Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Meeting of Southland District Council will be held on:

 

Date:                            

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 18 October 2017

9am

Council Chambers
15 Forth Street
Invercargill

 

Council Agenda

OPEN

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Deputy Mayor

Paul Duffy

 

Councillors

Stuart Baird

 

 

Brian Dillon

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Ebel Kremer

 

 

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

Nick Perham

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Chief Executive

Steve Ruru

 

Committee Advisor

Fiona Dunlop

 

 

 

Contact Telephone: 0800 732 732

Postal Address: PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840

Email: emailsdc@southlanddc.govt.nz

Website: www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

Full agendas are available on Council’s Website

www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

 

 


 


Council

18 October 2017

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                                                                                  PAGE

Procedural

1             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                5

2             Leave of absence                                                                                                                                                5

3             Conflict of Interest                                                                                                                                             5

4             Public Forum                                                                                                                                                         5

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                                                        5

6             Confirmation of Council Minutes                                                                                                             5

Reports - Policy and Strategy

7.1         Combined Local Alcohol Policy Review                                                                                                 7

7.2         Draft Development and Financial Contribution Policy                                                             29

7.3         Deliberation on proposed amendment to the Freedom Camping Bylaw for Lumsden                                                                                                                                                                                    71

Reports - Operational Matters

8.1         Southland Traverse - Proposed Cycle Trail                                                                                      99

8.2         Lumsden Emergency Service Centre Land                                                                                    103

8.3         Southland Museum and Art Gallery Annual Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2017 113

8.4         Management Report                                                                                                                                   137

8.5         Colac Foreshore Road Erosion - Level of Service                                                                       157

8.6         Unbudgeted Expenditure Report - Enhancements to Council's Forecasting System 235

Reports - Governance

9.1         Financial Report for the month ended 31 August 2017                                                         241

9.2         Establishing Ward Committees and Creation of a Mayoral Discretionary Fund    279

9.3         Māori Representation Option                                                                                                               289

9.4         Schedule of Meetings for 2018                                                                                                              293

9.5         Minutes of the Community and Policy Committee Meeting dated 9 August 2017 297

9.6         Minutes of the Services and Assets Committee Meeting dated 9 August 2017      299

9.7         Minutes of the Milford Community Trust Meeting dated 19 May 2017                       301

Public Excluded

Procedural motion to exclude the public                                                                                                       303

C10.1    Code of Conduct

C10.2    Public Excluded Minutes of the Community and Policy Committee Meeting dated 9 August 2017

  

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

1             Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

2             Leave of absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

3             Conflict of Interest

 

Councillors are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a councillor and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4             Public Forum

 

Notification to speak is required by 5pm at least two days before the meeting. Further information is available on www.southlanddc.govt.nz or phoning 0800 732 732.

 

5             Extraordinary/Urgent Items

To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the Council to consider any further items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded.

Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:

(i)        The reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and

(ii)       The reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a)       that item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i)         that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)       the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)       no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

6             Confirmation of Council Minutes

There are no minutes for confirmation.

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

Combined Local Alcohol Policy Review

Record No:        R/17/9/22234

Author:                 Robyn Rout, Policy Analyst

Approved by:       Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement to conduct a review of the Combined Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) with the Invercargill City Council (ICC) and the Gore District Council (GDC). This report also seeks Council’s approval to consult with and to request information from the Police, and Inspectors and Medical Officers of Health.

Executive Summary

2        In 2016, Council adopted the LAP with ICC and GDC (the LAP is included as Attachment A). The LAP aims to minimise the harm arising in individuals and communities as a consequence of the consumption of alcohol. The LAP states that a review will occur after two years of implementing the Policy, and ICC and GDC have already resolved to undertake a joint review. Officers are recommending that Council agrees to review the LAP with ICC and GCD. Officers are also recommending that Council agrees to consult with, and to request information from, the Police and Inspectors and Medical Officers of Health.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Combined Local Alcohol Policy Review” dated 11 October 2017.

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)           Agrees to review the Combined Local Alcohol Policy with the Invercargill City Council and the Gore District Council.

e)         Agrees to consult with the Police, Inspectors and Medical Officers of Health and asks them to provide the information they hold relating to any of the matters stated in Section 78(2)(c) to (g) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

 


 

Content

Background

3        Section 75 of the Sale of Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) states that territorial authorities may adopt a local alcohol policy. The Act allows two or more territorial authorities to adopt a single policy for their districts (section 76). The LAP was adopted in May 2016 after three years of development and consultation through a combined effort with ICC and GDC. The three Councils are regarded as a single territorial authority with a single district for the purposes of producing a LAP under the Act.

4        As the current LAP and associated legislation were new and untested, the LAP states that after two years of implementing the policy and gathering the information relating to alcohol related harm, the Policy will be reviewed. The Policy became operative in 2016, so it is approaching having been implemented for two years. Both ICC and GDC have already resolved to undertake a joint review.

5        The purpose of the LAP is recorded as follows:

 

“The policy reflects the intent of the Act, which is to ensure that alcohol is sold and supplied in a safe and responsible manner and to ensure that the harm arising in individuals and communities as a consequence of the consumption of alcohol is minimised. A LAP allows the Council to fine-tune the application of the Act through its own activities and those of the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority, to meet the needs of individual communities.

 

The policy will help to inform the decisions of the District Licensing Committees (DLC) on alcohol licences for the sale of alcohol in the Southland region, providing a direction as to whether they should be granted, and if so, the conditions that could be imposed.”

 

6        The purpose of a LAP is also to set a clear framework for the District Licensing Committee (DLC) and Alcohol Regulatory Licensing Authority when making decisions on licence applications in Southland, and to provide a guide to those applying for a licence in Southland.

Issues

Conducting a joint review of the LAP

7        A meeting of the DLC was held on the 25th of August, to discuss the merits of reviewing the LAP.  Representatives from the Southland District Council (including Councillors McPherson, Duffy and Douglas), ICC and GDC indicated that there was support for continuing to have a combined LAP. There was a general consensus that the LAP has been a useful tool and the consistent approach across Southland is beneficial for alcohol licence applicants and agencies.

 

8        At the meeting on held in August, a number of matters were raised for consideration in any review. These were:

·    Some inconsistency with requirements for managers to be on duty at non-sporting clubs

·    New off-licences – revisiting the need for social impact study or similar

·    Reviewing off-licence hours

·    Removing 50m approvals for some applications (or to further define)

·    Hours – how function venues and caterers are not currently included in the description

·    Lodges on the Milford Track (how to treat - are they hotels or not)

·    Boats in Milford Sound (how to treat)

·    Clarifying how the Policy applies to theatres, entertainment venues and function centres

·    Clarifying that the discretionary conditions do not apply to everyone

·    Suggestions for improvement around the layout of the policy

·    Concern over public consultation, that the public are unaware of what the policy means for them

·    Consideration of the use of brochures and other information to feed into this process

·    What would be considered as evidence of public consultation (regarding sensitive sites)

9        The attendees at the meeting acknowledged the long and involved process that was required to establish the LAP and the cost involved, particularly in regard to having a consultant prepare the draft policy. It was considered that this review could be co-ordinated and carried out by combined Council in-house staff without the additional costs. Even though public consultation will be required, the review process was not considered likely to be long or complex.

10      Previously, Council has committed to a combined policy to ensure consistency across Southland, and to deliver the objectives relating to the overall health and wellbeing of our communities. It was also felt that a combined policy facilitates inter Council co-operation and support which is beneficial for growth, experience and understanding of the issues for our Council, DLC members and staff.

11      The review of the policy at this time enables some fine tuning to improve the policy. It is therefore recommended that the Council engages in a combined review with ICC and GDC to ensure the policy is working as intended.

Requesting information and consulting

12      To be able to carry out the review, Council must first consult with and seek information from Police, Licensing Inspectors and Medical Officers of Health. The information that must be sought relates to the nature and severity of alcohol- related problems, and overall health indicators. This information will help guide the content of the LAP, and to give an indication of whether the LAP is improving outcomes in our communities. Officers are therefore requesting that Council endorses this consultation and information-gathering stage of the process.

LAP Committee

13      If Council would like to proceed with reviewing the LAP with ICC and GDC, it may need to reappoint members to a Combined LAP Committee. This Committee was previously established in 2014, so the Committee could hear submissions on the LAP, when it was being developed. Council previously resolved to join with GDC and ICC in creating the Committee, with a membership of 12 people, made up of four Councillors from each of the three Councils.

14      At this time, Council does not need to make a decision on whether having Combined LAP Committee is the desired approach, or on who the members should be. If Council would like to continue to have a Combined LAP, staff will be seeking input from Councillors on this issue, at a later stage in the review process.

 

Legal and Statutory Requirements

13      Other key legislative points concerning LAPs are:

·     LAPs are quite restricted in their content (s77 of the Act)

·     Council must not produce a draft policy without having consulted the Police, Inspectors and Medical Officers of Health (s78(4) of the Act).

·     If a Council decides to produce a LAP it must first produce a draft policy, that has regard to a number of matters (s78(2) of the Act)

·     After producing a draft policy, Council must produce a provisional policy, using the special consultative procedure to consult on the draft policy (s79).

 

Community Views

14      Community views on this matter will be sought through a consultation process. The provisional policy must be consulted on in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure.

Costs and Funding

15      There will be costs associated with reviewing and implementing a revised LAP. These include the costs associated with staff time and advertising. If a revised LAP is adopted, reporting and monitoring costs will be similar to those currently incurred.

16      People who have made a submission on a draft LAP do have the ability to appeal if they are unhappy with a provisional policy. Appeals can only be made on the basis that a provisional policy is unreasonable in the light of the object of the Act. Some councils have had a drawn-out review process, due to there being appeals.

Policy Implications

17      From the discussion that was held at the DLC meeting in August, indications are that only minor changes to the LAP are likely to be proposed. On this basis, it is unlikely any major policy implications will be proposed in the review. 

Analysis

Options Considered

18      A number of options were considered regarding the LAP, these include:

·        Option 1 – Reviewing the LAP with ICC and GDC

·        Option 2 - Reviewing the LAP and applying it only in the Southland District

·        Option 3 – Not having a LAP

 

 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Review the LAP with ICC and GDC

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        A consistent approach across Southland is beneficial for alcohol licence applicants.

·        Is consistent with the previous approach taken by Council.

·        Aims to assist in improving the overall health and wellbeing of our communities.

·        Facilitates inter Council co-operation and support which is beneficial for growth, experience and understanding of the issues for our Council, DLC members and staff.

·        Slightly harder to co-ordinate the review when involves 3 Councils.

·        Council may have to compromise on some issues in order to reach agreement with other Councils.

·        The LAP results in more monitoring and reporting (there is a cost associated with the time staff spend on this).

 

Option 2 – Reviewing the LAP and applying it only in the Southland District

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Aims to assist in improving the overall health and wellbeing of our communities.

·        Only having SDC involved would make it easier to complete a review.

·        Council would not have to compromise on any issues (which it may have to do if other Councils were involved).

·       

·        There might be an inconsistent approach across Southland, which may make it harder for alcohol licence applicants and agencies.

·        This would mean Council was changing its approach (from when the LAP was developed and adopted).

·        The LAP results in more monitoring and reporting (there is a cost associated with the time staff spend on this).

 

Option 3 – Do not have a LAP

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        It is unclear at this stage whether the LAP is assisting in improving the overall health and wellbeing of our communities.

·        Not having a LAP would eliminate some monitoring and reporting (there is a cost associated with the time staff spend on this).

·        Would not assist with improving the overall health and wellbeing of our communities.

·        There would be an inconsistent approach across Southland, which may be confusing for alcohol licence applicants.

·        This would mean Council was changing its approach to the LAP, which may be confusing to the public.

·        Revoking the LAP may be confusing to people who run alcohol licence premises.

 

Assessment of Significance

19      The decisions Council is being asked to make in this report have been assessed as not significant in relation to the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. At this stage no decisions are being made on the content of the LAP, and a draft LAP is likely to be presented to Council, early in 2018.

20      The LAP does have the ability to have a positive influence on community health and wellbeing. It is important to note that a large number of submissions were received when the LAP was last produced, which indicates members of the community including local groups, organisations and businesses, are interested in this issue.

Recommended Option

21      It is recommended that Council proceed with Option 1, and review the LAP with ICC and GDC.

Next Steps

22      The same approach has been recommended to ICC and GDC over the last month, and both Councils have resolved to proceed with a combined review of the LAP. It is intended that a draft LAP be ready for the various Council’s consideration and public notification, in early 2018.

                             

 

Attachments

a             Current Combined Local Alcohol Policy    

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 October 2017

 

 

Draft Development and Financial Contribution Policy

Record No:             R/17/9/23087

Author:                      Robyn Rout, Policy Analyst

Approved by:         Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to present the draft Development and Financial Contributions Policy (the Policy) to Council for it to consider and approve for public consultation.

Executive Summary

2        This report outlines the draft Policy, and recommends that the draft Policy, including any changes Council may wish to make, be endorsed and released for public consultation.

3        Council has a combined Policy that outlines the approach to both Development and Financial Contributions. Development Contributions (DCs) are established under the Local Government Act (2002) (the Act) and are a capital charge on development to recover a fair, equitable and proportionate share of the capital costs that development imposes on network/community infrastructure.  Financial contributions (FCs) are established under the Resource Management Act (1991) (the RMA) and are a capital charge for works undertaken to mitigate the environmental effects of resource use.

4        The draft Policy is consistent with the current policy in that it puts the collection of DCs into remission on the basis that Council wants to encourage growth. The FC part of the Policy is operative, and FCs will continue to be taken under the Southland District Plan for roading and reserves until 2022 when a legislative change will see FCs removed. 

5        Only minor changes have been made to the draft Policy. Data on projected population growth in the district has been included to give a more accurate view of the likely growth. Minor changes have also been made to clarify that the DC part of the Policy is being put in remission to foster economic growth. A slight amendment has been made to the part of the policy that outlines Council’s previous approach to contributions, to ensure accuracy. Schedules 1 and 2 have also been updated. These schedules now outline the projects being undertaken over the period for the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-28 period that have a demand related component.

6        If approved, the draft Policy and a statement of proposal will be consulted on via a process which will be run concurrently with the consultation and hearings being held on the LTP 2018/2028. A statement of proposal will be presented to be endorsed later this year.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Draft Development and Financial Contribution Policy” dated 11 October 2017.

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)           Endorses the draft Development and Financial Contributions Policy and approves it for release for public consultation.

e)            Undertakes consultation through a process which will run parallel to the consultation process for the Long Term Plan 2018-28; with hearings around May 2018.

f)          Requests that officers prepare a Statement of Proposal regarding the draft policy, for consultation in parallel to the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

 

Content

Background

7        In the past, Council has had a number of different approaches to collecting DCs and FCs. Prior to 2015, DCs were collected for water and sewerage in Te Anau and reserves across the District. 

8        From 2012-2015 FCs were collected for roading and esplanade reserves. Prior to 2012, FCs were collected for roading, esplanade reserves, water and sewerage for areas excluding Te Anau and development levies.

9        Council currently has a combined policy on development and financial contributions.  For the 2015-25 LTP, the DCs part of the Policy was put into remission, so no DCs are currently being collected. Council agreed that not collecting DCs was appropriate as encouraging development in the Southland District would result in benefits for the broader community.

10      If operative, in its current state, the Financial and Development Contributions Policy would allow DCs to be taken for water supply, sewerage and community facilities.  The FCs in the Policy, which are collected through resource consents under the Southland District Plan, currently apply to development in the Southland District, and are taken for roading and reserves.

11      DCs and FCs have not been a significant revenue stream for Council. Approximately $389,000 of FCs and DCs have been collected between 2012 and 2017. While contributions do have the potential to be a useful funding source for some specific projects, the ability to realise that revenue is dependent on the economic cycle and trends in development and also what demand-related capital expenditure is carried out. 

12      It should also be noted that any DCs and FCs collected, which are not used for the specified purposes for which they were collected, must be returned within 10 years. For FCs, this only includes FC collected under the provisions of the current District Plan. Under the previous District Plan, not all FCs included a time limit for return. 

13      Due to a legislative change in the RMA, from April 2022, Council will no longer be able to impose FCs on resource consents.

Issues

Having the DC part of the Policy in remission

 

Requirement for Growth

 

14      Section 197AB(a) of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) requires that DCs only be assessed for demand related expenditure.  As such, DCs should only be assessed where there is projected growth that is likely to increase demand for services/activities and where capital expenditure is planned to meet this additional demand. As was discussed at the LTP Workshop held in early September, there is some population growth predicted in parts of the district over the period of the 2018-28 LTP, which may justify imposing DCs.

15      In order to justify DCs, Asset Managers would also need to be planning capital expenditure related to growth, in the District.  This is the only type of expenditure that can be considered in the assessment of DCs (all operational costs, maintenance and overheads etc are excluded). As was outlined at the Council workshop in early September, there are projects planned that will have capital expenditure relating to growth, and more projects have been identified since September.

Further Legislative Requirements

16      Council must also consider Section 101(3)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002, when it determines the sources for expenditure requirements. This section states that funding needs to meet expenditure requirements must be met from sources that Council determines to be appropriate, following a consideration of a number of matters. These factors include who is benefiting, and when the benefits are expected to occur. Council also must consider the overall impact of any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the community.

17      Council’s consideration of these matters, as it relates to the funding of capital expenditure, is outlined in the Revenue and Financing Policy.  The analysis contained in the Revenue and Financing Policy is also applicable to this Policy. Council has previously had regard to and made the following determinations under each activity in relation to the matters set out under section 101(3)(a)(i) to (v) of the Act:

·     that development contributions are an appropriate source of funding for providing additional capacity in water supply, sewerage and community infrastructure assets because when development occurs it takes up capacity in these assets and requires Council to provide additional capacity in existing assets or new assets or to serve the development.  Community infrastructure contributions will only be required on residential developments.

Incorporating feedback from LTP Workshop in September

18      In the LTP Workshop in September, Councillors discussed that DCs may discourage new development and consequently impede or act as a barrier to new economic development. This was viewed as contrary to Council’s aspirations for encouraging growth. Councillors recognised that when new developments occur, these often contribute significantly to ongoing community wellbeing and also contribute financially on an ongoing basis through rates.  On this basis, Councillors were keen to continue with the current approach of having the DC part of the Policy in remission.

19      At the September workshop, Councillors also recognised that there is a risk that if the DC part of the Policy is in remission, Council will not be able to assess DCs if there is a new substantial development or further development of properties in the Kepler Block in Te Anau.

20     Staff also asked Councillors how they would like to proceed with FCs, in light of the impending legislative change that would remove Council’s ability to collect FCs through the RMA in 2022. Councillors outlined that Council should continue collecting DC as it is currently, and that a review should be undertaken on how to deal with the RMA changes, in preparation for the 2021-31 LTP. 

Changes included in the draft Policy

21      Only minor changes have been made to the draft Policy. Population projection data has been added to try and give a current view on the likelihood of growth in the district. Wording in the draft Policy has also been altered to clarify that the DC part of the Policy is being placed in remission more on the basis that Council would like to encourage growth, rather than on the basis that there is not enough growth to justify DCs. A minor change has also been made to ensure that the description of the contributions Council uses to collect contributions, is completely accurate.

22      Officers have also included in the draft Policy, the projects being undertaken in the LTP 2018-28 that have a demand related component. Since the September workshop, four new demand related projects have been identified. So in addition to the Te Anau sewage and Riverton cemetery projects, there have now been three additional projects identified in Te Anau, and one on Stewart Island/Rakiura. In accordance with the guidance given by Councillors, and to be consistent with the current Policy, it is stated in Schedule 2 of the draft Policy, that the demand share of the projects will be funded by rates and previously collected contributions.

Legal and Statutory Requirements

23      Section 102 of the Local Government Act (2002) (the Act) requires that Council have a policy on DCs or FCs.

24      Section 106 of the Act sets out the requirements of the policy. Sections 197-211 and Schedule 13 cover the application and calculation methodology related to contributions.

25      When developing a financial and development contributions policy, Council must consider a number of principles that are outlined in the Act.  Section 197AB(a) outlines that DCs should only be required if developments will create or have created the need for Council to provided new or additional assets or assets of increased capacity.

26      Council must also consider the principle in Section 197AB(c) of the Act, which outlines that cost allocations used to establish DCs should be determined according to, and be proportional to, the persons who will benefit from the assets to be provided (including the community as a whole) as well as those who create the need for those asset.

27      Council may review its position on contributions at any time, but is required do so no more than three years from the date on which it adopts a LTP. The Policy therefore must be reviewed by 24 June 2018.

28      There is no legislative requirement for this Policy to be included in the Long Term Plan.  The Policy is required to be released for public consultation in compliance with Section 82 of the Act.

Community Views

29     If Council endorses the draft Policy and releases it for public consultation, officers are proposing that the draft Policy will be consulted on in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP). The SCP requires that the consultation process goes for at least one month and submitters are given the opportunity to be heard by Council. This consultation process is being proposed as the consultation on the draft Policy will be run parallel to consultation for the LTP 2018/28.  The draft Policy will have the same consultation period as the LTP, so that anyone wishing to speak to their submission can do so at the LTP hearings, which are likely to be in May 2018. This will also ensure that any changes to demand related capital expenditure in the LTP, as a result of consultation for the final LTP, can be reflected in the final Policy.

30     An advert that Council is seeking feedback will be placed in the Advocate, and the draft Policy will be available to be viewed on Council’s website and in all Area Offices. Staff will guide submitters to make submissions through Council’s website.

31     The consultation process proposed will allow Council to consider community views regarding this policy.

Costs and Funding

32     As the draft Policy has the same approach to both DC and FC as the current Policy, the funding obtained through FCs is likely to be reasonably similar to what is currently collected. The revenue collected will be dependent on the economic cycle and trends in development.

33     To put the draft Policy out for consultation and to undertake the steps required to progress a draft Policy through to adoption, there will be costs associated with staff time and advertising.

Policy Implications

34     The draft Policy would continue to have DCs in remission.  This means that if the draft policy is adopted, DCs will not be assessed when development takes place.

35     Continuing to have the DC part of the Policy in remission would mean that the costs associated with demand are borne by ratepayers (and by those who have paid previous DCs).  However, Council has taken an approach that encourages development in the Southland District, recognising that this will benefit the community as a whole.

Analysis

 

Options Considered

36      A number of options have been considered in regards to this Policy. Based on the feedback that was received from Councillors at the September LTP Workshop, officers have considered the following options:

·     Option 1:  Approve the draft Policy (with any desired amendments) for release for public consultation; or

·     Option 2:  Amend the draft Policy (in making any amendments to the draft Policy, Council must ensure that the requirements of the Act are met).

Amending the Policy could include taking DCs out of remission, no longer collecting FCs, or investigating funding local roading and reserves (associated with new development) using a DC instead of the current FCs. This would recover the costs that are currently assessed through FCs through the RMA.

 

Analysis of Options

 

Option 1 - Approve the draft Policy (with any desired amendments) for release for public consultation

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        The draft Policy complies with the Act and was prepared by an external consultant (prior to being adopted in 2015), who is a subject matter expert.

·        May encourage growth and development in the Southland District, which would have wide public benefit.

·        Consistent with the Southland Regional Development Strategy, which aims to promote ease of doing business in Southland and have 10,000 more people living in Southland by 2025.

·        By having the DC part of the Policy in remission, it may frustrate some developers who have already paid DCs.

·        Council may miss assessing DCs on a large scale development or further development in the Kepler Block in Te Anau.

·        Rate payers may not like bearing the cost of demand related expenditure.

 

Option 2 - Amend the draft Policy

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Would give further clarity on Councillors’ views regarding the Policy.

·        May put pressure on the requirement to review the Policy by the 24th of June 2018.

·        No other know disadvantages.

 

Assessment of Significance

37      The decisions Council is being asked to make in this report have been assessed as not significant in relation to the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

38      It has been recognised however, that the Policy has broad effects because of its potential impacts on development activity, as well as economic and population growth.  It also raises issues of equity and affordability in funding assets and infrastructure.

Recommended Option

39      It is recommended that Council approve the draft Policy and release the Policy for public consultation (Option 1).

Next Steps

40      If Council approves the draft policy and releases it for public consultation, the public will be able to submit on the draft Policy and hearings for submitters wishing to speak are likely to be held in May 2018.

 

 

Attachments

a             Draft Policy on Development and Financial Contributions 2018-28     


Council

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 October 2017

 

Deliberation on proposed amendment to the Freedom Camping Bylaw for Lumsden

Record No:             R/17/10/23388

Author:                      Robyn Rout, Policy Analyst

Approved by:         Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to provide information and to present options to Council, so that it can make decisions on the proposed amendment to the freedom camping bylaw as it relates to Lumsden.

Executive Summary

2        In June 2017, a draft amendment to the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 (the Bylaw) for Lumsden was endorsed and put out for consultation (see Attachment A). In September 2017, Councillors were given a copy of the 150 written submissions that were received on the proposal, and on the 28th of September, Councillors heard those submitters who wished to speak to their submission.

3        There is not a clear consensus on the approach that should be taken with freedom camping in Lumsden. Generally, submitters are quite evenly divided on whether or not they support having a designated tent site, and whether or not to have more areas where self-contained and non-self-contained vehicles would be permitted to stay for up to 7 nights around the railway station.

4        In this report, staff have presented and discussed four potential options on how Council could proceed. Council needs to make a decision in relation to the submissions received and its preferred approach. At a high level there are four ways in Council could proceed are:

·     Option 1 – To endorse all or aspects of the proposed amendment.

·     Option 2 – To withdraw the Statement of Proposal, continue to apply the current Bylaw, and begin undertaking work and preliminary consultation to investigate using a different site for freedom camping in Lumsden.

·     Option 3 – To withdraw the Statement of Proposal and continue to apply the current Bylaw.

·     Option 4 – To identify and proceed with another option.

5        Depending on the how Council would like to proceed, staff will either progress a draft bylaw to be presented for adoption, or withdraw the Statement of Proposal.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)        Receives the report titled “Deliberation on proposed amendment to the Freedom Camping Bylaw for Lumsden” dated 11 October 2017.

 

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)           Determines that it is satisfied that:

(i)           If amendment(s) to the current Bylaw are agreed, the amendment(s) are 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

e)            Determines that if amendment to the current Bylaw is agreed, the amendment is the most appropriate and proportionate way to address the perceived problem in relation to the area, and the most appropriate form of bylaw.

f)             Determines that if amendment to the current Bylaw is agreed, the amendment only imposes reasonable limits on the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990, which can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society.

g)           Considers the options on how to proceed.

 

h)           Indicates that it supports one of the following options:

I.     Option 1, and it directs staff about whether it would like to progress all or aspects of the Statement of Proposal; or

II.    Option 2, and it

·    Resolves to withdraw the Statement of Proposal; and

·    Requests that staff to begin undertaking work and preliminary consultation to investigate using a different site for freedom camping in Lumsden; or

III.   Option 3, and it resolves to withdraw the Statement of Proposal; or

IV.  Option 4, and it directs staff on how Council would like to proceed.

 

i)          If it wishes to retain freedom camping around the railway station in Lumsden, agrees in principle that further management and enforcement may be required at the site.

j)          If it wishes to retain freedom camping around the railway station in Lumsden, requests a report back from staff, with input from the Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee, on how this enforcement might best be achieved and funded.

 

 

Background

Current Rules

6        The current district–wide freedom camping Bylaw was adopted and came into effect in December 2015. When the Bylaw was being developed, staff arranged a public survey and also consulted with all of the Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees in the District.

7        A draft Bylaw was then endorsed, and the draft was released for consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure from 8 August to 8 September 2015. Advertisements notifying the public that the draft Bylaw was out for consultation and outlining how people could make submissions, were placed in the Southland Times, Advocate and Southland Express. Eighty four written submissions were received, and 30 submitters requested to be heard on the matter.  Council received and heard the submissions in October 2015. The majority of submissions received related to Te Anau, Waikawa, Riverton and Tuatapere.

8        In Lumsden, the current Bylaw allows self-contained camping anywhere within the town boundary (on Council controlled land), for a maximum of 3 days in any 30 day period. In the Bylaw, a vehicle is classified as being ‘self-contained’ if it has the capability of meeting the ablutionary and sanitary needs of its occupants. The current Bylaw provisions relevant to Lumsden permit both self-contained and non-self-contained camping in two designated areas around the railway station for 7 nights in any 30 day period. There is currently no differentiation between vehicles and tents. The current Bylaw for Lumsden is shown in Attachment A. Staff have been informed that the Bylaw does not reflect how the site is currently being used. 

9        There is currently a ‘Community Liaison Officer’ doing volunteer work in Lumsden, directing campers to appropriate places to camp. This officer has been given a warrant by Council under section 32 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 (FCA).

Previous investigations/discussions

10      In December 2016, the CDA notified the public that the end of the freedom camping trial was approaching, and that Council wanted to ensure the Bylaw accurately reflects what the Lumsden community wants for the 2017/2018 summer season, onwards.

11      The CDA discussed the issues relating to freedom camping in April 2017 and indicated a desire to look at progressing an amendment to the Bylaw to recognise 2016/2017 activities and provide greater direction around management of the freedom camping activity. In May 2017, Council carried out a community conversation session at Lumsden. Freedom camping dominated the meeting with a number of locals expressing concerns. In June 2017, the CDA resolved to make a recommendation to Council that it amend the Bylaw in time for the next summer season. 

The proposed amendment

12      On 29 June 2017, staff presented the amendment that was proposed by the CDA, to the Regulatory and Consents Committee (the Committee). The Committee endorsed the Statement of Proposal and agreed to release it for consultation, using the special consultative procedure.

13      The proposal would continue to permit self-contained camping anywhere that is shaded pink on the map (excluding the prohibited areas, and only on Council controlled land), for a maximum of 3 days in any 30 day period

14      The proposal would create a new defined area for tents to the east of the railway station, and prohibit tents from other designated freedom camping areas. People could tent in the defined area for up to 7 nights. The edge of the proposed tent site would be approximately 23 metres from the Hero Street residents’ property boundaries.

15      The proposal would allow self-contained and non-self-contained freedom camping vehicles in the areas marked in green around the railway station. Camping in the green areas is proposed to be for up to 7 nights. Three areas are proposed to be added, two behind the railway station, and one behind Buzz Café. The effect of these additional areas would be to legally enlarge the area where non-self-contained freedom campers could camp around the railway station, and allowing self-contained freedom campers to stay in those areas longer (as the current Bylaw already allows self-contained freedom campers in the areas around the railway station shown in pink, for 3 days in a 30 day period). 

16      It is proposed that the playground and particular car parks near the main street, are designated as camping ‘prohibited’. These areas are marked in red in the proposed amendment. No freedom camping would occur in these areas. Playgrounds are outlined as a prohibited area in the current Bylaw. It is proposed to have the car parks as prohibited areas so people visiting the town, can park their cars and access the shops, playground and other town facilities.

Other proposed rules and planned work

17      The CDA plans to encourage self-contained freedom campers to park in designated areas outside of the immediate railway station area, by guiding campers there through on-site signage. This would allow more capacity around the immediate railway station area for non-self-contained campers (so they can use the toilet and wash facilities), and it may increase the number of non-self-contained freedom campers who can stay at the site (as self-contained campers may choose to park elsewhere).

18      The Committee has suggested that the following rules are appropriate for non-contained freedom campers who visit the site:

·     No washing hung on trains, playground, fences or trees

·     Tents only between hours of 5.00 pm and 10.00 am

·     Clean teeth in bathroom

·     Wash dishes at provided sink

·     Vehicles off grassed areas

·     Dogs must be on a leash.

 

19      Council’s legal advisor recommends that these “rules” do not form part of the Bylaw, however they can still be informal rules displayed on signage. Council’s ability to enforce these additional requirements is likely to be limited and largely reliant on the cooperation of campers.

20      Subject to funding, the CDA has resolved to complete works to mitigate any adverse effects from freedom camping. This work is:

·     Installing bollards to prevent vehicles using the area proposed for tents

·     Installing visual screening at the area proposed for tents

·     Sealing of the vehicle parking area

·     Marking camp sites.

Community Views expressed through submissions process

Tent site

21      Almost all of the submitters completed a form that was prepared by Council staff. This report asked specific questions on aspects of the proposal.

22      Sixty percent of submitters support there being a designated tent site, and 35% are opposed (the other submitters either, neither support nor oppose the tent site, or did not give a clear view). When only the responses from local submitters are considered (this includes responses from submitters who live in Lumsden, Mossburn, Athol and Balfour), there is less support for having a designated tent site. Of the submitters who live locally, 52.6% support a designated tent site, and 42.9% are opposed (the other submitters either, neither support nor oppose the tent site, or did not give a clear view). Some points raised by submitters about the tent site are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Points raised by submitters regarding the proposed tent site

Support

Oppose

·    It is the most appropriate location

·    The proposed site would accommodate current numbers and be manageable

·    It would be good to have tents in one place

·    The site would be more accommodating, which would attract more visitors and have associated economic benefits

·    It would stop people tenting elsewhere

·    That the tents are not doing any harm (as they are put up in the evening and taken down early in the morning).

·     That tents should be at the camping ground

·     That camping related activities (such as brushing teeth) are not appropriate in the centre of a small town

·     That the proposal is not respectful to other accommodation providers in Lumsden

·     That the space in the centre of town should be available for local people to use

·     That there needs to be better/more amenities

·     That the tent site should not be near a children’s playground

·     That tents are unsightly

·     That the proposed tent site is too close to private residences and the Lumsden Motel

·     Concerns about monitoring and enforcement.

Vehicle areas

23     The submission form also asked submitters whether they support or oppose there being an overall increase in space for freedom camping vehicles in Lumsden. This question relates to the additional three green areas that have been proposed, where self-contained and non-self-contained vehicles would be permitted to stay for up to 7 nights around the railway station. Fifty two percent of submitters support an overall increase in space for freedom camping vehicles and 39% of submitters are in opposition (the other submitters either, neither support nor oppose the larger area for vehicles, or did not give a clear view). When only the responses from local submitters are considered, the number of people who support having a larger area for vehicles, drops down to 44.7%.  A larger proportion of submissions from local people oppose having a larger area for vehicles (47.4%). The remaining submitters either, neither support nor oppose the larger area for vehicles, or did not give a clear view

24     Fifty three percent of all submitters support all of the proposed locations and 14% of submitters support some/at least one of the locations but do not support them all. Twenty seven percent of submitters oppose all of the proposed locations, and 3% neither support nor oppose the locations. Three percent of submitters did not clearly answer this question.

25     Some points raised by submitters about the vehicle areas are outlined in Table 2. 

Table 2: Points raised in submissions in support and opposition to the larger area for vehicles, and the location of the vehicle areas.

Support

Oppose

·     It will allow current numbers

·     It will allow for better management, organisation and control

·     There may be more visitors which would have associated economic benefit

·     The sites are the most appropriate as they are close to local businesses, local people and amenities

·     The sites will mean that there is parking for other visitors, and they will keep the main street clear

·    It shows that Lumsden is welcoming, and it will help expand Lumsden as a tourist stop-over

·     The campers should be using the camping ground

·     The area is too congested so locals cannot use/access the town centre, and the proposal would make it worse

·     Concerns about the impact on other accommodation providers

·     That the area behind Buzz café should not be for campers, and that it should be for the public and for people using the playground

·     The number of vehicles should be restricted/limited

·     The need for better/more amenities

·    That there shouldn’t be camping near the trains or playground.

Prohibited areas

26     Submitters were also asked if they had any views on the prohibited areas, which are places where freedom camping is prohibited. Generally submitters were supportive of the proposed prohibited areas. A number of submitters wanted more prohibited areas, such as around the playground, and on the Diana Street side of the railway station (so there are car parks and meeting areas available for local people and for visitors passing through the town). Some submitters were concerned about how the areas would be enforced.

Other comments

27     Submitters also raised a number of other general comments about freedom camping. A selection of comments are outlined in Table 3 below. 


 

 

Table 3:  General comments made about freedom camping in Lumsden

·      This site entices travellers to town, and they wouldn’t come to Lumsden if it wasn’t for the freedom camping site, puts Lumsden on the map

·      Comments about the economic benefit associated with freedom camping

·      It makes the town vibrant and provides for a thriving future for the town

·      The centre of Lumsden can no longer be used by local people, even accessing the library can be difficult

·      The need for appropriate amenities and the need for them to be looked after

·      This change won’t restrict the campers, it will encourage more to come

·      Council should be following by the Camping Grounds Regulations Act 1985

·      The costs should be borne by those who benefit

·      Concerns around the process of developing and amending the Bylaw

·      Freedom camping would be more appropriate at other sites, or at the camping ground

·      Concerns on the impact on other businesses and those who will be disadvantaged

·      That the freedom campers are intimidating, and that it’s no longer a safe place for children etc

·      Good to cater for a wide range of tourists

·      Concerns about the location of freedom campers relative to the playground

·      Staying for 7 nights is too long

·      Should be self-contained only

·      Discussion of approach being taken by other Councils

·      Concerns about health and safety

·      Questioning why Council is deviating from the New Zealand Government’s tourism strategy of attracting higher paying tourists

·      People enjoy the freedom campers, their diversity, their pleasant nature, and that they are an educated group of people. 

 

Issues

28      At this stage staff are seeking a decision from Councillors on how to proceed on this matter.  Staff have presented and discussed possible options below.

Option 1 - To endorse all or aspects of the proposed amendment

29     Under this Option, Council would have discretion as to which aspects of the proposed amendment it wishes to endorse. It should make decisions on the specific aspects of the proposed amendment which are outlined below.

30     When considering this option, Council should be mindful of some other work and trends that relate to this decision. Council has had initial discussions on both an Open Spaces Strategy and a Freedom Camping Strategy. A focus in these discussions has been on having a more strategic, district-wide approach towards what is provided and where.

31      In August this year, the Department of Internal Affairs established a working group to identify and analyse problems associated with freedom camping. The working group produced a report which identified that there is a trend towards increased restrictions on freedom camping access to public areas administered by local authorities, with a particular focus on non-self-contained camping.

32      Several councils have also moved recently to place further restrictions on freedom camping activities in their districts, particularly (but not exclusively) relating to non-self-contained vehicles and tents. Some pre-election discussion also signalled possible additional legislative amendments to the FCA with a focus on non-self-contained campers and access to facilities. While there are limits to the extent to which these are relevant considerations to the currently proposed SDC Bylaw amendment, it is national and regional context which is useful for the Council being generally aware of.  Council must, however, consider this issue in accordance with the relevant statutory criteria as outlined in section 43 of this report below.

33      Council could also keep in mind the requirements that would apply to a commercial camping ground of a similar scale to the Lumsden freedom camping site. In accordance with the Compliance Document for New Zealand Building Code, and the Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985, the following requirements would be in place (and there would be additional ones) if the site was operating as a commercial camping ground:

·    For a maximum of 75 camping sites (there is deemed to be 3.5 people per site), 4 toilets would be needed for males (less if there are urinals too), and 4 for females. The Lumsden site would legally service 75 sites.

·    For a maximum of 200 people, 5 showers would be required. There are currently no showers provided at the site.

·    If there were 100 males and 100 females using a camping ground, there would need to be 3 wash basins available for each gender. If the site was a commercial camping ground it would legally have enough wash basins for 200 guests.

·    Ablution and sanitary fixtures would need to be readily accessible, and to be located not more than 75 metres from any camp site or relocatable home site. At the Lumsden site, quite a large proportion of the sites outlined in the Statement of Proposal would be further than 75 metres from the toilets.

·    Refuse containers would have to be provided, not more than 50 metres from every camp site. The Lumsden site would comply or be very close to complying with this requirement.

·    Two laundry tubs and one washing machine would have to be provided for clothes washing and drying facilities for every 200 persons. One shop opposite the toilet block has begun offering laundry services.

·    All rubbish receptacles would have to be emptied at least once in every 24 hours when the camping ground was occupied. Currently the bins are emptied every second day, and daily during the peak season.

·    The camping ground would have be provided with safeguards against fire, and means of escape in case of fire. Currently no fire safeguards are provided.

·    No temporary living place could be erected or placed on any camp site within 3 metres of any other temporary living place, or within 1.5 metres of any camp site boundary. At times tents and camping vehicles in Lumsden may be closer together than 3 metres, and within 1.5 metres of the camp boundary.

34     These matters are outlined having regard to matters raised in the submissions, where several submitters highlighted that in their opinion the facility proposed to be provided by way of the proposed amendment is in the nature of a camping ground; and hence that in terms of consistency, facilities should be provided at the same ratios as would be required if this development was being undertaken by a private developer. Some other submitters also highlighted the presence of an existing commercial camping ground at the north end of the Lumsden township and hence queried the need for duplication of facilities and resources.

35      Aspects of the proposed amendment are discussed further below.

The tent site

36     Council could consider whether or not the current positioning of the tent site is appropriate, or whether or not there should be a tent site at all.  A summary of points raised about the tent site is outlined in paragraphs 19 and 20 above. It is possible that some of the concerns outlined by submitters may be addressed if the tent site did not proceed.

Allowing only self-contained freedom camping vehicles

37      Council could also consider whether to only allow self-contained vehicles in the Lumsden township. Although submitters were not asked about this point directly, some submitters raised this point and a number of submitters outlined that they opposed freedom camping due to behaviours that are generally associated with non-self-contained camping (see overview of submissions on tent site and vehicle area, above). This included factors such as not using the proper toilet facilities. Only allowing self-contained camping could address some submitters’ concerns, although it would be contrary to the views held by others.

The maximum number of nights campers can stay

38      Council may also want to alter the time limit on how long self-contained campers can stay within the town boundary (it is proposed to be 3 days in any 30 day period), or how long both self and non-self-contained campers can stay in the areas marked in green around the railway station (it is proposed to be for a maximum of 7 nights).  Some submitters raised that the length of the permitted stay should be reduced.

Specific locations for parking

39      Council may also consider whether or not to proceed with all of the areas for vehicles that have been proposed around the railway station (marked in green), where self-contained and non-self-contained vehicles would be permitted to stay for up to 7 nights. Some submitters felt that having freedom camping around the children’s playground and near Buzz café, was inappropriate. Others stated they would prefer for all freedom campers to be positioned behind the railway station, on the Hero St side of the site. Council could, for example, choose to prohibit camping in all of the areas of the railway station facing Diana Street, other than the proposed green areas in the amendment. This would help leave a central space for local people to use, help enable people to view the railway platform and trains, and it would help ensure there would be car parks available for local people and visitors.

Enforcement

40      A frequent point raised by submitters was the need for better management and enforcement of the bylaw areas and any informal ‘rules’ which may be put in place. Staff advise that if Council proceeds with Option 1, that Council agree in principle, that further management and enforcement may be required at the Lumsden freedom camping site, and suggest that Council request a further report back from staff and the CDA on how his might best be achieved. A potential solution may involve using the current volunteer and a more formal enforcement position. This may involve additional staff members being given a formal warrant. Council may also want to consider a stronger infringement notice stance.

Option 2 - To withdraw the Statement of Proposal, continue to apply the current Bylaw, and begin undertaking work and preliminary consultation to investigate using a different site for freedom camping in Lumsden.

41      Council may also feel that the current site is not the best place to have an identified freedom camping site in Lumsden, and elect to proceed with Option 2. Although a slight majority of submitters supported the tent site and having a larger space for vehicles around the railway station area, a number of concerns have been raised about the suitability of the site. This includes that the campers dominate the central area of the town, that the campers do not make the town look nice, and that the campers block access to the historic railway station and trains. There are also concerns about having campers in the area around the children’s playground.

42      Submitters have raised that a different site could be used for freedom camping in Lumsden. Suggestions have included using the Lumsden Recreational Reserve (the Reserve), or using the camping ground in Lumsden, that Council owns and currently has leased out. (If the latter option was to be progressed, this would need to be assessed having regard to the lessee’s rights under the existing lease agreement).  

43      The current Reserve Management Plan (the Plan) applies to the two parts of land that make up the Reserve. Under the Plan, freedom camping would not be allowed on the Reserve unless the Bylaw was amended to specifically include it. If Council wished to pursue using the Reserve for freedom camping, preliminary work and consultation would need to be carried out, and there would need to be a new statement of proposal endorsed and put out for consultation. Using this area cannot legally be approved as part of the current process.

44      The camping ground owned by Council is also part of the Lumsden Reserve, but the area is set apart as a camping ground, so camping whether it be free or charged, is not an issue in this area. The lease for the camping ground was issued in December 2003 for ten years, with one right of renewal. The right of renewal was exercised therefore the lease will expire on 15 December 2023. The lessee owns all the improvements to the property and is required to operate as a licenced camping ground. It is entirely up to the lessee whether they charge for accommodation or not, as they are entitled to retain all camp fees.

Option 3 - To withdraw the Statement of Proposal and continue to apply the current Bylaw

45      Council could also choose to not proceed with the proposal, and continue to apply the current Bylaw. This would mean there would be no tent site, no restricted areas (other than the playground), and there would not be the additional areas for freedom camping vehicles to park around the railway station. Staff are aware the site is not currently being used in accordance with the current Bylaw, so if the Bylaw was adhered to, there would be a significant reduction in the numbers of vehicles and tents that could park in the area immediately adjacent to the railway station. There may also be issues relating to enforcement.

Option 4 – To identify and proceed with another option

46      Council may also identify another option on how to proceed. Council will have to be mindful that if the approach differs from that outlined in the Statement of Proposal, Council will be required to re-consult. This would include if Council wants to discontinue freedom camping in the railway station area in Lumsden, as the possibility of doing so was not signalled as part of the consultation process.

Additional submission

47      For Councillors information, an additional submission has been included with this report, as Attachment B. This submission is not to be formally considered in the submission process, due to an incomplete submission being made online. However staff felt it would still be courteous to present the submission to Councillors.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

48      Section 10 of the FCA states that freedom camping is permitted in any local authority area unless it is restricted or prohibited in accordance with a bylaw or under any other enactment.

49      Section 11(2)(a) provides that a local authority may only place restrictions on freedom camping by way of a bylaw if it is satisfied that the bylaw is needed:

·     To protect the area

·     To protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area

·     To protect access to the area.

50      Under Section 155 of the Act and under Section 11 of the FCA, Council will also have to determine that it is satisfied the proposed amendment is the most appropriate and proportionate way to address the perceived problem in that area, and the most appropriate form of bylaw, before it makes the amendment.  Bylaws have become the typical method of addressing issues associated with freedom camping.  The FCA also states that any territorial authority may make bylaws defining the local authority areas in its district or region where freedom camping is restricted, and the restrictions that apply to freedom camping in those areas.

51      Section 155 of the Act also requires Council to give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 before it makes the Bylaw.  The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 confers certain civil and political rights to people in New Zealand.  Council needs to be satisfied that the proposed amendments will not be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990, that is, the amendments impose reasonable limits that can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society.  In New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Incorporated v Thames-Coromandel District Council ([2014] NZHC 2016), managing the adverse effects of freedom camping was considered a sufficiently important purpose to justify a limitation on peoples’ rights.

52      Under the FCA, there are a number of ways people can commit an offence while freedom camping, such as by breaching a bylaw, leaving rubbish or failing to leave an area when an enforcement officer makes that requests. A person who commits one of these offences would be liable for a fee of $200.

53      The FCA is a permissive piece of legislation and sets a tight framework within which any restrictions placed on where people can freedom camp may be imposed. Council must be satisfied that any restrictions that it does want to impose can be reasonably justified in accordance with the provisions in the Act.  

54       The current Bylaw 2015 allows, and aims to control, freedom camping in Lumsden in accordance with the statutory provisions. The proposed amendment generally seeks to tighten up restrictions on freedom camping in Lumsden and to establish greater controls to enable the ‘adverse effects’ of the activity to be managed. The amendment before the Council is not about whether there is freedom camping in Lumsden at all.

Community Views

55      As has been outlined above, and in the report that Council received on the 28th of September (that accompanied the hearings), the community holds a wide range of views on the freedom camping site in Lumsden, and people are quite polarised in their views. 

56      Under Section 78 of the Act, Council must, when making a decision on how to proceed, give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter. There is not a requirement to please all of the submitters, but Council must take into account the views that have been expressed.

Costs and Funding

57      The costs and funding associated with this decision, will depend on how Council would like to proceed. If Council proceeds with Option 1, and progresses all or part of the Statement of Proposal, there would still be costs associated with staff time and advertising, but this is likely to be less than if Council selects Option 2, and goes back and investigates using a different site.

58      Under all of the options, it is possible that Council may believe a greater level of enforcement is required by way of a fully trained and warranted employee/contractor, If this is the case, there would be associated costs, and decisions would have to be made on how this would be funded. By way of example, freedom camping enforcement in the Te Anau / Manapouri area is jointly funded by the Community Board, the Department of Conservation and district wide rates through Council. If a similar approach was to be taken in Lumsden, it would mean there would be both district and local funding.

59       There may also be legal costs associated with progressing an option, if staff want to get legal reviews of work, or if there is any challenge made to a decision.

Policy Implications

60      The implications of this decision will depend on the option Council would like to endorse. If Council is going to withdraw the Statement of Proposal and investigate another location (Option 2), or propose something different (Option 4), a new amendment to the Bylaw would probably have to be produced and consulted on. Freedom camping bylaw processes have been legally challenged elsewhere in New Zealand and hence it is important that the Council does not take any actions on this matter which are ultra vires.

Analysis

Options Considered

61      Staff have identified all reasonably practicable options to help Council to achieve a decision. The identified options are:

·    Option 1 – To endorse all or aspects of the proposed amendment.

·    Option 2 – To withdraw the Statement of Proposal, continue to apply the current Bylaw, and begin undertaking work and preliminary consultation to investigate using a different site for freedom camping in Lumsden.

·    Option 3 – To withdraw the Statement of Proposal and continue to apply the current Bylaw.

·    Option 4 – To identify and proceed with another option.

 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - To endorse all or aspects of the proposed amendment.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Consistent with the wishes and views held by some submitters (such as wanting the campers in the central area, the economic benefits of more campers etc). 

·    Would protect the area, protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area, and protect access to the area.

·    Would allow freedom camping in Lumsden to be better managed and controlled.

·    Would take into account the projected growth of the tourism sector and freedom campers.

·    Would not be consistent with the wishes and views held by some submitters (such as proximately to playground, insufficient amenities, taking over central town area etc)

·    Having more spaces for freedom camping around the railway station area may exacerbate some of the problems with/concerns raised about freedom camping.

 

Option 2 - Withdraw the Statement of Proposal, continue to apply the current Bylaw, and begin undertaking work and preliminary consultation to investigate using a different site for freedom camping in Lumsden.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Would be consistent with the wishes and views of some submitters (such as that other sites are more appropriate, etc).

·        Would help ensure the best site was being chosen.

·        As the number of campers using the site has been increasing, another site may have more space and capacity.

·        Would not be consistent with the wishes and views of some submitters (such as wanting the campers in the central area, wanting campers to feel safe and secure, etc).

·        If another proposed amendment was developed, it would require another consultation process, and changes would not be in place before this summer season.

·        Reputational risk of withdrawing the statement of proposal.

 


 

Option 3 - To withdraw the Statement of Proposal and continue to apply the current Bylaw.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Would be consistent with the wishes and views of some submitters (such as it is working well as it is etc).

·        The current Bylaw does not allow many campers at the site, so it may encourage campers to stay at commercial accommodation premises.

·        The current aims to control and manage freedom camping.

·        Would not be consistent with the wishes and views of some submitters (such as a number of submitters favoured the tent site etc).

·       The site is currently hosting large numbers of campers (and the numbers coming have been increasing) and there is a need for better control and management.

·       The current Bylaw does not allow many campers at the site, and if campers are turned away they may stay at other locations and leave mess or waste. 

·       Reputational risk of withdrawing the statement of proposal.

·       It could be difficult to enforce (as it allows a smaller number of campers).

 

Option 4 - Identify and proceed with another option.

Advantages

Disadvantages

 

·       If the option was substantially different from the Statement of Proposal, consult would be required to re-consult, and any changes may not be in place by this summer season. 

 

Assessment of Significance

62      In regards to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, the decision being made by Council has been assessed by staff as not being significant.

63      If a decision is significant, the Act requires more a stringent and thorough analysis of factors such as identifying and assessing options, and the degree benefits and costs are quantified.  Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy would also require further analysis to be undertaken. Significance is a continuum ranging from low significance to high, and at a particular point along that continuum, a decision or matter will be significant.

64      To act in accordance with the Significance and Engagement Policy, Council has to take into account four factors when determining the level of significance of a decision. These factors are of equal weighting. The greater the cumulative impact of the matter as assessed by these factors, the more significant the decision will be. In relation to this decision on freedom camping in Lumsden, two of the factors are most relevant. Council must assess if this decision is significant, based on the degree of importance of the decision as assessed by its likely impact on, and likely consequences for:

·    the current and future social, economic, environmental or cultural wellbeing of the district or region; and

·    people who are likely to be particularly affected by or interested in, the issue, proposal decision or matter.

65      In relation to the first factor, staff believe the decision being made will have an impact on the current and future social, economic and cultural wellbeing of Lumsden (and some of the small towns around it), but this impact is localised, rather than applying to the district or region. Freedom camping is also already occurring in Lumsden, and proposed changes to the Bylaw seek to manage and control freedom camping, so, the decision being made is considered unlikely to bring a substantial change the current freedom camping activities (and therefore not greatly impact the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of the town). If Council does decide to proceed with an option that will bring a substantial change to how freedom camping is operating in Lumsden, this factor should be reconsidered in regard to assessing significance. Such a substantial change is also likely to require Council to re-consult on the matter, as has been referred to above.

66      In regards to the second factor, unless Council is endorsing a substantial change (which again is likely to require Council to re-consult), this decision is also unlikely to have a significant impact or consequence for interested or affected people. It is however acknowledged, that there is a large amount of local and district interest in this matter.

Recommended Option

67      Due to the polarising community views held on this matter, staff are not recommending an option, and are seeking a decision from Council on the best way to proceed.

Next Steps

68      The next steps will depend on what option Council chooses to endorse. If it decides to endorse all or aspects of the proposed amendment, the next step would be presenting a draft Bylaw to Council for it to adopt. This is likely to be on the 23rd of November this year. If Council decides to withdraw the Statement of Proposal and investigate other possible sites, staff would begin the preliminary work and consultation required to progress that option. While these timeframes may not be to some parties’ liking with the 2017/2018 tourist season gearing up, as referred to above, it is very important that the Council follows the correct due process around any decision making on this matter.

 

Attachments

a             Statement of Proposal to amend the Freedom Camping Bylaw for Lumsden

b             Sue Gatenby - Submission that was not submitted properly    

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL – Amending the Freedom Camping Bylaw for Lumsden

 

The Current Freedom Camping Rules in Lumsden

The current Freedom Camping rules in Lumsden permit self-contained camping anywhere within the town boundary (on Council controlled land), for a maximum of three days in any 30 day period. The rules also permit both self-contained and non-self-contained camping in two designated areas around the Railway Station, and they do not differentiate between vehicles and tents. 

Proposed Amendments

The proposed amendment to the Bylaw will continue to legally allow self-contained camping anywhere within the town boundary (on Council controlled land), for a maximum of three days in any 30 day period. Self-contained and non-self-contained freedom camping will also be lawful in the areas around the Railway Station that are marked in green on the proposed amendment. It is proposed that this area will be larger to enable more vehicles to stay there. The Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee (CDA) plans to encourage self-contained freedom campers to park in designated areas further away from the Railway Station, by guiding campers there through the use of on-site signage. Self-contained campers are going to be encouraged to move to different areas to allow more capacity (around the immediate railway station area) for non-self-contained campers in the areas around the toilet and wash facilities.

The proposed amendment would also create a defined new area solely for tents, and prohibit tents from other designated freedom camping areas.

Reasons for the Proposal

The Lumsden CDA has requested that Council make this amendment to the Bylaw. The amendment would mean the site could legally accommodate the number of campers who currently use the site, and it would restrict where they camp. 

 

Making a Submission

Submissions are invited on the draft amendment to the Freedom Camping Bylaw from 8 July 2017, and submissions must be received by 8.00 pm on 8 August 2017. Submissions can be made:

 

·           through the Council’s website (https://consult.southlanddc.govt.nz)

·           via post (Southland District Council, Submissions, PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840)

·           in writing at your local Southland District Council office.

 

Written submissions must state that the submission relates to the freedom camping rules in Lumsden, and give the submitter’s name and contact details.

 

Submitters who make a written submission can also elect to make an oral submission to the Regulatory and Consents Committee. This can be indicated through the online submission process, or by the submitter raising that they would like to make an oral submission, in their written submission. Oral submissions are likely to be heard on the morning of the 28th of September. Council staff will be in touch to confirm a time.

 

All submissions received by Southland District Council will be made available to the public.

 

 

 

 

Options

For this decision, Council has identified all reasonably practicable options regarding Freedom Camping in Lumsden. The options and analysis are presented below.

 

Option 1 – Not endorsing the draft Bylaw and continuing with the current freedom camping rules in Lumsden.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·          Avoids the minor costs associated with amending the Bylaw (staff time, advertising etc).

 

·       This would not be in accordance with the wishes of the Lumsden CDA.

·       The current rules do not reflect current usage.

·       This would not take into account that tourism and freedom camping is expected to increase.

·       People may continue to freedom camp in areas where they are not legally permitted to do so.

·       If there is an increasing number of freedom campers visiting the site, they may park vehicles or put tents in undesirable locations, rather than the suitable places proposed in the amendment.

Option 2 – Not endorsing the draft Bylaw, and instead endorsing a bylaw discontinuing or, or placing restrictions on, non-self-contained freedom camping in Lumsden.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        This would decrease or largely eliminate the challenges associated with freedom camping.

·        Some support from locals.

 

·        This may decrease or largely eliminate the benefits associated with non-self-contained freedom campers.

·       Some locals would oppose this option. 

·        Contrary to the direction decided upon by the Subcommittee during the making of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015, and lawfully made by Council with little opposition from locals at that time.

·        May be hard to administer.

 

Option 3 – Endorsing the proposed amendment to the bylaw and releasing the draft bylaw for public consultation

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Consistent with the wishes of the Lumsden CDA.

·        This amount of freedom camping may result in an optimal level of benefit for Lumsden.

·        Support from locals.

·        Takes into account the projected growth of the tourism sector and freedom campers.

·        This option is more in accordance with current usage.

·       Some locals would oppose this option.

·        An increase in the number of campers may increase problems from freedom campers, unless effective mitigation measures are put in place.

 



 

 

Relevant Determinations

 

Council has determined that the amendment to the Bylaw is necessary to protect the area, and to protect the health and safety of the people who may visit the area, and to protect access to the area. For example, Council believes the amendment will protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area, as the location of the freedom camping sites will help ensure that proper toilets are used, and that rubbish is placed in nearby receptacles. 

Under Section 155 of the Local Government Act, Council has determined that the proposed Bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem and the most appropriate form of Bylaw. Bylaws have become the typical method of addressing issues associated with freedom camping, and the Freedom Camping Act allows bylaws of this nature.

In relation to amending the Bylaw, Council has also considered any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 confers certain civil and political rights to people in New Zealand. Council is satisfied that the proposed Bylaw will not be inconsistent with the Act, that is, it imposes reasonable limits that can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society. Case law supports that managing the adverse effects of freedom camping is considered a sufficiently important purpose to justify a limitation to peoples’ rights.

Appendices

 

Appendix A – Current freedom camping Bylaw for Lumsden

 

 

 

Appendix B – Proposed amendment to Freedom Camping Bylaw for Lumsden


Council

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

 

Southland Traverse - Proposed Cycle Trail

Record No:        R/17/9/22530

Author:                 Dylan Rabbidge, Commercial Lead Roading

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        To obtain formal support from the Council to proceed with the application to NZTA for the proposed “Southland Traverse – Heartland Ride” and approve the funding required to install the necessary signage.

Executive Summary

2        This report outlines the proposed Heartland Ride trail running from Mossburn down to Invercargill and eventually to Bluff. This report covers the indicative costs and options for this project.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)         Receives the report titled “Southland Traverse - Proposed Cycle Trail” dated 9 October 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised 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)         Notes that NZTA are attempting to establish a connected network of Heartland Rides from one end of the country to the other.

e)         Notes that the proposal for a “Southland Traverse” ride utilises existing local roads and State Highways and that signs will be provided by NZTA.

f)          Resolves to proceed with the Southland Traverse – Heartland Ride and agrees the signage requirements be funded from the current subsidised roading budget with a maximum cost to SDC of $10,000.

 


 

Content

Background

3        NZTA have approached Southland District Council, Invercargill City Council and Environment Southland with the idea of connecting the Southland region to the network of trails that link New Zealand.  The proposed name for this section is “Southland Traverse”.

4        A workshop was held in Gore earlier in the year with NZTA developing a “potential routes” map (attachment B). This has formed the basis for routes to be investigated.

5        NZTA have completed the majority of work to date and have investigated several options, these have been investigated by Johnathan Kennett (NZTA) who has cycled or driven over the proposed routes. The report is include as attachment A.  The two options identified (maps are contained in attachment A) in the report cover from Mossburn to Winton;

·    Mossburn to Winton via Avondale Hill

·    Mossburn to Winton via Dipton West

6        The proposed option from Mossburn to Winton via Dipton West is preferred for the following reasons:

·    This route will utilise the Around the Mountain Cycle trail for approximately 15km

·    It provides the ability for riders to access Lumsden for food and accommodation

·    For cyclist’s heading south from Kingston this is the more logical place to branch off.

 

Issues

7        The major issue is getting cyclists across the greater Southland network safely therefore trying to keep cyclists off State Highway 6.  This will provide a designated route for those that want to head south.

The proposed route is to utilise the local roading network with no construction required or improvements beyond additional signs.  

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

8        There are no legal implications.

Community Views

9        No community views have been sought in this proposal. It is reasonable to expect, however, that a sizeable section of the community would support the implementation of a low cost option such as that proposed.

Costs and Funding

10      NZTA are going to supply all of the required signs with SDC’s contribution being the installation of these.  The total cost is difficult to estimate accurately at this time but it is expected to be between $10k and $20k.  This is the total cost with the cost to the SDC being less than $10K. 

Policy Implications

11      Council’s Procurement Policy and NZTA Procurement Strategy detail the requirements for procuring work of this nature and value.

Analysis

Options Considered

12      Proceed with the NZTA application and upon approval install the signs (Mossburn to Winton via Avondale Hill).

13      Proceed with the NZTA application and upon approval install the signs (Mossburn to Winton via Dipton West).

14      Do nothing.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Mossburn to Winton via Avondale Hill.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        The attractions of Castle Downs Swamp and the views of Southland from Avondale Hill.

·        This would still provide a designated route for cyclists.

·        Would meet the criteria of a Grade 4 (Advanced) or 5 (Expert)

·        A large detour for those wanting to head south from Kingston

·        Less of the ATMCT utilised if heading south from Mossburn

·        Harder for cyclists to access Lumsden.

 


 

Option 2 – Mossburn to Winton via Dipton West.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        A small detour for those wanting to head south from Kingston.

·        More of the ATMCT utilised if heading south from Mossburn

·        A small detour for those wanting to reach Lumsden

·        This would still provide a designated route for cyclists

·        Grade 4 all but 1KM meets the criteria for Grade 3 with NZTA to investigate treatments for this section

·        This would still provide a designated route for cyclists.

·        Miss the attractions of Castle Downs Swamp and the views of Southland from Avondale Hill.

 

Option 3 – Do nothing.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Save financially ($10K).

·        Potentially miss out on additional tourists

·        No designated route for cyclists

·        Southland not linked into the New Zealand cycle trails.

 

Assessment of Significance

15      The proposed Southland Traverse – Heartland Ride project is not of significance as per Council’s Significance Policy.

Recommended Option

16      The recommended option is Option 2 as this will provide the greater use of the Around the Mountain Cycle Trail and provide greater access to Lumsden.  With the ability to improve the 1KM that is grade 4 this option could meet the criteria for grade 3 therefore attract additional riders who a not confident of the higher grade rides.

Next Steps

17      Complete the application to NZTA and upon approval install the signs required.

 

Attachments

a         Options for Heartland Ride from Mossburn to Bluff (separately enclosed)

b         NZCN2 - Existing and Planned to 2022 v03 (2) (separately enclosed)    

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

 

Lumsden Emergency Service Centre Land

Record No:        R/17/9/22941

Author:                 Kevin McNaught, Strategic Manager Property

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        To consider a request from the Lumsden Emergency Services Centre to obtain additional land from Council to allow for the construction a new shed as well as creating additional training space.

Executive Summary

2        In 1989 the former railway land in Lumsden owned by Council was subdivided and part defined as the site for the Lumsden Emergency Services Centre. The site is currently owned by the Fire Service, Police and St John.

3        Recently, a request was received from the NZ Fire Service on behalf of the Emergency Services Centre for an additional 22m of land west of the existing buildings as the site for a new shed and additional training space.

4        The Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee at its meeting on 14 August recommended that the land be transferred to the owners of the Lumsden Emergency Services Centre.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)         Receives the report titled “Lumsden Emergency Service Centre Land” dated 9 October 2017.

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)         Agrees in principle with the request, subject to consultation, to transfer 880 square metres of land adjoining the Lumsden Emergency Services Centre on Elbow Lane being part of Part Lot 4 DP 12125 to the owners of the Lumsden Emergency Services Centre for $1.00 on the basis that the applicants pay all costs associated with the subdivision and transfer.

 

e)         Requires that prior to any transfer, consultation be undertaken on the proposal to comply with the requirements in Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 and that any submissions against or objections to the transfer be referred to Council for consideration.

 

Content

Background

5        In 1989 the former railway land in the centre of Lumsden owned by Council, was subdivided and part defined as the site for the Lumsden Emergency Services Centre. The site was subsequently transferred from Council and is currently owned by the Fire Service, Police and St John.

6        Recently, a request was received from the NZ Fire Service on behalf of the Emergency Services Centre for an additional 22m of land west of the existing buildings as the site for a new shed and additional training space. See attachment to the report.

Issues

7        There are no issues identified at this stage however Lumsden CDA and Council approval is required as well as public consultation and a subdivision consent. Any one of these process may identify any unanticipated issues.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

8        Compliance with Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 is required as this land is held as freehold and is considered to meet the definition of a park. This Section states:

138 Restriction on disposal of parks (by sale or otherwise)

(1)  A local authority proposing to sell or otherwise dispose of a park or part of a park must consult on the proposal before it sells or disposes of, or agrees to sell or dispose of, the park or part of the park.

(2)  In this section,—

dispose of, in relation to a park, includes the granting of a lease for more than 6 months that has the effect of excluding or substantially interfering with the public’s access to the park

park

(a)  means land acquired or used principally for community, recreational, environmental, cultural, or spiritual purposes; but

(b) does not include land that is held as a reserve, or part of a reserve, under the Reserves Act 1977.

 

Community Views

9        The Lumsden Community Development Area Subcommittee at its meeting on 14 August recommended that that land be transferred as requested for $1.00 on the basis that the applicant pay for all costs associated with the transfer.

10      The requirement to consult in Section 138 above, does however mean that in this case a higher level of consultation other than the CDA is required. This includes notification of the proposal to adjacent landowners and also public notification. The recommendations above makes this consultation a condition of transfer, and to be referred back to Council should any submissions or objections be received against the proposal.

Costs and Funding

11      The recommendation from the Lumsden CDA subcommittee is a transfer for $1.00 but subject to the applicants paying all costs.

12      An indicative land vale based on the current rating valuations is around $7,000 however the costs to complete the transaction will be in excess of this amount.

Policy Implications

13      None identified.

Analysis

Options Considered

14      The options are to accept the request with conditions of sale at $1.00 but all costs to be met by applicant, or decline the request.


 

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Accept the request with conditions of sale at $1.00 but applicant to pay all costs.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Allows the important community facility grow as requested due to demand.

·        Transfer at $1.00 plus the applicants pay all costs including consent, survey and legal is considered reasonable by not adding undue land value costs onto the Emergency Centres operations

·        No sale income however costs will exceed assessed land value of $7k.

 

Option 2 – Decline the offer

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Non identified

·        Will place limitations on the valuable community facility to be able to grow due to demand which is likely to disadvantage the Lumsden community and surrounds

 

 

Assessment of Significance

15      Not considered significant.

Recommended Option

16      Option 1 – accept request with conditions of sale for $1.00 but applicant to pay all costs.

Next Steps

17      Advise applicant of decisions and undertake public consultation

 

Attachments

a             request from Lumsden emergency services for more land    

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 October 2017

 

 

Southland Museum and Art Gallery Annual Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2017

Record No:        R/17/9/22575

Author:                 Bruce Halligan, Group Manager Environmental Services

Approved by:       Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

1       The Invercargill City Council has supplied the attached Annual Report relating to the operations of the Southland Museum and Art Gallery Trust Board Incorporated (hereafter SMAG) for the 2016/2017 financial year ended 30 June 2017. 

2       The Annual Report outlines levels of performance and delivery of outcomes in relation to the Outputs and Targets identified in the 2016/2017 SMAG Statement of Intent, and also provides information on financial performance.

3       The Trust is incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.

4       Council appoints two representatives to the Trust in terms of the Trust deed, with these being Crs Macpherson and Patterson in the 2016//2017 period which this Annual Report covers.

5       This Annual Report is hence presented for Council’s information only; although Crs Macpherson and Patterson may have additional comments which they wish to make when this matter is considered.

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)         Receives the report titled “Southland Museum and Art Gallery Annual Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2017” dated 3 October 2017.

 

 

Attachments

a         Southland Museum and Art Gallery - Annual Report 2017    

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council

18 October 2017

 

 

Management Report

Record No:             R/17/9/22740

Author:                      Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

Approved by:         Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

  

 

Chief Executive

Southland Regional Development Strategy (SoRDS)

1        At the beginning of September the four Southland Councils released the statement of proposal relating to the formation of a council controlled organisation (CCO), to lead regional development activity.  Submissions closed on Monday, 2 October.

 

2        The submissions received will be heard by a Joint Committee, consisting of two Councillors from each of the four Southland Councils.  Cr Dillon and Cr McPherson are representing this Council on the Committee.  The Committee is being chaired by Cr Bolger from Gore.

 

3        Once the hearings process has been completed, the Joint Committee will prepare a report (and recommendations) which will go to the four individual Councils for a decision, on whether to proceed with the formation of a CCO as currently proposed or an alternative option.  

 

4        During September, there was some publicity, including an article in the Southland Express by Mayor Shadbolt, which suggested that the Gore and Southland District Councils have predetermined the outcome of the consultation process by giving notice of their exit from Venture Southland.  This is not the case.

 

5        Throughout the process of developing the Southland Regional Development Strategy over the last two years and during the more recent discussions, about how regional development activity might best be managed in the future, this Council has confirmed its commitment to the principles which have underpinned SoRDS to date.  These include the need to have an inclusive ‘whole of region’ approach to regional development activity, rather than having it being very much focussed on territorial local government as it is at present.

 

6        The fact that it is proposed that there be a level of change, and the development of a CCO is the current proposal which is out for consultation, means that there will need to be changes made to the current Venture Southland Agreement 2014 - 2017.  Indeed the formation of a CCO as currently proposed means that the current agreement will need to be terminated.  Clause 4.1 of the Agreement requires that the parties must give each other 18 months’ notice of any proposed termination.

 

Water Policy

7        Water policy and its management continues to be a high profile and topical issue.  The broader public and political interest in the issues relating to the way it is managed was a prominent issue during the recent national elections.

8        The high level of public interest in the issue is expected to see it remain high on the agenda for the new Government once it is formed.  In coming months, the Stage Two report from the Havelock North Water Inquiry, which is focussing on how water is managed across the sector, will be released and the central Government Inquiry work will also be progressed.

 

9        Given the significant level of national interest in this area, Local Government New Zealand have a Water 2050 project underway which is looking at how you might develop a more coherent policy framework that:

 

10      •        recognises the interlinked nature of all water policy.

 

11      •        leads to greater integration of policy, in particular reconciling the setting of standards with          the costs to communities of achieving those standards.

 

12      •        identifies a suitable institutional framework to govern water policy.

 

13      While we need to wait for the new Government to be formed before final decisions are made, it can be expected that this will be an area of change in the next two years, irrespective of what shape the Government takes.  It is likely that these changes will affect both central and local government.

 

14     Council staff will continue to keep a watching brief on developments and will continue to advocate on behalf of Council, to both Local Government New Zealand and Water New Zealand

 

Asset Management Practices

15      The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) has recently published a report on Investment and Asset Management across the broader public sector including local government.  A copy of the report is available on the OAG website (www.oag.govt.nz).

16      Key findings in the report that are of relevance to local government include:

 

17      •        that to make good investment decisions, there needs to be effective engagement with the people receiving the services, about the service levels they expect and the affordability of those expectations.  The issues relating to affordability of overall rating levels and prioritisation across different activities and the district as a whole, are important issues for Southland District Council as we work through the current Long Term Plan but, also broadly at achievement of our overall strategic goals.

 

18      •        there is a need for public entities to work co-operatively with other entities, where it is sensible to do so, to address the challenges and opportunities that can affect investment and asset management.  The relationship that Southland District Council has with agencies such as New Zealand Transport Agency, Department of Conservation and the other public funded entities is critical, to being able to deliver the best, overall value for the district as a whole.

 

19      •        there is significant evidence that public entities are not managing their physical assets as well as they should be, including indications that some physical assets risk being “run down”, particularly in the health and local government sectors.  The OAG has proffered the view for some time that there is potentially a significant ‘infrastructure deficit’ developing across the local government sector and that there is a need for solutions to be found to this issue.

 

20      •        there is a need for better information about the condition and performance of assets, to assist with improved asset management and performance assessment and then enable appropriate decisions to be made about asset maintenance, renewal and replacement to optimise the delivery of public services.  Without good reporting and information about assets, governors cannot make deliberate and informed decisions, about how to invest in and manage the assets.

 

21            there is a need to understand the risks associated with the management of assets and delivery of services.  These include significant events such as the global financial crisis, natural hazards, extreme weather and changing levels of demand bought about by trends such as population aging, population decline increasing urbanisation and the risks presented by historical investment choices.

 

LGNZ Roadshow

22      At the Local Government New Zealand conference in Auckland in July a new president and vice president were elected following the retirement of Laurence Yule.

 

23      The new president, Dave Cull and chief executive, Malcolm Alexander will be visiting all local authorities over the next few months.  The visit to this Council has been set down for 13 November.

 

24      The visit provides an opportunity for Council to meet with members of the Local Government New Zealand Council and Executive, to discuss national and local priorities and issues which are of interest to the development of Southland and the sector more generally.

 

Conflicts of Interest

25     There have been a number of elected member conflict of interest issues in recent months.  While officers have a role to raise and provide advice on potential conflict of interest issues, it is important to recognise that the primary responsibility rests with the elected member themselves.

26     Issues relating to the management of matters in which members of a local authority may have a pecuniary interest are dealt with through the Local Authorities (Members Interests) Act 1968 (the Act). Section 6(1) of the Act reads:

A member of a local authority or of a committee thereof shall not vote on or take part in the discussion of any matter before the governing body of that local authority or before that committee in which he has, directly or indirectly, any pecuniary interest, other than an interest in common with the public.

 

27     The Act does not define “pecuniary interest”.  The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General[1] (OAG) uses, however, the following definition:

whether, if the matter were dealt with in a particular way, discussing or voting on that matter could reasonably give rise to an expectation of a gain or loss of money for the member concerned.

 

28     It is also important to recognise that pecuniary conflicts do not necessarily require a direct contractual relationship between the elected member and the Council.  Even where the benefits are indirect (eg the decision would benefit the local industry in which the member operates), it is possible that elected members can have a pecuniary conflict.

29     Elected members also need to be mindful of non-pecuniary benefits including where, for example, they might be involved with the executive committee of a voluntary organisation that has a relationship (eg receives grants) with Council.

Golden Bay Wharf

30     Negotiations have commenced with Southport and Rakiura Adventures Ltd, over the future ownership and management of the Golden Bay Wharf.  These negotiations may take some time to reach resolution.

31     In parallel with the negotiation process officers are also giving consideration to how they might advance work to manage the development of a new facility for Golden Bay.  Given the need to advance the replacement of both the Golden Bay and Ulva Island facilities within a similar timeframe it makes sense to create one project team to lead both pieces of work.

Customer Support

32     September saw Megan Wilson, Librarian/Customer Support Partner recognised as the Association of Local Government Information Management (ALGIM) conference as Customer Service Individual of the year.  This award is due to the work Megan has completed above and beyond her role, for our customers in Riverton and the district as a whole.

 

33     Customer foot traffic across our sites declined in August and September which reflects our rural communities focusing on a busier time in the season.  Call volumes have also reduced in line with the peak that occurred with dog registrations in July. 

 

Libraries

34     Work continues on implementation of recommendations from the section 17A, Local Government Act 2002 review of Library Services.  Visits to libraries in Waitaki, Dunedin, South Canterbury, Wanaka and Central Otago have given the team insight into the advantages and worked needed to proceed with the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) of our collection. 

 

35     Stewart Island Library has seen over 90% of borrowers using the self-service issuing machine and we are investigating the potential to offer 24/7 access to the library for borrowers; this is at a concept stage at present.

 

Services and Assets

Long Term Plan

36     All Activity Managers are working on updates to their activity plans.  The financial elements of these plans feed into the ten year financial budgets for the Long Term Plan (LTP).  Activity Managers have to consider what issues will significantly affect how their activity will be managed over the LTP period.  The condition of assets and the predicted performance of those assets also dictates what maintenance and renewals are to be planned for over the period.  The key performance indicators in these plans are also being critically reviewed as part of the Corporate Performance Framework.  The intent is to only have useful meaningful performance measures.

 

Strategic Transport

37     The Transport team has had a particularly busy period of months with a number of major contracts needing to be developed, tendered and let.  These include:

 

38     •        Three Alliance Maintenance Contracts

39     •        Catlins Seal Extension project

40     •        District Wide Reseals Renewals

41     •        Professional Services Contract

42     •        District Wide Pavement Marking contracts

 

43     It is very unusual for all of these contracts needing to be renewed in such a short timeframe.

 

Te Anau Airport - Manapouri

44     The summer season began in September. There is an indication of increased activity from Tauck tours during the upcoming summer season which is positive for the airport surrounding communities.

 

45     Work is also progressing with the Civil Aviation Authority Adventure Aviation department as to where the best and safest options for a Parachute Landing Area (PLA) would be on the airfield.  Now that Part 115 (Adventure Aviation) has been running for the last five years, further consideration needs to account for additional regulatory planning. Discussions are underway with   a skydive operation at the airfield.  This is a long way through the process and looks likely to happen later in the summer season.

 

46     As part of the preventative maintenance programme for the runway surface discussions are underway with a crack and seal maintenance company that carries out nationwide condition maintenance.  This can be carried out in stages to spread the cost and get the best out of the current runway overlay.  Council is currently awaiting a final report and costing from the contractor and will possibly extend our anticipated current life span of the present overlay.

47     Over the winter period, some of the operational staff attended a joint airfield emergency exercise in Invercargill, where a simulated aircraft crash occurred with an Air New Zealand Q300 aircraft.  This aircraft is of a similar type to the aircraft operated by Alliance Airlines of Australia.

 

48     A recent internal audit identified further security signage was required, to bring the fencing and public protection areas up to the new standard.

 

Forestry (IFS)

49     The carryover of the 2016/17 harvesting in Dipton and Ohai has now been completed, with 9,500 tonnes ($1M income) achieved.  The main 2017/18 harvest program of 44,000 tonnes will commence in December/January.

 

50     The planting program has been completed with 75 Ha completed in Dipton and Ohai.  Aerial post-plant spraying of these areas is being planned.  Other operations underway include pruning in Gowan Hills and carbon measurement across the Post89 registered areas.

 

Strategic Property

 

Community Centres

51     Edendale Hall is still on the market for disposal by way of a fixed price, given that only one tender was received, which was significantly lower than the market analysis.  There is still only limited interest.  No action has been taken as yet on the disposal of the Hokonui Hall.  Menzies Ferry is in a similar situation however, work has been completed to survey out the local war memorial to be retained by Council, and the two new titles are being arranged prior to starting the local community consultation about closing the hall.

 

Public Conveniences

52     Predominantly, business as usual when it comes to operations, however it is expected that the operating costs for those toilets situated on the main tourist routes will increase in line with the increase in tourist numbers.

 

53     A project is currently underway to erect new signage at those facilities where the water supplies are non-potable.  This is simple to reduce any risk to both the users and Council.

 

Curio Bay Project

54     Ongoing with Council’s waste water project and Department of Conservation’s carpark completed.  The South Catlins Trust has the new camping amenities building operational as well as commencing construction on the new heritage building.  An ancillary project has resulted from all this development and the three parties in conjunction with other interest groups, are involved in a planting programme on the reserve to increase the habitat for the Yellow Eyed Penguins.

 

Strategic Water and Waste

 

Te Anau Wastewater Discharge Project

55     Following on from the May meeting, work was completed to identify a list of criteria that any potentially available alternative land disposal sites, could be evaluated against. The criteria take into consideration factors such as ground conditions, soil type and suitability for irrigation as well as separation distances from water courses and other sensitive receptors. 

56     The criteria were publicly advertised for those who wish to offer any land they believe meets these criteria and are willing to sell to Council.  The expressions of interest received are currently being evaluated. 

57     Work has also been progressed with development of the business case for the Kepler proposal for which Council already has consent. Council also approved the key criteria within which the business case is being developed at its 16 should be developed at its 27 September meeting.

 

58     A draft of key parts of the business case will be presented to the Te Anau Wastewater Project Committee at a meeting on 17 October for comment. A revised draft will then be presented to Council in November with the target of a final version being presented in December.

 

Land and Water Plan Implementation

59     Under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) water quality and quantity are to be maintained and improved, with any over allocation to be phased out over time.  Environment Southland is required to set environmental limits by 2025, with all ‘communities’ required to meet those limits in due course.  They are progressing this work via their proposed Water and Land Plan.

 

60     To assist with addressing the impacts of these changes on local authority infrastructure, Environment Southland have formed a Three Waters Officer Working Group.  The objectives of the Group are to work through the implications of the new freshwater standards, develop an agreed approach to the re-consenting of local authority infrastructure and ensure that the organisational objectives are aligned.

 

61      In early September the three Southland territorial local authorities presented joint submissions to Environment Southland on the notified Southland Water and Land plan.  A key of focus was on advocating for changes, which ensure that the valuable role that 3 waters infrastructure plays, in the broader well-being of urban communities is recognised in an appropriate way.  The notified plan proposed, for example, that all wastewater and stormwater discharges would be a non-complying activity.  This creates a significant level of risk and additional cost to territorial local authorities, when seeking resource consents for such discharges.

 

62      It is expected that the decisions will be released in April/May 2018.  Officers will continue to monitor the outcomes from this process. 

 

Fluoridation of Drinking Water

63     Council recently received an update from the Ministry of Health around the status of the Health (Fluoridation) Amendment Bill which may receive a second reading before parliament later this year.  This Bill will transfer the right for decisions on community fluoridation from Councils to the District Health Boards. 

64     A fund of $30 million over ten years, will be established to fund any communities directed to Fluoridate.  Although there is no indication that any request or direction will be made, Council staff are looking into what upgrades might mean for our community water supplies.

 

Water New Zealand Conference

65     A number of Council staff attended the Water New Zealand annual conference in Hamilton in September.  As expected issues around water safety formed a large part of the conference agenda. 

66     A workshop held prior to the conference, featured international guest speakers with direct experience in management and investigation of waterborne illness outbreaks.  Key messages delivered were that multi barrier treatment processes are vital to reduce the risk of contamination as much as protection of the source water.  A significant number of the speakers also indicated that chlorination of drinking water was a safe and effective tool in the provision of safe drinking water and there was some discussion around how this may become a requirement of the Havelock North Inquiry.

Operations and Community Services

 

67     Reseal sites will meet target of 75% released by 1 October 2017, for all three Alliance contracts. Reseals - Seal Design Meetings for each Alliance contract are scheduled to start the last week of September.

 

Strategic Roading

 

Alternative Coastal Route Seal Extension Project

68     This project is tracking on schedule with good progress being made.  Earthworks and drainage are now complete on Slope Point Road, and The Roading Company have now started these works on Otara Haldane Road, with around 30% of this section completed to date.

 

69     While earthworks are underway on this latest section, Slope Point Road is now undergoing pavement construction, in preparation for sealing that is planned later this year.

 

70     There was one health and safety issue report resulting in lost time injury.  This occurred when a worker slipped and injured their leg while climbing out of a truck.

 

District-Wide Resurfacing Contract

71     A seal treatment selection workshop has been held with Downer to agree on seal treatments for the Eastern Area.  A workshop will be held on 6 October, to agree seal treatments for the Western Area site.

 

New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Investment Procedural Audit

72     The finalised Audit was received from NZTA at the end of September.  No areas were identified as unsatisfactory or needing significant improvement.  Two areas have been highlighted for some improvement.  These are around consistency of late tender’s policy in tender proposals.  The second area revolved around procurement of in-house professional services and Council’s need to document the formal management structure for in-house operation.

 

Roading Professional Engineering Services

73     OPUS have officially taken over the Core Services contract as of 1 October.

74     Stantec have been awarded the professional services contract for structural services.  This was formally approved by Services and Assets at the meeting on 27 September.  As Stantec were the previous provider for this service, continuity of business is expected.

 

LED Streetlight Replacement Programme

75     Services and Assets have accepted a tender from Network Electrical Servicing and have been awarded the contract for the physical installation of district LED lights subject to formal New Zealand Transport Agency funding approval.  All replacement work is expected to be completed by 30 June 2018.

 

Pavement Marking Programme

76     Downer have been awarded a three year contract, for the pavement marking all of the district roads.  The service along with road signs will be managed in-house by Stephen Arthur, who officially is taking over the management of these from 1 October.

 

Community and Futures

 

Southland District Story Launch

77     The new Southland District Story was successfully launched on Monday, 2 October to the public. All the Council offices and libraries have new signage, and there are new ‘Welcome to Southland District’ signs at district boundaries.  

78     There was good coverage of the launch in all the local newspapers and good feedback on Council’s Facebook page.  The formal launch represents the beginning of the story though, as work continues on standardisation of signage, working with our contractors to tell the story and constantly looking at new ways to partner with our communities in leading the way.

2018-2028 Long Term Plan (LTP)

79     Work on the 2018-2028 LTP is coming together with a lot of work progressed around draft Activity Management Plans (AMPs), budgets and policies which will underpin the LTP document. 

 

80     During September Council held two workshops to discuss a number of aspects of the LTP including:

 

81      •        draft AMPs for several activities including Roading and Footpaths, Resource Management, Environmental Health, Animal Control, Building Control, Customer Support, Library Services and Information Management.  The workshop provided an opportunity for officers to update elected members, on what they were anticipating would be required over the ten years in their activity areas and also, brief them on the key issues and significant costs for the activity.  The feedback from these workshops will be used by officers to finalise the AMPs in October (following local Community Board/ Community Development Area Subcommittee budget meetings and Council’s district budget meeting).  The final draft of the AMPs are expected to be presented to Council for confirmation in November prior to being audited later that month.

 

82      •        the approach being taken for the local community budgets with meetings of Community Boards, CDA subcommittees and Water Supply subcommittees scheduled throughout October 2017. The Council discussed some of the key issues impacting on local budgets and rates, in particular the impact of the Land and Water plan for Stormwater as well as the assumptions around inflation and interest rates to be used in the budget preparation process. The Council also discussed a number of local community rating-related issues which impact the way rates are set in the LTP (including rating boundaries, rating mechanisms and the Council’s definition of Separately Used or Inhabited Parts (SUIPs)). The information is being used to help prepare reports for local Community Boards and CDA subcommittees and feed into the review of the Revenue and Financing Policy and the Funding Impact Statement (Rates) for the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

 

83      •        draft report reviewing Council’s open spaces (parks, reserves, playgrounds, picnic/rest areas, playgrounds, playing fields etc) across the District. The review identified a gap between the Vision and Objectives set by the Council’s Open Space Strategy and the current state of these spaces.  At the workshop the Council discussed whether there was a need to take a more strategic approach to managing open spaces but has not decided on the way in which this will be done.  Officers are currently working through the report and assessing what will be done and when. Depending on priorities, some of this work may form part of the LTP Consultation Document along with the overall concept of Council needing to make a significant investment in its open spaces.

 

84      •        the approach being taken for the review of the Development and Financial Contributions Policy (which sets out how and when Council proposes to charge/use Development and Financial contributions, what they fund and why). At the workshop officers updated elected members on the key issues to be considered in reviewing the policy ahead of the LTP. Specific areas for review included how to respond to the legislative changes in the RMA which will mean that Council is no longer able to impose Financial Contributions as well as whether the Development Contributions section of the policy should remain in remission. A draft of the Policy is being prepared for consideration at the Council’s October meeting. 

 

85     At its meetings in the coming months, Council will be asked to consider the options and make decisions regarding the above aspects of the plan.  This will include a further meeting in October, to outline the Council’s draft District budgets and update members on the Revenue and Financing Policy (which sets out the sources and levels of funding for Council’s activities).

 

86     In addition, during September, a number of LTP-related policies were also adopted by Council following review and consultation. This included the Remission and Postponement of Rates Policy, Investment and Liability Management Policy.

 

Policy and Bylaw Reviews

87     The revised Fraud, Remission and Postponement of Rates, and Investment and Liability Management Policies were all adopted by Council on the 27th of September.

88     The proposed amendment to the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw for the Arboretum in Otautau was withdrawn by Council at the same meeting in September, due to feedback received from the lessee of the Arboretum.

89     The proposed amendment to the Freedom Camping Bylaw for Lumsden has been out for consultation and the hearings have been held. Council will deliberate on the proposal at its meeting on the 18th of October.

Community Governance

90     The Community and Policy Committee considered a report on the Community Governance Project.  During the meeting it was noted that this project began in January 2015, with research and a workshop held with the Council in mid-2015. 

91     The Elected Representative Working Group met recently and received an update on the project plan.  It discussed 12 guiding principles on which the Representation Review will be based.  These are in addition to the requirements in the Local Electoral Act 2001.  The report noted that Council has an appetite for change and there is a need for a structure that is efficient, effective and future focused.

92     The Council is beginning a period of pre-consultation.  An article has appeared in ‘First Edition’.  This has an email address via which anyone can write in and seek information, ask questions or express their views.  The email address is representationreview@southlanddc.govt.nz. The representation review will be the focus of the community conversations taking place throughout the district in November.   The pre-consultation will feed into a report to Council in April with an initial proposal that will go out for consultation.

93     As part of the Representation Review process the Council has reviewed the electoral system and decided to retain the First Past the Post electoral system to be used for the 2019 elections.  It will make a decision on Maori representation on 18 October 2017.          

October Extraordinary Community Governance Meeting Requirements

94     In order to ensure that information from all the Council’s governance entities is captured in a timely manner, for the production of the consultation document for the 2018/2028 Long Term Plan all entities were required to meet in October. 

95     This meant coming up with a solution that would allow all 36 governance entities to meet in October to consider their budgets for the ten years.  This has required a number of groups having parts of their meetings at the same time while still making their own decisions.  This was an extraordinary situation that required a particular set of arrangements.  It does, however, highlight the challenges associated with Council having such a large number of governance bodies.   

Community Leadership Plan

96     Council’s Community Partnership Leaders are about to commence work with phase two of the Community Leadership Plan process.

97     Phase two will see engagement with key stakeholders being undertaken through a series of workshops held in Invercargill, Gore, Te Anau, Wallacetown and Otautau.    These workshops will build on phase one of the community leadership planning and draw out common themes and ideas from key stakeholders.  The dates for these workshops are as follows;

98      •        Invercargill - Monday, 6 November 2017, 12 – 2pm at the Invercargill Workingmen’s Club

99      •        Gore - Friday 10 November 2017, 12 – 2pm  at the James Cumming Wing

100    •        Te Anau - Monday 13 November 2017, 12 – 2pm at the Te Anau Club

101    •        Wallacetown - Friday, 17 November 2017, 12 – 2pm at the Wallacetown Community Centre

102    •        Otautau – Thursday, 23 November 2017, 12 – 2pm at the Otautau Combined Sports Complex

103   Stakeholders will include representatives (regional and local) from a variety of sectors such as health, education, recreation, social service, faith based, service groups, emergency services and central government agencies.

104   The phase two workshops will follow a similar direction to the elected members’ workshops with participants being advised of the process we are undertaking and being asked the same series of questions in order to gauge what our stakeholders see as the issues and opportunities for the District as a whole.  

105   Phase three will commence by March 2018 and will see us talking to the wider community about common themes identified during phases one and two.  Phase three involves facilitating an opportunity for community leadership and action with partnering from Council and other key stakeholders in a “fete” style engagement. 

Stewart Island Community Planning Project

106   In August 2017, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment approached Council, to lead a programme of development and consultation around opportunities and planning for the future of Stewart Island.  The catalyst behind this was the recent Bonamia Ostreae parasite that has devastated oyster production on Stewart Island.

107   Cabinet approved funding to deliver this project that will cover the cost of a consultant to develop a community leadership plan that identifies priority project development, and investment planning for future opportunities that might be identified.

108   The purpose of the project is to determine the short, medium and long term community vision and for the future sustainability and growth of Stewart Island Rakiura.  The project will include engagement on the Island through a community working party, workshops, focus groups, and surveys.

109   The engagement will seek, at a minimum, key stakeholder and community views on planning and visions for the economic, social and environmental development of the Island. It will also identify the infrastructure needed to support the achievement of the overall goals. The Community Plan for Stewart Island, will have alignment to the District’s Community Leadership Plans currently underway.

110   Council has engaged independent consultant Sandra James to undertake this work.  Sandra James has recently completed the Stewart Island Wharfing Provision Community Engagement research for Council, and has developed a trusted and respectful relationship with members of the Stewart Island community.  A draft Community Planning report will be completed by November 2017.

Southland District Council / Venture Southland Letter of Expectation Projects

111   As part of the Southland District Council’s Letter of Expectation with Venture Southland, a number of Community Development Priority Projects have been identified for 2017/18.  The projects identified include:

112    •        Southland District Local Community Sustainability Strategic Approach; the project will be completed by February 2018.

113    •        Newcomers Project – this project, in consultation with Venture Southland, has been modified to now reflect a Welcome Ambassador Pilot, and will have peripheral connection with the Welcoming Communities Pilot being initiated throughout Southland Region.  The Pilot will be trialled in Te Anau, where community workers have expressed interest and the geographical isolation and demographic of high tourism and seasonal workers, alongside a growing domestic and international population base makes the area suitable to investigate further. A Welcome Ambassador project has been successfully undertaken in North Canterbury and this project will utilise some of the resourcing and learnings from that Pilot.  Permission has been received from the Pegasus Town community to trial a similar project here in Southland. This project will be completed by June 2018.

114    •        Community Organisation and Volunteer Sector Projects – there are two projects following on from the initial project undertaken in 2016/17 that will build on this work.  There will be two pilot projects, one based on geographical area and the other around areas/communities, both of which will look at the potential for shared services opportunities in the volunteer and Non-Government Organisation (NGO) sector.  Both pilots will be completed by June 2018.

115    •        Community Facilities Project – this has been completed and was reported on to the Community and Policy Committee 27 September meeting. The next steps are to use this data to help inform communities and incorporate the findings into the asset review work that is being undertaken by Council’s property department.

116    •        Community Leadership Plans – an update report was submitted to the Community & Policy Committee 27 September to update on this project.  Phase 2 and 3 of this project will be undertaken throughout late 2017 and early-mid 2018, involving key stakeholders and overall community.  The district leadership plans will align with the Stewart Island community leadership plan being fast-tracked with assistance from MBIE funding.

Southland District Local Community Development Sustainability Strategic Approach Project

117   The purpose of this project is to define, develop and deliver on the concept of a district wide approach to community development, and to review at a strategic level, the prioritisation of projects and local and district community organisation support.

118   The project will ultimately confirm a framework for future community development delivery across Southland District, and provide a more holistic approach to local and district wide community development activity.

119   This project will involve a series of workshops between community development staff and the community partnership leader(s), and will be completed by early 2018.

Welcome Ambassador Pilot

120   The purpose of this project is to develop and deliver a pilot in Te Anau that has a focus of intentional welcoming. The intent behind this project is to have Welcome Ambassadors which are community volunteers who intentionally connect people in their communities, and who may also encourage and enable opportunities for people to feel included and able to connect.  The pilot will be developed and run over the course of the next financial year, and will be close to completion by June 2018. 

121   Welcome Ambassadors have the commitment of intentional welcoming.  In rural, geographically isolated communities there can be hidden isolation, often without a conscious choice to be so.  The notion of moving to an idyllic rural location can be more difficult and challenging in reality than people in our communities may realise.  Being a welcoming community can significantly enhance the experience of residents, ratepayers, and visitors to the area.

122   As a District and Region hoping to attract over 10,000 new people to the Region, it is imperative that we have communities ready and willing to receive and welcome new people into their existing lives.

123   The Welcome Ambassador pilot also recognises that many individuals and organisations are already welcoming, and have skills and behaviours relevant to being welcoming that are utilised on a daily basis.

124   The purpose of this pilot is to enable and facilitate a project that gives these community members the permission to be intentional in the way they welcome people to their communities.  Their role will be to raise awareness of activities and groups already active in the community, and to establish new and creative ways for people to connect into the community.

125   The pilot will involve a small number of public meetings to gauge interest and support in this project, and the establishment of a steering group to move the pilot forward.

District Facilities Report

126   In November 2016 an assessment of facilities in the Southland District was undertaken to identify those that are available for community use or hire. This assessment sought to inform Council and communities in the Southland District in their planning around community facilities now and into the future.

127   Community use facilities were defined as any facilities that were available for use by members of the community, either free of charge or by hire, on a booking basis.  That included government, faith-based and not-for-profit run facilities as well as commercial facilities.  The project sought to understand the change that have happened in community facility use, what’s happening now and what this means for the future.

128   The aim of the Southland District Community Facilities Assessment was to conduct a comprehensive investigation of all community facilities within the Southland District, including an assessment of current use, future sustainability, and consideration of fit-for-purpose.

129   Information was gathered over two rounds of consultation, using electronic surveys on Survey Monkey with responses from 183 facility managers and 100 facility users.  Interviews with 30 community facility managers and 30 facility users were also conducted.

130   Some Key Findings of Assessment:

131    •        330 facilities are available for community use or hire across the Southland District (excluding Stewart Island) - including halls, sports centres, schools, churches and commercial facilities. Only three planned facilities were identified, and as these facilities have community use or hire as a secondary use, this does not represent a significant increase to community use capacity District-wide.

132    •        nearly 70% of facilities available for community use or hire in the District are independent from Council (e.g. not-for-profit or commercial).

133    •        facilities which have community use as secondary to their core business (e.g. pubs, churches etc.) are in the majority and these include some of the most well used facilities in the District. It is likely that these facilities have come to play a larger role in community facility provision as changes in user needs over time favour greater amenity and flexibility, and facilities whose whole purpose is community use (e.g. community halls) have adapted or closed.

134    •        the largest number of facilities are used by the community between 0-5 hours per week.

135    •        the most used (in hours of weekly use) facilities tend to have multiple users and provide multi-purpose space; be located in areas of higher population density or central to a wider population catchment; have high fit-for-purpose; and good relationships with facility managers.

136    •        only 40% of the facilities surveyed were wheelchair accessible and it is significant that this was identified as a stronger priority by users than facility managers.

137    •        one certainty is that what Southland District residents need from community facilities will continue to evolve. Ongoing efforts to understand these needs is critical to inform future facility provision, and this assessment will contribute to this knowledge.

138   The data that has been gathered for this report will provide information for discussions with communities.  It will also link into the strategic planning work that the Council’s Property Team will be doing.

Open Spaces Report

139   The open space network managed by the Council is characterised by predominately small domains reserves primarily established to meet the needs of local communities. Council administers about 1250 hectares of reserves, including 34 sports fields and 36 playgrounds. The aim of the Open Space Priority Settings project undertaken by Xyst consultants was to provide a strategic approach to the management of the open spaces managed by the Council with the focus on ensuring the needs and expectations of residents and visitors are met.

140   The Council’s Property Department is looking at what it needs to do to implement the Open Space Strategy which Council approved in 2014. The Southland Open Spaces Priority Setting report will be used to inform that work. Its key findings were:

141    •        while there have been some notable exceptions, facility development within the open spaces managed by the Council has been modest over the last 30 years despite a sustained period of extraordinary tourism growth.

142    •        funding does not appear to have been sufficiently prioritised into the districts open space compared with other similar districts. It is also evident that there is a clear lack of professional design input into the majority of developments and some facility improvement has the appearance of being ad hoc and incremental.

143   The key challenges facing the Council in the management and development of its open space are:

144    •        providing appropriate community facilities that are fit for purpose and are relevant for the needs of local communities for the future.

 

145    •        determining the best approach to freedom camping for Southland. Freedom camping is likely to continue to be a popular way to experience Southland. There is potential to develop many of the Council’s reserves as freedom camping sites however this would come at considerable on-going cost to ratepayers with uncertain economic benefits.

146    •        funding the development, maintenance and renewal of infrastructure to meet the needs of local communities and visitors

147    •        a freedom camping strategy is needed otherwise the Council is at risk of developing facilities for freedom camping that cannot be sustained or adequately funded. An appropriate strategy would investigate the economic contribution of freedom camping to townships, costs and benefits and potential funding models including options such as a low cost camping pass.

148    •        considerable investment in the design and improvement of facilities is required to make Southland’s public spaces attractive.

149   The Council will now need to consider how it will use the information provided in the Southland Open Spaces Priority Setting Report, to meet the Vision and Objectives of its Open Spaces Strategy 2014.  Any decision to improve the level of service will require investment which will need to be signalled in the Long Term Plan.

 

Risk Management Framework Project Development

150   Work is on hold on the development of the project brief and budget for the review of Council’s risk management framework until the newly appointed Strategy Development Analyst, joins the Strategy and Policy team.  Once on board, a gap analysis will be developed to ensure the project brief is robust and takes into account all aspects of risk and the other related strategic projects within the organisation.  A revised timeline will also be developed.

 

Environmental Services

 

Overview Comments

151   A Te Roopu Taiao hui was held in Gore on 11 September.  Key items of interest were that senior management from Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu made a presentation on customary title applications, and there was also a discussion on Maori representation.

152   A Group-wide staff update session is scheduled for 6 November, with a particular focus being giving effect to the Southland Story across the team.

153   Activity levels have been strong over the winter and early spring period, particularly in the building control area as reported in the departmental reports below.

Resource Management

 

Proposed District Plan

154   The final appeal on the Proposed District Plan 2012 has been withdrawn.  This appeal was withdrawn approximately five weeks after mediation was held on the remaining appeals.  The next steps involve seeking Environment Court approval of consent orders, for the resolutions reached during mediation.  If this is forthcoming, a report will seek that the Proposed District Plan be made operative which is likely to occur in late January 2018.

 

Climate Change

155   A work stream has been established that looks at the likely effects climate change will have on the district’s communities and the organisation’s infrastructure.  This has been established not only to look at sea level rise but, also the wider effects across the district.  A number of meetings have been set up with other organisations, to see if there are any opportunities to collaborate and work together on developing strategies.

 

Edendale State Highway 1 Realignment

156   A recommendation to grant the Edendale State Highway 1 realignment has been made by an Independent Hearings Commissioner.  This recommendation has been accepted by New Zealand Transport Agency and the appeal period has closed with no appeals.  It is anticipated that works on the realignment will commence in the next 12 months.

 

Resource Management Changes

157   On 18 October, the latest Resource Management Act 1991 amendments will come into effect.  The changes introduce a number of new regulations including, 10 day consent processing for some applications, waivers for minor or temporary breaches in rules and a process to get quick authority to breach side yard setbacks.  A number of new forms and procedures have been established to manage the implantation of these changes.

Rakiura Heritage Centre

158   Resource consent was granted on 25 July, for the Rakiura Heritage Centre on Stewart Island.

Animal Control

 

Dog Attacks

159   The team is doing some work around dog attack information.  Currently all reported dog bites are recorded as “attacks”.  The team proposes to break down this information into a more useful format, e.g. differentiating bites from attacks, identifying whether the victim was a person, dog, etc.  This work will also tie into the new Levels of Service outcome measure, where it is proposed to have a Level of Service of the number of dog attacks on people in a public place – moderate and serious.

 

Dog Safety Workshop

160   Southland District Council has organised a dog safety workshop for 9 October, to be hosted at the Civic Theatre.  Southland District Council invited the Gore and Invercargill Councils to participate and so it is now a region wide promotion.  Officers from a number of organisations including the Southern District Health Board, some posties, and the Ministry for Vulnerable Children will be attending.

 

 

Environmental Health

 

Winton Air Quality

161   Council has completed a survey of Winton residents concerning air quality, at the request of the Community Board.  211 responses were received, giving a margin of error of +/- 6%.  The survey showed that 73% of the population support action to reduce smoke pollution.  The following are the most important issues arising from this survey:

 

162    •        the burning of only dry wood (burner permitting) would have a significant effect on smoke pollution in the town.

 

163    •        upgrading insulation, or installing new insulation, has the potential to make many homes significantly warmer (and more energy efficient = less smoke).

 

164    •        there are hot spots that require attention.

 

165   A further report on this issue will be presented to the Board on 9 October 2017, and it is expected that the Board will request some actions from both ES and SDC.

 

Freedom Camping in the Catlins

166   Staff attended a meeting at the Tokanui Tavern concerning freedom camping.  There were various agencies there including Department of Conservation, Clutha District Council, and Venture Southland.  One outcome of the meeting was a discussion about the merits of a new shared freedom camping patrol service; similar to the one in Te Anau. Clutha District Council, Department of Conservation and Southland District Council representatives at the meeting, all agreed that this should be explored further, and a meeting will be held between the three officers in early October.

 

Building Control

167   The Building Department is enjoying an unexpected high level of activity so far in 2017.  The value of consented building work for the year to date remains higher than expected and is reflective of the levels seen prior to 2014.  The Department continues to reduce the number of outstanding building consents.  The distribution of building work throughout the district has established a pattern with Winton, Riverton and Te Anau being the areas of high activity.  Council continues to receive a high number of building consent applications, but with the better use of dashboards, staff are better able to manage peaks and flows. 

 

 

Earthquake-prone Buildings

168   As required by the 2016 regulations, Building Control staff have drafted new policies to deal with dangerous and insanitary buildings.  Council had a joint Earthquake-prone Buildings, Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy.  These need to be separated out now, as there is a national Earthquake-prone Buildings Policy.  The new policies have been aligned with the approach taken by Invercargill City Council and Gore District Council.  This approach is in line with our shared services policy- where possible Councils will align our procedures across all four Councils.  The implementation of the Earthquake-Prone Building Regulations is a substantial portion of Council’s Territorial Authority functions for the 2017-2022 years along with the obligations under the Building (Pools) Amendment Act 2016.  The recent events in Italy and Mexico highlight how important this work is for the safety of our communities.

 

People and Capability

169   Health and Safety continues to be a focus with work progressing well on the 2016/17 plan.  There are five key focus areas including completing the implementation of the Health and Safety Framework, critical risk, health and safety participation, incident management and measuring and monitoring.

170   Work continues on managing the identified critical risks.  The new risk and management procedure outlines how Council will identify and manage its critical risks, including the development of control plans and assessment against the effectiveness of these controls. 

171   One of the critical risks is driving.  As part of this review a new Motor Vehicle Policy has been adopted for Council staff.  The policy has a strong focus on ensuring that health and safety is a predominant factor, including specification of minimum safety requirements for vehicles and postponing or delaying travel in adverse conditions.  The aim is to encourage people to be bold and to actively think about their own and others safety and wellbeing, so that we deliver safe and effective services to our community and that everyone gets home safe and well.

172   Two new Leaders within the Customer Support Team started at Council in October;
Paula Woods and Jodi Findlay.  Both Paula and Jodi have extensive leadership and customer service experience.

173   Our Group Manager of Services and Assets, Ian Marshall has signalled that he will be retiring at the end of 2018.  To ensure a smooth transition process a succession plan has been developed that will see us begin a recruitment process for the Group Manager Services and Assets role in mid-October. Mr Marshall will remain in the position until a replacement is here to takeover, which is likely to be early in 2018.  He will then move into a role managing specific strategic projects under the Chief Executive’s direction.  This approach will ensure that there is a smooth handover process and give time for the Group Manager to ‘get their feet under the table’.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Management Report” dated 10 October 2017.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.  

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

Colac Foreshore Road Erosion - Level of Service

Record No:             R/17/10/24357

Author:                      Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

Approved by:         Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s decision on the on-going level of service to be provided by the Colac Foreshore Road.  In particular the management of the section of the road eroded by the action of the sea and the effect of closing a section of the road are the key issues.

Executive Summary

2        The Colac Foreshore Road has been subject to coastal erosion for many years.  Rock protection has been in place to prevent erosion along part of the road for many years.  The existing protection is along a section of the road adjacent to developed properties.

3        The western end of the protection has been seriously affected by erosion and the road at this point is now closed.  Discussions have been held with the community about the situation and the options for managing the problem in the future.  There is strong desire in the local community for the road to be reinstated and to remain open.

4        Reports have been obtained from NIWA and MWH Stantec.  These present information on coastal processes and engineering options respectively.

5        The option recommended is to carry out some remedial and modification work at the existing south western end of the rock protection where the erosion has occurred,  to not reinstate the road, to have a permanent road closure, to obtain resource consent to carry out the work and continue to maintain the existing rock wall erosion protection infrastructure.

6        Funding for the work will be from the existing roading budgets.   

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Colac Foreshore Road Erosion - Level of Service” dated 11 October 2017.

 

b)           Determines that this matter or decision be recognised 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)           Notes that the assumption is this work (option 2) will be subsidised by NZTA and the work will be funded from existing roading budgets.

 

e)            Resolves to implement option two of this report which involves reinstatement of the previous rock protection, replace the rock protection to the extent that existed in 2015 with an improved design so as to make it more resilient and reduce the risk of erosion extending westwards beyond the existing extent, and permanent closure of a section of the Colac Foreshore Road.

 

Background

7        Colac Bay is a coastal community located just west of Riverton in Southland District.
The township is positioned at the west end of Colac Bay. Colac Foreshore Road is located immediately adjacent to the beach and runs both east and west of Colac Bay Road. Colac Bay Road connects State Highway 99 with the beach.

8        The west end of Colac Foreshore Road is a cul-de-sac providing access to the residential and holiday properties and a marae. The east end connects back to State Highway 99. The road is constructed immediately adjacent to the beach, but is not considered to extend into the coastal marine zone. Land behind the road in many places lies below the level of road.

9        Coastal erosion has been an ongoing issue at Colac Bay since the 1930s. In late 2015
Colac Foreshore Road was permanently closed due to the loss of approximately half of the road as a result of coastal erosion.

10      The following is taken from Section 3 of the attached MWH Stantec report (Attachment A):

11      “A comprehensive report entitled Coastal Erosion at Colac Bay, Southland was prepared for Environment Southland and Southland District Council by NIWA (Attachment B) dated July 2015. Rather than replicating the content of this report it is suggested that it should be read in conjunction with this text.

12      Of particular interest the report included the following:

·              an explanation of the physical processes contributing to the ongoing erosion

·              immediate, interim and long term mitigation options

·              the identification of an ‘erosion hotspot’ comprising a 900 metre length of eroding coastline at the transition between the natural foreshore and the engineered foreshore at the eastern extent of the rock revetment.

·              a commentary on the potential impact of sea level rise due to climate change highlighted

o    all fixed coastal protection structures will provide a reduced level of [future] protection as sea level rises.

o    the destructive effects of future storms are likely to be more severe and occur more frequently.

13      The NIWA report concluded:

‘The present erosion issue at Colac Bay is a consequence of natural shoreline fluctuations exacerbated by human intervention. There are no simple long-term options to protect the access route along Colac Foreshore Road without incurring some construction cost or some adverse environmental effect.

Ultimately, the long-term coastal management approach is most likely going to need to involve the “managed retreat” option through road realignment or closure”.

 

Issues

14      There are a number of issues relevant to the coastal erosion and the future management of the Colac Foreshore Road.  This report focuses on the management of the eroded section of the road and the long term consequences of the strategy adopted.    

15      The issues include the effect to the community, the effect to businesses, resource consent requirements, ongoing maintenance requirements, protection of the existing rock wall, and priority protection to private property at the village, affordability and safety.

16      The effect on the businesses is the issue that raised the strongest emotional responses from members of the community.  Comments were made that since the road has been closed the number of visitors to the town has dropped significantly.  This could be true if a high percentage of the visitors entered at the south end of the Colac Foreshore Road and upon finding the road is no exit they then drove back to the state highway and subsequently avoided the village all together.  Any one coming south on the state highway would logically enter the village via the intersection at the north end.  There are no statistics to support the debate.

17      Resource consent issues are relevant because of the wide variation of effects from the options.  On the one had the consenting issues are about regularising what has gone on for many years.  On the other hand the consent requirements for an extension of rock armouring to at or about the surf beach will be extensive.  Environment Southland have indicated extensive supporting evidence will be required to support and application for works of this extent.  This would include oceanographic evidence that assessed the potential for changes to the beach break.

18      Whatever the extent of the rock protection at Colac Bay it will require ongoing maintenance.  The quantum of that maintenance to a large degree is dependent on the weather and the sea level.  It follows that the greater the length of wall there is the greater will be the maintenance requirements.

19      The majority of the existing rock protection is adjacent to the land that has been built on. 
The protection to the coast and the road, by default is protecting the land and the buildings on that land.  The original intent and priority was protection of the road.  This section of road is adjacent to the developed properties.  Extending the protection as proposed in options three or four will mean a significant length of the wall is just protecting the road.

20      The capital cost of options varies widely.  Option Two is estimated to cost $200,000. 
Options three and four $700,000 and $800,000 respectively.  This is the estimated capital cost of the options.  The cost to ratepayers would be less for option two because the work would be subsidised by NZTA whereas the options three and four would not.   

21      In the presentations and discussion with the community officers of the Council have consistently stated that the priority area where effort should be focused is the area adjacent to the village.  This is the area where the rock wall is protecting the road which in turn is protecting the houses, the businesses and the marae.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

22      The primary legal requirement relevant here is the Local Government Act 2002.  Section 10 of the Act states the purpose:

“10 Purpose of local government

(1)      The purpose of local government is—

(a)      to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and

(b)      to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local          infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions           in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

(2)      In this Act, good-quality, in relation to local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions, means infrastructure, services, and performance that are—

(a)      efficient; and

(b)      effective; and

(c)      appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances…”

 

23      This purpose has to be applied in a holistic way across the District.  The aspects of efficiency, effectiveness and appropriate should be considered in that global perspective as opposed to the micro or local community perspective.

24      The impact of the initial cost and ongoing maintenance across all District ratepayers has to be factored into the decision making.  

Liability

25      On the argument of non-feasance the Council has no liability to adjoining property owners on account of water eroding first through the Council land and then causing loss or damage to neighbouring private land.  The liability is less clear if the Council has taken action to protect its assets and others rely on that work to protect their assets.  From that perspective constructing more rock wall increases the Councils liability.

Community Views

26      Meetings have been held with the community groups to discuss the situation.  A public meeting was held in the Colac Bay Hall on 2 October 2014. This was well attended by the public. 
About 100 people attended.

27      A meeting was held with the members of the CDA and representatives of a Colac foreshore erosion group that had been setup to focus on this issue.  This meeting was in the Takutai
o Te Tītī Marae in September 2015.  This meeting discussed the NIWA report.  The need for an engineering report assessing the options was discussed.  This initiated the MWH Stantec report. 

28      A second meeting was held in the Takutai o Te Tītī Marae in August 2017.  Once again representatives of the CDA and the Erosion Committee attended.  The primary discussion document was the MWH Stantec report.

29      The feedback from all the meetings has been a strong local desire for the Council to keep the Colac Foreshore Road open.  There is strong belief that the road provides high amenity value and helps attract visitors to the populated or town end of the bay.   

30      There was acknowledgement that the Colac Foreshore Road is not essential to access the community because the State Highway (99) only a few hundred metres away fulfils that function.  It was noted though that the intersection with the SH99 is not ideal and has some increased risk due to visibility constraints.  This intersection is the responsibility of NZTA.  They have been made aware of the concerns.

31      There was also acknowledgement that the surf break at the other end of the Colac Foreshore Road is an asset in that it attracts the surfing fraternity.  It is considered one of the important assets of the bay.

Costs and Funding

32      Table 1 - Comparison of Cost shows the estimated one-off costs for the options considered. These estimates include professional services scaled to match the solutions (where resource consents maybe required the estimates have not included for hearing costs should these be required).

33      Table 1 - Comparison of Cost

Option Description Cost

Option 1

Do Nothing

$4,000

Option 2

Reinstatement

$200,000

Option 3

Managed Retreat

$700,000

Option 4

Hold the Line

$825,000

 

34      Funding any of the options has to come from the current roading budgets.  Depending on the option chosen the work will either be subsidised by NZTA or it will not.  In other words some of the options will not be able to attract NZTA subsidy and so would require 100% local or ratepayer funding.

35      Ongoing maintenance will also be a roading responsibility in conjunction with the local community (CDA).  Maintenance to protect the road will be a straightforward roading issue but should the CDA which to enhance the asset in anyway then the funding for that would be the local communities responsibility.  To clarify though the asset, the rock retaining wall, is an asset that is part of the roading assets.

Policy Implications

36      The major policy document relevant to this issue is the Southland District Council’s Roads and Footpaths Asset Management Plan.  Section 1.2 of that plan states:

37      The primary objective of the Roads and Footpaths activity is:

To provide an interconnected and integrated transport network which allows individuals and communities to access their business and private destinations in a safe, responsive and sustainable manner.

38      The most relevant part of this objective isaccess their business and private destinations in a safe, responsive and sustainable manner.”

39      The Colac Foreshore Road is connected at either end to SH99.  So access to properties is available via one end of the road or the other.  This does assume that the extent of any road closure is not such a length that an individual property is isolated.  This would not be the case under option 1 or 2 in this report.  The road closure resulting from either of these options would not span across more than one property.

40      That said there is no guarantee about the effect future erosion might have and to a degree this depends on future sea level rise too.  There is also no guarantee that erosion will not effectively remove a section of the road corridor and progress into the privately owned land behind the road.

41      The Council does not have a formal policy in coastal erosion protection.  The practice has been to be take a minimalist approach to protection works and to be quite clear that works are undertaken to protect Council infrastructure not to protect private property.

42      Examples of previous coastal erosion are Papatotara Coast Road, Ringaringa Road and Cosy Nook.  In these examples only the Cosy Nook situation involved installing protection work.  That work qualified for NZTA subsidy primarily because there was no alternative access to private properties.

Analysis

Options Considered

43        The options are described in the MWH Stantec report.  There is an extensive analysis of the options using a multi-criteria analysis in section 11 of the report.  The options are titled:

·              Option 1:  Do Nothing

·              Option 2:  Reinstatement

§   Reinstatement of the previous rock protection. Replace the rock protection to the extent that existed in 2015 with an improved design so as to make it more resilient and reduce the risk of erosion extending westwards beyond the existing extent. This option results in the permanent closure of the road.

§   This is the option recommended in this report.

 

 

·              Option 3:  Managed Retreat

§   Permanent realignment of Colac Foreshore Road inland through the former gravel pit with the existing road embankment planted with vegetation.

§   This is the option recommended in the MWH Stantec report.  However that assessment was based on the benefits that would be gained from this option. 
It did not balance the cost of the options against those benefits nor did it consider the options from a value for money perspective.

·              Option 4:  Hold the line

§   Reinstatement of the road and extend the protection.

Analysis of Options

44      Option 1 - Do Nothing

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Minimal cost. $4,000.

·        No further work.

·        No improvement in erosion protection at all.

·        The existing rock protection remains vulnerable to further damage.

·        Erosion will continue in both directions.

·        Permanent road closure.

 

Option 2 – Reinstatement

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Lowest capital cost of the options that involve some construction. $200,000.

·        Can be funded from existing roading budgets.

·        Will qualify for NZTA subsidy.

·        Adds protection to the existing rock protection.

·        Protects the existing investment.

·        Lower ongoing maintenance cost.

·        Higher chance of gaining resource consent for works.

·        Less disruption to coastal area.

·        Permanent road closure.

·        No protection offered to the existing road at the surf beach end.

·        No protection to the adjoining land.

·        Permanent road closure.

 

 

45     Option 3 - Managed Retreat

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Allows the road to be reopened.

·        Offers protection to some of the adjoining vacant land.

·        Higher capital cost. $700,000.

·        No NZTA subsidy.

·        Requires acquisition of land.

·        Extensive increase in protection works to maintain in the future.

·        Extent of rock protection works raises the risk of modification to the surf break.

·        Consent process more complex and will require significant supporting data which will have to be acquired.

·        May impose a greater liability for Council.

 

46     Option 4 –Hold the Line

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Allows the road to be reopened.

·        Offers protection to some of the adjoining vacant land.

·        Utilises the existing road corridor.

·        Highest capital cost. $825,000.

·        No NZTA subsidy.

·        Extensive increase in protection works to maintain in the future.

·        Extent of rock protection works raises the risk of modification to the surf break.

·        Consent process more complex and will require significant supporting data which will have to be acquired.

·        May impose a greater liability for Council.

 

Assessment of Significance

47      This matter is not considered to be significant in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The issue being considered is what level of service the Council should provide on Colac Foreshore Road and whether a permanent closure of a short section of the road is appropriate.

Recommended Option

48      The recommended option is option 2.  Reinstatement of the previous rock protection.
Replace the rock protection to the extent that existed in 2015 with an improved design so as to make it more resilient and reduce the risk of erosion extending westwards beyond the existing extent. This option results in the permanent closure of the road.

Next Steps

49      Apply for Resource consent.

50      Implement the approved option.

 

Attachments

a             Colac Foreshore Road Assessment- MWH Stantec

b             Coastal Erosion at Colac Bay.  NIWA.    

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

18 October 2017

 

 

Unbudgeted Expenditure Report - Enhancements to Council's Forecasting System

Record No:             R/17/10/24164

Author:                      Robert Tweedie, Management Accountant

Approved by:         Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        To approve unbudgeted expenditure for the completion of the development of a forecasting module within Council’s in-house budgeting system to allow for the 2017-2018 forecasting to be undertaken.

Executive Summary

2        This is the third year that forecasting has been undertaken. Forecasting is undertaken to project the year end result against either the Annual Plan or Long Term Plan.

3        Currently recording of the forecasting projections is made within a specially built in-house system designed within “Silverstripe” (the system).  It was supported by a staff member who has since left Council’s employment. 

4        The current system has issues that are hampering the efficiency of the process, this is only increasing with each additional round of forecasting.  The key issues are 

(a)        Actual expenditure is only updated when the system is rolled to the next forecast period.  This is often referred to by managers in establishing the projected forecast.

(b)        New business units and account codes created in Councils financial package do not get created in the system resulting in work arounds having to be done.

(c)        While the user interface has columns for October and February forecasting, the data analysis tool is only designed to add all periods together which makes it time consuming to identify forecasting changes for each forecasting round.

(d)        There isn’t an automatically upload function into Fulcrum, which is where the forecasting needs to be to be reported in the monthly Council report.  The manual upload of data takes time to action and is subject to transfer errors.

 

5        Council’s IT team are no longer able to support the current system, leading to a review of options.  The key option identified was to complete the forecasting module which was in development within Council’s inbuilt budgeting system (Fulcrum).  This had been put on hold when the developer left Councils employment.  Council may remember that the employee has since been employed by Datacom who have made changes to the budgeting module within Fulcrum recently. 

6        After working through the system options and requirements for forecasting, Council staff are recommending that an enhancement be made to the current Fulcrum system and that this work be completed by Datacom.

 

Recommendation

a)                  That the Council:

(a)          Receives the report titled “Unbudgeted Expenditure Report - Enhancements to Council's Forecasting System” dated 11 October 2017.

(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)          Approves unbudgeted expenditure of $41,719 (excl. GST which includes a 15% contingency if required) for the development of enhancements to Council’s in house built forecasting system to be funded from the District Operating Reserve or savings within the business unit.

(e)          Approves entering into a preferred supplier contract with Datacom for the service delivery of scoped enhancements to the forecasting module within Councils budgeting system.

(f)        Delegate authority to the Chief Financial Officer to sign a service contract with Datacom. 

 

Content

Background

7        This is the third year that forecasting has been undertaken. Forecasting is undertaken to project the year end result against either the Annual Plan or Long Term Plan.

8        Currently recording of the forecasting projections is made within a specially built in-house system designed within “silverstripe” (the system).  It was supported by a staff member who has since left Council’s employment. 

9        The current system has issues that are hampering the efficiency of the process, this is only increasing with each additional round of forecasting.  The key issues are 

(a)        Actual expenditure is only updated when the system is rolled to the next forecast period.  This is often referred to by managers in establishing the projected forecast.

(b)        New business units and account codes created in Councils financial package do not get created in the system resulting in work arounds having to be done.

(c)        While the user interface has columns for October and February forecasting, the data analysis tool is only designed to add all periods together which makes it time consuming to identify forecasting changes for each forecasting round.

(d)        There isn’t an automatically upload function into Fulcrum, which is where the forecasting needs to be to be reported in the monthly Council report.  The manual upload of data takes time to action and is subject to transfer errors.

 

10      Council’s IT team is no longer able to support the current system, leading to a review of options.  The key option identified was to complete the forecasting module which was in development within Council’s inbuilt budgeting system (Fulcrum).  This had been put on hold when the developer left Councils employment.  Council may remember that the employee has since been employed by Datacom who have made changes to the budgeting module within Fulcrum recently. 

11      It has been identified that the forecasting module in development within Fulcrum is integrated with the budgeting module and Councils financial package.  Part of the enhancements requested to complete the development involves the automatic updating of actual results.  Councils IT team will incorporate the separate fields for the October and February forecasting figures into Councils existing data analysis tool.

12      After working through the system options and requirements for forecasting, Council staff are recommending that an enhancement be made to the current Fulcrum system and that this work be completed by Datacom.

13      Datacom are experienced with the Council’s Fulcrum budgeting system, having made enhancements to it recently.  Additionally, as noted above, the architect of Council’s Fulcrum system is employed by Datacom. 

What is being proposed?

14      The scope of the project is in four parts

(a)     To modify the system by making the changes which staff have identified. This work will be undertaken by Datacom.

(b)     To work with Council IT staff to connect the forecasting module for testing and deployment and link Excel pivot tables to the database to extract forecasting information.

(c)     To customise the system for staff to access the appropriate business units and forecast periods

(d)     Deploy the system for forecasting to staff.

Issues

15      Forecasting is undertaken after the October and February month ends. The second round being significantly more thorough when staff have a better indication of the year end result. Analysing the data requires manual intervention in the current application.   

16      An improvement in the existing forecasting programme and process is needed to improve the functionality, reduce the processing time and mitigate the risk of the currently unsupported system. 

17      The current system does not populate the necessary general ledger account, actual values nor provide adequate reporting without extensive analysis of the data for the defined forecasting periods.

Risks

18      Cost/Time Overruns – it can be difficult to forecast the amount of time involved with undertaking software enhancements. There is a risk that when you start to make adjustments it will require more time than expected. By using Datacom, it doesn’t change this however their previous experience reduces the risk. 

19      Resourcing - the proposed changes are the enhancements identified by staff to get a working system.  A commitment of resource is required from both the finance team and the IT team. 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

20      There are no legal or statutory requirements in regards to this issue.

Community Views

21      This has no direct impact on the community other than to ensure that the financial information in regards to Council’s forecasting against budgets are robustly forecast.

Costs and Funding

22      Based on the scoping undertaken, Datacom have estimated the cost at $41,719 (excl. GST).  Including a contingency of 15%.

23      It is proposed to fund these works from Council’s District operating reserve or from savings within the fiancé team budget.

Policy Implications

24      Council’s Procurement Policy states that generally procurement decisions over $20,000 will be made on the basis of a competitive tender.  It does however state that Council may consider alternative methods where it can be demonstrated to provide a better outcome in the long run (Procurement Policy 7.3).

25      Given the experience Datacom now has with the Fulcrum system, it is anticipated that this will enable the process to be undertaken more efficiently than obtaining the services of any other developer.

26      It is based on this that Council staff are recommending that the procurement of services for the enhancements be not by competitive tender but with the preferred supplier, Datacom.

Analysis

Options Considered

27      In considering how best to deliver the collection of financial data for forecasting, the following options were considered.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - Contract Datacom to undertake the necessary development enhancements to the forecasting module within Council’s Fulcrum system

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Staff know the current system so there is a time saving from training in any other option.

·        The developer of the system works for Datacom so his knowledge and assistance to the wider Datacom team potentially lessens the risk of an enhancement to our in-house built system.

 

·        There is a risk that the enhancements are more complicated than anticipated and the timelines and/or cost exceed the current estimate.

·        The review of IT systems may result in the purchase of a new forecasting application.  It is most likely that any change would not occur for a few years given the time to review options and implement.

 

Option 2 - Continue to use the existing system

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Considerable time saving for staff in not having to test the enhancements or creation of financial analysis tools

·        Staff have to continue to make work arounds to use the system

·        It is unsupported

·        A lot of manual intervention is needed to get the data into applications from which reporting is done and to undertake data analysis.

Option 3 - Use another option for storage of the necessary financial data

Options considered here were the use of Excel or the purchase of an “off the shelf” package

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        In using Excel, existing in house knowledge could be used.

·        In purchasing an off the shelf package, enhancements would be part of the annual cost.

·        Using Excel would be risky as the size of the file would be prone to crashing and the opportunity for human error in creating and maintaining would be high

·        At this late stage the purchase of any system would involve considerable time, from investigation of options to installing, setup and training.  It is possible that any system purchased may be replaced as part of the core systems review.

·        Council may not get the same functionality with a purchased system, as it would not integrate into the existing system.

 

Assessment of Significance

28      This is not significant in terms of Council’s Significance Policy.

Recommended Option

29      Council Staff recommend Option 1, Contract Datacom to undertake the necessary development enhancements to the forecasting module within Council’s Fulcrum system

Next Steps

30      Advise Datacom of the outcome of Council’s decision.

31      If the decision is to proceed, further scope the project with Datacom, ensuring that what is being proposed, how it will be undertaken, when it will be undertaken and the resourcing required is appropriate. 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.  

  


Council

18 October 2017

 

 

Financial Report for the month ended 31 August 2017

Record No:             R/17/10/24032

Author:                      Robert Tweedie, Management Accountant

Approved by:         Anne Robson, Chief Financial Officer

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

  

 

Background

1.         This report outlines the financial results for the two months to the 31 August 2017 or 16.67% of the financial year.

2.         The Monthly and YTD Actual results are compared to the Full Year Budget (Projection) in the attached Summary Monthly Financial Report.  The projection values include any 2016/2017 carried forward items approved by Council in September 2017 and any changes which will occur as a result of October 2017 and February 2018 forecasting that Council approved. The 2017/2018 Annual Plan budget is shown in the Monthly Financial Summary Report as the Full Year Budget (Budget).

Overview

3.         The Summary Monthly Financial Report consolidates the business units within each of the key areas of the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) responsibility.  The following commentary focuses on the year to date (YTD) results excluding GST.

4.         The Detailed Monthly Financial Report includes more detailed explanations and commentary on variances by the Executive Leadership Team.  Commentary generally focuses on the year to date (YTD) results and, where specified, monthly results. 

5.         In the Council Summary and Detailed Reports, the values in the columns for:

·              The Monthly Budget is phased, where appropriate, and includes forecasting.

·              The YTD Budget is the Annual Plan, carry forwards and forecasting year to date. 

·              The Full Year Budget is the LTP budget for the year.

·              The Full Year Projection is the forecasted year end result

6.         Phasing of budgets occurs in the first 2 months of the financial year, at forecasting and when one-off costs have actually occurred. This should reduce the number of variance explanations due to timing.

7.         Where phasing of budgets has not occurred, one twelfth of annual budgeted cost is used to calculate the monthly budget.

8.         Council staff will continue to refine the format of this report to enhance the financial information reported.  We welcome any feedback or suggestions on further improvements that could be made to this report.

 


 

9.         The Council Summary Report (actuals vs phased and forecast budget) year to date are as follows:

 

Income

10.       Operating Income is $0.4M (3%) under budget year to date ($12.5M actual vs $12.9M budget).

11.       Environmental Services is 9% below budget. This is mainly due to the development activity in the Southland District being relatively subdued.

12.       Services and Assets was over budget due to continued forest harvesting at Dipton during July and into August. This was previously reported as being completed by June 2017 in the prior year’s financial report.

 

13.       Transport and Roading income is below budget year to date.  This is due to the timing of the capital works programme and seasonality of programmed work which is behind the planned schedule and directly affects the level of income from NZTA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating Expenditure

14.       Operating Expenditure is $0.9M (8%) under budget for the year to date ($12.4M actual vs $11.5M budget).

 

15.       Transport costs are currently over budget due to the depreciation adjustment only being processed in June each year. This will be phased in September to only reflect at year end.

 

Capital Expenditure

16.       Capital Expenditure is $3.5M (60%) under budget year to date ($2.4M actual v $5.9M budget).

                       

 

17.       Capital expenditure for Services and Assets is significantly under budget and has not been phased.  Tenders on the Winton Water Main replacement was submitted to the Services and Assets subcommittee during September and Te Anau lateral replacements will commence in October.  Tender requests for the work on the treatment upgrade at Eastern Bush will be requested early in 2018, to ensure that the intended design meets any requirements from the Havelock North inquiry (expected in December).  The majority of construction that was originally expected to occur in 2017/18 will be deferred.  Limited construction has occurred in District Sewerage to the end of August. Winton desludging and Te Anau oxidation pond improvement projects will take place pending on whether the contractor is able to re-establish this year after machinery issues in 2016/17. In addition, deposits have been paid for the Winton and Te Anau waste water pond aerators that have yet to arrive to undertake the capital works. 

18.       Overall roading capital expenditure is $1.94M less than budgeted for the year to date due to seasonality of the programmed works. The roading team have $8M already tendered with a major focus on planning and designing the capital works for 2017/2018 financial year.  The NZTA contract runs over a 3 year period ending June 2018. Work on the Southern Scenic Route has continued into the new financial year and expected to be on target by year end. The overall contract spend anticipated to be on target by year end.

Balance Sheet

19.       Council’s financial position as at 31 August 2017 is detailed below and is for the activities of Council only.  The balance sheet as at 30 June 2016 represents the audited balance sheet for activities of Council and includes SIESA and Venture Southland.

20.       Current Assets (Other Financial Assets) at 30 June 2017 includes cash reserves in Venture and SIESA when the year-end accounts were consolidated.  An additional amount of $8M in term deposits was disclosed under Other Financial Assets. This is in line with reporting standards for deposits with a term of 90 days or more at year end.

 

 

 

21.       At 31 August 2017, Council had $20M invested in seven term deposits ranging from three to six month maturities as follows:

22.       Funds on call are : 

23.       The principal movement in Property, Plant and Equipment is the year to date budgeted depreciation.

24.       The increase in Non-Current Assets (Intangible Assets) is the continued acquisition costs for Council’s digitisation software.

25.       Internal loans are not reported in the audited annual report of Council.

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)         Receives the report titled “Financial Report for the month ended 31 August 2017” dated 11 October 2017.

 

Attachments

a             Council s District Activities Summary Monthly Financial Report - 31 August 2017

b             Council s District Activities Detailed Monthly Financial Report - 31 August 2017    

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


 


Council

18 October 2017

 


 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

 


Council

18 October 2017

 


 


Council

18 October 2017

 



Council

18 October 2017

 


 


Council

18 October 2017

 

Establishing Ward Committees and Creation of a Mayoral Discretionary Fund

Record No:             R/17/10/23815

Author:                      Clare Sullivan, Governance and Democracy Manager

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1.       This report is to propose that a Mayoral Discretionary Fund be created and establish four ward committees that will make recommendations on budgets and rates for the Long Term Plan or Annual Plan.

Executive Summary

Mayoral Discretionary Fund

2.       While the majority of Councils in New Zealand provide for a Mayoral Fund, Southland District Council does not have one.  There is a Southland relief fund but that is shared with Invercargill City and Gore District Councils.

3.       For the most part, these funds consider requests for financial assistance in an emergency or natural disaster.  However, a number of councils also provide a Mayoral Fund for applications from community organisations and individuals seeking support.  A Mayoral Discretionary Fund is seen as a positive mechanism for the Council to support the district.

4.       It is proposed that it would operate on an application/approval process.  The draft policy is attached.  Key aspects of the policy and criteria include:

·        Assist individuals to achieve their potential or for groups to help build communities

·        Contribute towards the cost of an individual or group attending a sporting, cultural or other major event at which they are representing the district, region or nation

·        Assist with the development and implementation of a local project, scheme or initiative

·        Respond to emergency situations.

5.       There would be criteria on the limits that an application can be made for – a maximum amount per application although this could be waived depending on the project or in response to emergency situations.  Applications would not be eligible for funding from another council programme, nor would they be eligible for recurrent funding unless it was for a new project.

6.       Decisions would be made at the discretion of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and a Councillor.  Applications meeting the criteria may not necessarily receive funding.

7.       It is proposed that the amount of the fund be $20,000 per year and included in the Council’s annual operational budget.

Ward committees

8.       Councillors from four wards have been meeting informally to discuss budgets within their wards.  It is considered appropriate to establish ward committees for the Mararoa Waimea, Winton Wallacetown, Waiau Aparima and Waihopai Toetoes wards to recommend to the Council rates and budgets for the Long Term and Annual Plan process.  These committees would meet annually.

9.       It is proposed that this process is formalised through the establishment of four ward committees established under clause 30, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.  Following adoption each year of the Long Term Plan or Annual Plan, an application/approval process forward funds will be used similar to that proposed for the Mayoral fund.  This would include details of how the funding is to be used and the benefits delivered.  AS there is no ward rate for Stewart Island it is not proposed that there would be a ward committee established. 

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Establishing Ward Committees and Creation of a Mayoral Discretionary Fund ” dated 6 October 2017.

 

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)           Creates a Mayoral Discretionary Fund with an annual amount of $20,000.  Note this is unbudgeted for the 2017/2018 year.

 

e)            Adopts the  draft Mayoral Discretionary Fund Policy as attached.  

 

f)             Appoints four ward committees – Mararoa Waimea, Winton Wallacetown, Waiau Aparima and Waihopai Toetoes – under clause 30, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

g)           Confirms the composition of the ward committees for the 2016-2019 to be:

 

i)         Mararoa Waimea – Crs Ebel Kremer, John Douglas and Brian Dillon

 

ii)        Winton Wallacetown- Crs Gavin Macpherson, Neil Paterson and Darren Frazer

 

iii)       Waiau Aparima – Crs Stuart Baird, Nick Perham and George Harpur

 

iv)       Waihopai Toetoes – Crs Julie Keast and Paul Duffy.

 

h)           Notes that the Mayor is a member of all committees.

 

i)             Delegates authority to review ward budgets as part of the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan and make recommendations to the Council.

 

j)             Delegates authority to the four ward committees to approve expenditure for locally-funded activities up to a maximum of $5,000 per annum per individual councillor

 

k)            Delegates authority to make recommendations to the Council on unbudgeted ward funds.

 

l)             Agree that the Ward Committees will appoint a chair for each separate Committee.

 

m)          Agree that the Mayor will chair any combined meetings of Ward Committees.

 

 

Background

10.     The creation of a mayoral discretionary fund provides a mechanism for the Council to respond to requests for assistance that arise from either an emergency situation or to support organisations or individuals in either instances of hardship or attend a sporting cultural or other major event or to help build communities.  It provides a district wide approach.

11.     The Council previously established ward committees in 2014 that also comprised members from Community Boards and Community Development Area subcommittees in the ward.     

Issues

12.     Currently Community boards and community development area subcommittees receive a financial report that details spending for the area each year and a report that sets local budgets for the Long Term Plan and proposes rates for forthcoming year.  It is appropriate for the wards where there is a ward rate and ward projects that ward committees are established for the Councillors to consider this.  

13.     In addition the ward committees will consider requests through a similar application/approval process to the mayoral discretionary fund.  The application will include how the money will be used, and the benefits that will be delivered, for example a clear public benefit.  Neither the ward rate nor the mayoral discretionary fund can be used for waiving Council fees.

14.     A ward committee is not proposed for Stewart Island as there is no ward rate.  

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

15.     Clause 30, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out the council’s power to appoint committees, subcommittees and other subordinate decision-making bodies.  Establishing the committees provides transparency and accountability.

Community Views

16.     This is appropriate as a result of the current governance structure.

Costs and Funding

17.     There is no additional cost to appoint the ward committees.  The $5,000 amount per 11 ward councillors is met from existing budgets.  The $20,000 budget for the Mayoral Discretionary Fund is unbudgeted.

Policy Implications

18.     Criteria for the Mayoral Discretionary Fund and the Ward budgets is set out in Appendix A

Analysis

Options Considered

19.     There are two options available – to establish a mayoral discretionary fund and ward committees or not.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Establish Mayoral Discretionary Fund and four ward committees

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Mayoral Fund

·        Positive mechanism for supporting the people of Southland

·        Respond to emergency situations

·        Ward committees

·        Transparency and accountability

·        Ability to make decisions and recommendations to Council

Additional processes and meetings. 

 

Option 2 – Not have a Mayoral Discretionary Fund and have informal ward groups

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Informality

·        No requirements for reporting

·        Lack of support for people and groups in district

·        No formal record keeping

·        Lack of clarity re role of informal groups 

 

Assessment of Significance

20.     Not significant but provides a clarity around procedure

Recommended Option

21.     Option one is the recommended option

Next Steps

22.     If approved application forms will be available for both processes.  The ward committees will become part of the Council governance structure.  Terms of reference will be drafted for consideration.  The committees (if established) will meet shortly after to make recommendations to the Council on the Long Term Plan.

 

Attachments

a             Mayoral Discretionary Fund Policy 

b             Ward Committee Fund Policy     

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

MAYORAL DISCRETIONARY FUND POLICY

 

 

 

1.   To provide discretionary small donations for community members, organisations and individuals seeking financial support.

2.   To consider requests for financial assistance that are of an emergency assistance nature.

3.   To provide the Mayor and Councillors with clear conditions and limitations for the use of the Mayoral Discretionary Fund.

4.   To set out the application and approval process for use of the fund.

5.   To set out the criteria against which applications will be assessed

 

Criteria

1.   The Fund is generally to be used for the following purposes:

·    Assist an individual towards achieving their potential or for groups to help build communities

·    Contribute towards the cost of an individual or group attending a sporting, cultural or other major event at which they are representing the district, region or nation

·    (if more than two individuals attending the same event funding will go to the organising group)

·    Assist with the development and implementation of a local project scheme or initiative.

 

2.   Generally the maximum amount that will be allocated per donation will be $500.  However, applications for significant projects (above this amount) may be considered on their merit.

3.   The fund may not be used for waiving Council fees.

4.   Retrospective applications may be considered.

5.   Any donation will be at the discretion of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and a Councillor and subject to availability of funds.  Applications meeting the criteria may not necessarily receive a donation.

6.   If the organisation/person has applied to other organisations for funding, the list of organisations that have received requests for funding should be included in the application letter.

7.   Requests for recurrent funding will not be considered.  However, applicants may apply for funding over successive years

8.   The fund is not to be used for any purpose to assist a political party or for fundraising of a political nature.

9.   Generally, grants will only be made to assist groups or individuals who live or are based in Southland District.  Exceptions would be those that are of an emergency nature involving visitors to the District or to make a grant to another territorial authority in the event of a natural disaster.

 

Application process

·    All applications for assistance from the Fund are to be in writing, addressed to and received by the Mayor.

·    Applications must specify the purpose the funds are to be used for and how the community or individual will benefit from the funds being allocated.

·    The Mayor in consultation with the Deputy Mayor and a Councillor may approve funding applications which meet the stated criteria.

·    Except for emergencies, no funding assistance will be considered during the three month pre-election period of the local authority elections.

·    If an application is agreed to the Chief Executive will authorise the payment.

·    A report which includes details of recipients and amounts granted will be circulated to Council on a quarterly basis.

·    Funding will be GST inclusive if the recipient is GST registered.

·    A letter written addressed to the mayor must include:

a.   Name of person/organisation seeking the grant;

b.   Contact details (postal address, phone number and/or email address);

c.   Purpose of the grant

d.   Amount sought and whether GST inclusive or exclusive;

e.   Two references testifying to the bona fide of the requesting person/organisation, as well as the need/justification for the donation

f.    List of other organisations who have received the same request for funding if applicable.

g.   Details of whom the payment is to be made to including a pre-paid bank deposit slip.

 

Conditions of receiving a mayoral grant

 

          Council provides these grants on the grounds that:

                   Provide a receipt for the amount of funding received.

Are willing to acknowledge Council’s contribution at your event or in written documentation

Funds are utilised for the sole purpose for which they were granted

Write to the Council at the conclusion of your event/programme to indicate the outcome including relevant photographs and media clippings

Any unused funds are to be returned.

 

Finance

·    The fund is to be established initially in the amount of $20,000 and will be reviewed after two years.

·    The fund is to be included as a recurring item in Council’s annual operational budget.

·    This budget is not to be exceeded without a resolution of Council

 

Note: the Application process may be waived if financial assistance is of an emergency nature. 

   


Council

18 October 2017

 

WARD COMMITTEE LOCALLY FUNDED ACTIVITIES FUND POLICY

 

Criteria

1.   The fund is generally to be used for assisting with the development and implementation of a local project, scheme, or initiative.

2.   The fund is $5,000 per annum per Councillor from the Mararoa Waimea, Waiau Aparima, Winton Wallacetown and Waihopai Toetoes wards. 

3.   The fund may not be used for waiving Council fees.

4.   The project request must demonstrate the clear public benefit for the ward.

5.   Any request will be at the discretion of the Ward Councillors for the particular ward and the Mayor.

6.   If the organisation/person has applied to other organisations for funding, the list of organisations that have received requests for funding should be included in the application letter.

7.   Requests for recurrent funding will not be considered.  However, applicants may apply for funding over successive years

8.   The fund is not to be used for any purpose to assist a political party or for fundraising of a political nature.

9.   Projects will only be granted for the particular ward.  

Application process

·    All applications for assistance from the Fund are to be in writing, or via email, addressed to and received by the CPL, CE or CA – not sure who.

·    Applications must specify the purpose the funds are to be used for and the public benefit to the community of interest in the ward from the funds being allocated.

·    The Ward Councillors and the Mayor may approve funding applications which meet the stated criteria.

·    Except for emergencies, no funding assistance will be considered during the three month pre-election period of the local authority elections.

·    If an application is agreed to the Chief Executive will authorise the payment.

·    Funding will be GST inclusive if the recipient is GST registered.

·    A letter written addressed to the mayor must include:

a.   Name of person/organisation seeking the grant;

b.   Contact details (postal address, phone number and/or email address);

c.   Purpose of the grant

d.   Amount sought and whether GST inclusive or exclusive;

e.   Two references testifying to the bona fide of the requesting person/organisation, as well as the need/justification for the donation unless the request is from a Community Board or CDA

f.    List of other organisations who have received the same request for funding if applicable.

g.   Details of whom the payment is to be made to including a pre-paid bank deposit slip.

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

 

Māori Representation Option

Record No:        R/17/9/22944

Author:                 Clare Sullivan, Governance and Democracy Manager

Approved by:       Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                             Recommendation                        Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of the report is to provide the Council with information on the establishment of a Māori ward and obtain a decision as to whether or not the Council wishes to establish a Māori ward.

 

Executive Summary

2.       The establishment of Māori wards is provided for in the Local Electoral Act 2001 (the Act).  Any Council, provided it has the required number in the Māori electoral population in a district may qualify for a Māori ward.  Southland District area would qualify for one ward.  Should the Council wish to establish a Māori ward, a resolution by the Council must be made before 23 November 2017, in order for this to be in place for the 2019 elections.

3.       Council officers have consulted with Te Ao Marama regarding its views about establishing a Māori ward.  This matter was discussed at a hui at Hokonui Runaka in September 2017.  While initial verbal indications from Te Ao Marama representatives indicated that it is happy with the current arrangements, no formal notification has been received at time of writing as Te Ao Marama requested some further time to consider the issue in detail and liaise with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu.  

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)         Receives the report titled “Māori Representation Option” dated 8 October 2017.

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)         Agrees to take no action to establish a Māori ward as part of the representation arrangements for Southland District.

 

 

Content

Background

4.       Consideration of Māori wards in local government arises through obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.  There is formal recognition of the Treaty in the Local Government Act 2002: section 4 recognises that it is the Crown that is the Treaty partner, and places an obligation on local government to maintain and improve opportunities for Māori to contribute to local government decision-making.    

5.       The history to the provision of Māori wards in the Local Electoral Act explains the rationale behind its inclusion.  The Local Electoral Act and the Local Government Act were reformed in 2001 and 2002, with both pieces of legislation including new acknowledgements of Māori.

6.       The Local Electoral Act 2001 was amended in 2002 to include the provisions for Māori wards.  These provisions were modelled on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Māori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001.  The Bay of Plenty legislation came from a local bill promoted by the Regional Council which was concerned that, although there was a high percentage of Māori in its area, Māori were not being elected to the Council through the majority-based electoral system.  The provisions in the local Act were mirrored in the Local Electoral Act 2001.  

1.          

Issues

7.       The Local Electoral Act provides for:

·    A council may resolve to establish Māori wards

·    Five percent of all electors may petition for a referendum of all electors

·    Alternatively a council may initiate a poll to be held

·    The electors of a Māori ward are those on the Māori electoral roll who cannot vote for any other ward positions

·    Once elected, a member elected by a Māori ward is under the same obligation as all Council members to act in the best interests of the district.

8.       A resolution must be made by 23 November 2017 for it to take effect at the 2019 elections (if not overturned by a poll).  If the Council resolves to establish a Māori ward it must give public notice of this and the right of five percent of electors to demand a poll by 30 November 2017.

9.       On current statistics and with a total council of 12 members plus the Mayor, Southland District Council would be entitled to one councillor elected from a Māori ward. There would be 11 general members.  The calculation is based on a formula set out in the Act (Māori electoral population divided by the total electoral population multiplied by the number of elected members).  The current estimate of the total population is 30,900, the Māori electoral population is 1,700.  The calculation comes to 0.66 which is rounded up to one member and therefore, one ward. There would be one Māori ward member if the total number of members was between 10-12, but if the total number of members dropped to nine or below, then there would be no Māori ward member.

10.     The electors of a Māori ward would be those on the Māori electoral roll.

11.     A petition of five percent of electors requires approximately 993 signatures.  Costs for a stand-alone referendum or poll would be approximately $20,000 which is not budgeted for.   The result of any poll held is binding for two triennial elections.

12.     Council can resolve to hold a poll of electors on this matter at any time, but for the outcome of the poll to be effective for the 2019 (and 2022) triennial elections, it must make such a resolution to hold a poll by 21 February 2018.  This is also the date by which any demand for a poll by five percent of electors of the District must be received if the result of these actions is to be effective for the 2019 and 2022 elections.  

13.     Eight councils have passed resolutions seeking to establish Māori wards/constituencies and most have been subject to a petition for a poll.   Of those, two have resulted in establishing Māori wards – Waikato Regional Council (by resolution, no poll held) and Wairoa District Council (by poll held in 2016).

14.     Southland District Council last considered this issue in 2011 and resolved not to establish a Māori ward.  There was no request at that time from Māori within Southland for the establishment of such ward.

15.     Council has signed a Charter of Understanding with Te Ao Marama who represent Te Runaka O Awarua, Hokonui Runanga, Oraka/Aparima Runaka and Waihopai Runaka.  Collectively they hold mana whenua over all ancestral lands in Murihuku.  Te Ao Marama has agreed to assist Southland District Council (and the other Southern local authorities) through Te Roopu Taiao on their wider responsibilities under the Local Government Act 2002 with regard to all Māori, including those who do not whakapapa to Ngai Tahu.

16.     A representative also joins the council in its hearing of submissions on the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan. 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

17.     These are set out in paragraphs seven and eight.

Community Views

18.     Refer to paragraph three. 

Costs and Funding

19.     If a poll was held there would be a cost to Council which is not budgeted for.

Policy Implications

20.     There are no policy implications other than those noted above.

 

Analysis

Options Considered

21.     There are three options available to the Council.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Not establish a Māori Ward

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Current relationship with Te Ao Marama is understood to work well

·        Not providing a guarantee of Māori representation for the district.

 

Option 2 – Hold a poll on whether or not a Māori ward should be established

Advantages 

Disadvantages

·        All people in the District would have the opportunity to have their say.

·        Poll would be costly.  Majority of previous polls show a decision in the negative.

 

Option 3 – Establish a Māori ward 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Guarantee of Māori electors represented. 

·        Likelihood of a poll request on decision made which may overturn decision to establish.

 

Assessment of Significance

22.     This decision is not seen as significant in terms of the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

Recommended Option

23.     Option 1. Not establish a Māori ward.

Next Steps

24.     If the Council resolves not to establish a Māori ward no further action or public notice is required.  

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

Schedule of Meetings for 2018

Record No:             R/17/10/24134

Author:                      Clare Sullivan, Governance and Democracy Manager

Approved by:         Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Purpose

1        The purpose of the report is to approve a schedule of meeting dates for 2018 so that meetings can be publicly notified in accordance with the requirements set by the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Executive Summary

2        The adoption of a meeting schedule allows for reasonable public notice preparation and planning for meeting agendas.  The act details the requirements for public notification of meetings.

3        The meeting schedule details dates for Council, Regulatory and Consents Committee, Services and Assets Committee, Community and Policy Committee and the Finance and Audit Committee   It also lists hearing dates for submissions on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan and the Representation Review. 

 

Recommendation

That the Council:

a)            Receives the report titled “Schedule of Meetings for 2018” dated 9 October 2017.

 

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)           Adopts to the schedule of Council and Committee meetings for 2018 as follows:

 

Wednesday 7 February

9am – Services and Assets

1pm – Community and Policy

Thursday 8 February

9am – Regulatory and Consents

Wednesday 21 February

9am - Council

Tuesday 27 February

9am – Council – Long Term Plan

Wednesday 14 March

9am – Services and Assets

1pm – Community and Policy

Thursday 15 March

9am – Regulatory and Consents

Monday 26 March

1pm – Finance and Audit

Tuesday 27 March

9am – Council

Wednesday 18 April

9am – Council – Hear submissions on LTP

Thursday 19 April

9am – Hear submissions on LTP

Friday 20 April

9am – Council – Representation Review

Wednesday 2 May

9am – Council Long Term Plan

Wednesday 9 May

9am – Services and Assets

1pm – Community and Policy

Thursday 10 May

9am – Regulatory and Consents

Wednesday 16 May

9am - Council

Tuesday 12 June

9am – Finance and Audit

1pm – Regulatory and Consents

 

Wednesday 13 June

9am - Services and Assets

1pm – Community and Policy

Monday 18 June

9am – Council – Hear submissions on Representation Review

Tuesday 19 June

9am – Council – Hear submissions on Representation Review

Wednesday 20 June

9am – Council Long Term Plan

Wednesday 11 July

9am – Council Representation Review

Wednesday 25 July

9am – Regulatory and Consents

Thursday 26 July

9am – Services and Assets

1pm – Community and Policy

Wednesday 8 August

9am - Council

Wednesday 5 September

9am – Services and Assets

1pm – Community and Policy

Thursday 6 September 

9am – Regulatory and Consents

Wednesday 19 September

9am - Council

Tuesday 25 September

9am – Council – Annual Report

Wednesday 17 October 

9am – Services and Assets

1pm – Community and Policy

Thursday 18 October 

9am – Regulatory and Consents

Thursday 1 November

9am - Council

Wednesday 28 November

9am – Regulatory and Consents

Thursday 29 November

9am – Services and Assets

1pm – Community and Policy

Thursday 13 December

9am - Council

Friday 14 December

9am – Finance and Audit Committee

 

Background

4        An approved schedule of meeting dates is required so that meetings can be publicly notified in accordance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Issues

5        2018 is a busy year as the Council will be considering both the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan and the Representation Review, both of which will require additional meetings.  The timetable has been designed to allow more time for committee meetings.  The meeting dates for 2019 should be provided at the December Council meeting in order to allow planning.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

6        The legal and statutory requirements for meetings of Council, Committees and Community Boards are set out in the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Community Views

7        Having a meeting schedule adopted enables the community to be aware of Council meetings.  These will be advertised the month prior to the meetings.

Costs and Funding

8        Costs for advertising of the meeting schedule are provided for.

Policy Implications

9        There are no policy implications

Analysis

Options Considered

10      There are two possible options – adopt a meeting schedule or not.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Adopt meeting schedule

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Elected members and the public are aware of the meeting dates for the year to enable sufficient time to plan.

·        The meeting schedule can be amended at a future date if required.

·        Meetings of Community Boards and Community Development Area Subcommittees can be organised once the Council has adopted a schedule.

·        There are no disadvantages

 

Option 2 –

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        There are no advantages

·        Council cannot meet its statutory responsibilities as there would be no meeting schedule.

·        The public would not have an indication of when meetings were scheduled. 

 

Assessment of Significance

11      Not significant as defined in the Significance and Engagement policy.

Recommended Option

12      Option one is the recommended option

Next Steps

13      If the schedule of meetings is adopted officers will advertise meetings each month for 2018 according to the schedule. 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

 

Minutes of the Community and Policy Committee Meeting dated 9 August 2017

Record No:        R/17/9/22912

Author:                 Alyson Hamilton, Committee Advisor

Approved by:       Alyson Hamilton, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Community and Policy Committee meeting held 9 August 2017 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a         Minutes of Community and Policy Committee Meeting dated 9 August 2017 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

Minutes of the Services and Assets Committee Meeting dated 9 August 2017

Record No:             R/17/10/23661

Author:                      Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

Approved by:         Fiona Dunlop, Committee Advisor

 

  Decision                                        Recommendation                                  Information

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Services and Assets Committee meeting held 9 August 2017 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a             Minutes of Services and Assets Committee Meeting dated 9 August 2017 (separately enclosed)

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

 

Minutes of the Milford Community Trust Meeting dated 19 May 2017

Record No:        R/17/9/22887

Author:                 Jenny Labruyere, Committee Advisor/Customer Support Partner

Approved by:       Rex Capil, Group Manager Community and Futures

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Recommendation

That Council receives the minutes of the Milford Community Trust meeting held 19 May 2017 as information.

 

 

Attachments

a         Minutes of Milford Community Trust Meeting dated 19 May 2017 (separately enclosed)

   

 


Council

18 October 2017

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

C10.1 Code of Conduct

C10.2 Public Excluded Minutes of the Community and Policy Committee Meeting dated 9 August 2017

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

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

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

Code of Conduct

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

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

That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists.

Public Excluded Minutes of the Community and Policy Committee Meeting dated 9 August 2017

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

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

That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists.

 

 

    



[1] Guidance for members of local authorities about the law on conflicts of interest, Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, October 2010.