Agenda of Council - Tuesday, 24 September 2024

Council

24 September 2024

Council

MINUTES

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, The Octagon, Dunedin on Tuesday 27 August 2024, commencing at 10.00 am

PRESENT

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

IN ATTENDANCE

Sandy Graham (Chief Executive Officer), Robert West (General Manager Corporate Services), Carolyn Allan (Chief Financial Officer), Scott MacLean (General Manager Climate and City Growth), David Ward (General Manager 3 Waters and Transition), Nicola Morand (Manahautū - General Manager Policy and Partnerships), Paul Henderson (Acting General Manager Customer and Regulatory), Antony Deaker (Economic Development Team Leader) and Florence Reynolds (Acting Manager – Zero Carbon)

Governance Support Officer Lynne Adamson

1 Opening

Colin MacLeod, Chair – NZ Catholic Bishops Committee opened the meeting with a prayer.

2 Public Forum

One group attended the public forum.

2.1 Celebration of Festival “Raksha Bandhan”

Dinesh Pahuja (HSS National Public Relations Officer) spoke on the Festival of Raksha Bandhan.

Cr Carmen Houlahan entered the meeting at 10.04 am.

Mr Pahuja responded to questions.

Cr Bill Acklin entered the meeting at 10.14 am.

Members of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh tied handmade rakhis (bracelets) in celebration of the Festival of Raksha Bandhan on the wrists of Councillors.

3 Apologies

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Accepts the apology from Cr Steve Walker.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/147)

4 Confirmation of agenda

Moved (Cr Carmen Houlahan/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Confirms the agenda with the following alteration:

- That item S2 Proposed 2024/25 Zero Carbon Implementation Plan on the supplementary agenda be taken before Item 12 – Non-Trading Council Controlled Organisations – Application for Exemption.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/148)

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 (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Kevin Gilbert):

That the Council:

a) Notes the Elected Members' Interest Register; and

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

c) Notes the proposed management plan for the Executive Leadership Team’s Interests.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/149)

6 Confirmation of Minutes

6.1 Ordinary Council meeting - 31 July 2024

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Mandy Mayhem):

That the Council:

a) Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 31 July 2024 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/150)

6.2 Extraordinary Council meeting - 19 August 2024

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

a) Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 19 August 2024 as a correct record.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/151)

Reports

7 Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings
	A report from Civic provided an update on the implementation of resolutions made at Council meetings.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Council meetings. Motion carried (CNL/2024/152)

8 Forward Work Programme for Council - August 2024
	A report from Civic provided an update on the forward work programme for the 2024-25 year.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Kevin Gilbert): That the Council: a) Notes the updated Council forward work programme. Motion carried (CNL/2024/153)

9 9 Year Plan Forward Work Programme - August 2024
	A report from Civic provided an update on the forward work programme for the development of the 9 year plan.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Kevin Gilbert): That the Council: a) Notes the updated Council forward work programme. Motion carried (CNL/2024/154)

10 Submission on the redesign of the vocational education and training system
	A report from Corporate Policy and Enterprise Dunedin sought approval of a draft submission to the Ministry of Education (MoE) and the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC)’s consultation on proposals for redesigning New Zealand’s vocational education and training system.
	The Manahautū (General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy) (Nicola Morand) and Economic Development Team Leader (Antony Deaker) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Mayor Jules Radich): That the Council: a) Approves the DCC submission on the “Redesign of the vocational education and training system” b) Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to make any minor editorial amendments to the submission. Motion carried (CNL/2024/155)

11 Zero Carbon Plan Advisory Panel - draft Terms of Reference
	A report from the Sustainability Group presented the draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Zero Carbon Plan Advisory Panel for adoption.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) and Acting Manager Zero Carbon (Florence Reynolds) spoke to the report and responded to questions on the draft Terms of Reference.
Moved Cr Marie Laufiso/Cr Christine Garey): That the Council: Adjourns the meeting for five minutes. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 11.01 am and reconvened at 11.06 am. Cr Mandy Mayhem entered the meeting at 11.07 am.
	Moved (Cr Cherry Lucas/Cr Sophie Barker): That the Council: a) Adopts the Zero Carbon Plan Advisory Panel Terms of Reference with agreed amendments to the frequency of reporting and meetings and membership. Motion carried (CNL/2024/156) with Cr David Benson-Pope recording his vote against

S2 Proposed 2024/25 Zero Carbon Implementation Plan
	A report from the Sustainability Group presented the 2024/25 Zero Carbon Implementation plan.
	The General Manager, Climate and City Growth (Scott MacLean) and Acting Manager Zero Carbon (Florence Reynolds) spoke to the report and responded to questions on the 2024/25 Zero Carbon Implementation Plan.
	Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Notes the proposed 2024/25 Zero Carbon Implementation Plan. Motion carried (CNL/2024/157)
	Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: b) Refers the proposed 2024/25 Zero Carbon Implementation Plan to the Zero Carbon Advisory Panel to refine the implementation plan for approval by Council before 31 October 2024. Motion carried (CNL/2024/158)
	Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: c) Requests that the Zero Carbon Alliance invites Business South to become a member of the Zero Carbon Alliance. Motion carried (CNL/2024/159) with Cr Laufiso recording her vote against

12 Non-Trading Council Controlled Organisations - Application for Exemption
	A report from Civic sought an exemption for non-trading Council Controlled Organisations from the requirement to fulfil reporting and other requirements imposed by the Local Government Act 2002.
	The Chief Executive Officer (Sandy Graham) spoke to the report and responded to questions.
	Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Grants an exemption under section 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 to each of the companies named below, whilst they are not being used for any trading: i) Tourism Dunedin Limited; ii) Dunedin Events Limited; iii) Dunedin Visitor Centre Limited; iv) Otago Power Limited; and v) Lakes Contract Services Limited. Motion carried (CNL/2024/160)

13 Proposed Event Road Closures

A report from Transport sought approval for temporary road closure applications relating to the following events:

a) Graduation Parade

b) Motorsport Hillclimb

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Lee Vandervis):

That the Council:

a) Resolves to close the roads detailed below (pursuant to Section 319, Section 342, and Schedule 10 clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA 1974)):

i) Graduation Parade

Friday
13 September 2024

10.30am to 11.00am

· Great King Street, from Frederick Street to Albany Street

(Parade departs from Great King Street at 11.00am)

10.40am to 11.30am (approx.)

· Frederick Street, from Great King Street to George Street

· George Street, from Frederick Street to Moray Place

10.40am to 12.00pm

· Moray Place, from George Street to Upper Stuart Street

· Filleul Street, from Moray Place to St Andrew Street

ii) Motorsport Hillclimb

Saturday 16 November 2024

7.30am to 6.00pm

· Flagstaff-Whare Flat Road, from Rollinsons Road to Longridge Road

Sunday 17 November 2024

7.30am to 6.00pm

· Three Mile Hill Road, from Halfway Bush Road to Silverstream Valley Road

Motion carried (CNL/2024/161)

14 Notice of Motion - Possible Unitary Authority for Otago
	In accordance with Standing Order 26.1, a Notice of Motion was received from Cr Kevin Gilbert.
During discussion Cr Carmen Houlahan left the meeting at 12.30 pm and returned at 12.33 pm.
	Moved (Cr Kevin Gilbert/Cr Cherry Lucas): That the Council: a) Requests a high-level staff report on options for progressing discussions about a possible unitary authority for Otago. b) Notes these options include but are not limited to establishment of Joint Committee to progress the discussion of a Local Government Act 2002 17A review. c) Notes that on receipt of the report, Council may need to consider resourcing requirements to progress the preferred option. d) Requests the report by December 2024. Division The Council voted by division For: Crs Bill Acklin, Sophie Barker, Kevin Gilbert, Cherry Lucas, Mandy Mayhem, Jim O'Malley, Lee Vandervis, Brent Weatherall, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Jules Radich (10). Against: Crs David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Carmen Houlahan and Marie Laufiso (4). Abstained: Nil The division was declared CARRIED by 10 votes to 4 Motion carried (CNL/2024/162)

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Cherry Lucas):

That the Council:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, exclude the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 Ordinary Council meeting - 31 July 2024 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	.
C2 Extraordinary Council meeting - 19 August 2024 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	.
C3 Confidential Council Actions from Resolutions at Council Meetings	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C4 Confidential Council Forward Work Programme - July 2024	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C5 Terms of Reference - Dunedin City Holdings Limited Review	s48(1)(d) Check to make report confidential.	s48(1)(d) The exclusion of the public from the part of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation.	S7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person..
C6 Appointment to Otago Museum Trust Board	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act, or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as shown above after each item.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/163)

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Kevin Gilbert):

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting for five minutes to enable media to leave.

Motion carried

The meeting moved into confidential at 1.02 pm and concluded at 1.45 pm.

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

MAYOR

Council

24 September 2024

Reports

Residents' Opinion Survey Results 2023/24

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides a summary of the annual results of the 2023/24 Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS) (Attachment A). The 2023/24 survey was conducted over the 12 months from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024 by an independent research company, called GravitasOPG.

2 The Dunedin City Council (DCC) has commissioned a ROS every year in varying forms since 1994 to gauge residents’ satisfaction and engagement with a wide range of DCC services and facilities. The 2023/24 survey received a total of 1,334 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.

3 ‘Overall satisfaction with the DCC’ remained unchanged from 2022/23 at 50%. Similarly, overall satisfaction remained at similar levels to the last year with: ‘Facilities, infrastructure and services delivery’ (62%, up from 60%), ‘Value for money of DCC services and activities’ (38%, down from 39%) and ‘Performance of Community Board members’ (36%, down from 37%). Overall satisfaction with ‘Performance of the Mayor and Councillors’ significantly declined in the last 12 months (29%, down from 34%).

4 Overall satisfaction significantly increased with ‘Waste management services’ (62%, up from 58%). A high proportion of survey respondents were overall satisfied with ‘Public facilities’ (84%, unchanged) and ‘Parks, reserves and open spaces’ (88%, up from 77%). In contrast, overall satisfaction with ‘Roading-related infrastructure’ remained unchanged and low at 26%.

5 Positive ratings significantly increased for respondents’ perceptions on ‘Dunedin is a safe city’ (66%, up from 62%), returned to a similar level observed in 2021/22. In contrast, a significant decline was found for respondents’ perceptions on ‘Dunedin is a creative city’ (64%, down from 68%), ‘Sense of community in local neighbourhood’ (54%, down from 59%) and ‘Dunedin is a thriving city’ (39%, down from 47%).

6 The top two priorities for the DCC featured in the responses remained largely consistent from the last year. They were: ‘maintenance of roading infrastructure’ (20%) and ‘a greater focus on being sustainable and environmentally friendly’ (17%), ‘finish existing projects/faster to finish projects’ (16%) and ‘better traffic flow (14%).

7 The 2023/24 survey marked the final year of the five-year contract with GravitasOPG. The contract has been renewed for the 2024/25 financial year to allow seamless provision of ROS results in the current format while the review of level of service (LoS) is being finalised as part of the 9 year plan 2025-34 (9YP).

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the annual results of the Residents’ Opinion Survey 2023/24.

BACKGROUND

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

8 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 in varying forms 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.

9 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.

10 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 2023/24 survey was the final year of the five-year contract with GravitasOPG.

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

12 The objectives of the ROS are to:

· gauge the extent to which Council is meeting its Long Term 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.

ROS and level of service

13 The contract with GravitasOPG has been renewed for the 2024/25 financial year to allow seamless provision of ROS results in the current format while the review of LoS is being finalised as part of the 9YP.

DISCUSSION

14 ROS methodology and sample sizeThe 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.

15 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.

16 The 2023/24 survey was conducted over 12 months from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024. A total of 4,800 survey invitations were sent over the survey period, and 1,334 responses (1,402 in 2022/23) were received. A response rate of 29% was achieved, compared with 31% in 2022/23. The survey results have a margin of error of +/-2.6% at 95% confidence interval.

17 Younger people (18-29 years) have historically been underrepresented in the ROS. While the DCC cannot target particular groups in sampling efforts due to the limited access to the electoral roll for the purpose of the ROS, the percentage of responses from this age group continued to increase further to 27% out of 32% in the 2018 Census data, following a large increase observed in the 2022/23 survey (21%, up from 8% in 2021/22).

Clarification of terms

18 ‘Statistically significant’ means a result is unlikely due to a random chance in sampling and is likely due to some factor of interest (e.g., a meaningful change that requires attention). In this report, the word ‘significant’ specifically refers to statistical significance and does not mean ‘large’.

19 It is helpful to understand that there is a strong relationship between determining what is statistically significant, the sample size and margin of error. As the sample size increases, the margin of error (i.e., uncertainty) decreases. This is why, in a large sample size, a small percentage change could be deemed as significant because the level of uncertainty (margin of error) is small. The change (even if it is small) is deemed significant as the change is likely due to a factor of interest. On the other hand, in a smaller sample size, a large change may fail to be deemed significant due to a greater level of uncertainty.

Summary of findings

20 The Residents’ Opinion Survey 2023/24 (ROS 2023/24) (Attachment A) has been prepared by GravitasOPG with support from Corporate Policy.

21 The ROS 2023/24 uses black arrows to indicate statistically significant differences in results compared to the previous year’s results, or between users and all respondents including non-users of facilities. Caution is needed when considering any other increase or decrease in satisfaction ratings that are not statistically significant, as they are not reliable.

22 Summaries for each of the activities represented in the survey are provided below in the order as presented in Attachment A.

Facilities

Parks, reserves and open spaces

23 A significant decline was found in the level of visitation of ‘Cemeteries’ in the last 12 months (46%, down from 51%). Otherwise, there was not much change in the level of visitation of parks, reserves, and open spaces, with both ‘DCC reserves (scenic, bush and coastal)’ and ‘Public toilets’ receiving the highest percentage of visitation at 83%.

24 Satisfaction ratings by all respondents (users and non-users) for parks, reserves and open spaces facilities remained largely unchanged, with ‘Dunedin Botanic Garden’ receiving the highest rating at 89%, followed by ‘DCC reserves (scenic, bush and coastal) at 84%. ‘Public toilets’ continued to receive the lowest satisfaction rating at 43%.

25 Users of parks, reserves and open spaces in the last 12 months gave higher satisfaction ratings, compared to all respondents including non-users. A significant difference was found for ‘Dunedin Botanic Garden’ (93%), ‘Walking or biking tracks (off-road)’ (83%), ‘Sports playing fields’ (74%), ‘Cemeteries’ (77%) and ‘Playgrounds’ (66%).

Sports and recreation facilities

26 A significant increase was found in the level of visitation of ‘Forsyth Barr Stadium’ (64%, up from 57%), ‘Edgar Sports Centre’ (53%, up from 49%) and ‘Community swimming pools’ (29%, up from 22%).

27 Forsyth Barr Stadium received the highest satisfaction ratings by all respondents (82%), followed by ‘Edgar Sports Centre’ (72%). ‘Community swimming pools’ and ‘Ice Stadium’ have higher proportions of neutral ratings (35% and 46%, respectively) and lower proportions of dissatisfied ratings (both 3%).

28 Users of each of the sports and recreation facilities gave significantly higher satisfaction ratings, compared to all respondents. The largest difference was found for ‘Ice Stadium’ (23% higher at 75%).

29 There was a significant increase in satisfaction with ‘Community swimming pools’ among those who had used them (83%, up from 76%) − the highest level of satisfaction achieved by swimming pools in the last five years. In contrast, user satisfaction with ‘Moana Pool’ significantly declined from the last year (72%, down from 80%) − the lowest level of satisfaction in the last five years.

Other public facilities

30 The level of visitation of other public facilities in the last 12 months remained largely unchanged, with ‘Tūhura Otago Museum’ receiving the highest percentage (75%), followed by ‘Toitu Otago Settlers Museum’ (63%).

31 Four public facilities received high user satisfaction ratings of above 90%, including ‘Tūhura Otago Museum’ (94%), ‘Toitū Otago Settlers Museum’ (93%), ‘Olveston Historic Home’ (93%) and ‘Libraries’ (91%). In contrast, there was a decline in user satisfaction with Lan Yuan Dunedin Chinese Gardens (87%, down from 89%), Regent Theatre (85%, down from 89%), Dunedin Town Hall (82%, down from 85%) and ‘Ōtepoti Dunedin i-site Visitors Centre’ (77%, down from 80%).

32 ‘Regent Theatre’ was the only public facility that received a significantly lower user satisfaction rating, compared to the last year − the lowest level of satisfaction since 2016. This would have likely been the major contributor to the significant increase in overall dissatisfaction with ‘Other public facilities’ reported in the ROS quarterly update to the Strategy, Planning and Engagement Committee (SPEC) at its April 2024 meeting.

Infrastructure

Water related infrastructure

33 The percentage of respondents satisfied with ‘Water related infrastructure’ largely remained unchanged since the last survey in overall and all aspects of the service: ‘Overall’ (62%, down from 63%), ‘Water pressure and quality’ (72%, unchanged), ‘Sewerage system’ (69%, up from 68%) and ‘Stormwater system’ (55%, down from 57%).

Roading, footpaths, lighting and parking

34 Overall satisfaction with ‘Roading-related infrastructure’ remained unchanged and low at 26% since the 2021/22 survey. Highest satisfaction ratings were recorded for ‘Street lighting throughout the city’ (61%), followed by ‘Flow of traffic at off-peak hours’ (57%) and ‘Ease of pedestrian movement’ (54%).

35 High levels of dissatisfaction were found for ‘Availability of parking in the central city’ (66%), ‘Flow of traffic at peak’ (55%), ‘Availability of on-street metered parking in the central city’ (53%) and ‘Condition of roads’ (48%). These percentages are similar to those of the last survey.

Services

Waste management

36 Overall satisfaction significantly increased with ‘Waste management services’ (62%, up from 58%). Positive ratings were highest for ‘Kerbside recycling’ (77%) and lowest for ‘Public recycling bins’ (56%) and ‘Cleanliness of the streets in general’ (56%). Levels of satisfaction related to street waste management show an increase year on year since the 2021/22, although the changes are not statistically significant.

Regulatory services

37 Overall satisfaction with ‘Regulatory services’ remained almost the same at 58%. Satisfaction ratings were highest for ‘Control of roaming dogs’ (63%) and lowest for ‘Parking enforcement’ (49%).

38 Apart from ‘Noise control’, there was a downward trend in all the other aspects of the services in their satisfaction ratings over the last year, although the differences are not statistically significant.

Planning and urban design

39 Satisfaction with ‘Central city retail area’ significantly increased (57%, up from 51%). Satisfaction with all other individual aspects and urban design overall remained relatively unchanged from the last survey. Satisfaction was highest for ‘Overall look and feel of your suburb or township’ (65%) and lowest for ‘Overall look and feel of the central city retail area’ (57%).

Contact and information

40 Overall satisfaction with ‘How well the DCC keeps residents informed’ stayed at a similar level to the last survey (57%). Satisfaction ratings were highest for ‘DCC website’ (59%) and lowest for ‘DCC social media’ (50%) although satisfaction with ‘DCC social media’ further built on the much-improved result recorded in 2022/23. The only downward trend in satisfaction was evident for ‘FYI newsletter’ (52%, down from 54%) although the change was not statistically significant. It should be noted that relatively high percentages of neutral ratings were found for ‘DCC social media’ (43%) and ‘FYI newsletter’ (40%)

41 The percentage of respondents who contacted DCC staff in the last three months slightly increased (31%, up from 29%). 49% of these interactions were done by telephone, compared to 53% in 2022/23. The share of visiting in person remined lower at 27%, while the share of contacting staff using methods that are neither phone nor in person remained unchanged at 24%. While not specifically asked in the survey, ‘Other’ contact methods would likely include contact via email and letter.

42 Overall, around three quarters of respondents (73%) who contacted the DCC in the last three months were satisfied with ‘How DCC staff handled the enquiry overall’, with the highest rating being for ‘How well staff communicated with you’ (76%) and the lowest for ‘The outcome of the matter’ (68%). Satisfaction with ‘How long it took staff to deal with the matter’ (71%) showed a decreasing trend since 2021/22, following a significant increase from 62% to 74% in 2021/22.

Leadership and overall satisfaction

43 All five aspects of Dunedin City Council’s leadership received lower satisfaction ratings, compared to the last survey, with high levels of neutral ratings being recorded for all but ‘Support for city festivals and events’. Two of the five leadership aspects saw a significant decline in satisfaction. They were: ‘Performance of the Mayor and Councillors’ (29%, down from 34%) and ‘Supporting Dunedin’s economic development’ (35%, down from 41%).

44 Satisfaction was highest and largely unchanged for ‘Support for city festivals and events’ (60%), while ratings were lowest for ‘Performance of the Mayor and Councillors’ (29%). For the other three aspects, a similar level of satisfaction was observed at over one third of respondents satisfied with: ‘Performance of Community Board members’ (36%), ‘Support for Dunedin’s economic development’ (35%), as well as ‘The amount of public consultation undertaken’ (35%).

45 All three aspects of overall satisfaction with the DCC remained at similar levels to the last survey. The highest rating was for ‘Overall satisfaction with facilities, infrastructure and services’ (62%, up from 60%). ‘Overall satisfaction with the Dunedin City Council’ remained unchanged (50%) over the last 12 months. The lowest rating was found for ‘Overall satisfaction with value for money of DCC services and activities’ (38%).

Perceptions of Dunedin

46 Positive ratings significantly increased for respondents’ perceptions on ‘Dunedin is a safe city’ (66%, up from 62%), returned to a similar level observed in 2021/22. In contrast, a significant decline was found for respondents’ perceptions on three of nine aspects of the city. They were: ‘Dunedin is a creative city’ (64%, down from 68%), ‘Sense of community in local neighbourhood’ (54%, down from 59%) and ‘Dunedin is a thriving city’ (39%, down from 47%). These results were the lowest ratings recorded since 2015/16.

47 Of the nine aspects of the city considered, the highest level of agreement was given for ‘Dunedin maintains and preserves its architectural heritage’ (74%), while the lowest was for ‘Dunedin is leader in encouraging the development of a sustainable city’ (32%).

Top two priorities for the DCC

48 The top two priorities for the DCC featured in the responses (1,009 responses) remained largely consistent from the last year. They were: ‘maintenance of roading infrastructure’ (20%) and ‘a greater focus on being sustainable and environmentally friendly (17%, unchanged), ‘finish existing projects/faster to finish projects’ (16%, up from 15%) and ‘better traffic flow (14%, down from 15%). A summary of the comments can be found on page 70 of Attachment A.

Correlation analysis

49 A performance versus importance correlation analysis has been undertaken by GravitasOPG, since the 2019/20 survey (see pages 72-75 of Attachment A). This analysis considers the relative importance of each aspect measured in the survey to the overall satisfaction rating. It helps identify aspects that are performing well, those in need of improvement and aspects that service level needs to be maintained.

50 Of the 11 aspects surveyed, three aspects were identified as of high importance but need to be improved to maximise the overall satisfaction with the DCC. They were: ‘Performance of the Mayor and Councillors’, ‘Performance of Community Board members’ and ‘Roading-related infrastructure’. Improvement in these areas will strongly influence the overall satisfaction with the DCC and residents’ perceptions of the city.

51 Two aspects were identified by the analysis as high performing in areas of high importance. They were: ‘Planning and urban design’ and ‘Communication channels’, both of which were identified in the last survey as aspects in need of improvement.

52 Four aspects were identified as aspects where performance should be maintained to ensure overall satisfaction with the DCC remain high. They were: ‘Parks, reserves and open spaces’, ‘Other public facilities’, ‘Sports and recreation facilities’ and ‘Contact with staff’

OPTIONS

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

NEXT STEPS

54 The 2023/24 ROS results report (Attachment A) will be uploaded onto the DCC website. GravitasOPG will continue to deliver the ROS monthly sampling for the 2024/25 survey, ending 30 June 2025.

55 Staff will continue to work with GravitasOPG to provide quarterly ROS updates to Council via SPEC meetings, as scheduled in its Forward Work Programme.

Signatories

Author:

Junichi Sugishita - Senior Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Nadia Wesley-Smith - Corporate Policy Manager - Acting

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

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Residents' Opinion Survey 2023/24	37

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	✔	☐	☐
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
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 residents’ 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

One of the objectives of the ROS is to gauge the extent to which Council is meeting its 10 Year Plan and Annual Plan objectives. The ROS asks about residents’ 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

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.

Council

24 September 2024

Approval to Notify Plan Change 1 – Minor Improvements to the 2GP

Department: City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval to notify Plan Change 1: Minor Improvements, the first proposed plan change to the partially operative Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (2GP). The proposed notification date is 20 November 2024.

2 Plan Change 1 proposes targeted minor improvements to the 2GP. It responds to issues identified through implementation of the 2GP, feedback from plan users, and monitoring of plan effectiveness. The proposed changes are designed to ensure the 2GP effectively and efficiently achieves its objectives.

3 The decision to approve notification is made under Clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and allows the public submission period to begin. The decision should be based on councillors’ satisfaction that a proper assessment of the proposed changes has been undertaken, as required by section 32 of the RMA.

4 If notification of Plan Change 1 is approved, public notification will be undertaken via a public notice, a letter to all ratepayers included in the mail-out of the second instalment of rates notices for 2024/2025, and letters to landowners where more significant changes are proposed (for example having a building added to the schedule of protected heritage buildings). The rates mailout will take place between 25 October and 22 November 2024.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves notification of Plan Change 1.

b) Resolves under section 48(1)(a)(i) and section 7(2)(j) of the Local Government Official information and Meetings Act 1987 to withhold the following documents, which contain details of changes to the Plan that are proposed via Plan Change 1, until 20 November, to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage: a summary of all proposals that have been assessed as part of the plan change; details of all proposed new scheduled heritage buildings; a report evaluating the proposed changes under RMA section 32; all proposed changes to the text of the Plan; proposed changes to the 2GP Planning Map; and assessments of heritage values for all proposed new scheduled heritage buildings.

c) Resolves to delay the changes to rules associated with stormwater open watercourses from taking effect until Plan Change 1 becomes operative, noting that under section 86B(3) of the RMA these would otherwise take effect from the date of public notification

d) Resolves to delegate power to lodge a submission on the plan change under Clause 6, First Schedule RMA to the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate)

e) Delegates to the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate) the power to correct, or authorise the correction of, typographical errors or to make minor amendments to the content of Plan Change 1 or its accompanying section 32 report.

BACKGROUND

5 The RMA requires local authorities to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of policies and rules in district plans. The DCC gives effect to this requirement by keeping a database of issues that have arisen through the 2GP’s implementation. Issues often originate from resource consents planners and other regular plan users.

6 Common issues are lack of clarity of provisions in specific scenarios that may not have been considered at the time of drafting, changes in the context of how activities are undertaken, concerns about lack of effectiveness of rules in achieving the Plan’s objectives, and scenarios where rules can be changed to permit, with performance standards, activities that are frequently being granted consent with similar conditions.

7 The matters included in the database are regularly screened to identify priority areas to consider in a multi-topic minor improvements plan change, such as Variation 1 or this plan change, Plan Change 1. Alternatively, they may be marked for consideration in a future topic-specific plan change, such as Plan Change 2 relating to heritage and multi-unit housing, which was initiated on 20 August 2024. Another driver for changes included in multi-topic and single topic plan changes is changes needed to give effect to national or regional direction.

8 Once issues have been identified for a plan change, planners must follow the evaluation process outlined in section 32 of the RMA, which includes identifying options to address each issue, and considering whether they would better achieve the objectives of the plan than the current provisions.

9 If the objectives themselves are being reviewed, then these are assessed as to how well they achieve the purpose of the RMA. The environmental, economic, social and cultural costs and benefits of proposed changes must also be considered. The section 32 assessment must also consider any higher order policy instruments that sit at the regional or national level.

10 Plan Change 1 was initiated by Council on 2 November 2021, as ‘Variation 3’, and renamed after the 2GP was made partially operative.

DISCUSSION

11 The purpose of Plan Change 1 is to make targeted minor improvements to the 2GP. It responds to issues identified through implementation of the 2GP, feedback from plan users, and monitoring of plan effectiveness. The changes are designed to ensure the 2GP effectively and efficiently achieves its objectives.

12 The proposed changes in Plan Change 1 include:

· Changes to add 146 additional scheduled heritage buildings, add over 24,000 hectares of public land to the schedule of areas of significant biodiversity value, and schedule 12 additional significant trees.

· Changes to provide a more enabling rule framework for health activities. 

· Changes to a wide range of provisions to make them easier to interpret and apply (for example, amending the definition of ground level so it is easier to identify it on sites with historical earthworks).

· Changes to make rules more flexible (for example, rule changes to make it easier to build garages in yards).

· Changes to better manage environmental effects from activities where existing provisions have been assessed as insufficient (for example, increasing the acoustic insulation requirements for new dwellings in the inner city to reduce the risk of complaints about live music noise, extending rules that manage transportation effects from activities that generate a high number of traffic movements, and requiring development to be set back from stormwater open watercourses in more locations).

· Minor changes to correct errors. 

13 The decision to approve Plan Change 1 is primarily a procedural decision, to allow the public submissions and further submissions processes to begin. The decision should be based on councillors’ satisfaction that Plan Change 1 has been developed robustly by staff in accordance with the evaluation requirements set out in section 32 of the RMA.

14 A summary of the amendments to the 2GP included in Plan Change 1, and the section 32 report for Plan Change 1, have been provided in a non-public report to Council.

15 The public notice informing ratepayers of the notification of Plan Change 1 (required by clause 1(1A) of Schedule 1 of the RMA) will be included in the mail-out of the second instalment of rates notices for 2024/2025. This will take place between 25 October and 22 November 2024. The full details of Plan Change 1 and the section 32 report will not be publicly released until the date of notification of Plan Change 1 (20 November).

16 In addition to the legally required public notice in the ODT and the rates mail-out, the following additional communications methods are being used:

a) Letters to all ratepayers whose properties are being rezoned or otherwise directly affected by a proposed change (e.g. owners of heritage buildings and significant trees that are proposed to be added to Plan scheduled).

b) Letters to key stakeholders who have provided input into changes as they were drafted (e.g. health providers and network utility operators).

c) FYI article

d) City Development News articles

e) DCC social media

Rationale for Withholding Plan Change Documents Until Date of Notification

17 Section 48(1)(a)(i) and section 7(2)(j) of the Local Government Official information and Meetings Act 1987 allow the Council to withhold information if this is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

18 Because Plan Change 1 contains a range of proposed changes that, if confirmed, will affect specific properties and how they can be used, including the addition of scheduled heritage buildings and trees, the addition or removal of certain mapped areas overlying properties, and changes to zoning and landscape overlay zones for some properties, it is recommended that the plan change documentation is kept confidential until it is released publicly to the whole community on 20 November following letters to directly affected parties and public notices and advertisements. If the documentation were made publicly available via the Council website, as public attachments to this report, then there would be a risk that some people would find out about proposed changes in advance of others, particularly those that may be most directly affected. This information has the potential to be used for improper gain or advantage, for example if affected properties are bought and sold in the interim period.

Decision on Rules Taking Effect

19 The RMA sets out when rules proposed in plan changes begin to have ‘legal effect’. From the point of legal effect onwards, proposed changes to rules are taken into account by planners processing resource consents. When there is more than one rule that has legal effect, the most restrictive rule applies. This means that, for example, if no resource consent is required by the existing 2GP, but a resource consent would be required by a rule introduced or amended by a plan change, the new rule will begin to trigger a need for resource consent once it has legal effect.

20 Under section 86B of the RMA, most rules in proposed plan changes only have legal effect once the Hearing Panel’s decision on submissions has been made and publicly notified, but some rules have immediate legal effect from the date of public notification of the plan change for submissions. These are rules that: protect or relate to water, air, or soil (for soil conservation); protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous fauna; protect historic heritage; or provide for or relate to aquaculture activities. In most cases, this approach reflects the status of these values as matters of national importance (section 6) under the RMA.

21 However, the Environment Court may order that rules have legal effect from a different date and a local authority may also resolve to delay the legal effect of rules to the date on which the plan change is made operative (but can rescind that request later so that rules begin to have legal effect at the time of decisions, to align all rules to the same timeframe).

22 In the past, the Council has sought through the Environment Court that some rules have legal effect earlier, and has resolved to delay the legal effect of rules in other cases. For example, where rules do not have legal effect until after decisions, if it were considered likely that the introduction of a new, more restrictive rule (such as an increase in the minimum site size for subdivision) could create a rush of activities seeking to get in ahead of legal effect, thereby defeating the purpose of the rule change, then the Council would request that the Court apply legal effect from first notification. Likewise, it could delay the legal effect of a rule that the RMA has taking legal effect at the time of notification where this type of risk does not exist. Delaying rules in this case would allow rules to be tested and refined through the submission and hearing process before they take effect.

23 There are three proposed changes in Plan Change 1 that would result in rules that have immediate legal effect under section 86B(3), in the absence of a Council resolution to the contrary. These are:

· Change SHB3, which proposes to add 146 historic buildings to the Schedule of Protected Heritage Items and Sites (Appendix A1.1);

· Change NE7, which proposes to protect publicly owned areas of significant biodiversity value by adding them to the Schedule of Areas of Significant Biodiversity Value (“ASBV schedule”) (Appendix A1.2); and

· Change Res13, which proposes to add an identified network of ‘stormwater open watercourses’ to the 2GP Planning Map, and to amend rules to ensure that effects on stormwater infrastructure are managed when development is proposed close to those watercourses.

24 In the case of Change Res13, it is recommended that the Council resolve to delay associated rules from taking legal effect until after the plan change has been made operative. The key reasons for this recommendation are:

a) to recognise that the likely intent of the RMA in applying immediate legal effect to rules about water was linked to regional council functions (e.g. management of water quality and quantity), rather than the management of stormwater open watercourses;

b) to enable any required improvements to the mapping of watercourses to be made via the submissions process; and

c) to allow the Panel to consider submissions on the appropriate setback to be required from stormwater open watercourses prior to the rule applying.

d) There is unlikely to be a rush of activity on sites affected by the rule before the rule have legal effect and there are some current requirements that manage water courses subject to easements.

25 Therefore, the third decision requested in this report is to resolve to delay the rule changes included in Change Res13 from taking effect until Plan Change 1 becomes operative. This decision must be made before public notification of Plan Change 1 and must be included in the public notice. It should be noted that this decision can be rescinded at any time. Past practice has been to rescind resolutions of this kind once the Hearing Panel’s decision is released on a variation/plan change, which is the time when all other rules normally have legal effect.

26 It is noted that the Council may also choose to take the same approach for the additions to the heritage schedule, in change SHB3, and/or for the additions to the ASBV schedule, in change NE7, however, this has not been recommended.

Scheduled Heritage Buildings

27 Owners of the buildings proposed for addition to the heritage schedule via Plan Change 1 have been contacted by letter and have had an opportunity to meet Council staff and provide relevant information about their buildings. Where appropriate, this information has led to updates to the heritage assessments for these buildings.

28 Addition of buildings to the heritage schedule has both costs and benefits for owners. Inclusion in the schedule means that resource consent is required for some types of work affecting the protected part of the building. In many cases the protected part is limited to the façade of the building to the street. A resource consent is not required for ‘like for like’ repairs and maintenance. For scheduled buildings in heritage precincts, a resource consent is also required for work to a non-protected part of the building, if the work is visible from a public place.

29 When making a decision on these types of resource consent, the 2GP requires consideration of the effect of the changes on the heritage values of the building. The 2GP policies support work required for the building to comply with the Building Act. Work required for earthquake strengthening of heritage buildings is a ‘controlled activity’, meaning that the Council must grant the consent.

30 Demolition of a scheduled heritage building is a ‘non-complying activity’, and the policies in the plan do not support demolition unless either: the building poses a significant risk to safety or property; or the demolition is required for a project that would have significant public benefit that could not otherwise be achieved, and there are no reasonable alternatives to demolition.

31 Some categories of resource consent for work on scheduled heritage buildings, such as replacement of roofs, have no fees. For other resource consents for activities affecting scheduled heritage buildings, the deposit to be paid at the time of application is $1850. The range of free consents will be reviewed as part of the 9 year plan process.

32 There is financial support available to heritage building owners. The Dunedin Heritage Fund makes grants annually towards work on heritage buildings across Dunedin that supports conservation and re-use. Building owners can apply for grants towards work such as repairs and maintenance, upgrades required by the Building Act (e.g. relating to fire or access), and earthquake strengthening. The fund is contestable, and scheduled buildings are prioritised over other (non-scheduled) historic buildings. Details of recent heritage fund grants can be found on the DCC website: Dunedin Heritage Fund - Dunedin City Council.

33 In addition, the 2GP permits a wider range of uses in scheduled heritage buildings in some zones, in order to encourage re-use of heritage buildings. Office activities may be undertaken as a permitted activity in scheduled buildings in the Warehouse Precinct and Smith Street York Place zones, whereas they would be a non-complying activity in buildings not on the heritage schedule. A change to widen this approach is being considered as part of Plan Change 2.

34 Oher incentives for owners of scheduled heritage buildings will be considered as part of Plan Change 2 which relates to heritage and multi-unit housing, and via the Long Term Plan.

35 It should be noted that the 2GP heritage schedule is separate from the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) listing process, although the 2GP heritage schedule does include most buildings listed with HNZPT. Inclusion on the HNZPT list recognises the heritage significance of a building, but it is the inclusion in the 2GP heritage schedule that leads to the resource consent requirements set out above.

OPTIONS

Option One a) – Recommended Option – Approve notification of Plan Change 1 on 20 November 2024 and delay legal effect for stormwater open watercourse rules

36 Under this option, Council would approve the public notification of Plan Change 1: Minor Improvements on 20 November, initiating the submission period, and resolve to delay the changes to rules associated with stormwater open watercourses from taking effect until Plan Change 1 becomes operative.

Advantages

· Will allow the submission period to start on a plan change that will make a range of improvements to the Plan, including protecting additional heritage buildings and providing for health activities in a more enabling way, as well as making numerous minor improvements to remove unnecessary consent requirements and increase the efficiency with which provisions achieve Plan objectives.

· Delaying legal effect for the stormwater open watercourse rules means that the proposed rules and associated mapping can be tested and refined through the submissions and hearing process before they have effect.

Disadvantages

· None identified.

Option One b) – Approve notification of Plan Change 1 on 20 November 2024, but do not delay legal effect for stormwater open watercourses rules

37 Under this option, Council would approve the public notification of Plan Change 1: Minor Improvements on 20 November, initiating the submission period, and the changes to rules associated with stormwater open watercourses would take legal effect from that date.

Advantages

· Will allow the submission period to start on a plan change that will make a range of improvements to the Plan, including for example protecting additional heritage buildings and providing for health activities in a more enabling way, as well as making numerous minor improvements to remove unnecessary consent requirements and increase the efficiency with which provisions achieve Plan objectives.

Disadvantages

· If the stormwater open watercourse rules have legal effect from 20 November, the rules and associated mapping will take effect before they have the chance to be tested and refined via the submissions and hearing process.

Option Two – Delay notification of Plan Change 1

38 Under this option, Council would defer approval of the notification of Plan Change 1 to a later date.

Advantages

· If considered necessary, would allow time to address any shortcomings in the plan change and section 32 assessment.

Disadvantages

· Would delay the plan change and the outcomes the plan change seeks to achieve as outlined in the plan change documentation.

· Would delay other parts of the District Plan work programme.

NEXT STEPS

39 If approved, Plan Change 1 will be notified on 20 November and will be open for submission until 18 December.

40 After the submission period ends, submissions will be summarised by staff and a summary published. At this point, people may make “further submissions” to support or oppose the submissions made during the initial submission period. Hearings will then be held for any submitters who wish to speak to their submissions or further submissions, and decisions on submissions will be made by the Hearing Panel.

Signatories

Author:

Emily McEwan - Senior Planner City Development

Jane MacLeod - Team Leader Planning

Authoriser:

Dr Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

David Ward - General Manager, 3 Waters and Transition

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Letter to ratepayers and public notice	128

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	✔	☐	☐
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	✔

Māori Impact Statement

In accordance with clauses 3 and 4A of the First Schedule to the RMA, tangata whenua have been consulted through iwi authorities, a copy of the draft proposed plan change has been provided to iwi authorities, and staff have had particular regard to the advice subsequently received on the draft.

Sustainability

Sustainable management is a fundamental principle of the RMA, and Plan Change 1 has been developed in accordance with this principle.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

No implications.

Financial considerations

Plan Change 1 has been included in proposed 9 year budgets, however, the full costs of appeals can fall outside of budgets as they are difficult to predict.

Significance

The decisions of this report are considered low in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Regular plan users and key stakeholders have been consulted on the proposed changes to the Plan.

Engagement - internal

A range of departments, including Resource Consents, Building Services and infrastructure teams have been consulted on proposed changes to the Plan.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

None identified.

Conflict of Interest

None identified.

Community Boards

Community Boards will have the opportunity to submit on the changes.

Council

24 September 2024

Sustainability Framework

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to:

a) summarise the work to date on the development of the City Portrait for adaptation for a Ōtepoti Dunedin context.

b) revisit the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as an alternative framework, following an SDG workshop that Councillors recently attended.

c) seek Council decision on whether the City Portrait should progress to the next phase of community engagement or if Council wishes to explore alternative frameworks to represent the Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) commitment to sustainability.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Decides whether to proceed with the development of the City Portrait to the community engagement stage.

If Council decides not to proceed with the City Portrait, then;

b) Requests staff to develop alternative frameworks for consideration, based on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

BACKGROUND

2 The DCC’s Strategic Framework is underpinned by a commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi and sustainability.

3 A vision for ‘Sustainable Practice’ at the DCC was initially adopted in 2009 for use in the 10 year plan, in response to community feedback. In 2012, the concept of sustainability became a guiding principle underpinning the DCC’s Strategic Framework.

4 In 2020, the DCC decided to refresh its Strategic Framework. As a first step in the Strategic Framework Refresh, consultants Harrison Grierson undertook an initial high-level stocktake of the existing framework. It was considered that a clearer representation of the sustainability guiding principle along with that of the Treaty of Waitangi would be helpful in the refresh of the Strategic Framework.

5 In September 2020, Council approved the development of the City Portrait as a framework to represent its commitment to sustainability. The other two options presented for Council’s consideration were the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and New Zealand Treasury’s Living Standards Framework (LSF). The Council resolved as follows:

Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

a) Considers the sustainability frameworks set out in the report, and

b) Approves development of the City Portrait framework for development and adaptation.

Division

The Council voted by division:

For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (9).

Against: Crs Rachel Elder, Jules Radich, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley (4).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 4

Motion carried (CNL/2020/072)

6 Key reasons for supporting the development of the City Portrait over the SDGs and LSF were because the City Portrait was:

· user-friendly and easier for wider community to engage with, as it graphically demonstrates sustainability

· built on the SDGs, offering a way to adapt them to a local context to reflect local situations

· conceptually stronger and a better visualisation tool to graphically show the progress made in taking care of people and the planet

· a better reflection of the DCC’s responsibilities for the entire city.

City Portrait and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

7 In September 2023, a report on comparative analysis of the City Portrait and SDGs was presented to Council, as requested from Councillors. A key point in the report was that they were not entirely distinct, and each represented different approaches to supporting sustainability at different geographical scales, with the latter specifically designed for cities. The ‘Comparative Analysis’ section of this report is provided as Attachment A.

8 In August 2024, Councillors attended a workshop on the SDGs, facilitated by consultants from Bead and Proceed Limited. The SDGs identified as having the greatest potential for DCC influence and impact were SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities. SDG13: Climate Action and SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure. Councillors highlighted SDG17 (Partnerships for the Goals) as being crucial to the delivery of sustainable action. They emphasised that collaboration with organisations, partners, stakeholders and residents as key to implementing services, actions and policies that align with specific goals.

DISCUSSION

Work undertaken to date on the development of the City Portrait

9 Since the Council’s approval in 2020, work has been undertaken to develop the City Portrait specific to Ōtepoti Dunedin, including:

· Carrying out literature review – national and international literature

· Researching and identifying Ōtepoti Dunedin’s ecological and social measures, using the DCC’s existing Wellbeing Strategies and other relevant strategies and plans.

· Drawing on consultant advice and education specialised in planetary boundaries measures and how to translate these to Ōtepoti Dunedin context

· Drafting of a City Portrait in line with existing DCC’s strategies and plans, as well as legislative requirements

· Councillors workshops for staff to gather feedback

· Networking with community groups and other Councils/groups both nationally and internationally

· Key points of the recent Councillor workshop on the SDG framework and how to align them with organisational goals are outlined in paragraph 12.

10 A draft of the Ecological Ceiling component of the City Portrait was developed with assistance from the Planetary Accounting Network (PAN) and presented to Council in September 2023. It demonstrated Ōtepoti Dunedin's ecological impact (Attachment B). It marked a first milestone in the development of the City Portrait, which is designed to be iterative through working with partners, stakeholders and communities.

11 The following further information is also provided in Attachment B.

· an overview of the City Portrait methodology

· a summary of work undertaken to date on the City Portrait development

· a draft illustration as a communication tool

· a list of reports and workshops on this topic presented before Council.

Revisiting the SDGs

12 The summary report of the SDG workshop that Councillors attended outlines four key steps for the implementation of the SDGs at a city level. They are to:

(1) launch an inclusive and collaborative process: Increase awareness of the SDGs and involve stakeholders in a collective effort to achieve the goals and targets to ensure the community is engaged in the process so there’s effective data collection and community endorsement.

(2) localise the goals relevant to the issues in the city: Adapt the global SDGs into a practical and ambitious plan that reflects the specific needs and context of the local community.

(3) plan for SDG implementation: Apply goal-oriented planning strategies to promote sustainable social, economic, and environmental development. This could be done by creating a new strategy, one with a clean slate that includes a new vision and end date in mind.

(4) monitor and evaluate progress: Track the progress of SDG implementation and build local capacity for responsive and accountable governance. This involves building indicators or using existing methods and tools to capture such data.

13 The report underlines the freedom and creative license as to how anyone can use the goals to communicate its impact on sustainable development challenges. It also showcases some international examples of implementation of the SDGs at a city level, including Bristol (UK), Baltimore (UAS) and Melbourne (Australia).

In comparison to the City Portrait

14 As per paragraph 12 (2), the flexibility of the SDGs might be seen as an advantage in terms of monitoring progress as it allows the DCC to decide how best to integrate the SDGs and targets to suit the existing issues and challenges of the city.

15 In contrast, the Ecological Ceiling component of the City Portrait discussed in paragraph 10 uses science-targets to measure and show Ōtepoti Dunedin’s ecological impact against the nine planetary boundaries (detailed in Attachment A). Monitoring of such measures would pose a challenge as some elements are outside the DCC’s remit, and there is a lack of system for collecting key data.

Use of sustainability framework by city stakeholders and other territorial authorities in the region

16 United Nations-affiliated programmes have a strong connection to the SDGs. Locally, this includes the UNESCO City of Literature initiative, and Whaiao Regional Centre of Expertise Otago, led by the Otago Polytechnic (now Te Pūkenga), and the University of Otago which signed the SDG Accord of international universities and colleges and regularly release information on its contribution to the achievement of the SDGs.

17 University of Otago makes information available on their website about how they are contributing to the 17 global SDG goals through their research, teaching and operations although no targets and indicators are specified.

18 Central Otago District Council’s Sustainability Strategy 2019 – 2024 incorporates the SDGs and aligns local actions with global goals, while focusing on issues Council directly controls in the first instance.

OPTIONS

19 Two options are provided for consideration by Council.

Option One – Approve to progress the City Portrait development to public engagement stage

20 Under this option, Council would confirm its commitment to the development of the City Portrait, as resolved at the 29 September 2020 Council meeting (CNL/2020/072) and would approve the development to progress to the public engagement stage.

Advantages

· Enables building on in-depth research and analysis done since 2021, including the development of a draft Ecological Ceiling that is specifically designed for a local context and applicable at all levels (strategic and operational)

· No further resourcing would be required to investigate alternative sustainability framework for development and adaptation

· Enables integration of Te Taki Haruru – Māori Strategic Framework and the four wellbeing strategies, tying the City Portrait with Council’s statutory purposes under the Local Government Act 2002

Disadvantages

· Requires simplification of the language and concept used to communicate the City Portrait for public engagement

· Requires extensive community engagement as the City Portrait development is designed to be iterative through working with communities and stakeholders across the city

Option Two – Pause the development of the City Portrait and explore options based on SDGs

21 Under this option, Council would pause the development of a City Portrait as resolved at the 29 September 2020 meeting, and instead request staff to explore other sustainability frameworks for adaptation to a local context.

Advantages

· Provide an opportunity to reconsider the previous resolution, taking into consideration the work already undertaken and regional developments

· Provide an opportunity to explore alignment with city stakeholders on a sustainability framework

Disadvantages

· Further discussion and decisions would be required from Council to identify its position or preference on alternative sustainability frameworks for staff to explore

· Potential reputational risk if the community becomes concerned by the revocation of the city portrait and any delays caused by Council pursuing an alternative framework.

NEXT STEPS

22 If Council approves the commitment to the City Portrait development, staff will:

· develop engagement materials using simple language and concept.

· prepare an engagement plan.

· undertake the public engagement.

· develop indicators and targets in line with Te Taki Haruru – Māori Strategic Framework and the four wellbeing strategies.

· draft an implementation plan.

· support fostering city-wide ownership of Ōtepoti Dunedin’s City Portrait, while clarifying the DCC’s roles and responsibilities in the City Portrait in relation to DCC’s remit.

23 If Council decides to pause the development the City Portrait , staff will discontinue the further development of the City Portrait and explore other alternatives based on the SDGs for development and adaptation. Details would be provided in a future report.

Signatories

Author:

Alix de Blic - Senior Policy Analyst

Junichi Sugishita - Senior Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Nadia Wesley-Smith - Corporate Policy Manager - Acting

Nicola Morand - Manahautū (General Manager Policy and Partnerships)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Extract Comparative Analysis on City Portrait and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals	138
⇩b	City Portrait development to date	141

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	✔	☐	☐
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

The existing DCC’s Strategic Framework is underpinned by a commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi and

sustainability. The decision on a clear representation of sustainability concerns all of the DCC’s

strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua and mātāwaka are partners in the development of Te Taki Haruru - Māori Strategic

Framework and in the Strategic Refresh work programme, of which the development of a sustainability

framework is part. To date, use of the four wellbeings has ensured the City Portrait is relevant to the

people of Dunedin, while retaining a strong connection with the Māori Strategic Framework, which has

also used the four wellbeings in its development.

Sustainability

The development and adoption of a sustainability framework for the city will promote the social,

economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future. It

will do this by clarifying the interpretation and measures of sustainability and promoting consistent

application of this development approach.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The Strategic Refresh, which will be informed by development of a sustainability framework, will

directly impact on the next long term plan.

Financial considerations

Further work may have financial implications, particularly if external resources are required which are not budgeted.

Significance

This report is considered low significance in terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy will continue to progress the implementation of the DCC’s strategic commitment to sustainability. The Strategic Refresh itself is of high importance and the development of a sustainability framework will requirea level of engagement with the community.

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Reputational risk is covered in the discussion part of the report.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest has been identified.

Community Boards

No implications for the Community Boards have been identified.

Council

24 September 2024

South Dunedin Future - Risk Assessment Update and Programme Changes

Department: Climate and City Growth

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an update on technical work relating to the South Dunedin Risk Assessment, describes constraints faced in finalising this technical report, and associated implications for the South Dunedin Future programme.

2 A review of the draft risk assessment for South Dunedin has identified information gaps and data limitations related to flood modelling and floor levels, which have prevented finalisation of the technical report. Finalisation of the risk assessment has been delayed while additional work is undertaken to fill these gaps, including bringing forward completion of an updated flood model and collecting building floor level information for South Dunedin.

3 This additional work is expected to be completed in late October, enabling finalisation of the risk assessment and spatial adaptation options for South Dunedin by December 2024. It is now expected these technical reports will be presented to Councils in February 2025 and, subject to Council decisions, consulted with affected communities and wider public in March to April 2025.

4 The South Dunedin risk assessment will now be released at the same time as the spatial adaptation options report, in line with stakeholder preferences.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes a review of the draft risk assessment for South Dunedin has identified information gaps and data limitations that have prevented finalisation of this technical report.

b) Notes work underway to address identified information gaps and data limitations, including bringing forward completion of an updated flood model and collection of building floor level information for South Dunedin.

c) Notes the associated delay in finalising the risk assessment and spatial adaptation options for South Dunedin, which are now expected to be presented to Councils and released publicly in February 2025.

d) Notes a copy of this report will be considered by Otago Regional Councillors on 25 September 2024.

BACKGROUND

5 The South Dunedin Future (SDF) programme is a joint initiative between the Dunedin City Council (DCC) and Otago Regional Council (ORC) to develop a climate adaptation plan for South Dunedin. The programme plan was approved by DCC and ORC Council Committees in July 2022. A high-level approach for delivering the SDF programme is at Attachment A.

6 A previous report to Councils in July 2024 provided an update on the SDF programme, including a summary of the activities completed during January to June 2024, foreshadowed key upcoming activities, and signalled potential implications of this work. This included anticipated delivery of a risk assessment for South Dunedin in September 2024 and spatial adaptation options in November 2024.

DISCUSSION

South Dunedin Risk Assessment

7 The risk assessment assesses the extent to which current natural hazards (e.g. surface flooding, coastal erosion, high ground water) present risk to people, places and assets in South Dunedin, and how this might be affected by climate change (e.g. more frequent and severe storm events, higher groundwater, and rising seas). This work considers exposure to these hazards, areas of vulnerability, and the direct and indirect consequences.

8 This is the first time the risks faced by South Dunedin have been formally assessed, quantified, and collated in a single report including a range of data, maps, and graphics. The risk assessment sketches out the current trajectory under a ‘business as usual’ approach, and provides a baseline picture of risk, against which decisions about potential risk mitigation (e.g., climate adaptation approaches, options, and projects) can be considered.

9 The risk assessment is based on the best available information at a given time and is intended to provide a clear and detailed picture of risk in South Dunedin, in order to inform development of the adaptation options and, outline the implications of a ‘status quo’ scenario. This will enable consideration of the case for change.

10 As reported to Councils in July 2024, it is anticipated the risk assessment could have a range of implications for council services and infrastructure, as well as for mana whenua partners, affected communities, and many other stakeholders (such as schools, public housing, and utilities companies). Further refinement of the risk assessment may also be required in future as new information becomes available.

Information gaps and data limitations

11 A draft of the risk assessment was received in July 2024, and has been reviewed by council staff, external technical reviewers, and selected stakeholders. In addition to informing revisions of the draft risk assessment, that review process has identified information gaps and data limitations that have prevented finalisation of the technical report. Specifically, these relate to:

a) Limitations of the 3 Waters flood model, which currently lacks the capability to produce modelling outputs at the level of detail and confidence required for the risk assessment; and

b) A lack of accurate floor level data for most buildings in South Dunedin, which limits the degree to which the risk assessment can analyse vulnerability to flooding.

12 These information gaps and data limitations were identified when the risk assessment was initially scoped, however, work continued based on the principle of using the best available information at the time. Following consideration of the draft risk assessment report in full, these information gaps and data limitations are now assessed as being material constraints that risk undermining the accuracy, integrity, and logic of the risk assessment.

13 Finalising the risk assessment with these gaps risks generating ‘false positives’ in the results, which could have adverse real-world implications for stakeholders, and require later redress. Finalisation of the risk assessment has therefore been delayed until these issues can be resolved satisfactorily.

Updated 3 Waters network model and collection of floor level data

14 In 2021, DCC 3 Waters team commenced a project to update a number of the city’s existing flood and wastewater network models, which were initially developed in 2011. This work included an updated flood model for South Dunedin.

15 The new model will provide a significant advancement in flood modelling capability and confidence, including by incorporating 2021 LiDAR information, more accurately assessing surface flows, accounting for groundwater fluctuations and infiltration into stormwater and wastewater systems, among other advancements.

16 The new model was expected to be completed and calibrated by early 2025, however, delivery has been brought forward to October 2024 to support completion of South Dunedin Future technical reports.

17 Councils do not hold detailed floor level information for buildings in South Dunedin. Proxy floor level information, based on building regulations at time of construction, was used to develop the draft risk assessment, but has since proved insufficient in terms of accuracy and confidence. Consequently, council staff are now undertaking street-based observational assessments of floor levels for all buildings in South Dunedin, which will be supplemented by professional surveys of sample of buildings, to confirm accuracy of observational assessments. This information collection will be completed by the end of October 2024 and will inform vulnerability analysis in the risk assessment.

18 Completion of the new flood model and collection of floor level data will address the material information gaps and data limitations, enabling finalisation of the risk assessment and spatial adaptation options technical reports by December 2024. It is anticipated that final technical reports and covering papers will be presented to Councils and released publicly in February 2025.

19 Subject to Council decisions, community engagement on the risk assessment and spatial adaptation options would commence in March 2025. Original and revised schedules are outlined below:

Key Deliverable	Original schedule	Revised schedule
South Dunedin Risk Assessment provided to Council and release publicly	Sep 2024	Feb 2025
Spatial Adaptation Options for South Dunedin provided to Council and released publicly	Nov 2024	Feb 2025
Community engagement on risk assessment and spatial adaptation options	Feb/Mar 2025	Mar/Apr 2025

Impact of revised schedule

20 The revised programme will delay public release of the risk assessment (5 months) and spatial adaptation options (3 months), however, associated community engagement will only be delayed by a month. Costs associated with the flood modelling, floor level data collection, and finalised technical reports are to be confirmed, and may be partially offset by efficiencies elsewhere in the SDF programme. It is anticipated that any additional costs can be covered from within the current SDF programme budget.

Anticipated stakeholder reactions to revised schedule

21 The changes to the SDF programme described above have been informally discussed with selected key stakeholders. While there is some concern around the delay, stakeholders have the consistently advised it is more important to do this work well, and to get it right, than to do it quickly. Most stakeholders prefer aligning public release of the risk assessment with the spatial adaptation options, so that the problems facing South Dunedin are accompanied by potential solutions, enabling consideration of all relevant information. This preference is now reflected in the revised schedule outlined above.

OPTIONS

22 As this is a noting report, there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

23 The following key actions are planned for the SDF programme over the next six months:

a) Finalise updated three waters flood model for South Dunedin (Sep-Oct 2024)

b) Collect floor level data for South Dunedin (Aug-Oct 2024)

c) Revise and finalise risk assessment and spatial adaptation options for South Dunedin (Nov-Dec 2024)

d) Plan and design of communications and community engagement risk assessment and spatial adaptation options for South Dunedin (Dec 2024-Feb 2025)

e) Present risk assessment and spatial adaptation options for South Dunedin to Councils (Feb 2025)

f) Subject to Council decisions, issue public communications and undertake community engagement (Mar-Apr 2025)

Signatories

Author:	Jonathan Rowe - Programme Manager, South Dunedin Future
Authoriser:	Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	SDF Programme Overview A3	159

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	✔	☐	☐
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

The SDF Programme is a horizontal initiative, working across a range of vertical strategies, groups, and budgets in both DCC and ORC. This horizontal focus is intended to drive greater strategic coherence across Councils’ strategies and operations regarding South Dunedin, particularly those with a direct climate change dimension. As such, the programme has links to a wide range of strategic objectives. These are described in the paper and attachments, which build on previous advice on strategy and policy considerations, provided in the following reports:

South Dunedin Future – Programme Update, Item 8, DCC Council, 23 November 2021

South Dunedin Future – Interim Update, Item 8, Planning & Environment Committee, 4 April 2022

South Dunedin Future – Programme Plan, Item 9, Planning & Environment Committee, 6 July 2022

South Dunedin Future – Programme Update, Item 9, Strategy, Planning & Engagement Committee, 14 August 2023

South Dunedin Future – Programme Strategy Update, Item 10, DCC Council, 28 November 2023

South Dunedin Future – Risk Assessment & Adaptation Approaches, Item 6, DCC Council, 5 December 2023

South Dunedin Future – Programme Update (July 2024), Item 9, DCC Council Meeting, 31 July 2024

Māori Impact Statement

Accurately reflecting and integrating the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and Crown’s partnership with Māori, is a central element of the SDF Programme. This is currently envisaged to include governance arrangements, aligning strategic objectives with te ao Māori, matauraka Māori, and mana whenua aspirations; providing meaningful opportunities for all Māori to input their views and values; and identifying and agreeing Māori-specific programme outputs. These are described in the papers noted in the strategic framework section above.

Sustainability

Sustainability will be a central component of the SDF Programme as it seeks to develop climate change adaptation options for South Dunedin over short-, medium- and long-term timeframes. This work will be integrated with the wider climate change work programme, including aligning with DCC’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan 2022 and Zero Carbon Plan 2023.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The programme management team and core programme actions within the SDF Programme have dedicated resourcing in the 2021-2031 10-Year Plan. Programme activities and projects (i.e. programme-related initiatives managed by other DCC or ORC teams) are subject to the planning and budgeting processes of those teams. The expectation is these activities and projects will be aligned with the infrastructure strategy (if/as appropriate). Programme planning will be aligned with the development of the 2025-2034 9-Year Plan, including the infrastructure strategy.

Financial considerations

The DCC’s portion of the SDF Programme budget is $507,000 per annum, which has been resourced in the 2021-2031 10-Year Plan. ORC’s portion is $420,000 per annum, which has been resourced in the 2023/24 Annual Plan. Additional grant funding of $1.45 million over two years (2023/24 and 2024/25) has currently been allocated from the Department of Internal Affairs’ “Better Off” grant funding allocation.

Significance

This issue is considered high in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Community engagement will be a central element of the SDF Programme, and extensive engagement is planned in future stages, in accordance programme plan and with relevance council polices.

Engagement – external

Extensive external engagement has been undertaken on the SDF Programme between 2020-23, as outlined in the paper. Regular engagement is also undertaken with central government, local government, and other interest groups.

Engagement - internal

A large number of internal individuals, teams, and departments across DCC and ORC have been engaged in development of the SDF programme strategy and related work described in this report. This includes, but is not limited to, the departments listed in Figure 2 of the Programme Plan (Page 63, link).

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no anticipated legal/health and safety risks associated with this report. Risks relating to the SDF Programme are described in the Programme Plan (Page 71, link).

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare with this report.

Community Boards

Community boards have not been involved with the development of this report.

Council

24 September 2024

Submission on A New Strategy to Prevent and Minimise Gambling Harm

Department: Corporate Policy and Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) to the Ministry of Health Manatū Hauora (the Ministry of Health) on a draft Strategy to Prevent and Minimise Gambling Harm (Attachment B).

2 The draft Strategy to Prevent and Minimise Gambling Harm 2025/26 to 2027/28 (the draft Strategy) includes:

· the problem definition and needs assessment which informs the proposed Strategy

· the strategic plan and framework with the goals, outcomes, priorities, and actions

· the service plan for the three years from 2025/26 to 2027/28

· the problem gambling levy rates and weighting options for the next three years.

3 The draft DCC submission focuses on the service delivery aspects of the draft Strategy.

4 Consultation on the draft Strategy opened on 23 August 2024 and closes on 6 October 2024.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the draft Dunedin City Council submission, with any amendments, to the Ministry of Health Manatū Hauora on a New Strategy to Prevent and Minimise Gambling Harm.

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

c) Notes that the Mayor or delegate will speak to any hearings in regard to the submission.

BACKGROUND

DCC’s commitment to reducing gambling harm

5 The DCC has shown a long-term and ongoing commitment to reducing gambling harm through its Gambling and TAB Venue Policy (the Policy) which took effect on 14 April 2021 and takes a sinking lid approach to the number of venues and gambling machines in Ōtepoti Dunedin. The Policy meets the DCC’s obligations under the Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Industry Act 2020.

6 The Policy was last reviewed and approved by Council in April 2024 and aims to:

· prevent and minimise the harm caused by gambling to the community; and,

· ensure the views of the DCC and the community are reflected in the provisions of the policy; and,

· allow those who wish to participate in class 4 gambling in the community to do so safely and responsibly.

7 The DCC has previously submitted on other gambling consultations on proposals under development for performance-based class 4 licensing in February 2023 and on reducing pokies harm in April 2022. Both consultations were undertaken by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA).

8 Most recently, in May 2024, the DCC submitted to the New Zealand Gambling Commission in support of license renewal for Dunedin Casinos Limited, which operates the city’s sole casino.

Wider local context

9 The DIA collects quarterly statistics on the number of class 4 gambling venues and machines in each of New Zealand’s Territorial Authorities. As of June 2024, there were 25 venues in Ōtepoti Dunedin, operating a total of 297 electronic gaming machines and 43 jackpot machines.

10 In 2023, a procurement process undertaken by Health New Zealand (Health NZ) led to services to prevent and minimise gambling harm being significantly reduced in Ōtepoti Dunedin. After 31 January 2024, the Salvation Army’s Oasis programme was closed completely, and the Problem Gambling Foundation now has only one staff member based in the city.

11 Te Kāika is the local provider for Multi-Venue Exclusion, which is an intervention tool that enables gamblers to self-exclude from multiple venues without having to visit each individual site. This provides one coordinator role which covers Ōtepoti Dunedin and the rest of Otago.

DISCUSSION

12 DCC staff attended a webinar on 11 September 2024 held as part of the consultation on the draft Strategy. The webinar was focused on service provision. In response to a question from the DCC about how budget and resources would be allocated at a regional and local level, Health NZ responded that it will be based on “need’ and “data”.

13 At this webinar, the DCC also asked if there be any reinstatement of services that ceased in January 2024, and how any gaps that have arisen between then and the new Strategy being implemented in July 2025 will be addressed. Health NZ responded that the new suite of services will continue, and any gaps will be identified and addressed (for example, face-to-face clinical services).

14 The draft submission was developed by the Corporate Policy team and the Alcohol, Psychoactive Drugs and Gambling Advisor.

The draft DCC Submission

15 The draft DCC submission is written in the context of reduced gambling harm services in Ōtepoti Dunedin since February 2024.

16 The draft submission supports intentions of the draft Strategy, but queries aspects of its implementation, including how:

· goals in the draft Strategy will be implemented within the proposed timeframes

· service delivery capacity and competency will be sufficient to achieve the goals

· local needs and resourcing are allocated, including the balance between in-person and online service delivery

· how people with lived experience will be included, and peer support training delivered, when based in Ōtepoti Dunedin.

17 In its draft submission, the DCC requests any information about any future procurement processes for service delivery, including scope and timeframes.

18 The draft submission requests that sections of previous strategies regarding the Treaty of Waitangi, which have been removed from the draft Strategy, are replaced.

19 Through this consultation process, the Government is socialising its plans to regulate online casinos through a licensing system expected to come into effect in 2026. The draft submission supports these plans.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option – Approve the draft submission

20 Under this option, Council approves the draft DCC submission to the Ministry of Health on its draft Strategy to Prevent and Minimise Gambling Harm, with any agreed amendments.

Advantages

· Opportunity to demonstrate the DCC’s commitment to preventing and minimising gambling harm.

· Opportunity to demonstrate the DCC’s commitment to the wellbeing of the people of Ōtepoti Dunedin.

· Opportunity to advocate for inclusion of the Treaty of Waitangi as a principle.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Do not approve the draft submission

21 Under this option, Council does not approve the draft DCC submission to the Ministry of Health on its Strategy to Prevent and Minimise Gambling Harm

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to demonstrate the DCC’s commitment to preventing and minimising gambling harm.

· Missed opportunity to demonstrate the DCC’s commitment to the wellbeing of the people of Ōtepoti Dunedin.

· Missed opportunity to advocate for inclusion of the Treaty of Waitangi as a principle.

NEXT STEPS

22 If Council approves the draft submission, it will be sent to the Ministry of Health for consideration prior to the closing date of 6 October 2024.

Signatories

Author:

Danielle Tolson - Policy Analyst

Kevin Mechen - Alcohol, Psychoactive Substances and Gambling Advisor

Authoriser:

Junichi Sugishita - Senior Policy Analyst

Robert West - General Manager Corporate Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Draft DCC submission on the draft Strategy to Prevent and Minimise Gambling Harm	167
⇩b	Consultation document- Strategy to Prevent and Minimise Gambling Harm 2025/26 to 27/28	169

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social 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	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

The submission aligns with the DCC’s Gambling and TAB Venues Policy and Te Taki Haruru — Māori Strategic Framework.

Māori Impact Statement

Ministry of Health 2024/25 data states Māori were 3.13 times more likely to be moderate-risk or problem gamblers than non-Māori and non-Pacific peoples. In the Māori adult population, approximately 3.7 percent were moderate-risk or problem gamblers, and 5.7 percent were low-risk gamblers. By reducing harm from problem gambling, the Crown is more effectively meeting its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi guarantees Māori authority over their taonga, including their hauora (health).

The DCC’s Te Taki Haruru — Māori Strategic Framework includes the principle of Autaketake and its values of tapu and noa. Its key directions include: Communities, resources and customary practices are protected through responsible regulatory measures and processes, and that we are guides by tikaka and kawa (protocol) for the wellbeing of whānau and wider community.

The draft Strategy does not include any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty was included as a principle in the previous strategy, along with its role in the health and disability system. The DCC submission requests that these be included in the draft Strategy.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for the LTP, Annual Plan, Financial Strategy or Infrastructure Strategy.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been engagement with the Problem Gambling Foundation in the preparation of this submission.

Engagement - internal

This submission was developed by the Corporate Policy team and the Alcohol, Psychoactive Drugs and Gambling Advisor.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are potential implications for Community Boards as gambling activities occur in these areas.

Council

24 September 2024

Litter Compliance Policy 2024

Department: Waste and Environmental Solutions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The Dunedin City Council’s current Litter Compliance Policy was approved on 25 May 2021 and was due for review on 1 July 2024. The review was carried out, and the resulting draft Litter Compliance Policy 2024 was approved for public notification on 31 July 2024.

2 Public notification has been carried out. The draft Litter Compliance Policy 2024 has been amended according to the feedback received, as presented in this report. This report is seeking Council approval to adopt the revised Policy.

3 Territorial authorities can adopt infringement notice provisions (in this instance, in the form of a Litter Compliance Policy) under the Litter Act 1979. This empowers the authority to infringe and charge for incidents of litter and illegal dumping.

4 The purpose of the Policy is to ensure that Ōtepoti Dunedin residents wellbeing and environment remains protected from harm by minimising the negative effects of littering and illegal dumping/fly tipping.

5 The Policy adopts the penalties and enforcement provisions prescribed by the Litter Act 1979 (The Act). Since the legislation has remained the same, only minor changes to the Policy have been made during this review.

6 The Policy has been updated to reflect the new kerbside collection services, in line with provisions set out in the Act, and amendments made to remove the requirement to prove intent in committing some offences which had been incorrectly referenced in the earlier policy.

7 Further changes have been made to the Policy to improve details for compliance for collection services following the public notification period.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Revokes the existing Litter Compliance Policy 2021

b) Adopts the proposed Litter Compliance Policy 2024

BACKGROUND

1 The Act provides for a Council to adopt infringement provisions for breaches of the Act, only after it has given at least 14-days’ notice of its intention to do so. This public notification period was carried out from 10 August and ended on 27 August, and the policy has been amended in response to the feedback received.

2 The existing Policy needed to be updated to reflect the new kerbside collection services which began in July 2024.

3 The draft policy was presented to Council on 31 July 2024 and was approved for public notification. This public notification period has been completed.

Moved (Mayor Jules Radich/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

a) Approves the proposed Litter Compliance Policy 2024 for public notification with intention to adopt.

b) Notes a 14-day public notification period was required to adopt the infringements set out in the proposed Litter Compliance Policy 2024.

Motion carried (CNL/2024/001)

DISCUSSION

4 Littering and illegal dumping incidents cause environmental effects that impact on communities and ecological systems including the contamination of land, waterways, and the ocean.

5 The DCC regularly receives reports of littering and illegal dumping events. Residents, businesses, and visitors to Dunedin often request that the DCC do more to address these issues.

6 Rubbish can escape from properties during high winds and heavy rain, as well as attracting animal scavengers. In the worst cases rubbish stockpiles can become potential health hazards.

7 In recognition of the Council’s ongoing commitment to the Sophia Charter DCC staff have reviewed the Policy in alignment with the new kerbside collection services. This supports progress for the Sophia Charter by aligning with the Charter’s goal:

“Our goal is that North Dunedin is a strong student neighbourhood where residents take responsibility for themselves, each other, and the wider community; it will be a place that is fun, vibrant, safe, and secure and that fosters student success and wellbeing.”

8 The suggested amendments will assist the DCC in creating a cleaner and safer environment.

9 The review offers to ease the issuing of infringement notices and charging for offenses by removing the requirement to prove intent which had been incorrectly referenced in the earlier policy.

10 The final proposed policy is attached to this report (Attachment A: Final Litter Compliance Policy 2024). Amendments have been made according to feedback received during the public notification period. These amendments are provided in orange.

11 It should be noted that littering or illegal dumping on private land is only an offence under the Act if it is done without the consent of the occupier. In these cases, before the DCC could issue an infringement, it would have to contact the occupier and confirm that the litter or dumped items had been left on their property without the occupier’s permission. Where an occupier has given consent, the DCC can issue a Notice to Clear Litter and may pursue enforcement by issuing an infringement if the occupier fails to comply with the Notice.

12 Since littering or illegal dumping on private land is only an offence under the Act if it is done without the consent of the occupier, contamination of recycling bins is not able to be regulated under this Policy. Regulating against contamination of recycling or composting would require the authority to adopt a bylaw under section 56 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

Litter Compliance Policy Amendments

The proposed Litter Compliance Policy 2024 includes the amendments described below and new infringement offences for breaches of the Act. The amendments in italics are the changes made following the public notification period:

· Altered the time that rubbish and recycling bins can be left out in the Central Business District for collection, to suit collection services.

· Altered the size of cardboard bundles for collection in the Central Business District to improve safety for the kerbside collection services.

· Removed the requirement to prove intent of committing an offence (Litter Act 1979 Section 19A).

· Use of containers other than the official bins for DCC’s or other private companies’ collection services.

· Overfilled, or bins that weigh too much.

· Any organic material put out for collection which is not contained by the bins for the collection service. This is then treated as litter left in public places.

· The infringement fee for a second or subsequent offence of littering (single item) has been decreased to $200, to bring it into scale with the infringement fees for larger quantities of litter.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

13 Council approves the proposed Litter Compliance Policy 2024 for adoption.

Advantages

· Provides for a clear and transparent process for managing litter offences.

· Provides a consistent enforcement approach for Council to use in dealing with littering and illegal dumping events.

· Updates the existing Litter Compliance Policy 2021 to suit the new kerbside collection services.

Disadvantages

· Additional resource may be required to enforce the Policy.

Option Two – Status Quo

14 Council does not adopt the proposed Litter Compliance Policy 2024.

Advantages

· No change made to Council policies.

· No additional resource required to enforce the Policy.

Disadvantages

· Limits Council’s ability to address litter and illegal dumping of waste.

NEXT STEPS

15 The existing Policy will be replaced by the new Policy on the Dunedin City Council website, and communications will be arranged to let the public and key stakeholders know the new Policy has been adopted.

Signatories

Author:

Leigh McKenzie - Waste Minimisation Officer, Waste and Environmental Solutions

Authoriser:

Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Final Litter Compliance Policy 2024	211

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities, promotes the social, 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	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Parks and Recreation Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (2020)

Māori Impact Statement

Through Te Taki Haruru, mana whenua have provided two key intents that strongly align with the Litter Compliance Policy. The Policy aims to positively increase the environmental mauri of Ōtepoti Dunedin by ensuring it is kept clean through litter monitoring and implementing educational and punitive measures for those liable. Additionally, the utilisation of tapu and noa aims to make Ōtepoti Dunedin as healthy and safe as possible by having processes in place for dumped litter that is hazardous or dangerous.

Sustainability

Improved regulation of litter and illegal dumping which harm the environment.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

No implications.

Financial considerations

No implications.

Significance

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

Policy.

Engagement – external

The Litter Compliance Policy was publicly notified. The Sustainability Office and Proctor at the University of Otago were engaged. During the public notification period, feedback was received from a commercial collection company, and amendments have been made accordingly.

Engagement - internal

Engagement meetings were held with Waste and Environmental Solutions, Corporate Policy, the Legal Team, and the Māori Partnerships Team to ensure the amended Litter Compliance Policy is correct and complementary to the DCC’s other work streams. During the public notification period, further feedback was received from Waste and Environmental Solutions staff, and amendments have been made accordingly.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

DCC in-house legal counsel were consulted during the policy review process. No risks have been identified.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts have been identified.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

24 September 2024

Submission on the Otago Regional Council Air Quality Management Review

Department: Corporate Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report seeks Council approval of a draft Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) to the Otago Regional Council on the Air Quality Management Review. The ORC presentation on approaches to improving air quality is attached as Attachment B.

2 The ORC is seeking feedback on the four key factors challenging air quality in Otago as well as identified approach to address these.

3 The DCC’s draft submission supports the ORC’s general approach and raises some specific points of attention related to DCC’s commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi, waste management, home heating and transport.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Approves the draft DCC submission, with any amendments, on the Otago Regional Council on the Air Quality Management Review.

b) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes to the submission if required.

BACKGROUND

Overview of air quality management in Otago and background of the Review

4 The Resource Management Act 1991 requires regional councils to manage air quality. In Otago, the ORC ensures National Environmental Standards for Air Quality 2004 (NESAQ) – which set the limits on pollution for the protection of human health – are met while also ensuring overall air quality is well managed. An air quality monitoring network focuses on areas with poor air quality and areas that require improvement.

5 The ORC carries out science, monitoring and compliance activities and sets rules for air quality in the Regional Plan: Air, which is due for review. The ORC took this opportunity to conduct a more comprehensive review of air quality management in Otago.

6 DCC staff were involved in a stakeholder focus group on air quality dedicated to territorial authorities, held on 2 September as part of the public engagement on the Air Quality Management Review. The ORC will collate and analyse the information received, along with feedback from public engagement, and prepare a report to Council.

7 The ORC anticipates that this will include a new Air Strategy and Otago Air Regional Plan, with the plan to be notified in June 2025.

Air quality challenges and options identified by the ORC

8 In Otago, the ORC worked with the Southern District Health Board (SDHB) in 2022 to show that higher matter concentrations in the air increased the risk of acute respiratory infections, highlighting the risk of even short-term exposure. Some areas of Otago are not meeting the current NESAQ guidelines. Air quality can be especially poor because of the unique climate and landscape.

9 Dunedin city has met the NESAQ for the past five years, and has relatively good air quality year-round, although emissions can accumulate in some of the valley areas (Source: Land Air Water Aotearoa).

10 The key source of air pollution in Otago are listed below, alongside potential corrective actions proposed by the ORC:

· Home heating: potential approaches include requiring all new installations of solid fuel burners to meet ultra-low emission burner criteria, phasing out the burning of coal for home heating, working with power suppliers to improve the reliability and affordability of electrical heating appliances, providing financial support to help Otago homeowners replace higher emitting solid-fuel burners, education programmes about wood burner best practice.

· Outdoor burning: potential approaches include preventing outdoor burning during winter months (April–September), requiring smoke management plans for large-scale/long-lasting outdoor burning, preventing outdoor burning on properties smaller than 2 hectares, requiring alternatives to burning where practicable (e.g., composting, mulching) and education programmes.

· Vehicle emissions: potential approaches include creating policies that recognise the effects of nitrogen dioxide emissions and focus on reducing those emissions, improving public transport to reduce reliance on private vehicles, decarbonising ORC’s fleet vehicles and buses, joint education campaigns with city/district councils.

· Industrial emissions, odour, dust, and agricultural spraying: potential approaches include strengthening existing rules, requiring resource consent applications for discharges to air to use the best practicable option test to avoid or minimise adverse effects on air quality, ensuring adequate setbacks or buffer zones, requiring dust or odour management plans (currently used in Canterbury), providing information about FIDOL (frequency, intensity, duration, offensiveness, and location) assessments to complainants and emitters (currently used in Nelson and Canterbury).

DISCUSSION

11 The draft DCC submission was prepared by Corporate Policy with input from Zero Carbon, Waste Management, Housing, Māori Partnership, Transport and City Development teams. Feedback from Councillors have been incorporated into the draft submission.

12 In the draft submission:

· Regarding mana whenua engagement: the DCC notes that te ao Māori informing policies and plans is an important goal for mana whenua and is relevant with section 7.1 of the current Plan and Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991.

· Regarding outdoor burning: the DCC notes that extension of waste collection into rural areas where most of the outdoor burning occurs would be unrealistic and uneconomic. The DCC supports education campaigns and alternatives to burning where practicable (e.g., composting, mulching).

· Regarding home heating: the DCC supports phasing out of coal burning and replacing poor performing heat sources and encouraging the use of alternatives. The DCC also proposes a system of warnings or fines to be issued if residents continue to use solid fuel burners for which issues have been identified (e.g. after a complaint) and not fixed.

· Regarding transport: the DCC supports an increase in reliable and affordable public transport notably to enable mana whenua to live within their papakāika/communal Māori land, while staying connected to the central city without needing to rely on private vehicles. The DCC would also support measures to reduce vehicle idling.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option – Approve the draft submission

13 Under this option, Council approves the draft DCC submission to ORC on the new approach to Air Quality Management.

Advantages

· Enables the DCC to provide input into the ORC’s approach to Air Quality Management and advocate for quality air in Dunedin.

· Enables the DCC to demonstrate the DCC’s commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi.

· Enables the DCC to support approaches that align with its Zero Carbon target.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages to this option.

Option Two – Do not approve the submission

14 Under this option, Council does not approve the draft DCC submission to ORC on the new approach to Air Quality Management.

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

· Missed opportunity to provide input into the ORC’s approach to Air Quality Management and advocate for quality air in Dunedin.

· Missed opportunity to demonstrate the DCC’s commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi.

· Missed opportunity to support approaches that align with its Zero Carbon target.

NEXT STEPS

15 If Council approves the draft submission, staff will submit it, with any amendments, to the ORC.

Signatories

Author:	Alix de Blic - Senior Policy Analyst
Authoriser:	Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Submission on the ORC's Air Quality Management Review	223
⇩b	ORC Air Quality presentation	226

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 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	☐	☐	✔
Future Development Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	✔	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	✔
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	✔	☐	☐

The ORC Air Management Plan and Strategy could have implications for Treaty of Waitangi obligations and impacts on the DCC’s ability to achieve its Zero Carbon 2030 Goal.

The submission aligns with the DCC Zero Carbon Plan and Te Taki Haruru – Māori Strategic Framework.

Māori Impact Statement

The DCC has a Treaty of Waitangi commitment to working in partnership to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes and to have an active role through Te Taki Haruru. The submission notes that te ao Māori informing policies and plans is an important goal for mana whenua and is relevant with section 7.1 of the current Plan and Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991. The submission also supports an increase in reliable and affordable public transport notably to enable mana whenua to live within their papakāika/communal Māori land.

Sustainability

The quality of air is an important component of a sustainable future as bad air quality has impacts on human and animal health as well as biodiversity in general.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The submission has no impact on long term planning.

Financial considerations

The submission has no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been no external engagement in the development of this submission.

Engagement - internal

The draft submission has been prepared by the Corporate Policy team, with input from Waste Management, Housing, Zero Carbon, Transport and Māori Partnerships teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

This submission does not hold any specific risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The submission is likely to be of interest to all communities in Dunedin, including those served by Community Boards, although there are no direct implications for Community Boards.

Council

24 September 2024

Proposed Event Road Closures

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The DCC has received temporary road closure applications relating to the following events:

a) Green Island Market Day

b) Rainbow Run

c) New Zealand Track and Field Championships

2 This report recommends that Council approves the temporary closure of the affected roads.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Resolves to close the roads detailed below (pursuant to Section 319, Section 342, and Schedule 10 clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA 1974)):

i) Green Island Market Day

Saturday,
7 December 2024

7.00am to 3.00pm

Main South Road Green Island, from Howden Street to Church Street.

Jenkins Street, from Main South Road to Shand Street.

Parking restrictions will be in place in Howden and Shand Streets.

ii) Rainbow Run

Sunday, 20October 2024

11.00am to 12.30pm

Logan Park Drive, from Anzac Avenue to Butts Road.

iii) 2025 New Zealand Track and Field Championships

Thursday, 6 March 2025

Sunday, 9 March 2025

7.00am to 8.00pm

Logan Park Drive, from Anzac Avenue to Butts Road.

BACKGROUND

3 Council’s Dunedin Festival and Events Plan supports the goal of a successful city with a diverse, innovative, and productive economy and a hub for skill and talent.

4 The areas proposed to be used for these events are legal roads and can therefore be temporarily closed to normal traffic if statutory temporary road closure procedures are followed. The procedures are set out in Section 319 of the LGA 1974 and give Council the power to stop or close any road (or part of a road) within the parameters of Section 342 and Schedule 10 of the LGA 1974 (Schedule 10 is included as Attachment A).

5 These procedures include:

· Consultation with the New Zealand Transport Authority Waka Kotahi and the Police.

· Public notice being given of the proposal to close any road (or part of a road), and public notice of a decision to close the road.

· Council being satisfied that traffic is not likely to be unreasonably impeded.

6 A resolution of Council is required where a proposal to temporarily close a road relates to public functions.

7 Council is required to give public notice of its decision. This notice will be published after this meeting and prior to the event, if approved.

DISCUSSION

Consultation and Notification

8 The Police and the New Zealand Transport Authority Waka Kotahi have no objections to the proposed road closures.

9 On Saturday, 17 August 2024, the proposed temporary road closures were advertised in the Otago Daily Times (Attachment B) with a deadline for feedback.

10 The event organisers contacted those considered affected prior to submitting their application, and no objections were received.

11 Schedule 10 clause 11(e) states a road cannot be closed more than 31 days in the aggregate in any one year. This limit will not be exceeded by the approval of the proposed temporary road closures.

Traffic Impacts

12 The event locations of these events have had identical road closures for the same, or similar event(s) in prior years without causing unreasonable delays to the travelling public.

13 Emergency services and public transport services will be managed through the temporary traffic management process.

14 The Temporary Traffic Management Plan process ensures that other issues such as temporary relocation of certain parking (e.g. taxi, mobility and Authorised Vehicles Only) are managed.

OPTIONS

15 Note any amendment to this report’s recommendations cannot be implemented without further consultation with the affected parties, New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi, the Police, and verifying that traffic impacts are acceptable.

Option One – Recommended Option

16 That the Council closes the sections of road as recommended in this report.

Advantages

· Roads can be closed, and the event will be able to proceed.

· The closures will assist in realising the economic, social, and cultural benefits associated with the events.

Disadvantages

· There will be temporary loss of vehicular access through the closed areas. However, there are detours available, and safety can be assured using temporary traffic management.

Option Two – Status Quo

17 That the Council decides not to close the roads in question.

Advantages

· There would be no detour required for the travelling public, and the roads would be able to be used as normal.

Disadvantages

· The events would not be able to go ahead, and the benefits of the events would be lost.

NEXT STEPS

18 Should the resolution be made to temporarily close the roads, Council staff will accept the temporary traffic management plans that have been received for the events and notify the public of the closures.

Signatories

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Scott MacLean - General Manager, Climate and City Growth

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Local Governement Act 1974, Schedule 10	255
⇩b	ODT advertising 17 08 2024	260

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social 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	✔	☐	☐

Events contribute to the Strategic Framework. Events contribute to the Economic Development Strategy, the Social Wellbeing Strategy. There is a Festival and Events Plan 2018-2023.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua have not been directly engaged with in relation to these road closures.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications, as the decision is a regulatory one and there are no direct costs to Council.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications. The cost of the proposed road closure is not a cost to Council.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been external engagement (as required by the LGA 1974), with the Police and New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi. Affected parties were notified and provided a time period for feedback.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with DCC Events and Transport. There is support for the events to proceed.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks should the recommended resolution be made.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

Council

24 September 2024

Resolution to Exclude the Public

That the Council excludes the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting (pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987) namely:

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 Confirmation of the Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting - 27 August 2024 - Public Excluded	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). s48(1)(d) Check to make report confidential.	.
C2 Confidential Council Actions from Resolutions at Council Meetings	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. S7(2)(g) The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. S7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C3 Confidential Council Forward Work Programme - September 2024	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C4 Confidential 9 Year Plan Forward Work Programme - September 2024	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C5 Confidential documents for notification of 2GP Plan Change 1: Minor improvements	S7(2)(j) The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C6 Dunedin City Holdings Group - Director Re-appointments	S7(2)(a) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C7 Project Procurement Options	S6(a) - The making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial. S7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

	Title	Page
A ⇩	Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting held on 27 August 2024	17