, Community & Futures

Community Partnership Leader

Community Development Team Leader

Community Development Planner, Venture Southland

Bruce Miller

Rex Capil

Kelly Tagg

Bobbi Brown

Steven Watson

PUBLIC GALLERY Dave Allnutt

1 Apologies

There were no apologies received.

2 Leave of absence

There were no requests for leave of absence. .

3 Conflict of Interest

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

4 Public Forum

Moved Member Blakemore , seconded Member Walker

and resolved that the subcommittee go into Public Forum to allow members of the public to speak.

Mr D Allnutt addressed the meeting on an update of the Lumsden Community Pool issues which included the following;

· Appointment of a Manager

· Power and Diesel costs

· Operational and maintenance funding

· Promotion of the Pool

· Proposal to incorporate a Gym and Squash court within the building

· Breakdown of costs to cover the proposals for the upgrade

· Seismic Analysis

· Solar Panel Installation investigation

· Public Meeting to be held in the near future

The Chairman expressed appreciation to Mr Allnutt for his attendance at the meeting and presentation to the Subcommittee.

Moved Member Blakemore, seconded Member Maclean

and resolved that the Public Forum be closed and the subcommittee return to the formal meeting.

5 Extraordinary/Urgent Items

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

6 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved Member Blakemore, seconded Member Walker

That the minutes of Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee, meeting held on 15 February 2016, be confirmed.

Reports

7.1

Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee - Action Sheet

Record No: R/16/4/4798

The Action Sheet was circulated for Members information.

Issues arising included the following;

The subcommittee to decide on the new under five play equipment from the catalogues provided.
Meadow Street, Lumsden drainage project to commence in May.
Quotes are being sourced for the resealing at the end of the former railway station to be included in the next budget.
Alternative flag designs are being investigated by the Area Engineer and Venture Southland.

Resolution

Moved Member Scott, seconded Councillor Douglas

That the Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a) Receives the report titled “Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee - Action Sheet” dated 4 April 2016.

b) Notes the responses from staff on the action sheet.

7.2

Works and Finance Report to Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee for the period ended 29 February 2016

Record No: R/16/3/3676

The Works and Finance Report prepared by the Community Engineer, Mr Bruce Miller for the period ending 29 February 2016, was tabled

Resolution

Moved Member Hankey, seconded Member Maclean

That the Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a) Receives the report titled “Works and Finance Report to Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee for the period ended 29 February 2016” dated 24 March 2016.

7.3

Community Partnership Leader - Overview of role

Record No: R/16/3/4442

The Community Partnership Leader – Overview of role report prepared by the Community Partnership Leader Mrs Kelly Tagg, was tabled.

Mrs Kelly Tagg (Community Partnership Leader, Northern and Western Southland) provided an update to the CDA on the newly established Community Partnership Leader positions and the role they will have in the community going forward.

Resolution

Moved Member Maclean, seconded Member Palmer

That the Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a) Receives the report titled “Community Partnership Leader - Overview of role” dated 4 April 2016.

8.0 Updates

8.1 Chairperson’s Report

The Chairman, Rob Scott, reported on matters with which he has been involved since the subcommittee’s last meeting.

· Freedom Camping update

· Lumsden Facebook page

· Horse Trekking business at Recreation Grounds

· Health & Safety Laws

· Attendance at Pool meetings

8.3 Venture Southland Report

Mr Steve Watson, (Community Development Planner, Venture Southland), gave an update to the subcommittee. These included;

· Funding application for the Lumsden Hall upgrade

· Cycle trail maps

· Northern Southland Heritage Brochures

· Plunket Rooms, Balfour

8.4 Councillor’s Report

Councillor Douglas reported on matters from the District Council table. These included;

· Cycle trail update

· Te Anau Wastewater project meeting

· Sealing Catlins Road

· Zone Meeting at Chatham Island

· Haast Hollyford Road

· Annual Plan Submissions

The meeting concluded at

8pm. CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee HELD ON 11 APRIL 2016

DATE:...................................................................

CHAIRPERSON:...................................................

Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee

13 June 2016

sdclogo

Works and Finance Report to Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee for the period ended 30 April 2016

Record No: R/16/5/7740

Author: Bruce Miller, Community Engineer

Approved by: Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

☐ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒ Information

Community Engineer’s Report

1. The playground equipment has been ordered after the change was notified to CDA members, this will take four to six weeks to deliver.

2. The quote from Fulton Hogan to seal the entrance to the station from the road to the platform with establishment is $16,893.07. It is a further $6,000.00 to complete it to the rear of the platform.

3. Other project updates, Meadow Street: Drainage with four sumps and piping job starting June and completed before 30 June. Flags further designs being sort.

Water and Waste Engineer’s Report

4. The monthly operations reports from Downer are provided to the Committee Advisor as they are published. They include data on Downer’s district-wide operations activities which is presented on a town by town basis.

5. For the year to date there has been no unplanned expenditure exceeding the $5,000 threshold.

Financial Considerations

Community Engineer Comments

6. Will report at the meeting with a more up to date report and will discuss under and overs.

Development and Financial Contributions

7. The table below outlines the balances of Development and Financial contributions for your community to date. Spending of these funds is considered by Council staff when projects are in the planning stage. Once identified as a potential funding source for a project, confirmation from the Group Manager Services and Assets is sought before undertaking the project to ensure that the relevant policy and legislative requirements are met.

Sewerage	$29,989
Water	$5,489

Reserves

8. Please find the Reserves Report attached.

Recommendation

That the Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a) Receives the report titled “Works and Finance Report to Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee for the period ended 30 April 2016” dated 7 June 2016.

Attachments

a Lumsden Project List and Financial Reports, 30 April 2016 View

Activity	Project	Type	Year	Budget	Status	Officer’s Comments
Community Centres	Exterior repaint	MAINT PLAN	1516	$19,000.00	Design	In progress - weather dependent.
Roading and Transport	Footpath replacement	LOS	1516	$68,000.00	Design	This job will begin at the end of March.
Sewerage	Install guide rails to pump station	LOS	1516	$40,000.00	Completed	Completed.
Sewerage	New manhole at pump station	LOS	1516	$24,000.00	Deleted	Not required - Alternative methodologies adopted to repair wet well.
Sewerage	Pumps	REN	1516	$8,763.00	Completed	Completed.
Stormwater	Investigation studies in relation to reticulation renewal	LOS	1516	$20,000.00	Investigation	Bonish engaged for survey and options - expected expenditure $9,000.

Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee

13 June 2016

sdclogo

Bylaw Review Process

Record No: R/16/4/5197

Author: Tamara Dytor, Policy Analyst

Approved by: Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

☐ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☒ Information

Executive Summary

1 In 2016, the Cemetery Bylaw 2006, the Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw 2010 and the Control of Advertising Signs Bylaw 2008 will be reviewed. This report outlines the approach that will be taken to consultation and review.

Background

2 Council will be reviewing three bylaws in 2016. The drivers for each review are outlined below:

· The Cemetery Bylaw 2006 requires review in 2016 to remain current.

· A review of the Keeping of Animals, Poultry and Bees Bylaw 2010 is recommended to address local issues. This bylaw was reviewed in 2010 however, since this time additional issues have arisen. The keeping of animals in urban areas has become an area of contention in some communities.

· A review of the Control of Advertising Signs Bylaw 2008 is recommended to align with the District Plan. This will provide clarity for the public and address issues across the District relating to signage. The proposed bylaw review would address the placement of signs in the road reserve, for example sandwich boards on footpaths. Changes to the bylaw are intended to increase the ease of doing business with Council and provide clarity and consistency.

Timeline

3 The timeline below outlines key milestones in the process of review and details the approach to public engagement.

Date	Task
Mid-May 2016	Pre-consultation engagement sessions. Sessions are also for other Long Term Plan issues.
8 June 2016	Council meeting (Endorse draft bylaws for public consultation)
8 June 2016	Notification given to Area Offices, and customer services. Committee Advisors to liaise with CB and CDA chairs to remind them of the submission period.
9 June 2016	Draft bylaws advertised.
9 Jun – 30 Jun 2016	Submission period.
20 July 2016	Council meeting (Submission Hearings)
2 Aug 2016	Amendments made to draft bylaws.
17 Aug 2016	Council meeting (Deliberations)
7 Sep 2016	Council meeting (Adoption of bylaws)
8 Sep 2016	Advertising of adopted bylaws.
Sep – Oct 2016	Present report to CDAs on new bylaws.
Nov – Dec 2016	Present report to CBs on new bylaws.

Consultation and engagement

4 Community views will be considered during formal consultation and during pre-consultation engagement. The timeline above details when this will occur.

5 Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees are asked to make submissions during the consultation period and individual members can engage during pre-consultation sessions in May.

Recommendation

That the Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a) Receives the report titled “Bylaw Review Process” dated 8 June 2016.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee

13 June 2016

sdclogo

Draft Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy

Record No: R/16/4/5650

Author: Tamara Dytor, Policy Analyst

Approved by: Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 This report presents the draft Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy. A recommendation is sought from Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees regarding local areas that should be considered for restriction or prohibition of unmanned aerial vehicle use.

Executive Summary

2 Under new rules introduced by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Council can grant or decline consent for the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) on property that it owns or controls. The draft Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Policy sets a framework to allow Council to do this.

3 The draft Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Policy contains broad conditions which would apply throughout the District. Feedback is requested from Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees to determine whether Council should consider prohibition or restriction in specific local areas.

Recommendation

That the Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a) Receives the report titled “Draft Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy” dated 19 April 2016.

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) Recommend any local areas that should be considered as restricted or prohibited areas for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles.

Content

Background

4 Rules introduced by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) came into effect on 1 August 2015. The rules require people to obtain Council approval to operate UAVs on public land.

5 The draft Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy broadly allows for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in the District, provided that users comply with conditions within the policy. These conditions exist in addition to those already imposed across New Zealand by the CAA.

6 The majority of UAV use is likely to occur in Council’s parks, reserves and open spaces.

What is an UAV?

The term UAV covers all electric powered remote controlled model aircraft of the type commonly referred to as “drones” that are capable of vertical take-off and landing and small hand-launched gliders less than a 1.5 metre wing span. It does not cover the following:

· Fixed wing electric-powered model aircraft greater than 1 metre wing span.

· All fixed - winged model aircraft that are internal combustion engine (petrol) powered.

· Gliders greater than a 1.5 metre wing span and bungee-launched gliders.

· Single rotor helicopters that are electric powered or internal combustion engine (petrol) powered.

· Jet powered models.

CAA Regulations

CAA rules apply to all UAV operators throughout New Zealand. CAA rules Part 101 require 12 key things from UAV operators. Operators must:

1. Not operate an UAV 25 kg or larger and always ensure that the UAV is safe to operate;

2. Take all practicable steps to minimise hazards to persons, property and other aircraft;

3. Fly only in daylight;

4. Give way to all crewed aircraft;

5. Be able to see the UAV with their own eyes;

6. Not fly higher than 120 metres (400 feet) (unless certain conditions are met);

7. Have knowledge of airspace restrictions;

8. Not fly closer than four kilometres from any aerodrome (unless certain conditions are met);

9. Obtain an air traffic control clearance issued by Airways (when flying in controlled airspace);

10. Not fly in special use airspace without the permission of the controlling authority of the area (eg, military operating areas, low flying zones, danger areas or restricted areas);

11. Have consent from anyone you want to fly above;

12. Have the consent of the property owner or person in charge of the area you want to fly above.

7 Rules are enforceable by the CAA and a breach could result in a fine, a written warning, or prosecution.

Issues

Approach taken in the draft Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy

8 The draft policy nominates some circumstances in which UAV use is not permitted without specific approval from Council. These restrictions apply:

· Over a sports field if in use by others, or within 50 metres of any organised activity taking place in a reserve or Council controlled open space;

· Over or above Council owned or controlled cemeteries or formed roads;

· Over or within 50 metres of other users of open spaces;

· Over or within 50 metres of any building on Council land or any playground equipment, furniture, swimming pool, or track on a reserve;

· Within 50 metres of livestock, wildlife or sensitive wildlife habitats; and

· Within 50 metres of a reserve boundary where residential housing or stock farming adjoins.

9 In addition to these conditions, Community Boards and Community Area Subcommittees are being asked whether there are any local areas that should be considered for restriction or prohibition.

10 Council is keen to ensure that UAV use is appropriate to community needs. There is no benefit in allowing use where it is inappropriate or unsafe. Conversely, there is also no benefit in being unnecessarily restrictive in regards to this recreational activity.

11 Since the definition of an UAV includes model airplanes, it is important to consider the impact of this policy on existing clubs and associations.

Current use and incidents

12 The extent of UAV use in the Southland District is currently unknown. No complaints to Council regarding the use of UAVs were identified during the development of this report. However, across New Zealand the number of incidents reported to the CAA has grown significantly in recent years. The tables below detail the number of incidents across New Zealand by year and by incident type.

Total incidents annually

Year	Total incidents
2008	1
2009	0
2010	1
2011	4
2012	11
2013	10
2014	33
2015	120
Total	184

Number of incidents by incident type

Incident type*	Total incidents
Aviation-related concern	116
Airspace incident	61
Incident	5
Accident	2
Grand Total	184

*Incident definitions

Aviation-related concern: these are ‘concerns’ relating to aviation safety or securing, and include complaints and allegations about suspected rule breaches, etc.

Airspace incident: incidents that involve deviations from airspace rules and procedures (minimum distances for aircraft separation, for example).

Incident: a general incident category that covers situations where there is a risk of harm occurring but this does not eventuate.

13 There have been four incidents involving UAVs in the Southland region, one of which was in the Southland District. Three of these were aviation-related concerns, one was an airspace incident. The details of each are in the table below:

Date	Description	Location
30-Oct-13	Concern UAV flying on farms and potentially causing a hazard to other aircraft in the area.	Otama Hill Road, Gore
13-Jun-14	Concern about UAV flying near an airliner and a low flying area. Referred to the Regulatory Investigations Unit.	Invercargill
14-Apr-15	Concern that a UAV was flown in close proximity to the airport.	Invercargill
11-Nov-15	Unauthorised UAV operations 100 metres from the airport. The operators were two foreign nationals.	Milford Sound

14 To date, 10 enforcement actions have been undertaken by the CAA’s Regulatory Investigations Unit in relation to UAV operations. Five of these have been written warnings, and five have been infringement notices with fines ranging from $500 to $3,500.

15 At this stage staff have not identified any complaints to Council regarding the use of UAVs in the Southland District. To balance the fact that there is not a current significant issue with UAVs and the likelihood of risks in the future, a moderate and proportionate response to manage this issue would be appropriate. Council also needs to be mindful of existing UAV users such as the Fiordland Cloudbusters Model Aircraft Club, who have operated UAVs to date without any issues.

Enforcement

16 The CAA has the power to regulate UAV use through mechanisms ranging from warnings to prosecution, depending on the nature of incidents.

17 CAA officers have indicated that if reported issues are of a serious nature involving the endangerment of people or property or reckless use of UAVs, an investigation with a view towards prosecution would be likely to occur. For less serious breaches, warnings or infringements are more likely to be considered.

18 In the event of a breach of the policy, Council staff would report any incident to the CAA. The incident would be recorded so that the CAA can gather a realistic picture of issues relating to drones and of any operators who breach the rules on multiple occasions. In the opinion of staff in the CAA investigations team, a Council bylaw would be an unnecessary duplication of existing powers under the CAA Regulatory Enforcement Policy.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

19 Council is empowered to adopt a position by CAA rules. The CAA has power to enforce its rules (including permission and conditions of land owners) using mechanisms ranging from warnings and infringements to prosecutions.

20 Since there is currently insufficient evidence of a serious issue relating to UAV use in the Southland District a bylaw is not a proportionate response. Also, enforcement powers of a bylaw largely duplicate enforcement that could be undertaken through CAA legislation. While Council could state its position through guidelines, staff recommend a policy approach to ensure clarity.

Community Views

21 This report is part of the process of gathering community views and forming a policy that meets local needs.

Costs and Funding

22 There are no costs associated with implementing an Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy, other than those associated with advertising and consultation. This is because any enforcement action would be referred to the CAA.

Policy Implications

23 If an Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy is adopted, it will be referred to in Council’s Reserves Management Policy.

Analysis

Options Considered

24 Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees could:

· Option 1: Nominate local areas that should be considered for inclusion in the policy as restricted or prohibited areas; or

· Option 2: Not nominate local areas that should be considered for inclusion in the policy as restricted or prohibited areas.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Nominate local areas that should be considered for inclusion in the policy as restricted or prohibited areas.

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Responds to any circumstances or requirements specific to local communities.	· It is important for recommendations not to be unnecessarily restrictive because Council’s general proposed approach is broadly permissive.

Option 2 – Not nominate local areas that should be considered for inclusion in the policy as restricted or prohibited areas.

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Provides a clear, fair and consistent approach across the District.	· The broad approach may or may not meet local needs and match local circumstances.

Assessment of Significance

25 This issue has not been assessed as significant because at this stage it is not affecting a large number of people or stakeholders or a specific community. Council’s ability to make decisions in relation to UAV use are established by CAA rules and the proposed approach is generally permissive.

Recommended Option

26 It is recommended that Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees only propose restricted or prohibited areas for inclusion in the policy if this reflects community needs and local circumstances and if these areas are not already adequately managed through the existing broad conditions within the draft policy.

Next Steps

27 Following input from Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees, this policy will be subject to public consultation.

Attachments

a Draft Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Policy View

Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee

13 June 2016

USE OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES POLICY

1. PURPOSE

This policy sets out the conditions for use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) on Council owned or controlled land.

2. DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Term

Meaning

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)

The term UAV covers all electric powered remote controlled model aircraft, including the type commonly referred to as “drones” that are capable of vertical take-off and landing and small hand-launched gliders less than 1.5 metre wing span.

UAVs are also known as drones, Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems and Unmanned Aerial Systems.

The term UAV does not include the following:

· Fixed wing electric-powered model aircraft greater than 1 metre wing span.

· All fixed - winged model aircraft that are internal combustion engine (petrol) powered.

· Gliders greater than 1.5 metre wing span and bungee-launched gliders.

· Single rotor helicopters that are electric powered or internal combustion engine (petrol) powered.

· Jet powered models.

Civil Aviation Authority Rules / CAA rules

Civil Aviation Rules are set by the Minister of Transport. The rules are divided into parts. The two parts relevant to UAVs are:

· Part 101: Gyrogliders and Parasails, Unmanned Aircraft (including Balloons), Kites, and Rockets - Operating Rules, and

· Part 102: Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certification.

3 BACKGROUND

Under rules introduced by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on 1 August 2015, Council can grant or decline consent for the use of UAVs on property that it owns or controls. This policy establishes criteria for UAV use over Council owned and controlled land in the Southland District.

4. POLICY DETAILS

4.1 General Criteria

In addition to CAA rules, the following criteria apply to the use of UAVs over land or property owned or controlled by Southland District Council. They do not apply to the use of UAVs by Southland District Council.

Operators of UAVs must:

· Comply with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner guidance on preserving peoples’ personal privacy by not flying over other people or adjoining private property without their consent.

· Be courteous of other park users, who often are there for the quiet enjoyment of Council’s parks, reserves and open spaces.

4.2 Restrictions

Operators must not use UAVs under the following conditions unless specific written approval has been granted by Council:

· If requested to cease by Council officers. Users must land their UAV immediately if requested by Council officers.

· Over a sports field if in use by others, or within 50 metres of any organised activity taking place in a reserve or Council controlled open space.

· Over or above Council owned or controlled cemeteries or formed roads.

· Over or within 50 metres of other users of open spaces. If another open space user moves within this range, the UAV user must immediately land their UAV.

· Over or within 50 metres of any building on Council land or any playground equipment, furniture, swimming pool, or track on a reserve.

· Within 50 metres of livestock, wildlife or sensitive wildlife habitats. If livestock or wildlife move within this range, the UAV user must immediately land their UAV.

· Within 50 metres of a reserve boundary where residential housing or stock farming adjoins.

Written Council approval must also be obtained for any organised event involving the use of UAVs.

Operators of UAVs must comply with any additional conditions of lease holders.

4.3 Prohibited Areas

There are some areas where the use of UAVs is prohibited unless written approval has been granted by Council. These areas are:

· Local areas will be determined by Council following feedback from Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees.

4.4 Reporting incidents and near misses

UAV users must report all incidents and near misses to Southland District Council. This obligation also extends to other reserve users involved in any incident or near miss relating to UAV use.

4.5 Enforcement

Any breach of the above conditions could result in termination of your permission to fly unmanned aircraft over Council land.

Council will report breaches to the Civil Aviation Authority, which may result in infringements or prosecution.

5. ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS

• Civil Aviation Authority Rules and Guidelines: http://www.caa.govt.nz/rpas/

• Southland District Council District Reserves Management Policy

6. REVISION RECORD

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

Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee

13 June 2016

sdclogo

Endowment Land Occupation, Lumsden

Record No: R/16/5/6978

Author: Virginia Dillon, Property Officer

Approved by: Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 The purpose of the report is to consider a recommendation that grazing of stock on the municipal endowment land located at 8 Vaga Street, 4 Juno Street and 21 Athol Five Rivers Road be approved to the adjoining landowners.

Executive Summary

2 The lands at 8 Vaga Street, 4 Juno Street and 21 Lumsden Five Rivers Road are municipal endowment land.

3 The lands currently have stock grazed on them by Willy Menlove (8 Vaga Street) and Andrew and Tracy Sinclair (balance lands).

4 The current rental payable is $100.00 plus GST per annum per parcel.

5 Both parties have indicated that they wish to continue grazing stock on the land.

Recommendation

That the Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee:

a) Receives the report titled “Endowment Land Occupation, Lumsden” dated 8 June 2016.

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

d) Resolves that the occupancy for grazing of Section 1, Block XXVII, Town of Lumsden located at 8 Vaga Street, Lumsden be offered to William Edward Menlove for a term of two years from 1 August 2016 at an annual rental of $100.00 plus GST.

e) Resolves that the occupancy for grazing of Section 1, Block XXVI, Town of Lumsden located at 4 Juno Street, Lumsden and Section 1, Block XXVIII, Town of Lumsden located at 21 Lumsden Fiver Rivers Road, Lumsden be offered to Andrew and Trudy Sinclair for a term of two years from 1 August 2016 at an annual rental of $100.00 plus GST per parcel.

Background

6 Council owns municipal endowment land at 8 Vaga Street, 4 Juno Street and 21 Five Rivers Lumsden Highway. The parcels were vested in the former Lumsden Town Board for use as municipal endowment or for the use of the Lumsden Town Board by virtue of New Zealand Gazette 1919, page 2998.

7 The lands contain 3,895 m², 4,047 m² and 4,047 m² respectively.

8 The parcels concerned are shown bordered red on the plan attached.

9 In 2010, Council’s Resource Management staff indicated no residences will be allowed to be built on the lands - based on advice received from Environment Southland that they are located in a flood prone area.

10 Gavin Gilder of Environment Southland has confirmed the advice given and states further:

“The existing stop banks are only designed to protect against 15 to 20 year return period floods. The residual flood risk is even greater when one takes into account climate change and the associated predicted increases in rainfall. The Ministry for the Environment's climate change predictions for Southland include an increased frequency of heavy rainfall events and an increased likelihood of extreme precipitation (rainfall). It also predicts up to a halving of flood return periods by 2040 and up to a fourfold reduction by 2090.

If the sections are to be disposed of, it is Environment Southland's preference that an appropriate mechanism is used to prohibit the erection of dwellings on those sections.

Environment Southland notes that the location on State Highway 6 may be attractive to potential purchasers for commercial activity. Without prejudging if commercial activities are appropriate on either of the sections with respect to the rural zoning under the Proposed Southland District Plan or NZTA's management of its State Highway network, Environment Southland suggests that there are lower risk sites that would be more appropriate for commercial activity.

While amalgamation with adjoining land would be the best outcome from Environment Southlands' point of view, it is appreciated there is no certainty that is achievable.”

11 In the past the sections have been offered for sale to the adjoining owners who have declined to purchase the parcels.

12 In 2014, the occupation of the sections for stock grazing was offered to the adjoining owners at $100.00 plus GST per annum per parcel.

13 The occupation of these lands expires on 31 July this year.

14 Both Mr Menlove and Mr and Mrs Sinclair have indicated that they wished to continue grazing stock on the lands.

Issues

15 No issues identified with occupation of the lands for grazing.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

16 There are no formal licence documents for the grazing.

Community Views

17 The views of the CDA Subcommittee are deemed to represent those of the community.

Costs and Funding

18 Costs of dealing with the matter are met by current budgets.

19 There are no annual Southland District Council rates levied on the properties and for Environment Southland, the rates levied for 2016/17 is $22.06 for the three parcels.

Policy Implications

20 No implications identified.

Analysis

Options Considered

21 There are two options available to the Subcommittee.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Issue occupancy rights

Advantages	Disadvantages
· There are no costs to the CDA in having the lands grazed. · Income generated offsets the costs of the rates levied by Environment Southland. · Both adjoining owners have indicated that they do not want to purchase the lands, therefore grazing is the best option at this time.	· None identified.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· There are no costs to the CDA in having the lands grazed.

· Income generated offsets the costs of the rates levied by Environment Southland.

· Both adjoining owners have indicated that they do not want to purchase the lands, therefore grazing is the best option at this time.

· None identified.

Option 2 - Decline occupancy rights

Advantages	Disadvantages
· No advantages identified.	· The Subcommittee will have to fund maintenance of the lands.

Assessment of Significance

22 Not a significant activity.

Recommended Option

23 The officer recommends option 1.

Next Steps

24 The occupiers will be advised of the decision.

Attachments

a Plan - Endowment Land Lumsden View