Description: COAT-ARM Hastings District Council

 

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East, Hastings

Phone:  (06) 871 5000

Fax:  (06) 871 5100

WWW.hastingsdc.govt.nz

 

 

 

 

Open

 

A G E N D A

 

 

Council MEETING

 

 

 

Meeting Date:

Thursday, 14 December 2017

Time:

1.00pm

Venue:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

 

Council Members

Chair: Mayor Hazlehurst

Councillors Barber, Dixon, Harvey, Heaps, Kerr, Lyons, Nixon, O’Keefe, Poulain, Redstone, Schollum, Travers and Watkins

 

Officer Responsible

Chief Executive – Mr R McLeod

Council Secretary

Mrs  C Hunt (Extn 5634)

 


TRIM File No. CG-14-1-00524

 

 

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

 

COUNCIL MEETING

 

Thursday, 14 December 2017

 

VENUE:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

TIME:

1.00pm

 

A G E N D A

 

1.         Prayer

2.         Apologies & Leave of Absence

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

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

3.         Seal Register

4.         Conflict of Interest

Members need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have.  This note is provided as a reminder to Members to scan the agenda and assess their own private interests and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be perceptions of conflict of interest. 

If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the relevant item of business and withdraw from participating in the meeting.  If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the Chief Executive or Executive Advisor/Manager: Office of the Chief Executive (preferably before the meeting). 

It is noted that while Members can seek advice and discuss these matters, the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.

5.         Confirmation of Minutes

Minutes of the Council Meeting held Thursday 30 November 2017. Including minutes while the public were excluded.

(Previously circulated)

6.         Water Services Six Monthly Update                                                                       5

7.         Heritage Trails Presentation                                                                                  21

8.         Hastings Menzshed Accommodation                                                                 23

9.         Adoption of Variation 4 - Notification of Iona Residential District Plan Variation                                                                                                                                       29

10.       Land Transport Rule - Speed Limit Review                                                       35

11.       Adoption of draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for consultation                                                                                                               63

12.       Future cemetery development options                                                            115

13.       Representation Review - Results of Consultation                                        135

14.       Kaiwaka Road Community Hall - Proposed Easement.                               173

15.       Affixing of Council Seal                                                                                        181

16.       Summary of Recommendations from the Opera House and Arts Precinct Subcommittee meeting held 7 December 2017                                              183

17.       Health and Safety Monthly Report                                                                     185

18.       Summary of Recommendations of the Omaranui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee meeting held 28 July 2017                                                              195

19.       Summary of Recommendations of the Hastings District Rural Community Board Meeting held 4 December 2017                                                              199

20.       Summary of Recommendations of the Rural Halls Subcommittee meeting held 4 December 2017                                                                                                    201

21.       Summary of Recommendations of the HDC: Maori Joint Committee meeting held 6 December 2017                                                                                           203

22.       Additional Business Items

23.       Extraordinary Business Items 

24.       Recommendation to Exclude the Public from Items 25 and 26 205

25.       Summary of Recommendations of the Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee meeting held 24 November 2017 while the Public were Excluded

26.       Economic Development Financial Incentive Policy  

     


File Ref: 17/1316

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Chief Executive

Ross McLeod

SUBJECT:                    Water Services Six Monthly Update         

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update Council on progress with implementation of the water change programme.

1.2       This update arises out of Capability and Capacity Review of Water Services commissioned by the Chief Executive following on from the Havelock North Water Contamination Event. The review was reported to Council in June 2017. The Council endorsed a series of actions proposed by the Chief Executive in response to review, including the establishment of a change programme aimed at implementing improvements identified by the review.

1.3       The Council also requested the Chief Executive to report back on progress with the change programme in December 2017.

1.4       The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to provide an update to the Council on work to improve the Council’s organisational capability and capacity to provide good quality three waters infrastructure and services.

1.5       This report concludes by recommending that the “Water Change Programme – Six Month Progress Report” be received, and the good progress made by the Change Programme Team be noted.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       In early 2017, following on from the Havelock North Water Contamination Event, the Chief Executive commissioned a Capability and Capacity Review of the Council’s Water Services activity.

2.2       The review was conducted by a team comprising Bruce Robertson, independent consultant with expertise in risk management and assurance (and formerly Assistant Auditor General for Local Government), Ross Waugh, independent asset management consultant, and Neil Taylor, former Chief Executive of Napier City Council and Executive Project Advisor to the Chief Executive. The review findings and recommendations were reported to the Chief Executive and the Council in June 2017.

2.3       The review team made the following recommendations to the Chief Executive:

 

1.    That the Chief Executive implement a change programme within the Water Services team to ensure the team is focussed on providing safe drinking water for the community and restoring community trust and confidence.

 

2.    That areas of focus for the Water Services change programme include:

 

       a. Resource planning and additional resource implementation.

       b.  Structural realignment and team re-envisioning based on functional and outcome based criteria.

       c. Embedding practical risk management practice and tools.

       d. Development of team relationships and culture, along with tools nd practices to support this on an ongoing basis.

       e. Consistent and effective development and implementation of information systems, management systems and core documentation.

       f.   Enhancement and development of relationships and networks with key partners and stakeholders, including:

·    Drinking Water Assessors and the HBDHB

·    Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

·    Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated and other iwi/hapu groups as appropriate

·    Water NZ and other industry stakeholders

·    Relevant Government agencies

·    Other water suppliers

 

g.  Determining and implementing new operating environment appropriate monitoring, testing and documentation regimes.

       h.  Succession planning for key resources.

 

3.    That the Chief Executive appoint a management group to lead the Water Services change programme, including an external Chair to ensure rigorous monitoring and reporting to the Chief Executive and completion on a timely basis. 

 

4.    That the Chief Executive report to the Council Risk and Audit Committee on Change Programme progress against each of the Review Finding Implication areas, with a six monthly report to Council, until the Change programme is fully completed and signed off.

 

5.    That the Chief Executive commission a twelve-month external review to report on progress that has been made in the change programme. This report would include comment on implementation against the Finding Implication areas.  

6.    That a team culture development and employee engagement programme be urgently developed with the Water Services team to include a focus on moving from the current crisis mode of operation.

 

7.    That enhanced support arrangements be put in place for the Water Services team and its leadership.

 

8.    That the Chief Executive continue to accord highest priority and resourcing to work programmes, plans, system improvements and documentation required to ensure the safety of public water supplies.

2.4       In response to review findings and recommendations, the Chief Executive established a change programme aimed at implementing the desired improvements identified by the review. The change programme was mandated by the Chief Executive to address all of the findings and recommendations contained in the review report. The Council endorsed the series of actions proposed by the Chief Executive, and asked for regular reporting via the Risk and Audit Subcommittee.

2.5       The Council also requested the Chief Executive to report back on progress with the change programme in December 2017, and again at the conclusion of the initial change programme after one year (June 2018).

2.6       The Change Management Team established to lead the change programme comprised Garth Cowie as independent chairman, Jim Graham as independent technical advisor, and staff members Craig Thew, Brett Chapman and Neil Taylor. The team is supported by a change manager/programme manager as well as a series of work streams made up of a combination of internal staff and external advisors.

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       The Change Management Team has been working since July 2017 on the programme of work derived from the Capability and Capacity Review report. The programme is divided across a number of work streams:

·    Structure

·    Resourcing and Succession Planning

·    Relationship and Network Development

·    Systems Review and Development

·    Process Review, Management Systems and Documentation

·    Practical Risk Management

·    Testing and Monitoring

·    Culture and Employee Engagement

3.2       Key progress on each of the work streams is reported as follows:

3.3       Structure and Resourcing and Succession Planning

3.3.1   These work streams have been advanced in tandem by the Change Management Team.

3.3.2   The Capability and Capacity Review provided a number of suggestions for structural change for consideration. The Change Management Team has taken those suggestions and reviewed them. Particular issues taken into account were the level of resources estimated to be required to operate effectively in the new operating environment post the contamination event and the Government Inquiry. The team has also looked at current staffing and the need to cater for succession planning.

3.3.3   This has led to a proposed structure and resourcing plan developed with significant staff input, a diagrammatic representation of which is attached as Attachment 1.

3.3.4   The approach enshrined in this plan maintains a service management focus on each of the three areas of water service activity (water supply, waste water and storm water) while significantly increasing focus and specialisation on quality and assurance activities, capital delivery and development servicing, and operations management. Within the quality and assurance area, a three waters wide focus on science and compliance is added to existing capability. Within operations, there is increased resourcing in water supply operations, with provision made for the training of personnel through cadet type roles. Risk management focus is added across the three waters team, with the focus led in the quality and assurance area.

3.3.5   A reorganisation proposal based on this plan has been developed. The proposal has now been consulted on with staff, and was finalised on Friday, 24 November 2017. Recruitment processes have also been running, and the appointment of new staff to meet operational requirements is progressively taking place.

3.4       Relationship and Network Development

3.4.1   Key relationships involved and central to the Water Services team carrying out its key responsibilities and work programmes have been mapped. This work stream has also identified key industry networks that the Water Services team can use to increase their exposure to industry best practice.

3.4.2   The resourcing of these relationships and networks is currently being assessed and included as part of the restructuring process.

     System Review and Development

3.4.3   The Systems Review and Development work stream has reviewed the effectiveness of the information systems used by the Water Service team, taking into account business imperatives and needs, and from there have identified how changes to systems might better serve the needs of the team.

3.4.4   The review has identified:

§ What existing systems are used

§ What current issues these systems have

§ Where there are gaps in processes where improvements are possible.

3.4.5   The highest priority area for systems improvements is related to implementing a system for compliance management and reporting.  The amount of data collected for water supply services has increased significantly since the contamination event. The previous systems and procedures for dealing with data from multiple sources have struggled to maintain and present the data comprehensively and in a timely fashion.  As a result, a business case is currently being prepared to identify options for addressing this issue.

3.4.6   Other systems needs are being prioritised, and a work programme to address them will be formulated in conjunction with the Information Services team.

3.5       Practical Risk Management

3.5.1   Development of a risk management framework for the Asset Management group is well advanced. This will ensure the group has a coordinated approach to the management of risk, and that any issues that could affect the group’s performance are properly addressed. 

3.5.2   The framework is based on the HDC Corporate Risk Policy and Framework which was adopted by Council in July 2017. The Framework will help the 3Waters team to clearly document their risk exposure and manage risk in accordance with the Council’s overall approach and risk appetite. A risk monitoring and reporting framework has also been drafted to facilitate the reporting of risk management activities.

3.5.3   The risk work stream has identified other risk initiatives that are required.  This includes Emergency Response Plans to ensure that HDC can be prepared to respond to emergency incidents.  A Water Supply Emergency Response Plan has already been developed however similar emergency response plans are also required for the wastewater and stormwater networks.   This work is being programmed. 

 

 

 

3.6       Process Review, Management Systems and Documentation

3.6.1   Current management processes have been reviewed.  The functions and tasks that the water services team are involved in have been summarised in Error! Reference source not found.  (Attachment 2).

3.6.2   This work stream has also assessed what documentation is required to support the water services team and have summarised this in (Attachment 2) below.  Not all these documents currently exist.  The development of a Business Management Plan and a template for Operational and Maintenance (O&M) manuals have been prioritised and are currently under development.   

3.7       Testing and Monitoring

3.7.1   In order to provide confidence that the water supply is managed well, and to detect trends/issues early so that appropriate action can be taken, a monitoring and reporting regime has been scoped. This has been based on principles and requirements progressively developed with experts through the course of the Inquiry process.  The premise of the testing and monitoring regime is that when using a multi-barrier approach to managing water supply, reporting should demonstrate how every barrier is functioning. 

 

3.7.2   Table 1 below identifies how the reporting results are planned to be reported to the various management and governance levels.

 

Table 1: Reporting of Testing & Monitoring Schedule

Reporting Type

Period

Audience

Purpose

Daily Reporting

Daily

Managers

To monitor and act if required - i.e. stop supply from contaminated source or issue boiled notice alert (checks and balances on operators).

Daily Reporting

Weekly

Managers

To monitor over longer term, to identify trends and occurrences. In some cases to act.

Daily Reporting

Monthly

Managers

To monitor over longer term, to identify trends and occurrences.

Council Reporting

Quarterly

Council / Risk & Audit Committee

To provide assurance that risks are being managed as far as reasonably possible.

Ministry of Health Reporting

Quarterly

Drinking Water Assessors

Compliance reporting as part of conditions of competent water supplier

 

3.7.3   A business case for an IT system to help assist with the monitoring and testing is currently being developed as referenced in the System work stream notes above.

3.7.4   Ensuring that the installation of online chlorine occurs is the other highest priority for this work stream.  The installation of 8 analysers in the urban areas is underway and will be significantly advanced by Christmas.  A similar installation will be rolled out to rural supplies in the New Year.

3.8       Culture and Employee Engagement

3.8.1   A key priority of the Change Management Programme has been to develop the team culture within water services and engage employees. This priority emerged out of commentary by the Capability and Capacity Review team which found that the water team had been operating in “crisis mode” since the Havelock North water contamination event.

3.8.2   The Team Culture and Employee Engagement work stream was established to address this area of work. This involved priority setting and engagement work within the water services team as well as engagement of an organisational psychologist to work closely with and support team members and the team as a whole. Work with the organisational psychologist included two group sessions and individual sessions for staff.

3.8.3   Phase one of the work has now come to a conclusion. The report from the organisational psychologist noted strong relationships between team members and very desirable attitudes from staff – for instance, staff are thinking and talking about water quality openly and taking personal responsibility for improvement initiatives. These reports are backed up by interaction between the CMT and the wider water services team, including through the structure and resourcing workshop which engaged staff in shaping the design of the team. The organisational psychologist has noted positive attitudes toward “change readiness” within the team, and strong relationships between team members. In the view of the CMT, the team has now moved out of “crisis mode” and is actively working on delivery of the Council’s water strategy and positioning itself to work in the new operating paradigm for the water industry. Engagement of staff in the change programme work streams means that staff are feeling a sense of ownership of the work involved in equipping their team to deliver the work required and cope with new regulatory and industry requirements and standards.

3.8.4   The CMT has also commissioned a 2nd phase of Team Culture and Employee Engagement work. This will include access to psychological support as required, ongoing improvements to how “stand-by” and “call out” requirements are managed, further involvement of staff in shaping the team structure and resourcing and other work stream outputs, and further group sessions to support team development as the change programme progresses

3.8.5   Work on the change programme will continue through the first half of 2018. By that time a number of major change initiatives will have been delivered. In some cases, for instance major system developments that may be identified, further change projects will be identified by the change management team for subsequent delivery beyond the formal close of the one year timeframe for the change programme. This eventuality has always been provided for in the programme plan.

4.0       REVIEW BY CAPABILITY AND CAPACITY REVIEW TEAM

4.1       The Chief Executive has asked the review team that undertook the Capability and Capacity Review to review and assess the work of the Change Management Team both at the six month point, and after 12 months.

4.2       To assist the Change Management Team to ensure all findings and recommendations made by the review team are picked up a monitoring spreadsheet has been developed. This is regularly updated and reviewed by both the Change Management Team and the Review Team as the work of the work streams progresses.

4.3       Messrs Robertson and Waugh, assisted by Mr Taylor, have worked alongside the Change Management Team to assess the work to date. A copy of the interim report of the review team is attached as Appendix 2.

4.4       Of particular note, the review team has commented as follows:

 

          “In our view, we consider:

 

·    Management have instituted a thorough and appropriate response to our review

·    The records and our attendance at two Change Management Team (CMT) meetings during the last 6 months reflect that management are implementing a meaningful programme of change.  We note the valuable lead of independent chair, Garth Cowie, and the assistance of Jim Graham as independent technical advisor

·    The commitment includes the lead managers of the infrastructure services team and we have no reason to not believe the willing commitment of the three waters team

 

This is encouraging and an appropriate response to the findings of our May 2017 capability and capacity review.

5.0       CONCLUDING REMARKS

5.1       Work on the change programme on water services has been progressing well. The areas of work identified by the Capability and Capacity Review are all being addressed, and good progress is being made.

5.2       Work on structure and resourcing issues is well advanced. A new structure and resourcing plan has been developed with staff input, and recruitment into that structure is underway.

5.3       The culture and employee engagement work has also progressed well. While culture is an ongoing area of focus in any organisation, the water services team has moved out of “crisis mode”, has a clear, if still partly emerging, set of priorities, and is focused on delivering the Council’s water strategy.

5.4       The Capability and Capacity Review team has worked with the change management team to assess progress to date. They have commented that the change management programme “is encouraging and an appropriate response to the findings of our May 2017 capability and capacity review.

5.5       Work will continue on the change programme in the first half of 2018. A 12 month report on the change management programme will be provide to Council in June 2018.

5.6       In relation to overall progress, the Change Management Team Chairman specifically comments as follows:

The Water Services Team is developing well with a clear focus on the objectives that have been set by Council. Council needs to be aware there is a significant workload in this area which has the potential to create risks. The Team is implementing Council’s water strategy, conducting business as usual in the emerging environment and undertaking significant additional work through the change programme. All of this work is necessary and additional resource has been provided by Council and the Chief Executive, however ongoing careful management and monitoring is required along with ongoing support and clear decision making from Council.

The Change Management Team have prioritised some of the work stream content to provide a more balanced workload for the overall team and key individuals. The work being done is of high quality, and those directly involved are to be congratulated on their effort and focus to date.”

 

6.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Chief Executive titled Water Services Six Monthly Update dated 14/12/2017 be received.

B)        That Council note the progress made with implementation of the Change Management Programme.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure and local public services in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i)          Improving the capability of the organisation to deliver safe, sustainable and cost-effective water services.

 

Attachments:

 

1

New Waters Structure

CG-14-1-00547

 

2

Water Services Team and Processes

CG-14-1-00545

 

3

Interim Review Note on HDC Water Change Programme

CG-14-1-00544

 

 

 

 


New Waters Structure

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Water Services Team and Processes

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


Interim Review Note on HDC Water Change Programme

Attachment 3

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 17/1170

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                    Heritage Trails Presentation         

 

 

1.0       INTRODUCTION

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise Council that Megan Williams, Chairperson of the Heritage Trails will make a presentation to the meeting on 14 December 2017.

1.2       Attached for information is the Heritage Trails Chairperson’s 2017 Annual General Meeting report presented at their meeting on 25 October 2017.

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATION

            That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled “Heritage Trails Presentation” dated 26 October 2017 be received.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Chairperson's Report 2017 - Heritage Trails

CG-14-1-00495

 

 

 

 


Chairperson's Report 2017 - Heritage Trails

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 17/1143

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Strategic Projects Manager

Raoul Oosterkamp

Parks and Property Services Manager

Colin Hosford

Social Development Co-ordinator

John Dawson

SUBJECT:                    Hastings Menzshed Accommodation        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to seek guidance from the Committee as to whether the proposed relocation of the Hastings Menzshed from their current site on Sylvan Road to the rear of the Hastings Sports Centre on Railway Road, in what will be an expanded facility, is supported or otherwise.  

1.1       This proposal arises out of the Hastings Menzshed membership steadily expanding since its establishment in February 2016, which means that their existing accommodation in the former Winsor Park changing rooms on Sylvan Road are no longer fit for purpose, nor are they able to accommodate anticipated future growth brought about by expanded community programs and membership. 

1.2      The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.3      The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to help facilitate the delivery of community enhancing initiatives like that of the Hastings Menzshed. 

1.4       This report concludes by recommending that the Council support the proposal to relocate the Menzshed Hastings into a new building located the Hastings Sports Centre on Railway Road, via a long-term lease.  All costs to expand the existing building, along with other ancillary changes, and ongoing operational costs, will be borne by the Menzshed Hastings. 

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       Menzshed New Zealand is a registered charity that exists primarily for the mutual benefit, success and support of member sheds and to facilitate public access to those sheds.  Menzshed are here to encourage, support and provide good information to those interested and passionate about men’s sheds in New Zealand.

2.2       The objectives of Menzshed New Zealand are: 

·        Providing support and resources for member sheds and emerging groups aiming to establish a shed:

·        Providing a central contact point for all member sheds:

·        Maintaining a national register of sheds in New Zealand:

·        Providing benefits to member sheds, such as discounted group insurance rates:

·        Assisting member sheds to keep their members safe through quality health and safety information:

·        Developing strategic alliances with key organizations:

·        Supporting member sheds to be accessible to all men, regardless of ability, background, or culture:

·        Organising national conferences and facilitating regional and local networking opportunities:

·        Providing guidance regarding shed responsibilities, structure and operations:

·        Providing information and guidance to enable member sheds to establish opportunities for effective and continuous learning where appropriate for skill transference and tangible outcomes.

2.3       The Menzshed Hastings was first established in February 2016.  Two years ago they applied for Annual Plan funding for new premises.  While no funds were allocated, Council made available some unused rooms at Windsor Park.  They continue to operate out of the old changing rooms block, adjacent to the Sylvan Road netball courts.   Menzshed Hastings have a full machine shop, a mechanical workshop/welding bay, lathe, drill presses etc. A woodwork room, and two more general work rooms, with coping saws, compressor and all hand tools for most jobs.

2.4       At last count, they had 54 members, and from 9 to 20 members visit on shed days – Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 9:00 to 12:00. On Thursday mornings, they host a workshop for clients of the Stewart Centre, a community based organisation run via the Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT), who support people affected by brain injury. 

2.5       Further requests from other community based organisation (similar to that of the Stewart Centre) to provide training and mentoring services continue to arise. 

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       Menzshed Hastings recently approach Council about the possibilities of finding a site to establish an expanded facility.  The aspiration of Menzshed Hastings is to establish a new and larger, fit for purpose facility, preferably on Council owned land. 

3.2       Menzshed Hastings aspirations are to be operating out of the new facility by October 2018. 

3.3       The objective of Menzshed Hastings is to establish a new facility of circa 300m2, with suitable vehicle parking, storage provisions (via a shipping container) and three-phase power supply.   

3.4       Council officers subsequently assessed and evaluated a number of possible siting opportunities.  The conclusion being that an existing building located at the rear of the Hastings Sport Centre – Railway Road Hastings, was the most suitable site to accommodate an expanded shed.  The existing building is circa 90m2, and would involve a 180 to 200m2 extension. 

3.5       The proposal to relocate Menzshed Hastings to the Hastings Sports Centre site is supported by the GM Community Facilities and Programmes, and will not compromise the functionality of the existing facility. 

3.6       An assessment of the physical space requirements of Menzshed Hastings have concluded that this facility (building, parking and storage) can in principle be accommodated on the site (as depicted in Diagram 1 below). 

3.7       It is possible that the proposal may require a resource consent.  Building consents and related applicable permits will be required for all physical works. 

            Diagram 1 – Site layout concept scheme

3.8       Menzshed Hastings will be responsible for obtaining all consents, permits and certificates necessary to realise the development.  Planning and regulatory application and inspection costs will be borne by Menzshed Hastings.

3.9       All capital costs for this project will be borne by the Menzshed Hastings.  Menzshed Hastings will source all funding before any physical works commence.  To this end, the timing of occupation of the new facility (targeted at October 2018) will be conditional upon the successful sourcing of funds. 

3.10    Upon entering into formal lease arrangement with Council, Menzshed Hastings will investigate funding sources (which may include the Hastings District Council Contestable Grants Fund 2018) and initiate application processes. 

3.11    It is proposed that members of the Council’s Property Assets Team will provide a level of guidance and oversight once physical works commence to assure a successful outcome.  

3.12    It is proposed that Council enter into am 18 year lease with Menzshed Hastings for an annual lease cost of $810.00 + GST p/a for a 270m2 building.  This is made up of a rental component of $290.00 + GST and rates component of $520.00 + GST. 

3.13    These rental and rates charges are in accordance with the current charging schedule adopted by Council and have been in place since 1 July 2017.

3.14    Menzshed Hastings will retain ownership of the building extension (circa 180m2) and will be responsible for all internal and external maintenance of the entire building (circa 270m2).  These particulars will be detailed in the lease agreement. 

3.15    It is proposed that the annual leasing costs will commence circa October 2018 once the expanded building is complete and occupied.  At this point Menzshed will relinquish the existing lease for the Sylvan Road ex-changing room block.

3.16    In the event that Menzshed Hastings ceases to exist, the building will, at the cost of Menzshed Hastings, be reinstated to its original form or gifted to Council.  Again the lease terms will encapsulate conditions relevant to cover these potential events and/or change in circumstance. 

4.0       OPTIONS

4.1       There are two broad options:

4.1.1   Option 1 - Support the relocation of Menzshed Hastings from their current site on Sylvan Road to the rear of the Hastings Sports Centre on Railway Road, in what will be an expanded facility, or

4.1.2   Option 2 - Not support the proposed relocation. 

5.0       SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1       This proposal in no way triggers Council’s significance policy from a fiscal or non-fiscal sense, nor does it warrant the need for significant consultation.  It is however acknowledged that immediately adjoining neighbours will be engaged with as part of likely resource consent application processing. 

 

6.0       ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1       Option 1

6.1.1   Officers believe this to be the most appropriate option for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

·     There is space at the rear of the Hastings Sports Centre on Railway Road, to accommodate the proposed expanded facility, including ancillary storage and parking.

·     The provisions of the District Plan are not contrary to the proposed land use activity – and will likely be assessed as restricted discretionary or permitted activity. 

·     All costs, including upfront capital and ongoing operational, will be borne by Menzshed Hastings.

·     HDC already has a number of lease arrangements in place for HDC owned buildings and land which are utilised by community based organisations.  This includes the Hastings Menzshed current Sylvan Road accommodation. 

·     An expanded facility allows Menzshed Hastings the ability to accommodate requests from other community based organisations (like that of the Stewart Centre) to provide training and mentoring services to clients. 

 

6.1.2   A term of 18 years is generally used for ground leases to organisations and operating in their own buildings on Council land.  An 18 year lease term (reviewed every 3 years) is proposed to apply here and is in accordance with Council’s usual approach.    This term will provide Menzshed Hastings with a level of certainty as to building and site occupation, which will assist them when sourcing and acquiring funds.

6.1.3   The Council and Menzshed Hastings will meet in the last six months of the term of the lease to discuss in good faith the granting of a new lease.

6.1.4   The Council will retain the right to terminate the lease in line with its standard terms of lease for similar types of community activities. 

6.1.5   For the reasons noted above, Option 1 is considered the preferred option.

6.2       Option 2

6.2.1   While option 2 is always an option for Council, it would mean that the Hastings Menzshed would need to find an alternative accommodation option, without Council support.  Council officer’s review of other options conclude that there are no viable current alternatives to the Hastings Sports Centre on Railway Road. 

6.2.2   If not supported by Council, Menzshed Hastings would need to source an alternative site to lease / modify, which would likely be at current market rates, which would well exceed those proposed under Option 1.  Menzshed Hastings would not be able to service a lease cost of this scale. 

7.0       PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1       For the reasons noted above, Option 1 is considered the preferred option.

7.2      The relocation of Menzshed Hastings from their current site on Sylvan Road to the rear of the Hastings Sports Centre on Railway Road, into what will be an expanded facility is the preferred option for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

·        There is space at the rear of the Hastings Sports Centre on Railway Road, to accommodate the proposed expanded facility, including ancillary storage and parking.

·        The provisions of the District Plan are not contrary to this proposed land use activity. 

·        All costs, including upfront capital and ongoing operational, will be borne by Menzshed Hastings.

 

8.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Strategic Projects Manager titled Hastings Menzshed Accommodation dated 14/12/2017 be received.

B)        That the Chief Executive be authorized to finalize the terms of lease of the shed at the rear of the Hastings Sport Centre to the Menzshed Hastings for a period of 18 years, at an initial rental of $810.00 (plus GST) per annum, due upon completion of the expanded building anticipated to be October 2018, which would be subject to review every three years, noting that this building will be expanded to circa 300m2

 

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for local public services by:

i)          Providing a fit for purpose community facility

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 


File Ref: 17/1165

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Senior Environmental Planner Policy (Special Projects)

Anna Sanders

SUBJECT:                    Adoption of Variation 4 - Notification of Iona Residential District Plan Variation        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council in the absence of a Streamlined Planning Process (SPP) direction from the Minister for the Environment to rezone land at Iona.  The purpose of the Proposed District Plan Variation is to rezone approximately 55 hectares of land on the eastern side of Havelock North for residential purposes.

1.2       The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.3       The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to allow Council to carry out its regulatory functions under the Resource Management Act with a District Plan that best meets the needs of the wider Hastings District community.

1.4       This report concludes by recommending that while the preferred option to rezone the land at Iona is to follow a SPP, in the absence of a direction, that Council follow a standard Resource Management Act 1991 Schedule 1 process and notify the variation for consultation purposes.  It is the intention that if Council does not receive a direction that notification under the Schedule 1 process occur instead.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       As the result of a Council resolution on August 8 2017 Council lodged a SPP application with the Minister for the Environment to rezone land at Iona for residential purposes.  The SPP application requested the rezoning of land (via a variation to the Proposed District Plan) for residential purposes in the Iona and Middle Roads and Breadalbane Avenue areas, Havelock North. The rezoning extent is depicted in the map appended to this report as Attachment 1 and involves both infill and greenfield areas and has an approximate area of 55 hectares.  The area identified for proposed rezoning is consistent with the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy.

2.2       Just prior to the recent national election, Council received a copy of the draft direction from the then Environment Minister, Dr Nick Smith for a response, which was provided.  It was also advised that the application had been referred to three other Ministers (Education, Treaty Settlements and Maori Development) for comment and that it was unlikely Council would receive a direction prior to the election.  The application was essentially placed on hold until a new Government was formed.  Council has still not received a direction on its SPP application, but has been advised that the new Environment Minister, Hon David Parker, has recently reviewed the application and has asked for a revised timeline from us on when the notification of the variation might best take place.

2.3       The benefits of adopting a SPP versus the standard planning process to rezone this land (by way of Plan Variation under the Resource Management Act 1991) were outlined in a Council workshop on July 18 2017.  These benefits remain and it is preferable that the plan variation follow a SPP.  A comparison timeline of the Streamlined Planning Process vs the normal  Schedule 1 process under the RMA is attached as Appendix 1. However, given the absence of a direction and the shortage of greenfield sections in Havelock North, notification needs to occur in a timely way.

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       Since the Council decision to prioritise the Iona variation, officers and consultants have been preparing the variation.  In tandem, officers have been working through the Environment Court appeals which sit over the majority of the site.  This has involved the formation of the Iona Working Group, set up to encourage discussions between interested parties which included representatives from the 274 group (interested parties in the appeal), appellant’s representatives and officers.  A design led process was adopted by the Working Group, a set of objectives developed at the outset and Isthmus Group, Landscape and Urban Design Consultants appointed to assist guide the process.

3.2       In August of this year, Council officers prepared and released a draft Structure Plan for public comment.  The draft Structure Plan incorporated the design elements worked on by the Iona Working Group, and include:

·    the retention of the central ridge (unplanted) and valley to divide the area into ‘neighbourhoods’;

·    stormwater neutrality;

·    location of any potential spine road to service the hill area – in the saddle of the central ridge to reduce visibility;

·    means of achieving buffer areas between existing residences and new development;

·    a loop connection for recreational purposes;

·    scarps landscaped;

·    walking track circuit through reserves with pedestrian access to Lane Road;

·    three residential neighbourhood areas – Triangle (including lower hill area), Middle Hill and Upper Hill;

·    placement or location of building platforms provides the basis of density in the Upper Hill neighbourhood;

·    a range of lot sizes and a mixed layout of lots so they are not uniform – i.e. avoidance of cookie cutter development;

·    street frontages that enable an open feel to the development; and

·    the retention of the rural character of Lane Road;

·    treatment of the main spine road to provide rural character – no parking, footpath on one side only, informal groups of street trees, sloping grassed berms, no kerb and channel.

3.3       Once the draft Structure Plan was released consultation included five neighbourhood meetings to address specific issues, a community open day and one on one meetings with landowners within the proposed rezoning area and outside it.

3.4       Comments received on the draft Structure Plan and meeting feedback received have been used to shape the Structure Plan incorporated into the Variation.  Generally, the feedback received was supportive of the design elements established and put forward by the Working Group.  However, as a result of the feedback received, changes have been made to the boundaries of the proposed rezoning area, the internal road layout within the Iona triangle (Bull Hill Neighbourhood); the location of the proposed commercial node and proposed plan rules around density and amenity.

3.5       At the conclusion of mediation on the draft Structure Plan and meetings, drafting of the variation occurred.  The Plan Variation has now been prepared and is currently being incorporated into E-Plan in preparation for notification.  For this reason, rather than appended to this report it will be tabled at this meeting.

3.6       It is the intention once notification of the Iona Variation occurs, that the existing Iona Environment Court appeals will be withdrawn by the appellant.

4.0       OPTIONS

4.1       Option 1 is that in the absence of a SPP direction from the Environment Minister, Council approve the variation (Variation 1) for notification and notify using the standard Schedule 1 process under the Resource Management Act at the earliest possible date, this is likely to be in New Year to give time for the issue of the direction and to avoid the Christmas holiday period.

4.2       Option 2 is to continue to wait for the Minister for the Environments direction using the SPP.

5.0       SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1       The issue of significance has been considered in terms of Council’s Significance Policy and in particular the thresholds and criteria contained within this policy.  The decisions required in this report do not trigger any of the thresholds.  Although in terms of criteria the reviewed district plan could be considered to come into the following criteria:  “the proposal affects all or a large portion of the community in a way that is of consequence”; the proposal is however subject to the Resource Management Act 1991 consultation procedure.

5.2       A significant amount of consultation has already been undertaken as is outlined in section 3 of this report above.  In terms of future consultation, whichever process is adopted the Variation will enter a formal RMA submissions process.

5.3       In addition to having the public notice in in the newspapers and access to the Variation on the Council website and in libraries, letters will be sent to affected persons informing them that the Variation is publicly notified and open for submissions.  A link to the HDC webpage and map showing the changes will be included in the letter.  Emails with the project newsletter will also be sent to persons who hold an interest in the proposed rezoning through previous engagement, which includes 274 parties.

6.0       ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1       Budgetary provision has been made for this variation in the District Plan review budget.

6.2       Council officers wish to keep the process options open as far as notification of Variation 4, but can’t wait indefinitely for the Ministers decision, due to the shortage of greenfield sections in Havelock North, community demand for sections and a need to give certainty to the development community.  The adoption of Option 1, means notification occurs irrespective of process at the earliest possible date.

7.0       PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1       Given the investment in time and resources to get the Variation to this point and the opportunity to positively influence future development consistent with Council’s strategic direction to provide residential land; proceeding with adoption 1 is preferred.

8.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Senior Environmental Planner Policy (Special Projects) titled Adoption of Variation 4 - Notification of Iona Residential District Plan Variation dated 14/12/2017 be received.

B)        That in the absence of a Streamlined Planning Process direction from the Environment Minister, that Council proceed with public notification of Variation 4 ‘Residential Rezoning Iona’ using the standard Schedule 1 process under the Resource Management Act 1991 at the earliest possible date.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to the performance of regulatory functions by:

i)    Progressing Variation 4 – Iona Residential Rezoning for the Proposed Hastings District Plan to ensure that as Council’s primary regulatory tool for managing land use and subdivision, that it is consistent with Council’s strategic direction and with best practice.

 

Attachments:

 

1

Variations to Proposed District Plan 2015 - Iona - SPP Comparison Timeline

ENV-9-19-4-17-250

 

 

 

 


Variations to Proposed District Plan 2015 - Iona - SPP Comparison Timeline

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 17/1071

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Acting Transportation Engineer

Gavin O'Connor

SUBJECT:                    Land Transport Rule - Speed Limit Review        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council to adopt for public consultation the proposed speed limit amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2012 and the accompanying Statement of Proposal.

1.2       This proposal arises from the receipt of a number of requests from members of the public to amend speed limits across the road network.  These requests range from those to support change in road use (following development) to those required to maintain road safety (inappropriate speed).  In addition, the proposal includes a number of minor amendments to the bylaw to reflect the actual onsite speed limits which in some instances differ from that shown in the bylaw.

1.3       The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4       The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to provide a good quality infrastructure by the creation of speed limits that are efficient and effective and appropriate to the road and roadside environment.

1.5       This report concludes by recommending that the required special consultative procedure be undertaken and the Council adopt for public consultation the proposed speed limit amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2012 and the Statement of Proposal attached to this report.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       In 2003 the Government delegated responsibility for setting speed limits on local roads to road controlling authorities (“RCAs”).  For the purposes of this report the RCA is Hastings District Council (“the Council”).  This delegation was originally contained in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003.  This rule was recently replaced with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 (“the Rule”).

2.2       The Rule specifies the legal procedure for establishing speed limits on public roads. That procedure includes that an RCA must set speed limits (other than temporary speed limits) by way of a bylaw under the relevant enactment, currently the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002. The Rule sets out the approach for evaluating and determining speed limits within the Speed Management Guide.

2.3       The Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw was first established in 2005 and has been reviewed on several occasions. There have been a number of speed limit changes made since the original bylaw, including its replacement by the Speed Limits Bylaw 2012.

2.4       The Council can change existing speed limits by making a new bylaw, or amending an existing Speed Limits Bylaw.  This requires following the special consultative procedure under the LGA.  The Rule also provides its own consultation requirements for setting speed limits. 

2.5       In summary, the process for reviewing and setting a new speed limit is generally as follows:

·     Council is required by the Rule to, or decides, of its own volition or on written request, to review a speed limit;

·     Technical work is undertaken to establish the safe and appropriate speed limit for the road in accordance with the Rule, New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Information and Speed Management Guide;

·     Council resolves to amend the schedules of the Speed Limits Bylaw to set the speed limits it proposes.  The usual process for amending a bylaw under the LGA is followed;

·     A Statement of Proposal is prepared  which includes a draft of the bylaw to be made or amended, the reasons for the proposal and a report under s 155, and a summary of the Statement of Proposal;

·     The proposal is publicly notified with a reasonable period being provided for submissions (not less than 1 month);

·     In addition to the LGA public notification requirements, the Rule requires that certain people, organisations and communities affected by the proposed speed limits are consulted;

·     All submissions are received and acknowledged, and submitters are given a reasonable opportunity to be heard;

·     The Council is required to take account of submissions received during consultation on the proposed speed limit;

·     After considering submissions and other relevant material, the Council sets a speed limit it considers the safe and appropriate speed limit for the particular road by making any amendments to the Bylaw that are necessary;

·      The Director of NZTA and the Commissioner of Police are notified;

·      Details of the speed limits are recorded in a register;

·      Any required speed limit signs are erected.

·     This process is followed in full for setting all speed limits (except temporary speed limits) on public roads.

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       The most recent speed limit changes included the introduction of the 80km/hr Safe Speed Area which was established on a number of the district’s roads around the Heretaunga Plains close to Hastings. This change generated a significant amount of public comment and subsequent amendments to some of the speed limits contained within that change. 

3.2       At the same time the NZ Transport Agency was reviewing the speed limit procedures.  Council decided to place a temporary halt on any new speed limit changes until the NZ Transport Agency had published its findings.  The Speed Management Guide was published in 2016 and subsequently the new Rule was established in mid-2017.

3.3       As the Rule is now in operation it is appropriate to progress with a number of the requested speed limit changes which have been requested by the public.  The requested changes have been evaluated and are discussed in detail in the Statement of Proposal document as appended to this report.  The table below provides a high level summary of the proposed speed limit changes.

 

Road Name

Current Speed

(Km/h)

Proposed Speed

(Km/h)

Arataki Road

70

50

Chatham Road

70

50

Farndon Road

100

80

Kirkwood Road

70

50

Percival Road

New Road

50

St Georges Road

100

80

Whirinaki Road

100

50

North Shore Road

100

50

York Road

100

80

 

3.4       Officers have identified that the most appropriate method for administering these changes is for Council to propose to “set” those speed limits under the Rule and to undertake consultation on that proposal as required by the Rule and the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA”). 

3.5       Section 155 of the LGA applies when a Council commences the process of making a bylaw.  In this case, it is proposed that an existing bylaw be amended, so s155 is not directly applicable, however officers have nevertheless considered the requirements of that section. 

3.6       Section 155(1) requires the Council, before undertaking the process to make a bylaw, to determine that a bylaw is the best way of addressing the perceived problem. In this case, the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 mandates that a bylaw is the process that must be used for an RCA to set speed limits, and is the only realistic process available to govern speed limits in the District.  A bylaw is therefore considered to be the most appropriate way of addressing the issue.

3.7       Section 155(2)(a) requires Council to determine whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw.  Council officers have considered the current form of the Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw and determined that the Bylaw is the most appropriate form.

3.8       Section 155(2)(b) requires the Council to determine that the proposed bylaw does not give rise to any implication under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“BORA”). Council officers have considered the provisions of the BORA and identified the only related right which is that of freedom of movement. While speed limits do place limits on that right, the right for RCAs to control speed limits on their roads is granted by Parliament, and it is the view of officers that the limitations are reasonable limits prescribed by law that are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society as provided for by section 5 of BORA and that they do not accordingly breach that Act.

3.9       The Rule sets out a number of obligations that the Council must meet with respect to determining the safe and appropriate speed limit to be applied to roads within the district. These have been summarized above, and include the consultation requirements in Section 2.5 of the Rule and the overarching obligation to set limits that are safe and appropriate for the circumstances.

3.10    The previous reports as listed below have been re-considered by officers and except as otherwise subsequently amended are still considered relevant.

 

·      Bylaw Amendments 2012

·      Speed Limits Bylaw 2012

·      Speed Limits Bylaw 2011

·      Speed Limits Bylaw 2009

·      Speed Limits Bylaw 2007

·      Speed Limits Review 2006

 

3.11    In the process of considering past bylaws and amendments, officers identified a number of anomalies between the current bylaw and what is currently signed on the road network.  In a number of instances the specific location of speed limit changes (start/end) detailed within the bylaw differs from the location of the associated signage on site.  Given that the signs on site have been this way for many years it is proposed to process minor amendments to the bylaw to address these differences.  These proposed changes are detailed in the Statement of Proposal appended to this report and are summarised below.

 

 

 

 

 

Location

Bylaw

Proposed Change

East Road

50km/h speed limit is shown to commence at Rockwood Place.

Amend bylaw to align with the sign location which is approximately 75m west of the intersection with Rockwood Place

Kereru Road

50km/h speed limit area extending for 600m from a point 250m west of the intersection with SH50.

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit extending for 750m from a point 250m west of the intersection with SH50.

Haumoana Road

50km/h speed limit zone commences at a point 200m west of the intersection with Hyla Road

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone commencing at a point 260m west of the intersection with Hyla Road.

Te Mata Road

50km/h speed limit zone commences at a point 210m east of the intersection with Blackbarn Road

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone commencing at a point 250m east of the intersection with Te Mata Road.

Te Aute Road

50km/h speed limit zone commences at a point 100m west of the intersection with Upham Street.

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone commencing at a point 200m west of the intersection with Upham Street.

Middle Road

50km/h speed limit zone commences at the intersection of Breadalbane Road

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone commencing at a point 150m west of the intersection with Breadalbane Road.

School Road (Clive)

50km/h speed limit extends for a distance of 480m from the intersection with Ferry Road

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone extending for 800m from the intersection with Ferry Road.

Swamp Road

No 50km/h speed zone shown

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone extends north from the intersection of Taihape Road for a distance of 130m.

Vicarage Road

50km/h speed limit zone commences at a point 250m west of the intersection with Dartmooor Road.

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone commencing at a point 350m west of the intersection with Dartmoor Road.

Waimarama Road

50km/h speed limit zone commences at a point 80m north of the intersection with Gillies Crescent.

Amend bylaw to show speed limit zone commencing at a point 180m north of the intersection with Gillies Crescent.

Riverslea Road

50km/h speed limit commences immediately east of the intersection with Tollemache Road.

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone commencing 20m west of the intersection with Tollemache Road.

Elwood Road

70km/h speed limit extends for a distance of 480m from the intersection with SH2.

Amend bylaw to show 70km/h speed limit extending for a distance of 600m from the intersection with SH2.

Bennett Road

80km/h speed limit extends for a distance of 740m from the intersection with Otene Road.

Amend bylaw to show 80km/h speed limit extends for a distance of 640m from the intersection with Otene Road.

Henderson Road

50km/h speed limit zone extends for a distance of 350m from the intersection with Omahu Road.

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone extends for a distance of 380m from the intersection with Omahu Road.

Howard Street

50km/h speed limit zone extends for a distance of 320m from the intersection with Windsor Avenue.

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit zone extends for a distance of 510m from the intersection with Windsor Avenue.

Puketapu Road

50km/h speed limit extends for a distance of 300m from the intersection with Dartmoor Road

Amend bylaw to show 50km/h speed limit extends for a distance of 120m form the intersection with Dartmoor Road.

Maraekakaho Road

No 70km/h speed limit currently included in bylaw

Amend bylaw to show 70km/h speed limit commencing 310m west of the current 50km/h speed limit

York Road

No 70km/h speed limit currently included in bylaw

Amend bylaw to show 70km/h speed limit commencing at a point 150m north of the intersection with Maraekakaho Road

 

4.0       OPTIONS

4.1       The current situation lends itself to three principle options:

4.2       Option 1 – Take no further action and retain the existing bylaw including its schedules.

4.3       Option 2Propose to amend the Speed Limit Bylaw and to proceed with public consultation on the proposal by way of the special consultative procedure in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 and the Rule.

4.4       Option 3  Review the entire Speed Limits Bylaw 2012 including all of the Schedules in order to create a new bylaw

5.0       SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1       The Council is required, under the bylaw-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, to use the special consultative procedure to make, amend or revoke a bylaw.

5.2       Should the Council determine to proceed with the recommended Option 2, then the attached Statement of Proposal (“the SOP”) along with the proposed amended Bylaw will need to be publicly notified and made available.  They will be available at the Council offices, its libraries and on the website as well as being posted out on request. The SOP will provide guidance on the procedure for making submissions on the Speed Limits Bylaw.

5.3       All affected parties will receive a “Summary Statement of Proposal” that includes written notification of the consultation period and where a copy of the SOP can be viewed or obtained.

5.4       In addition to general consultation with the community, and specific consultation with affected parties (including occupiers of adjacent properties where the speed limit changes are proposed), the Council will be consulting with the other parties scheduled in the Rule, at 2.5(2), namely:

·    New Zealand Police;

·    New Zealand Transport Agency;

·    New Zealand Automobile Association Inc;

·    Road Transport Forum New Zealand;

·    Any other organisation or road user group the Council considers affected,

·    Adjacent Territorial Authorities:

Napier City Council

Wairoa

Taupo

Rangitikei

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Central Hawkes Bay.

5.5       The minimum period for consultation under the special consultative procedure is one month which is proposed here.

5.6       Submitters will all be formally acknowledged and those who have indicated that they wish to speak to their submission will be scheduled to do so.   All consultation material, feedback and submissions will be on the agenda at a future Council meeting.

6.0       ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

Option 1

6.1       Members of the public have been waiting for some time for Council to consider changes to the speed limits whilst the NZ Transport Agency completed their review of the speed limit rule.

6.2       Council have previously advised that changes will be considered once the new Rule is implemented and it is therefore expected for the appropriate changes to be progressed at this time.

Option 2

6.3       Council has received a number of specific requests for speed limit amendments across the network.  Option 2 will allow Council to consult only on these specific changes.  This is deemed the most appropriate route to progress the amendment of the bylaw

6.4       The Setting Speed Limits Rule requires that when reviewing or considering setting a new speed limit that the Council (as Road Controlling Authority) considers a range of factors:

“4.2(2)     In reviewing a permanent, holiday, or variable speed limit or considering a new permanent, holiday, or variable speed limit, a road controlling authority must have regard to—

(a)     the information about speed management developed and maintained by the Agency; and

(b)     any relevant guidance on speed management provided by the Agency; and

(c)     the function and use of the road; and

(d)     crash risk for all road users; and

(e)     the characteristics of the road and roadsides; and

(f)      adjacent land use; and

(g)     the number of intersections and property accessways; and

(h)     traffic volume; and

(i)      any planned modification to the road; and

(j)      the views of interested persons and groups.”

6.5       Officers consider that the proposed limits under option 2 (including the correction of anomalies) will, subject to the public consultative process, provide a safe and appropriate speed for the roads and sections of roads identified taking into account the factors identified in Rule 4.2(2) of the Land Transport Rule: Setting Speed Limits Rule 2017.

6.6       The costs of carrying out the bylaw amendment under Option 2 are assessed as $25,000. This accounts for all public consultation material (advertising media) reporting and officer’s time.

6.7       The minor changes required to match the bylaw with the current onsite speed limit provisions (the identified anomalies) are assessed as being compliant with the Rule and reflects the sign posted speed limit. 

6.8       The public consultation process will enable Council to obtain and consider the views of persons likely to be affected by this proposal.

Option 3

6.9       Option 3 would entail a requirement to review the limits set on all roads in the District at one time.  While there may be some benefit in having all speed limits assessed, it would involve a very significant cost and commitment of time without addressing the immediate concerns of the community. Officers acknowledge that there may be an opportunity to further refine speed limits in the District, but a more appropriate approach is to address these as they become apparent through the regular amendments to the schedules. Officers consider Option 3 to be an unnecessary approach to the current situation, without sufficient benefit to offset the significant costs that would be involved in a full review of the District’s speed limits.

7.0       PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1       The preferred option is Option 2.  This option provides a full opportunity for the public and all other appropriate bodies to comment on the speed limit changes proposed. 

7.2       Officers are satisfied that the proposed process will ensure Council will be acting in accordance with the obligations as set out in the Local Government Act 2002 and that after consideration of submissions it will, at the appropriate time, meet the decision making and consultation requirement of part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Land Transport Rule setting of speed limits 2017.

 

8.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Acting Transportation Engineer titled Land Transport Rule - Speed Limit Review dated 14/12/2017 be received.

B)        That the Council determine:

i.     That a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the setting of safe and appropriate speed limits as it is the only method mandated by the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017,

ii.    That the  bylaw as proposed to be amended is the most appropriate form of bylaw,

iii.   That the right to control speed limits is granted by Parliament to territorial authorities and the limitations proposed are justified limitations in terms of section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and that there is accordingly no breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

C)        That the Council adopt the attached Proposed Amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2012 and the Statement of Proposal to go out for public consultation in accordance with the special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017.

D)        That the Council further accept the proposed changes to the bylaw to remove the anomalies identified and to ensure the bylaw is in accordance with the current signposting, and that these proposed changes be identified in the Bylaw’s schedules for consultation.

E)        With the reasons for this decision being:

i.   That the consultation on the speed limits will allow affected parties and the wider community to fully consider the proposed bylaw amendments that have been proposed having regard to the requirements of the Rule 4.2(2) of the Land Transport Rule : Setting of Speed Limits 2017.

ii.  That the amendments to align the bylaw with onsite signage is in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017.

 

Attachments:

 

1

Statement of Proposal

LEG-02-34-17-510

 

 

 

 


Statement of Proposal

Attachment 1

 

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


File Ref: 17/1261

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Waste Minimisation Officer

Angela Atkins

SUBJECT:                    Adoption of draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for consultation        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council to adopt the Draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018-2024 (Attachment 1) in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the Local Government Act 2002.

1.2       This request arises from The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) giving councils the responsibility to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their territory. The WMA requires councils to adopt a waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP), which must be reviewed every six years.

1.3       The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to enable community participation in Council decision making processes as set out in section 95 (5) of the Local Government Act 2002.

1.4       This report concludes by recommending that the Draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018-2024 along with the supplementary Attachments (2-6) be adopted for community consultation.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       A WMMP is the term set in the WMA for a council’s waste management and minimisation planning document.

2.2       The legislation enables councils to use various tools to influence, promote and implement measures to manage and minimise waste. The WMMP is intended to be the guiding document for councils to promote and achieve effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their districts.

2.3       A WMMP should contain a summary of objectives, policies and targets for waste management and minimisation. The plan should clearly communicate how the Councils will deliver on these objectives.

2.4       Section 43 of the WMA states that a WMMP must provide for:

(a)       objectives and policies for achieving effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the territorial authority’s district

(b)       methods for achieving effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the territorial authority’s district, including -

(i)        collection, recovery, recycling, treatment, and disposal services for the district to meet its current and future waste management and minimisation needs (whether provided by the territorial authority or otherwise); and

(ii)       any waste management and minimisation facilities provided, or to be provided, by the territorial authority; and

(iii)      any waste management and minimisation activities, including any educational or public awareness activities, provided, or to be provided, by the territorial authority

(c)        how implementing the plan is to be funded

(d)       if the territorial authority wishes to make grants or advances of money in accordance with section 47, the framework for doing so.

2.5       A WMMP must have regard to the waste hierarchy, the New Zealand Waste Strategy, and the joint council’s most recent Waste Assessment.

2.6       WMMPs must be reviewed at least every six years. Not keeping to the statutory timeframe for a WMMP review may result in the Councils waste levy funding payments being withheld under section 33 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA). The current joint WMMP must be reviewed by 28 June 2018.

2.7       By agreement of the local authority members, the Joint Waste Futures Joint Project Steering Committee has been established as a Joint Committee under clause 30A of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. The committee comprises of three councillors from each Council.

2.8       The purpose of the Joint committee is to:

a)        approve the content of the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for public consultation.

b)        hear submissions and make recommendations to the constituent Councils on the draft regional Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

c)         be responsible for overseeing, supporting, monitoring and reporting progress toward achieving the intent of WMMP. As well as representing the interests of participatory Councils in the WMMP.

d)        review the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan at least every six years to meet the requirements of the WMA 2008

2.9       The Joint Committee will have responsibility and authority to:

a)         accept and hear submissions on the joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, and report back to the individual Councils on an as required basis.

b)         make recommendations to each participant Council on the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

c)         monitor performance and progress to give effect to the purpose of the WMMP and to make recommendations to the constituent Councils accordingly.

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       The Draft Joint WMMP and Consultation Document contains the vision, objectives, targets, policies and actions that have been derived from the Waste Assessment during the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee workshops and meetings held on 5 July, 2 August, 14 September and 12 October 2017.

3.2       The Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee met on Thursday 23 November 2017 and adopted the draft joint WMMP and recommended that both the Hastings District Council and Napier City Councils adopt the document for public consultation.

3.3       The WMMP (along with the supplementary Waste Assessment documents attached) will be released for public consultation on 19 February 2018 (with public notice being given on that date) with submissions closing on 23 March 2018. Submission hearing dates have been set aside commencing 12 April 2018.

3.4       The draft joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan has met all legislative criteria and is ready for community consultation.  A summary document will be developed for the consultation process.

3.5       The consultation approach is being finalised with the communications and marketing teams from both Councils and will be circulated under separate cover once finalised.

3.6       Submissions on the draft joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be heard and considered by the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee in April 2018.

4.0       OPTIONS

4.1       The Council can either:

4.2       Adopt the attached draft joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for consultation

4.3       Decide to not adopt the draft plan for consultation

5.0       SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1       All WMMPs are subject to the requirements of the Local Government Act’s (LGA) special consultative procedure, a requirement also set out in the WMA Part 4, section 44 and section 50(3) which outlines consultation requirements for preparing new plans.

5.2       Public consultation on the draft joint WMMP will be undertaken during the period 19 February to 23 March 2018.

5.3       Significant changes arising from the WMMP review will need to be incorporated into each Council’s LTP(s) or Annual Plan depending on timeframes.

5.4       The public consultation methodology and program is being co-developed by Hastings District and Napier City Council marketing and communication teams. It is the intention of council officers to provide engaging face-to-face consultation alongside the more traditional digital media and mail submissions.

5.5       The cut-off date for formal adoption is 28 June 2018.

5.6       Proposed Key dates for consultation and adoption of the joint WMMP:

Date(s)

Activity

22 November 2017

Waste Futures Committee – recommend adoption of draft Joint WMMP

14 December 2017

HDC Council Meeting to adopt draft Joint WMMP for consultation

20 December 2017

NCC Council Meeting to adopt draft Joint WMMP for consultation

Date to be confirmed

A meeting with waste operators will be held early in the new year.

19 February to 23 March 2018

Public Consultation

26 March to  6 April 2018

Compilation of Submissions

12 April 2018

Hearings of Submissions

10 May 2018

Waste Futures Committee – recommend adoption of final Joint WMMP

16 May 2018

NCC Council Meeting to adopt Joint WMMP

24 May 2018

HDC Council Meeting to adopt Joint WMMP

6.0       ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1       Option (1) adopt the draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for consultation.  This allows the statutory process to continue and for the community consultation to been undertaken.

6.2       Option (2) decide not to adopt the draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for consultation. This would result in the Councils not being able to fulfil their legal obligations in regard to the Local Government Act 2002 or the Waste Management and Minimisation Act 2008.

7.0       PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1       That the draft joint Waste Management and Minimisation plan is adopted and released so that the statutory requirements can be fulfilled.

8.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Waste Minimisation Officer titled Adoption of draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for consultation dated 14/12/2017 be received.

B)        That the Council adopt the attached Statement of Proposal 2018-2024 draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, outlined in the report attached (A) above, for consultation in accordance with Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

C)        That the Council adopt the attached Summary of the Statement of Proposal for Community Consultation in accordance with Section 83 and 83AA of the Local Government Act 2002.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure and local public services in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i)          Providing fit for purpose solid waste services and facilities.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018-2024

PRJ17-113-0025

 

2

Draft Summary of Statement of Proposal

PRJ17-113-0027

 

3

HDC/NCC Waste Assessment

PRJ17-113-0001

Separate Doc

4

Morrison Low, Peer Review Waste Assessment

SW-25-17-4340

Separate Doc

5

Morrison Low, District Specific Issues and Options Table

PRJ17-113-0002

Separate Doc

6

Kerbside Collection Options

PRJ17-113-0009

Separate Doc

7

Additional Supporting Internal Assessment 2017 (Supplementary Waste Assessment Paper)

PRJ17-113-0010

Separate Doc

 

 

 


Draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018-2024

Attachment 1

 

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


Draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018-2024

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018-2024

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Draft Summary of Statement of Proposal

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 17/1172

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Project Manager

Paula Murdoch

SUBJECT:                    Future cemetery development options        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Council about options for future cemetery development and seek a decision and feedback on the preferred option for further investigation.

1.2       This issue arises from the fact that three of Council’s four cemeteries are rapidly approaching capacity and future options for cemetery development are becoming an important priority to address.

1.3       The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4       The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is local infrastructure which contributes to public health and safety, supports growth, connects communities, activates communities and helps to protect the natural environment; and local public services which help meet the needs of young and old, people in need, visitors and locals, businesses and households by:

·    Sustainable use of land and water resources

·    Putting people at the centre of planning and service. 

1.5       This report concludes by recommending that the report from the Project Manager on future cemetery development options be received.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       Under legislated mandate of the Burial & Cremation Act (1964), a local authority must provide burial facilities and associated recordkeeping for deceased people within its boundaries. Council does this by operating its cemeteries at:

·    Puketapu

·    Havelock North

·    Hastings

·    Mangaroa

2.2       The Hastings Cemetery is also the site of the main depot and of the Hawke’s Bay Crematorium and Chapel.

2.3       The number of body burials has remained steady at an average of 124 in the last five years, while the number of ash interments averages 200 annually. This figure has increased slowly over the last five years, reflecting the increase in the number of cremations performed annually - 714 on average over the last five years.

2.4       An ageing population means that over time the demand on interment facilities will increase. If Council chooses to focus future cemetery development at a new site, then 5ha is considered the minimum amount of land that would justify investment and avoid significant further investment for several decades.

2.5       Three of Council’s four cemeteries are rapidly approaching capacity and options for addressing future cemetery development are an important priority to address.

2.6       Capacity at the cemeteries varies and pre-purchasing of plots has been discontinued as it has shortened these timeframes still further:

·    Havelock North cemetery is due to reach capacity within the next five years

·    Hastings cemetery is likely to reach capacity within the next five years. Some work is proposed to ensure that space use is maximised for as long as possible

·    Puketapu cemetery has approximately fifteen plots remaining

·    Mangaroa cemetery currently uses approximately 2.5ha of its 8.1ha total and has up to forty years’ capacity. It contains Council’s only green or eco-burial space and also a denominational area for Muslim burials.

2.7       Alternative sites have been considered for cemetery development in recent years, but have been rejected for various reasons:

2.8       Romanes Drive

2.8.1   Romanes Drive in Havelock North was considered in the late 1990s and although Council initially resolved to develop the site as a cemetery, it rejected the plan shortly thereafter following feedback from the community.

2.8.2   It was reconsidered for a second time in 2011, but a desktop assessment confirmed that the site was unsuitable for cemetery development due to its size, soil type and location in a flood zone.

2.9       Pakowhai Road

2.9.1   In 2011, Gentle Touch Funeral Services offered 7ha of land that they owned on Pakowhai Road to Council for cemetery development as at the time they were looking to relocate their business. They wished to retain adjacent land.

2.9.2   The offer was rejected for reasons that cannot be established.

 

2.10    Mangaroa Cemetery

2.10.1 As the only cemetery with growth capacity, Mangaroa has 5.6ha of as yet unused land which is designated for cemetery use. While there are a number of advantages to developing land for cemetery purposes at an existing facility, there are also a number of issues to take into consideration.

2.10.2 Mangaroa Cemetery is located on land that was originally part of an 83 acre (33.6ha) forest plantation owned by the Hastings Borough Council. In the early 1970s three quarters of the land was acquired by the Ministry of Works for a proposed prison site.

2.10.3 The remaining land had already been earmarked by Council for use as a cemetery. With Mangaroa Cemetery opening in 1969, cemetery use predates use of the adjacent land as a prison facility.

2.10.4 In 1989, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Correctional Facility (formerly known as Mangaroa Prison) opened adjacent to the Mangaroa Cemetery. There appears to have been little public reaction at the time to a location of a prison facility operated by a government department next to a public cemetery. There is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that Mangaroa Cemetery is not viewed as a favourable burial site option because of the prison next door.

2.10.5 There has also long been a perception that Mangaroa Cemetery is wet and has a high water table. There were two well publicised incidents involving newly-dug gravesites in 2006 and 2007 reported in the newspaper media.

2.10.6 There are also perceptions that Mangaroa Cemetery may be an urupā rather than a public cemetery and this is seen as a barrier to fuller utilisation by some sectors of the community.

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       Council has set aside $1m as a carry forward in the 2018/19 financial year of the next LTP for land for future cemetery development.

3.2       No suitable alternative land has as yet been identified, although Council officers have done some preliminary work to identify potential sites for further investigation. Due to the sensitivity of the proposed use, real estate agents have not yet been approached.

3.3       It is estimated that a lead time of at least one year would be required to develop a new site for cemetery use (excluding any legal processes that may be involved). As services are already on the Mangaroa site, this timeframe could be shortened if this were the preferred site for future cemetery development.

3.4       The Section 17A review of the Cemeteries and Crematorium identified that cemetery land development was an urgent priority to address. There was a suggestion that the water table issues at Mangaroa Cemetery were not seen as an issue from an operational perspective and could be managed. The review raised the question of whether Mangaroa Cemetery could in fact be Council’s primary cemetery in the future, thereby potentially deferring the need for investment in new land for several decades?

3.5       As a result, Council asked for issues and options to be identified, particularly in relation to two main options:

·    Development of the Mangaroa site

·    Purchase of new land for future cemetery development.

4.0       MANGAROA: A WET CEMETERY?

4.1       Cemetery staff report that there has been no plot collapse at Mangaroa Cemetery in the last twelve years. There have however been four separate occasions when plots have collapsed at the Hastings and Havelock North cemeteries in the last twelve months alone.

4.2       There were well publicised incidents at Mangaroa Cemetery in 2006 and 2007 where newly-dug gravesites had been pumped but filled with substantial amounts of water before the coffin was lowered in which prompted formal complaints to Council.

4.3       As a result of these incidents, a desktop assessment was undertaken by MWH for Council in October 2007 which reported that groundwater levels and soil type - especially subsoil composition – were major factors impacting on drainage of the site.

4.4       The report indicated that the higher water table was likely to be a problem for the site, as was the topography of the land (falling in a southwest direction) and the subsoil composition which further impeded free drainage of the site.

4.5       To summarise briefly, the report proposed a mechanical dewatering solution that would draw water from the soil using a pump and then dispose of it to the storm water system.

4.6       The report discussed the feasibility and possible costs associated with implementing the suggested solution. Indicative costs (in 2007 terms) ranged from $240,000-$350,000 (exc. GST) for the currently developed area, but not the adjacent unused portion of cemetery land.

4.7       While soil, subsoils and drainage are certainly key factors, the report did not fully address a number of other important issues that must also be taken into consideration:

·    Disposal of water from the proposed dewatering system – the report suggested that water could be drained to the adjacent roadside drain

·    Potential for drawing contaminants out of cemetery subsoils, with disposal to the storm water system

·    Impact on bores in the area which supply potable water

·    Cultural sensitivity aspects related to water as mauri (life force) being drawn from cemetery ground and then being disposed of into the storm water system

·    Ongoing operating costs

4.8       Soil & subsoil composition

4.8.1   The MWH (2007) report states:

“There are limited drainage facilities for the surrounding land, which generally relies on the porous nature of the pumice sands for drainage of rainfall. However the pumice sands in the area are underlain by a relatively impervious or confining layer of silts above artesian gravel aquifers. This silt layer limits the vertical drainage of the deeper soils. Drainage of the area takes place via horizontal flow in the shallow unconfined aquifer (pumice sands). This results in high groundwater levels in the area, especially when rainfall is greater than average.”

4.8.2   A soil map of the Heretaunga Plains is attached, as well as a close up of the Mangaroa Cemetery. The map shows that the same ash and pumice sand soil type runs extensively from Pakipaki to Bridge Pa and right through to Flaxmere. This is important to note as a landswap has been proposed in the past (more about this to follow), but land immediately adjacent offers no solution to the drainage issue.

4.8.3   The close up of the cemetery site also shows the water table levels for the soil types. The water table at most of the Mangaroa Cemetery site ranges from 30-60cm below the surface.

4.8.4   There are no standards or best practice guidelines for cemeteries in New Zealand in relation to selection or management of sites.

4.9       Dewatering solution

4.9.1   While the MWH report is not formally presented as part of this report, it serves to highlight some of the issues that relate to the Mangaroa Cemetery site and the difficulties of addressing them.

4.9.2   The dewatering solution proposed by MWH focused on the feasibility of the mechanical aspects of the solution. It does not fully address the fact that such a system would impact on natural groundwater flows, potentially increasing the perimeter from which groundwater might be drawn.

4.9.3   Indicative costs in 2007 to implement the dewatering solution were $240,000-$350,000, exclusive of GST. At the time it was suggested that as unbudgeted expenditure, that the only means of recovering costs identified was to increase plot costs – adding between $540-$787 per plot.

4.9.4   The report suggested that further detailed investigation and assessment be carried out before implementing any solution. No further work appears to have been done, but as part of developing the new part of the cemetery, officers advise that drainage issues may be able to be addressed, although this has not as yet been costed or fomally planned.

4.10    Field drains (as opposed to a mechanical dewatering system) could be an option, as long as water is collected and disposed of adequately and appropriately.

4.11    Disposal of water

4.11.1 The MWH report proposed that water would be disposed of to the roadside drain on Mangaroa Road. Officers advise that this solution may cause a risk of groundwater mounding, especially as the water table is already high and the subsoils are relatively impermeable. Groundwater mounding will therefore potentially obstruct drainage from the roadside drain - see image below from https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=File:Mounding_schematic.jpg (accessed 9 November 2017).

https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/images/2/2a/Mounding_schematic.jpg

 

4.12    Subsoil contaminants

4.12.1 The proposed dewatering system would draw water from subsoils using a mechanical pump and then dispose of the water. The report fails to address the issue of cemetery soils potentially containing biological contaminants that would be present in groundwater that should be tested and treated before disposal to storm water systems.

4.13    Adjacent water bores

4.13.1 As the report attachment indicates, there are a number of water bores in the immediate area, some of which are likely to provide potable water supplies. The proposed dewatering system was not assessed in relation to the impact on adjacent bore supplies.

 

 

 

 

4.14    Water as mauri

4.14.1 The proposed dewatering system did not consider that there may be cultural aspects that should be considered in relation to the groundwater as no cultural impact assessment was done.

4.15    Operating costs

4.15.1 The MWH report does note that ongoing operating costs have not been fully assessed and would mainly include electricity costs, plus the costs associated with ongoing maintenance of the dewatering system.

5.0       ALTERNATIVE SITE OPTIONS

5.1       If Council decides not to proceed with future cemetery development at Mangaroa, an alternative site would need to be found. Due to the time required to acquire and develop a new greenfield site, this would need to happen as a matter of some priority to ensure continuity of service for the community.

5.2       The Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS) restricts the type of development that can be undertaken on the productive soils of the Heretaunga Plains.

5.3       Use of land as a cemetery is not specifically provided for under the District Plan. There are three options available to Council to ensure that this activity can legally be undertaken:

·    Formal designation of the land as a cemetery

·    Resource consent process

·    District Plan change

5.4       Legal advice recommends the designation process. Most cemeteries (including Mangaroa) in the District have been formally designated and it is considered the most appropriate course of action to provide long term security for the activity if private land is being considered.

5.5       Council has also received internal advice that purchase of Māori land for cemetery purposes, or purchase of land adjacent to Māori land should not be considered for legal and cultural reasons.

5.6       Shared service potential

5.6.1   Officers have consulted with Napier City Council regarding their needs for land for future cemetery development. NCC has approximately 10-12 years’ cemetery capacity remaining and identification of land for future cemetery development is not a priority in the short-medium term.

5.6.2   Nevertheless, there is tentative interest in joint development of a combined Hastings/Napier cemetery which might influence the location of future development, as well as provide for the possibility of joint governance, funding and service delivery options for the future, but there is no firm commitment from NCC at this stage.

 

5.7       Land swap/land sale option

5.7.1   On two separate occasions (2003 and in 2010), interest has been expressed by neighbouring landowners in negotiating a swap of the unused portion of cemetery land.

5.7.2   Council’s previous responses have been to reject these offers, as there was no perceived benefit to Council, as the same issues would apply to the land swap site in terms of soil type, drainage and adjacency to the prison.

5.7.3   The only advantage to Council would be if the land were of sufficiently higher value to make resale of the site a feasible option. This has not been tested in the market.

5.7.4   More recently however, Council has made a confidential approach to the original landowners to explore the level of interest in re-entering discussion about the undeveloped portion of cemetery land. They remain open to further discussion of options and proposals, including sale or swap of Council land,.

5.7.5   Council owns the entire 8.1ha Mangaroa Cemetery site on one title as free hold land (fee simple). The land is currently designated for cemetery use.

5.7.6   Sale of part of this land would require Council to subdivide the title and remove the designation on the unused portion of land before it could dispose of it. By removing the designation Council is signalling that it no longer requires the land for the purpose for which it was designated. This process may have implications for future acquisition of land and a robust legal basis for this course of action would be required.

5.7.7   Recent legal advice suggests that sale of the land may be a complicated route, because of offer back provisions that are likely to be involved if the land was originally acquired by Council under a previous version of the Public Works Act. A title search is currently in progress but may be inconclusive due to the loss of Hawke’s Bay land records in the fire that followed the 1931 Earthquake.

6.0       SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

6.1       This is a matter that relates to significant capital expenditure and which already has $1m carried forward in the LTP budget for the 2018/19 financial year. As such it has already been consulted on as part of the LTP process but if the budget were to be repurposed to redevelopment of Mangaroa, then this would need to be approved.

6.2       If Council decided to concentrate future cemetery development at Mangaroa, there would be no need to consult, as it is already designated as a cemetery under the District Plan and the activity already operates at the site.

6.3       If Council decided, however, to locate future cemetery development at another location then this would be of significant interest to affected landowners and possibly the local community and would need to be consulted on to some degree as part of the acquisition and development process.

 

 

 

6.4       If Council seeks to designate a new piece of land for cemetery purposes, then it needs to be able to demonstrate that it has considered alternative options for the activity. This may be difficult to demonstrate adequately if land already designated for cemetery purposes (ie. Mangaroa) has been effectively declared surplus to requirements, the designation reversed and then sold.

6.5       Land could compulsorily be taken under the Public Works Act (1981), but this would involve a more complex statutory process that would require Council to demonstrate the validity of its claim for privately-owned land. If Council had recently disposed of land already designated for this purpose, it could result in a lengthy, risky and costly appeals process. Acquiring land compulsorily under the Act is not a recommended course of action.

6.6       If Council seeks to acquire new land, it should preferably be from a willing seller to avoid the need to invoke the Public Works Act (1981).

7.0       ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

7.1       Capacity is rapidly being reached at the two main cemeteries. Council has legislated obligations in respect of provision of burial facilities. Doing nothing (ie. status quo) is not a viable option as it does not address imminent shortfall of interment space and will place Council in significant breach of its legal obligations under the Burial & Cremation Act (1964) .

 

7.2       Option 1: Development of Mangaroa Cemetery

7.2.1   Services are already in place at Mangaroa and the unused 5.6ha of land designated for cemetery use will provide capacity for up to forty years. A central access road has been partially formed and public toilets and water are already available at the currently used part of the site.

7.2.2   Council could choose to develop this land, using some or all of the $1m funding it has available through the LTP for purchase of new land, if it so chose. Amenity value could be added through landscaping and beautification work with this budget. The feasibility of addressing the technical issues related to the site could also be assessed using this funding source.

7.2.3   Views of the adjacent prison could be screened with sympathetic landscaping and planting, which address some of the perceptions relating to privacy and lack of ambience related to the adjacency of the prison.

7.2.4   As part of any work to develop the vacant 5.6ha, Council may decide to investigate and mitigate the drainage issues that relate to the site. Costs and an investigation in to the viability of this has not yet been assessed.

 

7.3       Option 2: Development of new land for cemetery use

7.3.1   Council officers are looking to identify suitable options. The following criteria have been preliminarily developed to assess either Mangaroa, or any alternative site:

 

 

Assessment criteria

Ranking

Score

5-10ha area

Essential

2

Free draining soil

Essential

2

Low water table

Essential

2

Consistent subsoil – no large rocks, clay pan, etc

Essential

2

Outside 100 year flood zone

Essential

2

Within 15-20 minutes’ drive of the Hastings CBD

Essential

2

Sensitivity for adjacent activity

Essential

2

Not on or adjacent to Māori land

Essential

2

Easy access to main arterial routes

Desirable

1

Access to public transport

Desirable

1

Topography – flat to undulating

Desirable

1

Regular shape of site

Desirable

1

Proximity to Hastings Cemetery Depot

Desirable

1

Access to services – water and electricity

Desirable

1

Site ambience

Desirable

1

Total

 

23

7.3.2   An additional factor that may need to be considered if privately owned land is being considered for purchase, is that the owner should be willing to sell for the reasons already identified in relation to the Public Works Act (1981).

7.3.3   It is likely that the $1m budget set aside to purchase new land for cemetery purposes will not be sufficient to purchase the 5ha minimum recommended for medium-long term use as a cemetery, though this has not as yet been tested in the marketplace.

7.3.4   Council would therefore need to consider alternative sources of funding to meet any shortfall.

7.3.5   Although unrelated directly to the present discussion, at some point in the future depending on location it may be prudent to consider relocation of the cemetery depot to a new site to ensure efficiency of operations.

7.3.6   A minimum of one year would be required to develop and designate any new land, with additional time being required to work through any legal issues that may arise. Involvement at any stage with the Environment Court would add substantially to timeframes and costs.

8.0       PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

8.1       This is a political decision likely to be of widespread interest within the community. Council must decide whether future cemetery development will be at Mangaroa Cemetery, or whether it should be at another location yet to be identified and acquired.

8.2       Mangaroa is likely to be the lower cost option to meet future cemetery needs, but community pushback may be expected. There are also issues with the current site that Council may choose to address, if feasible.

8.3       If Mangaroa is not an acceptable option for future cemetery development, then current budget is unlikely to be sufficient to acquire and develop the amount of land required for medium-long term use. Council would therefore need to consider alternative sources of funding for cemetery development.

 

 

9.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Project Manager titled Future cemetery development options dated 14/12/2017 be received

B)        That Council indicates its preferred direction for further investigation of future cemetery development.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure and local public services in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i)          Sustainable use of land and water resources

ii)         Putting people at the centre of planning and service.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Soil Map of the Heretaunga Plains  13 December 2001 - HBRC

CG-14-1-00523

 

2

Close up of Mangaroa Cemetery (from HBRC Heretaunga Plains Soil map 2001)

CFM-04-04-17-82

 

3

Bores adjacent to Mangaroa Cemetery

CFM-04-04-17-83

 

 

 

 



Soil Map of the Heretaunga Plains  13 December 2001 - HBRC

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Soil Map of the Heretaunga Plains  13 December 2001 - HBRC

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Close up of Mangaroa Cemetery (from HBRC Heretaunga Plains Soil map 2001)

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


Bores adjacent to Mangaroa Cemetery

Attachment 3

 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 17/1235

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                    Representation Review - Results of Consultation        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek guidance from the Council on the scope of the Representation Review following consideration of the consultation exercise undertaken in October 2017.

1.2       This issue arises from a requirement for the Council to review its representation arrangements at least once every six years

1.3      The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4       The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to provide effective governance arrangements.

1.5       This report concludes by seeking guidance on the scope of the representation review for the number of councillors and ward structure following consideration of community views gathered from a citizen’s panel consultation exercise.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       The Council last reviewed its representation, including community boards, prior to the 2007 elections Under the Local Electoral Act 2001 the Council is required to review its representation only every second election, but may review it every election if it wishes to.

 

2.2       The Council must conduct a complete review of representation and finish that review before 31 August 2018 for the 2019 elections. The Local Electoral Act 2001 establishes as its first principle the provision of:“fair and effective representation for individuals and communities”.

 

2.3       The Act provides for the Council to use a ward-based structure or to have “at large” elections or to have some councillors elected from wards and other councillors elected at large, provided that the Council believes it provides for the fair and effective representation set out above.

 

2.4       The Act does not presently allow the population per councillor to vary from ward to ward by more than plus or minus 10%.

 

2.5       On 31 August 2017 the Council gave its approval to the undertaking of a consultation exercise prior to the commencement of the representation review. The purpose of the consultation was to gauge community views on current representation arrangements and inform the scope of representation review.

2.6       Following an informal session with councillors the preferred approach was for the whole Council to be involved at each stage of the representation review, rather than set up a working party to work with officers on proposals.

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       Following consultation with Council on the format of the questionnaire, Your People Your Voice was commissioned to undertake a survey using the Citizen’s Panel. The Questionnaire was also advertised with a link to participate on the Council’s website and social media. The survey was open from 29 September to 16 October 2017 and 353 responses were received.

3.2       The purpose of the consultation was to gather information on:

·    Level of satisfaction with current arrangements

·    What distinct communities make up Hastings District

·    Equality of current representation arrangements (are there areas which are under or over represented)

·    Ward or At Large representatives (or a mixture)?

·    Overall number of Councillors

·    Community Boards (whether or not to have them, number and composition)

·    Views on the introduction of Maori wards from 2022.

3.3       The full survey results and comments are set out in Attachment 1 to this report. The headline results are:

·     80% of the respondents are satisfied or very satisfied with the Council’s current representation arrangements

·     Geo location is the most important factor for ‘communities of interest’

·     Only 26% of respondents thought that all parts of the District are NOT equally represented.

·     43% of respondents favoured councillors to be elected by ward, whilst 35% favoured a mix of ward and at large. Only 16% favoured at large councillor election.

·     70% of respondents wanted no change to ward boundaries.

·        General satisfaction with the current representation arrangements - 62% of respondents felt that the current size of the Council was about right, with 76% of respondents opting for 10 - 14 Councillors.

·        41% of respondents favoured community boards – 32% against.

·        75% of respondents were not in favour of the introduction of Maori wards from 2022.

3.4    The survey was self-selected and cannot be regarded as completely representative of the whole community. However, it does provide an indication that there is general satisfaction with the current size and representation arrangements of the Council.

3.5    Based on 2017 estimated population figures, retaining status quo is an option. See table below:

         

Ward

Population

Number of councillors per ward

Population per councillor

Deviation from district average population per councillor

Percentage deviation from district average population per councillor

Hastings- Havelock North

46,000

8

5,750

44

0.76%

Flaxmere

11,000

2

5,500

-206

-3.62%

Heretaunga

10,900

2

5,450

-256

-4.49%

Mohaka

5,730

1

5,730

24

0.41%

Kahuranaki

6,260

1

6,260

554

9.70%

Totals

79,890

14

5,706

 

 

3.4       However, Kahuraniki ward is getting close to the +/- 10% variation limit permitted by the legislation.

3.6       The Council is requested to set the parameters for officers to research options for the representation review. In particular, the Council is asked for direction on:-

·    The total numbers of Councillors.

·    Ward Structure

·     Wards/At Large or combination

4.0       OPTIONS

4.1       Council direction is sought from to set the scope of the representation review. In particular to give a view on:

·     The total number of Councillors

·     Whether to retain existing ward structure, investigating minor changes to reflect population changes.

·     Increase or decrease the number of wards.

·     Whether to introduce at large councillors or a combination of both.

·     The number and size of Community Boards.

 

5.0       SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1       The decision on this issue is a decision which will affect the whole of the community.   Initial community consultation has been undertaken to inform the Council on the level of satisfaction with existing arrangements and to identify issues and an evidence base upon which to scope the review.  Once the Council has resolved on a proposal that opens it to a further public consultative procedure with submissions from any interested individuals or groups in the wider community and the possibility of appeals and objections

6.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled Representation Review - Results of Consultation dated 14/12/2017 be received.

B)        That the Council advise officers on the scope of the representation review to enable an initial set of proposals to be presented to Council for consideration by the end of March 2018.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by ensuring fair and effective representation arrangements.

 

Attachments:

 

1

 Representation Review - Citizens Panel Survey results October 2017

CG-05-16-17-8

 

 

 

 


Representation Review - Citizens Panel Survey results October 2017

Attachment 1

 

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


File Ref: 17/1278

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Parks and Property Services Manager

Colin Hosford

SUBJECT:                    Kaiwaka Road Community Hall - Proposed Easement.        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on the proposed granting of an easement over the Kaiwaka Road Hall Reserve.

1.2       This request arises from a proposal to gift a privately owned tennis court to the Kaiwaka Road community and the desire of the donor to gain an access easement across the existing reserve.

1.3       The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4       The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is that by agreeing to an access easement, Council will be facilitating the development of Community Infrastructure for recreational, arts and cultural opportunity in the local Kaiwaka Road rural community.

1.5       This report concludes by recommending that Council agree to the proposed access easement over the Kaiwaka Road reserve and that it commence the statutory process to grant an access easement over the reserve.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       The Kaiwaka Road Hall property is owned by the Council and held as a reserve for public hall purposes.   It has an area of 809m2 and contains the local community hall.  The local community hall that is cared for and maintained by the local community, via a hall committee. 

2.2       The adjacent site to the east of the reserve has previously contained the local Tareha School that was closed in May 2014. 

2.3       The Ministry of Education has sold the vacant school site to the owners of the adjoining land, the Jesseps.  

2.4       In late 2016 officers were approached by the Kaiwaka Hall Committee, to see if the Council was amenable to accepting a gift that would extend the Kaiwaka Road Reserve to include the existing tennis court on the adjoining school site.   They advised that the new owners of the closed Tareha School site the Jesseps, had offered the tennis court land (approx. 450m2) as a gift to the community and also sought an access easement over the existing reserve.

2.5       The Rural Community Board endorsed the proposal to acquire the tennis court at its meeting of February 2017. 

2.6       The final action to complete the transaction is to grant the requested easement to be lodged over the hall site.

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       Council has granted consent to the subdivision that transfers the tennis court land to Council and vests the newly acquired land as local purpose reserve – community use. 

3.2       However, as the hall site is held under the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of an easement requires the following of a specific process.  This requires  Council to agree to the proposed easement, followed by the public notification of the proposal, hearing of any submissions and finally the obtaining of the consent of the Minister of Conservation.   

3.3       This report seeks Council’s consent to granting the easement over the reserve land, prior to officers carrying out the remaining required actions. 

3.4       A plan of the subdivision and proposed easement is included as Attachment 1.

4.0       OPTIONS

4.1       There are two options available to Council;

·    Option 1 – Refuse to grant the access easement

·    Option 2 – Agree to grant the access easement

5.0       SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1       In terms of community engagement, the proposal itself has been driven by the local community.  The Hall Committee are in full support of both the gifting of the tennis court and the creation of the access easement.

5.2       The Rural Community Board is also in support of the proposals as they clearly see the acquisition of the tennis court as being of benefit to the local community.  They also have no issue with granting of the easement as it is not seen to create any impediments to hall activities.

5.3       As the land vested as a reserve, under the Reserves Act 1977, Council will need to follow the required procedures for the granting of an easement as set out in Section 48 of the Act.   This will require, amongst other actions, public notification and with that the right for public submission or objection.  Any objections or submissions will need to be heard by a commissioner.  This process will provide the public with the opportunity to consider and comment on the proposed granting of the easement.

5.4       The proposal does itself is relatively minor in nature and as such, does not challenge any of Council’s significance thresholds.

6.0       ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1       The subdivision of the old school site has enable the school tennis court to be gifted to Council and joined to the nearby community hall reserve.  The subdivision application includes the request that an easement be granted over the original hall site, to enable alternative access the rear site, that was the old school grounds.

6.2       The proposal has strong rural community support and has little to no impact on the reserve itself.  The bulk of costs of the subdivision are being met by the private owner with a contribution by the surveyor as a support for the local community.  Officers have indicated that to help secure the tennis court for public use, Council would likely be amenable to making a small contribution towards legal costs to show its support for both the local community and to recognise the generous gift to the Kaiwaka Road community.

6.3       By adopting Option 1, Council would be taking a position that is clearly at odds with its local community.  The easement proposal does not diminish the ability of the public to access and use the reserve.  The strip in question is currently in the centre of the hall carpark and allows the carpark to continue operating without detrimental impact.

6.4       By adopting Option 2, Council will be enabling an improved and extended reserve facility, without any detrimental impact on its community use.  The proposal comes at little cost to Council and more importantly is strongly supported by the local community and Rural Community Board.

6.5       If Council adopts Option 2, and agrees to the formation of the proposed easement, officers will carry out the process prescribed in Section 48 of the Reserve Act 1977.  These include;

1     Notify the intention to allow an access easement over the reserve land.

2     Report on the submission process including hearing any submissions.

3     Seek final Council consent.

4     Seek consent from the Minister of Conservation.  

5     With ministerial consent, the easement can be granted.

7.0       PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1       Option 2 is the preferred option.

7.2       The gifting of the old school tennis courts will create a substantial and meaningful addition to the Kaiwaka Road Hall reserve.  The local rural community have worked hard to negotiate the transaction and the land owners have been generous.  The Rural Community Board supports the proposal as a worthwhile community asset.

7.3       By agreeing to the granting of the proposed land acquisition and easement, the Kaiwaka Road reserve will extended but will also have an easement over a strip of its existing carpark.   The easement will be for access activities only and as such will not impact on the operation of the reserve.  The granting of the easement has Hall Committee and therefore community support. 

7.4       With Council agreeing to the granting of the easement, officers commence the process requirements of the Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977. 

 

 

8.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)  That the report of the Parks and Property Services Manager titled Kaiwaka Road Community Hall - Proposed Easement. dated 14/12/2017 be received.

B)  That the Council adopt Option 2 and agree to commence the statutory process for the granting of an easement across the Kaiwaka Road Hall Reserve (as per Plans attached)

 

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for local public services to meet recreational, arts and cultural needs in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

          Supporting the creation of an easement over reserve land, Council will enable a subdivision that gifts additional land to enhance the recreational opportunities at the Kaiwaka Road Hall Reserve, for the local community          to benefit from.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Amended Scheme Plan

50357#0038

 

 

 

 


PDF Creator


Amended Scheme Plan

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 17/1303

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Executive Advisor/Manager: Office of the Chief Executive

Mike Maguire

SUBJECT:                    Affixing of Council Seal

        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       Following the appointment of the General Counsel and other organizational changes, the Council needs to pass a further resolution regarding the signatories for the council seal.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       The Council executes many documents under its common seal.  The most common examples are:

·        deeds

·        warrants of authority

·        bylaws

·        transfers or leases of stopped roads

·        transfers or leases of abandoned land

2.2       The Council adopted revised provisions on 3 August 2017. The impending retirement of the Executive Advisor/Manager: Office of the Chief Executive and the appointment of the new position of General Counsel brings about a requirement to change the authorities.

3.0       ISSUES

3.1       This is a relatively simple matter the intention is to add the position of General Counsel to those who can authorise the application of the seal.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Executive Advisor/Manager: Office of the Chief Executive titled “Affixing of Council Seal” dated 14/12/2017 be received.

B)        That the Council alter its resolution regarding the common seal passed on 3 August 2017 to read as follows:

i)          That, prior to the affixing of the Council’s common seal to any documents, they must first be verified as being in order by either:

•     The General Counsel

•     The Democratic Support Manager;

•     Or the Chief Executive, in which case the Chief Executive cannot sign under seal.

 

ii)         That, when documents are executed under seal by the Council, the seal be affixed in the presence of any two of the following:

·     The Mayor

·     The Chief Executive

·     The Deputy Mayor

·     Any Chairman of a Council Committee comprising the Mayor and all Councillors

·     Group Manager: Economic Growth and Organisation Improvement

·     The Chief Financial Officer.

 

iii)        That the seal register showing documents that have had the Council’s common seal affixed be laid on the table for the information of councillors at each ordinary Council meeting.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 


File Ref: 17/1214

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Group Manager: Community Facilities & Programmes

Alison Banks

SUBJECT:                    Summary of Recommendations from the Opera House and Arts Precinct Subcommittee meeting held 7 December 2017        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise that recommendations from the Opera House and Arts Precinct Subcommittee meeting held on 7 December 2017 require ratification by the Council.

1.2       The relevant Opera House and Arts Precinct Subcommittee recommendations to be ratified are set out below. 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)   That the report of the Group Manager: Community Facilities & Programmes titled Summary of Recommendations from the Opera House and Arts Precinct Subcommittee meeting held 7 December 2017 dated 14/12/2017 be received.

“4.  UPDATE REPORT – HAWKE’S BAY OPERA HOUSE PROJECT

A)     That the report of the Group Manager: Community Facilities and Programmes titled “Update Report – Hawke’s Bay Opera House Project” dated 7 December 2017 be received.

B)   That the Opera House and Art Precinct Subcommittee recommend to Council that the funding application to First Light Foundation for a Documentary Video Project be supported”.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 


File Ref: 17/1315

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Health and Safety Advisor

Jennie Kuzman

SUBJECT:                    Health and Safety Monthly Report        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform and update Council about Health and Safety at Hastings District Council.

1.2       The report provides information to assist Elected Members with their due diligence requirements, by providing leading and lagging statistical information in relation to health and safety for the month of October 2017.

 

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) requires HSWA Officers (Elected members and the Chief Executive) to exercise due diligence by taking reasonable steps to understand the organisation’s operations and Health and Safety risks, and to ensure that they are managed so that Council meets its legal obligations.

2.2       Regular reporting of key health and safety metrics provides assistance to Council’s HSWA Officers to meet their due diligence requirements. 

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       Health and Safety Monthly Report

3.2       The attached report (Attachment 1) provides information on Health and Safety leading and lagging indicators in relation to information that was reported during the month of October 2017, and is current as at 6 December 2017.

 

3.3       Whilst there have now been several reports generated for the organisation with leading and lagging indicators in this format, it will still take a further 12 months to collect sufficient data for analysis of long term trends. However, some commentary has been provided within the report.

4.0       SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

4.1       This Report does not trigger Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and no consultation is required.

5.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Health and Safety Advisor titled Health and Safety Monthly Report dated 14/12/2017 be received.

Attachments:

 

1

Health and Safety Advisor's Monthly Health and Safety Report to Council - October 2017

HR-03-01-17-255

  


Health and Safety Advisor's Monthly Health and Safety Report to Council - October 2017

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 17/1298

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Waste and Data Services Manager

Martin Jarvis

SUBJECT:                    Summary of Recommendations of the Omaranui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee meeting held 28 July 2017         

 

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise that the recommendations from the Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee held on 28 July 2017 require ratification by Council.

1.2       The relevant Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee recommendations to be ratified are set out below.

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATION

A)   That the report of the Waste and Data Services Manager titled “Summary of Recommendations of the Omaranui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee meeting held 28 July 2017 ” be received.

B)   The following recommendations of the Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee meeting held 28 July 2017 be ratified:

 

  “5. OMARUNUI JOINT LANDFILL ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2017

A)   That the report of the Waste and Data Services Manager titled “Omarunui Joint Landfill Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2017” dated 24/11/2017 be received.

B) That the unaudited Omarunui Joint Landfill Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2017 and attached as Attachment 1 to the Agenda report (CG-14-27-00018) be received.

7.  LANDFILL FOREST

A)   That the report of the Waste and Data Services Manager titled Landfill Forest dated 24/11/2017 be received.

B)   That the Omarunui Landfill forest be replanted in pinus radiata at the appropriate time during the 2018 calendar year.

C)   That a Landfill Forest reserve fund of $120,000 be established within the Omarunui Landfill cost centre to cover the cost of replanting and future care of the forest.  The reserve is to be funded by way of the profit generated from the sale of the forest.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the objectives of the Omarunui Joint Landfill Heads of Agreement which are “To jointly develop and operate generally for the benefit of the Councils a refuse disposal facility (including any ancillary activities) in compliance with resource and regulatory consents”.

11.     REVIEW OF DISPOSAL FEES

 

A)     That the report of the Waste and Data Services Manager titled “Review of Disposal Fees” dated 24/11/2017 be received.

B)     That the 2017/2018 charge rates are increased to the amounts  shown in Section 9.3 of this report and shown below be approved:

Item

2018/19 charge rate (excludes GST)

 

Municipal refuse.

 

A minimum charge of $172 (excludes GST) applies to municipal refuse.

 

 

$96.00 per tonne or part thereof

 

Special Wastes as follows:

 

·   Semi liquid waste

·    Offal

·    Hazardous waste

·    Contaminated waste

·    Putrescible waste

·    Vehicle parts

 

A minimum charge of $195 (excludes GST) applies to the special wastes listed above.

 

 

$130.00 per tonne or part thereof

 

Special Waste as follows:

Tyres (whole) – permitted only with the prior approval of the Group Manager, Asset Management.

 

 

$500.00 per tonne or part thereof

 

 

 

 

 

Special Waste as follows:

Tyres (processed) – permitted only with the prior approval of the Group Manager, Asset Management.

 

 

$350.00 per tonne or part thereof

 

Special Waste as follows:

Polystyrene

A minimum charge of $183 (excludes GST) applies to Polystyrene.

 

 

$1,295.00 per tonne or part thereof

 

Special Waste as follows:

Out of District Waste

 

 

$170.00 per tonne or part thereof

Please note that “Out of District Waste” is defined as waste originating from outside the Hastings District and Napier City boundaries and requires prior approval from the Waste & Data Services Manager or Solid Waste Engineer.

 

C)     The date of introduction of the 2018/2019 charges is to be 1 July 2018 and that the decision on charges be made public on 24 November 2017.

            The objective of the decision will contribute to the following outcomes:

 

·    An environment that is appreciated, protected and sustained for future generations.

·     by maintaining the self-sustaining status that prevails at the present time in relation to financial management.

·     by compliance with the stated objectives of (a) “The New Zealand Waste Strategy” in relation to solid waste management and waste minimisation and (b) the Joint (NCC and HDC) Waste Management & Minimisation Plan 2012.

 

D)     That the Omarunui Joint Refuse Landfill Committee recommends to its parent Councils that the Draft Budget for 2018/2019 be approved, including approval for any amendments required as a result of subsequent changes to fees and charges.”

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 


File Ref: 17/1318

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Group Manager: Asset Management

Craig Thew

SUBJECT:                    Summary of Recommendations of the Hastings District Rural Community Board Meeting held 4 December 2017        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise that the recommendations from the Hastings District Rural Community Board held on 4 December 2017 require ratification by Council.

1.2       The relevant Hastings District Rural Community Board recommendations to be ratified are set out below.

2.0       RECOMMENDATION

A)   That the report of the Group Manager: Asset Management titled “Summary of Recommendations of the Hastings District Rural Community Board Meeting held 4 December 2017” be received.

B)   The following recommendations of the Hastings District Rural Community Board meeting held 4 December 2017 be ratified:

 

       “5.    MARAEKAKAHO COMMUNITY PLAN

A)       That the report of the Social Development Co-ordinator title Maraekakaho Community Plan dated 4/12/2017 be received.

B)       That the Hastings District Rural Community Board recommends to Council that the Maraekakaho Community Plan 2017-2022, (CG-14-26-00040) be endorsed, noting that the actions within the Plan requiring new Council funding will be requested through the appropriate Council processes and that other funding opportunities will be sourced where appropriate.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for local public services in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i)          Working collaboratively with the Maraekakaho Community and its stakeholders to achieve real outcomes for the Maraekakaho Community and Council.

8.      2018 LONG TERM PLAN - UPDATE

A)       That the report of the Strategy Manager titled 2018 Long Term Plan - Update dated 4/12/2017 be received.

B)       That Council officers incorporate the following feedback and direction from the Rural Community Board into the completion of the 2018 Long Term Plan:

i)       That the bridges investment package now reflects the Board’s priorities and recent community consultation undertaken.

ii)      That the Council considers the merits of harmonizing the district’s water targeted rate.

iii)     That the Council considers the funding methodology for the Middle Road and Whirinaki cycling projects.

iv)     That the ten year rate forecast fits within the 3-3.5% funding band target set by the Council”.

 

Attachments:

 

1

Maraekakaho Community Plan

CG-14-26-00040

Separate Doc

 

 

 


File Ref: 17/1319

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Community Grants & Projects Advisor

Vicki Berkahn

SUBJECT:                    Summary of Recommendations of the Rural Halls Subcommittee meeting held 4 December 2017        

 

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise that the recommendations from the Rural Halls Subcommittee meeting held on 4 September 2017 require ratification by Council.

1.2       The relevant Rural Halls Subcommittee recommendations to be ratified are set out below.

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATION

A)   That the report of the Community Grants & Projects Advisor titled “Summary of Recommendations of the Rural Halls Subcommittee meeting held 4 December 2017” be received.

B)   The following recommendations of the Rural Halls Subcommittee meeting held 5 September 2016 be ratified:

                  

                  “4.     Allocation of Grants for Priority 3 and 4 applications to the Rural Halls Maintenance Fund 2017/2018

 

A)       That the report of the Community Grants & Projects Advisor titled Allocation of Grants for Priority 3 and 4 applications to the Rural Halls Maintenance Fund 2017/2018 dated 4/12/2017 be received.

B)       That the amendments to the Rural Halls Policy (COP-01-02-17-951) are received.

C)        i)         That the Maraekakaho Church Hall Trustees are allocated a grant of up to $12,938 from the remaining 2017/2018 Rural Halls Maintenance Fund for projects at the Maraekakaho Hall as follows:

           

·     Painting of iron roof                 Up to $7925.00

·     Painting of the hall exterior    Up to $8250.00

           

                      ii)        The allocation is subject to the Trust Board providing evidence that they have the financial capability to complete each of the projects within the grant allocation of up to $12,938.00.

 

D)     That the Priority 4 requests from Maraekakaho Hall, Pakowhai Hall and Sherenden Hall be declined as:

·       there is insufficient budget to consider funding these applications; and

·       the Property Assets team recommended delay on these requests until the extent and timing of any structural work is known.

 

E)     That the update regarding the Building Act 2004, Subpart 6A-Special provisions for earthquake-prone buildings is received.

 

              With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, i.e. rural halls”.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 


File Ref: 17/1330

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 14 December 2017

FROM:                           Group Manager: Community Facilities & Programmes

Alison Banks

SUBJECT:                    Summary of Recommendations of the HDC: Maori Joint Committee meeting held 6 December 2017        

 

 

1.0       sUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise that the recommendation from the HDC - Māori Joint Committee held on 6 December 2017 requires ratification by Council.

1.2       The relevant HDC - Māori Joint Committee recommendations to be ratified are set out below

 

2.0      RECOMMENDATION

A)   That the report of the Group Manager: Community Facilities & Programmes titled “Summary of Recommendations of the HDC: Maori Joint Committee meeting held 6 December 2017” be received.

B)   The following recommendation of the HDC - Māori Joint Committee meeting held 6 December 2017 be ratified:

 

             “4.   FORUM ITEM : WINTER SOLSTICE AND MATARIKI 18-22 JUNE 2018

 

          “A)   That the report of the Chief Executive titled Forum Item: Winter Solstice and Matariki June 18-22 2018 dated 6/12/2017 be received.

B)     That the HDC : Maori Joint Committee recommends that the Winter Solstice and Matariki Item be considered by Council as part of the Long Term Plan.

          5.    2018 LONG TERM PLAN – UPDATE

 

A)       That the report of the Strategy Manager titled 2018 Long Term Plan - Update dated 6/12/2017 be received.

 

B)       That Council officers incorporate the following feedback and direction into the completion of the 2018 Long Term Plan:

 

 

§ The need for an updated assessment of Maori communities drinking water requirements;

 

§ That continual upgrade and advancement of wastewater treatment and disposal, needs to be the longer term aspiration, when considering future wastewater options;

 

§ That the Council’s Solid Waste team link with the work of Para Kore to reduce waste and that an update on this be reported back;

 

§ Reference of Council’s involvement with the Social Inclusion Strategy be made;

 

§ That attention be given to uplifting amenity in deprived areas of the district;

 

§ That the Council investigate a Housing Certification (warrant of fitness scheme);

 

§ That the request for funding support from the Atea-a Rangi Educational Trust be supported by Council

 

7.      HASTINGS DISTRICT LIBRARIES UPDATE

 

                               A)   That the report of the Acting Libraries Manager titled Hastings District libraries update dated 6/12/2017 be received.

B)     That the HDC : Maori Joint Committee recommend to Council that officers explore and establish mechanisms on demographic information, including enthicity for library members.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

           


Trim File No.:  CG-14-1-00524

Agenda Item 24 

 

 

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

 

Council MEETING

 

Thursday, 14 December 2017

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

 

SECTION 48, LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987

 

THAT the public now be excluded from the following part of the meeting, namely:

 

25.       Summary of Recommendations of the Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee meeting held 24 November 2017 while the Public were Excluded

26.       Economic Development Financial Incentive Policy

 

The general subject of the matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this Resolution in relation to the matter and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this Resolution is as follows:

 

 

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

 

 

REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER, AND

PARTICULAR INTERESTS PROTECTED

 

 

GROUND(S) UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF EACH RESOLUTION

 

 

 

 

25.       Summary of Recommendations of the Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee meeting held 24 November 2017 while the Public were Excluded

 

As stated in the minutes

Section 48(1)(a)(i)

Where the Local Authority is named or specified in the First Schedule to this Act under Section 6 or 7 (except Section 7(2)(f)(i)) of this Act.

26.       Economic Development Financial Incentive Policy

Section 7 (2) (h)

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

The competitive nature of the business necessitates confidentiality.

Section 48(1)(a)(i)

Where the Local Authority is named or specified in the First Schedule to this Act under Section 6 or 7 (except Section 7(2)(f)(i)) of this Act.