Agenda of Planning and Environment Committee

Planning and Environment Committee

12 February 2019

Part A Reports

Housing capacity assessment for Dunedin City

Department: Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Dunedin is experiencing its highest population growth in over 20 years. As a result of this growth, Dunedin has been reclassified as a medium-growth urban area under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC).

2 As a medium-growth area, the DCC is required to ensure there is sufficient housing development capacity in the short (3 years), medium (10 years) and long-term (30 years).

3 The first step is to consider the existing capacity of Dunedin’s residential land. The attached report provides an overview of housing capacity in the city and finds Dunedin has enough capacity to meet five years of demand for residential land.

4 As there is a shortfall of residential capacity, the DCC needs to consider how it will enable further development capacity to accommodate medium and long-term growth.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the conclusions of the Housing Capacity Assessment for Dunedin City dated January 2019 and that work is underway to identify options to address medium and long-term housing capacity requirements.

BACKGROUND

5 The NPS-UDC was released in November 2016 and requires councils to consider the impacts of their planning frameworks on the development market. A key part of this is enabling the market to operate efficiently by providing enough opportunities for development.

6 The NPS-UDC sets objectives for all councils, with additional requirements for medium and high-growth areas. New population projections released in September 2017 triggered requirements for DCC to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the demand and capacity for new housing.

7 The development of the Second Generation District Plan (2GP) predated the new population projections. As a result, the amount of capacity that the 2GP enables was based on the assumption that Dunedin would have a lower rate of population growth.

8 Land available for development must be already serviced with infrastructure or have the required infrastructure identified in the 10 Year Plan or Infrastructure Strategy. The attached housing capacity assessment has been developed in consultation with 3 Waters and Transport.

DISCUSSION

Demand for residential land

9 An assessment of future demand found the Dunedin urban area requires:

· 1,300 additional dwellings over the short term (2018-21)

· 2,850 additional dwellings over the medium term (2018-28)

· 6,200 additional dwellings over the long term (2018-48)

10 To ensure that cities have sufficient development capacity, the NPS-UDC requires councils to provide an additional margin of capacity over and above demand.

Supply of residential land

11 The DCC uses a model to assess the capacity of land zoned for residential use in Dunedin. The model evaluates capacity based on 2GP provisions and site conditions, as well as the economic feasibility of potential developments. Based on this modelling, the DCC estimates there is existing capacity for 2,200 new dwellings within the Dunedin urban area.

Sufficiency of residential capacity

12 As the current rate of population growth is estimated to be significantly higher than projected, almost twice as many dwellings are likely to be required in the short term than anticipated. As a result, the identified capacity for new homes is likely to be exhausted much earlier than expected.

13 The assessed capacity is expected to be sufficient for five years’ of residential growth. Capacity for an additional 1,000 dwellings is required to meet NPS-UDC requirements for the medium-term (2018-28) demand for housing.

14 Some residential land is not feasible to develop under current economic conditions. An alternative scenario was tested to assess economic feasibility under potential future economic conditions. Under this scenario, residential capacity was found to be sufficient to meet short, medium, and long-term demand. However, this scenario would require house prices continuing to increase by 8.8% per annum, the same rate as the last 15 years.

Options

15 Options are not provided as this report is for noting only.

NEXT STEPS

16 Dunedin does not currently comply with the NPS-UDC requirement to enable feasible, zoned capacity for growth between 2018 and 2028, or to identify feasible capacity out to 2048.

17 The DCC is required to provide further development capacity. Under Policy PC3 of the NPS-UDC, a response must be initiated within 12 months. Work has started to identify appropriate options to address medium and long-term capacity requirements. This is discussed further in the committee report ‘Initiation of changes to the Second Generation District Plan (2GP)’, also on this committee agenda.

18 The capacity of infrastructure to accommodate growth is likely to be a significant constraint. Infrastructure constraints are not expected to impact on the ability for landowners to develop land already zoned for residential purposes, but are likely to influence how additional capacity can be enabled.

Signatories

Author:

Nathan Stocker - Policy Planner (Urban Development Capacity)

Authoriser:

Paul Freeland - Senior Planner

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Housing Capacity Assessment for Dunedin City	20

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.

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 is largely information only, but will contribute to infrastructure and spatial planning.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known direct impacts of this report for tangata whenua. However, the report findings suggest that further housing capacity is required and the provision of this may have impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

No implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

As additional infrastructure projects may be required to enable further housing capacity, the report findings may have future implications on the 10 Year Plan and Infrastructure Strategy.

Financial considerations

As additional infrastructure projects may be required to enable further housing capacity, there may be future financial implications of the report’s findings.

Significance

This report is assessed as low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Engagement has occurred with the University of Otago, Transpower, Aurora, New Zealand Transport Agency, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health. Preliminary discussions have occurred with Aukaha.

Engagement - internal

Engagement has occurred with Parks and Recreation, Transport, Corporate Policy, Property, Enterprise Dunedin and Three Waters.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

No identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

No identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no direct implications of this report for community boards. However, the report findings suggest that further housing capacity is required and the provision of this may have implications for community boards.

Planning and Environment Committee

12 February 2019

Initiation of changes to the Second Generation District Plan (2GP)

Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Decisions on the Second Generation District Plan (2GP) were released in November 2018 after a period of development extending back to 2012.

2 This report seeks approval to initiate two plan changes to the Second Generation District Plan (2GP).

3 The first plan change to be approved for initiation is to address minor issues in the 2GP that have been identified since it was initially developed. This plan change (Plan Change 1) will not have any substantial impact on the plan’s objectives, policies or methods but will predominantly correct minor issues with the rules and mapping.

4 The second plan change responds to the latest urban development capacity assessment results as required under the National Policy Statement – Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC). According to the results of the Housing Capacity Assessment for Dunedin City report (also on this Committee agenda) Dunedin currently has enough capacity to meet five years’ worth of demand for new housing. As such, we are required to initiate a response to this shortfall within 12 months. This report seeks approval to undertake preliminary work on a plan change to the 2GP to enable additional capacity over the medium-term.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Approves the initiation of a plan change to address minor issues in the Second Generation District Plan (2GP) (Plan Change 1).

b) Approves the initiation of a plan change to the Second Generation District Plan (2GP) to enable additional residential capacity (Plan Change 2).

Background and Discussion

Plan Change 1 (2GP Minor Issues and Errors)

5 Several errors and minor issues have been identified since the close of submissions on the 2GP. These errors and issues include: typos, unclear wording, provisions that are contradictory, mapping errors and unintentional gaps in rules. Where possible, these were addressed through decisions on submissions or changes allowed under clause 16 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act. Clause 16 provides an exemption to the normal Schedule 1 steps for a plan change for a local authority to make changes where ”an alteration is of minor effect, or may correct any minor errors”. However, there are still a handful of issues that could not be addressed through either of these processes.

6 The minor plan issues and errors that could not be resolved through cl.16 or submissions, or have been identified more recently, have been collated for incorporation into a plan change. The intention is to notify this plan change (Plan Change 1) by the middle of 2019.

Plan Change 2 (additional Urban Development Capacity areas)

7 As detailed in the concurrent report, the National Policy Statement – Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) aims to ensure that councils adequately consider the impacts of their planning frameworks on the development market. This includes enabling the market to operate efficiently by providing sufficient opportunities for development.

8 New population projections released in September 2017 meant that Dunedin triggered additional requirements as a medium-growth urban area, including assessing the demand and capacity for new housing.

9 The Housing Capacity Assessment for Dunedin City indicates a shortfall in residential capacity of approximately 1,000 dwellings over the medium term (2021-28) and 4,700 over the long term (2028-48). Consequently, the NPS-UDC requires that the DCC initiate a response to provide sufficient residential capacity within 12 months. Residential land for the medium-term must either be serviced or have funding identified for servicing in the 10 Year Plan. Residential land for the long-term must have infrastructure requirements identified in the Infrastructure Strategy.

10 The development of options for enabling further residential capacity must be guided by the strategic framework in the Dunedin Spatial Plan and the 2GP. As the 2GP policy criteria are subject to appeal, it is intended to ask the Environment Court to fast track any consent orders and hearings on outstanding appeal points on these matters (with some appeal points potentially being able to be mediated).

11 Decisions on those criteria will also be required prior to consideration of appeals on zoning, where the use of those criteria is fundamental to the appeal.

12 The NPS also requires DCC to identify how long-term demand for housing will be enabled. Long term demand does not need to be zoned in the District Plan and is usually identified in a separate plan prepared under the Local Government Act. A proposed project to address this requirement, including how this will link to the Spatial Plan adopted by Council in 2012 will be outlined in a future report.

13 The identification of issues and options will consider the most recent information on housing needs and can take on board any relevant findings of the Mayor’s Taskforce on Housing. It may also include new housing preferences research.

14 The NPS-UDC requires that the DCC consider all practicable options to enable necessary housing capacity. This could include applying residential zoning to new areas (greenfield development) and/or amending rules or other provisions to increase the density of housing enabled in existing urban zoned land, or using statutory tools and methods available under other legislation.

15 The identification and evaluation of options will involve collaboration between City Development, Transport, and 3 Waters to identify options that are cost-effective to service. This will also ensure integration between land use and infrastructure planning documents, including the 2GP and Infrastructure Strategy.

16 Once initial options are developed, consultation with landowners will be undertaken to ascertain the likelihood that areas would be developed if enabled. Broader public consultation will also support the evaluation of other aspects of the feasibility of development, and the assessment against the 2GP policy criteria.

17 The plan change will then involve formal submissions on the preferred areas.

OPTIONS

Option One –Approve initiation of plan changes

Advantages

Plan Change 1:

· Will make the 2GP clearer and easier to use and therefore more efficient and cost-effective.

· Will remove unintended consent requirements.

Plan Change 2:

· Will assist the DCC with infrastructure planning.

· Compliance with legislative requirements.

Disadvantages

· None identified.

Option Two – Status Quo

Advantages

· None identified.

Disadvantages

Plan Change 1:

· Not addressing these issues will lead to difficulties with plan administration and the plan rules and methods not appropriately or effectively giving effect to the policies of the Plan.

Plan Change 2:

· Dunedin will not have adequate housing capacity or infrastructure in place when required.

· DCC will not meet its obligations under the NPS.

NEXT STEPS

18 If Plan Change 1 is approved, council officers will prepare a plan change (including undertaking the required Section 32 analysis) to address the identified 2GP errors and will seek approval from this committee to formally notify the plan change to start the submissions and hearing (if required) process.

19 If Plan Change 2 is approved, council officers will develop a range of options to enable additional residential capacity. These options will be brought to this committee later in 2019 for approval. If approved, the next step will involve informal public consultation prior to preparing the plan change (including finalising the required Section 32 analysis) for approval by Committee for notification and the start of formal submissions.

Signatories

Author:

Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

Authoriser:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

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	☐	☐	☒

The identified projects would positively contribute to the Strategic Framework.

Māori Impact Statement

The Resource Management Act is subject to the Treaty of Waitangi and also requires consideration of ‘the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga’ as a matter of national importance; accordingly early consultation with tangata whenua will occur if potential effects on these matters are anticipated.

Sustainability

The Resource Management Act has sustainable management as its purpose, therefore this will be a primary consideration in the plan changes.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

These projects are not specifically identified in the LTP as they are part of the core function of the City Development team. Plan Change 2 will need to be integrated with a review of the Infrastructure Strategy.

Financial considerations

The projects are unbudgeted, however, they will be primarily undertaken by existing staff.

Significance

This report is assessed as low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

No external engagement has been undertaken.

Engagement - internal

Engagement with the 3 Waters Group has occurred in relation to Plan Change 2.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

No identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

No identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards have submitted on plan changes previously.

Planning and Environment Committee

12 February 2019

Coastal hazards and community engagement - Ocean Beach

Department: 3 Waters

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report recommends that the Council takes a dynamic adaptive pathways approach at Ocean Beach (coast between St Clair Headland and Lawyers Head). The project enables the DCC to better evaluate coastal hazard risk into the future and to engage the community in recommending coastal management adaptation options for Ocean Beach, over the long term (100 years) consistent with central government guidance and best practise.

2 The dynamic adaptive management approach is based on the premise that as climate change predictions change and experienced conditions change through time, the most suitable adaptation pathway will inevitably change too. It is a tool to cope with uncertainty and risk and places communities at the centre of the options assessment process. The approach is widely considered ‘best practice’ in coastal management and is recommended by central government as the most appropriate model of community engagement and long-term strategy development in the coastal space.

3 The key implication of this report for DCC is a set of dynamic adaptive management pathways (short, medium and long-term adaptation preferences) to be generated by the community (to be drawn on through time).

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes that a dynamic adaptive management approach will be used for Ocean Beach in response to coastal issues.

BACKGROUND

4 Coastal management attempts at Ocean Beach have been the subject of much public and professional scrutiny. The current shoreline reflects a variety of past decisions, each made to address issues on a case-by-case basis. Such decisions have culminated to produce more general changes at the coast such as the incremental seaward advance of infrastructure, the loss of beach amenity and the exposure of hazardous materials along the coast. The beach has been forced seawards such that the coast is impacted more regularly than it otherwise would be. Furthermore, the presence of hazardous fill materials at the coastal margin (beneath Kettle Park) increases the consequence of erosion and makes it more difficult to intervene in an effective manner.

5 Engineered interventions at Ocean Beach have assisted in the Ocean Beach ‘holding pattern’, mitigating the effects of storm erosion at critically vulnerable sections of coast. However, the Ocean Beach coast has rarely been considered holistically (St Clair Headland to Lawyers Head). The recommendations of this report offer an opportunity to transition away from the historic ‘holding pattern’ approach and toward a risk-based approach that would also provide a platform from which long-term coastal adaption can be tackled by Council and community.

6 Dunedin faces climate change impacts over the next 100 years and beyond, including the impacts of sea level rise. In response to this, it is critical that DCC begin to work more closely with the community and stakeholders to plan how to adapt, and enhance community resilience to these impacts. This is relevant for Ocean Beach where exposure to natural hazards is a long-running issue. It is expected that these natural hazards will place increased pressure on the area as sea levels rise, storm patterns change and infrastructure degrades through time.

7 The dynamic adaptive pathways approach provides opportunity for progressing climate change adaptation in the broader South Dunedin area, building good practice and tackling more immediate challenges. This approach will drive thinking and activity relating to the coastal aspect of adaptation, including engaging with communities around coastal values, hazards and future management options in the face of climate change.

DISCUSSION

8 The overarching issue for Ocean Beach can be summarised by three statements:

· DCC lack sufficient environmental data and/or reporting on this data to explore technical options over the long-term.

· Historically, attempts to engage with the community around coastal management at Ocean Beach have had limited success and reach.

· Reactive interventions have detracted attention from legacy issues and real alignment with work on long-term strategy development associated with climate change.

9 The current approach of reactive technical works and reporting lacks a framework under which long-term technical coastal management options can be explored with the community. The continuation of the DCC’s current approach will inevitably lead to increasing public concern, loss of beach amenity and progressively increasing costs associated with maintaining coastal infrastructure. Over several decades, a large amount of time and effort has been devoted towards the production of technical reports and the implementation of reactive, engineered interventions. A key issue has been the lack of community support of the mitigation options proposed in those technical reports.

The approach – Community-centred, dynamic adaptive management approach

10 It is important that Council and communities recognise that decisions made today will be challenged increasingly as the effects of climate change unfold. It is recommended that a community-centred, dynamic, adaptive pathways approach be adopted to help Council and communities navigate this challenge at Ocean Beach. The approach is recommended in the ‘New Zealand Coastal Policy statement (2010) (NZCPS, 2010)’ and more recently in ‘Coastal Hazards and Climate Change: Guidance for Local Government (2017)’. The approach involves the development of a system of ‘options’ (pathways) that can be used to set out a range of plausible futures, designed to meet changing levels of risk and community expectations.

11 The approach would involve a two-year project, year one would be focused on the building of foundational technical reports and planning for community engagement. Two key technical reports, a hazard assessment and a risk assessment would be completed. These assessments would help build understanding around the exposure of coastal assets and areas to different hazards, under different magnitudes of sea level rise and would be used to guide the dynamic adaptive pathways approach.

12 Year two would be focused on community engagement. A community panel, made up of Iwi and stakeholders from a range of groups would be established. This panel would undertake a series of workshops, supported by technical experts, council employees and the broader community to work towards the development of long-term adaptation pathways for the different sections of Ocean Beach. Social, cultural and economic impact assessments would also be completed to help better understand the potential impacts of each management option. The final output, generated by the community panel would be a series of recommended adaptation pathways for Ocean Beach. These pathways could be drawn on as a series of staged, strategic responses (actions) to the effects of climate change and shorter-term coastal change. It is expected that short term options produced by this process would be submitted to the 2021 10 year plan.

13 An indicative project timeline is provided in the table below.

Task	Timing
Approach to Council	Feb 2019
Project management/ scoping	Feb – May 2019
Coastal hazards assessment	April – June 2019
Coastal risk assessment	June – Aug 2019
Establish community panel	June – Dec 2019
Establish technical advisory group	June – Dec 2019
Workshops process – including confirming objectives, knowledge sharing, site visits, optioneering and pathways development	Jan – Oct 2020
Recommended pathways to Council for 2021-31 10 year plan	Oct - Nov 2020

14 Advantages of this approach include:

· Supports the adaptation of the coastal community and council assets and services to increasing coastal hazard risks.

· Addresses public concern around key infrastructure such as the St Clair seawall (Esplanade) and the landfill beneath Kettle and Marlow Parks.

· Provides a framework capable of setting out a range of tangible adaptation options that can be drawn upon as a series of staged, strategic responses to the effects of climate change and shorter-term coastal change.

· Building on the coastal technical knowledge base at Ocean Beach.

· Follows the guidance outlined by central government in the ‘NZCPS 2010’ and ‘Coastal Hazards and Climate: Guidance for Local Government (2017)’.

· Fosters community support – through comprehensive engagement process.

· Robust optioneering and engagement processes.

· Building a shared understanding of hazards, risk and community resilience.

· Development of trigger (decision points) for adjusting between pathways (options).

· A system-wide approach to the management of Ocean Beach – to avoid reactive interventions informed solely by the positioning of erosion (e.g. sand sausages and renomattresses).

· Satisfies the community desire for a long-term coastal management strategy at Ocean Beach.

· Supports broader adaptation work streams at DCC (e.g. South Dunedin Futures) by building associated data sets and testing engagement process.

NEXT STEPS

· The project team will be expanded to further assist with project scope and planning.

· A consultant will be contracted to complete coastal hazards and risks assessments for Ocean Beach.

· A community panel will be formed to undertake an optioneering process (pathways development) with the support of technical experts, the broader community and the information provided in the hazards and risks assessments (above).

· The community panel will produce a set of dynamic adaptive management pathways to be recommended to Council for the 2021 10 year plan.

Signatories

Author:

Tom Simons-Smith - Coastal Specialist

Zoe Moffat - Planning Manager

Authoriser:

Tom Dyer - Group Manager 3 Waters

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report 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.

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 the Councils strategic priorities and plans by providing a framework for long-term decision-making relating to coastal land-use and asset management, particularly regarding climate change. The dynamic adaptive management approach would foster strong community-council relations by engaging communities in climate change adaptation and resilience.

Māori Impact Statement

The plan is to partner with mana whenua in the community-centred dynamic adaptive management approach.

Sustainability

The recommended option will assist in planning for the effects of climate change, improving the sustainability of coastal management practises at Ocean Beach. Furthermore, management options explored within the dynamic adaptive management framework may provide opportunities for more sustainable management of the recreational and amenity aspects of Ocean Beach.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The adaptation preferences generated through the recommended approach would be considered in the next 10 year plan.

Financial considerations

This work is budgeted for in the 2019/20 draft annual plan.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

It is recognised that the successfulness of the engagement process will largely determine the degree of public buy-in to the recommended approach.

DCC Staff meet with the St Clair Action Group (SCAG) and the Otago Regional Council (ORC). Neither of these groups have expressed opinions contrary to the recommended option of this report.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement to this point has primarily been centred around the South Dunedin Futures Group and workstreams in the climate change adaptation space.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

In making a decision to take action, public health and safety risks are likely to be mitigated over the long-term. Council’s legal obligation to manage the hazardous fill materials at this coast will also be addressed through the recommended option.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been identified.

Community Boards

No direct implications for Community Boards but the Ocean Beach area does border the Otago Peninsula Community Board.

Planning and Environment Committee

12 February 2019

Review of Biodiversity Fund

Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The DCC’s Biodiversity Fund has been supporting landowners and community groups to protect and enhance native biodiversity in the city since 2007. The Fund has supported work at over 100 different sites over the last decade, granting $619,636 towards in excess of $1,000,000 worth of biodiversity initiatives across the wider city.

2 A variety of work has been funded such as revegetation plantings, animal pest control, weed control, fencing of native forest remnants, and fauna enhancements e.g. a fish-friendly tidal flood gate and a bird roost.

3 In November 2017 the Grants Subcommittee requested that the criteria used to assess applications to the Biodiversity Fund be reviewed.

4 This report provides a summary of the Biodiversity Fund (the Fund) between 2007 and 2018, the results of the review, and recommends changes to the criteria and conditions/rules relating to the Fund.

5 The report also outlines various methods for increasing the outreach of the Fund to engage a wider section of the community, particularly inland areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the summary of the Biodiversity Fund provided in Attachment A and the proposed methods for greater community outreach of the Fund (as listed in Paragraph 34).

b) Approves the proposed criteria and conditions/rules of the Biodiversity Fund (as set out in Attachment B).

BACKGROUND

6 The current stated purpose of the Biodiversity Fund is “To maintain a network of viable habitats and ecosystems in Dunedin by encouraging and supporting landowners who are committed to protecting, enhancing and managing indigenous biodiversity”.

7 The Biodiversity Fund gives effect to a range of national and regional strategic documents relating to indigenous biodiversity by supporting projects that:

a) Maintain or improve the state of indigenous biodiversity e.g. fencing, plant and animal pest control projects, and/or

b) Increase the extent of indigenous biodiversity e.g. revegetation projects in threatened environments and/or ecosystems.

8 At the local level such strategic documents include:

· Te Ao Tūroa – The Natural World: Dunedin’s Environment Strategy 2016-2026

· Dunedin City Council Second Generation District Plan (2GP)

· Dunedin City Biodiversity Strategy 2007.

9 The Biodiversity Fund was established in 2007 to meet Action 3.2 of The Biodiversity Strategy for Dunedin City 2007: to examine and implement a range of financial and non-financial incentives to landowners to maintain and enhance biodiversity. The first funding round was in September 2007.

10 The Fund is now a method for meeting the objectives under Goal 2 of Te Ao Tūroa – Dunedin’s Environment Strategy: Dunedin has a healthy environment.

11 The Fund is currently promoted via the following:

· A brochure accessible on the DCC website

· Advertisements in the public notices of the Otago Daily Times prior to the start of each funding round, and again halfway through the funding round

· Postal mail-out to landowners with Areas of Significant Biodiversity Value (ASBVs) or QEII Covenants

· Articles in the City Development News electronic newsletter which is emailed to large distribution list.

12 The Fund is usually oversubscribed on an annual basis with a total net oversubscription of $99,248.

13 This report is focussed on reviewing the criteria for, and promotion of, the Biodiversity Fund.

DISCUSSION

Review process

14 The Biodiversity Fund review objectives were to assess feedback on the fund, and analyse the pattern of spending to consider:

· How well the Fund is meeting its purpose

· The coverage of the Fund across the district and of important ecological areas

· Any trends of applicant and project type

· How well suited the Fund criteria are to achieving Fund outcomes and objectives.

15 Fund records were compiled and analysed by the Biodiversity Advisor (City Development) and fund administrators summarised formal and informal feedback from Fund recipients and the Grants Subcommittee. The results were discussed among an internal biodiversity working group consisting of staff in biodiversity related roles in the City Development, Parks and Recreation, and Policy groups. Recommended changes to the Fund criteria were evaluated by the working group and the City Development Manager.

Analysis of Biodiversity Fund spending

16 A detailed analysis of the Biodiversity Fund is included in Attachment A. Key findings are summarised below:

a) The Biodiversity Fund has had 23 funding rounds with a total of $670,000 available. A total of $619,636 has been granted to successful applicants.

b) The Fund approved 202 applications from a total of 220 applications received. The 202 approved applications were for 98 different applicants covering 103 different sites.

c) Seventy-four different landowners have had grants approved totalling $331,783. Twenty different community groups have had grants approved totalling $265,127, and 3 different researchers and 1 school have had grants approved totalling $22,725.

d) The geographical distribution of applications received was predominantly focussed on the Dunedin urban area and surrounds, with 71% of funded sites located within the Dunedin Ecological District (refer Map 2 in Attachment A).

e) Revegetation projects were the most common type of project approved for funding (89 of 202 applications). Plant and animal pest control, and fencing were also commonly funded.

f) Projects most commonly involved the restoration of forest ecosystems (110 of 202 approved). Projects involving riparian and estuarine ecosystems were also relatively frequent, along with projects involving a mix of ecosystem types.

Issues and opportunities identified by the review of Biodiversity Fund

17 Feedback identified that the current eligibility criteria oblige councillors on the Grants Subcommittee to prioritise funding to those applications that involve an Area of Significant Biodiversity Value (ASBV) or a QEII Open Space Covenant, while projects of equal or higher merit can miss out because they are not on scheduled or protected land. There has been some feedback that the importance placed on ASBV and QEII criteria in the brochure and application form may be acting as a disincentive to some potential applicants whose sites do not contain a scheduled ASBV or QEII covenant, even though those sites may meet the criteria for scheduling and have equal or greater ecological values as scheduled sites. It is noted that the practice has been that new scheduling of areas as an Area of Significant Biodiversity Value (ASBV) in the District Plan has been subject to landowner approval.

18 While still subject to appeal, the 2GP has tightened district plan rules relating to vegetation clearance. This potentially affects a wider range of landowners regardless of whether indigenous vegetation or habitats on their land are deemed significant (i.e. potential ASBVs). Broadening the reach of the Biodiversity Fund beyond its current focus on ASBVs and QEII sites will help landowners to respond to this tighter regulatory framework. It also responds to a request from the farming community as part of the 2GP hearings process for a greater focus on non-regulatory methods for managing biodiversity on private land.

19 Feedback suggested that ranking projects when the Fund is oversubscribed could be made more straightforward with clearer distinctions between eligibility and prioritisation criteria.

20 Feedback also indicated that there appear to be many landowners who may not be aware of the Fund and as such there is an opportunity for the Fund to reach a greater number of landowners from a wider cross-section of the district (refer Paragraph 16 (iv) and Table 6, Attachment A).

21 While many landowners are not aware of the Fund, several community groups have been supported through multiple grants. It has been suggested that, now that these groups are well established, the focus should shift to reaching more and previously unsupported landowners. It is also noted that some of these groups are now part of Predator Free Dunedin, which the Council has committed to supporting with significant cash and in-kind contributions (refer Table 4, Attachment A).

22 It has also been suggested that the Fund might achieve better outcomes if it refocused on its original purpose statement around supporting landowners, rather than being used as a fund for any projects directly or indirectly biodiversity-related.

23 In order to achieve this, it has been suggested that the purpose and the criteria for the Fund should be made clearer so that projects with less direct benefits to indigenous biodiversity (such as visitor infrastructure, or research and education), are excluded as there are a variety of other funds available to support these activities. It is important to have a carefully worded purpose statement to provide context for the Fund.

Proposed changes to Biodiversity Fund

24 In order to respond to the feedback from the review, a number of options have been considered by the staff working group and the following changes are recommended.

25 Firstly, it is recommended that the Biodiversity Fund focuses on projects contributing to Goal 2 of Te Ao Tūroa: ‘Dunedin has a healthy environment’. The objectives under Goal 2 are:

a) Sustain ecosystem services

b) Increase indigenous biodiversity

c) Restore areas of ecological value.

26 It is noted that in meeting Goal 2, projects may also address objectives under Goal 1 & 3 in Te Ao Tūroa, and that there are other DCC grants available that are more appropriate for projects mainly focussed on Goals 1 and 3.

27 It is also recommended that a small change is made to the current purpose statement to better reflect the outcomes the Council wishes to achieve via the fund and signal that enhancement, not simply maintenance, is its objective.

28 The following new purpose statement is recommended: To enhance the condition and extent of indigenous biodiversity across Dunedin City by encouraging and supporting landowners and communities who are committed to protecting, enhancing and managing indigenous biodiversity.

29 In line with this, it is recommended that the Fund be aimed at one-off projects, or distinct activities within ongoing projects, that confer practical ‘on the ground’ biodiversity outcomes, preferably on private land. This is closer to its original (and clarified) purpose statement.

30 Changes to the criteria are recommended to support this. Attachment B lists proposed Fund criteria and rules/conditions. Attachment C lists the current Fund criteria and rules/conditions.

31 Eligibility criteria should be defined as the minimum requirements a project application must meet to be funded. Eligibility criteria settings should be placed so that if the Fund is undersubscribed, all eligible applications will be approved. Proposed changes remove the emphasis on ASBV and QEII covenants and clarify the kinds of applications the Fund will approve.

32 Prioritisation criteria should be defined as the criteria by which projects are ranked for funding. Prioritisation criteria are only necessary if the Fund is oversubscribed and the settings should be placed so that the projects that contribute the most to biodiversity outcomes consistently rank the highest. This requires a systematic approach to the application of the criteria. Proposed changes clarify the ranking criteria for eligible projects.

33 Refinement of the Fund conditions and rules is also desirable for greater transparency, to streamline and simplify grants processing, and to minimise accruals of grant monies.

34 In addition to the recommended changes to the Biodiversity Fund Criteria and Conditions, increased promotion and outreach of the Biodiversity Fund is also recommended, including:

a) One-off media relaunch of the Biodiversity Fund

b) Increased advertising and promotion for each funding round

c) Ongoing media awareness prior to each funding round

d) Increased engagement with community boards, industry groups and environmental group networks

e) Redesigning of webpages

f) Updated forms and brochure and increased guidance materials for applicants.

These costs can be met from the operational budget for Biodiversity.

OPTIONS

Option One – Approve the draft changes to the Biodiversity Fund outlined in this report (Recommended option)

Committee approves the proposed criteria and conditions/rules of the Biodiversity Fund (as set out in Attachment B), and the proposed methods for greater community outreach of the Fund (as listed in Paragraph 34).

Advantages

· More focus on projects with direct benefits to indigenous biodiversity.

· Greater focus on landowners protecting and enhancing their land.

· A wider range of sites funded.

· Increased public engagement with Biodiversity Fund from a wider section of Dunedin City residents.

· Greater transparency in terms of outcomes and costs funded.

· Clearer distinction between eligibility and prioritisation criteria and easier to rank projects based on the biodiversity merits rather than protection status.

· More straightforward process for Grants Subcommittee to allocate funding.

· Increased efficiency with reduced administration time.

Disadvantages

· Fund likely to be more highly subscribed, meaning more applicants likely to be unsuccessful than in the past.

Option Two – Status Quo

Committee chooses not to approve the proposed changes to the criteria and conditions/rules of the Biodiversity Fund, or the proposed methods for greater community outreach of the Fund.

Advantages

· Less risk of upsetting existing fund recipients who may be used to or advantaged by the existing system.

Disadvantages

· Continued funding of some projects with little direct benefit to indigenous biodiversity.

· Ongoing difficulty distinguishing between eligibility and prioritisation criteria and difficulty consistently ranking projects.

· Purpose of the Biodiversity Fund not wholly consistent with the objectives of Te Ao Tūroa.

· Continued disproportionate funding of established community groups compared to landowners.

· Lower quality applications and project completion reports.

NEXT STEPS

35 If the recommended option is approved then, before the next funding round opens on 1 April 2019, the following tasks will be completed by staff:

· Update Biodiversity Fund brochure, application forms and templates for project completion reports to reflect new Fund criteria and conditions/rules and make these available on the website

· Relaunch the Biodiversity Fund with associated media and increased promotion of funding round.

36 Over the next 12 months staff will also complete the following tasks prior to April 2020 funding round:

· Continue increased advertising and promotion for each funding round

· Promote ongoing media awareness prior to each funding round

· Increase engagement with community boards, industry groups and environmental group networks

· Organise webpage/s redesign

· Complete increased guidance materials for applicants.

Signatories

Author:

Richard Ewans - Biodiversity Advisor

Authoriser:

Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Summary of Biodiversity Fund usage	73
⇩b	Proposed Biodiversity Fund Criteria and Rules/ Conditions	82
⇩c	Current Biodiversity Fund Criteria and Rules / Conditions	87

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables better functioning of a community fund, greater alignment with council policy, and better outcomes of a core council strategy.

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 Biodiversity Fund directly supports the objectives and outcomes of Te Ao Tūroa – Dunedin’s Environment Strategy and the Spatial Plan. It also contributes to the Parks and Recreation Strategy. The suggested changes will provide for better support of these strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

An improved Biodiversity Fund will support increased environmental sustainability of the city.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no complications.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications. The costs of increased promotion can be met from existing operational budgets.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Considered ongoing feedback that has been received from Fund recipients and others on the Fund.

Engagement - internal

Corporate Policy and Parks and Recreation staff have provided input to this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified legal or health and safety risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Fund and how it operates, is likely to be of interest to all Community Boards.

Planning and Environment Committee

12 February 2019

Review of Biodiversity Fund Attachment A - Summary of Biodiversity Fund usage

Summary

i. The Biodiversity Fund has had 23 rounds since its inception in 2007 and granted a total of $619,636.

ii. The fund has received a total of 220 applications from 105 different applicants covering 112 different sites. Of those 202 were approved, 12 were declined, and 6 were referred elsewhere, withdrawn or deferred. The 2020 approved applications were for 98 different applicants covering 103 different sites.

iii. The most applications to any funding round was 20 in April 2014, which was also the round with the highest amount applied for $78,318.

iv. The least applications to any funding round was 3 in April 2008, which was also the round with the lowest amount applied for $7,836.

v. The decline rate for applications was 5%. Reasons applications were declined were the application not meeting eligibility criteria, or a lack of extant biodiversity values at site and/or lack of ongoing commitment to protection. Applications were most often declined when the fund was oversubscribed.

Table 1. Summary of funding levels.

Number of rounds	Time period	Amount available per round	Total amount
3	September 2007 - September 2008	$ 20,000	$ 60,000
19	April 2009 – April 2018	$ 30,000	$ 570,000
1	September 2018	$ 40,000	$ 40,000
23	All rounds	n/a	$ 670,000

Table 2. Financial summary of DCC Biodiversity Fund.

Category	Total amount	Average amount per round
Fund available	$ 670,000	$ 29,130
Funds requested	$ 769,248	$ 33,446
Funds granted	$ 619,636	$ 26,941
Net subscription (over)	$ 99,248	$ 4,315

Levels of allocation/subscription

vi. Thirteen funding rounds were oversubscribed and 10 rounds were undersubscribed. The total oversubscription was $176,478, with total undersubscription at $77,229, leaving a net oversubscription of $99,248.

Table 3. DCC Biodiversity Fund subscription by round.

Rounds	Category	Number of rounds	Total amount
April (11)	Oversubscribed	5	$ 86,518
	Undersubscribed	6	- $ 40,472
	Net subscription (over)		$ 46,046
September (12)	Oversubscribed	8	$ 89,959
	Undersubscribed	4	- $ 36,757
	Net subscription (over)		$ 53,202

vii. The September rounds were more often oversubscribed than the April rounds but the total net oversubscription amount was similar for April and September rounds.

viii. Applications for funding were received from 105 different applicants. Of these, 66% of applicants have only applied once, 25% of applicants have applied between 2 and 5 times, and 9% of applicants have applied more than 5 times, with one having applied 15 times.

ix. Grants were approved for 98 different applicants. Of these, 66% of applicants have had grants approved once, 26% of applicants have had repeat funding approved between 2 and 5 times, and 8% of applicants have had repeat funding approved more than 5 times, with one applicant receiving approval 14 times. Thirty-three repeat approved applicants account for 137 approved grants, while 65 applicants have been approved once.

x. Twenty different community groups have had grants approved totalling $265,127. The average total amount approved for each community group was $13,256. Ten different community groups have had 3 or more grants approved totalling $236,575. The average total amount approved for each community group with 3 or more grants approved was $23,657.

Table 4. Summary of community groups that have had 3 or more grants approved.

Community group	Approved grants	Amount
Orokonui Ecosanctuary	14	$ 62,972
Dunedin Environment Centre	7	$ 29,358
Otago Tramping and Mountaineering Club (Ben Rudd’s Management Trust)	7	$ 19,500
Waitati Beach Reserve Society	7	$ 14,100
Otago Peninsula Biodiversity Group	6	$ 34,450
Save The Otago Peninsula	6	$ 19,420
Yellow-Eyed Penguin Trust	6	$ 17,580
Landscape Connections Trust	5	$ 23,327
Quarantine Island Community	3	$ 8,494
Ravensbourne Environmental Trust	3	$ 7,374
TOTAL	57	$ 236,575

xi. Seventy-four different landowners have had grants approved totalling $331,783. The average total amount approved for each landowner was $4,483. Fourteen landowners have had 3 or more grants approved totalling $138,395. The average total amount approved for each landowner with 3 or more grants approved was $9,885.

xii. Three different researchers and 1 school have had grants approved totalling $22,725.

Table 5. Summary of landowners that have had 3 or more grants approved.

Landowner	Approved grants	Amount
Scott, N & S (Braes Farm Ltd)	6	$ 15,822
Blueskin Farm Ltd	5	$ 15,888
Cooke, P & Moore, A	5	$ 6,073
Robertson, M & Chitty, H	5	$ 3,647
Millar, R	4	$ 17,175
Initial Volco Trust	4	$ 15,480
Riley, S	4	$ 11,074
Chapman, S	4	$ 7,218
Barns, K	3	$ 12,098
Swete-Kelly, D	3	$ 11,862
Pandey, R	3	$ 11,500
Chapman, J & S	3	$ 4,965
Parker, M & J	3	$ 4,702
Allen, R	3	$ 891
TOTAL	55	$ 138,395

Geographic distribution of funded projects

xiii. Grants have been approved for 103 different sites. Applications approved for multiple or various sites that were unspecified were counted as one site for the purposes of this review. Additional work is being done within City Development to extract site information from project completion reports and map sites in Geographical Information Systems (GIS), however clusters of activity can be identified around Otago Peninsula, Orokonui Ecosanctuary and Orokonui Halo areas and the Waikouaiti estuary area.

xiv. Ten applicants had different grants approved for more than one site, mostly 2 different sites but up to 5. Twelve applicants had individual grants approved for multiple or various sites, sometimes unspecified, with only 2 applicants having more than one grant approved for multiple or various sites.

xv. The geographical distribution of funded projects was highly focussed on the Dunedin city area and surrounds with 71% of funded sites within the Dunedin Ecological District (see Map 2). Projects were also funded at multiple sites within the Waikouaiti and Tokomairiro Ecological Districts and several applications applied to more than one Ecological District. No applications were received for projects specifically within the four inland Ecological Districts (Waipori, Maniototo, Macraes or Rock and Pillar).

xvi. Ecological Districts in New Zealand are defined as a particular geographical region that has a characteristic landscape and range of biological communities. Consideration of topographical, geological, climatic, soil and biological features, including the broad cultural pattern, all contribute to delineating particular Ecological Districts^{^[1]}.

Table 6. Summary of Ecological Districts where projects have been funded.

Ecological District	Number of applications	Number of sites	Amount
Dunedin	150	74	$ 467,732
Waikouaiti	26	16	$ 80,474
Tokomairiro	17	10	$ 39,095
Various*	9	4	$ 32,335
Waipori	0	0	n/a
Maniototo	0	0	n/a
Macraes	0	0	n/a
Rock and Pillar	0	0	n/a
TOTAL	202	104**	$ 619,636

* Individual projects involving 2 or more Ecological Districts.

** One site had different project locations in 2 Ecological Districts.

xvii. Funded projects were primarily located in threatened environments, with 48% of sites within ‘At Risk’ environments and 35% within ‘Acutely Threatened’ environments (see Map 3).

xviii. The Threatened Environment Classification is a combination of three national databases: Land Environments New Zealand (LENZ) classes, Land Cover Database (LCDB), and the protected areas network (reflecting areas legally protected for the purpose of natural heritage protection). ‘Threatened environments’ (categories 1 to 5) are those in which much indigenous vegetation has been cleared and/or only a small proportion of what remains is legally protected.

xix. The Threatened Environment Classification uses indigenous vegetation cover as a surrogate for indigenous biodiversity; the variety of indigenous ecosystems, habitats, and communities found across New Zealand and the indigenous species, subspecies, varieties and associated genetic diversity they contain. It uses legal protection for the purpose of natural heritage protection as a surrogate for the relative vulnerability of that indigenous biodiversity to pressures such as land clearance, extractive land uses, and the effects of fragmentation^{^[2]}.

Table 7. Summary of Threatened Environment Classes where projects have been funded.

Threatened Environment Classification	Number of applications	Number of sites	Amount
1 - Acutely Threatened - <10% indigenous cover left	59	37	$ 172,867
2 - Chronically Threatened – 10-20% indigenous cover left	13	7	$ 21,698
3 - At Risk – 20-30% indigenous cover left	101	51	$ 310,453
4 - Critically Underprotected - >30% indigenous cover left and <10% protected	0	0	n/a
5 - Underprotected >30% indigenous cover left and 10-20% protected	0	0	n/a
6 - Less reduced and better protected - >30% indigenous cover left and >20% protected	0	0	n/a
Various*	28	11	$ 109,617
n/a**	1	1	$ 5,000
TOTAL	202	107***	$ 619,636

* Individual projects involving 2 or more threatened environment classes.

** Project site in water which is not classified in the Threatened Environment Classification.

*** Several sites had different project grants for different threatened environment classes.

Types of projects funded

xx. Revegetation projects were the most common type of project that had funding approved. Plant and animal pest control, and fencing were also commonly funded.

Table 8. Summary of project types funded.

Project type	Number of applications	Number of sites	Amount
Revegetation	89	59	$ 258,357
Fencing	32	25	$ 103,608
Plant pest control	34	18	$ 94,436
Animal pest control	22	13	$ 56,708
Fauna	12	6	$ 54,751
Other	7	4	$ 20,300
Research	6	4	$ 31,475
TOTAL	202	129*	$ 619,636

* Several sites had different grants for different project types.

xxi. Project types classed as ‘Other’ have included projects such as track construction, small bridges and boardwalk, volunteer infrastructure (e.g. shipping container for volunteer shelter at Orokonui Ecosanctuary), signage, track clearance, biodiversity monitoring, and education.

xxii. Projects most commonly involved the restoration of forest ecosystems. Projects involving riparian and estuarine ecosystems were also relatively frequent, along with projects involving a mix of broad ecosystem types.

Table 9. Summary of broad ecosystem types funded.

Ecosystem	Number of applications	Number of sites	Amount
Forest	110	60	$ 302,046
Mixed*	27	13	$ 115,487
Riparian	23	19	$ 70,960
Estuary	17	7	$ 54,073
Wetland - Freshwater	3	4	$ 19,034
Duneland	9	3	$ 21,554
Grassland	7	1	$ 19,500
Shrubland	5	4	$ 11,980
Other (marine)	1	1	$ 5,000
TOTAL	202	113**	$ 619,636

* Individual projects involving 2 or more ecosystems, usually including forest.

** Several sites had different project grants for different ecosystem types.

Grant uptake

xxiii. Unclaimed monies from 27 approved grants total $80,115 for grants approved prior to 2017. The oldest unclaimed monies are from 2009.

xxiv. Some of the unclaimed monies are balances from partially claimed grants which may be from completed projects.

xxv. Three applicants have unclaimed monies from between 2009 and 2017 and received grants in 2018. An additional three applicants have unclaimed monies from 2 grants for the 2009-2017 period.

Table 10. Summary of unclaimed grants.

Year granted	Number of fully outstanding grants	Number of partially claimed grants	Accrual amount
2009	0	1	$3,095
2011	2	0	$5,370
2012	9	1	$26,708
2013	1	0	$4,275
2014	4	0	$12,650
2015	4	2	$19,561
2016	3	0	$8,455
TOTAL	23	4	$80,115

Map 1. Location of sites funded.

Map 2. Ecological Districts within Dunedin City boundaries.

Map 3. Threatened Environment Classification within Dunedin City boundaries.

Planning and Environment Committee

12 February 2019

Attachment B Proposed Biodiversity Fund criteria and rules/conditions

Eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria are the minimum requirements a project application has to meet to be funded.

To be eligible for funding projects must meet the following criteria:

· Be located within the Dunedin City boundaries.

· Be associated with a specific site/s. Projects that refer to the whole of Dunedin or generalised areas within it will not be eligible.

· Have direct benefit to indigenous biodiversity.

· Have completed application forms that demonstrate a thorough level of planning. For ongoing projects, a long-term management plan must be provided that details the stages of the project, the long-term outcome, and where the current application activity fits into the plan.

· Demonstrate long-term viability of the project outcomes e.g. stock exclusion from planted areas, ongoing planned commitment to animal pest control, ongoing weed control maintenance of planted areas, etc.

· Contribute to meeting the strategic goals of the DCC Biodiversity Strategy, Goal 2 objectives Te Ao Tūroa – Dunedin’s Environment Strategy, and 2GP Strategic Objective 2.2.3.

· Have no unclaimed granted funds relating to either the site or the applicant.

· Revegetation projects must be stocked with eco-sourced native plants and be of an appropriate ecosystem type for the site.

· Project activities are not contrary to any regulations (e.g. Otago Regional Council Flood Protection Management Bylaw 2012) and have acquired any necessary consents/permissions.

The Biodiversity Fund does not provide grants for the following:

· Planting of exotic vegetation or non-local native species including nursery hybrids.

· Amenity or landscape plantings i.e. beautification projects.

· Projects that have been created to comply with Resource Consent conditions.

· Non-farming business entities and corporate farming entities (e.g. farms that are not landowner/leaseholder occupied).

· Research projects, education or project planning.

· Visitor or volunteer infrastructure.

· Government Departments and Local Authorities are not eligible for funding.

Prioritisation criteria

Prioritisation criteria are the criteria by which projects are ranked for funding, in the event that the fund is oversubscribed.

The Prioritisation criteria include:

A. Present or potential biodiversity values:

· Meet, or are likely to meet, the criteria for an Area of Significant Biodiversity Value (ASBV) in the DCC second generation (2GP) District Plan.

· Projects that provide buffers, linkages and/or corridors to or for indigenous biodiversity.

· Align with the 2007 Statement of national priorities for protecting rare and threatened species on private land:

i. To protect indigenous vegetation associated with land environments (defined by Land Environments of New Zealand at Level IV), that have 20% or less remaining in indigenous cover.

ii. To protect indigenous vegetation associated with sand dunes and wetlands; ecosystem types that have become uncommon due to human activity.

iii. To protect indigenous vegetation associated with ‘originally rare’ terrestrial ecosystem types not already covered by priorities 1 and 2.

iv. To protect habitats of acutely and chronically threatened indigenous species.

B. Protection and effectiveness:

· Have a protective covenant registered on the title of the land.

· Scheduled as an Area of Significant Biodiversity Value (ASBV) or Urban Biodiversity Management Area (UBMA) in the DCC second generation (2GP) District Plan.

· Align with current best practice for the activities involved.

C. Other:

· Projects located on private land that are landowner managed will have higher priority than community-led projects on public land.

· Eligible applicants and/or sites that have received grants in the previous funding round will have lower priority than other applications.

· Animal pest control projects from outside the Predator Free Dunedin catchment area will have higher priority than animal pest control projects within the Predator Free Dunedin catchment area.

Conditions and rules

Condition and rules are imposed to ensure transparency, to streamline and simplify grants processing, and to ensure funds are spent within the grant horizon (and minimise accruals of grant monies).

Conditions:

1. The applicant must notify the Fund Administrator of the acceptance of the grant by signing the grant conditions document and returning it.

2. The applicant must first pay all costs associated with the project. The grant will only be paid for approved costs as outlined in the application on the basis of original invoices matched to original receipts or other proof of payment, accompanied by a satisfactory project completion report, see Condition 4.

3. The applicant must notify the Fund Administrator upon completion of the project for which the grant applies. At this time a project completion report must be prepared by the applicant and forwarded to the Fund Administrator. The Fund Administrator will present the final report to the Grants Subcommittee.

4. Project completion reports must comply with the guidelines and minimum information standards prescribed by DCC in project completion report templates and include a copy of any QEII annual site reports received during the project, if applicable.

5. Any grant approval is for work on the site on which the project is located and grant monies are not transferable between sites, applicants or applications (including those by the same applicant for the same ongoing project, if applicable).

6. Grants must be claimed within 24 months of approval unless otherwise specified in individual grant conditions. The Grants Subcommittee will not consider extensions or staged payments of grant monies. Applicants with grant monies outstanding after 18 months will be sent a reminder letter and/or email and/or phone call reminder. Any grant monies unclaimed after 24 months will expire and be reallocated by the Grants Subcommittee.

7. Grants are made subject to the Grants Subcommittee being satisfied that the information given is true and correct and that there has been no omission of any relevant fact or any misrepresentation given. The Grants Subcommittee retains the right to refuse payments to approved applicants in cases where it determines that it has been misled by the applicant or if the applicant has been placed in receivership, voluntary liquidation or declared bankrupt.

8. The Dunedin City Council has the right to visit any project for inspection prior to release of grant monies, or for promotional purposes where grant assistance has been given. In all cases the applicant will be notified in advance of a proposed visit to arrange a suitable time for access.

9. The Dunedin City Council reserves the right to refuse grant payments if in the opinion of the Grants Subcommittee the grantee wilfully or through neglect causes the project to fail.

10. In all cases, the decision of the Grants Subcommittee shall be final and there will be no rights of appeal and no right to compensation or damages of any nature.

11. All correspondence is to be via email or post to the Fund Administrator (Biodiversity Advisor City Development; Richard.Ewans@dcc.govt.nz; Dunedin City Council, PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9058). All correspondence relating to an approved grant must quote the project grant number e.g. BIO-20XX-XX.

12. Minor differences between the planned and actual works on the ground can be approved at the discretion of the fund administrator. Major changes should be included in a new application and grant monies surrendered. This is because the subcommittee have approved funding based on the plan in the original application and the expectation is that the plan will be followed.

13. To allow reasonable assessment of the 50:50 (or other) cost-sharing, claimants must provide evidence of all project costs not just those claimed as council’s contribution via the grant. Copies of original invoices and/or receipts for all purchases, and logs of labour and vehicle use are to be provided for the total project costs, with the applicant’s contributions and grant claim costs clearly identified separately.

Rules:

1. Maximum total grant allocated is $5,000 (ex. GST).

2. Minimum grant amount is $500.

3. Maximum grant rate for all projects is 50:50 cost sharing between council and applicant.

4. The purpose of the Biodiversity Fund is to support ‘on the ground’ activities directly benefitting indigenous biodiversity. The DCC contributions are for funding tangible goods e.g. plants, traps, herbicide etc. The following costs are not eligible:

a) Project costs incurred prior to the lodging of the application,

b) Any costs involved in preparing the application,

c) GST,

d) Debt servicing,

e) Purchase of equipment unless it can be demonstrated that it is essential to the project, is of reasonable cost, and either cannot be leased/hired/rented or such arrangements are more expensive than purchase,

f) Administration costs.

5. The fund is not a subsidised employment programme and labour contributions are eligible as a project cost as part of the applicant’s contribution only at a rate of $20.55 per hour (the 2018 living wage). Labour costs are to be fair and reasonable, and a log of dates, hours, personnel and tasks is to be provided in project completion reports.

6. Vehicle expenses are eligible as part of the applicant’s contribution at a rate of $0.76 per km. Vehicle costs are to be fair and reasonable, and a trip log including dates, km, personnel and destination/s is to be provided in project completion reports.

7. Minimum size for revegetation planting projects is 0.1ha (1000m²). E.g. a 50m x 20m area.

8. Contractor costs (e.g. for weed control) can be funded as a 50:50 cost-sharing expense.

9. Work carried out by the applicant towards the project cannot be claimed as an expense against the council’s contribution i.e. is considered labour. This includes examples such as growing plants or making home-made planting stakes which should be included as labour in the applicant’s contribution.

10. Applicants are welcome to attend subcommittee meetings in the public gallery but are not able to speak to their applications at the Grants subcommittee meeting.

11. If the fund is undersubscribed, all eligible projects are likely to receive funding.

12. If the fund is oversubscribed, eligible projects will be prioritised for funding based on the prioritisation criteria.

Note on maximum total grant allocation:

The current and proposed maximum total grant allocation is $5,000. This buys approximately 1000 plants, enough to plant 0.25ha @ 1.5m x 1.5m planting grid, a relatively modest area. Applicants could claim up to 30 person-days as part of their contribution. Depending on fund subscription following this review, consideration may be given to increasing the maximum total grant allocation to $10,000.

Planning and Environment Committee

12 February 2019

Review of Biodiversity Fund Attachment C – Current Biodiversity Fund criteria and rules/conditions

Eligibility criteria

· Have a protective covenant registered on the title of the land (or be entered into as part of the funding application) and/or be identified as an ASBV on Schedule 25.4 of the Dunedin City District Plan (or be entered into as part of the funding application).

· Meet the Area of Significant Biodiversity Value (ASBV) criteria within the Dunedin City District Plan.

· Not be planted with exotic vegetation once protected unless provided for in an agreed management plan.

· Exclude stock from the area to be protected unless provided for in an agreed management plan.

· Be accompanied by a management plan.

Prioritisation criteria

· Significance of the site. This will include consideration of the District Plan criteria and the National Priorities for Biodiversity Protection.

· The sustainability of the project, that is long-term and enduring environmental outcomes.

· Contribution towards achieving the vision and goals of the Dunedin City Council

Biodiversity Strategy.

· The natural values that will be protected by the project.

· The likely benefits/outcomes of the project, including community benefits.

· The urgency of the project.

Conditions and rules

Conditions:

1. The applicant must notify the City Development Manager of the acceptance of the grant by signing the grant conditions document and returning it.

2. Any expenditure on a project prior to the application being lodged will not be accepted for funding.

3. Any work must be commenced within 12 months after the approval of an application.

4. The applicant must first pay all costs associated with the project. Receipts should be forwarded to Planning Administration, City Planning, Dunedin City Council, PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9058 for processing. The grant will only be paid for approved costs on the basis of original invoices.

5. The applicant must notify the City Development Manager upon completion of the project for which the grant applies. At this time a final report on the project must be prepared by the applicant and forwarded to the City Development Manager. Council officers will present the final report to the Grants Subcommittee. Ten percent of each eligible claim may be withheld and only paid out after the final report is received.

6. The applicant is required to include before and after photos from a fixed location in their reports and a copy of any QEII annual site reports received during the project, if applicable.

7. A Council officer will inspect the completed project prior to releasing the grant monies.

8. Any grant approval is for work on the site on which the project is located and cannot be reassigned without the written approval of the Grants Subcommittee.

9. Grants must be claimed within the time specified for the project in the application. The Grants Subcommittee may consider an extension on request.

10. Grants are made subject to the Grants Subcommittee being satisfied that the information given is true and correct and that there has been no omission of any relevant fact or any misrepresentation given. The Grants Subcommittee retains the right to refuse payments to approved applicants in cases where it determines that it has been misled by the applicant or if the applicant has been placed in receivership, voluntary liquidation or declared bankrupt.

11. The Dunedin City Council has the right to visit any project or use it for promotional purposes where grant assistance has been given. In all cases the applicant will be notified in advance of a visit.

12. The Dunedin City Council reserves the right to refuse grant payments if in the opinion of the Grants Subcommittee the grantee wilfully or through neglect causes the project to fail.

13. In all cases, the decision of the Grants Subcommittee shall be final and there will be no rights of appeal and no right to compensation or damages of any nature.

Rules:

A. Maximum total grant allocated is $5,000 (ex. GST).

B. No minimum grant amount.

C. Maximum grant rate for all projects is 50:50 cost sharing between council and applicant.

D. The following costs are not eligible:

1. Project costs incurred prior to the lodging of the application,

2. Any costs involved in preparing the application,

3. GST,

4. Debt servicing.

E. The purchase of machinery and tools is generally NOT eligible for funding unless it can be demonstrated that it is essential for the project (i.e. it cannot be leased, rented/hired etc) and is a reasonable cost. Each item of machinery will be evaluated on its individual merit to the project.

F. The scheme is not a subsidised employment programme and labour contributions are eligible as a project cost but should ideally not form more than a third of the total project cost. Labour has been costed at a maximum of $20/hr.

Planning and Environment Committee

12 February 2019

Reserves and Beaches Bylaw Implementation

Department: Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an overview of work undertaken and planned future work regarding enforcement of the Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017 including work completed in 2018 and planned work in 2019-2020.

2 The report describes the main changes contained in the 2017 bylaw as it relates to horses, drones, and vehicles on reserves and beaches.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Reserves and Beaches Bylaw Implementation report.

BACKGROUND

3 The proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017 (the bylaw) went out for public consultation on 9 January 2017. 433 submissions were received, and 80 submitters requested to speak during the public hearing.

4 Council approved amendments to the Reserves Bylaw 2005 on 30 May 2017, and these were approved by the Minister of Conservation on 25 September 2017. The proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017 came into effect on 30 April 2018.

5 The key changes in the Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017 are:

6 Horses – The bylaw officially allows people to ride horses on most Dunedin beaches, with access via any formed track or designated access point. Horse riding is not allowed in Ecologically Sensitive Areas, which are specified in the appendix of the bylaw.

7 Drones – The bylaw clarifies the requirements for people wanting to operate drones over reserves and beaches to ensure our wildlife and their habitats are protected. Drones may be used over reserves and beaches if they meet certain requirements. These relate to the size of the drone, the purpose for its use and where it is to be operated. Permission for flying a drone under restricted conditions can be sought via an online application.

8 Vehicles – The bylaw does not permit vehicles on Dunedin beaches unless they are being used to launch or retrieve a vessel. In these situations, motorists must take the shortest route from the nearest access point. Provision has been made in the bylaw for the use of emergency and surf life-saving vehicles, as well as certain wind powered and mobility vehicles. An exemption from this rule can be requested and given under certain circumstances, for example, ORC and MPI for work related reasons such as fisheries monitoring and flooding works.

DISCUSSION

9 An assessment of existing signage was undertaken during April to July 2018, and Parks and Recreation staff worked with the Communications and Marketing team to design new signage. New signage was installed between November and December 2018.

10 In October 2018 a letter was sent to each of the Community Boards outlining the changes in the Bylaw, images of the new signage with a map showing signage locations, and asking for information about people/organisations in their communities that distribute local newsletters and would like to receive information about the new Bylaw.

11 In October 2018 the DCC website was updated – Driving on the beach www.dunedin.govt.nz/facilities/parks-and-reserves/driving-on-the-beach, to provide detailed information about vehicles usage on beaches. This includes information on how community members can make a complaint and what information is required. All reported complaints are now followed up with a letter to the owner of identified vehicle providing information and education regarding the Bylaw and informing them that further non-compliance with the Bylaw may result in an infringement.

12 Parks and Recreation staff worked in partnership with the Department of Conservation (DOC) in November 2018 to develop a ranger programme for summer 2018-2019. This is a pilot until the end of April 2019 and the DCC component has been funded with assistance by Ministry of Business Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE).

13 The rangers commenced in late December, and patrol DOC and Dunedin City Council (DCC) sites across the city daily. This includes DCC freedom camping sites and key beaches (Long Beach, Tomahawk, Warrington) to manage compliance with Council Bylaws. The rangers’ focus is on distributing information (example attached) and education; speaking with people on beaches about the importance of sharing the beach and protecting the natural flora and fauna. They also liaise with DCC security contractors where required.

14 In November and December 2018, DCC staff (Parks and Recreation, Communications and Marketing) undertook site visits to Long Beach, Tomahawk, Waikouaiti, and Warrington beaches with Community Board representatives and interested local community members to better understand community concerns, and to develop joint initiatives to improve compliance with the Reserves and Beaches Bylaw.

15 Concerns have been raised with Parks and Recreation by community boards and members of the community that there has been an over reliance on signage as the main tool being utilised to ensure compliance. They believed the signage was inadequate (size, placement, clarity of messaging), and sometimes contradictory.

16 New initiatives will focus on education and community engagement, continued improvement of signage, and enforcement. A working party is being formed that will include DCC staff (Parks and Recreation, Communications and Marketing), and Community Board representation. DOC have also expressed interest in working with DCC on a combined approach and plan.

OPTIONS

17 No options.

NEXT STEPS

18 An update report describing progress will be presented to Planning and Environment Committee in mid 2019.

Signatories

Author:	Robert West - Group Manager Parks and Recreation
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Driving on Beaches	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.

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	☐	☐	☒

Contributes to the Parks and Recreation Strategy

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

The Reserve and Beaches Bylaw implementation work supports sustainable outcomes.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no known impacts for the LTP/Annual Plan/Financial Strategy/Infrastructure Strategy.

Financial considerations

There are no known financial impacts.

Significance

This report is assessed as low significance under the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Discussions have occurred with Department of Conservation

Engagement - internal

Communications and Marketing represented on the working party

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks anticipated

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflict of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards views are being considered to include in future planning, and there will be ongoing Community Board involvement.

Planning and Environment Committee

12 February 2019

Planning and Environment Non-Financial Activity Report for the Quarter Ended 31 December 2018

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report updates the Committee on activities including city development, resource consents, building services, alcohol licensing, environmental health, animal control and parking enforcement.

2 Record numbers of resource and building consent applications were received in the 2018 calendar year.

3 Some key highlights for the quarter in terms of major initiatives included:

· Decisions finalised and released on 2GP

· Great King Street Parklet started

· Te Raoune Beach Design completed

· Abutment Square (Warehouse Precinct) completed

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Planning and Environment Non-Financial Activity Report for the Quarter Ended 31 December 2018.

BACKGROUND

4 The Community and Planning group of activities works with other agencies to set the direction for managing Dunedin’s built and natural environment, and is responsible for promoting the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources through its administration of the functions of the Council under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

5 Regulatory Services contributes directly to the Safe and Health City outcome which is a part of the Social Wellbeing Strategy and enhances personal safety in relation to building services, animal services, health licensing, the sale and supply of alcohol and parking enforcement.

DISCUSSION

Service and Satisfaction

6 The Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS) is the principal mechanism by which the Council measures resident satisfaction with a wide range of its activities.

7 From July 2016 the ROS has been conducted on a continuous monthly basis, aiming to obtain around 100 responses each month, to replicate the average annual sample size of around 1,200 obtained in previous years. The quarterly results in the graphs below generally reflect the responses of around 300 residents. A sample of 300 has an expected 95% confidence interval (margin of error) of +/- 5.7%, whereas the annual result for 2015/16 had a margin of error of +/- 2.5%. Results for the year will continue to be published in the annual ROS report at year end. Notable measures are listed in the balance of this report.

Satisfaction with Look and Feel of the City

8 An 4% increase in satisfaction with ‘overall look and feel of the city’ was reported as at 31 December 2018.

Satisfaction with Regulatory Services

9 A 2% increase in satisfaction with ‘Regulatory Services’ was reported as at 31 December 2018.

Value and Efficiency

Resource Consents

10 The 2018 calendar year was the busiest since the GFC; 28% more applications than the average since 2009. During the quarter, 280 of the 284 applications were processed within the statutory timeframe. The number processed each month was 110, 93 and 84.

11 The graph below shows resource consent processing on a monthly basis over the last five years up to December 2018. The blue line shows the percentage meeting the statutory deadline; ranges from 98 to 100. The red line shows the number of resource consents granted each month; five year average of 77. The fluctuation is normal. The January and December low points reflect the summer holiday periods.

12 This graph also serves as an indication of overall activity in the Resource Consent team. More detailed information is provided each month as the City Planning Activity report on the Council’s website, and can be accessed via this link: http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/planning.

Building Consents

13 The number of building consent applications received for 2018 was a record high of 2891 (2776 in 2017). The number of new dwelling applications for 2018 was 379 which compares to 2017 (358) and 2016 (403). One Building Consent application can be for multiple units. For January to November 2018 the number of new houses was 328, new apartments 26 and new townhouses, flats, and units was 56 (www.stats.govt.nz). The total value of consents was $293M ($284M in 2017 and $402M in 2016). For the last quarter all of the numbers and values were slightly higher than average levels.

14 Processing times for Building Consents during 2018 was at a record level of 99.51% compared with 99.13% in 2017. Code Compliance Certificate processing times for 2018 were 99.83% (99.7% in 2017). Given the work volumes, pressure continues to be seen on the processing times with the time taken to grant averaging 13-14 working days. This pressure is likely to continue into early 2019. Additional recruitment is approved although there remain challenges in finding suitable applicants.

Alcohol Licensing

15 The number of on-licences has increased slightly because the former ‘caterer’s off-licence’ is now a ‘caterer’s on-licence’. There have been two new on-licensed premises open: one at Evansdale which is a small café style attached to a micro-brewery and the other an Indian restaurant in Mosgiel.

There has been two new off-licences issued. One is for the micro-brewery at Evansdale, the “Arc Brewing Co.” and other for an internet based licence. The number of club licences has remained stable.

16 The number of manager’s certificate applications processed is slightly down on the corresponding period last year while the number of special licence applications mirrors the same reporting period last year.

Environmental Health

‘A’ Graded Food Premises

17 The percentage of food premises with an A Grade remains constant over the last six months. All food businesses that are required to transition over to the new Food Act 2014 regulations have now done so, and are using Safe and Suitable Food Control Plans.

Noise

18 During this quarter there was a fall in the number of noise complaints which occurs at this time every year when students are away. Staff will be meeting with representatives of the Police, University, landlords/property managers and Noise Control in early February to prepare for the start of the academic year and the associated activities.

Animal Services

19 This quarter has seen an increase in complaints received relating to roaming stock and barking dogs. All other customer service requests where slightly less than the same period in 2017.

Parking Services

20 This quarter has seen a 13% increase in the number of parking infringements issued compared to the same time in 2017. This increase is due to a full complement of staff.

21 Due to the low price of scrap metal some owners are continuing to abandon vehicles rather than sell them. This quarter there has been a 9% increase in the number of abandoned vehicle requests compared to the same period in 2017. There has also been a 24% increase in parking enforcement requests for service. Over this period no complaints were received about commercial use of footpaths.

Lime Scooters

22 Work is being progressed to look at what options are available to ensure pedestrian safety, especially in the CBD. Options will be reported to Council once the work is complete.

Eco Design Advisor

23 A total of 8 consults were referrals for new builds and 12 home assessments were referred to funded insulation schemes. Customer feedback continues to be positive.

24 Attendance at the Home and Living Show on the 3 and 4 November resulted in 30 new referrals and contact information for a database to provide future updates regarding any new legislation changes, grant options or services.

Major Initiatives

25 The following section is not confined to the Oct - Dec 2018 quarter and also provides updates on the current status of the initiatives.

26 Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (2GP) - Decisions were finalised and released on the 2GP in November. The appeal period opened on 7 November and closed on 19 December. Over December and January, planners processed 83 appeals on the 2GP decisions. These have been categorised into 364 appeal points (individual changes sought). Approximately 65 of these appeal points relate to zoning. Copies of the appeals are on the website and the eplan is currently being marked up with the 2GP text and maps are being marked up with areas under appeal.

27 Additional parties may join appeals under s274 RMA. This process is ongoing until at least 31 January. So far, 30 parties have joined appeals. Meetings with individual appellants to clarify appeals have begun. Contact is also being made with appellants to clarify any issues of scope or uncertainty around the extent of the appeals.

28 The next step is to group the 363 appeal points into topic areas and provide the Environment Court a suggested programme based on priority topic areas for mediation and hearings (if required). The appeal process is managed by the Environment Court.

29 Dunedin Waterfront - The business case and feasibility assessment work was completed last quarter, confirming the viability of the proposed vision. Staff worked with the consultancy team and the architects to refine the masterplan, simplify consenting requirements through eliminating reclamation and ensure the deliverability of the vision.

30 An application for capital funding was submitted by DCC on behalf of the waterfront stakeholders on 19 November together with letters of support from the key stakeholders, other Councils in the region and a potential investor in the hotel. The application is still being assessed and a briefing for government agencies with an interest in the proposal is being held on 13 February. The funding application is now scheduled to be considered in detail by the Independent Assessment Panel for the Provincial Growth Fund in mid-March. Members of the Panel and assessment team have provided interim feedback.

31 The focus is currently in progressing the business case for the bridge and initiating the masterplanning for the public realm spaces. This is work is to be led by Council’s Urban Design Team in conjunction with Ngai Tahu and the architects.

32 South Dunedin Future - Work to adapt to climate change impacts in South Dunedin continues to progress. A group of agencies – including the DCC, ORC, EQC, GNS Science and the University of Otago – have been working together to conceive and prepare to install 20 new piezometers across locations in South Dunedin in January that will enable groundwater levels to be monitored every ten minutes and also improve understanding of the soil.

33 Dunedin Heritage Fund - The Heritage Fund Committee met on 28 November and allocated $110,000 to 4 projects.

34 Te Ao Tūroa - Two strands of work to progress the Town Belt Boost flagship project are now underway: ‘Story Map’ will see areas of interest in the Town Belt mapped online in an accessible way; and, a People’s Panel Survey will be carried out to support greater understanding of public perceptions of the Town Belt and the barriers to the community making more use of this amenity. Environment Envoy has been taken forward for a second year, with a call out for creative projects that encourage the Dunedin community to see the local environment in new ways through the innovative use of vacant space by artists. The environment strategy continues to support education and volunteer initiatives such as Town Belt Kaitiaki, War on Weeds, Trail Crew and Wildlife Response.

35 Quality of Life survey - The Quality of Life survey is undertaken by a group of local authorities (including Dunedin, Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch) every two years. The primary objective is to measure residents’ perceptions across a range of measures that impact on New Zealanders’ quality of life. For the first time, the DCC commissioned a booster sample to ensure results are available for Māori in Dunedin (the sample size previously has meant this has not been possible). The results for Dunedin are available on the Quality of Life website at www.qualityoflifeproject.govt.nz.

Capital Projects

36 Warehouse Precinct – Stages 3/4 - Amenity upgrades to Abutment Square in the Warehouse Precinct were completed. Photos showing the works to the Abutment Square are attached as Appendix A.

37 Central City Plan (CCP) - Following the work in the Warehouse Precinct, the next stage of the Central City Plan will be the Retail Quarter, George Street. The community engagement plan for this phase of the Central City Plan (George Street) was developed and public consultation due to start in February (with some preliminary stakeholder engagement in January).

38 Stafford Street Parklet/Upgrades – City Development and Transport staff have met with Stafford Street business owners to discuss the parklet and junction of Stafford Street and Princes Street. Two options have been presented to the group that focus on improving safety at the junction and increasing urban amenity.

OPTIONS

39 As this is an update report there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

40 A further update report will be provided after the conclusion of the next quarter.

41 Key areas of focus for the next quarter include:

a) Processing of appeals on the 2GP and working with Environment Court on plan for mediation and appeal hearings.

b) Leading Central City Plan consultation – The consultation will begin on 7^th February through to mid April will seek the stakeholder and public feedback on the future for George Street. This will take the form on stakeholder workshops, modern and interactive online engagement and a pop up roadshow that will be located around George Street venues and major events.

c) Design and planning for parklets on George and Princes streets (installation either this quarter or early next quarter)

d) Progressing masterplanning on the 10 Year Plan capital projects.

e) Submitting the bid for capital funding for the Waterfront revitalisation.

f) Commencing the masterplanning for the public areas on Waterfront revitalisation project working closely with iwi, as decision for Government Provincial Growth Fund capital funding is awaited.

Signatories

Author:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Authoriser:

Adrian Blair - Group Manager Customer and Regulatory Services

Sandy Graham - General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Photos for the Warehouse Precinct - Abutment Square	107

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report 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 Planning and Environment portfolio of activities support the outcomes of a number of strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

As an update report, there are no specific implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

As an update report, there are no implications for the LTP, although some measures are level of service performance measures annually reported as part of the LTP.

Financial considerations

The updates reported are within existing operating and capital budgets.

Significance

This decision is considered of low significance under the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

As an update report, no external engagement has been undertaken.

Engagement - internal

As an update report, no internal engagement has been undertaken. Input to the major initiatives and project updates has been provided by teams within Regulatory Services and Community and Planning Groups, with the Group Manager Transport also providing input regarding the Central City Plan.

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.

[1] McEwen M (Ed). 1987. Ecological Regions and Districts of New Zealand. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

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

	Title	Page
⇩a	Councillor Register of Interest	7