Agenda of Council - 28 00 2020

Council

28 July 2020

Reports

Adoption of Roading Bylaw 2020

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report recommends the adoption of the Roading Bylaw 2020.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Determines that the Roading Bylaw 2020 is the most appropriate way to regulate the activities of road corridor users and their impact on the roading asset in Dunedin.

b) Determines that the Roading Bylaw 2020 is the most appropriate form of bylaw.

c) Determines that there are no inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

d) Adopts the Roading Bylaw 2020.

BACKGROUND

2 The DCC has had a Roading Bylaw for the last 30 years. The Roading Bylaw was made under sections 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998. The underlying purpose of the Roading Bylaw 2008 is to regulate the activities of road corridor users and their impact on the roading asset.

3 Bylaws are made under the LGA and need to be reviewed every ten years. Following a review, a bylaw may be amended, revoked, replaced or continued. If a bylaw is not reviewed, it is automatically revoked two years from the date the review was due. The COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Act 2020 postponed the revocation of bylaws to the later of two years from the date the review was due or 30 June 2021.

4 A review of the Roading Bylaw 2008 was undertaken in 2019 and indicated that the Roading Bylaw 2008 is generally working well for the areas of operation and no substantive changes were needed. The review identified some opportunities to improve processes such as applications, licenses and fees, and policies related to the Roading Bylaw 2008 (eg. road encroachment, fees and charges, skips and containers). If the Roading Bylaw 2020 is adopted, policy and process improvements would be developed and implemented.

5 On 4 May 2020, the Council considered the proposed continuation of the Roading Bylaw without amendment, except for the date of the bylaw and updated definitions to align with other transport-related bylaws and legislation. The Council approved the ‘Proposed continuation of the Roading Bylaw – reasons for proposal’ document for community feedback.

DISCUSSION

Consultation

6 The Council consulted on the proposed continuation of the Roading Bylaw without amendment, except for the date of the bylaw and updated definitions to align with other transport-related bylaws and legislation under section 160 of the LGA from 30 May to 30 June 2020.

7 Feedback was specifically sought on the proposed continuation of the Roading Bylaw from road corridor users and stakeholders such as the Automobile Association and NZTA, as well as general public notification through the DCC website and print media.

8 There was no feedback received on the proposed continuation of the Roading Bylaw.

Determinations

9 Sections 155 and 160 of the LGA require a territorial authority to determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem; whether it is the most appropriate form; and whether it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

10 A bylaw is considered necessary because non-regulatory methods (e.g. voluntary compliance and education) cannot be relied on entirely to address the roading-related issues. Some activities can affect a variety of aspects such as the safety of the general public and property or the environment. In such situations, it is important for the Council to have a greater ability to regulate and enforce policies and practices. Other regulations and legislation which apply to the roading network do not cover all the matters and situations dealt with in the Roading Bylaw 2020. The use of roading bylaws is a process used commonly throughout New Zealand. Therefore, it is considered that the Roading Bylaw 2020 is the most appropriate way to regulate the activities of road corridor users and their impact on the roading asset in Dunedin.

11 The Roading Bylaw 2020 has been reformatted using the DCC bylaw template and is in the most appropriate form.

12 The Roading Bylaw 2020 is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

OPTIONS

Option One – Adopt the Roading Bylaw 2020

Advantages

· The Roading Bylaw is generally working well in addressing roading-related issues and associated problems.

· No change to responsibilities and regulations for road corridor activities.

Disadvantages

· There are no known disadvantages.

Option Two – Do not adopt the Roading Bylaw 2020

Advantages

· There are no known advantages.

Disadvantages

· The Roading Bylaw 2008 will lapse on 30 June 2021.

· The Council will have limited control over activities of road corridor users and their impact on the roading asset after 30 June 2021.

NEXT STEPS

13 If adopted, the Roading Bylaw 2020 will be available on the Council’s website. Policy and process improvements will be developed and implemented.

Signatories

Author:

Michael Tannock - Transport Network Team Leader

Tami Sargeant - Team Leader Regulatory Management - Transport

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Roading Bylaw 2020	27

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This Roading Bylaw promotes the social, economic and environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

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 Roading Bylaw supports the above strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known specific impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no known implications for sustainability.

10 year plan/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

The decision to retain the Roading Bylaw is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Community feedback was sought from users of the road corridor and general public on the proposed continuation of the Roading Bylaw.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement has occurred with Transport, Property and in-house legal services.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

If the Roading Bylaw 2020 is not adopted, the Council will have limited control over activities of road corridor users and their impact on the roading asset from 30 June 2021.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no impacts for Community Boards.

Council

28 July 2020

Electoral System For Future Local Authority Elections

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The Council is required by Section 27 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 (the Act) to make a decision by 12 September 2020 if it wishes to change the electoral system to be used for the 2022 triennial general election.

2 This decision is not mandatory – the current system will continue to apply unless changed by Council resolution or as a result of a poll of electors. However, the Council is obliged to give public notice of the right of electors to demand a poll. That notice must be given by the Council no later than 19 September 2020.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Confirms the present electoral system of Single Transferrable Vote; or

b) Alters the electoral system to the First Past the Post system; or

c) Considers whether it wishes to undertake a poll on the matter; or

d) Makes no decision on the electoral system.

e) Gives the statutory public notice of the right of electors to demand a poll.

BACKGROUND

3 The Council is required by Section 27 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 (the Act) to make a decision by 12 September 2020 if it wishes to change the electoral system to be used for the 2022 triennial general election.

4 The Act prescribe a choice of two electoral systems that may be used in Council elections:

· First Past the Post (FPP); and

· Single Transferable Vote (STV).

5 As the Council’s current electoral system is STV, any decision to change electoral systems prior to the next local elections, means a change from STV to FPP.

6 In September 2002, after consulting with Community Boards and having considered the feedback from the public it received after conducting a public education campaign on the electoral systems options, the Council resolved to retain FPP. A valid demand for a poll was received from a specified number of electors in the required timeframe, and a poll was held on 4 April 2003. This put in place the current STV electoral system for the 2004 and 2007 elections. Subsequently, the Council decided to retain the STV system for the 2010, 2013, 2016 and 2019 elections.

DISCUSSION

7 The Council is not required by law to make a decision on its electoral system for the 2022 triennial election – the current system will continue to apply unless changed either by Council resolution or as a result of poll demanded by electors. In addition, Council could decide to hold a poll.

Poll Demanded by Electors

i) Section 29 of the Local Electoral Act provides that a specified number of electors equal to or greater than 5% of those enrolled as eligible to vote at the previous general election of the local authority (4,674), may demand that a poll be held on a proposal by those electors, that a specified electoral system be used at the next two triennial elections of the local authority and its Community Boards.

ii) The Council is obliged to give public notice of the right of electors to demand a poll. That notice must be given by the Council not later than 19 September 2020.

Poll Held at the Initiative of the Council

iii) The Council may, no later than 21 February 2021 resolve that a poll be held on a proposal that a specified electoral system be used for the next two triennial general elections of the local authority and its Community Boards.

iv) If any poll is held, the electoral system adopted or confirmed must be used (i.e. the result is binding):

a) for the next two triennial general elections; and

b) for all subsequent general and other elections until the Council passes a further resolution to change the electoral system or a further poll is held, whichever occurs first.

8 If a poll is held by 21 May 2021 the electoral system adopted or confirmed will apply for the 2022 and 2025 elections. If a poll is held after 21 May 2021 the electoral system will apply for the 2025 and 2028 elections.

9 The estimated costs of any poll would be approximately $220,000 plus GST (which is unbudgeted).

Summary of Timeframes

Last date by which action can be taken	Action/Resolution
12 September 2020 (or earlier)	Local authority resolution on electoral system (S27) - optional
19 September 2020 (or earlier)	Public notice on electoral system (S28) - mandatory
22 February 2021	Last date to receive valid demand for poll on electoral systems for the 2022 elections (S30) notes 21 February but as that falls on a Sunday it is the next working day Last date for local authority to resolve to hold poll on electoral systems for the 2022 elections (S31)
21 May 2021	Last date to conduct poll on electoral system for the 2022 elections (S33)

OPTIONS

10 There are two options Single Transferable Vote (STV) and First Past the Post (FPP).

Option One – STV – Status quo

1 The system as prescribed by the Act has been used for the last six elections by both the Dunedin City Council and by the Southern District Health Board. The option was first offered for the 2004 local government elections.

2 Voters rank candidates in order of preference and may rank as many or as few candidates as they wish for each election.

3 For the 2019 elections three further councils used STV for the first time – New Plymouth District, Ruapehu District and Tauranga City Councils. This brings the total number of Councils using STV to 11.

Option Two – First Past the Post

4 This system is used for the Otago Regional Council and was (until 2004) used by Dunedin City Council.

5 Voters tick the candidates for whom they wish to vote for each election and may vote for up to as many candidates as there are vacancies for each election on the voting document.

Discussion on options

15 Whichever system is chosen, it is likely that there will still be a mix of electoral systems on the voting documents. District Health Boards are required to use the STV system. It has been argued that a mix of voting systems on the voting document appears to confuse some voters.

16 In 2008 the Department of Internal Affairs, in conjunction with LGNZ and the Society of Local Government Managers Electoral Working Party, commissioned Associate Professor Janine Hayward from Otago University’s Department of Politics to prepare information on the options for electoral systems for local elections to help councils with this decision. This was intended to be an independent and neutral explanation of FPP and STV electoral systems, was designed to assist councils in considering the options, and was as a basis for information to local communities. This information was updated by Professor Hayward for the 2019 elections and is included as Attachment A.

Representation Review

18 In the past, there has been some debate among councillors as to whether the Electoral System decision and Representation Review could be carried out concurrently, as certain representation arrangements may lend themselves more favourably to one or other electoral system. This is not possible as the timeframes for the processes are different. The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires councils to consider their electoral system decision ahead of their Representation Review and does not permit linking the two processes. The Council will be conducting a Representation Review in 2021.

19 The Council conducted a Representation Review in 2015 which was chaired by Associate Professor Haywood. The review resulted in the election of the Dunedin City Council being determined by an at-large election. While consideration of the voting system did not form part of the Representation Review, the panel made a number of comments about STV and at-large elections including the following:

“The Review Team also heard concerns that at-large elections are extremely expensive for candidates. At-large elections will not affect the cost of television, on-line, radio or newspaper advertising for candidates. Furthermore, under STV, a candidate will only have to win 6.7% of the vote to be elected (or a quota of approximately 2,500 votes based on 2013 voter turnout), which can be achieved by candidates targeting support in their local communities where they are well known. The Review Team encourages Council to consider additional STV education in the lead up to Council elections to ensure that the benefits of the voting system are well understood by potential candidates.

Finally, we heard that elections at-large could lead to the election of residents from only some parts of Dunedin, or from only wealthier Dunedin communities. This may have been the case under the first-past-the-post electoral system that produces extremely disproportional results in multi-member constituencies. But if diverse candidates stand for election, STV will increase the chances that diverse candidates are elected. The election results will reflect the voting preferences of 93.3% of the eligible votes cast at-large. The effect of the voting system is a very important issue. Our recommendation that Dunedin introduce at-large elections is contingent on the continued use of STV. If Dunedin were to return to first-past-the-post in Council elections in the future, the Review Team urges Council also to reconsider elections at-large.”

20 The full report is available on the Council’s website at https://tinyurl.com/representation-review.

NEXT STEPS

21 The Council needs to consider the two electoral systems available to it for the 2022 triennial general elections and be aware of the timelines if it considers a change in the electoral system appropriate.

22 Once a decision is made notice will be given of the decision and of the right to demand a poll on the electoral system to be used.

Signatories

Author:	Clare Sullivan - Team Leader Civic
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - Acting Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	The Local Government Electoral Option 2017	38

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

Fit with strategic framework

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

There is no contribution to the strategic framework because this is a matter that is for the Council to decide whether or not the electoral system will change or remain the same.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no specific known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no known financial implications, other than the unbudgeted costs of a decision to undertake a poll already discussed within this report.

Significance

This decision is not significant in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Additionally, the Local Electoral Act 2001 does not require this decision to be made using the special consultative procedure.

Engagement – external

No external engagement has been undertaken as this will occur if Council decides to undertake a poll on this matter.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

No risks have been identified.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community boards have not been consulted on this matter, but the electoral arrangements chosen will apply to Community Board elections.

Council

28 July 2020

St Clair Beach - Timber Groyne, Risk Assessment

Department: 3 Waters

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report assesses the feasibility of, and options for reinstating the existing timber groyne structure at St Clair Beach as requested by a Council motion on 10 December 2019.

2 The analysis in this report notes there are several risks associated with reinstating a timber groyne at St Clair Beach. These include unintended beach erosion, safety concerns, cost and impacts on DCC’s existing work programme: the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan.

3 The recommended option is the status quo and involves continuing with the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan project and considering the proposed timber groyne through this process.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves continuing with the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan engagement process and implementing the resulting investment decisions informed by this work.

BACKGROUND

4 On 10 December 2019, the Council approved a motion to:

Notice of Motion - St Clair Beach

In accordance with Standing Order 26.1, a Notice of Motion had been received from Cr Jules Radich.

Councillor Radich spoke to the Notice of Motion which was then considered by Council.

Moved (Cr Jules Radich/Cr Jim O'Malley):

That the Council:

a) Requests a report assessing the feasibility of, and options for reinstating the existing timber groyne structure at St Clair Beach, including:

i) An assessment of the risks and benefits of the groyne including reference to Kettle Park and the risks of doing nothing

ii) A construction time and cost estimate

iii) A strategic assessment of its effects on the wider coastal system and the Council’s exisiting work programme

Division

The Council voted by division

For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Doug Hall, Carmen Houlahan, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Jules Radich, Chris Staynes, Lee Vandervis, Steve Walker and Aaron Hawkins (12).

Against: Crs Christine Garey and Marie Laufiso (2).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 12 votes to 2

Motion carried (CNL/2019/001)

Council’s existing work programme

5 The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan which is an existing and active work programme is about looking at all of the management options on offer for the coast. It involves working options through with the community (including groynes) and developing a long-term and sustainable plan for the St Clair – St Kilda coast. This plan will be presented to Council in early 2021 and will contribute to the 2021-31 Ten-Year Plan.

6 Detail on what groynes are, how they work, when they are effective and a history of groynes at St Clair Beach is provided in Attachment A.

DISCUSSION

7 The following section provides an assessment of the risks and benefits of a groyne, with reference to Kettle Park. The risks have been divided into ‘technical’ and ‘regulatory risks’ but also include elements that relate to public amenity and safety.

Technical Risks

8 As detailed Attachment A, groynes typically function by trapping sand on their updrift side and depriving the downdrift area of sand. As a standard rule for groyne design, the length of beach impacted by a groyne is between two and four times the length of the groyne, depending on sediment type, waves and a range of other conditions. A ratio of 0.8-2.7:1 is typically adopted on sandy coasts (Carter, 1998, Fleming, 1993, Masselink et al. 2014, Tonkin and Taylor, 2011). Figure 1 below has been provided to display ‘conceptually’, the best-case effects of the proposed groyne at St Clair Beach. Note that the figure assumes a west-east movement of sand.

Figure 1: Conceptual accretion and erosion zones for the proposed, 65m long groyne. This typical functioning groyne demonstrates the potential for updrift accretion (west) and downdrift erosion (east). These respective zones (blue and red) are based on the maximum efficiency of a single groyne, extending 2.7 times the length of the groyne. The figure assumes a south-west dominant wave climate.

9 This conceptual diagram does not account for the cross-shore sand transport at St Clair and the erosion that typically results from storms. This figure demonstrates, that under typical conditions, the proposed timber groyne is unlikely to have an effect on the beach in front of the Kettle Park landfill (which is located nearly 900m to the east) of the St Clair sea wall. The effects of the proposed groyne are likely to be limited to an area around the geobags (sand sausages). Additionally, if west-east currents and sand transport are more common than east-west at the site, then any changes experienced at Kettle Park may be negative (erosional) than positive (accretional).

10 Conceptually, if a typical groyne was to protect Kettle Park it would need to be roughly 395m long, rather than 65m as proposed (if located in the existing location). More realistically, a system of groynes would be required to support with sand retention seaward of Kettle Park. Roughly seven groynes would be required to protect Kettle Park if built to the proposed specifications (e.g. timber groynes of 65m length), with the western-most groyne located in the proposed position (current poles). Importantly, cross-shore movements of sand (towards and away from the beach) are common at St Clair Beach. Under such conditions (which are particularly dominant in winter) groynes are likely to have a minimal positive effect on sand retention.

11 Localised scour is a possibility with any structure placed on the beach. This effect is evidenced by the St Clair sea wall and neighbouring geobags – these structures create turbulence when impacted by waves. This turbulence mobilises sand and can lead to localised erosion. A timber groyne could have a similar effect, with localised scour occurring around individual poles. This could result in negative effects such as a need for increased maintenance and safety risks associated with deeper sections of water around the structure.

12 As with the St Clair sea wall, the greatest risks associated with a timber groyne would occur during and after storms. On beaches with strong cross-shore currents like St Clair, groynes can facilitate the formation of rip currents. These currents can form alongside groynes, dragging sand offshore. Rip currents pose a safety risk to beach goers, particularly swimmers. This erosive effect could also have implications for more general beach amenity and access.

13 Groynes can restrict pedestrian access along the beach, particularly during low tide, or when the beach is an eroded state.

Regulatory Risks

14 Several governing policies / rules relate to the use of hard protection measures in the coastal environment. These policies generally discourage the use of hard protection measures and ask that local authorities reduce the need for such works. Attachment B provides a summary of the relevant regulatory requirements.

15 Consents to ‘disturb’ and to ‘occupy’ the coastal marine area (CMA) would be required before a timber groyne be reinstated at St Clair Beach (as outlined below). It is possible that these consents would not be granted, without robust technical analysis and community engagement, particularly given the relevant policies and rules discourage hard protection measures in the coastal environment.

Consenting Rules

16 In order to reinstate a timber groyne on St Clair Beach, two resource consents would be required as per the Regional Plan Coast:

17 Disturbance. The disturbance of the CMA while placing a structure is a discretionary activity in accordance with Rule 9.5.3.6. ‘Disturbance of the CMA’ would be required to reinstate the timber groyne as heavy machinery would be used to drive piles and place planks. Therefore, a consent would be required to disturb the CMA for the purposes of reinstating the timber groyne.

18 Occupation. The occupation of the Common Marine and Coastal Areas with a structure is a discretionary activity in accordance with Rule 7.5.1.5. An Occupation consent would be required if the timber groyne was expected to have a more than minor effect on coastal processes. If the groyne was not going to have a more than minor effect on coastal processes then it would be unsuccessful in trapping sand and serving a purpose. The Occupation consent would require information on how the timber groyne might affect the seabed, currents and amenity. Given that the effects would likely be more than minor this consent would need to be notified.

19 Permitted Rule 8.5.2.3 of the RPC allows for the ‘Reconstruction’ of a previously authorised structure. A consent would be required for Reconstruction if the structure did not adhere to the design of the existing structure. Building a groyne in the same location and to the standards of the existing structure would not be advised by staff, particularly when considering the susceptibility of a timber groyne to damage and the need to make substantial repairs following storms. Furthermore, the existing structure is not positioned appropriately if the desired outcome is to achieve sand trapping in front Kettle Park. Neither is it located in an ideal position to assist in sand retention seaward of the St Clair sea wall.

Budget impacts

20 Constructing the proposed groyne is currently not budgeted for and would require both capital and operational budgets.

21 The estimated cost to construct the proposed timber groyne is $150,000. Consenting costs are expected to be greater than $15,000, including an assessment of the potential effects of the structure on the environment. Implementation of an effective monitoring programme to assess the ongoing effect of structure would cost approximately $7,500 per year. Annual maintenance is expected to be between $30,000-60,000 per year.

22 The estimated construction cost (above) has been based on the following programme.

- Purchase H6 (marine-grade) timber piles and whalers (lead time required, up to 12 weeks)

- Steel pile shoes and top rings fitted to piles

- Establish site and materials to site (may involve bunding/ protection of work site)

- Setup and drive piles (between tides)

- Position and fit/ bolt whalers

- Construct and maintain bunding/ site protection

23 The budgetary impact of the proposed work would have an impact on existing work programmes such as the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan. It is expected that these impacts would incur additional consultant costs to manage the project.

Potential benefits of a timber groyne

24 A timber groyne would provide an opportunity for learning. By quantifying the rate of sand deposition and studying the pattern of accretion during different conditions, an improved understanding around the potential efficacy of sand trapping structures on St Clair Beach could be developed. For this benefit to be fully realised it would require budget for construction, consenting, ongoing maintenance and a monitoring plan designed to effectively assess beach dynamics. Ideally, the positioning of the structure would also be revised to fully realise these benefits.

25 If a timber groyne was to be reinstated in the proposed location it could facilitate the accumulation of sand in front of the western section of the geobags. This could improve public access to a section of St Clair Beach by raising the beach level.

Effects on the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan

26 The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan will involve DCC working with the community and technical experts to develop management actions that are informed by the community’s values and robust technical input. A good Coastal Plan will not simply be informed by the community but will go further – providing genuine opportunities for people to understand the context of the challenges and the opportunities on offer.

27 A groyne, or any other significant physical intervention undertaken before community engagement takes place could undermine this engagement process. DCC is committed to being more active in involving the community and helping the community to understand the full-range of management options on offer. To build a groyne would be to anticipate the outcome of the engagement process, diminishing the value placed on community input. There may be an opportunity to explore trial interventions in the future, such as a low-impact groyne. However, staff recommend such actions should be worked through the Coastal Plan process.

28 A key element of the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan is about socialising management options - helping the community understand the options for how this coast can be managed. DCC has an opportunity to produce a sustainable, cost-effective and ambitious plan. Structures may play a part in the future of this coast. The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan involves the community taking the time to consider how different options might contribute to the collective good for this coastal system.

OPTIONS

Option One – Status Quo (Recommended Option)

29 This option is the status quo, allowing the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan to run as scheduled – with resulting investments being fed into the 21/31 Ten Year Plan. Construction of a groyne will be considered through this process, this could include a groyne as a trial structure.

Advantages

· Provides genuine opportunity for broad community input.

· Allows individual management actions to be considered within the broader context of managing the St Clair – St Kilda coast (including the Kettle Park landfill and St Clair sea wall).

· Supports the community in understanding the full range of management options on offer.

· Aligns with guiding legislation on coastal management, including the RMA 1991, NZCPS 2010 and the Ministry for Environment’s ‘Coastal Hazards and Climate Change: Guidance for Local Government, 2017’.

· The option is planned and budgeted for.

· Facilitates more effective spending through the short, medium and long-term.

· Does not lock DCC into a particular management approach prior to public engagement.

· Supports DCC’s broader climate change work programme – South Dunedin Future.

Disadvantages

· Does not facilitate immediate management action at this coast.

Option Two – Timber Groyne

30 This option involves applying for resource consent, with the intent of reinstating the timber groyne at St Clair Beach in the short-term.

Advantages

· Potential for improved beach access from the eastern-end of the St Clair sea wall, as a result of sand build-up

· Could provide a level of protection to the western section of the geobag structure

· Provides an example of physical/ tangible action on DCC’s part, which the community may support.

· Provides information on the potential viability of sand trapping structures on St Clair Beach (via monitoring)

Disadvantages

· Potential for localised beach erosion to be enhanced, resulting in reduced beach amenity, and increased maintenance costs.

· Potential for negative implications for other coastal infrastructure (e.g. the geobags and St Clair sea wall).

· Requires additional budget be secured for consenting, construction, maintenance and monitoring of the groyne and/ or re-prioritisation of budgets from other projects.

· Results in building a structure in a position where it is unlikely to achieve the desired outcome.

· Locks DCC into maintenance and monitoring of a structure that may not have any benefits.

· Does not involve modern-day design elements for groyne design leading to potential maintenance, performance and consenting repercussions.

· Impacts on the existing programmes and operational budgets.

NEXT STEPS

31 If the recommended option is approved the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan project will proceed as planned. Management options will be socialised and worked through with the community over the coming months (including groynes). A holistic and sustainable coastal plan will be presented to Council in early 2021.

32 If council adopt option 2, staff will consider what existing work programmes and capital projects that can be delayed to facilitate installation of a timber groyne this financial year.

Signatories

Author:

Tom Simons-Smith - Coastal Specialist

Authoriser:

Tom Dyer - Group Manager 3 Waters

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Background information on groynes	58
⇩b	Regulatory Risks - St Clair groyne	63

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision (recommended option) enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision (Recommended option) promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

This decision (recommended option) promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

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 recommended option will provide opportunity for a sustainable, long-term plan to be developed for the St Clair – St Kilda coast. This includes the beach and dune areas, coastal infrastructure such as the St Clair sea wall and geobags as well as the numerous green spaces (reserves and sports fields) along this coast.

The plan will provide opportunities for the identification of hazard mitigation outcomes as well as broader community, environmental and cultural benefits.

Māori Impact Statement

Otakou Rūnaka (mana whenua) are working with DCC on the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan. Through this working relationship mana whenua will have opportunities to share the cultural and historical narrative of the area through public workshops. Core values of mana whenua have been integrated into the project’s engagement plan.

Sustainability

One of the key objectives of the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan project (recommended option) is to develop and sustainable long-term plan and vision for the area. The management options within the coastal plan will have social and environmental implications.

Environmental implications could include: improved beach amenity, surf amenity, enhanced of native plantings and removal of foreign/ hazardous materials from the coastal fringe (e.g. landfill at Kettle Park).

Social implications include: Potential for improved and safer beach access. Improved reserve amenity and recreational opportunities.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan will inform investments to be fed into the Ten-Year Plan, on Council’s approval.

Financial considerations

The recommended option is budgeted for. The overall project costs is $500,000 and includes costs for project management, community engagement and several items of technical work designed to inform the plan. Option 2 is not budgeted for.

Significance

The decision is considered ‘medium’ in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

The engagement plan for the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan has seen input from a wide range of interested organisations and key partners. These groups include, but are not limited to: Ōtākou Rūnaka (mana whenua) Otago Regional Council, Department of Conservation, University of Otago, the South Dunedin Community Network, numerous schools and a wide variety of stakeholders who live near, or own/ operate a business/ club near the site. Several other interested groups and individuals have also been engaged with. The engagement process has been designed to be highly inclusive.

Engagement - internal

The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan project has can taken a structured and holistic approach to project management. 3 Waters, Parks, Transport, Community and Planning and Communications and Marketing Group Managers are part of the project board that guides the project. Their respective teams are involved in the wider project team and have been kept well-informed throughout the project.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The recommended option will support Council in managing financial, social, environmental and reputational risks. Financial risks include the management of ageing coastal infrastructure and strategic decisions around future interventions. Significant environmental, social and reputational risks can be associated with the landfill at Kettle Park. The St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan will support Council in managing these risks and setting out actions to manage the site.

Conflict of Interest

No Conflict of interest

Community Boards

No implications for Community Boards

Council

28 July 2020

Mana Whakahono Ā Rohe Agreement with Manawhenua

Department: Office of the Chief Executive

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report updates the Council on progress to date on the drafting of a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement between mana whenua and the Dunedin City Council.

2 It provides background on previous work that has been undertaken in relation to the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, proposes a path forward for conclusion of the agreement process, and recommends the timeframe is extended.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Agrees to extend the conclusion date for the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe: Iwi Participation Agreement.

BACKGROUND

3 In 2017, Subpart 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 came into effect via the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017. Subpart 2 sets out the context and processes for the undertaking of a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe: Iwi Participation Agreement.

4 Mana Whakahono ā Rohe is an agreement between iwi authorities and local government. It is designed to set parameters of the relationship and engagement between local government in relation to Resource Management Act issues.

5 A letter was sent by mana whenua to Mayor Dave Cull in July 2019 to request a hui to discuss initiation of an agreement. The hui was held on 30 July 2019, where it was agreed to proceed with the drafting of a Mana Whakahono agreement.

6 Mana Whakahono are required by legislation to be concluded within 18 months of their initiation, meaning January 2021 is the deadline for the agreement between Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou, Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki, and the Dunedin City Council.

7 An outcome of the July 2019 hui was that the Mana Whakahono agreement be ‘aspirational’ and to go beyond the minimum legislative requirements.

DISCUSSION

8 The July 2019 hui directed a draft agreement be written by DCC staff and Aukaha, which was subsequently followed up by DCC. However, circumstances over the last year have led to a ‘drift’ – the passing of Tahu Pōtiki, ambiguity over ‘ownership’ and process, where the agreement sits in relation to other relationship documents, and most recently, the Covid lockdown have contributed to a delay in the meaningful collaboration of a draft.

9 A paper was submitted to the June 2020 hui of the Māori Participation Working Party recommending that the deadline for the agreement conclusion be extended to 2021. The Working Party also agreed to a review of all relationship structures and agreements between mana whenua and Council, the review to run concurrently with the drafting of the agreement.

10 Timeframes needed to undertake the above will mean that the conclusion date will not be met in January 2021. Even if a decision is made to focus on drafting the agreement only, it will remain difficult to achieve an effective and meaningful agreement within the seven months left, especially while Aukaha waits for a new Chief Executive to be in place.

11 Legislation allows for the extension of the agreement conclusion deadline, with the mutual agreement of all parties.^{^[1]}

12 Extending the deadline will allow room for drafting an effective and comprehensive agreement, that will set out the terms and nature of relationships between Council, manawhenua, and matāwaka (other iwi) living in the city.

13 A new deadline date is yet to be identified – the Māori Participation Working Party tasked the Kaiwhakamāherehere with providing a revised and detailed timeline for the review and drafting of the Mana Whakahono to their July 22 2020 hui. A new conclusion date will be discussed at the hui.

OPTIONS

14 If the conclusion date is extended, it will allow for meaningful collaboration between Dunedin City Council and mana whenua in reaching an aspirational agreement that will be more encompassing of the overall relationship. It will also allow for a thorough review of the current relationship structures and agreements between mana whenua and the Council, ensuring that they either remain fit for purpose or restructured to a more effective model that reflects the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi strategic principle and partnership.

15 If a decision is made to not extend the conclusion date, the Mana Whakahono process will run its original course, with conclusion set for January 2021. This will result in an agreement that will not meet the intent of the June 2019 initiation hui, may not be an effective agreement at an operational level, and may compound some of the complexities around current relationship models if it isn’t aligned appropriately. If this occurs, work will need to be done in the future to correct this but will be constrained by the legislation that governs Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements and their processes.

NEXT STEPS

16 If the recommendation to extend the conclusion is agreed to by the Council, the Kaiwhakamāherehere will provide a revised timeline to the Māori Participation Working Party and Council, detailing the process for drafting the agreement and reviewing current relationship structures and agreements.

Signatories

Author:	Rachel Wesley - Kaiwhakamāherehere
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - Acting Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Extract from Resource Management Act	69

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This proposal enables effective participation of Māori in decision making processes within local government.

Fit with strategic framework

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

The proposal aligns with the Council’s key strategies and contributes most directly to the strategic principle of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Māori Impact Statement

This report is a direct result of discussions with mana whenua via the Māori Participation Working Party. It has ongoing implications for relationships with mana whenua in particular.

Sustainability

This report is in line with the Sustainability principle of the strategic framework, as it discusses relationship agreements with Māori regarding decision-making, participation, and effective partnership in RMA and Local Government Act issues.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Aligns with the strategic framework and the Mana Whakahono will be included in the 10 Year Plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement on this report, other than discussions with mana whenua.

Engagement - internal

Information for this report has been provided by the Corporate Policy Team.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There is a reputational and legal risk to the Council if the agreement is not completed within its legislative timeframe.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards at this time.

Council

28 July 2020

Submission on the Department of Conservation and Fisheries New Zealand's Proposed southeast marine protected areas

Department: 3 Waters

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The Department of Conservation (DOC) and Fisheries New Zealand (FNZ) are consulting on the establishment of a proposed network of marine protection areas for New Zealand’s South Island South-East Coast. The Dunedin City Council (DCC) made a submission on 15 May during the lockdown for COVID-19. The public consultation process was withdrawn due to the pandemic but has now recommenced. The original DCC submission made on 15 May 2020 was withdrawn. Previous submitters have the opportunity to amend an original submission and re-submit on the proposal.

2 This report seeks approval of an amended DCC submission to incorporate specific comments on the outfalls from the City’s main wastewater treatment plants at Tahuna and Green Island, which are located within and adjacent to (respectively), the proposed Orau and Okaihae marine reserves.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the amended DCC submission dated 3 July 2020 to the Department of Conservation and Fisheries New Zealand on the proposed southeast coast marine protected areas.

BACKGROUND

3 The DCC made a submission to the South-East Marine Protection Forum Roopu Manaaki ki te Toka (the Forum) in 2016, outlining the City’s significant drainage infrastructure within or close to reserves proposed off the Dunedin coastline, and requesting provisions to recognise that infrastructure.

4 The Ministers of Conservation and Fisheries decided to proceed with the statutory processes for establishing the network of marine protected areas identified as network 1 by the Forum in 2018.

5 The proposed marine network aims to protect a range of unique coastal and estuarine habitats and feeding areas for marine mammals, birds, fish, and invertebrates, which are currently under pressure from the effects of human activities, including climate change. It is made up of six marine reserves, five Type 2 marine protected areas, and one kelp protection area, covering a total of 1267 km² from Timaru in South Canterbury to Waipapa Point in Southland.

6 DOC and FNZ are now consulting on Proposed southeast marine protected areas as part of the public notification and objections process before the six marine reserves are established under the Marine Reserves Act 1971 by an Order in Council.

7 Public consultation commenced on 17 February 2020. The DCC submitted on 15 May 2020 during the lockdown for COVID-19. The submission supports the proposed network as presented in the consultation document and outlines the DCC’s roles and responsibilities in relation to safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem health, the importance of tourism to Dunedin’s economy, and provides general comments on the proposed network. The submission is included as Attachment B.

8 The public consultation process was withdrawn by DOC and FNZ on 9 April due to the pandemic restrictions. Consultation recommenced on 3 June 2020 and closes on 3 August 2020. Previous submitters have the opportunity to amend an original submission and re-submit on the proposal.

9 The proposed network covers the entire Dunedin territorial authority coastline and includes the Orau (site I1) and Okaihae (site K1) Marine Reserve sites located off the coast of Dunedin. There are existing DCC wastewater and stormwater discharges and existing outfall structures within the proposed Orau Marine Reserve, and an existing wastewater discharge adjacent to the proposed Okaihae Marine Reserve.

10 This report seeks approval of an amended DCC submission to incorporate specific comments on the potential impacts of the proposed Orau and Okaihae marine reserves, relating to the city’s drainage infrastructure.

DISCUSSION

11 The DCC has invested substantially in infrastructure in the areas of the Orau and Okaihae Marine Reserves. The DCC discharges treated wastewater into the sea from the Green Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) via an 850 m pipeline at Waldronville, and from the Tahuna WWTP via a 1100 metre long outfall at St Kilda. Emergency outfalls for the Tahuna WWTP are located at Lawyers Head. Resource consents are held for occupation of the coastal marine area by the outfalls, and for discharge of wastewater from the outfalls. The DCC also discharges stormwater into the sea at St Clair.

12 The outfalls and discharges are crucial to the operation of Dunedin City’s wastewater and stormwater services, and their environmental impacts are already controlled by the Resource Management Act 1991. Therefore, it is important the DCC’s current infrastructure and future needs are adequately recognised for both existing and potential future discharges of wastewater and stormwater, allowing for seabed disturbance associated with outfall maintenance, and for the collection of marine fauna associated with resource consent monitoring.

13 In seeking recognition for the DCC’s operational infrastructure requirements, the actual and potential environmental effects of the activities are also acknowledged. Ongoing monitoring of the effects of the discharges has not indicated any significant adverse environment impacts of the activity.

14 The 3 Waters Strategy identifies improving the quality of discharges to the environment as a key priority. System planning and renewals work is on-going to improve the condition of the DCC’s network assets to improve processes and the network and reduce surcharge and overflows. DCC has spent $157 million since 2000 on upgrading its wastewater treatment plants and ocean outfalls, resulting in significant improvements in the quality of its discharges.

15 Dunedin City is experiencing increased urban growth that may result in the need for potential future changes to existing wastewater discharge consents and possible new stormwater discharges to the coast that may require a new coastal outfall(s).

16 The DCC has statutory obligations to continue providing the essential functions of stormwater and wastewater services to its communities and this needs to be recognised for future consenting requirements. Establishing the Orau Marine Reserve may increase the complexity and cost of renewing existing resource consents or applying for new resource consents.

17 Unless provisions are made in the Orau and Okaihae Marine Reserve Orders in Council, the DCC’s wastewater and stormwater management activities could be unable to legally continue.

18 The DCC also needs to reach agreement with DOC for unconsented infrequent discharges to continue. The unconsented discharges will be an offence under the Marine Reserves Act 1971 if the Orau Marine Reserve is established before the discharges are consented. It is noted the Wellington City Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with DOC relating to their unconsented discharges following the establishment of the Taputeranga Marine Reserve, offshore of Wellington City.

OPTIONS Option One – Submit on the proposed southeast marine protected areas proposal (Recommended Option)

19 Approve, with any suggested amendments, the draft submission to DOC and FNZ on the proposed southeast marine protected areas proposal.

Advantages

· Submitting allows the DCC to highlight issues that should be considered as part of the establishment of the marine reserves and request any marine reserve established recognises and provides for both existing and potential future discharges from the public drainage network.

· The positive contributions of the proposed marine protected areas to the Council’s strategic goals are also recognised.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Do not amend and re-submit the submission

Advantages

· The positive contributions of the proposed marine protected areas to the Council’s strategic goals are still recognised.

Disadvantages

· There is a missed opportunity to highlight issues for consideration during establishment of the marine reserves.

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

NEXT STEPS

20 If the Council approves the draft submission it will be sent to DOC by 3 August 2020.

Signatories

Author:

Rachel East - Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Tom Dyer - Group Manager 3 Waters

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft submission on proposed southeast marine protected areas	76
⇩b	Initial DCC submission on proposed southeast marine protected areas	82

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision to amend the DCC submission on Proposed southeast marine protection areas enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

Fit with strategic framework

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

This decision to amend the DCC submission on Proposed Southeast Marine Protection Areas is generally consistent the DCC strategic framework, in particular the 3 Waters Strategy, which looks to improve the quality of its discharges while being cost-effective, and the Environment Strategy, which notes the importance of coastline and waterways to Dunedin’s natural environment.

Māori Impact Statement

The submission notes the importance of Crown obligations to Māori through Te Tiriti o Waitangi, deeds of settlement, legislation, protocols and regulations, and giving effect to the principles of Te Tiritiri o Waitangi around decisions under the Marine Reserves Act. It is also noted that in Te Ao Tūroa – Dunedin’s Environment Strategy – partnership with Kāi Tahu as kaitiaki is integral to achieving Dunedin’s environmental outcomes.

Sustainability

The proposals set out in the Proposed Southeast Marine Protection Areas have implications for economic sustainability. The draft amended submission addresses aspects of these implications.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Approving the draft amended submission has no implications on the LTP, Annual Plan, Financial Strategy and Infrastructure Strategy.

Financial considerations

There are no known financial implications of amending the DCC submission on Proposed Southeast Marine Protection Areas.

Significance

The decision to amend the DCC submission on Proposed Southeast Marine Protection Areas has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of low significance.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement on amending the DCC submission on Proposed Southeast Marine Protection Areas.

Engagement - internal

Staff from City Development, Parks and Recreation, Corporate Policy and 3 Waters contributed to the original submission. Corporate Policy have been engaged with on amending the DCC submission on Proposed Southeast Marine Protection Areas.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified legal or health and safety risks in amending the DCC submission on Proposed Southeast Marine Protection Areas.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known impacts to Community Boards.

Council

28 July 2020

DCC Submission on the ORC Vision Statement

Department: Corporate Policy and Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks retrospective approval of a Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) to the Otago Regional Council (ORC) on its Vision for Otago, via a survey which sought feedback on vision statements and spending priorities.

2 The ORC invited public feedback on its proposed “Vision for Otago” to inform what the ORC should deliver as a regional council and form the basis of its LTP goals and aspirations. The DCC was not formally notified, and the turnaround time for feedback was short. The survey closed on 6 July 2020.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves, in retrospect, the DCC submission to the Otago Regional Council on the Vision for Otago.

BACKGROUND

3 The Otago Regional Council (ORC) invited feedback on its vision statements for Otago by 6 July 2020, via an online survey.

4 The proposed vision statements included:

· Communities that connect with Otago’s environment

· An environment that supports healthy people and ecosystems

· Communities that are resilient in the face of natural hazards and climate change

· A sustainable way of life for everyone in Otago

· Otago mana whenua have a strong voice in shaping Otago

· Sustainable, safe and inclusive transport.

5 The feedback will inform the ORC’s work programmes, performance targets and projected budgets as part of its ten-year planning process or Long Term Plan (LTP).

6 There will be another opportunity early next year to comment on the details of its proposed LTP.

DISCUSSION

7 Staff submitted on the ORC vision by the deadline of 6 July 2020. A draft submission was circulated to Councillors for feedback and approved by the Mayor, prior to being submitted.

8 The DCC submission acknowledges the benefits of the proposed vision statements for Otago and the impact it will have on long-term planning for the Otago region.

9 In the submission, the DCC recommends:

· acknowledging the roles different agencies play in the wellbeing of Otago;

· addressing the concept of sustainable natural and physical resource. Our resources and the way in which we use them are critical to community wellbeing and the environment; and;

· suggests that along with transport infrastructure, other significant network infrastructure, such as 3 Waters infrastructure, be recognised as infrastructure that supports community wellbeing and the environment.

10 The short turnaround time for feedback and survey format posed a challenge to providing comprehensive feedback.

OPTIONS

Option One (Recommended Option) – Approve the submission

11 Approve the DCC submission to the ORC on Vision for Otago.

Advantages

· Enables the DCC to actively inform the ORC’s long-term planning for Dunedin.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Do not approve the submission

12 Do not approve the DCC submission to the ORC on Vision for Otago.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to actively advocate for Dunedin’s strategic goals in the ORC’s long term vision for Otago.

NEXT STEPS

13 If Council retrospectively approves the submission that was sent to the ORC on 6 July 2020, the ORC will be notified of the decision. No further work will be required.

14 If Council does not approve the submission, the ORC will be notified of its withdrawal.

Signatories

Author:

Hoani Yates - Policy Advisor

Suzie Ballantyne - Senior Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Robert West - Group Manager Parks and Recreation

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	DCC submission on the ORC vision	88

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This submission promotes the social, economic and environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

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

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua from a decision to approve the draft DCC submission.

Sustainability

There are no known specific impacts for sustainability from a decision to approve the draft DCC submission.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no known impacts.

Financial considerations

There are no financial impacts.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There was no external engagement on this submission.

Engagement - internal

The Principal Policy Advisor, Kaiwhakamaherehere, Transport and Waste and Environmental Solutions had input into the draft submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known impacts for Community Boards

Mayor	Mayor Aaron Hawkins
Deputy Mayor	Cr Christine Garey
Members	Cr Sophie Barker	Cr David Benson-Pope
	Cr Rachel Elder	Cr Doug Hall
	Cr Carmen Houlahan	Cr Marie Laufiso
	Cr Mike Lord	Cr Jim O'Malley
	Cr Jules Radich	Cr Chris Staynes
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Steve Walker
	Cr Andrew Whiley

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 Confirmation of the Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting - 30 June 2020 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	.
C2 Property Negotiations - Inner City Site	S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.	In particular this report is confidential to protect Council's position in respect of the negotiations for a proposed property sale..
C3 Three Waters Reform Work Programme	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C4 Three Waters Network Renewals: Proposed Contracts and Procurement Approach	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

	Title	Page
⇨a	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 30 June 2020 (Under Separate Cover 1)

Author:	Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services
Authoriser:	Sandy Graham - Acting Chief Executive Officer