Agenda of Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee

Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee

19 June 2024

Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee held in the Council Chambers, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, The Octagon, Dunedin on Wednesday 24 April 2024, commencing at 10:00 am

PRESENT

Chairperson	Cr Kevin Gilbert
Deputy Chairperson
Members	Cr Bill Acklin	Cr David Benson-Pope
	Cr Christine Garey	Cr Marie Laufiso
	Cr Cherry Lucas	Cr Mandy Mayhem
	Cr Jim O'Malley	Ms Megan Potiki
	Mayor Jules Radich	Cr Steve Walker
	Cr Brent Weatherall

IN ATTENDANCE

Nicola Morand (Manahautū - General Manager Policy and Partnerships), David Ward (General Manager 3 Waters and Transition), Jeanette Wikaira (General Manager, Arts, Culture and Recreation), Claire Austin (General Manager, Customer and Regulatory), Heath Ellis (Acting Group Manager, Parks and Recreation), John Brenkley (Planning and Partnerships Manager Parks and Recreation), Gina Huakau (Corporate Policy Manager), Dr Anna Johnson (City Development Manager), Clare Sullivan (Manager, Governance) and Junichi Sugishita (Senior Policy Analyst)

Governance Support Officer Wendy Collard

1 Kararkia timatanga

Cr Kevin Gilbert opened the meeting with a Karakia Timatanga.

2 Public Forum

There was no Public Forum.

3 Apologies

Moved (Cr Kevin Gilbert/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Committee:

Accepts the apologies from Crs Sophie Barker, Carmen Houlahan, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley.

Motion carried (SPECC/2024/012)

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Cr Kevin Gilbert/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Committee:

Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration

Motion carried (SPECC/2024/013)

5 Declarations of interest

Members were reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arose between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

Moved (Cr Kevin Gilbert/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Elected or Independent Members' Interest Register ; an

b) Confirms the proposed management plan for Elected or Independent Members' Interests.

Motion carried (SPECC/2024/014)

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee meeting - 13 February 2024

Moved (Cr Kevin Gilbert/Cr Jim O'Malley):

That the Committee:

a) Confirms the minutes of the Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee meeting held on 13 February 2024 as a correct record.

Motion carried (SPECC/2024/015)

Part A Reports

7 Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee Forward Work Programme
	A report from Civic provided an update of the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee forward work programme showing areas of activity, progress and expected timeframes for decision making across a range of work. The Manahautū-General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy (Nicola Morand) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Kevin Gilbert/Cr Marie Laufiso): That the Committee: a) Notes the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee forward work programme. b) Requests activity reports be included in the next Strategy, Planning and Engagement agenda. Motion carried (SPECC/2024/016)

8 Residents' Opinion Survey Quarterly Update: January-March 2024

A report from Corporate Policy provided a summary of the Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS) quarterly results for the period January to March 2024.

The Manahautū-General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy (Nicola Morand), the Corporate Policy Manager (Gina Hu’akau) and the Senior Policy Analyst (Junichi Sugishita) responded to questions.

Moved (Cr Kevin Gilbert/Mayor Jules Radich):

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Residents’ Opinion Survey quarterly results for the period of January-March 2024.

Motion carried (SPECC/2024/017)

9 Logan Park Reserve - Stage 2 feedback from community engagement on development of a reserve management plan

A report from Parks and Recreation sought approval to commence the second stage of public consultation of the draft Logan Park Recreation Reserve Management Plan between 13 May and 15 July 2024.

The General Manager Arts, Culture and Recreation (Jeanette Wikaira), the Acting Group Manager Parks and Recreation (Heath Ellis) and the Planning and Partnership Manager (John Brenkley) responded to questions.

Moved (Cr Kevin Gilbert/Cr Jim O'Malley):

That the Committee:

a) Approves the statement of proposal, including the draft Logan Park Reserve Management Plan.

b) Authorises the commencement of the process required by Section 41(6) of the Act for the public consultation process.

c) Notes that a Hearings Panel will consider submissions on the draft Logan Park Reserve Management Plan and make recommendations to the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee.

Motion carried (SPECC/2024/018)

10 Items for Consideration by the Chair

There were no items for consideration.

11 Karakia Whakamutunga
	Cr Kevin Gilbert closed the meeting with a Karakia Whakamutunga.

The meeting concluded at 10.46 am

..............................................

CHAIRPERSON

Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee

19 June 2024

Proposed Governance Approach to Strategies, Plans and Programmes of Work

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Council has a range of strategies, plans and programme of work that require governance oversight. The proposed approach clarifies decision-making and reporting requirements related to governance oversight.

2 The proposed approach has been developed in reference to the Dunedin City Council (DCC) Committee Structure and Delegations Manual 2023 (the Manual).

3 The proposal also recommends making amendments to the wording and the existing template of Councillor Advisory Panels in the Manual (pages 4-6 and 64, respectively).

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Approves the proposed governance approach.

If approved:

b) Recommends Council adopts the proposed amendments to the wording and template in relation to Councillor Advisory Panels in the Committee Structure and Delegations Manual (Attachment A and B, respectively).

c) Notes that, if approved by Council, the amended Terms of Reference template will be used for all future Advisory Panels, including:

i) the four wellbeing strategies (Ara Toi, Economic Development Strategy, Social Wellbeing Strategy, Te Ao Tūroa)

ii) the Zero Carbon Plan

iii) the Heritage Action Plan

iv) the Dunedin Destination Management Plan

v) the Ōtepoti Live Music Action Plan.

BACKGROUND

Council resolutions

4 In September 2023, Council resolved the following:

“Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Brent Weatherall):

“That the Council:

a) Requests a report for the October 2023 Council meeting on governance options for the oversight of the implementation of the Zero Carbon Plan.”

Division

The Council voted by division:

For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Kevin Gilbert, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Steve Walker, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (14).

Against Cr Lee Vandervis (1).

Abstained Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 14 votes to 1

Motion carried (CNL/2023/213)”

5 At the same meeting, Council also requested a report on governance options for the wellbeing strategies as follows:

“Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Marie Laufiso):

That the Council:

e) Requests a staff report on governance options for the wellbeing strategies to be reported back in November 2023.

Motion carried (CNL/2023/002)”

6 It has been recognised by Council that a more aligned, consistent approach is needed to determine if or what level of governance oversight is required for the development and/or implementation of strategies and plans. This is timely given the work that is underway on the Strategic Refresh and across various action plans in the Council’s Forward Work Programme.

DISCUSSION

7 Historically, varying arrangements have been put in place to provide oversight for the delivery of the DCC strategies and plans. Examples include:

· the Economic Development Strategy was overseen by the Grow Dunedin Partnership as an advisory group, which originally had relatively sizable financial delegations.

· the Social Wellbeing Strategy was overseen by the Social Wellbeing Advisory Group (SWAG) with the purpose to provide advice, knowledge, support and resources, where possible.

· Ara Toi was overseen by the Creative Dunedin Partnership, which was established as a governance group by its Terms of Reference (ToR).

· Te Ao Tūroa was overseen by Te Ao Tūroa Partnership, which was also set up as a governance group by its ToR with financial delegation to approve projects and award grants for environmental community projects.

8 Each of these groups was constituted differently and had different membership in their ToR, which also varied in reporting requirements and other delegations. Some included staff as members. Some were chaired by Councillors, while others had independent chairs. Although different, the groups often functioned well.

9 In addition to the wellbeing strategies, Council has a wide range of strategies and plans currently being developed, implemented, or planned for future development such as the Zero Carbon Plan.

10 The Council and Committee Forward Work Programmes and their action lists provide a level of governance oversight through high-level updates to Councillors on the work being undertaken on various strategies and plans, but do not guarantee reporting at a strategy or plan level.

Compliance with DCC Committee Structure and Delegations Manual

11 Certain types of governance oversight are currently provided for in the Manual. In particular:

Council and Committees including Subcommittees, Joint Committees, Standing Committees

12 Council and Committees have decision-making delegations and oversee DCC’s strategies and plans. For Council, membership is restricted to elected members. For committees, in respect of joint committees or subcommittees, with Council approval, external members (non-elected) may be approved.

Councillor Advisory Panels

13 Councillor Advisory Panels (Panels) have no power to act or decide. The Panels will have the power to make recommendations only to the extent allowed under its ToR and on matters within the scope of the ToR. The Panels usually comprise elected members, but, where deemed appropriate, people from outside agencies can be included in its membership. Staff provide support to the Panels based on their ToR.

14 Customarily, the Panels have been established to assist and monitor progress on the development of a specific strategy or plan, or its implementation. For example, the SWAG was established to oversee and advise the implementation of the Social Wellbeing Strategy.

15 It is noted that the word ‘group’ and ‘panel’ appear to have been used interchangeably over time. The proposed amended ToR presented in the following section of the report is intended to help achieve better consistency in the use of terminology.

Proposed Approach to Governance Oversight

16 A proposed approach has been developed to help clarify the level of governance needed for DCC’s strategies and plans and to better determine what reporting requirements are needed to uphold best practice across the DCC in a consistent, transparent, and aligned way.

17 The proposed governance approach aims to provide clarity on roles, responsibilities and reporting expectations, and support better decision-making. To do this, the proposed approach also suggests making amendments to the wording and the existing template for the Councillor Advisory Panels in the Manual (pages 4-6 and 64, respectively). This will be discussed further in paragraph 26 – 29 below.

18 The proposed approach takes the following three steps to determine the requirement for governance oversight over DCC’s strategies and plans and their implementation:

· Step 1 – For each new strategy, plan or programme of work, Council or the relevant committee will establish what, if any, governance oversight is required for the activity. This will be done at the time of adopting/approval of the strategy, plan or programme of work. If governance oversight is required, Council or the Committee will determine if this is directly by the Committee or through an Advisory Panel. The work will be added to the Forward Work Programme of the Committee.

· Step 2 – If an Advisory Panel is required, a future report would be presented to a Council or Committee meeting, with draft ToR for the Advisory Panel for approval.

· Step 3 – If external membership on the Advisory Panel is required, a public expressions of interest process would be undertaken to find the skills needed.

19 The proposed approach enables Council to adapt or change the level of governance oversight or reporting requirements over time, depending on the changing needs of a specific strategy or plan.

20 A key element to the improved governance oversight is that reporting will be consistent across key areas of the strategic work.

21 The proposed approach identifies three types of reporting, as outlined below, which can be applied in a flexible way. Some strategies and plans may only require one type of reporting, while others will require two or three types of reporting. The rationale for which type of reporting is needed, is determined by what is needed to uphold and support good governance practice and decision-making.

Formal Reporting

22 Formal reporting to Council or Committees will be focussed on the outcomes and outputs associated with specific strategies and plans. Reports will be detailed on the Council or Committee’s Forward Work Programmes. Formal reporting recognises that the body that the reports are going to have delegations to make decisions. This type of reporting will support decision making by Council on specific matters related to strategies and plans. This will be formal reports by DCC staff. Formal reporting may seek decisions.

Update Reporting

23 Update reporting to Council, Committees or Advisory Panels focus on how a strategy or plan is progressing against its annual workplan. This type of reporting will monitor progress and provides advice, but it does not seek decisions. The timing for these would be made through the formal reporting framework. Update reporting would generally be captured in the Forward Work Programme and will be either from DCC staff to an Advisory Panel, Council or Committee or from an Advisory Panel to Council or Committee, with staff support. Reporting requirements will be stipulated in the ToR.

Community Reporting/Informal

24 Reporting to the community on strategies and plans includes existing Council community reporting such as the DCC’s annual report but can include providing online updates and engagement. A recent example is DCC’s early engagement on the 10 Year Plan 2024-34.

25 Community reporting can include presenting at community events, such as staff hosting a DCC stall at the 2023 Otago Polyfest, or hosting engagement opportunities across different localities or with specific communities (e.g. South Dunedin Future). Community reporting could also take place in a form of a ‘stakeholder event’ where several plans or strategies are presented, depending on what communities are interested in or deem most relevant.

Proposed amendments to Councillors Advisory Panel in the Manual

26 Staff propose amendments to the wording and the existing template for the Councillor Advisory Panels in the Manual (pages 4-6 and 64, respectively). Staff ask that the Committee recommends Council to adopt the proposed amendments to the Manual.

27 Staff have drafted an amended template ToR for establishing an Advisory Panel (Attachment A), based on the existing ‘Template for Establishing a Councillor Advisory Panel’ included as Appendix B in the Manual.

28 If approved by Council, it is then recommended that it will be used for all future Advisory Panels including:

i) the four wellbeing strategies (Ara Toi, Economic Development Strategy, Social Wellbeing Strategy, Te Ao Tūroa)

ii) the Zero Carbon Plan

iii) the Heritage Action Plan

iv) the Dunedin Destination Management Plan

v) the Ōtepoti Live Music Action Plan.

29 The proposed wording amendments to the Role of Councillor Advisory Panel are shown as tracked changes in Attachment B and include removal of “Councillor” from Councillor Advisory Panel and replacement the “investigative” and “fact-finding” with “support” in the description of the roles.

OPTIONS

30 Committee approval is sought on the proposed governance approach. Two options have been identified.

Option One – Committee approves the proposed governance approach

Advantages

· Provides decision making on governance oversite in a consistent, transparent, and aligned way

Disadvantages

· No identified disadvantages

Option Two – Committee does not approve the proposed governance approach

Advantages

· No identified advantages

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to provide greater consistency in governance oversight in relation to the DCC’s strategies and plans

NEXT STEPS

31 If the Committee approves the proposed governance approach, the next steps are:

· To work with the Chairs and their groups across the current wellbeing strategies to workshop applying the proposed approach. This will help determine what level of reporting and governance oversight is needed to best support governance for each wellbeing strategy going forward

· If recommended by the Committee, staff prepare a report on the proposed amendments to Manual for Council approval

· If subsequently approved by Council, staff apply the amended Advisory Panel template to seek approval for governance oversight for:

i) the four wellbeing strategies (Ara Toi, Economic Development Strategy, Social Wellbeing Strategy, Te Ao Tūroa)

ii) the Zero Carbon Plan

iii) the Heritage Action Plan

iv) the Dunedin Destination Management Plan

v) the Ōtepoti Live Music Action Plan.

Signatories

Author:

Junichi Sugishita - Senior Policy Analyst

Gina Hu'akau - Corporate Policy Manager

Authoriser:

Gina Hu'akau - Corporate Policy Manager

Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft amended terms of reference template for establishing an Advisory Panel	43
⇩b	Proposed tracked amendments to the Committee Structure and Delegations Manual 2023	44

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The Strategic Refresh enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities. It also promotes the social, economic, environmental, and cultural 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 proposed governance framework encapsulates all of the above strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

Option One supports the DCC in being a good Treaty partner by providing an opportunity for Council to consider governance options over its strategies and plans.

Sustainability

Supporting consistent governance arrangements and reporting will promote social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Supporting consistent governance arrangements and reporting is expected to bring greater visibility and clarity as to how delivery of strategic outcomes is overseen and monitored.

Financial considerations

There are no financial considerations.

Significance

This report is considered to be of low significance in terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

Governance Support Office has been engaged in regard to understanding existing DCC governance groups. Zero Carbon team has been engaged regarding governance options for the implementation of the Zero Carbon Plan.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no direct implications for Community Boards have been identified.

Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee

19 June 2024

Strategic Refresh Advisory Panel - Quarterly Update Report

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report is on the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee’s forward workplan, and provides an update since February 2024 (quarterly report).

2 This report informs Councillors of the activity undertaken by the Strategic Refresh Advisory Panel and outlines the next steps.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Strategic Refresh Advisory Panel – Quarterly Update Report

BACKGROUND

3 On 13 February 2024 the Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee (SPEC) approved to establish the Strategic Refresh Advisory Panel (the Panel), to oversee the process of refreshing the Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) four wellbeing strategies (Ara Toi, Economic Development Strategy, Social Wellbeing Strategy and Te Ao Tūroa).

4 Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Committee:

a) Establishes the Strategic Refresh Advisory Panel to oversee the process of refreshing the DCC’s four wellbeing strategies with terms of reference as outlined in Attachment A.

b) Appoints Councillor Cherry Lucas as Chairperson of the Panel and Councillors Carmen Houlahan, Andrew Whiley, Marie Laufiso and Sophie Barker as members of the Panel.

Motion carried (SPECC/2024/001) with Cr Garey recording her vote against.

5 This report is the first quarterly report as detailed in SPEC’s forward work programme.

DISCUSSION

6 Since February, the Panel has met three times; 5 March 2024, 23 April 2024 and 13 May 2024.

7 Key topics discussed included:

a) Review of the Terms of Reference for the wellbeing advisory and partnership groups associated with each wellbeing strategy.

b) Preparation for workshops with former and current members of the advisory and partnership groups, associated with each wellbeing strategy. The Panel agreed that two Councillors will attend these meetings and that staff will provide administration support. The Panel agreed that the following topics would be useful to discuss with members regarding the refresh of the wellbeing strategies:

· Expectations;

· Roles;

· Changes;

· What would be helpful in the future

· Role of Councillors on advisory/partnership groups.

c) The Panel considered that following the refresh of each wellbeing strategy, the minutes from any future advisory and partnership groups, should be presented to Council or Council Committee on a regular cycle.

d) Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis was developed for each wellbeing strategy by staff. This material was shared to the Panel to assist Councillors prepare for their meetings with the advisory and partnership groups.

e) Review of relevant material such as Harrison Grierson report (2019) and minutes from some advisory/partnership groups was undertaken.

8 Workshops with members of the advisory and partnership groups associated with each wellbeing strategy was undertaken during this period. The purpose of these meetings was to update the groups about the refresh of each wellbeing strategy, to thank them for their services and to seek feedback on the strategies. The workshop details took place during May:

a) Social Wellbeing Advisory Group – 6 May 2024. Social Wellbeing Strategy.

b) Te Ao Tūroa Partnership Group – 6 May 2024. Te Ao Tūroa Strategy.

c) Creative Dunedin Partnership Group – 10 May 2024. Ara Toi Strategy.

d) Grow Dunedin Partnership Group – 02 May 2024. Economic Development Strategy.

9 Members of these groups included community, sector and industry representatives closely associated with each strategy. Ara Toi Partnership Group and Te Ao Tūroa Partnership Group have been on ‘hold’, so the workshops also provided an opportunity to reconnect with former members.

10 Key points discussed from these workshops were varied and need further analysis. An indication of discussion topics is provided below:

· Acknowledgement of the journey that the strategies have been on and that they were originally developed with community and sector representatives.

· Acknowledgement of former Mayors, Councillors and staff involvement over time

· Support the idea that the strategies are interconnected and not siloed

· Strong support for some strategies to remain as partnerships – not just advisory. Acknowledged that the wellbeing groups evolved over time from a partnership into an advisory group.

· Broad discussion of the work Council is doing to refresh the strategies and why. This first needs to be done before the role and purpose of future partnership/advisory groups can be determined.

· Broad support for group to continue and to offer feedback

· Acknowledgement of concerns and challenges that communities are facing

· Acknowledgement a lot of challenges for young people across the city – these are no longer isolated statistics – but represent growing fractures

· Dunedin in a state of transformation – with some exciting opportunities, and daunting challenges ahead

· Strategies need to be strengths-based and support actions to tackle these challenges and support what’s working well

· Need better data to support reporting and to inform strategic decision-making

· Discussed innovative practices that communities are delivering on and how the strategies can create ‘room’ to embrace this

· Strong interest in working together as a partnership.

OPTIONS

11 There are no options, as this report is for noting.

NEXT STEPS

12 The next meeting of the Panel is scheduled for the 12^th June 2024.

13 The Panel has agreed to engage publicly on the draft wellbeing strategies during September 2024

14 The Panel is working towards seeking formal approval of the refreshed Wellbeing Strategies from Council by December 2024.

Signatories

Author:	Gina Hu'akau - Corporate Policy Manager
Authoriser:	Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy)

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

This decision promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural 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 refresh of the DCC’s four wellbeing strategies is a critical piece of work that is overseen by the Panel.

Māori Impact Statement

Alignment of the four wellbeing strategies with Te Taki Haruru is central to this work.

Sustainability

Alignment of the four wellbeing strategies with Council’s commitment to sustainability is central to this work.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Having updated and refreshed four wellbeing strategies will help with the DCC”s preparation for its 9 year plan and annual plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications associated with this quarterly report.

Significance

There are no significant matters associated with this quarterly report.

Engagement – external

Members of the former and current advisory and partnerships groups associated with each of the four wellbeing strategies were met with.

Engagement - internal

No internal engagement has occurred during this period, apart from the Policy team which is supporting this workstream.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks associated with this report, and no request for decisions on the matters outlined in this report.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards associated with the matters outlines in this report.

Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee

19 June 2024

Sustainability Framework - City Portrait and United Nations Sustainability Development Goals update

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to:

a) Update the Strategy Planning and Engagement Committee (the Committee) on the City Portrait work since September 2023.

b) Request approval to:

· change the name to Ōtepoti Dunedin Sustainability Framework (ŌDSF)

· progress to the public engagement stage

2 Since September 2023, staff have simplified the approach and language regarding the Council’s commitment to the principle of sustainability. This has resulted in the proposal to change the name from City Portrait to Ōtepoti Dunedin Sustainability Framework (ŌDSF).

3 The purpose of the ŌDSF is twofold. First it will produce a report on sustainability for the city, and secondly it will support a collaborative way of working together to address sustainability across agencies, institutions and communities in Ōtepoti Dunedin.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the update on the City Portrait work.

b) Approves: change the name to the Ōtepoti Dunedin Sustainability Framework (ŌDSF).

c) Approves: progress to the public engagement stage.

BACKGROUND

4 In 2020, Council approved the development of the City Portrait to show its commitment to sustainability for the following reasons:

a) The City Portrait is less bureaucratic in its structure compared to the other models (The Treasury’s Living Standards and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

b) The City Portrait is more adaptable to a local context.

c) The City Portrait is easier for our wider community to engage with as it graphically demonstrates sustainability.

d) The City Portrait can integrate existing strategies.

e) The City Portrait is built on the SDGs.

5 Work has been carried out accordingly, including the use of consultant advice from Harrison Grierson (Strategic Framework Evaluation, Dec 2020; Thriving Cities’ City Portrait: Progressing the Strategic Framework Refresh, May 2021) and Planetary Accounting Network (PAN) (Extended Stocktake – Final – Summary & Recommendations, 2023).

6 A summary of update reports presented to Council on the development of the City Portrait is provided in Attachment A.

7 The latest Council report for noting was presented in September 2023, following a request from Councillors to compare the SDGs and the City Portrait. It underlined:

a) The SDGs and City Portrait share a common intent – to promote global sustainability, socially and environmentally. They both adopt the use of global measures to assess sustainability.

b) They are distinct from each other in their approach in monitoring activity and actions related to sustainability. The SDGs are focussed on 17 global and nation/country level measures, whereas the City Portrait uses ecological measures as well as the SDGs and then translates these to a city level to understand a city’s global impact. The City Portrait also adopts the theory of ‘Doughnut Economics’ which in simple terms, offers an inclusive, balanced approach to creating a regenerative and distributive economy for all —people, businesses, countries, planet—to prosper, rather than solely focussed on growth.

DISCUSSION

8 As outlined, the City Portrait downscales global and nation-level measures, to a city level. Since Council’s approval to develop the City Portrait in 2020, a substantial amount of work into exploring and developing the City Portrait specific to Ōtepoti Dunedin has been undertaken, including:

a) Reviewing relevant literature

b) Workshops with Councillors and staff to gather feedback

c) Access to consultant advice and education specialised in planetary boundaries measures and how to translate these to Ōtepoti Dunedin context

d) Presentations and meetings with community groups and other Councils/groups both nationally and internationally

e) Understanding Dunedin’s ecological and social measures, using the DCC’s existing Wellbeing Strategies and other relevant strategies and plans.

f) Drafting of a City Portrait in line with existing DCC’s strategies and plans

Simplifying the DCC’s approach to sustainability: Ōtepoti Dunedin Sustainability Framework (ŌSDF)

9 Since September 2023, Councillors’ feedback has been incorporated including the need to address confusion associated with key terms related to the City Portrait, such as Doughnut Economics, Planetary Boundaries, Ecological Ceiling and Social Foundation.

10 It has been identified that although the City Portrait offers an approach to show how a city is tracking in regard to sustainability, its complexity can be daunting for laypersons, laden with jargon that isn't always user-friendly. As Council strives for broader citizen engagement with this approach to sustainability, it's crucial to adapt the language to make it more accessible for the public.

11 While the City Portrait has provided Council with a useful roadmap and scientific knowledge, it's now time to carve our own path, one that resonates with communities and empowers the DCC to enact meaningful change in line with its commitment to sustainability.

12 A proposal to simplify the language and change the name to: Ōtepoti Dunedin Sustainability Framework (ŌDSF), rather than City Portrait is included in the options.

Other work undertaken since September 2023.

13 Other work that has taken place since September 20203 includes:

· A desktop review of the long term and annual plan cycles, and how the ŌDSF could align to show where Dunedin is at in regard to sustainability. This was part of the original planning that staff did for the 10 year plan but has been on hold since Council opted for a 9 year plan.

· A refresh of the People’s Panel (DCC’s online citizen’s panel) is currently underway. This effort seeks to renew interest and participation to the Panel, particularly for under-represented groups, therefore fostering greater public engagement. This is to help with public engagement for the ŌDSF as well as the refresh of the four wellbeing strategies.

· The DCC is also a member of PAN which offers regular learning opportunities as well as invitations to engage nationally and globally concerning sustainability, and how to embed this approach in people’s professional practice. For example, the DCC has recently been invited to join a global group looking at sharing ways of working at a city level.

· A recent update from PAN shows that they continue to strengthen their network nationally and internationally, which is useful for the DCC. For example, nationally, PAN has been working in the private sector with their application of Planetary Accounting (PA) for product labelling (e.g. Raglan Yoghurt, Silverfern Farms, Bremworth Carpets and Ngāi Tahu Corporation), as well as in the Tourism sector in the wider Queenstown area with standardisation of measurement and communication of tourism’s planetary impacts. Examples in the public sector include a pilot of Planetary Boundaries education in schools in the region by Queenstown Lakes District Council and Central Lakes Trust.

· Internationally, PAN is working with Regen Melbourne (a network of individuals and organisations) to through next stage of engagement to support the application of the Melbourne’s Doughnut model. In Europe, PAN is working with a group in Portugal that is looking at using PA as a standard accountancy framework for cities and regions.

· PA aligns with the new international standards for Nature-Related Financial Disclosures, which outlines a set of disclosure recommendations and guidance to enable businesses and finance to integrate nature into decision making. PAN has been approached by large international firms seeking support with its application.

· Feedback has been received that the DCC is seen as a leader in its approach to align its commitment to sustainability with Te Taki Haruru (TTH) - the DCC’s Māori Strategic Framework. There are not many examples globally that have included an indigenous perspective.

· When requested, staff presented on the DCC’s approach to sustainability to DCC staff teams and community groups such as Senior Climate Action Network.

Public Engagement

14 Public engagement is crucial for creating a meaningful ŌSDF for Ōtepoti Dunedin. A draft illustration, developed to explain the DCC’s sustainability efforts and environmental and community measures was provided to Council in September 2023 and is attached in Appendix B. Although the illustration was based on the City Portrait, this can be easily adapted for the ŌDSF.

15 This work is now at a critical stage and staff are ready to engage with the public.

16 Details of this stage, in development, can include Councillor involvement if desired, public communications, engagement via People’s panels, in-person workshops or feedback sessions and presentations.

Proposed structure of the ŌDSF

17 The ŌDSF simplifies the Council’s language about sustainability, by presenting a framework that supports a local approach to sustainability. It will also show how Ōtepoti Dunedin looks after its people and its local place, and show its contribution to global measures.

18 The ŌDSF will align with TTH and the DCC’s wellbeing strategies by embedding existing priority areas into its framework and measures.

19 The ŌDSF will collate measures related to the city’s:

a) Social aspects: as described in the DCC’s four wellbeing strategies (Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental).

b) Ecological aspects: based on science informed measures and methods related to planetary boundaries. As noted in September 2023, the DCC is already measuring most of these aspects through its Zero Carbon policy and plan, and other activities.

Governance

20 If the Committee approves the progress of ŌDSF, governance oversight is vital as:

· The ŌDSF offers an approach to actioning Council’s commitment to sustainability.

· Community interest on sustainability is high.

· The ŌSDF will support consistency and alignment between existing policies and strategies.

· The ŌSDF will support better informed decision making when considering sustainability.

21 During the current development phase of the work, governance oversight is with the Committee. The Committee may also want to also consider forming an Advisory Panel to oversee this work which would enable other representatives from across the city to participate. Staff will take direction on this matter.

22 It is advised that after the ŌDSF is fully developed, governance and reporting requirements can be revisited to ensure that there is a consistent and effective way of implementing the ŌDSF framework.

Reporting and deliverables

23 The value of the ŌDSF is twofold. First it will produce regular reporting on sustainability for the city, which could align with the Council’s annual and long term planning cycles, and secondly it supports a collaborative way of working together to address sustainability across agencies, institutions and communities in Ōtepoti Dunedin.

24 The measures (social and ecological) of the ŌSDF will produce information to support decision making in Council and improved communications with local citizens regarding the DCC’s commitment to sustainability.

25 The ŌDSF supports an iterative process that includes continual improvements as more quality data becomes available. It will also be informed by ongoing engagement with stakeholders and the wider community.

OPTIONS

26 Two options have been identified for consideration.

Option One – Recommended Option – Approves the name change to: Ōtepoti Dunedin Sustainability Framework (ŌDSF) and for staff to develop the ŌDSF and progress to public engagement

Advantages

· Simplifies the language and reflects the DCC’s commitment to sustainability

· Make use of in-depth research and analysis since 2021 on the development and adaption of the City Portrait methodology for Ōtepoti Dunedin.

· Supports further progress on the refresh of the DCC’s Strategic Framework.

Disadvantages

· Resourcing will be needed to develop the ŌDSF, including the allocation of staff time to support the engagement phase.

Option Two – Status Quo – Does not approve staff to continue developing the ŌDSF. Requests that staff develop an alternative framework, such as the United Nations Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs)

Advantages

· The SDGs are a well known brand and have a strong global profile.

· Although they are designed for reporting at the national level, there has been more recent practices in translating the SDGs to a sub-national level including for cities.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity in the short term to progress action in line with the DCC’s commitment to sustainability and provide alignment with the wider Strategic Refresh work programme

· Disuse of in-depth research and analysis since 2021 on the development and adaption of the City Portrait for Ōtepoti Dunedin.

· Further staff and resourcing will be needed to explore alternative models to give effect to the Council’s commitment to sustainability.

NEXT STEPS

27 If the Committee approves option one, staff will:

· Prepare an engagement plan to inform the ŌDSF.

· Draft the ŌSDF following community feedback and alignment with the four wellbeing strategies and TTH. This will include definitions, targets, and indicators, as well as governance and reporting mechanisms. This will be taken to Council for approval alongside the refreshed wellbeing strategies.

· Draft an implementation plan.

· Support partnerships to foster city-wide ownership of the ŌSDF.

28 If the Committee approves Option Two, staff will discontinue work on drafting of the ŌDSF, as well as stopping work in regard to the City Portrait and explore the UNSDGs to represent the Council’s commitment to the principle of sustainability.

Signatories

Author:

Alix de Blic - Senior Policy Analyst

Gina Hu'akau - Corporate Policy Manager

Authoriser:

Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	City Portrait report and engagement with Councillors	61
⇩b	Draft illustration for community engagement	62

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

This decision promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural 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 ŌDSF supports the DCC”s strategies, policies and plans in regard to the DCC’s comitment to sustainability.

Māori Impact Statement

The ŌDSF will align with Te Taki Haruru.

Sustainability

The ŌSDF will inform future decisions in regard to the DCC’s commitment to sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The ŌSDF will inform long term decisions in regard to the DCC’s strategic commitment to sustainability. It might be part of the long term plan reporting cycle.

Financial considerations

There are no financial consideration.

Significance

This decision has low significance as it will produce a new strategic document.

Engagement – external

If approved, there will be public engagement on the ŌDSF.

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement with DCC teams in regard to existing strategies.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee

19 June 2024

District Plan work programme update report

Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an update on progress on the Second Generation District Plan (2GP) work programme including an update on appeals to the 2GP and Variation 2, progress on the Minor Improvements plan change (‘Variation 3’), which was initiated in November 2021, and the proposed timing for making the 2GP partially operative.

2 The report also provides an outline of proposed future plan changes and their approximate timing.

3 The report also seeks approval to send a letter to the Minister for the Environment seeking that the Government suspend the requirement for the Dunedin City Council to implement the National Planning Standards by May 2026.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the District Plan Work Programme update report.

b) Approves a letter, with any amendments, to be sent to the Minister for the Environment in relation to implementation of the National Planning Standards May 2026.

c) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes to the letter if required.

BACKGROUND

4 The Dunedin City Council (DCC) notified its ‘Second Generation’ District Plan (the 2GP) on 26 September 2015.

5 On 29 November 2019, the DCC notified Variation 1 - Minor Amendments. Work on this variation is complete, as there were no appeals on Variation 1 decisions.

6 On 3 February 2021, the DCC notified Variation 2 - Additional Housing Capacity. Variation 2 comprised a number of discrete changes to the 2GP that added housing capacity, through specific rule and policy changes and through rezoning specific sites.

7 The Planning and Environment Committee gave approval to initiate Variation 3 – Minor Improvements on 2 November 2021.

DISCUSSION

Overall 2GP work programme

8 The 2GP forward work programme is discussed below and mapped out at a high level in Figure 1. The work programme may be affected by the nature and scope of any changes from central government to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) or national direction and the requirements around the national planning framework (discussed below). The work programme may also need to be adjusted if work undertaken as part of South Dunedin Futures, or other aspects of the Otago Regional Council’s climate change risk assessment programme, leads to the need for a natural hazards focused plan change to be added to the programme over the timeframe shown. The work programme may also be affected if private plan changes or designations are received.

Figure 1 Overall 2GP work programme

Appeals to the 2GP and Variation 2

9 The following table sets out the number of appeals received and progress to date.

Stage of 2GP	Appeals	Status
Original	83 appeals to the 2GP lodged with the Environment Court in early 2019.	79 appeals have now been resolved. 4 appeals are unresolved; one from the ORC relates to flood hazard overlays at Gordon Rd, Mosgiel, and the other three request rezoning of land for residential or rural residential use
Variation 2	16 appeals lodged on Variation 2 in early 2023.	2 have been resolved following mediation 4 have been withdrawn 10 appeals are currently unresolved; all of these request rezoning of discrete areas of land for residential use.

10 Consequently, there are 14 appeals remaining in total, all of which are concerned the zoning or overlays applying to particular areas. An agreed resolution to the ORC appeal will be filed with the Court shortly. Further mediation for two of the appeals, and Environment Court hearings for seven, will be scheduled for later this year. For the remaining four appeals, City Development is continuing to work with the parties to either reach an agreed resolution or narrow the matters of disagreement to be dealt with in Court.

Making the Plan partially operative

11 The 2GP still has ‘proposed’ status. Until appeals are resolved, the 2GP cannot be made fully operative. However, given the narrowness of the remaining appeals, a report seeking approval to make the 2GP ‘partially operative’ will be brought to Council in July 2024.

12 This approval formally replaces the previous operative Dunedin City District Plan (2006) with the 2GP. However, the parts of the 2GP still subject to appeals at that point will retain their ‘proposed’ status until the appeals are resolved (this is limited to the zoning status of some sites).

13 From that point onward, any changes to the plan will be titled ‘plan changes’ rather than ‘variations’ (which is the name used for changes to plans that still have a ‘proposed’ status). This means that the Minor Improvements plan change will become ‘Plan Change 1’ rather than ‘Variation 3’.

Minor Improvements plan change

14 Staff have been working on a minor improvements plan change that will address a wide range of issues (68 in total). The matters covered include additional scheduled items (scheduled trees, areas of significant biodiversity and significant trees), and changes to address issues that have been identified with the effectiveness and efficiency of 2GP rules and other provisions.

15 These issues have been highlighted via feedback from regular plan users, including the resource consents team, and arise from experience with implementing the new provisions of the 2GP, and in some cases reflect the changing nature of activities. The changes include amendments that make rules more flexible and enabling (for example for health-related activities), clarification of provisions, and some corrections to errors in the Plan. Work on identifying and evaluating options to address the issues, and on drafting the proposed changes to the Plan is over 80% complete and expected to be completed by the middle of the year.

16 A report to Council to seek approval to publicly notify the plan change will be presented in September 2024. Notification of the plan change is proposed for November 2024.

Heritage and Multi-unit Development Design plan change

17 Staff are currently undertaking a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of 2GP provisions relating to heritage protection, and the design of multi-unit residential developments. This review was triggered by concern raised about the effectiveness of the plan’s rules in managing the loss of important historic buildings that are under increased risk of demolition due to zoning changes that have provided for housing intensification. Concerns have also been expressed about the effectiveness of the plan’s rules in achieving the objectives of the plan with respect to the design of multi-unit development. The review is likely to include a number of recommendations for improvements to the plan and a report to the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee or Council to initiate a plan change to respond to the results of that review is planned for the middle of 2024.

Business Land plan change

18 From 2022 to 2023 the DCC undertook research to understand Dunedin’s future business land needs. This research looked at future demand, the capacity currently available and the likely trends in business activity.

19 The review identified a short-term shortfall of industrial land. Options to address this shortfall were included in the Future Development Strategy 2024-2054, alongside other potential changes to zoning to be investigated, including: a review of zoning around the new hospital site and at the existing Dunedin and Wakari hospitals; and the identification of an indicative area for the establishment of an inland freight hub on the Taieri Plain.

20 A plan review covering these matters and other issues that have been identified in relation to business land is programmed to begin in the first quarter of 2025. It is programmed that the outcome of that review would be brought to the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee or Council in mid-2025, alongside a request to initiate a plan change to respond to the review. This timeframe is subject to change depending on progress on the preceding plan changes, with staff availability dependent on the number of submissions and appeals.

Native Reserves plan change

21 Also programmed is a review of the 2GP provisions relating to mana whenua use of native reserves and any other related matters that are deemed appropriate to include in this plan change. This review is necessary as a result of an agreement with Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki and Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou. If changes to the provisions are required, this will lead to a plan change that is anticipated to be initiated in 2026.

Future general Improvements plan changes

22 Following on from Variation 1 and the current Minor Improvements plan change discussed above, City Development is anticipating the need for a regular programme of ‘general improvements’ plan changes to address discrete issues with the effectiveness and efficiency of provisions as they are highlighted via plan monitoring and plan user feedback. These changes will supplement and fill in the gaps between wider section or topic-based plan reviews.

23 City Development regularly receive feedback on the plan with suggestions related to:

a) clarifications of provisions,

b) areas where implementation has not occurred as anticipated,

c) improvements to reflect the changing nature of activities, and

d) aligning zoning with activities that have been granted consent.

24 Plan review work to feed into the next general improvements plan change will begin following completion of hearings and decisions for the current Minor Improvements plan change. A report will be brought to Council in 2026 to request approval to initiate the plan change to respond to that review.

Ridgelines plan change

25 As a result of an agreement with Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki and Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou, City Development has undertaken a review of the provisions in the Plan that manage development on or near important ridgelines. The review has highlighted a gap in Plan provisions in this area, which has the potential to lead to adverse effects on mana whenua values, landscape and coastal character values, and rural character and amenity. A report will be brought to Council in late 2026 to request approval to initiate a change to the Plan to respond to the review.

Implementation of the National Planning Standards

26 The national planning standards were introduced in 2019. The standards set out a prescribed structure and format for different planning instruments (including district plans), a set of standard definitions, and a standard set of zone and overlay types that can be used. They also set out requirements for electronic accessibility (eplans). The 2GP currently meets the eplan requirements but has a significantly different structure and format; it takes a finer-grained approach to zoning and plan rules, which better responds to the diverse nature of our city than the course, standardised sets of zones and rules included in the national planning standards.

27 The DCC was among a list of councils given a longer period of time (seven years) to adopt the planning standards, because Council had already initiated a second generation District Plan. Staff consider that implementing the changes required by the planning standards will require a full or near-full review of the plan. If it were to be completed by May 2026, that work would need to start by the beginning of 2025 as it would take around 18 months.

28 This time estimate is based on the need to map the current plan provisions and zone types against the prescribed plan structure, format, definitions and zone framework standards, while also reviewing all content against the current suite of national direction. The degree of change to the Plan’s provisions required to fit them into the more generic planning standards will mean that a large portion of the Plan will be subject to submissions and a full Schedule 1 process. Given the cost of the last full plan review which has been running since 2015 (due to the time it takes appeals to be finalised), the cost of this process is likely to run into the millions of dollars.

29 Staff consider that any benefits achieved through standardisation would not justify the high costs of implementation or the displacement of other more important projects in the work programme. The cost would also be difficult to justify if implementation is undertaken prior to the Government’s planned reforms to the RMA and any new national direction prepared under the new Act, which would generate a further need to review provisions.

OPTIONS

Option One - Recommended Option

30 It is recommended that the Council writes to the Minister for the Environment to request that the requirement for implementation of the National Planning Standards is put on hold while the Government’s Resource Management reform is underway. A draft letter has been prepared (Attachment A) covering the reasons outlined.

Advantages

· If successful, suspension of this requirement would allow the work programme to progress as planned and would avoid unnecessary costs and wasted efforts of progressing a significant plan review prior to the outcome of any RMA reform.

Disadvantages

· None identified.

Option Two - Do not write to the Minister

Advantages

· None identified

Disadvantages

· Does not create an opportunity to persuade the Government to suspect this requirement.

NEXT STEPS

31 Staff will prepare a report to Council or the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee to initiate a heritage and multi-unit development plan change to be presented by August 2024.

32 Staff will also prepare a report to Council for approval to notify Variation 3 – minor improvements September 2024, with notification in late 2024.

33 If approved by Council, a letter will be sent to the Minister for the Environment.

Signatories

Author:

Dr Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

Jane MacLeod - Team Leader Planning

Emma Christmas - Senior Policy Planner

Authoriser:

David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition

Attachments

Title

Page

⇩a

Letter to Minister for the Environment - implementation of National Planning Standards 2019

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

This decision promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural 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 2GP work programme contributes to the DCC strategic framework and other policies and plans.

Māori Impact Statement

The Resource Management Act requires consultation with iwi authorities in the development of plan changes.

Sustainability

These plan changes will contribute to sustainability outcomes through improved protection of heritage buildings and biodiversity areas in the 2GP.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The 2GP work programme is funded through the City Development budgets in the LTP.

Financial considerations

The costs of plan reviews and plan change preparation is managed through existing City Development budgets, however, the costs related to legal submissions and evidence for hearings (in response to matters raised in submissions) and as part of responding to appeals can be difficult to predict and budget for and are therefore managed through authorised overspends whenever appropriate.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Aukaha have been engaged on the timing of the Native Reserves Plan change.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with Resource Consents and 3 Waters on aspects of the plan reviews discussed in the report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known legal or health and safety risks associated with this report.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee

19 June 2024

Heritage Action Plan Update

Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an update to the Council on the Heritage Action Plan.

2 It highlights aspects of the draft Implementation Plan to be progressed and included as a report to be considered as part of the 2025-34 9 year plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Notes the Heritage Action Plan Update report.

BACKGROUND

3 A Council resolution on 22 February 2023 instructed staff to develop an Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan (Heritage Action Plan) to replace the 2007 Heritage Strategy. The plan and associated actions were developed from workshops held by the Heritage Action Plan Advisory Group that was established to provide input into the Heritage Action Plan, with input from mana whenua consultancy Aukaha, and a community and heritage building owner survey.

4 The draft Heritage Action Plan and Implementation Plan was presented to Council on 12 December 2023. The council resolution was:

Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Kevin Gilbert):

That the Council:

a) Agrees the vision for the Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan was: “Ōtepoti Dunedin is a city that treasures its heritage as a living inheritance from its past and a legacy for future generations.”

b) Adopts the Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan with the following amendments:

· Inclusion of the vision;

· Change Paragraph 4 on page 2 to “The mission for the Heritage Action Plan.”

· Change Paragraph 8 to “The 2023 Heritage Action Plan envisages a city where historic buildings are conserved and restored, maintained and strengthened, re-used rather than replaced, valued by the community, and promoted as a defining characteristic of Ōtepoti Dunedin’s built environment”

· Adds to Introduction paragraph 2 on page 4 “Ōtepoti Dunedin is considered Aotearoa New Zealand’s premier heritage destination”.

c) Notes the draft Ōtepoti Dunedin Heritage Action Plan Implementation Plan.

d) Requests staff to continue to engage with key stakeholders and investigate the following additions to the implementation plan:

· The establishment of a Heritage Building Owners Forum to provide feedback and lobby on any built heritage issues.

· Work to ensure that heritage tourism (including product and market development) is highlighted.

· Consider options for a zero-carbon adaptive reuse policy.

· Recognise and support the existing skills resource.

e) Notes that staff will bring an updated draft Implementation Plan to Council in time for 10 year plan 2024-34 deliberations in May 2024.

f) Notes that confirmation of a governance approach for oversight of the implementation of the Heritage Action Plan, will follow approval by Council of a governance framework.

Motion carried (CNL/2023/305)

DISCUSSION

Progress on finalising the Heritage Action Plan and Implementation Plan

5 The resolution notes that the final Heritage Action Plan and Implementation Plan will be presented to Council before the 2025-34 9 year plan hearings (now scheduled for 2025). Progress on the Heritage Action Plan and Implementation Plan has been affected by competing commitments. It is intended to present the finalised Heritage Action Plan and Implementation Plan to Council later in 2024 once consultation with key stakeholders has been completed.

Progress on Heritage Action Plan actions

6 The Heritage Action Plan includes the following outcomes that are supported by the Second Generation District Plan (2GP):

a) Outcome 4: More heritage places with significant heritage values are identified and protected in the 2GP

b) Outcome 5: Ōtepoti Dunedin’s heritage places are understood, valued, and promoted.

7 Actions to deliver on these outcomes include:

a) assessing buildings for inclusion on Schedule of Protected Heritage Items and Sites and undertaking a plan change/variation in 2024

b) developing a regular programme to add places to the heritage schedule of the 2GP

c) investigating further ways of recognising and protecting the collective heritage significance of precincts and groups of associated buildings

d) identifying and assessing historic buildings, structures, and sites, as well as heritage precincts and character-contributing buildings on 2GP maps and schedule.

8 The following policy projects are in progress to deliver on the above actions:

a) Minor Improvements Plan Change (initiated as ‘variation 3’ to the 2GP), which is due to be notified by the end of 2024, will include new proposed scheduled heritage buildings. Ninety-five buildings have been assessed for scheduling and work to assess places with potential heritage significance is ongoing. Buildings that have been assessed were either identified by members of the public, heritage advocacy groups, had received conditional grants from the Dunedin Heritage Fund, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, and staff. All buildings proposed for scheduling will be subject to a public submission and independent hearing process.

b) Review the heritage provisions of the 2GP plan to determine appropriate methods to protect historic buildings that have not yet been assessed for scheduling, along with addressing any other issues that are identified. This plan review is partly in response to increasing public concern over the loss of historic buildings as a result of previous plan changes that enabled intensification.

Work to be progressed for the 2025-34 9 year plan

9 The Heritage Action Plan identified an action to “investigate changing the fee structure for heritage resource consents that affect heritage buildings, including seismic strengthening”. This action is considered at priority due to the additional buildings that are proposed for scheduling as part of the minor improvements plan change. It is therefore timely to consider how the fees and charges schedule could be best structured to encourage and support building owners to undertake seismic strengthening and other work that promotes conservation and re-use that would, prior to heritage scheduling, not require resource consent.

10 Consequently, ahead of finalising the Heritage Action Plan Implementation Plan, but as part of the development of the 2025-34 9 year plan, it is proposed that work is started to review the fees and charges schedule for resource consent applications relating to scheduled heritage buildings and character contributing buildings in heritage precincts.

Option for a larger review of the fees and charges schedule

11 Staff will undertake a review of the Resource Consent fees and staff charges that includes the range of resource consents that are eligible for fee waivers, and what activities would be appropriate for recovery of staff time.

12 Under the 2GP heritage provisions, resource consent is required for:

a) demolition of a scheduled heritage building (SHB)

b) removal for relocation of a SHB

c) seismic strengthening of a SHB

d) alterations and additions to a protected part of a SHB (or part of the building visible from a public place if in a heritage precinct)

e) restoration of a HNZPT Category 1 Historic Place

f) demolition or removal for relocation of a character contributing building (CCB)

g) alterations and additions to parts of a CCB visible from a public place.

13 The following development does not require resource under the 2GP heritage provisions:

a) ‘like for like’ repairs and maintenance, including retrofit double glazing, of both SHB and CCB

b) restoration of both SHB and CCB (excepting HNZPT Category 1 Historic Places)

c) repainting a CCB or SHB within a commercial heritage precinct using a prescribed range of traditional colours.

14 For resource consents, the following work currently qualifies for consent fees to be waived under Category A of Schedule A (Attachment A):

· replacing a roof on buildings that are located in a townscape or heritage precinct, or on a scheduled building

· painting buildings that are located in the townscape or heritage precincts, or a scheduled building, and

· modifying windows above verandah height of buildings located in a townscape or heritage precinct, or a scheduled building, or replacing a door on a scheduled building.

15 However, seismic strengthening, required by the earthquake prone building provisions of the Building Act, requires resource consent and does not currently qualify for a fee waiver. Strengthening of buildings, specifically those built using historic construction technologies, will increase as owners are required to meet earthquake prone building legislation.

16 It is noted that building consent applications proposing standalone seismic strengthening are already free from DCC fees. Where strengthening is included within a broader application, the processing time for the seismic strengthening component is undertaken free of charge. This policy (established in 2012) relates to seismic strengthening; heritage status of the building is not taken into account. Note that non-DCC levies still apply.

17 With respect to the charging of staff time, it is recommended that the review considers the current provisions for non-chargeable staff time. The current regime is that pre-application meetings are free, however, from July 2025 it is proposed that staff time will be charged where the application results in a resource consent. For consent processing, all DCC staff time is charged, except for City Development staff.

18 This means that the heritage, urban design and biodiversity advisors input into consent processing related to those matters is all non-chargeable and paid for through rates funding. This includes, where it is necessary, the use of consultants to provide staff cover where staff are on leave or a position is vacant.

19 For the heritage advisors, their input is generally required for all consents that involve heritage rules in the plan. The time required varies but is generally related to how aligned the activity is with the objectives of the 2GP, with applications that are most aligned with the plan taking on average less time than those that are least aligned. A similar pattern is true for biodiversity and urban design advisers who contribute to consents related to those plan rules.

20 As a result, those applications that are least aligned with the objectives and rules of the plan, for example demolition of a heritage building, almost always require substantially more time to assess than those that are well aligned with the plan’s objectives, for example seismic strengthening. This means there is a greater rate-payer subsidy for consents that have negative outcomes for the Plan’s objectives than positive outcomes.

21 Pre-application advice has been provided by DCC staff on a non-chargeable basis to encourage early engagement with staff prior to an application being lodged to help facilitate a smooth process and provide greater certainty around how applications will be assessed. Where applicants choose to use this process, it allows staff and applicants and/or their architects/designers to negotiate acceptable outcomes before the applicant has expended considerable time and expense in a finalised design. For heritage and design input, encouraging the use of the pre-application process is critical as applicants can be more resistant to making positive changes to designs when the engineering, and architectural documentation are further progressed. However, as heritage and urban design staff time is non-chargeable during the consent application assessment, there has been little incentive to attend pre-application meetings.

22 It is proposed that the review consider charging staff time as part of consent processing for heritage, urban design and biodiversity input. Options for this income, for example reinvesting it into the delivery of other heritage, urban design and biodiversity actions, including design guidance, incentives and other support, could also be explored through the review. It is also proposed that the review consider whether this staff time should remain free for pre-application meetings to encourage use of pre-application meetings to reduce consent costs.

OPTIONS

23 There are no options presented as this report is for noting.

NEXT STEPS

24 Staff will undertake a review of Resource Consent fees and staff charges in time for the 2025-34 9 year plan.

Signatories

Author:

Mark Mawdsley - Team Leader Advisory Services

Dr Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

Authoriser:

David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Resource Consent Fees - Schedule A	81

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

This decision promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural 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 Heritage Action Plan contributes to the strategic framework strategies noted above.

Māori Impact Statement

All District Plan policy work referenced in report requires engagement with mana whenua at multiple stages.

Sustainability

Supporting reuse of heritage buildings contributes to sustainability noting the carbon footprint of demolition and rebuilding.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The report seeks direction to begin work to be considered as part of the LTP.

Financial considerations

None at this stage.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

None as part of preparation of this report.

Engagement - internal

The resource consents team has been informed of the content of the report and has contributed to the contextual information in this report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for 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

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee meeting held on 24 April 2024	15

Author:	Wendy Collard - Governance Support Officer
Authoriser:	Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy)