Agenda of Council Meeting

File Ref: 17/976

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 March 2018

FROM: Social Development Co-ordinator

John Dawson

SUBJECT: Maraekakaho Community Plan

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council to endorse the Maraekakaho Community Plan 2017-2022.

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

1.3 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to support the delivery of good quality local infrastructure and local public services in a cost-effective way appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances, by working collectively, allowing partners to leverage resources more effective by working together and ensuring that actions meet identified community needs.

1.4 This report concludes by recommending:

A) That the report of the Social Development Co-ordinator title Maraekakaho Community Plan dated 22/03/2018 be received

B) Endorse the Maraekakaho Community Plan 2017-2022, noting that actions within the Plan requiring new Council funding will be requested through the appropriate Council processes and that other funding opportunities will be sourced where appropriate.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Hastings District Council first decided to develop community plans in 2002 as a means for Council to engage with and provide additional support to communities deemed as having particular needs. It also supports councils Social Wellbeing Framework 2010.

2.2 This is the first Maraekakaho Community Plan.

2.3 The Maraekakaho Community Plan sets a pathway for the Maraekakaho community to move forward to realise its collective aspirations and vision. The key themes are:

o A Connected Maraekakaho Community

o Enhancement of and Advocacy for River and Waterways

o Development and Maintenance of Community Facilities

o Ensuring Safe and Effective Roading

o Preservation and Enhancement of History and Heritage

o Development and Maintenance of Community Health and Wellbeing

o Development and Maintenance of Safety and Security

o Development and Maintenance of Emergency Preparedness.

2.4 On 4 December 2017, the Rural Community Board recommended the Maraekakaho Community Plan be endorsed by Council.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 A community-elected representative group, Focus MKK, have been tasked with developing the Plan which is based on ongoing feedback and input from the Maraekakaho community, including several meetings with community and specific interest groups.

3.2 Focus MKK is seeking Council endorsement for this Plan. Members of the Maraekakaho Community are at today’s meeting to present the Plan to Council.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 There are 2 options for Council to consider:

· Endorse the Maraekakaho Community Plan 2017-2022, noting that actions within the Plan requiring new Council funding will be requested through the appropriate Council processes and that other funding opportunities will be sourced where appropriate.

· Not endorse the Maraekakaho Community Plan 2017-2022.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 This report does not trigger the council’s significance policy. No further consultation is required for the decisions in this report.

5.2 Community planning commenced in August 2016, after receiving community mandate to set up Focus MKK.

5.3 Initial discussions focused on identifying the key themes and gaining community engagement through the various Interest Groups that were set up to explore these themes.

5.4 Further consultation has been carried out through various mediums including; Face to face consultation with local businesses and organisations, online communication via a MKK Facebook page and the Focus MKK newsletters.

5.5 Focus MKK have already engaged with Council in upgrading of pathways and other projects such as a recycling facility and signage.

5.6 A draft Maraekakaho Community Plan was made in July 2017; this draft provided the basis of a more robust Plan which is being presented today. The priorities and actions identified in this Plan have been approved by Focus MKK as being ready for endorsement by Council. All aspects of the Plan have been sounded out with affected stakeholders and organisations.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

Maraekakaho Community Plan 2017-2022

6.1 Council endorsement of the Maraekakaho Community Plan 2017-2022 would signal support at a high level for the collaborative approach being taken to the delivery of actions within this community.

6.2 Endorsement does not commit Council to allocate funds or other resources to any or all of the actions or ideas noted in the Plan, as this will be done in an integrated way through Council’s Long Term Plan and Annual Plan processes. Other funding opportunities will also be investigated.

6.3 A decision not to endorse the Maraekakaho Community Plan 2017-2022 could harm relationships with other partners and the community who have contributed to a robust consultation and plan development process.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 The preferred option for Council is to support the recommendation:

A) Endorse the Maraekakaho Community Plan 2017-2022, noting that actions within the Plan requiring new Council funding will be requested through the appropriate Council processes and that other funding opportunities will be sourced where appropriate.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Social Development Co-ordinator title Maraekakaho Community Plan” dated 22/03/2018 be received.

B) That Council endorse the Maraekakaho Community Plan 2017-2022, noting that the actions within the Plan requiring new Council funding will be requested through the appropriate Council processes and that the community will source other funding, where appropriate.

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

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

Attachments:

Maraekakaho Community Plan

COP-10-17-18-1

File Ref: 18/205

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 March 2018

FROM: Principal Advisor: District Development

Mark Clews

SUBJECT: Recommendations of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee February 2018

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to receive and consider the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy - Joint Committee’s (the Joint Committee) recommendation, on the final report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels.

1.2 This issue arises from completion of Stage 3 of the strategy process to develop a long term vision and hazard management strategy for this section of the coast.

1.3 The objective of the strategy relevant to the purpose of Local Government is good quality local infrastructure and regulation for the management of coastal hazards in the study area to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of the community.

1.4 This report concludes by recommending that the Council receive the report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels, and agree to consider the recommendations and to commence work on issues to be contained in Stage 4 of the Implementation Strategy, including issues of funding.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The coastline between Tangoio and Clifton is defined by a gravel barrier ridge. This ridge acts as a vital defence from the sea, without which large areas of the coast would be regularly inundated. Sea level rise and climate change present an increasing threat to the existing barrier ridge and the coastline over time.

2.2 In 2014 a decision was made to form a joint committee made up of representatives of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Hastings District Council and Napier City Council together with representatives from Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust, Mana Ahuriri Incorporated and He Toa Takitini. The committee was set-up to look at coastal hazards over the period 2016-2120 and produce a strategy determining options for managing coastal hazard risks, namely beach erosion, inundation through overtopping and sea level rise.

2.3 The Strategy has been progressed in four key stages as shown in figure 1 below.

2.4 Stage 1 Define the Problem - commenced in 2014 with two reports being prepared – “Coastal Hazard Assessment” and “Coastal Risk Assessment”, which estimates the extent and probability of coastal hazards occurring and the likely scale of damage that could be caused to physical assets, people and communities and the environment.

2.5 Stage 2 Framework for Decisions - began in May 2016 with a framework developed to support a collaborative decision making forum for a community led response to the issues (rather than the more traditional and previously used ‘top down’ planned approach). The framework combined a multi criteria assessment analysis with an adaptive pathways approach (combined with several other economic, social and cultural considerations) for communities to consider different management strategies, i.e. “the status quo” (do nothing/monitor the situation), “hold the line” (defend) or “managed retreat” (withdrawing, relocation, or abandonment) for specific areas along the coast for the whole of the 100 year timeframe. Both of these stages have previously been reported through to Council in detail at the completion of the respective stages.

2.6 Stage 3 Develop the Response - two cell assessment panels (one southern and one northern) were formed with community representatives from Tangoio/Whirinaki, BayView, Westshore/Ahuriri, Marine Parade, Clive/East Clive, Haumoana/TeAwanga/Clifton. Other participants included a representative from the Napier Port, Ahuriri businesses, New Zealand Transport Agency, Department of Conservation, recreational interests, and rural community. Based on a “multi criteria decision making analysis”, these assessment panels were responsible for developing and evaluating response options in Stage 3.

2.7 The Assessment Panels commenced their work in January 2017 and were tasked with developing informed recommendations for the Joint Committee’s consideration. The panels have now completed their task in preparing a 100 year Strategy for preferred response options along the coast, focussing at this stage on priority areas (i.e. those areas deemed most at risk in the short term). The Strategy is appended as Attachment A.

Figure 2 Clifton to Tangoio Coast Hazard Assessment Cells

3.0 Current Situation

3.1 Table 1 below summarises the recommendations, with more detail provided on pages 16-23 of the Strategy. Table 2 below provides a summary of the total costs estimated in range from high to low, including capital, operations and maintenance allowances for the recommended options while pages 64-72 detail the indicative costs for all of the pathways considered.

Table 1 Summary of Recommended Pathways

Table 2 Summary of Total costs (Capital, Operations, and Maintenance)

3.2 At the meeting of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee on 20 February 2018 (as shown in the draft minutes at Attachment B), the Committee resolved to:

1) Receive the Report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels.

2) Endorse the recommendations of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels as presented in their report dated 14 February 2018.

3) Recommend that the Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council endorse and adopt the recommendations of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels as presented in their report dated 14 February 2018, and commence Stage 4 (Implementation) of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120.

3.3 Partner Council reporting on Stage 3 is expected to be completed by 3 April, 2018. Subject to the outcome of Stage 3 being endorsed, and to confirming timing for reporting back to, and seeking support from, each Tangata Whenua member of the Joint Committee, Stage 4 will be able to commence, subject to partner Council’s funding commitments and Long Term Plan processes.

3.4 Hastings District Council, along with the other partner Councils, have already committed to including $100, 000 per year (uninflated) for the next ten years in its draft LTP (assuming confirmation through the LTP processes). This money is intended to cover Stage 4 of the Strategy and includes the planning phase of design and budget refinements, cost sharing and funding options and preparing for implementation. However, this funding, once confirmed, will not be available until the new financial year, 1 July 2018.

3.5 The ten years of funding in the LTP is intended to demonstrate leadership and a firm commitment by the partner Councils to facing up to one of the most pressing issues associated with climate change, i.e. sea level rise and its impacts on coastal erosion and inundation.

3.6 In the interim, budgeted costs for Stage 3 have been exceeded, leaving insufficient funds in the current financial year to proceed with any significant work in Stage 4. This exceedance has resulted from the need for more Assessment Panel workshops being held than originally intended, and a corresponding increase in inputs from external advisors.

3.7 The Partner Council representatives on the Technical Advisory Group consider that a “pause” is necessary, and that engaging further external advice in support of Stage 4 will need to be held over until after 30 June, 2018 and the confirmation of draft LTPs.

3.8 In practical terms, this means limited Joint Committee and TAG activity in Stage 4 between April to June 2018. From July onwards, technical expertise is expected to be required and engaged to, among other matters:

1) Guide the refinement of the funding approach towards an agreed position between all Partner Councils;

2) Commence implementation planning, particularly around the staging of physical works programmes in accordance with priority; and

3) Commence refining high level design and costing information for agreed physical works programmes, as part of detailed design.

3.9 In the interim, TAG are expecting to be able to advance work where internal resources can be dedicated in support of it, or where external funding may be available. As an example, funding and expertise may be available through the National Science Challenges programme to support the development of triggers. There are also a range of Assessment Panel supplementary recommendations that, if adopted by the Partner Councils, could be advanced.

3.10 Work also continues on developing the funding model and an assessment of the social costs and benefits for key communities. It is important that how funding decisions will be made, and in particular how private versus public costs/benefits are to be apportioned, is decided and tested with the communities that are expected to contribute so that affordability is confirmed before the panel’s recommendations can be fully committed to.

4.0 Options

4.1 The options available to Council are as follows:

1) To adopt the report and endorse the recommendations, including commencing Stage 4.

2) To adopt the report and endorse the recommendations in principle subject to funding arrangements, including commencing Stage 4.

3) Receive the report but not endorse the recommendations and not commence Stage 4.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND CONSULTATION

5.1 The Coastal Hazards Strategy is a significant body of work that has been based on a community led collaborative planning process. The assessment panel process has been a form of consultation in its own right and during their process two open evenings were held to consult with the wider coastal communities of interest (and anyone else interested). Pages 39-40 detail the main public feedback forums.

5.2 In addition, a range of direct communications have occurred with Iwi (including the 7 marae in the project area and the relevant Taiwhenua, Post-Settlement Governance Entities and Ngāti Kahungunu Incorporated). Regular newsletters have also kept the wider public informed of the process at key milestones and a dedicated website (https://www.hbcoast.co.nz/) has invited interested parties to become involved.

5.3 Nevertheless the strategy has significant implications for the way in which the coastal environment will be managed over many decades and the costs over the hundred year life of the strategy run into potential several hundred million dollars across the region, all of which will necessitate further ongoing consultative processes.

5.4 The strategy will inevitably require changes to the Regional Policy statement and Regional Coastal Plan which will require consultation and [potential environmental court appeals under the resource management act as will be the case with potential numerous resource consents to implement some of the works being anticipated by the strategy. Not the least however, will be the consultation needed to secure funding through the Long Term Plans and Thirty Year Infrastructure Plans.

5.5 Council will need to be satisfied that the level of community consultation thus far is sufficient to endorse the recommendations of the Joint Committee. Adoption of the strategy will then trigger significant further work which will entail the further consultation referred to above, but against the somewhat limiting backdrop of Council having agreed that the strategy recommendations are fundamentally the right ones to follow.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

Management Approach

6.1 Before adopting the recommendations and agreeing to initiate Stage 4 Council will want to be satisfied that the strategy approach is the right one to follow in terms of each of the pathways, at least for the short to medium term. It is noteworthy that the Pathways approach does allow some flexibility to change approach, sooner or later, depending upon how sea level rise impacts manifests themselves in reality over time. In addition it is noted that while the total estimated strategy implementation costs over 100 years at $131m -287m are significant and possibly daunting, the short term (20 year) costs are in the order of $52m and focus in general at the less invasive end of the range of management interventions, rather than harder engineering option, or pre-emptive retreat which tends to lock in these approaches, rather than fostering adaptive management over time.

6.1 It is also worth noting that the cost of doing nothing is estimated to run into the 100’s of millions of dollars. While the effects of erosion of land and physical assets is one of the more visible impacts of seal level rise the stage 1 work clearly showed that recurrent inundation by storm surge overtopping of the beach barrier was likely to affect far more members of the community and inflict greater financial losses than the erosion aspect. With sea level rise and increased storminess associated with climate change, these impacts are likely to be felt further inland and at a greater frequency.

6.2 Accordingly the management response recommended tended to focus on options that more effectively addressed this issue, rather than necessarily protecting properties closer to the coastline by employing harder engineering solutions such as seawalls. In addition the costs of managed relocation of large sections of the community and the existing public assets inland, tended to be significantly greater than the management options available to mitigate the risk, at least in the short to medium term. Further, inundation from storm surge is not easily tracked and predicted, so relocation options potentially need to happen well in advance of actual events. Unlike erosion, once relocation has occurred there is little flexibility to change pathway, resulting in unnecessary option lock in.

6.3 As a general summary and therefore with some exceptions, the recommended solutions for the most part recommend less “engineered” options that attempt to capitalise on natural processes by trapping gravels and sands, to stabilise and build back the cost away from infrastructure and private assets. This reduces the impact of storm surge, but minimises option lock in and promotes more adaptive management. While these approaches will also provide some protection from erosion for some properties closer to the shore line, those properties are still likely to experience damaging storm surge effects. With the coastline moving further away however, they will potentially be able to prove harder protections on their own properties without causing significant erosion affects further along the coast, which is an issue where the coastline is located at present.

Financial

6.4 While the Council may agree with the overall management approach, affordability will still be a major issue in the final outcomes for the community. The more immediate financial implications have been discussed above, but while some preliminary discussions have occurred between the partner Councils regarding the development of a funding model to implement the recommended pathways, some key questions remain open.

6.5 This includes the mechanism(s) for collecting and funding works over the longer timeframes associated with climate change and sea level rise being agreed with the relevant parties given the challenges for funding.

6.6 These include, among other things:

· The share of responsibilities between Councils for collecting rates in support of the physical work programmes identified by the Strategy;

· The share of responsibilities between Councils for seeking resource consents and implementing works;

· The detailed functioning of a ‘Contributory Fund’, particularly how targeted rates will be applied (i.e. whether rates collected from a specific coastal community are only spent in that community or whether there is an opportunity for a more general fund);

· Communities to make some appropriate contribution for future works to reflect intergenerational responsibilities.

· The public / private benefit assessment for each physical works programme, and the resulting apportionment of costs.

· Visibility for communities / stakeholders into the organisation whose purpose is to fund coastal hazards adaptation.

· Funding that is put aside for future responses to be ring fenced and immune to claw back as far as possible.

· A funding framework that is durable and able to survive through future successive political cycles over a long time frame.

6.7 Stage 4 will need to resolve these issues in order for the Strategy to deliver the preferred physical solutions for each of the priority areas of the coast.

Policy Framework

6.8 One body of work that will arise from Stage 4 will be a need to review all relevant provisions of both regional and district plans to ensure there is a policy framework that supports the preferred pathways while maintaining appropriate consenting requirements through normal resource management planning processes. Regional policy statements, regional plans and district plans must however, give effect to the National Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) and therefore by implication, so must the recommendation of the strategy.

6.9 The NZCPS states policies in order to achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act in relation to the coastal environment. It recognises that activities in the coastal environment are susceptible to the effects of natural hazards such as coastal erosion and tsunami, and those associated with climate change and requires Councils to identify and prioritise areas in the coastal environment that are potentially affected. Councils must take into account the nature of the coastal hazard risk and how it might change over at least a 100-year timeframe, including the expected effects of climate change; and its effects on storm frequency, intensity and surges; and coastal sediment dynamics.

6.10 The NCPS recognises that the coastal environment includes areas at risk from coastal hazards including physical resources, built facilities, and infrastructure, that have modified the coastal environment. It promotes a precautionary approach to the use and management of coastal resources potentially vulnerable to effects from climate change, so that avoidable social and economic loss and harm to communities does not occur.

6.11 In doing so it however, promotes locating new development away from areas prone to such risks and encourages redevelopment, or change in land use, and the location of infrastructure away from areas of hazard risk where practicable, including managed retreat by relocation or removal of existing structures or their abandonment in extreme circumstances.

6.12 It also discourages hard protection structures and promotes the use of alternatives to them, including natural defences and allowing natural adjustments for coastal processes, natural defences, ecosystems, habitat and species are to occur. Where appropriate for the protection, restoration or enhancement of natural defences that protect coastal land uses are also promoted.

6.13 However, it also recognises that the extent and characteristics of the coastal environment vary from region to region and locality to locality; and the issues that arise may have different effects in different localities and range of options for reducing coastal hazard risk that should be assessed relative to the option of “do-nothing”. This should include identifying and planning for transition mechanisms and timeframes for moving to more sustainable approaches. Where hard protection structures are considered to be necessary, the form and location of any structures need to be designed to minimise adverse effects on the coastal environment.

6.14 The recommended strategy attempts to meet the objectives and policies of the NCPS as outlined above, and by and large adopts an adaptive pathway approach where the interventions tend to be based around capitalising on natural processes and protecting the natural defence system represented by the gravel beach barrier rather than hard defence structures per se. However, that is not able to be achieved in all cases and some hard defence structures are recommended, but ultimately these may need to give way to managed retreat in some cases, e.g. Clifton

Risk

6.15 The biggest risk associated with climate change is not acting. The NZ Coastal Policy statement requires Councils to plan for coastal erosion and inundation using a 100 year time frame. The three partner Councils have been proactive in developing a Strategy that meets legislative requirements, current best practice and the aspirations of the potentially most affected communities. The pathways approach is also intended to manage the risk around uncertainty by delaying more expensive and less flexible interventions until future stages.

Preferred Option

6.16 The preferred option is for Council to receive the report and agree to consider the recommendations of the Joint Committee. Council should also agree to commencing work on the issues to be contained in the Stage 4 implementation plan, including issues of funding.

6.17 In recommending this approach it is acknowledged that considerable funds have been spent by the three Councils so far, and an enormous amount of community time has invested in developing the recommendations. The Joint Committee has overseen a robust community led planning process for developing a Coastal Hazard Strategy to meet the needs of the community for the next 100 years and the Community Panels have done good work drawing together proposals for addressing coastal hazards. Stage 4 will likewise involve considerable investment in time and money from the three Councils and with the input of the community, which should not be committed to without solid support and backing from three Councils for the outcomes being recommended in the Assessment Panel report.

6.18 Having said that it is also acknowledged that this has been and is a complex problem to solve, with potential solutions intended to span many decades with very substantial ongoing cost implications for the whole community and in particular those affected communities that will need to bear a substantial proportion of those costs. Officers are conscious therefore that Councillors will want to satisfy themselves that the recommendations are the most appropriate way of dealing with the hazards in the long term. Although there have been some workshops and progress reports along the development the way, there has not yet been sufficient opportunity for Councillors to fully debate the merits of the recommendations, or to seek further information and analysis to give them the level of comfort they may need in order to fully commit to the recommended strategy at this time. Officers consider that this is necessary if the strategy is to have the longevity desired of it and in view of the necessary consultation required with the affected and broader communities who will be expected to fund the implementation.

6.19 The implementation phase is critical in order to deliver the preferred pathways necessary to making the community resilient to the potential impacts associated with coastal erosion and inundation in the face of climate change and sea level rise. For that phase to proceed, there needs to be some reasonable endorsement of the management approaches recommended, in order that the nature of the costs can be better estimated and benefit apportionment agreed upon as a basis for assessing affordability and assigning funding responsibilities. Accordingly consideration of the recommendations should ideally take place before the end of the financial year if momentum is not to be lost in terms of commencing stage 4.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Principal Advisor: District Development titled “Recommendations of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee February 2018” dated 22/03/2018 be received.

B) That the Council receive the report of the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels, and agree to consider the recommendations contained therein.

C) That the Council agree to commence work on issues to be contained in Stage 4 of the Implementation Strategy, including issues of funding.

D) With the reason for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure and regulatory functions for the management of coastal hazards in the study area in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by considering a long term adaptive pathway approach for each of the coastal areas at risk from climate change and sea level rise over the next 100 years.

Attachments:

1	Clifton to Tangoio Coast Hazards Strategy Assessment Panel Report FINAL 28.2.18. signed copy as Adopted by the Joint Committee	STR-14-07-18-531	Separate Doc
2	Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee Minutes 20 February 2018 - Draft Minutes of Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee - 20 February 2018	STR-14-07-18-529	Separate Doc

File Ref: 18/184

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 March 2018

FROM: Manager Strategic Finance

Brent Chamberlain

SUBJECT: Hawke's Bay Airport Limited Half Year Report and 2018/19 Statement of Intent

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the results of the Hawke’s Bay Airport Limited (HBAL) for the six months ended 31 December 2017 and to present the draft HBAL 2018/19 Statement of Intent for consideration.

1.2 This issue arises from the receipt of the half yearly report for the six months ended 31 December 2017 and the draft 2018/19 Statement of Intent (SOI) from HBAL. Tony Porter (Chairman) and Stuart Ainslie (Chief Executive Officer) from HBAL will be in attendance at the Council meeting.

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

1.4 This report concludes by recommending that the Half Year report for the six months to 31 December 2017 and the draft 2018/19 Statement of Intent be received with any comments passed onto the HBAL Board for consideration.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 HBAL is a joint venture between the Crown (50%), Napier City (26%) and Hastings District (24%).

2.2 The Council’s share of HBAL is considered to be a Strategic Asset in Council’s Significance Land Engagement Policy.

2.3 HBAL is required to report to its shareholding partners every 6 months.

2.4 The Local Government Act requires all Council Controlled Organisations to prepare a Statement of Intent. A draft is required to be provided by 1 March each year for comment with the final Statement of Intent to be completed by 30 June each year. Clause 3 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 outlines the Board’s responsibilities upon receiving comments from the shareholders:

3) Completion of statements of intent

The board must –

a) Consider any comments on the draft statement of intent that are made to it within 2 months of 1 March by the shareholders or by any of them; and

b) Deliver the completed statement of intent to the shareholders on or before 30 June each year.

2.5 Clause 9 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act outlines the contents of a Council Controlled Organisation’s Statement of Intent for which HBAL must comply.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

Half Year Accounts

3.1 Attached as Attachment 1 is a copy of the report to shareholders for the half year ended 31 December 2017.

3.2 HBAL has reported a half year after tax profit of $933,430 which is above budget ($659,233) but below last year’s half year result of $990,240. The result reflects a 10.3% ($314,463) increase in revenue on last year. Operating expenses were $372,166 or 36.7% above the same period last year due to the increased cost of the Airport’s Rescue Fire Service (CAA regulation changes driving this), and higher remuneration costs due to new business growth support roles.

3.3 Passenger numbers at 354,565 are 8.6% up on last year.

Statement of Intent

3.4 HBAL has prepared a draft 2018/19 Statement of Intent which is attached as Attachment 2. The draft Statement of Intent is for the year ended 30 June 2019 and includes financial forecasts for the following two years. The draft SOI includes capital expenditure of $18.14m over the next three years with investment concentrated on the Terminal ($14.25m), security ($1.6m) and roading and car parking ($1.35m).

3.5 HBAL are forecasting a 4.4% increase in total revenue on the 2017/18 budget with increases in total revenue of 3.5% and 4.3% in 2019/20 and 2020/21 respectively, driven by continued growth in passenger numbers, landing charges and rental and other income.

3.6 The 2018/19 Net Profit before tax is budgeted to be $399,622 below the 2018/19 result forecast in the previous year’s Statement of Intent (that is year two’s of the Statement of Intent). This is on the back of lower revenue targets. The revised budget shows an expected Net Profit before tax of $1.8m.

3.7 The 2018/19 Statement of Intent includes the provision of distributions to shareholders by way of dividends of up to 40% of net profit. Dividends forecast for year 1 of the SOI amount to $529,000 with the HDC share of this potentially being $126,960. Taking into account this forecast and previous distributions a dividend of $100,000 has been factored into year 1 of Council’s 2018-28 Long Term Plan. This is considered conservative as this income is not certain and will require HBAL Directors to satisfy all relevant solvency tests at that time.

3.8 HBAL have updated their key objectives which include specific financial targets, delivery of capital projects, all with the end goal of optimising shareholder value and returns, diversifying the revenue base, championing a positive customer experience, managing business risk, being a good employer, and a good steward of the environment.

3.9 The HBAL’s Nature and Scope of its activities is consistent with prior years is presented through the Company’s Mission Statement, Vision Statement and Values. HBAL also provides more information on the Company’s Strategy over the period of the Statement of Intent.

3.10 The HBAL 2018/19 Statement of Intent satisfies the requirements set out in Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Council can receive the HBAL six monthly report.

4.2 Council can receive the draft 2018/19 HBAL Statement of Intent.

4.3 Council can also request directors of HBAL to consider changes to the Statement of Intent if it wishes. The directors of HBAL would then need to consider the request alongside the feedback from the other 2 shareholders and decide if a change is appropriate.

4.4 If HBAL decided that it did not wish to make the changes requested by Council as its shareholder, Council has recourse through Schedule 8 (5) of the Local Government Act. Council can by resolution, require the board to modify the statement of intent if Council deemed it necessary. However given HDC’s minority shareholding in HBAL, it would need majority shareholder consensus to enforce this option.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 While Council’s share in HBAL is considered a strategic asset, the issues for discussion are not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and no consultation is required.

6.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

6.1 The preferred option is for the Half Year report to 31 December 2017 and the draft Statement of Intent to be received with any suggested changes to the Statement of Intent passed onto the HBAL Board.

6.2 The half year report provides a solid financial result for HBAL despite regulation enforced cost increases. HBAL continues to have a strong balance sheet to enable distributions to its shareholders and to also enable continued investment in the business.

6.3 The Statement of Intent presented by HBAL satisfies all the requirements as set out in Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act and also clearly sets out the nature and scope of the HBAL activities and its performance targets.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Manager Strategic Finance titled “Hawke's Bay Airport Limited Half Year Report and 2018/19 Statement of Intent” be received.

B) That the Hawke’s Bay Airport Limited Half Year report to 31 December 2017 be received.

C) That the 2018/19 Draft Statement of Intent of Hawke’s Bay Airport Limited be received with any feedback provided to the Hawke’s Bay Airport Ltd board.

Attachments:

1	Hawkes Bay Airport Interim Report 31-12-17	EXT-10-9-1-18-44
2	HB Airport Ltd - Draft Satement of Intent 30 June 2019	EXT-10-9-1-18-45

File Ref: 18/55

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 March 2018

FROM: Community Safety Manager

John Payne

SUBJECT: Dog Control Fees

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council on the Dog Control fees to apply from 1 July 2018

1.2 Fees are set by resolution for the registration and control of dogs under the

Dog Control Act 1996. Council is required to publicly notify the fees at least once during the month preceding the commencement of the new registration year (June)

1.3 Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as

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

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is the efficient and effective regulation under the Dog Control Act 1996 that, as far as practicable, is cost effective to households and businesses.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending no changes to the current funding policy or dog registration fees in order to maintain fees at a reasonable level and to stay closely aligned with Napier City Council.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Dog Control fees are set under Section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996 by Council resolution, there being no requirement for the proposed fees to pass through a public consultation process. However, the fees need to be set in advance of the expiry of the registration year (June 30^th) to give dog owners sufficient time to apply for registration for the coming year.

2.2 In practise, this means that the dog registration fee setting process has to be completed ahead of the Annual Plan process.

2.3 Council currently uses a fee structure based on dog control requirements at 74% private and 26% public benefit.

2.4 The registration fees for dogs under the Selected Owner Policy (SOP), which recognises responsible dog ownership, and fees for Rural Dogs, are set at lower levels than the fees for Urban Dog Owners not under the SOP scheme.

2.5 All known dog owners contribute through their fees to a fair share of the cost of operating the dog control service. Fine recoveries, application fees and impound fees help to offset the remaining costs.

2.6 Registered dogs found at large are returned to their owners without costs for first time offenders. Whilst this is considered good customer service there has been a reduction in impound fees recovered.

2.7 Unclaimed dogs with suitable temperaments and low potential risk are adopted out. Dogs are neutered, micro-chipped, vet checked, registered and dewormed prior to release. The adoption fee $250 does not fully meet costs and the registration income cross subsidises this activity.

2.8 Should any dog fail to be registered by 31 July, a penalty of an additional 50% of the registration fee is applied. Dog Owners keeping an unregistered dog after the 1^st of August are issued with an infringement notice in addition to the penalty registration fee. Infringement notices may be waived in accordance with Policy or under exceptional circumstances in any particular case.

2.9 There remains an increased focus on dangerous, menacing, roaming and unregistered dogs.

2.10 There is a target to achieve 100% registration compliance of known dogs. There is a target to achieve 80% release rate of impounded dogs (claimed by the owner, returned home and adopted out)

2.11 Animal Control Officers will be making site visits across the district to determine why known dogs haven’t been re-registered.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 There are about 13,000 dogs on the Council database. There is still about a 5% dog population increase each year since July 2014 (10,700)

3.2 There are currently 4 categories of dog registration fee:

Urban, Urban Selected Owner Policy (SOP), Rural/Working and Special

The “special” class covers disability assist and special purpose dogs. Disability assist dogs are registered to Auckland Council by the parent charity (for example Guide dogs), while special purpose dogs (which includes Police dogs and drug dogs) are registered with this Council as Special dogs.

Table 1. The proportion in each category:

Urban	Rural	SOP	Special	Total
3,446	6,464	3,043	16	12,969
27%	50%	23%	0.1%

Table 2. The current fees

	Current Fees
	On/Before 31 July	On/After 1 August (late payment)
Urban	$110.00	$165.00
SOP	$73.50	$110.00
Rural	$48.00	$72.00

3.3 The methodology was discussed with the Rural Community Board and agreed

to be a fair evaluation and distribution of fees.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Option A is to recommend no change to the fees as set out in table 3 and supported by the Rural Community Board.

4.2 Option B is for Council to adopt a different fee.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 The setting of Dog Control fees is not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. It is a statutory process that needs to be undertaken.

5.2 There is no requirement to consult on the setting of dog control fees. There is a requirement to publically notify the fees at least one month prior to the start of the registration year.

5.3 There is a full communications plan for the dog registration process. This involves dispatching invoices to all known dog owners in the district. The fee are advertised in the month preceding the commencement of the new registration year (June). Information is also posted on Councils website.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 Option A: - Status quo

6.2 The assessment that has been undertaken to determine the fee structure identifies that there is a small public good component to registration and a greater public good component to regulation. This equates to a 73% private and 27% public benefit.

6.3 The fundamental elements of the dog control activity:

A) Registration of dogs each year, maintenance of the register and public

education within schools, community groups and commercial organisations.

B) Regulation, which includes pursuing non-registration when it occurs, dog

pound operations, dealing with roaming, dangerous and menacing dogs, complaint investigations, general ranging duties, and public education within schools, community groups and commercial organisations.

6.4 The fee calculation model provides that all registered dogs contribute equally

to the registration component (the base fee) irrespective of their category. The remaining costs (regulation) must then be covered by the percentages that have been established in the formula, reflecting the activity cost relative to the dog registration category.

Rural/Working Dogs 5%

SOP Dogs 20%

Non-SOP Urban Dogs 75%

Table 3.

	Proposed Registration Fees
	Registration Fee	Fee if paid after 31 July (late payment)
Urban	$110.00	$165.00
SOP	$73.50	$110.00
Rural	$48.00	$72.00

6.5 Option B:

6.6 Lower fees would create a budget shortfall

6.7 Higher fees would likely cause public dissatisfaction and lead to more non-

compliance. It would also increase the gap between Napier and Hastings.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 Option A: - to recommend to Council the status quo.

7.2 This option will be sufficient to meet budget.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Community Safety Manager titled “Dog Control Fees” dated 22/03/2018 be received.

B) That the following dog control fees be set from 1 July 2018:

	Dog Registration Fees
	Registration Fee	Fee if paid after 31 July
Urban Fee	$110.00	$165.00
SOP Fee	$73.50	$110.00
Rural/Working	$48.00	$72.00
Special Purpose	Nil	Nil

All fees are inclusive of GST.

C) That the following other fees and charges for Animal Management remain unchanged:

First Impounding	$85.00
Second Impounding	$100.00
Third and subsequent Impounding	$150.00
Sustenance, per day	$8.00
Micro-chipping	$42.00
Relinquishment Fee	$20.00
Replacement Tag	$5.00

D) Fees set pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002

More than 2 dog application	$25.00
Selected Owner Policy application	$25.00

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to the performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

Ensuring that fees and charges reflect the costs of providing a dog control programme that is resourced at a level that meets compliance and enforcement obligations under the Dog Control Act 1996 and Councils Dog Control Bylaw.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Ref: 18/168

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 March 2018

FROM: Strategy Manager

Lex Verhoeven

SUBJECT: Adoption of Long Term Plan 2018/28 for Community Consultation

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council to adopt the Draft Long Term Plan 2018/28 for community consultation.

1.2 This issue arises from the legislative requirement to have in place a Long Term Plan to take effect from 1 July 2018.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to meet the section (93) legislative requirement within the Local Government Act 2002 in respect of long term planning.

1.5 This is an administrative matter and legal requirement. The report concludes by recommending that the Long Term Plan Supporting Information, Draft Development Contributions Policy and Consultation Document is adopted for community consultation.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Since June 2017 the Council has worked through the process of considering the key matters that impact on the Long Term Plan and putting together a budget that fits within the financial parameters of the Financial Strategy.

2.2 At the Council meeting of 22 February 2018 the Council gave guidance on the last remaining matters that impact on the plan, particularly in regard to the parking and aquatic facility proposals for the Regional Sports Park, and the design concepts for the Hastings inner city. Those decisions are incorporated in the Long Term Plan documentation for adoption.

2.3 The Council were also advised of the ongoing work being undertaken to liaise with landowners in the Irongate Industrial Zone regarding uptake commitment and the consequential impact of this on the development contribution levy. An update on this forms part of this report.

2.4 The last few weeks has been focused on the audit process which is required to be undertaken by law on all long term plans. That process also includes a “Hot Review” by the auditor general office to ensure consistency across the country.

2.5 The proposed Consultation Document was circulated to Councillors for comment (recognising that much of the content has been audited and is required to fulfil legislative requirements).

2.6 The Long Term Plan is structured around the Council’s strategic framework as follows:

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The Long Term Plan has met the necessary statutory requirements, and at the time of preparing this report the Council is awaiting final audit clearance to release the plan for community consultation. A copy of the audit clearance will be available at the Council meeting.

3.2 The Long Term Plan consists of 2 sets of documents as follows:

(1) Consultation Document – covers the key matters and is targeted at, and distributed to as much of the community as is practicable.

(2) Supporting Information – contains the underlying information upon which the consultation document is based. This information is more technical in nature and the Council has discretion as to how to make this information available. For ease of access the approach taken has been to package all relevant material in one volume which is available in hard copy and via the Council’s website. Other publications also available as part of the supporting information are the Development Contributions Policy (containing minor amendments) and the Water Strategy.

3.3 Development Contributions Policy – Officers have been continually working on the committed uptake rate in the Irongate Industrial Zone to enable the development contribution levy to be set below $9 p/m2. Following ongoing discussion with landowners, and further refinement of costs, officers have confidence that the development contribution levy can be set at $8.57 p/m2. This is based on current uptake commitment of 38 hectares, with further enquiry ongoing. On this basis the Draft Development Contributions Policy attached has been updated to $8.57 p/m2 excluding GST with additional notes to outline that should further land owners express commitment to pay development contributions prior to 30 June 2018, the policy rate will be revised prior to Council adoption in June 2018.

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

4.1 The Local Government Act 2002 and the Councils Significance and Engagement Policy outline the community consultation requirements for this process. Those requirements have been satisfied.

4.2 The Council’s Citizen Panel will also be used to gauge general preferences to the proposals within the Consultation Document, to supplement the feedback from the Consultation feedback form and the formal submissions received.

4.3 The formal submission process is scheduled to take place from 7 April to 11 May 2018, with hearings set down for 5^th, 6^th and 11^th June 2018.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Strategy Manager titled “Adoption of Long Term Plan 2018/28 for Community Consultation” dated 22/03/2018 be received.

That Council resolves to:

B) Delegate to the Chief Executive any inconsequential updates recommended from the audit process.

C) Adopt the Supporting Information (Volume One) to the Long Term Plan 2018-2028 and Consultation Document in accordance with section 93G of the Local Government Act 2002.

D) Adopt the Water Strategy as part of the supporting information to the Long Term Plan and Consultation Document in accordance with section 93G of the Local Government Act 2002.

E) Adopt the Draft Development Contributions Policy in accordance with section 102(1) of the Local Government Act 2002.

F) Adopt the Consultation Document in accordance with section 93A of the Local Government Act 2002

With the reasons for this decision being that in accordance with the principles set out in sections 76-77 of the Local Government Act 2002 it is now appropriate to seek community views in relation to the proposals within the Long Term Plan.

Attachments:

1	Supporting Information to the Long Term Plan	Separate Doc
2	Water Strategy	WAT-20-20-18-525
3	Draft Development Contributions Policy	CP-03-04-18-244
4	Consultation Document	Separate Doc

File Ref: 18/101

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 March 2018

FROM: Group Manager: Planning & Regulatory

John O'Shaughnessy

Environmental Policy Manager

Rowan Wallis

SUBJECT: District Plan Review Working Party Rolling Review

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on the appointment of Councillors to form the Councillor Working Party for the rolling review of the Hastings District Plan.

1.2 A Councillor Working Party was operational in the previous term of Council and it worked well with the Council officers involved in the drafting of material for the review of the District Plan.

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 includes the promotion of the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of communities. The Council seeks to meet this obligation and the achievement of community outcomes through the strategic objectives set out in the 2009-2019 Long Term Council Community Plan. The matters raised in this report relate to those elements of the strategic objectives identified in the following table.

Strategic Objectives	Achieved By
· Protection of the productive capacity of land resources	District Plan provisions protecting the most productive land from urban encroachment
· Sustainable management of natural and physical resources through integrated land use management	District Plan provisions seeking to maximize efficiencies and benefits from the spatial location of different land uses
· Mitigation of adverse impacts on people, land and water	District Plan provisions seeking to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment
· Housing options supporting more compact communities	Implementation of HPUDS through the District Plan
· Sustainable relationships with Maori	Recognition of RMA obligation through the District Plan including the protection of waahi tapu, provision for papakainga housing development and the recognition of kaitiakitanga
· A vibrant CBD	District Plan provisions seeking to protect the infrastructural investment, sense of place and heritage values of the CBD
· Neighbourhoods designed for safe walking and cycling	Subdivision requirements that require regard to be given to passive transport modes

1.4 This report concludes by recommending the formation of a new District Plan Review Working Party consisting of a core team, with relevant Councillors being added when required.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 A total of 47 appeals were received to the Proposed Hastings District Plan. This includes a later appeal by Golden Oaks as this hearing was held by Commissioners after the others were heard by the Hearings Committee. It also includes appeals on later Plan variations 1 (Omahu), 2 (Irongate) and 3 (Howard Street).

2.2 To date 40 appeals have been resolved, either through withdrawal, consent orders which have been lodged by parties and signed off by the Environment Court or through pending consent documents. Three (3) appeals have been placed on hold by the Environment Court, and are due to:

· The Minister issued a direction for the Streamlined Planning Process on 28 February 2018. The notification of the Iona Variation is to occur by 6 April 2018. The appellant has advised that they are likely to withdraw the appeal following notification of the variation.

· Structure planning work is carried out at Brookvale by the appellant in consultation with Council staff (Bourke appeal). Mediation will resume once the structure planning work has been completed; and

· Matters that do not involve Council (Haupori Appeal).

2.3 The Environment Court Hearing for MTT commenced on 6 March 2018. It has been adjourned to hear the evidence of one more witness who sustained an injury just prior to the hearing and was unable to appear before the Court.

2.4 A further Court hearing is to take place on the Federated Farmers appeal which relates to the prohibition of GMO’s in the Proposed Plan. The Council is currently preparing evidence which is due on 3 April 2018. There is no date set by the Court for the Hearing at present.

2.5 It is anticipated that further appeals update reports will be provided once Environment Court hearings have been held.

2.6 Changes required to the Proposed Plan as a result of signed consent orders will be incorporated into E-Plan (online version of the District Plan) and for later adoption as part of the new Operative District Plan once all appeals have been settled.

3.0 ANTICIPATED WORKSTREAM

3.1 With the completion of the Variations and the resolution of the appeals on the Proposed District Plan close to being achieved the future workstream for the Environmental Policy Team has been considered by Council. This should be considered in the context of the intention to undertake a rolling review of the district plan, rather than complete it in ‘one hit’ within the ten year timeframe.

3.2 Projects being undertaken by other departments have identified some areas in the Proposed District Plan that require attention. An example is the work that is being done by the Economic Development Team to enliven the Central Commercial area of the City. One of the identified methods is to encourage people to live within the city centre. While the Proposed District Plan does provide for this as a permitted activity there are some standards that must be met that are currently seen as hindering such development. One of the obstacles is a rule that requires on-site carparking for each inner city dwelling unit and also provides for residential living in areas with designated retail frontage. There is a body of work required to look at how the plan might assist in incentivising inner city living and this could inform the CBD strategy which is being progressed.

3.3 Other departmental workstreams that will involve the Policy team are those around issues of providing for the accommodation needs of the growing RSE Workforce and assisting in developing a Council Policy on Affordable Housing.

3.4 In addition to the changes that are required as a result of project work other changes to the Proposed District Plan have been identified as being required as a result of appeals on the Proposed District Plan. These include the need to provide better differentiation between the Light industrial zone performance standards and those of the general industrial zones, and the need for a better process for identifying and protecting wāhi taonga.

3.5 All of these future workstreams would benefit from the input of Councillors through the Councillor Working Party.

4.0 COUNCILLOR WORKING PARTY

4.1 The Councillor Working Party’s role will be to assist staff, particularly with identifying issues, and guide the community consultation process as well as future progress of the District Plan review. Councillors are familiar with land use matters affecting the wider community of Hastings and their input including political steer, will assist in identifying any areas of concern as well as opportunities for the review.

4.2 To ensure consistent representation it is recommended that this Working Party should include a core membership comprising; A Rural, Plains, and Urban Councillor together with the Chairperson of the Planning and Regulatory Committee. This will mean that the composition of the Working Party will change as different sections of the Plan are being undertaken.

4.3 The establishment of a Councillor Working Party for the District Plan Rolling Review is required to ensure political input and direction into the informal consultation and plan preparation process prior to the statutory process. It should be noted however that any decisions on the final content of the Plan or variations, will be made by Council, either in the form of the Hearings Committee or full Council. The Working Party’s role is therefore one of guidance and direction and it will not have delegation to make decisions on final content.

5.0 OPTIONS

Option 1

Workshop with full Council on District Plan Policy

Option 2

Form a District Plan Review Working Party comprising Councillors, Rural Community Board and Maori Joint Committee membership.

6.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND CONSULTATION

6.1 The issue of significance has been considered in terms of Council’s Significance Policy and in particular the thresholds and criteria contained within this policy. The decisions required in this report do not trigger the requirements of Council’s policy on significance and consultation.

7.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (Including Financial Implications)

7.1 The full Council option would not support the integrated approach encouraged under the LTCCP and would be less efficient as the alternative would require the need for more full Council workshops to provide the necessary political guidance and direction.

7.2 The forming and use of a District Plan Working Party would improve efficiency in terms of providing political direction and guidance to the District Plan Review, in comparison to reliance on full Council workshops. This approach was used for the review of the Proposed District Plan and proved most successful. The range of Councillors and other members provided for full representation of views on issues. The Working Party gained a good working knowledge of the Plan and were able to understand.

7.3 With regards to the composition of the Working Party an approach involving a core team for continuity is recommended. Adding additional Councillors (or other members) to the Core Team with a specific interest in the topic under discussion is also recommended so as to enable Councillors to provide direction and be in involved with regard to district plan issues affecting their ward. It is also recommended that in addition to Councillors that the Rural Community Board Chair and a Joint Maori Committee member also be invited to join the core team.

7.4 The proposed District Plan Working Party has been discussed with the Mayor specifically around fields of activity, membership, quorum and delegated powers. The Councillors listed in recommendation D) below have completed the appropriate Making Good Decisions RMA course and their appointment is supported by the Mayor. Looking towards the future and considering workloads across Council, Councillor Schollum has indicated an interest to undertake the RMA training and also be available for the Working Party and Hearings. Councillor Kevin Watkins has completed the Making Good Decisions RMA training and is available in a backup role for hearings due to his other responsibilities with Works & Assets.

The Mayor has also indicated that if other Councillors wish to undertake Making Good Decisions training, that they contact the Group Manager: Planning & Regulatory.

8.0 PREFERRED OPTION

8.1 The formation of a District Plan Working Party is the preferred option. It would have a core of 7 members, 5 Councillors, consisting of the Chairs of the Hearing and Planning & Regulatory Committees, Councillors, the Chair of the Rural Community Board and a member of the Maori Joint Committee.

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Group Manager: Planning & Regulatory titled “District Plan Review Working Party Rolling Review” dated 22/03/2018 be received.

B) That the District Plan Working Party shall consist of a core team consisting of:

A core group of 7 members, 5 Councillors, consisting of the Chairs of the Hearing and Planning & Regulatory Committees, Councillors, the Chair of the Rural Community Board and a member of the Maori Joint Committee.

C) That the Core Team have delegation to invite additional members to Working Party meetings with an interest in, or ward representation, relevant to the topic under discussion.

D) That the ‘District Plan Review Working Party’ be added to the ‘Committees & Rural Community Board Delegations Register’ as an ‘Other Committee’ with the following details:

Fields of Activity

Providing direction to Council officers with regard to the drafting of the District Plan (or sections thereof) and consultation on discussion documents and drafts.

Membership

Core Members suggested are:

1. George Lyons (Chair)

2. Rod Heaps

3. Tania Kerr

4. Bayden Barber

5. Ann Redstone

6. Peter Kay

7. Maori Joint Committee member

Note:

Wendy Schollum is undertaking training and will be available to this Committee once this has been completed.

Quorum

4 Councillor Members.

Delegated Powers

Recommendations to Council on matters within the Field of Activity for the Working Party.

E) That the Council’s Schedule of Appointments and Delegations Register (CG-08-9-16-245) for 2016-2019 be updated accordingly.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Ref: 18/182

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 March 2018

FROM: Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

SUBJECT: Representation Review

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to resolve upon its representation arrangements for the Hastings District for the local government elections to be held in October 2019.

1,2 This report will cover Council resolutions, the legislation provisions, the Local Government Commission Guidelines and the process and considerations of the Representation Review Subcommittee established by the Council.

1.4 The report concludes by recommending that the information be received and puts to the Council for consideration recommendations on representation arrangements for the 2019 local government elections.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Council must conduct a complete review of representation (including community boards) and finish that review before 31 August 2018 to meet the statutory deadlines for the 2019 elections.

2.2 The Council last reviewed its representation, including community boards, prior to the 2013 elections. Under the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Council is required to review its representation only every second election, but may review it every election if it so wishes.

2.3 On 28 September 2017 the Council resolved to consider all the relevant issues under the Local Electoral Act and instructed the Chief Executive to develop a proposal or proposals for consideration by the Council. Council indicated that it wished to be involved at each stage through workshops and regular reports to Council

2.4 The review has proceeded under the provisions of the Local Electoral Act 2001 (“the Act”).

2.5 The Act establishes the following principles:

(a) “Fair and effective representation for individuals and communities.

(b) All qualified persons have a reasonable and equal opportunity to –

(i) cast an informed vote:

(ii) nominate 1 or more candidates:

(iii) accept nominations as a candidate:

(i) the provision of a regular election cycle:

(ii) the provision of elections that are managed independently from the elected body:

(iii) protection of the freedom of choice of voters and the secrecy of the vote:

(iv) the provision of transparent electoral systems and voting methods and the adoption of procedures that produce certainty in electoral outcomes:

(v) the provision of impartial mechanisms for resolving disputed elections and polls”.

Preconsultation

2.6 A workshop was held on 6 September 2017, which set out the scope of the representation review, and stressed the importance of council and community engagement in the development of the proposals. Officers have worked in accordance with the guidelines for representation reviews prepared by the Local Government Commission. These guidelines are very detailed and cover a large number of matters including the desirability of pre-consultation.

2.7 The workshop held on 6 September also considered the scope of the pre-consultation which included current satisfaction levels with the number of Councillors, views on representation arrangements, ward structure and communities of interest, community boards and the level of support for Maori Wards from 2022.

2.8 The Council commissioned its pre-consultation through the Citizen’s Panel and advertised through facebook and the Council’s webpage for 6 weeks from 29 September – 16 November 2018. 353 responses were received and the results of the pre-consultation were presented to all Councillors at full Council on 14 December 2017.

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

· Level of satisfaction with current arrangements

· What distinct communities make up Hastings District

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

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

· Overall number of Councillors

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

· Views on the introduction of Maori wards from 2022.

2.10 The headline results were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.12 In addition 5 consultation meetings were held in the rural community. At these meetings there was unanimous support for the retention of the Rural Community Board.

Guidelines for undertaking a Representation Review

2.13 The guidelines identify the three key factors “that must be carefully considered by local authorities when determining their representation proposals”, namely:

· communities of interest

· effective representation of communities of interest

· fair representation of electors

2.12 The term “communities of interest” is not defined in the Local Electoral Act. However, the guidelines to assist local authorities in undertaking representation reviews identify three dimensions for recognising communities of interest:

· perceptual: a sense of belonging to an area or locality

· functional: the ability to meet the community’s requirement for services

· political: the ability to represent the interests and reconcile conflicts of the community.

2.13 The guidelines also note, with respect to the review, that “communities of interest may alter over time. Local authorities need to give careful attention to identifying current communities of interest.”

2.14 Achievement of effective representation requires consideration of the identified communities of interest and the extent that these are geographically distinct and warrant specific representation.

2.15 The fundamental determinant of “fair representation” is population equality. The Act states that for territorial authorities ward populations and the populations of subdivisions of a community must not vary by more than plus or minus 10% in terms of the population per councillor (“the plus/minus 10% rule”).

2.16 The guidelines summarise the best practice process for representation reviews, and suggest a 6-step process:

• Step 1 – Identify criteria for assessing need for review after three years.

• Step 2 – Consider preliminary consultation.

• Step 3 – Identify communities of interest.

• Step 4 – Determine effective representation for identified communities of interest of the district.

• Step 5 – Consider fairness of representation for electors of wards.

• Step 6 – Consider communities and community boards.

2.17 The practical outcomes that need to emerge from the process of the review were:

- the number of councillors (between 5 and 29 excluding the Mayor)

- whether the councillors would be elected “at large” or in wards or a combination of those two

- the names and boundaries of any wards

- if wards were used, the number of councillors per ward

- whether would be any communities and community boards

- the detailed representation arrangements for each community board (names, boundaries, number of members and any subdivisions of the community)

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Following formal consideration of the pre-consultation by Council on 14 December 2017 it was resolved:

That following Council’s community pre-consultation, the preference is for the status quo and that minor work be undertaken on mesh blocks, as needed, to be presented to Council for consideration by the end of March 2018.

3.1 Statistics New Zealand has provided the Council with 2017 population estimates to mesh block level. These are the most up to date figures available until the release of the 2018 census data which will not be available until after the deadline for completion of this representation review.

3.2 The latest 2017 population estimates for Hastings District broken down to meshblock level on the current ward structure is as follows:

Ward	Population	Number of councillors per ward	Population per councillor	Deviation from district average population per councillor	Percentage deviation from district average population per councillor
Hastings- Havelock North	44,230	8	5,529	-175	-3.07%
Flaxmere	11,020	2	5,510	-194	-3.39%
Heretaunga	12,670	2	6,335	631	11.07%
Mohaka	5,700	1	5,700	-4	-0.06%
Kahuranaki	6,230	1	6,230	526	9.23%
Totals	79,850	14	5,704

With the exception of Heretaunga, under the current boundaries all the wards remain within the +/-10% rule. The population growth in Heretaunga and Kahuraniki is due in part to greenfield development, and rural residential development on the fringes of Hastings and Havelock North. These communities tend to identify with the urban centres as their communities of interest. During the recent byelection, several comments were received from electors in these areas querying why they did not have an opportunity to vote for Hastings Havelock ward.

Hastings/Havelock North

3.5 As part of the assessment of options, consideration has been given to the 2012 Representation Review determination by the Local Government Commission to combine Havelock North Ward to Hastings Ward as one ward with two distinct and separate parts as the only viable choice to retain distinct urban and rural communities of interest. Whilst it was an unusual approach which had not been adopted elsewhere it is not precluded in the Local Electoral Act. The determination stated that as Hastings and Havelock North were only minutes apart on a high quality road, such an approach was appropriate given the commonality of their urban communities of interest.

3.6 In order to achieve fair representation, Havelock North cannot be seen as to be separate ward with the current overall numbers of councillors. See table below:

Ward	Population	Population after Ward adjustment	Number of councillors per ward	Population per councillor	Deviation from district average population per councillor	Percentage deviation from district average population per councillor
Hastings	31,290	32,640	6	5,440	-264	-4.62%
Havelock North	12,940	13,320	2	6,660	956	16.77%
Flaxmere	11,020	11,020	2	5,510	-194	-3.39%
Heretaunga	12,670	11,220	2	5,610	-94	-1.64%
Mohaka	5,700	5,700	1	5,700	-4	-0.06%
Kahuranaki	6,230	5,950	1	5,950	246	4.32%
Totals	79,850	79,850	14	5,704

3.7 Another alternative explored was to create one continuous boundary for Hastings Havelock North Ward (see Attachment 5) It is a statistical possibility with the current overall numbers of councillors (14) to achieve fair representation – see table below:-

However, this boundary configuration is not recommended because of the impact on Heretaunga ward, the integrity of the greenbelt surrounding the urban areas and maintaining rural communities of interest.

3.7 This representation arrangements approved for the 2013 election have worked effectively over the past five years, with the 8 urban councillors representing the Hastings Havelock North ward working collectively. This has been particularly evident both during and following the Havelock North water contamination event, where strong community leadership and community engagement have been essential to rebuild civic confidence.

Flaxmere

3.8 The special character of Flaxmere strongly identifies as a community of interest separate to the urban areas of Hastings and Havelock North. Flaxmere has a deprivation index score of 10 - the most deprived level on the index. Some indicative statistics from the 2013 census are set out in the table below:-

	Flaxmere	Hastings
Median Income <15 years	$19,500	$26,500
Home Ownership	53.4%	66.4%
Unemployment Rate	12.9%	6.9%

Rural Wards and the Rural Community Boards

3.9 The motto on Hastings District Council coat of arms is Urbis et Ruris Concordia - Town and Country in Harmony. The rural ward councillors covering the extremely large and sparsely populated areas of the District are supported by the four elected members of the Rural Community Board.

3.10 With regard to community boards, the work of the Rural Community Board in representing the extensive rural areas of the District has been very successful, and this is evident by the community support expressed at consultation meetings. The pre-consultation exercise did not reveal a public appetite for the creation of more community boards in the urban areas. The creation of urban community boards was considered in detail and rejected by the Local Government Commission in 2013 because there was no evidence that the community had sought these boards. It is the officer view that this situation remains unchanged.

3.11 The table below shows the current representation arrangements for the Rural Community Board. The ward members for Kahuraniki and Mohaka wards are also members of the community board.

Subdivision	Population	Deviation from population average	Percentage deviation
Tutira	2,730	-253	-8.50%
Kaweka	2,970	-13	-0.40%
Maraekakaho	2,870	-113	-3.80%
Poukawa	3,360	377	12.60%
Totals	11,930	Average = 2983

3.12 The Poukawa subdivision did not comply with the fair representation rule of +/- 10% rule, but was endorsed in 2012 by the Local Government Commission on the basis that the Community Board was seen to be working well.

3.13 In its assessment of options available, there has been a focus on community engagement and the ability of the Council to be fully responsive to community concerns. It was considered that this could best be achieved by maintaining the status quo and continuing to work at ward and Rural Community Board level with local communities on the current and proposed community plans and local initiatives identified in the Long Term Plan.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Option 1 is set out below:-

Ward	Population	Population after Ward adjustment	Number of councillors per ward	Population per councillor	Deviation from district average population per councillor	Percentage deviation from district average population per councillor
Hastings- Havelock North	44,230	45,990	8	5,749	45	0.79%
Flaxmere	11,020	11,020	2	5,510	-194	-3.39%
Heretaunga	12,670	11,160	2	5,580	-124	-2.17%
Mohaka	5,700	5,700	1	5,700	-4	-0.06%
Kahuranaki	6,230	5,980	1	5,980	276	4.85%
Totals	79,850	79,850	14	5,704

4.2 Attachment 1 shows the proposed meshblock changes to Hastings Havelock North Ward, Attachment 2 shows the proposed boundary changes to Hastings from Heretaunga, and Attachment 3 shows the changes proposed to Havelock North from Heretaunga and Kahuraniki as detailed below:

Lyndhurst (Meshblock 1471202) – Heretaunga to Hastings Havelock North (+850)

Lyndhurst is a green field currently under development with the potential for over 300 residential units. It is currently within Heretaunga ward and on the outskirts of Hastings.

Williams Street (Meshblock 1471401) – Heretaunga to Hastings Havelock North (+500)

Northwood is another greenfield site which is in the process of being developed for residential dwellings and further extends the urban limit of Hastings City. 220 residential units are proposed for this area

Howard Street (Meshblock 1472900) - Heretaunga to Hastings Havelock North (+60)

Howard Street is a development on the edge of Hastings between Hastings and Havelock North – It is envisaged that there will be in the region of 260 residential units in this area.

Iona – (Meshblocks 1465506 and 1465601) Heretaunga to Havelock North (+100)

These meshblocks are also earmarked for residential development of 320 units which better identifies with the urban area of Havelock North.

Te Mata Hills – Kahuraniki to Hastings Havelock North (+250)

4.3 There has been a significant amount of rural residential development in this meshblock, and it is considered that the community of interest identifies with Havelock North rather than the rural settlements of Kahuraniki ward.

Rural Community Board (Attachment 4)

4.4 It is proposed to recommend that the Rural Community Board be retained and the Poukawa boundary be amended in line with the boundary changes proposed to Kahuraniki and Hastings Havelock North Ward. (See map at Attachment 5). This proposal brings Poukawa into the fair representation rule of +/- 10%.

The proposed representation model for the Rural Community Board is set out below:-

Subdivision	Population	Deviation from population average	Percentage deviation
Tutira	2,730	-190	-6.5%
Kaweka	2,970	50	1.7%
Maraekakaho	2,870	-50	-1.7%
Poukawa	3,110	190	6.5%
Totals	11,680	Average = 2920

4.5 The option has been developed from the resolution of Council on 14 December 2017. The Rural Community Board was consulted on 5 March 2018 on the proposals outlined above, welcomed the proposed retention of the Rural Community Board and approved the proposed boundary changes to Poukawa subdivision which reflected the community of interest of the area.

4.6 Option 2 - Retain status quo.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 Pre-consultation with the wider Hastings community has already taken place.

The Council must resolve its representation arrangements by 31^st August 2018.

5.2 The Council’s decision then goes out for formal consultation through a public submission process.

5.3 There is a period of at least one month for submissions.

5.4 The Council must, within six weeks of the closing date, consider all submissions received, hearing those who have asked to be heard. The Council can amend its representation proposal after hearing submissions.

5.5 If there are no submissions on the initial proposal, that becomes the final proposal and is not subject to the Local Government Commission’s jurisdiction.

5.6 Where submissions have been made, the Council’s final proposal (whether amended or not) can be appealed by submitters and goes to the Local Government Commission for determination.

5.7 In addition, where the Council’s final proposal is changed from the initial proposal, there is a further one month for objections, and the proposal, submissions and objections go to the Local Government Commission for determination.

5.8 The Local Government Commission will determine the Council’s representation arrangements where there have been any submissions, appeals or objections and will probably hold a hearing in Hastings. The Commission must issue its determination on Hastings District representation arrangements on or before 10^th April 2019.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 Best practice for the undertaking of representation review is set out in paragraph 2.16 above. The options must be evidence based, involve preconsultation, focus on communities of interest, community engagement effective and fair representation. The proposal developed above has incorporated all these factors.

6.2 Option 1 has been developed to meet the current and future needs of the District, and reflects the pre-consultation findings which indicated a relatively high level of satisfaction with current representation arrangements.

6.3 Option 2 is not recommended because it does not recognise the changing communities interest arising from greenfield development on the outskirts of Hastings and Havelock North In addition, the 2017 population estimates for Heretaunga Ward and Poukawa subdivision exceed the +/- 10% rule fair representation rule.

6.4 As the changes proposed do not change the overall number of Councillor or Community Board there are no financial implications for governance or remuneration.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled “Representation Review” dated 22/03/2018 be received.

B) That the Hastings District Council establish the following representation arrangements for the triennial election of the Hastings District Council to be held on Saturday 12 October 2019:

1) That Hastings District as delineated on the plan attached (Attachments 6 and 7) to the report in ( A) above be divided into five wards.

2) That those five wards shall be –

a) Flaxmere

b) Hastings/Havelock North

c) Heretaunga

d) Mohaka

e) Kahuraniki

3) That the Council comprise the Mayor and fourteen Councillors elected as follows:

a) Eight councillors elected by the electors of the Hastings/Havelock North Ward.

b) Two councillors elected by the electors of the Flaxmere Ward.

d) Two councillors elected by the electors of the Heretaunga Ward.

e) One councillor elected by the electors of the Kahuraniki Ward.

f) One councillor elected By the electors of Mohaka Ward.

4) That there be a Hastings District Rural Community as delineated on the plans (Attachment 8) to the report in (A) above comprising the area of the Rural Ward.

5) That the Hastings District Rural Community Board be subdivided into four for electoral purposes as indicated on the plan (Attachment 8) to the report at A) above.

6) That those four subdivisions be –

a) The Tutira Subdivision

b) The Kaweka Subdivision

c) The Maraekakaho Subdivision

d) The Poukawa Subdivision

7) That, as required by section 19T(b) and 19W(c) of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the boundaries of the above wards, communities and subdivisions coincide with the boundaries of current statistical meshblock areas determined by Statistics New Zealand.

8) That, as the ward boundaries coincide with community boundaries, the requirements of section 19T(c) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 are accordingly met.

9) That, as required by sections 19T(a) and 19W(b)of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the five wards and one community being created and the number of members of each ward and community and subdivision will provide effective representation of communities of interest within Hastings District because:

a) The five wards represent the current significant and distinct communities of interest that the Council has identified within Hastings District, namely –

Hastings/Havelock North

Flaxmere
Heretaunga Plains

Kahuraniki

Mohaka

b) The Rural Community Board and its four subdivisions outlined in 6) above provides fair and effective representation of the communities of interest of the vast and sparsely populated land area of Hastings District.

c) The retention of the number of councillors at fourteen will provide continuity and enable Council to continue to work effectively.

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

i) Ensuring that representation and governance arrangements are proportionate, fair, effective and reflect the communities of interest within the district

Attachments:

1	Proposed Ward Adjustments	CG-05-16-18-17
2	Proposed Havelock Changes	CG-05-16-18-18
3	Proposed Hastings Changes	CG-05-16-18-19
4	Proposed Poukawa Boundary Change	CG-05-16-18-16
5	Joining Hastings Havelock North	CG-05-16-18-21
6	Detailed Hastings District Ward Boundaries by Mesh block	CG-05-16-18-24
7	Entire Hastings District Ward Boundaries	CG-05-16-18-23
8	Rural Community Board Subdivision Boundaries by meshblock	CG-05-16-18-22

File Ref: 18/211

REPORT TO: Council

MEETING DATE: Thursday 22 March 2018

FROM: Democratic Support Manager

Jackie Evans

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

1.0 SUMMARY

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

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

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to ensure that the Council is meeting its legislative obligations

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

2.0 BACKGROUND

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

Principle of Availability

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

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

Purpose of the Act

2.3 The key purposes of the LGOIMA are to:

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

o enable more effective public participation in decision making; and

o promote the accountability of members and officials;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does a LGOIMA request look like?

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

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

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

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

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

Key Timeframes

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

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

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

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

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

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Democratic Support Manager titled “Requests Received under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) Monthly Update” dated 22/03/2018 be received.

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

Attachments:

LGOIMA - LGOIMA - Cumulative Monthly Report to Council - March 2018

IRB-2-01-18-1200

1	Remit Process Memo	CG-14-1-00651
2	Remit Process Application 2018	CG-14-1-00652

Committee	Date	Time	Venue
Temporary Road Closures Hearing (Targa Rally)	19 April 2018	10.00am	Council Chamber

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings