Agenda of Council Meeting

File Ref: 19/811

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 September 2019

FROM: Transportation Development Engineer

Sarath Kuruwita

Project Manager - Strategic

Sam Faulknor

SUBJECT: Proposed Road Stopping Within Waingakau Village Development - Flaxmere

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider initiating a formal road stopping process within the West Flaxmere Waingakau Village Development owned by Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga. This report follows on from a workshop held at Council on the 20^th August 2019. The roads discussed in this report are:

· The partial paper road stopping of Mawson Avenue

· The partial paper road stopping of Frobisher Road

· The full road stopping of Mitchell Place

1.2 This decision contributes to the purpose of local government by promoting primarily social well-being, and more specifically, through the Council’s strategic objective stated in Councils Community Outcomes:

· Safe, multi-functional urban centres

· Accessible range of safe transport options

· Safe walking and cycling facilities

· Diversity in housing choice

· Residential development opportunities

1.3 The main points of the report concern:

· Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga justification for stopping the roads. Specifically, that a proposed 15 meter road width, over the current 18m width, is allowed for in the Hastings District Council Engineering Code of Practice.

· The proposed road stopping would enable an additional 7 homes to be built.

· A recommendation for a decision to initiate the next formal stage of road stopping.

· The promotion of a pedestrian orientated and enhanced urban environment.

1.4 The Road stopping process to be followed (Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974), requires survey plans, public advertisements and a 40 working day public notice period.

1.5 At the end of the mandatory 40 day period, all objections and submissions should be collated and reported to Council with any objections. Direction should be provided if there is a requirement to go before the Environment Court.

1.6 If there is no need to appear before the Environment Court then Council should declare the roads stopped. Council can then dispose of the land to the applicant.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A) That the Council/Committee receives the report titled Proposed Road Stopping Within Waingakau Village Development - Flaxmere

B) That the Council/Committee approve initiating the formal road stopping process of the following roads within the West Flaxmere Waingakau Village Development owned by Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga:

· The partial paper road stopping of Mawson Avenue

· The partial paper road stopping of Frobisher Road

· The full road stopping of Mitchell Place

3.0 BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1 Council has worked with community groups over several years to prepare a 10-year plan for the future of the community. The Flaxmere West Community Plan outlines a framework of actions to achieve the community vision stating: “Flaxmere will be a beautiful, vibrant place of opportunity with people working together”.

3.2 In 2018 Hastings District Council sold a 46,820m2 piece of land in West Flaxmere to Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga. This land, now called Waingakau Village, will be a mix of co-housing and conventional housing from 1 to 4 bedrooms. The development offers multiple pathways into home ownership and quality homes.

3.3 A paper road (an unformed road) has the same legal status as the formed roads that make up the public road network. Unformed legal roads are recorded on survey plans and are not always readily identifiable on the ground. Most paper roads have never been developed due to limited access requirements, impractical topography, lack of funding priority, or unsuitable environmental conditions.

3.4 In order to further the Waingakau Village development and as part of the subdivision consenting process, Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga are proposing:

· The partial paper road closing of Mawson Ave from 18 metres to 15 metres

· The partial paper road closure of Frobisher Road

· The full road closure of Mitchell Place

4.0 DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1 Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga intends for the Mawson Avenua partial road closure to lead to a “slow street”, “pedestrian priority”, and /or “bicycle boulevard” where the road is prioritised for non-motorized activity (including travel, socializing, and play) and vehicles are permitted but only if moving at no more than 40 km. Additionally, the key transportation policy objective of ‘mobility’ is provided for by the proposed engineering design.

4.2 Furthermore, there are historic issues with speeding vehicles along the neighbouring Kirkwood Road in West Flaxmere. The Waingakau Village development aims to limit vehicular speed and create a pedestrian friendly street.

4.3 The number of lots served by Mawson Avenue and Frobisher Road are ~40 lots. The recommended minimum reserve width for roads in Engineering Code of Practice for serving the above number of lots is 15m. The current widths of the paper roads for Mawson Avenue and Frobisher Road are 18m.

4.4 The reduction of reserve widths allows the developer to achieve a comprehensive iwi development (Papakainga housing outcome), which centres around communal living and slower traffic speeds.

4.5 The proposed stopping of roads with Waingakau Village has no identified impact on the wider road network in Flaxmere.

4.6 Comments and requirements raised by officers concerning the road stopping of Mawson Avenue, Frobisher Street, and Mitchell Place are:

· That formed 2 lane roads should have capacity for parking or as an alternative that parking bays are provided.

· That Mawson Avenue is future proofed for the upcoming waste collection contract.

· That road widths provide sufficient space for emergency vehicles.

4.7 Officers are satisfied with the proposal after the development concepts were presented in the Council workshop dated 20 August 2019. The proposal was acceptable to both Waste and Data Services and Transportation teams. During this workshop Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga presented background information to their development as well as detailed roading design and justification for the proposed internal road stopping.

A picture containing text, map

Description automatically generated

Figure 2 Solutions incorporating parking and rubbish collection

5.0 OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga Approve the initiation of a formal road stopping process

5.1 The recommended option is for approval to initiate a formal road stopping process.

5.2 Advantages of achieving narrower roads through initiation of a road stopping process are:

· Narrower road corridor helps to achieve slower speeds.

· A more pedestrian friendly environment.

· Ability to create and maintain a safer environment.

· The design meeting Engineering Code of Practice (ECOP) requirements.

5.3 The disadvantages of achieving narrower roads with initiation of a road stopping process are:

· Possible delay to the subdivision process.

· A road at 15m could potentially (unlikely) limit any future Mawson Avenue road reserve design and layout options.

Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei – Do not approve the initiation of a formal road stopping process

5.4 Disapproving the initiation of a formal road stopping process will necessitate the retention of the current layout for Mawson Avenue, Frobisher Road and Mitchell Place.

5.5 This would require Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga to amend their development layout.

5.6 Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga will lose 7 homes if the road stopping along Mawson Avenue does not occur.

5.7 Achieving residential density required under the District Plan may be difficult. Density dispensation may be required for the subdivision.

6.0 NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1 The next steps for road stopping are:

1. Council approves/ supports the initiation of a formal road stopping process.

2. Initiate the road stopping process indicated in Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, including survey plans, public advertisements and a 40 working day public notice period.

2. Collate all objections and submissions at the end of the 40 working days submission period.

3. Report to Council with objections and submissions and obtain direction if there is a requirement to go before the Environment Court.

4. Council to declare the road stopped if there is no need to appear before the Environment Court.

5. Council can then sell the land to the applicant.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

This report promotes social well-being.

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This proposal promotes the provision of local infrastructure for well-being of communities in the present and for the future. This community outcome will be met through:

· Safe, multi-functional urban centres

· Accessible range of safe transport options

· Safe walking and cycling facilities

· Diversity in housing choice

· Residential development opportunities

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

There has been comprehensive communication and collaboration between Council officers and the development team of Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga. The proposed road stoppings, which form part of the Waingakau Village development, aims to deliver place making principles listed below:

· Grow the center of Waingakau as the walkable ‘heart’ or ‘ngakau’ of the community bringing greater community buzz and activity to the center.

· Work with locals to encourage community creativity, lively places and spaces that reflect whakapapa, environment and culture.

· Use streets and public spaces as the focus of community life. Design places for people rather than cars. Reimagine streets as places, converting transit routes to community routes.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

The road stopping within Waingakau Village aims to address social and environmental well-being through:

· Encouraging opportunities for physical exercise and different transport options by providing bike and walking tracks. Increasing safety and access for all users by lowering car speed limits.

· Reducing greenhouse emissions by promoting cycling and less roading with heat reflecting surfaces, promote greening of environment and natural water retention methods to reduce climate change impact:

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

There are no financial implications for HDC. Under the Local Government Act 1974 the applicant (Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga) will cover all costs incurred with the road stopping process including the costs in the Environment Court and purchase of the land. This costs by the applicant includes those incurred on a proposal which may be unsuccessful or abandoned.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of minor significance.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga is proposing road stopping within their Waingakau Village development area.

There has been robust communication with Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga concerning development options.

The landowner has been informed of their liability for all the costs associated with the road stopping process. The landowner has also been informed of the need to receive the written consent of neighbours and any other landowners likely to be affected by the proposal.

The required public consultation for road stopping will be undertaken under Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974.

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

An identified risk is that the proposed road stopping could lead to Environmental Court involvement due to road user objections. The final decision could result in the proposal being abandoned.

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

There are no implications for Community Boards.

File Ref: 19/820

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 September 2019

FROM: Traffic Engineering Officer

Lachlan Crawford

Transportation Manager

Jag Pannu

SUBJECT: Adoption of Speed Limit Bylaws 2019

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the Speed Limit Bylaw schedule and Bylaw plans to adopt based on the in-principle decisions made on 15 August 2019 in relation to the Speed Limit bylaw and amendments to the Schedules.

1.2 This proposal arises from the consultation process on the Council’s Speed Limit Bylaw and Schedules. This report follows the receiving of submissions, the completion of the hearing of submissions, consideration of technical information provided by Officers, the debate and the deliberations of the issues raised.

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 enable democratic local decision-making and action by (and on behalf of) communities, and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future to meet the 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 perform its regulatory function in regards to the Setting of Speeds under both the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 (“the Rule”) (including all its amendments).

1.5 This report concludes by recommending a number of changes to the speed limit bylaw as per the in-principle decision made on 15 August 2019.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A) That the Council receives the report titled Adoption of Speed Limit Bylaws 2019

B) That the attached Bylaw and Bylaw Plans be adopted with effect from 1st December 2019.

C) That all submitters be responded to in accordance with the decisions made following the hearing submissions.

D) That, in terms of Section 82 (3) of the Local Government Act 2002, the principles set out in that section have been observed in such a manner that the Hastings District Council considers, in its discretion, is appropriate for the decisions made during the consideration of this matter.

3.0 BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1 At the Council meeting on 15^th August 2019 the Council completed all relevant provisions contained within the Act and the Rule with regards to the proposed amendments to the Hastings speed limit bylaw.

3.2 A copy of the minutes of the meeting on 15^th August 2019 is attached to this report.

3.3 The final step in confirming the changes to the bylaw is one of technical compliance with the provisions of the Act. This report finalises the proposed changes to the bylaw which will come in to effect on 1^st December 2019.

4.0 DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1 The Council has received, considered, and discussed verbal and written submissions as set out in the Council agenda for the meeting 15^th August 2019.

4.2 Officers have taken note of the matters raised outside the bylaw and are scheduling the additional speed requests. A future report will be presented to Council discussing these requests and identifying a proposed approach to the next stages of the speed limit review.

4.3 Council confirmed a number of decisions and requested that officers report to the Council meeting on 26^th September 2019 (this meeting) to enable the appropriate updates to the bylaw plans and schedules to be completed and subsequently ratified by Council.

4.4 The positions adopted by Council regarding proposed changes to the current Speed Limit Bylaw are shown in the table below:

Road name	Current speed limit (Km/h)	New speed limit (Km/h)	Description
East Road	100	50	From the existing 50/100 km/hr signs to a point approximately 260m west of the intersection with Rockwood Place.
Irongate Road East	100	50	From the intersection of Maraekakaho Road to the end of the cul-de-sac.
Kereru Road	100	50	From the existing 50/100 km/hr signs to a point approximately 100m west of the intersection with Bellerby Lane
Maraekakaho Road	100	80	From the existing 70/100 km/hr signs to a point approximately 150m north of the intersection with State Highway 2.
Te Ara Kahikatea	-	80	For its entire length.
Te Aute Road	100	50	From the existing 50/100 km/hr signs to a point approximately 230m north of the intersection with Gilpin Road.

4.5 This position was adopted by Council after considering the submissions received, and the requirements of the Rule.

5.0 NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

· All submitters will be responded to in accordance with the decisions made following the hearing submissions.

· On-site signage to be installed covered-up during the week prior to the bylaw changes coming into effect.

· Signage to be uncovered at 8am on the day that the bylaw changes come into effect. It is expected that Te Aute Road will be undergoing construction works during this period, because of this, the signage on Te Aute Road will remain covered until the temporary traffic management is removed on site.

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Council Minutes 15 August 2019	CG-14-1-01513
2 ⇩	Speed Limits Bylaw 2012 - September 2019 amendments	LEG-02-34-19-541
3 ⇩	Speed Limits Bylaw 2012 - September 2019 revised drawings	LEG-02-34-19-542

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as set out in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by (and on behalf of) communities, and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future to meet the 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.

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This proposal promotes the local infrastructure well-being of communities in the present and for the future by providing safe roads in order to support growth and development opportunities.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

No impact

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

No sustainability implications

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

Cost of installing new signage is approximately $10,000 and is budgeted for.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

The Setting of Speed Limits Rule includes consultation requirements and the overarching obligation to set limits that are safe and appropriate for the circumstances. Council has fulfilled its legal obligations for consultation.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

· The consultation period opened on 23 May 2019 and ended on 27 June 2019.

· The consultation involved multiple methods of communication prior to and during the consultation period. These methods were:

· Information session held with Key Stakeholders prior to consultation period, followed by consultation letter

· Letters sent to residents and home-owners within approximately 200m of the proposed speed limit zone prior to consultation period.

· Advertising signs erected along the proposed speed limit zone.

· Radio, newspaper and digital advertisements through MediaWorks and NZME throughout the consultation period.

· Social media advertising through Councils website and Facebook site.

· Electronic submissions were gathered through myvoicemychoice.co.nz and hardcopy forms were available at Council reception and at Flaxmere, Havelock North and Hastings public libraries.

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

Not applicable.

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

Not applicable.

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

BYLAWS

PART 10

SPEED LIMITS BYLAW 2012

EXPLANATORY NOTE

This Bylaw allows the Council to set speed limits by resolution, on all roads under its control and in certain designated locations specified in the Bylaw.

This Bylaw is made pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002, the Land Transport Act 1998, and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 or subsequent Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, and allows the Council to set speed limits in relation to roads and areas under its control in the district.

Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002, the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 or subsequent Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, the Hastings District Council makes this bylaw to set speed limits as specified in the schedules.

2.0 Short Title and Commencement

2.1 The title of this bylaw is the Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012, being part 10 of the Hastings District Council Bylaws.

2.2 The speed limits described in the schedules come into force on the date specified in the schedules.

3.0 Scope

3.1 So far as they are applicable, and are not contrary to the provisions of this bylaw, the provisions of the Introductory Bylaw 2010 are incorporated into and form part of this bylaw.

4.0 Repeal of Bylaws

4.1 As from the day this Bylaw comes into force, any previous Bylaw or parts of any Bylaw and their amendments in force relating to the setting of speed limits on roads under the control of Hastings District Council shall be revoked

5.0 Interpretation

5.1 Holiday Speed Limit, Road, Speed Limit, Temporary Speed Limit, Rural Area, Urban Traffic Area and Urban Speed Limit all have the meanings given to them in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017.

5.2 Speed Limit for a Road in a Designated Location means a speed limit for vehicle traffic imposed by the Council pursuant to the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017.

6.0 Speed limits

6.1 The roads or areas described in the schedules specified in Section 8 or as shown on a map referenced in the schedules, (and attached to this Bylaw) are declared to have the speed limits specified in those schedules and maps, which are part of this bylaw.

7.0 Offences

7.1 Every person commits an offence against this Bylaw who operates a vehicle in excess of the bylaw speed limits set by this bylaw.

8.0 Schedules

Schedule 1:	Roads that have a speed limit of 10 km/h
Schedule 2:	Roads that have a speed limit of 20 km/h.
Schedule 3:	Roads that have a speed limit of 30 km/h.
Schedule 4:	Roads that have a speed limit of 40 km/h
Schedule 5:	Urban traffic areas - roads that have a speed limit of 50 km/h.
Schedule 6:	Roads that have a speed limit of 60 km/h.
Schedule 7:	Roads that have a speed limit of 70 km/h.
Schedule 8:	Roads that have a speed limit of 80 km/h.
Schedule 9:	Roads that have a speed limit of 90 km/h.
Schedule 10:	Rural areas - roads that have a speed limit of 100 km/h.
Schedule 11:	Roads that have a holiday speed limit.
Schedule 12:	Roads that have a variable speed limit.
Schedule 13:	Roads that have a minimum speed limit

This bylaw was made by the Hastings District Council at a meeting of the Council on 28 June 2012 and must be reviewed within 5 years from commencement and again within 10 ten years thereafter.

The common seal of the Hastings District Council was attached in the presence of:

______________________________ Mayor

______________________________ Chief Executive

Schedule 2 - Roads that have a speed limit of 20 km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 20km/h

Reference Number

Speed Limit

Description

Date Speed Limit Comes into Force

Legal Instrument

S2/01

20 km/h

Any areas designated reserves or cemeteries and all beaches within the Hastings District will have a speed limit of 20 km/h.

1 December 2019

Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012

S2/02

20 km/h

At Waipatiki and Havelock North: The area marked on the map titled Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012 number HDC04001/13 and HDC04001/14 and identified in the legend as having a speed limit of 20 km/h.

1 December 2019

Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012

Schedule 3 - Roads that have a speed limit of 30 km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 30km/h

Reference Number	Speed Limit	Description	Date Speed Limit Comes into Force	Legal Instrument

Schedule 4 - Roads that have a speed limit of 40 km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 40km/h

Reference

Number

Speed

Limit

Description

Date Speed Limit Comes into Force

Legal Instrument

S4/01

40 km/h

At Havelock North: All the roads within the area marked on the map titled Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012 number HDC04001/14 and identified in the legend as having a speed limit of 40 km/h.

1 December 2019

Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012

Schedule 5 - Urban traffic areas – 50 km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to be urban traffic areas that have a speed limit of 50 km/h, except for those roads or areas that are:

(a) described as having a different speed limit in the appropriate schedule of this bylaw; or

(b) shown on a map as having a different speed limit, as referenced in the appropriate schedule of this bylaw.

Reference Number	Speed Limit	Description	Date Speed Limit Comes into Force	Legal Instrument
S5/01	50 km/h	At Hastings, Twyford and Flaxmere: All the roads within the area marked on the map entitled “Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012”, number HDC04001/11 and identified in the legend as an urban traffic area having a speed limit of 50 km/h, except for those roads or areas that are marked on the said map and identified in the legend as having a different speed limit, as referenced in the appropriate schedule of this bylaw	1 December 2019	Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012
S5/02	50 km/h	At Puketapu, Omahu and Fernhill, Whakatu, Waimarama, Bridge Pa, Paki Paki, Putorino and Pakowhai and: All the roads within the area marked on the map entitled “Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012”, number HDC04001/12 and identified in the legend as an urban traffic area having a speed limit of 50 km/h, except for those roads or areas that are marked on the said map and identified in the legend as having a different speed limit, as referenced in the appropriate schedule of this bylaw.	1 December 2019	Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012
S5/03	50 km/h	At Haumoana, Te Awanga, Waipatiki, Maraekakaho and Waiohiki: All the roads within the area marked on the map entitled “Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012”, number HDC04001/13 and identified in the legend as an urban traffic area having a speed limit of 50 km/h, except for those roads or areas that are marked on the said map and identified in the legend as having a different speed limit, as referenced in the appropriate schedule of this bylaw.	1 December 2019	Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012
S5/04	50 km/h	At Havelock North and Clive: All the roads within the area marked on the map entitled “Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012”, number HDC04001/14 and identified in the legend as an urban traffic area having a speed limit of 50 km/h, except for those roads or areas that are marked on the said map and identified in the legend as having a different speed limit, as referenced in the appropriate schedule of this bylaw.	1 December 2019	Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012

Schedule 6 - Roads that have a speed limit of 60 km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 60 km/h.

Reference Number	Speed Limit	Description	Date Speed Limit Comes into Force	Legal Instrument
S6/01	60 km/h	At Twyford and Havelock North: All the roads within the area marked on the map entitled “Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012”, number HDC04001/11 and HDC04001/14 and identified in the legend as having a speed limit of 60 km/h, as referenced in the appropriate schedule of this bylaw.	1 December 2019	Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012

Schedule 7 - Roads that have a speed limit of 70 km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 70 km/h.

Reference Number	Speed Limit	Description	Date Speed Limit Comes into Force	Legal Instrument
S7/01	70 km/h	At Hastings and Flaxmere, Havelock North, Pakowhai, Clive, Bridge Pa, Putorino, and Waiohiki: All roads marked on the map entitled “Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012” as shown on maps HDC04001/11, HDC04001/12, HDC04001/13 and HDC04001/14 and identified in the legend as having a speed limit of 70 km/h, as referenced in the appropriate schedule of this bylaw.	1 December 2019	Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012

Schedule 8 - Roads that have a speed limit of 80 km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 80 km/h.

Reference Number	Speed Limit	Description	Date Speed Limit Comes into Force	Legal Instrument
S8/01	80 km/h	At Hastings and Flaxmere, and Havelock North. All roads marked on the map entitled “Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012” as shown on map HDC04001/11, HDC04001/12 and HDC04001/14 and identified as having a speed limit of 80 km/h. as referenced in the appropriate schedule of this bylaw.	1 December 2019	Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012

Schedule 9 - Roads that have a speed limit of 90km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a speed limit of 90 km/h.

Reference Number	Speed Limit	Description	Date Speed Limit Comes into Force	Legal Instrument

Schedule 10 - Roads that have a speed limit of 100km/h

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to be rural areas that have a speed limit of 100 km/h.

Reference Number	Speed Limit	Description	Date Speed Limit Comes into Force	Legal Instrument
S10/01	100 km/h	All Hastings District Council roads marked on the maps entitled Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012 numbered HDC4001/11, HDC4001/12, HDC4001/13 and HDC04001/14 which are not identified within the legend, have a speed limit of 100 km/h. Every Rural area that does not fall within the roads or areas shown in the Schedules also have a speed limit of 100km/h.	1 December 2019	Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012

Schedule 11 – Roads that have a Holiday Speed Limit

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to have a holiday speed limit.

Reference Number	Speed Limit	Description	Date Speed Limit Comes into Force	Legal Instrument

Schedule 12 – Roads that have a Variable Speed Limit

The roads or areas described in this schedule or as shown on a map referenced in this schedule are declared to be roads that have a variable speed limit.

Reference Number	Speed Limit	Description	Date Speed Limit Comes into Force	Legal Instrument
S12/01	Variable	At Hastings: All the roads within the area marked on the map entitled “Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012”, number HDC04001/11 identified in the legend as having a variable speed limit of 70/100 km/h, as referenced in the appropriate schedule of this bylaw.	1 December 2019	Hastings District Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2012

File Ref: 19/903

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 September 2019

FROM: Risk and Corporate Services Manager

Regan Smith

SUBJECT: Recognising Our Past Heroes

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on a protocol for handling changes to names on Hastings District War Memorials.

1.2 While the protocols could be applied to any memorial, this report focuses on management of the Hastings Cenotaph and the Hastings World War II Memorials.

1.3 This decision contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting Cultural well-being and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of conserving the District’s heritage for future generations.

1.4 The report presents an independent paper by Mr Mike Maguire on the handling of requests for changes to War Memorials. The report recommends:

· An overarching statement is adopted defining the purpose of the District’s War Memorials.

· That the archivist original order principle is applied to management of war memorials.

· That changes to memorials are based on official military or birth records.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A) That the Council receives the report titled Recognising Our Past Heroes

B) That the Council adopt the recommendations from the independent report by Mr M Maguire, and approve the following:

i. That the Chief Executive, or Officer appointed by the Chief Executive, be delegated authority to make decisions in accordance with the protocol for handling a Request for Review of a Name.

ii. That a bid be made in the next budgeting round to establish a specific fund for maintenance of War Memorials.

3.0 BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1 The war memorials within the Hastings District have been erected by the local communities to commemorate those who gave their lives for their country. The memorials have been partly, and in some cases fully, funded by the local community. As a result the responsibility for ongoing maintenance and management of the memorials resides with the Hastings District Council.

3.2 From time to time relatives of soldiers whom are mentioned on War Memorials in the Hastings District have raised inaccuracies in the spelling of their family member’s name. To show due respect for the family and their wishes a change to the memorial would be required.

3.3 Considering that the memorials represent a record of social history, some validation is appropriate before the memorials are altered. However, there is no known national or local protocol for managing changes to War Memorials.

3.4 Therefore, Offices have commissioned Mr M Maguire to provide an independent report and recommend a suitable protocol for handling the requests for changes to War Memorials in the Hastings District (refer attachment).

4.0 DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1 Due the social interest in War Memorials deciding not to recognise a correction may be perceived as lacking respect by the family. However, inappropriately altering a memorial could be perceived as lacking respect by the public. Therefore, the aim of the report is to establish sound practices for responsible custodianship of an accurate tribute to those that gave their lives for their Country.

4.2 The recommendations from the independent report are:

· “That it is agreed that the following overarching statement is adopted to guide all decisions regarding the Districts War Memorials:

“The Districts War Memorials are to provide an everlasting tribute to those who gave their lives in the service of New Zealand during the conflict that the memorial commemorates.”

· That appropriate identified funding is provided for maintenance and care of the Districts War Memorials.

· That incorrect entries to existing plaques are not altered in accordance with the Original Order protocol.

· That the Council verify (in accordance with the protocol) the identified 24 “Hastings” servicemen who lost their lives in battles and whose names are not present on the Cenotaph.

· In the event that the names are verified the Council considers how they should be recognised.”

4.3 The attached protocol from Mr Maguire’s report for handling a Request for Reviewing of a Name is shown below:

· “Where a request to address a missing/incorrectly spelt entry on a War Memorial is received the following approach should be adopted.

· Any new entry will only take place when sufficient changes are required to warrant a physical change.

· In the case of the Hastings World War II Memorial Plaques changes should be made annually prior to ANZAC Day and in time for the plaques to be replaced and dedicated appropriately in time for the ANZAC Day commemoration.

· In the case of the Hastings Cenotaph changes will be made to the adjoining plaque annually prior to ANZAC Day and in time for the plaques to be replaced and dedicated appropriately in time for the ANZAC Day commemoration.”

Request	Status	Decision
Existing spelling differs from Formal Military Record (FMR)	Change requested agrees with FMR	Agree to request Subject to confirmation from RSA and family (if possible)
Existing spelling agrees with FMR	New request differs from FMR but agrees with birth records	Agree to new entry Subject to confirmation from RSA and family (if possible)
Existing spelling agrees with FMR	Request differs from FMR and disagrees with birth records	No change New entry not accepted
No entry on memorial	Deceased either enlisted from Hastings, and/or whose next of kin reside in Hastings (or District) and died during the conflict concerned.	Agree to new entry Subject to confirmation from RSA and family (if possible) new entry that follows FMR.

4.4 A key outcome of the research is to recommend that the “Original Order” principle be applied to War Memorials. This is interpreted to mean that the original order of names on the plaques should not be altered, including incorrect names. Instead, accepted corrections should be annotated by either an adjoining plaque or addition to the existing plaque, depending on what is deemed practical based on expert advice.

5.0 OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga:.

5.1 Adopt the report recommendations and proposed protocol:

Advantages

· By accepting the recommendations of the independent report Council will establish a sound set of protocols to guide decision making to ensure responsible management of War Memorials. This will allow Officers to make timely decisions and reflect the wishes of affected family members where appropriate.

Disadvantages

· Adopting the report recommendations also acknowledges that specific funding for managing and maintaining the War Memorials in the District is desirable. To establish this funding a budget bid will be made during the next Long Term Planning process so the appropriate amount can be established and considered in relation to other spending priorities. At this stage, it is thought that the funding requirement will be in the order of $10,000 to $20,000 per annum.

Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei:

5.2 Do not adopt the report recommendations and proposed protocol:

Disadvantages

· Considering the lack of national guidance on the management of War Memorials, not accepting the independent report recommendations would continue to leave a significant gap in the guidance on how to respectfully handle request for changes to those memorials. While this is the status quo, it does present Officers and Council with the need to consider every request individually.

· While additional funding is required as part of accepting the report recommendations, there may not be a saving by rejecting the report recommendations. The issues raised by this report will need to be addressed at some point. In which case, there will need to be some expense incurred to ensure the War Memorials are well maintained and to make alterations. As a result, without a specific budget provision it is likely that any expenditure on the War Memorials would need to be treated as unbudgeted expenditure.

6.0 NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1 The preferred option is to accept all the recommendations from the independent report provided by Mr M Maguire, including establishing a specific budget allocation for maintenance and management of War Memorials.

· In the short term, if the recommendations in this report are adopted, work will be undertaken to action the known request if there is sufficient available funds in the Parks & Property Services budgets at the end of the current financial year.

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Civic Treasures & Archives - Historic places, monuments & memorials & Plaques - Final War Memorial Name Change Project Report Mike Maguire

CTA-05-18-250

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily protecting and enhance the Cultural history recorded on the Hastings District War Memorials.

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This proposal promotes the local public service objective of conserving the District’s heritage for future generations, and the well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

There are no known impacts for Tangata Whenua.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

There are no implications for sustainability.

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

Short term: work will be undertaken to action the known request if there is sufficient available funds in the Parks & Property Services budgets at the end of the current financial year.

Long term: A budget bid is recommended for the next budgeting round to establish a specific fund in the order of $10,000 to $20,000 for maintenance of War Memorials.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

War memorials represent a record of the social history of the people of the District and it is a matter of considerable concern to living relatives how the sacrifice is commemorated. As a result, the matter is likely to be of Medium significance under the Council Significance and Engagement Policy.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

In developing the report Mr Maguire has included research of archived files, the Auckland War Memorial online Cenotaph, New Zealand Defence Force website and consultation with a range of organisations and individuals, specifically the Hastings & Districts RSA.

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

Risk	Classification	Controls
Deciding not to recognise a correction may be perceived as lacking respect by the family.	Medium Reputation Threat	Consultation with affected people is parts of the protocol for alterations to memorials.
Inappropriately altering a memorial could be perceived as lacking respect by the public.	Medium Reputation Threat	Consultation with affected people is parts of the protocol for alterations to memorials.
Making justifiable amendments to a memorials can contribute to building trust and confidence in Council.	Medium Reputation Opportunity	Delegations in the agreed protocol for alterations to memorials allows Council Officers to be responsive to requests.

Note: there are no direct Health and Safety implications of this decision.

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

The proposed protocol may also be relevant to the management of memorials in community halls. Otherwise, there are no implications for Rural Community Boards.

File Ref: 19/977

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 September 2019

FROM: Chief Financial Officer

Bruce Allan

SUBJECT: Toitoi - Hawkes Bay Arts and Events Centre - name for former Plaza

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present Council with a recommendation for a new name to the former Plaza at the Hawke’s Bay Arts and Events Centre.

1.2 This decision contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting economic and cultural wellbeing and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of supporting and attracting business as well as promoting places and spaces for arts, culture and learning.

1.3 An appropriate name for the new building constructed on the former Plaza site provides the opportunity to attract use of this new building with the objective of creating a centre that is a hive of activity.

1.4 The recommended name is the Hastings Room. The Hastings Room offered an alternative idea that still gave the space status but alleviated past bad experiences, and aligned the whole centre by having a ‘room’ on each street of the block. Eastbourne Corner, Hastings Room and potentially Heretaunga Room or Studio in the Municipal Building; this helps bind the entire Centre.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A) That the Council receives the report titled Toitoi - Hawkes Bay Arts and Events Centre - name for former Plaza

B) That the Council adopt the name “Hastings Room” for the space previously known as the Plaza in the Hawke’s Bay Arts and Events Centre.

3.0 BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1 On 27 June 2019 Council adopted the new name of Toitoi – Hawke’s Bay Arts and Events Centre for what had previously been referred to as the Hawke’s Bay Opera House Arts and Events Precinct, acknowledging that the Opera House is just one part of the wider precinct.

3.2 As part of that adoption, a brand identity system would incorporate the names of the spaces throughout the Centre. It was proposed that the overarching brand identity system would look something like the following:

3.3 With the redevelopment of the Plaza has come the need to reconsider the name for this space. A Plaza typically refers to a public square, marketplace, or similar open space in a built-up area or a shopping centre. The initial Plaza development was an open space with a retractable roof, lending itself to the use of the name Plaza to aptly describe what the building was.

3.4 The redeveloped space is now fully enclosed and is a large space capable of holding a number of different events including but not limited to; conferences, exhibitions and expos, functions, dinners, performances, presentations and launches. A literal interpretation of the name Plaza has led Council officers to consider an alternative that more appropriately describes what it is.

4.0 DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1 The original Plaza space created consistent challenges for venue staff and clients. The Plaza was not weatherproof, it was cold (or hot), it leaked and flooded during heavy rain. National and local clients experienced these issues and, because of this, the decision was taken by Council to create a completely new enclosed building. Keeping the name of the previous space with all of its design faults is not considered helpful for returning clients in differentiating between the old and new.

4.2 The new building is fundamentally a different building with a much wider appeal for users and uses. It is a fully-enclosed building and Council has invested in improved acoustic treatments, heating and cooling, ensuring that its versatility is maximised. The similarity with the previous Plaza space is almost limited to its location and the glass walls that front Hastings Street.

4.3 When considering names for spaces within the Centre, it is important that the label on all the rooms within the Centre are as close to their actual use as possible. Initially the name ‘banquet hall‘ was put forward and while this is appropriate in describing some of the use that this new space will have, it didn’t describe all uses.

4.4 Due diligence was completed through consultation with professional conference organisers (PCOs), national and international promoters, researching other venues that have a dining/banquet hall in New Zealand and Australia. The most-used title for this style of room was ‘banquet hall’, however, there was conjecture amongst PCOs as to whether that was appropriate for this new space.

4.5 The following is an example of alternatives that have been considered:

Banquet	Room
Events	Hall
Function	House
Plaza	Zone
Refectory	Concourse
Dining	Plaza
Reception	Atrium
Conference	Gallery
Exhibition	Centre
Civic	Auditorium
Music	Court
Convention	Venue
	Complex
	Place

4.6 When the above suggestions were combined to try and apply something appropriate for this space, nothing really crystallised into a name that was meaningful.

4.7 The new name needs to be appropriate not only for both the users and promotors, but also for our community. After due consideration and due diligence, the recommended name for the old Plaza site is the Hastings Room.

4.8 The Hastings Room offered an alternative idea that still gave the space status but alleviated past bad experiences, and aligned the whole centre by having a ‘room’ on each street of the block. Eastbourne Corner, Hastings Room and potentially Heretaunga Room or Studio in the Municipal Building; this helps bind the entire Centre.

4.9 The use of the descriptor ‘Room’ does provide a connotation of something smaller than what it is. Concerns that ‘Room’ suggests something small have been somewhat alleviated when compared to other contexts like the Ballroom. In our own local context on the first floor of the Municipal Building, there is the Assembly Room, a large space utilised for a wide variety of events.

4.10 Keeping the original name Plaza has been considered despite the literal meaning of the name not accurately describing what the room is. In the Hastings context there is already the Bay Plaza or otherwise known as the K‑mart Plaza. The first four references from a google search on Hastings Plaza are related to the Bay Plaza or business located within it and while this may change over time, it could create some confusion.

4.11 The new identity system could therefore resemble the following.

5.0 OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1 That the space previously known as the Plaza be called the Hastings Room:

Advantages

· Given the multi-use nature of this new space it has been difficult to assign a name that adequately describes what is “in the box”. The name Hastings Room acknowledges where it is and provides the room with a status that suggests it is something quite substantial and multi purpose.

· The opportunity to give this new building a new name is the opportunity to cement a new beginning for this building, leaving behind any negative experiences of the old and acknowledging that this new building is different from what there was before.

Disadvantages

· The primary disadvantage that has been canvassed is that the word ‘Room’ does not adequately acknowledge the size and scale of this building, however, there are a number of examples of where the word Room is used to describe spaces that are quite large.

Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei

5.2 Leave the status quo and call this new building the Plaza or the Hastings Plaza or take more time to look for a more appropriate name.

· The Plaza option is not recommended for a number of reasons, primarily because the name represents an outdoor or open space and also because of the other local use of the name Plaza, being Bay Plaza.

· Delaying any decision on a name for this space is going to impact on the Toitoi operations team as they go about sourcing and attracting events in this space. While not having a name is not system critical, it does add to the challenges of selling a completely new space to the market.

6.0 NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1 A communications plan will be developed to launch the name Hastings Room and the team working on the brand identity system, and the integration into platforms like the website and other selling collateral.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

This report contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting cultural wellbeing and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of creating buildings and public spaces which enhance district identity.

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This proposal promotes the cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future. The name of the former Plaza should clearly identify and resonate with the local community.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

There are no known impacts for Tangata Whenua.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

There are no implications for sustainability.

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

There are no financial implications.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of significance to the community as the name should support, promote and enhance the identity of the local area.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

While there has been no external community engagement for this recommended name, considerable research and due diligence has been undertaken.

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

There are no legal risks associated with this decision.

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

There are no implications for the Rural Community Board.

File Ref: 19/969

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 September 2019

FROM: Chief Financial Officer

Bruce Allan

SUBJECT: Municipal Building Future Use Community Engagement

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present Council with the outcomes of the community engagement process in respect of the future use of the Municipal Building.

1.2 This decision contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting economic and cultural wellbeings and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of supporting and attracting business as well as promoting places and spaces for arts, culture and learning.

1.3 An engagement process, targeted at the “inform” end of the engagement spectrum, was undertaken over a three-week period in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The objective of the process being to further inform the community as to the future use of the building, to update the community on the fiscal status of the project and to provide an opportunity for further comment to help inform future directions.

1.4 The feedback received is outlined in the body of the report and as attached. It can be summarised as being positive overall in respect of the Council’s preferred option, noting that some comments and themes will be helpful in informing future directions and detailed design elements of the project.

1.5 The critical path for the completion of the Municipal Building requires some firm direction from Council to proceed with the implementation of the preferred future use option for the Municipal Building.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A) That the Council receives the report titled Municipal Building Future Use Community Engagement.

B) That the Council resolves to proceed with Option E (as outlined to the community as the preferred option) for Municipal Building Future use, within the financial parameters as set out for the project.

C) That officers consider the comments from the engagement process to further inform future directions and the detailed design elements of the project.

3.0 BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1 On 22 August 2019, Council received an update on progress with the Municipal Building future use which included a business case considering the options available for consideration and a recommended community engagement plan. Council resolved as follows:

That the Council receive the report titled Municipal Building Future Use.

That the Council endorse the Business Case (PRJ17-7-0570) for the future use of the Municipal Building.

That the Council adopt the recommended community engagement plan for the Municipal Building Future Use as set out in the report (19/805) of (A) above.

3.2 The Commercial, Community and Educational use (Option E) is the preferred option which best achieves the outcomes identified in the Business Case and which also aligns with the 10 Success Criteria included in the Hawke’s Bay Opera House Arts and Events Precinct Strategic Plan.

3.3 Option E was identified as the option which provides Council and the community with the best opportunity to achieve the Vision outlined in the 2019‑2021 Strategic Plan:

“The most vibrant and significant arts, culture and events facility in New Zealand

Honouring the past, nurturing the present and inspiring future generations”

3.4 The business case noted that by incorporating a strong educational component that is linked to the arts and hospitality industries will add vibrancy to the precinct and create real opportunities to inspire future generations to succeed.

3.5 In accordance with the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, the Council commenced an engagement process at the “inform” end of the engagement spectrum, recognising that the project had already been the subject of previous engagement processes, that the decision to retain and strengthen the building was already made and that financial provision for the project was already provided for within the Council’s Long Term Plan.

3.6 A three-week long community engagement process was adopted to give the community sufficient opportunity to learn about Council’s preferred option for the Municipal Building and to offer their feedback.

Community Engagement Timeline

31 August	Full-page advertorial in Hawke’s Bay Today newspaper
31 August -20 September	Online web and social media campaign
7 September-15 September	Drop-in facility at Hastings City Art Gallery
14 September	Personal engagement during Blossom Parade
21 September	Feedback collated for reporting back to Council

3.7 The objective of the community engagement plan for the future use of the Municipal Building was to understand the community’s aspiration for the mixture of uses within the Municipal Building so as to better inform future directions. The key messages and objectives of the engagement process are to:

· Show the community what Council has been up to and what Council intends to do

· Show that some other options have been considered but have been discounted

· Show what funding Council has raised and what that, combined with the Council funding, can pay for

· Create mechanisms for the community to provide feedback to Council, therefore obtaining their views

· Bring those themes that have been captured back to Council.

4.0 DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1 The Community was advised of the engagement process though a number of mediums including:

· Facebook (31 August – 13 September)

o 7 posts across Hastings District Council and Toitoi pages

o 20,500 people reached

o 1,297 post engagements

· HB Today (full page advertisement 31 August)

· Radio campaign (6 – 13 September)

o 72 x 15 second placements across Coast, The Hits and Newstalk ZB stations

o 69 x 15 second placements across Breeze, Magic and More FM stations

· HDC Website – with Municipal Building page attracting 258 views with each visit staying for 3.35 minutes (average for rest of site 1.54 minutes)

4.2 A pop-up community engagement booth was established at the Hastings Art Gallery with an estimated 100 members of the public attending. The pop-up booth was attended by staff from 10am to 4pm daily. It was open on 14 September, the day of the Blossom Parade, during which time two members of the Youth Council distributed flyers and encouraged people to provide input.

4.3 The feedback from those in the community that participated has been overwhelmingly positive and a summary of that feedback is attached as Attachment 1. When asked if Council has got the proposed combination of proposed activities for the Municipal Building right, 82.3% stated absolutely, with 12.7% pretty close and 5.1% not at all.

4.4 There was a strong indication from those that participated that having spaces for community and cultural activities was important

In the pop-up booth, visitors were asked to nominate what should be included in the Municipal Building.

Music	38	Symposiums	5
Theatre	30	Dinners	5
Community gatherings	27	Conferencing	5
Cafe	24	Culinary School	5
All (added by a participant)	23	Hospitality	5
Performing Arts School	21	Ballroom	4
Exhibitions	21	I-site and Intercity bus stop (added)	3
School events	20	Meetings	3
Artists in Residence	17	Cabaret	3
Rehearsal	15	Weddings	3
Studio Spaces	14	HB retailers	2
Ticketing	11	Tourism	2
Cocktail functions	6	Corporate functions	1

5.0 OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1 The Council has undertaken a full consideration of options for the future use of the Municipal Building as outlined within the Business Case, updated the community and offered opportunity for further comment in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The further community comment will help inform the next steps of the project. There was no significant adverse reaction to the Council’s preferred option.

5.2 The critical path for the completion of the Municipal Building requires some firm direction from Council to proceed with the implementation of the preferred future use option for the Municipal Building. Architects Mathews and Mathews, along with an assortment of related advisors, have been engaged to take the current concept plans forward into detailed design. Surety of the future use is therefore required if this is to be continued without delays and additional cost.

6.0 NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1 Given the support that the recommended future use options has received, the next steps are to continue with the detailed design elements and continue with more urgency securing the anchor tenancies around education and hospitality.

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Municipal Building Future Use - Community Engagement Summary

CG-14-1-01518

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

This proposal promotes the economic and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for future use.

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This proposal contributes to Council’s objectives of supporting and attracting business, creating places and spaces for arts, culture and learning as well as providing buildings and public spaces which will enhance the district identity.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

Mana whenua entities and organisations have been involved in varying degrees throughout the Opera House, Municipal Building Precinct project future usage including, the Māori performing arts on stage (kapa haka, drama, Māori opera), the hosting of local, regional, national and global kaupapa Māori performing arts initiatives, the hosting of visual and literary arts events, the capacity to host and welcome manuhiri (guests) to significant events and or conferences, and residency and or occupancy in some of the available rental spaces. There are a number of annual and biennial events held in Hastings that are hosted for example, by Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated, Takitimu Performing Arts School, Kahurangi Māori Dance Theatre, Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga as well as the opportunity now for more organisations and entities to come on board including, Te Kōhanga Reo, Te Matatini, Ngāti Kahungunu Rūnanga Arts and Culture Board, Ngā Marae o Heretaunga, and Iwitoi Kahungunu.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

There are no implications for sustainability.

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

Included in the report.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of significance to the community and hence the need to proceed with implementation of the preferred use by engaging with external stakeholders.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

Extensive community consultation. Refer Section 4.

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

There are no known risks.

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

There are no implications for the Rural Community Board.

File Ref: 19/994

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 September 2019

FROM: Waste Planning Manager

Angela Atkins

SUBJECT: Proposed Priority Products and Product Stewardship Scheme Consultation Submission

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1 The purpose of the report is to obtain support from the Council for a submission to the Ministry for the Environment regarding the “Proposed Priority Products and Priority Product Stewardship Scheme Guidelines”.

· The report and draft submission has been presented to the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee and endorsed at the meeting on 20 September 2019.

1.2 This proposal contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting the environmental wellbeing and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of a community which wastes less.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A) That the Council receives the report titled Proposed Priority Products and Product Stewardship Scheme Consultation Submission.

B) That the Council support the draft Proposed Priority Products and Priority Product Stewardship Scheme Guidelines submission.

3.0 BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1 Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the Minister for the Environment has the ability to declare waste materials as priority products and mandate product stewardship schemes.

3.2 The government has previously consulted on priority products and product stewardship in 2014, regarding these same materials. Despite many submissions, including one from Hastings District Council, supporting the declaration and establishment of product stewardship schemes, the Minister and government did not act.

3.3 Declaration of a ‘priority product’ under the Waste Minimisation Act creates an obligation and opportunity. As soon as is practicable after a product is declared a priority product, a product stewardship scheme for that product must be developed and accreditation obtained.

3.4 Product stewardship schemes are initiatives that help reduce the environmental impact of manufactured products.

3.5 On 9 August 2019, the government announced another consultation regarding product stewardship. This consultation closes on 4 October 2019.

4.0 DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1 Regulated product stewardship makes producers responsible for specified problematic products at the end of life, and ensures the costs of correct waste management are paid by producers and consumers, not Council via communities and the environment.

4.2 There are six proposed priority products:

• tyres

• electrical and electronic products (e-waste)

• refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases

• agrichemicals and their containers

• farm plastics

• packaging (beverage packaging, single-use plastic packaging).

4.3 The Ministry for the Environment is proposing to use a two-stage process:

• stage one (initial consultation) consults on the proposed declaration of six priority products and ministerial guidelines to clarify expected outcomes and attributes of accredited priority product schemes.

• stage two will consult progressively (by product group) through 2019–2021 on proposed WMA regulations.

5.0 OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1 Council makes a submission supporting the “proposed priority products and priority product stewardship scheme guidelines”:

Advantages

· Making a submission is in line with Actions 6 A & B of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) which was adopted by Council on 30 August 2018.

6A) Continue to support local and national Product Stewardship campaigns.

6B) Continue to lobby central government for problematic materials.

· Council Officers support the six proposed priority product groups as the current priorities for regulatory intervention:

· Previous consultations in 2005, 2009 and 2014 have shown strong and consistent support for product stewardship schemes for these products from local government and many industries.

· All of these products create significant harm and challenges when not recycled and/or managed correctly.

· The regulation through product stewardship would be a catalyst for manufacturers and producers to consider the “end of life” of their products and necessitate better design and packaging choices.

Disadvantages

· There are no known disadvantages to supporting the declaration of product stewardship programmes for these materials.

Other Considerations

· It should be noted that the packaging product group may have an impact on Council recycling services. However this will be better for the community overall as it shifts the responsibility from Council as the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff to the producer and user. It is unlikely to have an impact for several years and another report will be presented to Council once the details are known.

Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei

5.2 Council does not make a submission:

· Should Council not support a submission in support of the “proposed priority products and product stewardship scheme guidelines” this would not be in line with the Joint WMMP.

· Also via the WMMP consultation there was a number of people who submitted supporting council lobbying central government to make changes.

· These opportunities do not arise often and it could be seen as a missed opportunity should Council not partake in the consultation.

6.0 NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1 If the draft submission is ratified by Council, the submission will be made to the Ministry for the Environment by officers.

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Draft Hastings District Council Submission on proposed priority products and priority product stewardship scheme

SW-25-19-4552

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

This proposal promotes the environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future. Also through local infrastructure which contributes to public health and safety, supports growth, connects communities, activates communities and helps to protect the natural environment.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

Maori have not been specifically consulted with regarding this report as all New Zealanders have an opportunity to participate in the consultation via the submission process. All off the Maori submissions received regarding the WMMP in 2018 were supportive of Council lobbying government regarding improvements to product stewardship.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

The potential long term implications from this report are only positive for the environment as it will mean that more resources are used in circular pattern (Circular Economy) rather than the current linear process of make and dispose/waste. As detailed in section 5.1.

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

There are no financial implications.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as not being of significance.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

No external engagement is required.

The draft submission is endorsed by the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee.

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

There are no risks.

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

There are no implications.

Draft Hastings District Council Submission on proposed priority products and priority product stewardship scheme

Attachment 1

Hastings District Council Submission on proposed priority products and priority product stewardship scheme

Company name: Hastings District Council

Contact person: Angela Atkins, Waste Planning Manager

Address: Private Bay 9001, Hastings 4156

Region: Hawke’s Bay

Country: New Zealand

Phone: 06 871 5000

Email: angelama@hdc.govt.nz

Submitter type: Local Government

Overall position: Supportive as previously submitted in July 2014. This submission is based on Hastings District Council’s previous submission.

Key Points

Our youth are demanding us to take action to reduce the effects of climate change and this is one way we can take the first steps.

With regards to Priority products our submission asks for all products to be made a priority and for the schemes to cover the widest scope of products possible.

The collection and processing infrastructure is in place and that there are sufficient end markets for any products designated a priority product. For existing schemes, a 1-year timeframe is likely sufficient for any existing products already being collected under voluntary schemes. However, where schemes will need to expand to include a wider range of products than previously or where a greater length of time is needed to establish robust end markets it should be possible to receive an extension of up to 3 years. This is to prevent materials being stockpiled as has occurred in the past with tyres and soft plastics due to insufficient end markets.

It is important to recognize that new products may emerge as the result of new technologies or practises particularly with e-waste and agricultural plastics and that an assessment mechanism should be created to allow for their evaluation and subsequent inclusion in any regulated product stewardship schemes established.

Q1 Proposed priority product declaration for end-of-life tyres

Q1(a): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: all pneumatic (air-filled) tyres and certain solid tyres for use on motorised vehicles (for cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, tractors, forklifts, aircraft and off-road vehicles). Why? Why not?

Yes

Significant overseas research has been undertaken into schemes set up in Australia and Canada which indicate the need for Government Regulation to support the end of life management of this waste stream.

The major tyre companies, supported by the various motor trade and consumer associations (MTA, IMVIA, MIA, and AA) have indicated an unwillingness to participate in voluntary schemes due to the risk of ‘free riders’ and the risk of ‘legacy ‘material.

Tyre retailers are already charging a disposal fee to customers of around $5 per unit; this is effectively profit and until recent months there has been no verifiable tyre recycling option in Hawke’s Bay. The region experienced the abandonment of 1,200,000 tyres on Crown Land in 2010/11. Further stock piles are being developed at a number of sites which are being closely monitored by Councils. Often the only way to avoid tyre piles is by working in partnership with the local Fire District in order to declare a pile as a fire risk, in order to issue an abatement notice.

The reliance by the tyre industry on dairy operations to absorb large number of tyres for silage cover is not a recycling option that should be encouraged, as these tyres are either abandoned in paddocks, dumped in farm pits which are not subject to Waste Levy or used as accelerants in burn piles. This activity leads to leaching of contaminants into the environment. The majority of tyres being collected for "recycling" from tyre retailers are often charged at a rate far less than the actual cost of recycling; resulting in tyre piles mushrooming across the country as operators haul tyres from one pile to another ultimately avoiding disposal fees.

Up until August 2019, tyres were not accepted at Council's refuse transfer station and the public were tasked to return tyres to the nearest tyre retailer. These retailers have historically charged $5-7 per unit. The end destination of these tyres is often unknown and tyre stock piles are problematic, presenting risk to both environment and human health.

In the past three months a shredding operation has commenced in the Hawke’s Bay exporting the shredded material to a cement kiln off-shore. This business has processed 27 tonnes of tyres removed the waste at Omarunui Landfill (collected over the past 10 years) at a cost of $17,000.

Hastings District Council advocate for heavy machinery tyres and rubber tracks from excavators and tractors to also be included in the scope.

A declaration of priority product status should be made at the earliest opportunity.

Hastings District Council is Supportive of TyreWise - https://3r.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/3R-Group-Case-Study-Tyrewise_email.pdf

Q2(b): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: all pneumatic and solid tyres for use on bicycles (manual or motorised) and non-motorised equipment. Why? Why not?

Yes

The Council agrees that the scope for a tyre product stewardship scheme should be inclusive of all pneumatic air filled tyres. This mirrors the scope of overseas schemes from Australia and Canada.

There are a number of brand owners from varying sectors which contribute to a broader “tyre” group which includes tyres from bikes, toys, wheel chairs, mobility scooters, wheel barrows and other non-motorised equipment. The composition of these tyres can be different to vehicle tyres which may require a different processing model and could become a contamination issue if processed with vehicle tyres. This would require other infrastructure to be set up to collect these types of tyres, for example collection outlets at bicycle shops and mechanism for separating the valve from the tube. It is also likely that investment in processing would be required should their calorific value be significantly different to vehicle tyres.

Q2 Proposed priority product declaration for electrical and electronic products (e-waste)

Q2(a): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: all large rechargeable batteries designed for use in electric vehicles, household-scale and industrial renewable energy power systems, including but not limited to lithium-ion batteries. Why? Why not?

Yes

There are a number of valuable resources contained in batteries that can be extracted for reuse, reducing the reliance on mining virgin materials.

Hastings District Council collects between 2 – 4 tonnes of car batteries per year, these are collected from people who don’t know about the current recycling programme provided by some scrap metal dealers. Should a formal product stewardship scheme be introduced this volume would increase.

Q2(b): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: all other batteries (eg, batteries designed for use in hand-held tools and devices). Why? Why not?

Yes

Include tonnage and cost to HDC over past 5 years

Over the past 3 years Hastings District Council has collected and paid for the processing of 4,830kg of batteries from residents who have taken the effort to drop their batteries to council for recycling. The batteries collected range from small button batteries up to battery units for power tools. This has cost council and rate payers $28,785 for this period.

Q2(c): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: all categories of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) defined in Annex II of European Directive 2012/19/EU (eg, 'anything that requires a plug or a battery to operate'). Why? Why not?

Yes

This also provides consistency with an established and reputable scheme acknowledged as a world leader.

The Hastings District Council participation in the 2012 TV Takeback scheme resulted in 17,500 TV’s being collected for recycling. It is clear that both the TV Takeback scheme and earlier E-Waste collection days have acted as “pilots” for an electronic equipment stewardship scheme and have provided some valuable lessons and data.

Hastings District Council actively supports E-waste recycling through its arrangement with the Hawke’s Bay Environment Centre and E-cycle. Historically Council has subsidised the recycling cost by $15 per TV from its waste levy funds. This action is taken due to the $40 recycling fee being beyond the financial means of many residents. It should also be highlighted that the End of Life (EOL) cost to these units is far greater than the $12 minimum charge to dispose 60Kg of general waste at our refuse transfer station. Since May 2019 Council has further subsidised TV recycling to $5 per unit. To date this programme has collected 460 TVs.

These numbers would be much higher without high ($40 per TV is beyond the financial capability of many residents) EOL recycling and process charges. The Council supports mandatory product stewardship schemes for E-waste which would see 'point of purchase' recovery costs.

The Hastings District Council supports E-Waste product Stewardship as per the WEEE definition.

It is important to recognize that new waste streams may emerge as the result of new technologies or practises and that an assessment mechanism should be created to allow for their evaluation and subsequent inclusion in any product stewardship scheme.

Council advocates the consideration of additional legislation to incentivise circular design and the ability of consumers to cheaply repair their electronic devices, machinery and appliances. It is noted that New Zealand Ministers recently met with Australian Ministers at the Consumer Affairs Forum where right to repair legislation was proposed. We encourage the Ministry of the Environment to work with the Ministry for Consumer Affairs and with Ministers across the Tasman to investigate this further.

Hastings District Council is supportive the Waste MINZ Position Paper - https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/PSSG-Position-Paper-on-e-Waste-FINAL-1.pdf

Q3 Proposed priority product declaration for agricultural chemicals and their containers

Q3(a): Do you agree with declaring as priority products ? Chemicals in plastic containers up to and including 1000 litres in size that are used for: horticulture, agricultural and livestock production, including veterinary medicines, industrial, utility, infrastructure and recreational pest and weed control, forestry, household pest and weed control operations, similar activities conducted by or contracted by local and central government authorities? Why? Why not?

Yes

The Council agrees that the scope should include all chemicals which require an Agricultural Chemical and Veterinary Medicine (ACVM) registration regardless of registration date. This means Persistent organic Pollutants (POPs) and orphaned agrichemicals and their packaging is included.

It is noted that in the consultation document there is a focus on users rather than products types e.g. the collection of agricultural chemical containers. The Council believes that scheme design should focus on product types rather than end users to ensure there is a level playing field and to ensure that certain sectors aren’t unfairly disadvantaged. E.g. all chemical containers; all commercial plastic wrap not just bale wrap.

In addition, Council specifically advocate for a container deposit scheme to be implemented as was stated in the Local Government Waste Manifesto 2018. This was also endorsed through a separate LGNZ remit in 2016 with 90% in favour.

We encourage the Ministry to investigate expanding the definition of beverage packaging to include beverage packaging and their lids and fastening. Research by the Waste MINZ Territorial Authority Officers forum has revealed that most lids deposited loose in kerbside recycling bins end up in the fines and are sent to landfill. Yet, there are 3 plastics manufacturers in New Zealand who are able to recycle lids on-shore provided they are collected colour sorted. Lids are the third highest source of beach litter in NZ. Bottle lids have been found in the stomachs of many New Zealand seabirds and in particular shearwaters^{^[1]}

We ask that all chemicals in plastic containers up to and including 1,000 litres in size not just chemicals used in horticulture, agricultural and livestock be declared priority products e.g. containers used in automobile repair workshops; factories etc so that there is appropriate disposal of chemicals and containers regardless of industry or sector.

Q4 Proposed priority product declaration for refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases

Q4(a): Do you agree with the declaring as priority products: all gases used for heating, cooling and air conditioning that are ozone depleting substances under the Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996 and/or synthetic greenhouse gases under the Climate Change Response Act 2002, and products containing these gases. Why? Why not?

Yes

The Council agrees that the defined product should be the gas rather than the containers holding the gases. The gas itself, which is the waste stream that needs to be regulated. In our opinion, all gases which are included under the Montreal Protocol should be in scope.

As it is difficult to identify all products that contain the relevant gases. It is more practical to name the gas and then the onus is on the producer or importer to check if the gas is contained within the product.

Products containing these gases can also be refurbished a number of times during the component’s life cycle, for example an air conditioning unit may be “re-gassed” a number of times before the appliance is obsolete, yet the gas needs to be managed during servicing in the same way as if the appliance had reached end of life.

Because the gas and the appliance may have separate lifecycles and the gases are present in a number of appliances and components Council support that the gas is the defined product. There is evidence that many obsolete refrigeration units are simply being crushed with light gauge steel with no extraction of gas being undertaken. No data is available from the Council relating to the number of refrigeration units or EOL vehicles with air condition units that are being disposed of.

Q4(b):Do you agree with the declaring as priority products: methyl bromide and products containing this gas. Why? Why not?

Yes, Applying the test provided in section 9(2) of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, Council support the declaration of priority product status.

Q5 Proposed priority product declaration for packaging

Q5(a): Do you agree with declaring beverage packaging as priority products: packaging used to hold any beverage for retail sale that has more than 50 millilitres and less than 4 litres of capacity, made of any material singly or in combination with other materials (eg, plastic, glass, metal, paperboard or mixed laminated materials). Why? Why not?

Yes

Most Councils provide either a kerbside recycling collection or access to a community recycling depot in order to prevent recyclable packaging entering landfill. Ratepayers are essentially lumped with the cost of effective recycling or recovery, whilst those involved in the life of the product (manufacturers, retailers and the actual consumers) are totally absolved of direct responsibility.

The Council support beverage packaging included in this process in order to address the use of single use bottles and unnecessary packaging waste. Regulations to address beverage packaging have been successfully introduced in many countries around the world.

The continued reliance on single use bottles demonstrate the ‘throw away’ mind-set within our society and the inclusion of packaging under a mandatory product stewardship scheme would address resource scarcity and consumption.

The regulation of packaging products would be a catalyst for manufacturers to consider the EOL of their products and necessitate better design choices. The current model provides no incentive for industry to reduce the amount of waste produced and essentially leaves the cost of managing the products at the end of their life to ratepayers

Hastings can share our 2019 SWAP data, should this be of interest to the Ministry of the Environment.

The size limit should be increased to include large 10-20L containers. Many of this size are used by residents locally due to water chlorination. Also the Council would expect milk bottles to also be included.

Hastings District Council support the introduction of a container deposit scheme to shift the responsibility back to producers for the management of beverage containers. More clarity is required regarding the extent of a Container Deposit Scheme as this appears to be excluded, which would still require management by Councils.

The wider community constantly voice their concern regarding this matter as they feel their single voice is lost against the large corporates.

The size and location of recycling symbols should also be addressed to make it easier for people to identify recyclable materials.

What about condiment containers, such as jam, peanut butter, dressings and sauces?

Q5(b): Do you agree with declaring single-use plastic consumer goods packaging as priority products: packaging used for consumer goods at retail or wholesale level made of plastic resin codes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7, singly or in combination with one or more of these plastics or any non-plastic material, and not designed to be refilled. Why? Why not?

Yes

Polystyrene must be included as it is a harmful material on so many levels. Easily breaks into smaller pieces – becomes airborne and then enters the waterways. It is a nightmare of rubbish trucks as it breaks into smaller pieces during the compaction process of the trucks and is as the truck travels along the air flow around the vehicle then pulls the small pieces out. The transport companies can then be fined for insecure loads.

The polystyrene balls are also difficult for the fibre industry to manage to the processing systems like glass shards.

The size and location of recycling symbols should also be addressed to make it easier for people to identify recyclable materials.

Council advocates that the definition of single-use plastic packaging should explicitly state all single-use plastic packaging including but not limited to oil and plant-based plastics; compostable plastic, biodegradable plastic and oxydegradable plastic. This is due to the current limitations of existing infrastructure to collect and process compostable materials; the fact that biodegradable packaging, has not been proven to break down when littered and that if compostable and biodegradable packaging is excluded from a priority product scheme, there is the danger that producers could switch to this packaging to avoid being part of a regulated product stewardship scheme.

It is noted that on page 32 under next steps regulations for labelling or material controls could be considered. We strongly support compulsory end of life labelling for single-use containers i.e. packaging must state clearly whether it is recyclable or not and if so whether at kerbside or via an instore drop-off.

Q6: Proposed priority product declaration for farm plastics

Q6(a): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: plastic wrapping materials used for silage or hay, including but not limited to baleage wrap, hay bale netting, baling twine, and covers for silage pits. Why? Why not?

Yes

The success of the voluntary product stewardship schemes; Agrecovery and Plasback, have been affected by ‘free riders’ and non-participation and has provided a clear example of short fallings associated with the voluntary approach. Recycling costs are also perceived to be high and have acted as a deterrent to participation especially with regards to horticultural and agricultural plastics such as silage/baleage wrap and bird netting.

Environment Canterbury and Bay of Plenty/Waikato Regional Councils have undertaken several studies to establish the volume and composition of rural waste streams. The results of these studies should be considered through this process.

It is important to recognise that new waste streams may emerge as the result of new technologies or practises and that an assessment mechanism should be created to allow for their evaluation and subsequent inclusion in to any product stewardship scheme. For example the use of ground protection plastic is increasing and emerging as a new waste stream in some horticultural industries. This plastic is thicker than traditional plastic and is heavily contaminated with organic material.

Buildings are now shrink-wrapped and shrink-wrap is used in vast quantities when goods are being transported on pallets, Hastings District Council advocate that all plastic film be included in the scope for this product. These commercial sources of plastic wrapping contribute significantly to waste volumes to landfill and have the potential to be recycled in similar ways to other plastic wrapping materials.

Q6(b): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: plastic packaging used for agricultural and horticultural commodities including but not limited to fertiliser sacks, feed sacks, and bulk tonne bags made from woven polypropylene and/or polyethylene. Why? Why not?

Yes

Emerging horticulture practices are seeing plastic sheeting used for ground cover, for storage solutions, for crop ripening and for protection from birds. This is resulting in an increased reliance on plastic products which are being disposed of through Council Refuse Transfer Stations or the Omarunui Landfill. Currently Hastings District Council has over 200 wool bales of compressed bird netting that it is unable to dispose of in Omarunui Landfill due to the operational challenges it creates, gets entangled in machinery wheels and make landfill gas well drilling difficult.

Hastings District Council is also aware of large volumes of wool fadges, tree protection guards and irrigation piping that are disposed of across the district, but don’t currently have data available.

Q6(c): Do you agree with declaring as priority products: other plastic packaging and products used for agriculture and horticulture including, but not limited to, protective nets, reflective ground covers, and rigid plastic containers other than containers for agrichemicals, detergents, lubricants or solvents. Why? Why not?

Yes, as above

Smaller plastic items that are used in the horticulture industry are often disregarded as they are not tracked and often left on trees and vines or cut off and left on the ground, so there is little data on how much waste is being produced here. One example is vineyard tags that are used to attach young vines to the wires. Once the young vines reach a certain height, the small tape like plastic tags are usually cut off and left in the orchard for the environment to absorb. A vineyard decided to instead collect the tags in the comparatively small orchard that they were working in, and calculated that approximately 180,000 tags would have been collected had they been collected over the whole (small) vineyard. The photo below is about half of the small vineyard’s tags for this one stage of the vines life cycle. There would be countless other small pieces of plastics such as these used in the horticulture, agriculture, and aquaculture industries that are not accounted for.

Items like these must be included in product stewardship as there is currently no incentive to collect these back, and if they were they would likely be burned. Small items of plastic like these are a huge part of our marine litter problem and need to be accounted for.

It is important to recognize that products may emerge as the result of new technologies or practises e.g. plastic fence posts and that an assessment mechanism should be created to allow for their evaluation and subsequent inclusion in any product stewardship scheme.

Q7: Proposed ministerial guidelines for priority product stewardship schemes

Do you agree with the proposed guidelines for priority product stewardship schemes outlined in table 3 of the public consultation document? Why? Why not?

Yes – see specific comments below.

Q7(1) Any comments on draft guidelines: Intended objectives and outcomes - no comment

Q7(2) Any comments on draft guidelines: Fees, funding and cost effectiveness - no comment

Q7(3) Any comments on draft guidelines: Governance - no comment

Q7(4) Any comments on draft guidelines: Non-profit status - no comment

Q7(5) Any comments on draft guidelines: Competition - no comment

Q7(6) Any comments on draft guidelines: Stakeholder engagement and collaboration

The stakeholder management list needs to be expanded to include other parties involved with the product and or packaging examples could include mana whenua, the public, youth, community sector, etc.

Q7(7) Any comments on draft guidelines: Compliance

This section should contain comments about the standards for collection facilities in relation to working conditions, health and safety etc. There is a comment at 11 a) that covers this but it should be in compliance as well. All collection processes and processing facilities should comply with the H&S etc.

Q7(8) Any comments on draft guidelines: Targets

There should be a target or at least some mention about coverage or access to a scheme to ensure that schemes are providing equity across the country similar to 17 a) to prevent cherry picking from locations with easier access.

Q7(9) Any comments on draft guidelines: Timeframes - no comment

Q7(10) Any comments on draft guidelines: Market development

The public and mana whenua should be included as part of the 'minimum'

Q7(11) Any comments on draft guidelines: Performance standards, training and certification - no comment

Q7(12) Any comments on draft guidelines: Liability and insurance - no comment

Q7(13) Any comments on draft guidelines: Design for environment

Setting a fee at point of sale is important as many consumers may not have the ability to pay at the end of life. If the fee is set at point of sale, it can also be used as an incentive to return a product for appropriate disposal.

We believe that paragraph C of section 13 should explicitly state that all priority products should be labelled with end of life disposal instructions so that consumers know how to appropriately dispose of products.

Q7(14) Any comments on draft guidelines: Reporting and public accountability - no comment

Q7(15) Any comments on draft guidelines: Public awareness - no comment

Q7(16) Any comments on draft guidelines: Monitoring, compliance and enforcement

We believe that if a scheme fails to meet its objectives, other options apart from revocation of accreditation should also be permitted including but not limited to

The government can take over the scheme. or

The government can appoint an independent body to run the scheme

Q7(17) Any comments on draft guidelines: Accessible collection networks - no comment

Q8: Other comments

Are there other products that you think should be declared as priority products? Please specify

The regulation of packaging products would be a catalyst for manufacturers to consider the End of Life (EOL) of their products and necessitate better design choices. At a time when Territorial Authorities are facing ever increasing costs and expectation creep, the continual ‘dumping’ of these costs on local government is completely untenable. Over recent months several Councils and Community Recycling Operators have been forced review and in some cases, cancel recycling services relating to plastic. The Council firmly believe action is required to ensure that such costs are met by those parties directly involved in the life of these products.

Previous consultations in 2005, 2009 and 2014 have shown strong and consistent support for product stewardship schemes from local government and many industries.

The Council recognises there are both challenges and benefits likely to arise from the introduction of mandatory product stewardship schemes. It is felt that the voluntary product stewardship schemes have not achieved high levels of participation or enabled economies of scale for infrastructure development and that Government intervention is now a necessity.

All or part of any written submission (including names of submitters) may be published on the Ministry for the Environment's website, www.mfe.govt.nz. Unless you clearly specify otherwise in your submission, the Ministry will consider that you have agreed to have your submission and your name posted on its website.

Contents of submissions may be released to the public under the Official Information Act 1982, if requested. Please let us know if you do not want some or all of your submission released, stating which part(s) you consider should be withheld and the reason(s) for withholding the information.

Under the Privacy Act 1993, people have access to information held by agencies about them. Any personal information you send to the Ministry with your submission will only be used in relation to matters covered by this document. In your submission, please indicate if you prefer we do not include your name in the published summary of submissions.

File Ref: 19/871

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 September 2019

FROM: Community Grants Advisor

Kevin Carter

SUBJECT: Summary of Recommendations of the Rural Halls Subcommittee Meeting held 9 September 2019

1.0 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise that the recommendations from the Rural Halls Subcommittee meeting held on 9 September 2019 require ratification by Council.

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

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A) That the Council receives the report titled Summary of Recommendations of the Rural Halls Subcommittee Meeting held 9 September 2019.

B) That the following recommendations to the Rural Halls Subcommittee meeting held 9 September 2019 be ratified:

4. RURAL HALLS – UPDATE ON CONDITION OF HALLS AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE BUILDING (EARTHQUAKE-PRONE BUILDINGS) AMENDMENT ACT

A) That the Rural Halls Subcommittee receives the report titled “Hastings District Rural Halls - Building Status Report” dated 9/09/2019.

B) That the Rural Halls Subcommittee endorse the recommended priority actions as outlined in Table 3 of the report as shown below:

Hall name	Estimated Cost Detailed Eng Assessment	When by	Estimate Remediation Cost	Estimate General Maintenance Cost	Priority
Maraekakaho Church Hall	$15,000	2024	$100,000	$8,000	1
Tutira Hall	$15,000	2024	$40,000	$0	1
Waimarama Maraetotara Memorial Hall	$15,000	2024	$40,000	$100,000	1
Matapiro & District Recreation Hall	$15,000	2024	$25,000	$30,000	1
Kaiwaka (Tareha) Hall	$15,000	2024	$25,000	$5,000	2
Pakowhai War Memorial Hall	$15,000	2024	Unknown	$3,000	2
Sherenden Hall	$15,000	2024	Unknown	$8,000	2
Kereru Hall	$15,000	2024	Unknown	$3,000	3
Total	$120,000			$254,000

C) That the Rural Halls Subcommittee recommend that the Council consider increasing the rural halls annual funding allocation from $50,000 to $75,000 pa to assist in advancing the engineering assessments and remedial building work to meet new building legislation – (Note: 2019/20 funding allocation was $60,000 due to the reserve amount from 2018/19 being included).

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) in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by: assisting the rural communities in improving the condition of rural halls in terms of earthquake legislation and general maintenance”.

“5. RURAL HALLS FUND 2019/20 FUNDING ROUND

A) That the Rural Halls Subcommittee receives the report titled “Rural Halls Fund 2019/20 Funding Round” dated 9/09/2019.

B) That the following grants be allocated from the 2019/2020 Rural Halls Fund subject to the rural hall committees providing evidence, to the satisfaction of the Community Grants Advisor, of their 50% contribution to the total cost of their project:

Hall	Brief Project Description	Request
Twyford and Raupare Memorial Hall	Carpeting walls to reduce damages and provide better heating and improve the acoustics	$6,950.00
Sherenden Hall	New water pump and cylinder to ensure constant water supply to kitchen and bathrooms	$808.18
Waimarama Maraetotara Memorial Hall	Replace main switchboard. Install emergency lighting and smoke alarms. Replace Kitchen benches. Replace hot water cylinder	$10,435
Matapiro	Redecorate bathrooms areas to encourage more people to use the facility	$3,110.00
Clive Community Hall	Removal and replacement of kitchen units and kitchen benches	$4,697.92
	TOTAL	$26,001.10

C) That the current Rural Halls Fund earthquake assessment and strengthening budget ($30,000) and the Rural Halls Fund reserve earthquake assessment and strengthening budget ($30,000) be used to complete Earthquake Assessments on the halls recommended and prioritised by the Parks and Property Services Team, as per their report dated 9 September 2019 (19/746).

D) Matapiro War Memorial Hall

That Council fully investigate the Matapiro War Memorial land and all options that would allow the Matapiro community to access a long term commercial lease to generate significant funds for the future maintenance of the Matapiro War Memorial Hall and that a report on options be brought to a future meeting for consideration.

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:

1 ⇩

Excerpt (Part 2) of the Matapiro War Memorial Hall committee presentation for the 201920 funding round addressed at the Rural Halls Subcommittee meeting on 9 September 2019

CG-14-31-00029

File Ref: 19/950

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 September 2019

FROM: Manager: Democracy and Governance

Jackie Evans

Manager IMBT Strategic Projects

Kevin Dresser

SUBJECT: Council Chamber Audio Visual Project - Live Streaming of Council and Committee Meetings

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council to enable the live streaming of Council and Committee meetings from early in the new triennium.

1.2 This is a governance opportunity that could make decision making processes more open and transparent and accessible by enabling the community to view live coverage of Council and Committee meetings held in the Council Chamber.

1.3 Following a period of testing the streaming of meetings, and a workshop to share the test results with elected members, Council approval is sought to progress live streaming from the start of the next triennium. In line with other procedures for governance arrangements (adoption of Standing Orders etc) following the election, any decision to progress live streaming will require ratification by the new Council at its inaugural meeting.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A) That the Council receives the report titled Council Chamber Audio Visual Project - Live Streaming of Council and Committee Meetings

B) That all public Council and Standing Committee meetings held in the Hastings District Council Chamber be streamed live via Youtube, subject to ratification at the inaugural Council meeting following the 2019 triennial election and starting in November 2019.

3.0 BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1 The installation of new audio visual equipment and ability to enable remote access to meetings via skype was competed in March 2019.

3.2 At the Council meeting on 2 May 2019, the Council received an update on progress towards enabling live streaming of Council meetings and resolved to amend standing orders to include protocols for the live streaming of meetings. A go-live date was discussed, and there was a general consensus that it would not be appropriate to commence live streaming during the run up to the election period. Thorough testing and confidence in the quality of the live streaming was considered to be crucial prior to the Council setting a firm date to “go live”.

3.3 Council Resolved:

That the Council’s Standing Orders be amended to include the following protocols for livestreaming Council meetings to be included as Appendix 5 with the subsequent appendices to be renumbered accordingly:

1. The default shot will be on the Chairperson or a wide-angle shot of the meeting room.

2. Cameras will cover a member who is addressing the meeting. Cameras will also cover other key participants in a meeting, including staff when giving advice and members of the public when addressing the meeting during the public input time.

3. Generally interjections from other members or the public are not covered. However if the Chairperson engages with the interjector, the interjector’s reaction can be filmed.

4. PowerPoint presentations, recording of votes by division and other matters displayed by overhead projector may be shown.

5. Shots unrelated to the proceedings, or not in the public interest, are not permitted.

6. If there is general disorder or a disturbance from the public gallery, coverage will revert to the Chairperson.

7. Appropriate signage will be displayed both in and outside the meeting room alerting people that the proceedings are being web cast.

That the Chief Executive be instructed to proceed with the project to livestream all full public Council meetings following the completion of testing to the satisfaction of Council on a date to be determined.

3.4 Council also requested that the following actions be addressed:-

· Develop a process when appropriate oral notice is provided by the Chair before live streaming begins.

· Investigate and report back on appropriate procedures for moving presenters who are concerned about safety into Public Excluded.

· Investigate and report back on appropriate copyright notices to be included with live streamed content.

· Consideration as to whether Council can control the use permission around this content.

3.5 At the last meeting of Council on 22 August 2019, members were advised that the meeting was being recorded for training purposes. During the debate on action points from previous meetings, it was resolved that officers report back to the 26 September 2019 Council meeting the on the outcome of the testing and confirm a date to “go live” and other associated matters which included:

· Update any potential to set “go live” date at next Council meeting.

· Live stream on all public meetings if possible.

· General direction to have signed off before the end of the triennium.

· Update on requirements for public records retention and protocols for Councillors and staff before “going live”.

4.0 DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

4.1 Council and the Finance and Risk Committee have been recorded in full and the results shared with elected members at a workshop held on 19 September 2019. The cameras and audio are working as expected, and provided meeting participants ensure that they only speak when their microphone “red light” is on, the live streaming works well and is ready to be implemented:

Responses to Outstanding issues

4.2 Oral notice by the Mayor/Chair

Democracy and Governance Services will provide Chairs with suitable wording to read out prior to the commencement and at the close of live streaming. Livestreaming will not commence or cease until an instruction has been issued by the Mayor/Chair. Wording will also be provided for the suspension of meetings for lunch and tea breaks, ceasing recording for public excluded sessions, and to cease recording in the event of a public disturbance.

4.3 Request for speakers to heard in Public Excluded sessions

Under the Local Government Official information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) a submitter/speaker may be heard in public excluded session if there is a reason to withhold information/protect the identity of the individual under section 7 of the Act.

4.4 Copyright and Permissions

The General Counsel advises that there are no copyright issues with regard to Council meetings. The livestreaming will be available and recoverable on the Council’s Youtube channel or facebook. It is not possible to control the use of the material once it has been made publicly available on youtube or facebook.

4.5 Setting a Go-live date

There is no reason why a date cannot be set to “go live” for the streaming of meetings. If the Council decides to commence live streaming, the decision will require the ratification of the New Council at the inaugural meeting.

4.6 Protocols and records retention

Recordings of broadcast meetings would count as a public record, but the signed minutes of the meeting remain the official public record. The Council’s employment policies also require amendment so that employees are aware that they may be filmed if presenting and attending Council and Committee meetings. The Group Manager; Human Resources has undertaken to amend the relevant Council employment policies and advise Council employees accordingly.

How it is proposed to livestream the meetings

4.7 There are two channels available to livestream the meetings: Youtube or Facebook. The recordings have tested both channels, and found that the quality of the livestreaming is the same.

Advantages and disadvantages of the different channels available for live-streaming

4.8 YouTube offers a stable platform for both live streamed and archived content – it provides the facility to sort and store archived content for easy viewing. Facebook places stronger emphasis on live video with less capacity to effectively organise archived content.

4.9 YouTube live can be seamlessly integrated into the Council’s own website, Facebook live cannot. This is an important distinction – it is recommended that where possible, traffic is driven to the Council’s primary digital asset, our own website. Particularly as this is where supporting documentation (e.g. agendas) would be stored.

4.10 Facebook is a good channel for instant engagement/action from the audience whereas people will need to be directed to YouTube/our website. The Council can still use YouTube as our streaming channel and use the immediacy of Facebook for promotion.

Which meetings can be livestreamed?

4.11 Any public Council or Committee meeting held in the Council Chamber can be livestreamed. A direction from the Council is sought on which meetings should be streamed. Once the Council has given the Chief Executive direction, a communications plan will be put in place to publicise the initiative.

4.12 As it is likely that the livestreaming will not commence until the start of the new triennium and there will be a new Council with a different membership, any decision taken at this meeting will require ratification by the new Council at the inaugural meeting on 7 November 2019. This is in line with other procedures regarding the administration of meetings.

5.0 OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

5.1 The decision whether to commence livestreaming is entirely a political decision. In order to proceed with livestreaming a Council direction is required to commence livestreaming and an indication of which meetings should be streamed.

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.2 To commence livestreaming meetings using the Council’s Youtube channel for all public Council and Standing Committee meetings with effect from the first ordinary meeting of the new triennium, subject to confirmation at the inaugural meeting by the new Council.

Advantages

· To declare that this Council is committed to open and transparent decision making and accessible to the community.

· Increased accessibility to view Council meetings will encourage more openness and transparency of decision making and encourage greater community engagement.

Disadvantages

· The livestreaming of public meetings might inhibit public involvement at Council meetings, and inhibit open discussion and challenge around the meeting table.

Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei

5.3 Not to commence livestreaming at this time and leave a decision to the incoming Council following the elections.

Advantages

· Recognising that the elected membership around the council table will change following the election, allow the incoming Council to decide how it wishes to interact with the community.

Disadvantages

· The investment in media infrastructure made by this Council may not be used to its full potential.

6.0 NEXT STEPS - TE ANGA WHAKAMUA

6.1 If the Council opts to proceed with livestreaming, work will commence work on a communications plan and launch for the initiative in time for the first ordinary meeting of Council in the new triennium.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

N/A

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

N/A

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

N/A:

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A:

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

N/A:

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

N/A.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

No external engagement:

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

N/A:

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

N/A:

File Ref: 19/913

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 26 September 2019

FROM: The Electoral Officer

Jackie Evans

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

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TE KAUPAPA ME TE WHAKARĀPOPOTOTANGA

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 August 2019.

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

1.3 This is an administrative report to ensure that the Council is aware of the number and types of information requests received and to provide assurance the Council meeting its legislative obligations in relation to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA).

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

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS - NGĀ TŪTOHUNGA

A) That the Council receives the report titled Requests Received Under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) Monthly Update

B) That the LGOIMA requests received in August 2019 as set out in Attachment 1 (IRB-2-01-19-1702) of the report be noted.

3.0 BACKGROUND – TE HOROPAKI

3.1 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

3.2 The principle of 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.

3.3 Purpose of the Act

3.4 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:

· enable more effective public participation in decision making; and

· 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.

· 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.

· 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.

3.5 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.

3.6 What does a LGOIMA request look like?

3.7 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.

3.8 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 assessment about the release of the information requested.

Key Timeframes

3.9 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.

3.10 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.

3.11 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.

4.0 DISCUSSION - TE MATAPAKITANGA

Current Situation

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

5.0 OPTIONS - NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA

Not applicable

Attachments:

1 ⇩

LGOIMA Monthly Report to Council - August 2019

IRB-2-01-19-1702

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS - HE WHAKARĀPOPOTO WHAIWHAKAARO

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-rohe

N/A

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te rautaki matua

N/A

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

N/A

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A

Financial considerations - Ngā Whaiwhakaaro Ahumoni

N/A

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

N/A

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto, ā-waho

N/A

Risks: Legal/ Health and Safety - Ngā Tūraru: Ngā Ture / Hauora me te Haumaru

N/A

Rural Community Board - Ngā Poari-ā-hapori

N/A

Completed
Outstanding
Month	From	Subject	Total
August	BestStart	Educational facilities receiving rating adjustments
	Stuff	Te Mata Track information
	Simeon Brown MP	Payments to NZ Drug Foundation
	Individual	Bike track work on Tainui Reserve
	Individual	Library fines policy
	Individual	Animal Shelter Admissions
	Radio NZ	Communications and PR Numbers and Budgets
	Individual	Noise Complaint
	Individual	Number of NZ Solo Exhibitions at Hastings Art Gallery
	Individuals x 2 separate requests	Information regarding Tirimoana Place
	Stuff	Contractors stabbed by hypodermic needles
	Individual	Costs incurred by Craggy Range Track
	Individual	Road realignment – Puketitiri Road
	Funeral Directors Assn of NZ	Health (Burials) Regulations 1946	14

Item No.	Meeting Date	Action	Reporting Officer	Progress as at 26 September 2019
17	2/5/19	Protocols for Live Streaming · Develop a process when appropriate verbal notice is provided by the Chair before live streaming begins. · Investigate and report back on appropriate procedures for moving presenters who are concerned about safety into Public Excluded. · Investigate and report back on appropriate copyright notices to be included with live streamed content. · Consideration as to whether Council can control the use permission around this content.	Jackie Evans/ Scott Smith	Council meetings being recorded from 22 August 2019. Following a workshop,the Council on 10 October 2019 will be asked to decide whether they wish to proceed with livestreaming. The outstanding legal issues will be addressed as part of the report
9	22/08/19	Live Streaming · Update any potential to set “go live” date at next Council meeting. · Live stream on all public meetings if possible. · General direction to have signed off before the end of the triennium. · Update on requirements for public records retention and protocols for Councillors and staff before “going live”.	Jackie Evans	Report included in Council Agenda for 26 September 2019.
10	22/08/19	Financial Summary for the 12 Months to June 2019 · Update on Clifton Revetment	Bruce Allan

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings