Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                                    Tuesday 23 November 2021

Time:                                                   10.00 am

Venue:                                                Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers – Members

                                                               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/7vLnckW81IY   

 

 

 

 

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

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                                                                         PAGE

 

1             Public Forum                                                                                                                                                              4

1.1       Public Forum - South Dunedin Community Network                                                                     4

1.2       Public Forum - Taieri Railway                                                                                                                  4

2             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                    4

3             Confirmation of Agenda                                                                                                                                        4

4             Declaration of Interest                                                                                                                                           5     

Reports

5             Actions From Resolutions of Council Meetings                                                                                          19

6             Forward Work Programme from the 10 year plan 2021-31, incorporating the 2022/23 Annual Plan                25

7             Live Music Action Plan Update                                                                                                                         33

8             South Dunedin Future - Programme Update                                                                                              40

9             Zero Carbon Update Report                                                                                                                              56

10           DCC Submission on Te Hau Marohi Ki Anamata - Transitioning to a Low-Emissions and Climate-Resolient Future:  Emissions Reduction Plan Discussion Document                                                                                       65

11           Dunedin City Holdings Limited Share Capital                                                                                              81

12           DCC Further Submission to ORC Regional Policy Statement 2021                                                      87

13           DCC Submission on Te kawe i te haepapa para, Taking Responsibility for Our Waste              104

14           New Zealand Masters Games Update                                                                                                         129

15           Statement of proposal for consultation: Strath Taieri key vehicle and pedestrian routes (earthquake-prone buildings)                                                                                                                                                                136

16           Hearing Committee Recommendations on the Review of the Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan             151

17           Regulatory Subcommittee recommendations on the proposed parking changes-October 2021 221

18           Proposed Event Road Closures for December 2021, and January and February 2022.             237

19           Submission on the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill            247

20           Appointment to Outside Organisation                                                                                                        261               

Resolution to Exclude the Public                                                                                                                     263

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

1          Public Forum

1.1       Public Forum - South Dunedin Community Network

Eleanor Doig, South Dunedin Community Network wishes to address the meeting to provide an update on the partnership with DIA and the opportunities that holds for South Dunedin.

1.2       Public Forum - Taieri Railway

Clive Copeman wishes to address the meeting concerning the Feasibility Study of the Taieri Railway

2          Apologies

An apology has been received from Cr Christine Garey.

 

That the Council:

 

Accepts the apology from Cr Christine Garey.

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

23 November 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 Executive Leadership Teams’ Interest Register.

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Councillor Register of Interest

7

b

ELT Register of Interest

16

  



Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

   



Council

23 November 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

21

  



Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 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 January 2022 Council meeting.

Signatories

Author:

Sharon Bodeker - Corporate Planner

Authoriser:

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

10 year plan and Annual Plan Forward Work Programme - November 2021

27

  


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

Live Music Action Plan Update

Department: Arts and Culture

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report updates Council on work undertaken to date, along with the process for creating the Live Music Action Plan (“the Plan”).

2          From 18 June 2021 staff have met with representatives from the Save Dunedin Live Music collective (SDLM) to progress the creation of the Plan.

3          This work involves identifying key challenges faced in holding live music performances in the inner city and finding solutions for inclusion in the Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the Live Music Action Plan Update report.

 

BACKGROUND

 

4          The SDLM collective was formed after a concert by Marissa and the Dandelions at Dog with Two Tails was shut down by Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) noise control in April 2021. 

5          The collective convened a series of hui inviting the local music community to discuss issues experienced in delivering live music performances in the city.   

6          SDLM also started a petition that gained 1,800 signatures.  The petition focused on noise regulations and the conflict between live music and residents living in the inner city.

7          During this period, community engagement on the DDC’s 10-year plan 2021-31 process was underway.  Specific feedback was invited on five topics, including a performing arts venue.

8          Council received 62 submissions on its 10-year plan about live music at city venues and noise control issues. 49 submitters used a pro forma submission asking Council to explore live music licensing options, expand the zone in which live music is to be expected, specify what “reasonable” noise is, and support live music, all in consultation with the Dunedin music community. 

9          Following consideration of the submissions received Council resolved:

Moved (Mayor Aaron Hawkins/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Council:

a)         Includes $10,000 to facilitate the creation of a Live Music Action Plan with interested parties in year one of the 10-year plan.

 

b)          Notes that the report would be presented to the Community and Culture Committee by December 2021.

             Division:

The Council voted by division:

 

For:                Crs David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Jules Radich, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (11).

Against:         Crs Sophie Barker, Jim O'Malley and Lee Vandervis (3).

Abstained:   Nil

 

The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 3

 

Motion carried (CNL/2021/001)

 

10        The Ara Toi Strategy recognises the importance of a vibrant cultural city centre, and the intrinsic value of arts and culture for practitioners and audiences of which live music is an important component. The Strategy aims to position Dunedin as one of the world’s great small cities for arts and culture, where creativity is fully integrated into the city’s identity and recognised as essential to its future success.  The development of a Live Music Action Plan fits within the objectives of the Ara Toi Strategy.  

11        Staff are working across departments to jointly support music in the city. Representatives from Creative Partnerships (Ara Toi), Enterprise Dunedin, City Planning, Regulatory and Community Development & Events are meeting regularly with the SDLM collective to identify key challenges faced in the community, and to develop a Live Music Action Plan with the music community.

DISCUSSION

12        Live music is an important element of Dunedin’s identity and brand.  The city is known internationally because of Dunedin Sound and contemporary acts such Six60 and Nadia Reid.  These musicians have all developed and grown their careers and audiences through live performance.

13        Research of music plans from around the world indicate Dunedin has many of the key ingredients necessary for a leading music city, including a strong music history and brand, and a high population of youth.

14        A music plan will strengthen Dunedin’s live music landscape and add to the city’s vibrancy and magnetism.  A key focus in the initial stages of the plan’s development will investigate solutions that support both live music events and inner-city residences.

15        A process for creating the Plan has been developed and involves three phases:

a)         Phase I – consultation with the music community to identify challenges faced

b)        Phase II – creation of the music plan

c)         Phase III – delivery of the music plan

Phase I - Consultation with the music community to identify challenges faced.

16        Since June 2021 staff have arranged fortnightly meetings with members of the SDLM collective to listen to and understand the range of challenges experienced in holding live music performances.  These challenges are not limited to noise alone but include issues such as access to performance and rehearsal venues, and the difficulties in holding live music events in green spaces in Dunedin.

17        Mr. Dave Bennet, Ms. Fairleigh Gilmore, Ms. Marissa Kaloga, Mr. Ed Lobo and Mr. Person Will from SDLM regularly attend the fortnightly meetings. The collective also invites community representatives to the meetings, such as Mr. Jason Schroeder, to discuss specific topics of interest. These sessions help staff understand some of the difficulties presented by DCC systems for the music community, and to explore possible improvements.

18        Noise complaints about live music venues from inner-city residents were the catalyst for creating the Plan. Staff invited SDLM representatives to meet with independent sound adviser Jon Styles to discuss solutions that support the co-existence of live music and residences in the city.

19        As a result of Phase I consultation with the music community, staff have utilized Council funding to initiate two pieces of key work that will support the development of the Plan.

20        Mr. Jon Styles (Sound Consultant) has been contracted to provide a report outlining best practice solutions from around New Zealand. This report is due at the end of November 2021 and will provide best practice advice from around New Zealand and Australia, on:

a)         The optimal zoning framework for music venues to operate in, and to provide advice on whether these optimal models will be affected by recently announced Government changes on housing.

b)        Maximin permitted noise levels for music venues and music events, and the optimal practical levels that have been achieved to facilitate live music.

c)         Examples where music venues/other entertainment activities and noise sensitive activities have been successfully combined and the controls/rules used to enable these to co-exist successfully, noting in particular any measure not currently used in Dunedin.

d)        Examples of best practice controls (e.g., acoustic insulation) to manage the effects between noise generating activities and noise sensitive activities, such that reverse sensitivity conflicts on the music venues will be managed or avoided.

e)        Successful after-hours noise control policies and difference between these and DCC’s current noise control policy.

The report will also include:

a)    A discussion on the basic principles of reverse sensitivity effects in terms of noise effects in mixed use environments, the Environment Court’s approach to determining unreasonable noise and the issues that must be overcome in the delivery of a vibrant and successful mixed-use environment.

b)    A summary of the best practice options pursued elsewhere and any key differences between these and Dunedin’s current approach, both in terms of District Plan provisions, other regulatory measures, and relevant non-regulatory initiatives.

c)    A summary of the recommended options to manage the effects between music venues and events, and noise sensitive activities, particularly in terms of the CBD.

21        Mr. Craig Birch-Morunga, (local Dunedin musician), was contracted in discussion with SDLM, to lead consultation with the music community. Ensuring that the music community had agency in leading this part of Phase 1, was an important factor of the collaborative approach considered critical to shaping the Plan. To date, Mr. Birch-Morunga has facilitated 7 sessions with members of the music community to discuss the following questions:

·    What do you love about the Dunedin music scene?

·    What do you think are the biggest challenges facing the music scene?

·    Of the following six areas which two would you like to see prioritised in the next year and why? Noise control, rehearsal space, mid-sized venue, facilitating events through planning, funding and promotions, a music hub.

·    Brief discussion of solutions for these areas.

·    Discussion about a music toolkit to help with planning events in Dunedin.

·    The future of Dunedin music – what are the best things we need to protect? What are the new things we need to see?

Phase II – Creation of the Music Plan

22        Feedback gathered from the community feedback sessions, alongside separate feedback from SDLM will assist staff, SDLM and the wider music community to complete the Plan by 30 June 2022.

23        Staff and SDLM will work together to establish a Music Roundtable group including a diverse representation of the wider music community, to advise the team on creating the Plan.

 

Phase III – Delivery of the Music Plan

24        Delivery of the Plan is expected to begin in year two of the 10-year plan and is likely to require further investment from Council and external partners. A report requesting further funding will be presented to the 13 December 2021 Annual Plan meeting for consideration.

OPTIONS

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

NEXT STEPS

26        A report will be presented to Council in December 2021, outlining a request for further funding to deliver the Live Music Action Plan in 2021/22.

 

Signatories

Author:

Kirsten Glengarry - Manager Creative Partnerships

Authoriser:

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 


 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the cultural, 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

The Plan resolution supports the Ara Toi strategy which recognises the importance of a vibrant cultural city centre and the intrinsic value of arts and culture for practitioners and audiences and music is an important slice.

Māori Impact Statement

Ensuring Māori inclusion in any community project is a Treaty of Waitangi priority for the DCC. Early discussions were held with the SDLM community to ensure that a collaborative process between the DCC and SDLM also included Māori community input. Māori musicians and cultural practitioners were an active part of the of the wider music community consultation process.

Sustainability

The Plan aims to assist with social sustainability, supporting accord between inner city living and live music.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

Additional budget will be sought through the 2022/23 Annual Plan process.

Significance

This report is considered of low significance in terms of the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

Engagement – external

The report discusses the external engagement undertaken to date.

Engagement - internal

There has been significant internal engagement with Creative Parentships, Enterprise Dunedin, City Planning, Regulatory and Community Development & Events.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

South Dunedin Future - Programme Update

Department: Maori, Partnerships & Policy

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to update Council on the status of the South Dunedin Future (SDF) Programme, following the appointment of a dedicated Programme Manager in August 2021. It presents the findings of an initial assessment of climate change-related challenges facing South Dunedin and outlines the programme structure, logic, activities, and next steps.

2          South Dunedin, along with other low-lying areas of the city such as Harbourside, are exposed to a range of natural hazards. Climate change is expected to increase the intensity, frequency, impact and consequently the risk presented by some of these hazards. The flat area of South Dunedin likely to be most affected supports a large, diverse community with strong connections to place. Local identity, social and economic indicators, levels of resilience, are all highly varied. The complex and interconnected nature of these issues require an equally integrated response.

3          To date, the Dunedin City Council (DCC), Otago Regional Council (ORC), and many other stakeholders have undertaken a wide range of initiatives intended to tackle specific issues. Many of these have been associated with the South Dunedin Future (SDF) Programme to varying degrees. However, in practice, most initiatives have operated as loosely connected projects, rather than as a coherent programme of work with a clear strategic intent. With dedicated resourcing, and an evident commitment from all stakeholders, there is a real opportunity to realise a step-change in the SDF Programme and form a programme that is greater than the sum of its parts.

4          This will not be an easy or simple task. It will require an agreed strategy, effective collaboration within and across Council organisations, and meaningful partnerships with mana whenua, the South Dunedin community, and other stakeholders. However, it is certainly achievable, and there is a real opportunity to identify a shared vision of the future for South Dunedin, and to develop a range of potential pathways to achieve this vision. There are many current uncertainties, some of which will endure, so the SDF Programme will need to deal with this and make or support decisions on the best available information. However, one certainty is that our natural and built environments are changing, as are our communities. Planning for and responding to these changes will deliver better outcomes.

5          This paper outlines the findings of the current state assessment of the SDF Programme and notes next steps but does not present options at this time. A more fully-developed SDF Programme Plan, with options, will be presented to Councils in mid-2022. Councils may also be asked to support development of options during partner and stakeholder engagement processes in early-2022.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the findings of the current state assessment of the South Dunedin Future Programme, including the structure, strategic intent, change logic and associated activities.

b)     Notes the next steps, and that Councillors, mana whenua, South Dunedin community and other stakeholders will have multiple opportunities to engage in the programme definition phase.

c)     Notes the upcoming programme definition phase will adopt a Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning (DAPP) approach, supported by technical assistance from the National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (NIWA).

d)     Notes that a report will be provided to Councils in mid-2022 on the results of the next phase, which will include a more detailed South Dunedin Future Programme Plan.

BACKGROUND

6          South Dunedin is a large, diverse community of approximately 12,000 residents. Historically, the location was an important manufacturing and service area for Dunedin. It remains important for light industry and has also evolved into a destination retail area. It is central, flat and conveniently located, and home to many businesses, schools and popular amenities such as the St Clair and St Kilda beaches. South Dunedin, and other low-lying areas such as Harbourside, host a range of essential infrastructure and DCC assets, which support services for wider Dunedin.

Operating context

7          South Dunedin is exposed to a range of natural hazards, due to its low-lying area built on a former coastal wetland. Potential hazards include coastal inundation from storm surge or tsunami; runoff flooding exacerbated by a high groundwater table; and seismic hazards such as liquefaction.

8          Climate change will likely increase most of these hazards over time through rising sea level, rising ground water, and increased frequency and severity of storm events. Land subsidence may also increase both the impact of these hazards and the rate of onset.

9          While much work has been undertaken to enhance environmental monitoring and better understand natural hazards, there remain gaps in our knowledge of the natural coastal and ground water processes. How these complex natural processes interact with the built environment in and around South Dunedin, and the impact of climate change on these and other processes, also remains uncertain.

10        Local identity, social and economic indicators, and levels of resilience are highly varied across South Dunedin. Residents and non-residents have deep historical, cultural, and personal connections to the area. The flat geography hosts core DCC infrastructure, and enables access to housing, community services, and economic opportunities found largely in South Dunedin. Most census statistical areas in South Dunedin register 8-10 on socioeconomic deprivation index (10 being the most deprived), meaning pockets of the community are vulnerable and may not be well placed to adequately adapt to change. This complexity impacts potential adaptation options as the views, needs and interests of stakeholders are wide-ranging.

11        South Dunedin’s exposure to natural hazards, legacy infrastructure that is ill-suited to servicing future needs, and the community’s varied capacity to adapt, make it vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change. The complexity of the issues, and many unknowns, also creates unavoidable uncertainty. It is not possible, practical, or sensible to wait until all uncertainties are resolved before making decisions. Long lead-in times for many potential adaptation options require decisions to be made on evolving understandings of the potential impacts of climate change.

What has been done to date in response to these issues?

12        The potential impact of climate change on South Dunedin has been the subject of specific investigation by the DCC and ORC since the late 2000s. In 2010, the DCC commissioned a report by University of Otago Emeritus Professor Blair Fitzharris to examine the Climate Change Impacts on Dunedin (the ‘Fitzharris Report’). In 2009 ORC established the first permanent groundwater monitoring network and in 2012 undertook initial groundwater rise modelling.

13        The major flood event in June 2015, which caused widespread flooding across South Dunedin, proved to be a catalyst for councils adopting a more integrated approach for responding to climate change-driven issues. In June 2016, incumbent Mayor Dave Cull wrote to the residents of South Dunedin outlining key challenges and describing a suite of responses from the DCC and ORC. This included research into natural processes, maintenance and optimisation of existing infrastructure, and consideration of medium-term options to reduce the risk of flooding due to rising groundwater and severe rainfall events. This collection of activities would subsequently become known as the ‘South Dunedin Future’ Programme.

South Dunedin Future (SDF) Programme

14        To date, the focus of the SDF Programme has included three core workstreams: (i) community engagement; (ii) environmental investigations and monitoring; and (iii) interventions to help mitigate short-term flood risk and identify risk posed by sudden onset hazards like earthquakes.

15        This work has involved extensive community engagement, including 60 plus meetings and hui over 2020-21 to build trust, relationships, and awareness of key issues. This work has been supported by a range of communications activities, including proactive media engagement and the establishment of South Dunedin Future webpages, designed to increase access to information about local climate change adaptation issues in South Dunedin. The webpages include the history around post European settlement of ‘The Flat’ area now known as South Dunedin.

16        An enhanced programme of environmental research and monitoring, led by the ORC with support from external agencies such as GNS Science, Te Pū Ao, continues to build knowledge of rainfall, ground water, and coastal processes, including through rainfall monitoring, drilling of bores, and modelling storm surge and tsunami risk. This is complemented by geological hazard work looking at fault lines, vertical land movement, liquefication and lateral spreading.

17        Physical infrastructure work has included installing a new, larger filter screen at the Portobello Road pumping station for faster cleaning and pumping; improved inspection, cleaning and maintenance of 1,500 mud tanks; and fitting new backflow prevention valves to help stop wastewater getting inside homes most at risk. The DCC’s 10-Year Plan (2021-31) allocates $35 million for flood prevention works in South Dunedin, with two projects currently underway to develop an integrated catchment model and a flood alleviation plan for the area.

18        The St Clair-St Kilda Coastal Plan Project, Whakahekerau – Rakiātea Rautaki Tai, is seeking to create a safe and sustainable future for this stretch of coast by establishing a basis for transitioning towards more appropriate and sustainable coastal management practices.

Other related work

19        In addition to climate adaptation-related activities, the DCC has committed $12 million to the design and construction of a new South Dunedin Library and Community Complex, as a strategic investment and community asset for the area. A range of other relevant work is either planned or underway, which is currently not formally associated with the SDF Programme, but which will have an impact on the outcomes in South Dunedin.  For example, open and green spaces will be a central factor in managing climate change impacts in the future. The DCC is currently developing an Open Spaces Plan for Dunedin and is undertaking a Sports Facility Needs Assessment. The DCC’s Transport Asset Management Plan is also investigating road maintenance options that are better suited to the ground conditions in South Dunedin or that could help flood mitigation.

20        In 2018, ORC joined the NZ SeaRise research programme. One key objective of the programme is to improve sea-level rise projections for New Zealand to better anticipate and manage impacts such as flooding, rising groundwater levels, and coastal erosion. South Dunedin has been selected as a regional case study as it is a low-lying urban area impacted by subsidence and sea level rise.  The case study outcome will be used to develop planning and risk assessment toolkits for sea level rise adaptation.

What is the current state of the SDF Programme?

21        A critical success factor of any programme is alignment with corporate or organisational strategies. However, currently there does not appear to be any widely established SDF Programme goal or objective(s), nor clear alignment with DCC strategies and plans. Consultations with stakeholders have indicated many different understandings of both the scope and purpose of the SDF Programme. While these generally coalesce around themes such as community resilience, community wellbeing, and sustainable development, they vary widely in adopting a focus on natural, built, or social environments, or governance factors.

22        This is compounded by a lack of legislative clarity around roles and responsibilities for local government in respect of climate change adaptation. The release of the National Adaptation Plan, the Resource Management system reform – including a new Climate Adaptation Act - and the Future of Local Government review is expected to provide clarity for local government.

23        However, the current uncertainty around the agreed strategic intent of the SDF Programme has proven to be a constraint for agreeing an overall programme mandate, structure, and processes. Roles and responsibilities of key contributors, as well as lines of accountability have been unclear, given uncertainties about the SDF Programme mandate and objectives. In this environment, the SDF Programme has struggled to fully establish and sustain momentum.

24        While many connections between South Dunedin-focussed projects have been identified, and systems and processes set up to support cross-council governance and management, these efforts have had mixed results. Typically, such arrangements have not endured changes in key personnel or proved sustainable across multiple years.

25        While the many projects and initiatives described above have been nominally associated with a ‘South Dunedin Future (SDF) Programme’, in practice, they have operated more as a collection of related yet independent projects, rather than a coherent and coordinated programme of work. Many projects have enjoyed individual successes, the St Clair – St Kilda Coastal Plan Project and ORC’s monitoring and natural hazards assessment work, are clear examples. However, efforts to coordinate between councils, and across multiple projects within councils, have focussed largely on information sharing only.

26        In this sense, the many benefits of having a genuine South Dunedin Future programme, (i.e. aligning to organisational strategies, establishing mechanisms to deliver the desired change, effectively integrating this into a business-as-usual environment, and realising a range of strategic and operational efficiencies), have not been realised to date.

So where to from here?

27        The two Councils have recognised these issues and have responded by establishing a jointly funded, dedicated Programme Manager role, which was filled in August 2021. This role is supported by a dedicated SDF Programme budget of $500,000 per annum (from the DCC 10-Year Plan budget) and $420,000 (excluding staff time) per annum in the first three years of ORC 2021-31 Long Term Plan and then $300,000 per annum until 2031.

28        These actions provide a firmer foundation for effective management of the SDF Programme. Subsequent sections of this report outline additional work required to make best use of this investment and fully realise the benefits of managing a wide range of initiatives under the umbrella of the SDF Programme.

DISCUSSION

Current state assessment of the South Dunedin Future Programme

29        An assessment of the current state of the SDF Programme has sought to identify the key issues and challenges facing South Dunedin, the various activities being undertaken in response, and the links to the broader strategic objectives of both the DCC and ORC. In short, what are the problems, what is being done in response, and how will that contribute to Dunedin’s larger, longer term objectives?

Issues and hazards affecting South Dunedin

30        The range of key hazards and issues affecting South Dunedin, and other low-lying areas of Dunedin such as Harbourside, are well known, and can be grouped into four domains:

a)         Natural environment – features and processes of the natural, physical environment, such as geological (earthquakes/liquefaction), hydrological (rainfall/flooding), and coastal events or hazards (storms/erosion).

b)        Built environment – features and processes of cities and other built environments, such as three waters infrastructure, ground cover, transport networks and urban development.

c)         Social environment – the views, values, and knowledge of key stakeholders, such as levels of understanding of the issues, risks and options, relationships, and levels of resilience.

d)        Governance – the broader environment in which decisions are made and actioned, such as changing policy, legislation, and regulations, organisational roles, and mandates.

31        In many instances the programme will seek to grapple with interconnected challenges, straddling one or more of these domains. For example, how changing rainfall patterns (natural environment) might impact the operational performance of storm water systems (built environment), where stakeholders have different expectations about what the system should deliver (social environment), against a backdrop of uncertainty over who will own and operate the system in future (governance environment).

32        A fuller summary of these issues and hazards can be found in Attachment A (note this is a summary, not an exhaustive list).

Actions and responses

33        As noted earlier in this report, a range of actions and responses have been undertaken over recent years under the banner of the SDF Programme. The current state assessment has sought to identify these activities, group them into logical workstreams, and determine some of the key products (‘outputs’). This work was based on extensive consultations with DCC and ORC staff and review of a range of operational documents.  The four workstreams and their key outputs include:

a)         Science & Technical – Understanding how the changing physical environment affects natural hazards and risk, now and into the future.

·        Key Outputs: Hazard monitoring (sea-level, tides, ground water, erosion, subsidence, rainfall); and Hazard investigation and modelling (geological, hydrological & coastal hazards).

b)        Planning & Infrastructure – Managing hazards and risk through land use planning, engineered and nature-based solutions.

·        Key outputs: various projects including a Future Development Strategy, St Clair-St Kilda Coastal Plan, South Dunedin Flood Alleviation Plan, and Integrated Catchment Model Project.

c)         Community Development & Engagement – Partnering with the community to build resilience; identify preferred futures and determine viable adaptation pathways.

·        Key outputs: Communications and engagement strategy, plan and reviews; South Dunedin Library and Community Complex; Community Development and Resilience Plan and Projects.

d)        Strategy & Policy – Integrating research and best practice into decision-making, while navigating a changing policy, legislative and regulatory environment.

·        Key outputs: Council submissions to central government climate change processes; climate change mainstreaming; and research and best practice projects.

What is this work leading to?

34        The assessment has also sought to identify the changes (‘outcomes’) that are being sought from this work. Council strategies and plans have been reviewed to identify if and where these outcomes align to the councils’ broader strategic objectives.

35        In almost all instances, clear connections can be identified between the SDF Programme activities that are underway and the strategic objectives of the DCC and ORC. However, the vertical nature of existing Council strategies and operations (e.g. Three Waters, Transport, Parks & Recreation, Natural Hazards), and horizontal nature of the SDF Programme (e.g. programme objectives cut across these vertical silos of activity, budgeting and accountability), mean these connections are not immediately evident.

36        The various outcomes of the SDF programme are found in many strategies and plans across both Councils, but not centralised in one place. This means activity and project work cannot always easily be linked to strategies or plans, and that it can be very difficult to identify strategic linkages across different workstreams.

37        Discussions with key staff, and review of existing Council strategy and policy documents, have identified the following set of short-term (1-3 years) SDF Programme outcomes:

a)        Science & Technical

·        Improved knowledge of the changing physical environment and its effect on natural hazards.

·        Decision making is informed by better understandings of natural hazards and risk.

b)        Planning & Infrastructure

·        Urban development in South Dunedin aligns to current and future risk from natural hazards.

·        Increased flood resilience in at-risk areas of South Dunedin.

c)         Community Development & Engagement

·        Community is empowered to shape futures and inform pathways for South Dunedin.

·        Community is empowered to build resilience.

d)        Strategy & Policy

·        Dunedin’s interests are reflected in climate change-related policy, legislation, and regulations.

·        Research and best practice are integrated into Council strategies, plans and operations.

38        The set of outcomes noted above are a product of existing information. It is anticipated that as more information becomes available, the goals, objectives, and outcomes sought will change to reflect growing certainty in particular areas. Programme activities will also need to adapt to these changes.

39        Councils will be asked to formally confirm a set of SDF Programme outcomes during the next phase of the programme, to provide a clear strategic direction and mandate.

SDF Programme goal and vision

40        Developing a goal or vision statement for the SDF Programme and confirming high level, longer term outcomes is a top-down process that should involve a wide range of partners and stakeholders. This would provide the best opportunity to develop a set of SDF Programme objectives that are robust, inclusive, widely owned, and sustainable over time.  This process is planned to occur in early 2022 and is detailed in the ‘Next Steps’ section below.

41        In the interim, it is possible to use existing information to formulate both an indicative goal and vision for the SDF Programme and to identify indicative higher level, longer term outcomes. The value in developing these placeholders, which like the workstreams, outputs and short-term outcomes are based on best available information, is that they act to illustrate the of logic of change that the SDF Programme could follow in years to come. This ‘story’ is often useful for enabling partners and stakeholders to get a sense of where things could go, and what the steps might look like along the way.

42        Using information from existing workstreams, outputs, and short-term outcomes could reasonably lead the following set of indicative mixed-term outcomes:

·        Reduced risk from natural hazards

·        Reduced frequency and impact of flooding

·        Reshaping urban form of South Dunedin

·        Climate change adaptation impacts are equitable

·        Increased community resilience

43        Similarly, this set of mixed-term outcomes could reasonably lead to the following indicative SDF Programme goal or vision:

·        Enhanced community resilience and wellbeing through sustainable urban regeneration of South Dunedin.

Partnership with mana whenua

44        A central component of defining and establishing the SDF Programme will be a partnership with mana whenua. This will be particularly important for the SDF Programme, where there will be many opportunities to transition to more sustainable, holistic interactions between people and place. This has strong alignment with Te Ao Māori. The intention is to identify viable pathways from current situation to futures where communities enjoy greater wellbeing, increased resilience, and have more sustainable interactions with their environment. It is envisaged that a partnership with mana whenua will be integral to this process, and could span governance, co-design, and delivery elements of the SDF Programme. An approach has been made to Aukaha Ltd and Te Rūnaka o Ōtākou proposing initial discussions.

Programme principles

45        The current state assessment process has also sought to identify some general principles under which the SDF Programme is currently operating and could operate in future. Principles are particularly useful in climate adaptation programmes because they provide guidance in areas where there may be ongoing uncertainty, enabling more consistent and coherent decisions.

46        The assessment identified two overarching strategic principles and five programme principles. It would be worthwhile testing these with partners and stakeholders during the next phase of the SDF Programme, with a view to refining and formally agreeing in due course. Until then, there would be benefit viewing them as ‘working principles’ that provide interim guidance. The principles are summarised below, with a fuller description outlined in Attachment A.

47        The two strategic principles relate to Treaty partnerships with iwi Maori, and sustainability and intergenerational equity. Each of these strategic principles features prominently throughout DCC and ORC strategies and plans and both are common themes in the day-to-day work of both councils.

48        In addition, five programme principles were identified in the assessment as best reflecting the strategic intent and operational approach of the SDF Programme. These include adopting approaches that are (i) community-centred, (ii) evidence and risk-based, (iii) plan for change, (iv) are flexible and responsive, and (v) transparent and accountable.

OPTIONS

49        As this report is for noting, there are no options provided.

NEXT PHASE

Council collaboration and SDF Programme governance

50        The cross-cutting nature of climate change adaptation means that an effective response is likely to require a similarly integrated and collaborative approach. Both the DCC and ORC have identified climate change adaptation as a priority focus area, and in the case of the SDF Programme, collaborative planning, and action to address climate change risk has been underway for some time. Staff in both councils have a good track record and established processes for sharing information and collaborating at operational levels. This will need to continue.

51        As the SDF Programme progresses through the next phase of its work, the programme scope, structure, and objectives will become better defined. It is anticipated that roles and responsibilities of each council will also become clearer during this process, which should enable ongoing collaboration, while ensuring that ultimate decision-making rests with the responsible council.

52        It is understood that representatives from both Councils continue to discuss options for SDF Programme governance. In the meantime, the Programme Manager is actively working with staff across DCC and ORC and is reporting to an interim Steering Group comprising executive staff from both councils. These interim arrangements are working well at an operational level.

53        This report will be provided to both DCC and ORC Councils (on 23 and 24 November 2021, respectively).

Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning (DAPP) Approach

54        The next phase of work will be guided by the Ministry for the Environment’s best practice document, Preparing for coastal change – A Summary of coastal hazards and climate change guidance for local Government (2017), and will seek to utilise the Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning (DAPP) approach. The DAPP approach identifies ways forward (pathways) despite uncertainty, while remaining responsive to change, should this be needed (dynamic). A diagram summarising the DAPP process is attached in Attachment B.

55        In the approach, a range of responses to climate change are tested against possible future scenarios. Pathways are mapped that will best manage, reduce or avoid risk. A plan is developed, with short-term actions and long-term options, and includes pre-defined points (triggers) where decisions can be revisited. This flexibility allows the agreed course of action to change if the need arises – such as when new climate change information becomes available.

56        By accommodating future change at the outset, this approach helps avoid locking in investments that could make future adjustments difficult and costly. As such, it assists both longer-term sustainability and community resilience.

What will this next phase involve?

57        The next phase of the SDF Programme will include a more detailed programme planning and design process during the 8-month period from November 2021 to 30 June 2022.

58        This ‘programme definition’ phase will involve more in-depth work with relevant teams across DCC and ORC, as well as targeted engagements with a wide range of external partners and stakeholders. The intention is to further develop hazard and sea-level rise assessments, identify community, partner and stakeholder values and objectives, and to undertake vulnerability and risk assessments.

59        The primary output from this next phase is expected to be a detailed SDF Programme Plan, which will be provided to Councils in June 2022, and seek decisions on preferred programme objectives, structure, governance, management, and implementation options.

60        Lower-level outputs from each of the workstreams are yet to be determined, but for example, are likely to include:

a)         engagement with mana whenua, including discussions on governance, co-design and implementation intended to incorporate Te Ao Māori into the programme strategy, structure, and operations

b)        community consultations and engagement on long term vision(s) for South Dunedin and broader objectives for the SDF Programme

c)         detailed mapping of key issues and decisions required to realise SDF Programme objectives (enabling identification of critical path actions)

d)        an updated report on natural hazards affecting South Dunedin

e)        commissioning of a South Dunedin climate change risk assessment

f)         SDF Programme communications and engagement strategy, including upgrade of the existing websites

g)         a range of new or ongoing activities, including projects and business-as-usual operations of both councils, with various degrees of association with the current SDF Programme.

61        Subsequent phases of the SDF Programme, commencing July 2022, would seek to identify adaptation options and pathways, evaluate these options, and develop adaptation strategies and implementation plans. The iterative nature of the DAPP process means that at each phase, previous work would be reviewed and refined, based on the most recent information, adding further depth and complexity to the SDF Programme Plan.

62        It is anticipated that all partners and stakeholders, including Councillors, mana whenua, community, and other groups will have multiple opportunities to engage with the SDF Programme during each phase.

NEXT STEPS

63        A further report will be presented to Council in mid 2022.

 

Signatories

Author:

Jonathan Rowe - Programme Manager, South Dunedin Future

Authoriser:

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

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

South Dunedin Future Programme - Current State Assessment Summary Diagram

53

b

Dynamic Adaptive Planning Pathways (DAPP) Cycle

55

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The development of the SDF Programme Plan enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities; promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of South Dunedin 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 SDF programme is an integrated programme of work that contributes to objectives currently described across the DCC strategic framework.

Māori Impact Statement

Initial engagement with mana whenua has informed the development of this report, and further hui and collaboration is planned in the period from November 2021-June 2022, as described in the body of this report.

Sustainability

Sustainability will be a central component of the SDF Programme as it seeks to develop climate change adaptation options for South Dunedin.  This work will be integrated with the wider climate change work programme.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The SDF Programme has been resourced (as described in para 26) in the 2021-2031 10 year plan; projects within the programme are aligned with the infrastructure strategy; programme planning will be aligned with the development of the 2024-2034 10 year plan, including the infrastructure strategy.

Financial considerations

Programme resourcing is described in para 26 in this report. Any update that impacts on financial considerations will be brought to Council in December 2022.

Significance

As this is an update report for Councillors, it is assessed as being low in terms of DCC’s significance and engagement policy. The programme itself is of high significance, and principles and values described in the significance and engagement policy are being integrated into the design of the engagement planning.

Engagement – external

Targeted partner and stakeholder discussions have informed the development of this report, including with a range of partner and stakeholder groups.

Engagement - internal

The development of this report has been informed by extensive discussion and meetings with a wide range of staff across both DCC and ORC.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no anticipated legal/health and safety risks associated with this update report.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

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

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

Zero Carbon Update Report

Department: Corporate Policy

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report provides an update on the Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) Zero Carbon (climate change mitigation) work programme (the work programme) since May 2021.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Notes the Zero Carbon Work Programme Update Report

 

BACKGROUND

2          The DCC has been progressing work to mitigate and adapt to climate change since 2009.

3          In June 2019, Council declared a climate emergency and moved to bring forward the emissions target for the city, as follows: 

Moved Cr Hawkins / Cr Laufiso 

“That the Council: 

a) Declares a Climate Emergency. 

b) Acknowledge that all levels of central government need to act. 

c) Agrees that a business as usual transition to a low carbon economy is inadequate. 

d) Develops a Climate Emergency Plan that: 

i) Sets a city target of net zero carbon by 2030, with interim milestones; 

ii) Quantifies the actions available to Council, community and central government to ensure these targets are met.” 

Division 

The Council voted by division: 

For: Crs David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Aaron Hawkins, Marie Laufiso, Damian Newell, Jim O'Malley, Kate Wilson and Mayor Dave Cull (9). 

Against: Crs Doug Hall, Mike Lord, Conrad Stedman, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley (5). 

Abstained: Nil 

The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 5 

Motion carried (CNL/2019/154)

4          The DCC’s emission reduction targets has two parts:

·        net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases other than biogenic methane by 2030

·        24% to 47% reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2050, including a 10% reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2030.

5          The biogenic methane target is aligned to the national target. This target is absolute; it must be achieved without carbon offsetting. The ‘net zero’ target for other greenhouse gases could partially be achieved by using carbon offsets, if necessary.

6          The 10 year plan - 2021-31, provides funding to resource the work programme, including a step up in the level of dedicated staffing to progress the programme to 3.8 FTE.

DISCUSSION

Overview and programme management

7          The work programme includes projects that aim to reduce emissions at both the DCC organisation and city-wide level. Work underway spans the following areas:

·        emissions reduction and management for the DCC organisation’s emissions

·        creating mechanisms to consider climate change mitigation as part of the DCC’s processes and decision-making

·        encouraging and facilitating emissions reduction for Dunedin, through a city-wide emissions reduction plan and partnerships with key stakeholders

·        advocacy about climate change mitigation at a regional and national level.

8          Recruitment processes are underway, and it is anticipated that staffing levels required to effectively administer the work programme will be in place by 2022.

9          The work programme requires a dedicated governance structure due to its breadth and complexity. A programme management approach has been drafted and will be confirmed by the Executive Leadership Team. The programme management approach proposes oversight by the Environment and Planning Committee.

Emission reduction and management for the DCC organisation’s emission

10        The DCC participates in a carbon emissions measurement and management accreditation scheme called Toitū carbonreduce. This scheme uses a robust, internationally certified method to measure, manage and reduce organisational emissions.

11        The DCC’s own emissions are significant at the city scale. The landfill and wastewater services emit more than two-thirds of the DCC’s emissions and approximately eight percent of Dunedin city’s emissions. Addressing the DCC’s emissions is therefore an important contribution to city wide emission reduction efforts.

12        The DCC’s 2019/20 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report established that targets set by the DCC in 2013/14 were not achieved. Internal processes did not require or enable a focus on emissions reduction across the organisation during this period. However, several other factors also contributed to non-achievement of the targets. For example, data quality and collection processes have improved since the baseline year, resulting in increases to reported emissions (that were not emission increases in real terms). External factors, such as the closing of private landfills, have also influenced reported emissions. Due to these compounding issues and uncertainties in data, it is difficult to draw links between previous DCC actions and changes in the DCC’s reported emissions.

13        In order to address issues with data quality and emissions management, the DCC has recently procured and implemented a software solution to help monitor emissions and encourage a focus on emissions reductions across the organisation.

14        This software gives groups and teams across the DCC greater visibility of emissions from their operations and provides a variety of mechanisms for reporting these on a month-by-month  basis.

15        It is anticipated that a process will be established for staff responsible for the largest sources of the DCC’s emissions to report emission levels to Council through Quarterly Activity Reports. It is also the intention of the DCC’s Strategic Refresh process to include reporting on high-level emissions data as part of DCC’s commitment to sustainability.

16        Following on from the initial assessment within the Climate 2030 Rapid Review report and confirmation of 10 Year Plan budgets, a new Emissions Management and Reduction Plan for the DCC’s emissions is being developed with input from teams responsible for the largest emissions sources. Emission reduction activities, including some larger initiatives funded through the 10 Year Plan such as heating and energy efficiency upgrades to Moana Pool, are already underway across the DCC.

Embedding a climate change mitigation focus into the DCC’s processes and decision making

17        In order to ensure that the DCC’s actions and investments are aligned with Council’s emissions reduction targets, climate change mitigation needs to be considered as part of the DCC’s decision-making processes. Two areas being progressed are a Carbon Management Policy update and work on embedding a focus on emissions reduction through procurement.

A Carbon Management Policy update for DCC

18        The DCC has an existing Carbon Management Policy that was created in 2017. This policy outlines the DCC’s commitment to meeting its carbon emission obligations and liability (particularly relating to the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008). This policy needs to be updated to reflect changes in the national context and local emission reduction ambitions since 2017.

19        An updated DCC Carbon Management Policy will help to ensure that teams across the DCC take a comprehensive and consistent approach to considering climate change mitigation in their work.

20        Staff have undertaken scoping work to determine the issues to be addressed through a Carbon Management Policy. These include how to approach embodied emissions (capital carbon used in the creation of materials and structures), incorporating climate issues into business cases, and possible approaches for offsetting. It is anticipated that the policy development, adoption and associated staff training will be completed in 2022.

Climate change mitigation in procurement

21        Consideration of sustainability is an evaluation criterion for DCC’s tender evaluations (for any contract over $100,000). There is also a standard clause included in construction contracts that require the contractor to measure and reduce their emissions.

22        Next steps for including climate change mitigation considerations into the DCC’s procurement include:

·        investigating and implementing processes for obtaining and standardising emissions data reporting from contractors

·        drafting standard specifications that can be included, as appropriate, in new DCC contracts to ensure these better align with Council’s emissions reduction targets.

Emission reduction for Dunedin

10 Year Plan initiatives

23        The 10 Year Plan provides funding for a number of initiatives that will help to reduce Dunedin’s emissions, including in the Transport and Waste sectors. Several of these projects are being implemented and Zero Carbon-related guidance and support is being provided.

Emissions reduction plan for Dunedin

24        Research and policy work has been undertaken to inform the approach to a city-wide emissions reduction plan. This work will continue throughout 2021 and early 2022. It will take into account the Ministry for the Environment’s national emissions reduction discussion document, as well as submissions on this document from Dunedin individuals, businesses, and organisations. Council input will be sought in early 2022 on an approach and timeline for creating the plan, including the development of gross and interim targets.

 

 

City-wide collaboration and the Zero Carbon Alliance

25        The scale of change required to respond to climate change requires collaboration and input across all of society. The DCC Zero Carbon team have met with a number of stakeholders, organisations, and groups throughout 2021. These discussions are ongoing and precede wider stakeholder consultation regarding an emission reduction plan for Dunedin in 2022.

26        In March 2021, the Council resolved to approve a draft Zero Carbon 2030 Alliance Memorandum of Understanding and delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to incorporate any amendments, as follows:

Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Mayor Aaron Hawkins):

That the Council:

a)     Notes that the Zero Carbon 2030 Alliance replaces the Dunedin Energy Leaders’ Accord;

b)     Approves the draft Zero Carbon 2030 Alliance Memorandum of Understanding for submission to the governing bodies of potential founding partners;

c) Delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to incorporate any amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding sought by founding partners, and to sign the final version on the Council’s behalf;

d)     Notes that, following signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, the final version would be brought back to Council for noting; and

e)     Notes that, following signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, a draft Terms of Reference for the Zero Carbon 2030 Collaboration Group would be developed and brought back to Council for adoption.

Motion carried (CNL/2021/048)

27        As stated in the draft Memorandum of Understanding, the purpose of the Alliance is to address the following Agreed Objectives:

·        greater visibility and support for existing collaborative emissions-reducing initiatives

·        shared understanding of Dunedin’s emissions profile

·        sharing of good practice around reducing both organisational and city-wide emissions

·        identification of additional collaborative opportunities to reduce both operational and city-wide emissions generally, and to contribute to the city’s Zero Carbon 2030 target specifically

·        wider and more coordinated promotion of good practice and success in emissions reduction, and the importance of the Zero Carbon 2030 target

·        opportunities to input into the development of a Zero Carbon 2030 Plan for Dunedin

·        opportunities for research that may be transferable to the reduction of emissions in other contexts.

28        In addition to the DCC, six parties were identified as potential founding members: Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki, Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou, the Otago Regional Council, the Southern District Health Board, the University of Otago and Otago Polytechnic. The prospective members have requested minor changes to the draft MOU to correct a typo and to clarify the IP clause.

29        Several parties have agreed to be party to the Zero Carbon Alliance:

·        On 11 May 2021, the University of Otago, in a public-excluded session of its University Council meeting, agreed to be a partner in the Zero Carbon 2030 Alliance

·        On 23 June 2021, the Otago Regional Council agreed to be a partner in the Alliance

·        On 30 June 2021, in a meeting with the DCC Principal Policy Advisor Sustainability, the Otago Polytechnic’s Chief Operating Officer agreed that the Otago Polytechnic will be a partner in the Alliance

30        Guidance was sought directly with Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou and Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki to be founding partners in the Zero Carbon 2030 Alliance. Legal Counsel for Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Group reviewed the draft MOU and suggested that the document be restructured to reflect that the inclusion and role of Rūnaka to be as mana whenua consultation rather than impose on Rūnaka the same obligations as apply to the other institutional organisations. Further suggested changes to the MOU document were also provided and staff have been working through these, none of which are insurmountable or unreasonable.

31        Further discussions with mana whenua representatives working within the partner organisations, have raised the issue of mana whenua already having existing MOU arrangements with each of the institutions, including the DCC.

32        Staff continue to work with Rūnaka to develop a partnership and advisory approach with the Zero Carbon Alliance, without committing Rūnaka to signing the MOU.

33        Staff are in discussions with the Southern District Health Board (SDHB).

34        Next steps include:

·        finalising arrangements with Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou and Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki to participate in the Zero Carbon Alliance in an advisory capacity

·        determining whether the SDHB would like to participate in the zero carbon alliance and incorporating any feedback into the MOU.

35        Staff plan to progress the MOU early in 2022 and begin coordinating the Zero Carbon Alliance which will include agreeing with the founding partners a terms of reference and membership for the Zero Carbon 2030 Collaboration Group.

Advocacy

36        Staff have contributed to a number of submissions throughout 2021, including the Otago Regional Policy Statement 2021 and on transport issues through the Ministry of Transport’s Hīkina te Kohupara.

37        The DCC has been encouraging residents, businesses, and organisations to submit on the Ministry for the Environment’s discussion document Te hau mārohi ki anamata: Transitioning to a low-emissions and climate-resilient future. A draft DCC submission on the discussion document is the subject of a separate report for Council consideration (see report DCC Submission on Te Hau Mārohi ki Anamata – Transitioning to a Low-Emissions and Climate-Resilient Future: Emissions Reduction Plan Discussion Document).

OPTIONS

38        As this is a report for noting, there are not options.

NEXT STEPS

39        Staff will continue to progress Zero Carbon work. Council input will be sought in early 2022 on an approach and timeline for creating an emissions reduction plan for Dunedin.

 

Signatories

Author:

Florence Reynolds - Senior Policy Analyst, Zero Carbon

Authoriser:

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 


 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The Zero Carbon work programme is anticipated to promote the social, economic and environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future, by facilitating a transition to a low carbon economy.

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 Zero Carbon work programme was assessed as directly contributing to the goals of the Economic Development and Environment Strategies, with clear links to the 3 Waters Strategy, Spatial Plan and Integrated Transport Strategy, Energy Plan 1.0, and the DCC’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan. Action to reduce emissions is also likely to have co-benefits that contribute to the goals of the Social Wellbeing and Arts and Culture Strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

Partnership with mana whenua is an important aspect of the Zero Carbon Work Programme. Initial engagement with mana whenua has informed the development of this report. Further engagement is planned for early 2022, as described in the body of the report.

Sustainability

Climate change mitigation/emissions reduction efforts are considered key to sustainability. ‘Climate Action’ is one of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, reflecting the centrality of action on climate change to the achievement of sustainable development. Without significant cuts to emissions, climate change impacts will further accelerate, with commensurate negative impacts on the social, environmental, cultural and economic wellbeing of New Zealand communities. Conversely, actions to reduce emissions generally have significant co-benefits in terms of community wellbeing.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The Zero Carbon work programme received funding through the 10 Year Plan.

Financial considerations

There are no financial considerations.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

No external engagement on this report has been undertaken.

Engagement - internal

The Zero Carbon work programme involves engagement with most DCC departments.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There may be reputational risks for the DCC associated with non-delivery on emissions reduction ambitions, given the target adopted by Council in 2019.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest has been identified

Community Boards

There has been no engagement to date with Community Boards as part of the Zero Carbon work programme.

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

DCC Submission on Te HAU MĀROHI KI Anamata - Transitioning to a Low-Emissions and Climate-Resolient Future:  Emissions Reduction Plan Discussion Document

Department: Corporate Policy

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1        This report seeks approval of a Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) to the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) on the Emissions Reduction Plan discussion document.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Approves the DCC submission, with any amendments, to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) on the proposed Emissions Reduction Plan Discussion Document.

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

 

BACKGROUND

2          The DCC has been progressing work on climate change mitigation and adaptation since 2009. Having a high degree of exposure to sea level rise, Dunedin is particularly aware of the consequences of inaction on emissions reduction.

3          The DCC supports the Government’s aim of achieving a carbon neutral future and a strong low emissions economy, and the ambition to engage all sectors in pursuit of these objectives. The first national emissions reduction plan will be published in May 2022.

4          The Emissions Reduction Plan Discussion Document (the discussion document) seeks views on what should be included in the final plan. The discussion document seeks feedback on whether the policy proposals in the discussion document are, the appropriate kinds of policies, if the policies go far enough and what should be changed. It also seeks additional ideas and proposals for emission reduction actions in Aotearoa.

5          The final emissions reduction plan will set out targets in the interest of reducing future emissions by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit the global average temperature rise to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. These targets require:

 

a)         all greenhouse gases, other than biogenic methane, to reach net zero by 2050

b)        emissions of biogenic methane to reduce to at least 10 percent below 2017 levels by 2030, and to at least 24-47 percent below 2017 levels by 2050.

6          Submissions close on Wednesday 24 November 2021.

DISCUSSION

7          The DCC draft submission provides contextual information relating to the DCC’s climate change mitigation activities, as well as direct feedback on the discussion document. The feedback reflects that the discussion document contains a series of possible policies and a call for additional ideas and opinions.

8          The draft submission supports the principles set out in the discussion document as they align with the principles suggested by the Climate Change Commission. The DCC submission includes issues that should be acknowledged within the principles, and provides additional principles to be added as follows:

·    an evidence-based approach (to be included in principle 2)

·    a clear, ambitious, and affordable path (to be included in principle 5)

Additional Principles:

•  prioritise gross emissions reductions

•  working in partnership with local government

9          The DCC draft submission notes that the discussion document does not yet include the detail necessary to achieve the Government’s emissions reduction targets. It does not include a comprehensive range of multi-sector options for emissions reductions; nor does it engage all available policy levers. Both will be important to achieve significant emissions reductions.

10        It is noted in the submission that the DCC’s net zero target has a more ambitious timeframe than national targets. The DCC urges accelerated action to reduce gross emissions in the first three budget periods, in particular the decade of 2030.

11        The draft submission suggests that during the drafting of the final emissions reductions plan, the Government should consider the limited suite of levers and tools available to local government to achieve emissions reduction – and consider expanding these. There are several areas in which a stronger legislative mandate, clearer guidance and support for local government would assist with implementing the transition. These opportunities are further highlighted in the submission.

12        Further feedback on proposed policies are listed for the sectors most relevant to the DCC’s work.

OPTIONS Option One – Recommended Option - Approve the DCC submission on the Emission Reduction Plan

 

13        Approve the DCC submission, with any amendments, to MfE on the Emissions Reduction Plan Discussion Document.

Advantages

·        Aligns with the DCC submission to the Climate Change Commission’s draft advice.

·        Enables the DCC to advocate for higher national ambition on emissions reduction in line with DCC’s Zero Carbon 2030 target

Disadvantages

·        There are no identified disadvantages for this option.

Option Two – Does not submit on the Emission Reduction Plan

14        Does not approve the DCC submission to MfE on the Emissions Reduction Plan.

Advantages

·        There are no identified advantages for this option.

Disadvantages

·        Missed opportunity to advocate for higher national ambition on emissions reduction, and for associated amendments to draft guidance that will be used to inform national policy, in line with DCC’s Zero Carbon 2030 target and related strategic goals.

NEXT STEPS

15        If the Council approves the DCC submission, it will be sent to the MfE for consideration by 24 November 2021.

16        If the Council does not approve the DCC submission, no further action is required. 

 

Signatories

Author:

Florence Reynolds - Senior Policy Analyst, Zero Carbon

Authoriser:

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

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

DCC Submission on Emissions Reduction Plan Discussion Document

70

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

DCC’s draft submission to the MfE promotes the social, economic and environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future, by supporting the facilitation of a transition to a low carbon economy.

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 draft submission directly contributes to the goals of the Economic Development and Environment Strategies, Social Wellbeing Strategy, Integrated Transport Strategy, Spatial Plan, Energy Plan 1.0, and the DCC’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Māori from the DCC’s draft submission. The MfE is undertaking consultation with mana whenua on the discussion document.

Sustainability

Climate change mitigation/emissions reduction efforts are considered key to sustainability. In line with the DCC’s Zero Carbon 2030 target and related strategic goals, the submission provides an opportunity to advocate for higher national ambition on emissions reduction, and for associated amendments to draft guidance that will be used to inform climate change mitigation policy.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The DCC’s wider activities in terms of emissions reduction, including the Zero Carbon work programme, are progressing within existing budgets during 2020/21.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications arising from the draft submission. The Zero Carbon work programme can be progressed within existing budgets during 2020/21.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

While preparing the draft submission, staff attended consultation meetings with the MfE and spoke with counterparts from other Councils.

Engagement - internal

The submission incorporates feedback from a range of departments, including Transport and Waste and Environmental Solutions.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no risks identified related to the draft submission.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest has been identified.

Community Boards

There has been no engagement with Community Boards on the draft submission.

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

Dunedin City Holdings Limited Share Capital

Department: Executive Leadership Team

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The current DCC Group borrowing arrangements require the level of Dunedin City Holdings Limited (“DCHL”) uncalled share capital to be greater than DCC Group debt.

2          This report seeks approval to increase that uncalled capital from the current $975 million to $1.200 billion.

3          This level of uncalled capital aligns with the forecast group debt as at 30 June 2024 as set out in the approved 2021/2022 Statement of Intent for Dunedin City Holdings Limited.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Approves the required increase in share capital of Dunedin City Holdings Limited to provide $1.200 billion of uncalled capital.

b)     Authorises the Dunedin City Council to execute the required shareholder resolution(s) and associated documents to achieved the increase in share capital noted in (a).

c)     Notes that this level of uncalled capital aligns with the forecast group debt as at 30 June 2024 as set out in the approved 2021/2022 Statement of Intent for Dunedin City Holdings Limited.

 

BACKGROUND

4          The assets of Aurora Energy Limited, Dunedin City Treasury Limited (“DCTL”) and DCHL – including its uncalled share capital – are included in the DCC Group’s existing debenture agreement (which underpins all DCC Group debt).

5          This uncalled capital was last updated at the Council meeting dated 10 December 2019, with the following Council resolution.

Moved (Cr Mike Lord/Cr David Benson-Pope):

That the Council:

 

a)     Notes that using the existing DCC Treasury framework, the share capital of Dunedin City Holdings Limited needs to be increased to enable future DCC Group debt to exceed $850m.

b)     Recommends the share capital of Dunedin City Holdings Limited be increased to provide $975m of uncalled share capital.

c)     Instructs DCHL that DCC Group debt cannot exceed the level included in the current DCHL Statement of Intent ($927m) without a specific resolution of council authorising such an increase.

             Division

The Council voted by division:

 

For:                   Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Jules Radich, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (13).

           Against:          Cr Lee Vandervis (1).

Abstained:    Nil

 

The division was declared CARRIED by 13 votes to 1

 

Motion carried (CNL/2019/068)

DISCUSSION

6          The 2021/2022 Dunedin City Holdings Limited Statement of Intent was approved by Council at its meeting on 30 June 2021.

Moved (Cr Marie Laufiso/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

 

 

Agrees to the 2021/22 Statements of Intent of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd and its subsidiary and associate companies.

 

Motion carried (CNL/2021/155) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against

 

 

7          This Statement of Intent included a forecast group debt of $1.146 billion by
30 June 2024.

8          This increase is primarily driven by the planned capital expenditure programmes for:

·    Aurora Energy Limited required as part of their approved CPP, and

·    Dunedin City Council as set out on the approved 10 year plan 2021-2031.

9          Below is an extract from the 2021/2022 DCHL Statement of Intent showing the level of group debt over the next three financial years.

 

10        The current group debt requirements are detailed in the table below, including the current group facility limits and increases requested to those limits.  It indicates the need to increase uncalled capital beyond the current $975 million in order that the requested facility limits can be accommodated.

 

Group Debt Requirements

 

Actual

 

 

Facility Limit

$000

31.10.21

 

Approved

Requested

 

Aurora Energy

388,760

 

420,000

450,000

Delta Utility Services

10,700

 

32,500

32,500

Dunedin City Council

298,300

 

320,000

340,000

Dunedin City Holdings

22,520

 

31,500

31,500

City Forests

12,450

 

22,000

22,000

Dunedin Venues

-

 

500

500

Dunedin Stadium Properties

86,800

 

94,000

94,000

Dunedin Railways

-

 

500

500

 

 

 

 

 

Total

819,530

 

921,000

971,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

11        It is important to note that:

·        the increase to DCHL share capital does not commit DCC or Aurora to future debt levels – they simply enable the future debt to be available for the planned capital expenditure programmes; and

·        an increase to DCHL share capital does not incur any significant cost; and

·        the recommendation seeks to increase the level of DCHL uncalled share capital to
$1.2 billion which is in excess of the forecast debt.  The recommended excess of uncalled share capital over forecast debt is known as liquidity headroom; and

·        liquidity headroom is highly regarded by rating agencies and is consistent with the DCC Treasury Risk Management Policy which allows for a liquidity buffer.

OPTIONS

12        No options are provided – the increase in uncalled capital gives effect to the forecast group debt as set out in the approved 2021/2022 Statement of Intent for DCHL as approved by Council at its meeting on .

NEXT STEPS

13        If approved officers will begin the process of increasing DCHL’s share capital.

14        The level of uncalled capital will be reviewed again in October 2023, including the impact of the proposed Three Water Reforms on the level of debt funding required by the DCC.

 

 

Signatories

Author:

Gavin Logie - Chief Financial Officer

Authoriser:

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision, by enabling the continuation of DCC’s and Aurora’s respective capital programmes promotes the: social, economic and environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

 

Contributes

Detracts

Not applicable

Social Wellbeing Strategy

Economic Development Strategy

Environment Strategy

Arts and Culture Strategy

3 Waters Strategy

Spatial Plan

Integrated Transport Strategy

Parks and Recreation Strategy

Other strategic projects/policies/plans

This recommendation enables DCC to pursue its approved strategic projects and plans.  This recommendation does not change approved strategic projects or plans.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Maori.

Sustainability

This recommendation centres around the timing of delivering planned future capital projects and the funding thereof.  This recommendation does not introduce any new significant sustainability considerations.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This recommendation is consistent with the Ten Year Plan.

Financial considerations

The recommended option will incur relatively small legal costs.  The cost of not proceeding with the Recommended option could have significant alternative costs and/or non delivery of planned capital programs of DCC and Aurora.

Significance

This recommended option, being one to ‘enable’ already planned and publicised work, is considered Low in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

The increase will support the group credit rating assessment due to be completed by Standard and Poors.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The recommendation will enable Aurora to continue its planned capital program.  Any disruption to the Aurora planned capital programme could have significant risks for the company and possibly its holding company and DCC.  Potential risk areas include health/safety, environmental, reputational and legal.

Conflict of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been identified.

Community Boards

No direct implications for Community Boards have been identified.

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

DCC Further Submission to ORC Regional Policy Statement 2021

Department: City Development

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          Otago Regional Council (ORC) is required to have a new Regional Policy Statement operative by 1 August 2022.

2          On 26 June 2021, the ORC notified its Proposed Otago Regional Policy Statement 2021(RPS) which will replace the partially operative Otago Regional Policy Statement 2019.  Council approved a Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission on the RPS at their meeting of 3 September 2021.

3          A DCC further submission on the RPS (Attachment A) was submitted to the ORC on Friday 12 November and in accordance with delegations was given interim approval for submission by the Mayor.

4          The purpose of this report is to seek retrospective approval for the DCC further submission. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Approves, in retrospect, the Dunedin City Council further submission to the ORC on the Proposed Otago Regional Policy Statement 2021.

b)     Authorises the Chair of the Planning and Environment Committee or his delegate to speak to the DCC further submission at the Hearings.

 

BACKGROUND

5          The Regional Policy Statement is a high-level policy framework for sustainable integrated management of Otago's resources.

6          It is a requirement of the Resource Management Act (RMA) that Regional Councils must always have a regional policy statement to achieve the purposes of the RMA, by providing an overview of:

a)         The resource management issues of the region; and

b)        Policies and methods to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the whole region.

7          The Resource Management Act establishes a hierarchy of policy statements and plans which seek to give substance to achieve the sustainable management purpose of the Act.  This hierarchy of planning instruments is comprised of:

a)         National Policy Statements (e.g. the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement)

b)        National Environmental Standards (e.g. NES for Freshwater)

c)         National Planning Standards

d)        Regional policy statements

e)        Regional plans

f)         District plans.

8          Regional and district plans must ‘give effect to’ a regional policy statement once operative. Therefore, it is important the DCC submit on the RPS as it:

a)         Can have a strong influence on the DCC’s District Plan content and work programme by directing DCC to instigate or adjust plan changes to align with it;

b)        Sets the framework for regional plans which contain rules that govern DCC activities through its regulatory functions and responsibilities under the RMA and other legislation, including as an infrastructure provider (e.g. municipal water supply and wastewater discharge); and

c)         Details the roles and responsibilities of both District and Regional Councils in giving effect to the Regional Policy Statement, which can move responsibility from one authority to another and determine where activities are managed by both (within the framework set by Sections 30 and 31 of the RMA).

9          The RPS was formally notified on 26 June 2021, with submissions closing on Friday 3 September 2021.  Council approved a Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission on the RPS at their meeting of 3 September 2021. 

10        The RMA requires a two-stage submission process on policy and plan development; namely, (i) a submission stage, and (ii) a further submission process. 

11        The further submission process enables anyone representing a relevant aspect of the public interest, or who has an interest greater than the interest the general public has, to support or oppose an original submission to the RPS.  The DCC as a local authority is considered to have an interest greater than the general public. 

12        DCC Legal, Transport and 3Waters have identified several submission points where they recommended the DCC should be a part of the process (have standing) in considering whether the decisions requested from submitters should be approved or not.

13        In accordance with Clause 7 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the ORC notified the summary of decisions requested by submitters in an 805 page report on Saturday 30 October 2021.  The deadline for making a further submission was Friday 12 November 2021 at 5pm. Staff had 10 working days to respond to the summary of decisions requested report, which did not allow time for Council input to the further submission.

14        The following is a link to Original Submissions to the Proposed Regional Policy Statement 2021

15        A DCC further submission with interim approval by the Mayor was submitted to the ORC on 12 November 2021.

DISCUSSION

16        Staff have prepared and submitted a DCC further submission on the RPS. The DCC further submission identifies a limited number of specific submission points on the following topics:

a)         Protection of nationally and regionally significant transport infrastructure from reverse sensitivity;

b)        The definition of ‘new infrastructure’;

c)         Responsibilities for state of the environment reporting;

d)        Water quality in waterbodies and coastal waters;

e)        Discharge of wastewater to water;

f)         Modification of already heavily modified water bodies;

g)         Connections to wastewater and stormwater services; and

h)        The use of water sensitive urban design.

17        The format of the further submission is prescribed by regulations (Form 6 of Resource Management (Forms, Fees, and Procedure) Regulations 2003).

OPTIONS

18        While there is always the option for DCC to not further submit on the RPS, staff can identify no reason not to.

19        Staff advice is that the RPS is too important not to make a further submission on and recommend that DCC retrospectively approves the DCC further submission to enable DCC involvement in the specific matters identified, in addition to the matters included in the DCC’s original submission on the RPS.

20        The DCC further submission provides an opportunity to highlight specific original submission points which staff from several areas of Council have had the opportunity to provide input into. The DCC further submission, in addition to the DCC’s original submission, provides the DCC with the best opportunity and ability to influence the RPS outcomes for our communities.

NEXT STEPS

21        Staff sent the DCC’s further submission on the Proposed Otago Regional Policy Statement 2021 to the ORC on Friday 12 November 2021.

22        If Council does not retrospectively approve the further submission, the DCC will ask the ORC to withdraw the further submission (in full or part).

23        The date for hearing of submissions is yet to be advised.

 

Signatories

Author:

Paul Freeland - Principal Policy Advisor

Authoriser:

Anna Johnson - City Development Manager

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

DCC further submission to the ORC RPS 2021

93

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The decision to lodge a further submission enables democratic local decision making and action on behalf of communities, by highlighting to the ORC issues of local concern.

This decision also relates to providing regulatory functions as addressed in the report.

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 RPS does not contribute directly to the strategic framework. However, as District Plans must give effect to the Regional Policy Statements, it has direct implications for the Council's Second Generation District Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

The development of the RPS includes Māori specific considerations. Aukaha were a key stakeholder involved in the reference groups and statutory consultation undertaken by ORC prior to formal notification. Given the timeframe constraints for further submission feedback, staff have been unable to consult with mana whenua and mataawaka on the impacts that may result from a decision to approve the DCC further submission.

Sustainability

The RPS is a high level policy framework for sustainable integrated management of Otago's resources and identifies the regionally significant issues that are addressed by that framework.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

While the decision to further submit has no implications for the LTP, some of the methods proposed in the RPS could create an increased expectation of action by Council.

Financial considerations

There are no known financial implications.

Significance

This decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against the Significance and

 Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There was no external engagement on this report.

Engagement - internal

Staff from Legal, 3 Waters, City Development and Transportation Planning have had input into the submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Application of the RPS will impact all areas of the community including those covered by Community Boards.

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

DCC Submission on Te kawe i te haepapa para, Taking Responsibility for Our Waste

Department: Waste and Environmental Solutions

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report seeks approval of a Dunedin City Council (DCC) submission (Attachment A) on the Ministry for Environment (MfE) consultation, ‘Te kawe i te haepapa para, Taking Responsibility for Our Waste’ (https://consult.environment.govt.nz/waste/taking-responsibility-for-our-waste/).

2          The key topics in this consultation are changes to the Waste Minimisation Act (2004), Litter Act (1979), and a proposed new national Waste Strategy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Approves the DCC submission, with any amendments, to the Ministry for Environment on ‘Te kawe i te haepapa para, Taking Responsibility for Our Waste’.

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

 

BACKGROUND

3          The New Zealand Waste Strategy has the purpose of setting out the Government’s long-term priorities for waste minimisation and management in New Zealand. The Strategy proposed in this consultation will replace the current New Zealand Waste Strategy (2010).

4          The Waste Minimisation Act was introduced in 2004. The purpose of this Act is to encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal to:

(a) protect the environment from harm; and

(b) provide environmental, social, economic, and cultural benefits.

5          The Litter Act was introduced in 1979. The purpose of this Act is to provide power and duties for litter control.

6          The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) has released a consultation document ‘Te kawe i te haepapa para, Taking responsibility for our waste’. The consultation document;

·        proposes new legislation that is more comprehensive, to replace the Waste Minimisation Act and the Litter Act, and 

·        proposes a new national Waste Strategy to increase our ambition as a country, signal direction, priorities, inspire action across different groups, and guide the use of increased funds generated by the expanded waste disposal levy.

DISCUSSION

7          The changes proposed within ‘Te kawe i te haepapa para, Taking responsibility for our waste’ will have implications for the function and operation of Council services. The consultation includes questions about the role of local government in the waste system, the allocation of responsibilities between regional and territorial authorities, the allocation of revenue from the waste levy, licensing of waste operators, new information requirements, monitoring, and enforcement.  Duty of care and product stewardship (including deposit return schemes) and national standards for waste, recycling and resource recovery are also proposed.

8          The current Waste Minimisation Act and Litter Act are insufficient for central government to implement their new work programmes. New legislation is needed to provide tools to deliver the new Waste Strategy and ensure waste levy funding is used most effectively.

9          The current Waste Minimisation Act does not contain any principles to support Te Tiriti o Waitangi or te ao Māori. The DCC submission supports building this into the new legislation and Strategy.

10        The proposed new Waste Strategy is future focused to 2050, and divided into three broad stages. The first stage, to 2030, proposes priority areas with actions and targets. The consultation focuses on this first stage. The remaining stages will be consulted on in more detail when the first stage is near completion. MfE describes the later stages broadly, but notes challenges and unknowns will be encountered, so planning will need to adjust accordingly.

11        The Strategy will be supported by a series of shorter-term Action Investment Plans (AIPs) which set out immediate priorities. These are proposed to cover 2–3 year periods.

12        MfE plans to develop the new Strategy and legislation in close consultation with:

a)         The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment in light of a broader and separate circular economy strategy.

b)        A long-term waste infrastructure plan to guide investment in resource recovery infrastructure for Aotearoa New Zealand. The plan is due to be finalised at the same time as the new Waste Strategy.

c)         The work underway on the Natural and Built Environments Bill, particularly in relation to Te Oranga o te Taiao, which incorporates the Māori world view of environmental wellbeing.

d)        The review of local government.

13        Staff have prepared a submission on the proposed changes to the Waste Minimisation Act, Litter Act, and Waste Strategy, and includes input provided by the WasteMINZ Territorial Authority Officers Forum. The DCC submission highlights DCC’s position on the following key points:

a)         Supports the new Waste Strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand,

b)        Supports new legislation to replace the Litter Act and Waste Minimisation Act.

c)         The submission makes additional points for MfE’s consideration in preparing the new Strategy and legislation.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option – Approve the submission on ‘Te kawe i te haepapa para, Taking Responsibility for Our Waste’

 

Advantages

·        Aligns with the vision and targets of Council’s Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2020

·        Advocates for a new national Waste Strategy to increase our ambition as a country, signal direction, priorities, inspire action across different groups, and guide the use of increased funds generated by the expanded Waste Disposal Levy

·        Advocates for changes to the Waste Minimisation Act and Litter Act to enable the actions contained in the proposed Waste Strategy

Disadvantages

·        There are no known disadvantages

Option Two – Do not provide a submission

Advantages

·        There are no known advantages

Disadvantages

·        Missed opportunity to provide feedback and promote a new national Waste Strategy

NEXT STEPS

14        If approved, the submission will be sent to the MfE for consideration by 26 November 2021.

15        If the Council does not approve the DCC submission, no further action is required. 

16        At the conclusion of the consultation period, the MfE will report back to the Minister for the Environment on submissions received and develop final advice.

Signatories

Author:

Leigh McKenzie - Waste Minimisation Officer, Waste and Environmental Solutions

Authoriser:

Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

DCC submission to the Ministry for the Environment on Taking Responsibility for Our Waste

110

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the environmental well-being of communities and enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

Fit with strategic framework

 

Contributes

Detracts

Not applicable

Social Wellbeing Strategy

Economic Development Strategy

Environment Strategy

Arts and Culture Strategy

3 Waters Strategy

Spatial Plan

Integrated Transport Strategy

Parks and Recreation Strategy

Other strategic projects/policies/plans

 

Improved management of waste and recycling will contribute to good environmental outcomes in line with Te Ao Tūroa, Dunedin’s Environment Strategy, the Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2020, and DCC’s commitment to the Sophia Charter.

Māori Impact Statement

This submission advocates for better opportunities and outcomes for mana whenua in the new Waste Strategy and proposed legislation.

Sustainability

The new Waste Strategy and legislation may have long-term implications for greenhouse gas emissions, waste minimisation and management in Aotearoa New Zealand.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

While the decision to submit has no implications on the LTP, the proposed Waste Strategy and legislation may have implications for future waste infrastructure and services.

Financial considerations

There are no known financial implications as a result of this submission.

Significance

The decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Staff took part in an external webinar led by WasteMinz to discuss the proposed Strategy and new legislation. No other external engagement has been undertaken for this report.

Engagement - internal

Staff from Waste and Environmental Solutions have had input into the draft submission.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards as a result of this submission.

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

SUBMISSION PROPOSED NEW WASTE STRATEGY, AMENDMENTS TO THE WASTE MINIMISATION ACT and the LITTER ACT:

 

Introduction

 

The Dunedin City Council (DCC) is supportive of a new national Waste Strategy, and new legislation to replace the Waste Minimisation Act (2008) and Litter Act (1979).  The DCC advocates for improvements to these to reduce Aotearoa New Zealand’s high volumes of waste to landfill.

Trends indicate volumes of waste going to landfill are going to increase, unless a more comprehensive approach is taken for minimising waste and reducing high-value materials going to landfill across the country.

The DCC has adopted a circular economy approach to waste through the DCC Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2020.

In addition, the Councils target is to reduce Dunedin city’s carbon emissions to net zero by 2030. This requires reducing waste to landfill as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Part 1:

Q1: Do you think changes are needed in how Aotearoa New Zealand manages its waste?

The DCC agrees that changes should be made to how Aotearoa New Zealand manages waste. The population wants change as is evident in the increased awareness and interest in waste from media stories and local activities (Colmar Brunton, 2021).

The economy, rather than just the waste sector, needs to follow the waste hierarchy in order to address waste and resource consumption. Aotearoa New Zealand need to move to an approach that designs waste out prior to production as well as designing out waste in production and rewarding resource recovery. The current system isn’t working if waste is being diverted, but also volumes to landfill are increasing. 

Put simply, waste is not a problem to be solved in isolation but a symptom of an economic system that is not working properly. Therefore, just tweaking with the waste “system” will not solve the issue nor reduce climate change emissions. More emphasis is needed on changing the economy at the production stage.

Q2: Do you support tackling our waste problems by moving towards a circular economy?

The DCC agrees with moving towards a circular economy. The DCC has adopted a circular economy approach to waste, as reflected in the DCC Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2020.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part 2:

 

Q3: Do you support the proposed vision?

The DCC believes it is necessary for all stakeholders to have a definition and understanding of a circular economy model in the context of waste. The DCC agrees with centring the vision around taking responsibility for actions attributed to waste and there implications on achieving a circular economy. Adding ‘to enhance environmental and social outcomes’ could provide further clarity for the overall aim achieved by a circular economy.

The vision statements draw on Te Ao Māori, the DCC suggests this be indicated more explicitly. Missing in the vision is the reduction of reliance on virgin resource use. The European Commission’s Circular Economy Action Plan (2020) states that up to 80% of products' environmental impacts are determined at the design phase. Jonathan Chapman (2021) states that most of the resources extracted from Earth becomes waste within 3 months. The predominant business model is based on premature obsolescence. Therefore, Aotearoa New Zealand’s waste problems will not be solved without addressing over consumption. The vision statements need to make this more obvious and include a Te Tiriti approach.

 

i.e. “We look after the planet’s resources with care and responsibility” could instead be “We reduce our use of the planet’s resources by tackling overconsumption”.

 

“We respect and understand our inseparable connection with the environment” could become “We live in a way that recognises our inseparable connection with the environment and how we impact on it with the choices we make”.

 

Q4: Do you support the six core principles or would you make changes?

The DCC supports the six core principles. Avoiding unnecessary waste to reduce disposal, pollution, emissions and continued use of virgin resources are essential for moving away from a linear economy. The DCC supports an economy that provides consumers the choice of durable materials and products that are easy to repair. The DCC supports using natural resources regeneratively, and public education programmes that promote behaviour change to achieve a circular economy and a healthier future environment. The DCC suggests investing in skills training, such as apprenticeships to rethink product development to achieve ‘highest’ value products and materials.

In terms of understanding how the principles and vision would be translated into action, it would be helpful if the principles referenced directly the types of legislative levers that could enable these.

The DCC suggests that the principle on value, “Keep products and materials in use at their highest value”, should define what value requires. Whether it is meaning the financial, environmental, social value, or all three.

Q5: Do you support the proposed approach of three broad stages between now and 2050, and the suggested timing and priorities for what to focus on at each stage?

The DCC supports the proposed approach using three broad stages. The DCC’s target is to reduce Dunedin city’s carbon emissions to net zero by 2030. This includes reduced waste to landfill as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. 

 

The proposed AIP (Action and Investment Plan) reviews are indicated to be every 2-3 years. The DCC suggests setting periods with targets to be achieved within these periods, aligning with local authority waste plans. The targets could be used as ambitions and milestones.

To ensure that progress can continue, the Ministry for the Environment’s mandate should not be altered with a change of government. Altering could be detrimental to embedding a circular economy model in Aotearoa New Zealand.

 

The DCC suggests infrastructure investment at Stage 1, ‘Catching Up’, should be made available to local councils for developing resource recovery facilities. Providing funding for local councils to distribute as grants, and to use for collaborating with smaller community operated resource recovery facilities.

 

The DCC agrees that the named work programmes;

 

·    phasing out hard to recycle plastics,

·    standardising kerbside collections,

·    investigating container deposit schemes,

·    investing in optical sorting technologies

·    and other equipment through the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund,

 

should continue, alongside steps to raise ambition. However, implementation should be focussed in Stage 1 ‘Catching Up’ of the strategic journey.

 

Stage 1 needs to happen over a shorter period of time and some of the aims to reduce consumption need to be brought forward. For example, Zero Waste Scotland has gathered a lot of evidence about the need to reduce consumption in order to achieve a more sustainable society.

 

The lower South Island territorial authorities and waste service providers have logistical challenges for some on-shore recycling opportunities which are otherwise more accessible in the North Island. The DCC suggests funding transportation to recovery facilities for problematic materials, as an interim solution. Investment in rail connections could form part of the solution to reduce the carbon impact of transport.   

 

The DCC would support waste incineration that prioritises separation of materials that could be effectively recycled or reused, and also prioritises reducing the environmental impacts of unavoidable residual waste. Loss of valued resources by incineration, or adverse environmental effects caused by incineration, would not be favoured by DCC.

Public education delivered by central government across all three stages will be necessary to help change the mindsets, behaviours, and embed circular economy principles.

Part 3:

Embedding a long-term, strategic approach to reducing waste

Q6: Looking at the priorities and suggested headline actions for stage one, which do you think are

the most important?

 

The DCC agrees the most important priority is Priority One, in order to provide clear direction and mechanisms for a transformed waste sector.

Of the actions within Priority One, the most important are ‘enacting and implementing the new waste legislation’, and ‘support and resource newly configured enforcement responsibilities.’

 

Previous waste legislation was not fully implemented due to lack of resourcing; therefore, this should be prioritised. Inadequate resourcing will undermine the work being done to revise the legislation.

 

The DCC suggests elevating Priority Four to being Priority Three. The reason for this suggestion is that education is important, but until people have the options available, they are unable to act. Therefore, having Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource recovery and recycling systems working well before rolling out strong resourcing in education may achieve better outcomes.

 

Priority 3, ‘Establish Long-term Information and Education Programmes’, should be described as ‘Developing and Supporting New Behavioural Norms to Avoid or Reduce Waste’.

 

Priority 5 should recognise the value of organic waste, systems thinking and reducing food waste at source across all parts of the food chain. There needs to be a central government commitment to halving food waste by 2030. NZ Food Waste Champions 12.3 is a coalition working towards this gaol for Aotearoa New Zealand already. Using the NZ Champions 12.3 and University of Otago’s ‘Roadmap to Reducing Food Waste’ could be a useful, pre-existing guide to start this.

 

Once food is reduced at source, there should be a focus on highlighting the value of organic waste to address regenerative agriculture, the bioeconomy, and the need to further reduce organic waste at source. If more organic waste is going to be diverted, markets will be needed for these products, and better regulations regarding inputs to ensure the resulting product is not compromised (for example, common contaminants such as clopyralid and PFAs).

 

There also needs to be a public sector strategy (e.g. hospitals) to reduce food waste. Feedback from at least one health board to WasteMinz demonstrates that food waste is a large component of waste produced in hospitals, and this is largely due to patients not eating the food they are given. Cost was provided as a barrier to having a small menu option for patients (to reduce the amount of uneaten food). However, the link to food and wellbeing should be taken into account.

 

Q7: What else should we be doing in stage one?

The DCC suggests changing Headline Actions in Stage One from ‘Consider incentives to manufacture in ways that make recycling easier.’ to ‘Provide incentives to manufacture in ways that make recycling easier…’. Incentivising companies to improve their products and packaging is necessary to reduce waste generation. Incentivising at the production stage enables Aotearoa New Zealand to get ahead of the waste stream and follow the waste hierarchy.

 

Also, a National Environmental Standard for Disposal to Land should be developed and implemented in Stage One.

 

Product Stewardship is a major tool to create change. There should be more detail about how this will be designed and used, and what else will become a priority product beyond the current six identified products.

                        

Priority Three;

·    The DCC suggests building waste minimisation into other sources of education such as apprenticeships, so that it becomes normal within other sectors, for example the construction and demolition sector.

·    Behaviour change is missing from this section so needs to be included alongside a clear objective. For example, “Establishing long term programmes supporting culture change to low/zero waste communities” or “Developing and supporting environmental changes that create new behavioural norms to avoid or reduce waste” rather than just ‘education and information programmes’.

Priority Four;

·    The DCC suggests providing or resourcing incubator programmes for businesses who want to start circular goods and services. This could include targeted categories of funding or embedding circular approaches into business education programmes.

·    Where investment in recycling is prioritised, the DCC suggests supporting or providing for national sharing and reuse programmes.

 

Priority Five;

·    Love Food Hate Waste New Zealand is the only Aotearoa New Zealand wide behaviour change programme for household food waste, with a proven track record.  Currently, 43 Territorial Authority Organisations support this programme financially. Ongoing financial support from MfE would enable Love Food Hate Waste New Zealand to make more progress and reach a more diverse audience by partnering with other organisations such as Para Kore, Patient Voice Aotearoa, and CNSST (formerly named Chinese New Settlers Services Trust) to deliver food waste messages to diverse ethnic communities.

·    Priority Five does not recognise the value of organic waste, and its potential to help the agricultural sector transition to a regenerative model by using compost to reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers. There is no one size that fits all so it is important to support decentralised organic waste diversion activities such as home composting or community composting, not only kerbside collections to a large facility.

 

Q8: What are the barriers or roadblocks to achieving the Stage One actions, and how can we address them?

 

The barriers that existed for implementing the current Waste Minimisation Act (2008) need to be addressed to achieve Stage One. If the same barriers remain, little change will be made. The key barriers from the local government perspective are;

 

·    Lack of alignment with the Building Act 2004, including discrepancies in the way the Building Code is enforced locally. For example, Clause G15 of the Building Act, provision for waste storage facilities, is not consistently enforced in all regions when consenting building projects.

·    New building materials and alternative methods are rarely taken up. Streamlining approval processes for new options could enhance this uptake. Currently, approval for new options is done in a piecemeal manner at the local government level. Providers must go to councils individually for approval to use new methods or materials.

·    Waste minimisation plans should be required as part of the consenting process for building and development projects. Equally, food waste minimisation plans should be required for licensing purposes for all restaurants, cafes, and takeaway outlets.

·    Resourcing for enforcement would lift the standards for waste practices.

·    Reducing litter will require resourcing and enforcement. The requirements for evidence to infringe for illegal dumping are currently impractical to infringe. Under current legislation, offenders must be physically caught in the act of illegal dumping for infringement to have any chance of success.

 

Q9: Do the strategic targets listed in Table 1 focus on the right areas?

 

·    The DCC agrees that the targets listed in Table 1 focus on the right areas. The DCC agrees that by targeting waste generated, it will account for reuse, repair, and the new data framework will give insight to the recycling generated.

·    The DCC suggests giving the priority areas targets or performance indicators as the strategic targets do not provide insight to the specific priority areas and their headline actions.

·    The consultation describes ‘Reaching our 2030 targets will mark the end of the first stage of our course. They will indicate that the “catching up” stage is complete as we shift our focus to “pushing ahead”.’ The DCC notes that Aotearoa New Zealand, or central government, needs to move onto the next stage whether these targets are achieved or not. The next stage will help advance us to a circular economy with less waste generation. These targets may not account for if the population has a period of rapid growth or natural disasters. These external factors may distort successful waste outcomes and lead to targets not being met.

·    The units of measurement for the targets are not specified. It is not clear whether ‘per capita’ is to be used for all targets, or if they are inclusive or exclusive of hazardous waste.

·    Businesses produce different amounts of waste. The DCC suggests using targets for different commercial sectors such as Construction and Demolition, Hospitality, and Primary Industries.

 

·    Other targets that could be considered are:

 

·    Increasing the percentage of the waste stream that is covered by an Extended Producer Responsibility scheme, and

·    Decreasing the percentage of packaging waste that is not recyclable or compostable.

 

Q10: Where in the suggested ranges do you think each target should sit, to strike a good balance between ambition and achievability?

 

The targets provide a reasonable balance of waste to be reduced in Stage One. Specifying 40%, rather than a range for the Public Sector target would indicate the public sector should lead the way.

Businesses are more agile for taking up improved services so the target for this category could be increased.

 

The categories of responsibility may be difficult to define for measuring these targets.

For example, residential waste collected from kerbside could be categorised as Public Sector, as a function of local government, or as Household waste.

The categories do not make it clear whether the Households category consists of domestic drop off at waste facilities such as Transfer Stations, or if this will be considered as Public Sector because Transfer Stations tend to be led by local government.

It is also not clear whether farms are classed as Businesses or Households, or if the Businesses category includes waste service providers. It might be that the new data framework and licensing resolves these issues, but categorising waste is currently not a straightforward matter.

 

Q11: Do you think the new legislation should require the government to have a waste strategy and periodically update it?

 

The DCC supports this requirement as it will keep waste as a priority of central government and reduce fluctuations by the central government of the day.

Q12: How often should a strategy be reviewed?

The DCC would support reviews of a strategy every six to ten years. This period will allow time for actions to be implemented following the direction set in the Strategy. Reviewing the strategy too often would compromise this and create a risk that the success of interventions could not be implemented and measured before the strategy is reviewed again.

Q13: How strongly should the strategy (and supporting action and investment plans) influence local authority plans and actions?

 

The DCC suggests the strategy should provide planning for central government and give strong requirements of local government for getting the ‘basics’ implemented across the country.

A strategy and legislation could be good mechanisms for requiring this of local authorities.

 

Outside of nation-wide projects, room needs to be given for local authorities to carry out their own initiatives as this is useful for incubating solutions and different approaches.

 

Local authorities can be useful ‘testing grounds’ and meet the different needs of their local contexts.

AIPs should be focussed on directing how central government uses its levy funding for nationwide projects such as a strategic regional, coordinated approach to infrastructure and transporting materials. AIPs should have less influence on how local and regional authorities use their levy funding.

 

A strategy could be used to address the disconnect in waste in central government. Central government currently controls the waste stream, but local government is responsible for providing the waste and recycling services. Central government can generate consistency and therefore better outcomes. However, it has been difficult in the past to make strong progress in waste minimisation at the local authority level when it hasn’t been a priority of central government.

 

If central government is going to have strong influence on local government, local government needs to keep the authority to continue waste minimisation work to avoid progress being so strongly affected by the central government of the day.

 

Q14: What public reporting on waste by central and local government would you like to see?

The DCC suggests it would be useful to have reporting on composition, source, and quantity of waste. These are the key data that are useful for working out how to minimise waste and what methods of diversion to target.

Gaining visibility of data from private companies would also be useful to work out what waste streams to target.

 

Q15: Do you agree with the suggested functions for central government agencies?

The DCC agrees with the suggested functions for central government agencies. Central government needs to provide the national strategic direction and action investment plans in a transparent manner so that councils can plan accordingly.

 

Licensing should be done at the national level to achieve consistency, otherwise this could become piecemeal and lead to inconsistent outcomes and data.

 

One of the proposed central government responsibilities is “approving significant spending, such as major infrastructure investments”. The DCC would like an indication of what defines ‘significant’ and ‘major’ infrastructure investments.

 

If central government is intending to direct local authorities in how they invest levy funding, the proposed approving role of central government could have unintended consequences for the local government 10 year planning process. Achieving large infrastructure investments in local government is already layered with approvals (business cases, procurement plans, budgets, council approval, and public consultations) so adding approval from central government could slow down the ability to approve and implement projects.

 

Clarity is needed on what “determining spending priorities for the levy revenue available to central government” means. Is this in reference to the Waste Minimisation Fund? There are issues with the management of this fund including the complicated application process, the time it takes to be told if the project is successful, a lack of alignment between the strategic work of MfE with what gets funded, a lack of transparency, and a lack of effort to get applicants to collaborate on similar projects. More detail is needed on what this role means.

 

Local government needs advice from central government on the use of regulatory powers (such as product controls, levy changes, and regulated product stewardship schemes).  

 

Q16: What central agencies would you like to see carry out these functions?

The DCC supports keeping strategic and regulatory functions for waste within central government, rather than a separate entity. This is to keep emphasis clear and close to decision making, rather than losing sight of progress and issues in the sector and having to communicate with multiple organisations to gain consensus and achieve outcomes.

However, since the amount of work in the sector will be expanding and multiplying to achieve the strategy and implement the new legislation, the DCC suggests a separate entity for functions such as data collection and reporting. The DCC recommends minimising separate bodies for different functions. For example, regulatory functions being separated from investment and research functions may create disconnects. Functions that don’t require as much decision making such as enforcement, monitoring, data collection, and reporting could be undertaken by a separate entity to rationalise the work. 

 

Q17: How should independent, expert advice on waste be provided to the government?

Rather than restructuring, the DCC suggests the best use of time and resources is to get underway with implementing the strategy and new legislation using the current method for independent expert advice. Expansion of EECA's role, to include overseeing the process for product stewardship designs could be an existing, suitable channel.

 

WasteMinz is a well-established organisation with existing expertise and relationships. This could be a useful independent body for providing additional advice to central government if needed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q18: How could the legislation provide for Māori participation in the new advice and decision-making systems for waste?

 

The strategy is lacking a Māori view, a Te Tiriti approach would be the best way to encourage Māori participation in the new advice and decision-making system in a meaningful way. Freshwater policy is a good example of how this could be done. For example[1]:

·    Te Mana o te Wai is considered and recognised in freshwater management.

·    Regional councils and communities, including tangata whenua, should work together.

·    Decisions about freshwater management should be made with the health and well-being of water at the forefront.

·    Recognise interactions ki uta ki tai (from the mountains to the sea) between land use and water throughout a catchment.

·    A clearer explanation of what a healthier water body means for human health.

At a minimum, the DCC suggests:

·    An advisor with this role on the third-party Advisory Board to ensure all recommendation align with nga tikanga.

·    All legislation, strategy’s and AIPs must give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it’s Principles, and provide for manawhenua knowledge and beliefs.

·    Work programmes should be designed with manawhenua input at the earliest stage to ensure the work aligns with nga tikanga and manawhenua, rather than retrospective alterations.

Part 3: Putting responsibilities at the heart of the new system 

Q19: What are your views on local government roles in the waste system, in particular the balance between local and regional? Who should be responsible for planning, service delivery, regulatory activities like licensing, and enforcement of the different obligations created?

 

The DCC suggests planning should be carried out by local government.

Regional councils already work with farmers on water and land practices, so waste could also be incorporated into their regulatory function. The relationships are already established so this provides a natural confluence for this responsibility. Currently, there is disparity in how this is carried out regionally. This needs to be addressed to improve standards, regulations, monitoring, and enforcement. This could also be undertaken by district authorities.

 

The significant disparity between regions due to Regional Waste Plans could be addressed by central government setting national minimum standards for land disposal practices, and setting permitted and non-permitted activities.

Service delivery fits well with local government as, in most cases, it is already providing these services as required in the Local Government Act (although this Act is also being reviewed).

 

Q20: Do you see benefit in adapting the United Kingdom’s duty of care model for Aotearoa New Zealand’s waste legislation, supported by appropriate offences and penalties?

 

The DCC agrees the duty of care model will be very beneficial for Aotearoa New Zealand’s waste legislation.

 

Supporting offences and penalties will be useful, but this needs to be resourced and budgeted to be implemented. Existing penalties and offences have been unable to be enforced due to a lack of resourcing.

 

The concept of duty of care already exists in indigenous concepts such as kaitiakitanga. This could be used to develop a duty of care for Aotearoa that reflects the collective nature of many ethnic groups here, including Māori. More work needs to be done on this, alongside Māori, to place it in the context of Aotearoa.

 

Kaitiakitanga, the duty of care, should also include producers, importers, exporters, and retailers. They should be responsible for designing out waste, swapping non-recyclable or non-reusable packaging for recyclable or reusable packaging, ensuring only durable products are sold, and that repair is available for all products sold here. 

 

Duty of care could also require waste collectors to reject transporting contaminated recycling. For example, leaving it with the householder alongside educational material (as done in some districts already).

 

Q21: Do you support strengthening obligations around litter by creating an individual ‘duty of care’ to dispose of waste appropriately?

The DCC supports creating an individual duty of care that strengthens the obligation of basic litter disposal. This should include improved education, enforcement, and larger penalties.

Q22: What else could we do so that litter is taken more seriously as a form of pollution?

An ongoing educational programme to discourage littering introduced into early learning centre programmes, schools, and the wider media. Education programmes should include impacts on the environment, biodiversity, soil, water and air pollution. Continued education delivery about the effects of littering will become entrenched in everyday life.

It should include the social and environmental impacts of litter and the consequences should you be caught littering. The DCC suggests funding the Keep New Zealand Beautiful initiative as an AIP inclusion.

Q23: Do you support a nationwide licensing regime for the waste sector?

The DCC supports a nationwide licensing regime for the waste sector. This should be mandatory and reinforce to producers, businesses, waste collectors and processing facility operators to share responsibility to reduce unnecessary waste going to landfill.

Licencing should require data to be provided to a regulatory licensing entity, independent of local authorities.

Relinquishing a licence (and publicly notifying at the point of any prosecution) due to ill practices will help deter non-compliance.

Q24: Should the new legislation include a power to require a tracing system to be developed for some or all types of waste?

The DCC supports a required tracing system for either some or all waste categories, including products that are in product stewardship schemes.

The tracing system should be administered at the central government level where comprehensive records of the type and number of disposal facilities are kept.

By requiring a tracing system, the relevant entity can collect waste data, and use it for regulating non-compliant activity.

Q25: What aspects of the proposal for regulating the waste sector could be extended to apply to hazardous waste?

The DCC supports extending regulation for the waste sector through new waste legislation, combined with the reform of the RMA, HSNO Act and Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Act. This should capture private and industry use.  The Environment Protection Amendment Act enacted in Victoria, Australia (2018) could be used as a guide for developing a similar framework for hazardous waste.

Part 3: Improving legislative support for product stewardship schemes

Q26: Should the new legislation keep an option for accreditation for voluntary product stewardship schemes?

The DCC supports mandatory product stewardship schemes. There has been little uptake from industry for voluntary product stewardship schemes. Mandating producer responsibility to see their product through whole of life will be one of the key elements for a circular economy model. The process for becoming part of a mandatory scheme should be simplified.

Q27: How could the accreditation process for new product stewardship schemes be strengthened? 

The DCC suggests the accreditation process should include categories of resources for data collection. For example, hazardous materials used for processing to reuse or treat for safe disposal, and types of metals recovered. Accreditation should also apply to imported products, such as electronic equipment manufactured overseas.

Q28: How else could we improve the regulatory framework for product stewardship?

The DCC suggests studying successful overseas models of mandatory product stewardship schemes for imported and locally manufactured products. The DCC suggests including large overseas manufacturers who already sell into mandatory product stewardship markets to be part of the development. Also, create an easier accreditation process, involve industry in all development stages, and use an independent body to review.

An independent agency that oversees Product Stewardship, with a legislated compliance regime to ensure scheme outcomes and targets are set, delivered, and consistently improved upon is needed. This agency must be properly resourced to work proactively across Ministries and manage a growing work programme.

 

The updated Waste Minimisation Act should establish the agency’s mandate and key responsibilities, including:

 

·    advancing products for priority product status;

·    leading and overseeing inclusive scheme design processes;

·    setting ambitious, measurable reduction targets with regular, transparent reporting requirements, and monitoring and reviewing accredited schemes for compliance;

·    advocating for the waste hierarchy and public interest in all schemes; and

·    recommending new regulatory powers to achieve ambitious waste reduction outcomes.[2]

·    The principles need to be revisited with an emphasis on the waste hierarchy built into legislation. Currently only the proposed Battery Industry Group and e-waste schemes have a focus on repair and reuse. The latter is because of the work of the voluntary Community Energy Network advocating for this. Other proposed regulated schemes focus on recycling only. There seems to be a disconnect between a circular economy and the solutions proposed (for example, burning tyres for cement). 

Part 3: Enhancing regulatory tools to encourage change

Q29: What improvements could be made to the existing regulatory powers under section 23 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008?

The DCC suggests Section 23 of the WMA should include aspects that can be aligned with other regulatory guidance such as the RMA, Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, and Imports and Exports (Regs) Act 1988. This will likely require changes to these Acts.

 

The DCC suggests introducing significant change for specific carbon emitting waste streams. For example, banning commercial food waste from entering landfill would help reduce the over production of food and provide for better, more efficient distribution.

 

The DCC also suggests continuing to identify items that are hard to reuse or recycle, that are particularly harmful to the environment, and placing a ban on them from entering Aotearoa New Zealand. Mandate product labelling to include information on their origin and how it can be reused or recycled in Aotearoa New Zealand. 

A National Environmental Standard for Disposal to Land (or an equivalent) is required under the RMA’s replacement. The current resource consenting of land disposal does not promote investment in alternatives to land disposal and encourages waste to go to the least controlled sites where pollution is likely to be highest. The DCC suggests that minimum standards should include farm or rural waste management practices. 

The DCC supports a standardised recycling system across Aotearoa New Zealand which includes rural areas. Infrastructure planning should reflect a national approach and not be confined to main centres.

·    Other recommendations include:

·    binding reduction targets for particular products, chemical additives, and materials;

·    reuse quotas;

·    product design specifications, including mandatory recycled content;

·    eco-modulating fees; This is where producers (typically brands/manufacturers, importers, and distributors/retailers) are financially responsible for managing the end-of-life of products and packaging. Using a modulated approach, the fees paid by the producer will vary according to specific criteria relating to aspects of their products’ environmental performance. So, the idea is that the more ‘environmentally-friendly’ products and packaging are charged at a lower rate than those that are less ‘environmentally friendly’ to incentivise eco-design[3]. A non-modulated approach means a flat fee is applied to all products, leaving no incentive for producers to improve the sustainability of their products.

·    tools to incentivise the service/sharing economy; and

·    bans on single-use applications of specified products, regardless of material composition.[4]

Q30: What new regulatory powers for products and materials would be useful to help Aotearoa move towards a circular economy?

The DCC would support new regulatory powers that enforce and prohibit problematic, environmentally harmful products. New regulatory powers that provide such a strategy will help towards Aotearoa New Zealand’s emission reduction targets. Data collection powers will be key for this. Data that would be useful includes:

·    High level quarterly statistics to track progress.                                        

·    Product stewardship schemes            

·    Charities (op shops), food rescue, and repair shops                                 

·    Hazardous waste volumes, include abandoned materials                                                            

·    Unknown waste streams such as silage wrap and shrink wrap                         

·    Reports on retail imports and volumes of returned packaging to retailers               

·    Rural waste management such as use of, or consenting, for farm fills

 

Q31: Would you like to see a right to return packaging to the relevant business?

The DCC would support the right to return packaging to the relevant businesses. The option should be well advertised, and information provided at time of purchase. Returning packaging should not be an additional cost to the purchaser at the items end-of life.

The receiving business should provide information to the consumer describing how the packaging is to be reused or recycled, giving some assurance to the purchaser that it is not going to be landfilled. A review by product manufacturers to remove unnecessary packaging should be encouraged.

The packaging returned for reuse and recycling should be noted for data reporting.  This should include all types of packaging but may need to be a staged approach as opportunities for reuse or recycling evolve.

Clarity is needed on whether the right to return packaging would be covered by a product stewardship scheme for single use packaging

                                                                                                                

The majority of TAOs are in favour of a full and comprehensive Container Return Schemes being implemented for beverage containers.

 

 

 

 

Q32: Would you like to see more legal requirements to support products lasting longer and being able to be repaired?

The DCC supports more legal requirements for durable products which are easy to repair with generic product parts that are widely available.

The DCC suggests that information about product eco-design and producer responsibility should be available for the consumer to consider before purchasing. Also, review and consider successful overseas examples of legal requirements which might be easily applied in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The DCC recognises community-based repair cafes are popular but they are often reliant on volunteers. The DCC suggests improving access to localised funding to foster repair café initiatives which provide local, cheap services, and provide skilled training which could also lead to greater employment opportunities.

The new legal requirements introduced need to include addressing the Consumer Guarantees Act, and tighten copyright law so that repairers are not sued for breach of IP while making repairs.

Any legal requirements need to go beyond labelling for durability and repairability and require that items sold in Aotearoa New Zealand NZ are durable and repairable. This could include electronic products and other items such as furniture items which are increasingly made out of cheap, less durable materials which cannot be repaired. (i.e. MDF, and particle board).

Q33: Is there a need to strengthen and make better use of import and export controls to support waste minimisation and circular economy goals? For example, should we look at ways to prohibit exports of materials like low-value plastics?

The DCC supports strengthening import and export controls. Imported goods should comply with their relevant mandatory product stewardship schemes.

 

The DCC supports importing and exporting products that are durable, have a defined life expectancy, are easy to repair, and have parts readily available. The DCC suggests products should be accompanied with clear, jargon free warranties from the manufacturer. The warranties should not limit repairs or maintenance to only manufacturer approved suppliers or otherwise void warranties. For example, an electrical product that requires a fuse change could be done by a suitably qualified electrician, and still have a valid warranty.

 

The DCC suggests packaging should be required to be easy to reuse or able to be recycled in New Zealand. It should not require special handling or processing to do so. 

 

A permit system could be suitable for compostable packaging. Permits could be given for compostable packaging that have no PFAs. This could also permit use of compostable materials for specific items that carry food waste to a composter in a closed loop system.

 

Q34: What types of activities should potentially be subject to a levy? Should the levy be able to be imposed on final disposal activities other than landfills (such as waste to energy)?

 

The DCC agrees the waste levy should apply to all final disposal activities, including incineration and waste to energy. This means that waste minimisation is always incentivised and doesn’t lead to pushing disposal to landfill, to disposal by other methods. Applying the levy to all linear disposal methods would mean they would be equally disincentivised. This would expand on making other alternatives a more attractive option. The levy should be applied to anything creating linear waste.

 

Q35: What factors should be considered when setting levy rates?

The DCC suggests setting the waste levy rates to reflect the changing costs of corresponding alternatives. For example, increases in freight costs due to increasing carbon costs. This increase in cost will make recycling and other diversion options more expensive. Therefore, the waste levy needs to change proportionately to maintain its effectiveness.

 

Q36: How could the rules on collection and payment of the waste levy be improved?

 

The DCC agrees that stockpiling should become a regulated activity. An approving process should be required so that quantities, composition, and time periods can be managed. A minimum threshold would need to be instated, such as stockpiling for over six months.

 

The DCC sees that reuse of materials on site at disposal facilities should not be subject to the waste levy. Use of inert waste for daily cover and structural bunds in landfills needs to be allowed. This activity avoids new materials being purchased and used for these purposes. Requiring exemptions for this activity would introduce extra process, seeking approval for an activity which can reduce cost, encourages reuse of materials, and avoids new resources being consumed in their place. Applying the levy and requiring an exemption would be disadvantageous for efficient operations. However, exemptions and waivers are supported by the DCC for other activities in exceptional circumstances, particularly in aid of civil emergencies and adapting to climate risks.

 

Q37: What should waste levy revenue be able to be spent on?

 

The DCC supports the current allowances for use of waste levy to be continued. As well as current allowances, using waste levy for enforcement will lead to better waste outcomes.

 

The waste levy could also be used to support organisations that are well positioned to provide access to diversion and waste services who are financially disadvantaged or have insufficient access to transport.

 

Territorial authorities could also be incentivised to offer waste minimisation grants at the local government level for commercial and community organisations. The incentive could be structured by ring fencing a percentage of waste levy to be used for waste minimisation grants.

 

Waste levy should continue to be able to be used to fund new positions if workloads increase due to new legislative requirements.       

                                     

The DCC suggests that long-term partnerships should be funded on an ongoing basis to support behaviour change (e.g. Love Food Hate Waste New Zealand), circular activities (such as repair cafes) and work with tangata whenua (e.g. Para Kore), and community led waste diversion services.

 

Q38: How should revenue from the waste levy be allocated to best reflect the roles and responsibilities of the different layers of government in relation to waste, and to maximise effectiveness?

               

Continuing the current approach for allocating waste levy across levels of government is supported by the DCC.

Providing regional authorities with waste levy funding to use for enforcement and monitoring of waste disposal facilities and rural farming practices would also enhance outcomes at the regional and district level.

The entity responsible for licensing and data collection from waste operators will also need to be funded and resourced at the central government level. The waste levy could be used to resource this as well.

 

Q39: How should waste levy revenue be allocated between territorial authorities?

 

The DCC suggests waste levy should be allocated based on quantity of waste to landfill and population of usual residents. By combining these, a better, proportionate, allocation will be achieved.

Where territorial authorities export waste from their district to another district, the licensing data from waste operators can be used to work out how much waste is being generated by that district.

 

Q40: Which elements of compliance, monitoring and enforcement should be the responsibility of which parts of government (central government, regional councils, territorial authorities) under new waste legislation?

 

The DCC agrees that central government (whether it is by the Ministry for Environment or another government agency) is best placed to cover compliance of the waste levy, product bans, and regulated product stewardship schemes.

 

Regional authorities need to be resourced and report on regulating, enforcement, and monitoring of rural waste practices, and different classes of disposal facilities. Farm fills and burning of waste are currently permitted activities in some regions. Introducing national minimum land disposal standards could be useful for addressing regional disparities and ban these activities. 

 

The DCC agrees that territorial and regional authorities are best placed for maintaining working relationships, carrying out spot checks, and gathering and acting on information received.

 

The DCC agrees that compliance checks for several Acts could be carried out at the same time. For example, compliance checks with construction waste minimisation plans could be undertaken alongside building compliance inspections.

 

Q41: The need for enforcement work will increase under the new legislation. How should it be funded?

 

The DCC suggests enforcement should be funded by a combination of waste levy, product stewardship fees from imported and exported goods, and enforcement penalties. For example, enforcement of regulations for the construction and demolition sector could be funded from Building Consent charges. This could include a separate waste compliance fee for transparency.

 

Q42: What expanded investigation powers, offences and penalties should be included in new waste legislation?

 

The DCC supports having the ability to infringe for litter on private property when it reaches the point of being an environmental hazard. Monitoring and enforcement for this could be tied to the legislated ‘duty of care’. Infringing could also be aided by minimum standards for land disposal and storage, and the ability for authorities to monitor and enforce these standards.

 

Uncontrolled, and unregulated activities such as farm-fills and burning of inorganic waste should also be controlled uniformly across all regions. Legislating offences and penalties for these harmful activities, will provide the power to enforce with appropriate penalties.

Q43: What regulatory or other changes would help better manage inappropriate disposal of materials (that is, littering and fly-tipping)?

 

Easing access to recycling and disposal services would help improve how materials are disposed of. Access to these services could be improved by supporting organisations that service clients who find waste disposal costs are financial barriers and have limited transport. Fly tipping could be reduced by providing a collection service through these organisations, for hazardous waste and e-waste to be recycled or disposed of correctly for free, or subsidised.

 

The DCC also suggests considering an option to reduce rubbish disposal costs for households who are financially disadvantaged. The DCC recommends providing education on the environmental impacts of littering and inappropriate disposal methods to all areas of society.

 

The DCC also notes the ‘Recommendations for standardisation of kerbside collections in Aotearoa’ report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment (May 2020) which states that rates funded refuse collections, or the use of bylaws to limit the provision of 240-litre wheelie bins by the private sector, is shown to reduce residual rubbish and reduce contamination in recycling.

 

Surveillance of known ‘hot spots’ will enable authorities to enforce regulations for inappropriate disposal.

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

New Zealand Masters Games Update

Department: Community and Planning

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report updates the Council on the operational and financial status of the biennial New Zealand Masters Games being run in Dunedin (5 – 13 February 2022).

2          Financially the 2022 New Zealand Masters Games is on track with 89.26% of budgeted revenue confirmed.  Registrations, open since 9 September 2021, are currently slightly behind those received at the same time for the 2020 Games.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the New Zealand Masters Games operational and financial update.

b)     Notes that should the 2022 New Zealand Masters Games be cancelled due to COVID the Trust will request an underwrite from Council.

c)     Approves the 2022 New Zealand Masters Games proceeding.

 

BACKGROUND

3          The Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust’s Statement of Intent and Trust Deed require the Trust to report to Council prior to each Masters Games.

4          The Dunedin Masters Games (the Games) is the largest regularly occurring event in Dunedin.  The Games meets the Premier criteria within the city’s Festival’s and Events Plan, contributing to the DCC’s Social Wellbeing, Parks and Recreation and Economic Development Strategies.  Previous participants experience high levels of satisfaction with the event and their stay in Dunedin.

5          Masters Games is owned by New Zealand Masters Games Limited, and the DCC is one of two franchisees, the other is the Whanganui (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust.  New Zealand Masters Games Limited guarantees franchise rights for the biennial New Zealand Masters Games in Dunedin until the completion of the 2036 New Zealand Masters Games.  The franchise agreement guarantees two appointments from the Trust on the New Zealand Masters Games Limited Board.  New Zealand Masters Games Limited has now invited a third Dunedin Trust member to join the organisation

6          As franchisee the DCC has delegated the Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust to manage the event.

7          Council has provided grant payments to the Trust of $109,600 (2020/21) and $111,120 (2021/22).  The annual grant covers costs for the Games Manager who is an employee of the DCC.  As the Trust is dependent on funding from sources outside Council for the successful financial management of the Games, much of the Manager’s role is to secure funding and attract competitors, who contribute to revenue through their registration fee.

DISCUSSION

8          The Trust approved the 2022 Masters Games budget at the beginning of 2020/21.  Monthly Board meetings have been held to monitor and closely manage the expenditure against the budget.

9          The level of expenditure is directly related to revenue sourced from grants, sponsorship, and registration fees.  The Trust is charged with ensuring that, at its completion, the Games will achieve at least a break-even result.

10        The main revenue stream from Games registration begins in September (prior to the February Games).  The Statement of Intent and Trust Deed state that the Trust is required to report to the Council in the October prior to the Masters Games being run, confirming whether it has achieved 85% of the biennial Masters Games budgeted grants and sponsorship revenue.  The 2022 New Zealand Masters Games launch was delayed due to lockdown; therefore, this report is provided in November instead of October.

11        Under the agreement with Council, if the Board has been unsuccessful in achieving 85% of the Games grants and sponsorship funding at the time this report is presented, the Trust will:

·        Revise the Games budget to reduce expenditure to achieve a break even result and/or request the DCC to underwrite the Games; or

·        Gain approval from the Council for it to underwrite the amount of the anticipated loss; or

·        Agree to cancel the Games.

12        The following is an update of funding activity as of 1 November 2021, four months out from the February 2022 event.

Grants and Sponsorship

13        The approved budget from Sponsorship is $329,200.  Currently 96.96% has been confirmed.  Funding has been confirmed as follows:

Sponsorship

Income

Budget

Confirmed

Dunedin City Council

219,200

219,200

Otago Community Trust

100,000

100,000

Other Sponsors

10,000

 

Total

329,200

319,200

14        The Trust has budgeted $62,000 in grant revenue from Gaming Trusts, it has secured $30,000 (48.39%) to date and completed further funding applications to the value of $12,000.  In addition, unbudgeted income of $35,000 was confirmed from the Regional Events Fund.  Funding from Gaming Trusts is oversubscribed by community and sporting groups and securing funds has proven difficult.  However, the Trust continues to make applications.

Grants

Income

Budget

Confirmed

Bendigo Valley Sports and Charity

10,000

Callis Charitable Trust

5,000

5,000

Lion Foundation

10,000

5,000

NZ Community Trust

15,000

10,000

TAB NZ

10,000

CERT

2,000

The Southern Trust

10,000

10,000

Total

62,000

30,000

15        The combination of grant and sponsorship revenue secured to date is $349,200, which represents 89.26% of the target Games budget of $391,200.  The Trust continues to apply for funding to achieve targets.

16        The Trust is continually monitoring expenses to ensure it does not exceed the budget.

Registration Fees

17        The following fees were approved by the Trust:

·        Early Bird                                              $70

·        Standard                                                         $100

·        Late                                                                   $130

·        Supporter                                             $45

18        The budget for registration revenue is $342,450, this is split into four categories: Early Bird, $223,100 (closing 30 November 2021), Standard, $57,500 (closing 11 January 2022), Late, $54,050 (close off dependant on sport), and Supporter, $7,800 (open until the completion of the Games).

19        The registration fees are an ‘at risk’ component of the budget, therefore the budget has been set based on participant numbers of 5,500.  As of 1 November 2021, there were 846 participant entries, which is tracking 141 behind registration at the same time in 2019.  Potential entrants are reluctant to register due to the current COVID-19 impacts and restrictions.

20        The new COVID-19 Protection Framework allows large events to go ahead at the green and orange settings if they are using vaccination certificates.  Therefore, if the framework is in effect at either of these levels the 2022 New Zealand Masters Games will be able to proceed.

21        Under the red level the Games would be cancelled, resulting in cost implications.  It is expected the Trust would request an underwrite from Council in the event of cancellation.

22        As per the Service Level Agreement 2021-23 between DCC and the Masters Games Trust, DCC as underwriter for the Games. The Trust must provide a request for any underwriting within four months of the Games commencement, including profit / loss forecasting and any other requirements.  Council maintains the right to decline to underwrite or to cancel if the forecasting indicates a loss that Council regards as significant. Council maintains the right to decline to underwrite or to cancel if the forecasting indicates a loss that Council regards as significant.

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option

23        That the Games proceed, and the Trust continues to monitor revenue and expenses to ensure the event does not exceed its budget.

Advantages

·        Positive economic impact to Dunedin City.

·        Growth in funding and membership for participating sporting organisations.

·        Contributes positively to the health and wellbeing of participating residents.

Disadvantages

·        There is a risk of the Council being called upon to underwrite the Games should there be a need to cancel due to COVID-19.

Option Two – Status Quo

24        The Council does not approve the Games proceeding and instructs the Trust to cancel the Games.

Advantages

·        There are no identified advantages to cancelling the event at this stage.

Disadvantages

·        Loss of potential income and wider economic benefit to the city.

·        Disadvantages to business and sporting codes as financial and other commitments have been made, and benefits will not be realised.

·        The Council has already incurred costs relating to the event which cannot be recovered.

·        Additional costs would be incurred to refund registered participants, and the Trust would need to seek underwriting of losses from the Council.

NEXT STEPS

25        If Council approves the Masters Games proceed, the Trust will continue its management and event planning as delegated by the DCC.  Should the event be impacted by COVID-19 (red level) the Trust will report on its financial status to Council.

 

Signatories

Author:

Vicki Kestila - Master Games Manager

Authoriser:

Joy Lanini - Manager Community Development and Events

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 


 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the 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

 

The Games contribute to three of Council’s strategies and towards the vision Dunedin is one of the world’s great small cities.  The Games reflect Council’s Festivals and Events Plan in relation to attracting visitors, visitor nights and visitor expenditure.

Māori Impact Statement

There is no known impact for Māori.

Sustainability

The Dunedin (New Zealand) Masters Games Trust is working to develop a Sustainability Plan that aligns with Te Ao Tūroa – Dunedin Environment Strategy 2016 – 2026 by reducing or offsetting negative impacts on the environment.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no known implications.

Financial considerations

The DCC guarantees to underwrite the Games should it be required.  If the COVID-19 Protection Framework is in effect at the Red level the Games will need to be cancelled, there will be associated costs with this and will require the Trust to request an underwrite from Council.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

The Games Manager regularly engages with; funders, suppliers, sporting organisations, Sporting Associations, service providers, volunteers, participants and other Masters Games organisers.

Engagement - internal

There has been no internal engagement.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The New Zealand Masters Games implements its own Health and Safety policy and process in line with current legislation.  If Council decides not to proceed with the Games, there is an economic risk to the city’s tourism industry.  In addition, financial and other commitments have already been made.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

Statement of proposal for consultation: Strath Taieri key vehicle and pedestrian routes (earthquake-prone buildings)

Department: Customer and Regulatory

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 (the Act) established a national system for managing earthquake-prone buildings (EPB)s.

2          The Act targets buildings or parts of buildings that pose the greatest risk to public safety and other property in a moderate earthquake. This report focuses on a small area west and north of Sutton (including Middlemarch). This has been classified as a medium seismic risk zone and therefore a priority for the city.

3          A special consultative procedure (SCP) must be used to identify any part of a public road, footpath, or other thoroughfare on to which part of an unreinforced masonry building could fall in an earthquake and the road, footpath or other thoroughfare has sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic.

4          Councils have specific responsibilities under the Act and must identify priority buildings in medium seismic risk zones by July 2022.

5          These responsibilities include identifying key vehicle and pedestrian routes in those risk zones. The Act requires territorial authorities to consult under the SCP to identify these key routes. To that end, this report:

a)         seeks approval for the statement of proposal (SOP) to identify key vehicle and pedestrian routes (this is part of the process for identifying priority EPBs). and

b)        updates the Council on the progress of earthquake-prone building work.

6          The rest of Dunedin is in a low seismic risk zone. These zones have different requirements and timeframe obligations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Approves the statement of proposal at Attachment A for consultation purposes

b)     Notes the update on earthquake-prone buildings.

 

BACKGROUND

EPB work pre-2017

7          Prior to the Act becoming effective in 2017, Dunedin City Council (DCC) had an EPB register. The work undertaken in 2011/12 identified 3,022 buildings for review. New EPB assessment methodology was introduced with the amended 2016 Act.  Consequently, several of the pre-2017 EPB reports may not align with the latest EPB requirements.

Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016

Council regulatory responsibilities

8          Councils have specific responsibilities under the Act in relation to earthquake-prone buildings which include:

·        identifying potentially earthquake-prone buildings

·        requiring building owners to provide an assessment of their buildings

·        determining whether buildings are earthquake-prone

·        assigning ratings

·        issuing notices and

·        providing information to the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for inclusion in the national public register.

9          As noted above, part of the process for identifying earthquake-prone buildings is to identify key vehicle and pedestrian routes. Councils must meet timeframes set out in the Act.

Act requirements

10        The Act requires a consistent, nationwide approach to managing EPBs. It targets buildings that pose the greatest risk to public safety and other property in a moderate earthquake. To do this, the Act separates the country into three seismic risk zones – low, medium and high.

11        Following the issuing of an EPB notice, building owners in medium zones have 12.5 years to complete seismic upgrading building work on priority buildings and 25 years for non-priority buildings. In low seismic risk zones, it is 35 years for all buildings. 

12        It was originally anticipated that Dunedin would fall solely within the low seismic risk zone, however a small area west and north of Sutton is deemed to be in the medium zone. Medium seismic risk zones have higher thresholds and shorter timing for compliance.

13        From the commencement of the Act, the following need to be identified in medium seismic risk zones:

·        Priority buildings (within five years i.e. by July 2022).

(A priority building can include:

-      certain hospital buildings used for emergency purposes

-      buildings likely to be used in an emergency response

-      buildings which are regularly occupied by at least 20 people and used for educational purposes

-      any part of an unreinforced masonry building that could fall from the building onto any part of a public road, footpath or other thoroughfare on a strategic transport route or a busy road/footpath.)

·        Strategic transport routes (within five years - by July 2022)

-      A SCP must be used to identify any part of a public road, footpath, or other thoroughfare on to which part of an unreinforced masonry building could fall in an earthquake and the road, footpath or other thoroughfare has sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic.

·        All other potentially EPBs within 10 years (by July 2027.)

14        Potential EBPs are primarily commercial buildings and are profiled by the categories set by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

15        There are three profile categories for the different seismic risk zones, and these are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Profile categories for seismic risk zones

Category

Medium & High seismic risk zones

Low seismic risk zones

A

Unreinforced masonry buildings

Unreinforced masonry buildings

 

B

Pre-1976 buildings, either:

- three or more storeys, or

- 12 meters or greater above the lowest ground level.

(other than Category A buildings)

Pre-1976 buildings, either:

- three or more storeys, or

- 12 meters or greater above the lowest ground level.

(other than Category A buildings)

C

Pre-1935 buildings that are one or two storeys (other than Category A buildings)

 

 

16        For low seismic risk zones, the work on priority buildings and routes is not required. Identification of potential EPBs must be undertaken within 15 years from commencement of the Act - by July 2032.

DISCUSSION

Identification of potential key vehicle and pedestrian routes

17        The DCC has identified potential key vehicle and pedestrian routes in Middlemarch, in the medium seismic risk zone.

18        The Act requires territorial authorities whose district includes any area of medium seismic risk to undertake a SCP to identify any part of a public road, footpath, or other thoroughfare:

a)         onto which parts of an unreinforced masonry building could fall in an earthquake; and

b)        that has sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritising the identification of those parts of unreinforced masonry buildings.

19        In identifying key pedestrian and vehicle routes, the following criteria were considered:

·        the streets are well used by pedestrians visiting shops and services

·        the streets are also regularly used by vehicles

·        there is the potential for part of an unreinforced masonry building to fall on to these streets.

20        In identifying strategic transport routes, the following criteria were considered:

·        the routes are likely to be used by emergency services

·        there is at least one building on these routes that, if it collapsed, could block access.

21        See the SOP at Attachment A for the proposed key vehicle and pedestrian routes that have been identified.

22        There has been initial consultation with Civil Defence and Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency.

Consultation

23        Public consultation will be open for at least one month and methods of consultation include the DCC website, Otago Daily Times noticeboard as well as targeted emails to organisations that may have an interest in the topic e.g. Strath Taieri Community Board. People will be able to make submissions and present their views at a hearing should they wish.

Process for EPBs

24        Where the DCC identifies a building (or part of a building) as potentially earthquake-prone, the first step in the process is to write to the owner. The owner then has 12 months to provide an engineering assessment report to the DCC (there is provision for extending this timeframe on request for a further 12 months). Upon receipt of the report, the DCC must assess whether the building is earthquake-prone as set out by the MBIE EPB methodology.

25        If the building is deemed to be earthquake-prone (<34% new building standard) the DCC will:

a)         issue and attach an EPB notice (prescribed form) for/on the building

b)        record the information on the national EPB register

c)         record the information on the DCC register which is also then captured on future Land Information Memorandum (LIM) requests.

Capacity

26        There could be around 3,000 buildings which require an assessment. This means that the DCC will require around 300 assessments to be made annually over a ten year period. Dunedin-based engineers have indicated that they have the capacity to meet that demand. The DCC is also currently resourced to meet the Act’s requirements, having appointed an EPB Officer to progress this work.

OPTIONS

27        As this process is required by the Act, there are no options to this report.

NEXT STEPS

28        Consultation will be carried out on key vehicle and pedestrian routes using the SCP. Any submissions received will be considered and a report back to the Council with recommendations.

29        Once the key vehicle and pedestrian routes are confirmed, the DCC will write to building owners who have had their building designated as a priority building to advise them of the need for an assessment.

30        The EPB work programme will continue according to the timeframes set out in the Act.

 

Signatories

Author:

Anne Gray - Policy Analyst

Paul Henderson - Building Solutions Manager

Authoriser:

Claire Austin - General Manager Customer and Regulatory

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Statement of proposal for consultation: Strath Taieri key vehicle and pedestrian routes (earthquake-prone buildings)

143

 

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

Māori Impact Statement

There are no specific impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

The EPB work will be managed sustainably in consideration of availability of professionals undertaking report and improvement works. Long term implications of meeting requirements under the Act will ensure the safety of the community.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications for these documents.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications as this work will be carried out within existing budgets.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Engagement has already commenced with potential priority buildings in the medium zone area and with Civil Defence and Waka Kotahi, New Zealand Transport Agency.

The special consultative procedure will be used to identify medium zone priority buildings and/or strategic transport routes, as required by the Act.

Engagement - internal

There has been engagement with the Group Manager Transport and the Heritage Advisor.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There is a risk of not meeting regulatory obligations under the Act and resource is in place to manage the work.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There will be specific engagement with the Strath Taieri Community Board during consultation as the medium seismic risk zone is within that area.

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

Hearing Committee Recommendations on the Review of the Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan

Department: Civic

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report presents the recommendations of the Hearings Committee (the Committee) on the review of the Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan (the Draft Plan).

2          After considering the submissions received, the Committee requested that staff update the Draft Plan incorporating feedback from submitters.

3          The Committee reconvened and approved the changes to the Draft Plan.

4          If approved, the new Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan will replace the existing 1998 Plan immediately. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes that the Hearings Committee has heard and considered submissions on the draft Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2021.

b)     Adopts the Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2021.

 

BACKGROUND

Reserve Management Plans

5          Dunedin City Council (DCC) is the administering body appointed under the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act) to control and manage reserves within the city for the particular purpose for which those reserves were classified. 

6          The Act requires the administering body to prepare management plans for all reserves under its control.  The management plans are to be reviewed regularly to ensure they reflect changing circumstances or increased knowledge.  The Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan 1998 is the first management plan to be reviewed under a 10-year rolling programme to bring all DCC reserve management plans up to date.

7          The process for preparing or reviewing a reserve management plan is set out in sections 41 (5) and (6) of the Act.

8          DCC as the administering body can approve reserve management plans for reserves under its control, management, or administration. 

Public Consultation

9          The Draft Truby King Reserve Management Plan 2021 was presented to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 22 September 2020, recommending the commencement of a public consultation process. 

10        The submission period started on 5 October 2020 and remained open until 8 December 2020.

DISCUSSION

Results of Consultation

11        There were 21 submissions received during the two month consultation period on the Draft Plan.  Of these submissions, eight (8) indicated support, five (5) indicated opposition and eight (8) respondents did not indicate support or opposition.

Hearing Findings

12        The Committee met on 20 April 2021 to hear submitters and to deliberate on all the submissions received.

13        Five submitters spoke to their submissions and answer questions.

14        The Committee requested that staff update the Draft Plan and incorporate feedback from the following parties because their submissions encompassed the majority of topics identified in the 21 submissions: 

·        Heritage NZ

·        Truby King Recreation Reserve Committee

·        Waikouaiti Coast Community Board

15        The three (3) parties were consulted separately following the hearing.  Feedback from the meetings was incorporated into the Draft Plan.

16        The Committee was reconvened on 29 July 2021 to review the updated Draft Plan.  The Committee was satisfied that the updated draft had taken the submitters’ feedback into account.

17        The final version of the Draft Plan is at Attachment B.

Summary of recommended changes to the Draft Plan

18        The history of the Seacliff Asylum is much more detailed in the background section of the updated Draft Plan.

19        Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga recommended further provision for the preservation and management of the site’s heritage values.  As a result, the management objectives include the commissioning of a Conservation Report to inform future management of the heritage values of the site.  A second Conservation Report will be commissioned specifically to preserve and manage archaeological values of the site. 

20        Provision has been made for ongoing consultation between Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and DCC as programmes of work within the reserve are being developed.

21        The Waikouaiti Coast Community Board and the Truby King Recreation Reserve Committee held similar views that there be a strong community involvement in maintenance and management of the reserve.  As a result, the formation of a Truby King Management Committee is proposed to act as the liaison point between Council and the Seacliff community for matters of maintenance and ongoing management.  Council staff will meet with the committee twice a year.  Community groups wanting to be involved in maintenance on the reserve will have volunteer agreements in place organised with the DCC Volunteer Facilitator.

22        The lack of maintenance of the Enchanted Forest was a common theme throughout the submissions.  Many thought that the restoration of this area should be a priority, and this has been addressed in the Management Objectives and Policies section of the Draft Plan.

OPTIONS

23        Three options are proposed.  The recommended Option is to adopt the Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2021.  Option Two is return the Draft Plan to the Hearings Committee for further consideration.  Option Three is to retain the status quo, i.e. retain the existing Truby King Reserve Management Plan.

Option One – Adopt the Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2021 (Recommended Option)

24        Option One recommends Council adopt the Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2021.

Advantages

·        The Truby King Recreation Reserve will have an up-to-date management plan that seeks to maintain the historic, cultural, and botanical values of the reserve.

·        The objectives in the Draft Plan can be implemented without delay.

Disadvantages

·        There are no known disadvantages.

Option Two – Return the Draft Plan to the Hearings Committee to reconsider

25        Option Two is to return the Draft Plan back to the Hearings Committee to reconsider the recommendations.

Advantages

·        The Hearings Committee will be given more time to consider the Management Objectives and Policies within the Draft Plan.

Disadvantages

·        There will be delays implementing the management plan.

Option Three – Do not accept the recommendations from the Hearings Committee (Status Quo)

26        Do not adopt the Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2021.  The original Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan 1998 will remain operative. 

Advantages

·        There are no known advantages.

Disadvantages

·        The current state of the reserve indicates that this Plan does not provide appropriate management of Truby King Recreation Reserve.

NEXT STEPS

27        If adopted, the Truby King Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2021 will be implemented in accordance with the objectives and within approved annual budgets.

 

Signatories

Author:

David Benson-Pope - Councillor

Authoriser:

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Truby King RMP Public Consultation 2020

157

b

Final Draft Truby King RMP 2021

197

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision promotes the 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

 

Truby King Reserve is a Category 1 Historic Place in recognition of its historical and cultural significance and as such has a contribution to the above strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

Manawhenua were consulted throughout the drafting of the Plan.  One of the Objectives of the RMP is to acknowledge manawhenua status of iwi and recognise this in the management of the reserve.  This will occur through ongoing consultation and Plan implementation.

Sustainability

Truby King Reserve is a Category 1 Historic Place in recognition of its historical and cultural significance and the adoption of the RMP will ensure that the heritage elements of the site are protected and acknowledged for future generations.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are elements of the RMP requiring capital investment.  These have been included in the LTP 2021-31.  The maintenance of the site is provided for in current operational budgets. 

Financial considerations

The RMP recommends a conservation plan and an archaeological survey be commissioned as soon as possible.  Funding for this will be from existing budgets, however the recommendations that arise from the conservation plan, and other studies that are carried out, will need to be considered in future annual plan and 10-year planning processes. 

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Consultation was undertaken in accordance with sections 41 (5) and (6) of the Reserves Act 1977, which requires a special consultative procedure.

Engagement - internal

Parks and Recreation, Transport, Urban Design (Heritage).

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The Reserves Act process has been followed for the review of a management plan by an Administering Body.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Waikouaiti Coast Community Board was involved in the process of reviewing the RMP.

 

 


Council

23 November 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


Council

23 November 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


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

Regulatory Subcommittee recommendations on the proposed parking changes-October 2021

Department: Transport

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report presents the recommendations of the Regulatory Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) on proposed minor changes or clarifications to current parking restrictions, and corrections to the parking controls database of the Dunedin Traffic Parking Bylaw 2010 (the GIS database).

 

2          After considering the proposed changes and the feedback from consultation, the Subcommittee recommended all the proposed clarifications to parking restrictions and corrections to the GIS database.

 

3          The Subcommittee recommends that all minor changes be approved except for the relocation of a bus stop in Port Chalmers which will be considered after further investigation.

 

4          If approved, the changes recommended by the Subcommittee, will be included into the GIS database and become part of the Dunedin City Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2010.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes that the Regulatory Subcommittee has considered feedback from consultation on the proposed changes to parking restrictions.

b)     Adopts the recommended minor changes, clarifications and corrections to the parking controls that are shown in the October 2021 update of the GIS database, https://tinyurl.com/ParkingOctober2021.

c)     Notes that all parking restrictions previously approved by Council remain unchanged.

 

BACKGROUND

5          Traffic and parking restrictions are made under the Dunedin City Traffic and Parking Bylaw. Traffic and parking  controls contribute to the objectives of the Dunedin Integrated Transport Strategy 2013, by supporting a safe, efficient and accessible transport network.

6          Council maintains a Geographic Information System map of traffic and parking restrictions which reflects all on-street parking restrictions that are implemented with markings and/or signs.

7          The Subcommittee has the delegation to make recommendations regarding traffic and parking restrictions to Council.

8          Recommended changes or clarifications to parking restrictions and corrections to the database are shown at https://tinyurl.com/ParkingOctober2021 and detailed in Attachments A (TPC 26-Minor changes)           and B (TPC 27-Clarifications and Corrections).

Public consultation

 

9          Consultation on the recommended minor changes to parking restrictions included:

a)         Engagement with affected parties when parking changes to improve safety, efficiency or access were proposed.

 

b)        Engagement with the Otago Regional Council (ORC) when changes related to the operation of the bus network were proposed.

 

10        Officers consulted on proposed minor changes to parking restrictions with affected parties in July 2021. A letter with a diagram explaining the proposed changes was provided to property owners, residents and businesses impacted by the changes to give them the opportunity to comment on the proposal. 

11        In each case, feedback was considered by officers. In some instances, modifications to the proposal were made before they were presented to the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee considered the final proposed changes on 12 October 2021.

DISCUSSION

Subcommittee findings

Minor Changes

12        Minor changes to parking restrictions are detailed in Attachment A (TPC 26-Minor changes). 

13        Minor changes of note presented to the Subcommittee are:

·    Coney Hill Road. Waste and Environmental Solutions Group requested a clearway, on the narrowest section of Coney Hill Road to allow safe passage of trucks for waste collection. No changes were recommended to the original proposal after feedback was considered. Approximately eight parks will be affected for two hours, once a week (Fridays from 9am to 11am), but there is no permanent loss of parking.

·    Earlier in the year the road reserve on Ward Street between Halsey Street and Wickliffe Street was rehabilitated and upgraded, and a one-way restriction was approved by Council in February 2021. Angled car parks were created to replace the informal parking arrangement that existed previously. The results of engagement with businesses in      the area showed a preference to maintain most parks as unrestricted and provide some short-term parking for customers. For more detail, please see Attachment C- Ward Street map.

·      Port Chalmers-Bus relocation. The Dunedin City Council, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency and the Otago Regional Council proposed relocating the current stop at the intersection of George Street and Wickliffe Terrace due to the construction of a shared path along State Highway 88. The Subcommittee is currently reviewing the proposal to relocate the bus stop.

1                      

14        Two other cases of note relate to the road safety improvements programme as detailed:

·    The roundabout at the Forbury Road and Bay View Road intersection was completed in early September 2021. As a result of these improvements, a new parking layout including the relocation of two bus stops and the creation of short-term parking restrictions to support local businesses is proposed. Overall, no parking is lost.

·    The school safety improvements programme has implemented a new parking layout on Elgin Road, near Mornington School. A Pick-Up and Drop-Off zone  outside of the school is proposed to improve safety for students. The result is the change of seven unrestricted parks to five Pick-Up and Drop-Off and, two multi-use five minutes/unrestricted parks (8:30-9:30 and 2:45-3:45-MON-FRI). There is no permanent   loss of parking due to this measure.

 

Parking spaces - Losses and gains

 

16        From the changes and improvements related to the bus network detailed on the table Attachment A (TPC-26 Minor changes), it is proposed that five parks be reallocated to support the creation or relocation of bus stops and 16 would be gained due to removal of bus stops, resulting in a net gain of 11 parks. The changes proposed are part of the DCC and ORC common strategy for improving the bus network.

 

17        In total, it is proposed there will be a net gain of five parking spaces across the city. The table below shows the net losses and gains due to the proposed parking changes:

 

There is an increase of parking in the central city. The table below shows the net losses and gains                  on parking changes by zone:

Clarifications and corrections

 

18        Clarification of parking restrictions and corrections to the database are detailed in TPC-27 (Attachment B). They do not change current parking restrictions, but include:

a)         Changes to markings or signs intended to clarify parking controls which are already in place. Changes may make existing markings or signs clearer or reinforce existing rules (for example installation of no-stopping lines to clarify that no vehicles may stop within one metre of a driveway or within six metres of a junction under the Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2004). These clarifications are considered necessary for access or safety reasons and are an exception to Council’s general approach not to mark anything that is currently enforceable under existing rules.

b)        Corrections to the database that have been made to accurately reflect the parking restrictions which are on the ground.

OPTIONS

19        Three options are proposed. The recommended option is to proceed with the recommended changes to the GIS database. Option Two is return the changes to the Subcommittee for further consideration. Option Three is maintaining the status quo.

Option One- Recommends Council to approve the proposed changes to the parking controls database (Recommended Option) 

 

Advantages

·        Improves safety, efficiency and access on the transport network.

·        Improves public transport infrastructure by providing bus stops to support bus services  and, enables buses to safely enter and exit bus stops.

 

·        Contributes to achieving an integrated, affordable responsive, effective and safe transport           network.

 

Disadvantages

·        There are no identified disadvantages.

 

Option Two – Return the changes proposed back to the Subcommittee to reconsider and retain the existing parking controls database without amendment

 

Advantages

·        The subcommittee will be given more time to consider changes to parking restrictions proposed.

Disadvantages

·        The needs of residents and road users regarding parking restrictions will be delayed.

·        Improvement of safety or reduction of conflict points will be delayed.

·        Enforcement of changes proposed will not be enforceable.

Option Three – Do not accept the recommendations from Subcommittee and retain the existing parking controls database without amendment(Status Quo)

Advantages

·        There are no identified advantages.

Disadvantages

·        Does not improve efficiency and access to the transport network.

·        Does not improve safety or reduce conflict points.

·        Does not contribute to the Integrated Transport Strategy goals.

NEXT STEPS

20        If the recommended changes to the parking controls database are adopted by Council, the recommended changes to parking restrictions, will be implemented through appropriate signs and road markings, and restrictions be enforced under the Traffic and Parking Bylaw.

Signatories

Author:

Paula Barragan - Policy Analyst - Transport Regulation

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Authoriser:

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Attachment A-Minor changes-TPC 26

228

b

Attachment B-Clarifications and corrections-TPC 27

233

c

Attachment C-Ward Street map

236

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This report enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities; and promotes the social, economic and environmental wellbeing 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

 

Establishing and changing traffic and parking restrictions support the achievement of a safe, efficient and accessible transport network, and supports the social and economic wellbeing of Dunedin communities.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for

Sustainability

Parking control changes improve efficiency and access to the transport network, which contribute to sustainability goals.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

There are no implications.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications, costs for implementing the proposed changes are covered by existing budgets.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

Engagement has been undertaken with relevant and affected parties.

Engagement - internal

Engagement was undertaken with Transport, Parks and Recreation and Library Services. 

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The proposed changes in Port Chalmers have been discussed with the West Harbour Community Board.

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

Proposed Event Road Closures for December 2021, and January and February 2022.

Department: Transport

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          DCC has received temporary road closure applications for the following events:

·        Veteran car display, The Octagon

·        Waitangi Day

·        Chinese New Year

·        Thieves Alley Market Day

 

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

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

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

i)         Veteran Car Display, The Octagon

Saturday, 22 January 2022, 9am until 1pm:

·        The Octagon Central Carriageway.

ii)        Waitangi Day

Sunday, 6 February 2022, 9.30am until 2.30pm:

·        The Octagon Central Carriageway.

iii)       Chinese New Year

Friday, 11 February 2022, from:

·        Carpark entrance to Chinese Gardens from 5pm to 10.30pm.

·        The Octagon central carriageway, between George and Princes Streets, from 6.00pm until 7.15pm.

·        Princes Street, between the Octagon and Rattray Street; and Lower Rattray Street, between Princes and Cumberland Streets, from 7.15pm until 7.30pm.

·        Thomas Burns Street, between Fryatt and Cresswell Streets, from 9:30pm until 10:30pm.

iv)       Thieves Alley Market Day

Saturday, 12 February 2022 from 4am to 7pm:

·        The entire Octagon, including upper Stuart Street and lower Stuart Street, Princes and George Streets, between the Octagon and Moray Place.

·        Bath and Harrop Streets.

 

BACKGROUND

3          Events and festivals contribute vibrancy and uniqueness to Dunedin, creating economic opportunities for the city and reflecting and enhancing social, recreational, environmental, and cultural well-being. Strategies and plans reflect the contribution events make to the city’s vision of being one of the world’s great small cities 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 for these events is legal road. This allows traffic temporarily closed to normal traffic if the statutory temporary road closure procedures are followed. These procedures are set out in Section 319 of the LGA 1974 which 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.  Schedule 10 is included as attachment A. These conditions include the following:

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

·        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.

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

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

5          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

Consultation and Notification

6          Neither the Police or Waka Kotahi have any objection to the proposed road closures.

7          On the 30th October 2021, the Otago Daily Times advertised the proposed temporary road closures.  The report attaches this notice (Attachment B).

8          An opportunity was provided to give feedback on the proposal by emailing tmp@dcc.govt.nz by a deadline of Saturday 6 November 2021.  No objections were received to the proposed road closures.

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

10        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.  

11        The 31-day limit mentioned in paragraph 4 will not be exceeded by the approval of the proposed temporary road closures.

Cancellation:

12        The BRONZ Toy Run was cancelled after publication of the noticeboard.  This has been removed from the resolution recommended in this report.

Traffic Impacts 

13        The events have all been held in prior years without causing unreasonable delays to the travelling public.  Emergency Services and 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.

OPTIONS

15        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

 

16        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, and cultural) associated with events 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 using temporary traffic management.

Option Two – Status Quo

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

Advantages

·        There would be no detour required for 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

18        Should the resolution be made to temporarily close the roads, 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:

Simon Smith - Asset and Funding Manager

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure and Development

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Local Government Act 1974 Schedule 10

243

b

DCC Noticeboard 30 October 2021

246

 

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. 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 events to proceed.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

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

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards.

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

Submission on the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill 

Department: Civic

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report seeks approval for a submission (Attachment A) to the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill (the Bill).  

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Endorses the submission from Taituara on the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill and sends this as the Council’s submission on the Bill

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

c)     Authorises the Mayor or his delegate to speak to the submission.

 

BACKGROUND

2          The Bill is a member’s bill and is sponsored by a government member.  The Bill requires local authorities to maintain and publish a register of pecuniary and other interests for members of local authorities.  It also requires members to disclose gifts and payments and proposes an annual pecuniary interest return.  

3          Currently there is no requirement for Councils to have a register of interests.  A number of Councils have introduced them including Dunedin City Council.  Since 2016 the Council has maintained a register of interests for Council, committees and community boards. 

4          The Bill is currently before the Government and Administration Committee.  Submissions close on 23 November 2021.

DISCUSSION

5          Taituara (formerly the NZ Society of Local Government Managers) has prepared a submission following consultation with a number of councils.  The submission supports the intent of the bill but argues for several changes.  These include:

a)         That the Local Authority (Members Interests Act)1968 and code of conduct provisions be reviewed expeditiously

b)        That community boards and members appointed to council committees be included within coverage of the bill.

6          Clarification on several matters is also sought including, that the bill covers all business interests and not only companies, wages or salaries from employment; and travel for employment purposes not be included; and that the definition of family is narrowed. 

7          The submission from Taituara has been sent to the Select Committee.  The submission covers the issues noted in paragraphs 5 and 6.  It is proposed that Council endorses the submission from Taituara and sends it to the select committee as its submission.  

OPTIONS

Option One – Recommended Option – Approves the submission, with any amendments to the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests) Amendment Bill

 

Advantages

·        Provides feedback of the process to promote transparency

·        Advocates for a review of the Local Authorities (Member’s Interests) Act 1968

Disadvantages

·        There are no known disadvantages

Option Two – Do not provide a submission

Advantages

·        There are no known advantages

Disadvantages

·        Missed opportunity to provide feedback and promote an amendment to a piece of legislation that requires a review

NEXT STEPS

8          If Council approves the submission, with any amendments, it will be lodged with the select committee and a request to present at the select committee process will be requested.

9          If the Council does not approve the submission no further action is required.

 

Signatories

Author:

Clare Sullivan - Manager Governance

Authoriser:

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

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Taiturara submission

252

b

Draft submission

260

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

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

 

Fit with strategic framework

 

Contributes

Detracts

Not applicable

Social Wellbeing Strategy

Economic Development Strategy

Environment Strategy

Arts and Culture Strategy

3 Waters Strategy

Spatial Plan

Integrated Transport Strategy

Parks and Recreation Strategy

Other strategic projects/policies/plans

Participation in this parliamentary process supports Council conducting its business in an open and transparent manner

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

Significance

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

Engagement – external

No external engagement has been undertaken.  The public have the opportunity to submit to the select committee

Engagement - internal

Members were provided the opportunity to comment. 

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks. Council already maintains a register of interest.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community boards already maintain a register of interest.

 

 


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2021

 

 

Appointment to Outside Organisation

Department: Civic

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          Council is asked to approve the appointment of Cr Andrew Whiley to the New Zealand Masters Games Ltd Board (the Board). 

2          A vacancy exists on the Board.  The Board’s constitution notes that there should be three representatives from Dunedin. At present there are two.

3          As this is an administrative report there are no options or summary of considerations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Approves Cr Andrew Whiley as a member of the New Zealand Masters Games Ltd Board

 

DISCUSSION

4          The Board advised Council that a vacancy exists.  Currently there are two representatives from Dunedin on the Board.  The Board has discussed the appointment and seeks Council approval. Cr Whiley has been a member of the Dunedin Masters Games Board since 2019 and is willing to be considered for the appointment for the national Board. 

5          The Council is required to approve the appointment of Cr Whiley to the Board. 

OPTIONS

6          There are no options

NEXT STEPS

7          If approved, the Board will be advised of the appointment made and the Councillor’s register of interests will be updated to reflect the new appointment.

Signatories

Author:

Clare Sullivan - Manager Governance

Authoriser:

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

               


Council

23 November 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  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.

 

C2  Potential Development Opportunity

S7(2)(h)

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

 

S7(2)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

S48(1)(a)

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

 

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.



[1] https://environment.govt.nz/te-ao-maori/matauranga-maori-and-the-ministry/

[2] Hannah Blumhardt (2021) Is the fox guarding the henhouse when it comes to mandatory product stewardship schemes? In Revolve, August 2021.

[3] Eunomia (2020) ‘What are Modulated Fees and How Do They Work?’, URL: https://www.eunomia.co.uk/modulated-fees-and-how-they-work/

[4] Hannah Blumhardt (2021) ‘Is the fox guarding the henhouse when it comes to mandatory product stewardship schemes?’, Revolve, August 2021.