Council

19 September 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 1 August 2016, commencing at 10.00 am

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 Richard Thomson	Cr Lee Vandervis
	Cr Andrew Whiley	Cr Kate Wilson

IN ATTENDANCE

Sue Bidrose (Chief Executive Officer), Simon Pickford (General Manager Services and Development), Grant McKenzie (Group Chief Financial Officer), Sandy Graham (General Manager Corporate Services), Kristy Rusher (Manager Civic and Legal), John Christie (Director Enterprise Dunedin), Nicola Pinfold (Group Manager Community and Planning), Karilyn Canton (In-House Legal Counsel), Maria Ioannou (Corporate Policy Manager), Jessie Wu (Policy Advisor), Hamish Orbell (Senior Policy Analyst), Andrea Jones (Communications Team Leader), Tracey Tamakehu (Digital Services Manager), Andrew Slater (Risk and Internal Audit Manager), Gavin Logie (Financial Controller) and Carolyn Allan (Senior Management Accountant)

Governance Support Officer Pam Jordan

1 Opening

The meeting opened with a prayer given by Sheikh Asrarul Haque Obaidullah, Iman, Al Huda Mosque.

2 Public Forum

There was no Public Forum.

3 Apologies

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Mike Lord):

That the Council:

Accepts the apology from Cr Neville Peat (for absence) and from Cr Chris Staynes (for lateness).

Motion carried (CNL/2016/052)

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda, noting that the non-public part of the meeting will commence at 1.00 pm, with any remaining public items to be taken following that.

There was discussion on whether Delta representatives were required to attend the meeting for item 6 of the non-public part of the meeting, however Mayor Cull advised that the Chairman of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd had said that he would respond to the Council's questions.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/053) Councillor Vandervis recorded his vote against.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Ordinary Council meeting - 27 June 2016

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Andrew Noone):

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 27 June 2016 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/054)

Minutes of Committees

7 Hearings Committee - 23 February 2016

It was reported that a correction had been made to record that Commissioner Colin Weatherall rather than Cr Andrew Whiley was a member of this Hearings Committee.

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

Confirms the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 23 February 2016 as a correct record (15 Midland Street, Dunedin).

Motion carried (CNL/2016/055)

8 Hearings Committee - 7 March 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 7 March 2016 as a correct record (8 Kilgour Street, Dunedin).

Motion carried (CNL/2016/056)

9 Hearings Committee - 18 March 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

Confirms the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 18 March 2016 as a correct record (97 Filleul Street, Dunedin).

Motion carried (CNL/2016/057)

10 Hearings Committee - 6 April 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

Confirms the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 6 April 2016 as a correct record (29 Queen Street, Dunedin).

Motion carried (CNL/2016/058)

11 Hearings Committee - 14 April 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

Confirms the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 14 April 2016 as a correct record (113 Cliffs Road, Dunedin).

Motion carried (CNL/2016/059)

12 Hearings Committee - 1 June 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 1 June 2016 as a correct record (50A Hazel Avenue, Dunedin).

Motion carried (CNL/2016/060)

13 Hearings Committee - 17 August 2015

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

That the Council:

Confirms the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 17 August 2015 as a correct record (2 Townleys Road, Dunedin).

Motion carried (CNL/2016/061)

14 Hearings Committee - 17 August 2015

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

That the Council:

Confirms the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 17 August 2015 as a correct record (506 Kaikorai Valley Road, Dunedin).

Motion carried (CNL/2016/062)

15 Community and Environment Committee - 11 July 2016

Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Kate Wilson):

That the Council:

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

b) Takes Part C items of the minutes of the Community and Environment Committee held on 11 July 2016, in the non-public part of the meeting.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/063)

16 Infrastructure Services Committee - 12 July 2016

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Doug Hall):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-5, 7) and public forum of the minutes of the Infrastructure Services Committee meeting held on 12 July 2016.

b) Approves the following Part B item of the minutes of the Infrastructure Services Committee meeting held on 12 July 2016:

Item 6: Road Naming Policy Review.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/064)

17 Planning and Regulatory Committee - 12 July 2016

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

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-6) of the minutes of the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting held on 12 July 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/065)

18 Economic Development Committee - 18 July 2016

Moved (Cr John Bezett/Cr Doug Hall):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-7) of the minutes of the Economic Development Committee meeting held on 18 July 2016.

b) Takes Part C items of the minutes of the Economic Development Committee held on 18 July 2016, in the non-public part of the meeting.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/066)

19 Finance Committee - 18 July 2016

Moved (Cr Richard Thomson/Cr Hilary Calvert):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-6, 8) of the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting held on 18 July 2016.

b) Approves the following Part B item of the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting held on 18 July 2016:

Item 7: Rates Rebate - Occupational Right Agreements.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/067)

20 Annual Plan Hearings Committee – 4-5 May 2016

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Kate Wilson):

That the Council:

a) Notes the minutes of the Annual Plan Hearings Committee meeting held on 4 and 5 May 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/068)

21 Annual Plan Deliberations Committee – 10-12 May 2016

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Kate Wilson):

That the Council:

a) Notes the minutes of the Annual Plan Deliberations Committee meeting held from 10-12 May 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/069)

22 Audit and Risk Subcommittee - 16 May 2016

Moved (Cr Richard Thomson/Cr Hilary Calvert):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-8) of the minutes of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee meeting held on 16 May 2016.

b) Takes Part C items of the minutes of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee held on 16 May 2016, in the non-public part of the meeting.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/070)

Minutes of Community Boards

23 Waikouaiti Coast Community Board - 29 June 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-11) and public forum of the minutes of the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board meeting held on 29 June 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/071)

24 Otago Peninsula Community Board - 30 June 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-15) and public forum of the minutes of the Otago Peninsula Community Board meeting held on 30 June 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/072)

25 Strath Taieri Community Board - 30 June 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-10) and public forum of the minutes of the Strath Taieri Community Board meeting held on 30 June 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/073)

26 Mosgiel Taieri Community Board - 5 July 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-11) and public forum of the minutes of the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board meeting held on 5 July 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/074)

27 Saddle Hill Community Board - 7 July 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

Notes the public part of the minutes of the Saddle Hill Community Board held on 7 July 2016 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/075)

28 Chalmers Community Board - 13 July 2016

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

a) Notes Part A items (1-14) and public forum of the minutes of the Chalmers Community Board meeting held on 13 July 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/076)

Reports

29 22 Lachlan Avenue - Proposed Pedestrian Easement over the Town Belt
	A report from Corporate Services and Parks and Recreation discussed an application by the owners of 22 Lachlan Avenue, Dunedin for the grant of a pedestrian right-of-way easement along part of the boundary between 22 Lachlan Avenue and the Town Belt. The Council had two decisions to make; first, a decision in its capacity as the administering body for the reserve and second, a decision on whether or not to exercise the Minister of Conservation's delegation.
	The In-House Legal Counsel responded to questions from Councillors.
	Moved (Cr John Bezett/Cr Lee Vandervis): That the Council: 1. Acting in its capacity as the administering body of the Town Belt recreation reserve pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977: i. Grants a pedestrian right-of-way easement in favour of the land in CRF OT 106/157 over part of the Town Belt, as shown approximately as Area A on the plan attached as Attachment B of the report, subject to the conditions outlined in the report. ii. Approves waiving the annual rental for use of the reserve. iii. Decides the criteria for exemption from public notification has been met. 2. Acting under delegation from the Minister of Conservation dated 12 June 2013 and pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977, consents to the grant of a pedestrian right-of-way easement in favour of the land in CRF OT 106/157 over part of the Town Belt, as shown approximately as Area A on the plan attached as Attachment B of the report, subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Motion carried (CNL/2016/077)

30 DCC Emissions measurement, management and reduction update

A report from Community and Planning provided an overview of, and attached further detail on:

a) the Dunedin City Council's 2014/15 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory report; and,

b) a progress update on all actions in the current Emissions Management and Reduction Plan 2015-2017 inclusive.

This was in response to a request from the Sustainability Audit Subcommittee for regular reporting against EMRP targets and actions to Council.

Staff responded to questions from Councillors.

Cr Chris Staynes entered the meeting at 10.28 am.

Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

That the Council:

a) Notes the report.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/078)

31 Submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2)
	A report from Community and Planning advised that the Local Government and Environment Select Committee of Parliament (the Select Committee) had called for submissions on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) (the Bill). The Bill sought to implement central Government's Better Local Services' package. A draft submission had been drafted for the Council's consideration which outlined some of the potential implications of the Bill, and supported the submission made by Local Government New Zealand.
	Staff responded to questions from Councillors.
	Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr David Benson-Pope): That the Council: a) Approves the Dunedin City Council Submission to the Local Government Select Committee on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) (incorporating an amendment to Clause 9 of the submission which would now read: 'More specifically, the Council opposes …'). b) Speaks in support of the submission. Motion carried (CNL/2016/079)

32 Road Naming Policy Review
	A report from Corporate Services advised that the Road Naming Policy was considered by the Infrastructure Services Committee on 12 July 2016. Editorial changes were required and the Committee resolved that the policy (with revisions) be considered by Council. The revised policy was attached to the report for approval.
	Staff responded to questions from Councillors.
	Moved (Cr Aaron Hawkins/Cr Lee Vandervis): That the Council: Approves the Road Naming Policy incorporating the following amendments: Policy Amend 5.2.1 - To correct spelling or punctuation Amend 6.1 - Macrons will be used in the spelling of Māori road names where necessary for correct spelling. Delete 6.3 Procedures Amend Appropriateness (f) A personal name for special service – This can be for conservation, sport, arts, research, community service or some other sphere of activity … Motion carried (CNL/2016/080)

33 Insurance Renewal Year Ended 30 June 2017
	A report from Finance provided a summary of the insurance renewal for the Dunedin City Council for the year ended 30 June 2017. For the purposes of this insurance policy renewal, the DCC Group (where referenced) comprised the Dunedin City Council and any Council Controlled Organisation and/or subsidiary company more than 50% owned by the Council – including but not limited to: Dunedin City Holdings Limited; Dunedin City Treasury Limited; City Forests Limited; Dunedin International Airport Limited; Dunedin Venues Limited; Dunedin Venues Management Limited; Taieri Gorge Railway Limited; The Theomin Gallery Management Committee (Olveston); and Dunedin Transport Limited. Note: Some CCOs and subsidiaries held individual policies and/or had particular policy terms, conditions and limits. The report detailed the changes that had been negotiated around policy terms, conditions, coverage, excesses and premiums applied. Of note, while insurance market conditions remained competitive, the significant premium savings achieved over the last two renewals had resulted in a somewhat reduced savings potential for this renewal period. In addition the 2016/17 premium had been impacted by an increase in the sums insured as asset schedules continued to be refined and business continuity coverage updated. A deterioration in the Council's liability claims history had also necessitated QBE to impose an increase to the liability policy premiums. That said significant improvement had been achieved with the reduction to the Natural Disaster excess structure.
	The Financial Controller responded to questions from Councillors.
	Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Andrew Noone): That the Council: a) Notes the Insurance Renewal Year Ended 30 June 2017. Motion carried (CNL/2016/081)

34 DCC Risk Management Policy

A report from Finance recommend the adoption of the DCC Risk Management Policy, following consultation and the incorporation of feedback from Council staff, Senior Management as well as review and comment by the Audit and Risk Subcommittee.

The Risk and Internal Audit Manager responded to questions from Councillors.

Moved (Cr Doug Hall/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a) Adopts the DCC Risk Management Policy.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/082)

35 2015/16 Carry Forward Budgets

A report from Finance advised that the 2015/16 Carry Forward process was conducted in three stages. The first two stages allowed inclusion of provisional carry forward budgets in the 2016/17 Annual Plan process, firstly at the Council meeting in January 2016 and secondly during the Annual Plan Deliberations in May 2016.

The third and final stage in relation to the 2015/16 carry forward budgets had now been determined. The provisional requests had been updated based on final year-end results and some new requests had been received. The final position was summarised in the table. The approved carry forwards for the 2014/15 year were also shown.

*$000’s*	2014/15	2015/16 (Final)
Operating Carry Forwards	732.2	1,205.5
Capital Carry Forwards	13,100.0	7,669.7
*Total*	13,832.2	8,875.2

Staff responded to questions from Councillors. It was noted that wording would be clarified to ensure that outside groups receiving Council funding were aware of the Council's carry forward requirements.

Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Andrew Noone):

That the Council:

a) Approves the 2015/16 carry forward budgets.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/083)

36 Waipori Fund - June 2016 Quarter
	A report from Dunedin City Treasury Limited provided information on the results of the Waipori Fund for the June 2016 quarter.
	The Group Chief Financial Officer responded to questions from Councillors and was congratulated on the results. There was discussion on a policy for future use of the profit from the Fund. Cr Hilary Calvert left the meeting at 11.35 am and returned at 11.38 am during the course of discussion.
	Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Doug Hall): That the Council: a) Notes the report from Dunedin City Treasury Limited on the Waipori Fund - June 2016 Quarter. Motion carried (CNL/2016/084)

37 Change to the Constitution of Dunedin City Holdings Limited
	A report from Corporate Services sought Council's approval for the change to the Constitution of Dunedin City Holdings Limited.
	The Group Chief Financial Officer responded to questions from Councillors on the changes.
	Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Mike Lord): That the Council: a) Approves the new Constitution of DCHL. Motion carried (CNL/2016/085)

GROUP CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Mayor Cull noted that this would be the Group Chief Financial Officer, Grant McKenzie's last Council meeting. He acknowledged the valuable contribution he had made during the relatively short time he had been with the Council in the areas of insurance, risk management, procurement, Waipori Fund etc, all of which had been done with absolute integrity. The Council had appreciated his contribution and extended its best wishes for the future.

Mr McKenzie thanked Councillors for their support, noted the interesting time he had experienced in the position, wished the Council the best of luck for the future, and noted that it had many good people working for it.

38 Notice of Motion - Support for Urban Renewal Initiatives in South Dunedin/Funding to Assist with the Protection of Public and Private Infrastructure and Assets at Risk from Ground Water and Sea Level Changes

Cr Benson-Pope introduced the notice of motion and was of the view that the first recommendation on the agenda to receive the notice of motion was redundant.

Cr Vandervis left the meeting at 11.55 am during the course of discussion.

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

That the Council:

a) Further to the Council resolution of 30 November 2015, makes urgent representations to Government in regard to:

i) Support for urban renewal initiatives in South Dunedin; and

ii) Funding to assist with the protection of public and private infrastructure and assets at risk from ground water and sea level changes.

Adjournment of Item

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

Adjourns Item 38: Notice of Motion - Support for Urban Renewal Initiatives in South Dunedin/Funding to Assist with the Protection of Public and Private Infrastructure and Assets at Risk from Ground Water and Sea Level Changes, until after the completion of the non-public part of the meeting.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/086)

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, exclude 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 - 27 June 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. 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.
C2 Hearings Committee - 1 June 2016 - Public Excluded		S48(1)(d) That a right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the Dunedin City Council in these proceedings.
C3 Community and Environment Committee - 11 July 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.	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.
C4 Economic Development Committee - 18 July 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)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	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.
C5 Audit and Risk Subcommittee - 16 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)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(c)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied. S7(2)(c)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest. S6(a) The making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial.	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.
C6 Noble/Yaldhurst Village Update	S7(2)(b)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret. S7(2)(c)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	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.
C7 Proposed Amendment to Waipori Fund SIPO	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.

That Messrs Graham Crombie, Keith Cooper and David Smillie be permitted to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded because of their knowledge of Item C6. This knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the matters to be discussed, is relevant because they are the Chairman and a Director of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd and the company's legal counsel.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/087)

The meeting moved into confidential at 12.02 pm and returned to the public session at 4.13 pm. Cr Doug Hall had left the meeting and Cr Lee Vandervis had returned to the meeting during the non-public session.

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes): that the Council

Adjourns the meeting for five minutes.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/088)

The meeting adjourned from 4.13 pm to 4.18 pm.

38 Notice of Motion - Support for Urban Renewal Initiatives in South Dunedin/Funding to Assist with the Protection of Public and Private Infrastructure and Assets at Risk from Ground Water and Sea Level Changes (CONTINUED)
Suggested amendments were made to the original motion with the agreement of the mover, seconder and the Council. Cr Richard Thomson returned to the meeting at 4.20 pm following the adjournment.
Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Aaron Hawkins): That the Council: a) Further to the Council resolution of 30 November 2015, immediately engages with the Government in regard to: i) Support for urban renewal initiatives in South Dunedin; and ii) Measures to assist with the protection of public and private infrastructure and assets at risk from ground water and sea level changes.
There was discussion on the notice of motion. Motion carried (CNL/2016/089)

The meeting concluded at 4.39 pm.

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

MAYOR

Council

19 September 2016

Hearings Committee

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin, on Wednesday 16 March 2016, commencing at 9.00 am

PRESENT

Chairperson	Andrew Noone
	Lee Vandervis	Andrew Whiley

IN ATTENDANCE

John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Melissa Shipman (Processing Officer), Grant Fisher (Transport Planner/Engineer) and Peter Christos (Urban Designer)

Governance Support Officers Pam Jordan, Andrea Barker and Wendy Collard

RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2015-345, 140 HIGHCLIFF ROAD, DUNEDIN

The Committee considered an application to establish and operation of residential activity with 25 retirement apartments and a clubroom at 140 Highcliff Road, Dunedin under Section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

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:

Ezra Eini (Director, Shiel Hill Properties Ltd)

Avi Fadida (Director, Shiel Hill Properties Ltd)

Don Anderson (Consultant Planner)

Conrad Anderson (Consultant Planner)

There were four submitters present at the hearing.

· Mel and Jeremy Forlong

· Jeremy Shearer (on behalf of Mel and Jeremy Forlong)

· Raewyn Keane

· Ben Beck and Samantha West

· Peter Jones

Procedural Issues

There were no procedural matters raised.

Presentation of the Planner’s Report

The Planning Officer (Melissa Shipman) spoke to a summary of her report, giving an overview of the proposal before commenting on the notification of the application and the submissions received. Ms Shipman provided a background to the subject site and commented that it was zoned Residential 1, with Highcliff Road being classified as a District Road and Bone Street classified as a Local Road.

Ms Shipman advised that land use consent for residential activity was sought by the applicant for 25 retirement apartments and an associated club room. She commented that it was intended that club rooms were to be operated in conjunction with the apartments and not separately as a licensed premises. She advised that the site was previously used as a licensed premise and consents were still in place for the tavern activity. Ms Shipman noted that the consent for the tavern formed part of the existing environment and it could be restarted at any time.

Ms Shipman advised that it was intended that the club rooms would be staffed and would be operated on a membership basis similar to a typical golf club. She commented that the 25 room residential activity would consist of 17 studio format apartments and eight two bedroom apartments.

Ms Shipman outlined her assessment of the objectives and policies and the effects of the proposal. She advised that in her opinion the proposal was not contrary to the objectives and policies of the operative and proposed plans but that she considered the effects of the proposal to be more than minor. Ms Shipman advised that her recommendation was that the consent be declined as the scale of proposal meant that it would not integrate successfully into the local environment.

The Applicant’s Presentation

Don Anderson (Consultant Planner) tabled and spoke to his submission on behalf of the applicant. Mr Anderson advised that the application was a unique proposal that would allow the reuse of existing buildings and provided for redevelopment of the remainder of the site for retirement housing. He commented that he considered the proposal would be in line with the Council’s own social housing strategy. Mr Anderson noted that it was not supported by the operative plan as the plan was written 20 years ago before the housing strategy had been written.

Mr Anderson outlined how the effects of the proposal would be mitigated and commented that the applicant was happy to work with the Transportation Department to finalise the appropriate solution to the safety issues with the Bone Street Highcliff Road intersection. Mr Anderson argued that reducing the proposal would seriously affect the economics of the it and that the provision for access from Highcliff Road would use up too much of the site due to the steep terrain.

Mr Anderson indicated that the applicant would be happy to accept conditions on the final design and appearance of the buildings to Highcliff Road and Bone Street and commented that applicant was happy with the proposed conditions in the planners report with the exception of conditions 4 and 8.

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):

"That the meeting be adjourned until 11.00 am."

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned from 10.35 am to 10.53 am.

Submittters

Raewyn Keane spoke on behalf of Jason Keane's submission which raised concerns about the development. Ms Keane indicated that she was speaking to support the Frasers who lived at 5 Bone Street. She commented that the Frasers were elderly and they received care and support services which enabled them to live in their own b home. Ms Keane considered that vehicle access issues and increased traffic on Bone St would directly affect the Frasers. She commented that the crash statistics don't give the full picture of the safety issues with the intersection. Ms Keane expressed her concerns which included the impact of earthworks required and the proposed clubrooms.

Ms Keane commented that she considered there would be a detrimental effect on valuation of 5 Bone Street as the result of the proposal. In terms of the applicant’s statements regarding the purchase of the 5 Bone Street property, it was her understanding that there was no binding agreement in place and that negotiations had stalled. She suggested that the Frasers were effectively in a Catch 22 situation and if the proposal was to be approved, it needed to protect elderly residents.

Mel and Jeremy Forlong spoke in opposition to the proposal. Ms Forlong advised that their property at 148 Highcliff Road currently had the same views as people in the restaurant on the site and their outlook would be impacted by the proposed. She commented that they had a young family and had to put their development plans on hold pending the decision on the application. Ms Forlong commented on their concerns which included shadowing and privacy.

Mr and Ms Forlong commented on the issues they had previously experienced with the tavern that had arisen from parking in the street. They felt that if the proposal still had a main entrance off Highcliff Road a lack of parking would cause problems for them.

Mr Forlong commented that they had spoken to applicants and were told that the applicant was in process of purchasing Bone Street. He commented that he felt that other people would not be interested in buying their property in the current situation. Mr Forlong advised that they had planned to put extension on southern side of their dwelling and had developed a concept plan. He noted the proposal would impact on their plans as the proposal result in shading and cut out the view.

Ben Beck and Samantha West spoke in opposition to the proposal and advised that they had bought their property in 2014 to do up and sell. They expressed their concerns regarding the development which included loss of privacy and shading. They commented that as the result of the application they had put on hold plans to do up their property over summer and were concerned they might lose money on their house. They responded to questions on traffic issues, drainage and shading concerns.

Peter Jones spoke in opposition to the proposal plan. Mr Jones commented that he felt that in relation to providing for the elderly to continue living in community that the DCC already identified areas of Dunedin where more high density housing could be built. He felt that Highcliff Road was not such an area. Mr Jones commented that he considered that the proposed clubroom would have impact on parking and traffic flow. He identified that it was difficult to exit Bone Street onto Highcliff Road and more cars on Bone Street meant that there was greater potential for accidents. Mr Jones commented that if the proposal went ahead and if the car park was full there would be limited space for them to turn around on Bone Street and that shared driveways into Bone Street properties might then be used for turning.

Council Officers evidence

The Transport Planner/Engineer (Grant Fisher) outlined his concerns regarding the intersection and commented that the number one road safety issue for Dunedin was safety at intersections and he advised that Dunedin had the worst record in the country. He commented that in his view the sight distance issues with the intersection had not been adequately resolved in the applicants proposed mitigation.

The Urban Designer (Peter Christos) commented that the principal concern about the proposed develop was the bulk of the proposed building and he advised that the bulk was accentuated as the result of the atrium. Mr Christos also commented that the high site coverage on the site was combined with a lack of architectural detail for the building and an absence of landscaping.

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):

"That the meeting be adjourned until 12.10 pm to allow the Planner to consider the review of her recommendation."

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned from 11.52 pm to 12.09 pm.

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 decline consent on the basis of the transportation and amenity effects that would arise from the proposal. Ms Shipman advised that she considered the proposal represented overdevelopment of the site and noted that she was unsure whether the contract to purchase 5 Bone Street tabled by the applicant had the same effect as an affected party approval. She advised that it might be necessary for the Committee to obtain legal advice to clarify the matter.

The Applicant’s Response

Mr Anderson reiterated the positive aspects of the application and commented that providing housing for the elderly was in line with the Council’s own social housing strategy. He advised that the greatest effects would be on 5 Bone Street and the contract to purchase the property was as good as an affected party approval. Mr Anderson commented that the only condition on the contract was in relation to the resource consent. He advised that the applicant would be comfortable providing more information on shading.

In terms of transportation effects Mr Anderson commented that he considered that the transportation issues could be managed by conditions. Mr Anderson advised that the proposal should not be declined because of transportation issues and he felt that the Committee did not need to be concerned regarding density and coverage. Mr Anderson noted that the applicant would attend to urban design issues which could be also managed by conditions.

The meeting adjourned at 12.40 pm and reconvened in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers on Tuesday 21 June 2016 at 10.00 am.

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

IN ATTENDANCE: John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Melissa Shipman (Planner), Grant Fisher (Transport Planner/Engineer), Peter Christos (Urban Designer) and Wendy Collard (Governance Support Officer)

The Chairperson advised that the Committee had requested further information from the applicant which had been circulated to all submitters.

Presentation of the Planner’s Report on the further information

The Planner (Melissa Shipman) spoke to the additional information from the applicant and advised that the issues related to transportation had been addressed by the further information to the satisfaction of the Council Transport Planner/Engineer. In relation to amenity and urban design considerations, Ms Shipman advised that the small changes that had been made to the design did not adequately address the adverse amenity effects. She advised that she remained of the view that the bulk of the development was imposing and considered that the design changed had failed to address the effects on the residential amenity values.

The Applicant’s Presentation on the further information

Mr Anderson provided an update on the opportunities that the owners had undertaken since the last hearing which included that they had relicensed the original kitchen to produce sushi to various outlets and reopened the public bar to serve the locals.

In relation to further information, Mr Anderson advised that the applicant had taken on board the urban design comments and that they would be using the existing façade for some of the units to save costs. Mr Anderson commented on the changes that had been made to layout which included the relocation of fire escapes and a greater offset to 148 Highcliff Road which would improve mitigated of amenity environmental effects.

Mr Anderson advised that he was disappointed with the Urban Designer's comments and he did not know what more could be done. He commented that there were no specific urban design criteria in the District Plan that was relevant to the area or site and it’s only a consideration as the proposal was a non-complying activity. Mr Anderson advised that he felt that it was debatable whether the character of the site was residential. He commented that he was not asked to address residential amenity concerns in the request for further information and he did not think that urban design issues should be an important matter in the Committee’s considerations.

Mr Anderson commented that the Anderson Lloyd letter agreed with them in relation to the contract to purchase 5 Bone Street being the same as an affected party approval and therefore the effects of 5 Bone Street cannot be considered by the Committee.

Avi Fadida (Director of Shiel Hill Properties Ltd) advised that the applicant was committed to providing quality accommodation for the elderly. Mr Fadida commented that he was a businessman who not only wanted to make money but also to look after people.

Submitters on the further information

Mel and Jeremy Forlong advised that Jeremy Shearer was in attendance to speak on their behalf. Mr Shearer commented that the proposal would result in a large bulky development which would impact on the view from 148 Highcliff Road and increase shading. He advised that he considered the effects on the Forlongs were significant and noted that no offer of purchase was tabled by the applicants which would allow the Forlongs to leave. He discussed the proposed changes and the proposed planting and argued that these changes would not mitigate the effects. Mr Shearer commented that he considered the proposal would set a precedent for future developments.

In terms of privacy concerns Mr Shearer commented that the residents in the complex would be in their dwellings for long periods of time and be able to overlook the property at 148 Highcliff Road. He also noted that a hedge would be removed as a result of the construction process.

Jeremy Forlong responded to questions regarding their development plans and advised that at this stage they had only obtained concept plans. He commented that they had put on hold their plan to apply for building consent due to the proposal for next door. Mr Forlong advised that they did not see any benefit from extending their dwelling if the development went ahead.

Raewyn Keane expressed her concern in relation to the applicant’s statement that there was a sales and purchase agreement in place for 5 Bone Street subject to consent being granted. The owners and lawyers for the property at 5 Bone Street did not have that understanding. She advised that the design changes had shifted the building closer to 5 Bone Street.

The Chairperson advised that a further submission from Peter Jones had been received and tabled.

Council Officers Evidence on the further evidence

The Transport Engineer/Planner (Grant Fisher) advised that since the initial hearing he had had discussion with the applicant’s transportation expert and that he had considered the further information which had been provided. Mr Fisher commented that he was happy with the mitigation that had been proposed by the applicant and he now considered the effects of the proposal on the roading network would only be minor.

The Urban Designer (Peter Christos) advised that the further information provided had not change his views on the proposal. Mr Christos acknowledged the changes that had been made but commented that he considered a greater set back to Highcliff Road could have be put in place. He advised that there was only limited room provided to provide landscape screening due to the limited setbacks and high coverage. Mr Christos commented that he was also looking for textures as this was a way to help mitigate effects.

In response to question, Mr Christos commented that greater setback and landscape screening would be necessary to make a material difference to mitigating the effect of the bulk of the building.

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis)

"That the meeting be adjourned until 11.50 am."

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 11.34 am and reconvened at 11.48 am.

The Planner’s Review of their Recommendation on the further information

Ms Shipman advised that the transport issues had been addressed to the satisfaction of the Transportation Planner. In terms of amenity issues, she commented that the bulk of the building was still a concern and in her view the bulk was too great for the site and area. Ms Shipman advised that she considered the effects on privacy and views would be greater for 148 Highcliff Road other than what would be expected for a permitted baseline. She commented that a green wall would soften a blank façade but the building block and mass was still there. Ms Shipman advised that she felt that the applicant had not made enough changes to reduce the bulk of the building and mitigate adverse effects.

She commented that she still maintained her position that the application should be declined.

The Applicant’s Right of Reply on the further information

Mr Anderson advised that the owners sought consent for what they believed was the best use of the site and should consent to be declined they would have to make a decision regarding the use of the site.

Mr Anderson offered the opportunity for a condition that the final design should be approved by the Resource Consents Manager. He commented that he did not want the proposal turned down because of urban design issue and that on this basis the applicant would accept an increase in the yard in relation to the Forlong’s property by a further metre.

Mr Anderson advised that they accepted the proposed transportation conditions and that applicant's offer for external detailing would go a long way to addressing council departments concerns.

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.

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 – 140 Highcliff Road	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 12.03 pm.

MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, ON WEDNESDAY, 21 JUNE 2016, COMMENCING AT 12.06 PM

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

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

PART C:

1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2015-345, 140 HIGHCLIFF ROAD, DUNEDIN

The Committee gave consideration to the Planner’s recommendation, to the points raised by the applicant and further information provided. It was noted that site visits had been conducted on 15 March and 20 June 2016.

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 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 being the establishment of 25 residential units in the form of a retirement village and a licensed clubroom at 140 Highcliff Road, Dunedin, being the land legally described as Lot 3 Deposited Plan 431251 (CFR 523050), subject to conditions imposed under Section 108 of the Act, as shown below.

That pursuant to section 116 of the Resource Management Act 1991, this consent must not commence until the purchase of the property at 5 Bone Street by the applicant had been completed.

Conditions:

1 The proposal must be constructed and operated generally in accordance with the relevant details submitted with the resource consent application, the evidence and submissions provided at the hearings on 16 March and 2 June 2016 and the plans and further information provided on 9 May 2016 except where modified by the conditions below:

2 The residential activity on the site must be operated as a retirement village as specified in the application details.

3 The clubroom facility must operate in the manner specified in the application as a clubroom for members. The clubroom must not operate outside of the following hours:

· 8am-11pm Sunday to Thursday

· 8am to 12midnight Friday & Saturday

Urban Design and Landscaping

4 A 3 metre yard setback was to be provided along the boundary with the property at 148 Highcliff Road.

5 A planting plan was to be prepared for the yard adjoining 148 Highcliff Road by a suitably qualified landscape architect that would assist in softening the effects of building bulk and in maintaining privacy.

6 Landscaping for the yard adjoining 148 Highcliff Road site and for the remainder of the site was to be established within 3 months of the issue of the code compliance certificate for the building and it was to be maintained on the site thereafter. Any dead or moribund plantings were to be immediately replaced.

7 The large section of blank façade on the Bone Street frontage was to be provided with additional articulation to enhance its compatibility with the Bone Street residential environment. The articulation was not to be achieved through painting only and openings, materials and other architectural devices are to be considered.

8 The section of the new building adjoining the boundary with 5 Bone Street that was shown with a monopitch roof was to be with provided with a low angle hipped roof to assist its integration with the existing built environment.

9 Colours for the building were to be selected and used to distinguish separate parts of the building. Colours were to be recessive and compatible with the existing built and natural environment.

10 The fence proposed for the Highcliff Road frontage was to have a minimum visual permeability of 40%.

11 The required planting plan, architectural details for the articulation of the Bone Street frontage, final colour scheme and fence details were to be submitted to the Resource Consents Manager for approval. Construction must not commence until approval is obtained.

Transportation

12 Detailed engineering plans for all proposed roading works must be submitted to and approved by the Transport prior to construction. The roading works must be completed prior to the activity commencing operation.

13 The redundant vehicle crossing on Highcliff Road must be reinstated as footpath, kerb, and channel at the applicant's cost.

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

15 At least one adequately dimensioned mobility parking space must be provided within the site. The mobility parking space must be permanently marked in accordance with District Plan dimensions.

16 Specific provisions must be made within the site for refuse collection, in order to reduce effects of concentrating a collection point on the adjacent transport network.

Backflow Requirements

17 An RPZ boundary backflow prevention device must be installed by a plumber, in accordance with the Code of Practice for Boundary Backflow Prevention (June 2013) and to the approval of the Education and Compliance Officer (Water), Water and Waste Services. The applicant was advised to contact the Education and Compliance Officer if further guidance was required prior to installation of the device.

New Water Service Connections

18 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 to each unserviced proposed lot. Details of how each proposed lot was to be serviced for water must accompany the “Application for Water Supply”.

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

Wastewater Services

20 The wastewater for the upper floor which was level with Highcliff Road was to be piped via a private lateral to the 150mm wastewater main on Highcliff road. The wastewater from the remainder of the development could be discharged to the Bone Street wastewater main.

Stormwater Services

21 A Stormwater Management Plan for the subdivision must be provided to Water and Waste Services for approval. The Stormwater Management Plan must outline how stormwater from each lot of the subdivision would be managed to ensure post-development flows did not exceed pre-development flows, and identify and address any downstream effects of the stormwater generated by the development, including any mitigation required.

Construction Noise

22 All construction noise must comply with the following noise limits:

*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
	1800-2000	45	75
	2000-0730	45	75

Note:The lower noise limits that applied on Saturday Evening, Sunday and public holidays would likely mean that no work with machinery could occur on site at these times

Earthworks

23 A construction management plan should be submitted to, and approved by, the Resource Consents Manager prior to demolition/construction works being undertaken in association with the proposed development.

24 The consent holder must provide notice to the Resource Consent Monitoring team by email to rcmonitoring@dcc.govt.nz of the start date of the works. This notice must be provided at least five (5) working days before the works are to commence.

25 Earthworks must not commence until a building consent had been issued.

26 Surplus excavation material was to be disposed of away from the site to a Council approved destination.

27 The consent holder must 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.

28 All walls over 1.5m, or a surcharge / slope, including terracing, require design, specification and supervision by appropriately qualified person/s.

29 Any earth fill over 0.6m thick supporting foundations must be specified and supervised by a suitably qualified person in accordance with NZS 4431-1989 Code of Practice for Earthfill for Residential Development.

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

· divert clean runoff away from disturbed ground;

· control and contain stormwater run-off;

· avoid sediment laden run-off from the site; and

· protect existing drainage infrastructure sumps and drains from sediment run-off."

Motion carried

Reasons for the Decision

1 The Committee agreed with the applicant and Ms Shipman that the proposed activity was not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the operative and proposed District Plans and consistent with the objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement for Otago. The proposal therefore satisfied the gateway test contained in Section 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Committee could consider grating the consent following an assessment under Section 104 and part 2 of the RMA.

2 The Committee noted that the existing environment included a commercial tavern and restaurant activity that was authorised by a land use consent. The facility included a large open car park and minimal landscaping. The Committee considered that the residential character of the site was already significantly affected by the commercial use of the site as a tavern and restaurant.

3 The Committee considered that the use of the site for retirement housing was an appropriate use for the site. There would be significant future demand for retirement housing and this proposal would potentially assist in providing for elderly residents from the local community to continue to reside in the area. The Committee had imposed conditions to ensure it operated as a retirement village as described in the application.

4 The Committee was satisfied with the mitigation proposed to address transport related effects and it was satisfied that the transport effects of the proposal would be acceptably managed by conditions.

5 Although the proposal significantly exceeded site coverage the Committee noted that the worst amenity effects of the proposal would be in relation to the site at 5 Bone Street that the applicant had agreed to purchase. The Committee accepted the legal advice that the contract to purchase could be considered as an affected party approval. As a consequence, the Committee had not considered the adverse effects on the property at 5 Bone Street in deciding on this application.

6 The Committee had considered the adverse amenity effects on the property at 148 Highcliff Road which also adjoined the site. It noted that the permitted baseline would provide for a dwelling to be established along the southern boundary of 148 Highcliff Road with a 2m setback. A complying dwelling at the location would also potentially impact on outlook to a similar extent as the proposed development. Despite this the Committee acknowledged that the length and bulk of the building were beyond what would be expected from a non-fanciful residential use. The Committee noted that the applicant had offered a 3m setback along the boundary this would assist with mitigating the bulk of the building through planting. It had imposed conditions to secure a 3m setback in relation to the boundary and to require meaningful mitigation planting to assist in softening the effects of the building.

7 In terms of the wider effects of the proposal the Committee agreed with the applicant that the effect of the bulk was reduced in relation to the Highcliff Road by the slope of the site. The Committee acknowledged that there was blank wall facing Bone Street and streetscape impacts. As a result, it had also imposed conditions in relation to colour, landscape planting, fencing and the treatment of the Bone Street façade to assist with the integration of the this building into its setting.

8 Having regard to the existing environment, the Committee considered that the effects of the proposed retirement complex with mitigation in place would be acceptable. It had also imposed conditions to ensure the effects of services and the effects during the construction phase are appropriately managed.

9 The Committee considered that the proposal was a “true exception” due to the land use history of the site. The site was not residential in character and had been established and operated as a commercial activity for many years. As a consequence, the Committee considered approval of the application would not in threaten the integrity of the District Plan or establish an undesirable precedent for future applications.

10 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 12.38 pm.

CHAIRPERSON

Council

19 September 2016

Hearings Committee

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin, commencing Tuesday 17 May 2016, at 9.00 am

PRESENT

Commissioner

Colin Weatherall

IN ATTENDANCE

John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Darryl Sycamore (Processing Officer), Carlo Bell (Environmental Health Officer) and Barry Knox (Landscape Architect).

Governance Support Officer Wendy Collard

RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2015-469, 147 CHURCH ROAD, MERTON

The Commissioner considered an application for the erection and operation of three wind turbines at 147 Church Road, Merton.

The Commissioner 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, Gallaway Cook Allan)

Campbell Hodgson (Solicitor, Gallaway Cook Allan)

Scott Willis (on behalf of Blueskin Energy Limited and Blueskin Resilient Communities Trust)

Virginia Toy (Geotechnical Engineer

Stephen Chiles (Acoustics Engineer)

John Craig (Avifauna and Ecologist)

Di Lucas (Landscape Architect)

Mike Moore (Landscape Architect)

Ben Farrell (Consultant Planner)

Janet Stephenson

The Commissioner advised that he had conducted a site visit and had looked at the site from various locations within the Blueskin Bay area.

There were 28 submitters present at the hearing.

Geraldine Tait

Jeremy Head (Landscape Architect on behalf of Geraldine Tait)

Alasdair Morrison

Andy Barratt

Tracey Scurr

Denis Albert

Graeme Bennett

Jenny McDonald

Simon Ryan and Jennifer Ashby

Lyndon and Kirsty Clayton

Karen Price and Steven Mutch (Solicitors on behalf of S Ryan, J Ashby and L & K Clayton)

Stephen Brown (Landscape Architect for S Ryan, J Ashby and L & K Clayton)

Rachel McClellan (Ecologist for S Ryan, J Ashby and L & K Clayton)

Stephen Packer

Jenny Rodgers

Mark Brown

Sally Brown

Thomas Cardy and Jamie Pickford

Metiria Turei MP

Paul Jouanides

Brenda and John Thom

Derek Onley

Gareth Hughes MP

Rachel Ozanne

Frederika Schmaltz

Andrew Deaker

Kat Achterberg

John Kaiser

Ben Wooliscroft

Procedural Issues

In response to a questions regarding the evidence and appearance from Dr Janet Stephenson for the applicant and her submission in support of the application, Ms Irving advised that Dr Stevenson’s evidence should not be treated as expert evidence prepared under the Environment Court’s code of conduct for expert witnesses and the Commissioner should adjust the weight given to the evidence accordingly.

Late Submissions

Commissioner Weatherall advised that he had issued a minute prior to the hearing which noted that he had accepted the late submissions from the following:

· Murray Cumming

· Alan Greenall

· Eve Jolly

· New Zealand Windfarm Energy Association

· John Thom

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 before commenting on the notification of the application and the submissions received.

Mr Sycamore advised that a resource consent had been sought to erect and operate three wind turbines on Porteous Hill which was a remnant volcano that formed part of the Kilmog series of land features. He commented that the proposal was to establish a small scale wind-farm on the site.

Mr Sycamore commented that in 2013 a resource consent had been granted to erect and maintain a wind-monitoring mast as part of a feasibility study to identify a suitable site. He commented that three turbines, which would produce approximately 800-900kW and with a maximum height of 125m above ground level proposed. He advised that work would include the extension of the access road, excavation of the tower foundations, erection and commissioning of the turbines. Connection would be directly to the 33kV OtagoNet Distribution Network, being the National Grid. Mr Sycamore commented that the total weight for transportation would be approximately 117 tons and that the route assessment confirmed that the road and bridges were sufficiently dimensioned to convey the load with minor works required to broaden the sweeping corners on Porteous Road itself.

Mr Sycamore advised that the expert evidence which had been received following the release of the Section 42A report had addressed some of the information gaps he had identified in the report. He commented that some submitters had provided expert landscape evidence which outlined a less positive view of the adverse effects of the proposed turbines on landscape and rural amenity values.

Mr Sycamore advised that he would provide his recommendation to grant or decline the application to his right of reply following all the evidence.

The Applicant’s Presentation

Bridget Irving (Legal Counsel) spoke to her legal submissions and outlined the main effects issues to be considered and the evidence that had been provided by Blueskin Energy through the evidence pre-circulation process.

Ms Irving commented on the statutory assessment process and in relation to the Section 104D gateway test she advised that Mr Sycamore and Mr Farrell for the applicant had concluded that the proposal passed the gateway test.

Ms Irving commented on the major issues that she felt that the Commissioner needed to consider under Section 104 and included landscape, amenity, noise, ecological aeronautical, geotechnical, traffic effects and positive effects as important considerations. In relation to landscape Ms Irving advised that she felt that as the turbines were located outside the landscape overlay in the operative plan that the objectives and policies of the landscape section of the operative plan were not a relevant consideration. Ms Irving also identified that the permitted baseline was of little relevance for the application.

In relation to the provisions of the proposed second generation plan (2GP) Ms Irving commented on the objectives and policies of the 2GP that she felt should be given more weight than would normally be the case at this early stage because the operative plan did not contemplate wind turbines and because the 2GP provisions had been drafted to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Generation (NPSREG).

Ms Irving acknowledged the differences of views in relation to the relevance of the NZ Coastal Policy Statement and commented that the activities were occurring at a location that was not part of the coastal environment and therefore the policy statement was not a relevant consideration.

Ms Irving concluded by noting that the proposal was unique with its genesis in a community that was concerned about the impacts of climate change. She commented on the positive effects of the proposal. Ms Irving commented that there were some adverse local effects but argued that these were not significant and outweighed by the benefits. She considered that the proposal was a community response to climate change that should be enabled by granting the consent.

Scott Willis (Project Manager for Blueskin Energy Limited and Manager of the Blueskin Resilient Communities Trust) spoke to his pre-circulated evidence and commented that he was the Project Manager for Blueskin Energy Limited and the president of the Blueskin Resilience Communities Trust.

Mr Willis provided background to the structure of the Trust and its membership. He commented on the projects the Trust had been involved in. In relation to the wind farm proposal he also provided a chronology of the projects progression and he commented on the community consultation that had been undertaken by the Trust.

In relation to community benefit Mr Willis advised that once the turbines were up and running it was estimated that up to $100,000 per annum would be provided to the Trust to provide services to the Community. Mr Willis provided a background to how the community has been kept informed in relation to the project which included the Blueskin A&P shows, social media, and a regular article in Blueskin News.

Mr Willis responded to some matters that had been raised in the evidence of submitters. He commented that there could not be more than three turbines on the site and that the prevailing wind was not in the direction of the Ryan/Ashby property. Mr Willis advised that they were seeking some flexibility in location of the turbines to allow for movement within 30m of the proposed GPS locations; however these movements would not result in the turbines being shifted any closer to neighbouring dwellings.

The Commissioner resolved:

"That the meeting be adjourned until 10.50 am."

The meeting adjourned at 10.30 am and reconvened at 10.48 am.

Mr Willis responded to a question regarding the consideration on alternative of location and outlined in general terms the consideration of other sites on Double Hill Road, Mopanui Ridge, Heyward Point White Road and Mt Kettle.

Mr Willis advised that their lease was for 20 years with 4 rights of renewal and he commented that the life of the structure could be up to 100 years but the turbines would likely need to be regularly replaced over that time period.

Mr Willis commented on the options for connection to the supply grid and noted that the electrons produced by the turbines would be consumed locally. He advised that the Trust's initial ambition was to provide retail access to the community but this was not able to be achieved.

Dr Janet Stephenson spoke to her pre-circulated evidence and commented that her role was to discuss the wider picture for consultation on wind farms and community response.

Dr Stephenson commented on the first piece of research work on wind farms was commissioned by the Electricity Commission. She provided a background on the research that had been undertaken on why wind farms were high on the list for renewable energy but received most opposing submissions. Dr Stephenson acknowledged that the RMA did not state that applications had to include consultation but there were benefits to undertaking consultation.

Dr Stephenson commented that the value of best practice consultation had been researched and what early engagement looked like. She advised that the research indicated that people who did not submit still have a view and that resource consent submissions did not capture all of a community’s views.

Dr Stephenson advised that the overall findings was that there was support for the project although there were some concerns such as lifespan of the project, feasibility, environmental effects of the turbines, benefits to the community. She commented that Porteous Hill was identified as the preferred site following the survey and that she felt that most the concerns had been addressed.

Dr Stephenson commented that it was her view that the consultation had exceeded the best practices model and in her view the consultation process undertaken by BRCT had been excellent.

Dr Virginia Toy (Geologist) spoke to her pre-circulated evidence and commented on her background with Waitati and her qualifications as a geologist. Dr Toy advised that in January 2016 she had undertaken some initial geotechnical investigation and looked at the areas to be used for foundations. She commented that she was not qualified to undertake a geotechnical assessment for the site as she was not an engineer however had been assisting with the information gathering for a geotechnical assessment. Dr Toy commented on the test pits dug at the site of the foundations in April 2016 and she noted that included in evidence was a draft assessment of the site by Mark Walrond from Geosolve. She advised that it was her view that the site appeared generally suitable for establishment of stable foundations for the turbines but that BRCT should engage a geotechnical expert to complete a geotechnical investigation on the specific design of foundations.

The Commissioner resolved:

”That the meeting be adjourned until 12.10 pm.

The meeting adjourned from 12.05 and reconvened at 12.10 pm.

Dr Stephen Chiles spoke to his evidence and commented that he had used the appropriate New Zealand standard for wind farm noise for his assessment work. Dr Chiles advised that Mr Hunt the peer reviewer had agreed with him on this aspect and the scenarios used for prediction work he had undertaken. He commented that a noise limit of L₉₀40dBA and below was acceptable under the standard although it would be audible in the rural environment. Dr Chiles advised that noise levels could be reduced by controlled output and commented that reducing the output of the closest turbine by 200KW would achieve the necessary reduction to ensure compliance with the noise limit which could be controlled by a computer.

Dr Chiles commented on the concerns raised in submissions regarding noise and advised that he has been involved in a number of consents such as the Mount Stuart wind farm. He commented that the prediction data was reliable and that scientific evidence showed that the claims regarding wind farm noise in relation to infrasound were not sustained.

Dr Chiles commented on the peer review that had been completed by Council and the concerns that been raised regarding the absence of background noise monitoring. He advised that he agreed with Mr Hunt that this assessment needed to be completed but he argued that the background monitoring could be done once consent was granted and the conditions proposed by Dr Chiles would ensure this was done prior to construction. Dr Chiles commented on proposed conditions in the section 42A report and suggested that these could be improved and that had included 5 conditions to this effect. He responded to questions from the Commissioner on his assessment.

The Commissioner resolved:

"That the meeting be adjourned until 1.35 pm."

The meeting adjourned at 12.40 pm and reconvened at 1.35 pm.

Dr John Craig (Avifauna and Ecologist) spoke to his ecological evidence and confirmed that he had visited the site and was aware that that the lights on the turbine would be on all the time. Dr Craig advised that his role was for the birds and to discuss the value of data collection. He commented that birds were frequently used by people to raise issues with wind farms in particular in the northern hemisphere. Dr Craig advised that due to the temperatures in the continent there were a lot of bird migrations which did not happen in the same way in NZ.

Dr Craig commented on the data collection and the models which were used to predict bird losses and provided examples of other wind farm sites and the results of the modelling work in particular the significant variances with modelling work. He advised that he considered that in this case the effect on the birds for the project would be minimal. Dr Craig commented that he couldn’t say that there won’t be kills but considered the rare species at Blueskin Bay would not likely climb 400 metres over Porteous Hill as they were more likely to travel up the valleys on either side. He noted that all human structures such as houses, roads, and power lines killed birds. In its full context the kills from these structures were minor compared to pests such as stouts and cats. Dr Craig commented that in his opinion, if additional pest control was undertaken in Blueskin Bay this would result in a much better outcome for the birds than the removal of the wind turbines. He would therefore recommend that some of the profits be put back into pest control.

Di Lucas (Landscape Architect) spoke to her pre-circulated evidence and provided clarification on some areas where inaccuracies had been identified by the landscape evidence provided on behalf of submitters. Ms Lucas commented that the turbines would have high visibility however this did not equate to negative environmental effects. She noted that mitigation had been built into the proposal in that 3 turbines were aesthetically a good number. Ms Lucas advised that only minimal earthworks were required and the form of the towers was good in terms of the visual aesthetic. She commented that the turbines would not alter the landform and the towers were not in full frontal view of residences. Ms Lucas responded to questions on the divergence in opinion from the landscape architects and what additional mitigation was possible. She noted that in terms of colour there could be a graded colouring toward the base of the turbines. Ms Lucas suggested that the lights were to be shielded and did not need to be flashing (this was identified as incorrect in the right of reply as flashing lights were required by the CAA).

Mike Moore (Landscape Architect) spoke to his pre-circulated evidence and provided a background to his involvement as a peer reviewer of Ms Lucas' landscape assessment. He advised that he largely agreed with the position of Ms Lucas on landscape matters following his own assessment and took the opportunity to correct Page 33 of his evidence as he now accepted that all three turbines would be visible from 22 Pryde Road.

Mr Moore advised that in relation to paragraph 33 of the evidence provided by Stephen Brown where Mr Brown discussed the visibility of the turbines from 22 and 90 Pryde Road, he felt that the wholly negative impact noted by Mr Brown was overstated as people could have different reactions to turbines. In terms of the impact on the rural environment Mr Moore considered that turbines could be part of the landscape and they could be accepted in a rural environment and that their impact was not necessarily negative. In terms of the effects of the turbines on the closest neighbours he concluded that they were moderate to significant.

Ben Farrell (Consultant Planner) spoke to his evidence and in line with the correction made by Mr Moore he also corrected paragraph 61 of his evidence which related to the visibility of the turbines from Pryde Road properties. Mr Farrell outlined the scope of his evidence and commented that the largest point of variance in relation to his evidence and Mr Sycamore's was the weight given to the renewable energy under the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation 2011 (NPSREG). He had given more weight to the NPSREG.

In response to questions Mr Farrell confirmed that he considered effects on closest residents were more than minor but not significant and as a consequence an assessment of alternative sites was not required. The adverse effects were not so significant to warrant refusal in his opinion.

Mr Farrell commented on the number of wind farm consents and the number of conditions that had been placed on them. He advised that his opinion was that the specific design of conditions was important. Mr Farrell commented that he did not think that conditions should be cut and pasted from other wind farm consent and that they should be site specific.

The Commissioner resolved:

"That the meeting be adjourned until 3.25 pm."

The meeting adjourned from 3.06 pm and reconvened at 3.23 pm.

Submitters

Ross Johnston spoke to his submission in support of the proposal. Mr Johnston commented that he had lived in Purakanui since 1976 and was a member of the BRCT. He advised that from his perspective the application ticked a number of boxes as it responded to global climate change, through targets which achieved 95% renewable energy nationally and to alignment with the local spatial plan. He noted he was a “yes in his backyard” person if a proposal was of benefit to him and the community. Mr Johnston considered that the local community would benefit from the project.

Denis Albert tabled and spoke to his written submission in opposition to the proposal. Mr Albert provided a description of his property on Double Hill Road in relation to the proposal. He commented that he considered the proposal to be an industrial activity as this was the most appropriate classification for the activity.

Mr Albert argued that there was no need for the wind farm as there was no shortage of renewable supply in the South Island and there were approvals at other locations to meet future demand. He commented that the proposal was for a 0.02% increase in generating capacity in a part of the country that did not need extra capacity. Mr Albert noted that the South Island electricity supply was 100% renewable. He discussed the importance of landscape values and argued that the proposal was not consistent with these values and was unsustainable.

Mr Albert commented on the community support for the proposal arguing that it was abundantly clear that there was no widespread support for either the BRCT or the wind turbine project. He advised that support was often from parties who did not live in Blueskin Bay and who would not be able to see the turbines whereas the opposing submissions largely comprised of people who could see the turbines from their own homes.

He considered the proposal would result in a major irreparable and unsustainable degeneration of the landscape values of Blueskin Bay. Mr Albert commented that the effects were major in his view. He provided a critique of the modelling that was undertaken for the noise assessment by the applicant and he considered the assessment to be inadequate. Mr Albert considered the noise issues needed to be fully understood prior to granting consent. He drew the Commissioner’s attention to the issues with the Te Rere wind farm in Palmerston North.

Mr Albert also commented on the minimum setbacks, fire hazards, lack of information on the transmission of power from the turbines to the grid, reverse sensitivity and issues associated with the access. In terms of ecology he considered that the information provided on bird strike was inadequate and noted that should consent be granted that tight decommissioning conditions were required.

He commented on the application of 2GP objectives and policies in relation to wind farms and he considered there needed to be greater consideration to the increased landscape overlay which would include the location of the turbines. If weight being given to one section then the other should be given.

Mr Albert noted the inadequacies in the consent had made submitting difficult and he requested that the Council decline the resource consent application.

Graeme Bennett spoke in opposition to the proposal and he identified that he was a landowner that owned the whole face from Doctors Point to Waitati School.

In terms of the reduction of greenhouse gases Mr Bennett commented that he considered the carbon displacement issue was a non-event. He advised that he owned forestry at Taieri Mouth and they helped sequester 2500 tonne per year significantly more than the proposal. Mr Bennett commented that he owned the site at Mopanui which was initially tested by a student. He identified that there was so much support for BRCT at the beginning but the proposal had changed significantly. It was initially intended to directly benefit the community which was the reason for the support. When it was discovered that it was not possible it then changed from something that would be owned by the community for use by the community at a cheaper rate with profits back to the community. He commented that a lot of support was lost when the proposal changed. Mr Bennett requested that the Commissioner look at what resilience meant.

He commented that he had land that might be used for residential development and the spatial plan indicated that this was an area that was suitable for residential development. The proposed turbines would be directly in the view of these sites and he did not think that the proposal would be a good bed mate. Mr Bennett noted that he agreed with Mr Albert in regards to the people surveyed and commented that if you asked the right question to the right person you would get the right answer. He had never been included in any survey and he had lived there for 13 years. He noted that he would support the proposal if it supported him directly by providing power directly into his property but he could not see the benefits of the proposed approach.

The meeting adjourned at 4.25 pm and reconvened on Wednesday 18 May 2016 at 9.00 am in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers.

Jenny McDonald spoke to her submission in opposition to the proposal and identified that that she lived at Mount Cargill Road. She advised that she was also speaking on behalf of P J Clarke as well. Ms McDonald commented on the consultation process and noted that they felt that it did not reflect the views of the community. Ms McDonald' advised that her other concern was the location of Porteous Hill as the site for the turbines due to the wind factor and the amount of money that would be generated from the project. She commented that both she and P J Clarke had been members of the Trust and now considered that the project would divide the community not join it.

Jeremy Head (Landscape Architect for Geraldine Tait) spoke to his pre-circulated landscape evidence on behalf of Geraldine Tait. In relation to the applicant’s landscape evidence Mr Head commented that he considered the site was not appropriate for the proposal whether the turbines were 90m or 125m in height.

Mr Head commented that he had observed that there would be a large viewing audience looking at the site from SH1 to Doctors Point and beyond and he considered that dismissing landscape impacts on the basis that some people might like it and some might not was not good enough. He commented that he thought that the risk was too high. He considered the wider landscape effects of the turbines would be more than minor and due to the large audience the risk was too great. Mr Head commented that if it was an environment where transitory landscape views where the main impact then it might be different as people would be passing through and it would not have a long effect.

In response to questions regarding his assessment of the receiving environment he noted that he had identified areas where most people were living, located, travelling through and see the proposal and where the visual effects would be more than minor. He acknowledged that there were other areas that would view the site however he had disregarded them due to the land being rural land.

Mr Head commented on Ms Lucas's comments regarding the site and the reasons it was appropriate for the proposed turbines and her answer regarding the ease of access to the site was not a reason in his view. He considered that structures such as this would be more appropriate in a different landscape

Mr Head commented on the earthworks for the site and the report from Fulton Hogan on the works necessary to allow vehicles up the road lacked detail. In the past he had seen applications for wind farms where effort had been put into specifying the roading requirements. He noted that there were six corners that would be required to be remodelled to allow access. There would be significant earthworks, cutting and removal of vegetation that had not been appropriately detailed.

Mr Head agreed in principle that 3 turbines were a good number and three blades was better than two but he did not consider that the use of three blades turbines was mitigation and he did not agree with Ms Lucas on the minor changes to the silhouette of the hill. Mr Head commented on the word "elegance" and that not everyone would consider them elegant. He noted that the Sydney Harbour Bridge would be considered elegant and he provided his reasons for this. In respect of the turbines he felt that they should be considered ugly, large spikey things.

In response to a question, Mr Head commented that in his opinion the visual simulations that montages was not real. A photograph was coloured pixels on paper and not reality. When you stand in the landscape the eye would settle on things that were out of place or out of character, the point of interest. In his opinion that was what the turbines would be, an unusual element.

Andrew Barratt tabled and spoke in opposition to the proposal. He outlined his experience with the local Community Board and he identified that his property would not be directly affected by the proposed development.

Mr Barratt provided a critique of the Planners Section 42A report and contended that:

· The turbines more be more symbolic than of real benefit in terms of the DCC energy policy;

· The turbines could be located in a number of other sites;

· The community benefits were questionable.

Mr Barratt commented that he considered that the turbines would be a constant source of distress to residents in the immediate vicinity and that the precedent set would be undesirable. If the application was declined he urged the DCC to work with the applicant to find a location with a better wind resource, convenient connection to the grid, less landscape sensitivity and sufficient distance from residents.

He noted that in his view it was the wrong deed for the right reasons.

The Commissioner resolved:

"That the meeting be adjourned until 10.50 am."

The meeting adjourned at 10.27 am and reconvened at 10.49 am.

Karen Price & Steven Mutch (Solicitors for S Ryan, J Ashby and L & K Clayton) spoke to written legal submissions on behalf of their clients. Ms Price advised that briefs of expert evidence, in addition to the submission from their clients, would be provided by Stephen Brown a landscape expert and Dr Rachel McClellan avifauna expert.

Ms Price commented that the Pryde Road residents they were representing were the most affected residents with respect to the key environmental effects. It was identified that the key legal issues were in relation to:

· Whether the proposal passed the section 104D gateways test;

· If the proposal passed the gateways test whether the proposal was appropriate in relation to its adverse effects and the planning framework;

· The adequacy of information provided by the applicant.

Ms Price commented that the Pryde Road neighbours considered the proposal should be declined as the proposal failed both limbs of the Section 104D gateways test. She advised that should the Commissioner decide that the proposal passed the gateways test then it was argued that the application should be declined as the landscape/amenity effects would be so significant they would not be outweighed by the proposal’s modest positive effects. In addition, it was also argued that the adverse effects were not able to be mitigated and that the proposal was inconsistent with the applicable planning framework.

The legal submissions addressed the key effects issues and referenced legal cases which supported a position that the effects were more than minor. An assessment of the objectives and policies was undertaken referencing the views of experts and relevant case law. The assessment argued that the proposal was contrary to objectives and policies of the operative and proposed plans.

In the event the Commissioner found that the gateways test were met Section 104 and Part 2 matters were discussed. The lack of information on a number of matters including noise, shadow flicker, ecology, geotechnical/hydrological was highlighted as a concern. The legal submissions noted that positive effects were uncertain and it was concluded the adverse effects outweighed any positive effects such that the proposal was inappropriate and should be declined.

In terms of the new confidential financial information provided by the applicant Ms Price requested the Commissioner make this available to submitters noting that if financial information was truly sensitive, then again it could be readily protected via confidentiality obligations.

Further concerns were raised in relation to issues raised in day one of the hearing in terms of the lack of information provided by the applicant. Ms Price raised the issue of carbon accounting and raised further concerns regarding the inadequacy of the noise assessment.

The Commissioner indicated that he would take legal advice on the confidential information and would not read it until he had considered this advice.

Simon Ryan, Jennifer Ashby, Lyndon Clayton and Kirsty Clayton jointly spoke to their detailed written submissions in opposition to the proposal. They covered a broad range of issues which included:

· Visual and amenity effects

· Noise effects

· Ecological effects

· Shadow flicker and glare

· Radio communication effects

· Geotechnical/hydrological issues

· Impacts on existing farming activities

· Uncertain/overstated community benefits

· Decommissioning

· Lapse period

· Uncertainties with the proposal and inadequacies of the AEE

· Economic issues

· The potential for environmental creep

· Precedent and Plan Integrity issues

· The Commissioner resolved:

· "That the meeting be adjourned until 1.15 pm."

The meeting adjourned at 12.35 and reconvened at 1.18 pm.

Ben Wooliscroft spoke to his submission in support of the proposal. He commented that he thought that the proposal was a generous living asset which the University were able to research. Mr Wooliscroft advised that he considered renewable energy was good for everyone and in particular the Blueskin Community. He noted that it was great opportunity for this community, University and Dunedin.

Stephen Packer spoke in support of the proposal and noted that he did not live in Blueskin Bay but had family that did. Mr Packer advised that he feared for his grandchildren in respect to climate change. He commented that he considered the proposal sent a message that communities need to do something in provision for renewable energy sources. Mr Packer considered that the landscape on Porteous Hill had been changed already due to farming and forestry activity. He submitted that there was a beauty in wind farms and they could be considered a link from the land to the skyline. Mr Packer commented that he felt that we had damaged the environment beyond repair. .

Tracey Scurr tabled and spoke to her submission on behalf of Geoff Scurr Contracting Ltd (GSCL). Ms Scurr advised that she was a director of the company that operated a quarry located on Pryde Road which had been in operation for 18 years and provided gravel and rock primary for local roading use. Ms Scurr agreed with several of the experts that presented evidence indicating that some residents were affected in a greater than minor way.

Ms Scurr advised that GSCL had been kept well informed of the project's progress by the applicants and the detail and timing of the project was not a surprise to GSCL. In relation to noise she commented that the environment on Pryde Road was relatively quiet. While the quarry did result in some noise within noise limits, there were long periods of weeks or even months when the noise level was very low.

Ms Scurr commented that she was satisfied by evidence from Dr Craig that the effects on bird life would be minimal and she supported pest control. She saw the visual impact in relation to the quarry as a positive but she acknowledged that other property owners in the area had different opinions.

Ms Scurr identified increased tourist activity and surprise viewing effects as potential effects that had not been covered in the evidence. She requested that these matters be considered and should the consent be granted she requested that any consent conditions imposed be made clear and specific.

Jenny Rodgers spoke to her submission in support of the proposal and identified that she lived in Waitati. She commented that she had lived there for two years and she considered that there had been good community engagement in the local newsletter which includes information about the project including ways to contact BRCT.

Ms Rogers was supportive and excited by the project as it is a physical structure that shows the community doing work to improve resilience in the community.

Stephen Brown (Landscape Architect for S Ryan, J Ashby and L & K Clayton) spoke to his pre-circulated evidence and tabled summary of his evidence. He advised that the adverse effects would be significant on the properties at 22 & 90 Pryde Road and the proposal was contrary to the policy frameworks under the operative and proposed District plans. In response to questions, Mr Brown advised that he had worked on 12 wind farm projects and was unable to think of any properties that would be closer to turbines than those located on Pryde Road. He commented that he was involved with another project with a dwelling that was 700m away and the electricity generator purchased the home in that case.

In terms of visibility from the dwellings of the closet residents Mr Brown commented that for most of the dwellings you would not see them from within the dwelling. However, you would see then when moving around the house, coming and going and that was without regard to the working environment. He advised that he considered the landscape was more of an issue at 90 Pryde Road and he noted that at this location the noise of the turbines would be audible and that this would make you aware of the presence of the turbines.

Rachel McClellan (Ecologist for S Ryan, J Ashby and L & K Clayton) spoke to her pre-circulated evidence and provided a summary of key points in her evidence. In that summary she observed that the expert assessments by the applicant’s experts that effects were not significant or insignificant were not supported by any robust data. Mc McClellan advised that she had identified that 14 species of nationally threatened or At Risk Species in addition to Tuis and Kereru that had the potential to interact with the wind farm. Given that lack of data Ms McClellan argued that potential effects that could be locally or regionally significant cannot be ruled out. On that basis she considered the application should be declined as:

· There was insufficient evidence to determine that potential effects would be acceptable;

· Available evidence provided a reasonable basis to conclude that adverse avifauna effects could be significant

If consent was to be granted Ms McClellan recommended that conditions be imposed to secure detailed pre construction data collection/analysis and that conditions provide for meaningful modification if material issues were encountered.

The Commissioner resolved:

"That the meeting be adjourned until 3.15 pm."

The meeting adjourned at 2.59 pm and reconvened at 3.15 pm.

Simon Ryan, Jennifer Ashby, Lyndon Clayton and Kirsty Clayton continued their joint submission and requested that the application should be declined due to the significance of the adverse effects of the proposal. They had no confidence that proposed conditions of consent would mitigate the adverse effects. They also considered that the information supplied by the applicant was inadequate and this meant the Commissioner did not have sufficient information to make a decision on the application.

Mark Brown tabled and spoke to his written submission in opposition to the proposal. In relation to landscape Mr Brown disputed the view of landscape architects for the applicant and considered the proposal was not suited to the character of Blueskin Bay or the wider coastline.

Mr Brown was critical of consultation noting that while there was a lot of initial discussion on a community owned wind cluster there were no community discussions on the specific proposal for Porteous Hill. He considered there was no clear direction from the community to proceed with the Porteous Hill project.

Mr Brown commented that he did not consider the project was financially viable and he was concerned about who would be responsible if the project fails either during or after construction. He noted that there was lack of details on transmission of power from the site.

Jamie Pickford spoke to the submission from himself and Thomas Cardy in opposition of the proposal. Mr Pickford commented that they lived at 129 Pryde Road. He commented that he considered that there were few gains or benefits to the community from the proposal and that weight should be given to the submitters who resided close to the site. He advised that Porteous Hill was an important part of their life and provided the process that they had been in during the resource consent for the nearby quarry. Mr Pickford outlined the activities on the site they enjoyed and he provided a background to the reasons for living in Pryde Road which included the rural aspects of the site. He commented that from their site they were able to see the existing testing pole no matter what the weather and they were concerned about the dominance of the much large proposed turbines. Mr Pickford commented that he considered that the adverse effects on the landscape would be significant and the landscape would be changed forever.

Mr Pickford commented on the noise impact noting that at their site it was very quiet as it was not affected by noise from the state highway. He commented that there was no specific evidence in the application on the effect of noise would be on them. He observed that their property was their piece of paradise and that they lived with all the windows and doors open. He argued that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on them and should be declined.

On behalf of Generation Zero, Jenny Coatham spoke to their submission in support of the proposal. Ms Coatham provided a background to the vision of Generation Zero and commented that the proposal was exactly what their organisation support. She commented that she believed that the proposal was following local and central government focus on renewable energy and the reduction of carbon emissions.

Metiria Turei spoke to her submission in support of the proposal. Ms Turei commented that she was a resident of Waitati and could see Porteous Hill from her home. She submitted that she was in full support of the proposal and requested that the consent be granted.

Ms Turei commented that community engagement by the Trust had been extensive in this case and she referred to the advice from Janet Stephenson who had detailed this in her evidence. She advised that the Trust had contributed to the community through the insulation of homes to make them warmer that had improved the health and wellbeing of residents. Ms Turei commented that BRCT was a community organisation not a corporate entity that contributed to the community and helped with solutions for the causes using local resources. She also commented on the comments and attacks on the applicant and was disappointed by these.

Ms Turei acknowledged the residents in Pryde Road and their genuine concerns. She commented that however their concerns in her view were not enough to decline consent. She considered the negative effects on these properties were outweighed by the positive effects.

In terms of the landscape effects Ms Turei commented that she agreed with the evidence from Di Lucas. She commented that Ms Lucas was a respected landscape Architect and her advice that it was a good location was significant. Ms Turei acknowledged that the landscape would be altered however did not mean that this would be a negative effect. She commented that the introduction of the turbines would mean the local environment would have a new character and in her view it was an addition to the environment and not a negative one. Ms Turei noted that the new character would reflect the evolving character of the community.

Ms Turei commented that renewable energy was the future and that communities wanted to be independent from each other and resilient. She noted that despite submission that arguing that the contributions of this facility were too small to be valuable she argued that every little bit helps and the proposal was a valuable first strep.

Paul Jouanides provided a background to where he lived in relation to the proposal and commented on the landscape evidence regarding the elegance of the turbines noting that he did not agree with this view. Mr Jouanides commented that he considered that a positive view of the effective on landscape was bogus. He advised that they were located in the bottom of a small valley and that he did not wish to see lights from the turbines on the top of the hill. If the project was to go ahead he considered the development would conflict with the environment and he raised concerns about the loss of bird life.

Mr Jouanides outlined his concerns about the limited number of community who would benefit from the project when compared to the destruction of people's lifestyles. The proposal did not increase resilience in his view and he raised concerns about precedent. He commented that he had concerns for the value of his property and felt that if granted he should be compensated. Mr Jouanides commented that he did not see that this proposal was a positive thing for him or his family.

The Commissioner resolved:

"That the meeting be adjourned until Thursday, 19 May 2016 at 9.00 am."

The meeting adjourned at 5.15 pm and reconvened on Thursday 19 May 2016 at 9.00 am in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers.

Brenda Thom (on behalf of John Thom) spoke to his submission in opposition to the proposal. Brenda commented that John was an affected landowner and his farm was adjacent to and approximately 300 to 400 metres from the site.

Ms Thom outlined that Mr Thom intended to subdivide his farm land and build a retirement home on one of the sites. The approximate location was indicated on the map and it was noted that decision would be made following the decisions on the proposed 2GP. Ms Thom noted that Mr Thom was concerned about the effect of the turbines and was of the view that the turbine site was inappropriate for the development. In terms of the effects of the turbines she noted that he was on the land day in and day out and it would have an adverse effect on him and other users of the land as other community groups were allowed to use the land for recreational use. If consent was granted then Mr Thom would not build his retirement home and would not subdivide. She commented that the lapse period at 10 years was also identified as being too long.

Ms Thom commented that proposal was not accepted by the residents in the area and that the three turbines would adversely affect his enjoyment of the land. She also noted it could impact on his farming activity and he would not be able to top dress that section of his farm close to the turbines. Ms Thom noted that he feels the night pollution from the lights had not been adequately covered in the application and concerns were also raised regarding noise, glare and shadow flicker.

Ms Thom raised concerns regarding the bird life and the evidence regarding this from the applicant. It was noted that birdlife had increased as a result of the Ecosanctuary and there was remnant bush on the property. Porteous Hill is visible from all parts of the wider area and when Mr Thom built his home he had to adhere to a number of conditions such as a landscape plan and specific colours. Mr Thom feels that this proposal is inconsistent with the Council's approach to landscape in other situations. It was noted that if there had been three turbines there when he purchased the property then he would never have purchased it.

Ms Thom commented that she felt that the effects were more than minor and were huge. People who were most affected by the proposal should be listened too and the application should be refused.

Derek Onley tabled and spoke to his submission in opposition to the proposal. Mr Onley commented that he had been a resident of Waitati for 20 years and he outlined his qualifications and experience in ornithology. He provided a background to the Council’s 2007 Biodiversity Strategy and the decline of biodiversity over time.

Mr Onley advised that he agreed with the peer review by Golder Associates who concluded that the applicant’s assessment was inadequate. He commented that we needed to take heed of the loss of biodiversity in the UK. Mr Onley advised that he supported the evidence of Rachel McClellan; however he differed on the species at risk which discounted the loss of more common species setting up a process for slow decline which would not be noticed. He provided comments on specific bird movements, numbers and behaviours from his own local observations in the Karitane to Blueskin district. He noted that these did show that local movement of birds over land did occur and could occur over the wind farm site.

Mr Onley advised that he did not agree with the assessment that alternative sites had been seriously considered. He also questioned the viability of the project questioning whether the proposal would generate enough income to cover the costs of environmental monitoring and mitigation. He commented that similar greenhouse gas reductions could be achieved by planting less than 100ha of forest. He discussed a British example of a wind turbine application for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Mr Onley advised that the project involved 2 years of biological study over the full range of flora and fauna before deciding that the effects would be less than minor. This was different to the applicants approach to the ecological assessment and John Craig's unscientific and unsupported evidence.

The Commissioner resolved:

"That the meeting be adjourned until 10.30 am."

The meeting adjourned at 10.10 am and reconvened at 10.20 pm.

Gareth Hughes joined the meeting by Skype and commented that his submission was in support of the application. He advised that he was the energy spokesperson for the Green Party. Mr Hughes commented that he had been on-site and had been following the project. He provided a background to the use of wind energy and that he felt that the effects of this proposal were no more than minor. He outlined a significant untapped wind resource in New Zealand.

Mr Hughes commented on the NPSREG and changes promoted by consumers. He commented on the community benefits of the applicant’s proposal and that he was supportive of the Trust's community engagement and he considered the visual impact was subjective. He identified that in his view the effects of the proposal were no more than minor. He noted that internationally large wind farms overseas were located off-shore; however, there were often small ones on land. He discussed bird strike and the environmental impact and Dr Craig’s evidence that the ecological effects would be minimal. Mr Hughes noted the Government’s commitment to the reduction of carbon emissions.

Sally Brown tabled and spoke to her written submission in opposition to the proposal. Ms Brown advised that she was born and raised in Waitati and was a trained Landscape Architect.

Ms Brown commented that there was a strong community at Blueskin Bay but the wind farm proposal was creating tension and she did not agree that BRCT was as connected to the community as they had stated. She considered that calling it a community project was incorrect. Ms Brown advised that there were a lot or residents at a public meeting in November 2015 organised by the community and it was clear from that meeting that that community was not well-informed about the project.

In terms of the impact on landscape Ms Brown commented that the sensitivity of the local landscapes warranted protection under the District Plan. She identified Porteous Hill as an important visual backdrop within the coastal landscape.

Ms Brown commented that she considered that the wind farm would alter the landscape indefinitely setting a precedent for further structures to be established on local hill within the costal landscape. Ms Brown agreed with the expert evidence from Stephen Brown and Jeremy Head that the proposal would have adverse landscape effects and she commented that in no way were the structures an elegant and meaningful addition to the landscape.

Rachel Ozanne spoke to her written submission in opposition to the proposal. She commented that her family live on Porteous Hill about 1.26 km from the site. Ms Ozanne advised that she considered they would be impacted greatly by the proposal. Ms Ozanne referred to a 2005 Council landscape review in the rural area and she commented on the correspondence that they received from Council on the review reading from the report. Ms Ozanne commented that she had significant concerns given the landscape review by Council in regards to the land feature of Porteous Hill. She noted that she did not agree with the two landscape architects for the applicants.

Ms Ozanne commented on light pollution and that one of the joys of living on Porteous Road was that the night skies were dark and the night sky would be destroyed. She advised that they did not have curtains on that side of the hill due to the night sky.

Ms Ozanne commented on her concerns which included noise; the community engagement; and potential disturbance to ground water given their reliance on springs for their water.

Ms Ozanne disagreed that the proposal was developed as a community initiative and she disagreed with the arguments put forward by Blueskin Energy to support this position. She noted that the electricity generated was going to grid and not the community. Ms Ozanne commented that she considered that local residents would have their lives and lifestyle ruined for the sake of the national grid.

Ms Ozanne requested that the consent be refused as the turbines would be detrimental to local community health and wellbeing.

Frederika Schmaltz spoke to her submission and outlined her experience with living in Europe and wind farms. Ms Schmaltz advised that she considered that silence without background noise was important and should be valued. She commented that she was concerned about the noise generated by the turbines and the impacts including those on the closest residents and from her house.

Andrew Deaker spoke on behalf of Initial Volco Trust in support of the proposal. He commented that he lived in the area and he provided a background to his property and the view of the turbines on the landscape. He commented that the Trust owned a large block of conservation land on Mount Cargill and he identified that the Trust had an active history of support for a number of projects. Mr Deaker commented that the trust supported Orokonui and other ecology projects which included the BRCT resilience projects. He felt that profits from the wind farms operation would be a great to fund the development of other projects.

Mr Deaker commented that he saw the proposal as win/win/win and that he would enjoy a view of the turbines. He advised that he felt that the proposal would bring benefits to the community and that his children would have a better outcome.

Alasdair Morrison tabled and spoke to his submission in opposition to the proposal. Mr Morrison commented that he had been a resident of Waitati for 31 years and his dwelling looked directly out onto Porteous Hill. He commented that he was not aware of any territorial authority that had granted resource consent for construction of a wind farm in full view of so many residential dwellings.

Mr Morrison outlined his concerns about the project not being completed or going broke and the costs of removal of redundant turbines. He considered the proposal was incomplete and lacked sufficient detail.

He requested that the Commissioner decline the application and provided a summary of his reasons.

Kat Achtenberg advised that she worked as the Projects Coordinator for BRCT but submitted as a private individual. Ms Achtenberg commented that the proposal was intended to help a community and that BRCT was a charitable trust who sought to improve Blueskin Bay community. Ms Achtenberg provided a background to NZ's energy supply and the need for renewable sources. She referred the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report regarding future-proofing of New Zealand’s energy supply.

John Kaiser spoke in support of the proposal and advised that he had lived in Waitati for 23 years. Mr Kaiser commented on the benefits that the proposal would bring to the local community.

The Commissioner resolved:

"That the meeting be adjourned until 1.15 pm."

The meeting adjourned from 12.33 pm to 1.15 pm.

Geraldine Tait tabled and spoke to her submissions in opposition. Ms Tait commented on her concerns which included the wider impacts of the proposal on the Blueskin Bay community; impacts on landscape and amenity values and for the families living closest to the turbines. Ms Tait advised that she was a founding member of BRCT and supported its original direction but had resigned due to concerns about the direction the Trust appeared to be headed.

In relation to community issues Ms Tait commented that the proposal was not a community project or facility and that BCRT was only a small special interest group. Ms Tait questioned the motivation of the trust and disputed the community need for the funding from the wind farms operation.

In relation to energy issues Ms Tait advised that she agreed with Mr Albert’s submission and noted that the tiny amount of power produced in Blueskin Bay would not make the slightest difference to coal use.

Ms Tait discussed her concerns noise noting the peculiarities of noise propagation in the area. She also raised concerns about disturbance to groundwater and local springs.

Ms Tait commented on the increasing importance of tourism noting that tourists were attracted to landscapes and wildlife. She commented that the natural values of the area were worth protecting if not for the locals but for economic reasons. She also noted that the sea was well used recreationally and this recreation use would be detrimentally impacted by the turbines.

Ms Tait expressed concerns about financial management also noting that there was the prospect of the consent to be sold to another party. She also outlined her concerns regarding undesirable precedent.

She requested that the resource consent application be declined in its entirety.

The Commissioner advised that two letters had been received from parties who no longer wished to attend the hearing. He commented that the letters received from the New Zealand Transport Agency and Otago Natural History Trust Board were considered and noted.

The Commissioner also advised that a late submission from Kirstie McKinnon had been received on the 19 May 2016.

The Commissioner resolved

"That the late submissions from Kirstie McKinnon would not be accepted under Section 37 of the Resource Management Act."

Council Officers Evidence

The Landscape Architect (Barry Knox) spoke to the tabled summary of his landscape evidence and noted the areas of agreement and the points of difference that he felt the Commissioner should give consideration to. He commented that there was:

· Agreement that Porteous Hill was not an outstanding landscape under s6(a) or 6(b)

· Agreement regarding general landscape descriptions. Porteous Hill was a significant feature, if not outstanding.

· Agreement that the wind turbines here would be highly visible.

· Agreement that if turbines were to be there, a cluster is probably better than turbines being too dispersed. (More turbines would produce greater clutter).

· Agreement in terms of aesthetics, if they were to be there, a group of 3 turbines is good.

In relation to the divergence in positions Mr Knox commented that the Landscape Architects Mr Brown and Mr Head for the submitters had a negative view of the turbines at the proposed location because the landscape and rural amenity impacts were significant in their view. Ms Lucas and Mr Moore who appeared for the applicant considered that the wider landscape issues were minor but identified adverse effects on the closet residents. Mr Knox commented that in terms of the local effects on rural amenity for the closest residents Ms Lucas acknowledged there would be adverse effects and Mr Moore considered that these effects would be moderate to significant for the closest residents.

Mr Knox concluded that overall he preferred the view of Mr Moore and in his opinion the adverse effects of the proposed turbines on the visual amenity of the broader Blueskin Bay environment would be no more than minor, but adverse visual effects from closer residences, were likely to be moderate to significant.

The Commissioner resolved:

That the meeting be adjourned until 2.30 pm."

The meeting adjourned at 2.17 pm and reconvened at 2.26 pm.

The Environmental Health Officer (Carlo Bell) provided a background to his role which included the investigations of noise complaints and providing advice on resource consent applications. Mr Bell commented that for this application he had reviewed NZS: 6808-2010, visited the area and carried out background monitoring. He advised that he had recommended that a peer review be undertaken and asked for clarifications which had now been covered by the peer review from Mr Hunt as well as by Dr Chiles. Overall Mr Hunt was reasonably accepting of Dr Chiles’s assessment with some areas of difference.

Mr Bell advised that he agreed that the District Plan Noise Limits were not appropriate for wind turbines and NZS: 6808-2010 was the suitable standard to apply. He noted that the standard was in-line with international standards and provided for indoor noise levels which meet World Health Organisation guidelines. Mr Bell advised that NZS: 6808 was designed to avoid adverse noise effects on people caused by the operation of wind farms. He noted that the noise limit set by the standard is L₉₀40dB at the notional boundary or 5dB above the background noise level (the higher of the two). Mr Bell commented that no noise or planning law required zero audibility and the standard stated that it did not provide absolute protection from wind farm sound but provided limits that were reasonable for protecting sleep and amenity.

Mr Bell advised that modelling was an established method and the modelling in this case had been verified by Mr Hunt to be sufficiently accurate. He commented that a light down-wind was worst case scenario. At higher wind speed the turbine noise would increase but the masking effect generally increased especially with nearby vegetation. He noted that topography was not considered and this was in accordance with the requirements of NZS6808.

Mr Bell noted that his background noise monitoring found very low background night-time noise levels further away from SH1 in low wind speeds. However as the wind speed increased to around 3-5 m/s cut in speed 11-18km/h the background increased significantly but was likely to still be below 36dB at the lower operational wind speeds.

Mr Bell commented that there was agreement that the modelling indicated a possible non-compliance at 22 Pryde Rd. He noted that Dr Chiles highlighted the output need only be reduced by 1dB to comply with NZS: 6808 and demonstrated how this could be achieved. He has also suggested that background monitoring (10 days) needed to be done pre-construction.

Mr Bell commented that while NZS: 6808 indicated the background assessment should have been done prior to application it could only be omitted where no breach of 40dB was predicted. Dr Chiles suggested that the modelling showed levels very close to 40dB and in any case the output could easily be adjusted to comply with the 40dB Limit. Mr Bell was satisfied that that noise could be managed through conditions (size, output, background monitoring, post-construction compliance monitoring) so that NZS6808 could be complied with.

In relation to amenity, Mr Bell commented that there would at times where the wind farm would be clearly audible from outdoor areas of nearby properties especially around lower operating wind speeds. He noted that in his experience when a noise source was clearly identifiable people could be sensitised to it and it might cause annoyance even if relevant limits had been complied with. Given the expected change in the outdoor noise environment for nearby residences this might be considered as a reduction in amenity value.

The Commissioner resolved:

"That the meeting be adjourned until 10.30 am on Friday 20 May 2016."

The meeting adjourned at 2.45 pm to allow the Planner to prepare their review of the recommendation and reconvened on Friday 20 May 2016 at 10.30 am in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers.

The Planner’s Review of his Recommendation

Mr Sycamore reviewed his recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing. Mr Sycamore thanked the applicant and submitters and noted that the applicant had attempted to address information deficiencies he and submitters had identified. He acknowledged the Trust ran on a tight budget, however noted that the burden should not fall on submitters to address those technical shortfalls.

Mr Sycamore commented that he accepted that the applicant had invested a lot of energy into liaising with the community. Despite this he noted the evolution and increased scale of the turbines after much of that consultation had occurred had clearly caught a number of submitters by surprise. This was evidenced by the obvious effort put into consultation by the applicant, yet the breadth of dissatisfaction from submitters.

Mr Sycamore commented on his reservations regarding the strength of the economic argument, and cautioned against applying too much weight to the positive effects. He advised that he had generally considered the effects and suitability much the same as if the applicant was a commercial company.

In terms of the 104D assessment, Mr Sycamore commented that he had reconsidered his position in terms of the effects limb of 104D gateway test and now considered this limb might not sufficiently met in terms of the effects on immediate neighbours. He noted that the general consensus of the expert evidence concludes visual amenity and landscape effects were moderate to significant on the immediate neighbours.

Despite the view of Landscape Architects Stephen Brown and Jeremy Head that the proposal was contrary to the objectives and policies of the operative plan, Mr Sycamore indicated that he agreed with Mr Farrell that the objectives and policies should be assessed as a whole, rather than a few in isolation. He confirmed that he considered that the proposal satisfied the objectives and policies limb of the Section 104D gateway tests.

Mr Sycamore acknowledged that the revised conditions Dr Chiles for managing noise offered during the hearing were more robust that those set out in the draft conditions and agreed and that NZS:6808 is appropriate measurement tool. Mr Sycamore accepted that noise could be managed by conditions to ensure compliance with the standard NZS:6808-2010. However he noted the turbines would be clearly audible and may be a considered a by nuisance by residents despite being within the levels specified in the standard.

Mr Sycamore commented that Dr Craig, a highly regarded ecologist suggested the effects were negligible and any monitoring would be largely meaningless. He promoted pest control as a better mechanism to address avian ecology. This position was not aligned with other ecological experts who preferred monitoring, both pre and post construction. Mr Sycamore noted that he preferred a balanced approach, whereby some, albeit limited, modelling as carried out prior to installation to develop an understanding of bird migration. While Dr Craig might be correct, Mr Sycamore considered it would be irresponsible to not quantify bird migration through the subject site. Mr Sycamore commented that Mr Farrell for the applicant had sought more targeted conditions relating to bird strike and management than those he had recommended. He noted that he was happy to accept Mr Farrell’s recommendations and he noted that if the application was granted that these conditions could easily be substituted for his proposed conditions.

Mr Sycamore commented that Mr Knox had provided an invaluable summation of landscape effects and that Mr Knox had found the expert evidence of Mr Moore most compelling. He commented that Mr Knox concluded any adverse effects of the turbines on the broader Blueskin Bay community would be no more than minor. For those closer residents, such as the Pryde Road neighbours, Mr Knox had accepted effects on landscape and amenity would be moderate to significant. Mr Sycamore accepted the overall assessment of both Mr Moore and Mr Knox and he noted that landscape and amenity were the key point of contention.

Mr Sycamore recommended that clarification as provided by the applicant in their right of reply on the potential impacts on the application of fertiliser on neighbouring farms and concerns regarding impacts to groundwater and springs which were relied on by neighbouring site for domestic and rural uses. He also sought clarification that the colour of the turbines was acceptable to the CAA.

Mr Sycamore considered that alternative sites were not sufficiently addressed in the application. He commented that some other sites were initially assessed but he was not convinced other sites were appropriately considered. Mr Sycamore noted that there were likely to be other sites where wind characteristics were equally suitable with less impact on private residents. He did not agree with Mr Farrell who considered it was not necessary to assess alternative sites.

With respect to the 10 year lapse date sought, Mr Sycamore confirmed his view that it was inappropriate to impose such a period of uncertainty to those local submitters in opposition. A 5 year lapse period provided sufficient time to demonstrate substantial progress, while not necessarily requiring the project to be completed and operational.

In terms of undesirable precedent Mr Sycamore commented that the proposal was a true exception. The non-complying activity status was the result of the operative District Plan being out dated and failing to contemplate wind turbines for energy generation. Future utility applications of this scale were unlikely to piggyback on the outcome of this application should consent was approved.

Mr Sycamore noted that some submitters had expressed concern at decommissioning of the turbines should the activity not be financially viable. He considered that a bond should be in place to cater for any unforeseen outcome.

Mr Sycamore considered that the proposal was finely balanced. While acknowledging the turbines would change the landscape, it was his view the significant adverse effects were limited to those residing near Porteous Hill. He noted that if the Commissioner was satisfied that the fresh water springs would not be affected, and that the visual and noise effects on the Pryde Road neighbours were acceptable, then he considered that consent could be granted. Mr Sycamore stated that at his point he was unconvinced the effects on the Pryde Road neighbours were sufficiently addressed with respect to both visual dominance and noise. He also noted the unpredictable nature of springs providing potable and stock water. As a consequence he recommended the application be declined.

The Commissioner resolved:

"That the meeting be adjourned until Thursday 9 June 2016 at
10.00 am."

The meeting adjourned at 10.50 am and reconvened on Thursday 9 June 2016 at 10.00 am in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers.

MEMBERSHIP: Commissioner Colin Weatherall

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

The Commissioner provided a background to the procedures for today and commented that he and Mr Sule had conducted a site visit on 2 June 2016 and may still require some further site visits. He commented that he intended on visiting Mount Stuart and while in Wellington the Brooklands wind farm but would not be going onto the site.

The Commissioner commented that he had made a decision on the confidential information which had been provided by the applicant during the first part of the hearing. He advised that it would be returned to the applicant unread as he felt it was not relevant to his decision and that the evidence could be made public following the closure of the hearing which he felt that would not be beneficial to the applicant. Ms Irving advised that they were happy with the decision as they were going to request the information be returned.

The Governance Support Officer (Wendy Collard) returned the evidence to the applicant's Legal Counsel Mr Campbell Hodgson.

Applicant's Right of Reply

Ms Irving tabled and spoke to her closing legal submissions. She clarified the key features of the application which included:

· The establishment and operation of 3 wind turbines on Porteous Hill and that the turbines would not exceed a height of 90 from ground level to blade tip. The turbines would be finished in a light grey colour (RAL7035). The turbines would be finished with a matt finish to avoid blade glint. Each turbine requires a medium intensity flashing light at hub height that would flash between 20 and 60 times per minute. The light would be shielded from locations below. The turbines were capable of generating 2.4MW of electricity when operating at full capacity.

· GPS locations were provided to identify turbine positions but flexibility was sought to move the turbines by up to 30m. If movement is required they would not be moved any closer to the closest dwellings at 22 and 90 Pryde Road. The turbines would be no closer than 679m from 22 Pryde Road, 471m from 90 Pryde Road and 580m from 110 Porteous Road. For all other dwellings the distance is greater than 900m.

· Predicted noise levels indicate a minor breach of noise limits could occur at the notional boundary of 90 Pryde Road. If there is non-compliance the power output of the closet turbine would be reduced to ensure compliance. All turbines would be free of special audible characteristics.

· Earthworks would be undertaken to establish access tracks, for foundations and to widen the access road. Transmission lines would be located underground within the site. Two options for transmission were identified.

The Commissioner resolved:

"That the meeting adjourn until 11.42 am."

The meeting adjourned at 11.39 am and reconvened at 11.42 am.

The applicant argued that BRCTs own vision reflected the purpose of the Act. It was noted that approval would send a positive message to other communities with New Zealand that they too can be masters of their own density. The applicant concluded by requesting that consent be granted.

The meeting is adjourned at 11.55 am to allow the Commissioner time to consider the evidence provided today and reconvened on Thursday 16 June 2016 at 9.40 am.

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

The Commissioner resolved:

“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 – 147 Church Road, Merton	That a right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the Dunedin City Council in these proceedings.”	S 48(1)(d)

The meeting moved into non-public at 9.40 am.

MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, ON 16 JUNE 2016, COMMENCING AT 9.45 AM

PRESENT: Commissioner Colin Weatherall

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

PART C:

1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION – LUC-2015-469, 147 CHURCH ROAD, MERTON

The Commissioner gave consideration to the Planner’s recommendation, to the points raised by the applicant and the submissions that had been received.

Decision

The Commissioner resolved:

"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 declines consent to a non-complying activity being the establishment and operation of 3 wind turbines on Porteous Hill and associated earthworks on land at 47 Church Road, Merton, legally described at Lots 1 & 2 Deposited Plan 473199, held in Computer Freehold Register 646829."

Reasons for the Decision

The Permitted Baseline and the Existing/Receiving Environment

1. Following visits to the wind farm site and neighbouring sites the Commissioner agreed that the subject site and the receiving environment were rural in character. In terms of the receiving environment the Commissioner noted that the Landscape Architects evidence was reasonably consistent. The site on Porteous Hill was not located in an outstanding landscape but it was located on a significant local landscape feature (Porteous Hill). As Porteous Hill was a prominent feature near the settlements of Waitati and Warrington the turbines would be highly visible to a wide viewing audience. The Commissioner accepted that although the receiving environment was modified by farming practices and shelter planting it retained a high degree of naturalness.

2. In respect of whether the site forms part of the costal environment and the relevance of the NZ Coastal Policy statement the Commissioner considered that the location of the turbines was outside the coastal environment and therefore the Coastal Policy Statement was not a consideration in determining the outcome of the consent.

3. The Commissioner accepted the advice that I received on the permitted baseline from Mr Sycamore. The most relevant baseline to apply was that related to the installation of permitted utilities and permitted earthworks activities. The discounting of effects in respect of permitted utility activities, given the scale of the turbines, provided minimal assistance to me in determining the matter.

4. Consideration of the existing/receiving environment required a review of permitted activity rights and any resource consents that have been granted and were likely to be implemented. The submission from John Thom referenced a future subdivision of his farmland and the construction of a dwelling. While this might be a part of Mr Thom’s future plans the Commissioner accepted the legal submission from the applicant that it could not be a consideration in assessing the impacts of the proposed turbines. This would also apply to the proposed subdivision and future residential use of Mr Bennett's land raised in his submission.

Effects

· Landscape

5. The Commissioner discussed the issue of divergent expert advice on landscape effects throughout the hearing and he noted the turbines described were as elegant at one end of the scale and ugly, large, spiky things at the other end. All landscape experts agreed that the turbines would result in a significant change but disagree as to whether that change was adverse or the degree to which it was adverse. Submitters too had a divergence of views on the landscape merits of the turbines ranging from the turbines being akin to a kinetic sculpture to a landscape abomination. The Commissioner appreciated the brief summary of the landscape evidence provided by Mr Knox as it was a useful starting point outlining what was generally agreed by landscape experts and where there was disagreement.

6. Determining a position on landscape effects is difficult as the assessment was subjective and potentially more art than science. The turbines would have a large resident viewing audience which the evidence suggested was not typical for wind farms and the Porteous Hill location appeared to have been selected partly because of its visibility to the community of interest. The applicant saw that as positive as the turbines were providing a symbol for the community that represented the proactive manner in which it was facing the challenges that climate change presented. It was clear from the number of opposing submissions that not everyone would see it that way.

7. Ms Lucas noted in her evidence that the design of the proposed wind farm assisted in achieving an acceptable landscape outcome. She identified that three, slim, elegant, 90m high turbines with three blades, painted light grey and established with minimal earthworks would result in only minor effects on landscape values. Mr Moore who had peer reviewed the landscape assessment for the applicant largely agreed with Ms Lucas and he concluded that the wind farm would integrate acceptably with the character of the rural landscape and would generally have positive effects on visual amenity values. Mr Knox the Council reviewer agreed. The landscape architects appearing for the submitters Mr Brown and Mr Head disagreed and considered the adverse landscape effects to be significant. Mr Head appeared to take the most extreme position on the turbines describing them at one point as ugly large spiky things. He argued that they were entirely inappropriate at the proposed location. Mr Brown was less extreme in his position but also concluded the proposal would have significant adverse effects on the landscape.

8. Mr Knox the Council’s expert reviewing the landscape assessments had indicated that he preferred the position of Mr Moore and that he generally saw the impact on the wider Blueskin Bay environment as no more than minor. In terms of the wider landscape effects, the Commissioner preferred the evidence that indicated that the wider landscape effects of the proposed turbines were no more than minor. The turbines were not sited in an outstanding landscape and the proposal would not alter the landform. Farming would continue to occur within a landscape modified by farming practices. The reduced scale of the turbines to 90m and the design elements integrated into the proposal assist with landscape integration. A significant change would occur and the viewer’s eye would be drawn to Porteous Hill but the effect on the wider environment was not necessarily adverse.

Rural Character and Amenity

9. The turbines at 90m high were very large structures and they would be located in close proximity to neighbouring rural properties that contained dwellings. The dwelling at 90 Pryde Road would be the closest dwelling to any of the proposed turbines. That dwelling would be 471m from the northernmost turbine. Its proximity was such that achieving compliance with noise limits might require the output of the closest turbines to be reduced.

10. The applicant acknowledged that the effects on the Pryde Road properties were more than minor. Ms Lucas accepted the effects were more than minor and the applicant's peer reviewer Mr Moore considered the effects were moderate to significant. The position of Mr Knox was aligned with Mr Moore. Mr Head and Mr Brown considered the effects on rural amenity values to be significant. Mr Brown prepared detailed evidence that looked closely at the amenity impacts at 22 and 90 Pryde Road. After hearing the evidence and relating the evidence to observations on the site the Commissioner considered the effects to be significant for the properties at 22 and 90 Pryde Road and moderate for the property at 139 Pryde Road. While the Commissioner acknowledged the turbines were not in full frontal view as noted by Ms Lucas proximity to the turbines was an issue. The evidence suggested that there might be no other privately owned dwelling located as close to a turbine of this size in the country. The Commissioner considered the turbines would be intrusive and visually dominant and the significant impact of the turbines on the closest properties could not be mitigated to any degree.

· Earthworks and Road Access

11. Earthworks were identified as a concern to some submitters and questions were raised on the lack of detail on the earthworks that were proposed. The application indicated that approximately 6,500m³were anticipated. The applicant had indicated that earthworks would be required for improvements to Porteous Road a vehicle access from Porteous Road to the turbine locations and for the foundations of the turbines. Ms Irving referred me to an indicative layout prepared by Mark Walrond in relation to the proposed access. Ms Irving also indicated that the applicant was confident that improvements to the road could all be undertaken within legal road reserve. Ms Irving noted that no consents had been sought to carry out works beyond the legal road and if there was work required outside the legal road then this was a risk for the applicant.

12. The Commissioner was satisfied that the earthworks on the site for access track and foundations could be undertaken with only minor effects and effects could be managed by conditions. Recommended conditions were proposed in respect of the earthworks in the road that satisfy the roading authorities and he was satisfied that any adverse effects could be adequately managed through the recommended conditions.

Noise

13. Noise was an important effects issue for a number of submitters particularly the closest residents on Pryde Road. The Commissioner noted that noise environment on Pryde Road would vary depending on proximity to the State Highway and would be influenced at times by activity at the quarry. The Commissioner agreed that the District Plan noise limits were not appropriate for the assessment of wind turbine noise and accepted the expert advice from Dr Chiles that the noise standard NZS:6808-2010 was the appropriate measurement and assessment standard. The Commissioner also accepted the expert advice that the modelling undertaken by the applicant had been conservative and this was confirmed by the peer review that was undertaken. Both Dr Chiles and Mr Hunt were qualified and experienced in noise prediction and the assessment of noise from wind turbines. While some submitters including Mr Albert were critical of the noise modelling and assessment no alternative expert view was presented.

14. In the absence of background sound measurement, which would potentially allow a noise level greater than L₉₀40dBA, a predicted non-compliance at the notional boundary of 90 Pryde Road of 1 dB was identified by Dr Chiles. The Commissioner noted that the level of non-compliance was unlikely to be noticeable to a receiver and the advice from Dr Chiles was that if any non-compliance of the level arose it could be addressed by managing the output of the turbines. While the Commissioner accepted that achieving compliance by this means was possible it appeared to be a constraint that was less than ideal from the applicant’s perspective.

15. Noise from the turbines would be audible at neighbouring properties at times, although within the dwellings of neighbouring sites it would be below the level the world health organisation identifies as appropriate for sleep. The Commissioner also accepted the evidence that the proposed Enercon Turbines would not have special audible characteristics. Special Audible Characteristics were a particular issue with early model turbines but no evidence was produced that it would be an issue with the model proposed for Porteous Hill. He also accepted that audibility was not an appropriate standard that could be used to regulate noise emissions but noted that as the turbines could be heard the noise from the turbines would potentially impact on amenity values. Dr Chiles' view on that matter was the while the noise form the wind farm would influence rural amenity it should not represent a significant deterioration. Mr Brown noted that particularly at 90 Pryde Road the noise would reinforce awareness of the turbines and their visual dominance. The Commissioner accepted that the noise from the turbines would be able to comply with the limit specified in NZS:6808-2010 and this could be secured through consent conditions. He considered that the noise impacts would be restricted to a minor reduction in amenity values when considered discretely but the Commissioner agree with the evidence that indicated that the audibility of the noise would likely reinforce the visual dominance of the turbines particularly at the property at 90 Pryde Road.

Positive Effects

16. The Commissioner noted that the positive effects that would accrue from the proposal were an important component of the applicant’s case. The applicant had identified in their right of reply that these positive effects were as follows:

· A contribution to increased renewable electricity supply consistent with the objectives of the NPSREG;

· An increase in the diversity of supply within Dunedin increasing the resilience of the electricity supply for the city consistent with the Objectives of the 2GP;

· Increased efficiency of the use of land at the site by allowing wind resource to be captured whilst farming activity would continue;

· A reduction in carbon emissions which contributed to New Zealand’s international obligations;

· A significant stream of funding to BRCT to enabled it pursue its vision; and

· Providing a symbol for the community that represented the proactive manner in which it was facing the challenges that climate change presents.

The applicant had also indicated in broad terms the intended dividend from the profits that would be directed back into community initiatives to improve community resilience would be in the order of $100,000 per annum. It was clear from the evidence that the increase in renewable supply, the diversity of that supply and the reduction of carbon emissions accruing from the proposed development was very small. This led to some disparaging comments by submitters about the merits of the proposal. Despite this the Commissioner considered the proposal had positive effects and these included the significant symbolic value of the project. It would provide an income stream for community initiatives. As Ms Irving pointed out the objectives of the NPSREG applied regardless of scale.

Impacts on Farming Activity

17. Submitters had raised concerns about potential impacts on their farming activities in relation into the application of fertiliser by helicopter of a fixed wing plane. The applicant had addressed the issue to the Commissioner's satisfaction in the right of reply where the applicant noted that the neighbouring land owners would be able to utilise aerial topdressing methods as they wished and not breach CAA requirements. Impacts on faming activities on the site and on neighbouring sites were considered to be minor.

Ecological Effects

18. There was significant debate on the adequacy of the applicant’s evidence on ecological impacts particular in relation to effects on avifauna. The Applicant’s expert Dr Craig argued that the effects would be minimal and that the applicant would be better directing money into pest control rather that large expensive studies which were highly unlikely to be of value. Ms McClellan disagreed with this approach as did Mr Onley who provided detailed submissions arguing that in the absence of data collection there could be no certainty as to the significance of the effects. I accepted that best practice would be to undertake detailed studies prior to the application being lodged. However, the work was expensive and time consuming and the effects assessment provided should relate to the scale and significance of the application. With only 3 turbines proposed the scale of the application needed to be taken into account. In general terms the Commissioner was satisfied that on the balance of probabilities that the effects on avifauna would be minimal.

Geotechnical/Groundwater

19. The applicant responded to concerns raised in submission and Mr Sycamore in the review of his recommendation by supplying a geotechnical report from Mark Walrond of Geosolve. The Commissioner acknowledged that spring water was critical to the farming activity on neighbouring sites. Although, he was not able to question Mr Walrond on the assumptions in his report, on the balance of probabilities he considered that more than minor impacts to groundwater were unlikely. The report noted that with the exception of the foundations, the site would remain permeable and the volume of spring flows was not likely to be affected. No expert evidence to the contrary was submitted.

Financial Viability Decommissioning

20. Although the Commissioner had received submissions questioning the viability of the project, he agreed with the advice from Mr Sycamore that financial viability was only a consideration in terms of environmental remediation and decommissioning should the project fail. Mr Sycamore supported a bond but the applicant had argued that a bond was not necessary. Mr Willis noted that the value of the metal from the turbines would be significantly more than the costs associated with disestablishing the towers but produced no figures to support that contention. He considered the risk to the environment of project failure was relatively low. It certainly did not have the degree or risk that a mining project would have. Given the relatively low level of risk associated with project failure the Commissioner was satisfied that a condition requiring decommissioning in the event that the turbines were established and then no longer required would suffice in this case.

Shadow Flicker and Blade Glint

21 These effects were identified as a concern in submissions, with the lack of detail in the assessment on these effects questioned. The applicant responded to these concerns in the right of reply. In terms of blade glint the applicant had promoted a matt paint finish as an appropriate means of mitigating blade glint and had argued that the effects of shadow flicker would be minor. Having considered the evidence and submissions on these effects, the Commissioner was satisfied that the effects would be minor.

Lighting

22 Some submitters raised concerns about lighting on the top of the turbines. The applicant confirmed that flashing lights would be required on the top of the turbines to meet civil aviation requirements but that the effects of the lighting would be minor as shielding would be provided to mitigate the effects of lighting on properties below the turbines. Concerns were also raised by submitters in relation to the night sky. The Commissioner accepted the applicant’s view on the effects from lighting and he agreed that with mitigation in place they would be minor.

Conclusion on Effects for Section 104D Gateway Test

23. The Commissioner concluded that the adverse effects on the amenity and character of the use of the closest properties to the site (22 and 90 Pryde Road) were significant and the effects on the dwelling at 139 Road were moderate.

While the outlook from the dwellings on these properties was for the most part oriented away from the turbines to the North the turbines were in close proximity to the dwellings at 22 and 90 Pryde Road. The evidence suggested that the dwelling at 90 Pryde Road at 471m from the closest turbine mighty be the closest privately owned dwelling to a turbine 90m or higher in the country. The Commissioner agreed that due to the proximity of the turbines, particularly the most northern turbine, and the elevation of the landform on which the turbines were sited relative to Pryde Road, they would be imposing and visually dominant for the owners and occupiers of these properties. The noise from the turbines would be audible at these properties drawing attention to the visual dominance of the turbines. As a result, they would significantly alter the rural amenity values for the closest properties, adversely affecting the use and enjoyment of these properties.

24. The Commissioner accepted the legal advice that he had received on the effects gateway limb of the Section 104D gateway test. As a consequence he considered that the proposal did not pass the effects limb on the 104D gateway test and therefore the proposal must pass the objectives and policies limb of the gateway test before he could consider granting consent to the proposed development.

Objectives and Polices

The NZ Coastal Policy Statement 2010

25. The Commissioner accepted advice that while the site was close to the coast, the location of the turbines was not within the coastal environment and as a consequence he had not given the policy any weight.

The National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation (NPSREG)

26. Ms Irving in her closing submissions noted that the national policy statement was applicable and an important consideration regardless of the scale of the project. Mr Farrell the planner for the applicant also placed weight on the NPSREG noting that the weight he placed on the policy statement was a point of difference between his position and that of Mr Sycamore. The Commissioner accepted that the NPSREG was relevant and that it applied regardless of the scale of the project. As a result, the direction within the policy statement was important and needed to be taken into account when determining the application.

District Plan Objectives and Policies

27. The applicant conceded that the proposal did not pass the effects gateway and argued that the proposal passed the objectives and policies limb of the Section 104D gateway test. The closing submissions from the applicant argued that the Commissioner should assess the objectives and policies as a whole. Ms Price and Mr Much identified a High Court case that promoted an approach where a proposal would fail the gateway test limb if it was contrary a single objective or policy. This case was described by Ms Irving as an outlier. The Commissioner considered that the orthodox approach of considering the objectives and policies as a whole was appropriate in this case and he applied the orthodox approach to his consideration of the objectives and policies.

28. The Commissioner also considered the divergence of legal opinion on the weight to be afforded to the objectives and policies of the second generation proposed District Plan in relation to energy generation. His consideration was assisted by additional independent legal advice provided by Michael Garbett from Anderson Lloyd. The Commissioner accepted the advice that more weight could be given to the proposed 2GP objectives and policies on energy generation than would typically be the case as they were prepared specifically in light of the NPS for renewable energy generation.

29. The Commissioner also agreed with the independent legal advice that he could not consider the objectives and policies of the operative plan in relation to the Landscape Section as the turbines were not located within the overlay. He agreed with Mr Farrell that there was no policy guidance in the operative plan that would suggest that effects from outside the overlay area that impact on land within the landscape overlay required the Landscape Section objectives and policies to be considered.

30. Both Mr Farrell and Mr Sycamore had determined that an overall assessment of the objectives and policies indicated that the proposal was not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the operative and proposed District Plans. Mr Head and Mr Brown argued that the proposal was contrary. Having considered the evidence the Commissioner agreed with Ms Irving that the expert landscape evidence from Mr Head and Mr Brown in relation to the assessment of objectives and policies was too focused on landscape issues in coming to an overall position on how the proposals fit with the policy framework. He also noted that case law established contrary as a high bar meaning opposite to or repugnant to.

Conclusion on Objectives and Policies

31. The Commissioner preferred the position of Mr Sycamore and Mr Farrell that the proposal was not contrary to the objectives and policies of both the operative and proposed second generation plans when the objectives and policies were considered as a whole. Therefore the proposal passed the objectives and policies gateway in section 104D and he was able to consider granting the consent following an assessment under Section 104 of the RMA, subject to part 2 of the Act.

Consideration of Alternatives

32. Mr Farrell did not consider alternatives as he considered the adverse effects were more than minor but not significant. The Commissioner noted that the applicant contended that if the effects were found to be significant then it had undertaken an adequate assessment of alternative sites which was a requirement of the RMA when the effects were significant. The applicant identified the alternative sites that were considered in the evidence of Mr Willis and in its right of reply. He accepted that the applicant had looked at other sites and he considered that the description of alternative locations provided by the applicant had met the applicant’s obligations in relation to the consideration of alternatives.

Other Matters

Precedent

33. In terms of precedent Mr Sycamore identified that in his opinion the proposal would not create an undesirable precedent for future applications. He noted its non-complying activity status related to the fact that wind generation was not considered in the operative plan. The Commissioner agreed that precedent issues which arose from the proposal were not likely to be readily transferable to any other "like" proposals within Dunedin City.

Consultation

34. In relation to consultation the Commissioner noted that this was not a requirement under the RMA. Despite this, a large number of submissions and a lot of evidence was directed towards consultation. The applicant’s aspirations in relation to community resilience and its description of the proposal as community support activity might explain why this was a particular focus. The applicant argued that the evidence indicated that the applicant had put significant effort into consulting and involving the local community in its projects including the current proposal. He acknowledged that effort. However, it is also clear from the submissions that the more recent changes to the project prior to lodgement of the application were not well understood by the local community. There was no evidence to indicate that there was any specific consultation on the establishment of three 90m high turbines on Porteous Hill and the large number of submissions questioning the consultation process is testament to this.

Determination

35. The Commissioner considered the proposal was not contrary to the objectives and policies of the operative and proposed District Plans. Having determined that the proposal was not contrary to the objectives and policies of the operative and proposed plans he was required to consider the matter under Section 104 and Section 104 is subject to Part 2 of the RMA.

36. The Commissioner considered the range of effects arising from the proposal and he believed the most significant adverse effects would be on the closest neighbours to the site on Pryde Road. Their amenity would be adversely affected by the close proximity of the turbines to their farms and dwellings. The proximity of the turbines was important as the evidence and his questioning indicated that the adverse effects of the turbines on rural character and amenity were not able to be mitigated to any degree. This was not surprising given their 90m height. It was accepted that the dwellings were oriented away from the turbines although the dwelling at 22 Pryde had a kitchen/living area window and parts of the outdoor living space that looked towards Porteous Hill. Despite this, the turbines would be imposing and visually dominant, particularly the northern most tower, in relation to the properties at 22 and 90 Pryde Road and to a lesser extent the property at 139 Pryde Road.

37. Ms Irving in her closing identified that the only live issue for the proposal was the significance of the adverse effects on Pryde Road residents. The Commissioner agreed that this was the area of most contention and critical in determining the outcome of the consent. He noted there had been a number of wind farm cases that had dealt with dominance and/or significant and very significant effects on neighbouring sites by the removal of one or more turbines. The Commissioner considered the imposing nature of the turbines on the sites at 22 and 90 Pryde Road and the impact on rural character and rural amenity values of their dominance would be reduced by the removal of the northernmost turbine from the proposal. The option was not offered by the applicant in their closing and he was reluctant to impose this as mitigation as the three turbines appeared central to the applicant’s proposal.

38. In respect of the other effects of the proposal including landscape, there would be adverse effects but not to a degree that would be significant enough to compel refusal of the application. Noise would meet the required standard but the Commissioner considered it would add to the intrusion and dominance experienced by residents and it would contribute to the reduction in amenity values.

39. The Commissioner considered the positive effects of the proposal and the influence of the NPSREG on the assessment renewable energy generation projects. He accepted the NPSREG provided a strong direction to grant consents to renewable energy projects regardless of their scale due to the national benefits of renewable energy. In considering the NPSREG the Commissioner noted that when adverse effects could not be mitigated the direction within the policy statement was to look at compensation or environmental offsets. Any compensation involved with the project was not directed to the worst affected neighbours and did not provide any respite from the significant amenity impacts on those nearest neighbours. In this case he considered that the adverse effects on amenity values were too great for these worst affected residents. Ultimately the Commissioner decided that the wider benefits of the application did not outweigh the significant adverse effects on the amenity values of the nearest neighbours. He noted that the determination might have been different if the option of removing the closest and most dominant turbine from the application had been identified as an option that was available to me.

40. The Commissioner considered that declining of consent was necessary to achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

The meeting ended at 12.15 pm.

COMMISSIONER

Council

19 September 2016

Hearings Committee

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin, on Thursday 21 July 2016, commencing at 9.00 am

PRESENT

Chairperson	Andrew Noone
	Lee Vandervis
	Commissioner Colin Weatherall

IN ATTENDANCE

John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Kirstyn Lindsay (Senior Planner), Peter Christos (Urban Designer), Chelsea McGaw (Consents and Compliance Officer, Water and Waste Services) and Lee Paterson (Senior Geotechnical Engineer, MWH)

Governance Support Officer Wendy Collard

PART A:

1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2016-110, 38 RICHMOND STREET, DUNEDIN

1 The Committee considered an application to establish two residential dwellings at 38 Richmond Street, Dunedin under section 95 of the Resource Management Act.

3 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:

· Conrad Anderson (Consultant Planner)

· Laurence Prattley (Applicant)

· Raewyn Prattley (Applicant)

· Alison Carey (Architectural Designer)

There was one submitter present at the hearing.

Dale Meredith (Manager, Policy, Otago Regional Council)

Warren Hanley (Resource Planner – Liaison, Otago Regional Council)

Jean-Luc Payan (Manager, Natural Hazards, Otago Regional Council)

Procedural Issues

Mr Anderson raised a procedural issue regarding an article that had appeared in the Otago Daily Times on 21 July 2016 which reported on an Otago Regional Council (ORC) meeting relating to natural hazards in South Dunedin. He questioned whether this would result in the ORC withdrawing their submission. The Committee confirmed with the ORC that they would not be withdrawing their submission and the procedural issue was dismissed.

Presentation of the Planner’s Report

4 The Planning Officer (Kristyn Lindsay) 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. Ms Lindsay commented that the activity was a non-complying activity pursuant to Rule 8.8.6(iii) of the operative Dunedin City District Plan.

Ms Lindsay commented on the hazard risk and advised that South Dunedin was typically low-lying with a high ground water table. She advised that Richmond Street was inundated in the June 2015 rainfall event and had experienced surface flooding and ponding. Ms Lindsay noted that the proposed development would result in the removal of the existing flood-damaged dwelling; however that no resource consent was required for the removal of the dwelling.

Ms Lindsay recommended that the application be declined on the basis that it did not pass the gateway tests set out in s104D because the adverse effects of the proposal in its current form were not adequately mitigated and that the proposal was contrary to the key relevant objectives and policies of the Operative Dunedin City District Plan. She commented that she could not identify a true exception. However, she advised that she would leave the review her recommendation to following the presentation of the evidence.

The Applicant’s Presentation

Conrad Anderson (Consultant Planner and Alison Carey (Architectural Designer) provided an outline of the proposal.

Ms Carey spoke to her pre-circulated evidence and provided an assessment of the composition and character of the surrounding neighbourhood. She outlined the benefits of modern build design. Ms Carey responded to questions which related to design elements and whether an elevated floor level would adversely affect the building design. She advised that in her opinion that it would not, depending on the proposed finished height and commented that the minimum floor level specified by Building Control Services for South Dunedin was 150mm above the crown of the road.

Mr Anderson spoke to his pre-circulated evidence which focused on the design of the proposal, the streetscape, how the water and waste discharges could be managed and the hazard risk. He provided an outline on the permitted baseline as he viewed it, detailing what could be established on the site as of right.

Mr Anderson commented that there were no specific controls over the streetscape and contested the comments by the Council’s urban designer. He advised that it was his opinion that the effects of the development on the streetscape and amenity were no more than minor. Mr Anderson noted that the plans submitted did not show a fence which could be something that could be conditioned. Mr Anderson advised that Mr Prattley’s preference would be to continue with brick veneer cladding because of its low maintenance.

Mr Anderson commented that he believed that there was an opportunity to mitigate the flood risk by raising the finished floor level; however, he noted that the applicant did not want to depart from a concrete slab foundation design. Although he conceded it would be difficult, he considered that the buildings could be relocatable despite the proposed concrete foundation and brick veneer cladding.

Mr Anderson advised that the demand on the city’s infrastructure would not increase as a result of the proposal; however was amenable to stormwater management conditions and a low-flow device condition.

Mr Anderson accepted the advice note requested by Heritage New Zealand in their submission and the conditions recommended by Council’s Transportation Planner. In response to questions, Mr Anderson confirmed that on-site manoeuvring could be achieved for the rear unit.

Submitters

The Manager, Natural Hazards, ORC (Jean-Luc Payan) spoke to his pre-circulated evidence and outlined the hazard risk as identified by ORC. Mr Payan provided detail on the June 2015 rainfall event which had resulted in surface flooding in South Dunedin. He commented that he considered the rain event in June 2015 flood event was not an unusually heavy rainfall event and that similar events might occur into the future on a regular basis. Mr Payan advised that during the June 2015 event surface flooding varied in depth from approximately 100mm to 300mm in the area of the subject site.

In response to questions regarding the risk mitigation, Mr Payan commented that there was still a degree of risk and the potential to transfer risk onto neighbouring properties. Mr Payan advised that he was reluctant to advise the Committee on a specific floor level to mitigate the risks but indicated that the ORC would assist by providing information.

The Manager, Policy, ORC (Dale Meredith) advised that ORC did not want to see the risk increased by increasing additional people to the hazard risk. She commented that the ORC were concerned that the proposal would set a precedent.

Council Officers Evidence

The Senior Geotechnical Engineer, MWH (Lee Paterson) commented on the natural hazards which had the potential to affect South Dunedin and the subject site. Mr Paterson advised that he disagreed in part with the ORC submission regarding the unusual nature of the June 2015 rainfall event and commented that the rainfall recorded in June 2015 was the second highest on record. While Mr Paterson considered that the rainfall event was unusually heavy, he acknowledged events of this type were expected to become more frequent.

Mr Paterson commented that overall the building code stated that buildings should be safe from hazards. With respect to minimum floor levels, Mr Paterson advised that these were generally set at the building consent stage through the Building Act 2004 and that Building Control might accept a floor level of 200mm above local ponding level but this would need to be confirmed by that department. He commented that MWH had prepared a report in 2012 which identified minimum floor levels at various locations throughout the city. Mr Paterson acknowledged that assistance would be required from ORC to set alternative minimum floor levels for South Dunedin.

In respect to the risk of liquefaction Mr Paterson advised that there were design solutions which could be applied at building consent stage to minimise the risk posed by liquefaction and amplified shaking hazard.

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):

"That the meeting be adjourned until 11.00 am."

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 10.45 am and reconvened at 11.00 am.

The Consents and Compliance Officer, Water and Waste Services (Chelsea McGaw) advised that a review of the stormwater and wastewater calculations, subsequent to the pre-hearing evidence exchange, had resulted in the department amending its position. Ms McGaw commented that Water and Waste Services no longer opposed the application on the basis of the density breach, however Ms McGaw maintained that mitigation measures such as on-site stormwater retention and low flow devices would be required to ensure that stormwater and wastewater issues were not exacerbated by the development.

The Urban Designer (Peter Christos) spoke to his memorandum and reiterated his position regarding the character of the neighbourhood. Mr Christos commented that, after hearing the evidence put forward by the applicant, he considered that the impact of the proposed dwellings on the streetscape and amenity of the area remained significant. He advised that it remained his opinion that mitigation would be achieved by requiring low and permeable fences and landscaping.

It was moved:

"That the meeting be adjourned until 11.30 am."

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 11.20 am and reconvened at 11.31 am.

The Planner’s Review of his Recommendation

Ms Lindsay reviewed her recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing. She commented that having listened to the evidence put; she considered that there were steps that could be undertaken to reduce any adverse effects and to bring the proposal more in line with the policy framework of both the operative and proposed district plans. Ms Lindsay commented that she disagreed with Mr Anderson’s position regarding the extent of the baseline; however noted that the application of a baseline was appropriate.

Ms Lindsay noted Mr Anderson’s acceptance of the conditions proposed by Water and Waste Services but she considered that the Committee must be comfortable that the existing stormwater conditions would not exacerbated or the wastewater capacity exceeded by the authorisation of a non-complying activity.

Ms Lindsay commented that the application was for a non-complying activity and, should consent be granted, then the Committee could impose any conditions it felt were necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse environmental effects. She commented that she disagreed with Mr Anderson’s assertion that, because a specific streetscape was not protected by a District Plan, its amenity values and character were not significant and she held that, where the Committee had the ability to require good design principles, it should take every opportunity to apply these.

Ms Lindsay recognised that there were no specific district plan controls which addressed hazards on the site at this time, but noted that Mr Anderson had accepted that conditions relating to hazard mitigation would be necessary.

However, it remained Ms Lindsay commented that it was opinion that there was nothing about the proposal that set it apart from others. She advised that she accepted that the existing dwelling was in poor repair but the removal of the dwelling did not form part of the application. Ms Lindsay reminded the Committee that application was for a breach of density and considered that the true exception argument had not been adequately made as to why two units should be authorised on the site.

The Applicant’s Response

Mr Anderson reiterated the positive aspects of the application and asked for consent to be granted. He restated his opinion on the baseline. Mr Anderson commented that the demand on the water and waste infrastructure would be no more that which currently existed, but accepted conditions related to water and waste management. He commented that in his opinion, a stormwater management plan would only be required if there was more hard surfacing on the site more than what currently existed.

Mr Anderson commented that he considered that the proposed units did incorporate good design principles for the development including yard setbacks and living spaces orientated to the front of the site. He also considered that a condition which related to the fence and landscape treatment would be acceptable. With respect to hazard risk, Mr Anderson suggested that a floor level could be established through conditions or advice note and specific foundation design could be identified at the time of building consent. He advised that he considered that if any precedent was set by the granting of the application, it would be a positive one.

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 – 38 Richmond 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 11.57 am.

MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, ON 21 JULY 2016, COMMENCING AT 12.05 PM

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

IN ATTENDANCE: John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Planning Advisor), Kirstyn Lindsay (Planning/Handling Officer), and Wendy Collard (Governance Support Officer)

PART C:

1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION – LUC-2016-110, 38 RICHMOND STREET, DUNEDIN

6 The Committee gave consideration to the Planner’s recommendation and to the points raised by the applicant.

8 The meeting adjourned at 12.15 pm and reconvened on at 9.15 am on 22 August 2016.

Decision

11 It was moved (Vandervis/Noone):

"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 to establish two residential units at 38 Richmond Street, legally described as Lot 18 Block XVI Deposited Plan 60 (Computer Freehold Register OT 16D/63) subject to conditions imposed under Section 108 of the Act, as shown below:

Conditions

1 The activity must be carried out generally in accordance with the plans entitled and the information in the application dated 24 March 2016, except where modified by the following conditions of consent:

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

3 The units authorised by the resource consent must have a finished floor level of 500mm above existing ground level.

4 A stormwater management plan should be submitted and approved by the Resource Consents Manager prior to the lodging of building consent applications for the units. The stormwater management design for the site must include suitable stormwater retention systems for each unit.

5 Low-flow water devices must be installed in the kitchen, laundry, bathroom and toilet areas of each unit. Plans must be approved by the Resource Consents Manager prior to the lodging of building consent applications for the units.

6 A site landscape plan must be submitted and approved by the Resource Consents Manager prior to commencing construction of the new units. The plan would indicate the areas proposed for planting and the proposed species, with particular reference to the outdoor amenity area for Unit 1.

7 Landscaping and planting, as depicted in the plans required by condition six (6) of the consent, must be carried out within six months of the new units becoming habitable, and must be maintained on an ongoing basis thereafter.

8 The boundary fence fronting Richmond Street must be no higher than 1.2m and must have 40% permeability. Design of the front boundary fence must be submitted to the consent authority and approved by the Resource Consents Manager prior to the front boundary fence construction.

9 The vehicle access to each unit must have a minimum formed width of 3.0m, and be hard surfaced from the edge of the seal of Richmond Street for a distance of not less than five metres inside the property boundary; and must be adequately drained within the site.

10 Vehicle access to Unit 2 must be formed so that adequate vehicle manoeuvring is provided for the parking space for that unit.

11 The consent holder must take all reasonable measures to ensure noise from activity taking place on the site would not exceed the performance standard set out in Rule 21.5.1 of the District Plan, and does not give rise to adverse effects upon residential activity in the area.

12 Construction work including earthworks must be limited to the times set out below and must comply with the following noise limits for ‘typical duration’ construction modified from New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise:

*Day of week*	*Time period*	*Maximum Noise Limit*
		*Leq (dBA)*		*LMax (dBA)*
Weekdays	0730-1800	75		85
Saturdays	0800-1700	75	85
Sundays and Public Holidays	No construction work

Motion carried

20 Reasons for the Decision

1. The Committee believed, that subject to the conditions proposed above, the proposal would not give rise to more than minor adverse environmental effects and satisfies the first gateway test contained in Section 104D of the Act.

2. With regard to the second gateway test, the Committee believed that the proposal as amended by conditions of consent would not be contrary to the objectives and policies of both the operative and proposed District Plan. The Committee had determined that little weight should be given to the proposed District Plan as no decisions have been released. While the Committee had not been convinced that the proposal was a “true exception”, it believed that the approval of the application would not threaten the integrity of the operative District Plan and nor would it establish an undesirable precedent for future applications.

3. As the proposal passed both gateway tests set out was section 104D, the Committee was able to consider the granting of consent to the proposal.

4. When giving consideration to part 2 of the Act, the Committee noted that with regard to 5(2)(c), the amended proposal including stormwater, landscaping and fencing mitigation and the finished floor level offered by the applicant would avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

5. In respect of section 6(f), the Committee recognised that the development of the site was reliant on the removal of a pre-1900 house. The Committee was aware that there were no specific rules within the Operative District Plan which controlled the demolition. The Committee accepted the submission made by Heritage New Zealand, and considered an advice note reminding the applicant of their duty under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. The Committee considered that the granting of consent was not inconsistent with section 6(f) of the Act.

6. In regard to section 7 of the Act, the Committee noted that, subject to conditions of consent, both sections 7(c) and 7(f) were satisfied. With respect to section 7(i) which related to the effects of climate change, the application was silent on climate change. However, subsequently the applicant had offered a ground floor level which was intended to provide a greater level of protection than that suggested by the Council’s consultant engineer at the hearing. While the proposed floor level did not address the wider climate change issue facing South Dunedin overall, the proposed floor level did offer some level of comfort to the Committee with regard to the specific development. As such, the Committee considered that the proposal was not inconsistent with section 7(i) of the Act.

7. The Committee considered that the proposed activity in its amended form, and with conditions imposed, was not contrary to the objectives and policies of both the operative and proposed Regional Policy Statement for Otago. The Committee had determined that little weight should be given to the proposed Regional Policy Statement as no decisions had been released.

8. The Committee recognised that approving the proposal would result in a breach of density under the District Plan. The Committee acknowledged that in ORC’s submission, it had opposed the density breach and that the opposition was based on potential increase of population exposed to hazard risks. The Committee, when giving consideration to the ORC’s principled and high level approach to managing hazard risk, had determined that it was appropriate to apply the permitted baseline in this instance. The Committee believed that the granting of the proposal would not result in more people living on this specific site than could reside in a permitted development. However, when giving consideration to the baseline promoted by the applicant, the Committee was more judicial in its application. It considered that the permitted baseline endorsed by the applicant to be fanciful, rather accepting that a single residential unit with a floor area of 155 square metres and up to four bedrooms would not be unanticipated in the area. This was the permitted baseline against which the Committee had assessed the effects of the proposal.

9. The Committee acknowledged the importance of maintaining the interaction between the subject site and the streetscape. It appreciated the proposed orientation of the residential units to the front of the site and that the proposal complied with the overall bulk and location performance standards identified in the operative District Plan. The Committee recognised that those bulk and location standards were designed to maintain and enhance amenity and streetscape characteristics and supported the applicant in their incorporation of these standards within the design. It was noted that the elevation of the dwellings to comply with the increased finished floor level has resulted in slight height plane angle breaches to 72 Nelson Street and 40 Richmond Street. The effects of the breaches were considered to be less than minor and to be within the margin of error. As such, any effect on the neighbouring properties beyond that permitted by the District Plan was considered to be indiscernible. Therefore, the Committee had determined that the neighbours need not be served notice of the change.

10. Having familiarised itself with the form and characteristics of the neighbourhood during the site visit, the Committee was very aware of the affect that fences could have on amenity and streetscape values. During the hearing, the applicant accepted conditions relating to landscaping and fence design. The Committee considered that a condition requiring a low and open fence was critical to maintaining these values identified above. The Committee also considered that some landscaping treatment was appropriate to ensure consistency with the existing characteristics of the adjacent area.

11. The Committee noted that Mr Anderson had confirmed that on-site manoeuvring could be achieved for the rear unit. Upon inspection of the plans submitted with the application, the Committee considered that, as currently designed, on-site manoeuvring could not be achieved. However, the Committee noted that as Richmond Street was a local road and that the site was a front site (albeit with a rear unit), the lack of on-site manoeuvring would not have adverse effects on the transportation network in this instance.

12. With respect to effects on the safety and functionality of the transportation network, the Committee was satisfied that the effects of the proposal would be less than minor. The establishment of a second vehicle crossing at the location was acceptable to the Committee, subject to conditions of consent and advice notes. The applicant had accepted these conditions of consent and advice notes.

13. As discussed above, the Committee accepted that the existing dwelling was constructed pre-1900 (built between 1891 and 1895) and that the site was an ‘archaeological site’ as defined in the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. The applicant accepted the advice requested by Heritage New Zealand in their submission and the Committee considered that the issue was adequately addressed through the advice note.

14. The Committee considered that the construction of warm, dry housing stock within the South Dunedin was a positive effect.

15. The Committee recognised that subject site had been identified as subject to a flooding and liquefaction natural hazards. Furthermore, it was considered that future sea level rise would affect the property. ORC had submitted in opposition to the application on the basis that an increase in density would expose more people to risk, exacerbate the risk and send a wrong signal regarding appropriate responses to natural hazard risk management. The Committee noted that if the proposal was for one residential unit instead of two, there would be no resource consent application to consider.

16. With respect to seismic events, the Committee accepted the advice of the Council consulting engineer that the underlying soils had a potential for amplified movement and liquefaction during a significant seismic event. The Committee acknowledged that seismic loading was normally addressed at building control stage and considered that an advice note which advised the applicant that specific foundation design might subsequently be required, or specifically designed ground improvement works would be appropriate in this instance.

17. The Committee recognised the importance that overland storm water flows were not interrupted and the dwelling should be situated to avoid any adverse effects from local ponding during storm rainfall events. The Committee considered that proposed floor and ground levels must therefore address the potential for egress of water from the property via secondary flow paths, ensure that construction was not proposed in low-lying areas and that the path of storm water was not displaced from ephemeral flow paths into neighbouring properties. An advice note was attached to the consent certificate to that effect. An advice note had also been attached to the advising the applicant that any earthworks necessary to develop the site must comply with the permitted activity rules of the District Plan or further resource consent would be required.

18. The Committee had considered the floor level offered by the applicant. It noted that the level offered was consistent with the level suggested by Council’s consultant engineer and discussed at the hearing. The Committee noted that ORC did not offer a floor level although flood data information provided in their submission was factored into the Committee’s decision. Based on the June 2015 flood event, the Committee considered that the level would ensure that the habitable area of the dwelling would remain dry should another similar event occur. While it had not been determined if the floor level was adequate to address potential sea level rise, the Committee noted that there were a range of city wide responses which had yet to be considered to address climate change. The Committee felt that it was inequitable to single out this particular development, given the continuing level of development within the South Dunedin area.

19. The Committee was satisfied that any adverse effects of the proposal on the water and waste infrastructure could be adequately managed through conditions of the consent. The permitted baseline was compelling in this instance. However, the Committee was acutely aware of the stormwater management issues in the area but also noted that the high groundwater levels observed within the area mean that the stormwater drainage relief usually offered by impervious surfaces would provide minimum benefit at the location. As such, they considered it appropriate to require stormwater retention for this development. The appropriate level of stormwater retention should be agreed by the Council’s Water and Waste Services through the Resource Consents Manager once the design of the buildings has been finalised. The Committee also recognised that the applicant had accepted a condition requiring low-flow devices to be installed in the units and considered this appropriate.

20. The Committee concluded that, when applying an overall broad judgement, the granting of the consent with conditions would be consistent with the purpose of the Act to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

23 The meeting ended at 10.06 am.

……………………………

C H A I R P E R S O N

Council

19 September 2016

Audit and Risk Subcommittee

CONFIRMED MINUTES

Confirmed Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin on Tuesday 02 August 2016, commencing at 2.00 pm

PRESENT

Chairperson	Susie Johnstone
Deputy Chairperson
Members	Cr Hilary Calvert	Janet Copeland
	Cr Chris Staynes
	Mayor Dave Cull (Ex-Officio Member)

IN ATTENDANCE

Grant McKenzie (Group Chief Financial Officer), Ruth Stokes (General Manager, Infrastructure and Networks), Sandy Graham (Group Manager, Corporate Services), Gavin Logie (Financial Controller), Andrew Slater (Risk and Internal Audit Manager), Phil Sinclair (Principal – Audit and Assurance, Crowe Horwath) and Martyn Solomon (Senior Client Manager – Audit and Assurance, Crowe Horwath)

Governance Support Officer Wendy Collard

1 Apologies

An apology was received from Councillor Thomson.

Moved (Chairperson Susie Johnstone/Cr Chris Staynes) that the Subcommittee

1 Accepts the apology from Councillor Richard Thomson.

2 Motion carried

2 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Chairperson Susie Johnstone/Cr Hilary Calvert): that the Subcommittee

Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration.

Motion carried (AR/2016/020)

3 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.

Councillor Staynes provided an update to his Interest Register.

There were no declarations of interest made or conflicts of interest declared.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

4.1 Audit and Risk Subcommittee meeting - 28 June 2016

Moved (Janet Copeland/Cr Hilary Calvert): that the Subcommittee

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee meeting held on 28 June 2016 as a correct record.

Motion carried (AR/2016/021)

Part A Reports

5 Audit and Risk Subcommittee Work Plan 2016/17

There was a discussion on the work plan in particular the Audit and Risk Subcommittee's terms of reference and it was agreed that a copy of the draft terms of reference would be presented to the next meeting to be held on 13 September 2016.

Moved (Chairperson Susie Johnstone/Cr Chris Staynes): that the Subcommittee

a) Notes the Audit and Risk Subcommittee Work Plan 2016/17.

Motion carried (AR/2016/022)

6 Schedule of Governance/Financial Policies

Following discussion on the Schedule of Governance/Financial Policies, it was agreed that a draft Contract Management Policy would be presented to the Audit and Risk Subcommittee meeting to be held on 13 September 2016.

Moved (Chairperson Susie Johnstone/Janet Copeland): that the Subcommittee

a) Notes the Schedule of Governance/Financial Policies

Motion carried (AR/2016/023)

7 Insurance Renewals Year Ended 30 June 2017

A report from Civic provided a copy of the Insurance Renewals Year ended 30 June 2017 report that had been presented to Council at their meeting held on 1 August 2016 which had been provided for the Audit and Risk Subcommittee's information.

The Group Chief Financial Officer (Grant McKenzie) spoke to the report and commented that changes had been negotiated which included policy terms, coverage and excesses. Mr McKenzie advised that the 2016/17 premium had been impacted by an increase in the sums insured as Council continued to refine asset schedules and updated business continuity coverage.

The Financial Controller (Gavin Logie) responded to a question on the extent of the cover that had been arranged by Council for the Chairperson and Ms Copeland as the non-elected members of the Subcommittee in relation to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. Mr Logie advised that he would email confirmation of the cover to the Subcommittee.

Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Hilary Calvert): that the Subcommittee

a) Notes the report on the Insurance Renewals Year ended 30 June 2017.

Motion carried (AR/2016/024)

8 Annual Report Timetable Year Ended 30 June 2016

A report from Finance provided the timetable in relation to the preparation and approval of the Dunedin City Council Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2016. It noted that following a request from the Subcommittee, a high level timetable had been prepared by staff and Audit New Zealand.

Following discussion, it was agreed that a following task be included in the timetable:

a) Review and monitoring of the "Actions Required" by the Audit and Risk Subcommittee.

Moved (Chairperson Susie Johnstone/Janet Copeland): that the Subcommittee

a) Notes the Annual Report Timetable Year Ended 30 June 2016.

Motion carried (AR/2016/025)

9 Items for Consideration by the Chair
	There were no items identified for consideration.

The Chairperson thanked the Group Chief Financial Officer (Mr McKenzie) for his excellent work and contribution to the Audit and Risk Subcommittee. She noted that Mr McKenzie's personal moral code, skills, ability and persistence had been instrumental in ensuring that Council had made such significant progress in the development of a robust internal control system. She commented that whilst the Subcommittee could lead on setting Policy and work plans that the embedding of Policy and updates to procedures within the organisation relied entirely on the commitment and tenacity of Mr McKenzie. The Chairperson commented that his skills would be missed and wished him well in his new role as Chief Executive Officer of Allied Press.

Mr McKenzie thanked the Audit and Risk Subcommittee for the important role that they had played and commented that he was a member of a larger team who had assisted in the development and improvements.

Resolution to exclude the public

Moved (Chairperson Susie Johnstone/Cr Hilary Calvert): that the Subcommittee

Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, exclude 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 Audit and Risk Subcommittee meeting - 28 June 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.	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 Audit and Risk Subcommittee Action	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.
C3 Crowe Horwath - Contract Management Audit Report	S7(2)(c)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest.	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.
C4 Update on the Internal Audit Programme	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)(c)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied. 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.
C5 Internal Audit Recommendations and Action Plan - July 2016	S7(2)(c)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest.	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.
C6 Interim Audit Management Letter	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.	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.
C7 Top 100 Suppliers for Council	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.	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.
C8 ICT Security Policy and Standards	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.	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.
C9 DCC Strategic Risk Register - July 2016	S7(2)(c)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest.	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.
C10 Risk Management Committee Minutes - 20 April 2016 and 3 June 2016	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.
C11 Annual Review - Dunedin City Council, Treasury Risk Management Policy	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.
C12 Compliance with the Treasury Risk Management Policy	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.
C13 Health and Safety reporting for 1 June to 30 June 2016	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.
C14 Protected Disclosure Register	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.
C15 Investigation Register	S6(b) The making available of the information would be likely to endanger the safety of a 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 6.	The matters detailed in this report are subject to investigation and information should remain confidential so as not to prejudice the investigation and any possible outcomes of the investigation.
C16 Review Update	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.

That Phil Sinclair (Principal – Audit and Business Advisory, Crowe Horwath) and Martyn Solomon (Senior Client Manager – Audit and Assurance, Crowe Horwath) be permitted to attend the meeting, after the public has been excluded, because of their knowledge of Items C3 – C5. This knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the matters to be discussed, is relevant because they will be reporting on the items under consideration.

That Kyle Cameron (Partner – Deloitte) be permitted to attend the meeting, after the public has been excluded, because his knowledge of Item C16. This knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the matters to be discussed, is relevant because he will be reporting on the item under consideration.

Motion carried (AR/2016/026)

The meeting moved into confidential at 2.31 pm.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Council

19 September 2016

Waikouaiti Coast Community Board

MINUTES

Unconfirmed minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board held in the Karitane Hall, Coast Road, Karitane on Wednesday 10 August 2016, commencing at 5.30 pm

PRESENT

Chairperson	Gerard Collings
Deputy Chairperson	Alasdair Morrison
Members	Mark Brown	Cr Andrew Noone
	Richard Russell	Tracey Scurr
	Geraldine Tait

IN ATTENDANCE

Bernie Hawke (Group Manager, Arts and Culture) and Jendi Paterson (Recreation Planning and Facilities Manager)

Governance Support Officer Wendy Collard

1 Public Forum

1.1 Waikouaiti RSA

On behalf of the Waikouaiti RSA, Bruce Hayward expressed his concerns regarding the time that it was taking for the Waikouaiti War Memorial to be relocated.

The President of the Waikouaiti RSA, Ian Taylor advised that it was in the 1980's that the Waikouaiti RSA had first requested the War Memorial to be relocated. Mr Taylor commented that they considered that the new siting and final design of the War Memorial was not important; however the retention of the six original panels which contained the names those who had fallen and served was paramount.

1.2 Blueskin Youth and Community Amenities Association

Graeme Bennett spoke to the funding application from the Blueskin Youth and Community Amenities Association to assist with the planting associated with the Orokonui Estuary Track.

1.3 Blueskin Recreational Access Group

On behalf of Blueskin Recreational Access Group, Nathan Parker provided an update on proposal to establish tracks on unformed legal roads, marginal strips and conservation land for walkers, cyclists and horse riders in the north Blueskin area.

The Chairperson requested that the group provide a plan of the overall concept to provide clarification for the Board and the wider community of the scope and context of the vision.

1.4 NZ Motor Caravan Association

On behalf of the NZ Motor Caravan Association (NZMCA), Ivan Scott requested the Board's support for the relocation of the effluent disposal site from its existing site which was at the rear of the Waikouaiti Service Station. Mr Scott commented that as the current site could only be assessed during the opening hours of the Service Station, they wanted to establish an alternative site at either corner of Seddon and Reid Streets or along Henry Street between Jones and Fell Streets. He advised that these sites were preferred due to the proximity to pump station sites and that the installation of a second site would be at no cost to Council. Mr Scott commented that there was NZMCA funding available to assist with the capital cost of the new facility which should account for the majority of the cost. The NZMCA were asked to work with staff on the matter.

1.5 Rhys Owen

Mr Owen reiterated to his concerns regarding freedom camping at the Warrington Domain.

1.6 Gareth Hughes

Mr Hughes expressed his concerns regarding the number of freedom campers at Warrington and commented on the DCC Camping Control Bylaw 2015. He commented that in his view the existing Bylaw would allow Council to place controls on the numbers using the Warrington Domain.

1.7 Tim Locker

Mr Locker expressed his concerns at the loss of the Warrington Domain to the community as a recreational facility due to the numbers of freedom campers using the Domain. He advised that the use of the Domain for recreational activities extended into the time when freedom campers also used the area which caused conflicts.

Moved (Gerard Collings/Cr Andrew Noone): that the Board

a) Extends Public Forum beyond one hour to all speakers to be heard.

Motion carried (WC/2016/029)

1.8 Ken McHoull

Mr McHoull presented a petition to the Board in support of freedom camping at the Warrington Domain. He provided a background to demographics of the signatures and advised that freedom camping had occurred at the Domain for a number of decades. Mr McHoull advised that the issue in his view was the numbers and not the activity. He was concerned that the issue was dividing the community due to the emotion surrounding the issue.

Mr McHoull suggested that staff could work with the App providers who could include a "pop-up" which advised when the Domain was full.

The Chairperson (Gerard Collings) advised that he had received a telephone call from Alan Cooper regarding his concerns regarding freedom camping at Warrington Domain. He advised that Mr Cooper had expressed a view that freedom camping should be prohibited but after further discussion, Mr Cooper confirmed that the numbers were the primary concern and that the economic benefit was beyond the first visit of the freedom campers.

1.9 Stewart Holt

Mr Holt spoke in support of freedom camping at the Warrington Domain and congratulated staff and the Board for all the work that they had done in response to pressure on the existing infrastructure during the last season.

1.10 Tim Popham

Mr Popham commented on freedom camping at the Warrington Domain and advised that his concerns included road safety and inability to use the Domain for recreational purposes such as cricket.

1.11 Margie Harris

Ms Harris advised that her property backed onto the Warrington Domain and spoke of her frustrations regarding freedom camping which included vehicles parking over her driveway. She also expressed the concern over the impact on natural resources such as local shellfish but acknowledged that the stress on these resources was not limited to freedom campers.

2 Apologies

There were no apologies.

3 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Gerard Collings/Tracey Scurr): that the Board

Confirms the agenda with the addition of Council Activities to be taken as item 11b.

Motion carried (WC/2016/030)

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.

Tracey Scurr declared an interest in the Waikouaiti Domain/Matanaka Drive Harvesting update which was included in the Governance Support Officer's report (Attachment C Action List).

Mark Brown declared an interest in the funding application for the Blueskin Youth and Community Amenities Association.

5 Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 Waikouaiti Coast Community Board meeting - 29 June 2016

Moved (Alasdair Morrison/Tracey Scurr): that the Board

Confirms the minutes of the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board meeting held on 29 June 2016 as a correct record.

Motion carried (WC/2016/031)

Part A Reports

6 Library Report

A report from Services and Development provided a summary of activities of the Dunedin Public Libraries for the period 1 May to 30 June 2016. It noted that implementation of Service Centre functions at the Blueskin Bay and Waikouaiti libraries was ahead of the revised launch date of 8 August 2016.

The Board acknowledged the work of the Library staff during the triennium.

The Board thanked Mr Hawke for his contribution as the senior staff member to the Board.

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Geraldine Tait): that the Board

a) Notes the Library report

Motion carried (WC/2016/032)

7 Warrington Freedom Camping Petition

A report from Civic provided a copy of the Warrington Freedom Camping Petition that was presented to Council at their meeting held on 27 June 2016. It noted that Council had resolved that the petition be referred to the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board for their consideration.

The Chairperson (Gerard Collings) advised that his observation was that the common theme between those for and against freedom camping was that the numbers experienced of freedom campers was not sustainable and that other sites within the City needed to be investigated. He commented that this needed to be done quickly to help elevate the community's frustration and concerns. The Chairperson noted that even those raising the most concern were not opposed to the use of the reserve for camping however wanted to ensure that it was available for its primary purpose.

The Chairperson advised that he felt that the primary consideration for the Board going forward needed to be to ensure that the reserve was still available for the community (being the City as a whole) for recreation. He commented that, rightly, up to now the focus had been on providing facilities to reduce the impact of the demand on the Domain users.

The Chairperson commented that the community groups (relevant groups) that had written to Council had all expressed a desire to work with the Board and staff to prepare for the upcoming season.

It was noted that the ability to place changes to the existing Bylaw, if that was the desired outcome, were compromised as a result of the upcoming election and therefore preparation for the season needed to be put in place.

The Recreation Planning and Facilities Manager (Jendi Paterson) provided an update on the upgrade of the existing facilities at the Domain which included the upgrading of the existing toilets, a new solar powered rubbish system, installation of a portable ablution block and the facilities to be cleaned on a daily basis.

Ms Paterson advised that a review of signage before the start of the season would be undertaken to ensure that it was fit for purpose.

Moved (Chairperson Gerard Collings/Member Tracey Scurr): that the Board

a) Requests Gerard Collings and Andrew Noone work with staff and relevant groups to work on the mechanisms to manage and monitor the number of and behaviour of freedom campers at the Warrington Domain during the upcoming season.

b) Requests Gerard Collings and Andrew Noone explore the options for freedom camping at the Waikouaiti Sports Ground and other areas within the Board's area for the upcoming season and beyond.

c) Requests Gerard Collings and Andrew Noone continue discussions with the community on the issue.

d) Endorse Gerard Collings and Andrew Noone to continue discussions/resolutions until November 2016 or until the inaugural meeting of the new Waikouaiti Coast Community Board.

Division

That the Board voted by division.

For: Gerard Collings, Mark Brown, Richard Russell, Tracey Scurr and Cr Andrew Noone (5).

Against: Alasdair Morrison and Geraldine Tait (2).

The division was declared CARRIED by 5 votes to 2

Motion carried (WC/2016/033)

8 Governance Support Officer's Report

A report from Civic provided an update to the Board on issues undertaken on its behalf since the last meeting, and other matters that were of on-going interest, which included;

e) Project Fund

f) Coming into and vacation of Office

g) Waikouaiti Transfer Centre

h) Action List

Tracey Scurr withdrew from the discussion on the Waikouaiti Domain/Matanaka Drive Harvesting item.

Waikouaiti Domain/Matanaka Drive Harvesting. The Chairperson advised that he would contact staff regarding the restoration of the area including the results of the trial plantings and email an update to the Board.

Waikouaiti Transfer Station and Resource Recovery Centre. Ms Tait advised that the tour of the neighbouring resource recovery centres was being held on 7 September 2016.

Moved (Gerard Collings/Geraldine Tait): that the Board

a) Notes the Governance Support Officer's Report

Motion carried (WC/2016/034)

9 Funding Applications
	Mark Brown withdrew from the Blueskin Youth and Community Amenities Association Funding application. The Board considered a funding application from the Blueskin Youth and Community Amenities Association towards the cost of planting associated with the Orokonui Estuary Track.
	Moved (Gerard Collings/Geraldine Tait): that the Board a) Grants the funding application from the Blueskin Youth and Community Amenities Association for $1,500.00 Motion carried (WC/2016/035)
	Moved (Gerard Collings/Alasdair Morrison): that the Board a) Approves payment of $40.00 for fruit bowl from Bunches and Bows for an incapacitated Board Member. Motion carried (WC/2016/036)

10 Draft Community Plan 2017/18

A report from the Chairperson (Gerard Collings) provided a copy of the draft 2017/18 Community Plan. Following discussion, it was agreed that the draft Community Plan 2017/18 be referred to the incoming Waikouaiti Coast Community Board for their consideration and adoption.

Moved (Gerard Collings/Alasdair Morrison): that the Board

a) Endorses the updated Community Plan with the amendment to reflect the priority on the Waikouaiti War Memorial and refers it to the incoming Waikouaiti Coast Community Board for adoption following the election.

Motion carried (WC/2016/037)

11 Chairperson's Report

A report from the Chairperson (Gerard Collings) updated the Board on the following:

a) Karitane Postal Service

b) Warrington Reserve – The Chairperson advised that a commercial operator was keen to rent the kiosk at the Warrington Domain. The Board endorsed that reuse/leasing of this structure/facility.

c) Waitati Toilets – Mr Morrison provided an update and advised that a meeting with staff and a concerned landowner had been held.

d) Waikouaiti War Memorial

e) Waikouaiti Museum

f) Waikouaiti Golf Course

g) Waikouaiti Fire Brigade

Moved (Gerard Collings/Richard Russell): that the Board

a) Notes the report.

b) Acknowledge and thank staff and Executive for their support over the last three years.

c) Express its sincere gratitude to Councillor Noone and his family for his dedication and tireless commitment to serving the community.

Motion carried (WC/2016/038)

11B Council Activites

The Ward Councillor, Andrew Noone, provided a verbal update to the Board on the following:

i) Local Government New Zealand Conference

Councillor Noone thanked the Board for the skills, ability and sense of community that they had brought to the Community Board which enabled it to enhance the community that they lived in.

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Mark Brown): that the Board

a) Notes the report.

Motion carried (WC/2016/039)

12 Acknowledgement of Retiring Members - Gerard Collings and tracey scurr

Moved (Alasdair Morrison/Geraldine Tait): that the Board

Records its sincere thanks to Gerard Collings for the loyal and conscientious service given to the City of Dunedin as a member of the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board for the 15 year period 2001 to 2016.

Extends sincere appreciation for the services rendered and every good wish for the future.

Motion carried (WC/2016/040)

Moved (Gerard Collings/Mark Brown): that the Board

Records its sincere thanks to Tracey Scurr for the loyal and conscientious service given to the City of Dunedin as a member of the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board for the 3 year period 2013 to 2016.

Extends sincere appreciation for the services rendered and every good wish for the future.

Motion carried (WC/2016/041)

The meeting concluded at 8.17 pm.

.............................................. ……………………………………..

C H A I R P E R S O N C H I E F E X E C U T I V E

Council

19 September 2016

Mosgiel Taieri Community Board

MINUTES

Unconfirmed minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board held in the Downes Room, Mosgiel Service Centre, Hartstonge Avenue, Mosgiel on Tuesday 16 August 2016, commencing at 12.00 pm

PRESENT

Chairperson	Bill Feather
Deputy Chairperson	Mark Willis
Members	Blackie Catlow	Martin Dillon
	Sarah Nitis
	Cr Kate Wilson

IN ATTENDANCE

Kristy Rusher, Group Manager Civic and Legal

Governance Support Officer Arlene Goss

1 Opening

2 Public Forum

2.1 Applicants Requesting Funding

12.00pm Asthma Otago, Jo Torrance, Salary for physiotherapist to run weekly exercise programme.

Jo Torrance introduced herself and outlined the exercise programme held at Mosgiel for people with chronic lung disease.

12.10pm Mosgiel Taieri Emergency Response Group, Martin Dillon, Emergency grab bags.

Martin Dillon said the Mosgiel Taieri Emergency Response Group is part of civil defence. They are putting in place a plan to ensure everyone knows what they need to know in an emergency. Part of this is the grab bags. Two will be held at the Mosgiel Library. They will include a means of communication when the cell towers are compromised. He believes this should be funded as a board project rather than a grant.

12.20pm East Taieri Preschool, Annabel Hamman, Outdoor play equipment.

Annabel Hamman came to the table. She is the newly-elected president of East Taieri preschool. Their project is to redevelop the outside area at the pre-school. They have done two working bees so far and are asking for funding for a cube and climbing frame as play equipment.

12.30pm Arthur Burns Preschool, Sara Ferguson, Sun hats and high viz shirts for students and teachers.

Samantha Faramond introduced herself as the president of Arthur Burns Preschool. She is attending on behalf of Sara Ferguson. There are 35 families using the preschool. Safety vests would be beneficial for the children going out and about.

12.40pm Roman Catholic Diocese of Dunedin, Gerald Scanlan, Display case for historical garments.

Gerald Scanlan and Clinton Chambers joined the table. They outlined their ambitions for the Holy Cross church in Mosgiel. They have a collection of historical vestments and artefacts held in a room and would like to be able to display these for the community. They believe this would create tourism interest in Mosgiel.

12.50pm East Taieri Church, Joy Davis, Run a family friendly event during Mosgiel market day.

Joy Davis joined the table. The East Taieri Church would like to run an event in conjunction with the Mosgiel market day. They are working with Neighbourhood Support. They want to promote the community and build partnerships. The event is planned for November and they would like to involve schools and preschools. The detail of the event has not yet been planned.

2.2 Update on mural projects

Mike Court was invited to update the board on mural projects in Mosgiel.

He described plans to put a mural on the wall of a building owned by Lincoln Darling. The RSA is involved. There are two other possible buildings in the district that could also be used for murals. He is not sure how much it will cost and applications for grants will come forward in the future. He has been to 'Keep Dunedin Beautiful' meetings and they have requested a member of the community board to attend their meetings.

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Member Martin Dillon/Deputy Mark Willis) that the Board:

Adjourns the meeting until 1pm.

Motion carried (MTCB/2016/019)

The meeting adjourned from 12.54pm to 1.04pm.

2.3 public forum continued

1.00pm West Taieri Pony Club, Jo Stafford, Trailer to transport show jumping poles

Two representatives from the West Taieri Pony Club spoke to the Board about the need for a trailer to move jumps and equipment from one end of the pony club grounds to another. They have done fundraising but are still short by $2500 to buy the trailer. They have 50 members - children aged 5 to 18. It's hard for them to carry the heavy poles. They would be grateful for anything the board sees fit to grant. They have already raised about $10,000. The chairman thanked them for attending.

1.10pm West of the Taieri Newsletter, Pat Macaulay, Printing of newsletter

Pat Macaulay came forward to speak on behalf of the West Taieri Newsletter. This is done by volunteers and they are concerned that the local school isn't left out of pocket when they print the newsletter. There are three issues per year.

Questions were asked about the difference between advertising income collected by the school and the printing costs. West of the Taieri Newsletter does not have a bank account so the money would need to be paid to the school. It was pointed out that the school needs to give consent if the application is on their behalf, as this could preclude them from applying for any other grant in this financial year.

1.20pm Chat Bus Trust, Averil Pierce, Provide counselling service to schools

Averil Pierce spoke regarding Chat Bus. The counsellors have seen 62 children in Mosgiel in the first two terms of this year for counselling. Family issues are common, and friendship issues. There is a Chat Bus in Mosgiel each Monday. Their three main funders are Lotteries, Presbyterian Church and Methodist Church. They also ask schools to contribute. The grant would go towards counsellor salary.

2.4 Reports on Previous Grants

Kristy Compton of the Mosgiel Business Association was invited to report back to the Board on a grant of $812 last September to assist with a traffic management plan for the Mosgiel Community Market Day. She said the grant enabled the event to go ahead last year and appreciated the money.

Margaret McConnachie from the All Saints Fruit and Veg Co-op reported to the community board on a grant of $217.35 for advertising. She showed the community board some posters that were printed with the grant money. These have been distributed around the town.

The chairman thanked her for attending and said he was happy to hear that the community board has been able to assist the community.

2.5 Logan Stadnyk

Logan Stadnyk from Taieri School presented the findings of a traffic study he conducted in Mosgiel.

The first thing his report picked up was the number of trucks using Gordon Road. 20 trucks went down the main road within a half hour period in the morning. In the day time they would get 10 every half hour and night time, six. There was a lot of congestion on the main road, but not on Factory Road.

The study also found that whenever a bus went past there were never more than five people on the bus. This showed people in Mosgiel and Dunedin were not using public transport. In a half hour period they would see one person using the bike lane.

Hjarne Poulsen, Safety Team Leader, Transport, said the data collected was very accurate. He is aware of the congestion. They have been working with NZTA on the intersection. Safety is the most important factor. He would like to see more people using the buses.

The chairman thanked Logan Stadnyk for attending the meeting.

Adjournment of meeting

Moved (Chairperson Bill Feather/Member Martin Dillon) that the Board:

Adjourns the meeting.

Motion carried (MTCB/2016/020)

The meeting adjourned from 1.59pm to 2.08pm.

3 Apologies

There were no apologies. It was noted that Maurice Prendergast was not at the meeting and had not given an apology.

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Chairperson Bill Feather/Member Martin Dillon) that the Board

Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration

Motion carried (MTCB/2016/021)

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.

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Mosgiel Taieri Community Board meeting - 5 July 2016

Moved (Member Martin Dillon/Member Sarah Nitis) that the Board

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board meeting held on 5 July 2016 as a correct record.

Motion carried (MTCB/2016/022)

Part A Reports

7 Grant Applications
	Request for a grant of $1,663.15 to the Mosgiel Taieri Emergency Response Group for the purchase of emergency grab bags. The chairman said the application from the emergency response group could be a board project rather than an application for grant funding. Kristy Rusher advised the board that as the equipment subject to the proposal was in addition to what is already funded by council it would be considered a board project to supply this. The board members then passed a resolution endorsing the project as an initiative of the board. (Resolution 1 below) The next question was whether the board agreed to fund the project. Discussion was held on this and Martin Dillon answered further questions from board members. Mark Willis left the meeting at 2.19pm. A resolution was passed supporting in principle the provision of emergency grab bags. (Resolution 2 below) Martin Dillon suggested going back to his group and looking at other sources of funding. General Allocation of the Discretionary Fund The chairman asked how much money will be set aside for board initiatives in general. It was suggested that the cost of two grab bags, plus $2500 towards a mural at the pocket park, be set aside. A resolution was passed to ring fence $3,200 to board initiatives. (Resolution 3 below) Cr Wilson suggested putting aside $300 towards further advertising of 'Taieri Over the Tealeaves' and halving the remaining funds for allocation to current grants. This leaves $3,171 towards grants currently on the table. A resolution was passed to confirm this. (Resolution 4 below) Request for a grant of $140 to the Taieri Recreational Tramping Club towards the costs of clearing tracks in the Whare Flat area. Cr Wilson said the costs requested by the Taieri Tramping Club will be met by Council's Parks Department staff. A resolution was passed to decline the grant and refer the application to staff. (Resolution 5 below) Request for a grant of $500 to Martin Ferguson towards the restoration of the Arthur Burns grave. A resolution was passed to give this grant to Mr Ferguson for the work outlined in his application. (Resolution 6 below) This was to recognise the very strong link of Arthur Burns to the local area. Request for a grant of $1,477 to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dunedin for the purchase of a display case for historical garments. Member Martin Dillon stepped back from this debate and abstained from voting. Member Sarah Nitis moved to approve the grant of $1477 to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dunedin. This was seconded by the chairman. Discussion was held on the benefits of this project. Some members expressed concern that the idea had not progressed far enough to be awarded grant funding. It needed a feasibility study. Division Voting was carried out by show of hands. For: Members Bill Feather and Sarah Nitis (2). Against: Members Blackie Catlow and Kate Wilson (2). An equality of votes was recorded 2:2 following which the Chairperson used his casting vote against the motion to maintain the status quo. The motion was not carried. Cr Wilson then moved that the community board sends a letter of support and a resolution was passed to reflect this. (Resolution 7 below) Request for a grant of $1,419.45 to the East Taieri Preschool for the purchase of outdoor play equipment. It was noted that school equipment would not be available for the public to use. A resolution was passed to decline this grant due to insufficient benefit to the wider community. (Resolution 8 below) Request for a grant of $700 to the Arthur Burns Preschool for the purchase of sun hats and high viz shirts for students and teachers. Member Blackie Catlow suggested the preschool approach Rotary for support, as the club had provided sun hats to schools in the past. The community board passed a resolution to decline the grant and send a letter to say they support the idea in principle and invite the preschool to reapply if they are unsuccessful with Rotary. (Resolution 9 below) Request for a grant of $1,000 to Asthma Otago for a physiotherapist to run weekly exercise programmes. A resolution was passed to decline this grant as the board felt it was not the community board's responsibility to provide health services to the district. (Resolution 10 below) Request for a grant of $1,600 to East Taieri Church for a family event at the Mosgiel market day. Cr Wilson put a motion that the community board contribute one thousand dollars to the family event run by the East Taieri Church. Member Martin Dillon would like to provide the full amount. Cr Wilson amended her motion to $1,600 with the agreement of the board. The motion was carried. (Resolution 11 below) Request for a grant to the East Taieri Pony Club towards the purchase of a trailer to transport show jumping poles. Member Blackie Catlow moved that $500 be granted to the East Taieri Pony Club and Cr Wilson seconded. The motion was discussed and a vote taken. Division Voting was carried out by show of hands. Cr Wilson abstained. For: Members Blackie Catlow and Sarah Nitis (2). Against: Members Bill Feather and Martin Dillon (2). An equality of votes was recorded 2:2 following which the Chairperson used his casting vote against the motion. The motion was not carried. Request for a grant of $1,500 to the West of the Taieri newsletter towards the printing costs. A resolution was passed to decline this grant on the grounds it was an incomplete application. (Resolution 12 below) It was suggested that they might like to reapply at the next funding round. Request for a grant of $3,500 to the Chat Bus Trust to provide counselling services to schools. Member Martin Dillon moved that the balance of the grant funding, or $1071, be given to Chatbus. This was seconded by Cr Wilson and a vote was taken. The motion was carried but Members Sarah Nitis and Blackie Catlow asked that their vote against the motion be recorded in the minutes. (Resolution 13 below) RESOLUTIONS ARISING FROM GRANT APPLICATIONS
1.	Moved (Member Sarah Nitis/Deputy Mark Willis) that the Board: Declines the request for a grant to the Mosgiel Taieri Emergency Response Group for the purchase of emergency grab bags and instead approves this be considered a board project. Member Martin Dillon abstained from voting. Motion carried (MTCB/2016/023)
2.	Moved (Member Sarah Nitis/Chairperson Bill Feather) that the Board: Supports in principle the provision of emergency grab bags. Member Martin Dillon abstained from voting. Motion carried (MTCB/2016/024)
3.	Moved (Member Sarah Nitis/Member Martin Dillon) that the Board: Approves ring fencing funding of $3,200 for board initiatives, being two emergency grab bags and a mural at the pocket park. Member Blackie Catlow asked that his vote against this resolution be recorded in the minutes. Motion carried (MTCB/2016/025)
4.	Moved (Member Sarah Nitis/Cr Kate Wilson) that the Board: Approves an allocation of $3,171 towards community grants in the first funding round of the 2016/17 financial year. Motion carried (MTCB/2016/026)
5.	Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Member Blackie Catlow) that the Board: Declines a grant of $140 to the Taieri Recreational Tramping Club due to the funds being available from the Parks fund, and refers the application to staff. Motion carried (MTCB/2016/027)
6.	Moved (Member Blackie Catlow/Member Sarah Nitis) that the Board: Approves a grant of $500 to Martin Fergusson towards the restoration of the Arthur Burns grave. Motion carried (MTCB/2016/028)
7.	Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Chairperson Bill Feather) that the Board: Sends a letter of support to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dunedin saying it supports in principle the initiative for the museum and would support a feasibility study to investigate the idea further. Motion carried (MTCB/2016/029)
8.	Moved (Chairperson Bill Feather/Member Blackie Catlow) that the Board: Declines a grant of $1,419.45 to the East Taieri Preschool for the purchase of outdoor play equipment due to insignificant benefit to the wider community. Motion carried (MTCB/2016/030)
9.	Moved (Member Blackie Catlow/Chairperson Bill Feather) that the Board: Declines a grant of $700 to the Arthur Burns Preschool for the purchase of sun hats and high viz shirts for students and teachers, and requests that staff send a letter to say the Board supports the idea in principle and invites them to reapply if they are unsuccessful with Rotary. Motion carried (MTCB/2016/031)
10.	Moved (Member Martin Dillon/Chairperson Bill Feather) that the Board: Declines a grant of $1,000 to Asthma Otago for a physiotherapist to run weekly exercise programmes. Motion carried (MTCB/2016/032)
11.	Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Member Martin Dillon) that the Board: Approves a grant of $1,600 to East Taieri Church for a family event at the Mosgiel market day. Motion carried (MTCB/2016/033)
12.	Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Member Martin Dillon) that the Board: Declines a grant of $1,500 to the West of the Taieri newsletter towards printing costs. Motion carried (MTCB/2016/034)
13.	Moved (Member Martin Dillon/Cr Kate Wilson): that the Board Approves the balance of the round one grant funding, or $1071, be given to Chatbus towards counselling services at Mosgiel Schools. Members Sarah Nitis and Blackie Catlow asked that their vote against this motion be recorded in the minutes. Motion carried (MTCB/2016/035)

8 Student Traffic Study

The presentation given earlier by Logan Stadnyk was discussed.

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Member Martin Dillon) that the Board

1 Commends Logan Stadnyk for his research and presentation on Mosgiel traffic, and recommends to the incoming community board that they follow up on the issues he has raised with council staff, and the school, with the potential for further study.

Motion carried (MTCB/2016/036)

9 Governance Support Officer's Report

The board requested a report back on funding provided to the Outram Charitable Trust.

Moved (Member Martin Dillon/Cr Kate Wilson) that the Board

Notes the report.

Motion carried (MTCB/2016/037)

10 Locking of Gates at West Taieri Cemetery

The chairman said there is nothing that suggests they should change the status quo which is to leave the gates closed but unlocked.

Moved (Member Blackie Catlow/Member Martin Dillon) that the Board

Resolves that the gates at the East Taieri Cemetery be left closed but unlocked.

Motion carried (MTCB/2016/038)

11 Library Report

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Member Martin Dillon) that the Board

Notes the report.

Motion carried (MTCB/2016/039)

12 Board Projects/Community Engagement

Sarah Nitis said she went to Taieri College and spoke to the students, encouraging them to take an interest in local politics. She then updated the community board on other projects. The Mosgiel sign framework has been erected. The next Taieri over the Tealeaves group will be held at the Railway Station. The community board would like to approve the design of the pocket park mural. Discussion was held on this.

Moved (Member Sarah Nitis/Cr Kate Wilson) that the Board

2 Notes the report.

Delegates the final sign off of the pocket park mural to the council's urban design architect and the building owner.

Motion carried (MTCB/2016/040)

13 Council Activities
	No discussion took place.

14 Chairperson's Report

Chairman Bill Feather thanked the members for their contributions to the community board. He offered his sincere wishes for success to those who were seeking re-election.

15 Acknowledgement of Retiring Member - Bill Feather

Cr Kate Wilson thanked Bill Feather for his work as chairman. She said he has always been loyal and passionate to his community, always polite, and she commended him on the amount of work he does out in the community.

She then presented him with a certificate of appreciation. Sarah Nitis also expressed thanks to the governance support team.

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Member Martin Dillon) that the Board

Records its sincere thanks to Bill Feather for the loyal and conscientious service given to the City of Dunedin as a member of the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board for the 9 year period 2007 to 2016.

Extends sincere appreciation for the services rendered and every good wish for the future.

Motion carried (MTCB/2016/041)

The meeting concluded at 3.48pm.

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

CHAIRPERSON

…………………………………………………….

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Council

19 September 2016

Saddle Hill Community Board

MINUTES

Unconfirmed Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Saddle Hill Community Board held in the Otaru Room, Civic Centre, The Octagon, Dunedin on Thursday 18 August 2016, commencing at 3.30 pm

PRESENT

Chairperson	Scott Weatherall
Deputy Chairperson	Pam Jemmett
Members	Keith McFadyen	John Moyle
	Leanne Stenhouse	Jonathan Usher
	Cr Andrew Whiley

IN ATTENDANCE

John Christie (Director, Enterprise Dunedin), Mayor Dave Cull, Dr Sue Bidrose (Chief Executive Officer) and Hamish Black (Parks Operations Manager)

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 Public Forum

6 Mayor and Chief Executive Officer Triennium Roundup

Mayor Dave Cull and Dr Sue Bidrose (Chief Executive Officer) provided an overview on Council activities over the past triennium. They spoke of debt reduction; the low level of rates increases; Dunedin economy; the strategic framework; and future challenges including the future of local government and climate change.

The Mayor and Dr Bidrose thanked the Chair and Board for their service and proactiveness in the community over the past triennium. They specifically noted their thanks for the support provided in the June 2015 floods and the Saddle Hill fire in October 2015.

1.1 Public Forum

Serious Safety Issues on Morris Road, Fairfield

Susan Wyngaarden-Low addressed the meeting on the safety issues on Morris Road, Fairfield and advised that she had lived in Morris Road, Fairfield for the past twenty years.

Mrs Wyngaarden-Low advised that she had contacted the Group Manager Transport with her concerns and now wanted to draw the Board’s attention to the serious safety issues on Morris Road of which she tabled photographs in support of her concerns.

Mrs Wyngaarden-Low commented that the area of road had slumped and deteriorated over the past two years and she was concerned about the safety issues this posed for cyclists and walkers. Mrs Wyngaarden-Low advised that both sides of the road have slipped and in her opinion, it would continue to slip unless remedial action was urgently taken.

She further commented that when travelling from Fairfield to Mosgiel, the right hand side of the road had slipped to the white side line which did not allow enough room for a car and cyclist or walker to be on the road together. The result would be that the cyclist and walker would be forced into a half metre ditch.

Mrs Wyngaarden-Low expressed her fear that should the road be left in the current state of continuing to slip, there could be serious health and safety issues such as somebody breaking an ankle or a cyclist being knocked off their bike and being seriously hurt or killed.

Mrs Wyngaarden-Low responded to questions and advised that in her opinion the road was in such a poor condition that it needed to be removed and reinstated.

Chatbus Funding Application

Jonathan Usher declared an interest in the item and withdrew from the discussion.

Averil Pierce addressed the meeting in support of the funding application from Chatbus. She advised that the operation had started with one bus, one counsellor and three schools however they had quickly outgrown themselves and now had three buses, additional counsellors and serviced 16 schools including Big Rock and Fairfield schools.

Ms Pierce advised that there had been an increase in demand for the service this year and in response to a question on referrals, advised that 53% of students were self-referred; 25% referred by staff; 20% by parents and 2% by other means. She commented that New Zealand had one of the highest rates of youth suicide and child abuse in the world which showed that help and support was needed therefore a goal of Chatbus was to normalise counselling and let children know it was okay to ask for help.

Ms Pierce provided information on the type of concerns raised by children and commented on a sample case study.

In response to a question on funding, Ms Pierce advised about the grants they applied for. She commented that they had a number of funders who provided regular funding however they did not receive support from the government and they still had an urgent need for support. She commented the service cost approximately $5,000 per annum to provide Chatbus to a school for half a day per week.

Big Rock Netball Junior Funding Application

Scott Weatherall (Chairperson) declared an interest in the item and withdrew from discussion and the Deputy Chair (Pam Jemmett) assumed the Chair.

Leanne Stenhouse declared an interest in the item and withdrew from discussion.

Ms Hale-Pauley addressed the meeting in support of the funding application from Big Rock Netball Junior for new netball uniforms. Ms Hale-Pauley commented that it was the first year the school had a netball team which was under the school umbrella but run independently. She advised that it was hoped they would have two teams for the next season with the inclusion of boys which would require additional uniforms. Ms Hale-Pauley advised that whilst the application was in the name of Big Rock Netball, the funding would need to be paid to Big Rock School.

There was a discussion on fundraising undertaken for the project and the ownership of the uniforms. Ms Hale-Pauley advised that the uniforms would be at the school however should they raise enough funding for personalised jackets or for any part of the uniform able to have the student’s names on, the uniform would become the property of the student.

Scott Weatherall assumed the Chair.

2 Apologies

There were no apologies.

3 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Pam Jemmett/Chairperson Scott Weatherall): that the Board

a) Confirms the agenda with the following addition or alteration:

· That the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer’s Update be taken prior to the Public Forum.

· That Item 14 be taken before Item 12 to allow Councillor Whiley to attend a prior commitment if required.

· That John Moyle be added to Item 15 – Acknowledgement of Retiring Members.

Motion carried (SHCB/2016/005)

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.

Jonathan Usher declared an interest in the Chatbus Trust funding application and Scott Weatherall and Leanne Stenhouse declared an interest in the Big Rock Netball Junior funding application.

5 Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 Saddle Hill Community Board meeting - 7 July 2016

Moved (Chairperson Scott Weatherall/ Leanne Stenhouse): that the Board

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Saddle Hill Community Board meeting held on 7 July 2016 as a correct record.

Motion carried (SHCB/2016/006)

Part A Reports

7 Funding Application - Big Rock Netball Jnr
	Scott Weatherall (Chairperson) and Leanne Stenhouse withdrew from this item and the Deputy Chair (Pam Jemmett) assumed the Chair.
	Moved (John Moyle/Keith McFadyen): that the Board a) Uplifts the Big Rock Netball Jnr funding application from the table. Motion carried (SHCB/2016/007)
	There was a discussion on the application from Big Rock Netball Junior for funding to provide netball uniforms for students on the team. The Board agreed that the application did not fit the criteria set for funding applications therefore they were unable to fund the project. The Board noted that the application was in the name of Big Rock Netball Junior yet the funding if approved, would be paid to Big Rock School which was also inconsistent with the criteria.
	Moved (John Moyle/Keith McFadyen): that the Board a) Declines the funding application from Big Rock Netball Junior Motion carried (SHCB/2016/008).
	The Chairperson (Scott Weatherall) assumed the Chair.
8 Funding Application - ChatBus Trust
	Jonathan Usher withdrew from this item. There was a discussion on the application from Chatbus Trust for funding towards the cost to provide the service. The Board were very supportive and noted the achievements of Chatbus however they were unable to provide funding towards salaries as this was inconsistent with the criteria set for funding applications. The Board agreed that they would provide funding towards counselling materials and running costs for the project.
	Moved (Pam Jemmett/ Leanne Stenhouse): that the Board a) Approves a grant of $1,500 to Chatbus Trust towards the cost of counselling materials and running costs. Motion carried (SHCB/2016/009)
9 Governance Support Officer's Report
	In a report from Civic, the Governance Support Officer (Lynne Adamson) provided an update on activities relevant to the Board including: Project Fund Community Cuppa and Conversation Transport Update An updated report from the Group Manager Transport (Richard Saunders) was tabled. The report provided an update on Creamery Road; Brighton/Taieri Mouth; Morris Road, Fairfield and a summary of the drive around. It was agreed that the update would be incorporated into the Action list. There was a discussion on the Morris Road slippage and the Board expressed their concern with the safety issues and that the problem had reoccurred. They agreed that an urgent solution was required and it was appropriate for an updated report to be presented to the next Board meeting. Parks Update The Parks Operations Manager (Hamish Black) was in attendance to provide an update on items relevant to the Board. Mr Black advised that transport had assumed responsibility for the maintenance of parks and reserves sealed car parks with the parks team being responsible for gravel car parks. Transport would address the issues with the Walton Park carpark. Mr Black advised that pricing had been sought for gravel car parks in the Board area including the Brighton Domain; Travis Memorial; Ocean View freedom camping; Braids Hill and smaller car parks by the beach. It was expected that these would be completed over the next few weeks. There was a discussion on the Walton Park mural and Mr Usher advised that the Fairfield School pupils had approved option two. Mr Black commented that consent had been approved for option three however it would be updated for option two. He advised that he would obtain a timeline for the work to be completed and relay the information to the Chair. Mr Usher left the meeting at 4.59 pm and returned at 5.03 pm. There was a discussion on Walton Park and Mr Black advised that one of the walking tracks had been gravelled last March and it was anticipated that the remainder would be completed before the end of the year. He requested that the Board give consideration to getting suggestions and feedback on the naming of the tracks. Mr Black advised that signage would be installed at the car park and then at each main entrance and agreed that the signs would reflect that a cycle helmet was compulsory. Mr Black commented on the new parks and trees maintenance contracts and advised that City Care had been allocated the southern sector which included the Saddle Hill Community Board area and that he would bring representatives from City Care to the next meeting. Mr Black commented on the spring renovation programme for sports fields which including priorities and forward planning. He discussed the Sunnyvale complex and advise that he was confident there would be an improvement in the levels of service provided. Mr Black sought feedback that the Board wanted to continue with the mixed recycling bins installed at the freedom camping site. The Board agreed that they would like the recycling continued and would like additional bins installed in places such as the Brighton Domain if possible. The Chair thanked Mr Black and his team for their work and support over the triennium.
	Moved (Keith McFadyen/Jonathan Usher): that the Board a) Notes the Governance Support Officer’s Report b) Approves Option 2 as the preferred design for the Walton Park mural. c) Amends the Action List as appropriate. Motion carried (SHCB/2016/010)

10 Enterprise Dunedin Update

It was agreed that this item would be deferred until the new triennium.

11 Board Updates

Greater Green Island Community Network

Ms Stenhouse provided an update on the Greater Green Island Community Network. She advised that the survey results had shown that the residents supported the current work which included the push for a local playground; areas for youth; cafes and the Lilliput libraries.

Ms Stenhouse commented that the Lilliput Libraries were extremely popular and that whilst the Greater Community Network had funded them, there was an opportunity for the Board to support the project if they desired. There was a discussion on the location of the libraries and health and safety concerns were raised over the Scroggs Hill Road placement. The Board agreed that the funding could be addressed by the new Board.

Keep Dunedin Beautiful

Suggestions for locations for the Keep Dunedin Beautiful Clean Up Week was set for 12-18 September had been placed on Facebook. The suggestion of the Kaikorai Estuary by the golf club had been the only one received.

There was a suggestion of sponsorship of a skip if local community organisations wanted to be involved and it was agreed that guidance would be sought from the Water and Waste Department prior to the booking. The Chair offered to liaise over the skip placement.

There was a discussion on the most suitable date and it was agreed that this would be investigated and agreed on by email.

Mr Usher commented that the challenge was to maintain membership for the Keep Dunedin Beautiful meetings as the 10.00 am meeting time on a Monday was difficult for many people. He advised that his recommendation to the new Board would be to establish if somebody was available to attend and if not, to identify a new method such as inviting the coordinator to a couple of meetings a year to enable communications with them.

Moved (Keith McFadyen/Cr Andrew Whiley): that the Board

a) Approves the sponsorship of a skip from Otago Metals up to the value of$250.00 for the purposes of the Keep Dunedin Beautiful Clean Up day with agreement from Water and Waste Services staff.

Motion carried (SHCB/2016/011)

14 Council Update

Councillor Whiley provided an update on the 2GP and LGNZ Conference.

Councillor Whiley thanked the Chair and Board for their work over the past triennium and commented that he had thoroughly enjoyed serving on the Community Board and on the impact this had made to him as a Councillor. He hoped, should he be re-elected, that he would have the opportunity to serve another term on the Board.

Councillor Whiley thanked Jonathan Usher and John Moyle for their work and wished them well for the future.

The Chair thanked Councillor Whiley for his contribution and positivity at the Council table on behalf of the Board.

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Chairperson Scott Weatherall): that the Board

a) Notes the report from Councillor Whiley.

Motion carried (SHCB/2016/012)

Councillor Whiley left the meeting at 5.28 pm.

12 Community Plan

The Board held a workshop on the Community Plan prior to the meeting. They agreed that the plan be updated and submitted to the incoming Board for adoption.

Moved (John Moyle/Keith McFadyen): that the Board

a) Endorses the updated Community Plan and refers it to the incoming Saddle Hill Community Board for adoption following the election.

Motion carried (SHCB/2016/013)

13 Chairperson's Report

A report from the Chairperson (Scott Weatherall) responded to matters of interest to the Board including:

· Brighton Footpath Meeting

· Drive around with staff

· Community Response Plans - the Chair advised that he planned to have the Community Response Plans updated prior to the end of the term and requested assistance from Board members.

· Discretionary Fund – the Chair encouraged members to think of Board championed projects.

· Youth Ambassador Award – the recipient of the 2015 Youth Ambassador Award, Madeline Guthrie provided an update on her activities over the past year including her trip to British Columbia, Canada with the New Zealand Secondary Students Choir. On the trip, she formed friendships with people from all around the world and was able to experience many diverse cultures embedded within choral singing. Madeline thanked the Board for their support which provided help towards financing the cost of the trip.

· Local Body Elections – the Chair wished those members re-standing all the best for the upcoming elections.

· Thanks – the Chair thanked members for their work over the triennium. He thanked and acknowledged the support from their partner’s and families.

The Chair also thanked Council staff for their support over the past three years.

a) The New Board – the Chair commented that the challenge for the new Board would be to take ownership and make a point of difference.

Moved (Chairperson Scott Weatherall/ Pam Jemmett): that the Board

a) Notes the Chairperson’s Report.

Motion carried (SHCB/2016/014)

Moved (Jonathan Usher/ Keith McFadyen): that the Board

a) Records its sincere thanks and appreciation to Scott Weatherall for his work and chairmanship over the triennium.

Motion carried (SHCB/2016/015)

15 Acknowledgement of Retiring Members - Jonathan Usher and john moyle
	The Chair thanked Messrs Usher and Moyle for all their work over the past nine years of service to the Saddle Hill Community Board. He commented that their community drive, commitment and enthusiasm had been invaluable. The Chair wished them well for the future.
	Moved (Chairperson Scott Weatherall/Member Keith McFadyen): that the Board a) Records its sincere thanks to Jonathan Usher for the loyal and conscientious service given to the City of Dunedin as a member of the Saddle Hill Community Board for the 9 year period 2007 to 2016. b) Extends its sincere appreciation for the services rendered and every good wish for the future. Motion carried (SHCB/2016/016)
	Moved (Chairperson Scott Weatherall/Keith McFadyen): that the Board a) Records its sincere thanks to John Moyle for the loyal and conscientious service given to the City of Dunedin as a member of the Saddle Hill Community Board for the 9 year period 2007 to 2016. b) Extends its sincere appreciation for the services rendered and every good wish for the future. Motion carried (SHCB/2016/017)

The meeting concluded at 5.42 pm.

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

CHAIRPERSON

12 Parks and Recreation Strategy 2016-2026
	In a report from Parks and Recreation endorsement was sought to proceed with community consultation on the draft Parks and Recreations Strategy (20166- 2026), including the Sport and Recreation Action Plan and the Open Space Action Plan. During the discussion Cr Bezett entered the meeting at 1.43pm A discussion took place on the links between the Strategy and other Council Strategy's, and also cultural events in Council parks.
	Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Kate Wilson): that the Committee a) Asks staff to add reference to areas of overlap with, or that reference other strategies e.g. 1) Cycling initiatives from Integrated Transportation Strategy 2) Pest Control from Environment Strategy. 3) Events in Arts and Culture Strategy b) Approves the draft Parks and Recreation Strategy (2016-2026), as amended, including the Sport and Recreation Action Plan and Open Space Action Plan for community consultation, subject to minor editorial amendments. c) Notes staff to report back following community consultation to Council in December 2016. Motion carried (CE/2016/031) with Cr Vandervis voting against
	Moved (Chairperson Jinty MacTavish/Cr Kate Wilson): that the Committee . a) Adjourn for 5 minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 2.16 pm and reconvened at 2.20 pm.
13 Sustainability Audit Subcommittee Minutes - 15 August 2016
	The General Manager Strategy and Governance advised that staff would re-work the minutes and they would be forwarded to Council for adoption.
	Moved (Chairperson Jinty MacTavish/Cr David Benson-Pope): that the Committee a) Withdraw the minutes and noting they will be considered by Council on 19 September 2016. . Motion carried (CE/2016/032)

Chairperson	Christine Garey
Deputy Chairperson	Paul Pope
Members	Lox Kellas	Hoani Langsbury
	Christine Neill	Edna Stevenson

10 Funding Applications
	A report from Civic appended funding applications from Quarantine Island/Kamau Taurua (Inc) for a portable marine radio and from the Portobello Blues Festival 2017 Committee for lighting and sound for the Festival. An explanation was given that the Quarantine Island/Kamau Taurua (Inc) application was important for health and safety reasons.
	Moved (Lox Kellas/Paul Pope): That the Board: a) Grants the funding application from Quarantine Island/Kamau Taurua (Inc) for $798.00. Motion carried (OPCB/2016/027)
	Moved (Edna Stevenson/Paul Pope): That the Board: b) Grants the funding application from Portobello Blues Festival 2017 Committee for $750.00. Motion carried (OPCB/2016/028)

12 Working Parties/Board Area Liaison Updates
	a) Keep Dunedin Beautiful

	Paul Pope reported that Clean Up New Zealand Week would be held in September.

	b) Rural Roads Update

	Lox Kellas reported on potholes in Hoopers Inlet Road.

	c) Area Updates

	Board members provided updates from their areas of responsibility. Paul Pope updated the Board on a submission for Internet New Zealand, money received by the Hereweka Trust for its Trees that Count project, gritting issues, provision made by the Otago Regional Council regarding Tomahawk Lagoon flooding, and the need for people to log their calls with the Council's Customer Services Agency. Hoani Langsbury remarked that the new contractors, City Care, were doing an exceptional job with parks and bins and were regularly addressing issues. Christine Neill advised that the Pukehiki recycling depot was still on trial. There had been excellent communication with the community regarding the skip. Edna Stevenson commented on the recent Te Rauone Beach Coast Care Committee meeting. Port Otago was now on board. An independent engineer's report was needed on the original design. Beca had been appointed to the project and would come back on variations to the design and progress the resource consent application. The Chairperson extended thanks to the Te Rauone Beach Coast Care Committee for the work it was doing and noted that the project was on track.

Chairperson	Barry Williams
Deputy Chairperson	Joan Wilson
Members	Russell Anderson	Bevan Dowling
	Karen Dunn	Noel Matthews

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

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

8 Sustainability Audit Subcommittee - 15 August 2016
	A discussion took place on the minutes, noting that the recommendations should have been in Part B. Staff were asked to investigate the matter and provide advice prior to the end of the meeting.
	Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Hilary Calvert): that the Committee a) Defer discussion on the minutes of the Sustainability Audit Subcommittee meeting held on 15 August 2016 until the end of the meeting. Motion carried (CE/2016/027)

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

7 Items for Consideration by the Chair
	There were no items identified for consideration

7 Chairperson Report
	Middlemarch Community Hall Refurbishment Deputy Chairperson Wilson provided an update on the meeting with Ms Reid ( Property Officer – Civic Property) and advised they were awaiting building consents for the proposed log burners. Double doors on the outside wall leading into the Stage side supper room would be part of the Middlemarch Hall development. It was agreed that the Governance Support Officer would provide updates of progress of consents for the two log burners. NZTA Chairperson advised that Graham Hall has been in contact who commented that he was now the Planning and Investment Manager for NZTA although was continuing to oversee his Safer Journey's position until a replacement was found. Nick Rodger (Maintenance Contract Manager) and Roy Johnson (Senior Safety Manager) was to be contacted along with Graham Hall to invite them to the next board meeting to discuss · The addition of blue frost lights on State Highway 87 · The addition of more truck laybys to increase driver safety on State Highway 87 between Middlemarch and Outram · The 50km sign at the Outram cemetery (which have been there for 2 months) · Solid yellow line outside Community Hall to prevent trucks stopping and thus blocking line of sight at the Stop sign Resource and Building Consents The Board noted that it wished to be advised of consents applied for in the Strath Taieri catchment area. Broadband and Wifi Coverage Noel Matthews advised the Board that Spark had offered to monitor 3 resident's broadband connections and identify the issues experienced by those users in the area. Clare Curran MP had been in contact with Internet NZ, who did yearly community funding for Internet Research and Community Funding. Ms Curran advised Mr Matthews that Strath Taieri Wifi Hub was a suitable project to receive funding. The Community Project was open for applications and the first round closed on 28 August2016. Mr Matthews commented that he was going to apply for funding for a Wifi hub at the Library on behalf of the Strath Taieri Community Board. It was agreed that the Governance Support Officer would provide a map which outlined where the Gig City community funding extended to. Transport The Board noted that the following roads were in need of maintenance. · Shinglea Road – massive potholes · Pukerangi Road – Potholes covering the width of the road · Mt Stoker Road · Farm Road – permanent corrugations · Kidd Road · Hartfield Road Mr Dyer (Parks and Recreation Manager) advised that he would follow up with the Richard Saunders, Transport Manager. Community Resource List The Board identified that this needed to be updated.
	Moved (Chair Barry Williams/ Bevan Dowling): that the Board a) Advertise in the Taieri Pet the Community Resource List questionnaire to gather information of resources held by the Community in case of an civil emergency Motion carried (STCB/2016/018)
	Moved (Joan Wilson/ Bevan Dowling): that the Board a) Notes the report Motion carried (STCB/2016/019)

8 Council Activities
	There was no update provided as the Ward Councillor had tendered an apology.

9 Items for consideration by the Chair
	There were no items for consideration.

Chairperson	Steve Walker
Deputy Chairperson	Trevor Johnson
Members	Peter Cole	Ange McErlane
	Cr Andrew Noone	Raewynne Pedofski