Agenda of Council - 1 August 2016

Council

MINUTES

Unconfirmed minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin on Monday 27 June 2016, commencing at 1.03 pm

PRESENT

Mayor	Mayor Dave Cull
Deputy Mayor	Cr Chris Staynes
Members	Cr David Benson-Pope	Cr John Bezett
	Cr Hilary Calvert	Cr Doug Hall
	Cr Aaron Hawkins	Cr Mike Lord
	Cr Jinty MacTavish	Cr Andrew Noone
	Cr Neville Peat	Cr Richard Thomson
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Andrew Whiley
	Cr Kate Wilson

IN ATTENDANCE

Sue Bidrose (Chief Executive Officer), Ruth Stokes (General Manager Infrastructure and Networks), Simon Pickford (General Manager Services and Development), Grant McKenzie (Group Chief Financial Officer), Sandy Graham (Group Manager Corporate Services), Kristy Rusher (Manager Civic and Legal), Jane Nevill (Corporate Planner), Carolyn Allan (Senior Management Accountant), Nicola Pinfold (Group Manager Community and Planning), Graham Crombie (Chairman, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd), Tami Sargeant (Policy Analyst), Maria Ioannou (Corporate Policy Manager), Maria Sleeman (Leasing Officer), Karilyn Canton (In-House Legal Counsel), Jendi Paterson (Recreation Planning and Facilities Manager), Richard Saunders (Group Manager Parks and Recreation), Ros MacGill (Environmental Health/Animal Services Manager), Adrian Blair (Group Manager Customer and Regulatory Services), Rachel Brooking (Anderson Lloyd), Peter Hanlin (Senior Animal Control Officer), Tanya Morrison (Environmental Health Officer) and Jamie Shaw (Senior Communications Advisor)

Governance Support Officer Pam Jordan

1 Opening

Venerable Lhagon Tulku and Venerable Geshe Dhonyoe, Dhargyey Buddhist Centre, opened the meeting with a prayer.

2 Public Forum

2.1 Warrington Freedom Camping Petition

Rhys Owen presented a petition of 248 signatures calling for non-self-contained freedom camping at Warrington Domain to be banned. A meeting had been held at Warrington where people indicated that they were unhappy with freedom camping and decided to launch a petition. Those who had signed the petition would like a bylaw amendment to make Warrington available for self-contained camping only. Mr Owen circulated documents containing the petition, written complaints, concerns from the New Zealand Sea Lion Trust, concerns from camping ground owners, comments from the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association, and photos of campers using the Warrington Domain over summer 2015/16.

Mr Owen advised that people signing the petition wanted to relocate campers. There was community opposition to overwhelming numbers of campers. It was considered that non-self-contained campers should be redirected to campgrounds. A bylaw amendment needed to be in place before the summer.

Mr Owen responded to questions from Councillors, advising that the great majority of vehicles using the Domain were not self-contained, local people were concerned about the loss of their sports ground and hygiene issues, that the group had spoken to the Community Board previously, and the Council had a permit system in place for freedom camping that could be used by individuals or school groups.

Cr Thomson entered the meeting at 1.23 pm.

Mr Owen advised that residents did not want a total ban but just wanted to reduce the numbers. Work also needed to be done to the Domain to turn it back into a usable sports area.

2.2 Amendment to the Dog Control Bylaw 2016

Karen Anderson tabled a submission advising that the proposed amendments to the bylaw confirmed the undisclosed removal of previously off-leash areas and obstructed the satisfaction of that legal obligation. The issues she was raising had been raised before submissions closed. The intention to remove off-leash access to tracks and reserves was not disclosed.

Ms Anderson commented that maps that replaced the current bylaw schedules were not disclosed and did not accurately reproduce the schedules in the current bylaw. This was about the democratic process. She did not believe the Council intended to reverse the default position without realising it and after the amount of time spent on the bylaw and consultation process.

Ms Anderson asked the Council not to pass the proposed amendments that confirmed the map that created the undisclosed and legally significant changes, and also confirmed the reversal of the "off-leash unless prohibited" clause. She commented that the core idea behind the maps was fantastic though.

She requested the Council not to make bylaws using undisclosed maps and considered that the maps should be information, not regulation.

2.3 Freedom Camping at Warrington

Gerard Collings (Chairperson) and Alasdair Morrison (Deputy Chairperson), Waikouaiti Coast Community Board spoke on freedom camping at Warrington. They did not want to respond to the petition as they had not seen it. Mr Collings warned against "throwing the baby out with the bath water" as he believed that freedom camping, whether people liked it or not, was a growing part of the tourism industry, and a part that should be embraced. He noted that the Council was looking for alternative sites to take pressure off Warrington. He advised that there was no defined sports field at the recreation ground at Warrington. There might be a need to adjust things so there was a better co-existence between campers and locals.

Mr Morrison reported that Community Board members who lived locally had spent a lot of time looking at the problem and spending time with staff. There were problems with toilets and inadequate signage when people arrived late at night. Signage had also been needed at the domain and the roads leading to it. The signage issues had now been resolved. Visitors had also been spoken to and signage in French and German regarding water restrictions etc had been installed. Things had been reasonably under control in recent months.

In response to a suggestion that the petition be referred to the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board Mr Collings advised that he would like the community to have full knowledge of this and it could be considered at the August meeting after staff comment had been received.

3 Apologies

There were no apologies.

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda with the following additions or alterations:

· Item 25 (Amendments to the Dog Control Bylaw 2016) now to follow the Minutes of Community Boards; and

· Warrington Freedom Camping Petition to be added as item 28 (in order to deal with the matter raised at the Public Forum).

Motion carried (CNL/2016/050)

5 Declarations of interest

Members were reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arose between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

Cr Mike Lord left the meeting at 1.55 pm.

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Ordinary Council meeting - 23 May 2016

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 23 May 2016 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/051)

6.2 Extraordinary Council meeting - 20 June 2016

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Confirms the minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 20 June 2016 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/052)

Minutes of Committees

7 Planning and Regulatory Committee - 7 June 2016

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Kate Wilson):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-7) and public forum of the minutes of the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting held on 7 June 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/053)

8 Infrastructure Services Committee - 7 June 2016

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Jinty MacTavish):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-12) of the minutes of the Infrastructure Services Committee meeting held on 7 June 2016.

b) Takes Part C items of the minutes of the Infrastructure Services Committee held on Tuesday, 7 June 2016, in the non-public part of the meeting.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/054)

9 Community and Environment Committee - 8 June 2016

Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Neville Peat):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-11) and public forum of the minutes of the Community and Environment Committee meeting held on 8 June 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/055)

10 Finance Committee - 13 June 2016

Moved (Cr Hilary Calvert/Cr Andrew Whiley):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-7) of the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting held on 13 June 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/056)

11 Beauticians, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw - 21 April 2016

Moved (Cr Neville Peat/Cr Doug Hall):

That the Council:

a) Notes the minutes of the Beauticians, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw hearing held on 21 April 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/057)

Cr Mike Lord returned to the meeting at 1.59 pm.

Minutes of Community Boards

12 Waikouaiti Coast Community Board - 25 May 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Doug Hall):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-12) and public forum of the minutes of the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board meeting held on 25 May 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/058)

13 Otago Peninsula Community Board - 26 May 2016

Moved (Cr Neville Peat/Cr Hilary Calvert):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-14) and public forum of the minutes of the Otago Peninsula Community Board meeting held on 26 May 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/059)

14 Strath Taieri Community Board - 26 May 2016

Moved (Cr Mike Lord/Cr Kate Wilson):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-9) of the minutes of the Strath Taieri Community Board meeting held on 26 May 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/060)

15 Mosgiel Taieri Community Board - 31 May 2016

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Mike Lord):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-13) and public forum of the minutes of the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board meeting held on 31 May 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/061)

16 Chalmers Community Board - 1 June 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Doug Hall):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-12) of the minutes of the Chalmers Community Board meeting held on 1 June 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/062)

17 Saddle Hill Community Board - 2 June 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Andrew Noone):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-13) and public forum of the minutes of the Saddle Hill Community Board meeting held on 2 June 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/063)

Reports

25 Amendments to the Dog Control Bylaw 2016
	Cr Andrew Whiley declared an interest and withdrew from the meeting at 2.02 pm. A report from Corporate Services advised that a resolution was required to finalise the maps included in the Dog Control Bylaw ("Bylaw"). It was also recommended that the opportunity be taken to make minor amendments to the Bylaw to improve its clarity.
	Staff responded to questions from Councillors and explained the reason for the proposed amendments.
	Moved (Cr Neville Peat/Cr Mike Lord): That the Council: a) Resolves to amend the Bylaw, as shown in the attachment with the report. b) Notes that the Bylaw includes finalised maps. Motion carried (CNL/2016/064) Cr Andrew Whiley returned to the meeting at 2.25 pm.

18 Adoption of the 2016/17 Annual Plan
	A report from Community and Planning recommended the adoption of the 2016/17 Annual Plan. The report outlined the legislative requirements for development and adoption of the Annual Plan.
	Staff responded to questions from Councillors.
	Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes): That the Council: a) Adopts the 2016/17 Annual Plan b) Authorises the Council's Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Mayor, to make any minor editorial changes resulting from the final quality checks that will occur prior to the final printing of the document. Mayor Cull noted that the Council had now reached the end of the formal Annual Plan process for the year, which continued the shift to more of a future focus, and he considered the Council could be proud of it. He conveyed thanks to staff for their work, to those in the community who contributed and submitted, and to the Council. Motion carried (CNL/2016/065)

19 Setting of Rates for the 2016/17 Financial Year

A report from Finance noted that now the Council had adopted the 2016/17 Annual Plan including the Funding Impact Statement it needed to resolve to set the rates as provided for in the Funding Impact Statement.

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Sets the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing 1 July 2016 and ending on 30 June 2017.

1 General Rate

A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 made on every rating unit, assessed on a differential basis as described below:

· A rate of 0.3159 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "residential" category.

· A rate of 0.3001 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "lifestyle" category.

· A rate of 0.7739 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial" category.

· A rate of 0.7013 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial Strath Taieri" category.

· A rate of 0.5527 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "residential heritage bed and breakfasts" category.

· A rate of 0.2527 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "farmland" category.

· A rate of 0.0647 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on the Forsyth Barr Stadium.

2 Community Services Rate

A targeted rate for community services, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· $227.00 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" categories.

· $227.00 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "commercial, commercial Strath Taieri and Forsyth Barr Stadium" categories.

3 Kerbside Recycling Rate

A targeted rate for kerbside recycling, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· $66.30 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" categories.

· $66.30 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "commercial and commercial Strath Taieri" categories.

4 Drainage Rates

A targeted rate for drainage, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· $482.00 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" categories and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

· $241.00 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" categories and which are "serviceable" by the public sewerage system.

· $482.00 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "commercial, residential institution, schools and Forsyth Barr Stadium" categories and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

· $241.00 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "commercial, residential institution and schools" categories and which are "serviceable" by the public sewerage system.

· $102.25 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "church" category and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

Rating units which are not "connected" to the scheme and which are not "serviceable" will not be liable for this rate. Drainage is a combined targeted rate for sewage disposal and stormwater. Sewage disposal makes up 86.9% of the drainage rate, and stormwater makes up 13.1%. Non-rateable land will not be liable for the stormwater component of the drainage targeted rate. Rates demands for the drainage targeted rate for non-rateable land will therefore be charged at 86.9%.

5 Commercial Drainage Rates – Capital Value

A targeted rate for drainage, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· A rate of 0.2856 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial and residential institution" category and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

· A rate of 0.1428 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial" category and which are "serviceable" by the public sewerage system.

· A rate of 0.2142 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "school" category and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

· A rate of 0.1071 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "school" category and which are "serviceable" by the public sewerage system.

· A rate of 0.0243 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on the Forsyth Barr Stadium.

This rate shall not apply to properties in Karitane, Middlemarch, Seacliff, Waikouaiti and Warrington. This rate shall not apply to churches. Drainage is a combined targeted rate for sewage disposal and stormwater. Sewage disposal makes up 86.9% of the drainage rate, and stormwater makes up 13.1%. Non-rateable land will not be liable for the stormwater component of the drainage targeted rate. Rates demands for the drainage targeted rate for non-rateable land will therefore be charged at 86.9%.

6 Water Rates

A targeted rate for water supply, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· $372.00 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of any "connected" rating unit which receives an ordinary supply of water within the meaning of the Dunedin City Bylaws excepting properties in Karitane, Merton, Rocklands/Pukerangi, Seacliff, Waitati, Warrington, East Taieri, West Taieri and North Taieri.

· $186.00 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of any "serviceable" rating unit to which connection is available to receive an ordinary supply of water within the meaning of the Dunedin City Bylaws excepting properties in Karitane, Merton, Rocklands/Pukerangi, Seacliff, Waitati, Warrington, East Taieri, West Taieri and North Taieri.

· $372.00 (including GST) per unit of water being one cubic metre (viz. 1,000 litres) per day supplied at a constant rate of flow during a full 24 hour period to any "connected" rating unit situated in Karitane, Merton, Seacliff, Waitati, Warrington, West Taieri, East Taieri or North Taieri.

· $186.00 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of any "serviceable" rating unit situated in Waitati, Warrington, West Taieri, East Taieri or North Taieri. This rate shall not apply to the availability of water in Merton, Karitane or Seacliff.

7 Fire Protection Rates

A targeted rate for the provision of a fire protection service, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· A rate of 0.0865 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on all rating units in the "commercial" category. This rate shall not apply to churches.

· A rate of 0.0649 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on all rating units in the "residential institution" category.

· A rate of 0.0097 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on the Forsyth Barr Stadium.

· $111.60 (including GST) for each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit within the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" category that is not receiving an ordinary supply of water within the meaning of the Dunedin City Bylaws.

8 Water Rates – Quantity of Water

A targeted rate for the quantity of water provided to any rating unit fitted with a water meter, being an extraordinary supply of water within the meaning of the Dunedin City Bylaws, set under section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, according to the following scale of charges (GST inclusive):

	Annual Meter Rental Charge
20mm nominal diameter	$144.00
25mm nominal diameter	$184.00
30mm nominal diameter	$205.00
40mm nominal diameter	$232.00
50mm nominal diameter	$470.00
80mm nominal diameter	$581.00
100mm nominal diameter	$613.00
150mm nominal diameter	$881.00
300mm nominal diameter	$1,143.00
Hydrant Standpipe	$569.00
Reconnection Fee	$371.00
Special Reading Fee	$50.00
	Backflow Prevention Charge
Backflow Preventer Test Fee	$91.00
Rescheduled Backflow Preventer Test Fee	$53.00
	Water Charge
Merton, Rocklands, Hindon and individual farm supplied Bulk Raw Water Tariff	$0.11 per cubic metre
Frost Plug Installation	$40.00 per plug
All other treated water per cubic metre	$1.47 per cubic metre
Disconnection of Water Supply	$207.00

Where the supply of a quantity of water is subject to this Quantity of Water Targeted Rate, the rating unit will not be liable for any other targeted rate for the supply of the same water.

9 Allanton Drainage Rate

A targeted rate for the capital contribution towards the Allanton Wastewater Collection System, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of $411.00 (including GST) per rating unit, to every rating unit paying their contribution towards the scheme as a targeted rate over 20 years. Liability for the rate is on the basis of the provision of the service to each rating unit. The Allanton area is shown in the map below:

Allanton_AP map

10 Blanket Bay Drainage Rate

A targeted rate for the capital contribution towards the Blanket Bay Drainage System, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of $636.00 (including GST) per rating unit, to every rating unit paying their contribution towards the scheme as a targeted rate over 20 years. Liability for the rate is on the basis of the provision of the service to each rating unit. The Blanket Bay area is shown in the map below:

Blanket Bay

11 Curles Point Drainage Rate

A targeted rate for the capital contribution towards the Curles Point Drainage System, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of $749.00 (including GST) per rating unit, to every rating unit paying their contribution towards the scheme as a targeted rate over 20 years. Liability for the rate is on the basis of the provision of the service to each rating unit. The Curles Point area is shown in the map below:

12 Private Drainage Warrington Rate

A targeted rate for the rating unit at 26 Bay Road, Warrington, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of $1,517.10 (including GST) to recover the cost of connecting to the public sewer. Liability for the rate is on the basis of the provision of the service to each rating unit.

13 Warm Dunedin Targeted Rate Scheme

A targeted rate for the Warm Dunedin Targeted Rate Scheme, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, per rating unit in the Warm Dunedin Targeted Rate Scheme.

The targeted rate scheme provides a way for homeowners to install insulation and/or clean heating. The targeted rate covers the cost and an annual interest rate. The interest rates have been and will be:

Rates commencing 1 July 2014 8%

Rates commencing 1 July 2015 and 1 July 2016 8.3%

14 Heritage Earthquake Strengthening Targeted Rate Scheme

A targeted rate for the Heritage Earthquake Strengthening Targeted Rate Scheme, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, per rating unit in the Heritage Earthquake Strengthening Targeted Rate Scheme.

The targeted rate scheme provides a way for building owners to make physical seismic improvements to heritage buildings. The targeted rate covers the cost and an annual interest rate. The interest rate will be 8.3%.

15 Private Street Lighting Rate

A targeted rate for the purpose of recovering the cost of private street lights, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· $149.40 (including GST) per private street light divided by the number of separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential and lifestyle" categories in the private streets as identified in the schedule below.

· $149.40 (including GST) per private street light divided by the number of rating units for all rating units in the "commercial" category in the private streets as identified in the schedule below.

1-10	Achilles Avenue	9	Glengarry Court
1	Alton Avenue	10	Glengarry Court
2	Alton Avenue	11	Glengarry Court
2A	Alton Avenue	12	Glengarry Court
3	Alton Avenue	13	Glengarry Court
4	Alton Avenue	14	Glengarry Court
5	Alton Avenue	15	Glengarry Court
6	Alton Avenue	16	Glengarry Court
7	Alton Avenue	17	Glengarry Court
8	Alton Avenue	18	Glengarry Court
9	Alton Avenue	19	Glengarry Court
7	Angle Avenue	20	Glengarry Court
9	Angle Avenue	21	Glengarry Court
11	Angle Avenue	22	Glengarry Court
20	Angle Avenue	23	Glengarry Court
22	Angle Avenue	24	Glengarry Court
24	Angle Avenue	48	Glenross Street
43	Arawa Street	50	Glenross Street
47	Arawa Street	54	Glenross Street
17	Awa Toru Drive	56	Glenross Street
19	Awa Toru Drive	58	Glenross Street
21	Awa Toru Drive	60	Glenross Street
23	Awa Toru Drive	110	Glenross Street
25	Awa Toru Drive	114	Glenross Street
27	Awa Toru Drive	116	Glenross Street
29	Awa Toru Drive	230	Gordon Road
31	Awa Toru Drive	229	Gordon Road
33	Awa Toru Drive	34	Grandview Crescent
35	Awa Toru Drive	10	Halsey Street
37	Awa Toru Drive	1	Hampton Grove
39	Awa Toru Drive	2	Hampton Grove
41	Awa Toru Drive	3	Hampton Grove
43	Awa Toru Drive	4	Hampton Grove
60A	Balmacewen Road	5	Hampton Grove
60B	Balmacewen Road	6	Hampton Grove
62	Balmacewen Road	7	Hampton Grove
64	Balmacewen Road	8	Hampton Grove
1	Balmoral Avenue	9	Hampton Grove
2	Balmoral Avenue	10	Hampton Grove
3	Balmoral Avenue	11	Hampton Grove
4	Balmoral Avenue	12	Hampton Grove
5	Balmoral Avenue	14	Hampton Grove
6	Balmoral Avenue	15	Hampton Grove
7	Balmoral Avenue	16	Hampton Grove
8	Balmoral Avenue	17	Hampton Grove, Mosgiel
9	Balmoral Avenue	18	Hampton Grove, Mosgiel
10	Balmoral Avenue	19	Hampton Grove, Mosgiel
11	Balmoral Avenue	20	Hampton Grove, Mosgiel
12	Balmoral Avenue	21	Hampton Grove, Mosgiel
16	Balmoral Avenue	22	Hampton Grove, Mosgiel
17	Balmoral Avenue	23	Hampton Grove, Mosgiel
19	Barclay Street	24	Hampton Grove, Mosgiel
211	Bay View Road	25	Hampton Grove, Mosgiel
211A	Bay View Road	26	Hampton Grove, Mosgiel
211B	Bay View Road	4	Harold Street
1	Beaufort Street	12	Harold Street
3	Beaufort Street	70a	Hazel Avenue
119	Belford Street	70	Hazel Avenue
12	Bell Crescent	72	Hazel Avenue
14	Bell Crescent	215a	Helensburgh Road
24	Bell Crescent	217a	Helensburgh Road
26	Bell Crescent	217b	Helensburgh Road
7	Bishop Verdon Close	219	Helensburgh Road
9	Bishop Verdon Close	219a	Helensburgh Road
10	Bishop Verdon Close	219b	Helensburgh Road
11	Bishop Verdon Close	221	Helensburgh Road
12	Bishop Verdon Close	223	Helensburgh Road
8	Bonnington Street	49	Highcliff Road
8a	Bonnington Street	49A	Highcliff Road
10	Bonnington Street	51	Highcliff Road
20K	Brighton Road	57	Highcliff Road
20J	Brighton Road	295	Highcliff Road
20H	Brighton Road	297	Highcliff Road
20G	Brighton Road	313	Highcliff Road
20F	Brighton Road	315a	Highcliff Road
20E	Brighton Road	315b	Highcliff Road
20D	Brighton Road	317	Highcliff Road
20C	Brighton Road	16	Highgate
20B	Brighton Road	18	Highgate
20A	Brighton Road	20	Highgate
20	Brighton Road	34a	Highgate
34	Burgess Street	34	Highgate
36	Burgess Street	216	Highgate
38	Burgess Street	218	Highgate
40	Burgess Street	144A	Highgate
42	Burgess Street	144B	Highgate
44	Burgess Street	146	Highgate
46	Burgess Street	146A	Highgate
48	Burgess Street	148	Highgate
50	Burgess Street	9	Kilgour Street
181	Burt Street	11	Kilgour Street
183	Burt Street	15	Kilgour Street
185	Burt Street	20	Kinvig Street
7	Bush Road, Mosgiel	22	Kinvig Street
80	Caldwell Street	2	Koremata Street
82	Caldwell Street	4	Koremata Street
1	Campbell Lane	12	Koremata Street
4	Campbell Lane	3	Lawson Street
5	Campbell Lane	4	Leithton Close
6	Campbell Lane	6	Leithton Close
7	Campbell Lane	9	Leithton Close
8	Campbell Lane	10	Leithton Close
9	Campbell Lane	11	Leithton Close
10	Campbell Lane	14	Leithton Close
11	Campbell Lane	15	Leithton Close
12	Campbell Lane	18	Leithton Close
13	Campbell Lane	19	Leithton Close
14	Campbell Lane	21	Leithton Close
15	Campbell Lane	22	Leithton Close
30	Cardigan Street, North East Valley	23	Leithton Close
32	Cardigan Street, North East Valley	26	Leithton Close
34	Cardigan Street, North East Valley	27	Leithton Close
36	Cardigan Street, North East Valley	28	Leithton Close
22	Centennial Avenue, Fairfield	29	Leithton Close
24	Centennial Avenue, Fairfield	32	Leithton Close
26	Centennial Avenue, Fairfield	33	Leithton Close
28	Centennial Avenue, Fairfield	36	Leithton Close
150	Chapman Street	5	Leven Street
150A	Chapman Street	2	Leyton Terrace
152	Chapman Street	21-67	Lock Street
12	Clearwater Street	23a	London Street
14	Clearwater Street	25	London Street
16	Clearwater Street	1-25	London Street
18	Clearwater Street	2-25	London Street
20	Clearwater Street	3-25	London Street
22	Clearwater Street	8	Lynwood Avenue
24	Clearwater Street	10	Lynwood Avenue
26	Clearwater Street	12c	Lynwood Avenue
28	Clearwater Street	12b	Lynwood Avenue
30	Clearwater Street	12a	Lynwood Avenue
32	Clearwater Street	12	Lynwood Avenue
34	Clearwater Street	14	Lynwood Avenue
36	Clearwater Street	3	McAllister Lane, Mosgiel
22	Cole Street	5	McAllister Lane, Mosgiel
11	Corstorphine Road	7	McAllister Lane, Mosgiel
11A	Corstorphine Road	9	McAllister Lane, Mosgiel
13	Corstorphine Road	11	McAllister Lane, Mosgiel
15	Corstorphine Road	13	McAllister Lane, Mosgiel
17	Corstorphine Road	15	McAllister Lane, Mosgiel
21	Corstorphine Road	17	McAllister Lane, Mosgiel
23	Corstorphine Road	19	McAllister Lane, Mosgiel
25	Corstorphine Road	210	Main South Road, Green Island
11	Craighall Crescent	131	Main South Road, Green Island
15	Craighall Crescent	340	Main South Road, Green Island
1	Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers	380	Main South Road, Green Island
2	Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers	1	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
4	Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers	2	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
6	Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers	3	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
8	Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers	4	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
10	Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers	5	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
12	Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers	6	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
21	Davies Street	7	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
22	Davies Street	8	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
1	Devon Place	9	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
2	Devon Place	10	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
3	Devon Place	11	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
4	Devon Place	12	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
5	Devon Place	13	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
6	Devon Place	14	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
7	Devon Place	15	Mallard Place, Mosgiel
9	Devon Place	11	Malvern Street
10	Devon Place	15	Malvern Street
11	Devon Place	17a	Malvern Street
12	Devon Place	30	Marne Street
13	Devon Place	32	Marne Street
14	Devon Place	42	Marne Street
15	Devon Place	44	Marne Street
16	Devon Place	46	Marne Street
17	Devon Place	48	Marne Street
18	Devon Place	50	Marne Street
19	Devon Place	2	Meldrum Street
20	Devon Place	10	Meldrum Street
139b	Doon Street	33	Melville Street
139a	Doon Street	14	Middleton Road
139	Doon Street	16	Middleton Road
141	Doon Street	18	Middleton Road
143	Doon Street	20	Middleton Road
145	Doon Street	22	Middleton Road
149	Doon Street	24	Middleton Road
151	Doon Street	26	Middleton Road
5	Dorset Street	28	Middleton Road
7	Dorset Street	30	Middleton Road
10	Dorset Street	37	Middleton Road
11	Dorset Street	37a	Middleton Road
12	Dorset Street	39	Middleton Road
14	Dorset Street	43	Middleton Road
16	Dorset Street	47a	Middleton Road
18	Dorset Street	19	Montague Street
20	Dorset Street	21	Montague Street
21	Dorset Street	23	Montague Street
17	Duckworth Street	29	Moray Place
19	Duckworth Street	415	Moray Place
21	Duckworth Street	72	Newington Avenue
35	Duckworth Street	37	Norwood Street
37	Duckworth Street	41	Norwood Street
39	Duckworth Street	39	Pacific Street
39a	Duckworth Street	1	Pembrey Street
41	Duckworth Street	2	Pembrey Street
47	Duckworth Street	3	Pembrey Street
49	Duckworth Street	4	Pembrey Street
53	Duckworth Street	5	Pembrey Street
	Dunedin Airport	6	Pembrey Street
1–31	Eastbourne Street	7	Pembrey Street
2–31	Eastbourne Street	8	Pembrey Street
3–31	Eastbourne Street	10	Pembrey Street
4–31	Eastbourne Street	11	Pembrey Street
5–31	Eastbourne Street	264	Pine Hill Road
6–31	Eastbourne Street	264a	Pine Hill Road
7–31	Eastbourne Street	266B	Pine Hill Road
8–31	Eastbourne Street	266A	Pine Hill Road
9–31	Eastbourne Street	268A	Pine Hill Road
10–31	Eastbourne Street	268B	Pine Hill Road
11–31	Eastbourne Street	270	Pine Hill Road
12–31	Eastbourne Street	272	Pine Hill Road
13–31	Eastbourne Street	274	Pine Hill Road
14–31	Eastbourne Street	278A	Pine Hill Road
15–31	Eastbourne Street	278B	Pine Hill Road
16–31	Eastbourne Street	390	Pine Hill Road
17–31	Eastbourne Street	409	Pine Hill Road
18–31	Eastbourne Street	411	Pine Hill Road
19–31	Eastbourne Street	5	Pinfold Place, Mosgiel
20–31	Eastbourne Street	6	Pinfold Place, Mosgiel
21–31	Eastbourne Street	8	Pinfold Place, Mosgiel
22–31	Eastbourne Street	9	Pinfold Place, Mosgiel
23–31	Eastbourne Street	10	Pinfold Place, Mosgiel
24–31	Eastbourne Street	11	Pinfold Place, Mosgiel
25–31	Eastbourne Street	12	Pinfold Place, Mosgiel
26–31	Eastbourne Street	13	Pinfold Place, Mosgiel
27–31	Eastbourne Street	14	Pinfold Place, Mosgiel
28–31	Eastbourne Street	15	Pinfold Place, Mosgiel
29–31	Eastbourne Street	19	Queen Street
30–31	Eastbourne Street	19A	Queen Street
31–31	Eastbourne Street	223	Ravensbourne Road
32–31	Eastbourne Street	45	Rewa Street
33–31	Eastbourne Street	87	Riselaw Road
34–31	Eastbourne Street	89	Riselaw Road
35–31	Eastbourne Street	89a	Riselaw Road
36–31	Eastbourne Street	91	Riselaw Road
37–31	Eastbourne Street	91a	Riselaw Road
38–31	Eastbourne Street	93	Riselaw Road
39–31	Eastbourne Street	93a	Riselaw Road
40–31	Eastbourne Street	21	Rosebery Street
41–31	Eastbourne Street	16	Selkirk Street
42–31	Eastbourne Street	11	Shand Street, Green Island
43–31	Eastbourne Street	14	Sheen Street
46–31	Eastbourne Street	6	Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel
47–31	Eastbourne Street	8	Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel
50–31	Eastbourne Street	10	Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel
51–31	Eastbourne Street	12	Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel
8	Echovale Avenue	14	Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel
10	Echovale Avenue	16	Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel
12	Echovale Avenue	20	Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel
2	Elbe Street	22	Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel
202	Elgin Road	24	Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel
204	Elgin Road	26	Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel
206	Elgin Road	28	Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel
208	Elgin Road	1-27	St Albans Street
1	Eton Drive	2-27	St Albans Street
4	Eton Drive	3-27	St Albans Street
5	Eton Drive	4-27	St Albans Street
6	Eton Drive	5-27	St Albans Street
7	Eton Drive	6-27	St Albans Street
8	Eton Drive	7-27	St Albans Street
9	Eton Drive	8-27	St Albans Street
10	Eton Drive	9-27	St Albans Street
11	Eton Drive	10-27	St Albans Street
12	Eton Drive	11-27	St Albans Street
13	Eton Drive	12-27	St Albans Street
14	Eton Drive	13-27	St Albans Street
15	Eton Drive	4	Stanley Square
16	Eton Drive	5	Stanley Square
17	Eton Drive	6	Stanley Square
18	Eton Drive	7	Stanley Square
19	Eton Drive	8	Stanley Square
20	Eton Drive	9	Stanley Square
2	Everton Road	10	Stanley Square
3	Everton Road	11	Stanley Square
4	Everton Road	12	Stanley Square
64	Every Street	365	Stuart Street
66	Every Street	367	Stuart Street
68	Every Street	367a	Stuart Street
70	Every Street	55	Sunbury Street
76	Every Street	57	Sunbury Street
7	Fern Road, Ravensbourne	59	Sunbury Street
9	Fern Road, Ravensbourne	59a	Sunbury Street
11	Fern Road, Ravensbourne	19	Sunshine Lane
13	Fern Road, Ravensbourne	21	Sunshine Lane
15	Fern Road, Ravensbourne	23	Sunshine Lane
17	Fern Road, Ravensbourne	25	Sunshine Lane
19	Fern Road, Ravensbourne	27	Sunshine Lane
21	Fern Road, Ravensbourne	67	Tahuna Road
19	Ferntree Drive	67A	Tahuna Road
21	Ferntree Drive	67B	Tahuna Road
23	Ferntree Drive	69	Tahuna Road
25	Ferntree Drive	69A	Tahuna Road
45	Forfar Street	69B	Tahuna Road
47	Forfar Street	69C	Tahuna Road
47a	Forfar Street	1	Taupo Lane
49	Forfar Street	2	Taupo Street
51	Forfar Street	1	Thomas Square
53	Forfar Street	2	Thomas Square
53a	Forfar Street	3	Thomas Square
1–80	Formby Street	4	Thomas Square
5–80	Formby Street	5	Thomas Square
6–80	Formby Street	6	Thomas Square
7–80	Formby Street	7	Thomas Square
8–80	Formby Street	8	Thomas Square
10–80	Formby Street	9	Thomas Square
14–80	Formby Street	4A	Totara Street, Ravensbourne
15–80	Formby Street	85A	Victoria Road
16–80	Formby Street	85B	Victoria Road
17–80	Formby Street	85C	Victoria Road
18–80	Formby Street	85D	Victoria Road
19–80	Formby Street	85G	Victoria Road
20–80	Formby Street	85H	Victoria Road
248	George Street	85I	Victoria Road
558	George Street	85J	Victoria Road
150A	Gladstone Road North	85K	Victoria Road
150B	Gladstone Road North	85L	Victoria Road
150C	Gladstone Road North	85M	Victoria Road
150D	Gladstone Road North	85N	Victoria Road
150E	Gladstone Road North	85O	Victoria Road
152B	Gladstone Road North	85P	Victoria Road
152C	Gladstone Road North	85Q	Victoria Road
152D	Gladstone Road North	85R	Victoria Road
152E	Gladstone Road North	146	Victoria Road
154A	Gladstone Road North	44	Waimea Avenue
214	Gladstone Road North	46	Waimea Avenue
216	Gladstone Road North	48	Waimea Avenue
218	Gladstone Road North	50	Waimea Avenue
220	Gladstone Road North	58/60	Waimea Avenue
222	Gladstone Road North	62/64	Waimea Avenue
224	Gladstone Road North	16	Warwick Street
226	Gladstone Road North	18	Warwick Street
228	Gladstone Road North	23	Warwick Street
230	Gladstone Road North	1	Wenlock Square
232	Gladstone Road North	2	Wenlock Square
234	Gladstone Road North	3	Wenlock Square
39	Glenbrook Drive, Mosgiel	4	Wenlock Square
41	Glenbrook Drive, Mosgiel	5	Wenlock Square
45	Glenbrook Drive, Mosgiel	6	Wenlock Square
47	Glenbrook Drive, Mosgiel	7	Wenlock Square
49	Glenbrook Drive, Mosgiel	8	Wenlock Square
57	Glenbrook Drive, Mosgiel	9	Wenlock Square
1	Glenfinnan Place	10	Wenlock Square
3	Glenfinnan Place	11	Wenlock Square
4	Glenfinnan Place	12	Wenlock Square
4A	Glenfinnan Place	14	Wenlock Square
5	Glenfinnan Place	15	Wenlock Square
6	Glenfinnan Place	17	Wenlock Square
7	Glenfinnan Place	18	Wenlock Square
8A	Glenfinnan Place	19	Wenlock Square
8B	Glenfinnan Place	20	Wenlock Square
9A	Glenfinnan Place	21	Wenlock Square
9B	Glenfinnan Place	33	Wickliffe Street
10A	Glenfinnan Place	19	Woodside Terrace
10B	Glenfinnan Place	20	Woodside Terrace
1	Glengarry Court	22	Woodside Terrace
2	Glengarry Court	23	Woodside Terrace
3	Glengarry Court	24	Woodside Terrace
4	Glengarry Court	25	Woodside Terrace
5	Glengarry Court	25a	Woodside Terrace
6	Glengarry Court	26	Woodside Terrace
7	Glengarry Court	27	Woodside Terrace

16 Tourism/Economic Development Rate

A targeted rate for Tourism/Economic Development, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

· 0.0154 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial" category.

· 0.0132 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial Strath Taieri" category.

· 0.0014 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on the Forsyth Barr Stadium.

Differential Matters and Categories

b) Adopt the following differential categories for the 2016/17 financial year.

The differential categories are determined in accordance with the Council's land use codes. The Council's land use codes are based on the land use codes set under the Rating Valuation Rules 2008 and are set out in Attachment A. In addition, the Council has established categories for residential institutions, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, the Forsyth Barr Stadium, churches, and schools.

1 Differentials Based on Land Use

The Council uses this matter to:

· Differentiate the general rate.

· Differentiate the community services rate.

· Differentiate the private street lighting rate.

· Differentiate the fire protection rate.

· Differentiate the kerbside recycling rate.

· Differentiate the Tourism/Economic Development rate.

The differential categories based on land use are:

· Residential – includes all rating units used for residential purposes including single residential, multi unit residential, multi-use residential, residential special accommodation, residential communal residence dependant on other use, residential bach/cribs, residential carparking and residential vacant land.

· Residential Heritage Bed and Breakfasts – includes all rating units meeting the following description:

· Bed and breakfast establishment; and

· Classified as commercial for rating purposes due to the number of bedrooms (greater than four); and

· Either:

· the majority of the establishment is at least 80 years old, or

· the establishment has Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Registration, or

· the establishment is a Dunedin City Council Protected Heritage Building as identified in the District Plan; and

· The bed and breakfast owner lives at the facility.

· Lifestyle – includes all rating units with Council's land use codes 2, 20, 21, 22 and 29.

· Commercial Strath Taieri – includes all rating units not otherwise categorised as Residential, Residential Heritage Bed and Breakfasts, Lifestyle, or Farmland in the Strath Taieri area.

· Commercial – includes all rating units with land uses not otherwise categorised as Residential, Residential Heritage Bed and Breakfasts, Lifestyle, Commercial Strath Taieri, Farmland or Forsyth Barr Stadium.

· Farmland - includes all rating units used solely or principally for agricultural or horticultural or pastoral purposes.

· Forsyth Barr Stadium – this includes land at 130 Anzac Avenue, Dunedin, Assessment 4024687, Valuation reference 27190-01402-A.

2 Differentials Based on Land Use and Provision or Availability of Service

The Council uses these matters to differentiate the drainage rate and the commercial drainage rate.

The differential categories based on land use are:

· Residential – includes all rating units used for residential purposes including single residential, multi-unit residential, multi-use residential, residential special accommodation, residential communal residence dependant on other use, residential bach/cribs, residential carparking and residential vacant land.

· Residential Heritage Bread and Breakfasts – includes all rating units meeting the following description:

· Bed and breakfast establishment; and

· Classified as commercial for rating purposes due to the number of bedrooms (greater than four); and

· Either:

· the majority of the establishment is at least 80 years old or

· the establishment has Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Registration or

· the establishment is a Dunedin City Council Protected Heritage Building as identified in the District Plan; and

· The bed and breakfast owner lives at the facility.

· Lifestyle - includes all rating units with Council's land use codes 2, 20, 21, 22 and 29.

· Farmland - includes all rating units used solely or principally for agricultural or horticultural or pastoral purposes.

· Commercial – includes all rating units with land uses not otherwise categorised as Residential, Residential Heritage Bed and Breakfasts, Lifestyle, Farmland, Residential Institutions, Forsyth Barr Stadium, Churches or Schools.

· Forsyth Barr Stadium – this includes land at 130 Anzac Avenue, Dunedin, Assessment 4024687, Valuation reference 27190-01402-A.

· Residential Institutions - includes only rating units with the Council's land use codes 95 and 96.

· Churches – includes all rating units used for places of religious worship.

· Schools - includes only rating units used for schools that do not operate for profit.

The differential categories based on provision or availability of service are:

· Connected – any rating unit that is connected to a public sewerage drain.

· Serviceable – any rating unit that is not connected to a public sewerage drain but is capable of being connected to the sewerage system (being a property situated within 30 metres of a public drain).

3 Differentials Based on Provision or Availability of Service

The Council uses this matter to differentiate the water rates.

The differential categories based on provision or availability of service are:

· Connected – any rating unit that is supplied by the water supply system.

· Serviceable – any rating unit that is not supplied but is capable of being supplied by the water supply system (being a rating unit situated within 100 metres of the nearest water supply).

Minimum Rates

c) Approves that where the total amount of rates payable in respect of any rating unit is less than $5.00 including GST, the rates payable in respect of the rating unit shall be such amount as the Council determines but not exceeding $5.00 including GST.

Low Value Rating Units

d) Approves that rating units with a capital value of $3,500 or less will only be charged the general rate.

Land Use Codes

e) Approves that the land use codes attached to this report are adopted as the Council's land use codes for the purpose of the rating method.

Separately Used or Inhabited Part of a Rating Unit

f) Adopts the following definition of a separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit:

"A separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit includes any portion inhabited or used by the owner/a person other than the owner, and who has the right to use or inhabit that portion by virtue of a tenancy, lease, licence, or other agreement.

This definition includes separately used parts, whether or not actually occupied at any particular time, which are provided by the owner for rental (or other form of occupation) on an occasional or long term basis by someone other than the owner.

For the purpose of this definition, vacant land and vacant premises offered or intended for use or habitation by a person other than the owner and usually used as such are defined as 'used'.

For the avoidance of doubt, a rating unit that has a single use or occupation is treated as having one separately used or inhabited part."

Lump Sum Contributions

g) Approves that no lump sum contributions will be sought for any targeted rate.

Rating by Instalments

h) Approves the following schedule of rates to be collected by the Council, payable by four instalments.

The City is divided into four areas based on Valuation Roll Numbers, as set out below:

Area 1	Area 2	Area 3	Area 3 continued
Valuation Roll Numbers:
26700	26990	26500	27550
26710	27000	26520	27560
26760	27050	26530	27600
26770	27060	26541	27610
26850	27070	26550	27760
26860	27080	26580	27770
26950	27150	26590	27780
26960	27350	26620	27790
26970	27360	26640	27811
26980	27370	26651	27821
27160	27380	26750	27822
27170	27500	26780	27823
27180	27510	27250	27831
27190	27520	27260	27841
27200	27851	27270	27871
	27861	27280	27911
	27880	27450	27921
	27890	27460	27931
	27901	27470	27941
	28000
	28010
	28020

Area 4 comprises ratepayers with multiple assessments who pay on a schedule.

Due Dates for Payment of Rates

i) Approves the due dates for all rates with the exception of water rates, which are charged based on water meter consumption, will be payable in four instalments due on the dates below:

	Area 1	Area 2	Area 3	Area 4
Instalment 1	26/08/16	02/09/16	16/09/16	02/09/16
Instalment 2	04/11/16	18/11/16	02/12/16	18/11/16
Instalment 3	03/02/17	17/02/17	24/02/17	17/02/17
Instalment 4	19/05/17	02/06/17	09/06/17	02/06/17

Water meter invoices are sent separately from other rates at intervals depending on the quantity of water consumed.

Penalties

j) Resolves to charge the following penalties on unpaid rates:

1 A charge of 10% will be added to the amount of any instalment remaining unpaid the day after the instalment due date set out above.

2 Where a ratepayer has not paid the first instalment by the due date of that instalment, and has paid the total rates and charges in respect of the rating unit for the 2016/17 rating year by the due date of the second instalment the 10% additional charge shall be remitted.

3 An additional charge of 10% shall be added to rates, including additional charges, which have been levied in any previous financial year and which remain unpaid on 1 October 2016.

4 An additional charge of 10% shall be added to rates for any previous financial year, including additional charges, to which an additional charge has been added under Paragraph (3) and which remain unpaid on 1 April 2017.

Assessing and Recovering Rates

k) Approves that the Chief Executive Officer, Group Chief Financial Officer, Financial Controller and Rates and Revenue Team Leader be authorised to take all necessary steps to assess and recover the above rates.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/066)

20 Statements of Intent for Dunedin City Holdings Limited and its Subsidiaries and Associate Companies
	A report from Corporate Services appended the Statements of Intent from Dunedin City Holdings Limited (DCHL) and its subsidiaries and associate companies and noted that the companies were required by law to prepare a Statement of Intent on an annual basis.
	The Group Chief Financial Officer and Chairman of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd responded to question from Councillors. Cr Aaron Hawkins left the meeting at 3.00 pm and returned at 3.01 pm during the course of discussion.
	Moved (Cr John Bezett/Cr Mike Lord): That the Council: a) Notes the Statements of Intent for the Dunedin City Holdings Limited subsidiaries and associate companies, approved by Dunedin City Holdings Limited at its meeting on 2 June 2016. b) Approves the Statement of Intent for Dunedin City Holdings Ltd, that was approved by the Dunedin City Holdings Limited Board meeting on 2 June 2016, with the addition of the words "… and so far as practicable using best practice standardised reporting measures and templates where possible", to the first Objective in section 8. Motion carried (CNL/2016/067)

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/068)

The meeting adjourned from 3.29 pm to 3.47 pm.

21 Change to the Constitution of Dunedin City Holdings Limited
	A report from Corporate Services sought the Council's approval to update the Constitution of Dunedin City Holdings Limited. The new Constitution reflected current legislation and made changes to the term of appointment for Directors. At present there was no maximum term and it was proposed that Directors would retire after three consecutive, three year terms. At this time other changes had also been made to the Constitution which were highlighted in Attachment D of the report.
	The following amendments to the draft Constitution were suggested during the course of discussion: · 8.1 - to be removed · 10.1 – to be revised · 11.2 – now to end: "… following shareholder approval" · 11.7 – to be removed.
	Moved (Cr Lee Vandervis/Cr Mike Lord): That the Council: a) Refers the new draft Constitution, reflecting the change in the term of Directors to the Board of Dunedin City Holdings Limited on behalf of the Council as shareholder, for discussion with DCHL and to be returned to Council for final approval. Motion carried (CNL/2016/069)

22 Te Ao Turoa - proposed governance structure
	A report from Community and Planning provided two governance options for the Council's consideration for the delivery of Te Ao Tūroa – Our Natural World: Dunedin's Environment Strategy.
	Staff responded to questions from Councillors. Amendments to the Terms of Reference were suggested during the course of discussion.
	Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Aaron Hawkins): That the Council: a) Approves the establishment of Te Ao Tūroa Steering Group (comprising Dunedin City Council and external representatives as per paragraph 8 a-f of the report). b) Approves the draft Terms of Reference with the changes suggested for the proposed Te Ao Tūroa Steering Group appended to the report. *Terms of Reference Changes* 1 End of last paragraph in section 2.0 to be: "The work programme will reflect the strategy's priorities." 2 Section 3.0, second part to be replaced with: "Partnership members can appoint up to 5 additional members to be selected from public expressions of interest with appointees selected by the partnership members according to a skills statute designed to ensure the diversity of sector skills/experience/community representation needed to successful delivery of the goals within the strategy are at the table, with due regard to see representatives from business, community conservation groups, youth and rural sector." c) Nominates Cr Jinty MacTavish to be the elected representative and Chair of the Te Ao Tūroa Steering Group. Motion carried (CNL/2016/070)

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/071)

The meeting adjourned from 4.30 pm to 4.39 pm.

23 Town Belt - Mornington Park proposed Lease to the Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust

A report from Parks and Recreation and Corporate Services recommended the approval of an application by the Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust to lease part of Mornington Park situated in Dunedin's Town Belt. The Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust was seeking to develop a facility to promote its broader objective of reinstating the High Street cable car line. The location of the lease was a site that was as close as practicably possible to the former High Street cable car route. While the proposed lease was taken on its own merits and for a specific term only, this proposal was seen as stage one of the Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust's bigger project which was to ultimately re-create the actual route of the High Street cable car line.

Moved (Cr John Bezett/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Approves as the administering body of the reserve and on behalf of the Minister of Conservation under Instrument of Delegation dated 12 June 2013, the granting of a lease in terms of section 54 (1) (a) of the Reserves Act 1977 to the Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust over part of the land situated in the Dunedin Town Belt at Mornington Park, Eglinton Road, Mornington, Dunedin being 72m² more or less being situated in the City of Dunedin part Town Belt of Dunedin and Section 1 Town Belt Town of Dunedin, part Computer Freehold Register OT19C/115.

b) Notes that as a public notification process was undertaken with twenty submissions received in favour and one submission received against the proposal, the requirement to publicly notify the intention to grant the lease has been satisfied.

c) Authorises the Group Manager, Parks and Recreation to finalise the details of the lease with the Trust, and give or withhold any consents that may be sought under the lease (including the exact construction and design details).

Motion carried (CNL/2016/072)

24 Amended Proposed Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw 2016

A report from Regulatory Services appended the amended proposed Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw 2016 for adoption. A hearing panel made up of Councillors Peat (Chair), Lord, Hall and Whiley considered all submissions and had recommended some minor changes to the proposed Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw.

Moved (Cr Neville Peat/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Approves and adopts the Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw 2016 as amended by the Hearings Committee, with an operative date of 1 August 2016.

b) Determines that the proposed Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw 2016 is necessary and is the most appropriate form of bylaw and that it does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

c) Revokes the 2005 Beauticians, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw, with effect of revocation being 1 August 2016.

Cr Neville Peat commented on the process and thanked submitters and staff.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/073)

26 Election Issues 2016

A report from the Electoral Officer outlined options available to the Council regarding the order of candidate names on voting documents. The previous election saw the Council adopt random order. A brief update was also provided on other preparations for the election.

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

That the Council:

a) Adopts random order for the order of candidate names at the 2016 Dunedin City Elections.

b) Notes the other preparations in place for the election.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/074)

27 Rules for the Recovery of Expenses for Elected Members

A report from Civic provided details of the Rules for the Recovery for Expenses for Elected Members (the rules). The rules needed to be approved by Council prior to submission to the Remuneration Authority.

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

That the Council:

a) Approves the Rules for the Recovery of Expenses for Elected Members.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/075)

28 Warrington Freedom Camping Petition

Cr Noone suggested referring the petition presented at the Public Forum to the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board.

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Kate Wilson):

That the Council:

a) Refers the petition received at the Public Forum from Warrington residents to the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board and, after consideration, this be brought back to the Council.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/076)

Resolution to exclude the public

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, excludes the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered

Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

Reason for Confidentiality

C1 Ordinary Council meeting - 23 May 2016 - Public Excluded

S7(2)(j)

The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

S7(2)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

C2 Infrastructure Services Committee - 7 June 2016 - Public Excluded

S7(2)(b)(ii)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act, or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as shown above after each item.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/077)

The meeting moved into confidential at 4.52 pm.

Hearings Committee

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin, on Tuesday 23 February 2016, commencing at 9.00 am

PRESENT

Chairperson	Cr Andrew Noone
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Andrew Whiley

IN ATTENDANCE

John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor) and Darryl Sycamore (Processing Officer).

Governance Support Officer Wendy Collard

PART A:

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis)

"That the meeting been adjourned to allow the arrival of a member of the applicant's team."

The meeting adjourned at 9.05 am and reconvened at 9.10 am.

1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2015-354, 15 MIDLAND STREET, DUNEDIN

The Committee considered an application for the establishment and operation of a fresh produce wholesale and retail activity, with associated warehousing, and a café at 15 Midland Street, Dunedin.

The committee was required to make a thorough assessment of the application using the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act 1991.

The applicant was represented by:

· Chris Fowler (Legal Counsel for applicant)

· Mark Allan (Consultant Planner on behalf of applicant)

· Rebecca Parish (Property Development Manager, Foodstuffs)

Procedural Issues

There were no procedural matters.

Presentation of the Planner’s Report

The Planning Officer (Darryl Sycamore) spoke to a summary of his report and provided an overview of the proposal. Mr Sycamore commented that the application was for the establishment and operation of a small scale supermarket which promoted fresh, local produce with an emphasis on the food origin. He advised that consent was also sought to sell liquor at the market and the proposal included a café.

Mr Sycamore advised that the proposed layout for the premises would feature a 1,108m² space which would contain the entry area and market area; a butchery service area; an area set aside for packaging and preparation, with separate chillers for dairy, butchery and produce; a 394m² mezzanine office/administration area which would span over a portion of the market area; and a café with its own entrance and outdoor seating, comprising 203m². He commented that a number of signs were also sought as part of the application.

Mr Sycamore advised that the subject site was zoned Industrial 1 in the District Plan with Midland Street classified as a district road in the Plan's roading hierarchy. He advised that there were no designations on the site.

Mr Sycamore noted that the baseline in this case included the establishment of a Garden Centre which was a non-fanciful activity at the location. The baseline would be likely to result in similar effects to the proposed produce market. On that basis he had determined that the effects limb of the 104D gateway test had been met.

Mr Sycamore advised that the zone rules did not allow for retail activity at the site. He commented that he had also identified potential concerns regarding reverse sensitivity. Mr Sycamore advised that he considered the proposal to be contrary to key Sustainability and Industrial zone objectives and policies. In his view the proposal was not a “true exception” and he considered it could set a precedent for future applications for the establishment of retail activities with the industrial zone affecting its utility for industrial activity.

Mr Sycamore concluded that the proposal was contrary to key objectives and policies of the Industrial zone and Sustainability Sections of the Plan. He advised that in his opinion it would likely set an undesirable precedent for retail activity to be established on industrial land. On that basis he recommended that the proposal be declined.

The Applicant’s Presentation

Mark Allan (Consultant Planner on behalf of the applicant) tabled and spoke to the evidence in support of the application. Mr Allan provided a background to a marked up aerial photo which demonstrated the mixed land use in the wider area of the site. He also presented a floor layout of the proposed Raeward Fresh outlet which explained the areas of the building were to be utilised by Raeward Fresh. Mr Allan also provided an explanation on which parts of the existing building would be demolished and the works that would be undertaken to modify the building. Mr Allan responded to questions on tenancy and ownership and he clarified the percentages of floor area for the café and other parts of the premises.

Chris Fowler (Legal Counsel for the applicant) tabled written legal submissions on behalf of the applicant. Mr Fowler commented that it was appropriate to establish the Raeward Fresh Outlet at the proposed site as effects were no more than minor and that the proposal was generally consistent with relevant objectives and policies. He commented that the likely precedent effects were overstated and that there are significant positive effects from the approval of the application.

Mr Fowler advised that Mr Allan’s assessment of objectives and policies was that the activity was largely consistent with the operative plans and at worst the proposal was inconsistent with a sustainability section objective and policy. Mr Fowler commented that Mr Allan had reached similar findings in relation to the proposed plan. He concluded that the proposal was not contrary to the objectives and policies of both plans when considered as a whole. Mr Fowler noted that there was agreement between the planners on adverse effects being minor.

Mr Fowler covered the issue of undesirable precedent in some detail referring to relevant case law. He observed that Local Authorities need to approach challenges to proposals on the grounds of plan integrity and precedent with real caution.

Mr Fowler commented on the issues with the planning report in relation to whether the proposal was a supermarket. He provided clarification that the proposed Raeward Fresh outlet was a boutique fresh meat and produce market that provided a retail offering to members of the public and wholesale supply to trade customers. He noted that the other products offered were very much subordinate and only a compliment to market produce for convenience which he considered it was a distinctly different offering to a supermarket.

Mr Fowler described the distinctive features of the proposal that are not readily replicated and he noted that the evidence of Mr Allan identified conditions that would give the Council a high degree of confidence that the features that made the Raeward Fresh application materially different would be preserved. Mr Fowler emphasised the uniqueness of the Raeward Fresh application, and its difference from small or large supermarkets because of its produce focus.

Mr Fowler concluded by identifying that an overall assessment under Section 5 of the Act supported granting consent and approval would best serve the purposes of the Act.

Mr Fowler responded to a number of questions on how this proposal could be distinguished from other retailers in relation to precedent, potential reverse sensitivity and the intention in the operative plan to limit retailing associated with permitted industrial zone activities to 10% of the floor area of buildings.

Rebecca Parish (Property Development Manager, Foodstuffs) outlined her history with Foodstuffs and her role as Property Development Manager. Ms Parish provided a background which outlined the current foodstuffs distribution operation on a site across the road which was owned by Foodstuffs. She commented that the subject site was leased by Foodstuffs and was the location of former Rattrays Cash and Carry which was now disestablished. Ms Parish commented on the desire of Foodstuffs to redevelop the site and she considered that the surrounding land use and amenity were similar to other Raeward Fresh outlets in Queenstown, Christchurch and Nelson. She noted that the current use of the building was as overflow for the Foodstuffs distribution centre and that part of the building was sub-let to a transport company. Ms Parish advised that the building on the subject site was in poor condition and that it required extensive renovation.

Ms Parish provided detail on the types of goods to be sold from the proposed Raeward Fresh and noted that there were currently 5 Raeward Fresh stores. She commented that she considered that Raeward Fresh was an entirely different brand to Veggie Boys providing a higher grade of produce. Ms Parish provided data that showed 80% of annual sales related to butchery and produce items and she outlined how it differed from a supermarket. She commented that liquor was only a minor but complimentary part of the overall mix of goods.

Ms Parish outlined the positive effects of the proposal which included the upgrading of the building, employment and consumer choice. She commented on the synergy between the main Foodstuffs distribution site and the proposed Raeward Fresh outlet and noted that this was one of the factors in the Foodstuffs wouldingness to invest in the redevelopment. Ms Parish identified that Raeward Fresh outlets were not sited in normal retail environments and would be suited to the location.

Ms Parish concluded by noting that good common practical sense had identified the location as a good fit for a Raeward Fresh outlet and that granting consent would be a good practical planning outcome.

Ms Parish responded to questions in particular on the nature of the lease, the environments associated with other Raeward Fresh outlets and how it could be differentiated from a supermarket and retained in a produce market form.

Mr Allan then continued with his expert planning evidence on behalf of the applicant. He commented that there was general agreement between his position and that of Mr Sycamore in relation to effects and as a result he had focused on the objectives and policies as this was where different conclusions were reached. Mr Allan noted that the policy framework in his view was effects based and therefore he considered the determination in relation to effects was relevant to the objectives and policies assessment.

Mr Allan provided a detailed appraisal of the objectives and policies of the operative plan covering the relevant sustainability and industrial zones polices, identifying those objectives and policies where he disagreed with Mr Sycamore. He advised on the proposed second generation plan and commented that he agreed with Mr Sycamore that the objectives and policies could be given only limited weight. He noted that he had found the proposal at worst was inconsistent with one or two provisions of the operative plan. Mr Allan considered that overall it was not inconsistent with the objectives and policies on the operative District Plan.

Mr Allan noted that he considered Mr Sycamores focus on plan integrity to be too narrow and his conclusion that the proposal is contrary to objectives and policies was not supported by an overall consideration of the purpose and intent of the plan. He commented that he considered a finding that the proposal was contrary to objectives and policies was not supported by the effects based policy framework.

Mr Allan outlined draft conditions that he considered would ensure certainty for the type of retail activity to be operated on the site. These included personalising of the consent so it would not attach to the land, and linking the proposed operation to the operation of the Foodstuffs distribution centre across the road.

Mr Allan responded to questions on the floor layout, reverse sensitivity, car parking, signage and the practicality of controls to ensure the intended high percentage of produce goods did not slip over time.

The Planner’s Review of his Recommendation

Mr Sycamore reviewed his recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing and commented that he wished to maintain his recommendation to decline consent.

The Applicant’s Response

It was agreed that the applicant's right of reply would be provided to the Committee in writing.

The hearing adjourned at 1.10 pm and reconvened on Thursday 24 March 2016 at 10.00 am in the Plaza Meeting Room, Civic Centre.

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely, Item 1.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for making this ruling 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 making of this ruling are as follows:

	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter.	Ground(s) under section 48 (1) for the passing of this resolution.

1	Resource Consent Application – 15 Midland Street, Dunedin	That a right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the Dunedin City Council in these proceedings.”	S 48(1)(d)

Motion carried

The meeting moved into non-public at 10.03 am.

MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE PLAZA MEETING ROOM, CIVIC CENTRE ON 24 MARCH 2016, COMMENCING AT 10.04 AM

PRESENT: Councillors Andrew Noone (Chairperson) and Lee Vandervis and Commissioner Colin Weatherall

IN ATTENDANCE: John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor)

PART C:

1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION – LUC-2015-354, 15 MIDLAND STREET, DUNEDIN

The Committee gave consideration to the Planner’s recommendation and to the points raised by the applicant. It was noted that a site visit was undertaken on 23 February 2016.

Decision

It was moved (Vandervis/Weatherall):

" That pursuant to Sections 34A(1) and 104B and after having regard to Part 2 matters and Sections 104 and 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991, and the relevant provisions of the Dunedin City District Plan and the Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan, the Dunedin City Council granted consent to a non-complying activity being the establishment of a wholesale and retail fresh produce market and café at 15 Midland Street, Dunedin, legally described as Lot 1 DP 12089 (Computer Freehold Register 454463), subject to conditions imposed under Section 108 of the Act, as shown below:

1. The proposal should be undertaken in general accordance with the relevant details and information submitted with resource consent application LUC-2015-354 received by the Council on 29 September 2015, the further information received on 9 November and 10 February 2016, and the evidence presented at the hearing, except where modified by the following conditions.

2. The consent should be limited to the following activities:

a. Raeward Fresh Market

b. Reward Fresh Cafe

c. Raeward Fresh Warehousing and storage Area

d. Raeward Fresh Office and Administration area

e. Warehousing and Storage for Foodstuffs Distribution Centre at 21 Midland Street

3. The range of goods to be sold from the Raeward Fresh market were to be restricted to fresh produce, flowers, fresh meat and meat products.

4. The ability to exercise the consent should be restricted to a Raeward Fresh Co-operative member of the Foodstuffs South Island Limited.

5. The Consent should be valid only for as long as the Foodstuffs Distribution Centre at 21 Midland Street remains in operation.

6. The hours of operation were restricted to 8am to 7pm Monday to Sunday.

7. The Raeward Fresh warehousing and storage area (approximately 397m2) and existing warehousing area (approximately 1,472 m2) should remain used for industrial or service activities. No retail activity, except where it was permitted by the District Plan, should be established in these areas.

8. All new vehicle accesses should be formed to the widths specified in the application and should be hard surfaced and adequately drained for their full duration.

9. The applicant should reinstate all redundant vehicle crossings adjacent to the site as footpath, kerb and channel.

10. Detailed engineering plans for all parking, site access, and manoeuvring areas should be submitted to the Group Manager Transport prior to construction for certification they were in accordance with the proposed plans. The designs should incorporate appropriate pedestrian, traffic safety and mobility provisions within the site, as necessary.

11. The surface of all parking, associated access and manoeuvring areas should be formed, hard surfaced and adequately drained for their entirety, and parking spaces permanently marked in accordance with the approved plans.

12. The applicant should provide a minimum of 10 staff car parking spaces within the site, in the locations identified in figure 3.1 of the report by Abley Transportation Consultants dated 19 February 2016.

13. A covered cycle stand should be established within the site, and be located as close as practicable to the customer entrance to the store.

14. The proposed activity should not commence operation until all transportation-related conditions are completed.

15. An “Application for Water Supply” was to be submitted to the Water and Waste Services Business Unit to assess whether the current water connection was sized appropriately for the proposed activity. Details of how the proposed development was to be serviced for water should accompany the “Application for Water Supply”.

16. Upon approval by the Water and Waste Services Business Unit, water service connections should be installed in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.6.2 of the Dunedin Code of Subdivision and Development 2010.

17. An RPZ backflow prevention device must be installed on the Midland Street water connection servicing the property. The backflow prevention device must be installed in accordance with the Code of Practice for Boundary Backflow Prevention (June 2013) and inspected and approved by the Education and Compliance Officer (Water), Water and Waste Services.

18. The external car parking areas should be illuminated at night to a minimum maintained level of 2 lux, with high uniformity during the hours of operation. The applicant should ensure lighting installed on the site was shielded to avoid unnecessary light spill.

19. Signage to be established on the site was to be in general accordance with the application plans.

20. Double glazing should be installed where any existing window was required to be replaced as part of the building refurbishment works.

21. Pursuant to Section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act the Consent Authority might review any condition of this within one year from the date of issue of the building consent for the development, and thereafter with one month of the anniversary of the date of issue to deal with any adverse effects on the environment which might arise from the exercise of the consent

Motion carried

Reasons for the Decision

The Permitted Baseline and the Existing Environment

1 The Committee visited the site and noted that the subject site and surrounding area had an amenity that was consistent with a busy industrial zone that was predominantly occupied by service activities associated with storage and distribution.

2 The Committee accept that the range of uses in the wider area was mixed but it noted amenity levels are clearly low when compared to an activity zone. Pedestrian activity in the area appeared to the Committee to be minimal.

3 The Committee agreed that the permitted baseline included a Garden Centre. It noted the application of the baseline, although discretionary, was typically applied by the Council provided the result was not perverse or inappropriate. In this case the Committee considered that application of the baseline was appropriate. This meant that the effects associated with a permitted garden centre could be discounted when the effects of the proposed wholesale and retail produce market were assessed.

Effects

4 The Committee accepted the evidence of both planners that if the baseline was applied the overall effects of the proposed activity overall would be minor. As a consequence the Section 104D gateway test was passed and the Committee could consider granting consent to the proposal.

5 The Committee agreed that positive effects would accrue from the proposed development. There would be investment in the buildings, construction activity and employment. The Committee noted the site inspection showed that the existing warehouse appeared structurally sound and viable as a commercial warehouse. The suggestion that it was dilapidated and in need of rebuilding appeared overstated.

6 The Committee noted that reverse sensitivity was a potential effects issue for the establishment of non-industrial uses in Industrial zones. The applicant’s property manager had advised that Raeward Fresh activities had been located in areas with similar amenity levels without issue and the proposed Raeward Fresh was compatible. The Committee noted that the majority of activity nearby was associated with storage and distribution. It agreed that reverse sensitivity effects on a produce market activity were not likely to be significant and accepted that there was some buffering in this case. The Committee also noted that a produce market was clearly less sensitive than a retail clothing shop.

7 The Committee observed that there was no suggestion by the planners that the proposal would have any significant distributional impact on activity zones or result in the loss of industrial land that was significant in effect. It noted that larger fruit and vegetable stores or markets were often located at the edge of commercial zones. The Committee also noted that historically wholesale produce markets were part of the activities which occurred in the area of the proposal and these was no suggestion that these were incompatible with other industrial and service activities in the zone.

Objectives and Polices

8 The Committee accepted the evidence from Mr Sycamore and Mr Allan that only limited weighting should be applied to the proposed 2nd generation plan objectives and policies given that the rule provisions are subject to challenge and submissions are yet to be heard. It did however note the intention of the second generation plan through its objectives and policies to establish a specific trade retail zone that does not include the site and a retail hierarchy based around the city centre.

9 In terms of the operative plan the Committee noted that the operative Plan establishes retail activity as a non-complying activity and that it provided for retail in other commercial zones. This in the Committee’s view signalled a clear intention to limit retail activity in industrial zones to specific used such as garden centres and car yards and to activities that are integral and complementary to a permitted industrial or service activity.

10 The Committee noted that there was a significant difference between the views of the Planners in relation to objectives and policies. Mr Sycamore considered the proposal to be contrary to key sustainability and industrial zone objectives and policies whereas Mr Allan for the applicant only identified inconsistency with one or two provisions from the sustainability section of the plan. After considering the objectives and policies and the evidence presented the Committee considered that the proposal could fall somewhere between these positions.

11 The Committee observed that neither planner has considered the activity zone objectives and policies in the operative District Plan. These were considered to have some relevance as the sustainability section sets up zones and provided for retail activities to establish in activity zones as a permitted activity.

12 The Committee noted the submissions and evidence from the applicant that the Environment Court previously determined that the Industrial zone objectives and policies of the operative plan to be effects based. This supported Mr Allan’s positon on Industrial zone objectives and policies to an extent. Despite this, the suggestion that the proposal was “not inconsistent” with Policy 10.3.2 which sought to exclude activities not part of or associated with industrial activities from the Industrial 1 zone appeared to the Committee to be generous to the applicant’s positon.

13 The Committee noted that the case law on the interpretation of contrary required the proposal to be repugnant or opposite to the objectives and policies when viewed as a whole. The Committee considered that there were some clear inconsistencies with the policy framework of the operative plan but it accepted that this might not extend to the proposal being contrary to the operative District Plan in terms of being repugnant or opposite. It noted that as the proposal passes the effects gateway it could consider granting the proposal even if it was contrary to objectives and policies.

14 The Committee considered the proposal was more inconsistent with the 2GP objectives and policies. In particular policy 19.2.1.3 which was no longer linked to an explanation related to reverse sensitivity. It did not agree with Mr Allan that the proposal was not inconsistent with the policy. It also considered that the proposal was inconsistent with policies 19.2.1.5 and 19.2.1.6. It did however, accept that only very limited weight could be afforded to these objectives and policies in the Section 104 assessment.

15 While the Committee agrees that the proposal passes the effects gateway and might also pass the objectives and policy gateway it noted that consents can be declined on the basis of inconsistency with the objectives and policies following an assessment under Section 104 of the RMA. It remained concerned that continual erosion of the Industrial 1 zone would have a negative planning outcome and therefore precedent was an important consideration.

Other Matters

16 In terms of precedent Mr Sycamore identifies that in his opinion the proposal would create an undesirable precedent for future retail applications in the Industrial 1 zone. In his view it was not a true exception that was able to be distinguished from other retail uses such as supermarkets wanting to establish in the zone.

17 The applicant’s advice was that the precedent impact was overstated in this case. At the hearing the applicant outlined case law for the Committee that indicated that precedent implications should be considered cautiously. The applicant also had provided a range of conditions that the applicant argues would give the Council some comfort. This included the personalising of the consent, the focus on fresh produce and the linking of the proposal to the ongoing operation of the neighbouring Foodstuffs distribution facility.

18 The Committee accepted that the location of the Foodstuffs owned distribution centre across the road from the site and the formalised connection with the Raeward Fresh activity through consent conditions did provide a point of difference that would not be readily available to many other retailers. It also noted the historical presence of produce markets in the area. The Committee was satisfied that if the consent was appropriately tailored this would likely ensure that a plethora of retail activity applications would not result from the approval of this application.

Determination

19 The Committee noted that historically wholesale produce markets were part of the activities which occurred in the area and these were compatible with other industrial and service activities in the zone. However, it had concerns that the proposal was not just for a produce market as it would also involve the sale of a range of other goods including liquor. While the applicant contends that it was not a supermarket the proposed design and layout and the photography provided suggested it strongly resembled the produce section of supermarket with additional convenience items including liquor and a range of groceries designed to extend the range of goods sold.

20 The Committee noted that had the proposal been for a grocery store or a liquor outlet at the relatively central location within the Industrial 1 zone it was likely that consent would have been refused.

21 The Committee appreciated the applicant’s attempts to reduce the potential for an undesirable precedent through the use of conditions. In particular the personalising of the consent to Foodstuffs and the operational link to the distribution centre activity. The Committee remained concerned about the range for goods involved and the monitoring of consent conditions. It considered that a simpler more distinguishing approach would be to restrict the sale to produce, meat and flowers and for the other items not to be sold on the premises.

22 The Committee therefore considered that the proposal should be granted subject to restrictions on the range of goods that can be sold. The wholesale and retail produce market elements were considered to be compatible and given the conditions this approach avoided a potential precedent for a wide range of retail activities to be established in the industrial zone.

The meeting ended at 11.10 am.

……………………………

C H A I R P E R S O N

Hearings Committee

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin, on Friday 18 March 2016, commencing at 9.00 am

PRESENT

Chairperson	Cr Andrew Noone
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Andrew Whiley

IN ATTENDANCE

John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Darryl Sycamore (Processing Officer) and Peter Christos (Urban Designer).

Governance Support Officer Jennifer Lapham

PART A:

1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2012-468, 97 FILLEUL STREET, DUNEDIN

The Committee considered an application for the construction of 25 apartments at 97 Filleul Street, Dunedin. The Committee were required to make a thorough assessment of the application using the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act 1991.

The applicant was represented by:

· Neil Lyons (Co-Developer)

· Jamie Lyons (Co-Developer and Project Manager)

· Michael Ovens (Co-developer and Architect to project)

· Nigel Bryce – (Consultant Planner)

· Shelly Chadwick (Legal Counsel)

· Stephen Macknight (Structural Engineer)

· Bill Cadzow (Shade Modeller for W J Cadzow Limited)

There were five submitters present at the hearing.

· Rod McLeod

· Lincoln Darling

· Ken O'Connell

· Sergio Salis

· Christopher Robertson

· Len Andersen (Legal Counsel for Mr Robertson and Mr Salis)

· Conrad Anderson (Consultant Planner for Mr Robertson and Mr Salis)

Procedural Issues

The Chairperson advised that the hearing would adjourn prior to hearing the submissions and evidence of Mr Robertson and Mr Salis to allow their Legal Counsel to be present.

Presentation of Planner's Report

The Processing Planner (Darryl Sycamore) provided an overview of his report and commented that he considered the proposal would create only localised effects, and raised no issue of precedent. Mr Sycamore advised that it was appropriate to apply the permitted baseline and disregard the effects of an 11m high building covering the site.

Mr Sycamore commented that he acknowledged the impacts on the owners and occupiers of Vero House and Bracken Restaurant but he noted if the baseline was applied the effects would be minor. He advised that the Council’s Urban Designer supported the proposal and he did not consider a verandah was required at the location as there were no other verandahs on the street. Mr Sycamore commented that the proposed apartment building was supported by the objectives and policies of the both the operative and proposed District Plans and it would have positive effects on street amenity values.

Mr Sycamore submitted that he recommended that, subject to conditions, consent be granted.

Applicants Presentation

Shelley Chadwick (Legal Counsel) tabled and spoke to her evidence. Ms Chadwick provided clarification on the issue of individual ownership for some units, noting some might be privately owned and that the apartments might undergo a unit-title subdivision once completed. Ms Chadwick outlined the various legal considerations that applied to the Committee’s consideration of the application. She emphasised that then application of the permitted baseline was appropriate in this case and identified its parameters. Ms Chadwick advised that in her opinion the proposal met the Section 104D gateway test and that it was appropriate for the Committee to approve the application.

Ms Chadwick addressed the concerns of submitters regarding the requirement to access Vero House during construction work and the approval from the owners of Vero House for any changes to the retaining wall. She commented that the boundaries were complex and it would be preferable to work with the neighbours for the establishment of a better outcome. Ideally the old retaining wall would be removed and a new, more stable one would be constructed.

Ms Chadwick reiterated that the project was quite distinct from the issues that occurred during the previous development at 93 Filleul Street. She commented that there was a high degree of certainty for management of the project as the land stability was well understood in contrast to the earlier development.

Michael Ovens (Co-developer and Architect) tabled and spoke to the design options for the proposal. Mr Ovens detailed how the roofline would relate to the adjoining buildings and emphasised the benefit of the centralised court-yard. He commented on the finishing treatments of the lower layer to provide separation and rustication of the building which would create a better design outcome. He noted that this approach could be applied to the southern façade facing the front courtyard of 95 Filleul Street to improve the look of the facade.

Bill Cadzow (Shade Modeller) commented on the shade diagrams that had been provided in the application and stated how the proposed building would sit in relation to a building of the permitted 11m height. Mr Cadzow detailed the effects of topography and how topography contributes to shading issues.

Mr Cadzow commented on how the existing buildings on 30 & 34 London Street obscured the sun when the sun was low in the sky. He emphasised that the buildings at 30 & 34 London Street resulted in greater shading issues on adjoining properties than the proposed apartments.

Stephen Macknight (Structural Engineer) responded to questions on site stability and construction methods. He reiterated that the subject site has differing geology compared to the site at 93 Filleul Street. In terms of complexity, Mr Macknight assured the Committee the subject site comprised more stable soils.

Mr Macknight provided detail on how the retaining walls could be underpinned to ensure stability on adjoining sites. In response to questions on how the retaining structure would be constructed against the vacant car park to the east, Mr Macknight detailed the process and options and reiterated that the required works occur frequently elsewhere and can be readily engineered.

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis)

"That the meeting adjourn at 10.59 for 15 minutes."

Motion carried.

The meeting adjourned at 10.59 and reconvened at 11.16 am.

Jamie Lyons (Co-Developer and Project Manager) commented on his experience with property development and advised that he would be the project manager for the development. Mr Lyons commented on the car-parking and storage arrangements in the basement.

In response to questions, Mr Lyons provided clarification on how the 2012 application at 93 Filleul Street differed from the current application.

Nigel Bryce (Consultant Planner) tabled and spoke to his planning evidence. Mr Bryce commented that he considered that it was appropriate to apply the permitted baseline to the assessment of effects. He commented on the effects issues in detail noting the steps the applicant had taken to address effects issues which included the construction phase issues that were experienced with the development at 93 Filleul Street. Mr Bryce emphasised that the range of adverse effects would be minor overall if the baseline was applied.

Mr Bryce also comprehensively assessed the proposal in terms of objectives and policies of the operative and proposed plans and he considered the proposal under Part 2 of the Act. He concluded by noting that in his assessment there was no impediment to the granting consent to the proposal.

Submissions

Rod MacLeod spoke to his submission in opposition to the proposal and commented that he appeared to be the forgotten neighbour. Mr MacLeod commented that he considered the additional height of the building adjoining his property and the corresponding increase in bulk would impact any future development of the land at 333A George Street. He responded to questions in particular on the management of construction phase effects which included the issues his tenants had to endure with the previous development at 93 Filleul Street.

Mr MacLeod acknowledged a building might be established on the site, and held the view the proposal was simply too large for the setting. His greatest concern related to shading onto his land and also the effects associated with construction.

Council Officers Evidence

The Urban Designer (Peter Christos) spoke to his memorandum and commented that in his opinion the development would fit well onto the site and allow for the additional height above 11m to be absorbed into the setting.

Mr Christos commented on how the additional height of the building would alter light quality, and how it might affect the adjoining properties. He advised that in his view light quality would change, but the effects occurring would be similar to a permitted building on the site.

Mr Christos discussed how the proposal will interact with those properties fronting onto Cambria Place.

It was moved Noone/Vandervis

"That the meeting be adjourned at 2.10 pm."

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 2.10 pm and reconvened on Wednesday 23 March 2016 at 2.00 pm.

MEMBERSHIP: Councillors Andrew Noone (Chairperson), Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley

IN ATTENDANCE: John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Darryl Sycamore (Planner), Jennifer Lapham (Governance Support Officer) and Arlene Goss (Governance Support Officer)

Submissions (continued)

Mr Lincoln Darling expressed concern at the geotechnical issues and commented that only one drill hole had been carried out to confirm local geology on the site. He suggested more drilling to define the soil stability would be appropriate.

Mr Darling commented that the previous development by the applicants at 93 Filleul Street had created a number of issues both in terms of land stability and also the ability for the restaurant to operate. Mr Darling advised that he wanted reassurance that the restaurant would not be affected by construction noise or vehicles occupying the frontage outside the restaurant. Mr Darling emphasised that should consent be granted that improved communication between the developer and adjoining properties would be helpful.

Mr Ken O’Connell spoke to his submissions and advised that his restaurant was a fine dining restaurant where customers expected a pleasant dining environment.

Mr O’Connell advised that his main concern related to noise and in particular construction noise. He commented that tradesmen parking vehicles in front of his business during lunch and dinner periods was also problematic as it made the operation of his business challenging. Mr O'Connell outlined the business disruption issues with the recent development at 93 Filleul Street undertaken by the same developers. Mr O’Connell requested, that should consent be granted, a number of car-parks were provided for tradesmen beyond his restaurant.

Len Andersen (Legal Counsel for Sergio Salis and Christopher Robertson) commented on his concern about deficiencies in the provision of the information which related to a number of matters which included earthworks and noise.

Mr Andersen commented on the required earthworks and advised that he considered the lack of detail prevented adequate assessment. He commented that he considered there were real concerns that were not able to be addressed by conditions and the lack detail prevented his clients from submitting on important design issues. Mr Andersen commented that in his opinion the earthworks risks were greater than the applicant had suggested and he commented that liability insurance was not sufficient to address these issues. He suggested that the Committee should consider imposing a $10,000,000 bond if it was contemplating approval of the application. Mr Andersen stated that the developer would need to obtain permission to access his clients land to construct the retaining walls. He reiterated his clients simply did not want the apartment building built.

Mr Andersen commented that he felt that application of the permitted baseline was not appropriate in this case and that the effects on his client should be considered. He noted that the adverse effects on their specialist dental practices were significant. Mr Andersen also argued that the provision of a verandah was an important consideration under the provisions of the operative Plan. He considered that the Council planner’s conclusion regarding consistency with Policy 9.3.3 were erroneous.

Mr Andersen also disputed whether the proposal was a residential development arguing that it should be assessed as a commercial residential activity observing that the car parking should be assessed on a commercial residential basis.

Mr Andersen requested that the consent be declined.

Christopher Robertson commented that he strongly opposed the development and advised that he considered the adverse effects would be significant.

Mr Robertson clarified that he practised dentistry on the ground floor of his building which translated to the first floor of the proposed building. He advised that he looked out directly over the site, where the glazing on his building was approximately 3m from the proposed building and that he was concerned about the quality of light and ability to carry out his specialist dentistry work. Mr Robertson did not accept a white wall on the proposed building would alleviate any lighting concerns.

Sergio Salis spoke to his concerns regarding the proposal and in particular the effects including impact on natural light and how that might affect his specialist dental work.

Conrad Anderson (Consultant Planner for Christopher Robertson and Sergio Salis) tabled and spoke to his planning evidence. Mr Anderson questioned whether the proposed building would enhance amenity values and commented that if the community received no benefit from the outcome, then the consent should not be granted. He advised that in his view the amenity values of the zone were not correctly assessed by Mr Sycamore as a verandah was not included in the proposal. As the frontage provided no pedestrian shelter, he considered amenity values would not be enhanced.

Mr Anderson commented that he considered that the baseline should not be applied. He reiterated applying the permitted baseline to any decision making was discretionary and the decision to apply the baseline was a critical decision. In his view, a building complying with the permitted baseline was impossible to construct on the site. Therefore, the baseline should not be applied and the effects of the entire building should be considered.

The Planner’s Review of his Recommendation

Mr Sycamore reviewed his recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing, maintaining his recommendation to grant consent. He commented that if the baseline was applied he considered that the effects of the proposal would be minor.

Mr Sycamore emphasised that a verandah could be erected on the building, but noted the Council’s Urban Designer did not support the concept.

He continued to recommend the application be granted subject to conditions of consent.

Applicant's Right of Reply

It was agreed that the applicant's right of reply would be provided to the Committee in writing.

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

It was moved (Noone/Whiley):

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely, Item 1.

	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter.	Ground(s) under section 48 (1) for the passing of this resolution.

1	Resource Consent Application –97 Filleul Street, Dunedin	That a right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the Dunedin City Council in these proceedings.”	S 48(1)(d)

Motion carried

The meeting moved into non-public at 4.45 pm

MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, ON 18 MARCH 2016, COMMENCING AT 9.00 AM

PRESENT: Councillors Andrew Noone (Chairperson), Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley

IN ATTENDANCE: John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor) and Wendy Collard (Governance Support Officer)

PART C:

1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION SUB-2015-468 AND LUC-2015-468, 97 FILLEUL STREET, DUNEDIN

The Committee gave consideration to the evidence heard, the relevant statutory and plan provisions, and the principle issues in contention and also undertook a site visit.

The meeting adjourned at 5.00 pm and reconvened on Thursday 7 April 2016 at 2.00 pm.

Decision

It was moved (Vandervis/Whiley):

"That pursuant to Section 34A(1) and 104B and after having regard to Part 2 matters and Sections 104 and 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991, and the relevant provisions of the Dunedin City District Plan and the Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan, the Dunedin City Council granted consent to a non-complying activity being the establishment of a 25 unit residential apartment building with 10 on-site car parks and its use for residential activity at 97 Filleul Street, Dunedin, legally described as Lots 8 & 9 Deposited Plan 1119, held in Computer Freehold Registers OT98/82 and OT98/83, subject to conditions imposed under Section 108 of the Act as shown below:,

Conditions:

1 The proposed activity should be undertaken in general accordance with the site plan, elevations and the information provided with the revised resource consent application received by the Council on 3 February 2016, and the evidence and submissions provided at the hearing, except where modified by the following conditions.

2 The consent holder should undertake all construction related activities in accordance with the Construction Management Plan submitted as part of the application. In addition the consent holder should provide the following construction related information:

a) Details of the measures to be taken to manage erosion and sediment-laden stormwater run-off during the construction phase.

b) Details of all traffic management measure related to the parking of construction vehicles, delivery and unloading areas and this should include details of the location of parking and loading area that were to remain in place during the construction phase; and

c) Details of consultation undertaken with the owners and occupiers of 95 Filleul Street, 34 London Street and the car park at 333A George Street in relation to the Construction Management Plan and the responses to any issues raised regarding the report required under Condition 3 below.

3 Prior to the commencement of any development works on the site the consent holder should submit a geotechnical/engineering report to the Resource Consents Manager prepared by a suitably qualified professional. The report should confirm the foundation depths of existing structures on adjoining sites and assesses the potential for instability on adjoining properties during construction works. The report should detail a best practice specification for managing the construction works to ensure the stability of adjoining sites throughout the construction period which included the management of temporary excavation slopes.

4 Prior to any development works commencing on the site the report required in Condition 3 above should be subject to an independent peer review from a suitably qualified professional. The report and the independent peer review were to be provided to the Resource Consents Manager, and the owners and occupiers of 95 Filleul Street, 34 London Street and 333A George Street.

5 The best practice specification identified in the report required under condition 3 should be implemented as specified in the report throughout the construction period and the works were to be supervised by appropriately qualified persons.

6 No earthworks might be undertaken until building consent had been granted.

7 Third party liability insurance which identifies and protects nearby structures should be obtained and a letter of confirmation from the insurer must be forwarded to the adjoining landowners and the Council’s Resource Consents Manger at least five working days prior to commencing any excavations.

8 All measures (including dampening of loose soil) should be undertaken to ensure that dust, resulting from the proposed earthworks, does not escape the property boundary.

9 Any redundant vehicle crossing or parts thereof, along the frontage of the site should be reinstated as footpath, kerb, and channel at the applicant’s cost.

10 The surface of all parking, associated access and manoeuvring areas should be formed, hard surfaced and adequately drained for their entirety, and parking spaces permanently marked.

11 The exterior wall surfaces on the northern and southern facades were to be painted in a light colour and finish that maximises light reflection.

12 Prior to development works commencing on the site the consent holder should submit final design details for the southern elevation of the proposed development to the Resource Consent’s Manager for approval. The final design details were to ensure the southern façade is provided with a greater level of architectural detail. This was not to be achieved through a painted surface. Additional detailing should be applied to the lower section of the façade where it would be most noticeable at the adjoining footpath and from the front yard of 95 Filleul Street.

13 The activity authorised by the consent should produce no greater than 8 lux of light onto any other site used for residential activity during night time hours.

14 The consent holder should provide documentation to Council demonstrating compliance with the acoustic and ventilation requirements outlined in Rule 9.5.2(x) of the Dunedin City District Plan prior to any works being undertaken on the site. The information should be supplied either at the time of applying for building consent, or alternatively, can be submitted to Council’s Resource Consents Manager by email to rcmonitoring@dcc.govt.nz prior to the building consent being lodged for approval.

15 The consent holder should ensure noise from activity taking place on the site would not exceed the performance standard set out in Rule 21.5.1 of the operative District Plan as at 1 April 2016. Prior to the implementation of the consent holder should submit to the Resource Consents Manger an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic professional confirming that all heating and ventilation equipment to be established on the site would comply with the relevant noise limits in Rule 21.5.1.

16 All construction noise should comply with the following noise limits as per New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999:

*Time of Week*	*Time Period*	*Leq (dBA)*	*L max(dBA)*
Weekdays	0730-1800	75	90
	1800-2000	70	85
	2000-0630	45	75
Saturdays	0730-1800	75	90
Saturdays	1800-2000	45	75

17 An “Application for Water Supply” was to be submitted to the Water and Waste Services Business Unit for approval to establish a new water connection for the development. Details of how the proposed development was to be serviced for water should accompany the “Application for Water Supply”.

18 Upon approval by the Water and Waste Services Business Unit, water service connections should be installed in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.6.2 of the Dunedin Code of Subdivision and Development 2010.

19 The new water service connection should have a water meter installed.

20 An RPZ backflow prevention device must be installed on the Filleul Street water connection servicing the building. The backflow prevention device must be installed in accordance with the Code of Practice for Boundary Backflow Prevention (June 2013) and inspected and approved by the Education and Compliance Officer (Water), Water and Waste Services.

21 If the consent holder:

(a) discovered koiwi tangata (human skeletal remains), waahi taoka (resources of importance), waahi tapu (places or features of special significance) or other Maori artefact material, the consent holder should without delay:

(i) notify the Consent Authority, Tangata whenua and Heritage New Zealand and in the case of skeletal remains, the New Zealand Police.

(ii) stop work within the immediate vicinity of the discovery to allow a site inspection by Heritage New Zealand and the appropriate runanga and their advisors, who should determine whether the discovery was likely to be extensive, if a thorough site investigation was required, and whether an Archaeological Authority was required.

Any koiwi tangata discovered should be handled and removed by tribal elders responsible for the tikanga (custom) appropriate to its removal or preservation. Site work should recommence following consultation with the Consent Authority, Heritage New Zealand, Tangata whenua, and in the case of skeletal remains, the New Zealand Police, provided that any relevant statutory permissions had been obtained.

(b) discovers any feature or archaeological material that predated 1900, or heritage material, or disturbs a previously unidentified archaeological or heritage site, the consent holder should without delay:

(i) stop work within the immediate vicinity of the discovery or disturbance; and

(ii) advise the Consent Authority, Heritage New Zealand, and in the case of Maori features or materials, the Tangata whenua, and if required, should make an application for an Archaeological Authority pursuant to the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014; and

(iii) arrange for a suitably qualified archaeologist to undertake a survey of the site.

Site work should recommence following consultation with the Consent Authority.

Reasons for this Decision

The Permitted Baseline and the Existing Environment

1 The Committee visited the site and neighbouring sites including Vero House, Bracken Restaurant and the car park below the site. It observed that the subject site and surrounding area had an amenity that is consistent with a commercial environment at the fringe of the city centre. The Committee noted that the receiving environment included two multi-storey buildings to the north of the subject site, a villa containing a restaurant 95 Filleul Street to the south of the site and residential activity across the road to the West.

2 The Committee closely considered the permitted baseline arguments in respect of the evidence and submissions it had received. Mr Bryce for the applicant and the Council’s Planner Mr Sycamore both considered it was appropriate to apply the permitted baseline. They considered that an 11m high building with a verandah built to the boundaries of the site and used for a permitted residential activity was a permitted non-fanciful activity. They considered that the effects of an 11m high building could therefore be disregarded when assessing the effects of the proposed building. If this was accepted by the Committee it was the only the effects of the proposed building beyond the baseline the Committee must assess when considering the significance of the effects. Conrad Anderson did not support the application of the Permitted Baseline. He applied a very detailed approach to the baseline assessment noting that in his view it was not economically viable nor technically possible to build to all boundaries due to the positon of an existing retaining wall. On that basis he considered it was not appropriate to apply the permitted baseline.

3 In his legal submissions Len Andersen noted that the application of the permitted baseline was discretionary and he argued it was not appropriate to apply the permitted baseline to the effects assessment and disregard the effects on his clients. Mr Andersen noted that the required excavations and the fact that a smaller building would not be economically viable indicated that the permitted baseline was not realistic. Ms Chadwick submitted that the plan contemplates an 11m tall box built to the boundaries as a permitted activity and that it was appropriate to apply the baseline. Ms Chadwick provided a copy of a high court decision (Empire Entertainment Ltd CIV-2010-404-002832) in support of the applicants positon on the permitted baseline in the written right of reply.

4 The information and the evidence and submissions at the hearing were closely considered. The Committee noted that the application of the baseline was discretionary. In this case the Committee considered that the application of the baseline was appropriate. Buildings up to 11m in height were anticipated in the Central Activity zone of the city and were a permitted activity on this site. A new building for residential use was considered by the Committee to be a non-fanciful use of the site providing a relevant comparison with the applicant’s proposal. It was noted that an apartment building for residential activity was recently constructed at 93 Filleul Street. It did not agree with the very technical positon promoted Conrad Anderson on the application of the baseline. The Committee did not consider it technically impossible to build to the boundaries of the site as a permitted activity. Also it considered issues of alleged financial viability were not a relevant consideration when considering if there was a non-fanciful permitted activity that could take place on the site. In this case building to the northern boundary through a replacement retaining wall could occur but that was being opposed by the owners of Vero House. The Committee also noted that as the site was already excavated to an extent that the additional earthworks proposed were not significant.

5 As the application of the permitted baseline had been accepted by the Committee as appropriate, the assessment of effects has been considered by the Committee with the effects of an 11m high building on the site being disregarded.

Effects

6 The Committee accepted the expert evidence of Mr Cadzow on the shading effects. The Committee accepted that there would be shading effects beyond the permitted baseline but it considered these shading effects would be minor. The site at 95 Filleul Street would be affected but not in a way that was significantly different to that which could result from a permitted building. It noted the building would be a full floor higher in the rear court yard area but that the area was currently shaded by the existing building and would be shaded by a permitted 11m high building. The effects of the additional bulk on the rear courtyard area were not considered to be significant. There would be increased shading of the site at 333A George Street to the east owned by Mr McLeod. Again the Committee considered the effects on the site would be minor in comparison to a permitted development. In relation to Vero House the additional shading effects beyond the baseline would be minor.

7 The bulk of the proposed building would clearly have a dramatic effect on Vero House which enjoys an open outlook from the tenancies facing south and to the east. However, if the effects which arose from a permitted building were disregarded when the adverse effects of the proposed building were assessed the effects of the bulk would be minor. This was because the proposed building’s divergence from the baseline along the northern boundary for the first 18m was minor. The Committee noted that the site at 97 Filleul Street was not fully developed and the Committee noted while this had been the case for many years there was always the prospect of a larger building being established on the site.

8 The Committee accepted the urban design advice that had been provided by Mr Christos that the design and scale of the building was appropriate for the site. It noted the applicants offer to provide texture on that part of the building facing the front Courtyard of the restaurant at Filleul Street. It agreed that this was appropriate as it would assist with integrating the new building. It also considered that a painted surface would not be adequate. The additional design element could be achieved by a condition of consent.

Verandah

9 The Committee considered the effects of a verandah not being installed on the building. The Committee noted during the site visit that there were no verandahs on the east side of Filleul Street between Hanover and London Street. It determined the most relevant expert evidence on the verandah was provided by the Council’s Urban Designer Peter Christos. He did not consider the absence of the verandah to be a significant adverse effect. The Committee accepted the evidence of Mr Christos and it noted that the absence of the verandah did not appear to be a primary concern of the submitters who presented at the hearing.

Earthworks

10 Earthworks and site stability were a particular concern of submitters. The Committee noted that the earthworks proposed were not significant in volume but the works were complicated by the presence of existing retaining walls on the northern boundary of the site. The largest breach of the earthworks rules would result from a proposed 3.7m cut on the northern boundary adjoining the Filleul Street frontage.

11 The Committee noted that the legal submissions from Len Andersen argue that there was insufficient information to assess the effects of the earthworks. The Committee had considered the information provided. The Committee was satisfied with the level of information provided by the applicant and with the responses by Mr Steve Macknight to questions on stability, feasibility and available engineering options. It noted that basement retaining walls would be part of the engineer’s design for the building foundations and that design details and engineering plans were often finalised at the building consent stage. It also noted the letter from Mr Robinson tabled in the evidence of Mr Salis did not suggest the works could not be undertaken in a safe manner but it identified were as of possible risk. In this case the works would be designed and supervised by a professional engineer. The Committee considered that there had been sufficient information provided by the applicant to allow an adequate assessment of the implications of the work and to satisfy the Committee that the adverse effects can be adequately managed through detailed design and suspension by an engineer. The Committee considered that appropriate engineering supervision during the construction process could be secured though the consent conditions.

12 The concerns raised by Len Andersen about the Council delegating decision making to the Resource Consents Manager in recommended Condition 2 were noted. The Committee have decided that rather than plans being submitted to the Resource Consent Manager for approval a report would be required on proposed methods to manage site stability during the construction phase and the report would be subject to a professional peer review. The report and the peer review were to be provided to the Council before any works on the site commerce and were also to be made available to the owners and occupiers of adjoining sites. The Committee considered that this would ensure the stability of adjoining sites would be given due consideration during the construction phase. In this case, the Committee was satisfied that the conditions imposed to manage the potential effects of earthworks were adequate and appropriate.

13 The Committee noted that the submitters (Mr Robinson & Mr Salis) were joint owners of the existing retaining walls on the northern boundary of the site and their evidence indicates that they were not prepared to allow the walls to be altered even if consent was granted. The Committee noted that the retaining walls were not directly aligned with the surveyed boundary and significant parts of the wall appear to be on the applicant’s property. On that basis the blocking positon of the submitters in relation to a replacement wall appeared to the Committee to be unreasonable. If appropriate precautions were in place a well-designed and appropriately engineered replacement wall on the boundary would appear to be of benefit to all parties.

14 The Committee had retained the condition requiring liability insurance which was appropriate for a project of this scale but it did not consider a bond was also required to deal with potential property damage.

15 The Committee observed that construction activity would from time to time occur in urban centres as building were replaced, renewed or strengthened. Although the effects of construction noise cannot be internalised, the effects were temporary and can be limited. It acknowledged the submissions from Lincoln Darling, Ken O’Connell and Rod McLeod regarding the significant construction phase effects experienced by neighbours during the development of 93 Filleul Street. The Committee also accepted the difficulty of accessing the site from the rear and it noted the behaviour of contractors could impact on the use of the lower car parking area. The applicant had promoted the use of a construction management plan to deal with the construction phase effects which the Committee supports. The plan appeared to cover all the relevant construction phase effects issues identified during the hearing.

Loss of Light

16 Mr Salis and Mr Robertson as the joint building owners of Vero house and the occupiers of highly regarded specialist dental consulting rooms in Vero House made strong submissions on the likely effects on their professional practices. It was noted that Mr Salis in particular would be affected by the loss of natural light given the specialist colour matching work he undertakes. The Committee acknowledged there would be an impact as the proposed building would be in close proximity to existing windows but as it had accepted that the application of the baseline was appropriate these effects would be similar to those that could occur with a permitted development. In terms of mitigation the Committee accepts that painting of the building to reflect light would only be of limited benefit but it still considered it appropriate for this to be undertaken. It had added a condition to ensure that this occurs.

Noise

17 The Committee noted the noise limit within the zone is L10 60DBA during the day and at night. This was a much higher limit that a residential zone and this should mean that compliance issues for heating and ventilation equipment installed on the roof of the building do not occur. The Committee considered that the effects could be managed by conditions of consent.

18 The Committee also noted that acoustic insulation would be required for the apartments to prevent reverse sensitivity issues arising. It considered noise issues could be effectively managed by standard consent conditions and the conditions would ensure compliance with relevant standards.

Positive Effects

19 The Committee agreed that positive effects would accrue from the proposed development beyond the initial investment and construction activity. The people living in the apartments would support business activity and vitality in the city centre. The building would provide an edge to the street that was not a feature of the existing site and enhance amenity values of the street.

Conclusion

20 The Committee accepted the evidence of Mr Sycamore and Mr Bryce that if the baseline was applied the overall effects of the proposed activity would be minor. The Committee considered the proposal passes the effect limb on the 104D gateway test and therefore the Committee could consider granting consent to the proposed development.

1 Objectives and Polices

21 The Committee accepted the evidence from Mr Sycamore and Mr Bryce that only limited weighting should be applied to the proposed 2nd generation plan objectives and policies given that the provisions were subject to challenge and submissions were yet to be heard.

22 Mr Sycamore determined that an overall assessment of the objectives and policies indicated that the proposal was consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the operative and proposed District Plans. Mr Bryce for the applicant agreed that in broad terms the proposal was consistent with the central policy outcomes of both District Plans. Conrad Anderson argued that the absence of pedestrian shelter in the form of a verandah meant that in his view the development proposal was contrary to Policy 9.3.3 which sought to enhance amenity values in the Central Activity zone and therefore the proposal should be assessed as being contrary to the operative District Plan.

23 The Committee noted that amenity values were defined broadly in the plan as follows:

Amenity Values - Means those natural and physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence and cultural and recreational attributes.

Amenity

24 Despite this, the assessment of objectives and policies by Conrad Anderson appeared to the Committee to be very narrow and selective. Mr Anderson only focused on one objective and one policy in his evidence. In the assessment of Policy 9.3.3 he extracted the element of shelter and formed a view that that the proposal was contrary to the policy based on the absence of shelter in the form of a verandah. The Committee observed that the policy identifies a range of matters as well as shelter as contributing to amenity values and Mr Anderson was questioned about these. His answers to the questions suggested he might not have adequately considered the breadth of matters contributing to amenity values.

25 The Committee accepted that verandahs were identified in the operative plan as important and that the failure to provide a verandah results in a non-complying activity status. However, the evidence from the urban designer was that a verandah at the location would have limited benefit as there were no other verandahs on neighbouring buildings and as it was not a major pedestrian route. The Committee agreed with this assessment. The Committee noted that the urban designer would likely hold a different view if a new building was located in a key pedestrian area and was necessary to ensure a continuous area of verandah cover.

26 The Committee preferred the assessments by Mr Bryce and Mr Sycamore by some margin. They were significantly more comprehensive. The Committee did not agree the proposal is contrary to Policy 9.3.3 or any other objective or policy in the proposed and operative plans. It agreed that overall the proposal was consistent with objectives and policies of both plans. Despite the absence of a verandah the Committee considered that that proposal would enhance street amenity values at 97 Filleul Street. The site currently had open parking areas and it was set well back from the front of the site. The proposed development would provide a defined street edge, locate car parking in the basement and improve safety by providing for passive surveillance of the street.

Other Matters

27 In terms of precedent Mr Sycamore identifies that in his opinion the proposal would not create an undesirable precedent for future applications in the Central Activity zone. The Committee agreed with this positon. The use of the building for residential activity was permitted and the non-compliance with the operative District Plan relates to permitted activity conditions. Approval was unlikely to set an undesirable precedent that would impact on consistent administration of the District Plan.

28 The legal submission from Len Andersen argues that the proposal should properly been seen as an application for Commercial Residential Activity. The Committee did not agree that this was the case. The Committee was satisfied that the consent as applied was for residential activity and the decision would be issued on that basis. If Commercial Residential activity was to be undertaken in some of the apartments another resource consent would be required. In the case of 93 Filleul Street it noted that a resource consent was issued to provide for commercial residential use on the site (LUC-2014-227). Car parking for this use was addressed through lease car parks and secured under the consent approval.

Determination

29 The Committee considered that the proposal should be granted subject to conditions.

30 The Committee accepted that the baseline should be applied and on that basis the effects of an 11m high building can be discounted when considering the effects of the proposal. Although the environmental change for the owners and occupiers of adjoining sites would be marked the Committee considered that the adverse effects beyond the baseline were minor. Similar effects would be experienced by the properties adjoining the site from a complying building.

31 The Committee considered that although the proposal was non-complying due to the absence of a verandah that the effects of the verandah at the location were minor.

32 The proposal was consistent with the objectives and policies of the operative and proposed District Plans. The Committee had concluded that the operative plan must be given more weight.

33 The Committee considered that the granting of consent would be consistent with the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

34 The Committee had made changes to the consent conditions recommended by Mr Sycamore and the applicant to ensure that the construction phase issues associated with the development at 93 Filleul Street were suitably managed. The Committee had required that a peer reviewed geotechnical report be provided. The report required a best practice works specification be identified and implemented to address concerns about site stability during the construction phase. The Committee considered that would ensure adequate investigation and management of site stability concerns and it would minimise the risk of any stability issues emerging. The requirement for construction insurance was not opposed by the applicants and this was retained as a condition. A $10,000,000 bond promoted by Len Andersen in his legal submissions was not considered necessary.

The meeting ended at 3.07 pm

……………………………

C H A I R P E R S O N

Hearings Committee

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin, on Wednesday 06 April 2016, commencing at 9.00 am

PRESENT

Chairperson	Cr Andrew Noone
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Commissioner Colin Weatherall

IN ATTENDANCE

John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor) and Amy Young (Processing Officer).

Governance Support Officer Wendy Collard

PART A:

1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2015-548, 29 QUEEN STREET, DUNEDIN

The Committee considered an application for the establishment of a three storey building with associated earthworks at 29 Queen Street, Dunedin. The committee was required to make a thorough assessment of the application using the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act 1991.

The applicant was represented by:

· Bridget Irving (Solicitor)

· Campbell Hodgson (Solicitor)

· Neville Butcher (Director of Eagle Corp Ltd)

· Sandra Butcher (Director of Eagle Corp Ltd)

· Derek McLachlan (Solicitor)

· Nathan Harris (Planning Student)

There were no submitters present at the hearing.

Procedural Issues

There were no procedural matters raised.

Presentation of the Planner’s Report

The Planning Officer (Amy Young) spoke to a summary of her report and provided overview of the proposal before commenting on the notification of the application and the submissions received.

Mrs Young commented that the proposal for the establishment of a three storey building with associated earthworks at 29 Queen Street, Dunedin and the proposed building was to be used for visitor accommodation and be known as the Bluestone Villa. She advised that it was to be a separate activity owned and operated by the owners of the Hotel Bluestone on George located at 571 George Street. The main pedestrian and only vehicle access would be off Queen Street; however there would also be internal pedestrian access from the adjacent site at 571 George Street.

Mrs Young advised that the proposed building would be located 5m back from the front boundary to allow for two on-site car parks off Queen Street with a small fenced garden area located in the south western corner. The building would be approximately 6m above the footpath level at the Queen Street frontage and the maximum height of the building would be approximately 9.7m above existing ground level.

Mrs Young commented that the proposed building would accommodate four bedrooms in total two on level 1 and two on level 3. Each bedroom would have a separate en-suite bathroom and small sitting area and outdoor deck. Mrs Young advised that a communal kitchen, dining area, living area and laundry would be accommodated on level 2 and a communal laundry on level 1. New external stair access would be provided from the ground level of level 1 to connect the subject site with 571 George Street.

Mrs Young advised that the site was previously occupied by a split level villa which had been demolished and the site was now vacant with large exposed terraces. The removal of the building had resulted in exposing facades and lower foundation walls of the neighbouring buildings. She commented that the previous building on the site had been utilised for student accommodation and that the applicants purchased the property in order to gain control over the effects of the neighbouring site on their existing residence and hotel business. The building was established around 1880 and an archaeological authority was obtained by the applicant prior to demolition.

Mrs Young confirmed that the site was zoned Residential 3 in the Operative District plan and Inner City Residential in the Proposed District Plan. She advised that Commercial Residential activity in the location was a non-complying activity and was also proposed as non-complying in the proposed plan. Although at the time there were no relevant operative rules in the proposed plan. Mrs Young commented that the objectives and policies of the proposed plan and operative plan had been taken into account.

When considering the permitted baseline Mrs Young commented that she believed that the design and appearance of the proposed building, and associated retaining and decking structures would not have an adverse effect on the adjoining owner above what can reasonably be expected to be developed as of right. After giving consideration to the likely effects of the proposal, she considered the effects of the proposal could be appropriately mitigated by conditions of consent so as to be no more than minor.

Mrs Young considered the proposal to be consistent with the Operative Plans relevant Objectives and Policies of the Operative Plan and the Proposed Plan. Mrs Young recommended that the Committee grant the application subject to conditions outlined in her report which are predominantly associated with the proposed earthworks.

The Senior Planner/Committee Advisor (John Sule) responded to questions on the timeframes for existing use rights which related to the removal of the villa and the construction of a new dwelling. Mr Sule advised that existing use rights might be able to be considered and this might be possible if the proposal was treated as an application to the Council to increase the typical 12 month period to 24 months. He advised that the Committee could seek legal advice on this aspect and he noted that the applicant’s legal team might be able to assist.

In response to questions regarding the stability of the site, Mrs Young referred to the advice that had been sought from Council’s Consultant Engineer, Lee Paterson specifically and commented that Mr Paterson had met with the applicant on site and discussed mitigation measures that would need to be put in place regardless of the consent. Mrs Young noted that Mr Paterson emphasised that the stability of the slope and was the owners responsibility and that they were responsible for the site stability for the duration of the project to ensure that any works carried out on the site did not undermine buildings or foundations or exacerbate any land instability on neighbouring properties.

The Applicant’s Presentation

Campbell Hodgson (Legal Counsel for Eagle Corp Limited) tabled and spoke to his legal submissions on behalf of the applicant. Mr Hodgson outlined the 104D gateway test and commented that overall, any adverse effects created by the proposal could be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated through conditions of consent or could be disregarded due to the permitted baseline. He concluded that the application passed through the effects limb of the s 104D gateway.

Mr Hodgson advised that he agreed with the Council Planner's assessment of relevant objectives and he considered that those polices should be accepted. These objectives and policies focused on:

a) The adverse effects activities might have on amenity values in the residential area.

b) Protecting the housing resource adjacent to campus; and

c) Providing for commercial residential activities.

Mr Hodgson commented that he believed that the proposed development would ensure that the amenity of the area would be enhanced. He advised that it would result in the development of a currently vacant site with a new building that would be consistent with the community’s expectations of a development in a residential zone.

In regards to the permitted baseline, Mr Hodgson advised that he agreed with the Council’s Planners assessment of the permitted baseline, and also suggested that the permitted baseline should be extended to cover the definition of residential activity which permits a homestay activity of up to 5 guests. Mr Hodgson stated that a certain degree of commercial residential activity had been identified as being acceptable within the zone. Mr Hodgson noted that should the applicants have decided to construct the same building for residential activity they would only require land use consent for breaches of performance standards. It was against that potential that Mr Hodgson wished the application to be assessed.

Mr Hodgson commented that the height breaches associated with the proposed building were assessed as having effects that were no more than minor. The residential appearance of the proposed building was seen to mitigate any adverse effects on amenity. The hours of operation for the Bluestone Villa would be similar to the hours of activity in a residential zone. He considered that this would mitigate the adverse non-visual amenity effects on the surrounding environment.

Mr Hodgson noted that the proposal provided one car park less than was required for Commercial Residential Activity and that two car parks were required for guests and one for staff. The shortfall of the car parking requirement could be accommodated on the adjacent site which contained the Bluestone on George Hotel which was also owned and operated by the applicants. Mr Hodgson commented that his assessment of the effects of the proposal was the at any adverse effects could be avoided, remedied or mitigated though conditions of consent or could be disregarded due to the permitted baseline.

Mr Hodgson commented that he agreed with the Planner's assessment and weighting given to the Proposed District Plan “2GP”.

Mr Hodgson advised that he had concerns regarding the Planner's proposed conditions 11 through to 15 as they appeared to be building consent matters. The conditions reflected engineering requirements which would be more appropriately dealt with through the building consent process. He submitted that these conditions should be removed and dealt with during the building consent process or alternatively, should form advice notes rather than conditions.

In conclusion of his evidence Mr Hodgson submitted that the application allowed the applicants to provide for their economic, social and cultural wellbeing while avoiding, remedying and mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

Neville Butcher (Director of Eagle Corp Limited) tabled and outlined his existing operations on the adjacent site at 571 George Street. Mr Butcher commented that the main reason for purchasing the neighbouring site was to have control over the tenants and the effects that they had on their hotel business. He advised that a building report was undertaken on the villa that previously occupied the site which was in a state of disrepair and demolished in April 2015. An archaeological authority was obtained as the building was constructed in the 1880s.

Mr Butcher advised that he wanted to establish a commercial style bed and breakfast in the new building to be called Bluestone Villa which would be run in conjunction with the existing hotel Bluestone on George next door. Staff and on-site management at Bluestone on George would also service the Bluestone Villa.

Mr Butcher advised that Architect Philip Gilchrist had been appointed to design a building of high quality that fitted within the existing streetscape. Mr Butcher advised that he had directed Mr Gilchrist to design a building within the parameters of the District Plan framework if possible. The building proposed was to be constructed to have a long life and in the future if it was not run as a commercial bed and breakfast Mr Butcher (or any future owner) could easily convert it to a residential property for a family home or student accommodation.

Mr Butcher confirmed that the building would be of typical residential design and would have no trouble being converted into a single residential dwelling. In response to questions regarding transport modes to the site and car parking, Mr Butcher advised that there would be sufficient overflow parking provided on the adjacent site should the need arose. He commented that the majority of his guests arrived by taxi or shuttle direct from the airport and that he would not be operating a courtesy vehicle due to restrictive nature of the approvals required to do so. Mr Butcher advised that Bluestone on George hotel currently provided 15 rooms and 16 car parks and that Mrs Young had assessed that the effects of car parking on the subject site as a standalone activity and the shortfall in car parking was considered acceptable by the Transportation Planner/Engineer. He commented that any overflow car parking provided by the applicant on the adjacent site should be seen as bonus and he agreed with Mrs Young’s opinion that did not need to be conditioned or tied to the consent in any way.

Mr Butcher advised that one small sign with the name Bluestone Villa would be erected to direct visitors to the site. The main reception area would be on the adjoining site which has more prominent signage which was typically associated with visitor accommodation.

The Planner’s Review of her Recommendation

Mrs Young reviewed her recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing, maintaining her recommendation to grant consent. She acknowledged Mr Hodgson’s request to for the removal of conditions 11-15 and treat them as advice notes; however emphasised that the building consent process did not cover all effects in relation to earthworks. Mrs Young commented that she considered that the proposal required an earthworks consent under the operative District Plan and conditions should be set as requested by Council’s Consultant Engineer to mitigate potential adverse effects of the earthworks. She maintained her recommendation to the Committee to grant the consent subject to proposed conditions.

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):

"That the meeting be adjourned until 10.15 am."

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 10.00 am and reconvened 10.13 am.

The Applicant’s Response

Mr Hodgson reiterated the positive aspects of the application and asked for consent to be granted. He commented on existing use rights, permitted baseline and car parking effects. Mr Hodgson confirmed that existing use rights for the site in relation to the recently demolished villa had nearly lapsed and he did not consider Mr Sule’s position to be correct. He advised that the applicants could have applied for a building consent in order to maintain the existing use rights but they hadn't because of the requirement for resource consent. Mr Hodgson suggested that they should put existing use rights to one side when making their assessment. He commented that the relevant baseline was the development of a dwelling that complied with the District Plan and he noted the design of the house largely comes within the permitted baseline and would look like a dwelling. In relation to the permitted baseline for car parking for a dwelling he noted the two car parks provided would be greater than the residential requirement and although less that the district plan requirements for a commercial residential activity the parking would still be adequate. He emphasised that the Committee should assess the application as a standalone activity.

Mr Hodgson advised that he considered the application easily met both gateway tests and the effects would be no more than minor. Mr Hodgson asked for consent to be granted.

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely, Item 1.

	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter.	Ground(s) under section 48 (1) for the passing of this resolution.

1	Resource Consent Application – 29 Queen Street Dunedin	That a right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the Dunedin City Council in these proceedings.”	S 48(1)(d)

Motion carried

The meeting moved into non-public at 10.27 am.

MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, ON 6 APRIL 2016 COMMENCING AT 10.30 AM

PRESENT: Councillors Andrew Noone and Lee Vandervis and Commissioner Colin Weatherall

IN ATTENDANCE: John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor) and Wendy Collard (Governance Support Officer)

PART C:

1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION – LUC-2015-548, 29 QUEEN STREET, DUNEDIN

The Committee gave consideration to the Planner’s recommendation and to the points raised by the applicant. A site visit had been undertaken during this part of the meeting.

Decision

It was moved (Commissioner Weatherall/Vandervis):

" That pursuant to Section 34A(1) and 104B and after having regard to Part 2 matters and Sections 104 and 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991, and the provisions of the Dunedin City District Plan and the Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan, the Dunedin City Council granted consent to a non-complying activity being the establishment of a three storey building for visitor accommodation and associated earthworks at 29 Queen Street, Dunedin, legally described as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 300261 (Computer Freehold Register 1972), subject to conditions imposed under Section 108 of the Act, as shown below:

1. The proposal should be undertaken in general accordance with the plan prepared by Philip Gilchirst Architect Limited and Stephen Macknight Limited titled, ‘Bluestone Villa, 29 Queen Street, Dunedin, dated October 2015, and details submitted with the resource consent application received by the Council on 13 November 2015, except where modified by the following conditions of consent.

2. Only one sign was to be installed on the site and it should comply with the requirements specified in Rule 19.5.4 of the operative District Plan in force at 1 July 2016.

Construction Noise

3. Construction activity, this should be limited to the times set out below and should comply with the following noise limits as per New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999:

Time of Week	Time Period	Leq (dBA)	L max(dBA)
Weekdays	0730-1800	75	90
	1800-2000	70	85
	2000-0630	45	75
Saturdays	0730-1800	75	90
	1800-2000	45	75
	2000-0630	45	75
Sundays and public holidays	0730-1800	55	85
	1800-2000	45	75
	2000-0630	45	75

Water Supply

4. An “Application for Water Supply” was to be submitted to the Water and Waste Services Business Unit for approval to establish a new adequately sized water connection for the development. Details of how the proposed development was to be serviced for water should accompany the “Application for Water Supply”

5. Upon approval by the Water and Waste Services Business Unit, water service connections should be installed in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.6.2 of the Dunedin Code of Subdivision and Development 2010.

6. The new water service connection should have a water meter installed.

7. An RPZ backflow prevention device must be installed on the Queen Street water connection servicing the development. The backflow prevention device must be installed in accordance with the Code of Practice for Boundary Backflow Prevention (June 2013) and inspected and approved by the Education and Compliance Officer (Water), Water and Waste Services.

Earthworks

8. No earthworks might be undertaken until building consent had been granted.

9. The consent holder should advise the Council, in writing, of the start date of the earthworks. The written advice should be provided to Council at least five (5) working days before the works were to commence.

10. The consent holder should establish a construction phase vehicle access point to the site and ensure it was used by construction vehicles. The access was to be stabilised by using a geotextile fabric and either topped with crushed rock or aggregate. The access was to be designed to prevent sediment runoff.

11. All walls retaining over 1.5m, or walls that a surcharged or supporting a slope (including terracing), required design, specification and supervision by appropriately qualified person/s.

12. Prior to undertaking the work, a professional must assess the potential for instability on adjacent properties, as a result of the works. Confirmation should be made of foundation depths for existing structures in relation to the proposed earthworks.

13. All temporary slopes should be inspected and signed off by a suitably qualified individual and the excavation slopes should be supported within 2 months of commencing the earthworks.

14. To prevent concentrated run off from the site in a heavy rain event temporary drainage connections from the proposed building to an approved stormwater outlet were to be installed should the roof of the new building be established prior to the commissioning of stormwater drainage for the new building.

15. If fill was to be reused on the site it was to be deposited in accordance with best practice and keyed into any slopes. Any additional batter slopes not addressed in the consent should comply with the setback requirements of Section 17.7 of the operate District Plan in force an 1 April 2016 or a further land use consent would be required.

16. Any areas of certified or uncertified fill should be identified on a plan, and the plan and certificates submitted to Council to be recorded against the property file.

17. Any change in ground levels was not to cause a ponding or drainage nuisance to neighbouring properties.

18. The earthworks should be undertaken with the principles of industry best practice applied at all stages of site development including site stability, stormwater management, traffic management, along with dust and noise controls at the sites.

19. To ensure effective management of erosion and sedimentation on the site during earthworks and as the site was developed, measures were to be taken and devices are to be installed, where necessary, to:

a) divert clean runoff away from disturbed ground;

b) control and contain stormwater run-off;

c) avoid sediment laden run-off from the site; and

d) protect existing drainage infrastructure sumps and drains from sediment run-off.

e) ensure that all personnel (contractors) working on the site were made aware of the conditions of the consent, had access to the contents of consent documents and to all associated erosion and sediment control plans and methodology

20. Should the consent holder cease, abandon, or stop work on site for a period longer than 6 weeks, the consent holder should first take adequate preventative and remedial measures to control sediment discharge/run-off and dust emissions, and should thereafter maintain these measures for so long as necessary to prevent sediment discharge or dust emission from the site. All such measures should be of a type and to a standard which were to the satisfaction of the Resource Consent Manager.

21. If at the completion of the earthworks operations, any public road, footpath, landscaped areas or service structures that had been affected/damaged by contractor(s), consent holder, developer, person involved with earthworks or building works, and/or vehicles and machineries used in relation to earthworks and construction works, should be reinstated to the satisfaction of Council at the expense of the consent holder.

Transportation

22. The vehicle access should be formed to a width of 6.0m, hard surfaced from the edge of the carriageway of Queen Street to a distance not less than 5.0m inside the property boundary, and be adequately drained for its duration.

Motion carried

Reasons for the Decision

1 The Committee was of the view that the proposed activity was not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the operative and proposed District Plans and with the objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement for Otago.

2 The Committee considered that it was appropriate to apply the permitted baseline in this case. The relevant baseline for comparison with the proposed activity was the establishment of a dwelling that complied with the permitted activity conditions for the Residential 3 zone. The Committee considered that the adverse effects of the proposal would be minor when the effects of a permitted building used for a residential activity were disregarded and the effects beyond the permitted baseline were considered.

3 The Committee believed that the proposal would not give rise to more than minor adverse environmental effects and satisfies both gateway tests contained in Section 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991. As such, the Committee were, therefore, able to give consideration to the granting of consent to the proposal.

4 The Committee noted the applicant’s legal advice regarding plan integrity and true exception. It considered the “true exception” test to be a useful method for identifying distinguishing factors that would potentially prevent a plethora of like applications impacting on the integrity of the District Plan. In this case it noted that the demand for housing in the area was strong and the development could be readily converted to a residential dwelling. It agreed that that approval of the application would not threaten the integrity of the District Plan or establish an undesirable precedent for future applications.

5 The site inspection confirmed the presence a possible boundary encroachment from neighbouring site at 25 Queen Street where a stormwater pipe was established on the side of the dwelling. The pipe intruded into the air space of the subject site. The Committee also observed that a window at 25 Queen Street installed through the fire wall would be blocked by the proposal. The applicant advised the Committee that they intended to set back the building from the boundary slightly to accommodate the pipe and the development would not necessitate the removal of the pipe.

6 The Committee noted that the window on the upper northern façade of the property at 25 Queen Street appeared to have been installed some time ago but after the original fire wall along the boundary was established. It could not be certain that the window was lawfully established. The Committee noted that there were no submissions from the owner of 25 Queen Street and it also noted that the development a permitted structure would also obscure the window.

7 The Committee noted the applicant’s legal advice in respect earthworks conditions. It did not agree that these matters were best addressed at the building consent stage and it considered that the management of earthworks effects included in conditions within conditions 11-15 are clearly within the ambit of the earthworks approval sought under the consent. Minor improvements had been made to the conditions to improve clarity.

8 The Committee concluded that the granting of the consent would be consistent with the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

The meeting ended at 11.30 am.

……………………………

C H A I R P E R S O N

Hearings Committee

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin, on Thursday 14 April 2016, commencing at 9.00 am

PRESENT

Chairperson	Cr Andrew Noone
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Andrew Whiley

IN ATTENDANCE

John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Lianne Darby (Processing Officer) and Grant Fisher (Transport Planner/Engineer).

Governance Support Officer Wendy Collard

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):

"That the meeting be adjourned to allow the arrival of the Committee Advisor."

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 9.09 am and reconvened at 9.13 am.

PART A:

1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2015-520 AND SUB 2015-96,
113 CLIFFS ROAD, DUNEDIN

The Committee considered an application to establish two residential lots at 113 Cliffs Road and land use consent for use of an under-width, shared access with more than 12 users, was processed on a limited notified basis in accordance with sections 95A and 95G of the Resource Management Act 1991

The applicant was represented by:

· John Willems (Consultant Planner)

· John and Shirley Fogarty

There was one submitters present at the hearing:

· Peter Foster

Procedural Issues

There were no procedural matters raised.

Presentation of the Planner’s Report

The Planning Officer (Lianne Darby) spoke to a summary of her report, and provided an overview of the proposal before commenting on the notification of the application and the submissions received.

Mrs Darby provided a description of the subject site and commented on the use of the shared access known as Lyders Road. She commented that the proposed subdivision would create two sites of 817m² and 1973m², and both new lots would utilise the existing right of way over Lyders Road to Cliffs Road. The larger lot would contain the existing house on-site. Mrs Darby advised that Lyders Road was not formed to District Plan standards, and would have more than twelve users.

Mrs Darby commented that the subject site was zoned Residential 1 in the Dunedin City District Plan, and the subdivision proposal was a non-complying activity due to neither new lot having adequate frontage. She advised that not all affected party approvals were obtained, and the application was notified on a limited basis to those users and owner of Lyders Road who had not provided affected party approval. One submission had been received from Mr Foster who was the owner of Lyders Road. Mrs Darby commented that he did not object to the proposed subdivision in principle, but sought to have the upgrading works undertaken appropriately and without impacting negatively on the future access options for 117 Cliffs Road, among other matters.

Mrs Darby recommended that the consent be granted, subject to conditions which included the requirement to upgrade the lower section of Lyders Road and its intersection with Cliffs Road.

The Applicant’s Presentation

John Willems on behalf of the applicant spoke to his written submission, and provided a brief description of the site and proposal. He commented on the concerns which had been raised by Mr Foster. Mr Willems advised that he and Mr Fogarty were in agreement with the planner’s report and recommended conditions, and would carry out any works on the access in conjunction with Mr and Mrs Roe, the consent holders of SUB-2013-17.

SUBMITTERS

Peter Foster spoke to his submission. He advised that he was the developer of Adams Way to the southwest of the subject site, and was knowledgeable about the Council’s requirements for subdivision and roads. Mr Foster advised that he had previously studied the amount of Residential 1 zoned land served by Lyders Road, and had attempted to get the road upgraded and/or transferred into Council ownership and management. He commented that the costs of upgrading the road had been assessed as significant. While Mr Foster was not anti-subdivision, he was conscious of problems with Lyders Road and its intersection with Cliffs Road.

Mr Foster advised that 117 Cliffs Road had access via Adams Way; however was a leg-in to Cliffs Road and commented that an access along the leg-in had been designed to meet Cliffs Road at its crown. Mr Foster commented that he had worked hard to get approval for the access, and it just managed to achieve the requirements for minimum sight distances and transitions. This was not possible from the Lyders Road intersection which had poor sight distances in both directions along Cliffs Road. He advised that the leg-in to 117 Cliffs Road needed to be developed in order to access four prime residential sites intended for 123 Cliffs Road. Mr Foster advised that he had also offered Mr Fogarty the opportunity to use the leg-in for access, but the offer had been declined. The upgrading of Lyders Road would be difficult, and expensive. Mr Foster believed it would be a better and safer access if Mr Fogarty were to use the leg-in to 117 Cliffs Road.

Council Officers' Evidence

The Transport Engineer/Planner (Grant Fisher) spoke to his memorandum and commented that he agreed with Mr Foster that there was a large amount of Residential 1 zoned land served by Lyders Road, and the Council would like to see the unlocking of that land for use. Mr Fisher advised that however; negotiations could be fraught, given the number of users of the access and opinions. He noted that the 2008 plans for the leg-in to 117 Cliffs Road were quite good, but the issue for the Committee was the present application, and the upgrading of Lyders Road by Mr Fogarty and Mr and Mrs Roe.

Mr Fisher advised that he had worked with Mr and Mrs Roe to achieve a workable solution for the Lyders Road intersection and that Transport were prepared to reduce the sight distance requirements to 30m because the operational speed of the road was much slower than 50km/hr. He commented that surveys had indicated that it was a lot slower, and a reduced sight distance requirement was acceptable. Mr Fisher advised that both SUB-2013-17 and Mr Fogarty’s consent were to have the same conditions regarding the upgrading of the intersection, and Mr and Mrs Roe were in the process of applying for earthworks to be undertaken within the road reserve. The earthworks were unlikely to be significant or impact negatively on the 2008 plans for the access to 117 Cliffs Road. He commented that Mr Foster would still be able to develop the leg-in access. Council were open to discussions about a development contribution scheme for works on Lyders Road, but this could be a great deal of work for the Council and it might have to wait a long time to recoup expenses.

Mr Fisher advised that there had been no accidents reported for this section of Cliffs Road, although minor accidents would not necessarily be reported. It was difficult to turn left into Cliffs Road, but the proposed works would improve the situation. He commented that no retaining works were required; it was more a case of trimming the land forms, mostly on the northern side of the access. It was no secret that Lyders Road had not been maintained, and that it was deficient in its standard. The recommended conditions of consent would help to bring it up closer to District Plan standard.

The Committee suggested an adjournment to allow Mr Fogarty, Mr Foster and Mr Fisher to discuss the options for upgrading Lyders Road for the benefit of all users. Mr Willems commented that he did not think it a beneficial exercise as previous efforts to negotiate a solution had been unsuccessful. He noted that the Committee was there to consider the two-lot subdivision of 113 Cliffs Road, with access via Lyders Road. Mr Willems did not see what else could be said or done to solve the existing problems. The Committee noted it was merely trying to create an opportunity.

It was moved (Noone/Whiley):

"That the meeting be adjourned until 10.45 am."

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 10.28 am and reconvened at 10.45 am.

Mr Fisher commented on the discussions that had taken place between the parties regarding Lyders Road and advised that it had been too difficult to get any robust agreement. He commented that any improvements to the upper road would be outside of the consent process, and couldn’t be reached without the involvement of all the other parties; however Mr Fisher noted that he was aware of an increased willingness by the users of Lyders Road to come to some resolution. Mr Fisher advised that Council would be happy to involve staff time to help facilitate land development. The recommended conditions for the subdivision would bring the lower stretch of Lyders Road up to a two-way standard. Mr Fisher did not think traffic calming measures were necessary.

Mr Foster commented that Mr Fisher had covered most of the points of the discussion and had agreed to discuss the subject with Council.

The Planner’s Review of her Recommendation

The Handling Officer reviewed her recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing, maintaining her recommendation to grant consent subject to conditions. Mrs Darby commented that the proposal was for a two-lot subdivision with both new lots utilising the existing Lyders Road right of way. She advised that the consent would have conditions requiring the upgrading of the lower section of Lyders Road consistent with the conditions imposed on the subdivision consent of SUB-2013-17. Mrs Darby commented that this would ensure that the works were done regardless of which subdivision went first, but did mean there was a risk that the consent holder undertaking their subdivision first would be left with all the costs of the work. There was no means for Council to manage the situation, nor to direct how costs would lie. This would have to be a private agreement between the parties.

The Applicant’s Response

Mr Willems thanked Mr Foster for travelling from Christchurch to be at the hearing, and for providing the opportunity to meet. However, it was difficult to get any sort of agreement regarding the access options.

Mr Willems reminded the Committee that it was there to consider a two-lot subdivision. He commented that he had previously met with Mr Foster at the time of considering the Roes’ subdivision, and had suggested a right of way be created over the full width of Lyders Road. The users of the road should be the owners, to relieve Mr Foster of the responsibility.

Mr Willems advised that he was pleased that Mr Fisher was prepared to consider a reduced requirement for sight distances at the intersection with Cliffs Road. Forming the access over the leg-in of 117 Cliffs Road was too expensive for his client. Mr Willems suggested keeping the matter of that access separate from the proposal.

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely, Item 1.

	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter.	Ground(s) under section 48 (1) for the passing of this resolution.

1	Resource Consent Application – 113 Cliffs Road, Dunedin	That a right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the Dunedin City Council in these proceedings.”	S 48(1)(d)

Motion carried

The meeting moved into non-public at 11.13 am.

MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, ON 14 APRIL 2016, COMMENCING AT 11.15 AM

PRESENT: Councillors Andrew Noone (Chairperson),
Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley

IN ATTENDANCE: John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Lianne Darby (Planner), Grant Fisher (Transportation Planner/Engineer) and Wendy Collard (Governance Support Officer)

PART C:

1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2015-520 AND SUB 2015-96,
113 CLIFFS ROAD, DUNEDIN

The Committee gave consideration to the Planner’s recommendation and to the points raised by the applicant. A site visit was undertaken during the non-public section of the meeting.

Decision

It was moved (Vandervis/Whiley):

"Subdivision SUB-2015-96

That pursuant to section 34A(1) and 104B, and after having regard to Part II matters and sections 104 and 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Dunedin City Council granted consent to a non-complying activity being the subdivision of 113 Cliffs Road, Dunedin, being the site legally described as Lot 3 DP 4874 (CFR OT290/34) into two lots, subject to the conditions imposed under sections 108 and 220 of the Act, as follows:

1. The proposal should be given effect to generally in accordance with the revised plan prepared by TL Survey Services Ltd entitled, ‘Proposed Subdivision of Lot 3 DP 4874 & Easements over Lot 18 DP 424179,’ received at Council on 19 January 2016, and the accompanying information submitted as part of SUB-2015-96 received by Council on 30 October 2015, except where modified by the following:

2. Prior to certification of the survey plan pursuant to section 223 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the applicant should ensure the following:

a) If a requirement for any easements for services was incurred during the survey then those easements should be granted or reserved and included in a Memorandum of Easements on the survey plan.

b) That Rights of Way A and B should be duly created or reserved as appropriate, and should be shown on the survey plan in a Memorandum of Easements. The rights of way should have a minimum legal width of 3.5m.

c) That easements for services in favour of Lot 2 should be duly created or reserved as necessary.

3. Prior to certification pursuant to section 224(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the applicant should complete the following:

Access

a) That the intersection of Lyders Road and Cliffs Road should be upgraded so that a driver has at least 40m, or an alternative distance that has been sufficiently justified and agreed to by Transport, of sight distance along Cliffs Road in both directions. Detailed engineering plans for the upgrade should be submitted to Transport for approval prior to construction works commencing.

b) That the shared private access of Lyders Road should be upgraded generally in accordance with the District Plan requirements for rights of way. The upgrades should include the following:

· The lower section of Lyders Road, from Cliffs Road up to the entrance for 113 Cliffs Road, should be widened to a minimum of 5.0m where reasonably possible or, failing that, the maximum extent of any narrower width, and should be hard surfaced over the full length. The access should be adequately drained.

· One traffic calming structure should be installed between Cliffs Road and the entrance to 113 Cliffs Road.

c) A Traffic Management Plan for the management of the access during upgrading works should be submitted to the Transport for approval prior to works being commenced.

d) The access should be managed in accordance with the approved Traffic Management Plan during the construction period of all upgrade works.

e) All construction work on the site should be designed and conducted to ensure that construction noise did not exceed the noise limits in the following table.

*Time of Week*	*Time Period*	*Leq (dBA)*	*L max(dBA)*
*Weekdays*	*0730-1800*	75	90
	*1800-2000*	70	85
	*2000-0730*	45	75
*Saturdays*	*0730-1800*	75	90
	*1800-2000*	45	75
	*2000-0730*	45	75
*Sundays and public holidays*	*0730-1800*	55	85
*Sundays and public holidays*	*1800-2000*	45	75

Sound levels should be measured and assessed in accordance with the provisions of NZS 6803: 1999 Acoustics – Construction noise. Please Note: the lower noise limits on Sundays and Public Holidays might mean that no construction work could occur on these days.

Services

f) An “Application for Water Supply – New Service” should be submitted to the Water and Waste Services Business Unit for approval to establish a new water connection to Lot 1. Details of how Lot 1 was to be serviced for water should accompany the application.

g) Upon approval by the Water and Waste Services Business Unit, a water service connection should be installed in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.6.2 of the Dunedin Code of Subdivision and Development 2010.

h) That services to the existing house should be rerouted as necessary to coincide with the relevant easements, thereby providing a feasible building area within Lot 1 clear of all services.

Erosion and Sediment Control

i) That all practicable measures should be used to mitigate erosion and to control and contain sediment-laden stormwater run-off from the site during any stages of site disturbance that might be associated with the subdivision.

Land use LUC-2015-520

That pursuant to section 34A(1) and 104C and after having regard to section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Dunedin City Council granted consent to a restricted discretionary activity being residential activities on Lots 1 and 2 SUB-2015-96 utilising an access with under-width formation which serves more than twelve users, at 113 Cliffs Road, Dunedin, subject to conditions imposed under section 108 of the Act, as follows:

1. The proposal should be given effect to generally in accordance with the revised plan prepared by TL Survey Services Ltd entitled, ‘Proposed Subdivision of Lot 3 DP 4874 & Easements over Lot 18 DP 424179,’ received at Council on 19 January 2016, and the accompanying information submitted as part of LUC-2015-520 received by Council on 30 October 2015, except where modified by the following:

2. The existing and future residential activities of Lots 1 and 2 SUB-2015-96 should comply with all other performance criteria of the operative District Plan unless further resource consent was specifically obtained for a breach of the rules.

Motion carried

Reasons for the Decision

1. The proposal was for a subdivision to create residential sites in a residential area, and in this respect the effects of the proposal are largely anticipated by the District Plan. The Committee noted that the new lots to be created would comfortably meet the minimum lot size for the Residential 1 zone, and the overall density of development would be well within the expectations of the zoning. Both new lots would have adequate legal access. The subdivision itself did not present any issues for Council.

2. The proposed subdivision would introduce one additional user to the lower section of Lyders Road. The upgrading and hard surfacing of this section of the access was to be undertaken as part of the subdivision works, with any agreement as to the sharing of the costs being a private matter between the applicant and the consent holder of SUB-2013-17. The Committee considered that the proposed upgrade of the access was appropriate given the number of existing users and was proportional to the proposed increase in use. The upgrade would improve the access for all users.

3. The increased use of the access was considered to be acceptable. The additional user would only utilise the lower section of Lyders Road, and the users of the access had either provided affected party approval or had not submitted on the application. The one submission received at Council did not oppose the use of the access, but sought to have the upgrading undertaken appropriately. The upgraded access would be close to meeting the District Plan requirements for up to twelve users.

4. The Committee was aware that there was an obstruction (wall and fence) located within the Lyders Road right of way which encroaches and impacts on the available width of the access. This was a private encroachment issued that is not able to be addressed by the consent.

5. There were no known issues with the servicing of the proposed lots, and reticulated services were available. The Water and Waste Services Business Unit had no concerns about the capacity of the infrastructure to service the new lots.

6. The Consulting Engineer had not identified any concerns about the stability of the new sites except in regard to future earthworks during the development of proposed Lot 1. The Consulting Engineer did not oppose the proposal, but advises that the earthworks should be undertaken in an appropriate manner, and that retaining structures be specifically designed and constructed.

7. The Committee considered that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Dunedin City District Plan and the Proposed Plan.

8. Section 104 of the Act required that the Council take into account Regional Policy Statements and rules of any plan or proposed plan. The proposal was found to be consistent with the objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement for Otago.

9. The limbs of section 104D require that the adverse effects on the environment would be no more than minor, or the application was for an activity which would not be contrary to the objectives and policies of either the relevant plan or the relevant proposed plan. The test was only relevant for the subdivision component of the application. The Committee was of the opinion that the subdivision would have adverse effects which were no more than minor, and that the proposal was consistent with the objectives and policies of both the Dunedin City District Plan and the Proposed Plan. Accordingly, the Committee was in the position of being able to give consideration to the granting of consent.

10. The subdivision proposal was considered to satisfy the relevant sections of Part II of the Act.

The meeting ended at 1.15 pm.

……………………………

C H A I R P E R S O N

Council Annual Plan Hearings

MINUTES

Unconfirmed minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Council Annual Plan Hearings held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin on Wednesday 4 May 2016, commencing at 9.00 am and Thursday 5 May 2016 commencing at 9.00 am.

PRESENT

Chairperson	Mayor Dave Cull
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Chris Staynes
Members	Cr David Benson-Pope	Cr John Bezett
	Cr Hilary Calvert	Cr Doug Hall
	Cr Aaron Hawkins	Cr Mike Lord
	Cr Jinty MacTavish	Cr Andrew Noone
	Cr Neville Peat	Cr Richard Thomson
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Andrew Whiley
	Cr Kate Wilson

IN ATTENDANCE

Sue Bidrose (Chief Executive Officer), Grant McKenzie (Group Chief Financial Officer), Simon Pickford (General Manager Services and Development), Ruth Stokes (General Manager Infrastructure and Networks), Sandy Graham (Group Manager Corporate Services), Nicola Pinfold (Group Manager Community and Planning), Jane Nevill (Corporate Planner), Carolyn Allan (Senior Management Accountant), Wai Piggott (Financial Analyst) and Bridget Brown (Sign Language Interpreter)

Governance Support Officers Lynne Adamson, Andrea Barker, Wendy Collard, Arlene Goss, Pam Jordan and Jennifer Lapham

1 WELCOME FROM THE MAYOR

The Mayor welcomed everyone to the meeting, explained the process for the hearing and introduced Bridget Brown, NZ Sign Language Interpreter, who would provide interpretation when appropriate.

2 Apologies

There was an apology (for lateness) from Councillor Lee Vandervis.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Accepts the apology from Cr Vandervis.

Motion carried

3 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda with the following additions or alterations:

a) Item 8 (Consideration of Late Submissions – Addendum) to be taken with Item 5 (Consideration of Late Submissions) and the submission circulated the previous evening.

Motion carried (AP/2016/001)

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Confirms the following addition to the agenda:

b) an addition of the resolution regarding Suspension of Standing Orders, to allow for more efficient conduct of the meeting.

Motion carried (AP/2016/002)

4 Declarations of interest

Members were reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arose between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

4A Suspension of Standing Orders

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Suspends the requirement for Councillors to stand while speaking for the duration of the meeting.

b) Suspends Standing Order 3.7.17 to allow Councillors to use electronic devices during the meeting.

Motion carried (AP/2016/003)

Part A Reports

5 Consideration of Late Submissions

A report from Civic advised that submissions to the 2016/2017 Annual Plan closed on Wednesday 20 April 2016 at 5.00 pm. Six submissions had been received since the closing date.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Accepts the late submissions from Angela Ross, Bruce Halligan, Kerin Smith, Craig Werner, Murray Turner and Leona Carroll.

Motion carried (AP/2016/004)

8 Consideration of Late Submissions - Addendum

An additional report from Civic advised that a further late submission had been received since the agenda was distributed from the Digital Community Trust.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Accepts the late submission from the Digital Community Trust.

Motion carried (AP/2016/005)

The Mayor invited the Group Chief Financial Officer (Grant McKenzie) to provide comments in relation to the status of the current financial year and the impact on the financial performance. Mr McKenzie provided a brief update and advised that additional information would be provided in the reports presented to Council in the deliberations process.

Cr Lee Vandervis entered the meeting at 9.17 am.

6 Draft 2016 - 2017 Annual Plan Submissions

Hearing of Submissions

Consideration was given to submissions received on the 2016/17 Draft Annual Plan. The following submitters were heard by the Committee:

Bill Feather, Mosgiel Taieri Community Board and Sarah Nitis

Mr Feather and Ms Nitis spoke to the submission on behalf of the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board and emphasised the need for increased investment to enhance Mosgiel's existing infrastructure.

Ms Nitis spoke on the Economic Development strategy and the positive impact of economic growth and emphasised the need to support and provide additional funding to economic development. She commented that expenditure in Council strategies would benefit the city with the encouragement of new visitors and residents.

Mr Feather asked for the consideration of a community board elected member training plan, inclusive of funding, to be put in place for the new triennium.

Gerard Collings, Waikouaiti Coast Community Board

Mr Collings spoke to the submission on behalf of the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board. He advised that the Board was supportive of funding towards the investigation of coastal erosion however was concerned that the proposed allocated funding of $75,000 may be inadequate and sought assurance that the budget would not be constrained.

Mr Collings commented that the Board would like Council to actively ensure there were adequate facilities provided to support freedom camping and cited the problems incurred at the Warrington Domain. He advised that whilst the Board appreciated the installation of temporary port-a-loos for the season, they would like a more permanent year-round solution.

Barry Williams, Strath Taieri Community Board

Mr Williams spoke on behalf of the Strath Taieri Community Board's submission and in particular, the deterioration of the maintenance of gravel roads and requested that Council maintain the level of service it provided.

Mr Williams suggested that Council could extract gravel from the Taieri River which would both save money and reduce the flooding risk.

Mr Williams requested that the funding provided for the Middlemarch swimming pool be increased from $10,000 to $20,000 per annum.

Scott Weatherall, Saddle Hill Community Board

Mr Weatherall spoke on behalf of the submission from the Saddle Hill Community Board and raised concerns about coastal erosion and freedom camping. He requested that options for additional sites for freedom camping in the area be investigated to alleviate the pressure on the toilets at Ocean View. Mr Weatherall identified the Brighton Surf Club as a possible alternative site but advised that there would need to be consultation with residents and staff prior to the agreement of the site.

Mr Weatherall advised that the Board was concerned with coastal erosion in the area and commented that some roads in the Board area were under threat of falling into the ocean.

Mayor Dave Cull left the meeting at 9.56 am and Cr Staynes took the Chair.

Mr Weatherall spoke of the frustration with the length of time taken by the Environment Court to reach a decision on the quarrying of Saddle Hill.

Mayor Dave Cull returned to the meeting at 9.58 am and resumed the Chair.

Mr Weatherall spoke of road safety concerns in the area and in particular the Allanton/Scroggs Hill Road – Scroggs Hill Road intersection where cars regularly left the road. He commented that the Board was concerned with the proposed increase in fees for the landfill and advised that it would result in an increase in roadside dumping.

Cr Hilary Calvert left the meeting at 10.04 am and returned at 10.08 am.

Paul Pope and Edna Stevenson, Otago Peninsula Community Board

Mr Pope and Ms Stevenson highlighted concerns raised in the submission from the Otago Peninsula Community Board.

Mr Pope and Ms Stevenson commented on the Portobello/Harington Point Road Safety Improvement – Accelerated Programme. They commented that the Te Rauone Beach Rock Breakwater and Sand Nourishment Project was a priority for the Board and requested that Council carry forward the $50,000 funding for a breakwater at Te Rauone beach.

Mr Pope spoke of road safety issues and commented on the Board's support for the Dark Skies Project and the need to include parking spaces for viewing the night sky which should be considered in conjunction with the road safety improvements.

Mr Pope and Ms Stevenson commented on the need for toilets to be installed on the Otago Peninsula, and in particular at Sandfly Bay. They requested that more emphasis be given to the requests in the Community Plans.

Steve Walker, Chalmers Community Board

Mr Walker spoke on behalf of the Chalmers Community Board and reiterated the points raised in its submission. In addition Mr Walker commented that he would like to see Council raise the awareness with residents that despite the questions being asked for the draft Annual Plan, they were able to submit on anything of interest.

Mr Walker commented that the Board felt that the state of fencing and general look of the SH88 corridor should be addressed urgently. Cruise ship passengers increased annually and this was a very poor first impression of Dunedin in terms of marketing in the city.

Cr Mike Lord left the meeting at 10.37 am and returned at 10.39 am.

Mr Walker spoke of the need to complete the shared pathway using the footpath next to SH 88. He noted that a more affordable solution was requested however the Board would not like to see the project corrupted for the sake of early completion.

Donna Peacock

Donna Peacock was representing herself and her husband. She circulated and read from a document called "Submission DCC Annual Plan 2016/17 Interview D Peacock". In conclusion, she called for a sustainable world and would like to move immediately towards sustainability supported by new technology and initiatives.

Cr Vandervis left the meeting at 10.50 am.

Ngai Tahu Maori Law Centre

Desiree Williams, solicitor at Ngai Tahu Maori Law Centre, spoke. She asked Council to adopt a policy with regards to rates remission on Maori freehold land. The lack of policy was hindering development of the land and creating hardship. She said they were not seeking a blanket remission across all Maori freehold land, but in particular cases. She introduced Mr and Mrs Ellison who were connected with the Karitane rūnaka and were owners of several blocks. They had requested rates remission and learned there was no mechanism to do this.

The Chief Executive was asked for an interim report on this issue.

Cr Vandervis returned to the meeting at 11.19 am.

Discussion on this issue included whether mechanisms like the QEII covenant could be used where rates were not charged on the land. Concerns about the abuse of process would require more detailed submissions. There was a need to approach QV to see if the value of the land could be reduced. There was a block of land in the Taieri area that had been given relief. It was now producing honey and paying rates.

The meeting adjourned at 11.40 am and reconvened at 11.56 am.

The Chief Executive Officer explained the purpose of having a deaf interpreter at the meeting.

Sarah Anderson, Regent Theatre

Sarah Anderson spoke regarding the need for discounted hire for community groups and charities. She proposed allowing the theatre to access a fund so it did not have to continue to carry the financial loss of providing the theatre to these groups.

Laura Black, Methodist Mission

Laura Black circulated and read from a document titled "Oral Submission" on the letterhead of the Methodist Mission. She confirmed, in answer to a question that she would be available for Councillors or staff to talk to her about how to address some of their issues.

Rachel Elder

Rachel Elder circulated a document called "Unemployment and Health". She also held up cards with the main points of her presentation.

She spoke about the top priority of Council being economic growth and development. She proposed that there was a huge opportunity for Dunedin in exponential tourism growth. The unemployment situation was untenable and the city needed to grow.

In answer to a question she said the Energy Plan was a social good, but was outside of economic development.

Richard Roberts, Dunedin Airport

Mr Roberts commended city leaders for the current good steps taken, including the appointment of a new destination marketing role. He commented on work done in recent years and considered that destination was everything and the relationships with partners was crucial. There was a need to continue on the back of investments already made. Extra funding was absolutely crucial and there was a need to seek to bring the city together further. The Airport aimed to provide frequency and capacity outside the region and was highly engaged with airlines. He urged the Council to support Destination Dunedin and give them the resources they required.

Cr Hall left the meeting at 12.48 pm and returned at 12.51 pm.

Jenny Longstaff, Otago Art Society Inc

Cr Wilson left the meeting at 12.55 pm.

Jenny Longstaff was the current president of the Otago Art Society and thanked the Council for their funding. 140,000 people came through the doors in the last year. The Society knew how to have a major impact on a creative community. It was pleased the Council wanted to put money into the Ara Toi Strategy. The Society also considered that the Council needed to look after the railway station more as it was looking a bit grubby and there was a huge traffic problem in front of the station.

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Chairperson Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting until 1.30 pm.

Motion carried (AP/2016/006)

The meeting adjourned from 1.03 pm to 1.34 pm.

Rob Thomson, Dunedin Collaboration Against Family Violence

Mr Thomson said family violence groups were not working together, with little collaborative activity. There was nothing to show that grant funds had benefited the city. There would always be more applications for grants and support and the Council needed to be clever about how it spent that money.

Chris Ford DPA (Disabled Persons Assembly) Dunedin

A sign language interpreter was present to sign this part of the hearing.

Mr Ford spoke about the work of the Disabled Persons Assembly. They would like to incorporate a disability perspective within key policies and had recently discussed issues such as the proposal to upgrade street lighting to LED and the central city upgrade.

They congratulated the Council on the proposal to spend money on the City of Literature and would like to see historical documents and literature fully accessible to all people, including those who were blind or had communication difficulties. It was a human right to be able to participate in all facets of life, including civic activity.

Ann Barsby, Dunedin Gasworks Museum Trust

A document titled "Dunedin Gasworks Museum Trust – Annual Plan Submission" was circulated. The Trust asked for the continuation of an annual allocation for maintenance of $50,000, and an operational budget of $50,000 per annum to establish a part-time position for management, administration and marketing.

It was suggested that they apply for a Council grant.

Ann Barsby, Southern Heritage Trust

Ann Barsby circulated a document titled "Annual Plan Submission Southern Heritage Trust". Dunedin was New Zealand's heritage capital and she considered that more capital should be made from it. She applauded the Council's team for what they were doing for heritage in Dunedin and this was encouraging. They supported money being put back into the Heritage Fund and would like to continue to resource the classification of buildings and streetscapes for protection in the future.

Scott Willis, Blueskin Resilient Communities Trust

Mr Willis said the Trust was focusing on the energy plan and food resilience as showcase issues that showed why Dunedin was a great place to live and work. He would like the energy plan to have a stronger place, but it would be good if resourced adequately. The Trust agreed with all the suggestions under the heading "supporting the community".

Copies of maps were circulated. They showed what sea level rise would look like at Blueskin Bay. Mr Willis would like a waiver for a building consent fee to build a retreat, due for completion in 2018. He would also like a waiver of additional fees for a wind farm development. The wind farm would reduce the city's greenhouse gas emissions. They would like the environment strategy to contain the goal of carbon zero by 2020. Any additional money that appeared in the Annual Plan process needed to go on climate spending.

Norcombe Barker, Dunedin Host

Cr Whiley withdrew from the meeting for this item.

Mr Barker said Dunedin Host supported Gigatown and extra funding for marketing. Mr Barker spoke about workshops and events in partnership with Enterprise Dunedin. Dunedin Host was excited about the appointment of a new Destination Manager. They would get the maximum value out of funding.

Mr Barker was asked whether Council or tourist operators were responsible for the experience once tourists get here and he considered that everyone was responsible.

Cr Whiley returned to the meeting.

Norcombe Barker, Larnach Castle Ltd

Mr Barker gave his support to marketing and events priorities in his role with Larnach Castle.

Colin Weatherall

Mr Weatherall circulated an email with the main points of his submission. This included a request to improve the safety of a footpath on Brighton Road. He did not want landfill fees put up because this would create more litter. He would like rural road sealing of three kilometres per year.

Mr Weatherall was asked if he is aware that the increase in landfill charges is due to compliance costs from central government. He indicated he was, but noted that polluters would not care about the reason, they would just dump the rubbish.

Mayor Dave Cull left the meeting at 2.53 pm and Deputy Mayor Chris Staynes took the Chair.

Chloe Geoghegan, Blue Oyster Arts Trust

Chloe Geoghegan outlined the activities of the Arts Trust. She was thanked for her presentation.

Cr Andrew Noone left the meeting at 3.00 pm.

Brian Dixon

Mr Dixon supported the Energy Plan. There was a need for Council to take ownership and responsibility for initiatives. This includes a commitment from local businesses. He would like consistency with principles across the energy, environment and development strategies across the city. Council was in a good position to study what to do with traffic through the Octagon. It should also not be ignoring recycling and a lot more could be done. The public was uninformed about what the recycling rules were and public recycling efforts relied on acts of faith.

Sophie Carty, WellSouth Primary Health Network

Sophie Carty represented the WellSouth Primary Health Network. She commended the Council for its initiative on food resilience but would like to see it extended to longer than a year. She tabled the Christchurch City Council Food Resilience Policy for information. She would like families in low socioeconomic groups to be targeted. Ms Carty supported the cycleway as it provided health benefits. She passed around a document called "Active Cities". She also raised the Smokefree 2025 goal and commended the work done in Smokefree parks and playgrounds and would like this extended to Council facilities, events and outdoor dining.

Richard Egan, St Clair Action Group

Mr Egan gave a Power Point presentation titled "St Clair Action Group Oral Submission". It outlined the situation at St Clair and the three aims of the Action Group, which were to improve existing access to the beach, creating new access, and retain sand. He called for the creation of an integrated plan for Ocean Beach.

Penelope Scott, Smokefree Otago

Penelope Scott handed out a folder containing information in support of her submission. She suggested that the Council should canvass the views of the community on the idea of Smokefree outdoor dining spaces. She said diners were more likely to go to dining places that were Smokefree. Smokefree Otago would welcome a DCC staff representative on their group.

Cr Andrew Noone returned to the meeting at 3.43 pm.

Cr Mike Lord left the meeting at 3.44 pm.

The meeting adjourned from 3.45pm to 4.00 pm.

Cr Lee Vandervis left the meeting during the adjournment.

Cr Mike Lord returned to the meeting at 4.00 pm.

Gabrielle Pankhurst, SCAN

Ms Pankhurst advised that seniors were concerned about climate change. Given concerns regarding the government's neglect of climate change, they were keen to ensure that there were local actions. The group was happy about the motions passed by the Council at the end of 2015. The greatest danger faced locally was sea level rise and there was a need to encourage dialogue.

Crs Kate Wilson and John Bezett returned to the meeting following the adjournment at 4.03 pm.

Ms Pankhurst commented on adaptation issues eg sea level rise. She considered that charging points for electric cars were a good starting point and considered that the Otago Regional Council should be encouraged to look at electric buses. There was a need to start encouraging institutions to start transitioning to wood rather than coal burners. Tree planting was another way of dealing with carbon emissions. The Council could think about what it was purchasing and what the emissions were. The group was also concerned about the Taieri Plain and growing of vegetables and the need to encourage market gardening. One of the difficulties with climate change was that people did not want to talk about it. It seemed far away but changes were happening incrementally. Dunedin may be able to use it as a marketing edge if it did something about climate change and market itself as a sustainable city.

Cr Andrew Whiley returned to the meeting following the adjournment at 4.12 pm.

Randal Scott

Mr Scott addressed the way Council used community grants. He felt they could be used to create employment for unemployed or underemployed people and considered that there were jobs that could be done more effectively by people rather than machines eg sweeping up gravel, weeding. There was a need to find solutions for our most vulnerable people. Mr Scott also suggested an ethical employment policy.

Darrel Robinson

Mr Robinson was of the view that the Council did not seem to have the ability to be nimble in areas outside the Annual Plan process eg Gigatown, City of Literature, Arts and Culture Strategy, which seemed to lose impetus. He also asked how property purchases would be handled if they happened quickly.

Mr Robinson also referred to flooding in Mosgiel the previous June and tabled photos in the vicinity of his home. The water had risen another 300mm after the photos were taken. The total damage in his area was around $1.5 million and six houses were inundated. The fix was simple; a secondary flow path. The road level obstructed the secondary flow path and needed to be lower.

Mayor Dave Cull returned to the meeting at 4.35 pm and resumed the Chair.

Hamish Saxton

Mr Saxton was pleased that wi-fi was going to be sped up at the Central Library. He considered that staff there did an amazing job. He considered that having workspace in the library as a starter was a good thing.

Mr Saxton was disappointed that most parking pay and display meters were unable to take credit cards. He suggested that the Octagon market could be improved.

He supported the Council's efforts regarding regulating freedom campers in vehicles with no facilities but appreciated that this was not an easy issue to solve.

In regard to sister city relationships he felt that some of the contents of agreements could be rather hollow. If the Council was not promoting travel to sister cities to residents these matters should not be included.

Meg Davidson, City Rise Up

Ms Davidson tabled a submission with photos illustrating problems with rubbish in the City Rise/North Dunedin area. She considered that there was a need to review contracts and that there was a problem with rubbish dumping. Recycling bins were left out all week and some bins had been stolen.

She also considered that trained Council staff and additional hours were needed to deal with party flats.

Ms Davidson commented on photos of rubbish where sweet sweepers had not been around. Rubbish was always dumped in certain areas. Bins also obstructed the footpath. More funding was needed to maintain standards in the City Rise and North End.

Cr Richard Thomson left the meeting at 4.57 pm and returned at 5.00 pm.

Geoff Patton, Mayfair Theatre Charitable Trust

Mr Patton thanked the Council for the on-going grant. His organisation appreciated it as it was important to groups such as theirs. They could only employ a manager on a year-by-year basis and the theatre was reliant on that position as volunteers could not do that work. The Council's grant basically kept the theatre open. He thanked the Council for the work of the Community Arts Advisors and was grateful they were looking after groups such as theirs.

Sophie Barker

Ms Barker agreed to increasing the Council's marketing spend and considered there was a need to link to a visitor plan. There was a need to cover promise and delivery.

She supported the Environmental Strategy and links to the Visitor Plan. She also supported funding the Events Plan and the need to support off-season visitors.

Cr Kate Wilson left the meeting at 5.11 pm.

Nick Orbell, South Dunedin Business Association

Mr Orbell and his colleagues from the Association thanked the Council for its initiatives and for the support of Council staff in areas such as events. There had been good communications over parking. The revitalisation project in South Dunedin continued to be commented on in the community as something positive. The Association had maintained that South Dunedin was not like the rest of Dunedin. The impact of the 2015 flooding event on an under-resourced community had been significant.

The group was asking the Council to make a commitment to the library and community centre which was still only in an exploratory consultative phase. He noted that the Connected Community goal talked about communities being linked effectively. South Dunedin had one of the lowest car ownership rates in New Zealand and there may be mobility issues.

There had been a promise made that the library facility would be developed as part of amalgamation and it was not hard for South Dunedin people to feel neglected.

Cr Kate Wilson returned to the meeting at 5.20 pm.

The suggestion was made that the Council needed to communicate more and to engage with the people of South Dunedin who were feeling neglected as there were still numbers of people displaced.

Cr Neville Peat left the meeting at 5.29 pm.

Heike Cebulla

Ms Cebulla considered that the Council had a responsibility to educate citizens regarding growing fruit and vegetables, buying locally etc. Also information needed to be supplied in schools so they could educate families. More money needed to be allocated towards resilience and energy planning. She asked people to be proactive in climate change. The Council had a duty to be proactive and there might need to be an acceptance that part of South Dunedin may revert to swamp.

There was also a need to look at greener transport options such as electric bikes and buses for short trips. People needed to be encouraged to use alternative transport for shorter trips, however they may find it too dangerous to bike. Ms Cebulla considered that the Council should not be afraid to invest now. She supported NZTA in the cycle ways on one way streets. Andersons Bay Road was a concern for cyclists in that it was dangerous, and cyclists were pushed to the side by cars.

Steven O'Connor, The Valley Project

Mr O'Connor commented on place based development and how the Valley Project had benefited. He could point to the results in the community over the last five years and tabled a submission.

He noted the buoyant housing market in North East Valley and noted this was all part of the community becoming confident, resilient and looking after each other, and getting better connected. People were investing in businesses, indicating confidence, and the Council had the opportunity to leverage off the learning.

Mr O'Connor supported the employment of a navigator for the Dunedin City Council team. The position needed a degree of independence and autonomy and should sit between the Council and community.

Cr David Benson-Pope left the meeting at 5.56 pm.

David Cooper, Federated Farmers of New Zealand

Mr Cooper commented on the lack of information regarding the sale of surplus land proceeds investment. He support any increase in rates and fees remaining under 3%. Any additional spending should be offset by reductions elsewhere.

In regard to the increased spending in Enterprise Dunedin he noted that the Otago Regional Council was signalling a regional Economic Development Strategy and the Council could park any additional spending until then. In regard to the city marketing increase, there was no increase in the consultation document. If there was no link between the spend and increase in tourist numbers it should not be done.

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Chairperson Dave Cull/Cr Hilary Calvert):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting until 9.00 am on Thursday, 5 May 2016.

Motion carried (AP/2016/007)

The meeting adjourned from 6.08 pm on Wednesday 4 May 2016 until Thursday 5 May 2016 at 9.00 am.

Crs David Benson-Pope and Neville Peat returned to the meeting at 9.00 am.

Paul Pope, Dunedin Amenities Society

Paul Pope spoke on behalf of the Amenities Society about issues with the Town Belt including the control of pests, management of footpaths, rubbish and tagging. He said there had been a drop in service standards over recent years around public parks and streets. Dunedin needed to lift its game. Tagging was a problem in public areas. There were contractual obligations in Council contracts to ensure these were removed. He would like a greater level of funding and commitment to contractors and to Taskforce Green. The Ocean Beach Domain area was now an urgent issue and a strategy for the next 25 years was needed to deal with it.

It was his understanding that he needed to apply for resource consent to remove tagging from a heritage building. He was not aware of building owners who had not dealt with graffiti due to this.

Paul Smith, Creative Arts Trust

The Trust supported people with mental health issues. They used art to transform people's lives and supported investment in arts and culture. Dunedin had a range of quality cultural institutions. The Council had a role in ensuring that vulnerable communities had access to arts. They were not here to ask for anything specifically but to support other NGOs and communities. They supported events funding and service grants.

Kuini Scott

Ms Scott supported initiatives to promote food resilience such as community gardens. She would like the budget for food resilience increased. This would create gains for the health and wealth of people. Different organisations like the Council, ORC and Department of Conservation did not talk to each other. She would like to support the Navigator role at $90,000 and wanted Council to get on with supporting climate change action.

Philippa Harris, Dunedin Symphony Orchestra

The growing size of the orchestra and the challenging projects meant they would be moving premises. The Orchestra needed to raise $300,000 for the new fit out and they were half way towards raising that money. A sold out concert had been held at the Town Hall a few weeks earlier. They commended the Council for considering funding to the arts sector but organisations like theirs were under increased stress due to many factors including some outside their control.

Bill Brown, Victoria Road, St Clair Residents' Group

Cr Hall withdrew from the meeting for this item.

Mr Brown showed the Councillors a photo of the beach at Victoria Road with a line drawn to show where he believed the erosion would reach if sand sausages were not installed quickly. He asked for someone to contact him and let him know about where the sand sausages were at the moment and to let him know about progress on this job.

He would like more sand sausages put in to protect the beach. An additional 200 metres was needed. Sand sausages were only ever meant to be a holding scenario. He would like to ask Council to instruct the engineers to immediately get on with the research that $100,000 had been allocated for. He would not like to go into another winter without protection. Time was of the essence.

The Mayor said he could not provide the answer at the meeting but staff would bring him up to speed offline. Some of his suggestions were actively being considered by Council engineers.

Allan Baddock, Transforming Dunedin

Mr Baddock was concerned about whether enough research had gone into spending money outside the region in order to promote Dunedin, as opposed to spending money inside the region. Supporting events was difficult. Council could provide infrastructure and make things easier like road closures and toilets, and help with marketing but also fund equitably. He would like to get some things happening. Every event was a marketing opportunity that told what Dunedin was. It could show who we were and how proud we were.

Cr Andrew Noone left the meeting at 10.18 am.

The concern was the emphasis on bringing new people to Dunedin and bringing events to Dunedin. They would like to see a shift in focus to promote local events.

Keep Dunedin Beautiful

The group considered that there was a need to develop a graffiti plan for the city. It was an ongoing problem needing a consistent approach across Council and co-ordination. They encouraged the Council to consider adopting a proactive approach to graffiti, like other councils, giving the Coordinator time to act proactively. Regarding murals, they used local artists and worked in areas that had been badly tagged. They asked for continued funding for murals. People were disappointed not to see the hanging baskets this year.

Michael Coggan, Otago Cricket

The submission was around the replacement of the scoreboard. Mr Coggan anticipated some top international games would be held at the ground in the coming years and the ground wanted to remain competitive and meet the minimum standards. Otago Cricket wanted to benchmark themselves against Hagley Park. Because of work done on the embankment it was hard for them to find the extra money required. Otago Cricket had supported the full cost of the embankment and now needed support for the scoreboard.

The meeting adjourned at 10.50 am and reconvened at 11.12 am.

Cr Andrew Noone returned to the meeting at 11.12am.

Don Anderson

Mr Anderson suggested establishing a Victorian Precinct in central Dunedin incorporating the Railway Station. He also suggested other areas of Dunedin where retail precincts and other areas could be established.

Juliet Novena Sorrel, Dunedin Midwinter Carnival

Juliet Sorrel did not appear and her husband Paul Smith spoke on her behalf. Mr Smith said the Midwinter Carnival took events to another level. They were looking at setting up a permanent display of lanterns and an art space. They had some starting capital to put the plan into action, but were looking for support to get the plan to the next level. The Annual Plan suggested more money to attract events to Dunedin. This was at the expense of local events. They did not object to new money for events but would encourage the Council to help local events to grow, rather than spend the money on outside events with no local relevance. Free events like the Midwinter Carnival should not have to contribute to the costs of Council marketing campaigns. Each year they were asked to, but this was a non-profit, free event.

Jo Millar, Grey Power Otago

Jo Millar began by reading a submission from another submitter, Diane Cooper, who was unable to attend the hearing. This requested changes to the Rates Remission Policy to allow people in retirement villages to claim the rates rebate.

A change to the Rating Act would require government support. Grey Power had been working to change this law for two years. There were anomalies at the moment and she was not sure about the government position. She said most councils had picked this up and funded it from ratepayer funds. She argued that although it was a cost to Council, she believed the amount of money involved was less than what was being requested by other submitters.

Murray Brass, University of Otago

Mr Brass spoke in support of many of the initiatives being consulted on. Regarding the change of scope for cycleways, he was concerned that the costs would increase but there was no information on what this meant for the project, and whether it would mean a reduction in the size of the project. The cycleway was crucial to the University.

The University was carrying out improvements and would like support from Council to do things like improve street landscaping. They had safety concerns about some streets. They had met with Transportation staff and would be keen that what they did there fit in with the Long Term Plan.

Cr Richard Thomson left the meeting at 12.06 pm.

Cr Kate Wilson left the meeting at 12.06 pm.

Cr Andrew Whiley left the meeting at 12.07 pm.

Cr Richard Thomson returned to the meeting at 12.07 pm.

Further discussion was held on cycle access to the University.

Kyra Xavia, Dunedin Dark Skies Group

Kyra Xavia spoke in support of improving the dark sky in Dunedin. She made suggestions on the type of light bulbs to use in the city and her group was working with Council staff presently on the issue of lighting. She saw this as an opportunity to make a bold start and do something special. She would like Dunedin to be recognised as a dark sky destination.

Robyn McDonald, Otago Peninsula Trust

Robyn McDonald was unable to attend and Hoani Langsbury spoke on her behalf. The Trust provided for 100,000 visitors a year through the Royal Albatross Centre. They struggled to provide Wifi for work purposes, let alone visitors, and would like assistance through Gigatown or another way. The other infrastructure issue was the provision of water and waste services. They would like assistance to provide better toilet facilities for visitors. They brought in all their water and took out all their sewage. The tourism businesses on the Peninsula brought money to the district. They wanted a good tourism strategy that had input from people throughout the community.

Cara Bradley, Otago Chamber of Commerce

Cr Chris Staynes withdrew from the meeting for this item.

Cara Bradley was not able to attend so Dougal McGowan spoke to her submission. He outlined the Chamber's views as noted in the written submission.

Cr Jinty MacTavish left the meeting at 12.47 pm.

Michael Hesp, Film Otago Southland

Mr Hesp was unable to attend. He sent a video presentation that was forwarded to Councillors by email so they could view it outside the meeting.

Nigel Bryce

Mr Bryce circulated a document called "Submission Summary of Participants to the Dunedin Waterfront Short Course" and read out the key issues from this. These were to enhance the urban design outcomes to support the harbourside area, and to support economic development of the harbourside area and enhanced connectivity. He would like Council to investigate initiatives to reduce or eliminate existing severance between the city and harbourside. There was a need for enhanced urban design to support the harbourside area.

Cr Andrew Whiley returned to the meeting at 1.01 pm.

Robert Norman Johnston

Mr Johnston circulated a written copy of his presentation. He proposed building a new aquatic centre at the empty Carisbrook site. He had emailed his idea to the Council and Calder Stewart and would like it to be considered. He considered that the Carisbrook site was a wasteland and an aquatic centre would be perfect for the site. Moana Pool was not up to competition standards. He outlined the features he would like to see as part of a new aquatic centre.

Cr Jinty MacTavish returned to the meeting at 1.10 pm.

Chris Wright, Football South

Mr Wright gave a presentation titled "Artificial Turf Proposal – Logan Park". Football South would like Council to support a new artificial turf and lights at a cost of $1 million at Logan Park. They felt this would be a game-changer for the region and the community. They would like Council to support this in principle and would then continue to engage with Council to investigate the feasibility of the project. They would like to accelerate consultation with the community, stakeholders, funders, and other sports.

The meeting adjourned at 1.34 pm and reconvened at 2.00 pm.

Cr John Bezett left the meeting at 1.34 pm.

Trudy Richards, Trustpower Limited (Via Skype)

Comment was made about to the Council's rating method and Trustpower would like this brought in line with the rest of the district. They believed that Commercial properties were paying too much. They were supportive of the Council undertaking a review of the general rate in time for the next year's Annual Plan.

Simon Noble

Mr Noble commented on a presentation on his submission regarding cycleways. He advised that he would like the Council to undertake smaller improvements and that these should be appropriate to the area. He advised that they were not asking for expensive options but just to ensure the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.

Cr Lee Vandervis entered the meeting at 2.23 pm.

Simon Gallaher, Digital Dunedin

Crs Andrew Whiley and Jinty MacTavish withdrew from the discussion for this speaker.

Mr Gallaher spoke to the submission from Digital Dunedin. He advised that the project was not a short-term one and that they needed to create an environment where everyone worked together. Digital Dunedin was one of the key pieces of infrastructure to make Dunedin a smart city.

In response to a question he advised that 64% of homes had access to fast broadband and of those 24% had connected.

Cr John Bezett returned to the meeting at 2.40 pm.

Cr Lee Vandervis left the meeting at 2.49 pm.

Bob Wyber

Mr Wyber spoke to his submission and in particular cycleways. He would like the Council to engage with the community before any more cycleways were designed and then once developed, further discussion with the community should take place.

He also suggested that the Council should have a master index of all Council's policies and strategies so that people were able to search them easily.

Phil Dowsett, Otago Settlers Association

Mr Dowsett spoke to the submission from the Otago Settlers Association. In response to a question he advised that the Association was against the reintroduction of a door charge as he believed this would have an impact on visitor numbers. He commented that the Museum had charges in other areas to help increase revenue.

Robert Thompson, Spokes Dunedin

Mr Thompson spoke to his submission in relation to cycleways. Mr Thompson questioned what the change in scope meant. He would also like to know what the level of infrastructure was going to be, and tabled a picture of Gordon Street, which was a quiet street but had a high level cycleway developed. He advised that they would like the cycleways developed as per their submission. Mr Thompson advised that cycleways should be developed where they were really needed.

Cr Richard Thompson left the meeting at 3.17 pm.

Anne Turvey

Mrs Turvey spoke to her submission in relation to a library in South Dunedin. She advised that the library was needed now and referred to funds which may be available from the Carnegie Foundation.

Crs Mike Lord and John Bezett left the meeting at 3.35 pm.

Josh Thomas – Dunedin Fringe Festival

Mr Thomas spoke to the submission from the Dunedin Fringe Festival and gave an overview of the Festival held this year.

Cr John Bezett returned to the meeting at 3.40 pm.

Rachel Minton-Smith and Dan Reddiex-Smith

Ms Minton-Smith spoke to the submission regarding a multi-purpose all weather facility in conjunction with King's High School.

Ms Minton-Smith commented that current facilities to play hockey were well used and had very little capacity for additional use. She also advised that a lot of schools did not have the transport to get to the current facilities at Logan Park.

They advised that the facility would be available to the community, in a similar manner to the school's current facilities. They were seeking $500,000 up front and $10,000 a year for 10 years. The $10,000 would go towards servicing the facility.

Moved (Chairperson Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Notes the submissions received.

Motion carried (AP/2016/008)

The meeting concluded at 4.09 pm.

..............................................

MAYOR

Council Annual Plan Deliberations

MINUTES

Unconfirmed minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Council Annual Plan Deliberations held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin on Tuesday 10 May 2016, commencing at 9.00 am, Wednesday 11 May 2016 commencing at 9.04 am and Thursday 12 May 2016 commencing at 9.00 am

PRESENT

Chairperson	Mayor Dave Cull
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Chris Staynes
Members	Cr David Benson-Pope	Cr John Bezett
	Cr Hilary Calvert	Cr Doug Hall
	Cr Aaron Hawkins	Cr Mike Lord
	Cr Jinty MacTavish	Cr Andrew Noone
	Cr Neville Peat	Cr Richard Thomson
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Andrew Whiley
	Cr Kate Wilson

IN ATTENDANCE

Sue Bidrose (Chief Executive Officer), Grant McKenzie (Group Chief Financial Officer), Simon Pickford (General Manager Services and Development), Ruth Stokes (General Manager Infrastructure and Networks), Marian Rillstone (Group Manager Organisation Development and Performance), Sandy Graham (Group Manager Corporate Services), Kristy Rusher (Manager Civic and Legal), Nicola Pinfold (Group Manager Community and Planning), Jane Nevill (Corporate Planner), Carolyn Allan (Senior Management Accountant), Jane Craigie-Read (Policy Support Assistant), Jessie Wu (Policy Support Assistant), Gavin Logie (Financial Controller), Kevin Taylor (Property Manager), Donna McTainsh (Assistant Accountant), Desley Anthony (Project Office Analyst), Laura McElhone (Group Manager Water and Waste), Catherine Irvine (Solid Waste Manager), Richard Saunders (Group Manager Parks and Recreation), Glen Hazelton (Team Leader Urban Design), Bernie Hawke (Group Manager Arts and Culture), Cara Paterson (Community Advisor - Arts), Paul Coffey (Community Advisor), John Christie (Director Enterprise Dunedin), Ryan Craig (Destination Dunedin Manager), Fraser Liggett (Economic Development Programme Manager), Des Adamson (Business Relationship Manager), Lesley Marriott (GigCity Project Coordinator), Tammy Jackman (Events Special Projects Coordinator) and Wai Piggott (Financial Analyst)

Governance Support Officers Andrea Barker, Wendy Collard, Arlene Goss, Pam Jordan and Jennifer Lapham

1 DELIBERATION PROCEDURES

An outline was given of the procedures to be followed for the deliberations.

2 Apologies

An apology was received from Cr Lee Vandervis (for lateness) on Tuesday 10 May 2016.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council

Accepts the apology from Cr Vandervis.

Motion carried (AP/2016/007)

3 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda with the following addition or alteration:

Addition of item 7A: an overarching resolution to set Council's desired rates level.

Motion carried (AP/2016/008)

4 Declarations of interest

Members were reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arose between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

4A Procedural Issues

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Suspends the requirement for Councillors to stand while speaking for the duration of the meeting.

b) Suspends Standing Order 3.7.17 to allow Councillors to use electronic devices during the meeting.

Motion carried (AP/2016/009)

4B Over arching recommendation

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That any resolution made in this section of the meeting may be subject to further discussion and decision by the meeting.

Motion carried (AP/2016/010)

Part A Reports

5 2016/17 Annual Plan Consultation

A report from Community and Planning provided a summary of feedback received from the public consultation on the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Notes the 2016/17 Annual Plan Consultation results.

Motion carried (AP/2016/011)

6 2015/16 Financial Forecast

A report from Finance detailed forecasted end of year positions in relation to revenue, operating expenditure and the capital expenditure programme.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Notes the financial forecast to 30 June 2016 as part of the 2016/17 Annual Plan deliberations.

Motion carried (AP/2016/012)

7 Budget Changes

A report from Finance noted that since the draft 2016/17 budget was approved, a number of budget changes had been identified. These changes should be considered by Council, and if approved, incorporated into the budgets and the 2016/17 Annual Plan. The net impact of the changes was an additional funding requirement of $689,000 (increasing the proposed rates from 2.9% to 3.5%).

Comment was made on the report and staff responded to questions.

Cr Andrew Noone left the meeting at 9.48 am and returned at 9.50 am during the course of discussion.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr David Benson-Pope):

That the Council:

a) Approves the identified budget changes, including carry forwards, as amended by the Council, for incorporation into the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

Motion carried (AP/2016/013)

Cr Mike Lord left the meeting at 9.53 am.

7A Rates Increase

The following resolution was passed at the Council meeting held on 25, 26 and 28 January 2016.

j) Update on Financial Position

It was moved (Thomson/Staynes):

"That Council is resolved not to exceed its cap of 3% for rates increases in 2016/17. Council is aware of some possible cost increase risks between the confirmation of the draft budget and the setting of a rate. Feedback will be sought through consultation on the additional spending decisions taken during the January Annual Plan Council meeting to assist in prioritisation decisions should they become necessary."

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Reconfirms the rates cap of 3% decided at the January 2016 Annual Plan Council meeting, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Cr Mike Lord returned to the meeting at 9.57 am during the course of discussion.

Motion carried (AP/2016/014)

8 Spending Priorities

A report from Finance noted that feedback was sought from the community about spending priorities during consultation on the draft 2016/17 Annual Plan.

Cr Andrew Whiley left the meeting at 10.18 am during the course of discussion.

Cr Andrew Whiley returned to the meeting at 10.25 am.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Richard Thomson):

That the Council:

a) Notes the feedback received on spending priorities.

Motion carried (AP/2016/015)

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Hilary Calvert:

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting until 10.45 am.

Motion carried (AP/2016/016)

The meeting adjourned from 10.34 am to 10.54 am.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSION TOPICS AND ACCOMPANYING REPORTS

The submissions received had been divided into topics, each of which was considered by the Council. Additional staff reports were provided for some of the topics and were considered together with all submissions on the topic.

Carpark Leases

There was discussion on the current arrangements and return on leased carparks.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Risk Management

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Rating Policy

Moved (Cr Richard Thomson/Cr Hilary Calvert):

That the Finance Committee seeks reports for its meeting on 18 July 2016 on:

a) Rating adjustment possibilities for:

· retirement village licence to occupy houses;

· Maori freehold land

b) Consideration of rating policies for residential properties being used for short term commercial rental and/or multiple studio rooms.

Motion carried (AP/2016/017)

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

· Debt – Support Strategy to lower debt

· Rates Increase – Support

· Rating Method - Support Changes

· Stadium – Operating Model

Gasworks Museum – Financial Support from Council

This item was deferred until Cr Vandervis could be present at the meeting.

Hall Maintenance

Information provided by the Property Manager was read by the Chief Executive Officer in response to questions about hall maintenance.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Public Toilets

A request was made for a report on public toilets for places in the city affected by tourism and locations previously requested by community boards. It was noted that a report was being prepared for consideration by the Council in June.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Cr Vandervis entered the meeting at 11.30 am, left again at 11.32 am and returned at 11.35 am during the course of discussion.

Social Housing

There was discussion on staff contact with tenants.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Gasworks Museum – Financial Support from Council

19 Dunedin Gasworks Museum

Cr Vandervis asked the Council to consider the potential purchases of land adjacent to the Dunedin Gasworks Museum to protect the existing Museum from unsympathetic development and allow room for expansion. He noted the thousands of voluntary hours put into the Museum and the opportunity for a world class museum that was constrained by space.

Moved (Cr Lee Vandervis/Cr Doug Hall):

a) That City Property consider and report back on the possible purchase of the following land adjoining the Gasworks Museum:

· No 1 Brandon Street (the Arthur Stone building)

· No 8 and No 12 McBride Street.

b) That Finance report on options for the source of funds to purchase the properties.

c) That the report come back with other information on progressing the South Dunedin community hub.

Following discussion each part of the motion was taken separately.

Motion (a) was put and carried.

Motion (b) was put and carried.

Motion (c) was put and carried.

Motion carried (AP/2016/018)

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting until 12.35 pm.

Motion carried (AP/2016/019)

The meeting adjourned from 12.10 pm to 12.45 pm.

Infrastructure Improvements

Councillors were advised that priorities for infrastructure renewal had not changed and renewals should take priority over upgrades. Information was provided on renewals backlogs, plans for completion and timing of the work.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Cr Andrew Whiley returned to the meeting at 12.58 pm following the adjournment.

Enviroschools Programme

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Flooding in Mosgiel

Bringing this area to an acceptable level of service would involve understanding the catchment and developing a holistic solution. Investigations had not yet taken place into who would fund this and how much responsibility would be taken by Council or NZTA.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Mosgiel Infrastructure

It was noted that Carlyle Road and Woodland Avenue were regarded as problem areas and that Council had plans to address this; however this could only do it as fast as the budget was available to deliver the work.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Recycling Collection

Discussion was held on tendering for drop-off locations in the CBD and investigations into soft plastic collections.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Rubbish Collection

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Waste Management – eWaste

There was discussion on quantities of eWaste households disposed of annually.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Cr Bezett returned to the meeting at 1.26 pm following the adjournment.

Cr MacTavish suggested that the subsidising of eWaste disposal should be investigated further.

Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Neville Peat):

That the Council:

a) Requests a report back to the Infrastructure Services Committee that quantifies, as accurately as possible from existing data, the amount of e-waste entering Green Island Landfill and/or being illegally dumped.

Motion carried (AP/2016/020)

Cr Vandervis recorded his vote against the motion.

Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Neville Peat):

That the Council:

b) Requests a report back to the Infrastructure Services Committee that canvasses the costs and benefits of options that would reduce the amount of e-waste entering the landfill, including rates-subsidised recycling.

Motion carried (AP/2016/021)

Cr Vandervis recorded his vote against the motion.

South Dunedin Infrastructure

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

9 Potential Impact of ETS Costs on Landfill Charges
	A report from Water and Waste sought to inform the Council of the increased costs related to the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) due to anticipated changes to Government policy, and sought a decision as to how the costs might be recovered. The focus of the report was on the 2016/17 financial year to address the immediate impact of additional ETS costs. The 2016/17 draft budget for Landfill charges was based on a carbon unit price of $7, which at the time was considered a conservative projection. A recent change in Government policy had stimulated the carbon market resulting in a price of up to $13.50 as at 28 April 2016. It was not anticipated that a change to the Long Term Plan would be triggered as, in the context of the Council activity, the changes were not considered material or substantial. The situation represented existing issues for which the quantity had changed. There were three options presented to address the immediate budget shortfall, estimated to be $354,600. Staff commented on the report and responded to questions from Councillors. It was reported that staff aimed to have a report back from the carbon taskforce before the next budgeting round. Staff had started to prepare a policy on carbon credits.
Cr Mike Lord returned to the meeting at 1.52 pm following the adjournment.
	Cr MacTavish suggested changes to the wording of the draft resolutions in the report. Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Andrew Noone): That the Council: a) Approves an increase to the landfill Emissions Trading Scheme draft budget of $354,600 for inclusion in the 2016/17 Annual Plan. b) Considers an increase to landfill user charges (across the board by 6%) for those whose waste contributes to carbon emissions as detailed in Option 3. c) Approves the revised fees and charges schedule shown in Attachment A of the report for inclusion in the 2016/17 Annual Plan. d) Notes that staff are exploring a range of options to reduce the Emissions Trading Scheme liability in the long term (eg tree planting, waste reduction). e) Requests a report back from staff identifying options for reducing Emissions Trading Scheme liability, no later than December 2016. Further changes were suggested to the motion.
A short adjournment was taken to take legal advice at 2.08 pm and the meeting reconvened at 2.09 pm.
	Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Andrew Noone): That the Council: Withdraws the previous Motions (a)-(e). Motion carried (AP/2016/022)
	Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes): That the Council: a) Approves an increase to the Landfill Emissions Trading Scheme draft budget of $354,600 for inclusion in the 2016/17 Annual Plan. Motion carried (AP/2016/023)
	Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes): That the Council: b) Approves an increase to landfill user charges for those whose waste contributes to carbon emissions as detailed in Option 2. Motion carried (AP/2016/024)
	Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes): That the Council: c) Approves the revised fees and charges schedule shown in Attachment A of the report for inclusion in the 2016/17 Annual Plan. Motion carried (AP/2016/025)
	Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes): That the Council: d) Notes that staff are exploring a range of options to reduce the Emissions Trading Scheme liability in the long term (eg tree planting, waste reduction). Motion carried (AP/2016/026)
	Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes): That the Council: e) Requests a report back from staff identifying options for reducing Emissions Trading Scheme liability, no later than December 2016. Motion carried (AP/2016/027)
	Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Mayor Dave Cull): That the Council: f) Requests that the Council actively communicates before implementation of the new charges the waste minimisation and recycling opportunities available in the city. Motion carried (AP/2016/028)

Water Additives

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Water Quality Harbour

Discussion was held on how to educate people to maintain harbour water quality.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Water Quality Rivers

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting.

Motion carried (AP/2016/029)

The meeting adjourned from 2.53 pm to 3.08 pm.

10 A Change in Timing - Central City Plan

A report from Transport Group and Community and Planning advised that the proposed change in timing for the Central City Plan transport projects allowed for a further year of planning and consultation for both projects. As a result, construction was delayed by one year. The majority of submitters supported this change in timing. There was now insufficient time to proceed with the original timeframe proposed in the Long Term Plan. This would give Council a chance to consult with stakeholders and have a shared vision for the optimum outcome.

Moved (Cr Hilary Calvert/Mayor Dave Cull):

That the Council:

Approves that timing proceeds as proposed in the draft Annual Plan and planning in 2016/17 is funded from existing budgets.

Motion carried (AP/2016/030)

Central City Plan, Transport Improvements

Discussion was held on the challenge of connecting the city to the harbourside. Council needed a solution that did not involve major capital expenditure.

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

That the Council:

Requests staff to again approach the parties involved with a view to establishing safe, at-grade pedestrian access across the rail corridor on the lower Rattray Street alignment adjacent to the Chinese Garden.

Motion carried (AP/2016/031)

Council gave consideration to the submissions and staff comments on the topic.

Cycle Safety

Councillors wished to make it clear to submitters that, whatever the solution NZTA suggested, Council would endeavour to get the best possible outcome.

Council gave consideration to the submissions and staff comments on the topic.

11 A change in scope - Cycleways

A report from Transport Group provided a summary of feedback received through the 2016/17 Annual Plan consultation on the proposed change of scope for cycleway delivery. Two potential options were presented regarding the change in scope.

Cycleways, All Topics

Staff reported on each matter raised by submitters, and additional matters raised by Cr MacTavish in an email she circulated to staff.

Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Kate Wilson):

That the Council:

a) Notes that staff are progressing as a priority matter the re-scoping of Strategic Cycle Network budget priorities, in line with the Strategic Cycle Network Plan adopted in 2011.

b) Notes that this process will involve engagement with Spokes and other stakeholders, and take into account the priorities identified by the cycling community through the Spokes submission.

c) Notes that the outcome of this will be reported back to Council by September 2016.

d) Notes that remediation of the Portobello Road cycleway, and work around the Wharf Street/Roberts Street intersection are being progressed separately.

Motion carried (AP/2016/032)

Cr Vandervis recorded his vote against the motion.

Footpaths Improvements or Additions

Action would be taken on individual footpaths as part of the footpath maintenance programme.

Council gave consideration to the submissions and staff comments on the topic.

Council gave consideration to the submissions and staff comments on the following topics:

· Mudtanks Increase Service Levels

· Parking New Areas or Changes to Existing Areas

· Public Transport Bus Shelters/Stops

Public Transport Resourcing

Staff had talked to the Otago Regional Council in the past week regarding prioritising this collaboration. Action had been taken on the Bus Hub. Councillors requested that submitters be provided with details in response to their submissions.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Road Safety General Improvements

· Road Maintenance General

· Sea Walls (Excluding St Clair) Improvements

Seal Extensions Improvements or Additions

Cr Noone requested a budget to be made available to deal with problem gravel roads. Staff suggested reallocating money already held in the minor improvements budget. Discussion was held on this being a safety issue rather than a maintenance issue.

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Mike Lord):

That the Council:

Requests that staff report on the benefits of having a seal extension budget to deal with difficult-to-maintain sections of the gravel roading network.

Motion carried (AP/2016/033)

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting until 9.00 am on Wednesday, 11 May 2016.

Motion carried (AP/2016/034)

The meeting adjourned at 5.00 pm until Wednesday, 11 May 2016 at 9.00 am.

Street Lighting LED

Staff advised they would be looking at street lighting as a whole for the city, noting what Council wanted to achieve in each part of the city.

Council gave consideration to the submissions and staff comments on the topic.

State Highways Request for Improvements

Councillors noted an intersection involving a rail crossing in Mosgiel that needed improvement. NZTA was aware of the issues.

Council gave consideration to the submissions and staff comments on the topic.

Tertiary Precinct Safety

Councillors noted some areas in the precinct requiring work to improve student pedestrian safety and traffic safety.

Council gave consideration to the submissions and staff comments made on the topic.

Crs Lee Vandervis and Richard Thomson entered the meeting at 9.12 am following the adjournment.

Transportation Infrastructure

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

St Clair Seawall Project

Staff were asked to include the link to the website with updates on this project in the response to submitters. Staff were relying on experts for advice on whether to extend the sand sausages to cover a larger area. Sand was consistently being lost from the St Clair seawall area and ways to encourage/retain sand were being looked at. Options would be provided for the Council to consider.

Council gave consideration to the submissions and staff comments made on the topic.

Te Rauone Breakwater

This project had a budget of $50,000 in the current year.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Town Belt Traverse

Progress had been made on engaging with the Dunedin Amenities Society on this issue.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Community Gardens

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Freedom Camping Bylaw Review

Staff were complimented on the work carried out to date. The Mayor believed this issue would be revisited at a South Island or national level. The increased numbers were not sustainable.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Freedom Camping Resourcing for Existing Sites

Three community boards had issues regarding this matter. Communication around facilities could be improved. A report was being prepared for the Council in June on the options.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Garden Plots

· Living Assets Funding

Mosgiel Pool

Discussion was held on the budget for this project. If the Council decided to proceed with the pool, it would possibly need more than $6 million. This was to be reflected in the comments to submitters.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Motor Sport Development

The Southern Festival of Speed was provided as an example of the city already supporting motor sport.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Parks and Recreation Strategy

· Pest Management

· Regional Facilities Strategy

Sportsfields and Reserves

Cr Andrew Whiley and Ruth Stokes, General Manager Infrastructure and Networks, withdrew for this item.

A request had been made for a new hockey turf by Otago Hockey and King's High School. Staff commented that consideration could be given by Council to contribute to this project.

Cr Andrew Noone left the meeting at 9.52 am.

A proposed motion was tabled by the Chief Executive Officer after Councillors had indicated that they wished to support the project subject to end of year debt levels and other qualifying financial matters.

Cr Andrew Noone returned to the meeting at 9.57 am.

Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Richard Thomson):

That the Council:

Agrees to make a one-off grant of up to $500,000 to the Otago Hockey Association for the development of an artificial hockey turf at King's High School, South Dunedin, together with a $10,000 per annum grant for 10 years towards the maintenance of the Hockey Turf. Both grants are conditional on the following:

a) The Council having term debt in the 2015/16 financial year lower than forecast as part of the Annual Plan 2016/17 ($220 million).

b) A report from the Chief Executive Officer at the end of the financial year 2015/16 confirming finance for the capital project is available.

c) The Council is satisfied that an appropriate set of terms and conditions for public use is in place.

d) Identification of a method for Council to fund the ongoing maintenance contribution.

e) The annual maintenance grant will commence on completion of construction of the hockey turf.

f) The Ministry of Education formally agreeing with the Otago Hockey Association on the terms and conditions for the location and construction of the hockey turf at King's High School.

g) The Council Parks and Recreation staff, in planning for the development, work with all departments to ensure that infrastructure can support increased demands in this area.

Further discussion and debate centred on priorities for spending and the details contained in the motions.

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting until 10.45 am.

Motion carried (AP/2016/035)

The meeting adjourned from 10.00 am to 10.49 am.

Following further discussion the motion was put.

Motion carried (AP/2016/036)

Sportsfields and Reserves (continued)

Councillors asked questions regarding the request from Otago Cricket for $100,000 for a new scoreboard.

Moved (Cr John Bezett/Cr David Benson-Pope):

That the Council:

Supports Otago Cricket to the sum of $70,000 plus GST towards a new scoreboard, subject to staff confirming the scoreboard is up to standard.

Motion carried (AP/2016/037)

Councillors then discussed the application for funding from Football South.

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Doug Hall):

That the Council:

Requests staff continue discussions with Football South to develop plans for their needs consistent with Council's strategic goals, and report back for the 2017/18 Annual Plan.

Motion carried (AP/2016/038)

Council returned to the discussion of topics on the agenda run sheet raised by Annual Plan submitters.

Sycamore Tree Removal

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Walking Tracks Additional

Questions were asked on the renewal of walking tracks.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Playgrounds

· Coastal Erosion Ocean Beach Investigation Funding

· Dunedin Markets

· GIS Imagery Improvements

Information Technology Improvements

Questions were asked about information technology improvements. Open data technology was a work in progress.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Communications

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Questionnaire Only

Questionnaire results were noted.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Advocacy for District Health Board Services

· Civic Functions

Community Boards

A question was asked about a training budget for community board members, which was part of the budget for elected members generally. Community board members had been made aware of this.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Feedback Councillor Consideration

· Dog Control Bylaw Review

Housing Warrant of Fitness

Staff provided background information on this issue.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Liquor Ban

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Parking Enforcement

Staff responded to questions about parking pay and display machines and systems in place if machines were not working.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Libraries Resourcing

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

South Dunedin Library

Staff were requested to provide more information to submitters than was noted in the staff comments.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Stained Glass Heritage

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Toitū Otago Settlers Museum Entry Fees

The staff comments were discussed. This issue was debated in 2014 and there were no further plans for review.

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Chairperson Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes)

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting.

Motion carried (AP/2016/039)

The meeting adjourned at 12.07 pm and reconvened at 1.10 pm.

Staff responded to questions on Toitū staffing.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Cr Lee Vandervis returned to the meeting at 1.15 pm following the adjournment.

2GP

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Biodiversity Fund

Councillor Neville Peat withdrew from the meeting at 1.20 pm.

Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

That staff prepare a report reviewing the $5,000 limit currently in place on grants from the Biodiversity Fund.

Motion carried (AP/2016/040)

Councillor Neville Peat returned to the meeting at 1.35 pm.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Central City Plan

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

18 2016/17 Additional Funding Request for City Marketing in Australia and New Zealand

A report from Enterprise Dunedin noted that following the draft Annual Plan meeting in January 2016, the Council requested a plan on how the requested additional city marketing funding ($300,000) would be spent. The report outlined the city marketing plan for Australia and New Zealand. It also detailed how the plan aligned with the Economic Development Strategy 2023 (EDS) strategic framework, the target markets, alliance partners, proposed campaigns, measures of success and next steps.

Staff responded to questions on the report.

Cr Neville Peat left the meeting at 1.44 pm.

Cr Neville Peat returned to the meeting at 1.47 pm.

Cr John Bezett returned to the meeting at 1.49 pm following the adjournment.

Cr Aaron Hawkins left the meeting at 1.57 pm.

Cr Aaron Hawkins returned to the meeting at 2.04 pm.

12 Looking After Arts and Culture

A report from Services and Development and Community and Planning set out the community feedback and staff commentary regarding topics related to 'Looking After Arts and Culture', including Ara Toi Ōtepoti, City of Literature, South Dunedin Community Complex, Toitū Otago Settlers Museum and Dunedin Public Libraries. The report provided background to each topic and a summary of the key community feedback.

Staff responded to questions on the report and there was discussion on budgets.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Ara Toi Ōtepoti Implementation

· Ara Toi Ōtepoti Implementation – Economic Development Aspects

· City of Literature Implementation

· Supporting Arts and Culture

Cr Mike Lord left the meeting at 2.24 pm.

13 Dunedin Heritage Fund Budget

A report from Community and Planning updated the Council on the financial situation following the Dunedin Heritage Fund's commitment to support the re-use and restoration of the Priory building.

Support for the Priory project had constrained the budget of the Heritage Fund for the 2016/2017 year at a time when the number of heritage re-use projects throughout the city continued to grow. The report presented Council with options to consider regarding whether, and how, to address this constraint.

Staff responded to questions on the report and the consequences for the Fund.

Cr Mike Lord returned to the meeting at 2.27 pm.

Cr Kate Wilson withdrew from the meeting at 2.27 pm, leaving the meeting room at 2.32 pm and returning at 2.35 pm during the course of discussion.

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Andrew Noone):

That the Council:

a) Allocates additional funding of $100,000 (if required) to the Heritage Fund budget to provide support for the Priory in the 2016/2017 financial year.

During the course of discussion Councillors were keen to ensure that this important building was retained and reused. An explanation was given of proposed funding arrangements whereby some money would be returned to funders if a profit was made on the sale of the building. The Group Chief Financial Officer also advised that there was a possibility this could be funded from the current year's cash surplus.

Motion carried (AP/2016/041)

Cr Kate Wilson returned to the meeting at 2.52 pm.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Heritage Fund

· Heritage Re-use

· Heritage Streetscape

· Harbourside Development

14 Looking after the environment

A report from Community and Planning and Parks and Recreation provided Councillors with a summary of feedback from the Annual Plan consultation process on the theme 'Looking after the Environment', and provided staff comments on the issues raised in the feedback.

There was discussion on the report.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Groundwater and Sea Level Rise

· Looking after the Environment

· Te Ao Tūroa Implementation Funding

· Climate Change – Consultation

· Consultation Processes

Dark Skies

Cr Richard Thomson left the meeting at 3.02 pm.

Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Refers the issue of formal designation through the International Dark Skies Association to the Dark Skies Advisory Panel.

Motion carried (AP/2016/042)

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting.

Motion carried (AP/2016/043)

The meeting adjourned from 3.04 pm to 3.20 pm.

Cr Richard Thomson returned to the meeting at 3.20 pm.

Cr Lee Vandervis left the meeting at 3.20 pm during the adjournment.

Coastal Erosion

There was discussion on working with the Otago Regional Council on this issue.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· General Comments

· Late Submissions

Smokefree

A question was asked about progress with a smokefree Octagon and the Chief Executive Officer advised that staff would provide an update.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Sustainability

· City Beautification

· Disability Issues Advisory Group

Graffiti

There was discussion on whether the amount allocated for this was sufficient, coordination across the organisation, programmes operating in other centres and coatings that might allow graffiti to be more easily removed from brick buildings.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Keep Dunedin Beautiful – Murals

· Keep Dunedin Beautiful – Hanging Basket Funding

15 Supporting the community

A report from Community and Planning provided an overview of community feedback relating to supporting the community. There had been significant community support for all three proposals: increasing the budget for City Service and City Project Grants by $100,000, increasing the budget for Small Events Grants by $20,000 and providing $90,000 to support for community groups.

Staff responded to questions on the report.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· City Service and Projects Grants

· Small Events Grants Funding

Support for Place-based Community Groups

There was discussion on the areas these covered.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Supporting the Community

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

16 Youth Participation Funding Update

A report from Community and Planning provided an update on funding discussions as requested by the Community and Environment Committee. Options for providing on-going support for the Dunedin Youth Council were presented.

Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

That the Council:

a) Notes the youth participation funding update and;

b) Approves additional funding of $10,000 to contract a facilitator to support the Dunedin Youth Council.

Motion carried (AP/2016/044)

During discussion thanks were conveyed to Anna Parker and Michael Laufiso for their work in activating the Youth Council.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Taskforce Green

· Sister Cities

Tourism – Baldwin Street

There was discussion on the provision of public toilets, which the Chief Executive Officer advised were at the top of City Property's list.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Tourism - General

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

17 Supporting Economic Development

A report from Enterprise Dunedin provided Councillors with a summary of feedback from the Annual Plan consultations process on the theme 'Supporting Economic Development', and provided staff comments on the issues raised in the feedback.

Staff responded to questions on the report. There was discussion on major events and the need to work with Enterprise Dunedin as the two areas aligned.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Gigatown/Gig City Increased Spend

· Supporting Economic Development

· City Marketing Increased Spend

Energy Plan Delivery Funding

There was discussion on electric vehicles in the Council's fleet and the Chief Executive Officer provided information on the capital and operating costs of these vehicles.

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

a) That the Chief Executive Officer adjusts the Council vehicle procurement plans to ensure that the DCC owns 20 fully electric vehicles within five years, and reports back annually on progress towards this target, and on petrol/carbon savings achieved each year.

b) That Council agrees to cooperate in sharing e-vehicle usage and other data with the University of Otago and Otago Polytechnic to assist in their research on electric vehicle use.

c) That the Council notes that the Chief Executive Officer has advised that these resolutions can be carried out within current operational budgets as per the details provided.

Following discussion a division was requested.

Division

For: Mayor Dave Cull, Crs Chris Staynes, David Benson-Pope, John Bezett, Hilary Calvert, Doug Hall, Aaron Hawkins, Mike Lord, Jinty MacTavish, Andrew Noone, Neville Peat, Richard Thomson and Kate Wilson (13).

Against: Nil

Abstention: Cr Andrew Whiley (1) (as he needed more information)

The division was declared CARRIED by 13 votes to 0 with 1 abstention

Motion carried (AP/2016/045)

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the topic.

Council gave consideration to all the submissions received and staff comments on the following topics:

· Food Resilience Funding

· Major Events Plan Development

· Economic Development Grants Funding

· Economic Development Initiatives

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting until Thursday 12 May 2016 at 9.00 am.

Motion carried (AP/2016/046)

The meeting adjourned at 4.50 pm and reconvened on Thursday 12 May 2016 at 9.00 am.

19A Apologies

Apologies were received from Councillors John Bezett, Jinty MacTavish and Lee Vandervis (for lateness) and Councillor Mike Lord (for absence).

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Accepts the apologies.

Motion carried (AP/2016/047)

20 Final Recommendations

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

1. Agrees that the recommended actions and staff comments for submission topics as shown in the Annual Plan database/decision booklet, or amended during annual plan decision-making, are approved:

a) for the purposes of providing feedback on Annual Plan decision-making to submitters and the wider community;

b) for inclusion in the final 2016/17 Annual Plan document, as appropriate;

c) for further follow-up or action by staff, if required.

Motion carried (AP/2016/048)

Mayor Cull commented on the feedback that had been received from the community as a result of the consultation of the draft 2016/17 Annual Plan. He advised that the feedback had been positive and had endorsed the projects that had been consulted on, however there had been additional expenditure that Council had agreed to as a result of unforeseen circumstances such as the June 2015 flood event. Mayor Cull advised that he had requested staff to prepare a budget which ensured that Council remained within the rates cap that had been consulted on and gave consideration to the additional expenditure.

The Group Chief Financial Officer tabled a revised budget spreadsheet (ECM 4151531) for consideration. Mr McKenzie commented on the revised budget that staff had prepared and advised that staff had been unable to make across the board pro-rata reduction as some of the budget lines were for items such as staff resources and one-off projects.

There was a detailed discussion on each of the budget lines and the implications which included reduction of funding, staff recruitment and timing of projects.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Approves the budget changes in the spreadsheet be incorporated in the 2016/17 Annual Plan for adoption by the Council on 27 June 2016.

Motion carried (AP/2016/049)

Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Andrew Whiley):

That the Council:

1 Agrees that the Gigatown/Gig City budget be reduced by $65,000 given that $65,000 is available for Gig City projects that have a clear Economic Benefit within the GDP Budget

2 Agrees that the $50,000 from the Gig City budget be applied to the City Marketing budget, taking it to $250,000 with $15,000 being applied to the City Service Grants Budget.

3 Agrees that the funding of projects which were no longer going ahead be moved to the City Marketing budget and other one-off projects. The budget of $50,000 to be moved to specific one-off spends. The $300,000 from the underspend to be used for debt reduction.

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting until 10.00 am.

Motion carried (AP/2016/050)

The meeting adjourned from 9.50 am to 10.00 am.

Following discussion Cr Staynes requested that his resolution relating to the Gig City Project be withdrawn and Cr Whiley (seconder) agreed with the withdrawal.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Agrees that the resolution which related to the Gig City Project be withdrawn.

Motion carried (AP/2016/051)

Moved (Cr Richard Thomson/Cr Andrew Whiley):

That the Council:

a) Agrees that the Gigatown/Gig City budget be reduced by $65,000 given that $65,000 is available for Gig City projects that have a clear economic benefit within the Grow Dunedin Partnership budget.

b) Agrees that the Planning Groundwater Rise and Analysis of Coastal Erosion spend are funded from "Avoided Cricket Light Spend".

c) Agrees that $15,000 be added back into "Increase City Service Grants".

d) Agrees that a budget of $25,000 be allocated to "Environment Strategy Implementation" and $75,000 to "Arts and Culture Strategy Implementation", to be allocated against specific one off projects in the 2016/17 year.

e) Agrees that the proposed reduction in City Marketing spend of $100,000 is reinstated.

Motion carried (AP/2016/052)

There was discussion on the funding that had been allocated to the Otago Cricket Association for the lighting for the University of Otago Oval in the 2015/16 – 2024/25 Long Term Plan and the reallocation of some of the funding to the draft 2016/17 Annual Plan budget.

Councillor Hall left the meeting at 10.13 am and returned at 10.20 am.

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Approves the budget changes in the amended spreadsheet to be incorporated in the 2016/17 Annual Plan for adoption by the Council on 27 June 2016.

Motion carried (AP/2016/053)

Councillors Vandervis and MacTavish entered the meeting at 10.39 am as the motion was being put.

The Mayor commented that this was a good outcome and there had been rigour and transparency in the DCC budget and was a credit to staff.

It was noted that the proposed rate increase would be 2.95%.

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Mayor Dave Cull):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting until 11.00 am.

Motion carried (AP/2016/054)

The meeting adjourned from 10.44 am and reconvened at 10.58 am.

There was discussion on the implementation of the Environment Strategy budget and the inclusion of a further $25,000 to the budget which would reinstate it to the original $150,000 that had been consulted on.

Moved (Cr Neville Peat/Cr Kate Wilson):

That the Council:

a) Restores $25,000 to the Environment Strategy budget.

Motion carried (AP/2016/055)

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Approves the budget changes in the amended spreadsheet [ECM 4151531] (total funding as follows) to be incorporated in the 2016/17 Annual Plan for adoption by the Council on 27 June 2016:

Supporting Economic Development

i) Gigatown/Gig City $185,000

ii) City Marketing $300,000

iii) Major Events $50,000

iv) Energy Plan $100,000

v) Food Resilience $40,000

Supporting Arts and Culture

vi) Arts and Culture Strategy Implementation $245,000

vii) City of Literature Implementation $50,000

Supporting the Community

viii) Increase City Service Grants $60,000

ix) Increase Small Grants $20,000

x) Support Community Groups $90,000

Looking after the Environment

xi) Implementation of Environment Strategy $150,000

xii) Planning Groundwater Rise $100,000

xiii) Ocean Beach and St Clair Seawall Erosion $100,000

xiv) Analysis Coastal Erosion $75,000

Motion carried (AP/2016/056)

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That all decisions made at this meeting be incorporated into the final 2016/17 Annual Plan, for adoption by the Council on 27 June 2016.

Motion carried (AP/2016/057)

The meeting concluded at 11.22 am.

..............................................

MAYOR

Council

1 August 2016

ROAD NAMING PROCEDURE INDEX

Procedure Index................................................................................................ 2

Purpose........................................................................................................... 2

Procedure for naming a road............................................................................... 2

Selection of A road name.................................................................................... 4

Alternative Names.......................................................................................... 4

Appropriateness............................................................................................. 4

Spelling and length......................................................................................... 5

Taste............................................................................................................ 5

Using names of people and organisations............................................................ 5

Use of apostrophes, possessive ‘s’ and hyphens................................................... 5

Alphabet and diacritics..................................................................................... 5

Use of destination names................................................................................. 5

Use of a directional suffix................................................................................ 5

Naming Access Ways....................................................................................... 5

Naming Service Lanes..................................................................................... 5

Naming of Public Walkways.............................................................................. 5

Road Name Suffix........................................................................................... 6

Altering a Road name......................................................................................... 8

Naming Unnamed Legal Roads............................................................................. 8

Approved List of Road Names.............................................................................. 8

Selection criteria............................................................................................ 8

Consultation................................................................................................... 8

Approval....................................................................................................... 8

Use of the approved list................................................................................... 8

PURPOSE

These guidelines are to aid both the process and decision making with respect to road naming in support of the Road Naming Policy. Adherence to the procedure is strongly recommended.

PROCEDURE FOR NAMING A ROAD

Step 1 - A proposal is submitted

In the case of a road resulting from a subdivision, new road names should be applied for no later than the time of the issue of the section 223 certificate or equivalent stage. In the case of an existing unnamed road the application can be made at any time. Proposals to alter a road name can be made at any time.

In all other cases the application can be made just prior to formation or legalisation of the road.

The applicant is to submit to the Council a documented request for the formal approval of a road name.

Each application shall be accompanied by:-

· Proposed new road name, including suffix

· For a new road created by subdivision provide:

o preferred name plus at least one alternative listed in order of preference.

o the legal description of the road and a copy of the subdivision plan legalising, or proposing to legalise, the road.

· A location map highlighting the road.

· A background to the names, and how they comply with clause 4 of the Road Naming Policy.

· If proposing to alter an existing road name, include a justification showing clear benefits to the community for the change in accordance with the policy and guidelines.

· The applicant’s contact details.

Where a proposal involves the naming of multiple roads, one application may be submitted for all names.

Step 2 – Staff assessment for compliance

Council staff receive the application and check the preferred and alternative names for compliance with the Road Naming Policy and Procedure.

· Proposals not complying with the policy are rejected and the applicant advised immediately.

· Where the proposal does not fully comply with the Road Naming Policy and Procedure, the applicant is advised. The applicant is given the opportunity to amend the proposal or request that it proceed as originally proposed.

Step 3 - Consultation

Anyone who must be consulted is asked to comment on the proposal (excluding general public). Usually, this involves the directly affected property owners, but may also include anyone directly associated with the road or the proposed name(s), e.g. relatives of named people, mana whenua or associated organisations.

If the road is within a Community Board area the Community Board will be asked to consider the proposal. If the Community Board does not support the proposal, the applicant is advised, and the applicant can either amend the proposal, or ask that it be put to the Infrastructure Services Committee for consideration.

(Note: the role of a Community Board is often to take the lead on community consultation ensuring that all stakeholders are identified and consulted, and that proposals appropriately represent community requirements. It does not have a decision making role, and can only support or not support proposals). Where a road crosses a boundary between Community Board areas, the Community Boards involved can agree the approach, e.g., one board takes the lead, or a joint hearing approach.

Step 4 – Formal consideration

The Council approves, amends or declines the name proposed for the road by way of a formal resolution of the Infrastructure Services Committee. Where the Committee wishes to amend the proposed name, the resolution of the matter shall be left on the table to enable the amendment to be checked for compliance with this policy and to obtain the agreement of the proposer of the name.

The Council formally advises the applicant of the Council’s decision.

Step 4a – Consultation for altering a road name

Where the proposal is to alter a road name, the Committee’s decision is subject to a period of general public consultation. Council staff will advertise the proposal and request feedback. The Committee is asked to consider any feedback and amend or confirm its decision.

Step 5 – Implementation

Where the road is part of a subdivision or road legalisation, the road name will not become official until the road is vested in the Council at the time the plan is deposited, or legalisation gazetted. In other cases the road name is official immediately, or from a date specified in the Committee resolution.

Immediately after the Council approves the name of any road, the Council will advise Land Information NZ, and other relevant agencies and organisations.

The Council will arrange for the erection of street signs showing the name of the road. All costs associated with the creation and erection of such signs are borne by the applicant. The signs shall be erected as soon as practicable after the date of the Council’s resolution and/or close to the date decreed by the Committee (as appropriate). The sign must conform to the Council’s street sign specification.

SELECTION OF A ROAD NAME

Similarity

There must not be another road name the same or similar within the Dunedin City Council territory.

Identical names or homophones will not be accepted. If the road name consists of more than one word (excluding the suffix) then the significant part of the word should not be the same as the significant part of any other road name.

Alternative Names

Roads are to have only one name (Policy 4.2). It not acceptable to have a road which can be known by two names.

Where a name change is being considered, the new name must completely replace the use of the existing name and not offered as an alternative.

Appropriateness

The name should have significant local content or meaning, with the meaning readily available to reference and verify.

The name must reflect one of the following:

a) A common or established theme - Where more than one road is being created in a subdivision, a common theme is recommended for the names. If a naming theme is already established in a suburb or subdivision, the names for that suburb or subdivision should remain consistent with the theme.

b) An historical person - The name of a notable person from early history. This person should ideally have a local association with the immediate location or the wider Dunedin area.

c) An historical event - The name of a notable event from early history, which should ideally have a local association with the immediate location or the wider Dunedin area.

d) A significant feature of social, cultural or physical importance - It is appropriate to name a road after a significant feature in the area (for example, geographical feature, landscape, flora, or fauna). Naming after features which do not exist in the area should be avoided (for example, naming after native trees or plants that are not evident in the area, or views that cannot be identified).

e) A traditional or appropriate Māori name - If the name is Maori, the name must be checked by the applicant with Otago Runanga to ensure that it is acceptable to manawhenua, and has been spelled and interpreted correctly.

f) A Personal name for special service – This can be for conservation, sport, community service or some other sphere of activity with a local or national association. Naming after persons living or recently deceased should be avoided.

The criteria a) – f) have less weight in the consideration of naming Private Ways and Private Roads. However all other criteria still apply as normal.

Precedent for this was set at the Infrastructure Services Committee of 23 April 2013.

Alphabet and diacritics – Only the English and Māori alphabets should be used. This means special characters and diacritical marks should not be used, except for the use of macrons in the spelling of Māori names.

Amalgamation or Derivative Names – Names that have been created by combining parts of two (or more) words or names into a single new word is to be avoided, as it may be difficult to identify the constituent parts of the name or how the name meets the appropriateness criteria above.

Marketing Names – The council may not necessarily accept the marketing name for a development as a road name for any road within a development. (See section 4.4 of the Policy).

Naming Access Ways – Access Ways are to follow one of the following conventions:

a) a new unique name ending with either “Path”, “Walk” or “Way”, e.g. Arthurs Walk.

b) the names of the two roads the access way connects ending in “Path”,

e.g. Factory - Ross Path.

Naming Service Lanes – Service lanes should end in either “Lane” or “Service Lane”.

Spelling and length – Names are preferably short, simple to spell and easy to recall. Over long names are difficult to fit on mail, maps and street signs. Names over 15 characters (including the space between the names but not including the suffix) will not normally be approved.

Taste - The name should not be considered to be in poor taste or otherwise likely to cause offence.

Using names of people and organisations - Full names should only be used where the name is of a reasonable length and the first name needs to be used to correctly identify the individual being commemorated. Full names that are longer than 15 letters will not normally be approved (refer spelling and length above).

Use of apostrophes, possessive ‘s’ and hyphens – The possessive ‘s’ is discouraged except to avoid harsh euphony. Where used it should be without an apostrophe. Apostrophes and hyphens are discouraged, except where required to correctly spell a name (e.g. O’Conner Road, Hagart-Alexander Drive). Hyphens are also appropriate to use in destination names (refer below).

Use of destination names - For a rural road which is the main route connecting townships it is common practice to use a destination name using the towns it connects (Outram – Mosgiel Road). The hyphen used in destination names has a space either side of it.

Use of a directional suffix – North, South, East, West and Central may be appended to road names to differentiate sections of a road. This can be where addressing standards require (such as for RAPID numbering) differentiating sections of the same road, or where the sections of the road are permanently physically separate. Notwithstanding the above, the use of a direction suffix in the formal name is discouraged. Note: some roads are signposted informally with directional suffixes appended to their formal name (e.g. Cumberland Street North etc.). The addresses on these roads retain a single property number sequence.

Naming of Public Walkways – Walkways, where there is no likelihood of future vehicular use, should end in “Track”.

Road Name Suffix – The road name suffix for the road should be the one that most accurately reflects the type of roadway that it is. A list of suggested suffixes and their meanings is included in the table below. Note that this list is not exclusive – other road name types can be used where their application is appropriate.

Road names without a suffix are not uncommon in Dunedin, but should only be used if necessary to accurately reference another name (e.g. Canongate is the name of an Edinburgh Street).

Suffix	Standard Abbrev	Definition
Alley/Alleyway	ALLY	A narrow lane or passage
Avenue	AVE	A generally broad straight roadway with trees or other objects at regular intervals
Bank	-	As on a Hill
Boulevard	BLVD	A broad main street often planted with trees and grass plots
Circle	CIRC	A street surrounding a circular or oval shaped space
Close	CLSE	A short enclosed road; cul-de-sac
Common	-	A street with a reserve or public open space along one side
Court	CRT	A short enclosed road; cul-de-sac
Cove	-	A short curving street by the sea
Crescent	CRES	A crescent or half-moon shaped street rejoining the road from which it starts
Crest	-	A roadway running along the top or summit of a hill
Drive	DRV	An especially scenic road or street. A main connecting route in a subdivision or suburb
Esplanade	ESPL	Level piece of ground especially one used for public promenade
Gardens	GDNS	A street surrounding a reserve or public open space
Glade	-	A roadway usually in a valley of trees
Glen	-	A roadway through a narrow valley
Grove	GRVE	A road that often features a group of trees standing together
Heights	HGTS	A roadway traversing high ground
Lane	LN	A narrow way, path, country road or street. A narrow passage between hedges or buildings. Also used for service lanes
Mews	-	A roadway having houses grouped around the end
Mount	MNT	As on a hill
Parade	PRDE	A public promenade or roadway with good pedestrian facilities along the side
Pass	-	A way, such as a lower section of mountain or hill range, that affords passage around, over, or through
Place	PL, PLCE	A short sometimes narrow enclosed roadway; cul-de-sac
Quay	-	A roadway along the waterfront
Ridge	RDGE	A roadway along the top of a hill
Rise	-	A roadway going to a higher place or position
Road	RD	Route or way between places. General usage. Defined in Local Government Act
Row	-	A roadway with a line of professional buildings on either side
Square	SQ	A street surrounding a square or rectangular shaped space
Street	ST	A township carriageway that has buildings usually on both sides
Steps	STPS	A set of steps for pedestrian access only
Terrace	TCE	A roadway usually with houses on either side raised above the road level
Track	TRCK	A narrow country road that may end in pedestrian access
Vale	-	A roadway along low ground between hills
View		A roadway commanding a wide panoramic view across the surrounding areas
Walk	WLK	A thoroughfare with restricted vehicle access used mainly by pedestrians
Way	-	A winding or curved track or path for passing along

Council

1 August 2016

Constitution of Dunedin City Holdings Limited

1. Definitions and Interpretation 3

2. Capacity and Objectives 4

3. Council-Controlled Organisation Requirements 5

4. Shares 5

5. Calls on shares 5

6. Distributions 6

7. Company acquiring its own shares 6

8. Shareholder meetings 6

9. Reporting Requirements 7

10. Directors 7

11. Interests of Directors 9

12. Notices 10

13. Liquidation 10

14. Methods of Contracting 11

Schedule 1 - Rules for Shareholder Meetings 12

1. Chairperson 12

2. Notice of meetings 12

3. Methods of holding meetings 12

4. Quorum 13

5. Adjournments 13

6. Voting 13

7. Proxies and Postal Votes 13

8. Minutes 14

9. Shareholder proposals 14

10. Other proceedings 14

Schedule 2 - Rules for Board Proceedings 15

1. Notice of meeting 15

2. Method of holding meetings 15

3. Quorum 15

4. Voting 15

5. Minutes 16

6. Resolutions 16

7. No notice to Directors outside New Zealand 16

8. Other proceedings 16

1. Definitions and Interpretation

Definitions

1.1 In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise requires:

"Act"	means the Companies Act 1993.
"Board"	means Directors who number not less than the required quorum, acting together as a board of Directors.
"Chairperson"	means the chairperson of the Board appointed in accordance with clauses 10.5 to 10.8.
"Company"	means Dunedin City Holdings Limited.
"Constitution"	means this constitution of the Company (including the Schedules) and all amendments to it from time to time.
"Council"	means the Dunedin City Council.
"Council-Controlled Organisation"	has the meaning set out in section 6 of the LGA.
"Deputy Chairperson"	means the deputy chairperson of the Board appointed in accordance with clauses 10.5 to 10.8.
"Director"	means a person appointed as a director of the Company in accordance with this Constitution.
"LGA"	means the Local Government Act 2002.
"Ordinary Resolution"	means a resolution that is approved by the Shareholder.
"Schedules"	means Schedules 1 and 2.
"Shareholder"	means the Council.
"Special Resolution"	means a resolution that is approved by the Shareholder
"Statement of Intent"	means the statement of intent to be completed by the Board in accordance with section 64 of the LGA and, where the context requires, means the most recent statement of intent completed by the Board.
"Subsidiary"	has the meaning set out in the Act.

Interpretation

1.2 In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) the singular includes the plural and the reverse;

(b) a reference to any party includes that party’s executors, administrators or permitted assigns, or if a company, its successors or permitted assigns or both;

(c) in this Constitution reference to any statutory provision includes any provision which amends or replaces it and any legislation made under it;

(d) words in this Constitution have the same meaning as in the Act unless inconsistent with the context;

(e) a reference to a clause means a clause in this Constitution and a reference to a rule means a rule in the relevant Schedule; and

(f) clause headings are for reference purposes only.

1.3 If there is any conflict:

(a) between a provision in this Constitution and a mandatory provision in the Act or the LGA, then the mandatory provision in the Act or the LGA will prevail; and

(b) between:

(i) a provision in this Constitution and a provision in the Act which is expressly permitted to be altered by this Constitution; or

(ii) a word or expression defined or explained in the Act and a word or expression defined or explained in this Constitution,

then the provision, word or expression in this Constitution will prevail.

2. Capacity and Objectives

2.1 The Company has been established as a Council-Controlled Organisation.

2.2 The Company's sole shareholder is the Council and there can be no other shareholders of the Company.

2.3 The principal objectives of the Company in carrying out its activities and functions, as set out in the LGA, are to:

(a) achieve the objectives of the Council, both commercial and non-commercial, as specified in the Statement of Intent;

(b) be a good employer (as defined in clause 36 of Schedule 7 of the LGA);

(c) exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage those while able to do so; and

(d) conduct its affairs in accordance with sound business practice.

2.4 Subject to this Constitution, the Act, the LGA and the Statement of Intent, the Company has full capacity, rights, powers and privileges to carry on or undertake any business or activity, do any act, or enter into any transaction.

3. Council-Controlled Organisation Requirements

3.1 The Company must comply with:

(a) its obligations under the LGA when preparing the Statement of Intent;

(b) all applicable statutory and regulatory obligations relating to Maori and the Treaty of Waitangi, including those set out in the LGA; and

4. Shares

Existing Shares

4.1 As at the date of adoption of this Constitution there are 850,000,000 fully paid ordinary shares in the Company held by the Shareholder.

Redeemable shares

4.2 The Company may issue redeemable shares, which may be redeemed:

(a) at the option of the Company;

(b) at the option of the holder of the share; or

for a consideration that is specified or to be calculated by reference to a formula or required to be fixed by a suitably qualified person who is not associated with or interested in the Company.

Restriction on share issue

4.3 The Board may not issue shares to any person other than the Council, without prior Shareholder approval.

5. Calls on shares

Board may make calls

5.1 The Board may make calls on the Shareholder in respect of any money unpaid on their shares and not previously made payable at a fixed time by prior written notice to the Shareholder specifying the time and date for payment. The Shareholder must comply with the terms of any call made by the Board. A call may be payable by instalments. The Board may revoke or postpone a call.

Interest and expenses

5.2 A person who fails to pay a call on the due date must pay:

(a) interest on that money from the day payment was due to the day of actual payment at a rate fixed by the Board; and

(b) all expenses which the Company has incurred or may incur because of non-payment;

The Board may waive payment of all or part of that interest or those expenses.

6. Distributions

Board may authorise distributions

6.1 The Board may authorise a distribution by the Company to the Shareholder in accordance with the Act, this Constitution and the Statement of Intent.

Dividends on shares not fully paid up to be paid proportionately

6.2 All dividends on shares that are not fully paid up must be authorised and paid in proportion to the amount paid up.

Payment of distributions

6.3 Any money payable in cash in respect of shares may be paid to the Shareholder in such manner as the Board determines, or to such other person and in such manner as the Shareholder may direct in writing.

No interest on dividends

6.4 No interest is payable by the Company on any dividend.

7. Company acquiring its own shares

Company may acquire its own shares

7.1 The Company may purchase or otherwise acquire shares issued by it which, subject to clause 7.2, shall be deemed to be cancelled immediately on acquisition.

Treasury stock

7.2 The Company may hold its own shares uncancelled but only in accordance with sections 67A, 67B and 67C of the Act.

8. Shareholder meetings

Annual meeting

8.1 The Board must hold an annual shareholder meeting in accordance with section 120 of the Act unless in the case of any annual meeting, everything required to be done at that meeting (whether by way of resolution or otherwise) is done by written resolution in accordance with section 122 of the Act.

Special meetings

8.2 A special shareholder meeting:

(a) may be called at any time by the Board; and

(b) must be called by the Board on the written request of the Shareholder.

Proceedings at shareholder meetings

8.3 The provisions of the First Schedule to the Act as modified by this Constitution, including the rules set out in Schedule 1, govern proceedings at shareholder meetings.

9. Reporting Requirements

9.1 Subject to clause 9.2, within:

(a) two months of the end of the first half of the financial year of the Company, the Board must deliver to the Shareholder a report on the Company's operations during that half-year which must include any information required to be included by the Statement of Intent; and

(b) three months of the end of each financial year of the Company, the Board must deliver to the Shareholder, and make available to the public, a report on the Company's operations during that year which must include the information required to be included by:

(i) the Statement of Intent;

(ii) sections 68 and 69 of the LGA; and

(iii) the Act.

9.2 Nothing in this clause 9 requires the inclusion in any Statement of Intent, annual report, financial statement or half-yearly report required to be produced under this Constitution of any information that may be properly withheld if a request for that information was made under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

10. Directors

Number of Directors

10.1 The number of Directors may be determined by Ordinary Resolution from time to time.

Appointment and removal

10.2 Subject to clauses 10.3 and 10.4, a person may be appointed and removed as a Director at any time by Ordinary Resolution.

Term of Appointment

10.3 No person may be appointed as a Director for a term of more than three years.

10.4 A Director may be reappointed at the expiry of his or her term of appointment, provided that no Director may be appointed for more than three consecutive terms.

Appointment of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson

10.5 The Shareholder may by Ordinary Resolution appoint a Chairperson and a Deputy Chairperson of the Board.

10.6 The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson will hold office until:

(a) they cease to be a Director of the Company; or

(b) they are removed from the office of Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson (as applicable) by an Ordinary Resolution.

10.7 If the Chairperson ceases to hold office, the Deputy Chairperson (if any) will hold office as Chairperson until such time as a new Chairperson is appointed by Ordinary Resolution.

10.8 In the event that no Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson is appointed under clause 10.5, the Board may appoint such of the Directors as it thinks fit to act as Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson (as applicable) until such time as new office holders are appointed.

Proceedings of the Board

10.9 The provisions of the Third Schedule to the Act as modified by this Constitution, including the rules set out in Schedule 2, govern proceedings at meetings of Directors.

10.10 A Director who abstains from voting is not presumed to have voted in favour of the relevant resolution of the Board.

Directors Duties

10.11 In addition to the duties set out in the Act, the Directors must assist the Company to meet its objectives and any other requirements set out in the Statement of Intent.

Indemnity and insurance of Directors and employees

10.12 The Company may indemnify and effect insurance in accordance with any part or all of section 162 of the Act provided that:

(a) the Board must ensure that particulars of any indemnity given to, or insurance taken out for, any director, or employee of the Company are immediately entered in the interests register; and

(b) the Board may impose any conditions in relation to any indemnity or insurance if the conditions do not contravene the Act.

10.13 For the purposes of clause 10.12 “director” includes any former director, “employee” includes any former employee and “Company” includes any related company.

Disqualification of Directors

10.14 A person will be disqualified from holding the office of Director if he or she:

(a) is or becomes disqualified from being a Director under any provision of the Act; or

(b) dies; or

(d) is an undischarged bankrupt.

Remuneration of Directors

10.15 The Board may not authorise any form of remuneration to be paid to a Director without approval by Special Resolution and unless such payment is made and authorised in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Director may act in the Council's interests

10.16 At all times while the Company remains a Council-Controlled Organisation, a Director may, when exercising powers or performing duties as a Director, act in a manner which they believe is in the best interests of the Council, even though it may not be in the best interests of the Company.

11. Interests of Directors

Interested Directors

11.1 A Director must disclose particulars or any interest in a transaction or proposed transaction of the Company in accordance with section 140 of the Act.

11.2 As set out in section 139 of the Act, a Director is “interested” in a transaction to which the Company is a party if they:

(a) are a party to the transaction or may derive a material financial benefit from it; or

(b) have a material interest in another party to the transaction; or

(d) are a director, officer or trustee of a person who may derive a material financial benefit from the transaction; or

(e) are a parent, child or spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner of a person described in clause 11.2(a); or

(f) are otherwise directly or indirectly materially interested in the transaction.

11.3 A Director who is interested in a transaction entered into, or to be entered into, by the Company must not do any of the following:

(a) vote on any matter relating to that transaction;

(b) sign a document relating to that transaction on behalf of the Company; or

provided that a Director may vote, sign documents and otherwise do any other thing in their capacity as a Director with regard to any matter relating to the following:

(d) any payment or other benefit of the kind referred to in section 161 of the Act in respect of that Director in accordance with clause 10.15;

(e) the entry into an indemnity or insurance arrangement in respect of that Director in their capacity as a director of the Company in accordance with clause 10.12; or

(f) transactions in which a Director is interested solely in their capacity as a director of a Subsidiary of the Company.

11.4 No prohibition under this clause 11 will prevent the attendance of a Director at a Board meeting from counting for quorum purposes.

12. Notices

Service

12.1 Notices may be served by the Company upon any Director or Shareholder, either by personal delivery, by electronic means, by posting it in a prepaid envelope or package addressed to the recipient at his or her last known address (or, in the case of a company, its registered office), or by facsimile to the facsimile telephone number of the recipient.

Time of service

12.2 Notices are deemed served at the following times:

(a) when given personally, on delivery;

(b) when sent by post (other than airmail) or document exchange, 3 business days after (but exclusive of) posting;

12.3 Any notice which has been served on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday is deemed to be served on the first business day after that day.

12.4 A notice given:

(a) by fax, is not deemed received unless (if receipt is disputed) the sender produces a fax transmission report of the device from which the transmission was made which evidences full transmission, free of errors, to the fax number of the recipient;

(b) by email, is not deemed received unless (if receipt is disputed) the sender produces a printed copy of the email which evidences that the email was sent to the email address of the recipient.

13. Liquidation

13.1 If the Company is liquidated, the liquidator may, with the approval of the Shareholder and any other approval required by the Act:

(a) distribute to the Shareholder in kind the whole or any part of the assets of the Company; and

(b) vest the whole or any part of any such assets in trustees upon such trusts for the benefit of the persons so entitled as the liquidator thinks fit, but so that the Shareholder is not compelled to accept any shares or other securities on which there is any liability.

14. Methods of Contracting

14.1 A deed which is to be entered into by the Company may be signed on behalf of the Company by:

(a) two or more Directors;

(b) a Director, and any person authorised by the Board, who signatures must be witnessed; or

14.2 An obligation or contract which is required by law to be in writing, and any other written obligation or contract which is to be entered into by the Company, may be signed on behalf of the Company by a person acting under the express or implied authority of the Company.

14.3 Any other obligation or contract may be entered into on behalf of the Company in writing or orally by a person acting under the express or implied authority of the Company.

Schedule 1 - Rules for Shareholder Meetings

1. Chairperson

1.1 If the Chairperson is present at the meeting, he or she must chair the meeting.

1.2 If there is no Chairperson or if the Chairperson is not present at the meeting within 15 minutes of the start time the Deputy Chairperson if present at the meeting will chair the meeting.

1.3 If there is no Deputy Chairperson, the Directors present may elect a chairperson for that meeting, failing which, the Shareholder present may elect a chairperson for that meeting.

2. Notice of meetings

2.1 The Shareholder and every Director and an auditor of the Company must be sent written notice of the time and place of the meeting at least 10 working days before the meeting.

2.2 The notice must state:

(a) the nature of the business to be discussed at the meeting in sufficient detail to enable the Shareholder to form a reasoned judgment in relation to it; and

(b) the text of any special resolution to be put to the meeting.

2.3 An irregularity in a notice of a meeting is waived if:

(a) the Shareholder attends the meeting without protest as to the irregularity; or

(b) if the Shareholder agrees to the waiver.

2.4 If a meeting is adjourned for 30 days or more, notice of the adjourned meeting must be given as in the case of an original meeting. It is not otherwise necessary to give any new notice for an adjourned meeting.

2.5 The accidental omission to give a notice of a meeting to, or the non-receipt of a notice of a meeting by, any person entitled to receive notice does not invalidate the proceedings at that meeting.

3. Methods of holding meetings

3.1 A shareholder meeting may be held either:

(a) at the place, date, and time appointed for the meeting; or

(b) by means of audio, or audio and visual, communication. The Shareholder participating must constitute a quorum and must all be able to simultaneously hear all participants throughout the meeting.

4. Quorum

4.1 No business may be transacted at a shareholder meeting if a quorum is not present.

4.2 A quorum for a shareholder meeting is present if the Shareholder or its proxy:

(a) is present; or

(b) have completed postal votes (where permitted).

4.3 If a quorum is not present within the 30 minutes after the start time for the meeting:

(a) if the meeting is called under section 121(b) of the Act, the meeting is dissolved;

(b) for any other meeting, the meeting is adjourned to:

(i) the same day in the following week at the same time and place, or

(ii) to a date, time and place to be fixed by the Directors.

5. Adjournments

5.1 The Chairperson:

(a) may adjourn the meeting from time to time and from place to place, but no business can be transacted at any adjourned meeting other than the business left unfinished at the meeting from which the adjournment took place.

(b) must adjourn the meeting as above if directed to do so by the meeting.

6. Voting

6.1 If a shareholder meeting is held under rule 3.1(b), unless a poll is demanded, voting at the meeting will be by:

(a) voting by voice; or

(b) voting by show of hands.

The Chairperson will decide which method is used.

6.2 If a shareholder meeting is held under rule 3.1(b), unless a poll is demanded, voting at the meeting will be by the Shareholder signifying its assent or dissent by voice.

6.3 A declaration by the Chairperson of the meeting that a resolution is carried by the necessary majority is conclusive evidence of that fact unless a poll is demanded.

7. Proxies and Postal Votes

7.1 The Shareholder has the right to appoint a Council representative as its proxy to attend and vote at shareholder meetings on its behalf. Any Council representative so appointed is entitled to attend and be heard at shareholder meetings and to demand or join in demanding a poll, as if that Council representative was the Shareholder.

7.2 The Shareholder may not cast a postal vote at a Shareholders meeting unless the Board has previously authorised postal votes for that meeting in which case:

(a) the notice of that meeting must state whether postal votes are authorised; and

(b) postal voting must be carried out in accordance with clause 7 of the First Schedule to the Act.

8. Minutes

8.1 The Board must ensure that minutes are kept of all proceedings at shareholder meetings.

8.2 Minutes which have been signed correct by the Chairperson of the meeting are prima facie evidence of the proceedings.

9. Shareholder proposals

9.1 The Shareholder may give written notice to the Board of a matter the Shareholder proposes to raise for discussion or resolution at the next shareholder meeting. The provisions of clause 9 of the First Schedule of the Act apply to any notice given under this rule 9.1.

9.2 The Chairperson of a shareholder meeting will allow a reasonable opportunity for the Shareholder to question, discuss or comment on the management of the Company.

10. Other proceedings

10.1 Except as provided in this Schedule 1, and subject to this Constitution, a shareholder meeting may regulate its own procedure.

Schedule 2 - Rules for Board Proceedings

1. Notice of meeting

1.1 A Director or, if requested by a Director to do so, an employee of the Company may convene a meeting of the Board by giving notice in accordance with this clause.

1.2 At least 2 days' notice of a meeting of the Board must be given to every Director who is in New Zealand. The notice must include the date, time and place of the meeting and the matters to be discussed.

1.3 An irregularity in the notice of the meeting is waived if all Directors attend the meeting without protest as to the irregularity or if all Directors entitled to receive notice of the meeting agree to the waiver.

1.4 Notice of a meeting may be given by any means, including by telephone. Notice given by a letter addressed to a Director at his or her last known residential address in New Zealand will be deemed to have been given on the next day after the letter is posted.

2. Method of holding meetings

2.1 A meeting of the Board may be held either:

(a) by a quorum of Directors gathered together at the place, date and time appointed for the meeting; or

(b) by means of audio, or audio and visual communication. The Directors participating must constitute a quorum and must all be able simultaneously hear each other throughout the meeting.

3. Quorum

3.1 A quorum for a meeting of Directors (the Board) is a majority of the Directors.

3.2 No business may be transacted at a meeting of Directors if a quorum is not present.

4. Voting

4.1 Every Director has one vote.

4.2 The Chairperson does not have a casting vote.

4.3 A resolution of the Board is passed if it is agreed to by all Directors present without dissent or if a majority of the votes cast on it are in favour of it.

4.4 Subject to clause 11 of this Constitution, a Director may vote in respect of any transaction in which the Director is interested and if the Director does so the Director's vote will be counted and the Director will be counted in the quorum present at the meeting.

5. Minutes

5.1 The Board must ensure minutes are kept of all proceedings at meetings of the Board.

6. Resolutions

6.1 A resolution in writing, signed or assented to by all Directors then entitled to receive notice of a Board meeting, is as valid and effective as if it had been passed at a meeting of the Board duly convened and held.

6.2 A resolution may consist of several documents (including facsimile or other similar means of communication) in like form each signed or assented to by one or more Directors.

6.3 A copy of all resolutions must be entered in the minute book of Board proceedings.

7. No notice to Directors outside New Zealand

7.1 It is not necessary to give notice of a meeting of the Board to any Director temporarily absent from New Zealand.

8. Other proceedings

	Title	Page
A	Minutes of Hearings Committee held on 23 February 2016	41

	Title	Page
A	Minutes of Hearings Committee held on 7 March 2016	54

	Title	Page
A	Minutes of Hearings Committee held on 18 March 2016	63

	Title	Page
A	Minutes of Hearings Committee held on 6 April 2016	79

	Title	Page
A	Minutes of Hearings Committee held on 14 April 2016	90

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 27 June 2016	8

Time Period	Weekdays (dBA)		Saturdays (dBA)
Time Period	Leq	L_max	Leq	L_max
0730-1800	75	90	75	90
1800-2000	70	85	45	75

	Title	Page
A	Minutes of Hearings Committee held on 1 June 2016	100

	Title	Page
A	Minutes of Hearings Committee held on 17 August 2015	104

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Community and Environment Committee held on 11 July 2016	116

Chairperson	Jinty MacTavish
Deputy Chairperson	Neville Peat
Members	John Bezett	Mike Lord
	Hilary Calvert	Dave Cull
	Doug Hall	Aaron Hawkins
	Andrew Noone	Richard Thomson
	Lee Vandervis	Andrew Whiley
	Kate Wilson

5.1 Toitu Otago Settlers Museum Board meeting - 29 June 2016
	Moved (Cr Aaron Hawkins/Cr Kate Wilson): that the Committee Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Toitu Otago Settlers Museum Board meeting held on 29 June 2016 as a correct record. Motion carried (CE/2016/022)
5.2 Grants Subcommittee meeting - 28 June 2016
	Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Aaron Hawkins): that the Committee Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Grants Subcommittee meeting held on 28 June 2016 as a correct record. Motion carried (CE/2016/023)

7 2016 New Zealand Masters Games Final Report
	A report from the Masters Games Manager (Vicki Kestila) provided an overview of the 2016 New Zealand and specifically discussed the economic impact and financial result. The report advised that the New Zealand Masters Games were held in Dunedin every two years. It was noted that in recognition of the contribution the Games made to the Dunedin economy, the Dunedin City Council financially supported the Games, and had an underwriting agreement should the Games make a loss. The report noted that the 2016 Games had a negative financial result, but due to positive results from the 2014 Games there would be no need to draw on this provision for the underwriting.
	Moved (Cr John Bezett/Cr Kate Wilson): that the Committee a) Notes the financial outcomes of the 2016 New Zealand Masters Games and b) Notes the positive economic impact of the Masters Games for the City. Motion carried (CE/2016/025)

8	NOTIFICATION OF AGENDA ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION B Y THE CHAIR There were no items notified.

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Infrastructure Services Committee held on 12 July 2016	120

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Planning and Regulatory Committee held on 12 July 2016	124

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Economic Development Committee held on 18 July 2016	127

6 Notification of Agenda Items for Consideration by the Chair
	There were no items identified.

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Finance Committee held on 18 July 2016	131

7 Rates Rebate - Occupational Right Agreements
	A report from Finance provided the provision of a rates rebate for residents of retirement villages whose property ownership was governed by an "Occupational Right Agreement (ORA) or "Licence to Occupy Agreement (LTO)". It identified the potential pool of residents who might seek to apply for the rebate based on a survey of the affected retirement villages, along with estimated costings of the proposal. The report noted that a Private Members Bill related to the topic had been developed and was awaiting its first reading in Parliament.
	Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr John Bezett): that the Committee a) Lays Item 7- Rates Rebate – Occupational Right Agreements Report on the table. b) Notes that an update on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill will be provided to the incoming Council. Motion carried (FIN/2016/005)
	Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Lee Vandervis): that the Committee a) Requests that staff petition Central Government to expedite the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill Motion carried (FIN/2016/006)

	Title	Page
A	Minutes of Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations Committee held on 4 May 2016	135

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Audit and Risk Subcommittee held on 16 May 2016	183

Chairperson	Susie Johnstone
Deputy Chairperson
Members	Hilary Calvert	Janet Copeland
	Chris Staynes	Richard Thomson
	Mayor Dave Cull (Ex-Officio Member)

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Waikouaiti Coast Community Board held on 29 June 2016	190

Chairperson	Gerard Collings
Deputy Chairperson	Alasdair Morrison
Members	Cr Andrew Noone	Geraldine Tait
	Tracey Scurr

7 Community Plan
	Following discussion it was agreed the Board would meet at 1.00 pm on Sunday 10 July 2016 at the Blueskin Bay Library meeting room to discuss their 2017/18 Community Plan.

8.1 Except as provided in this Schedule 2 and this Constitution, the Board may regulate its own procedure.

8 Funding Applications
	Councillor Noone declared an interest in the funding application from POWA and withdrew from the item. The Board considered a funding application from the Progress of Waikouaiti Area (POWA) towards the cost of printing of the monthly community newsletter.
	Moved (Deputy Chairperson Alasdair Morrison/Member Geraldine Tait): that the Board a) Grants the funding application from the Progress of Waikouaiti Area for $1,522.46. Motion carried (WC/2016/024)
	Moved (Chairperson Gerard Collings/Deputy Chairperson Alasdair Morrison): that the Board a) Approves the payment of $50.00 for flowers from Bunches and Bows Motion carried (WC/2016/025)

9 Chairperson's Report
	A report from the Chairperson (Gerard Collings) updated the Board on the following: a) Community Engagement
	b) Discretionary Fund. Following discussion, the Board agreed that the remaining funds be contributed towards the cost of a bench seat to be placed at the Karitane foreshore.
	Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Member Tracey Scurr): that the Board a) Approves $700.00 being the remainder of the project fund be allocated to be used towards the cost of a bench seat for the Karitane foreshore. Motion carried (WC/2016/026)
	c) Waikouaiti Domain Trees. The Chairperson expressed safety concerns regarding the stability of the trees along the Waikouaiti Domain in particular the ones situated along the rear of Stewart Street properties. d) Emergency Management/Civil Defence. It was agreed that staff be requested to liaise directly with the Waitati Fire Brigade to progress the Blueskin Bay Civil Defence Emergency Response Plan. e) Warrington Toilet Block Mural. The Chairperson advised that the email had been passed onto staff for their information. f) Waitati Stream – vicinity of Bland Park. The Chairperson advised that the repairs to the erosion were being carried out by the Otago Regional Council. e) g) Waitati Toilets.
	Moved (Chairperson Gerard Collings/Deputy Chairperson Alasdair Morrison): that the Board a) Notes the report from the Chairperson Motion carried (WC/2016/027)
10 Council Activities
	The Ward Councillor, Andrew Noone, provided a verbal update to the Board on: f) 2016/17 Annual Plan.
	Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Chairperson Gerard Collings): that the Board a) Notes the report Motion carried (WC/2016/028)
11 Items for Consideration by the Chair
	The following items were identified: Freedom Camping at the Warrington Domain Report on the Waikouaiti Transfer facility including: a) project milestones and timelines b) proposed methodology for community engagement c) scope of services d) Waikouaiti landfill decommissioning e) testing and reporting Report on the Waikouaiti Domain/Matanaka Drive Harvesting including: a) project milestones and timelines b) proposed methodology for community engagement c) scope of services Waitati Toilets 2017/18 Community Plan Update the causes of the sewerage leak at the old Council yard by the Waikouaiti School. Coastal Erosion Investigation– terms of reference, project milestones and timelines

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Otago Peninsula Community Board held on 30 June 2016	196

Chairperson	Christine Garey
Deputy Chairperson	Paul Pope
Members	Lox Kellas	Hoani Langsbury
	Cr Neville Peat	Edna Stevenson

10 Funding Applications
	A report from Civic appended funding applications from the Ocean Grove Community Trust for a year's worth (12 editions) of "Hawk Talk" and from the Te Rauone Beach Coast Care Committee for the printing of updated promotion booklets. It was noted that $1,316.78 remained in the Project Fund for the financial year.
	Edna Stevenson declared an interest in the Te Rauone Beach Coast Care Committee application and withdrew from the meeting at 10.29 am.
	Moved (Lox Kellas/Paul Pope): That the Board: a) Grants the funding application from the Ocean Grove Community Trust for $500.00. b) Grants the funding application from Te Rauone Beach Coast Care Committee for $816.78. Motion carried (OPCB/2016/020)

	Edna Stevenson returned to the meeting at 10.31 am.

12 Community Plan
	The Chairperson congratulated Board members for the way they had worked with staff on their delegated projects and noted that most of the projects were now in train. She suggested holding a workshop before the next Board meeting to update the Community Plan.

13 Working Parties/Board Area Liaison Updates
	a) Keep Dunedin Beautiful

	Paul Pope commented on the Keep Dunedin Beautiful Week to be held in September.

	b) Rural Roads Update

	Lox Kellas reported that roads were in good condition for the time of year. He advised of the poor quality of grates being installed in roads, which were brittle. The Group Manager advised he would follow up this matter. He also commented on the work that had started in front of the new retaining wall at Broad Bay and the traffic management plan. The Group Manager was asked to liaise with Lala Frazer over the Smiths Creek spawning area for native banded kokopu in relation to the Turnbulls Bay work.

	c) Area Updates

	Board members provided updates from their areas of responsibility. Paul Pope advised that over 60 people had attended the Tomahawk School open days. He commented on the Portobello Jetty ramp. He also noted that he had made two presentations to the Council's 2GP hearings on behalf of the Board. The Portobello Market Day would be held on 17 July. Edna Stevenson commented on arrangements for the unveiling of the plaque for the Robert George memorial seat. She also advised the Board of a recent very positive meeting of the Te Rauone Beach Coast Care Committee with Beca and noted that Port Otago was still on track with the resource consent application by the end of September.

14 Chairperson's Report
	A report from the Chairperson updated the Board on the following matters of interest since the previous meeting: · Overseas Drivers · Standing for Election and Voting · "Loose Ends" · Portobello/Harington Point Road Safety Improvements Project · Meetings/Events Attended · Upcoming Meetings/Events
	The Chairperson considered that the Board needed to encourage people to put their names forward as candidates for the Board in the forthcoming election. She also commented on a meeting regarding Coronation Hall signage, the renewal of the Macandrew Bay Store liquor licence, repair of road edges, the establishment of a Board email address, and a water seepage issue at Broad Bay.
	Moved (Chairperson Christine Garey/Lox Kellas): That the Board: a) Notes the report from the Chairperson. Motion carried (OPCB/2016/023)

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Strath Taieri Community Board held on 30 June 2016	204

Chairperson	Barry Williams
Deputy Chairperson	Joan Wilson
Members	Russell Anderson	Bevan Dowling
	Karen Dunn	Cr Mike Lord
	Mr Noel Matthews