Notice of Meeting:

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council will be held on:

 

Date:                                                    Tuesday 28 September 2021

Time:                                                   10.00 am

Venue:                                                Edinburgh Room - Mayor and Councillors
Audio Visual Link - Members of the Public

 

Sandy Graham

Chief Executive Officer

 

Council

PUBLIC AGENDA

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Mayor Aaron Hawkins

 

Deputy Mayor

Cr Christine Garey

 

 

Members

Cr Sophie Barker

Cr David Benson-Pope

 

Cr Rachel Elder

Cr Doug Hall

 

Cr Carmen Houlahan

Cr Marie Laufiso

 

Cr Mike Lord

Cr Jim O'Malley

 

Cr Jules Radich

Cr Chris Staynes

 

Cr Lee Vandervis

Cr Steve Walker

 

Cr Andrew Whiley

 

 

Senior Officer                                               Sandy Graham, Chief Executive Officer

 

Governance Support Officer                  Lynne Adamson

 

 

 

Lynne Adamson

Governance Support Officer

 

 

Telephone: 03 477 4000

Lynne.Adamson@dcc.govt.nz

www.dunedin.govt.nz

 

The meeting will be live streamed on the Council’s You Tube page:  https://youtu.be/Eag2R2rSTtg

 

 

Note: Reports and recommendations contained in this agenda are not to be considered as Council policy until adopted.

 

 


Council

28 September 2021

 

 

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                                                                         PAGE

 

1             Public Forum                                                                                                                                                              4

2             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                    4

3             Confirmation of Agenda                                                                                                                                        4

4             Declaration of Interest                                                                                                                                           5

5             Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                                                                    19

5.1       Ordinary Council meeting - 10 August 2021                                                                                   19

5.2       Ordinary Council meeting - 27 July 2021                                                                                         20

5.3       Ordinary Council meeting - 3 September 2021                                                                             21   

Minutes of Community Boards

6             Saddle Hill Community Board - 10 June 2021                                                                                             22

7             West Harbour Community Board - 9 June 2021                                                                                         23

8             Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board - 28 July 2021                                                                                       24

9             Otago Peninsula Community Board - 24 June 2021                                                                                  25

Reports

10           Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings                                                                                          26

11           Council Forward Work Programme                                                                                                                31

12           Forward Work Programme from the 10 year plan 2021-31, incorporating the 2022/23 Annual Plan    41

13           Central City Plan Retail Quarter Detailed Business Case                                                                         49

14           Three Waters Reform                                                                                                                                          94

15           Community Housing - Waitlist Prioritisation                                                                                             225

16           10 Year Plan Update - Amenity Requests                                                                                                   240

17           Review of Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw                                                      247

18           Proposed Event Road Closures for October-November 2021                                                             293

Notice of Motion

19           Notice of Motion - New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame                                                                            305              

Resolution to Exclude the Public                                                                                                                     306

 

 


Council

28 September 2021

 

 

1          Public Forum

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

2          Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

3          Confirmation of agenda

Note: Any additions must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.


Council

28 September 2021

 

Declaration of Interest

 

  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

 

2.         Elected members are reminded to update their register of interests as soon as practicable, including amending the register at this meeting if necessary.

 

3.         Staff members are reminded to update their register of interests as soon as practicable.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes/Amends if necessary the Elected Members' Interest Register attached as Attachment A; and

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

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

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Councillor Register of Interest

7

b

ELT Register of Interest

17

  



Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 


 

 


Council

28 September 2021

 

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council meeting - 10 August 2021

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 10 August 2021 as a correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting  held on 10 August 2021 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

 

 


Council

28 September 2021

 

Ordinary Council meeting - 27 July 2021

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 27 July 2021 as a correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting  held on 27 July 2021 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

 

 


Council

28 September 2021

 

Ordinary Council meeting - 3 September 2021

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 03 September 2021 as a correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting  held on 3 September 2021 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

 

   


Council

28 September 2021

 

Minutes of Community Boards

Saddle Hill Community Board - 10 June 2021

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Notes the minutes of the Saddle Hill Community Board meeting held on 10 June 2021.

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Saddle Hill Community Board held on 10 June 2021 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

28 September 2021

 

West Harbour Community Board - 9 June 2021

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Notes the minutes of the West Harbour Community Board meeting held on 09 June 2021.

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of West Harbour Community Board held on 9 June 2021 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

28 September 2021

 

Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board - 28 July 2021

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Notes the minutes of the Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board meeting held on 28 July 2021

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board held on 28 July 2021 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

  


Council

28 September 2021

 

Otago Peninsula Community Board - 24 June 2021

 

 

gg

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Notes the minutes of the Otago Peninsula Community Board meeting held on 24 June 2021

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Otago Peninsula Community Board held on 24 June 2021 (Under Separate Cover 1)

 

   


Council

28 September 2021

 

Reports

 

Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings

Department: Civic

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to show progress on implementing resolutions made at Council meetings. 

2          As this report is an administrative report only, there are no options or Summary of Considerations.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

 

Notes the Open and Completed Actions from resolutions of Council meetings as attached.

 

discussion

3          This report also provides an update on resolutions that have been actioned and completed since the last Council meeting. 

NEXT STEPS

4          Updates will be provided at future Council meetings.

 

Signatories

Author:

Lynne Adamson - Governance Support Officer

Authoriser:

Clare Sullivan - Manager Governance

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Open and Completed Action Lists

27

  


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Council

28 September 2021

 

 

Council Forward Work Programme

Department: Corporate Policy

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to provide the updated forward work programme for the 2021-2022 year (Attachment A). 

2          As this is an administrative report only, there are no options or Summary of Considerations. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Notes the updated Council forward work programme as shown in Attachment A.

 

DISCUSSION

3          The forward work programme is a regular agenda item which shows areas of activity, progress and expected timeframes for Council decision making across a range of areas of work. 

4          As an update report, the purple highlight shows changes to timeframes.  New items added to the schedule are highlighted in yellow. Items that have been completed or updated are shown as bold. 

5          The forward work programme contains items from the action list where the action has resulted in a report to be presented back to Council.  Items have been closed on the action list and incorporated in the forward work programme.

NEXT STEPS

6          An updated report will be provided for the next Council meeting.

 

Signatories

Author:

Sharon Bodeker - Corporate Planner

Authoriser:

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Forward work programme - September 2021

33

  


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

 

Forward Work Programme from the 10 year plan 2021-31, incorporating the 2022/23 Annual Plan

Department: Corporate Policy

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to present a forward work programme focusing on the implementation of Council decisions made during the development of the 10 year plan 2021-31, and for the development of the 2022/23 Annual Plan (Attachment A). 

2          As this is an administrative report only, there are no options or Summary of Considerations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the Forward Work Programme from the 10 year plan 2021-31, incorporating the 2022/23 Annual Plan. 

 

DISCUSSION

3          During the development of the 10 year plan 2021-31, decisions were made at the Council meeting held on 27 – 29 January 2021, and at the deliberations meeting held on 31 May – 3 June 2021, that are now in the process of being actioned.  Some of the work streams arising from the decisions made need to be completed in time to inform the development of the 2022/23 Annual Plan. 

4          The forward work programme shows areas of activity, progress and expected timeframes for reporting back to meetings of Council and/or Committees.  At this stage, the 2022 meeting dates have not been confirmed, but will be when the 2022 meeting schedule is adopted later this year.

5          This forward work programme is updated and presented to Council on a two-monthly cycle.

NEXT STEPS

6          An updated report will be presented to the November 2021 Council meeting.

 

Signatories

Author:

Sharon Bodeker - Corporate Planner

Authoriser:

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Forward work programme - September 2021

43

  


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

 

Central City Plan Retail Quarter Detailed Business Case

Department: Project Management Office

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to present the Retail Quarter George Street Detailed Business Case (DBC) to Council.  The DBC provides information, evidence and assessments on do minimum, one-way south, one-way north and two-way options for the Retail Quarter George Street Upgrade project.

2          The lack of a differentiation between the options has meant the Retail Quarter DBC has not provided a preferred option.  Both the one-way and two-way options are considered viable and deliver improved benefits.  The main difference between the one-way options compared to the two-way option is the amount of space provided for public realm activities (e.g. social interaction, amenity, cultural representation and art) compared to vehicle movement.

3          Following a Council decision, detailed design and construction phases for the Retail Quarter will begin. This will include commencing Enabling Works in the Filleul Street, Great King Street and streets intersecting George Street.

4          This report also includes a draft Retail Quarter Revitalisation Plan, which provides a roadmap for how stakeholders could work together to ensure the ongoing success and vitality of the area, irrespective of any infrastructure upgrades.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the the findings of the Retail Quarter George Street Detailed Business Case

b)     Confirms its previous decision to endorse a one-way design for the Retail Quarter George Street Upgrade project

c)     Decides the preferred direction of travel for one-way vehicle movements

 

BACKGROUND

5          The Central City Plan and Retail Quarter George Street upgrade have been reported to Council on several occasions.

6          The Retail Quarter (George Street) project aims to renew existing three waters infrastructure, improve safety and accessibility, and enhance the amenity of the Retail Quarter. 

7          On 25 May 2020 Council considered an update on the preliminary design work on the Retail Quarter project and reconstituted a Central City Advisory Group to provide feedback throughout the detailed design and business case stages of this project.

8          On 17 November 2020 the Planning and Environment Committee considered an independent review of the preliminary design and community engagement for the Retail Quarter.  The meeting resolved:

            

Moved Mayor Aaron Hawkins/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Committee:

 

a)        Notes the findings of the independent review by Kobus Mentz of the Dunedin Retail Precinct (George Street upgrade) project.

c)        Revokes the Planning and Environment Committee resolution (PLA/2019/025) from 11 June 2019 which endorsed the preliminary design for the George Street – Central City Plan project.

Motion carried (PLA/2020/00137)

Moved (Mayor Aaron Hawkins/Cr Steve Walker):

 

That the Committee:

 

b)        Approves proceeding to detailed business case and developed design with a one–way design with flexibility to go to two-way shared street design for the Dunedin Retail Precinct George Street upgrade.

The Committee voted by division:

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

 

Against:         Crs Rachel Elder, Carmen Houlahan, Lee Vandervis, Jules Radich and Andrew Wiley (5).

Abstained:    Nil

 

The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 5

 

Motion carried (PLA/2020/038)

 

9          Following the 17 November 2020 Planning and Environment Committee meeting work has progressed on continued engagement with key stakeholders and the completion the detailed business case (DBC).  The detailed business case is included as Attachment A

DISCUSSION

Retail Quarter Revitalisation Plan

10        A thriving and prosperous Retail Quarter is a prerequisite of all key stakeholders irrespective of the infrastructure upgrades planned for George Street.  There remains a strong desire to work collaboratively to find ways to ensure the area succeeds and is attractive to a broad range of Dunedin’s residents. Stakeholders have suggested that opportunities related to retail management, private-sector development, collaborative partnerships with various groups, and sustainability should be further explored.

11        A Retail Quarter Revitalisation Plan has been developed based on a similar approach adopted for the Warehouse Precinct project.  The Plan takes a holistic approach and clarifies how stakeholders could work together in different ways to enhance the area, regardless of how the street is upgraded.  

12        The draft Retail Quarter Revitalisation Plan is included as Attachment B.  The Plan will provide a roadmap to identify the outcomes wanted for the Retail Quarter and the different ways people could contribute to building a successful and positive future for the area.

13        The Revitalisation Plan will contribute to building on-going relationships between the DCC and stakeholders in the area, which will be an important component in the area’s success

14        The draft Plan will be released for public feedback in the coming weeks.  Stakeholders will be asked if the Plan assumptions and outcomes align with their expectations. Once feedback has been obtained and integrated into the document, a final version and implementation plan will be produced and distributed.

Detailed Business Case

15        The Retail Quarter DBC follows the Treasury Better Business Cases guidance. It is organised around a ‘five-case model’, designed to assess the investment:

a)         is supported by a compelling case for change - the 'strategic case'

b)        optimises value-for-money, including public value - the 'economic case'

c)         is commercially viable - the 'commercial case'

d)        is financially affordable - the 'financial case'

e)        is achievable - the 'management case'.

16        Use of the DBC model is a prerequisite for obtaining New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi co-funding.

17        A constraint of the DBC process is its focus on infrastructure matters.  This presents a risk that broader issues to ensure the Retail Quarter’s success are left unconsidered.  The Revitalisation Plan helps manage any risks by ensuring a holistic approach to the area is taken.   

18        The DBC process requires a robust assessment of the various options, however there are some limitations to the process.  The business case process is a good tool for assessing the benefits between alternative discrete solutions, such as comparing a bypass, to a bridge, to a tunnel to solve a transport congestion problem.  There is however a risk of overstating the differentiation between options when the solutions are very similar. 

19        This sensitivity issue is apparent in the Retail Quarter DBC because the margins between the options are small and relate to limited criteria.   The main differences between the Retail Quarter options (one-way compared to two-way) relate to the amount of space provided for other activities (e.g. social interaction, amenity, cultural representation and art) compared to vehicle movement.  

20        The lack of a differentiation between the options has meant the Retail Quarter DBC has not provided a preferred option.  Both the one-way and two-way options are considered viable and deliver improved benefits. The findings of the DBC are summarised below.

Detailed Business Case Options

21        The detailed business case (DBC) has compared the following four options.

a)         Do minimum (replacing infrastructure and returning George Street to its current form)

b)        One-way north

c)         One-way south

d)        Two-way slow street

22        A do nothing or do minimum option is a standard inclusion in any DBC process to measure the benefits of any change proposal.  The do minimum option has not been considered in detail during the DBC as it is inconsistent with Council’s decision to fund the George Street Upgrade project.  It also does not deliver improved safety and amenity benefits, and it is not supported by key stakeholders. 

23        The DBC tested both the one-way and the two-way options to determine the differences and benefits between the approaches.

24        During investigation of the “one-way option with the flexibility to go to a two-way shared street”, a number of technical issues were identified that make this option difficult and more expensive to implement.  These include:

a)         Shifting between one-way and a two-way configuration requires substantial changes to intersections, traffic signal location, crossing points for pedestrians, tactile locations, signage, road markings and access to parking to ensure it operates safely and effectively. These changes could not be made easily and/or regularly.

b)        Permanently reversing the one-way to a two-way street would require additional physical intersection works, which would require closure of the street for an extended period of time, resulting in further disruption to businesses. This work is unlikely to attract Waka Kotahi co-funding.

c)         The idea of regularly changing between one-way and two-way would create confusion for users and associated safety concerns.

d)        Attempting to incorporate the flexibility between one-way and two-way would compromise the quality of the design and limit realisation of the amenity and spatial benefits of the one-way option (e.g. no plantings, rain gardens, or street furniture could easily be incorporated into a future two-way space).

25        For these reasons, “a one-way option with the flexibility to go to a two-way shared street” is not considered a viable option. 

26        The flexibility that Council is seeking to provide in how the street is used could be achieved by “smart street” technology and initiatives.  These can be applied to either the one-way or two-way options.

27        “Smart street” initiatives include automatic bollards, digital signage, and flexible zones such as parking areas that could change how the area is used at different times of the day (e.g. loading zones in the early morning, parking during the day, outdoor seating at night), or allow blocks to shift to full pedestrianisation at different times (e.g. Sundays, late night shopping, cruise ship season, during major events etc).

28        This approach would also make it easier for closing blocks along George Street for events, requiring less temporary traffic management set-ups.

29        Smart street technologies and initiatives have been allowed for and included in cost estimates for one-way and two-way options.  

Detailed Business Case Findings

30        A summary of the DBC findings is provided below.

Vehicle Movement

31        Traffic modelling has demonstrated all options are technically feasible.  With some changes undertaken in the Enabling Works package in Filleul and Great King Streets, all the options demonstrated there was little difference across the wider network in relation to travel times and congestion.

32        The one-way north scores slightly higher than the two-way option, with the one-way south option having the lowest score. The scoring differences between the options are minor and relate mostly to travel times. 

33        The one-way south option scores slightly better for safety benefits because it provides improved opportunities to remove manoeuvres and simplify the five-way George, London, Pitt, Frederick Streets intersection.   The one-way south also scored slightly higher in CCAG members preference.  The one-way north scored slightly higher for reduced travel time. 

Amenity Value

34        Place and place-making improvements can be achieved through either a one-way or two-way option. The one-way option offers a greater amount of public space, which can be used for a range of other activities such as arts and culture, social interaction and activation events. The two-way option has less public space compared to the one-way options, however it is still an improvement on the status quo.  

Safety

35        Reducing vehicle speed in the area has a positive benefit on the safety of all road users (particularly vulnerable road users) and discourages the use of the area as a through-route, diverting vehicles to other parts of the network.

36        Within the one-way options, some concerns remain from both advocates and the reviewers that cyclists and micro-mobility modes (such as scooters and skateboards) being able to move in both directions will create safety risks for vulnerable users.  In the two-way option the concerns around cyclist movements can be mitigated more easily.  Demarcating non-shared pedestrian zones and managing the shared spaces to ensure people feel safe in the area will be important. Solutions for these issues and to specific accessibility needs will be considered during detailed design. 

Car Parking

37        Similar amounts of on-street car-parking along George Street can be provided in the one-way or two-way options. 

38        Under either option, car parking spaces along George St will be retained wherever possible.  Key stakeholders will be consulted with on any proposed changes to car parking.  Any proposed changes will be considered by the Regulatory Subcommittee and Council.       

Accessibility

39        The concept of universal access has guided the concept designs of both the one-way and two-way street options. Feedback from disability groups and the independent peer review by MR Cagney accessibility expert Bridget Burdett are in favour of a one-way option.  This is due to the additional space it creates for people and reduced congestion and clutter, which have negative impacts for those with disabilities.

40        All options have proposed expanding disability parking, which is broadly supported. Disability advocates have noted that there is a possibility for this project to be a leader in inclusiveness.

Bus Movement

41        In both the one-way and two-way street options, buses are re-routed down Great King Street, returning to George Street via the Frederick Street intersection. The bus stop currently located on George Street will be removed and relocated to Great King Street, close to the existing Hospital entrance. The reasons for this relocation are discussed in detail in Section 5 of the DBC.

42        The Bus Users Support Group Ōtepoti are concerned about moving the buses away from George St.  However other groups support it, noting that George Street is not the best route for buses, due to safety concerns for vulnerable users and due to the reduction of amenity caused by large vehicles. The slower nature of the street will also the impact the efficiency of buses.

43        Improved pedestrian facilities on St Andrew, Hanover and Frederick Street will be provided to address concerns about reduced access for bus users between Great King Street (including the existing bus hub) and George Street. Design work to upgrade the Albion Lane pedestrian link as part of this project is also underway, providing another important thoroughfare to George St.

Stakeholder Engagement

44        There remain divided opinions amongst CCAG members as to the preferred option. Details of the engagement with CCAG are provided in Section 9 of the DBC.

45        The do-minimum option is not favoured by CCAG members.

46        The one-way option is strongly supported by students and young people, Generation Zero, Pacific Trust Otago, Plunket, and disability groups. This option was preferred by these groups as it enhances pedestrian access, safety and allowed for more space for on street amenities to encourage activity along George Street. The one-way option is also preferred by Fire and Emergency New Zealand and the New Zealand Police. One-way north was slightly favoured over one-way south by stakeholders.

47        The two-way option is strongly supported by commercial advocacy groups, individual retailers, landlords/developers, Grey Power, the Automobile Association, Bus Go Dunedin and Urban Access Dunedin as it retains the current access and parking configuration on George Street with improvements to pedestrian safety and access.

48        There are similar levels of support for one-way and two-way options, however the two-way option is generally more acceptable to CCAG members. Views around the one-way options are more polarised, with people expressing their strong support or strong opposition in comparison to the two-way option.  For the two-way option, the scores show a more neutral-to-positive assessment overall.

Enabling works

49        The Enabling Works are a package of changes to Great King Street, Filleul Street, and streets intersecting George Street. The plans for these works are included as Attachment C.

50        The aim of these works is to:

a)         Reduce the impact of road closures by providing motorists and buses with alternative options to George Street when physical works on George Street commence.

b)        Improve east to west connectivity and reduce the impacts of the construction of the new Dunedin hospital on traffic flow in the central city

51        The enabling works involve:

a)         Changes to Great King Street to make this a more efficient route for buses between the bus hub and Frederick Street. This is both to ensure bus movements while blocks of George Street are closed for construction and to make this a more efficient permanent route for services. There is also potential to include a right hand turn into the Great King Street carpark to improve access to off-street parking.

b)        Changes to Filleul Street and London Street in order to improve traffic flows and a more efficient alternative north-south route to George Street. A right-hand turn access from Filleul Street into the Meridian Mall/Golden Centre carpark will also be included to improve access to off-street parking.

c)         Improvements to the pedestrian environment in the area, including new footpath surfaces (a mix of new asphalt and concrete pavers), Barnes Dances, pedestrian refuges, reduced crossing distances, seating, and improved street lighting. There is a focus on providing safer, more accessible and convenient access for pedestrians to George Street, from Great King Street (including the bus hub), Filleul Street and surrounding areas.

d)        Additional cycle parking and charging stations for e-bikes.

e)        New street trees and planting.

f)         The replacement of three waters infrastructure where required.

52        The Enabling Works are not dependent or linked to any specific George Street option. They are changes that will deliver benefits irrespective of a one-way or two-way option being implemented.

53        There is expected to be approximately 10 car parking losses from these changes.  These losses have been minimised as much as possible.  The losses relate to:

a)         Installation of dedicated turning lanes for intersection efficiency, access to parking buildings and additional stacking capacity.

b)        Realignment of intersections to improve sightlines and to improve safety for all road users.

c)         The enlargement of build outs to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians.

d)        Increase in length of bus stops to ensure the main stops accommodate two buses simultaneously.

54        Engagement with businesses and other stakeholders in the area on the Enabling Works about potential parking losses has been delayed due to the recent lockdown. This information will be made available on the DCC website and the project team will visit businesses in the area to advise them on how to provide feedback on these plans.

55        While feedback on car parking across the Enabling Works is still to be finalised, the Enabling Works are planned to commence in October. The construction programme requires a reasonable amount of work to be completed before departing the area in late November to allow retailers a construction-free period during Christmas. Any car park losses will be considered by the Regulatory Subcommittee and Council before implementation.

56        The Quantity Surveyor estimates for the Enabling Works package is $11.01m. This is comprised of $5.4m for transport and safety improvements and $5.6m for three waters upgrades. The transport and safety improvements are included within the overall Retail Quarter budget.  The three waters upgrades are included in overall Three Waters budgets.  

OPTIONS

57        The options have been split into two decisions.  The first decision is for Council to confirm its previous decision to endorse a one-way design for the Retail Quarter George Street Upgrade project, or alternatively endorse a two-way design. 

58        If Council confirm a one-way design, a second decision would be required by Council is to decide the direction of the one-way. 

59        All the options presented below have been assessed as technically feasible, and of similar cost and environmental impact.

60        Quantity Surveyor estimates indicate that all options can be achieved within the existing Retail Quarter and Three Waters budgets in the 10-year Plan.

61        All the options deliver the following outcomes compared to status quo:

a)         Renewed three waters infrastructure.

b)        Improved safety outcomes for all road users.

c)         Improved accessibility.

d)        Limited reduction in car parking.

e)        Improved access to off-street parking opportunities and reduced traffic circulation.

f)         Reduced number of vehicles using George Street and increased number of vehicles using the improved alternative routes along Fillleul and Great King Streets.  

g)         More cycling and micro mobility parking opportunities.

62        Because these factors are common to all options, they have not been restated below, however Councillors should be aware of them when considering the options. 

Decision One

Option One – One-way street

Advantages

·        Offers more space than the two-way option for amenity, place-making and other uses.

·        One-way options have greater general support from vulnerable road users, who have a focus on safety objectives.

Disadvantages

·        The option does not have any support from the retail and commercial members of CCAG.

·        Safety concerns for vulnerable road users around counterflow cyclist movements.

Option Two – Two-way street

Advantages

·        This option is favoured by the retail and commercial members of CCAG.

·        Is generally more acceptable to the broader group of CCAG members, as it predominately scores neutral to positive.

Disadvantages

·        Offers less space for amenity, place-making and other uses than the one-way options (but still more than is available under the do minimum).

·        Has less support from vulnerable road users, who have a focus on safety objectives.

Decision Two

Option One – One-way north

Advantages

·        Results in marginally faster travel times compared to the one-way south option. 

·        Of the one-way options, the northbound direction had slightly more support from CCAG members.

Disadvantages

·        Feedback suggests the northbound direction is counter-intuitive to many Dunedin residents who view the Octagon as the destination they are travelling towards.

Option Two – One-way south

Advantages

·        Results in a safer intersection at the five-way George, London, Pitt, Frederick Streets intersection.

·        Has a slightly lower construction cost at the five-way intersection and therefore results in a slightly higher benefit cost ratio.

Disadvantages

·        Results in marginally slower travel times compared to the one-way north option.

NEXT STEPS

63        Following confirmation of Council’s preferred option, the business case will be submitted to Waka Kotahi for their consideration and assessment of co-funding.

64        Detailed design drawings for the George Street works will commence.

65        The Enabling Works construction will commence. Construction work will continue after Christmas, with a break during December to minimise disruption to businesses during Christmas and New Year.

66        The draft Retail Quarter Revitalisation Plan will be released for public feedback. Public feedback will be incorporated into a final document.

67        The Retail Quarter Project Team will continue to work closely with CCAG to seek on-going input into the detailed design.

68        The Retail Quarter Project Team will engage with the Retail Quarter Construction Reference Group to identify options to minimise disruption and help prepare communication material for the area during the construction period.  

69        Regular updates on the Retail Quarter project will be provided through the Planning and Environment Committee.  

 

Signatories

Author:

Glen Hazelton - Project Director, Central City Plan

Authoriser:

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Retail Quarter Detailed Business Case (available on the following link)

https://www.dunedin.govt.nz/retailquarter-detailed-business-case

62

b

Draft Retail Quarter Revitalisation Plan

81

c

Enabling Works Plans

93

d

CCAG Membership

 

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

Fit with strategic framework

 

Contributes

Detracts

Not applicable

Social Wellbeing Strategy

Economic Development Strategy

Environment Strategy

Arts and Culture Strategy

3 Waters Strategy

Spatial Plan

Integrated Transport Strategy

Parks and Recreation Strategy

Other strategic projects/policies/plans

Both the one-way and two-way options contribute to the overall strategic framework through renewing aging infrastructure, and by providing an increase in public realm that allows for amenity, activity, culture, and environmental benefits.

Māori Impact Statement

The project team has worked closely with Aukaha to ensure the incorporation and representation of Māori cultural values within the project. Further engagement will continue throughout the design and implementation phases.

Sustainability

There is a strong focus on sustainability within the project, taking a holistic view on economic, social and environmental factors. Further work is being undertaken on the potential for reducing and off-setting the carbon costs of the project.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The Retail Quarter project is a component of the Central City Plan and funding is included in the 10-year Plan.

Financial considerations

The Quantity Surveyor estimates indicate either the one-way or two-way options and the Enabling Works are within the existing Retail Quarter and Three Waters budget allowances in the 10-year Plan.

Waka Kotahi co-funding contributions are still to be confirmed.

On-going maintenance costs of one-way and two-way options are similar to existing maintenance costs.

Significance

The Retail Quarter George Street project is part of the Central City Plan.  The Central City Plan has been designed to guide development of the central city area for the next 10-15 years. There has been a high level of community engagement and participation in the project through several engagement opportunities, including through the 2018 – 2028 Long Term Plan. 

Engagement – external

There has been ongoing engagement with CCAG members throughout the Detailed Business Case process. This has been noted as positive by many members of the group.

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement has occurred with the Transportation, City Development, Three Waters, Policy, Waste Minimisation, Community and Events, and Parks and Recreation teams on relevant elements of both the Detailed Business Case and the draft Retail Quarter Revitalisation Plan.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Due to the divided views on the CCAG, whichever option Council chooses, some stakeholders will be disappointed. The DBC process and strong engagement with the CCAG has attempted to manage this risk by providing good data for decision-making.

The draft Retail Quarter Revitalisation Plan seeks to mitigate some of this risk by taking a more holistic approach and continuing to engage a range of partners in initiatives to reinvigorate the area.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no direct implications for Community Boards.

 

 


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

 

Three Waters Reform

Department: 3 Waters

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report updates the Council on the Government’s three waters regulatory and service delivery reform proposals. It also updates the Council on independent analyses of the aspects of the reform proposals commissioned by the Otago-Southland Three Waters Office.

2          A draft letter to the Minister of Local Government providing feedback from the Dunedin City Council on the proposed reforms is attached to this report as Attachment A.

3          As the Council’s primary feedback, the draft letter to the Minister recommends the Government resets the Three Waters Reform Programme. It requests that the Government partners with councils and iwi/Māori to:

a)         fully explore options for future three waters service delivery arrangements; and

b)        reassess and clearly define the relationships between the Three Waters Reform Programme and other major Government reform initiatives, including timeframes and sequencing of changes, dependencies, and resourcing considerations.

4          The draft letter also provides supplementary feedback intended to improve implementation and outcomes for communities should the Government resolve to continue advancing the proposed service delivery reforms announced in June 2021.

5          This report also outlines legislative considerations that may be relevant to any future Council decisions and consultation on three waters reform. The Council is not currently able to make any decisions on a future model for three waters service delivery in Dunedin as there is insufficient information and time available to meet the moral and legal requirements of council decision-making.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the updates on the three waters reform proposals.

b)     Notes the updates on independent analyses of aspects of the reform proposals commissioned by the Otago-Southland Three Waters Office.

c)     Approves, with any amendments, the draft feedback letter to the Minister of Local Government at Attachment A. 

d)     Authorises the Chief Executive to make any minor editorial changes to the letter

e)     Authorises the Mayor or his delegate to speak to the Minister and/or her officials in support of the letter if offered the opportunity.

f)     Notes the Council cannot make a formal decision to adopt an alternative model for three waters service delivery without first amending the 10 Year Plan 2021-31 and undertaking commensurate community consultation.

g)     Notes a decision to provide feedback to the Minister of Local Government by 1 October 2021 does not commit the Council to a particular position on a future model for three waters service delivery or to continued participation in the Government’s reform programme.

h)     Notes the Dunedin City Council is committed to consulting with the community on three waters reform in a meaningful way once the Council has further information from the Government on the next steps in the reform programme.

i)      Notes the Government intends to make further decisions about the three waters service delivery model after 1 October 2021.

 

BACKGROUND

6          The Government has initiated changes to three waters regulatory and service delivery arrangements to address challenges highlighted by the Government Inquiry into Havelock North Drinking Water and the Three Waters Review.

7          In June and July 2021, the Government made several substantial announcements and information releases in relation to the three waters reform proposals

8          On 2 June, the Government published financial modelling and analyses it commissioned from the Water Industry of Scotland and other consultancies to advance the evidence base that informs the case for nationwide three waters service delivery reforms.  Documents published as part of the 2 June 2021 information release are available on the Department of Internal Affairs website at https://www.dia.govt.nz/three-waters-reform-programme-national-evidence-base. The documents are listed in Attachment B.

9          On 30 June, the Government announced its proposed new water services system for New Zealand. Documents published as part of the 30 June announcement are available on the Department of Internal Affairs website at https://www.dia.govt.nz/three-waters-reform-programme-cabinet-decisions-and-reform-proposals. The documents are listed in Attachment B. 

10        In conjunction with the 30 June announcement, the Government also launched a new website to publicise three waters reforms: https://threewaters.govt.nz/

11        On 15 July, the Government announced a $2.5 billion package to support the transition to the new water services system.

12        The support package is made up of two components:

a)         A $2 billion component to invest in the future of local government and community well-being; and

b)        A $500 million component to ensure than no council is left financially worse off as a direct result of the three waters service delivery reforms.

13        The $2 billion component will be allocated to councils on the basis of a nationally consistent formula. The Dunedin City Council’s allocation is $46.172 million.

14        Documents published as part of the 15 July announcement are available on the Department of Internal Affairs website at https://www.dia.govt.nz/three-waters-reform-programme-reform-support-package. The documents are listed in Attachment B. 

15        Following these announcements, the Government initiated an eight-week period for Councils to provide feedback on the potential impacts of the proposed reforms and how they could be improved. The deadline for feedback is Friday 1 October 2021.

16        Further Government announcements on implementation measures and transition arrangements are expected after 1 October 2021.

Three waters regulatory reform update

17        The Water Services Bill, if passed, would replace Part 2A (Drinking Water) of the Health Act 1956 and implement system-wide reforms to the regulation of drinking water and source water.

18        At the Council meeting on 23 February 2021, the Council considered the Water Services Bill and approved a joint submission to Parliament’s Health Committee. The joint submission was prepared by the Otago-Southland Three Waters Office on behalf of all of the Otago and Southland councils, including the DCC.

19        The Health Committee delivered its report on the Water Services Bill on 10 August 2021. The Bill’s second reading in Parliament has been delayed by the recent COVID-19 lockdown. The Government intends for the Bill to be passed in 2021.

20        The Ministry of Health remains New Zealand’s drinking water regulator until the Water Services Bill passes through Parliament and comes into effect. At that point, Taumata Arowai will become the drinking water regulator.

21        The Ministry for the Environment intends to amend the National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water 2007 to align it with the Water Services Bill. Public consultation on the proposed amendments is expected in the near future.

22        Other Government reform initiatives

23        In addition to the three waters reform, the Government has announced further wide-ranging reforms related to freshwater, resource management, climate change and zero carbon, all of which have potential to have significant impacts on the delivery of three waters services.

·    Resource management system reform:

proposed Natural and Built Environments Act

proposed Strategic Planning Act (30-year spatial plans)

proposed Climate Change Adaptation Act

·    National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

·    National Policy Statement on Urban Development

·    New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

·    National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water

·    Review of the Future of Local Government

·    Zero Carbon Act and Climate Change Commission initiatives

24        The linkages and impacts between three waters reform and other Government reform is unclear, but these reform initiatives have potential overlapping regulatory, operational and cost impacts. 

DISCUSSION

Proposed new water services system

25        The reports and other documents published on 2 June and 30 June contain information about estimated potential three waters investment requirements for New Zealand, scope for efficiency gains from transformation of the three waters service delivery system, and the potential economic (efficiency) impacts of various three waters service delivery aggregation scenarios.

26        In summary, modelling done for the Government indicated a likely range for future three waters investment requirements at a national level in the order of $120 billion to $185 billion. This translates to an average household cost of between $1910 and $8690 by 2051 if councils continue to delivery three waters services on a standalone basis. The modelling also estimated these average household costs could be reduced to between $800 and $1640 per household and efficiencies in the range of 45% over 15-30 years if the proposed service delivery reforms go ahead. An additional 5,800 to 9,300 jobs and a GDP increase of between $14 billion to $23 billion in Net Present Value (NPV) terms over 30 years were also forecast.

27        Independent reviews by Beca and Farrierswier of the Government information noted the modelling gives reasonable estimates of the direction and order of magnitude of the impacts of three waters reform, but the difference in household cost estimates between the status quo and delivery reform options could be substantial.

28        As a result of this modelling, the Government has decided to:

a)         establish four statutory, publicly-owned water services entities to deliver drinking water, wastewater and stormwater services to communities across New Zealand;

b)        provide for local authority ownership of the new water services entities on a non-shareholding basis, with balance sheet separation between councils and the new entities;

c)         provide protections against future privatisation of the entities in the entities’ establishing legislation (including a prohibition on paying dividends to owners, and a legislative requirement to put any future privatisation proposal to a referendum);

d)        provide mechanisms for councils and mana whenua to influence the strategic objectives and priorities of the entities through regional representative groups that will set expectations and select the independent panels that appoint the entity boards;

e)        establish independent, competency-based boards to govern the new entities;

f)         set a clear national policy direction for the three waters sector, including integration with any new spatial / resource management planning processes;

g)         establish an economic regulation regime; and

h)        develop an industry transformation strategy.

29        As shown in the graphic below, Dunedin has been placed in water services entity D, which would service most of the South Island. The boundaries of Entity D broadly coincide with the Ngāi Tahu takiwā. The Government remains open to discussion on the precise boundaries of the proposed entities.

A picture containing timeline

Description automatically generated

A picture containing timeline

Description automatically generated

Financial considerations

30        In respect of the Government’s published information on financial impacts, the ‘local dashboard’ developed for Dunedin City Council shows the following:

31        In the dashboard graphic above:

a)         A is an estimate of current (2021) annual household charges for water services;

b)        B is an estimate of future annual household charges for water services in 2051 under continued council delivery of three waters services.

c)         C is an estimate of future annual household charges for water services in 2051 under delivery by a new water services entity; and

Otago-Southland Three Waters

32        In 2020, the DCC and nine other councils from across Otago and Southland (including the two regional councils) established the Otago-Southland Three Waters Office to support collective participation by the councils in the Government’s Three Waters Reform Programme.

33        In late-2020, the Otago-Southland Three Waters Office commissioned Morrison Low to assess council three waters infrastructure and services across Otago and Southland. The purpose of the assessment was to inform discussions within the two regions about options and future decisions relating to the Government’s reform programme.

34        In early-2021, Morrison Low completed a ‘Regional Situation Analysis’, which focused on challenges and opportunities at a regional scale.

35        Morrison Low’s draft ‘Cross-regional current state assessment’, which presented findings at the individual territorial authority level, was provided to the Council meeting on 25 May 2021.

36        In July 2021, Morrison Low provided each council with an individualised ‘Impacts assessment’ report. The DCC’s ‘Impacts assessment’ report is attached to this report as Attachment C.

37        The ‘Impacts assessment’ report assesses the impacts of three potential future scenarios for three waters service delivery in Dunedin:

a)         Continue participation in Government-led service delivery reforms.

b)        ‘Opt out’ of Government-led service delivery reforms: establish Otago-Southland entity.

c)         ‘Opt out’ of Government-led service delivery reforms: continue Dunedin City Council delivery model.

38        The purpose of the ‘Impacts assessment’ report is to provide information to support future Council decision making on participation in the Government’s Three Waters Reform Programme. The report highlights the differences between each of the options in terms of governance, future investment, financial considerations, resources, and risks and challenges.  

39        The ‘Impacts assessment’ report concluded there are expected to be some efficiencies and benefits from a combined regional entity compared to Dunedin delivering three waters services alone.

40        In August 2021, Morrison Low provided each council with an individualised review of the Water Industry of Scotland (WICS) data as it applied to each specific council. The report provided commentary on how to interpret the WICS calculations and how those relate to Dunedin, as well as a comparison of the approaches adopted by WICS and Morrison Low in the analysis of potential future costs with and without water reform. The DCC’s individualised review from Morrison Low is attached to this report as Attachment D.

41        Morrison Low’s review highlighted a range of areas where the WICS financial modelling and thus the Government’s case for change, from a financial perspective, has been overstated.  The WICS’s assumptions about debt to revenue ratios and efficiency savings have significant impact on modelled household costs under two different service delivery scenarios (continued council delivery, and delivery by a new water services entity). The difference between Morrison Low and WICS’s household cost estimates is substantial.

42        The Morrison Low conclusions were that overall, while the projected household charges from the WICS analysis may be the subject of some contention, they are likely to be directionally accurate. That is, household charges will increase in the new regulatory environment, and DCC ratepayers are likely to have lower household charges under the proposed entity delivery model than through continued council service delivery.

Opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed three waters reforms

43        The Government has asked for feedback on the potential impacts of the proposed reforms and how the reforms could be improved.

44        Specifically, councils have been asked to provide feedback on:

a)         how to ensure all communities have both a voice in the new three waters service delivery system and influence over local decisions;

b)        how to ensure there is effective representation on the new water services entities’ oversight boards; and

c)         how to ensure councils’ plans for growth, as reflected in spatial plans, district plans or LTPs, are appropriately integrated with water services planning.

45        The draft letter to the Minister at Attachment A recommends the Government resets the Three Waters Reform Programme. This is presented as the Council’s primary feedback. The draft letter requests that the Government partners with councils and iwi/Māori to:

a)         fully explore options for future three waters service delivery arrangements; and

b)        reassess and clearly define the relationships between the Three Waters Reform Programme and other major Government reform initiatives, including timeframes and sequencing of changes, dependencies, and resourcing considerations.

46        The draft letter also provides supplementary feedback intended to improve implementation and outcomes for communities should the Government resolve to continue advancing the proposed service delivery changes announced in June 2021. In the event that the Government continues with the current proposals, the draft letter recommends the Government:

a)         enables councils to engage meaningfully with their communities on service delivery reform by providing adequate time and appropriate information.

b)        undertakes further engagement with councils and iwi/Māori on mechanisms to enable local influence in the proposed new water services entities or other delivery models that may be developed.

c)         undertakes further engagement with councils and mana whenua on measures to strengthen the proposed protections against future privatisation of any new water services entities.

d)        undertakes further engagement with councils to improve the modelling of financial impacts of the proposed reforms.

e)        undertakes further engagement with councils on three waters workforce development initiatives to help ensure the objectives reforms can be achieved.

f)         ensures councils will retain the balance of power for setting the strategic direction for land use planning post-reform.

g)         provides an assurance that the Three Waters Reform Programme and the reform of the resource management system will coordinate to ensure there are strong mechanisms in place to implement local communities’ aspirations for growth and development.

h)        ensure any new entities will have clear civil defence and emergency management roles and responsibilities to support coordinated management of events.

47        The draft letter endorses a joint letter from the members of the Otago and Southland Mayoral Forums to the Minister. The letter, which is dated 25 August 2021 and is signed by the Mayor of Dunedin,  requests that the reform programme is paused to provide communities with adequate time to clearly understand the implications of the three waters proposals. The 25 August letter is attached to this report as Attachment E. 

Implementation of the new water services system and transition arrangements

48        It was previously understood that every council would make its own decision about participating in the reforms before any service delivery changes were implemented or transition arrangements begun. At this stage, the Government has not ruled out introducing legislation that would mandate an “all-in” approach to reform. Council decisions on continued participation in the service delivery reforms, if required, were previously scheduled to take place in December 2021.

49        The Government is expected to announce next steps after 1 October 2021. Next steps are likely to include details on implementation of the proposals, including the timeframes and responsibilities for any community or public consultation, and transition arrangements.

50        Legislation will be required to implement aspects of the proposal. Introduction of a Water Services Entities Bill to Parliament is expected to occur this in 2021.

51        The Government has indicated that the new water services entities would ‘go live’ in 2024. The Government is working on the assumption that council long-term plans for the 2024-2034 period will no longer include water services. 

52        The Government has acknowledged that the transition of stormwater functions to the new entities is likely to take longer than the transition of drinking water and wastewater functions. A technical reference group established to consider the future management of stormwater systems was due to advise Ministers on an approach to transition stormwater to the new water services entities in July 2021. No updates on this advice have been provided at this stage.

Council decision making and consultation

53        The current request from the Government is an optional request for feedback. Councils have not been asked for any formal decisions about continued participation in the reform programme at this stage. Rather, the Government has provided councils an opportunity to review the data and information behind the reform proposals and to provide feedback on both the proposals and the evidence base they have been built on.

54        Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), sections 76 to 90, provides the requirements for local government decision making and consultation. This includes the principles of consultation and the information that needs to be provided, including the reasons for the proposal and the reasonably practicable options.  In particular:

a)         Section 76 requires that in making a significant decision, which a decision on the future management and or ownership of three waters assets would be, councils must comply with the decision-making provisions.

b)        Section 77 states that councils must seek to identify all reasonably practicable options and then assess the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

c)         Section 78 requires that in the course of making a decision a Council must consider community views, but section 78(3) explicitly says that consideration of community views does not require consultation, which is reinforced by case law.

d)        Section 79 gives councils discretion to decide how the above Part 6 requirements are met, including the extent of analysis done and other factors.

55        A decision to provide feedback to the Minister of Local Government by 1 October 2021 does not commit the Council to a particular position on a future model for three waters service delivery or to continued participation in the Government’s reform programme. No specific Council engagement or consultation with the community is required prior to providing this feedback.

56        However, despite section 79 of the LGA, a decision to transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset from the Council (or to it) would need to explicitly be provided for in the Council’s Long Term Plan and have been consulted on specifically in its consultation document. 

57        Dunedin’s 10 Year Plan 2021-31 did not include detailed information on three waters reform options and their implications when consultation on the draft 10 Year Plan was undertaken earlier this year because detailed information was not available at that time. An amendment to the 10 Year Plan and a commensurate consultation process would be necessary to alter three waters ownership and governance arrangements and transfer assets to a new entity.

58        At this stage, no Council decision is required on future three waters service delivery arrangements.

59        Council is not able to consult with the community at this time as there is insufficient information and time available to meet the moral and legal requirements of council decision-making. Further advice regarding any future consultation requirements will be provided following future Government announcements.

60        Any future Council decisions required on participation in the Government’s Three Waters Reform Programme will be of high significance and trigger a full special consultative procedure.  Council will need adequate time to meaningfully engage with the community.

OPTIONS

61        The Government has provided an opportunity to give feedback on the three waters reform programme. It is recommended the Council takes this opportunity by writing to the Minister for Local Government as presented in Attachment A, with any amendments.  

62        Alternatively, the Council may elect not to provide feedback to the Government at this point.

NEXT STEPS

63        If the Council approves the draft letter, with any amendments, it will be sent to the Minister of Local Government by the 1 October deadline.

64        Staff will develop an analysis of options (based on further information from the Government, advice on next steps, and regional discussions) prior to community consultation and Council decision making on future water services delivery to ensure sufficient information is available to meet the moral and legal requirements of council decision-making. Whether this will ultimately be required will be dependent on Government decisions after 1 October 2021.

65        Staff will update the Council following further Government announcements on implementation of the three waters service delivery reform proposals.

66        Staff will provide further information to Council on three waters reform-related matters as necessary.

 

 

Signatories

Author:

Scott Campbell - Policy Analyst

Authoriser:

Tom Dyer - Group Manager 3 Waters

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Draft letter to the Minister of Local Government (Dunedin City Council feedback on the Three Waters Reform Programme)

108

b

Three Waters Reform: Lists of documents published on Department of Internal Affairs websites (June-July 2021)

117

c

Impacts assessment: Dunedin City Council (Morrison Low)

119

d

Review of WICS data: Dunedin City Council (Morrison Low)

195

e

Otago and Southland Mayoral Forums letter to Minister of Local Government (25 August 2021)

223

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report supports democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities, and promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

 

Contributes

Detracts

Not applicable

Social Wellbeing Strategy

Economic Development Strategy

Environment Strategy

Arts and Culture Strategy

3 Waters Strategy

Spatial Plan

Integrated Transport Strategy

Parks and Recreation Strategy

Other strategic projects/policies/plans

 

This report has been prepared with reference to Dunedin’s strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

The Government has undertaken extensive high level engagement with iwi/Māori in relation to three waters reforms, including with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. Central Government officials have worked closely with Ngai Tahu to develop the boundary for the South Island water services entity.

Iwi/Māori engagement has been guided by Crown/Māori partnership objectives, which have included a focus on enabling greater strategic influence; integration within a wider system; reflective of a Te Ao Māori perspective and improving outcomes at a local level.

A consistent guiding principle throughout the three waters regulatory and service delivery reforms has been to ensure that the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Mana o te Wai are referenced appropriately within the legislative framework. Feedback from engagement with iwi/Māori at a high level, indicates that Te Mana o te Wai is exercised at a localised hapū and whanau level through Kaitiakitanga. It is at this level that Council will need to engage with mana whenua in the provision of water services and water service delivery. Council will engage with mana whenua upon further announcements from Government about how three waters reform will progress.

Sustainability

The Government’s Three Waters Reform Programme aims to enhance the economic and environmental sustainability of three waters infrastructure and services across New Zealand.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report and a decision to approve a letter to the Minister of Local Government has no direct implications for these plans and strategies.

 

However, this report notes that the Government is working on the assumption that council long-term plans for the period 2024-2034 will no longer include water services (subject to any individual council decisions on continued participation in the three waters service delivery reforms). It also notes the Council cannot make a formal decision to adopt an alternative model for three waters service delivery without amending the 10 Year Plan 2021-31 and ensuring the amendment meets section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications directly associated with this report and a decision to approve a letter to the Minister of Local Government.

 

However, this report provides updates on analyses of the financial impacts of the proposed three waters reforms commissioned by the Government and the Otago-Southland Three Waters Office.

Significance

This report and a decision to approve a letter to the Minister of Local Government does not commit the Council to a decision on a future model for three waters service delivery.  The decision in this report is considered low in terms of the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

 

Any future Council decisions required on participation in the Government’s Three Waters Reform Programme will be of high significance and trigger a full special consultative procedure. Government direction on next steps for the reform programme is expected in the coming weeks/months.

Engagement – external

DCC staff regularly engage with staff of the other Otago and Southland territorial and the Otago-Southland Three Waters Office on matters relating to three waters reforms.

Engagement - internal

This report was prepared by the 3 Waters Group. There has been broad internal engagement on the preparation of this report including with finance, legal, city planning and policy staff.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks associated with this report.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards are likely to be interested in three waters reform updates and staff will consider how to update the Community Boards in future.

 

 


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

 

Community Housing - Waitlist Prioritisation

Department: Property

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          In May 2021 Council requested staff undertake a broader review of Council’s waiting list criteria for Community Housing based on feedback received during 10 year plan 2021-2031.

2          The purpose of this report is to provide Council with outcomes of that review and provide options for how Community Housing can be prioritised.  

3          Council’s decision will assist in the development of a revised Dunedin City Council Community Housing Policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Decides a waitlist criteria that will be used to prioritise Council’s community housing for people aged 55 years and over, with limited assets and income, and those with urgent and/or physically accessible housing need

b)            Notes that the decision will be used to develop the waitlist criteria which will be included in the revised draft DCC Community Housing Policy.

 

BACKGROUND

4          Dunedin City Council (DCC) Housing Policy 1997 prioritises applicants for DCC housing, by placing them into one of four waitlist prioritisation groups. Applicants are placed into a group in the order they applied, and based on their ability to meet age, income and assets criteria.

Priority Group 1 – Aged 55 and over, with income and assets below the limit

Priority Group 2 – Aged 55 and over

Priority Group 3 – Aged 54 and under, with income and assets below the limit

Priority Group 4 – All other applicants that do not meet criteria for any of the above priority                                           groups

5          The Income Limit is aligned to the Work and Income, Accommodation Supplement (currently $44,200).  The Asset Limit is set at 50% of Dunedin’s median house price (currently $310,500), and they are both updated annually in April.  

6          In response to the growing waitlist for DCC community housing and to inform the review of DCC’s Housing Policy 1997, Council sought feedback in the 10 year plan 2021-2031 consultation document on ‘our role as landlord’.

7          At the Council meeting held on 31 May 2021 staff provided a report summarising the outcomes of public consultation regarding Community Housing, and requested Council provided options which would inform a draft DCC Housing Policy and Dunedin Social Housing Strategy.  At that meeting Council resolved,

Moved (Mayor Aaron Hawkins/Cr David Benson-Pope):

That the Council:

           

a)         Requests that staff undertake a broader review of the Council’s waiting list criteria based on feedback received in submissions and report back to Council by September 2021.

 

Motion carried (CNL/2021/090)

Moved (Mayor Aaron Hawkins/Cr David Benson-Pope):

That the Council:

 

b)     Supports rates revenue being used to subsidise rents for DCC’s community housing.

Division

 

The Council voted by division:

 

For:                 Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Marie Laufiso, Jim O'Malley, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (8).

Against:         Crs Rachel Elder, Doug Hall, Carmen Houlahan, Mike Lord, Jules Radich, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley (7).

Abstained:   Nil

 

The division was declared CARRIED by 8 votes to 7

 

Motion carried (CNL/2021/091)

Moved (Mayor Aaron Hawkins/Cr David Benson-Pope):

 

That the Council:

c)                 Decides that the Council include $20 million in the 10 year plan to build more community housing, being $2 million per annum over the 10 year period.

Division

 

The Council voted by division:

 

For:                Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Marie Laufiso, Jim O'Malley, Jules Radich, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (11).

Against:        Crs Carmen Houlahan, Mike Lord, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley (4).

Abstained: Nil

 

The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 4

 

Motion carried (CNL/2021/092)

DISCUSSION

Summary of 10 year plan submissions

8          The 10 year plan 2021-2031 consultation document asked Dunedin residents if they supported prioritising community housing for people aged 65 and over. The responses were -

             Table 1 – Summary of poll results

Do you support the DCC prioritising its community housing for people aged 65 and over?

 

Yes

No

Total

Submissions

1,175

66%

614

34%

 

1,789

Facebook poll (votes)

765

51%

735

49%

 

1,500

Twitter poll (votes)

39

67%

19

33%

 

58

 

9          As part of the engagement process hui were held with disability, Maatawaka, Mana Whenua and Pāsifika community representatives.   The views of these groups, on housing prioritisation, have been included within submission summaries below.

10        275 submissions made further comment on who should be prioritised.  The most prominent themes of submission comments were a preference for prioritising people of an older age (116),  prioritising people who ‘need it most’ (54), followed by preference for ‘families’ (44), and then preference for ‘people with physical disabilities’ (40).  A complete list of themes is attached as Attachment A.

11        116 submissions suggested that priority should be given to people of an older age. Within this category, 60 submissions specifically supported prioritising those over 65 years of age, while others suggested that prioritisation should be given to the ‘elderly, older people or pensioners’ without specifying an age. Moving the age limit to 65 years would disadvantage groups with lower life expectancy, such as Māori and Pāsifika`.

12        54 submissions suggested that priority should be given to those in the most need. Some submissions elaborated on this further by saying the ‘community’s most vulnerable’ however many did not explain or define what they meant by ‘need’.

13        44 submissions suggested that priority should be given to families. Some submissions commented further by stating ‘young’ families, but most did not define what they considered a ‘family’.

14        40 submissions suggested prioritising people with physical disabilities. Many stated that it was difficult for this part of the community to access suitable housing and 17 comments specifically suggested prioritising people over 65 years of age and people with physical disabilities.

15        The remaining comments mentioned other ways Council could prioritise the waitlist for community housing. This is included in Attachment A.

Summary of social & community housing provision in Dunedin

16        There are a number of social and community housing providers within Dunedin.  Each has their own focus and priorities; these are summarized below to give Council an understanding of current provision across the city and to highlight current gaps.

DCC Community Housing

17        Council’s 936 community housing units consists almost entirely of small flats appropriate for singles and couples, with a small number of two-bedroom units.   Providing affordable rentals for older people has historically complemented provision from other providers such as Kāinga Ora.

Kāinga Ora

18        Kāinga Ora is mandated to provide social housing for Dunedin’s most in need. Their wrap around social services enable them to support diverse housing communities and they typically focus on families. Kāinga Ora provide over 1,377 houses in the Dunedin area, the majority are two- and three-bedroom homes, well suited to families.

19        The Ministry of Social Development and Kāinga Ora work with Red Cross to support former refugee families to find homes in Dunedin. The circumstances of these families mean they have high priority on the Public Housing Register (New Zealand’s social housing waitlist). The Public Housing Register is discussed in paragraph 26.

Accessible housing for people with disabilities

20        There are currently no agencies in Dunedin prioritising independent living options for the physically disabled that require an accessible home.

21        There are a number of health-related, non-government organisations (NGO) e.g PACT, Idea Services, McGlynn Homes, that provide supported independent living options in the city for people with high and complex needs – both physical and mental health. 

22        Approximately 30 (3%) of DCC’s 936 community housing units have ramp access and 260 (28%) have wet area showers. Approximately 91 (7%) of Kāinga Ora’s 1377 properties have ramp access and 103 (8%) have wet area showers.  

Other housing providers

23        Attachment B provides a detailed list of the social and community housing providers that contribute to the city’s housing needs, so far as staff are aware. 

24        The specific group/s prioritised by the housing providers cannot be easily summarised.  Providers tend to have an applicant assessment process or eligibility criteria, rather than a published set of priorities.  They often provide multiple social services including housing, to a cross-section of people.

Social and community housing gaps

25        Gaps remain in Dunedin’s social and community housing provision for single or couple accommodation. In addition, the percentage of community or social housing prioritised for those in urgent need or for people with physical disabilities is low.

26        As at June 2021 the Public Housing Register, New Zealand’s social housing waitlist, had 309 Dunedin applicants. The largest segment of the waitlist (201 applicants) is those requiring one-bedroom accommodation and the second largest segment (75 applicants) require two-bedrooms.  There are 33 applicants on the public housing waitlist for Dunedin waiting for three, four, or five-bedroom homes.

27        As at September 2021 DCC Community Housing waitlist had 267 applicants. The largest segment of the waitlist is people over 65 years (106 applicants).  DCC Community Housing currently has 925 tenancies (note – 11 Units are currently not let due to refurbishment at Palmyra and voids) and 658 are over 65 years of age.

Table 2 – DCC Community Housing waitlist, by Age

Age Group

Applicants

Percentage of waitlist

65 years and over

106

40%

55 years – 64 years

77

29%

18 years – 54 years

84

31%

 

Table 3 - DCC Community Housing tenancies, by Age

Age Group

Units

Percentage of units occupied

65 years and over

658

71%

55 years – 64 years

174

19%

18 years – 54 years

93

10%

 

Consideration of submissions and responding to need

28        The Housing Action Plan Advisor will be focusing on responding to responding to housing need in Dunedin.  There are a variety of ways Council can respond to gaps and need in Dunedin’s housing, over and above the provision of the DCCs own community housing. This includes supporting efforts for all community and social housing agencies across the city to work together to ensure a cohesive strategic approach to meeting social and community housing need. 

Older People

29        DCC is the city’s lead agency in the provision of housing for older people. Nationally, there are 50 local authorities offering social or community housing. Of those, 35 local authorities prioritise people aged 65 and over, while three local authorities (including DCC) prioritise people aged 55 years and over.  11 local authorities prioritise people aged 60 and over and one prioritises people aged 50 and over.

30        Dunedin’s over 65 age population is projected to increase by 62% by 2038, while the 55 to 64 age group is projected to decrease over the same time period.

Table 4 – Population projections by Age

Age Group

2018

2028

2038

Change over period

24 and under

49,060

48,795

47,804

-3%

25 - 54

44,386

45,609

47,182

+6%

55 - 64

15,982

15,524

13,108

-18%

65 and over

21,093

28,747

34,225

+62%

Total

130,520

138,674

142,318

 

 

31        Accessing market housing (rental or ownership) is challenging for people of an older age, with limited income and asset. Banks are unlikely to lend for mortgages, and market rents are unaffordable for New Zealander’s receiving the NZ Superannuation as their only income. 

32        When it comes to understanding the social housing needs of older Māori and Pāsifika people in Dunedin, it is important to consider the inequities in mortality and life expectancy that exist between Māori and Pāsifika when compared with non-Māori and non-Pāsifika people.

33        Statistics New Zealand (2017-2019) indicate that life expectancy differentials were approximately seven years for Māori and five years for Pāsifika people when compared to the non-Māori/non-Pāsifika population. In other words, Māori and Pāsifika people are less likely to live to age 65, when compared to non-Māori and Pāsifika people.

Level of Need

34        DCC Housing policy 1997 has a provision for ‘urgent need’ but it is not well defined or embedded within the waitlist prioritisation criteria. Strengthening this provision in a new DCC Community Housing Policy enable better prioritisation for those in urgent need for accommodation.

35        Currently 26 DCC housing applicants are have high housing need i.e. are currently in emergency housing or are at risk in their current accommodation. 

Families

36        Council’s current community housing stock does not meet the needs of housing families due to their size and layout.  Other agencies are focused in this area and have indicated increasing their provision for families in Dunedin. 

People who have a physical disability

37        Kāinga Ora have committed to build 25% of their new housing to Lifemark standard. Lifemark rated homes are designed to be usable and safe for people of all ages and stages of life. 

38        As at June 2021 there were 53 housing applicants on the DCC Community Housing waitlist that have requested an accessible unit, specifying the need for wet area shower, shower box and/or ramp access.

39        Under the current housing Policy the provision for people who have a disability is not well defined or embedded in the prioritization criteria. Strengthening the provision for applicants with physical disabilities to have priority access to DCC’s accessible units, could mean these applicants wait less time to be offered a unit.

Provision of social and community housing for Māori

40        It is important to acknowledge the significant role that housing has traditionally played for Māori in maintaining health and wellbeing, identity, belonging and whānau connectivity to the wider community. 

41        The most recent ethnicity projections from Statistics New Zealand (2017), suggest that Dunedin’s Māori population is likely to grow much faster than the wider Dunedin population between 2018 and 2038 (+52% compared to +6%). This projection increases the importance of developing a policy that acknowledges the changing housing needs of Māori.

Table 5 – Population growth projections by ethnicity

Year on

30 June

European or Other (incl New Zealander

Maori

Asian

Pacific

Total population

2018

112,200

11,450

11,750

3,560

129,000

2023

112,800

12,850

13,850

3,960

132,000

2028

112,700

14,250

15,650

4,340

133,900

2033

112,400

15,800

17,350

4,740

135,300

2038

111,400

17,350

19,000

5,160

136,200

2018 - 38

-800

-1%

+5,900

+52%

+7,250

+62%

+1,600

+45%

+7,200

+6%

 

42        Currently no social and community housing providers in Dunedin, other than Araiteuru Marae, prioritise housing need specifically for Māori. Araiteuru Marae currently manages Kaumātua Housing located on the Araiteuru Marae grounds. 

WAitlist criteria

OPTIONS

43        There are multiple options that could be considered regarding  waitlist criteria. Based on the type of housing DCC has, submission feedback, population projections and gaps in Dunedin’s housing social and community housing provision, staff have refined the options. 

Option One (recommended) – DCC waitlist criteria prioritises community housing for people aged 55 years and over, with limited assets and income and those with urgent and/or physically accessible housing need.

44        This option retains the status quo on age, assets and income criteria, continues to support communities such as Māori and Pāsifika, and also meets a gap in Dunedin’s social and community housing provision by providing single and couples accommodation, for people with limited assets and income.  

45        It improves the provision for people that are in ‘urgent’ or ‘physically accessible’ housing need such as individual former refugees living in emergency housing, and disabled people who are living independently.

Advantages

·        Those 55 years and over, and with limited financial means would continue to have prioritised access to DCC community housing.

·        Applicants with urgent need will be prioritised will potentially be on the waitlist for a shorter time.  

·        Applicants with physical accessibility requirements will potentially be on the waitlist for a shorter time.

·        Māori and Pāsifika access to DCC Community Housing is supported

Disadvantages

·        The needs of people 65 years and over are not prioritised with this option.

Option Two – DCC waitlist criteria prioritises community housing for people aged 65 years and over, with limited assets and income and those with urgent and/or physically accessible housing need.

 

46        This option raises the age criteria to 65 years and over, and over would support demand from a growing demographic. It retains the status quo for assets and income criteria. It meets the gap in Dunedin’s social and community housing provision by providing single and couples accommodation, for people with limited assets and income.  

47        It improves the provision for people that are in ‘urgent’ or ‘physically accessible’ housing need such as individual former refugees living in emergency housing, and disabled people who are living independently.

48        This option would mean that approximately 70 applicants currently in Priority Group One (aged between 55 and 64 years) would wait longer to be offered a unit.

Advantages

·        Prioritises the allocation of units to a demographic group projected to have increased demand for housing.

·        Applicants with urgent need would be prioritised would potentially be on the waitlist for a shorter time.  

·        Applicants with physical accessibility requirements would be prioritised and potentially be on the waitlist for a shorter time.

Disadvantages

·        Some people currently on the waitlist would move to a lower priority group and might wait longer to be placed.

·        Māori and Pāsifika access to DCC Community Housing would not be as well supported with this option.

Option Three (status quo) –  DCC waitlist criteria continues to prioritise community housing for people aged 55 years and over, with limited assets and income.

49        This option retains the status quo for age, assets and income criteria, continues to support communities such as Māori and Pāsifika, and meets the gap in Dunedin’s social and community housing provision by providing single and couples accommodation, as well as people with limited assets and income.  

50        This option does not respond to the need for more community or social housing to be prioritised for urgent need and people requiring physically accessible housing.

Advantages

·        Applicants aged 55 years and over, and with limited financial means would continue to have prioritised access to DCC community housing.

·        Māori and Pāsifika access to DCC Community Housing is supported.

Disadvantages

·        Applicants aged 65 years and over would not be  prioritised with this option.

·        Applicants with urgent need would not be prioritised and would potentially be on the waitlist for a longer time.  

·        Applicants with physical accessibility requirements would not be prioritised and would potentially be on the waitlist for a longer time.

NEXT STEPS

51        The Council decision on waitlist criteria prioritisation will be used to inform and be included in a revised DCC Community Housing policy

52        Staff will engage mana whenua, mataawaka, local disability sector groups, and Pāsifika,  in the development of the revised policy.

53        The Housing Action Plan Advisor will work with mana whenua, mataawaka, Pāsifika, local disability sector groups, and other social and community housing providers to support a coordinated approach to address housing for those most in need. This work will inform the Housing Action Plan review, and Housing Action update report will come to Council or Committee before the end of the year.

 

Signatories

Author:

Anna Nilsen - Planning and Support Manager

Kate Milton - Manager Housing

Authoriser:

Robert West - General Manager Corporate and Quality

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Submission themes

237

b

Dunedin housing providers overview

239

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

These decisions enable democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities, and promote the social and economic 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

Council decisions will also inform the review of the Social Housing Strategy 2010-2020 and Housing Action Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

Māori housing priorities are specifically addressed in the report.

Sustainability

Council decisions on prioritisation of DCC Community Housing support social sustainability by catering to the needs of some of the most vulnerable members of the community.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report responds to resolutions from the 10 year plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications for Council.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

This report responds to feedback from the community received as part of the 10-year plan process.

Engagement - internal

There is ongoing internal engagement with Manahautū, Team Leader Research and Monitoring, Community Development, Property, Planning and the Housing Action Plan Advisor.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Many community Board areas have community housing located within their boundaries. How members of the community are prioritised for tenancy in those houses will therefore be of interest.

 

 


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

 

10 Year Plan Update - Amenity Requests

Department: Corporate Policy

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          A number of requests for new amenities and projects were received during the community feedback period on the 10 year plan 2021-31.  At the deliberations meeting of Council on 31 May 2021, Councillors asked staff to provide further information on 14 of the requests made, and report back to Council on those.

2          The purpose of this report is to present updates on the selected requests for Council’s information. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the updates on amenity requests.

 

BACKGROUND

3          At its meeting on 31 May 2021, Council considered a report “10 year plan 2021-31 – Requests for new amenities and projects”.  This report provided a summary of 280 requests received, along with staff comment on each, including if the request was already provided for in the 10 year plan, if the request could be accommodated within existing budgets or if it had not been provided for.  This was a new process introduced, that attempted to identify and consider all requests received from submitters. 

4          Following consideration of the report, Councillor’s asked staff for further information on 14 of the requests received. 

5          All submitters identified as having made a new amenity or project request have received a response to their submissions. 

DISCUSSION

6          Further information on each of the 14 requests is provided below.


 

Seawall at Tidewater Drive and Stepney Avenue

7          A submission received from the Otago Peninsula Community Board (817433) asked that urgent attention be given to the seawalls at Tidewater Drive and Stepney Avenue, to protect the roading assets in this area and associated housing.

8          Staff advise that the DCC and ORC are currently undertaking a joint Coastal Hazard Risk Assessment project that will identify coastal hazard risks (erosion, climate change impacts, storm surge, etc) across the district.  DCC and ORC will use this work to prioritise where further investigation, planning and infrastructure upgrades will be made across the district, and will include upgrades to seawalls.  DCC will continue to monitor and repair any damage causing safety issues.

Sea Lion Population

9          The submission from the Otago Peninsula Community Board asked that Council allocate $25,000 per annum to deal with minor traffic works and signage that keep sea lions and motorists safe.

10        Staff advise that they are looking at safety measures within existing budgets, and work is already underway with a heritage assessment as the first step.  Some work was completed during 2020/21 when the Department of Conservation put up a 90-meter temporary fence.  The DCC paid for a heritage consent to do this temporary work and has agreed to pay for another heritage consent should a new permanent fence be put up. 

Allanton road safety

11        Submission number 816980 noted that turning into Allanton is on SH1 is unsafe and requested either a turning lane into Allanton or a reduced speed limit.

12        Staff advise that because it is a State Highway it is a matter for Waka Kotahi.  Staff have discussed the request from the submitter with the agency.  Waka Kotahi are now considering the matter.

Waikouaiti road safety

13        A submission from the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board (818036) asked DCC to support its request to Waka Kotahi to allow the Board to place Driver Feedback Signs at the north and south ends of Waikouaiti main street and at the Waitati Curve, both on SH1.

14        Staff advise that because it is a State Highway it is a matter for Waka Kotahi.  Staff have discussed the request from the submitter with the agency.  Waka Kotahi are now considering the matter.

Footpath safety

15        Submission number 816448 noted that the bricks on the footpaths in the Octagon and Central City are a health and safety hazard, being uneven and slippery.

16        Staff advise that $60 million has been allocated in the 10 year plan for the central city upgrade project.  Paving issues will be addressed as the project is progressed.  George Street footpath issues will be addressed by the Retail Quarter George Street upgrade project, with George Street between Albany Street and Moray Place replacement occurring between 2022 and 2024.  While not part of the Retail Quarter George Street upgrade, staff are looking at ways to bring forward work on the Octagon. 

 

Tunnels Trail project

17        Approximately 90 submissions were received in support of the Tunnels Trail project.  Submitters noted that there were no safe or accessible routes connecting the southern suburbs of Dunedin. 

18        Staff note that the 10 year plan has a budget of $21.9 million for Dunedin urban cycleways, and that no decisions have yet been made by Council on how this budget should be spent.  A Tunnels Trail Business Case is expected to be completed later this year, and then a report will be presented to Council with options for cycleway spending. 

Road from Port Chalmers to Aramoana

19        Submission number 817881 noted that this road is regularly affected by high water levels encroaching on the road and asked that the seawall be maintained to avoid damage by higher tides.

20        Staff have advised that the issue arises because of the level of the road.  Raising the road would be expensive and has not been provided for in the 10 year plan.  As discussed in paragraph 8, the joint DCC/ORC Coastal Hazard Risk Assessment project will be used to prioritise where further investigation, planning and infrastructure upgrades will be made across the district, including upgrades to seawalls.  DCC will continue to monitor and repair any damage causing safety issues.

Concord Underpass

21        A submission from the Greater Green Island Community Network (817923) sought safety improvements for those using active modes of transport in the section of Kaikorai Valley Road and Main South Road connecting under the Concord Underpass.

22        Staff advise that they are working with the community on this project but note that the current 10 year plan does not provide for any physical works.  Possible solutions will be presented as part of the 10 year plan 2024-34 for consideration.

Central city trees

23        Submitter number 812835 asked for more central city trees, gardens and planters, along with more seating / rest areas for pedestrians.

24        Staff advise that as part of the Central City Plan, a range of urban design improvements, including trees and seating etc., will be considered, and rolled out as the project is implemented over the coming years.  This work will commence with the Retail Quarter projects before moving to other quarters in the central city. 

Trees on vacant Council land

25        Submitter number 816940 asked for a way that residents can apply for trees to be planted in their berms and/or unused land, and to plant fruit and nut trees in parks and vacant Council owned land.

26        Council’s website provides a Street Tree Planting Policy along with an application form for the DCC to consider planting a tree in the road verge outside people’s properties.  The website also provides a Memorial Tree Planting application form for planting in Council reserves.  A clear process is in place for any community group wishing to plant fruit trees in reserves. 

Swimming Pools

27        A number of submitters asked that the Port Chalmers Swimming Pool remain open during the first term school holidays, and the St Clair Salt Water Pool remain open in April or at least until after Easter. 

28        Staff advise that at these pools, traditionally swimmer numbers taper off towards March.  Based on running costs vs revenue, the approximate net cost to keep the Port Chalmers Swimming Pool open during April would be $26,000 - $28,000.  The net cost for the St Clair Salt Water Pool is estimated to be $28,000 - $30,000.  The additional cost cannot be absorbed into existing budgets.  Recruitment of seasonal staff is also challenging into and beyond March.  Traditionally university students make up the bulk of the staff numbers, and many resign once the university semester starts.  There are no plans to extend opening hours of these pools next season. 

Otago Harbour

29        The Otago Yacht Club (816262) and the Port Chalmers Yacht Club (817849) both submitted on the need for a harbour plan for the entire harbour, including developing the recreational opportunities in and around the harbour, and how the harbour assets can be improved.

30        Staff are in discussions with both the Otago Regional Council and Port Otago about scoping a “harbour plan” that will address access, amenity, marine facilities etc.  Relevant stakeholders including the yacht clubs will be invited to take part in a working party.  Drafting of the plan will commence in 2021/22. 

Community space for Pacific people

31        Submitter number 815872 asked about the provision of a Pacific community space, to share and help develop its communities. 

32        Staff are planning to carry out a review of its community hall requirement in 2022, and the need for a community space for Pacific people will be considered as part of this wider review.  Staff will engage with the requester to understand their specific requirements.  It is possible that a community hall may be available that would meet the needs of this community.

Senior Climate Action Network (SCAN)

33        The Senior Climate Action Network (816966) has developed a climate action plan which it provided to the DCC.

34        Staff have met with representatives from the Network to thank SCAN for its work and discuss next steps.  Staff will consult with SCAN later in the year on the development of the zero-carbon work programme and emissions reduction plans and how to achieve these goals.  SCAN will also be consulted when developing the City Portrait. 

OPTIONS

35        There are no options.

NEXT STEPS

36        The submitters who made these amenity requests will be sent a copy of this report, and the minutes from the meeting. 

 

Signatories

Author:

Sharon Bodeker - Corporate Planner

Authoriser:

Jeanette Wikaira - Manahautū (General Manager Māori Partnerships and Policy)

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 


 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

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

Fit with strategic framework

 

Contributes

Detracts

Not applicable

Social Wellbeing Strategy

Economic Development Strategy

Environment Strategy

Arts and Culture Strategy

3 Waters Strategy

Spatial Plan

Integrated Transport Strategy

Parks and Recreation Strategy

Other strategic projects/policies/plans

 

The requests for new amenities and projects received during the 10 year plan process and discussed in this report contribute to various strategies within the strategic framework.

 

Māori Impact Statement

As part of the 10 year plan consultation process, a Maori consultation Hui was held at Araiteuru Marae with the mataawaka community.

Sustainability

The overall impact of the funding requirements on the current and future social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of the community was considered when deciding on new amenities and project requests during the 10 year plan deliberations meeting.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The amenity requests discussed in this report are not specifically provided for in the current 10 year plan.  Some work can be absorbed within existing budgets.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications proposed in this report.

Significance

The requests for new amenities and projects have resulted from full community consultation on the draft 10 year plan.

Engagement – external

The requests for new amenities and projects have resulted from full community consultation on the draft 10 year plan.

Engagement - internal

Staff and managers from across Council have been involved in the analysis of the requests received.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Requests for new amenities and projects requested by Community Boards were considered at the 31 May 2021 Council deliberations meeting, and further information on some of those requests are included in this report.

 

 


Council

28 September 2021

 

 

Review of Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw

Department: Customer and Regulatory

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          In October 2020, Council resolved to review the Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw, (2010) (the bylaw) with a view to include provision to address ongoing noise issues with roosters.

2          Initial engagement was undertaken to inform the revision of the bylaw. This report summarises the feedback from stakeholders.

3          The report seeks approval of:

a)         a draft statement of proposal and

b)        revised draft of the bylaw for broader public consultation (using the special consultative procedure).

4          It also proposes that Council should be able to make controls for the keeping of any breed of animal and bird (excluding dogs) between bylaw reviews, with appropriate community engagement. This would provide Council with the flexibility to address any issues as the city’s needs change, without having to review the entire bylaw.

5          Council are also requested to appoint members to the Regulatory Sub-committee to hear and consider submissions on this review.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Approves the draft Keeping of Animals Bylaw (Attachment A) and the statement of proposal (Attachment B) for consultation purposes, subject to any amendment. 

b)     Agrees that the proposed draft Keeping of Animals Bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

c)     Appoints the following members to the Regulatory Subcommittee: Cr Andrew Whiley (Chair), Cr Sophie Barker and Cr Rachel Elder

 

BACKGROUND

Purposes of bylaws

6          Bylaws can be made, under the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act), for one or more of the following general purposes:

a)         protecting the public from nuisance;

b)        protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety; and

c)         minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places (section 145).

7          The Act also allows bylaws to be made specifically to regulate the keeping of animals, bees, and poultry (section 146(a)(v)).

8          The Act further requires bylaws to be reviewed five years after adoption and then at ten-year intervals (with a two-year additional period to complete a review if required).

Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw history and purpose

9.         The Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw was made in October 2010. It does not extend to dogs which are regulated by the Dog Control Act 1996.

10        The bylaw’s purpose is to protect the public from nuisance and to protect, promote and maintain public health and safety by controlling the keeping of animals and birds within the residential district and rural-residential district. It was last reviewed in 2016 when only minor wording changes were made.

11        The current bylaw regulates how animals and birds must be kept. It allows the Council to impose a limit on the number and/or species of animals or birds kept at a property and covers offences and penalties according to the Act. In practice, the bylaw has focused primarily on controlling the nuisance effects of keeping animals rather than controlling specific actions or limiting residents to a specific number of animals per property. See Attachment C for the current bylaw.

8          Another way to address issues relating to the keeping of animals is public and owner education. While this has been used for a number of years, it has not been sufficient to deal with nuisance as there is no ability to enforce non-compliant behaviour. A bylaw is considered the most appropriate way of addressing these issues to ensure the public is protected from nuisance and to ensure maintenance of public health and safety.

Rooster nuisance issues

9          Dunedin City Council (DCC) frequently receives noise complaints about roosters crowing. These are predominantly in residential areas. For example, from 1 October 2020 to 14 September 2021, there were 21 complaints about roosters. (Multiple complaints about one rooster are generally covered under one complaint). Complaints are often ongoing and time-consuming to resolve. While keeping roosters in residential areas is discouraged and noise complaints are managed as they arise, it is difficult to manage this issue effectively without an enforcement tool such as a bylaw.

October 2020 Council resolution

10        At its meeting in October 2020, the Council resolved the following:

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Andrew Whiley):

That the Council:

 

a)     Approves commencement of the Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw review.

b)        Determines that a bylaw was the most appropriate way to address issues relating to the keeping of animals and birds in Dunedin.

Motion carried (CNL/2020/083)

DISCUSSION

Initial community and stakeholder engagement

11        As noted above, initial engagement with key stakeholders was undertaken to inform the development of a draft revision of the bylaw. This included: Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Lifestyle Block Association of New Zealand, Dunedin Poultry Club, Cat Rescue Dunedin, Dunedin Beekeepers Club and Predator Free Dunedin. We worked with Community Boards who circulated information and a survey through their community networks.

12        Community engagement also included a Peoples’ Panel Survey. The Dunedin People’s Panel is an ‘opt-in’ panel that provides the opportunity for people to get involved with a range of DCC issues by giving feedback through online surveys. It is not a statistically representative sample of the Dunedin population.

13        The survey asked specific questions roosters and bees and more general questions about problems relating to other animals in Dunedin.

Results of consultation

People’s Panel

14        There were 240 responses to the People’s Panel survey which ran during June 2021. Key findings from the survey were:

Roosters

·        Almost half (49 percent) agreed with the option of banning roosters in residential areas and land bordering residential areas unless owners have a permit. A further 16 percent supported a complete ban of roosters and 25 percent supported the status quo of continuing to allow roosters in these areas.

·        Ten percent of respondents had experienced a problem relating to roosters in residential and land bordering residential areas in Dunedin over the last five years. The main nuisance was crowing for long periods, often at unsociable hours such as very early in the morning.

Bees

·        Most (97 percent) respondents had experienced no problem with bees over the last five years. Those who did, commented on swarms, stings, a nest and messy nectar. Many commented that bees are good for the environment, that they should be encouraged and not restricted. Some commented on safety concerns and controlling bees if they are a problem.

·        Two thirds of respondents (66 percent) thought there was no need for restrictions on beekeeping in Dunedin and the remainder (34 percent) supported the option that restriction on things such as where and how many beehives should be considered for Dunedin.

Other animals

·        The survey asked panellists if they had experienced problems with other animals in Dunedin and 72 commented on problems with cats ranging from too many cats, cat faeces, cats killing wildlife and cats wandering. Sixty-three commented on problems with dogs wandering, barking and dog faeces. Pests such as possums, rats, wasps and mice were also mentioned.

15        See Attachment D for the full People’s Panel results.

Web survey

16        Information and surveys were sent to Dunedin’s six Community Boards and to key stakeholders. Community Boards were asked to circulate this through their community networks. There were 125 responses to this survey which ran during June 2021. Key findings from this survey were:

Roosters

·        Slightly more than half (52 percent) supported the status quo of allowing roosters to be kept in residential/land bordering residential areas in Dunedin. A further 37 percent supported a ban of some kind (20 percent supporting a complete ban in these areas and 17 percent supporting a ban unless owners have a permit).

·        Fourteen percent of respondents had experienced a problem with roosters in residential/land bordering residential areas in the last five years and most of these related to noise i.e. crowing.

Bees

·        Most (96 percent) had not experienced any problem with bees in Dunedin over the last five years.

·        More than three quarters (77 percent) said there was no need for restrictions on beekeeping in Dunedin and the remainder (23 percent) supported the option that restriction on things such as where and how many beehives should be considered for Dunedin. Many commented on the need to encourage bees.

 

 

Other animals

·        The survey asked whether respondents had experienced any problems relating to other animals in Dunedin and 57 commented on problems with cats ranging from too many cats, cats killing wildlife and cat faeces. Nineteen commented on problems with dogs such as wandering, barking and un-scooped dog faeces.

·        See Attachment E for the full results of this survey.

Other feedback

17        Some Community Boards commented on the tension between rural and residential activities as the city grows.

18        Some stakeholders wanted to stop cats roaming to prevent them attacking wildlife.

Proposals

Roosters

19        Following ongoing noise nuisance issues and feedback, it is proposed to ban the keeping of roosters in residential zone areas only, unless owners have written permission from the Council.
Residential zones are those defined in the operative District Plan (2GP). Permission would be at the discretion of the Council and may be conditional e.g. for breeders/owners with no record of noise nuisance.

20        This proposal addresses public feedback, fits well within the legislative framework and aligns with what most other councils are already doing to control the noise nuisance associated with keeping roosters. For example, of the 20 largest (by population) councils, only four allow roosters to be kept without restriction in residential areas. Restrictions range from prohibiting the keeping of roosters and restricting the number of roosters to owners requiring council approval. See the table below for details.

Territorial Authority

Allows roosters

Prohibits roosters

Restricts quantity of roosters

Council approval required to keep roosters

Auckland Council

 

 

 

Christchurch City Council

 

 

 

Far North District Council

 

 

 

Hamilton City Council1

 

 

 

Hastings District Council2

 

 

 

Invercargill City Council

 

 

 

Kapiti Coast District Council

 

 

Hutt City Council

 

 

Napier City Council

 

 

 

Nelson City Council3

 

 

New Plymouth District Council

 

 

 

Palmerston North City Council

 

 

 

Porirua City Council

 

 

 

Rotorua Lakes Council

 

 

 

Selwyn District Council4

 

 

 

Tauranga City Council5

 

 

Waimakariri District Council

 

 

 

Waikato District Council

 

 

 

Wellington City Council

 

 

Whangarei District Council

 

 

 

TOTAL

4

7

6

8

NOTES

1 Council approval required to keep roosters in all areas including rural. Rural productive zones are exempt.

2 Council permit is required to keep roosters in all areas including rural.

3 Quantity restrictions also apply to rural areas.

4 Keeping of roosters in a residential area is prohibited under District Plan

5 Quantity restrictions also apply to rural areas.

 

21        Consideration was also given to banning roosters in rural-residential zone areas; however, this is not being proposed based on feedback received and rural-residential zone activities. Therefore, this proposal is for residential zone areas only. Residential and rural-residential zone areas refer to these zones as defined in the Council’s operative District Plan.

22        Should the bylaw be approved, we propose a lead-in period of at least three months.  This will be reflected in the bylaw ‘date of effect’ recommendation and will also allow for any relevant fees to be set.

Other amendments

23        Other proposed amendments to the bylaw are to:

·        Add a clause whereby the Council may, from time to time, resolve to make controls for the keeping of any breed or type of animal. This will allow flexibility as the city’s needs change, without having to review the entire bylaw. It would mean that any proposed changes to the bylaw would require a report to the Council. The community and affected stakeholders would have the opportunity to provide feedback on, and inform, any proposed changes and the process would be in accordance with the Council Significance and Engagement Policy.

·        Remove the section on ‘Keeping of Birds’ for clarification and to remove duplication as ‘birds’ are included in the definition of ‘animals’. The provisions relating to keeping of birds are covered adequately in the rest of the bylaw e.g. with the ‘nuisance’ definition.

·        Revoke the current bylaw and make a new Keeping of Animals Bylaw since the proposed changes are significant. The Act requires a new bylaw to be reviewed within five years rather than the ten year review period specified for an existing bylaw.

·        Add explanatory notes to include additional helpful information e.g. referencing information in the Act or the Health Act 1956. They are not part of the bylaw itself.

Bees

24        No specific restrictions are proposed for keeping bees at this stage as there is insufficient evidence of nuisance. Some other councils specifically mention bees in their bylaws in relation to nuisance. As bees are included in the definition of an ‘animal’, our bylaw already provides generally where bees pose a nuisance or health and safety risk and will continue to do so.

25        It is proposed that the bylaw allows the Council to resolve to add specific controls to the bylaw should issues arise.

Cats and the Bylaw

26        No specific bylaw restrictions are proposed for keeping cats. The bylaw already allows the Council to impose a limit on the number and/or species of animals kept at a property if owners are non-compliant in addressing nuisance issues.

27        A bylaw is not the most appropriate means of addressing cat issues. While feedback shows most issues are with the number of cats, cats wandering and cats attacking wildlife, these issues do not, in themselves, pose a nuisance to the public or impact public health and safety. Therefore, this falls outside the scope of the Act which is aimed at protecting people and communities rather than wildlife.

28        Where other issues such as cat faeces can be a nuisance or impact health and safety, they can be dealt with through existing bylaw nuisance provisions and it is not proposed to change these.

29        A small number of other councils have introduced microchipping and neutering requirements. However, discussions indicate that these are difficult to manage, do not fit well within the legislative framework, are problematic to enforce and are resource intensive. Any enforcement efforts would need to be funded through general rates as there is no legislation, such as the Dog Control Act, that requires registration and fees which would fund the control.

Cats – other mechanisms

30        The Department of Conservation and other organisations are funded and charged with protecting wildlife. These entities operate many national programmes and have the necessary powers under the Wildlife Act to ensure protection.

31        In the case of Council reserves, the Reserves Act 1977 allows the Council to seize and destroy, sell or otherwise dispose of an animal that is trespassing on a Council reserve and where there is no evidence of ownership. The Health Act can also be used to address a health nuisance posed by animals, including cats.

32        The Otago Regional Council has a pest management strategy under the Biosecurity Act 1993. When this strategy was reviewed in 2018, the DCC submitted that feral cats be included as a biosecurity pest in Otago. The strategy now includes feral cats as a pest to be managed under site-led programmes which include Otago Peninsula, West Harbour – Mt Cargill, as well as Quarantine and Goat Islands.

33        As a result of a DCC initiated local government remit, Local Government New Zealand adopted a remit in 2017 asking central government to introduce a national legislative framework for cats. However, this has not been a priority for central government to date.

34        The preferred option to address cat issues is to work with local organisations towards responsible cat ownership through education, information and promotion of good practice.

Nuisance provisions and bylaw scope

35        No changes are proposed to the obligations of those keeping and owning animals in terms of nuisance as these provisions are working well.

36        Similarly, no change is proposed to the scope of the bylaw which applies to residential and rural-residential zones only. The exception to this is the proposed ban on roosters within the residential zone only.

OPTIONS

37        Options are whether or not to approve the draft bylaw and statement of proposal (with any amendment) for consultation.

Option One – Approve draft bylaw and statement of proposal (with any amendment) for consultation (Recommended)

 

38        This recommended option is to approve the draft bylaw and statement of proposal (with any amendment) for consultation.

Advantages

·        Proposed options provide greater ability to ensure public health and prevent nuisance e.g. roosters.

·        Enables controls to be made for the keeping of other breeds or types of animals outside of a full bylaw review.

·        Feedback will inform decisions for keeping animals in Dunedin.

Disadvantages

·        There are no known disadvantages.

Option Two – Do not approve draft bylaw and statement of proposal for consultation

39        This option is not to approve the draft bylaw and statement of proposal for consultation.

Advantages

·        There are no known advantages.

Disadvantages

·        Lost opportunity to protect public health and safety, prevent nuisance and control keeping of animals e.g. roosters.

·        No ability for controls to be made for the keeping of other breeds or types of animals outside of a full bylaw review.

·        Lost opportunity to gain public feedback on proposed options.

NEXT STEPS

40        If the Council approves the documents for consultation, the following next steps are proposed:

Action

Timeframe

Consultation – using special consultative procedure

October/November2021

Hearings

To be confirmed

Report to the Council with proposed final bylaw

Early 2022

 

 

Signatories

Author:

Anne Gray - Policy Analyst

Ros MacGill - Manager Compliance Solutions

Authoriser:

Claire Austin - General Manager Customer and Regulatory

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Proposed Keeping of Animals Bylaw

258

b

Statement of proposal for Keeping of Animals Bylaw

263

c

Current Keeping of Animals (excluding Dogs) and Birds Bylaw

269

d

People's Panel Keeping of Animals Survey Report

275

e

Web Keeping of Animals Survey Report

288

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

 

This decision contributes to the healthy and safe people priority of the Social Wellbeing Strategy and liveable city priority of the Spatial Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no specific impacts for Māori.

Sustainability

There are no specific implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been initial engagement through the People’s Panel and with specific stakeholders. The special consultative procedure will be used to consult on the options and draft bylaw presented in this report, as required by the Act.

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement with Parks and Recreation and In-House Legal Counsel.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflict of interest.

Community Boards

Community Boards are identified as key stakeholders and are being engaged with throughout this review.

 

 


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

 

Proposed Event Road Closures for October-November 2021

Department: Transport

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          Applications have been received for temporary road closures for the following events:

a)         Special Rigs for Special Kids.

b)        Emerson’s Dunedin Marathon (date change).

c)         Opening of the Archibald Baxter Memorial Garden.

2          This report recommends temporary closure of the roads concerned using the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974, to enable the events to proceed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

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

i)         Special Rigs for Special Kids

Closed 6:00am to 6:00pm Sunday 31 October 2021:

·    Midland Street from Otaki Street to Portsmouth Drive.

·    Otaki Street from Midland Street to Teviot Street.

Closed for a short period of approximately 20 minutes during this time to allow the convoy to leave:

·    Teviot Street from Portsmouth Drive to Timaru Street.

 

ii)        2021 Emerson’s Dunedin Marathon

Closed 8:00am to 1:00pm Sunday 7 November 2021:

·    Anzac Avenue, from Union St to SH88.

·    Butts Road, from Anzac Avenue to Dundas Street.

·    Logan Park Drive, from Anzac Avenue to Butts Road.

·    Dundas Street, from Harbour Terrace to Butts Road.

·    Minerva Street, from Anzac Avenue to Parry Street West

·    Parry Street West, from Minerva to end.

 

These roads will be progressively reopened as the tail end passes.

 

                                  On the following roads road users will be escorted through when safe to do so:

·    Ward Street, from Anzac Avenue to Wickliffe Street (includes bridge).

·    Wickliffe Street, from Ward street to Fryatt Street.

·    Fryatt Street, from Wharf Street to Wickliffe Street.

·    Kitchener Street, from Wharf Street to Birch Street.

·    Roberts Street, from Wharf Street to Birch Street.

·    Birch Street, from Wharf Street to Roberts Street.

iii)       Opening of the Archibald Baxter Memorial Garden

Closed 2:30 to 3:30pm 29 October 2021:

·    Albany Street between George Street and the upper section of Albany Street.

·    George and Albany Street intersection.

 

BACKGROUND

3          Events and festivals contribute to the vibrancy and uniqueness of Dunedin, creating economic opportunities for the city and reflecting and enhancing social, recreational, environmental and cultural well-being. The contribution events make to the city’s vision of being one of the world’s great small cities is reflected in strategies and plans including the Social Well-being Strategy, the Economic Development Strategy, Ara Toi Ōtepoti, Parks and Recreation Strategy, and the Festival and Events Plan 2018-2023. 

4          The area proposed to be used for these events is legal road and can therefore be temporarily closed to normal traffic if the statutory temporary road closure procedures are followed.  Section 319 of the LGA 1974 gives Council the power to stop or close any road or part of a road in the manner and upon the conditions set out in section 342 and Schedule 10 of the LGA 1974.

5          Under clause 11(e) of Schedule 10 of the LGA 1974, there are conditions which are required to be met. A copy of Schedule 10 of the LGA 1974 is attached (Attachment A).  These conditions include the following:

a)         Consultation with the New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) and the Police.

b)        Being satisfied that traffic is not likely to be unreasonably impeded.

c)         When closing under Schedule 10 section 11(e), the road cannot be closed more than 31 days in the aggregate in any one year.

d)        That public notice must be given of the intention to consider closing any road or part of a road, and notice given of the decision to close the road.

e)        Where the proposed temporary road stopping relates to public functions, the decision to close a road cannot be delegated to Council staff; a resolution of Council is required.

DISCUSSION

Date Changes

6          The Council previously resolved to close the roads detailed for the Emerson’s Dunedin Marathon at the 27 July 2021 Council meeting, however the event was postponed with Covid-19 restrictions.

7          The date for the Special Rigs event was also postponed due to Covid-19 restrictions.

Consultation and Notification

8          Waka Kotahi and the Police have been consulted and neither have any objection to the proposed road closures.

9          The proposed temporary road closures were advertised in the Otago Daily Times on 4 September 2021 and this notice is attached to the report (Attachment B).  An opportunity was provided to give feedback on the proposal by emailing tmp@dcc.govt.nz by a deadline of Saturday 11 September 2021.  No feedback was received in response to this.

10        The proposed temporary road closure for the Archibald Baxter Memorial Garden is scheduled to be advertised on the 25th of September, after the agenda for this meeting closed.  Therefore, any objections received will be tabled at the meeting.

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

12        The event organisers for the events contacted those considered affected, i.e. those with immediate frontage to the roads concerned prior to submitting their application, and no objections were received.  

Traffic Impacts 

13        The Marathon and Special Rigs events have been held over many years without causing unreasonable delays to the travelling public.  Emergency services will have immediate access made available if required.  Public transport services will be managed through the temporary traffic management process.

14        The temporary traffic management plan process will ensure that other issues such as temporary relocation of certain parking (e.g. taxi, mobility and AVO) are addressed.

15        Under section 11(e) of Schedule 10, LGA 1974, the road cannot be closed for more than an aggregate of 31 days in any one year. The 31-day limit will not be exceeded by the approval of the proposed temporary road closures.

OPTIONS

16        It should be noted that recommendations in this report cannot be amended without first carrying out further consultation with affected parties, Waka Kotahi, the Police, and verifying that traffic impacts are acceptable.

Option One – Recommended Option

 

17        That the Council closes the sections of roads as detailed in the recommendation.

Advantages

·        The roads will be able to be closed and the events will be able to proceed.

·        Closure will enable the benefits (economic, social, cultural) associated with events being held in Dunedin.

Disadvantages

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

Option Two – Status Quo

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

Advantages

·        There would be no detour required for travelling public, and the road 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

19        Should the resolution be made to temporarily close the road, Council staff will proceed to accept the temporary traffic management plan and notify the public of the closures.

 

Signatories

Author:

Michael Tannock - Transport Network Team Leader

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Local Government Act 1974 Schedule 10

300

b

DCC Noticeboard, Otago Daily Times 4 September 2021

303

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the social and economic 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

There are no known impacts for Māori.

Sustainability

There are no implications for sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications.  The cost of the proposed road closures will be met within existing budgets.

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 Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency. Affected parties were notified and provided a time period for feedback

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with DCC Events, In-House Legal, and Transport.  There is support for the event 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

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 September 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council

28 September 2021

 

Notice of Motion

Notice of Motion - New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          In accordance with Standing Order 26.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Mayor Aaron Hawkins on Thursday 16 September 2021 for inclusion on the agenda for the meeting being held on Tuesday, 28 September 2021:

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Supports the retention of the New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame in Dunedin.

b)     Endorses any application by the NZSHF Trust to external funders or sponsors.

c)     Provides appropriate representation on any community-led steering group charged with planning its redevelopment and/or relocation; and

d)     Considers any future funding requirements through the relevant Annual Plan or Long Term Plan process.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

              


Council

28 September 2021

 

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 July 2021 - Public Excluded

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)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

 

S7(2)(b)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret.

 

.

 

C2  Confirmation of  the Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting - 3 September 2021 - Public Excluded

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).S7(2)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

 

 

 

.

 

C3  Confidential Council Actions from Resolutions at Council Meetings

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.

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 6.

 

C4  Confidential Council Forward Work Programme

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

C5  Appointment of Reviewer

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.