Agenda of Council - 2 October 2018

Council

2 October 2018

Reports

Mt Ross Road Bridge Replacement Options

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the options for a replacement of the Mt Ross Road bridge.

2 Following the Committee decision on 11 June 2018, staff commissioned an investigation on replacement options using a new bridge structure.

3 The recommended option is the construction of bridge in a new location, with pillars rebuilt in their original location (Option 3).

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the construction of a replacement bridge adjacent to the historic bridge alignment and replacement of the heritage stone pillars in their original location.

b) Notes that final funding for the reconstruction is still to be determined with NZTA.

BACKGROUND

4 Following the collapse of the Mt Ross Road bridge (the bridge) during the July 2017 flood event, staff prepared a report for the Infrastructure Services and Networks Committee detailing options for a replacement bridge.

5 At a meeting held on 11 June 2018 the Committee resolved the following:

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Damian Newell):

That the Committee:

a) Support a new bridge construction as its preferred option

b) Staff be asked to consult with NZTA regarding funding and the local community regarding the design of the bridge and report back to Council or a Standing Committee prior to the final decision.

6 Opus International Consultants (Opus) were subsequently commissioned to investigate options for a ‘new’ fit for purpose, functional bridge.

7 As part of the process DCC undertook a two-stage stakeholder consultation to understand the preferences of the community. This included a community drop in session in Middlemarch attended by over 50 people.

DISCUSSION

8 Following the decision of the Committee staff undertook consultation with the community to better understand the desired level of service from a new bridge. This feedback was used by consultants to develop three ‘new bridge’ options. These options were all variations on the same new bridge design comprising a concrete and steel structure.

9 Design work included the completion of flood modelling to determine the required height of any new bridge. This work concluded that the lowest point of a new bridge should be a minimum of 2m higher than the previous structure. This results in the deck of the bridge being approximately 4m higher than the original; the additional height has significantly increased the cost of the project as the approaches to the bridge will need to be reconstructed to cater for the increased height.

Consultation

Stage One – Initial Stakeholder Consultation

10 Initial stakeholder consultation was undertaken from 13 to 27 July 2018, and the following community needs were identified:

1. Replacement of the old bridge with ‘urgency’ but not at the expense of meeting community needs.

2. Replacement bridge that is ‘Fit for Purpose’ and ‘Functional’, includes:

· Wide enough to take agricultural equipment/plant

· Provision for pedestrians and cyclists

· Safety rails to enclose stock

· Able to take full HPMV – 65 Tonne

· Able to withstand flood (includes building higher) and debris loads.

3. Replacement bridge that:

· Recognizes and preserves the workmanship of the old bridge

· Saves the heritage bridge fabric

· Maintains the connection with the old historic bridge

· Re-uses salvaged parts of the old bridge where possible.

11 During the initial consultation there was also feedback received that requested any replacement bridge be similar in nature to the original bridge, both in form and function, and that it should not have to take full HPMV vehicles.

Stage Two – Options Consultation

12 From the initial consultation process, Opus produced Three Options for Stage Two - Options consultation. Four other options were considered not suitable, for example:

· A ford option would not provide the same or better level of service as the old bridge.

· Network Arch single span bridge with reinforced concrete deck would require heavy steel beams that could delay completion of the new bridge by up to 7+ months for the steel to be supplied from overseas.

· A new steel truss structure with network arch would be prone to vehicle damage, would be restrictive to over-width vehicles and costs to maintain the steel would be high.

· An affordable replica suspension structure would have considerable implications on costs and time for both design and construction. A replica structure may not meet community requirements for width and capacity.

13 These options were not given further consideration other than being compared generally with the three options for Stage Two - Options Consultation.

14 The three options presented to the community for consultation were variations on a new concrete/steel bridge design. The variations include the alignment of the replacement bridge and the inclusion of heritage features. The options are included as Attachment A.

15 DCC consulted on the Options from 10 to 24 August 2018. Staff also held a Community drop-in session at Middlemarch on 20 August 2018. Over 50 people attended the drop-in session and most completed a feedback form indicating their preference for a replacement bridge. Summary of the feedback is listed in the table below.

Option	Number of Responses	Percentage
Option One	12	21%
Option Two	38	67%
Option Three	3	5%
No Option	4	7%

16 Of those that did not support any option the preference was for a bridge that was more sympathetic to the heritage bridge. There was also concern expressed that a new modern bridge might encourage more heavy vehicle movements in the area.

17 The Strath-Taieri Community Board strongly support Option Two. They want the bridge to be built as early as possible, without compromising community needs.

18 Heritage New Zealand strongly support Option Three as it leaves any remaining original bridge fabric undisturbed. Any reconstructed heritage elements will be on the original platform and be in proportion. This would also provide an option to reconstruct the old bridge in the future. In their submission Heritage New Zealand stated the following

Option 3 we believe is the best option.

Option 1 nothing can be seen of the original bridge.

Option 2, the pillars will be out of proportion and just won’t look like the original.

Option 3 leaves the future choice of having a cycling/walkway over the river plus the original fabric will be used on its original platform and be in proportion. I have worked on all the cycle ways in in the Southern South Island over the years and isolated beautiful areas like this are being sought after by for new tourist ventures. A cycling/walkway over the old bridge location with provide authenticity, increased safety for cyclist/walkers plus people do stop on the cycleway bridges to take in the views.

19 Engineering New Zealand (Engineering Heritage -Otago/ Southland Chapter) does not support any of the consulted options. They prefer a suspension bridge similar to the original, with additional capacity to cater for community needs. This option has not been further assessed by staff given the previous Council decision. A copy of their submission is included as Attachment B.

Proposed Diatomite Mine

20 During consultation some members of the community raised concerns about the use of the new bridge by the proposed Diatomite mine. This mine is yet to apply for resource consent.

21 The proposed bridge would enable heavy vehicle use, to a maximum weight limit of 60 tonne.

Funding

22 As the bridge collapsed during the July 2017 flood event, Council will receive funding of up to 76% for the reconstruction. The final level of funding is still to be confirmed by NZTA and is likely to be impacted by the increased costs associated with the new bridge height.

23 The cost of the three options put forward for consideration are shown in the Table 2.

	Option	Estimated Cost
1	No bridge	$50-75k
2	Bridge on original alignment	$4.5-5 million
3	Bridge on new alignment	$4.5-5 million

* The cost of reconstructing the stone pillars and other heritage elements has not been included in the estimated costs

Table 2: Estimated costs of options

24 Following a decision from Council staff will continue discussions with NZTA to determine the final level of funding. The balance of the project will need to be funded from within existing DCC Transport renewal budgets.

Options

25 There are three options available to Council. Due to the increase in costs following the updating of the flood modelling these options include the option not to rebuild the bridge.

Option One – Do not construct a replacement bridge

26 This option should be considered due to the increased costs associated with the project following completion of the hydrological modelling.

27 This option would include the construction of permanent infrastructure to close the road. It could also include the reconstruction of the stone pillars and the erection of a memorial board at the site.

Advantages

· This is the lowest cost option.

Disadvantages

· No connection will be re-established for the community.

Option Two- Construct a modern bridge on the same alignment as the old bridge (the stone pillars could be re-built in a new location adjacent to the bridge)

28 This option includes a new single lane bridge with 3 equal spans of 22 metres (total length 66m), constructed on the same horizontal alignment as the old bridge. The bridge is made using reinforced concrete that is readily available.

29 The bridge is long enough to allow remnants of the old bridge to be left undisturbed by the new construction. The new bridge deck will however restrict reconstruction of the pillars/towers in their original location.

30 The stone pillars and braid could be restored in a new location adjacent to the new bridge.

Advantages

· This option will provide a new bridge in the shortest timeframe (subject to consent approvals).

· This option is the cheapest option available to provide a new bridge to modern specifications including flood resilience and debris loads.

· Unlikely to require private property purchases for this option.

· Incorporates Community needs where possible including use by HPMV and agricultural equipment/plant and use by livestock, pedestrians and cyclists.

· The new bridge will meet appropriate design code for flood resilience and debris loads.

· This option provides for the protection of the remnants of the old bridge.

Disadvantages

· This option will restrict future restoration of the old bridge.

· If the stone pillars are restored with this option they will not be in their original location.

· This option is not supported by Heritage New Zealand.

Option Three (Recommended Option) – Construct a modern bridge on a new alignment with the stone pillars rebuilt in their original location

31 This option includes the construction of a bridge on a new alignment downstream of the original bridge. The stone pillars and braid can be reconstructed in their original location.

32 Option Three will attract additional costs associated with approach construction and connection to the existing road alignment. Land purchase will be required for this option.

Advantages

· The bridge will be clear of known heritage/archaeological remains and is supported by Heritage New Zealand which will make consenting simpler.

· Incorporates Community needs where possible including use by HPMV and agricultural equipment/plant and use by livestock, pedestrians and cyclists.

· The new bridge will meet appropriate design code for flood resilience and debris loads.

· New alignment allows for the preservation or reconstruction of original heritage elements and the potential future redevelopment of the old bridge as a future walking/cycling bridge.

Disadvantages

· This is the most expensive option due to the realignment of the approaches and potential land purchases.

· This option may take longer to construct due to potential land purchase requirements.

· Was the least supported option during consultation.

NEXT STEPS

33 Following a decision by the Council staff will progress this project as a priority.

Signatories

Author:

Susil Gunathilake - Senior Contract Engineer

Authoriser:

Josh Von Pein - Transport Delivery Manager

Richard Saunders - Group Manager Transport

Leanne Mash - General Manager Infrastructure and Networks (Acting)

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Sutton Bridge Replacement Options Information Sheet	37
b	IPENZ Heritage Chapter Submission	39

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision/report/proposal 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 report contributes to a number of outcomes as it is reinstating a connection considered important by the local community.

Māori Impact Statement

Iwi have not been involved in the process to date. Iwi are likely to be involved during the detailed design and consenting phase of the project.

Sustainability

Reinstating the connection provided by the Mt Ross Road bridge will provide sustainable transport links contributing to economic and social outcomes for the community.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This project is not included in the LTP and/or annual plan. Completion of this project will reinstate a level of service that existed prior to the June 2017 flood event.

Financial considerations

The recommended option is expected to cost $4.7m with the final level of NZTA funding still to be confirmed. The project is currently unfunded as it is part of the flood recovery work following the July 2017 event. It is intended that the DCC portion of the project is funding by re-prioritising existing capital budgets, therefore no further funding is sought.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

A two-stage external engagement process has occurred. This involved members of the Strath-Taieri community, the wider general public and key stakeholder groups.

Engagement - internal

No additional internal engagement has occurred.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no significant risks identified with this decision.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest identified.

Community Boards

This report relates to a project occurring in the Strath-Taieri Community Board area. The Board have expressed a desire to reinstate the bridge at the earliest opportunity and to ensure that any new bridge provides for the community’s needs.

Council

2 October 2018

Waste Minimisation Fund Grants

Department: Water and Waste

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 In 2013 the Council adopted the Dunedin City Council (DCC) Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP).

2 The WMMP, in accordance with the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, provides for the allocation of a portion of the Waste Levy funds received from the Ministry for the Environment, for contestable grants. The 10 Year Plan provides for an annual amount of $80,000 from the Waste Levy fund to be allocated for grants. Grants are to be used for projects and initiatives that encourage waste minimisation and diversion of materials from landfill.

3 This purpose of this report is to obtain approval for three levels of grants to be made available. Its purpose is also to ask council to delegate to the Grants Subcommittee the authority to assess and make decisions on applications over $500, and to delegate to the Chair of the Grants Subcommittee (or in the event that the Chairperson is unavailable, to the Deputy Chairperson) the authority to assess and make decisions on applications under $500.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves that the grant funding of $80,000 be allocated to three levels of grants as follows:

· Waste Minimisation Small Projects grants - $10,000 for individual grants up to $500.

· Community Waste Minimisation Project and Events grants - $30,000 for applications of $500 to $5,000.

· Waste Minimisation Innovation and Development grants (commercial sector) - $40,000 for applications $5,000 and over.

b) Delegates to the Chair of the Grants Subcommittee, or in the event the Chairperson is unavailable to the Deputy Chairperson, the authority to make decisions on Waste Minimisation Small Projects grant applications up to $500.

c) Delegates to the Grants Subcommittee the authority to assess and make decisions on Community Waste Minimisation Project and Events grants between $500 and $5,000, and Waste Minimisation Innovation and Development grants for applications for $5,000 and over.

BACKGROUND

4 In 2008 the Waste Minimisation Act was enacted. The act required all territorial authorities to conduct a waste assessment in their district. This was followed by the adoption of a WMMP in 2013.

5 The WMMP outlines waste minimisation initiatives including education workshops, promotion and advertising, diverted material infrastructure and other initiatives that reduce waste or increase material diversion from landfill.

6 Funding for the WMMP initiatives and activities includes a Government waste levy allocation which comes from landfill gate charges. The waste levy allocation to the DCC Waste and Environmental Solutions team (W&ES) is used for promoting and achieving waste minimisation in accordance with the WMMP.

7 W&ES can make funds available from its share of the waste levy for grants under section 47 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, to promote or achieve waste minimisation activities.

8 Objective 8 and 9 of the DCC WMMP 2013 includes enabling the allocation of funds to community-led and business waste minimisation projects and initiatives:

· OBJECTIVE 8: Dunedin communities and learning agencies are actively engaged in zero waste education and are empowered to act with local initiative.

o POLICY: The DCC will ensure zero waste action is promoted within communities.

§ Method: The DCC will encourage members of the community to practice waste minimisation in their homes and neighbourhoods and support the development of community-led initiatives that make beneficial use of diverted materials locally.

§ Waste levy grants will be made available to community groups that have an organised approach and prepared plan which meet the required criteria via an application process.

· OBJECTIVE 9: Dunedin businesses minimise waste, are resource-efficient and demonstrate innovation which grows or attracts sustainable market opportunities to the city.

o POLICY: The DCC will partner or form working relationships with industry, businesses and neighbouring councils to support or incentivise initiatives and developments that will increase the quantity and range of diverted material able to be collected and processed in the region.

§ Method: The DCC will assess, partner, endorse or support Waste Levy Contestable Fund applications which minimise waste and/or add value to recovered materials with the potential to create local employment opportunities.

DISCUSSION

9 The DCC contestable Waste Minimisation grants will be available to provide funding for projects and initiatives that encourage waste minimisation and divert materials from landfill.

10 To be successful grant applications must include the following acceptable activities:

· Projects that minimise waste (lessen waste generation)

· Projects that divert a greater quantity or range of material for reuse, recycling or recovery

· Waste minimisation educational programmes

· Waste minimisation promotional activity

11 Grant applications must give effect to or promote waste minimisation and support the vision as set out in the WMMP, take place within or benefit the Dunedin region, be innovative, include educational projects that promote waste minimisation activity only, enhance existing programmes, reduce harm to the environment, improve efficiency of resource use or reuse, or directly reduce waste to landfill.

12 Grant applications cannot subsidise the cost of waste to landfill, be for projects that are inconsistent with the WMMP, be for individuals working on private projects that clearly do not provide benefits to the wider community, be projects that do not involve waste generated from within the Dunedin region, be retrospective projects where the funding sought is for work already completed, be for debt servicing, or for activities that duplicate other demonstration projects or pilot studies.

13 DCC will not commit to ongoing financial support, and the award of a grant will not entitle the recipient to any future grant.

14 The 10 Year Plan has budgeted for an $80,000 allocation from the annual waste levy funding for contestable grants. It is proposed that the annual allocation will be broken down into three levels of grants as follows:

· Waste Minimisation Small Project grants.

o Individual grants of up to $500, with a total annual budget allocation of $10,000. These grants would be open all year except for January. Applications would be assessed by a Waste Minimisation Officer and W&ES team members. Final approval would be delegated to the Chairperson of Grants Subcommittee, or in the event that the Chairperson is unavailable, to the Deputy Chairperson.

· Community Waste Minimisation Project and Event grants.

o Two funding rounds of $15,000, with a total annual budget allocation of $30,000. Minimum application of $500 with applicants required to demonstrate a minimum 30% contribution towards the project or event (this may include volunteer hours). Funding rounds would coincide with the Community Grants time frame of March and September. Applications would be assessed by Waste Minimisation Officer and W&ES team members. Final approval and allocation would be delegated to the Grants Subcommittee (including appointed community representatives).

· Waste Minimisation Innovation and Development grants (commercial sector)

o One annual funding round of $40,000. Minimum application of $5,000, with applicants required to demonstrate a minimum 30% contribution. The funding round would coincide with the Community Grants time frame of March. Applications would be assessed by Waste Minimisation Officer and W&ES team members. Final approval and allocation would be delegated to the Grants Subcommittee (including appointed community representatives).

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

15 Council approves the three grant funds and delegations to the Chair of the Grants Subcommittee, and to the Grants Subcommittee, to aid, encourage, and support local businesses and community-led waste minimisation activities in Dunedin.

Advantages

· DCC supports communities and businesses to reduce waste to landfill

· DCC promotes and supports waste minimisation education and activities

· Impacts on the environment from waste are reduced

Disadvantages

· The demand for grants may exceed the budgeted allocation

Option Two – Status Quo

16 Funding and associated changes to the Committee and Structure Delegations document is not approved.

Advantages

· The annual Waste Minimisation grants budget of $80,000 is used for other waste minimisation activity

Disadvantages

· Reduced progress against objective 8 of the WMMP

· Limits the progress of waste minimisation activity in Dunedin

NEXT STEPS

17 If the recommendations of this report are approved staff will finalise the grants application documentation and changes to the Committee Structure and Delegations document by 31 January 2019.

Signatories

Author:

Catherine Gledhill - Waste Minimisation Officer

Authoriser:

Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions

Leanne Mash - General Manager Infrastructure and Networks (Acting)

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision/report/proposal 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	☒	☐	☐

This report relates to the DCC’s Waste Minimisation and Management Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known local impacts for tangata whenua

Sustainability

Supporting the community in terms of waste minimisation and a circular economy are aligned with the DCC’s ambitions around zero carbon and sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no known implications for the 10 Year Plan or Annual Plan.

Financial considerations

This proposal includes $80,000 of budgeted waste levy funding as per paragraph 15.

Significance

This submission is considered to be of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

This proposal has been developed by Waste and Environmental Solutions and the Risk and Internal Audit Manager.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

Council

2 October 2018

Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (2GP) - Legal Effect of Rules

Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report recommends that the Council rescinds its resolution of 21 September 2015 in relation to timing of when certain rules in the Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (2GP) should have legal effect. By rescinding the resolution to defer certain rules from taking legal effect, this will ensure that all rules in the 2GP have legal effect at the same time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Rescinds its resolution of 21 September 2015, that the rules provided for in section 86B(3) of the RMA are to have legal effect upon the Plan becoming operative.

BACKGROUND

2 Section 86B of the RMA sets out when rules in proposed plans have legal effect (meaning they are considered alongside the current plan until they become operative and replace the current plan’s rules). The objectives and policies of proposed plans have immediate legal effect.

3 Legal effect means the provisions (rules, objectives and policies) are considered alongside the provisions in the current operative District Plan when processing an application for resource consent. Where both sets of provisions are applicable, they will be weighted according to which stage the submission, hearing and appeal process is at and how many submissions are in support/opposition of the provision. Where there are a high number of submissions in opposition, it is unlikely the provision will be afforded much weight.

4 The RMA states that all rules protecting or relating to water, air, soil (for soil conservation), aquaculture activities, and that protect historic heritage, significant areas of indigenous fauna or significant indigenous vegetation, have immediate legal effect upon notification unless the local authority resolves that the rule only has legal effect once the proposed plan becomes operative.

5 On 21 September 2015, alongside the decision to notify the proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (2GP), the Council resolved to delay the rules provided for in section 86B(3) from taking effect until the plan becomes operative. This resolution was made in order to avoid these rules taking effect from the date of public notification but others not taking effect until after decisions on submissions are publicly notified. Such a situation would have been likely to cause confusion and uncertainty both for resource consents planners processing applications and for customers applying for consent, as well as adding to consent processing costs.

6 This decision can be rescinded at any time, and past practice has been to rescind this resolution to align the timing of legal effect with when decisions are released on the proposed plan, which is the time when all other rules normally have legal effect (section 86C).

DISCUSSION

7 The deferment of the legal effect of certain rules from the date of public notification of the 2GP was done to avoid confusion and uncertainty about which rules in the operative and proposed district plans applied. It also enabled a smoother transition from the operative district plan to the 2GP.

8 Once the decision on submissions is publicly notified, all other rules will have legal effect in accordance with section 86B(1) of the RMA. By rescinding the resolution to defer certain rules from taking legal effect, this will ensure that all rules in the 2GP have legal effect at the same time. If the resolution is not rescinded, there will be a period of time between when the decisions on submissions are released and when the rules are beyond appeal (s. 86F) with the result being that during this period the deferred rules and all other rules will have a different status.

OPTIONS

Option One - Recommended Option (Rescind resolution)

Advantages

· Reflects the Act’s intention that rules that relate to the matters in section 86B(3), to which the resolution related, be given legal effect as soon as practicable.

· Aligns with past practice.

· Enables a smoother transition from the operative district plan to the 2GP.

· Simpler for plan users to understand the status of rules.

Disadvantages

· None identified.

Option Two: Do not rescind resolution

Advantages

· None identified.

Disadvantages

· Differing status of rules could cause confusion for plan users.

· More complicated, longer, and potentially more costly, administrative change due to rules not having legal effect at the same time.

NEXT STEPS

9 If rescinded, the decision to rescind is required to be publicly notified.

Signatories

Author:	Anna Johnson - City Development Manager
Authoriser:	Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision relates to providing a regulatory function 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 is a procedural matter so has no implications for the strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

This procedural decision has no implications for Maori.

Sustainability

No implications for this procedural decision.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This decision has no implications for the Long Term Plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

This decision is deemed to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement policy.

Engagement – external

Council’s legal advisers recommend the approach set out in this report.

Engagement - internal

Not applicable.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks associated with this decision.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

No specific implications for Community Boards.

Council

2 October 2018

Owhiro Stream subdivision - Stage 2; Local Purpose Reserves - proposed Easement Rights

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report discusses an application from Owhiro River Limited for easements over parts of Local Purpose (Accessway) and (Utilities) Reserves in relation to a final part of Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Owhiro Stream subdivision in Mosgiel.

2 There are various easements proposed, which are located within three (3) separate Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserves to be created and a Local Purpose (Utilities) Reserve.

3 The proposed easements provide for the right to drain water, right to drain sewage and the right to convey water, convey electricity and the right to convey foul sewage through reserves vested in the Council.

4 This report asks the Council to make two decisions as Grantor. First, a decision in its capacity as the administering body for the reserve and second, a decision to exercise the Minister of Conservation's delegation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Grants, as administering body of the Local Purpose Reserves pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, easements for various rights to drain sewage and water and convey electricity and to convey water and convey foul sewage over parts of the Local Purpose (Accessway) and (Utilities) Reserves, described as follows:

1 Rights to Drain Sewage and Water – Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve

(i) Part Lot 108 on LT Plan 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854610, shown as Easement "O" on LT 527844, in favour of Lot 32 DP 519032 contained in CFR 814321, and in favour of Lot 33 DP 519032 contained in CFR 814322.

(ii) Part Lot 108 on LT Plan 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854610, shown as Easement "T" on LT 527844, in favour of Lot 67, Lot 68, and Lot 69 LT 527844, being the land respectively contained in CFR's 854599, 854600, and 854601.

(iii) Part Lot 110 on LT Plan 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854614, shown as Easement "V" on LT 527844 in favour of Lot 24 DP 519032, contained in CFR 814313.

(iv) Part Lot 110 on LT Plan 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854614, shown as Easement "X" on LT 527844 in favour of Lot 25 DP 519032, contained in CFR 814314.

(v) Part Lot 108 LT Plan 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854610, shown as Easements "O", "S", "T", and "U" on LT 527844, in gross to the Dunedin City Council.

(vi) Part Lot 110 LT Plan 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854614, shown as Easements "P", '"V", "W", "X", and "Y" on LT 527844, in gross to the Dunedin City Council.

2 Right to Drain Water – Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve

(i) Part Lot 111 on DP 519032, Part Computer Freehold Register 814333, shown as Easement "M" on DP 519032, in gross to the Dunedin City Council.

3 Right to Drain Water – Local Purpose (Utilities) Reserve

(i) Part Lot 102 on DP 519032, Part Computer Freehold Register 814332, shown as Easement "E" on DP 519032, in gross to the Dunedin City Council.

4 Rights to Convey Electricity

(i) Part Lot 108 LT 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854610, shown as Easements "O", "S", "T", and "U", in gross in favour of Aurora Energy Limited.

(ii) Part Lot 110 LT 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854614, shown as Easements "P", "V", "W", "X", and "Y" on LT 527844, in gross in favour of Aurora Energy Limited.

(iii) Part Lot 111 on DP 519032, Part Computer Freehold Register 814333, shown as Easements "B" and "M" on DP 519032, in gross in favour of Aurora Energy Limited.

5 Rights to Convey Water and Convey Foul Sewage

(i) Part Lot 111 on DP 519032, Part Computer Freehold Register 814333, shown as Easements "B" and "M" on DP 519032, in gross to the Dunedin City Council.

b) Decides the criteria for exemption for public notification have been met.

c) Approves under its delegation from the Minister of Conservation dated 12 June 2013 and pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, various easements for the rights to drain sewage and water and convey electricity and to convey water and convey foul sewage over parts of the Local Purpose (Accessway) and (Utilities) Reserves described as follows:

1 Rights to Drain Sewage and Water – Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve

(iii) Part Lot 110 on LT Plan 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854614, shown as Easement "V" on LT 527844 in favour of Lot 24 DP 519032, contained in CFR 814313.

(iv) Part Lot 110 on LT Plan 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854614, shown as Easement "X" on LT 527844 in favour of Lot 25 DP 519032, contained in CFR 814314.

(v) Part Lot 108 LT Plan 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854610, shown as Easements "O", "S", "T", and "U" on LT 527844, in gross to the Dunedin City Council.

(vi) Part Lot 110 LT Plan 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854614, shown as Easements "P", '"V", "W", "X", and "Y" on LT 527844, in gross to the Dunedin City Council.

2 Right to Drain Water – Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve

(i) Part Lot 111 on DP 519032, Part Computer Freehold Register 814333, shown as Easement "M" on DP 519032, in gross to the Dunedin City Council.

3 Right to Drain Water – Local Purpose (Utilities) Reserve

(i) Part Lot 102 on DP 519032, Part Computer Freehold Register 814332, shown as Easement "E" on DP 519032, in gross to the Dunedin City Council.

4 Rights to Convey Electricity

(i) Part Lot 108 LT 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854610, shown as Easements "O", "S", "T", and "U", in gross in favour of Aurora Energy Limited.

(ii) Part Lot 110 LT 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854614, shown as Easements "P", "V", "W", "X", and "Y" on LT 527844, in gross in favour of Aurora Energy Limited.

(iii) Part Lot 111 on DP 519032, Part Computer Freehold Register 814333, shown as Easements "B" and "M" on DP 519032, in gross in favour of Aurora Energy Limited.

5 Rights to Convey Water and Convey Foul Sewage

(i) Part Lot 111 on DP 519032, Part Computer Freehold Register 814333, shown as Easements "B" and "M" on DP 519032, in gross to the Dunedin City Council.

d) Decides to exercise the powers conferred on it by delegation under the Reserves Act 1977 to classify the reserves described as part Lot 102 DP 519032, Part Computer Freehold Register 814332 as a Local Purpose (Utilities) Reserve and Lot 111 DP 519032, Part Computer Freehold Register 814333 and Lots 108 and 110, LT Plan 527844, Part Computer Freehold Register 854610 as Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserves subject to the provisions of the Act.

e) Authorises the Council to do everything necessary to give effect to the above resolutions including the execution of all documents, and publication of any Gazette Notice.

BACKGROUND

5 Council has granted subdivision consent for a housing subdivision between part of the Council Owhiro Stream Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve and the Transrail Railway Line adjoining Gladstone Road North, Mosgiel. The subdivision is under construction and the easements are necessary to give effect to the subdivision consent.

6 This application relates to a final part of Stage 1, and to Stage 2. Attachment A shows the housing subdivision plan and the location of the Reserves.

7 Part of the development involves the granting of easements, which are located within three (3) separate Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserves vested in Council.

8 The proposed easements provide for the right to drain water, right to drain sewage and the right to convey electricity, and the right to convey water, and the right to convey foul sewage in gross in favour of the Council.

9 Formal approval is needed for the grant of easements over and the vesting of Lot 102 DP 519032 as Local Purpose (Utilities) Reserve and Lot 111 DP 519032 as Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserve, part of the Stage 1 developments, and their classification for the same purposes. Also, the same approval is required for Lots 108 and 110 LT 527844 being in Stage 2.

10 It is a requirement of the Reserves Act 1977 to classify the Local Purpose Reserves.

The Proposal

11 As part of the housing subdivision, each of the proposed Local Purpose Reserves will vest in the Council on deposit of DP Plan 519032 and LT Plan 527844.

12 It is proposed the Reserves will provide connections between roads and public areas within the subdivision.

13 The reserves will also be where Council and the electricity utility company (Aurora Energy) locate utilities to service the subdivision.

14 It is proposed that all utility installations have been buried below the ground and the ground remediated. Accordingly, the effect of the easements on the use of the Local Purpose Reserves will be minimal, unless maintenance or repairs are needed.

DISCUSSION

Land Status

Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserves

15 The land is proposed to vest in the Council as Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserves under the Reserves Act 1977 on deposit of LT Plan 527844 and is legally described on the Plan as being;

a) Lot 111, Deposited Plan 519032, all Computer Freehold Register 814333, and

b) Lots 108 and 110, LT Plan 527844, all Computer Freehold Register 854610 and 854614 respectively.

Local Purpose (Utilities) Reserve

16 The land is proposed to vest in the Council as Local Purpose (Utilities) Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 on deposit of DP Plan 519032 and is legally described on the Plan as being Lot 102, Deposited Plan 519032, all Computer Freehold Register 814332.

Council as the administering body

17 The Council, in its capacity as administering body of the reserve, has the responsibility for ensuring compliance in terms of the Reserves Act 1977 and for considering the merits of the proposal to grant easements.

18 Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 ("Section 48") is the statutory authority for the grant of easements for public purposes.

The Reserves Act 1977

19 Section 48(2) requires public notification of the intention to grant an easement unless it can be demonstrated that:

a) The reserve is vested in an administering body and is not likely to be materially altered or permanently damaged; and

b) The rights of the public in respect of the reserve are not likely to be permanently affected by the establishment and lawful exercise of the easement.

20 As all the utilities will be underground, the reserves are not likely to be materially altered or permanently damaged and the rights of the public in respect of the use of the reserves is not likely to be permanently affected by the establishment and lawful exercise of the easement.

Relevant Reserve Management Plans

21 The Reserves Management Plan – General Policies document ("General Policies") covers the general issues of the day-to-day administration of reserves in Dunedin. This document is used to guide management of the reserves.

22 Although the General Policies specify that easements should be for a limited term, in this instance Council officers recommend that the easements be granted in perpetuity. The primary purpose is public benefit in terms of allowing establishment of utilities and allowing for pedestrian access within to the Owhiro Stream housing subdivision.

23 It is not intended to charge any fees for the proposed easement as Council is both the Grantor and Grantee in this instance.

Merits of the proposed easements

24 The purposes of the easements are for the right to establish essential utilities including the rights to convey and to drain water, sewage and electricity. The use of the Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserves is an appropriate location for the easements within the Owhiro Stream housing subdivision. The underground utilities running through the easements will ensure there is little effect on the surface of the Reserves.

Easement terms and conditions

25 The proposed key elements of the easement includes:

Statute Granted pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977

Grantee Dunedin City Council

Legal Descriptions

Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserves

· Part Lot 111 on DP Plan 519032, part Computer Freehold Register 814333.

· Part Lots 108 and 110 on LT Plan 527844, part Computer Freehold Register 854610 and 854614 respectively.

Local Purpose (Utilities) Reserve

· Part Lot 102, Deposited Plan 519032, all Computer Freehold Register 814332.

Purpose The rights to drain sewage and water, rights to convey water and electricity (Aurora Energy), and right to convey foul sewage

Term In perpetuity

Rental Nil

The terms and conditions of the easements are to be finalised by the Council's solicitors.

Council as the Minister of Conservation's delegate

26 The Council, in its capacity as the Minister of Conservation's delegate, has the supervisory role in ensuring that the decision on whether or not to grant the easements has been arrived at in compliance with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.

27 In particular, the Council as the Minister's delegate, needs to be satisfied that:

· the status of the land has been correctly identified;

· there is a statutory power to grant the easement;

· the necessary statutory processes have been followed;

· the easement has been appropriately considered; and

· the decision is a reasonable one.

28 The three (3) Accessway Reserves are proposed to vest as Local Purpose Reserves under the Reserves Act 1977 on the deposit of DP Plan 519032 and LT Plan 527844. Computer Freehold Register 814333, 854610 and 854614 will be raised in the name of Council.

29 Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 provides the statutory authority to grant easements over Local Purpose Reserves. The statutory processes have been followed with full consideration given on whether public notification is required.

30 The utilities will be installed under the ground within the easement corridors and will not affect the surface or management of the Reserves.

OPTIONS (council as administering body and acting under delegation from the minister of conservation)

Option One – Recommended Option

31 Classifies Lot 111 on DP Plan 519032 and Lots 108, 110 on LT Plan 527844 as Local Purpose (Accessway) Reserves and consents to the grants of the rights to drain sewage and water, rights to convey water and electricity, and right to convey foul sewage, including in favour of the Dunedin City Council, on the terms and conditions outlined in this report.

Advantages

· The decision will be consistent with the conditions the Council has imposed on the subdivision resource consent.

· The proposal will not affect the surface of the reserves while facilitating provision of essential utilities to the adjoining new housing subdivision.

· Local residents are still able to enjoy the reserve as these will connect between streets within the subdivision.

· Confirms that the Council has fully considered the merits of the proposed easement and has complied with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977

Disadvantages

· Temporary disruption if maintenance or repairs require. Otherwise Nil as already installed.

Option Two – Status Quo

32 Do not consent to the classification and grant of the rights to drain sewage and water, rights to convey water and electricity, and right to convey foul sewage, including in favour of the Dunedin City Council, on the terms and conditions outlined in this report.

Advantages

· Avoids the temporary disruption when maintenance or repairs required to utilities.

Disadvantages

· The decision will be contrary to its prior decision to impose subdivision consent conditions when issuing the subdivision resource consent.

· The proposal will facilitate the provision of essential utilities for the adjoining housing subdivision.

· To take this option, the Council would need to decide that the Reserves Act 1977 has not been complied with and/or the decision to grant the easements is not a reasonable one.

NEXT STEPS

33 Once the reserves specified as Lot 111 on DP Plan 519032 and Lots 108 and 110 on LT Plan 527844 are vested in Council, the classification will be completed by gazette notice, and easements will be created. The title to the reserve will issue in Council's name.

Signatories

Author:

Owen Graham - Leasing and Land Advisor

Authoriser:

Robert West - Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Leanne Mash - General Manager Infrastructure and Networks (Acting)

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Owhiro River Subdivision Stage 2 - Plan of LP Reserve Easements	61

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 easements will result in allowing the use of the reserves for facilitating the provision of essential utilities for the Owhiro Stream housing subdivision, and allowing for the purposes of the reserves which contributes to the 3 Waters Strategy, Spatial Plan and Parks and Recreation Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Tangata Whenua.

Sustainability

The easements will provide for the sustainability of the adjoining Owhiro Stream housing subdivision while enhancing the environment and allowing local residents to enjoy the reserves as connections between streets.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy / Infrastructure Strategy

There are no known implications for the LTP or the Annual Plan. There are no implications for current levels of service or performance measures. The proposal is consistent with the Draft Infrastructure Strategy.

Financial considerations

There are no known financial implications.

Significance

This decision is of low significance in terms of the Council's Significant and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Engagement has been undertaken by Council with the developer of the Owhiro Stream housing subdivision. Liaison with the Surveyor has also been undertaken in terms of DP Plan 519032 and LT Plan 527844 for the Accessway Reserves.

Engagement - internal

Planning, Parks and Recreation, Water and Waste Services and In-House Legal Counsel have been consulted in relation to the proposal.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There is no material risk associated with the decision. The detailed terms and conditions of the easement documents will be checked by the Council's legal team. Any health and safety issues with regards to the proposed work will be dealt with by the developer of the Owhiro Stream housing subdivision.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The land is within the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board - there are no known implications for Community Boards.

Council

2 October 2018

Review of Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy

Department: Corporate Policy and Customer and Regulatory Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report attaches the findings of the Hearings Committee (Attachment A) following a review of the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy. The Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy was adopted by the Council in December 2017 with a resolution to review the policy 90 days after Easter Sunday 2018.

2 The special consultative procedure was carried out in July to review the policy. In September, the Hearings Committee considered submissions and heard submitters.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Considers the recommendations of the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy Hearings Committee

b) Revokes the Dunedin Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy with a revocation date of 1 January 2019.

BACKGROUND

Legislation

3 The 2016 Amendment to the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 (the Act) allows territorial authorities to create a local policy to allow Easter Sunday shop trading in its area. If adopted, an Easter Sunday shop trading policy means that opening to trade is permitted.

4 Without a policy, current restrictions apply i.e. on Easter Sunday only pharmacies, restaurants, souvenir shops and garden centres are permitted to trade. Licensed premises (including restaurants) are also permitted to trade, however they are subject to restrictions imposed by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, limiting the sale of alcohol to people present on the premises for dining.

5 Local policies must comply with shop trading provisions in other legislation, such as opening hours or determining what types of shops may open. Restrictions already in place pursuant to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 are not affected by such a policy.

6 The Act acknowledges that Easter Sunday continues to be a day of significance across New Zealand and some people would prefer not to work on this day. Shop employees can refuse to work on Easter Sunday and employers must not compel or treat shop employees adversely if they refuse.

7 Likewise, an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy does not compel businesses to open on Easter Sunday, however it gives them the option to trade should they wish to do so.

8 Mandatory opening provisions in shop leases may not be interpreted as requiring a shop to trade on Easter Sunday (unless it is the type of lease for which there is a specified exception in the Act, for example a garden centre).

9 If adopted, a Local Easter Sunday shop trading policy must be reviewed within five years. The special consultative procedure must be used to decide whether to:

a) Amend the policy

b) Revoke the policy

c) Replace the policy or

d) Continue the policy without amendment.

10 After this first review, no further reviews are required by legislation although further reviews may be made at any time.

Council adopts policy

11 In December 2017, the Council adopted a Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy for Dunedin - see Attachment B. This followed a request from the Otago Chamber of Commerce to consider the introduction of a policy in Dunedin.

12 At its December meeting, the Council resolved that it:

Adopts a Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy with the date of effect 1 January 2018 so that any type of shop may trade on Easter Sunday.

i) Decides to schedule a review of the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy to begin 90 days after Tuesday 3 April 2018.

ii) Writes to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment requesting that advertising is undertaken to increase awareness of employers' statutory obligations for offering employees work on Easter Sunday.

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Doug Hall).

In June 2018, the Council adopted a Statement of Proposal for use to review the policy.

At its June meeting, the Council resolved that it:

a) Adopts the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy Statement of Proposal.

b) Reappoints the members of the Hearings Committee as follows:

i) Councillor Andrew Whiley (Chair)

ii) Councillor Marie Laufiso

iii) Councillor Kate Wilson

iv) Councillor Damian Newell.

Moved (Cr Aaron Hawkins/Cr Doug Hall)

Initial consultation May 2018

13 A review of the policy after one year aimed to capture views immediately after the experience of Easter 2018, to guide future decisions on Easter Sunday trading.

14 Following Easter Sunday 2018, questions were developed to find out how each of the stakeholder groups i.e. employees, retailers and the public were affected by the policy on Easter Sunday 2018. Previous submitters, church groups and the wider community were also invited to share their views.

15 Feedback was mixed and was reported to the Council in June 2018. Key issues were the importance of protecting this non-trading day for families and health but also the importance of having the choice to trade, shop and work. Some workers reported they felt obligated or pressured to work if they did not want to while others appreciated the opportunity to shop and trade.

DISCUSSION

16 Formal consultation was carried out in July 2018 using the special consultative procedure. The Hearings Committee from 2017 was re-established to hear submitters and recommend to Council whether to continue the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy.

Results of consultation

17 Formal consultation ran from 2 July until 3 August 2018. Of the 111 submissions received, approximately 14 were from representatives of organisations. These included retail and business organisations as well as unions. The remainder were from individuals.

18 The majority of submitters, 63 percent, supported option two, not continuing the policy that allows all shops within the DCC district to open on Easter Sundays
(current situation); 36 percent chose option one, to continue the policy to allow all shops within the DCC area to open on Easter Sundays; and one person (one percent) did not select an option.

19 The main topics commented on by those who selected option one, were (in order of frequency):

· Allow the choice to trade, shop, work (23 comments)

· Easter Sunday is no longer religiously significant (11 comments)

· There are economic benefits from trading on this day (9 comments)

· Other comments such as trading is good customer service for Dunedin visitors and residents; it is sensible; and it allows opportunities for work.

20 The main topics commented on by those who selected option two, were (in order of frequency):

· Workers need Easter Sunday for family, rest and recreational time (45 comments)

· Do not support the loss of one of only 3.5 guaranteed holidays per year (22 comments)

· Workers feel pressured or obligated to work despite legislation (21 comments)

· Easter Sunday is religiously significant and should be observed (11 comments)

· Easter 2018 was a one-off for trading with Ed Sheeran concerts (6 comments)

· Other comments such as shops don’t need to be open every day; there are better ways to spend this day; and office workers don’t have to work so why should retailers.

Organisation petition and surveys

21 As part of their submissions, two organisations provided results of surveys and one organisation provided a petition.

Unite Union

22 Unite Union included a petition as part of its submission. The petition includes 84 signatures who “support retaining Easter Sunday as a trading holiday in Dunedin – there are more enjoyable and interesting ways to spend Easter Sunday than working and shopping”. The petition included three signatories with overseas addresses.

Chamber of Commerce

23 The Otago Chamber of Commerce surveyed its retail members. Sixty Two percent of the 23 respondents opened on Easter Sunday 2018 and of these 76 percent found it financially beneficial. Sixty percent thought they would open in the future and 75 percent thought retailers should have the choice to open.

24 The Chamber also surveyed its general members and 70 percent of the 78 respondents supported continuation of the policy.

Retail NZ

25 Retail NZ included national data with its submission, including the proportion of those who shopped on Easter Sunday 2018 and whether government should require shops to be closed on religious holidays.

Hearings Committee

26 The Hearings Committee considered all submissions and heard submitters early in September.

27 See Attachment A for the findings of the Hearings Committee.

28 See Attachment C for the minutes of the Hearings Committee hearings.

OPTIONS

29 If the decision is that the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy does continue, shops of all types will continue to be permitted to trade on Easter Sunday. The Act does not require further reviews though reviews may be may made at any time. The special consultative procedure must be used for any review.

30 If the decision is that the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy does not continue, only those shops currently permitted to trade under the exceptions in the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 will be permitted to trade on Easter Sunday. The Council may consider whether it wants to adopt a Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy at any future time. The Act requires that Council use the special consultative procedure in making any future decision. This means that the Council must invite comments on a proposed policy and hold hearings.

Option One (Status Quo) - Continue the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy in Dunedin

31 Continuing the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy will allow all shops within the Dunedin City Council district to trade on Easter Sunday.

Advantages

· Retailers can choose whether they trade on Easter Sunday

· Opportunity for employees who wish to work

· Opportunities for all retailers to seek trade

· Opportunities for economic benefits if major events are scheduled during Easter.

Disadvantages

· Loss of a guaranteed day off for employees impacts negatively on family, community and health of those who choose to work

· Staff feel compelled to work even though they are protected by legislation and this may disproportionally affect low income earners and single parent families

· Religious significance of Easter Sunday is no longer marked with restrictions on trading.

Option Two (Recommended) - Revoke the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy for Dunedin

32 If the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy (LESSTP) does not continue, only those shops that come within the exceptions within the Act will be permitted to trade on Easter Sunday in the Dunedin area.

Advantages

· Retain Easter Sunday as a guaranteed day off for employees in shops that are not currently permitted to trade, which is an important benefit for family, community and health

· Religious significance of Easter Sunday is marked with a trading holiday.

Disadvantages

· Retailers are unable to choose whether to trade on Easter Sunday

· Economic benefits and the availability of customer service for visitors during Easter are limited to shops that can currently trade.

NEXT STEPS

33 If the Council decides to revoke the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy in Dunedin and adopt all the Hearings Committee recommendations, next steps will be to:

· Notify the public of the Council's decision on the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy

· Notify MBIE of the Council’s decision on the Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy

· Write to MBIE on the following topics:

o An amendment to the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 to provide for a Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy to take effect only if specified conditions are met.

o An amendment to section 4 of the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 to include hardware/DIY stores.

o An amendment to section 5I of the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 to increase the notice period to employees to between 16 and 12 weeks before the relevant Easter Sunday.

Signatories

Author:

Anne Gray - Policy Analyst

Adrian Blair - Group Manager Customer and Regulatory Services

Authoriser:

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	Hearings Committee Findings Report	73
b	Dunedin Local Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy December 2017	76
c	Minutes of Hearings Committee Hearings September 2018	78

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

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

This decision/report/proposal relates to providing a regulatory function 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	☐	☐	☐

Easter Sunday trading potentially contributes to the vitality and vibrancy of the city. It has potential to both contribute and detract from the standard of living and vibrant and cohesive communities priorities of the Social Wellbeing strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no specific impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

The significance of any decision relating to an Easter Sunday Trading Policy is considered medium – high in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy with regard to community interest and involvement.

Engagement – external

During initial consultation, feedback was sought from the Otago Chamber of Commerce, Otago Southland Employers’ Association, First Union, Unite Union, the Combined Christian Groups Ministry Support Group, the People's Panel and previous submitters. Survey of retailers, employees and the public were carried out following Easter 2018 to gauge the experiences of each group. Results were reported to the Council in June 2018.These groups were also advised of the review and invited to submit again in July 2018.

Engagement - internal

Throughout the process of adopting and reviewing the policy, there has been engagement with in-house legal counsel, Corporate Policy and Customer & Regulatory Services.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

Council

2 October 2018

Annual Reports of the Dunedin City Holdings Ltd Group

Department: Dunedin City Holdings Ltd

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report introduces the 2018 Annual Reports of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL) Group companies.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Notes the 2018 Annual Reports of:

a) Aurora Energy Ltd

b) Delta Utility Services Ltd

c) Dunedin City Treasury Ltd

d) Dunedin Railways Ltd

e) Dunedin Stadium Property Ltd

f) Dunedin Venues Management Ltd

g) Dunedin International Airport Ltd

h) City Forests Ltd

i) Dunedin City Holdings Ltd

BACKGROUND

2 The subsidiaries and associate companies of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd are required to prepare and deliver an Annual Report to Council for noting.

DISCUSSION

3 The 2018 Annual Reports of the subsidiaries and associate companies of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd are now presented for formal noting by Council.

4 The 2018 Annual Reports of all DCHL Group companies, except City Forests Ltd and Dunedin City Holdings Ltd, are attached to this report.

5 The audits of City Forests Ltd and Dunedin City Holdings Ltd were still being completed at the time of writing. The 2018 Annual Reports of these companies are expected to be circulated to Council prior to the statutory due date of 30 September 2018.

6 These Annual Reports are now available on the Dunedin City Council website.

7 As this report is for administrative and statutory reporting purposes, a summary of considerations and options is not required.

OPTIONS

8 Not applicable.

NEXT STEPS

9 Not applicable.

Signatories

Author:	Jemma Adams - General Manager, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd
Authoriser:	Dave Tombs - General Manager Finance and Commercial

Attachments

	Title	Page
a	2018 Annual Report - Aurora Energy Ltd (Under Separate Cover)
b	2018 Annual Report - Delta Utility Services Ltd (Under Separate Cover)
c	2018 Annual Report - Dunedin City Treasury Ltd (Under Separate Cover)
d	2018 Annual Report - Dunedin Railways Ltd (Under Separate Cover)
e	2018 Annual Report - Dunedin Stadium Property Ltd (Under Separate Cover)
f	2018 Annual Report - Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (Under Separate Cover)
g	2018 Annual Report - Dunedin International Airport Ltd (Under Separate Cover)
h	2018 Annual Report - City Forests Ltd (to follow 30 September 2018) (Under Separate Cover)
i	2018 Annual Report - Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (to follow 30 September 2018) (Under Separate Cover)

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This is a legislative requirement for Council Controlled Trading Organisations.

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 performance of the companies contributes to the overall delivery of the strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no known impacts for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Not applicable – reporting only.

Financial considerations

Not applicable – reporting only.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement outside the DCHL Group.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement to date.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

Council

2 October 2018

Non-Trading Council Controlled Organisations - Application for Exemption

Department: Finance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 An exemption is sought under section 7(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 for non-trading Council Controlled Organisations from the requirement to fulfil reporting and other requirements imposed by the Local Government Act 2002.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Grants an exemption under section 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 to each of the companies named below, whilst they are not being used for any trading:

i) Tourism Dunedin Limited;

ii) Dunedin Events Limited;

iii) Dunedin Visitor Centre Limited;

iv) Otago Power Limited; and

v) Lakes Contract Services Limited.

BACKGROUND

3 The Local Government Act 2002 section 7(3) provides for Council, by resolution, to exempt small organisations from being a Council Controlled Organisation and, therefore, making them exempt from the reporting and other requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

4 At various times Council has approved the establishment of shelf companies. These companies have been established as Council Controlled Organisations. The shelf companies were registered only for the purpose of securing the names. None of the companies are presently engaged in a trading activity. However, they are still required to comply with the reporting and other criteria imposed on Council Controlled Organisations by the Local Government Act 2002. This includes the obligation to prepare an annual statement of intent. Section 7 of the Act allows the Council to exempt a small Council Controlled Organisation that does not trade. The effect is that for the period of the exemption it is not in fact a Council Controlled Organisation for the purposes of the Act. The period of the exemption can only last for three years and the current exemption is due to expire.

DISCUSSION

5 Council is required to take into account the following matters:

a) The nature and scope of the activities provided by the companies; and

b) The costs and benefits, if an exemption is granted, to the Council, the companies and the community.

6 Given that the shelf companies are not undertaking any activities and if the exemption was not approved there would be additional administrative costs associated with the companies, it is appropriate that Council grant the exemption.

OPTIONS

7 Not applicable.

NEXT STEPS

8 The exemption will be re-confirmed three years from date of this approval – October 2021.

Signatories

Author:	Dave Tombs - General Manager Finance and Commercial
Authoriser:	Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This fulfils a legislative requirement for Non-Trading Council Controlled Organisations.

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	☐	☐	☒

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no known impacts for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no known impacts.

Financial considerations

There are no known impacts.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

Council

2 October 2018

Resolution to Exclude the Public

That the Council excludes the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting (pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987) namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 Confirmation of the Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting - 28 August 2018 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(j) The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage. S7(2)(c)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied. S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C2 Property Negotiations - Inner City Site	S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.	In particular this report is confidential to protect Council's position in respect of the negotiations for a proposed property sale. .
C3 Property Negotiations - Potential Housing Site	S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.	In particular this report is confidential to protect Council's position in respect of the negotiations for a proposed property sale. .
C4 Appointment to Dunedin Indoor Sports Venue Trust	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.
C5 Annual Review - DCC Treasury Risk Management Policy	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C6 Dunedin City Holdings Group Appointments and Re-Appointments	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 resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act, or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as shown above after each item.

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
	Cr Kate Wilson

	Title	Page
a	Councillor Register of Interest September 2018	7

	Title	Page
a	Executive Leadership Team Register of Interest September 2018	17

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 28 August 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Economic Development Committee held on 11 September 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Finance and Council Controlled Organisations Committee held on 11 September 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Hearings Committee held on 5 September 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Waikouaiti Coast Community Board held on 4 July 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Otago Peninsula Community Board held on 5 July 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Strath Taieri Community Board held on 5 July 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of West Harbour Community Board held on 11 July 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Saddle Hill Community Board held on 12 July 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

	Title	Page
a	Minutes of Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board held on 18 July 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

Author:	Sharon Bodeker - Team Leader Civic
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - General Manager Strategy and Governance