|
|
Council
5 August 2020
|
Reports
Submissions on Otago Regional Council Omnibus
and Water Permits Plan Changes
Department: 3 Waters
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 The
Otago Regional Council (ORC) has proposed an ‘Omnibus’ Plan Change
to address specific activities that contribute to water quality issues and to
address gaps in the policy and rule framework for managing contaminant
discharges to water. The ORC has also proposed the Water Permits Plan
Change (WPPC) to address known deficiencies in the current water permit
planning framework.
2 The
Minister for the Environment decided to ‘call
in’ the Omnibus and the Water Permits Plan Change for the Environment
Court to decide. As part of this process, the Environmental Protection
Authority (EPA) has called for submissions on the proposal.
3 This
report summarises the proposal and potential impacts on the DCC’s
infrastructure provision and seeks approval to develop detailed submissions for
authorisation by the Mayor before submissions close on 17 August 2020. The draft submission will be circulated to Councillors for
comment prior to authorisation by the Mayor.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
a) Approves the
development of submissions to the Environmental Protection Authority on Otago
Regional Council’s Omnibus Plan Change and Water Permits Plan Change.
b) Authorises
the Mayor to approve the submissions.
|
BACKGROUND
The proposals
4 The
intent of the Omnibus Plan Change is to address specific activities that
contribute to water quality issues or to address gaps in the policy and rule
framework for managing contaminant discharges to water. The Omnibus Plan
Change comprises Plan Change 8 to the Regional Plan: Water and Plan Change 1 to
the Regional Plan: Waste.
5 Plan
Change 8 (Discharge Management) (PC8) amends existing policies, and introduces
new policies for:
· strengthening
and clarifying policy direction on stormwater and wastewater discharges, and
rural discharges;
· improving
management of sediment loss from earthworks for residential development; and
· provides
new minimum standards for effluent storage and application to land and promotes
good farming practices including providing for sediment traps in intermittently
flowing rivers.
6 Plan
Change 1 (Dust Suppressants and Landfills) (PC1) amends existing provisions for
use of dust suppressants and waste oil, and minimum standards for new
landfills.
7 The
intent of Plan Change 7 (PC7)(Water Permits) (WPPC) is to address known
deficiencies in the current planning framework and proposes to add a new
chapter to the Regional Plan: Water for Otago. The proposal applies to
the replacement of deemed permits expiring in 2021, any water permits that
expire before 31 December 2025, and any new water permits.
8 The
ORC considers the plan change will provide an interim regulatory framework
until the new Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) is complete (expected by end
of 2025). The LWRP will include provisions for the long-term sustainable
management of surface water resources in the Otago region.
9 The
ORC considers PC7, PC8 and PC1 are an interim solution to deal with immediate
problems in their Regional Plans. They requested the Minister for the
Environment to refer them directly to the Environment Court to speed up the
process.
10 On
8 April 2020 the Minister issued a direction under s 142(2) of the Resource Management
Act 1991 (RMA) to ‘call in’ the Omnibus and the WPPC for the
Environment Court to decide. Like a plan change process (led by a
Council), the public are asked to submit on the proposal, but unlike a plan
change process, there are no rights of appeal once a decision is made by the
Environment Court (other than on a point of law). The ORC must then
implement the decision of the Court.
11 In
line with the Minister’s direction, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) publicly notified the ORC Omnibus Plan Changes and the WPPC on 6 July
2020 and called for submissions. PC7, PC8 and PC1 have immediate legal
effect. Submissions close on 17 August 2020.
DISCUSSION
Plan Change 8: Discharge management
Wastewater and stormwater provisions
12 Discharges
of wastewater and stormwater must comply with the ORC’s planning
framework. Consequently, the DCC holds more than 30 resource consents for
drainage discharges and as they expire replacement consents will be
required. The DCC is currently working with the ORC on consenting some of
it’s less frequent wastewater discharges previously considered to be
provided for by RMA emergency provisions. Consequently, any changes to
the Water Plan in relation to discharge management will have a potentially significant
impact on drainage operations and planning.
13 The
DCC is committed to improving the quality of its discharges to the environment
and has made significant strategic and financial investment to enable
this. That work is ongoing and will continue to evolve as various
regulatory changes are enacted, including through the Government’s
Essential Freshwater package.
14 The Regional Plan: Water currently identifies objectives
for stormwater and wastewater management and has rules regarding the discharge
of those contaminants. However, it has few specific policies detailing
expectations around stormwater and wastewater management or anticipated
improvements or timeframes for implementing those.
15 PC8
proposes a broad policy requiring the upgrade of existing stormwater systems
and to improve the quality of all stormwater discharges. For wastewater
management, PC8 proposes a broad policy relating to the wastewater network
design and discharge. There are no changes in terms
of rules at this time - most stormwater discharges remain permitted and all
municipal wastewater discharges require resource consent.
16 As
PC8 has immediate legal effect those policies will be applied by the ORC to all
of the DCC’s current and upcoming consent applications for stormwater and
wastewater discharge.
17 It
is noted that discharges to the coastal marine
area are currently regulated by the Regional Plan: Coast for Otago and will not
be directly affected by PC8. However, it is likely PC8 will have flow-on
effects for the DCC’s coastal permits when the Regional Policy Statement
(RPS) and the Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) are developed. The
Section 32 Evaluation Report for PC8 notes the ‘targeted solutions’
provided by the plan change can be ‘easily incorporated into a new
regional plan in the future’ (i.e. the LWRP).
18 A
DCC submission would suggest appropriate guidance would be beneficial to
provide clarity on policy expectations and suggest further development of some
clauses that are considered to be subjective.
Sediment loss from residential
earthworks
19 The
DCC is supportive of regional rules for managing the effects of sediment on
water quality. We note that the Dunedin City Proposed District Plan (2GP)
currently contains an effects-based performance standard together with setbacks
and earthworks limits.
20 We
acknowledge that the sediment control provisions of PC8 are more comprehensive
than the 2GP provisions. The proposed provisions may result in
duplication with 2GP provisions which would be inefficient and may cause
confusion for Plan users. A DCC submission would seek clarity on how the
respective rules of the two Plans can be aligned, and potentially for any
duplication to be removed from the 2GP.
Plan Change 1: Dust
suppressants and landfills
Dust suppressants
21 Waste
oil is currently used on unsealed roads to suppress dust. PC1 prohibits the use
of waste oil (with immediate legal effect from 6 July 2020) and provides for
the use of alternative dust suppressants.
22 It
is known that waste oil used as a dust suppressant is harmful to the
environment and its use has been banned, or is being phased out across the
country. Under PC1 safer alternatives that have been approved under the
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 will be able to be used as dust
suppressants. The move away from using waste oil is supported.
23 It
is noted this prohibition will impact the volume of waste oil requiring safe
disposal.
24 A
DCC submission will seek clarity on the criteria which will be used to determine
dust suppressants that are safe to use.
Landfills
25 PC1
proposes a new policy regarding managing the adverse effects of
landfills. This is generally supported, and any DCC submission would seek
that the ORC also reclassify landfills under their Regional Plan: Waste in
accordance with the Waste Minimisation Institute New Zealand’s Technical
Guidelines for Disposal to Land (August 2018).
Plan Change 7: Water Permits
26 In
the current Water Plan, water takes for community supplies are conferred special
status: they are secured as community takes, they are assessed as a
‘controlled’ activity, and provision is made for making an
application to take more water to allow for growth that is reasonably expected.
PC7 proposes several changes including no longer providing for community supply
water takes as a controlled activity.
27 The
ORC first notified the WPPC on 18 March 2020, with immediate legal effect.
28 A
DCC submission would comment on the removal of special status for community
supplies.
OPTIONS
Option
One – Submit on the proposed ORC Omnibus and Water Permits Plan Changes
(Recommended Option)
29 Approve
the development of submissions to the Environmental Protection Authority on
Otago Regional Council’s Omnibus Plan Change and Water Permits Plan
Change, to be authorised by the Mayor.
Advantages
· Submitting
allows the DCC to advocate and influence on the regional planning framework
which impacts both infrastructure service provision and district planning.
· Submitting
allows the DCC to be part of any Environment Court discussions that may occur
prior to a decision being made.
· Submitting
now is crucial as there is no opportunity for appeals in the process (other
than for a point of law).
Disadvantages
· Submitting
requires staff and Councillor time to prepare and review a submission.
Option
Two – Do not submit on the proposed ORC Omnibus and Water Permits Plan
Changes
30 Do
not make submissions on the proposed Omnibus and Water Permits Plan Changes.
Advantages
· Staff
time could be used to progress other important 3 Waters work.
Disadvantages
· There
is a missed opportunity to highlight important issues for consideration during
the Environment Court process.
· No
opportunity for DCC to respond to submissions by third parties on the plan
change. Other parties will make submissions on the plan change, that may
result in further impacts on the DCC’s infrastructure provision, and its
ability to comply with regulatory requirements.
· The
Omnibus Plan Change as notified will add to the complexity, uncertainty and
cost for the DCC when going through ORC’s consenting processes.
NEXT STEPS
31 If
the Council approves Option One, staff will continue developing detailed
submissions on the Omnibus Plan Change and Water Permits Plan Change for lodgement
with the EPA by 17 August 2020, with final approval by the Mayor. The
draft submission will be circulated to Councillors for comment prior to
authorisation by the Mayor.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Rachel East - Policy Analyst
Karen Sannazzaro - Regulation and Policy Team Leader
|
|
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 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
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
This decision to submit on the Omnibus and Water Permits
Plan Changes is consistent with 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
This decision to submit on the Omnibus and Water Permits
Plan Changes has no known impacts for tangata whenua. Tangata whenua
will otherwise be engaged independently through the RMA process.
|
|
Sustainability
This decision to submit on the Omnibus and Water Permits
Plan Changes itself has no implications on sustainability. However, the
changes proposed by the ORC are likely to have some impact on economic and
environmental sustainability.
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan /
Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy
This decision to submit on the Omnibus and Water Permits
Plan Changes itself has no financial or planning implications. However,
the changes proposed by the ORC are likely to have some impact on financial
and strategic planning.
|
|
Financial
considerations
There are no financial implications of submitting on these
Plan Changes.
|
|
Significance
The decision to submit on these Plan Changes has been
assessed under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as
being of low significance.
|
|
Engagement –
external
There has been no external engagement in preparing this
report.
|
|
Engagement -
internal
Staff from 3 Waters, Waste and Environmental Solutions,
Transport, City Development and Corporate Policy have contributed to this
report and will provide input into drafting the submission.
|
|
Risks: Legal /
Health and Safety etc.
There are no identified legal or health and safety risks
in submitting on these Plan Changes.
|
|
Conflict of
Interest
There are no known conflicts of interest.
|
|
Community Boards
There are no implications to Community Boards.
|
|
|
Council
5 August 2020
|
LGNZ Annual General Meeting Remits and Rules
Department: Civic
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 The Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) 2020 Annual General Meeting
(AGM) is to be held on Friday 21 August 2020, in Wellington.
2 At
that meeting, consideration will be given to 11 remits that have been submitted
by local authorities, have received either formal support from councils, or
support from at least one zone or sector group meeting prior to being
submitted, and have been screened through the LGNZ Remits Screening
Policy. The DCC delegate will vote on DCC’s behalf on each.
3 LGNZ
is also proposing one change to the LGNZ Rules, for consideration at the
AGM.
4 The
purpose of this report is to present the remits that are going to the LGNZ AGM,
along with a proposed change to the LGNZ Rules. It asks that Council give
consideration as to whether it wishes to give pre-AGM direction to the voting
delegate about DCC’s support or otherwise of any of these remits and
proposed rule change.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Decides
whether Council wishes to determine DCC’s voting position for each of
the remits, for action by the delegate attending the Annual General Meeting.
b) Decides whether
Council wishes to determine DCC’s voting position for the proposed
change to the LGNZ Rules for action by the delegate attending the Annual
General Meeting.
|
BACKGROUND
5 Usually
the AGM is held either prior to or immediately following the LGNZ
conference. The conference is not being held in 2020 due to COVID.
The AGM still needs to be held to consider a number of matters including remits
and any LGNZ rule changes.
6 LGNZ
has a Remits Screening Policy which determines which remits submitted by local
authorities will be considered at the LGNZ AGM. This year, 11 remits have
been accepted for consideration. Attachment A provides the details of
each of those remits.
7 LGNZ
National Council has put forward a change to the LGNZ. Attachment B
provides the detail of this proposed change to the Rules.
8 Mayor
Hawkins will attend the AGM on behalf of Council as the Council’s voting
delegate. Council is only entitled to one voting delegate who would
exercise the Council’s voting rights and as the Council’s senior
office holder the Mayor is the most appropriate delegate to attend.
DISCUSSION
9 Historic
practice has been for the Council to decide whether or not it wishes to determine
the Council’s voting position for action by the delegate attending the
meeting.
10 The
DCC delegate attending the LGNZ AGM will have the opportunity to vote on the
remits. So that they can represent the position of Council, consideration
needs to be given to each remit, and a decision made for each on whether
council supports the remit proposed. Council may decide that it does not
have a position on a remit, and that the delegates may make a decision at the
meeting following discussion on the particular matter. It is
important to note that councils speak to their remits, so delegates at the AGM
may be in a more informed voting position than councillors are prior to the
AGM.
11 A
summary of each of the remits to be considered at the LGNZ AGM is presented
below. Staff have not had an opportunity to fully consider the remits and
whether or not they align with Council’s strategic priorities.
Comment is provided on three of the remits. At a high level, the majority
of the remits seem to support the Council’s strategic priorities.
Remit 1: Public
transport support
That LGNZ:
· Acknowledges the Government for its recognition during
COVID-19 of public transport as an essential service;
· Acknowledges the strong financial support provided by the
Government through Waka Kotahi NZTA during the COVID-19 Alert Levels, that
enabled councils to continue to provide public transport for people providing
essential services and transport for the public to receive essential services
up to 30 June 2020;
· Recognises that councils will continue to be under
significant financial pressure to maintain the viability of public transport
under current FAR rate settings for many months during the recovery phase from
COVID-19; and
· Calls
on the Government to work with councils to maintain the financial viability of
public transport during the recovery phase of COVID-19.
Proposed by: Greater
Wellington Regional Council
Supported by: LGNZ
Regional Sector
Staff
comment
This
calls on the Government to work with councils to maintain the financial
viability of public transport during the COVID-19 recovery phase.
Consultation of Dunedin’s 2020/21 Annual Plan highlighted DCC’s
commitment to subsidised fares, with the aim of lowering these fares and
encouraging more people onto public transport.
Remit 2: Housing
affordability
That Local Government
New Zealand (LGNZ):
· Calls on the
Government to introduce legislation that would fully enable councils to address
housing affordability in their communities through a range of value uplift and
capture tools, one such tool being ‘inclusionary zoning’;
· Seeks to establish
a working group on affordable housing, comprising of relevant/affected
councils, central government (MHUD, Kāinga Ora, MSD), iwi, and the
community housing sector; and
· Advocates to
central government for an affordable housing National Policy Statement to be
developed.
Proposed by: Hamilton
City Council and Christchurch City Council
Supported by:
Tauranga City Council; Tasman District Council; Waipa District Council; South
Waikato District Council; and Waitomo District Council
Staff comment
This aligns with the Mayor’s Taskforce for Housing
Action Plan 2018 – 2038.
Remit 3: Returning
GST on rates for councils to spend on infrastructure
That Local Government New
Zealand (LGNZ) request that the Government use the appropriate mechanisms to
enable the 15 per cent Goods and Services Tax (GST) charged on rates be
returned to councils to spend on local or regional infrastructure projects.
Proposed
by: Hamilton City Council and New
Plymouth District Council
Supported by: Auckland
Council; Christchurch City Council; Tauranga City Council; Nelson City Council;
Tasman District Council; Gisborne District Council; Waipa District Council;
Waikato District Council; and South Waikato District Council
Remit 4: Natural
hazards and climate change adaptation
That central government
undertakes, in collaboration with all of local government, a comprehensive
review of the current law relating to natural hazards and climate change
adaptation along New Zealand's coastlines, and coordinates the development of a
coastline strategy for the whole of New Zealand which would cover: the roles
and responsibilities of territorial authorities, regional councils and central
government; greater direction on an integrated approach; and development of principles
for “who pays”.
Proposed
by: Hauraki District Council
Supported by: Hawke’s
Bay Regional Council, Thames-Coromandel District Council; Napier City Council;
Hastings District Council; and Northland Regional Council.
Remit 5: Annual
regional balance transfers
That LGNZ work with Treasury,
Statistics New Zealand and other government agencies to develop an annual
regional balance of transfers to show how much each region contributes in taxes
and how much each region receives in government funding.
Proposed
by: New Plymouth District Council
Supported by: Thames-Coromandel
District Council; South Taranaki District Council; Hastings District Council;
Rangitīkei District Council; and Rotorua Lakes Council.
Remit 6: Local
Government electoral cycle
That the local government
electoral cycle be extended from three to four years.
Proposed by: Northland Regional Council; Rotorua Lakes Council;
Whanganui District Council; and Hamilton City Council.
Supported by: Hastings
District Council; Palmerston North City Council; Napier City Council;
Manawatū District Council, South Taranaki District Council,
Rangitīkei District Council
Remit 7: Water
bottling
That LGNZ works with the
Government to:
· Place a moratorium on applications to take and/or use water
for water bottling or bulk export;
· Require and enable regional councils to review inactive
water bottling consents, with a view to withdrawal of the consent and
discourage consent ‘banking’;
· Undertake an holistic assessment of the potential effects
of the current industry, its future growth and the legislative settings that
enable Councils to effectively manage those effects; and
· Initiate
a comprehensive nationwide discussion on the issue of water bottling and
implement any changes to legislation and policy settings as required.
Proposed by: Queenstown-Lakes District Council
Supported by: Greater
Wellington Regional Council; Tauranga City Council; Thames-Coromandel District
Council; Upper Hutt City Council; and Waitaki District Council.
Remit 8: Quorum
when attending local authority meetings
That LGNZ requests central
government amend legislation to enable elected or appointed members, connecting
remotely to a public council meeting, be included in the quorum. This would
provide an option for local authority meetings to be held completely remotely,
if required.
Proposed by: Waikato
District Council
Supported by: Hamilton
City Council; Hauraki District Council; Thames-Coromandel District Council;
Taupō District Council; Ōtorohanga District Council; South Waikato
District Council; Waipa District Council; and Waitomo District Council.
Remit 9: Use of
macrons by local authories
That LGNZ work with central
government to put in place a simplified process for the addition of macrons to
council names if requested by that council or its community.
Proposed by: Waipa
District Council
Supported by: Zone
Two
Remit 10: Rates
rebates for low income property owners
That the Government lift the level of rates rebates
available for low and fixed income property owners – with yearly
increases taking into account the cost for inputs into local government
services.
Proposed
by: Whanganui District Council
Supported by: Palmerston
North City Council; Napier City Council; Manawatū District Council; South
Taranaki District Council; and Rangitikei District Council.
Staff comment
This aligns with the
Council’s Social Wellbeing Strategy in supporting our residents on low
and fixed incomes.
Remit 11: Local
Government’s CO2 emissions
That the Government implement an
independent scheme, based on the United Kingdom model operated by the
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to measure and report
on carbon emissions at a district level.
Proposed by: Whanganui
District Council
Supported by: Palmerston
North City Council; Napier City Council; South Taranaki District Council;
Hastings City Council; and Horizons Regional Council.
12 At
a meeting of the National Council of LGNZ a resolution was passed proposing a
LGNZ Rule change that would reduce the term limit on the office of President
from three terms to terms (nine years to six years). The term limit was
last altered at a Special General Meeting in early 2014 when the term was
increased to three terms from two terms.
Proposal - Change
the maximum number of consecutive terms of office of the President from 3 to 2:
Rule
F15: Delete the word “three” from the first sentence and replace
with the word “two” so that Rule F15 then reads:
“F15
No person may hold office as President for more than two consecutive terms,
provided that any person who holds office as President by virtue of an
appointment in accordance with Rules F27 to F32 is eligible for re-election at
the end of the unexpired term of office of that person’s predecessor. For
the avoidance of doubt, a term under this Rule does not include any period of
office held by a President by virtue of an appointment in accordance with Rules
F27 to F32.”
OPTIONS
13 There
are two options, either Council gives direction on the DCC’s voting
position for each of the 11 remits and the rule change or not.
Option One – Council gives
direction to voting delegate
Advantages
· The
voting delegate is aware of the preference of Council.
Disadvantages
· Council
gives direction without being fully informed of the discussion that will take
place at the AGM about the remits and the proposed rule change.
Option Two – decisions on the
voting position on each of the remits and the rule change remains with voting
delegate (the Mayor)
Advantages
· The
voting delegate is privy to additional information and debate at the AGM.
Disadvantages
· The
voting delegate is not aware of the preference of Council regarding the remits
and the proposed rule change.
NEXT STEPS
14 The
DCC delegate at the LGNZ AGM will vote on the remits and proposed rule change
in accordance with the decisions made.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Clare Sullivan - Team Leader Civic
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Sandy Graham - Acting Chief Executive
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
⇩a
|
LGNZ AGM Remits
|
36
|
|
⇩b
|
LGNZ Rule Change
|
80
|
|
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
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
At a high level there is a general fit with the strategic
framework but further consideration would be needed depending on the outcome
of whether the remits are agreed to or not.
|
|
Māori Impact
Statement
There is no specifc known impacts for tangata
whenua. Further consideration may be needed depending on the outcome of
voting on particular remits.
|
|
Sustainability
Depending on the outcome of the remits at this stage there
are no implications for sustainability
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan /
Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy
There are no implications.
|
|
Financial
considerations
There are no implications
|
|
Significance
This report is of low significance in terms of the
Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
|
|
Engagement –
external
No external engagement has been undertaken. This is
a matter for member authorities of LGNZ.
|
|
Engagement -
internal
There has been some engagement with policy, finance and
property.
|
|
Risks: Legal /
Health and Safety etc.
There are no implications.
|
|
Conflict of
Interest
There are no known conflicts of interest.
|
|
Community Boards
There are no immediate implications for Community Boards.
If the remit on the electoral cycle passes or the quorum when attending
meeting passes, a legislative change would be required and if that happened
there would be an impact but it is low at this stage.
|
