Agenda of Council - 12 December 2016

Council

12 December 2016

Reports

Minor Extension of Alcohol Restriction Area

Department: Customer and Regulatory Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The police have asked for consideration to be given to the expansion of the central city restriction area into neighbouring streets as well as the inner city carparks. They would also like further consideration to be given to a broader extension to the central city restriction.

2 The area covered by the provisions of the Liquor (Control of Liquor in Public Places) Bylaw 2004 (the ‘bylaw’ – Attachment A) has remained unchanged since its introduction.

3 A minor extension of the central city area to include the main carparks and streets immediately adjacent to the current area may be done by resolution pursuant to section 156(2) of the LGA if Council considers there would be only a minor impact on the public in those areas.

4 The bylaw was last reviewed in 2012, but the introduction of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the ‘Act’) has seen some definitions change both in this Act and the Local Government Act 2002 following amendments to the legislation. The bylaw requires editorial changes to reflect new definitions of words and phrases. There will be no changes to the duties and responsibilities detailed in the bylaw therefore consultation will not be required.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the minor extension of the alcohol restriction area as shown in Schedule B of the amended bylaw at Attachment D, and described as (list streets)

i) George Street between The Octagon and Albany Street, Princes Street between The Octagon and Jetty Street and all public places including streets, service lanes, lanes, footpaths, carparks and reserves (including The Octagon, Exchange, Queens Gardens, Railway Station and the grounds of First Church) within the areas bounded by, and including both sides of:

· Filleul, London and George Streets; and,

· Albany, Malcolm and Cumberland Streets; and,

· Lower Stuart Street to the Railway Station; and,

· Queens Gardens (east), High and Rattray Streets; and,

· Bond, Jetty and Manse Streets; and,

· Broadway and Rattray Street; and,

· Smith Street and York Place to Filleul Street; and,

· The skatepark park situated at Thomas Burns Street.

b) Determines that it is satisfied that in respect to the area that is subject to the minor extension:

i) There is evidence that the area to which the bylaw applies has experienced a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area;

ii) The minor extension is appropriate and proportionate in respect of the high level of crime or disorder experienced;

iii) The provisions of the bylaw are a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms

c) Approves the editorial changes in the Liquor (Control of Liquor in Public Places) Bylaw 2004.

d) Notes that the extended area will take effect from 14 days after the resolution is publicly notified in the Otago Daily Times.

e) Notes that staff will report back to Council regarding a wider extension to the central city restriction, and the extension of the bylaw to an area in North Dunedin in 2017.

BACKGROUND

5 The current Liquor (Control of Liquor in Public Places) Bylaw 2004 was introduced when the 2003 restriction developed pursuant to the Local Government Act 1974 was repealed and the LGA 2002 took effect. The Council received a request from the police to continue with an alcohol restriction and after consultation, found the earlier restriction had led to a reduction in the incidence of alcohol-related problems in the central city and it did not impinge on people’s rights pursuant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

6 In 2012 the Bylaw underwent a review at the same time the community was consulted on a proposal to extend the restriction area into North Dunedin permanently. The extension was not adopted at that time because there were other initiatives being undertaken to address the alcohol-related matters in the area. The bylaw was still found to be appropriate for the control of alcohol-related issues in the central city.

7 When the bylaw was developed, carparks not under the control of Council could not be included in the restriction area. The police reported the supermarket carparks to be problem areas which could not be dealt with effectively unless a crime had been committed. The 2012 amendment of the LGA changed the definition of ‘public place’ for the purposes of alcohol restrictions to include carparks open to the public.

DISCUSSION

8 The Police have reported that there have been changes in the late night environment resulting from closure of premises and the new alcohol legislation. This has led to changed drinking habits and the subsequent shift of alcohol-related issues to areas outside the current restriction area.

9 Section 145 of the LGA states the criteria for establishing a bylaw generally and these were used when considering whether or not an alcohol restriction could be justified. The criteria are:

a) Protecting the public from nuisance

b) Protecting, promoting and maintaining public health and safety

c) Minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

10 In 2012 an amendment of the LGA was made with the insertion of section 147A which raised the threshold for introducing an alcohol restriction, or retaining an existing restriction. The Council must now also be satisfied that –

a) there is evidence that the area to which the bylaw applies (or will apply by virtue of the resolution) has experienced a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been in the area; and

b) the bylaw, as applied by the resolution, -

(i) is appropriate and proportionate in light of the evidence; and

(ii) can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

11 The introduction of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 also introduced an amendment to the LGA which changed the definition of a public place to now include areas open to and used by the public so now carparks not controlled by Council can now be part of an alcohol restriction area.

12 A minor extension of the current restriction will take in both the inner city carparks and an area extending from Upper Moray Place to Tennyson Street.

13 The police acknowledge alcohol restrictions are not the panacea for alcohol-related harm in the city but they are part of the answer. In support of their request the police supplied a thematic map showing the intensity of calls for service in the central city (Attachment B). The data used to prepare the maps is made up of ‘calls for service’ by members of the public to incidents in the area. It does not include incidents found by the police patrols nor the scale of an incident.

Minor Extension by Resolution of Council

14 The amended definition of a public place to include carparks not controlled by Council allows the inclusion of the inner city carparks associated with the two supermarkets and the hospital. At the time the bylaw was drafted this was not possible even though the evidence supplied by the police at the time indicated there were issues in these areas. Information provided for this report suggests the carparks are still a problem with calls for service to alcohol-related incidents.

15 View Street has become an attractive rental area for young people particularly students. This has resulted in an increased number of alcohol-related issues being reported to Council and the police. These issues primarily relate to noise and disorderly behaviour both in the street and from within specific dwellings. The police believe the restriction will allow the police to better manage people in the public spaces which will have a general positive impact on the area.

16 A minor extension of the restriction area as indicated in Map 1 would address the more immediate concerns covering issues in View Street and the main inner city carparks.

Map 1: Current Restriction Area with Minor Extension

Red outlines the current restriction area

Blue outlines the proposed minor extension

17 While there are some dwellings in View Street and Smith Street near York Place, it is unlikely the extension of the alcohol restriction to take in this area will have more than a minor impact on the public.

18 The Council has sought the views and preferences of home owners, complainants for alcohol related incidents reported to the Council and the Police have provided their views in respect minor extension proposed.

Editorial Amendments to the Bylaw

19 The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 has removed the word ‘liquor’ and replaced it with ‘alcohol’. The definition has also been expanded to cover the new alcoholic products available.

20 Section 15 of the new alcohol legislation now allows people who have taken alcohol to a restaurant to remove the alcohol not consumed if the container is still sealed or resealed. The bylaw does not currently allow this so will require an amendment to include a clause allowing the removal of unconsumed alcohol. It is recommended the following clause is inserted in the bylaw:

“4.1(d) The transport of that alcohol not consumed at a licensed premises adjoining the specified public place to outside the specified public place, provided the bottle or container is unopened or resealed, and provided the alcohol is promptly removed from the specified public place.”

21 The definition of ‘public place’ has been amended in the Local Government Act 2002 to remove the requirement to be ‘under control of the Council’. A ‘public place’ now means:

“a place that is open to or is being used by the public, whether free or on payment of a charge, and whether any owner or occupier of the place is lawfully entitled to exclude or eject any person from it; but does not include licensed premises.”

22 The changes will ensure the correct definitions, terminology and legislation are reflected in the bylaw. Section 156 of the LGA allows the Council to make the editorial changes by resolution publicly notified because they do not affect any duties or responsibilities of any person in relation to the bylaw.

23 A draft of an amended bylaw with the changes highlighted is attached as Attachment D.

OPTIONS

24 The editorial changes to the bylaw should be implemented so that it reflects the current legislation.

25 There are two options for Council to consider in relation to the police request for the minor extension to the alcohol restriction area.

Option One – Status quo

26 This would mean there would be no extension to the area covered by the bylaw.

Advantages

· No further action would be required by Council.

Disadvantages

· The police would continue to have no additional tools to effectively deal with the issues identified in the inner city carparks.

· There continues to be limited ability for the police to be proactive at an early stage when potential issues are identified outside the current area.

Option Two – Extend the inner city restriction area to the minor extent by resolution (recommended option)

27 The minor amendment to the bylaw would be considered to have only a minor impact on the public so the inner city area would be expanded to include the main inner city carparks as well as View and Tennyson Streets.

Advantages

· The main congregation points, the inner city carparks and Tennyson Street, would be included in the restriction area which would allow the police to more effectively control areas which they report are often the scenes of late night disorder.

· The concerns expressed by the residents of View Street would be addressed.

· The minor changes could be achieved in time for the start of the academic year.

Disadvantages

· None identified

recommendation

28 That the editorial changes are made to the bylaw by resolution and publicly notified.

29 Option 2 - That the ‘minor extension’ to the alcohol restriction area as indicated in Map 1 is considered to only have a minor negative impact on the public and is adopted by resolution of the Council and publicly notified.

NEXT STEPS

30 If the recommended option is approved, staff will amend the bylaw to include the editorial changes and publicly notify the changes.

31 A report considering options for a greater extension of the inner city restriction, and the inclusion of a defined area of North Dunedin, as requested by the police will be prepared for consideration by Council in 2017. This extension would be more significant and the special consultative procedure would apply. Any consultation would need to be done when the majority of affected people are in the city therefore this report is programmed for 2017.

Signatories

Author:

Kevin Mechen - Secretary, District Licensing Committee

Authoriser:

Adrian Blair - Group Manager Customer and Regulatory Services

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Liquor (Control of Liquor in Public Places) Bylaw 2004	19
b	Thematic map showing calls for service in central city area	24
c	Calls for Service 2011 - 2015 by year	25
d	Alcohol (Control of Alcohol in Public Places) Bylaw 2004	27

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This proposal relates to providing a regulatory function and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective. It will provide the police with an early intervention tool to help minimise alcohol-related harm in an area and at a time of high-risk to young people.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☐	☐	☒
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

The proposal contributes to the Social Wellbeing Strategy in that it will support a ‘healthy and safe people’. The proposal will contribute to minimising the risk of alcohol-related harm.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for the LTP or Annual Plan.

Financial considerations

There will be a small cost associated with renewing signage in the extended area.

Significance

The proposal has been assessed under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as being of low significance.

Engagement – external

Section 156 of the LGA outlines the consultation requirements when amending bylaws made under the Act. The special consultative procedure must be used when the matter is of significant interest to the public or the local authority considers there will be, or likely to be, a significant impact on the public resulting from the changes. Due to the small extent of the new area to be included within the bylaw it is considered that the amendment to the bylaw proposed is not a matter that is likely to have a significant impact on the public. Therefore Council must consult in a manner that gives effect to the requirements of section 82 of the Act. Extensive engagement has occurred with the Police. Home owners in the streets that are subject to the extended area and complainants who have reported alcohol related incidents in the streets the subject of this restriction have been consulted and are very supportive of the recommended option.

Engagement - internal

Council staff with an interest in the issue have been consulted.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

No risks have been identified. The prevention of alcohol related harm has been prioritised by Parliament, therefore the recommended option is not considered to be contrary to or inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflict of interest

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

12 December 2016

Future Use of Tomahawk School Site

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report presents the outcome of the Expressions of Interest (EOI) process for the future use of the 1.6ha former Tomahawk School site at 31 Luke Street, Ocean Grove.

2 It is recommended that Council grant a 20 year lease of the buildings and immediate surrounding area to the Andersons Bay Community Kindergarten (the Kindergarten) for the purposes of early childhood education, community use and research base. The remaining green space will be retained by Council for dune protection and public recreational activity.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

a) Approves a twenty year lease for the former Tomahawk School buildings and immediate surrounds being granted to Andersons Bay Community Kindergarten for the area agreed for the purpose of early childhood education, community use and research base.

b) Notes that the site will be held as fee simple and managed in accordance with the Coastal Dune Reserves Management Plan (2010).

c) Notes that staff will arrange for the demolition of the old school pool as soon as possible.

BACKGROUND

3 The Tomahawk School site was originally part of Ocean Grove Domain (now Ocean Grove Local Purpose – Coastal Protection Reserve) but was acquired in 1959 under the Public Works Act 1928 and set aside for a public school.

4 The Tomahawk School was closed by the Ministry of Education 2010 and subsequently purchased by Kāi Tahu.

5 In January 2012, Council purchased the site and buildings for the primary purpose of coastal protection from Kāi Tahu for $300,000. At the time, a potential subdivision was mooted to enable a portion to be sold to offset some of the cost.

6 Subsequent investigations discounted the option to subdivide for residential purposes, as approximately 3000m² of the site is capped landfill. This is outside of the proposed leased area that is identified in Appendix A.

7 In March 2016, the Community and Environment Committee resolved:

a) Approves an expression of interest on the future of the Tomahawk School site noting that the site is not deemed suitable for subdivision and resale

b) Requests a report back with options and costs for the future use of the Tomahawk school site on completion of the expression of interest.

c) Notes that until a decision is made the site will be held as fee simple and managed in accordance with the Coastal Dune Reserves Management Plan (2010).

DISCUSSION

Expression of Interest Process

8 A public Expression of Interest (EOI) was open from 3 June – 18 July.

9 Staff and the Otago Peninsula Community Board held two open days on site to allow the public and potential submitters to view the usually locked buildings. Each open day had an average of 35 people through walk through the buildings and site.

10 The EOI process required submissions to address the following information:

· How the proposal will affect or enhance the environment.

· How the proposal is to be funded – if applicable capital funding and/or ongoing operational funding.

· An approximate timeframe for the proposed project to be completed.

· Potential benefits for the community and/or local area.

· Whether the buildings and facilities will be retained or demolished.

Submissions Received

11 Following the conclusion of EOI process, staff reviewed applications and sought further information where required.

12 A summary of submissions received can be seen in attachment B.

Preferred Submitter

13 Andersons Bay Community Kindergarten (the Kindergarten) currently operates out of the Anderson Bay Presbyterian Church on Silverton Street. In 2014 the church received unfavourable earthquake building reports. The Kindergarten has been actively looking for new premises since.

14 The Kindergarten proposal fitted the criteria outlined in the EOI and provides a suitable solution to the future site. A strong desire to work with other potential submitters, such as Grant Braes Football Club and the Ecotago Trust to use the site and provide services for the community was strongly represented in the submission.

15 Four letters of support were received for the Kindergarten's submission from the Tomahawk Smails Beachcare Trust, Ocean Grove Community Trust, Relax Kids and Ecotago- whom also submitted for the use of the Dental clinic building.

16 The submission outlined a desire to lease the land and use the old school buildings; dental clinic and a footprint around the building (see attachment A).

17 The below table outlines indicative costs received in March 2016 for improvements to the current buildings, the Kindergarten has not requested any financial contribution from Council to make the required improvements to the buildings, they are requesting a Community Recreational Lease over the footprint outlined in Attachment A.

Table 1	Industrial Standard Improvements	Community Use Standard Improvements
School pool	n/a	$530,000- $600,000
Main school block	$75,000	$150,000
Sport shed	$20,000	n/a
Dental clinic	$20,000	n/a
Playground slabs	n/a	n/a
Wood chip area	n/a	n/a
TOTAL	$115,000	$680,000 - $750,000 (incl pool)

Demolition of the Old School Pool

18 The old School pool has not been operational for a number of years. The cost to recommission the pool into a working state has been costed at a minimum of $600,000.

19 Eight of the nine submissions received supported demolition of the pool from the old school site. Cost obtained in March 2016 estimates the demolition to cost $19,000.

20 It is recommend that staff proceed with procuring the removal of the old school pool at Councils cost to remove any potential health and safety risks the structure currently presents and make good the site.

Relevant Land Status and Legislation

21 The site is fee simple land. As open space, the Local Government Act 1974 provides protection for the site from divestment without public consultation.

22 Ocean Grove Reserve falls within an Urban Landscape Conservation Area (ULCA 17) in the Dunedin City District Plan, requiring any development to take into account the natural landscape qualities and character of the setting.

23 The Dunedin City Coastal Dune Reserves Management Plan 2010 aims for Ocean Grove Reserve are:

· to protect and enhance the sand dunes to provide natural protection from coastal hazards

· to protect, maintain and enhance coastal biodiversity

· to provide for casual recreation and access to the adjacent beach, as well as access to the existing sportsfield for more formal sport activity.

OPTIONS

24 Nine individual submissions were received, with an additional seven letters of support/endorsement for some of these proposals. The first two options outlined below met the EOI criteria.

Option One – Andersons Bay Community Kindergarten (Recommended Option)

25 Andersons Bay Community Kindergarten, to lease the land outlined in Attachment A and take over ownership of the old main school building and dental clinic. This proposal fully complied with the EOI criteria. The Kindergarten consulted with the Ocean Grove/Tomahawk community on relocating its operations in July 2016.

Advantages

· Reuse of school buildings

· Funding of site lease and building upgrade costs covered by the Kindergarten

· Proposal received the highest numbers of written support, including from the Peninsula Community Board and members of the community.

· Existing successful community kindergarten – sustainable external income

· Long-term proposal

· Would function as a community hub. The Kindergarten only intends to use space around the main buildings and would work with other groups to manage the site, including Grants Braes Football Club, ECOTAGO Trust and Tomahawk/Smaills BeachCare Trust. Potential use by other community groups out of kindergarten operating hours

· Provides for planting of endemic and native plants around the grounds as well as caring for the dune ecosystem.

Disadvantages

· There are no disadvantages to this option

Option Two – Motorhome Caravan Park

26 Submission to turn the site into a member’s only motor caravan park. The applicant would prefer to purchase the site and would make reserve available as an assembly area for disaster, or for other privately arranged gatherings within the community. This proposal fully complied with the EOI criteria.

Advantages

· Dunes less likely to be disturbed by trail bikes with afterhours passive surveillance

· Potential reduction in freedom camping demand at other sites

· Public pedestrian access retained

· Proposal fully funded by applicant

· Council could realise a financial gain on sale

· Long-term proposal

· Beneficial plantings and development undertaken in accordance with Coastal Management Plan

Disadvantages

· Removal of main school building for use elsewhere

· Vehicle access would be restricted to motor home group members

· Larger vehicle and access numbers increased along Luke Street

· Would not function as a community hub

Option Three – Status Quo

27 Continue to maintain the Tomahawk school site at the approximate cost of $2,000 per year. This would not meet the EOI criteria.

Advantages

· No unbudgeted financial costs

Disadvantages

· The site continues to deteriorate, necessitating on-going repairs and maintenance and potentially poses a health and safety risk to the public

Option Four – Montessori School

28 Submission to use the site for a new Montessori school. This proposal partially complied with the EOI criteria.

Advantages

· Reuse of school buildings

· Able to be used by multiple community groups

Disadvantages

· Funding sought from council for maintenance and repurposing of buildings

Option Five – Football Fields

29 Proposal to turn site into two football fields, one full size 100mx64m training turf, and one mini-soccer 60mx35m field for junior training and matches. This proposal partially complied with the EOI criteria.

Advantages

· New soccer fields for the City

· Proposal with second highest level of written support

· Neighbourhood and environmentally friendly option – still allows access and use by existing user groups

· Establish vehicle barriers to prevent access to motorbikes and protect dunes

· Could potentially be used in conjunction with another group

Disadvantages

· Demolition of school buildings

· Seeking financial input from the DCC and other, as yet, unsecured funding

· Limited use at times if site primarily only open to soccer

· Limited function as a community hub

Option Six – Day Care, Early Childhood and Community Centre

30 Submission to turn site into a Community Centre, including walking tracks along the reserve area; a parking lot away from the reserve; day care centre for 5 and under; early childhood learning school; swimming facility and dental clinic for children; plunket clinic/counselling facility area; and cafeteria. This proposal partially complied with the EOI criteria.

Advantages

· Able to be used by multiple community groups

· Intention of an eco-friendly option, using design to blend in with surroundings and environment

· Intention to use existing structures and layout

Disadvantages

· Funding required from external agencies, primarily council

Option Seven – Community early childhood centre based on sustainable practice

31 Proposal to establish an early childhood centre based around an environmentally friendly ethos and sustainable practice. This proposal partially complied with the EOI criteria.

Advantages

· Reuse of school buildings

· Establishment of gardens and planting of natives to enhance the area

· Provides community hub and supports parent education

· Continued use of playing fields

· Potential redevelopment of school pool

Disadvantages

· Upgrading of school house and continued maintenance expected to be borne by the council

Option Eight – Transitional type housing facility for homeless youth

32 Proposal to establish a transitional house for homeless youth, providing between 6-18 beds. This proposal partially complied with the EOI criteria.

Advantages

· Reuse of existing school buildings

· Provides a safe facility for at risk or vulnerable youth

· Community garden and park planned

Disadvantages

· Initial funding sought from council if fundraising is insufficient

· Would not function as a community hub

Option Nine – Freedom Camping site

33 Proposal to establish a freedom camping site with basic facilities, including BBQ/eating area, toilets and water. This proposal partially complied with the EOI criteria.

Advantages

· Will help take the overflow from Dunedin’s two dedicated freedom camping sites

· Reuse of school buildings and facilities

Disadvantages

· Potential threat to dunes from freedom campers' use

· Would not function as a community hub

NEXT STEPS

34 If the recommended option is adopted by Council, staff will work with the Kindergarten to assign a lease for the land and transfer ownership of the buildings. Demolition of the school pool will proceed.

Signatories

Author:

Angus Robertson - Recreation Planner

Authoriser:

Jendi Paterson - Recreation Planning and Facilities Manager

Tom Dyer - Acting Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Ruth Stokes - General Manager Infrastructure and Networks

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Site map	41
b	Summary of Submissions Received	42

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision relates to providing a public service and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

Consultation undertaken with the community on the future use of the site has assisted in delivering a final outcome which supports the priorities of the council’s strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

Given the prior sale of this site to DCC from Ngai Tahu, and the issuing of the EOI process to the wider community, it is anticipated that there will be no cultural implications or impact on manawhenua.

Sustainability

The recommended option detailed in this report would provide a socially, environmentally and fiscally sustainable outcome for the use of the site.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The proposal is not specifically contained in the Long Term Plan but is consistent with the operating principles.

Financial considerations

The initial purchase was met by existing budgets. On-going maintenance costs have been allowed for in current Parks and Recreation budgets. If the recommended option is adopted, costs of maintenance and upgrade to the buildings will be borne by the new tenant.

Demolition costs of the school pool have been quoted at $19,000 in May, 2016 and can be meet by existing budgets.

Significance

The decision is considered low with regards to the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Previous community meetings have occurred around both the use of this site and the state of the current community hall at Ocean Grove Recreation Reserve. The Expressions of Interest process has generated responses from members and groups from the local community. Furthermore, a number of community members and groups wrote letters in support of some of these Expressions of Interest.

Engagement - internal

City Property have been involved in providing advice on the initial purchase and future use of the school site

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no risks associated with this decision.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest associated with this decision

Community Boards

The Otago Peninsula Community Board has an interest in the Tomahawk School site. They have been involved in engagement with the community prior to a decision being made on the future of the school site and are supportive of the recommendation.

Aramoana Wharf Removal

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report recommends the removal of the Aramoana Wharf due to the unsafe and deteriorating condition of the wharf. The structure has reached a stage where allowing it to remain is a risk to public safety. A proposal to restore the Wharf will not ensure that public safety risks are avoided.

2 It is recommended that the structure is removed at an estimated cost of $40,000 as soon as possible.

3 Staff will continue to work with external stakeholders on any proposals to reinstate a structure at this site.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the removal of the Aramoana wharf due to the risk posed to public health and safety.

b) Notes that staff will continue to work with the Aramoana community on future options for new structures or potential developments where the current Aramoana wharf is located.

BACKGROUND

4 The Aramoana Wharf (the Wharf) is a coastal structure that was transferred into the ownership of the Dunedin City Council in 1989 as a consequence of local government amalgamations.

5 The Wharf had a structural condition and risk assessment carried out in 2012 which recommended the installation of a plywood barrier and signage to prevent public access due to the structure being in a dangerous condition. This report also acknowledged the risks associated with the condition of the structure.

6 Staff reported to the Community Development Committee in 2012 with a recommendation to demolish the wharf following that inspection. However, the committee resolved, to engage in further discussions with the Aramoana League around the possible restoration of the wharf.

7 Subsequently, in June 2015, the Community and Environment Committee considered the Aramoana League’s wharf restoration proposal following its receipt of the Aramoana Spit Jetty - Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment.

It was moved (Noone/Wilson):

"That the Committee

1. Accepts and approves the Aramoana League's restoration and funding plan for the Aramoana wharf.

2. Approves that once restored, the Aramoana wharf will be owned, managed and maintained by Parks, Recreation and Aquatic Services from existing budgets on an on-going basis.

3. Notes the Aramoana Spit Jetty Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment 2015 Report."

Motion carried

DISCUSSION

8 Staff held a meeting with the Aramoana Wharf Restoration Trust (the Trust) and opposed parties in March 2016.

9 This meeting discussed concerns surrounding the restoration and considered solutions to allow for the Trust and staff to progress through to applying for a Department of Conservation (DoC) Concession. Unfortunately an agreed approach and future was unable to be reached by both parties.

10 It should be noted that a number on conservation groups and individuals do not support the restoration, or have concerns regarding the restoration of the wharf and its impact.

11 An independent assessment of the structural of the Wharf was then completed in July 2016. The inspection was visual and photographic. Physical access was not possible due to immediate health and safety concerns. The full report from MWH is attached as Attachment A (The MWH Report).

12 The MWH Report concludes that the structure is in a very dangerous condition and is at a high risk of collapse at any time. This could occur from wave action during heavy seas.

13 The MWH report recommends that in the interest of public safety the wharf be removed. The report did not investigate remediation options but commented that the only viable option would be a total reconstruction.

14 Removal of the wharf can be carried out using methods that are sensitive to the Trust’s restoration plans. Salvageable portions of the super structure could potentially be gifted back to the Trust or stored for a period of time for future works. The piles are not salvageable. The cost of removal is estimated to be $40,000.

OPTIONS

Option One – Remove the Aramoana wharf structure (Recommended Option)

15 This option allows for the structure to be removed and resolves all marine and harbour safety and hazard issues.

Advantages

· The Council would not be at risk of creating a hazard within the harbour in which potential harm could be incurred.

· Removes future costs of maintaining an asset in a condition currently unfit for purpose.

· Does provide for reuse of certain material in any restoration project.

Disadvantages

· The $40,000 cost estimate to the Council to remove the existing structure in isolation from the restoration plan.

Option Two – Restoration of the Wharf

16 While restoration of the wharf is an option, this is not recommended by staff as any restoration will take considerable time and the health and safety risks require an immediate solution.

Advantages

· The Aramoana community would retain a harbour asset.

· Supports the work the Trust has undertaken to date for the restoration of the wharf.

Disadvantages

· There is ongoing risk to members of the public because of the physical condition of the structure.

· The continued deterioration of the wharf cannot be avoided and is a maritime hazard within the harbour environment.

· Current state of the wharf prevents community use until further restoration is complete.

Option Three – Status Quo

· This is not an option given the health and safety risks posed by the state of the wharf.

NEXT STEPS

17 If Council approves the recommended option, staff will work with contractors to undertake the removal of the Aramoana wharf structure ensuring any materials that can be salvaged will be.

18 Staff will continue to support the Trust’s restoration plan and will work with the Trust and with external stakeholders on future wharf structures in the Aramoana coastal area.

Signatories

Author:

Jendi Paterson - Recreation Planning and Facilities Manager

Authoriser:

Tom Dyer - Acting Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Ruth Stokes - General Manager Infrastructure and Networks

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Structural condition and risk assessment	50
b	Photographic assessment	53

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision relates to providing local infrastructure and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☐	☐	☒
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☐

The proposal supports the outcomes of four of the strategies, providing for public safety in recreational area and mitigates any adverse environmental impacts to the Aramoana saltmarsh and dune system.

Māori Impact Statement

Both the Trust and Peter Petchey consulted with Te Runanga o Otakou as part of the original proposal and research for the Archaeological and Heritage Assessment 2015.

Sustainability

During the removal staff will work closely with the Otago Regional Council and DoC to ensure any environmental changes and demands are worked through.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This is not included in the LTP.

Financial considerations

The cost to deconstruct the wharf can be meet within existing budgets

Significance

This is considered low significance with Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

DoC, Port Otago, and the Otago Regional Council have been consulted along with the Conservation Groups and Forest and Bird representatives.

Engagement - internal

Engagement within the Parks and Recreation department.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The current structure has deteriorated to the extent there is a real risk of the structure falling apart and becoming a harbour hazard. This is detailed more fully in the body of the report and in the attachments.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Chalmers Community Board has previously supported the proposal to restore the wharf and have been kept up to date on the current recommendation of removing the wharf.

Council

12 December 2016

Review of Reserves Bylaw 2005

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 A review of the Reserves Bylaw 2005 (the Bylaw) commenced on 4 October 2016. The outcome of the review is a recommendation that Council revokes the existing bylaw and makes a new bylaw to control reserves and beaches. This report seeks approval to commence the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) and approval of the Statement of Proposal to revoke the Bylaw and make a new Reserves and Beaches bylaw.

2 The proposal also seeks to consult on the topic of dogs within reserves and beaches. Those submissions will be included in the review of the Dog Control Bylaw 2016 which will commence in 2017.

There are three main proposals being consulted on:

a) The expansion of the scope of the bylaw to include beaches as well as reserves so that management of these spaces is consistent.

b) Expanding provisions to control the use of vehicles and aircraft (including drones) on reserves and beaches.

c) Inclusion of speed limit and access restrictions for vehicles and boats on reserves and beaches

Freedom Camping is not included in the statement of proposal as Council will consider this issue separately in 2017 in relation to amendments to the Camping Control Bylaw 2015.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the Statement of Proposal to revoke the Reserves Bylaw 2005 and make a new bylaw, the Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017.

b) Notes that staff will report the outcome of the public consultation and final draft Bylaw for adoption by Council in mid-2017.

BACKGROUND

4 The Bylaw was last reviewed and adopted in May 2005. Section 159 of the Act requires bylaws to be reviewed every 10 years. If a review is not commenced within two years of that date, the Bylaw will automatically be revoked.

5 The Bylaw was amended in 2011 as part of the creation of the Camping Control Bylaw. This amendment did not constitute a review under the Act, therefore the Bylaw must be reviewed by 30 April 2017 or it will automatically be revoked under s160A of the Act.

6 In September 2016, a report was presented to Council detailing the intention to review the Bylaw. The Council resolved:

That the Council:

a) Notes that a review of the Reserves Bylaw 2005, has commenced and is programmed to be completed before 30 April 2017.

b) Agrees that the scope of the review is to include the current bylaw clauses, together with any necessary amendments to other bylaws concerning the use of vehicles within reserves and dogs within reserves.

c) Notes that a report recommending next steps will be presented to a future Council meeting.

DISCUSSION

Recommended Changes to the Bylaw

7 Staff have engaged with internal and external stakeholders to review the Bylaw and the outcome was a conclusions that the Bylaw no longer meets its intended purpose and does not provide for the changes in the use of Dunedin’s Reserves. A number of key issues were identified.

8 We propose to extend the Reserves Bylaw to also include beaches. By doing so, the rules and requirements contained in this bylaw will apply equally to beaches and reserves. We propose to change the name from the “Reserves Bylaw” to the “Reserves and Beaches Bylaw” to reflect this change

9 Feedback received since the Dog Control Bylaw 2016 was passed is that we can improve arrangements for allowing dogs access to particular reserves. The consultation on the bylaw will include this topic, with the feedback received being considered as part of a review in the of the Dog Bylaw 2016.

10 Vehicles on beaches are a restricted activity in the current Reserves Bylaw 2005. In some areas, the public perception is vehicles are allowed on beaches. The review will assess the environmental factors associated with vehicles on beaches and work with communities and external stakeholders to make changes where required and clarify restrictions.

11 The use of drones has become more common in recent years meaning that this issue should be considered as part of the bylaw. It is proposed to require prior permission of Council before drones are permitted to be used in reserves.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

12 A new bylaw applying to both reserves and beaches is made, and Council adopts the Statement of Proposal for public consultation.

Advantages

· Updating the Bylaw will align it with the recently updated Dog Bylaw

· Changing the name of the Bylaw will help clarify the scope of the bylaw

· Issues with vehicles on beaches can be addressed and clarified with community involvement

· The changes support a holistic view of all reserve use and enable Council to maximise public use of these spaces and minimise conflicts in uses

· Any changes required to other bylaws to be consistent can be considered during public consultation.

Disadvantages

· The cost and staff time associated with the review and public consultation.

Option Two – Status Quo

13 Keeping the status quo, and not commencing any special consultative procedure would result in the revocation of the Bylaw on 30 April 2017.

Advantages

· No review or Special Consultative Procedure required to be undertaken

Disadvantages

· The Bylaw would remain inconsistent with the Dog Bylaw

· There may continue to be confusion to the scope of the Bylaw

· The opportunity to address issues with vehicles on beaches will be missed

· A holistic review of reserve use will not occur and conflicts in use may continue

· The opportunity to identify and rectify inconsistencies with other bylaws will be missed.

NEXT STEPS

14 If the recommended option is adopted, staff will proceed with the Special Consultative Procedure.

15 The draft Statement of Proposal (Attachment A) will be made available to the public to allow for their feedback on the proposed changes.

16 Staff will complete the public consultation, including hearings if required, and report back to Council in mid-2017 with a recommended amended bylaw for adoption.

Signatories

Author:

Ashley Reid – Parks and Recration Planner

Authoriser:

Jendi Paterson – Recreation Planning and Facilities Manager

Tom Dyer – Acting Group Manager Parks and Recration

Ruth Stokes – General Manager Infrastructure and Networks

Attachments

	Title	Page
A	Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw	70
B	Statement of Proposal	78

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities. This decision also relates to providing a public service and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

The Reserves Bylaw contributes to the 'healthy and safe people' strategic direction of the Social Wellbeing Strategy and helps achieve parks and recreation objectives as an enforcement tool against unacceptable use or behaviour on reserves areas.

Māori Impact Statement

Reserves and Beaches are important to Tangata Whenua and staff have, and will continue, to work with them through the Bylaw review to incorporate their aspirations for the management of these areas.

Sustainability

The review's intention is to enhance the economic, social and environmental integrity of Dunedin.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications, the costs can be met through existing budgets.

Significance

The matter is considered low significance in terms of Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, but it is mandatory to use the special consultative procedure in this case.

Engagement – external

There has been initial engagement with key stakeholders and there will be formal public consultation.

Engagement - internal

Regulatory, policy and infrastructure departments have been involved to date and will continue to work collaboratively as the review and consultation progresses.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

No risks have been identified.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been identified.

Community Boards

All Community Boards have an interest in the management of reserves in their areas and will have an opportunity to contribute their feedback during the consultation period.

Council

12 December 2016

Dunedin City Council

Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2016

Dunedin City Council Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2016

The Dunedin City Council makes this Bylaw pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002 and the Reserves Act 1977.

1 Short Title

This Bylaw is the Dunedin City Council Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2016.

2 Commencement

This Bylaw comes into force on [enter date].

3 Purpose

The purpose of this Bylaw is to provide for the orderly management and control of reserves and beaches vested in, administered by or under the control of the Dunedin City Council, and used by the public.

4 Interpretation

In this Bylaw, unless the context requires otherwise -

Aircraft means any man-made device capable of flight, including but not limited to aeroplanes, helicopters, gliders, hand-gliders, unmanned aerial vehicles (including model aircraft, and drones), and radio controlled aircraft.

Authorised Officer means any person appointed or authorised in writing by the Chief Executive or by the Council to act on its behalf, and includes an Enforcement Officer.

Camp means to reside in or sleep in a structure, tent or vehicle.

Council means the Dunedin City Council.

Enforcement Officer means any person appointed or authorised in writing by the Chief Executive or by the Council to enforce the provisions contained in this Bylaw, and includes any rangers appointed by Council under the Reserves Act, and any sworn member of the NZ Police acting in the course of his or her duty.

Flora means any plant in any reserve or on any beach, and includes but is not limited to trees, plants, shrubs, flowers, fruits, seeds, pods, cones, ferns, greenery or other foliage.

Fauna means any animal in any reserve or on any beach.

Reserve or beach means any open space, park, garden, or land set apart for public purpose, under the control or ownership of the Council, whether or not dedicated as a reserve under the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, and includes any buildings, structures, amenities, vegetation, and memorials within.

Sign includes a notice, label, inscription, billboard, plaque or placard.

Vehicle means any means of transport whatsoever which is equipped with wheels or revolving runners or tracks regardless of its means of motive power, and is not limited to cars, trucks, motorbikes, bicycles, Segway's and skateboards, but does not include prams or wheelchairs (or other mobility scooters used by persons with a physical or neurological condition).

Vessel includes, but is not limited to a ship, boat, hovercraft, or any other description of vessel used or designed to be used in the sea or river, but does not include wakeboards, surfboards, or stand-up paddle boards.

Access to reserves and beaches

5 Reserves and beaches will be open to the public at all times, except –

(a) During such hours as the Council may from time to time otherwise determine;

(b) If the reserve or beach is temporarily closed by Council, the appropriate signage is provided by Council to inform the public of such closure.

6 No person, other than an Authorised Officer, or person permitted by an Authorised Officer or Enforcement Officer, may enter or remain in any part of a reserve or on any beach that is closed to the public.

Offences for certain activities in reserves and beaches

Conduct of persons in reserves and beaches

7 No person in a reserve or on a beach may –

(a) Intentionally obstruct, disturb, or interfere with any other person in the use or enjoyment of the reserve or beach;

(b) Undertake any activity likely to be injurious to any person or likely to damage any property.

8 Without the prior permission of an Authorised Officer, or Council resolution permitting the activity, no person in a reserve or on a beach may –

(a) Take on to any reserve or beach, or use any weapon including a firearm, air gun, bow and arrow, catapult, animal trap;

(b) Disturb, interfere with, or remove any flora or fauna, including the planting of any flora, and the introduction of any substance that may be injurious to plant or animal life;

(d) Enter or leave any reserve except through the openings, gateways, entrances, ramps or exits;

(e) Enter or remain on any reserve or beach if it has been closed by the Council.

Animals

9 No person in a reserve or on a beach may –

(a) Bring any animal into a reserve or onto a beach or allow any animal in his or her custody, charge or control to be in any part of a reserve or on any beach, except:

(i) Any dog being exercised in accordance with the Dog Control Bylaw 2016 or any replacement; or

(ii) Any horse being taken into a permitted area (as listed in any management plan or Appendix 1 of this Bylaw), and using formal access tracks, but horses are not permitted in or on the dunes of any reserve; or

(iii) If permission has been granted by an Authorised Officer; or

(iv) The reserve or beach has been booked and approved for an event allowing the presence of animals.

Advice note:

For control of dogs upon reserves and beaches in Dunedin, see the Dunedin City Council Dog Control Bylaw 2016, or any replacement.

Tents, stalls and trading

10 Without the prior permission of an Authorised Officer, or Council resolution permitting the activity, no person in a reserve or on a beach may –

(a) Erect stalls, tents, swings, amusement devices or structures of any kind (but excluding casual shade tents);

(b) Conduct any trading, other than in accordance with a Mobile Trading Licence specifically permitting trading in the reserve or on the beach;

Organised events

11 Without the prior permission of an Authorised Officer, or Council resolution permitting the activity, no person in a reserve or on a beach may –

(a) Hold, conduct, or take part in any public meeting, or assembly of any kind that causes damage or unduly restricts other people’s use of the reserve or beach;

(b) Hold, conduct, or take part in any organised sporting event or games, or other organised event.

Advice notes:

Permission will generally not be required for small gatherings in reserves or beaches (eg. picnics).

An organised event can be a one-off event, or a series of events. The type of events that require permission are pre-arranged sports games, fairs, festivals, and performances. Council may specify in its permission whether the person may charge an entry fee for the event, and whether the person has exclusive use of a reserve or beach (or part) for the duration of the event.

Fires

12 Without the prior permission of an Authorised Officer, or Council resolution permitting the activity, no person in a reserve or on a beach may –

(a) Light or cause to remain alight, any fire, except the use of any gas fired barbecue or other self-contained cooking device provided by the Council for that purpose is allowed;

(b) Set off any fireworks.

13 Nothing in this clause authorises the lighting of any fire in the open air if doing so would contravene any other Bylaw, Act, or Regulation.

Camping

14 No person in a reserve or on a beach may Camp unless –

(a) It is in accordance with the Dunedin City Council Camping Control Bylaw 2015, or any replacement, and that person has paid any camping fees (if relevant); or

(b) That person has obtained written approval from an Authorised Officer.

Advice note:

For the permissions and restrictions upon camping in reserves and beaches in Dunedin, see the Dunedin City Council Camping Control Bylaw 2015, or any replacement.

Waste and sewage

15 No person in a reserve or on a beach may –

(a) Place or leave any rubbish or litter of any description, except in any receptacle provided;

(b) Pollute any water on any reserve or beach;

(d) Cause or permit wastage of any water supply.

Vehicles, vessels, aircraft and mechanical devices

16 No person in a reserve or on a beach may –

(a) Drive, ride or park, or otherwise bring any vehicle into a reserve or onto a beach, except:

(i) To access any beach to launch or retrieve a vessel; or

(ii) For access by any lifeguard or emergency services acting in the course of his or her duty; or

(iii) On any part of the reserve or beach set aside by the Council for vehicular traffic, such as driveways, carparks, and shared paths, and if that person is operating in accordance with all restrictions set by Council; or

(iv) Where permission has been granted by an Authorising Officer.

(b) Exceed any speed limit that applies under this clause. The speed limit will either be –

(i) The speed limit shown on a road sign; or

(ii) The speed limit prescribed by Council resolution under this clause; or

(iii) Where no speed limit has been fixed, the default speed limit is 20 kilometres per hour.

(c) Drive, ride or park, or otherwise bring any vehicle into a reserve or onto a beach in a way that causes damage to the reserve or beach, or is dangerous, or might be dangerous to the public or any other person;

(d) Stop or leave any vehicle so that the vehicle obstructs an entrance to, or path or track in the reserve or beach, or park a vehicle in an area that is not identified by Council for parking;

(e) Abandon or dump any vehicle, vessel or other structure;

(f) Use power tools; park a vehicle or trailer; or

(g) Use equipment for removing or cutting vegetation.

17 Without the prior permission of an Authorised Officer, or Council resolution permitting the activity, no person in a reserve or on a beach may –

(a) Fly, use or land any aircraft;

(b) Use the reserve or beach as a storage site for any vessel or other watercraft.

18 Nothing in this clause prevents an aircraft from being used in or over a reserve or beach in an emergency situation.

Other matters

19 Breaches of Bylaw

(a) Every person who breaches this Bylaw commits an offence under section 239 Local Government Act 2002 and section 104 Reserves Act 1977.

(b) Every person who breaches this Bylaw must, on request by an Enforcement Officer immediately stop the activity, and leave the reserve or beach if requested by the Enforcement Officer to do so. Any person failing to comply with the request of an Enforcement Officer commits a further offence against this Bylaw;

(c) Any vehicle, animal or other item in a reserve or on a beach in breach of this Bylaw may be removed by any Police or Enforcement Officer at the expense of the driver or owner;

(d) Any work or thing that has been constructed in breach of this Bylaw can be removed or altered by an Authorised Officer. The person who committed the breach can be liable for the cost of removal or alteration.

20 Exemptions

(a) This Bylaw does not apply to any person who acts –

(i) In accordance with a valid contract for services with the Council; or

(ii) As a member of the emergency services in the course of carrying out his or her duties; or

(iii) In accordance with the terms and conditions of a lease or a licence.

21 Permissions under this Bylaw

(a) Any permission given under this Bylaw may be subject to such terms and conditions as the Council or Authorised Officer giving the permission thinks fit.

(b) Any permission given must be written (and can be electronic) and must set out –

(i) The activity(s) or event(s) that is permitted; and

(ii) The duration of the permission; and

(iii) The particular reserve or beach that the permission relates to.

Advice note:

The Council is able to give generic permissions to groups to enable them to carry out activities on reserves and beaches where not already dedicated areas for the activities.

22 Revocations

(a) The Dunedin City Council Reserves Bylaw 2005 is revoked by this Bylaw.

(b) Any approval, permission or authorisation under the Dunedin City Council Reserves Bylaw 2005 that is in effect at the commencement of this Bylaw continues to have effect for the purposes of this Bylaw, but is subject to the application of any relevant clause in this Bylaw.

Appendix 1

Reserves where horses are permitted

1 Ocean Grove Recreation Reserve – Tomahawk Beach and Smaills Beach;

2 Waikouaiti Beach;

3 Island Park Recreation Reserve Beach (Beach and formal access tracks to beach only); and

4 Ocean View Recreation Reserve (area leased by Brighton Pony Club).

Access to permitted areas is via formal access tracks only. Horses are not permitted in or on the dunes of any reserve.

Council

12 December 2016

$Description: \\Hawick\Desktop$\ajreid\Desktop\logo.JPG$

Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017

Statement of Proposal

HAVE YOUR SAY

This statement of proposal is prepared under sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Proposal

The Dunedin City Council (Council) has reviewed the Reserves Bylaw 2005 and has decided that it should be revoked and replaced with a new bylaw. The proposed bylaw will be called the Dunedin City Council Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017 (proposed bylaw).

The outcome of the review is to revoke the old bylaw and make a new one. This document explains the proposed amendments, including the reasons for the proposal, a draft of the proposed amended bylaw and some statutory background information.

BACKGROUND

The current Reserves Bylaw was last reviewed in April 2005. The Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 requires bylaws to be reviewed every 10 years with a further 2 year time frame to complete the review.

Before commencing the process for making a bylaw, section 155 of the LGA 2002 requires the Council to determine if a proposed bylaw:

Is the most appropriate way of addressing a perceived problem;

Is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

Gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

DISCUSSION

In order to meet the requirements outlined in section 155 of the LGA 2002, Council has reviewed the need for a new bylaw for reserves and beaches. Reserves and beaches are available to a wide range of public users. Potentially some uses of reserves and beaches can interfere with other peoples' enjoyment. Council considers that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the behaviour of people and their use of reserves and beaches. Without a bylaw, some behaviours that might interfere with the public use of reserves and beaches are unable to be prevented or enforced.

The proposed bylaw is considered the most appropriate form of bylaw. The proposed bylaw adopts the content of the previous bylaw, but now includes the control of beaches as well as reserves. The proposed bylaw is much more streamlined than the current bylaw, including amendments to both the format and language used. Other minor updates are also proposed, to align it with the Dog Control Bylaw 2016, and to manage drones. It is considered that the proposed bylaw creates reasonable restrictions on the use of both reserves and beaches, and is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

No feedback on freedom camping will be taken into account as part of this review as the Camping Bylaw 2015 is being reviewed as part of a separate process in January 2017.

HAVE YOUR SAY

We would like to know what you think about the proposed bylaw. Your views will shape the final document. Submissions close at 5pm on Tuesday, 7 February 2017.

The focus of this bylaw review is to direct recreational users and our community to the best reserve and beach spaces for their activities.

Your feedback is an important part of the review and we appreciate the time you take to make a submission.

What is a submission?

A submission is a record of your views on a particular issue. You can make a submission by sending Council a letter, filling in a form online, or sending Council an email.

We have provided a submission form with this document. Alternatively you can fill in your submission online. If you would like to speak at the Council hearing, please set this out in your submission.

How to get your submission to us

In person

Drop off your submission at any of our libraries or visit our Customer Services Desk at the Dunedin City Council, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin.

By mail

Post your submission to Reserve and Beaches Bylaw Submissions, Parks and Recreation Department, Dunedin City Council, PO Box 5045, Moray Place, Dunedin 9058.

Online/email

Complete an online form here

Or email us: reserves@dcc.govt.nz

Timeline

9 January- 7 February 2017: Submission period.

February 2017: Hearings.

February and March 2017: Council considers submissions and decides on any changes to the proposed amended bylaw.

March 2017: Council amends the bylaw.

March- April 2017: The amended bylaw comes into force.

The review must be completed by 30 April 2017 to meet Council's statutory obligations.

Privacy Statement

Under the Local Government Act 2002, Council must make submissions available to the public. Council collects personal information from you, including your name and contact details, so we can analyse submission responses and get in touch with you if we need to. We do not share your contact details, or personal information with anyone. However, at times we share other information with the public and the media so they are aware of the community’s views.

You have the right to ask for a copy of any personal information we hold about you, and to ask for it to be corrected if you think it is wrong. If you would like a copy of your information, or to have it corrected, please contact us at dcc@dcc.govt.nz or call 03 477 4000.

Statement of proposal

Introduction

The Reserves Bylaw 2005 in its current form does not include beaches, vehicles on beaches or address dogs or drones. Council has received numerous reports and complaints from users of reserves and beaches about these issues.

We propose that the current bylaw is streamlined and reformatted. By doing so we propose a consolidation of the clauses in the current bylaw to create a more easily understood, but more comprehensive new bylaw. Additions have been made to the content of the bylaw, so that it is clearer about what restrictions apply. No significant deletions of content have been made from the current bylaw. The main changes made have been to the layout of the bylaw, the streamlining of the content provided, and the addition of new provisions to deal with issues such as vehicles, dogs and drones on reserves.

The proposed bylaw more clearly sets out the activities that are not allowed in reserves or on beaches, under clear subject headings, and situations where Council's permission is needed before some activities are carried out. This enables the reader to clearly understand what is, and what is not allowed.

A copy of the current Reserves Bylaw can be found here.

Proposed changes

The proposed changes are below.

1. Extend the bylaw to apply to beaches, and change the name of the bylaw

We are proposing to extend the bylaw so that it applies to beaches as well as reserves, and to make a corresponding change the name of the bylaw.

Proposal

We propose to extend the Reserves Bylaw to also include beaches. By doing so, the rules and requirements contained in this bylaw will apply equally to beaches and reserves. We propose to change the name from the “Reserves Bylaw” to the “Reserves and Beaches Bylaw” to reflect this change.

Reason

A strong theme in complaints received is that the restrictions for the use of beaches and reserves should be made the same. Including beaches with reserves in the bylaw clarifies that the Council administers beaches, and that the rules and regulations for reserves will apply to all reserves and beaches.

Alternate options

The alternative option is to maintain the status quo. The risk with this option is that the public may be unclear about what the Reserves Bylaw encompasses. It also means that activities that are restricted on reserves are not restricted on beaches, which will mean that complaints continue to be received on this topic.

2. Include provisions for dogs in the bylaw

Since the Dog Control Bylaw 2016 came into effect, the public have told us that we could improve how dogs are managed on reserves and which reserves they are allowed to access off-leash. For example, we allow dogs on-leash on a path within a reserve, but ban them from the reserve on either side of the path. The proposal is that rules for dogs on reserves and beaches will be covered separately within the Dog Control Bylaw. A further review of the Dog Control Bylaw that will be undertaken in 2017.

Proposal

Rules for dogs on reserves and beaches will be covered separately in the Dog Control Bylaw review scheduled for 2017. However, we are still interested in your views which will be considered as part of the Dog Control Bylaw review.

Reason

Dogs are regulated through a seperate bylaw. We propose to include provisions in relation to dogs on reserves and beaches to make it clear it is the Dog Control Bylaw that manages dogs. Your submission on this topic will be taken into account during the Dog Bylaw review scheduled for 2017.

Alternate options

The alternative option is to regulate dogs in this bylaw too. That is seen as duplicating the function of the Dog Control Bylaw, and could lead to confusion, or inconsistencies between the two bylaws if changes were made to either bylaw.

3. Include provisions restricting use of drones

Drones are not mentioned in the current bylaw, and are not defined.

Proposal

We propose including drones in the definition of "Aircraft," meaning that the operation of drones in reserves and on beaches is controlled by the proposed bylaw.

Reason

Drones have become part of everyday life since the bylaw was last reviewed in 2005. Drones need to be managed on reserve land, and this bylaw review is considered the best way to manage drones on reserves. Permission for their use can be sought, which is consistent with the controls on drone use under the Civil Aviation Regulations. Note it is the CAA who decides and enforces aviation rules regarding drones; the Council's role is to assess and grant consent for drones to fly over its land and properties on a case by case basis.

Alternate options

The alternative option is to maintain the status quo. However, this is likely to undermine the effectiveness of the bylaw, which needs to reflect technological changes that have occurred since the last review.

4. Change provisions for horses on beaches

Currently horses are allowed access to four reserves with differing restrictions on each beach reserve. We do not propose to change the four reserves but do aim to standardise access and restrictions for horses on these beach reserves.

Proposal

To restrict access by horses to above the high water springs mark on beach reserves, and to prohibit them on dunes, excluding already designated access spots.

Reason

Differing rules for each beach reserve is confusing. We also want to retain the integrity of our dune system by keeping damaging influences off them.

Alternate options

Keep the status quo. This will not improve the current situation which this review aims to address.

5. Include provisions for restricting vehicle use

The Reserves Bylaw 2005 restricted vehicle use to a speed of 20 kilometres per hour for parts of reserves that had been set aside for vehicle unless the Council had resolved a different speed limit. The same speed restrictions are intended to be continued in the Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017, however that speed restriction will now also apply to beaches.

Vehicles will be restricted to accessing reserves and beaches on formed access ways unless they are launching or retrieving a vessel, the vehicle is used for emergency service access or if written permission has been provided by the Council.

$Description: \\Hawick\Desktop$\ajreid\Desktop\logo.JPG$

Reserves Bylaw 2016

Submission form Please submit your feedback by January 2016

Name/organisation..............................................................................................

Postal address...........................................................................................................

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

Email..................................................................................................................

Phone.................................................................................................................

Would you like to speak on your submission at the hearing in early 2017?

Yes No

Preferred method of contact

Email Post Phone

Applying the Reserves Bylaw to beaches

Do you support extending the “Reserves" Bylaw to apply to beaches?

Yes

Unsure

Do you have any further comments about the bylaw applying to beaches?

Rules for dogs on beaches and reserves

Although the proposal is that rules for dogs on reserves and beaches will be covered separately within the Dog Control bylaw, we are still interested in your views on this. Your feedback for these questions will be considered as part of the Dog Control Bylaw review in 2017.

In respect of reserves, would you like dog controls on reserves changed?

Yes

Unsure

Should dogs be prohibited from dune areas?

Yes

Unsure

On what reserves or beaches should dogs be banned?

Are there reserves/beaches where dogs should be allowed off leash?

Are there reserves/beaches where dogs should be required on leash?

Are there specific reserves where dogs should be prohibited? Please include any other comments you have about the control of dogs on reserves and beaches.

Restricting drone use in the proposed bylaw

Do you agree that drones should be restricted on reserves and beaches unless they have prior permission from the Council?

Yes

Unsure

Do you have any other comments on drone use you would like us to consider?

Horses on Beaches

Should horses be restricted to above the mean high water springs mark?

Yes

Unsure

Should horses be prohibited on dunes?

Do you have any other comments on horses on beaches?

Restricting Vehicles on Reserves and Beaches

Should vehicles be prohibited from sand dunes?

Yes

Unsure

Do you agree that vehicle access should be restricted on reserves and beaches? Are there exceptions to this rule that Council should consider including in its bylaw?

The Council is proposing a speed limit of 20 kilometres per hour on reserves and beaches unless there is a different speed limit imposed by Council resolution or signage. Are there exceptions to this that Council should consider including in the bylaw?

Other Comments

Are there other topics and issues that should be considered in this review? Please comment below. (Be aware that any comments on Freedom Camping can be made in January during consultation on the Camping Bylaw 2015).

Council

12 December 2016

Resolution to Stop a Portion of Netherby Street, Dunedin

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report recommends completing the road stopping at 70 Mornington Road, Dunedin as the notice period has concluded with no objections.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Resolves that under Section 342 of the Local Government Act 1974 the portion of unformed road described as Section 1 SO 483507 is stopped, with costs being met by the applicant as per the Infrastructure Services Committee resolution.

b) Notes that no objections were submitted during the notice period.

c) Authorises public notice of the road stopping.

BACKGROUND

2 In 2014 the owner of 70 Mornington Road sought a road stopping, and this was reported to the Infrastructure Services Committee in May 2014. A copy of that report is included as Attachment A. This report included consideration that the portion of road in question was not required for general roading purposes.

3 Prior to the application being submitted, utility operators and adjacent property owners were consulted. There were no objections to the proposal.

The Infrastructure Services Committee on 3 June 2014 resolved as follows (moved The Mayor/Lord):

"That the Committee approves notice being given of its intention to stop a portion of Netherby Street, Kenmure, subject to the applicant agreeing to:

a) Pay the Council the fee for processing a road stopping proposal

b) Pay the Council the actual costs involved in the stopping, regardless of whether or not the stopping reached a conclusion, OR the value of the stopped road as assessed by the Council's valuer, whichever was the greater

c) Amalgamate the stopped portion of the road with the title of the adjacent land that was owned by the applicant, namely CT OTA1/1449 (Lot 2 DP 10040), where it would assume the same land use zoning as the amalgamated private title

d) Accept the application of the standards contained within the Dunedin City Council Code for Subdivision and Development to the stopped road

e) Register an easement upon the stopped portion of the road for the benefit of any utility companies that had assets located on, over or under that land."

Motion carried

DISCUSSION

4 The stopping was publicly notified between 27 August and 3 September 2016, with no objections received during the submission period.

5 Easements for existing utilities are required to be registered and this will occur during the final steps in the road stopping process.

6 Council is now able to complete the process resolved by the Infrastructure Services Committee resolution.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

7 As no objections have been received, Council may declare the road stopped.

Advantages

· Consistent with a previous Council decision.

· This option will have negligible impact on the public road and provide an overall financial benefit to the Council by increasing (slightly) the rateable area of land following amalgamation of title.

Disadvantages

· There are no disadvantages identified.

Option Two – Status Quo

8 The Council may decide not to declare the road stopped.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages.

Disadvantages

· On-going encroachment and the loss of future rates for the stopped road.

· This option would be inconsistent with the previous Council decision.

NEXT STEPS

9 Following the resolution, a public notice that the road is stopped will be issued. Section 1 SO 483507 will then be amalgamated with the adjacent property.

Signatories

Author:

Michael Tannock - Transport Network Team Leader

Authoriser:

Richard Saunders - Acting Group Manager Transport

Ruth Stokes - General Manager Infrastructure and Networks

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Report to the Infrastructure Services Committee, June 2014	93

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report relates to providing a regulatory function and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective by following procedures allowed under the Local Government Act 1974.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☐	☐	☒
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

There is no contribution relating to the Strategic Framework.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

Proactive management of the transportation network supports social and economic sustainability

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

Costs incurred in the process are met by the applicant.

Significance

Under the Significance and Engagement policy this is considered of low significance.

Engagement – external

The community has been engaged with as per requirements of the relevant legislation, also utility operators and affected residents.

Engagement - internal

Comment was sought from Parks and Recreation Group, Customer and Regulatory Services, Community and Planning, Property and Water and Waste Services prior to the 2014 Infrastructure Services Committee report. There were no objections to the proposal. The In-House Legal Counsel were consulted in the drafting of this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no risks identified.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

12 December 2016

Submission on Proposed Marine Protected Areas near Dunedin

Department: Water and Waste

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The South-East Marine Protection Forum / Roopu Manaaki ki te Toka has called for submissions on the public consultation document ‘Proposed Marine Protected Areas for New Zealand’s South Island South-East Coast’. Areas identified for protection will have restrictions placed on various activities.

2 A draft submission has been prepared for the Council's consideration, on proposed marine protected areas offshore of Dunedin, to ensure wastewater and stormwater discharges from Dunedin City are recognised and provided for. The alignment of this proposal with the Council's strategic framework is also noted in the submission.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the Dunedin City Council submission to the South-East Marine Protection Forum / Roopu Manaaki ki te Toka on proposed Marine Protected Areas offshore from Dunedin.

BACKGROUND

3 New Zealand has made international commitments to protect marine biodiversity, which include conserving at least 10% of the coastal and marine area by 2020. In 2005 the Government adopted the ‘Marine Protected Areas Policy and Implementation Plan’ to provide a framework for establishing a comprehensive network of marine protected areas characteristic of New Zealand’s marine habitats and ecosystems.

4 The South-East Marine Protection Forum / Roopu Manaaki ki te Toka was appointed by the Ministers of Conservation and Primary Industries in 2014. The Forum is made up of 16 representatives of manawhenua, commercial and recreational fishers, the environmental sector, science, tourism, and the wider community. They have proposed recommendations for 20 marine protected areas (MPA) from Timaru to Southland.

5 ‘Type 1’ MPA marine reserves are ‘no take’ areas for the purpose of preserving marine life for scientific study. Fishing, discharges and disturbance of the sea floor are not allowed.

6 ‘Type 2’ MPA areas still allow some fishing and harvesting, but restrict specific fishing methods and other activities (e.g. mining) in the interests of biodiversity protection, particularly those that cause sea bed disturbance.

7 There are seven MPA proposed off-shore from Dunedin City: five are Type 1, and two are Type 2, as shown on the figure below.

8 Submissions to the Forum close on Tuesday 20 December 2016. The Forum will consider submissions before making their final recommendations to the Ministers of Conservation and Primary Industries on 28 April 2017.

9 Any recommendations accepted by the Ministers will go through the appropriate statutory processes, which could involve the amendment of various Acts, including the Marine Reserves Act 1971 and the Fisheries Act 1933.

DISCUSSION

10 The Dunedin City Council (DCC) discharges treated wastewater into the sea from the Green Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) via an 850 m pipeline at Waldronville, and from the Tahuna WWTP via an 1100 metre long outfall at St Kilda. Two emergency outfalls for the Tahuna WWTP are located at Lawyers Head. Resource consents are held for occupation of the coastal marine area by the outfalls, and for discharge of wastewater from the outfalls, which will expire in 2032.

11 The DCC also discharges untreated stormwater into the sea at St Clair, under a resource consent which expires in 2048. As urban development continues, it is possible that further stormwater discharges to the coast may be made in future.

12 It is important that any MPA established in areas to which the DCC discharge, recognise and provide for both existing and potential future discharges of wastewater and stormwater, allow for seabed disturbance associated with outfall maintenance, and allow for the collection of marine fauna associated with resource consent monitoring.

13 In seeking recognition for the DCC’s operational infrastructure requirements, the actual and potential environmental effects of the activities are also acknowledged. However, the Resource Management Act 1991 is considered to be the appropriate means to address any adverse effects associated with those activities. The 3 Waters Strategy identifies improving the quality of discharges to the environment as a key priority, and it is noted the DCC has spent $157 million since 2000 on upgrading its wastewater treatment plants and ocean outfalls, resulting in significant improvements in the quality of its discharges.

14 The proposed MPAs are considered to contribute positively to the DCC’s Environment Strategy, Economic Development Strategy and Spatial Plan objectives, as they relate to the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity, and positive environmental outcomes for infrastructure. As international and national ambitions change, the DCC is committed to working with its community to achieve the most sustainable outcomes for Dunedin and New Zealand.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

15 That the Council approves the draft Council submission to the South-East Marine Protection Forum / Roopu Manaaki ki te Toka, with or without amendment as the Council deems appropriate.

Advantages

· Submitting allows Council the opportunity to request any MPA established recognise and provide for both existing and potential future discharges from the public drainage network.

· The positive contributions of the proposed MPAs to the Council's strategic goals are also recognised.

Disadvantages

· None identified.

Option Two – Status Quo

16 That the Council does not submit on the public consultation document ‘Proposed Marine Protected Areas for New Zealand’s South Island South-East Coast’.

Advantages

· None identified.

Disadvantages

· If the Council does not submit, any MPA established off-shore of Dunedin may not recognise and provide for existing and potential future discharges from the public drainage network. This could have implications on the resource consent process under the Resource Management Act 1991, and on how the Council disposes of wastewater and stormwater in future.

NEXT STEPS

17 If the Council submission is approved by the Council, it will be forwarded to the South-East Marine Protection Forum / Roopu Manaaki ki te Toka.

Signatories

Author:

Karen Sannazzaro - Commercial and Regulatory Manager (Acting)

Authoriser:

Laura McElhone - Group Manager Water and Waste

Ruth Stokes - General Manager Infrastructure and Networks

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Draft Submission on Proposed Marine Protected Areas for New Zealand’s South Island South-East Coast	102

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision relates to providing local infrastructure and it is considered good-quality and cost-effective.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

This decision contributes to the 3 Waters Strategy by supporting good-quality and cost-effective infrastructure. The proposed MPAs also support the goals of the Spatial Plan, Environment Strategy and the Economic Development Strategy in terms of ecosystem protection and increasing biodiversity.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no specific implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for the LTP/Annual Plan, Financial Strategy or Infrastructure Strategy.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

The significance of making a submission on this matter is low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

The proposed submission has been developed in consultation with the Corporate Policy Group and Water and Waste Services Group.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks in making a submission.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

12 December 2016

7 December 2016

SUBMISSION

To the South-East Marine Protection Forum

On the consultation document Proposed Marine Protected Areas for New Zealand’s South Islands East-Coast

Introduction

1. This submission is from the Dunedin City Council, P.O. Box 5045, Moray Place, Dunedin 9058.

2. The Dunedin City Council (DCC) is responsible for meeting the current and future needs of its communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost effective for households and businesses, under the Local Government Act 2002.

3. The DCC wastewater and stormwater networks service over 40,000 properties. Wastewater from Dunedin and Mosgiel is tertiary treated at either Tahuna or Green Island wastewater treatment plants, before discharge to the sea via outfall pipelines at St Kilda and Waldronville. Discharge of untreated stormwater occurs at St Clair beach.

4. To help direct the City’s resources toward the goal of being “One of the world’s great small cities”, the DCC has established a strategic framework. The framework is made up of eight key strategies underpinned by the principles of sustainability and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi. Overall, the proposal to create MPAs is consistent with these principles and will contribute positively to the DCC’s strategic framework:

(a) The 3 Waters Strategy 2010-2060 identifies improving the quality of discharges to the environment as a key priority, limiting cost increases to affordability where practical. The DCC has spent $157 million since 2000 on upgrading its wastewater treatment plants and ocean outfalls, resulting in significant improvements in discharge quality.

(b) The goals identified in Te Ao Turoa – The Natural World: Dunedin's Environment Strategy are Dunedin is resilient and carbon zero, has a healthy environment, and its people care for the natural world. Establishing MPAs will contribute positively to these goals by protecting the ecosystem and increasing biodiversity.

(c) The establishment of MPAs will also contribute positively to the Spatial Plan as they support the strategic direction of being an environmental sustainable and resilient city, and the objectives of ecosystem resilience and biodiversity enhancement.

(d) The Economic Development Strategy has the strategic theme of making Dunedin 'a compelling destination'. To achieve this will mean providing and protecting the quality natural environment that Dunedin is popular for. The MPAs will help to protect and continue the longevity of our ecosystems and consequently our wildlife tourism. Tourism is an important aspect of Dunedin's economy, and so environmental protection is crucial in keeping our tourism market strong.

5. While the DCC supports the establishment of MPAs, it requests the City’s infrastructure needs are recognised and provided for, as discussed below.

Scope of submission

6. Our submission is in relation to the following proposed marine protection areas, off the coast of Dunedin:

I – Harakeke Point to White Island (Type-1)

J – White Island to Waldronville (Type-2)

K - Green Island (Type-1)

7. Paragraph 63 of the consultation document describes Type 1 marine protection areas (MPA) as follows:

‘Marine Reserves (which we sometimes refer to as Type 1 MPAs) are statutory tools that are established under the Marine Reserves Act 1971 for the purpose of preserving marine life for scientific study. These are essentially no take areas. Fishing, discharges, disturbance of the sea floor and most other extractive uses are not allowed. Under the MPA Policy, the Forum is to ensure that a marine reserve (is) established to protect at least one sample of each habitat and ecosystem type in the network. A marine reserve will likely include examples of more than one habitat and ecosystem type.’

8. Paragraph 289 of the consultation document, in relation to Harakeke Point to White Island Type 1 MPA states:

`No discharge to the MPA would be allowed, this includes (but not limited to) grey water, sewage and fish waste.’

9. Paragraph 297 of the consultation document, in relation to Harakeke Point to White Island Type 1 MPA also states:

‘There are a few existing consented activities that occur within the area, that need to be considered: sand extraction at Tomahawk Lagoon, treated sewage discharge at Lawyers Head and offshore. These do not preclude a marine reserve being established and conditions can be written allowing activities to continue.’

Proposed site I - Harakeke Point to White Island (Type 1 marine protection area)

Wastewater

10. The Tahuna Wastewater Treatment Plant services the majority of Dunedin City. Tertiary treated wastewater from the Tahuna wastewater treatment plant is discharged into the sea via a 1150 metre outfall pipeline located off St Kilda beach, one kilometre east of Lawyers Head. The DCC continues to retain two outfalls from the cliff at Lawyers Head, for use in emergency situations, such as extreme rainfall or failure of the primary outfall. The locations of the outfalls are shown on Figure 1.

11. The DCC hold resource consents for the occupation of the coastal marine area by the outfalls (2002.621 and 2006.534) and for discharge of treated wastewater (2002.623 and 2002.264).

Lawyers Head emergency outfalls è

çTahuna outfall

Figure 1: Outfalls for the Tahuna wastewater treatment plant (wastewater pipelines shown in red)

12. The wastewater outfall and discharge is crucial to Dunedin, and $112 million was spent between 2007 to 2013 upgrading the treatment plant and constructing the outfall pipeline off St Kilda beach.

13. The consents allow discharge of 600 litres per second average dry weather flow and up to 4000 litres per second wet weather flow.

14. Annual dive inspections and associated maintenance are undertaken on the outfall as a condition of consent. This work could involve disturbance of the seabed around the outfall pipe.

15. It is also a condition of consent to undertake comprehensive sampling to assess environmental effects of wastewater discharge. This sampling includes the collection of shellfish (mussels), plankton and macro-invertebrates.

16. The DCC consents expire in 2032. Unless an alternative means of wastewater disposal is proposed, those consents will require renewal.

Stormwater

17. The DCC has two stormwater outfalls located at St Clair beach, and holds resource consent for the discharge of stormwater to the sea (RM11.313.10).

18. The stormwater outfalls discharge stormwater from the St Clair catchment. The continued discharge of St Clair’s stormwater to the coast is crucial in supporting management of South Dunedin stormwater, which is discharged to the upper Otago Harbour.

19. Further, the DCC needs to retain the ability to undertake new stormwater discharges to the coast, e.g. from any alterations to the existing network, or to service any new development.

20. The DCC consent to discharge stormwater expires in 2048. Unless an alternative means of stormwater disposal is proposed, that consent will require renewal.

é Stormwater outfall #2

ç Stormwater outfall #1

Figure 2: Stormwater outfalls at St Clair (stormwater pipelines shown in green)

Proposed site J – White Island to Waldronville (Type 2 marine protection area) and

Proposed site K - Green Island (Type 1 marine protection area)

Wastewater

21. The Green Island Wastewater Treatment Plant services most of southern Dunedin, including Mosgiel, and also the majority of Dunedin’s industrial premises which are primarily located in Green Island, Burnside and Kaikorai Valley. Tertiary treated wastewater from the Green Island wastewater treatment plant is discharged into the sea via an 850 metre outfall pipeline located off Waldronville beach, to the east of the Kaikorai Stream mouth. The location of the outfall is shown on Figure 3.

22. The DCC hold resource consents for the occupation of the coastal marine area by the outfall (97550) and for discharge of treated wastewater (97530).

Figure 3: Outfall for the Green Island wastewater treatment plant (wastewater pipeline shown in red)

23. The wastewater outfall and discharge is crucial to southern Dunedin and Mosgiel, and $45 million has been spent since 2000 upgrading the treatment plant and constructing the outfall pipeline off Waldronville.

24. It does not appear that the wastewater outfall lies within the proposed MPA areas of K and J. Regardless, the discharge plume from the outfall could enter those MPA areas.

25. The DCC consent allows discharge of 1200 litres per second of treated wastewater.

26. Annual dive inspections and associated maintenance are undertaken on the outfall as a condition of consent. This work could involve disturbance of the seabed in around the outfall pipe.

27. The DCC consents expire in 2032. Unless an alternative means of wastewater disposal is proposed, those consents will require renewal.

Stormwater

28. The DCC does not currently have any stormwater outfalls at the coast in this area. However, with increased urban growth it is possible that public stormwater management may be required in future, with the possibility of a coastal outfall and associated discharge.

Submission on proposed Marine Protection Areas I, J and K

29. Paragraph 297 recognises wastewater discharge in proposed MPA site I, but not the stormwater discharges. It states conditions can be written allowing activities to continue, but does not provide any detail of how this would occur.

30. There is no recognition of the DCC’s current wastewater activities in proposed MPA site J and site K.

(a) For any MPA established off the coast of Dunedin, the DCC requests that its wastewater outfalls and discharges, and stormwater discharges as described above, are clearly recognised and provided for. This includes:he discharges;

(b) Occupation of the seabed by outfall pipelines;

(d) The collection of marine fauna associated with resource consent monitoring.

31. Any such allowances should not be limited to the DCC’s current activities, but should provide for potential future changes, including in:

(a) The characteristics and volume of wastewater discharge;

(b) Changes to the outfalls or the creation of new outfalls; and

32. The resource consent process under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) provides for consideration and management of any adverse effects of the DCC’s activities in the coastal marine area, and it is appropriate that this regime continue. The relationship of any marine protected area on RMA processes must be considered and appropriately provided for.

33. It is noted that the DCC’s 3 Waters Strategy 2010-2060 identifies improving the quality of discharges to the environment as a key priority.

Signed: _____________________________

Date: _______________________________

Dave Cull

Mayor of Dunedin

Council

12 December 2016

Committee Structure and Delegations Manual 2016

Department: Executive Leadership Team

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Changes have been made to the Committee Structure and Delegations Manual to reflect the committee structure established for the current triennium.

2 The manual is now presented for formal adoption by the Council.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves and adopts the Committee Structure and Delegations Manual 2016 with any editorial changes/amendments as considered necessary.

BACKGROUND

3 To ensure that decisions are made in an efficient manner and to facilitate community participation in democratic processes, the Council makes delegations to Committees, Subcommittees and the Chief Executive Officer. These delegations are recorded in the Committee Structure and Delegations Manual (the manual).

4 At the end of the 2013-2016 triennium the committee structures are automatically dissolved along with their delegated powers. Council needs to adopt a new manual to provide the committees, subcommittees and officers the powers to conduct business.

DISCUSSION

5 A new manual recording the updated committee structure, and delegations for the 2016-2019 triennium is proposed for adoption. The manual is Attachment A to this report. It includes highlighting of cross references, which will be finalised based on Council's decision and to reflect comments made at the meeting.

6 The main changes to the Committee Structure and Delegations Manual include:

a) The roles of the Committees have been recast to align responsibilities broadly under the Council's strategies. The Hearings Committee now also has powers under a variety of legislation dealing with statutory processes and is broader than the resource management area. This is to enable the decisions on those matters to be taken simultaneously (if appropriate) and will avoid applicants needing to come to Council for separate hearings on essentially the same proposal.

b) The Community & Culture Committee, Infrastructure Services and Networks Committee, Planning and Environment Committee and the Chief Executive have the express delegated power to initiate and manage public consultations on any topic as well as the power (if delegated) to exercise the Minister of Conservation's delegations. The final decision on the outcome of the consultation is retained by Council.

c) The Hearings Subcommittee that was constituted at Council's inaugural meeting has been changed to a full Committee. That is because the functions of this Committee include the ability to delegate its responsibilities to independent hearings commissioners so that conflicts of interest can be managed. As subcommittees do not have the statutory power in the Local Government Act 2002 to delegate authority – it is necessary to for it to be constituted as a committee of Council instead.

d) Title changes for committees and subcommittees. A theme of delegations is that Infrastructure Services and Networks Committee considers matters that concern asset management, whereas decisions on policies and regulatory matters relating to the use of those assets are considered by different committees.

e) There is a new section about how matters will be handled if it is not clear which Committee can deal with the matter.

f) The Hearings Committee now also has provision to undertake the functions of another Committee where it is necessary for the matter to be dealt with under urgency.

g) The Mayor's ex-officio membership of all Committees and Subcommittees is explained.

7 As this is an administrative report only, a summary of considerations is not required.

OPTIONS

8 The Council may choose not to delegate its powers to committees, subcommittees and officers, but this is not recommended as it will impede the efficient conduct of Council's business.

Option One – Adopt the Committee Structure and Delegations Manual 2016 (Recommended Option)

9 This would mean that Council adopts a Committee Structure and Delegations Manual.

Advantages

· The efficient conduct of Council business is assured.

Disadvantages

· No disadvantages identified.

Option Two – Status Quo

10 This would mean that Council does not adopt a Committee Structure and Delegations Manual.

Advantages

· No advantages have been identified.

Disadvantages

· Established committees will not have the authority to make decisions, which means that they are not able to conduct business.

· All decisions must be taken by Council, which will require long Council meetings.

11 The option of making amendments to the powers that are described in Attachment A is also available, but this option is not discussed further as the advantages and disadvantages are the same as described in option one.

NEXT STEPS

12 Staff will update the cross references and make other amendments requested by Council and publish the Committee Structure and Delegations Manual 2016 online.

Signatories

Authoriser:

Sandy Graham - General Manager Strategy and Governance

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Proposed Committee Structure and Delegations Manual	112

Mayor	Mayor Dave Cull
Deputy Mayor	Cr Chris Staynes
Members	Cr David Benson-Pope	Cr Rachel Elder
	Cr Christine Garey	Cr Doug Hall
	Cr Aaron Hawkins	Cr Marie Laufiso
	Cr Mike Lord	Cr Damian Newell
	Cr Jim O'Malley	Cr Conrad Stedman
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Andrew Whiley

Organisation	Proposed Appointee
Craigieburn Reserve Committee	Cr Doug Hall
Otago Settlers Association	Cr Marie Laufiso

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 Director Appointments/Reappointments Group Companies	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.	This report is confidential because the appointment and/or reappointment of directors is made public once the applicants have been notified of the decision..
C2 Director Remuneration - Dunedin City Holdings Limited Group Companies	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)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret.	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.	The information contained in this report remains confidential until Council has determined the level of fees and advised Dunedin City Holdings Limited of the outcome at which point the information can be made public..
C3 Aurora/Delta Review	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.	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 Appointment to External Organisations	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.

Author:	Mayor Dave Cull -
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - General Manager Strategy and Governance

	Title	Page
a	Elected Members' Register of Interests	7