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, 1 February 2018

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-14-1-00582

 

 

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

 

COUNCIL MEETING

 

Thursday, 1 February 2018

 

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 14 December 2017, including minutes while the public were excluded.

(Previously circulated)

6.         Petition - New Development on Kirkwood Road                                                5

7.         Petition - Water Booster Pump Station, Bennelong Place, Havelock North 9

8.         Enterprise Risk Management Update                                                                 11

9.         Recommendations of the Rating Review Working Party meeting held 8 November 2017                                                                                                         25

10.       Health and Safety Monthly Report                                                                       33

11.       Approval for Delegated Authority to Appoint Commissioners for Development Contribution Objections                                                                                         43

12.       Summary of Recommendations from Risk and Audit Subcommittee Meeting held on 28 November 2017                                                                                    47

13.       Updated 2018 Meeting Schedule Changes                                                       49

14.       Requests Received under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA)  Monthly Update                                                           51

15.       Additional Business Items

16.       Extraordinary Business Items  

17.       Recommendation to Exclude the Public from Items 18 and 19                    57

18.       Irongate Industrial Zone Update

19.       Term Contract Extensions

 

     


File Ref: 18/27

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 1 February 2018

FROM:                           Chief Financial Officer

Bruce Allan

SUBJECT:                    Petition - New Development on Kirkwood Road        

 

 

1.0       Summary

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Council about a letter and petition received on 9 January 2018 from lead petitioners Barry and Wendy Cooze regarding the potential development on Kirkwood Road.  A copy of the letter is included as Attachment 1.

 

1.2       The petition (CG-14-1-00577) will be tabled at the meeting.

 

1.3       The petitioner’s prayer reads as follows:

 

“We petition that the parcel of land adjoining Kirkwood Road, be made available to the general public for purchase and development, pursuant to the convenants attached to Kirkwood Road, Lots 9-13 and 25-27.

 

We the undersigned, seek the prompt release for the sale of the aforementioned sections, to the wider community, thereby allowing a continuation of the current standard of development as seen in Kirkwood Road.”

 

1.4       There are 118 signatories to the petition, although not all signatories have provided their full names and contact details.

 

1.5       In response to an invitation from the lead petitioners, Barry and Wendy Cooze and local residents, the Mayor and Councillors will meet with them on 1 February 2018 to discuss their concerns.

1.6       The report concludes by recommending that Council receive the petition and notes that an officer’s report will be prepared and presented to the 22 February 2018 Council meeting on the potential development at Kirkwood Road.

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATION

 

A)        That the report of the Chief Financial Officer titled “Petition - New Development on Kirkwood Road” be received.

 

B)        That the tabled “Petition - New Development on Kirkwood Road” be received.

 

C)        That consideration of the petitioner’s concerns be incorporated into a report on the potential development at Kirkwood Road to be presented at the Council meeting on 22 February 2018.

 

D)          That the lead petitioners, Barry and Wendy Cooze be invited to speak to their petition at the Council meeting to be held on 22 February 2018.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Letter from Wendy and Barry Cooze

CG-14-1-00580

 

 

 

 


Letter from Wendy and Barry Cooze

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 17/1382

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 1 February 2018

FROM:                           Group Manager: Asset Management

Craig Thew

SUBJECT:                    Petition - Water Booster Pump Station, Bennelong Place, Havelock North        

 

 

1.0       Summary

 

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Council about a petition received on 21 December 2017, from lead petitioners Barry Jones, Graeme Putt and Dianne Vesty. The petition (CG-14-1-00570) will be tabled at the meeting.

 

1.2       The petitioner’s prayer reads as follows:

 

“The Outcomes we would like to see:

 

1.   An alternative location is utilised for the placement of the Water Pumping Station.

2.   The small open space is reclassified as an open space reserve”.

 

1.3       There are 25 signatories to the petition.

 

1.4       This petition arises out of Council’s proposal to locate a pump station at Council owned property at 25 Karanema Drive, Havelock North.   The proposed pump station would back onto residences in Bennelong Place, Havelock North.

 

1.5       A public meeting was held with residents of Bennelong Place on 17 November 2017 and officers advised at the meeting that they would progress the investigation with third parties of an alternative option. The options would then come back to Council for consideration and decision making.  The petitioners will be invited to present at that meeting.

 

1.6       The report concludes by recommending that the Council receive the petition.

 

 

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATION

A)        That the report of the Group Manager: Asset Management titled “Petition - Water Booster Pump Station, Bennelong Place, Havelock North” be received.

B)        That the tabled “Petition - Water Booster Pump Station, Bennelong Place, Havelock North” be received.

 

C)        That officers prepare a report on options as soon as possible for a future Council meeting on “Water Booster Pump Station, Havelock North”.

D)        That the lead petitioners Barry Jones, Graeme Putt and Dianne Vesty be invited to speak to the petition, at the future meeting referred to in “C” above.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 


File Ref: 17/1379

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 1 February 2018

FROM:                           Risk and Corporate Services Manager

Regan Smith

District Customer Services Manager

Greg Brittin

SUBJECT:                    Enterprise Risk Management Update        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Council about progress made on analysis of the strategic risks adopted by Council and to present risk assessment summaries for; Civil Defence Emergency (Risk #2), Health & Safety Incident (Risk #3), Infrastructure Service Failure (Risk #4), Ineffective Regulatory Oversight (Risk #5), Demographic change (Risk #7) and Information Security Failure (Risk #8).

1.2       This issue arises from Council adopting the Strategic Risk Register.

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       This report concludes by recommending that the report be received.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       Council adopted the Strategic Risk register containing 20 areas of organisational risk on 13 July 2017.

2.2       Since that time further analysis has been undertaken to document how each risk is managed.

2.3       The analysis utilised the Bow Tie risk assessment method which provides a simple structure for documenting risk in complex systems. The method takes its name from the shape of the diagram created, which resembles a man’s Bow Tie and is considered a best practice risk analysis method.

2.4       A Bow Tie diagram does two things. Firstly, it gives a visual summary of all plausible accident scenarios that could exist around a certain Hazard. Secondly, the analysis identifies control measures and displays what a company does to manage those scenarios.

2.5       A conceptual image of a bow tie diagram is illustrated below:

Image result for bow tie risk assessment

2.6       To apply the Bow Tie risk analysis method a series of workshops were held with subject matter experts, including external representatives where appropriate. The information from the risk workshops have been compiled into 1-page summaries.

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       Risk analysis and associated 1-page summaries for 6 of the 20 strategic risks (copy of the Strategic Risk Register attached for reference) have been completed and reported to the Risk and Audit Subcommittee.

3.2       Copies of the 1-page summaries for these risks are attached for review and are summarised below:

3.2.1   Civil Defence Emergency (Risk #2): Initial analysis has looked at the systems for mounting a response to an event. Due to the nature of civil defence events little can be done to reduce the chance of an event occurring. As a result, council is focused on ensuring that an effective coordinated and managed response can be provided.

3.2.2   Risk Analysis: In order to deliver an effective response the risk analysis highlighted the need for good regional collaboration and understanding of trigger thresholds, strong leadership, a robust operating structure and resources (including; trained staff, and suitable processes and facilities), and effective response planning both within Council and by contractors. The effectiveness of these controls is currently being strengthened as part of the Incident Management Office Transformation Project.

3.2.3   Further assessment of specific natural hazard risks will be undertaken as part of the second phase of analysis work for the Civil Defence Emergency risk.

3.2.4   Health & Safety Incident (Risk #3): Analysis of Health & Safety risk considered the potential for staff, contractors or members of the public to be exposed to a serious adverse health effect. Considering the legislative focus on this risk in recent times, Council has already established a strong health and safety culture lead by a proactive health and safety team and actively supported by senior management.

3.2.5   Risk Analysis: The potential for exposure to a serious health effect is managed through effective governance oversight (including senior management involvement, strong staff engagement, management reporting and compliance reviews), identification and management of key risks, provision of adequate resources, and robust documented work practices.

3.2.6   Infrastructure Service Failure (Risk #4): The key event assessed was a loss of service, or loss of control of an infrastructure service (including water services, transportation, solid waste management, and parks and services). The factors considered internal threats and external sources, including natural disasters and malicious acts.

3.2.7   Risk Analysis: The probability of a significant infrastructure failure event is reduced through application of high service levels to all infrastructure services. These service levels are achieved through robust asset management planning based on international standards, which are monitored by external audits and 3 yearly external peer reviews.

3.2.8   Ineffective Regulatory Oversight (Risk #5): Failure to effectively oversee development and hospitality service activities in the district can give rise to regulatory non-compliance, which in turn can erode the protection of life and/or environment that the associated legislation is intended to provide. As a result, the analysis for this risk focused on the issues surrounding a regulatory non-compliance with regard to land use, construction standards, food preparation or alcohol distribution.

3.2.9   Risk Analysis: Effective regulatory oversight is achieved through a structured processes for receiving and evaluating applications relating to legislated activities, and active monitoring of actual works undertaken. This work is undertaken by appropriately trained and competent staff that have suitable authority delegated from Council. It should be noted that the need to take enforcement action implies a failure has already occurred, and therefore, this action is only relevant as a mitigation measure.

3.2.10 Recent events relating to the track on Te Mata Peak highlight that even with strong processes in place the exercise of regulatory functions can result in outcomes that do not align with the expectations of a significant proportion of the public. Council has asked for the decision process in that case to be reviewed, and also for the relevant District Plan provisions to be reviewed for adequacy.

3.2.11 Demographic Change (Risk #7): When considering demographic change the analysis was undertaken based on a decline in the standard of living or economic activity within the district. While not directly under Council’s control, the need to respond appropriately to changing demographics is vital to successfully achieving Council stated goals.

3.2.12 Risk Analysis: Through application of robust demographic forecasts and community consultation in long term planning, Council strives to match service investment with anticipated community needs and aspirations.

3.2.13 Information Security Failure (Risk #8): The risk analysis considered the potential for loss of access to, or control over, Council systems or data. In this way the analysis considered both the implications of a hardware/software failure as well as human errors or acts leading to a failure.

3.2.14 Risk Analysis: Council runs a replicated server environment with a robust firewall, backed up to cloud storage. Training and regular reminders are provided to staff about cyber security measures on a regular basis to reduce risk to a tolerable level.

3.3       It should be noted that risk analysis has not yet been undertaken for Water Supply Contamination (Risk #1) and Adverse Environmental Change (Risk #6) for the following reasons:

3.3.1   Water Supply Contamination: The water services change project is a key work stream designed to strengthen Council’s 3 water services. As a result, this work also addresses the water supply contamination strategic risk. Therefore, it has been necessary to coordinate the timing for assembling the risk summary with the project team to avoid conflicting workloads. It is expected that this summary will be completed for the next 6 monthly report.

3.3.2   Adverse Environmental Change: During initial discussions the view was formed that there was overlap between the Demographic Change and Adverse Environmental Change risks. As a result, the focus was put on completing the Demographic Change risk first, as it was believed that a portion that analysis would be relevant to an assessment of Adverse Environmental Change.

3.4       The risk analysis work has confirmed the measures used to prevent undesirable events, as well as those intended to minimise the impact of an event should it occur. This has validated the assessment of residual risk reflected in the strategic risk register. Further analysis will now be undertaken to confirm the critical controls are working as intended to provide greater assurance about the risk mitigation achieved.

3.5       In addition to the risk analysis work completed, a project Steering Group has been established to guide ongoing development of the risk management practices used throughout Council. The Steering Group membership includes senior executive managers and third tier management.

4.0       GOVERNANCE RISK

4.1       In addition to adopting the strategic risk register at the Council meeting on 13 July 2017, it was resolved that Officers should report back to Council on the potential for including governance as a risk on the strategic risk register.

4.2       A background review of this issue has identified relevant information for the Council to consider. Therefore, it is intended that this background information will be tabled for discussion during a Risk Management Workshop to be scheduled in the next 3 months.

5.0       NEXT STEPS

5.1       To continue development of the Council enterprise risk management framework, and progress further analysis of Council’s strategic risks the following steps will be undertaken in the next 6 months:

5.1.1   Risk analysis workshops will continue to complete initial risk assessments for another group of at least 6 strategic risks.

5.1.2   Critical control analysis will be completed for the top 3 risks to provide confidence that the controls are working as intended.

5.1.3   Consideration will be given to establishing a suitable risk appetite statement for Council.

 

6.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Risk and Corporate Services Manager titled Enterprise Risk Management Update dated 1/02/2018 be 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 and local public services in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i)          Ensuring strategic risks to the Council are effectively managed.

 

 

Attachments:

 

1

Tier 1 Strategic Risk Register as at 3 January 2018 for 1 February 2018 Council meeting

PMD-03-81-18-115

2

Strategic Risk Summary Civil Defence Emergency Response for Risk and Audit Subcommittee 4 September 2017 and Council 1 February 2018

PMD-03-81-17-97

3

Summary Health and Safety for Risk and Audit Subcommittee 4 September 2017 and Council 1 February 2018

PMD-03-81-17-99

4

Summary Infrastructure Services Failure for Risk and Audit Subcommittee 14 November 2017 and Council 1 February 2018

PMD-03-81-17-104

5

Policies, Procedures, Delgtns, Warrants & Manuals - Manuals - Risk Management - Governance Strategic Risk Summary Ineffective Regulatory Oversight for Risk and Audit Subcommittee 14 November 2017 and Council 1 February 2018

PMD-03-81-17-106

6

Summary Demographic Change for Risk and Audit Subcommittee 14 November 2017 and Council 1 February 2018

PMD-03-81-17-108

7

Security Failure for Risk and Audit Subcommittee 14 November 2017 and Council 1 February 2018

PMD-03-81-17-110

 

 

 


Tier 1 Strategic Risk Register as at 3 January 2018 for 1 February 2018 Council meeting

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Strategic Risk Summary Civil Defence Emergency Response for Risk and Audit Subcommittee 4 September 2017 and Council 1 February 2018

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


Summary Health and Safety for Risk and Audit Subcommittee 4 September 2017 and Council 1 February 2018

Attachment 3

 

PDF Creator


Summary Infrastructure Services Failure for Risk and Audit Subcommittee 14 November 2017 and Council 1 February 2018

Attachment 4

 

PDF Creator


Policies, Procedures, Delgtns, Warrants & Manuals - Manuals - Risk Management - Governance Strategic Risk Summary Ineffective Regulatory Oversight for Risk and Audit Subcommittee 14 November 2017 and Council 1 February 2018

Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


Summary Demographic Change for Risk and Audit Subcommittee 14 November 2017 and Council 1 February 2018

Attachment 6

 

PDF Creator


Security Failure for Risk and Audit Subcommittee 14 November 2017 and Council 1 February 2018

Attachment 7

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 17/1156

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 1 February 2018

FROM:                           Chief Financial Officer

Bruce Allan

SUBJECT:                    Recommendations of the Rating Review Working Party meeting held 8 November 2017        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The report summaries the recommendations from the Rating Review Working Party (RRWP) into a number of rating issues discussed  in workshops held on 31 August, 7 September, 15 September, 28 September and 8 November. The relevant RRWP recommendations to be ratified are set out below.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       In June 2017, Council heard a number of ratepayer submissions to the 2017/18 Annual Plan in relation to rates. Following consultation, and in recognition of impacts of the 2016 revaluation, Council also agreed to pause the differential changes proposed for 2017/18

2.2       Council made a commitment for these rating matters to be directed to the RRWP for further consideration and to report back to council with their recommendations. 

2.3       The RRWP attended workshops held on 31 August, 7 September, 14 September, 28 September, and 8 November. This report outlines the key discussions points supporting the RRWP’s recommendations for Council consideration.

3.0       Options

3.1       The basis for recovering General Rates

3.1.1   Following a submission to the 2016/17 Annual Plan, the RRWP considered the basis for recovering General Rates.

 

3.1.2   Council currently sets and recovers its General Rate on a land value (LV) basis, set differentially based on the location of the land within the district, and the use to which the land is put. Alternatives prescribed under Section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act include Annual Value (AV) and Capital Value (CV).

 

3.1.3   The RRWP acknowledged that the number of councils that used a LV approach compared to a CV approach was relatively even. It was noted that whilst the majority of metropolitan councils used CV, a high proportion of the district councils used LV, including Napier City Council and Hawkes Bay Regional Council.

 

3.1.4   The RRWP noted that each approach had pros and cons, and there were properties that would be advantaged and disadvantaged under each approach depending on their individual property value. 

 

3.1.5   The RRWP considered the impacts of moving from LV to CV at a differential sector level and property level, and noted that marginally more properties would be disadvantaged and see a rates increase under a CV approach.

 

3.1.6   Whilst property impacts would vary from property to property, the RRWP noted significant rate increases would fall on groups of ratepayers such as Commercial Non-Urban properties and residential properties with low land values. Concerns were expressed around the impacts on properties situated in Flaxmere, Camberley and Whakatu where rate affordability issues are more prominent.

 

3.1.7   The RRWP acknowledged the submission made but noted that there did not appear to be significant community desire to change the basis for recovering the general rate. It considered the quantum of the impact upon some ratepayers in terms of affordability, and the number of properties that would be disadvantaged by changing to a CV approach. It considered that a LV approach was considered generally fair and reasonable and recommend retaining the status quo approach to set and recover its general rate on a land value basis.

 

3.2       Recovery of Uniform and Targeted Rates on a Per Separately Used or Inhabited Part of a Rating Unit (SUIP) basis

3.2.1   A number of ratepayers have raised concerns to Councillors and staff over the past 12 months around the fairness and equity of Council’s application of uniform and targeted rates such as the Uniform Annual General Charge, Community Services and Resource Management Rate, Recycling, Refuse, Water, and the recovery of Sewage Disposal and Wastewater Treatment from residential properties.

 

3.2.2   Council has historically applied these rates on a ‘Per Separately Used or Inhabited Part of a Rating Unit’ (SUIP) basis in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Rating) Act. The current approach was consistent with the majority of councils who apply their charges on the same basis.

 

3.2.3   The RRWP acknowledged that SUIP’s would vary in size and that not all SUIP’s place an equal demand on council infrastructure or receive the same level of benefit from council services. Some SUIP’s will be used throughout the year, whilst others would be used sporadically as seasonal accommodation. However, in general, the RRWP felt it was reasonable to believe that a property with additional SUIP’s would place a greater impact on council services than a property with one SUIP.

 

3.2.4   The RRWP considered the alternative of moving to a ‘per rating unit’ approach for all targeted rates we currently apply on a SUIP basis, however this would shift the burden of rates from those with additional SUIP’s to those properties with one SUIP. A typical residential property with one residential dwelling would face a significant increase of $173. 

 

3.2.5   The RRWP acknowledged that land owners with additional SUIP’s have the ability to earn income from the SUIP to pay any additional rates, and charging rates on them could indirectly encourage their use rather than leaving them unoccupied.

 

3.2.6   The RRWP also acknowledged that different approaches could be undertaken for establishing liability of individual targeted rates, however they recognised the need to keep rating simple which the SUIP approach was.

 

3.2.7   Whilst RRWP understood some of the concerns raised around the fairness and equity by submitters, recovering uniform and targeted rates on a per SUIP basis, was considered generally a fair and reasonable approach given the potential demand and benefit received by that additional SUIP, and recommend retaining the status quo approach of recovering the Uniform Annual General Charge, Community Services and Resource Management Rate, Recycling, Refuse, Water, Sewage Disposal and Wastewater Treatment Rate on a per SUIP basis

 

3.3       Waimarama Sea Wall

3.3.1   Council currently recovers the costs associated with the Waimarama Sea Wall by way of a targeted rate which is set differentially per SUIP within each individual zone.

 

3.3.2   The RRWP were advised that council consulted on the basis for how the rate is recovered with land owners as recently as 2013, and the majority of affected ratepayers supported the current basis.

 

3.3.3   The RRWP acknowledged no submissions or concerns have been raised by land owners since land owners were consulted and recommend retaining the status quo approach to recover the Waimarama Sea Wall Rate differentially per SUIP within each individual zone.

 

3.4       Sewage Disposal & Wastewater Treatment Rates

3.4.1   Council currently recovers the costs of Sewage Disposal and Wastewater Treatment from non-residential properties on a differential basis per water closet / pan. This enables council to more fairly apportion the cost of these rates to the likely impact on council infrastructure.

 

3.4.2   The RRWP acknowledged that whilst councils differed in their approaches to recover costs associated with sewage, some form of scaling approach was common. Despite the differing approaches, the RRWP noted that HDC’s approach and level of charges did not appear unreasonable in comparison to other councils.

 

3.4.3   The RRWP were of a view that it was not unreasonable to believe a non-residential property with multiple water closets / pans would place a greater impact on council sewage infrastructure over a residential property, and recommend retaining the status quo approach to recover the costs of Sewage Disposal and Wastewater Treatment from non-residential properties on a differential basis per water closet / pan.

 

3.5       Hastings Security Patrol, Havelock North Security Patrol, Hastings Central Business District (CBD) Upgrades, Havelock North CBD Upgrades, Hastings City Marketing Rate and Havelock North Promotion Rate

3.5.1   Council currently recovers the costs associated with all of the above through separate targeted rates on a LV basis from those respective properties receiving the benefit from those individual activities as identified on council’s catchment maps.

 

3.5.2   The RRWP considered alternative basis’s including Capital Value (CV) and Improved Value (IV), for each individual rate, acknowledging that the impacts of a change were not insignificant, and that there would be properties advantaged and disadvantaged under each basis.

 

3.5.3   The RRWP considered the merit of adopting a hybrid approach using more than one basis under Schedule 3, although they were of a view that this would increase complexity and administration.

 

3.5.4   The RRWP acknowledged that under the current LV approach, rates would be applied on the entire area which could include commercial land that was used for car parking purposes. Whilst this may appear to disadvantage those commercial properties required to provide their own parking, provision of parking added value to the business in terms of attracting customers through convenience.

 

3.5.5   The RRWP acknowledged the submission made but noted that there did not appear to be significant community desire to change the basis these rates are applied upon, and recommend retaining the status quo approach of recovering the Hastings Security Patrol, Havelock North Security Patrol, Hastings CBD Upgrades, Havelock North CBD Upgrades, Hastings City Marketing Rate and Havelock North Promotion Rate, on a land value basis.

 

3.6       Marketing and Promotion Rates

3.6.1   Council currently recovers the costs of Marketing and Promotion from a targeted rate set on a land value basis for those commercial properties located within the Hastings CBD and Havelock North CBD respectively.

 

3.6.2   A separate review of the Hastings City Marketing Rate will be brought back to Council in February regarding how best the activity should be carried out. The focus of the RRWP related to how the rate should be funded.

 

3.6.3   The RRWP acknowledged that land owners paying the Marketing and Promotion Rates in both cities would vary in terms of the benefit they received from the rate. Additionally there would be businesses who would also carry out their own marketing activities at their own cost.

 

3.6.4   The RRWP considered the merit of rationalising some of the CBD targeted rates, in particular the Hastings City Marketing Rate and Hastings Security Patrol Rate. However when considering the impacts and the fact the beneficiaries of each rate differed, they did not support any amalgamation of targeted rates.  

 

3.7       The RRWP endorses the review into the Hastings City Marketing Rate which will review the scope of the targeted rate and alignment with the Council’s strategic goals, and requests that the Working Party be advised of the findings so that it can undertake further consideration as to how this targeted Rate is recovered.

3.8       Rate Remission – Direct Family Member

3.8.1   In 2014, following consultation, council extended its Rate Remission Policy to include instances where an additional residential dwelling was used by a ‘direct family member’ such as an elderly or teenage child. 

 

3.8.2   Concerns were raised by Officers that some properties that currently receive the remission may not necessarily reflect those instances council intended to provide rating relief for, and sought guidance from the RRWP.

 

3.8.3   A small number of properties met the current criteria of being a ‘direct family member’, however there did not appear to be any degree of dependency on the ratepayer, and they could be considered to be a separate household unit.

 

3.8.4   The RRWP considered an age-based threshold but recognised that there could be applicants under the age of 65 that may require financial, emotional physical assistance from the ratepayer in the main residential dwelling.

 

3.8.5   The RRWP supported a tightening of the policy criteria by ensuring there is some form of ‘dependency’, whether it be financial, emotional or for health reasons, between the ratepayer and the person occupying the additional residential dwelling.

 

3.8.6   The RRWP recommend amending its Remission Policy criteria to replace ‘direct family member’ with ‘dependent person’, with amendments to the application form as set out below, and that these changes be consulted on as part of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan:

 

Please describe the nature of the dependency relationship between the ratepayer and the dependent person occupying the additional rating unit.

i)            Medical / Disability

ii)           Financial

iii)          Age

iv)          Other – Please advise

3.9       Differential Changes

3.9.1   In 2012, Council undertook a review of its general rate differentials. Following consultation at the time, it agreed to the changes being implemented over a period of 8 years to 2019/20. The changes shifted the incidence of rates from the Commercial / Industrial sector to the residential sector in Rating Area 1, and from Residential and Commercial / Industrial sectors to Lifestyle / Horticulture / Farming sectors in Rating Area 2.

 

3.9.2   Concerns were raised by Council that the 2016 Revaluation may have mirrored the differential changes and amplified the shift in incidence of rates.  Following consultation, a decision to pause the differential changes relating to year 5 of 8 was made, and to refer the matter to the RRWP for further review. 

 

3.9.3   Officers took the RRWP through an overview of the original analysis undertaken in 2012. The RRWP queried the weightings applied in respect of some activities with Officers acknowledging that the weightings were subject to a degree of subjectivity and judgement and a review today may produce a different outcome.

 

3.9.4   The RRWP recommend to defer resumption of the differential changes to allow a more in-depth review of the level of service review underpinning the proposed differential changes. The RRWP will undertake the review during 2018 with the recommendations from that review presented to Council in early 2019 and included in the 2019/20 Annual Plan for consultation.

 

3.9.5   The differential changes saw a general shift in the incidence of rates from Commercial properties to Residential properties in Rating Area 1, and from Residential properties to Lifestyle / Horticulture / Farming properties in Rating Area 2. Those advantaged by the differential changes would be anticipating lower than average increases or decreases in rates. Officers propose to consult on the decision to defer resumption as part of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

 

4.0       RECOMMENDATIONS

A)      That the report of the Chief Financial Officer titled “Summary of Recommendations of the Rating Review Working Party meeting held 8 November 2017” be received.

B)     The following recommendations of the Rating Review Working Party meeting held 8 November 2017 be ratified:

 

                        That the Council:

i)       retain the status quo approach and continue to set and recover its general rate on a land value basis, set differentially based on the location of the land within the district, and the use to which the land is put,

ii)      retain the status quo approach and continue to recover the Uniform Annual General Charge, Community Services and Resource Management Rate, Recycling, Refuse, Water, Sewage Disposal and Wastewater Treatment Rate on a per Separately Used or Inhabited Part of a Rating Unit basis,

iii       retain the status quo approach and continue to recover the Waimarama Sea Wall Rate differentially per Separately Used or Inhabited Part of a Rating Unit within each individual zone,

iv)     retain the status quo approach to recover the costs of Sewage Disposal and Wastewater Treatment from non-residential properties on a differential basis per water closet / pan,

v)      retain the Status Quo approach of recovering the Hastings and Havelock North Security Patrol, Hastings and Havelock North Central Business District Upgrades Targeted Rate and Havelock North Promotion Rate, on a land value basis,

vi)     endorses the review into the Hastings City Marketing Rate which will review the scope of the targeted rate and alignment with the Council’s strategic goals, and requests that the Working Party be advised of the findings so that it can undertake further consideration as to how this targeted Rate is recovered.

vii)    amend its Remission Policy criteria to replace ‘direct family member’ with ‘dependent person’, with amendments to the application form.

C)        That resumption of the general rate differential changes for Rating Areas 1 & 2 implemented in 2012 be deferred to allow a more in-depth review of the level of service underpinning the proposed differential change. This will be reflected in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan consultation document.

With the reasons for this decision being the raising of funds from ratepayers in a fair and equitable way required to support 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 to households and businesses.

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 


File Ref: 18/58

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 1 February 2018

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 enable Elected Members to undertake due diligence, by providing leading and lagging statistical information in relation to Health and Safety for the month of November 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.

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       The attached monthly report (Attachment one) provides information on leading and lagging statistical information in relation to Health and Safety reporting for the period of 1-30 November 2017 and is current as at 16 January 2018.

3.2       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 1/02/2018 be received.

 

Attachments:

 

1

Monthly Health and Safety Report

HR-03-01-18-264

 

 

 


Monthly Health and Safety Report

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


File Ref: 17/1176

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 1 February 2018

FROM:                           Financial Policy Advisor

Ashley Humphrey

SUBJECT:                    Approval for Delegated Authority to Appoint Commissioners for Development Contribution Objections        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to delegate authority to the Chief Executive to appoint Commissioners in the event an objection to a development contribution assessment is raised under Section 199C of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

1.2       This request arises as a consequence of a requirement of the LGA 2002 for an objection to be considered and decided by independent Commissioners appointed from a list of Commissioners approved by the Minister of Local Government.

1.3       The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the LGA 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 give effect to legislative obligations.

1.5       This report concludes by recommending:

a)   That where an objection has been raised to a development contributions assessment under Section 199C of the LGA 2002, delegated authority to appoint Commissioners be given to the Chief Executive; and

b)   That this delegated authority be added to the Hastings District Council Register of Statutory Delegations and Warrants.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       The LGA 2002 was amended in 2014 providing developers with a legal platform to object to a development contribution assessment generated in respect of their development.

2.2       In accordance with the requirements of Section 199E and Schedule 13A of the LGA 2002, Council is required to select and appoint up to three commissioners approved by the Minister of Local Government to consider and decide upon the objection.

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       Council maintains a Register of Statutory Delegations and Warrants that sets out the Chief Executive and staff delegated authorities in relating primarily to planning and regulatory functions of the Council.

3.2       An objection to an assessment of development contributions was received by Council in October 2017, where Council was required to select and appoint Commissioners.

3.3       Whilst the Chief Executive has general delegation unless prohibitive in law or the Council has separate delegation, no specific delegation is provided in the Register of Statutory Delegations and Warrants. A report was brought to Council to appoint Commissioners in that instance.

3.4       In order to streamline the process, authority is now being sought to enable delegation to be assigned to the Chief Executive by adding a power to the Register of Statutory Delegations and Warrants.  This would align with the process undertaken in the appointment of Commissioners in the event of resource consent hearing.

4.0       OPTIONS

4.1       Option 1: That delegated authority to appoint Commissioners where an objection has been raised to a development contributions assessment under Section 199C of the LGA 2002, be given to the Chief Executive.

4.2       Option 2: Council can reject the proposal and not give delegated authority to the Chief Executive.

5.0       SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1       The issues for discussion are not significant in terms of Council’s Significance Policy and Engagement and no consultation is required.

6.0       ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1       Option 1: That delegated authority to appoint Commissioners where an objection has been raised to a development contributions assessment under Section 199C of the LGA 2002, be given to the Chief Executive.

6.2       This is purely an administrative matter. The list of commissioners possess a wide range of skills and experience, has already been set by the Minister of Local Government. Any perception of perceived bias with regards to the appointment of any individual commissioners, is offset through the fact the list is established by the Minister of Local Government and includes persons whom have a wide range of skills and experience.

6.3       Option 2: Council can reject the proposal and not give delegated authority to the Chief Executive.

7.0       PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1       Option 1: That delegated authority to appoint Commissioners where an objection has been raised to a development contributions assessment under Section 199C of the LGA 2002, be given to the Chief Executive.

7.2       Delegation would remove the need to come back to council to select Commissioners accordingly.

 

8.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

 

A)     That the report of the Financial Policy Advisor titled Approval for Delegated Authority to Appoint Commissioners for Development Contribution Objections dated 1/02/2018 be received.

 

B)     That where an objection has been raised to a development contributions assessment under Section 199C of the Local Government Act 2002, delegated authority to appoint Commissioners be given to the Chief Executive.

 

C)     That this delegated authority be added to the Hastings District Council Register of Statutory Delegations and Warrants.

 

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 performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 


File Ref: 17/1145

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 1 February 2018

FROM:                           Manager Strategic Finance

Brent  Chamberlain

SUBJECT:                    Summary of Recommendations from Risk and Audit Subcommittee Meeting held on 28 November 2017        

 

 

 

 

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise that recommendations from the Risk and Audit Subcommittee meeting held on 28 November 2017 require ratification by Council.

 

1.2       The following recommendations were resolved at the Risk and Audit Subcommittee meeting on 28 November 2017:

 

“6.     Annual Review of Treasury Management Policy and Treasury Performance

 

A)   That the report of the Manager Strategic Finance titled “Annual Review of Treasury Management Policy and Treasury Performance” dated 28/11/2017 be received.

 

B)      That the Risk and Audit Subcommittee recommend to Council the changes to the Treasury Management Policy document (as shown in the marked up version PMD-02-06-03-17-33) included in Attachment 2 to the report in “A” above, subject to discussions between the Chair of the Risk and Audit Subcommittee, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Officers in regard to the future minimum forward start time for interest rate swaps/collars and other minor amendments”.

 

1.3       Initial advice from PwC was that the policy of no new unlinked start swaps – that is forward starting swaps that are not linked to existing swaps – starting more than 48 months from execution be tightened to 24 months. Risk and Audit felt that this would make building the forward cover portfolio more difficult, especially with regard to the expected increase in debt profile, therefore it wished to retain the flexibility of 48 months. Risk and Audit acknowledged that forward cover should only be taken where debt profiles are certain.

As per the recommendations, discussions were held between the Chair of the Risk and Audit Subcommittee, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and Officers in regard to the future minimum forward start time for interest rate swaps and some other minor amendments and agreement was reached to make the changes recommended by the Risk and Audit Subcommittee.

 

2.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)      That the report of the Manager Strategic Finance titled Summary of Recommendations from Risk and Audit Subcommittee Meeting held on 28 November 2017 dated 1/02/2018 be received.

B)   That following discussions with the Chair of the Risk and Audit Subcommittee, PricewaterhouseCoopers and officers the changes to the Treasury Management Policy document (as shown in the marked up version PMD-02-06-03-17-33) be approved.

 

Attachments:

 

1

Treasury Management Policy December 2017 - Final

CG-14-1-00583

Separate Doc

 

 

 


File Ref: 17/1362

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 1 February 2018

FROM:                           Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                    Updated 2018 Meeting Schedule Changes        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

 

1.1       The purpose of this report is to consider amendments to the schedule of Council and Committee Meetings for the 2018 Meeting Calendar which was adopted by Council 30 November 2017.

 

1.2       This report recommends that the 2018 Meeting Schedule as amended below be adopted.

 

2.0       BACKGROUND

 

2.1       The Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7, Clause 19 states:

(4)       A local authority must hold meetings at the times and places that it appoints”.

(5)       If a local authority adopts a schedule of meetings-

 

a) The schedule-

i)       may cover any future period that the local authority considers appropriate, and

ii)       may be amended

 

2.2       Although a local authority must hold the ordinary meetings appointed, it is competent for the authority at a meeting to amend the schedule of dates, times and number of meetings to enable the business of the Council to be managed in an effective way.

 

2.3       The following additional meeting is proposed to be included in the 2018 meeting schedule:

 

 

Committee

Date

Time

Venue

Risk and Audit Subcommittee

Monday, 12 February 2018

Monday, 25 June 2018

Monday, 3 September 2018

Monday, 5 November 2018

 

10.00am (instead of 9.00am)

Landmarks Room

Rural Community Board

 

Monday, 5 March 2018

(instead of 19 February 2018)

2.00pm

Landmarks Room

Rural Halls Subcommittee

Monday, 10 September 2018 (previously 3 December 2018)

1.00pm

Landmarks Room

Council

Thursday, 22 March 2018

1.00pm (instead of 9.00am)

Council Chamber

Council

Thursday, 26 April 2018 (previously 19 April 2018)

1.00pm

Council Chamber

2.4      Councillors will be kept informed of specific changes on a day to day basis through the centralised calendar system.

 

 

3.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled Updated 2018 Meeting Schedule Changes dated 1/02/2018 be received.

B)        That the 2018 Meeting Schedule be amended as follows:-

Committee

Date

Time

Venue

Risk and Audit Subcommittee

Monday, 12 February 2018

Monday, 25 June 2018

Monday, 3 September 2018

Monday, 5 November 2018

 

10.00am (instead of 9.00am)

Landmarks Room

Rural Community Board

Monday, 5 March 2018

(instead of 19 February 2018)

2.00pm

Landmarks Room

Rural Halls Subcommittee

Monday, 10 September 2018 (previously 3 December 2018)

1.00pm

Landmarks Room

Council

Thursday, 22 March 2018

1.00pm (instead of 9.00am)

Council Chamber

Council

Thursday, 26 April 2018 (previously 19 April 2017)

1.00pm

Council Chamber

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

 


File Ref: 18/39

 

 

REPORT TO:               Council

MEETING DATE:        Thursday 1 February 2018

FROM:                           Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT:                    Requests Received under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA)  Monthly Update        

 

 

1.0       SUMMARY

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the number of requests under the local Government official Information Act (LGOIMA) 1987 received in November and December 2017.

1.2       This issue arises from the provision of accurate reporting information to enable effective governance

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 ensure that the Council is meeting its legislative obligations

1.5       This report concludes by recommending that the report be noted.

2.0       BACKGROUND

2.1       The LGOIMA allows people to request official information held by local government agencies. It contains rules for how such requests should be handled, and provides a right to complain to the Ombudsman in certain situations. The LGOIMA also has provisions governing the conduct of meetings.

Principle of Availability

2.2       The principle of availability underpins the whole of the LGOIMA. The Act explicitly states that:

The question whether any official information is to be made available … shall be determined, except where this Act otherwise expressly requires, in accordance with the purposes of this Act and the principle that the information shall be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it.

 

 

 

Purpose of the Act

2.3       The key purposes of the LGOIMA are to:

·    progressively increase the availability of official information held by agencies, and promote the open and public transaction of business at meetings, in order to:

o enable more effective public participation in decision making; and

o promote the accountability of members and officials;

          and so enhance respect for the law and promote good local        government; and

·    protect official information and the deliberations of local authorities to the extent consistent with the public interest and the preservation of personal privacy.

2.4       City, district and regional councils, council controlled organisations and community boards are subject to LGOIMA and official information means any information held by an agency subject to the LGOIMA.

2.5       It is not limited to documentary material, and includes material held in any format such as:

·     written documents, reports, memoranda, letters, notes, emails and draft documents;

·     non-written documentary information, such as material stored on or generated by computers, including databases, video or tape recordings;

·     information which is known to an agency, but which has not yet been recorded in writing or otherwise (including knowledge of a particular matter held by an officer, employee or member of an agency in their official capacity);

·     documents and manuals which set out the policies, principles, rules or guidelines for decision making by an agency;

·     the reasons for any decisions that have been made about a person.

2.6       It does not matter where the information originated, or where it is currently located, as long as it is held by the agency. For example, the information could have been created by a third party and sent to the agency. The information could be held in the memory of an employee of the agency.

What does a LGOIMA request look like?

2.7       There is no set way in which a request must be made. A LGOIMA request is made in any case when a person asks an agency for access to specified official information. In particular:

·     a request can be made in any form and communicated by any means, including orally;

·     the requester does not need to refer to the LGOIMA; and

·     the request can be made to any person in the agency.

2.8       The Council deals with in excess of 14,000 service requests on average each month from written requests, telephone calls and face to face contact. The LGOIMA requests dealt with in this report are specific requests for information logged under formal LGOIMA procedure, which sometimes require collation of information from different sources and/or an assessment about the release of the information requested.

Key Timeframes

2.9       An agency must make a decision and communicate it to the requester ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ and no later than 20 working days after the day on which the request was received.

2.10    The agency’s primary legal obligation is to notify the requester of the decision on the request ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ and without undue delay. The reference to 20 working days is not the de facto goal but the maximum unless it is extended appropriately in accordance with the Act. Failure to comply with time limit may be the subject of a complaint to the ombudsman.

2.11    The Act provides for timeframes and extensions as there is a recognition that organisations have their own work programmes and that official information requests should not unduly interfere with that programme.

3.0       CURRENT SITUATION

3.1       Council has requested that official information requests be notified via a monthly report.

 

4.0       RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A)        That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled Requests Received under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA)  Monthly Update dated 1/02/2018 be received.

B)        That the LGOIMA requests received in December 2017 as set out in Attachment 1 (IRB-2-01-18-1153) of the report in (A) above be noted.

 

Attachments:

 

1

LGOIMA - Cumulative Monthly Report to Council October/November 2017

IRB-2-01-18-1153

 

 

 

 


LGOIMA - Cumulative Monthly Report to Council October/November 2017

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

          


Trim File No.:  CG-14-1-00582

Agenda Item:   15

 

 

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

 

Council MEETING

 

Thursday, 1 February 2018

 

 

 

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:

 

18.       Irongate Industrial Zone Update

19.       Term Contract Extensions

 

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

 

 

 

 

18.       Irongate Industrial Zone Update

Section 7 (2) (b) (ii)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

To protect commercial interests if third parties.

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.

19.       Term Contract Extensions

Section 7 (2) (i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Contractual negotiations to be completed subject to the approval to offer an extension and enter into negotiations.

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.