Agenda of Strategy & Engagement Committee

Strategy & Engagement Committee

13 February 2023

Resident's Opinion Survey Results 2021/2022

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides a summary of the annual results of the 2021/22 Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS) (Attachment A). The 2021/22 survey was conducted during the previous triennium over the 12 months from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 by an independent research company, called GravitasOPG.

2 The Dunedin City Council (DCC) has commissioned a ROS every year since 1994 to gauge residents’ satisfaction and engagement with a wide range of DCC services and facilities. The annual results of the ROS, as a full report, has been formally reported to Council since 2020.

3 The 2021/22 survey received a total of 1,313 responses out of 4,800 survey invitations, based on a random sample of residents aged 18 years and over from the electoral roll. Participation is voluntary.

4 Some groups of residents are more likely to respond to the ROS than others. It is recognised that younger people (18-29 years) have been noticeably underrepresented in the ROS, while residents over 50 years provide the majority of responses. However, due to the limited access to the electoral roll for the purpose of the ROS, the DCC cannot target particular groups in sampling efforts.

5 Overall satisfaction with the DCC slightly increased to 43% (from 40% in 2020/21). A third of respondents were satisfied with the performance of Community Boards (33%) and the value for money of the DCC services and activities (32%), whereas a quarter were satisfied with the performance of the Mayor and Councillors (26%). These ratings are all consistent with the previous year.

6 There was a significant increase in satisfaction with DCC staff relating to three aspects of customer services, returning to 2019/20 levels. They are: ‘how well staff communicated with you’ (76%, up from 69%), ‘how long it took staff to deal with the matter (74%, up from 62%), and ‘how staff handled the enquiry overall’ (69%, up from 62%).

7 The ROS results are currently used to inform 40 Levels of Service (LoS) performance measures that are set out in the 10 Year Plan 2021-2031. Work is underway to review data obtained through the ROS as part of the review of LoS statements and measures. The LoS review aims to use performance-based quantitative measures rather than residents’ satisfaction-based measures to demonstrate performance across the DCC’s services.

8 The ROS review is also informed by the wider Strategic Refresh work programme, including the City Portrait, development of the four wellbeing strategies, and the Māori Strategic Framework. Defining the role and purpose of the ROS will be better determined as the Strategic Refresh develops, and more clarity is obtained on data requirements for future monitoring and reporting.

9 The current five-year contract with GravitasOPG expires in August 2024 with the delivery of a 2023/24 survey (ending 30 June 2024). Staff are meeting with GravitasOPG to discuss the feasibility of implementing any improvements or change to the current ROS for the final year of the contract.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the annual results of the 2021/22 Resident’s Opinion Survey

b) Notes the review of the ROS is underway, and the rationale for the ROS will be informed by the wider Strategic Refresh work programme.

BACKGROUND

The purpose and use of a Residents’ Opinion Survey at the DCC

10 The ROS is a monitoring tool utilised by the DCC to gauge residents’ satisfaction and engagement with a wide range of DCC services and facilities. It has been commissioned by the DCC every year since 1994 and provides an annual snapshot of residents’ satisfaction. Residents’ opinion surveys are a common tool utilised by other Councils across the country to monitor residents’ satisfaction.

11 Since 2016, the ROS has been conducted on a monthly, rather than annual basis, to provide for analysis of seasonal trends throughout the year. Gravitas Research & Strategy Limited was selected in 2019 to conduct the ROS following a public procurement process. They have since rebranded to GravitasOPG after being acquired by Big Picture Marketing Strategy & Research Ltd, a New Zealand owned and operated marketing insights and research company. The 2021/22 survey was year three of a five-year contract with GravitasOPG.

12 All ROS reports from 2006 onwards are available publicly on the DCC website. The ROS results are released every year, and most recently since 2020, reported directly to Council via a report.

13 The aim of the ROS is to provide statistically representative results on residents’ satisfaction with DCC services and facilities and perceptions of Council performance.

14 The objectives of the ROS are to:

· gauge the extent to which Council is meeting its 10 Year Plan and Annual Plan objectives

· measure resident’s satisfaction with the services, facilities and infrastructure Council provides to the community

· identify areas for improvement that would be valued by residents.

15 The results of the ROS are used to inform 40 Levels of Service (LoS) performance measures that are set out in the 10 Year Plan 2021-2031. Council’s 10 year plan sets out the activities undertaken by Council. Each activity has LoS that describe what Council will provide to the community, along with measures and targets used to assess the level of achievement in delivering those activities. These statements, measures and targets are Council’s performance framework. Council reports on how it is achieving its LoS through its Annual Report and quarterly activity reporting.

Review of the existing ROS as part of the LoS and other data

16 Currently staff are undertaking a Strategic Framework Refresh, as part of this project, a review of the LoS statements and measures is underway. The focus of the LoS review is to evaluate the effectiveness of DCC’s existing performance framework and existing suite of survey tools used to measure performance and monitor wellbeing, including the ROS and Quality of Life Survey (QoLS). The review looks to move from residents’ satisfaction-based measures obtained mainly through the ROS to performance-based quantitative measures.

17 The LoS review will also assess the best way to gauge community satisfaction of Council services and performance. It will also consider whether the right questions are being asked for the information that the DCC requires to monitor and improve service delivery to the community.

18 The ROS is one of a suite of survey tools the DCC utilises to measure performance and monitor wellbeing. Other tools utilised by the DCC include the QoLS, The People’s Panel, Stakeholder Satisfaction Surveys, The Visitor Centre Survey and other visitor surveys, Community Housing Tenant Survey, and the Travel Time Survey. Of the suite of survey tools, the ROS and the QoLS are the two main surveys that the DCC currently utilises for performance and wellbeing measurement.

DISCUSSION

ROS methodology

19 The ROS is based on a sample of randomly selected residents aged 18 years and over from the electoral roll, with a target sample size of 1,200 residents each year. Participation is voluntary. Some groups of residents are more likely to respond to the ROS than others, and it is recognised that younger people (18-29 years) have been noticeably underrepresented in the ROS. However, due to the limited access to the electoral roll for the purpose of the ROS, the DCC cannot target particular groups in sampling efforts.

20 The results are weighted to known population distributions based on the 2018 Census data for age, gender, ethnicity and location to reduce sample bias due to the aforementioned differential response rate.

21 The ROS 2021/22 was conducted over 12 months from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022. A total of 4,800 survey invitations were sent over the survey period, and 1,313 responses were received. A response rate of 32% was achieved, compared with 31% in 2020/21. The survey results have a margin of error of +/-2.7%.

Summary of findings

22 The Residents’ Opinion Survey 2022 report (the report) has been prepared by GravitasOPG in consultation with Corporate Policy.

23 The report uses black arrows to indicate statistically significant differences in results compared to the previous year’s results, or between users and non-users of facilities.

24 Below is a high-level snapshot of the ROS 2021/22 report.

a) Services/facilities respondents (users in last 12 months) are most satisfied with:

· Olveston Historic Home (94%)

· Dunedin Botanic Garden (93%)

· Toitū Otago Settlers Museum (92%)

· Otago Museum (91%)

· Libraries (90%)

· Forsyth Barr Stadium (90%)

b) Services/facilities respondents are least satisfied with:

· Availability of parking in the central city (15%)

· Availability of on-street metred parking in the central city (18%)

· Flow of traffic at peak (29%)

· Conditions of roads throughout the city (30%)

· Suitability of the road network for cyclists (32%)

c) Largest increases in satisfaction in 2021/22 from 2020/21

· How long it took staff to deal with a matter (up 12 points to 74%)

· How well staff communicated with individuals (up 7 points to 76%)

· How staff handled an enquiry overall (up 7 points to 69%)

· Flow of traffic at peak (up 7 points to 29%)

d) Largest decreases in satisfaction in 2021/22 from 2020/21 (users in last 12 months)

· The Dunedin i-Site Visitor Centre (down 16 points to 61%)

· DCC playgrounds (down 11 points to 56%)

· Community swimming pools (down 8 points to 68%)

· Dunedin Chinese Garden (8 points to 82%)

25 Summaries for each of the activities represented in the survey are provided below.

Public Facilities

Parks, Reserves and Open Spaces

26 Satisfaction rating for most parks, reserves and open spaces facilities remained stable over the last 12 months. However, declines were evident for playgrounds (56%, down significantly from 67% last year) and accessibility to these facilities (67%, down significantly from 72% last year).

27 There was not much change in visitation of parks, reserves, and open spaces, except for cemeteries, which saw a significant decrease of 4%.

Sports and Recreation Facilities

28 There was a significant increase in user satisfaction with Forsyth Barr Stadium (90%, up from 87%), whereas user satisfaction with community swimming pools decreased significantly (68%, down from 76%). Users’ satisfaction was stable for all other facilities, including Edgar Sports Centre (77%), Dunedin Ice Stadium (76%), and Moana Pool (75%).

Other Public Facilities

29 Four public facilities received high user satisfaction ratings of above 90%, including Olveston Historic Home (94%), Toitū Otago Settlers Museum (92%), Otago Museum (91%) and Libraries (90%) although the ratings were lower than the previous year for all these facilities, except for Olveston Historic Home, which saw an increase of 3%.

30 There was a decline in user satisfaction with the Dunedin i-Site Visitor Centre (61%, down from 77%) and the Dunedin Chinese Gardens (82%, down from 90%).

Infrastructure

Water related Infrastructure

31 After a significant decline in 2019/2020, the percentage of respondents satisfied with water infrastructure was stable, with just over half of respondents were overall satisfied with water related infrastructure (54%). Satisfaction with the sewerage and stormwater systems decreased significantly (62% and 47%, respectively), back to similar levels in 2019/2020.

Roading, footpaths, lighting and parking

32 Overall satisfaction with roads, footpaths, lighting and parking continued to decline over the last 12 months, with only 26% of respondents satisfied. Respondents were least satisfied with the availability of parking in the central city, with 66% dissatisfied, 19% neutral and only 15% satisfied. Just over half of respondents (53%) were also dissatisfied with availability of on-street metered parking, with only 18% satisfied. Issues with the roading related infrastructures were also featured as top two priorities for the DCC to address this year.

33 Satisfaction with the flow of traffic at peak hours increased significantly (29%, up from 22%). Highest satisfaction ratings were recorded for street lighting (62%) and ease of pedestrian movement (62%), followed by the flow of traffic at off-peak times (60%).

Services

Waste Management

34 Overall satisfaction with waste management services marginally increased (54%, up from 52%). However, satisfaction with most of the individual aspects of waste management declined significantly, including kerbside rubbish collection (58%, down from 62%), public street litter bins (54%, down from 59%), and public recycling bins (49%, down from 54%). Most common topics from respondents’ comments included ‘streets need more cleaning’, ‘get rid of black plastic bags’, and ‘need more public rubbish bins’.

Regulatory Services

35 Over half of respondents (53%) were satisfied overall with regulatory services, with all individual aspects remained stable. Satisfaction ratings were the highest for control of roaming dogs (62%) and the lowest for parking enforcement (46%). Most common topics from respondents’ comments included ‘parking enforcement not doing their job’, ‘dog owners not picking up after their dog’, and ‘poor service from noise control’.

Planning and Urban Design

36 Overall satisfaction with planning and urban design remained stable (53%). Satisfaction with look and feel of the city and most convenient retail centre continued to show a declining trend, further down to 59% and 57%, respectively. Respondents’ comments noted ‘too many empty retail stores’, ‘looks old, needs modernising’, and ‘DCC focusing on wrong areas/or development types’.

Communications, Contact and Information

37 Overall satisfaction with how well the DCC keeps residents informed and the DCC website remained stable (53%) after two consecutive years of decline. Satisfaction with the DCC FYI newsletter continued to decline and further dropped to 50%, compared to 54% in 2020/21.

38 The percentage of respondents who contacted DCC staff in the last three months significantly declined to 29%. Almost 60% of these interactions were done by telephone, compared to 55% in 2020/21.

39 Satisfaction with DCC staff increased across all four measures and returned to 2019/20 levels. Overall, 69% of respondents who contacted the DCC in the last three months were satisfied with how DCC staff handled the enquiry, compared with 62% in 2020/21. A significant increase was also seen in satisfaction with ‘how well staff communicated’ (76%, up from 69%) and ‘how long it took the staff to deal with the matter of concern’ (74%, up from 62%).

Leadership and Overall Satisfaction

40 Satisfaction with all aspects of DCC leadership remained stable but below 2019/20 levels, including the DCC’s support for city festivals and events (55%) and economic development (35%) along with satisfaction with the Mayor and Councillors (26%) and Community Board members (33%) and satisfaction with the amount of public consultation undertaken (31%).

41 Overall satisfaction with the DCC marginally increased to 43% from 40% in the previous year. There was a similar patter with a slight increase in satisfaction with facilities, infrastructure, and services (53%, up from 49%). Just over a third of respondents (32%) were satisfied with overall value for money of DCC services and activities, while 29% were neutral and 39% were dissatisfied.

42 Respondents commenting about Council performance cited issues with focusing on the wrong areas and/or plans, and on more consultation on projects, and fix or focus on roading issues.

Perceptions of Dunedin

43 When compared with 2020/21, positive ratings declined for residents’ perceptions of the majority of measures (Dunedin maintains and preserves its architectural heritage, Dunedin is a safe city, Dunedin is a creative city, Dunedin recognises and supports cultural diversity, Dunedin is a fun city, Dunedin is a thriving city, Dunedin is a sustainable city, the DCC is a leader in encouraging the development of a sustainable city).

44 There was a significant decline for Dunedin being a creative city (66%, down from 72%), Dunedin recognising and supporting cultural diversity (60%, down from 68%), and Dunedin being a sustainable city (39%, down from 47%).

45 Of the nine aspects of the city considered, the highest positive rating was recorded for Dunedin maintains and preserves its architectural heritage (76%). In contrast, ratings were the lowest for the DCC being a leader in encouraging the development of a sustainable city (30%) and for Dunedin being a sustainable city (39%).

Top two priorities for the DCC

46 Chart

Description automatically generated Survey respondents provided their top two priorities for the DCC to address this year. The top two priorities featured in the responses include maintaining infrastructure (e.g., fix the roads and footpaths) and more parking. Other priorities include better traffic flow (e.g., more right turn arrows, less roadworks), more environmentally friendly initiatives, and reducing city debt. It should be noted that there were conflicting comments about roadwork (i.e., fix the roads and less roadworks).

47 The top priorities provided in the response were almost identical to the last year, however better traffic flow was more prominent than more environmentally friendly initiatives and reducing city debt. A summary of the comments is provided below and on page 70 of Attachment A.

Correlation analysis

48 A performance versus importance correlation analysis was undertaken by GravitasOPG, since the 2019/20 year (see pages 72-75 of Attachment A). This analysis considers the relative importance of each measure in the survey to the overall satisfaction rating.

49 The performance of Mayor and Councillors, Community Boards and roading-related infrastructure were identified as areas that are of high importance but lower performance in 2021/22. This reflects last year’s analysis where the same areas were also noted for improvement. These areas strongly influenced residents’ overall satisfaction ratings.

Summary

50 Just over two out of five respondents (43%) were satisfied overall with the DCC in 2021/22, an increase from last year’s result of 40%. Areas identified to have the biggest impact on the improvement of the overall satisfaction with the DCC include: the performance of the Mayor and Councillors, the performance of the Community Board members, and roading-related infrastructure.

51 A significant increase was observed in satisfaction with DCC staff relating to three aspects of customer services, returning to 2019/20 levels. They are: ‘how well staff communicated with you’ (76%, up from 69%), ‘how long it took staff to deal with the matter (74%, up from 62%), and ‘how staff handled the enquiry overall’ (69%, up from 62%).

52 While the ROS provides the opportunity to get a sense of what Dunedin City residents think and feel about DCC services and facilities and perceptions of Council performance, the results reflect a snapshot of residents’ perceptions (i.e., about 1% of the city population) at one point in time. There are many factors that contribute to individual’s perceptions, and it cannot be assumed that all opinions of Dunedin residents have been captured via this survey methodology. Further research would be necessary to provide a more in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the reasons behind particular results and perceptions.

53 Staff are currently undertaking a review of data obtained through the ROS as part of the review and update of LoS statements and measures, which looks to shift from residents’ satisfaction-based measures (i.e., ROS) to performance-based quantitative measures.

54 The rationale or need for the ROS will be further reviewed and contextualised as the wider Strategic Refresh develops, and more clarity is obtained on data requirements for future monitoring and reporting to ensure alignment with the updated strategic priorities.

OPTIONS

55 There are no options as this is a report for noting.

NEXT STEPS

56 The 2021/22 ROS results report (Attachment A) will be uploaded onto the DCC website. GravitasOPG will continue to deliver the ROS monthly for the 2022/23 survey, ending 30 June 2023.

57 The review of the ROS will continue as part of the redevelopment of the LoS and other data as part of the Strategic Refresh. The rationale or need for the ROS will be reviewed and informed by the development of the wider Strategic Refresh, including the City Portrait, the four wellbeings, and the Māori Strategic Framework.

58 The LoS review and the continuous improvement approach to embedding change across the Council’s performance framework will assist in on-going monitoring and evaluation to ensure survey tools are fit for purpose to fulfil data requirements and are aligned with the Strategic Refresh.

59 Councillors and staff will inform this work through a series of workshops and reports in 2023.

60 Staff are mindful that the current five-year contract with GravitasOPG will not end until the delivery of a 2023/24 survey, ending 30 June 2024. Staff are meeting with GravitasOPG to see if it is feasible to implement any improvements or change to the current ROS for the last year of the contract.

Signatories

Author:	Gina Huakau - Corporate Policy Manager
Authoriser:	Jeanette Wikaira - Manahautū (General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Residents' Opinion Survey Results Report 2021-2022	31

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The ROS 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	☒	☐	☐

The ROS contributes to all aspects of the strategic framework as it gauges resident’s opinions on DCC services and performance.

Māori Impact Statement

The current ROS does not qualify to receive Māori descent electoral roll data under section 112 of the Electoral Act 1993. This data would enable more accurate representation of Māori in the ROS through targeted sampling.

Where response rates are not proportional to the Ōtepoti population for Māori the results are weighted to known population distributions based on the 2018 Census data to reduce sample bias.

Sustainability

The ROS asks about residents’ perception of Dunedin as a sustainable city, and whether the DCC is a leader in encouraging the development of a sustainable city.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The ROS asks about resident’s satisfaction with the ‘value for money’ of the services provided by the DCC.

Financial considerations

There are no direct financial considerations.

Significance

The significance of this report is low, in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement policy, as it is for noting only.

Engagement – external

The ROS is a form of external engagement.

Engagement - internal

ROS results are available to management and staff monthly, and some results have been reported to Council committees quarterly. Reporting of ROS results will be considered as part of future work on non-financial reporting, levels of service and strategic framework refresh.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

ROS result breakdowns are available at a community level, which includes Community Board areas.

Strategy & Engagement Committee

13 February 2023

Submission on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill

Department: Corporate Policy and City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission to the Government’s Environment Committee on the Natural and Built Environment (NBE) and the Spatial Planning (SP) Bills. As the NBE and SP Bills are interrelated, the DCC addresses both of these in a single cover submission (Attachment A), with a supplementary technical submission (Attachment B) that refers to each bill individually.

2 The DCC previously submitted on the “Natural and Built Environments Act Exposure Draft” in August 2021 (Attachment C).

3 The Government intends to repeal the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and replace it with three new Acts: the Natural and Built Environment Act, the Spatial Planning Act — which are the subject of this submission — and the Climate Adaptation Act, which is expected to be introduced in mid-2023.

4 Submissions close on 19 February 2023.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Approves the DCC submission, with any amendments, on “the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill”.

b) Authorises the Mayor or his delegate to speak to the submission at hearings.

c) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial amendments to the submission.

BACKGROUND

5 The Government’s reform of the Resource Management system is guided by five key objectives, intended to:

· protect and where necessary restore the natural environment, including its capacity to provide for the wellbeing of present and future generations

· better enable development within environmental biophysical limits including a significant improvement in housing supply, affordability and choice, and timely provision of appropriate infrastructure, including social infrastructure

· give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti of Waitangi to provide greater recognition of Te Ao Māori, including mātauranga Māori

· better prepare for adapting to climate change and risks from natural hazards as well as mitigating the emissions that contribute to climate change

· improve system efficiency and effectiveness, and reduce complexity, while retaining appropriate local democratic input.

6 The NBE is the cornerstone of the new resource management system, which replaces the RMA. The NBE Bill directs the development of NBE plans (one per region) which will replace all the current district plans, regional plans and the regional policy statement in that region.

7 The development of the RSS is the responsibility of the Regional Planning Committee.

8 The purpose of the NBE Bill is to enable the use, development, and protection of the environment in a way that:

· supports the well-being of present generations without compromising the well-being of future generations

· promotes outcomes for the benefit of the environment

· complies with environmental limits and their associated targets

· manages adverse effects.

9 The NBE Bill is also intended to recognise and uphold “te Oranga o te Taiao”, which is described in the Bill as a “te ao Māori concept that speaks to the health of the natural environment, the essential relationship between the health of the natural environment and its capacity to sustain life, and the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment”.

10 The NBE Bill includes a new decision-making principle in relation to iwi and hapū, to ensure the recognition and provision for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū to protect and sustain the health and well-being of te taiao in accordance with the kawa, tikanga (including kaitiakitanga), and mātauranga in their area of interest.

11 Section 5 of the NBE Bill lists “system outcomes” that the National Planning Framework and all plans must provide for. These cover the following concepts:

· protection or restoration of the ecological integrity, mana and mauri of various aspects of the natural environment and outstanding natural features, landscapes and the natural character of the coastal environment

· reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere

· Risk from natura hazards and climate-change

· well-functioning urban and rural areas that are responsive to changing needs of people and communities and that promote use and development of land; supply of land for development; housing choice and affordability; and an adaptable and resilient urban form with good accessibility to social, economic, and cultural opportunities

· the availability of highly productive land for primary production

· recognition of the relationship of iwi and hapū with their taonga

· protection of protected customary rights

· conservation of cultural heritage

· enhanced public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers

· the ongoing and timely provision of infrastructure services to support well-being.

12 The NBE Bill includes directions around the role of a new National Planning Framework (NPF), a central government regulatory instrument that replaces the current suite of National Policy Standards and National Planning Standards. The NPF is intended to provide consistent direction from central government on topics of national significance or where national consistency is seen as desirable. It can set direction for both regional spatial strategies (RSSs) and NBE plans.

The NPF will set (either directly or require the following content to be included in NBE plans):

· environmental limits and targets

· direction on system outcomes

· direction to help resolve conflicts between outcomes

· strategic directions

· management units

· how monitoring must be undertaken

· direction on non-commercial housing and papakāinga on Māori land, enabling development capacity well ahead of expected demand, enabling infrastructure and development corridors, and enabling renewable electricity generation and its transmission.

13 The NPF may also set other directions for Territorial Authorities (TAs).

14 The NPF will be developed with public submissions to a Board of Inquiry.

15 While the NBE plans are developed by the Regional Planning Committee, the existing councils will be required to implement the new NBE plans, in terms of administering the resource consent process and undertaking monitoring and enforcement actions.

Spatial Planning Bill (SP Bill)

16 The purpose of the SP Bill is to direct the development of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS), which appear to replace the current Future Development Strategy requirement and which NBEA plans must be consistent with. Similar to the NBE plans, development of the RSS is the responsibility of the Regional Planning Committee.

17 The RSS must:

· Set the strategic direction for the use, development, protection, restoration and enhancement of the environment for the region for a time-span of not less than 30 years

· Provide for integrated management

· Support the efficient and effective management of the environment; and

· Give effect to national planning framework.

18 RSSs will include:

· A vision and objectives for the region’s development and change

· priority actions to achieve the vision and objectives

· provide strategic direction on a long list of matters set out in section 17 an 18, including:

- areas that are appropriate for urban development and change, including existing, planned, or potential urban centres of scale

- areas that are appropriate for developing, using, or extracting natural resources, including generating power

- areas that are appropriate to be reserved for rural use or where there is expected to be significant change in the type of rural use

- areas of the coastal marine area that are appropriate for development,

- areas that may require protection

- major existing, planned or potential infrastructure

- areas that are vulnerable to significant risks from natural hazards, and measures for reducing those risk and increasing resilience

- Areas that are vulnerable to the effects of climate change both now and in the future and measures to address those effects including major new infrastructure and areas suitable for land use change.

19 Public submissions will be open for RSS, but there is no requirement to hold hearings or for Panels with the power to seek or consider evidence. There are also no appeal rights.

20 Councils will be responsible for implementing the RSS through their Long-Term Plans.

Regional Planning Committees (RPCs)

21 As outlined above the responsibility for developing NBE plans and SP regional spatial strategies sits with proposed new Regional Planning Committees (RPC). One RPC is to be established in each region, comprising representation from local government, hapū iwi and Māori, and central government (though central government members only participate in relation to RSS).

22 The membership and structure of RPCs is to be decided on a region-by-region basis. They will be an independent statutory committee, with no prior authority or ratification required, and subject to modified provisions under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA).

23 The local authorities in the region must agree which council should as the “host authority” for the RPC. If they cannot agree it defaults to the regional council. The host council must house and provide support to the RPC but the RPC is independent from the host council. The RPC will be supported by a secretariat. All costs of the RPC are jointly funded by all councils, with funding agreements to be negotiated amongst councils in the region.

24 The RPC must appoint its own Director and the director becomes the employer of the rest of the secretariat.

25 The RPC membership must comprise:

· at least six members, but there is no upper limit

· each council has a least one seat

· two members must be from Māori appointing bodies

· one member will be appointed by the Environment Minister, in relation to RSS only.

Māori involvement and participation

In addition to Māori representation on RPCs:

26 The NBE Bill establishes an independent National Māori Entity (the Entity), consisting of seven members.

27 The purpose of the Entity is to monitor and assess the cumulative effect of the exercise of functions, powers, and duties under the NBE and SP Acts in giving effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi, by anyone acting under the NBE and SP Acts, including local authorities and unitary authorities.

28 Iwi and hapū in each region will be required to form a committee for the purpose of agreeing with local authorities the composition arrangements of the RPC, and leading the process to determine the one or more Māori appointing bodies for the RPC.

29 RPCs must form Engagement Agreements by inviting the following groups to enter into one or more agreements: iwi authorities, and groups that represent hapū whose area of interest includes any part of the region; customary marine title groups whose customary marine title area includes any part of the region, under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011; and finally, other Māori groups with interests in the region, if the RPC considers it useful.

30 The NBE Bill enables Māori to be involved in monitoring of environmental limits and targets, through representation on a review panel as part of the NPF.

Consenting

31 Councils will continue to be the consent authorities for consents, certificates and registering for activities.

32 Existing consent types in the RMA will remain unchanged: land use, subdivision, coastal permits, water permits, and discharge permits.

33 The NBE Bill reduces the current consent categories to four, which are described as follows:

· permitted: activities where positive and adverse effects, including cumulative effects, are known

· controlled: activities where potential positive and adverse effects, including cumulative effects, are generally known but tailored management of effects is required. Councils will have limited discretion to decline

· discretionary: activities that are less appropriate, have effects that are less known or go beyond regional boundaries, and/or were unanticipated at the time of plan development. Councils will have a broad discretion to seek information and the ability to decline

· prohibited: activities that do not meet outcomes and/or breach limits; no applications will be allowed..

34 The NBE Bill sets out five consenting pathways: ordinary pathway, direct referral, affected application pathway, fast track consenting process, and proposals of national significance.

35 Matters that must be considered in the consenting process will include: whether and to what extent the activity contributes to any relevant outcomes, limits, targets, and policies in a plan, a RSS, or the NPF; the state of the future environment; and prior non-compliance.

Compliance, monitoring and enforcement

36 At a high-level, structural and broad changes to how the resource management regime monitors and enforce compliance include:

· an increase in monitoring and enforcement obligations

· national direction on monitoring provided through the National Planning Framework

· a requirement for regional monitoring and reporting categories

· local, regional and national reporting requirements

· a monitoring function for the National Māori Entity.

37 The NBE Bill includes an increased set of enforcement tools, including monetary benefit orders, adverse publicity orders, and enforceable undertakings.

Discussion

DCC submission

38 The draft DCC submission broadly supports the objectives of the reforms and highlights a number of positive changes but also outlines areas of concern and makes a number of suggestions. Some of the key matters of concern are:

a) The pace of reform and the need to take the time to get it right and to align it with the review and reform of local government, and allow time for the Climate Adaptation Act to be developed

b) The costs of implementing the reform, and the need for central government to provide adequate funding to implement the new system, including to part fund the development of new plans (especially given the recent costs to local ratepayers of developing second generation plans)

c) The lack of clarity on transitioning between the systems and the desire to reduce the cost and frustrations that may arise through transition

d) loss of local influence over plan making (and place outcomes) and the significantly increased role for central government, which creates the risk of ‘moving goal posts’ with changes of Government

e) the role of RSSs in determining the appropriateness of future development, without proportionate processes to robustly evaluate options

f) lack of alignment with other reforms, particularly the review and reform of local government, which is intended to set out the desired future structure, functions, and funding for local government

g) removal of the ability to manage the environment for amenity, character or design considerations

h) timeframes for the development of the first iteration of NBE plans, which appear unworkable given the scale of these plans.

i) uncertainty around how the proposed National Māori Entity will be established and adequately resourced.

46 The DCC submission was informed by the content of the draft Taituarā (formerly SOLGM) submission, to which DCC staff also contributed, and input from the City Development, Resource Consents, Corporate Policy and 3 Waters teams.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option - Approve the DCC submission, with any amendments, on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill

47 Approve the DCC submission, with any amendments, on the NBE Bill and the SP Bill.

Advantages

· Opportunity to show support in principle for the aims of the NBE Bill and the SP Bill.

· Opportunity to provide feedback on topics relevant to the DCC’s strategic and operational work, including zero carbon goals.

· Opportunity to provide feedback and request clarification around some areas of the draft legislation that may impact on Ōtepoti Dunedin when the legislation is in place.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Do not approve the DCC submission on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill

48 Do not approve the DCC submission on the NBE Bill and the SP Bill.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages to this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to provide feedback on topics relevant to the DCC’s strategic and operational work.

· Missed opportunity to request clarification around some areas of the draft legislation that may impact on Ōtepoti Dunedin when the legislation is in place.

NEXT STEPS

49 If the Council approves the draft submission, it will be sent to the Environment Committee for consideration.

Signatories

Author:

Gina Huakau - Corporate Policy Manager

Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

Authoriser:

Jeanette Wikaira - Manahautū (General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft DCC Submission on the Natural and Built Environments Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill	123
⇩b	Draft DCC Technical Submission on the Natural and Built Environments and the Spatial Planning Bill	129
⇩c	August 2021 DCC Submission on the Natural and Built Environments Bill Exposure Draft	167

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision 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	☒	☐	☐

- Te Ao Tūroa – The Natural World, Dunedin’s Environment Strategy 2016-2026 (Goals: Dunedin is resilient and carbon zero; Dunedin has a healthy environment; Dunedin people care for the natural world).

- Spatial Plan (A liveable city; An environmentally sustainable and resilient city).

- 3 Waters Strategy (We will adopt an integrated approach to management of the three waters and embrace the concept of kaitiakitaka; Prioritising energy efficient technology).

- Parks and Recreation Strategy (Increasing awareness of our impact on the natural environment; Greater environmental sustainability and protection; Restoring sand enhancing our native biodiversity, ecosystems and habitats; Restoring and enhancing our coastline and waterway; Partnering with Kāi Tahu to co-manage reserve land vested in mana whenua).

- Zero Carbon Policy: how the Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Acts and the resulting National Planning Framework are drafted will affect how climate mitigation and adaptation considerations are able to be incorporated into resource management decisions. This submission recommends strengthening the links between these legislative tools and the Emissions Reduction Plan and National Adaptation Plan to help achieve emission reduction goals and consider impacts of climate change in planning decisions.

Māori Impact Statement

Within the NBE Bill, Māori are involved in the decision-making process as follows: - at least two members of each Regional Planning Committee (RPC);

- an independent National Māori Entity, consisting of seven members;

- Iwi and hapū in each region will be required to form a committee to determine the Māori appointing bodies for the RPCs;

- RPCs must form Engagement Agreements by inviting the following groups to enter into one or more agreements: iwi authorities, and groups that represent hapū, whose area of interest includes any part of the region; customary marine title groups; and other Māori groups with interests in the region;

- Māori representation on a targets and limits review panel.

The NBE Bill is underpinned by “te Oranga o te Taiao”, which is described in the Bill as a “te ao Māori concept that speaks to the health of the natural environment, the essential relationship between the health of the natural environment and its capacity to sustain life, and the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment”.

This Bill includes a new decision-making principle in relation to iwi and hapū to ensure the recognition and provision for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū to protect and sustain the health and well-being of te taiao in accordance with the kawa, tikanga (including kaitiakitanga), and mātauranga in their area of interest.

Sustainability

The resource management reform programme will have significant impacts on the ability to make decisions on sustainable resource use. The NBE and SP Bills move away from language around sustainability and instead aims to enable development within natural environmental limits. The reforms aim protect and restore the environment and its capacity to provide for the wellbeing of present and future generations. This submission makes some suggestions for how the Bills could be strengthened to help meet these objectives.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for current levels of service and/or performance measures.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Due to timeframe constraints, there has been no external engagement in the preparation of the cover submission.

Engagement - internal

This cover submission has been prepared in consultation with the City Development, Resource Consents, and Zero Carbon teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etcs

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no Conflict of Interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Strategy & Engagement Committee

13 February 2023

Herbicides for Vegetation Control

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report responds to the resolution of the Planning and Environment Committee on 6 July 2022 that requested a review of the use of herbicides, especially those containing glyphosate, for weed and vegetation control in Council operations, and what alternative vegetation control methods exist.

2 The report also presents the findings of a staff literature review on the health or other risks associated with herbicide use.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Herbicides for Vegetation Control Report.

background

3 This report responds to the resolution from the Planning and Environment Committee on 6 July 2022 where the Committee resolved:

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Committee:

Requests that staff review the use, by Council departments and contractors, of herbicides (especially those containing glyphosate) for weed and vegetation control and report on any health or other risk and alternative products, where they exist.

Motion carried (PLA/2022/011)

DISCUSSION

Herbicide Use

4 The Dunedin City Council (DCC) is responsible for weed and vegetation control within road corridors, parks, reserves, cemeteries, landfills, around 3 Waters infrastructure and DCC property.

5 Herbicide sprays are the primary method used by DCC Contractors to control undesirable weeds and vegetation.

6 Herbicides can be known by brand names, common names and chemical names. DCC contractors use many various product brands, and some may not be listed in the table below. Different branded products regularly contain other additives (often proprietary) to improve the product effectiveness. Contractors may also use additives to improve the sprays’ effectiveness for certain weed types.

7 The table below identifies the main herbicides used by DCC contractors.

Common name	Typical Brand Names	General Uses	Approximate Yearly Volume of Usage (undiluted litres)
Glyphosate¹	· Roundup · KiwiGarden · Yates · WeedMaster · Orion · NuFarm	Broad control of all weeds, primarily using sprays. Used on road shoulders, unlined surface water channels, lawn edges, kerb and channel, around buildings, footpaths.	Transport: 3,500 Parks and Recreation: 1,625 Three Waters: 30 Property: 28
Picloram²	· Tordon · Triumph · Vigilant · Ken-Zon	Spraying for pest plants, noxious weeds, woody weeds. Gel form, with brush applicators used for tree stumps/limbs to prevent regrowth.	Transport: 100 Parks and Recreation: 125 Three Waters: <5 Property: <2
Benzalkonium Chloride³	· MossBoss · Surrender · Moss and Mould Sorted Commercial	Spraying to control moss and lichen.	<10 combined

Herbicide chemical names

1 N-(Phosphonomethyl) glycine

2 4-Amino-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid

3 Alkyldimethylbenzyl-ammonium chloride

8 Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world, including in New Zealand.

Herbicide Risks

9 The following information on herbicide risks is based on a staff literature review. Staff are not offering expert advice in this area and have not consulted with toxicology or other experts in preparing the information for the Committee. Information from the staff literature review relevant to the Committee resolution, in chronological order, is as follows:

10 The World Health Organisation International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015. The report states “this was based on ‘limited’ evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and ‘sufficient’ evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of ‘pure’ glyphosate)”.

11 The New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority published a ‘Review of the Evidence Relating to Glyphosate and Carcinogenicity’ in August 2016. It concluded “glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic or carcinogenic to humans and does not require classification under HSNO [Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996] as a carcinogen or mutagen”. Since the August 2016 publication, the EPA has not changed this position.

12 The toxicology risks of glyphosate came to prominence in 2018 and 2019 when American juries began awarding compensatory and punitive damages against Monsanto (the manufacturer of Roundup, which contains glyphosate) for failing to warn consumers that exposure to Roundup weed killer causes cancer. The cases are still in appeal by Monsanto.

13 Following the Monsanto lawsuits, a number of countries, states and districts across the world have either banned or attempted to restrict the use of glyphosate. A list of these can be reviewed via the link: https://www.wisnerbaum.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/where-is-glyphosate-banned-/.

14 In respect to Christchurch City Council’s use of glyphosate, in 2020, University of Canterbury Professor of Toxicology Ian Shaw noted “for glyphosate to potentially cause cancer, which has been reported overseas, repeat doses over a long period of time would be needed and the risk of this was small”. A paper by Professor Shaw on Roundup, published in the NZ Science Review Journal, is included as Attachment A.

15 The EPA has recently published (May 2022) a Glyphosate in Aotearoa New Zealand Summary Report following a call for information on the herbicide. The EPA Summary Report is a first step in the EPA’s process to review the classification of the herbicide. The Summary Report can be reviewed via the link: https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Hazardous-Substances/Glyphosate-call-for-information/Glyphosate-call-for-information-summary-report-may22.pdf

Herbicide Application

16 As noted above, glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world. The EPA considers the product to be safe if applied in the accordance with regulations and guidelines.

17 Industry and DCC staff experience show herbicides to be the most effective method for controlling weed and vegetation growth.

18 All herbicide use by DCC contractors is in accordance with product Safety Data Sheets and New Zealand Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and guidelines.

19 Contractors prepare and adhere to Safe Operating Procedures (SOPs), which identify the controls and procedures for the safe application of herbicides. The SOPs refer to all relevant resources, including personal protective equipment to be used, appropriate application rates, and other procedures to be used by staff, which are based on regulations and industry best-practise. When using herbicides, DCC Contractors take a precautionary approach to manage the associated risks.

20 SOPs also manage ‘spray-drift’ risk ensuring that herbicide spraying only occurs in appropriate weather conditions to prevent contact with vegetation that should not be sprayed.

21 The New Zealand Agrichemical Education Trust (under the brand Growsafe) is a not-for-profit organisation promoting the safe, responsible and effective use of agrichemicals. Training and qualifications are provided through Growsafe. In addition to complying with EPA regulations and guidelines, DCC require its Contractors to be certified by Growsafe, and that all Growsafe standards are adhered to.

Alternative Methods

22 Alternative weed and vegetation control methods include:

a) Manual pulling of weeds

DCC contractors use this more labour-intensive alternative in garden areas and parks where spraying could affect desirable plants. This method is less cost effective where large areas of vegetation control are needed (such as road verges, surface water channels, edges, etc). Physical health risks from manual handling are a consideration with this method.

b) Mechanical removal using tractor attachments, weed eaters, chainsaws, mowers etc

Contractors routinely use these methods for vegetation control where the preference is to cut rather than kill. In comparison to spraying, a much greater frequency of treatment is required. These activities are used in amenity areas such as parks, road verges and sports fields where spraying (weed killing) is not a suitable control method.

c) Bark nuggets or wood mulch

This method used to prevent vegetation growth is already widely used in Parks and Recreation areas as soil coverage for gardens, and around trees.

d) Thermal means such as steam, hot water, electrochemical and fire

These methods have been trialled by DCC to control roadside vegetation but have proven to be less effective as the application frequency needs to be two to four times more often than herbicide sprays. The equipment also requires the carting of a heating system and the requirement to carry a large volume of water. Some of these methods can also kill worms and insects.

e) Organic herbicides

These are products that have organic and natural properties, that are used in the same way as chemical herbicides. These sprays can be made from pine oils, fatty acids, salt and vinegar. Some of the products such as salt or vinegar can alter soil PH and be harmful to insects. Some products have very strong odours. All products are proven by industry experience to be less effective than glyphosate products.

f) Alternative chemical herbicides

The NZ EPA 2016 report lists the seven frequently used herbicides after glyphosate. Based on the public feedback the EPA concluded “responders did not identify any one herbicide that is as safe, effective, and affordable as glyphosate and that could replace all its uses”.

23 DCC has undertaken trials of alternative weed control methods in the past, as have other local authorities, including Christchurch City Council. Staff are not aware of any reports that summarise the costs, effectiveness and environmental benefits of these trials. Discussions with Christchurch City Council staff, industry professionals and experience from DCC trials indicates that herbicides are the most cost effective method for controlling weed and vegetation growth.

NEXT STEPS

24 The New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority is the regulator of chemicals and hazardous substances in New Zealand. DCC and its contractors will continue to comply with all EPA regulations and guidance.

25 Council departments will continue to use herbicides, taking a precautionary approach to it’s use, for weed and vegetation control.

Signatories

Author:

Ben Hogan - Transport Delivery Manager

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Is it time to round up Roundup?	187

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	☐	☐	☒

Herbicide is used in Council operational activities and does not contribute to DCC Strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

Staff have not discussed the use of herbicides in Council operations with Mana whenua.

Sustainability

Staff are not aware of any sustainability implications with the use of herbicides in Council operations.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no known implications of noting this report.

Financial considerations

There are no known implications of noting this report.

Significance

The report is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Staff discussed vegetation control experience with Christchurch City Council during the development of this report.

Engagement - internal

Parks and Recreation, 3-Waters, Property, Transport and Council contractors were consulted with in the development of this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The potential health risks of glyphosate, and their controls, are outlined in this report.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The use of herbicides and the effectiveness of vegetation control methods will be of interest to all parts of the city, including those areas covered by Community Boards.

Chairperson	Cr Sophie Barker
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Kevin Gilbert
Members	Cr Bill Acklin	Cr David Benson-Pope
	Mr Matapura Ellison	Cr Christine Garey
	Cr Carmen Houlahan	Cr Marie Laufiso
	Cr Cherry Lucas	Cr Mandy Mayhem
	Cr Jim O'Malley	Ms Megan Potiki
	Mayor Jules Radich	Cr Lee Vandervis
	Cr Steve Walker	Cr Brent Weatherall
	Cr Andrew Whiley

Author:	Wendy Collard - Governance Support Officer
Authoriser:	Jeanette Wikaira - Manahautū (General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy

	Title	Page
⇩a	Members' Interest Register	6