Thursday, 24 October 2024

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Council Meeting

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Council

Nā:

From:

Georgia Hollier, Environmental Planner - Consents

Shane Lambert, Team Leader Environmental Consents/Subdivision

Te Take:

Subject:

Howard Street (Designation HDC - 25) Road Naming

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from Council on the proposed road naming of two designated local roads within the Howard Street Development Area. The Councils Road Naming Policy has been followed as part of this report.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That Council receive the report titled Howard Street (Designation HDC - 25) Road Naming dated 24 October 2024.

B) That pursuant to Section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974, the Council approve one of the following road name combination options:

Option One:

Either:

i. Valona Drive (Pink line) and Masters Lane (Blue line).

ii. Masters Drive (Pink line) and Valona Lane (Blue line.

Option Two:

iii. Te Ara Ngākaroro (Pink Line) and Te Ara Ngāhari (Blue Line).

Option Three:

iv. Braeburn Drive (Pink Line) and Sturmer Lane (Blue Line).

Figure one: Map of the two roads to be named.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 The Howard Street Development Area is located between Howard Street and Havelock Road. An area of this development has been Designated HDC – 25 for the roading corridors to run through to provide access to the internal sites. The two designated local roads run through 13 adjacent sites as a part of the Howard Street Structure Plan, see figure 2 below. There is no road hierarchy difference between these two roads as they are both classed as local roads. The first local road is of a crescent shape with two junctions direct with Howard Street, it includes an off-street parking section of the road adjacent to Parkvale School. The second local road is a cul-de-sac, coming off the crescent road. Two local road names are required as a result as shown above in Figure 1.

Figure two: Howard Street Structure Plan

3.2 Consultation with the Hastings – Havelock North Ward Councillors:

The Councils Road Naming Policy requires consultation with the ward Councillors for the proposed location. The Howard Street Development Area is within the Hastings – Havelock Ward. The following feedback has been received:

Hastings – Havelock North Ward Councillors Suggestion 1: Masters Family

· It was suggested that one of the local roads be named after the Masters Family who have been orcharding/using the land productively, in that area for more than four generations and are well known in this area. Following this suggestion, Council officers have been in contact with and met Heather and Tim Masters.

· Alfred and Lydia Masters purchased a 40-hectare block of hops in 1889, situated on the northern side of the Hastings – Havelock Road and extended back from the road between Windsor Ave and St Georges Road. In 1897 the Heretaunga Plains flooded, and the Masters family used their Oast House (Hop Kiln) as a dry refuge for many displaced families. The area of hops was later reduced to about 8 acres in the vicinity of where the 'Appledore' property now stands at 180-200 Havelock Road. In 1916 hops were cheaper to import and as new stock was needed, it was decided to cease production and remove the last of the hop plants. Some of the property was converted into orchard by Alfred’s son, Sydney in 1922 and was then taken over in 1936 by Sydney’s son, Fred. In 1927 the hop kiln building, and curtilage was sold to the Anglican Church and was used as the St Barnabus Mission Hall. Alfred’s great grandson, Anthony (Tony) purchased the property in 1980 and continued growing and packing apples and pears on the 10.927 hectares.

· It is noted here respectfully, that sadly, Tony Masters, Husband of Heather Masters, passed away this year on the 30^th of April 2024. The Masters family still own land within the Howard Street Development Area.

· The Masters family has kindly shared their family history with this area, this is attached to this report.

Hastings – Havelock North Ward Councillors Suggestion: Chinese Market Gardens Acknowledgement and Ken Gee

· It was suggested to contact the family involved with the Chinese Market Gardens that covered a large part of this site. Following the suggestion of the Chinese Market Gardens acknowledgement, Council officers have made contact with and met Ken and Trina Gee.

· The Gee’s owned and/or leased a lot of the area where the Howard Street Development is now. They owned Valona Gardens which was established in 1970 and utilised many hectares of the Gee’s land and leased large areas of the neighbour’s land over time.

· It is noted here respectfully, that sadly, Eileen Gee, wife of Ken Gee, passed away on the 12^th of January 2021. The Gee family remain as owners of land within the Howard Street Development Area.

· Ken and Eileen Gee named the market gardens as ‘Valona’ which stands for: Vegetables, Are, Life, Offering, Necessity, Always. The Gee family still own three titles within this block and the new road runs through their current and past properties.

· The Gee family has kindly shared their family history in this area, this is attached to this report.

Hastings – Havelock North Ward Councillors Suggestion: Varieties of Apples

· Councillors provided another suggestion that the roads within the area could also be named after different varieties of apples such as Braeburn Drive, Sturmer Road, and Gravenstein Avenue. These were suggested to recognise Hastings as the Apple Capital of the World and this block previously had apple orchards.

3.3 Consultation with the Hastings District Councils Principal Advisor:

The Councils Road Naming Policy requires consultation with/through the Principal Advisors, for appropriate te reo road name suggestions for the two designated local roads.

During the early phases of the designation of this road previously, the former Pou Ahurea Matua, Principal Advisor, discussed the potential name of ‘Awahou’. This was discussed as a name due to the site’s relative proximity to the Awahou Stream. Translated Awahou means new (hou) river (awa) and is also a variety of harakeke (flax) which was prevalent in this area.

Principal Advisor: Relationships, Responsiveness and Heritage, then provided further suggestions relating to the cultural and historical landscape of marshes, wetland lakes, streams, and the former Ngaruroro River course now known as the Karamū. A memo with supporting information was provided and is attached.

Cultural landscape names of former environmental features can provide a direct cultural/historical connection, and also a common theme for road naming.

The cultural place-based road naming recommendations from the Principal Advisor are:

1. Waipoaka (Black Pied Stilt marshland)

2. Ngākaroro (The Seagulls)

3. Ngāhari (Freshwater Clams)

4. Awahou (Phormium Tenax)

All the above names connect with the whenua, and it is noted that Ngākaroro and Ngāhari are most directly linked with the vicinity of the proposed roads. It is considered that as they are directly connected, that they are equally recognised as a second option for road naming combinations.

The Howard Street Development area used to be an area of wetland lakes, as can be seen in the two images below (figures 3 and 4, provided by the Principal Advisor).

The remaining two names, ‘Waipoaka’, and ‘Awahou’, can also be retained as suggestions for any future road names in this area, as the land is subsequently subdivided, and other roads are developed through it.

Figure three: 1938 Soils Map – Howard Street Development is located under the word Ngākaroro for reference.

Figure four: Map showing cultural features.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 The Hastings District Council Road Naming Policy lists the following criteria for evaluation of the suitability of proposed road names:

· Cultural Significance

· Existing or common theme

· Significant feature

· Historical event or person, and

· Personal name for special services

4.2 In addition to this, in order to be accepted by Land Information New Zealand the road names will also have to fit with the criteria set out in the Australia/New Zealand Standard for Rural and Urban Addressing.

4.3 Council officer’s evaluation of the suggested names has revealed that all the names suggested, except for ‘Gee’, meet the NZS Rural and Urban Addressing Standard stipulation that the name element, regardless of any difference in road type, shall not be the same as an existing road name where the existing road name is in the same locality. There are no other instances of the suggested names in adjoining local authorities that may cause confusion, and Fire and Emergency NZ have not raised any concerns with the recommended names suggested.

4.4 It is noted here that the family name ‘Gee’ which would have had a strong and direct connection with the location, unfortunately is not compatible as part of the Road names here, because there is a ‘Gee Place’ in Taradale (family related), which is not supportable by the above standard and by FENZ requirements and could potentially cause confusion in the event of an emergency.

4.5 There is no current prevalent theme in this new development area, however, the recommended options each have a theme:

· ‘Masters’ and ‘Valona’ are a proposed theme based around previous landowners and their families who had gardens and orchards in this area and are still owners today. This could be considered to be an appropriate recognition of the families of the late Tony Masters (30/4/24), and Eileen Gee (12/1/21). Both families have been advised of this report and recommended Road names being put forward for the two designated local roads.

· ‘Ngākaroro’ and ‘Ngāhari’ have the theme of two wetlands that were previously located in this vicinity.

· ‘Braeburn’ and ‘Sturmer’ have the common theme of apple varieties that links to the areas previous use as an orchard.

4.6 The suggestion of the names ‘Ngākaroro’ and ‘Ngāhari’ hold cultural and historical significance to the area as there were previously wetland lakes of value to mana whenua.

4.7 In terms of any of the suggestions put forward, that are not utilised to name the two designated local roads this time, it can be noted that they can be considered in the future when the land titles in this area are subject to subdivision. There are likely to be a number of public and private roads that will occur as this area develops.

4.8 Although not part of this road naming recommendation and decision, Council should note that as part of the Howard Street Structure Plan, a reserve is indicated on the Gee family land as shown in figure five below. The future establishment of that park and its naming is subject to a separate park naming process which will also come to Council at some point in due course. It is noted that there are discussions with the Parks team and Ken Gee on that park and its potential purchase and naming.

Figure five: Howard Street Structure Plan – Green square is the reserve and the Lots highlighted over in red is the current Gee family land. The Lot highlighted in blue is the current Masters family land.

4.9 Four of the recommended name options, being ‘Valona’, ‘Masters’, ‘Ngākaroro’, ‘Ngāhari’, hold the most significant connections to the site (under the Road Naming Policy criteria), with the wetlands being located in the direct area, the Masters Family residing and growing produce in this block since 1889, the Gee Family residing and growing produce in this block since 1970.

4.10 The Gee Family are the current owners of a larger area of the two designated local roads. The Masters Family are the current owners of an area of one of the designated local roads.

4.11 Options One A and B, and Option Two are all supported by the Road Naming Policy, they are all equally recognised depending on what perspectives are favoured.

4.12 It is recommended that Option One, A or B, presents an opportunity to celebrate two prominent families who are directly connected with the land, and with Heretaunga Hastings.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

Option One – Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi

5.1 Option one is to name the crescent shaped local road Valona Drive and the cul-de-sac local road Masters Lane, OR to name the crescent shaped local road Masters Drive and the cul-de-sac local road Valona Lane:

Advantages

· This could honour and celebrate both the Gee and Masters families and the late Eileen Gee and Tony Masters.

· Provides direct acknowledgement and representation of previous long-standing landowners who contributed to their community

· Can create a common theme.

· There are no duplicates of these names within the area.

· Both these names could be used on either local Road, or could have different road type names if considered appropriate (e.g. Way, Crescent, Close)

· There is a potential to link ‘Valona’ with the future reserve identified on the Gee Family property.

Disadvantages

· It is difficult to recommend one name over the other on each designated local road, because they are both strongly linked to this land. Both families have indicated they support and have a preference that their name (‘Valona’ and ‘Masters') be used for the crescent shaped local road. Both have indicated they recognise it is Council’s decision to make on naming the local roads.

Option Two -– Te Kōwhiringa tuarua

5.2 Option two is to name the crescent shaped local road Te Ara Ngākaroro and the cul-de-sac local road Te Ara Ngāhari

Advantages

· Acknowledges and connects with the cultural and historical significance of the area through the former significant features of the wetland lakes and naming the local roads ‘Ngākaroro’ and Ngāhari

· There are no duplicates of these names within the area.

· Both these names could be used on either Road, or could have different road type names as appropriate (e.g. Ara, Te Ara)

· This option creates a theme, linking the two wetlands to each other and the land.

Disadvantages

· This option would miss out on the opportunity to celebrate the Gee family, and Masters family, being previous and current landowners.

· There is a strong desire from the Gee Family and Masters Family that the roads in this location are named with their association.

Option Three – Te Kōwhiringa tuatoru

5.3 Option three is to name the two new designated local roads Braeburn Drive and Sturmer Lane

Advantages

· Creates a common theme of apple varieties

· The area was previously used in part as apple orchards, and the names could connect with the previous horticultural feature of this area.

Disadvantages

· The linkage with apple varieties for this location, is not considered as strongly linked or as appropriate given the prominence of the Gee and Masters families and the wetlands, ‘Ngākaroro’ and ‘Ngāhari’

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 The next steps if, option one A or B adopted, will involve advising the Gee and Masters families of this decision, and following that advising Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) so that the road names can be updated in the national database.

Attachments:

1 ⇨	Howard Street Development Titles	CG-17-1-01157	Vol 6
2 ⇨	Howard St Rd Naming Family Backgrounds	CG-17-1-01218	Vol 6
3 ⇨	Howard Street Development Road Naming Cultural Brief	CG-17-1-01216	Vol 6
4 ⇨	Masters history - Havelock Road	CG-17-1-01217	Vol 6

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

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

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

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This proposal promotes the local infrastructure which contributes to public health and safety, supports growth, connects communities, activates communications, helps protect the natural environment, and promotes the wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

Consultation has occurred with Councils Principal Advisor and the name suggestions of Ngākaroro and Ngāhari were put forward. These names are clearly connected and relevant to the whenua and is supported to be used for other roads in this area (as part of the current/future subdivisions that occur).

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A. This report is procedural in nature.

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

The erection of the street signs will just come out of the operational budget for road construction.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

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

Notwithstanding this, consultation with Councils Principal Advisor has taken place and the names ‘Ngākaroro’ and ‘Ngāhari’ were suggested to acknowledge and connect with the area previously being wetland lakes.

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

Section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out what is required of a local authority in considering community views, and is summarised by the following:

“…Must give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter.”

Internal consultation occurred with the Councils Principal Advisor, which resulted in the name suggestion Ngākaroro (The Seagulls) and Ngāhari (Freshwater Clams) to represent the previous wetland lakes that was located in this vicinity.

External consultation occurred with Fire and Emergency NZ (FENZ) who maintain the Emergency Services address database. Assistant Area Commander Glen Varcoe from FENZ has advised that they have no concerns with any of the suggested names.

Internal consultation with the Hastings – Havelock North Ward Councillors who were all in agreeance with the name suggestions of the Gee Family, Masters Family, and the apple varieties.

External consultation occurred with members of the Gee and Masters families. We note with gratitude that Ken and Trina Gee, and Heather and Tim Masters were very generous taking time to meet and talk through the road naming process with Council officers.

Risks

Opportunity: To enable the recognition, acknowledgement and celebration of the Gee and Masters Families long-standing landownership and connection with the land within the Howard Street Development area.

REWARD – Te Utu

RISK – Te Tūraru

Local Road names that reflect the history and identity of the Howard Street Development area as well as ensuring ease of identification for the council, emergency services, and others.

There are no substantial risks to Council as the families of the recommended names (Masters and Valona) have been consulted with. However, the families could not come to a complete agreement on which local road would have their name.

There are no risks to option three being chosen.

As this is two new designated local roads, no landowners will need to change their address.

The recommended names meet all of the requirements of LINZ and FENZ.

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

The Rural Community Board will not be affected by the proposed road naming.

Thursday, 24 October 2024

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Council Meeting

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Council

Nā:

From:

Colin Hosford, Advisor - Asset Management

Te Take:

Subject:

Waimārama Bylaw Update Report

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 In 2023 safety concerns were raised about vehicle use and public safety on Waimārama Beach. Through two rounds of consultations between December 2023 and May 2024, Council asked the community for feedback on how safety could be improved and whether the existing rules for vehicles on Waimārama Beach should be changed.

1.2 Considering this feedback, at its 27 June 2024 meeting, Council proposed to adopt a ‘hybrid version’ and extend the Waimārama Beach vehicle ban, from the southern end of the beach adjacent to the end of Harper Road going north to a point 1.7km north of Tiakitai Road beach access. The ban would be all day, every day, year-round; with two designated boat/fishing access points. The change would be managed by a resolution of Council under the existing beach bylaw.

1.3 Consultation on the proposed bylaw amendment commenced on 13 July and closed on 29 July 2024, with 817 submissions received (once duplicates were removed). Approximately 33% of submissions were from Waimārama. 81% of submissions received said that they did not support the proposed change. 19% said they did support the proposed change.

1.4 The analysis of the written text of the submissions revealed that the positions of the submitters were more nuanced than a simple 80/20 split for and against. For example, some submitters that did not support the change were not necessarily against more vehicle restrictions on the beach. In some cases, they wanted a different form of management, or they wanted greater restrictions than what was proposed in the consulted option.

1.5 A submission was also received from the Trustees of Waipuka 2E who were concerned about vehicle access via the former Waingongoro Stream bed. Given these concerns, officers have commissioned a Heritage Assessment of these reserves.

1.6 In addition, the Waimārama Working Group was formed in early August, following a community meeting held to discuss the proposed vehicle restriction. Members of the Group were selected to represent the different groups and marae in Waimārama, with the aim to see if a community led compromise outcome could be identified and supported.

1.7 The Waimārama Working Group has proposed the introduction of a trial bylaw for a 12-month period, based on a permit system. It is proposed that only 4-wheel quads and side by sides be permitted vehicles on the beach, with 2 wheel motorbikes, cars and utes banned. During summer (Labour Weekend – Easter) permitted vehicles could access the beach from Airini Road and travel north only. During winter permitted vehicles could access the beach from Airini Road, and travel anywhere on the beach, north or south.

1.8 Officers have obtained a legal opinion regarding the ability for Council to adopt the proposal of the Waimārama Working Group and introduce a ‘trial bylaw’ to be in place this summer. The legal opinion recommends that the proposal, particularly the permit scheme, would likely require a further round of consultation.

1.9 Given the uncertain community consultation feedback, the alternative proposal submitted by the Waimārama Working Group, together with the pending Heritage Assessment related to the Waingongoro Reserves, the Report recommends that Council

· Resolve to hold the current proposed vehicle restriction resolution on the table; and instruct officers to investigate the feasibility of the Waimārama Working Group’s alternative proposal, to bring back for Council’s consideration and future consultation.

1.10 Adopting this recommendation would see the status quo bylaw apply for the 2024/25 summer with vehicle restrictions in place from Labour weekend to 30 April 2025. It is proposed that, within the context of those existing restrictions, additional steps will be taken to address the impacts of vehicles on the beach this summer season. In this regard, Officers will seek to improve signage and beach user education, assess the access point at Airini Road regarding beach user and vehicle access; work in conjunction with the Police in terms of education and enforcement of the existing vehicle ban area, and current 20km/h speed limit.

1.11 Officers will seek to monitor the situation over summer, in terms of numbers, behaviours and issues. This will provide useful information for Council when it considers the matter next year.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That Council receive the report titled Waimārama Bylaw Update Report dated 24 October 2024.

B) That Council resolve to leave its resolution from its Council Meeting (27 June 2024) namely ‘That Council adopt for community consultation the following option and draft resolution, Extend the vehicle ban from the southern end adjacent to the end of Harper Road going north to a point 1.7km of Tiakitai Road year-round with specified Vehicle Restriction areas available for limited purposes (hybrid version)’ to lie on the table.

C) That officers investigate the feasibility of the proposal submitted by the Waimārama Working Group, and report back for Council’s consideration and future consultation alongside the existing proposal.

D) That Council notes the existing Waimārama Beach Bylaw will remain in place this year, from Labour Weekend 2024 to 30 April 2025.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

Existing Bylaw

3.1 On 25 July 2013 Council resolved to prohibit the use of motor vehicles on a portion of Waimārama Beach, pursuant to Hastings District Council’s Consolidated Bylaws (Part 14 Public Places, Section 11.2). This was in response to community concerns regarding vehicles on Waimārama Beach.

3.2 The resolution stated:

(C) That pursuant to Hasting’s District Council’s Consolidated Bylaws, Part 14 Public Places, Section 11.2, Council hereby prohibits the use of motor vehicles on a portion of Waimarama Beach, as marked in red on the plan attached as Attachment 1,

i) Commencing on Hawke’s Bay Anniversary, each and every year, and ending on 30 April, the following year, between the hours of 8.00am until 8.00pm each day.

Except:

ii) on defined access ways

iii) for vehicles otherwise authorised by Council, including emergency services’ vehicles, police vehicles and surf lifesaving vehicles.

3.3 The current vehicle ban area is shown on the map below.

3.4 This is the existing vehicle ban that is currently in place. It applies between Hawke’s Bay Anniversary and 30 April every year, between the hours of 8am – 8pm, and applies to all vehicles (except emergency service, police and surf lifesaving vehicles).

3.5 Of note, at all other times, and all other areas, all registered and warranted vehicles are permitted on the beach, provided they follow the speed limit (20km/hr), with drivers holding a current drivers licence.

5851221 WaimaramaBeach BanMap

3.6 In late 2023, a group of residents, supported by the Police, raised concerns with Council about beach users’ safety due to unsafe driver behaviour.

Vehicles on Waimārama Beach - Community Consultation Stage 1

3.7 In response to the concerns raised Council held a drop-in day on 2 December 2023 at the Waimārama Hall to canvass wider community feedback on the issue. Feedback was also sought via a survey, with the community asked to tell Council whether they considered vehicle use on the beach to be an issue; and whether the rules for vehicles on Waimārama Beach should be changed.

3.8 On 11 December 2023, large rocks were placed on a portion of the Waingongoro Stream Recreation Reserve and beach entry point, limiting vehicle access to the beach from one of the existing vehicle access points, at the end of Tiakitai Road. From this date, vehicle access has been limited to the Airini Road and Harper Road access points.

3.9 The closing date for feedback was 22 December 2023, with 533 responses received. 51% of respondents were Waimārama residents, 44% non-Waimārama residents and 5% as non-permanent residents.

3.10 The findings of this first round of community consultation were reported to Council at their 14 March 2024 meeting.

3.11 Suggested solutions for addressing the impacts of vehicle use on the beach ranged from a total ban (43%) to maintaining the status quo (37%). Other suggestions included increased policing and enforcement, requiring vehicle permits, signage and education and infrastructure improvements.

3.12 Given the breadth of feedback, Officers recommended that community engagement continue, but with a focus on four options for consideration. The purpose of this was to assess if there was a majority preference for a recommended pathway forward to improve management (via bylaw amendments) of vehicle access on the beach.

3.13 At this 14 March 2024 meeting, Council resolved to:

B) That Council note and endorse the Council Officers to continue engagement with all identified communities of interest for Waimārama Beach, around the options in Recommendation C, to assess if there is a majority community preference for a recommended pathway forward to improve management (via Bylaw amendments) of vehicle access on Waimārama Beach for the improved wellbeing of all communities of interest.

C) Council notes the options in Recommendation B include Bylaws and effective enforcement:

· The existing Hastings District Council Bylaw 2021 2.4.1 (a)

· Hastings District Council Bylaw 2021 2.4.1 (a) enacted permanently (365/6 days per year)

· Hastings District Council Bylaw enacted permanently and extended to south of the Tiakitai Road access point. (365/6 days per year)

· Hastings District Council Bylaw enacted permanently and extended to the beginning of the legal unformed road (Waipuka 2C1). (365/6 days per year)

Vehicles on Waimārama Beach - Community Consultation Stage 2

3.14 On 20 April 2024 a community drop-in day was held at the Waimārama Hall, where residents were invited to provide written feedback on the four options. On 24 April a drop-in day was held at Waimārama Marae, for mana whenua to provide their written feedback regarding the options and process.

3.15 A mail drop with feedback forms and information sheets were delivered to all Waimārama residents at the beginning of the second consultation process with feedback to be provided to Council by 10 May 2024.

3.16 Officers also met with local representatives of emergency responders. No major issues were raised by Fire and Emergency New Zealand, St Johns Ambulance, Hawke’s Bay Emergency Management, Surf Lifesaving, and Police regarding any impacts of the options. Police reiterated their concerns for Beach user safety due to bad driving behaviours. Officers also held meetings with mana whenua, Forest and Bird and recreational fishers.

3.17 The findings of this second round of community consultation were reported to Council at their 27 June 2024 meeting.

3.18 721 items of feedback were received, with the following numbers supporting each of the four options:

Number	Option	Responses
1	Keep the current vehicle ban area, which is in force from 8am to 8pm ever day from Labour Weekend Saturday to April 30	332
2	Retain the current ban area, but extend it to year-round	113
3	Extend the ban northwards up to but including the Tiakitai Road access, year-round	63
4	Extend the ban north, to a point 1.7km north of the Tiakitai Road beach access, year-round	213

3.19 The majority of respondents favoured Options 1 and 4; with Waimārama residents also evenly split in favour of Options 1 and 4.

3.20 On this basis, Officers recommended the adoption of a ‘hybrid version’ of the 4 options presented to the community; which sought to address: (1) adjoining landowners concerns about the impacts of vehicles damaging the environment; (2) recreation access where vehicles can drive onto the beach in designated areas (Tiakitai and Paparewa); as well as (3) beach user safety by banning vehicles from most of the beach.

3.21 At the 27 June 2024 meeting, Council resolved to adopt the ‘hybrid version’ which extended the motorised vehicle ban from the southern end adjacent to the end of Harper Road going north to a point 1.7km north of Tiakitai Road year-round with specified Vehicle Restriction areas available for limited purposes. The adopted area is identified in the Map below with the blue area only for those vehicles authorised by Council (including emergency services’ vehicles, police and surf lifesaving vehicles); and the green area for those vehicles authorised by Council as blue area and vehicles used solely for the purpose of recreational fishing, boat launching vehicles and mobility card holders.

3.22 The resolution authorised that the hybrid version be adopted for the purposes of consultation, and directed the Chief Executive to commence community consultation, including:

· Publish the draft resolution and supporting material

· Directly notify per section 22AD(3) Land Transport Act 1998

- The occupiers of any properties adjoining the “road” (in this case the Beach) to which the proposed bylaw would apply; and

- Any affected local community; and

- The Commissioner of Police; and

- Any other organisation or road user group that the Council considers affected; and

- The New Zealand Transport Agency.

· Ensure a two-week period is provided for people to make submissions.

· Schedule a hearing if Council wishes to hear from people.

· Summarise all submissions for consideration at a Council meeting.

3.23 The resolution also directed the Chief Executive to report back to Council on completion of the community consultation.

Community Consultation - Proposed Vehicle Restriction Amendment

3.24 The draft resolution and supporting material was published online on 11 July with a public notice placed in the HB Today on 13 July, inviting people to make submissions, with a closing date of 29 July 2024. A public notice was also placed in the Hastings Leader on 17 July.

3.25 Submission boxes were placed at the Waimārama Store and in the Hastings, Flaxmere, and Havelock North libraries. In addition, a mail drop delivered submission forms directly to Waimārama residents.

3.26 Consultation on the proposed bylaw amendment commenced on 13 July and closed on 29 July 2024, with 817 submissions received (once duplicates were removed). Approximately 33% of submissions were from Waimārama.

3.27 81% of submissions received said that they did not support the proposed change. 19% said they did support the proposed change. The analysis of the written text of the submissions revealed that the positions of the submitters were more nuanced than a simple 80/20 split for and against. For example, some submitters that did not support the change were not necessarily against more vehicle restrictions on the beach. In some cases, they wanted a different form of management, or they wanted greater restrictions than what was proposed in the consulted option.

3.28 Key themes for not supporting the proposed change:

· Community Opposition and Enforcement Concerns

· Impact on Accessibility

· Community Division and Consultation Process

· Alternative Solutions Proposed

· Cultural and Environmental Considerations

3.29 Key themes for supporting the proposed change:

· Safety Concerns

· Environmental Impact

· Cultural and Historical Significance

· Proposed Solutions and Compromises

· Public Sentiment and Collaboration

Waipuka 2E

3.30 A submission was also received from the Trustees of Waipuka 2E who were concerned about vehicle access via the former Waingongoro Stream bed at Tiakitai Road. Following new information regarding the importance of this land to mana whenua, officers have commissioned a Heritage Assessment of the two reserves. The outcome of this and wishes of the Waipuka 2E Trustees will determine the acceptability or otherwise of utilisation of the Tiakitai Road access point for vehicles.

Waimārama Community Group

3.31 The Waimārama Working Group was formed in early August, following a community meeting held to discuss the proposed vehicle restriction amendment. Members of the Group were selected to represent the different groups and marae in Waimārama, with the aim to see if a community led compromise outcome could be identified and supported. It is noted that the Group has no formal mandate from the community but considers that it is representative of the community.

3.32 The Working Group have taken into account the current archaeological investigations being undertaken at Waingongoro Reserves in the preparation of their draft proposal which was shared with officers in early September.

3.33 The submission of the Working Group proposes the introduction of a trial bylaw for a 12 month period, based on a permit system. It is proposed that only 4 wheel quads and side by sides be permitted vehicles on the beach, with 2 wheel motorbikes, cars and utes banned. During summer (Labour Weekend – Easter) permitted vehicles would be able to access the beach from Airini Road and travel north only. During winter permitted vehicles would be able to access the beach from Airini Road, and travel anywhere on the beach, north or south.

3.34 Officers have obtained a legal opinion regarding the ability for Council to adopt the community proposal and introduce a ‘trial bylaw’ to be in place this summer.

3.35 In terms of the ability for the Council to adopt the Working Group’s proposal, the legal opinion indicates that:

· The Working Group proposal would be likely to be considered ‘significantly different’ to the proposal as notified. This is due to differences in the type of vehicle able to access the beach, the purpose for access, the permitting system, the fact that there would be a charge for a permit and a change to the access points and areas able to be accessed;

· If the Council was inclined to accept the Working Group proposal, it would need to consider whether it was appropriate to re-consult. While it would be a decision for the Council, it may well be that it was reasonable to allow the community an opportunity to have their say on the changes now proposed;

· At a minimum, it is suggested that the permit scheme, and the charges for a permit, would need to be the subject of consultation, with the requirement to obtain a permit possibly requiring a change to the Bylaw itself (as opposed to being required through a resolution, which is the current mechanism proposed). This will also require a costing of the measures required to restrict access and operate the permit scheme as the fees to be charged cannot exceed Council’s reasonable costs;

· While it would be possible to make some of the changes proposed (for instance, banning motorcycles), the Working Group’s proposal is put together as a ‘package deal’ and it is unlikely advancing parts of it would achieve the outcome sought and the working group’s support

3.36 In terms of a trial period, a trial period can be achieved through the Council resolving to review the vehicle restrictions within 12 months.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 There are four options available for consideration by Council:

1. Resolve to adopt the proposed Vehicle Restriction amendment (hybrid version), as adopted for consultation purposes on 27 June 2024

2. Resolve to not adopt the proposed Vehicle Restriction amendment (hybrid version), as adopted for consultation purposes on 27 June 2024

3. Resolve to adopt an alternative Vehicle Restriction amendment (as requested by the Waimārama Working Group)

4. Resolve to hold the proposed Vehicle Restriction amendment (hybrid version), as adopted for consultation purposes on 27 June 2024 on the table and instruct Officers to investigate the feasibility of the alternative proposal submitted by the Waimārama Working Group, to bring back for consideration and potential future consultation.

Current Vehicle Restriction Amendment

4.2 With regard to the current proposed Vehicle Restriction amendment, as adopted for consultation purposes on 27 June 2024, Council can consider two options: (1) Adopt as notified; (2) Do not Adopt as notified.

4.3 As identified in Section 3.27, 81% of submissions received said that they did not support the proposed change. 19% said they did support the proposed change. The analysis of the written text of the submissions revealed that the positions of the submitters were more nuanced than a simple 80/20 split for and against. For example, some submitters that did not support the change were not necessarily against more vehicle restrictions on the beach. In some cases, they wanted a different form of management, or they wanted greater restrictions than what was proposed in the consulted option.

4.4 Given the uncertain outcome of the community consultation, together with the pending Heritage Assessment related to the Waingongoro Reserves which will determine the suitability or otherwise of the Tiakitai vehicle access point, it is advised that Council does not have adequate information to make a fully informed or community supported decision with regard to either adopting, or discarding the current proposed Vehicle Restriction amendment, as consulted on.

4.5 This option may however be deemed feasible in the future, if an alternative vehicle access point can be obtained via Tiakitai Road, with the support of Waipuka 2E following the outcome of the Heritage Assessment. It is therefore recommended that this option is left on the table pending the outcome of the Heritage Assessment.

Waimārama Working Group Proposal

4.6 Officers recognise and commend the work undertaken by the Waimārama Working Group’s endeavours to provide an alternative solution, led by, and supported by the community.

4.7 However, it is recommended that this alternative solution is not adopted at this stage for the following reasons:

· Legal advice considers that the alternative solution is ‘significantly different’ to the proposal as notified, and therefore is likely to require further consultation, prior to being adopted by Council.

· While the Waimārama Working Group consider that they are representative of the community, they also recognise they have no formal mandate from the community.

· Officers have not had the time to fully investigate the practicality, feasibility and operational costs of implementing a permit system

4.8 Given the amount of work undertaken by the group, it is however recommended that Officers be instructed to investigate the operational costs and feasibility of the Waimārama Working Group, to be brought back for consideration at a future meeting, together with the outcome of the Archaeological Assessment.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

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

5.2 Option 1 is recommended, and that Council resolve to hold the current proposed vehicle restriction resolution (the consulted ‘hybrid version’) on the table; and instruct officers to investigate the feasibility of the alternative proposal submitted by the Waimārama Working Group, to bring back for consideration and future consultation alongside the existing proposal.

5.3 This will provide officers the time to undertake a full feasibility and cost assessment of the proposal put forward by the Waimārama Working Group, to be presented back to a future Council meeting.

5.4 It will also ensure that the findings of the Heritage Assessment can be fully considered as part of any future proposal.

5.5 In addition, the Waimārama Working Group have identified that their proposal represents a significant compromise from all parties, but one that has been agreed as a preferred alternative to the Council current proposed amendment. Should Council resolve to reject the proposed vehicle restriction amendment, and progress solely with investigating the feasibility of the Working Group proposal, it may be that in the new year, the incentive to achieve a compromise may be reduced or lost.

5.6 Officers consider that keeping the current proposal ‘on the table’ will provide Council and the community with more options and scope when it comes to determining an approach best reflecting the outcomes sought by the community.

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

5.7 Option 2 would be for Council to adopt the proposal to amend the existing bylaw to ‘extend the motorised vehicle ban from the southern end adjacent to the end of Harper Road going north to a point 1.7km north of Tiakitai Road year-round with specified Vehicle Restriction areas available for limited purposes’.

5.8 This is not recommended, given the uncertain outcome of the community consultation, and the alternative proposed presented by the Waimārama Working Group. In addition, this option cannot be implemented in good faith until the Heritage Assessment is complete regarding Waingongoro Reserves, and beach access in this area.

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 The preferred option would see the status quo apply in the meantime, with the existing bylaw vehicle restrictions in place from Labour weekend.

6.2 This will mean that the existing bylaw will continue to be in effect this summer (Labour Weekend – Easter); that is no vehicles on the area of beach adjacent to Waimārama Domain between 8.00am and 8.00pm (unless authorised by Council, including emergency, police and surf lifesaving vehicles).

6.3 It is proposed that, within the context of those existing restrictions, interim steps need to be taken to address the impacts of vehicles on the beach this summer season particularly with the only legitimate access point during the day being Airini Road, travelling north over the Pouhokio Stream.

6.4 In this regard, Officers will seek to improve signage and beach user education, assess the access point at Airini Road with regard to beach user and vehicle access; work in conjunction with the police in terms of education and enforcement of the existing vehicle ban area, and current 20km/h speed limit. In addition Officers will investigate how to monitor the situation over summer, in terms of numbers, behaviours and issues. This will provide useful information when Council comes to reconsider restrictions next year.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

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

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This proposal promotes the social wellbeing of communities in the present and future. It does this by providing legislative services to enhance social, cultural, and environmental wellbeing.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

Mana whenua hapū of Waimārama are Ngāti Kuru, Ngāti Whakaiti, Ngāti Kurukuru, Ngāti Urakiterangi. Waimārama hapū have maintained their mana whenua status for one millenia and have held the beach with high esteem as a gateway to and from Te Moananui a Kiwa The Pacific Ocean.

Mana whenua hapū have great concerns about open access of vehicles to the beach area. A current By-law exists across a restricted part of Waimārama Beach, and a wider exclusion zone has a positive impact to mana whenua hapū in the following ways:

Whānau safety and wellbeing – the safety and wellbeing of whānau is paramount for mana whenua hapū as they use the beach. Whānau visiting Waimārama beach is for both the leisure and spiritual wellbeing of whānau, which can be disturbed by the use of vehicles on the beach.

Manaakitanga sharing of the Beach – Waimārama beach is a popular cultural tourist destination for foreign and domestic tourists. Across the Māori world, Waimārama is seen as a place of high spirituality and connection with its heritage and genealogical connection to other iwi tribes. It is of importance to mana whenua to share the beach and its important cultural stories and genealogies with visitors in a safe way that provides the most memorable cultural experience.

Taiao environmental wellbeing of the Beach – the natural beach environment is home to significant flora and fauna with shifting sands, grasses, and lifeforms. Mana whenua hold that free and uncontrolled vehicle use disturbs the special natural characteristics of Waimārama beach. Protection of the natural environment is of importance to mana whenua.

Tikanga Māori Customary Practices – Waimārama mana whenua have a positive reputation for maintaining Tikanga Māori associated with waimoana oceanic waters. Customary practices include mahinga kai food gathering, mahinga toi arts practice, karanga, pure, ritual rites. Prohibiting vehicle access enables good Tikanga Māori practices for mana whenua hapū.

Wāhi Tapu – the beach area contains many sacred areas and former villages. In recent times these sacred areas have been identified with cultural markers and pou whenua, carved by the late Phil Belcher. The cultural markers indicate to the public the special cultural heritage of Waimārama, positively contributing to the cultural landscape of the area.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

Sustainability outcomes will be considered in any future reports to Council which may recommend any changes to existing Council Resolutions or Reserve Management Plans

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

There are no financial implications associated with the adoption of Option 1. There may however be some costs to undertaking interim steps to address the impacts of vehicles on the beach this summer season, which will be funded from existing parks and marketing and communication operational budgets.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

There is strong community interest in this matter. Council has undertaken an extensive engagement with communities of interest.

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

There is strong community interest in this matter. Council has undertaken an extensive engagement with communities of interest.

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

The Rural Community Board were updated on 25 June 2024

Thursday, 24 October 2024

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Council Meeting

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Council

Nā:

From:

Jess Noiseux, Strategic Financial Advisor

Te Take:

Subject:

Adoption of Annual Report and Annual Report Summary for the year ended 30 June 2024

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to:

· Advise that the recommendation from the Risk and Assurance Committee held on 14^th October 2024 be received by Council; and

· Obtain a decision from Council on the adoption of the 2023/24 Annual Report and 2023/24 Summary Annual Report.

1.2 Draft copies of the 2023/24 Annual Report and 2023/24 Summary Annual Report were presented to the Risk and Assurance Committee on 14 October 2024. These were in draft as Councils’ auditors Ernst & Young (EY) had not yet completed all fieldwork at the time of reporting.

1.3 EY presented their Closing Report (Attachment 1) to the Risk and Assurance Committee and were confident that all material matters were resolved with no major amendments expected between then and the presentation of this report.

1.4 In finishing their review of the Annual Report, EY found a few classification adjustments that impacted the balance sheet. However Officers are pleased to report that there were no significant changes to the Annual Report and Summary Annual Report, and all minor amendments have been reviewed and approved by the Chief Financial Officer.

1.5 Please refer to attachment 2 for the Annual Report 2023/24 and attachment 3 for the Summary Annual Report 2023/24.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) The following recommendations of the Risk and Assurance Committee meeting held 14 October 2024 be received:

B) That Council receive the report titled Adoption of Annual Report and Annual Report Summary for the year ended 30 June 2024 dated 24 October 2024.

C) That Council adopts the 2023/24 Annual Report.

D) That Council adopts the 2023/24 Summary Annual Report.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 This report enables Council to meet the legislative requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 which requires Council, through section 98 of the Local Government Act 2002, to adopt the Annual Report within four months of the end of the financial year (by 31 October).

3.2 Council is also required to produce an Annual Report Summary that must represent fairly and consistently, the information regarding the major matters dealt with in the Annual Report.

3.3 The reports must comply with generally accepted accounting practice as determined by various financial reporting standards. A number of other statutory requirements must also be met.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 A summary of the unaudited accounting results was presented to the Performance and Monitoring Committee on 19 September 2024. The audited accounting results have not changed materially with only a minor adjustment made after review from audit.

Statement of Financial Performance 2023/24	Unaudited result present to Performance and Monitoring Committee $'000	Final audited result $'000	Variance
Operating Revenue	310,705	310,705	-
Less: Operating Expenditure	301,689	301,703	14
Net Surplus/(Deficit)	9,016	9,002	(14)
Unrealised movement on interest rate swaps	(1,016)	(1,016)	-
Net Surplus/(Deficit) after Swaps	8,000	7,986	(14)
Gain/(Loss) on Revaluations and Other Movements	288,136	286,823	(1,313)
Total Comprehensive Revenue & Expense	296,136	294,809	(1,327)

Revaluations

4.2 With the significant rebuild programme occurring on the roading network, Officers opted to get a full revaluation completed again for the Roading asset class to ensure that the fair value is accurately represented. Council was also due for a land and building revaluation with the previous valuation occurring in 2021. This resulted in the following valuation movements:

Asset Class	Asset value pre-valuation $000	Valuation per valuation reports $000	Increase/(decrease) in asset value $000	% increase/ (decrease)
Bridges	$141,425	$233,002	$91,577	65%
Roading other	$1,091,725	$1,274,999	$183,274	17%
Land and Buildings	$390,455	$402,656	$12,201	3%
TOTAL	$1,623,605	$1,910,657	$287,052

4.3 The significant uplift in Bridges reflects the availability of more accurate unit rate data than previously available. Bridges are not built often, but with the number of destroyed bridges being rebuilt, alongside the increased costs of construction, there is more cost data available. This has resulted in a large increase to reported bridge valuations.

4.4 The increase in other Roading reflects the significant amount of repair works that have occurred across the roading network on slips from Cyclone Gabrielle. Approximately 577 slips have been repaired across the network and the increase in valuation reflects this.

4.5 The relatively small increase in land and building assets reflects the current market conditions in housing.

Audit Opinion

4.6 For the last four years, Council have received a qualified audit opinion over the activity groups’ statement due to:

· incomplete information about the numbers of complaints Council received after hours in relation to 3 waters complaints; and

· Insufficient data available to accurately determine water loss % across Council’s water supply network.

4.7 Officers are pleased to report that after review of treatment across the sector, as well as improved disclosure and reporting from the 3Waters team, EY have removed the qualification for the water loss measure from their opinion.

4.8 Officers continue to work with the after hours service provider on the remaining qualified performance measure to ensure sufficient information is available in relation to 3 waters complaints.

Attachments:

1	Hastings DC EY Audit Close Report 2024 Final	FIN-07-01-24-494	Vol 7
2	2024 Annual Report	FIN-07-01-24-495	Vol 7
3	2024 Summary Annual Report	FIN-07-01-24-496	Vol 7

Thursday, 24 October 2024

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Council Meeting

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Council

Nā:

From:

Anna Summerfield, Senior Environmental Planner - Policy

Te Take:

Subject:

Plan Change 5 - Recommendations of the Hearings Committee

1.0 Summary

1.1 This Reports recommends Council adopt the recommendations from the Hearings Committee which commenced on 4 April 2024, continuing on 5 April and 11 April 2024, in respect of Plan Change 5: Right Homes Right Place, which seeks to enable more housing to be developed within existing urban areas located within 400m of the Hastings Central Business District and Havelock North and Flaxmere town centres.

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

1.3 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of local government is the performance of a regulatory function through the provision of a District Plan which will help to create a sustainable environment for people, which promotes the best use of natural resources, and which is responsive to community needs.

1.4 The Report concludes by recommending that the Council adopt the recommendations of the Hearings Committee on the submissions received to Plan Change 5 and that Council formally notifies its decision on the submissions.

1.5 The relevant Hearings Committee recommendations to be ratified are set out in the attachments to this Report.

2.0 Recommendation– Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That Council receive the report “Plan Change 5 - Recommendations of the Hearings Committee”.

B) That pursuant to Clause 10, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the recommendations of the Hearings Committee meeting held 4, 5 and 11 April 2024 and set out in the attachments to the report in A) above, be ratified, adopted and publicly notified.

3.0 Background

3.1 Plan Change 5 will align the Hastings District Plan with Policy 5 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD). Policy 5 of the NPS-UD requires that the Hastings District as a Tier 2 urban environment, notifies a plan change to “enable heights and density of urban form commensurate with the greater of either:

(i) the level of accessibility to a range of commercial and community activities or

(ii) demand for housing in that location”.

3.2 The Resource Management Act 1991 requires that District Plans give effect to National Policy Statements and therefore the Council is bound by legislation to make changes to the District Plan to enable more housing to be built within existing urban areas that have proximity to commercial areas that provide access to a range of facilities and services.

3.3 The express purpose of Plan Change 5 is to provide a more enabling framework for residential intensification in appropriate locations within existing urban areas in Hastings, Havelock North and Flaxmere and to provide more certainty through a less onerous rule framework that encourages high quality medium density housing.

3.4 Plan Change 5 identifies a new Medium Density Residential Zone (MDRZ) within 400m of the main commercial centres of Hastings, Havelock North and Flaxmere which will enable more housing to be built in these areas giving effect to the NPS-UD Policy 5. The purpose of Plan Change 5 is consistent with and central to achieving Council’s strategies to provide for growth over the next 10-30 years increasingly within existing urban areas rather than expanding out onto the versatile soils of the Heretaunga Plains.

3.5 The hearings committee appointed by Council as the panel of Commissioners to hear submissions and provide the council with recommendations on plan change 5 included George Lyons (Independent Chair), Bill Wasley (Independent Commissioner) and Councillors Alwyn Corban, Tania Kerr and Wendy Schollum.

3.6 The report and recommendations from the Hearings Committee (attachment 1) provides a summary of the key issues raised in submissions, describes the hearing process followed and the reasons for decisions on key issues and recommended changes to Plan Change 5.

3.7 In providing recommendations to Council the Hearings Committee have considered all background material to Plan Change 5, the section 32 and section 32AA evaluation reports, all submissions received, the evidence and submissions given at the hearing and the s42A report by Council’s reporting officers and all other relevant matters.

3.8 The recommendation from the hearings committee is that Plan Change 5 be approved with some modifications, and that the submissions be accepted or accepted in part or rejected in line with the overall recommendations contained within Attachments 3-8 (inclusive).

4.0 Options

4.1 The Council has two options to consider.

4.2 Option 1 is to adopt the recommendations of the Hearings Committee and approve the plan change with the modifications suggested by the Committee and contained in their report.

4.3 Option 2 is to not adopt the recommendations of the Hearings Committee and to re-hear the submissions and evidence on Plan Change 5 which would require notifying all submitters of the further opportunity to speak to their submission at a hearing by Council.

4.4 The time and cost of option 2 could be significant and is not recommended given the time already taken by the Hearings Committee to hear and consider submissions and evidence on behalf of Council and the length of time it has taken to get to this stage of the process (approximately 2 years since the date the Plan Change was originally publicly notified). Any further delays could create uncertainty for both residents, submitters and the development community.

4.5 Option 1 adopting the recommendations of the Hearings Committee will still enable those submitters who wish to appeal the decision on their submission the opportunity to appeal to the Environment Court and for their concerns to be heard and addressed through mediation or alternatively at an environment court hearing.

5.0 Next Steps

5.1 If the Council adopt the recommendations of the hearings committee (option 1), then the decisions on submissions contained in attachments 3-8 inclusive would be publicly notified and submitters would be advised directly.

5.2 Appeals to the decisions on submissions can be lodged with the Environment Court by any person who made a submission, for a period of 30 working days from the service of the notice of decision.

5.3 Plan Change 5 provisions will not become operative until any and all appeals have been resolved. If there are no appeals to a specific provision or rule in Plan Change 5 then following the end of the appeal period, it can be treated as if it is operative in the assessment of any resource consent applications.

5.4 If the Council decide not to adopt the recommendations of the Hearings Committee (option 2), there will be a need to notify all submitters and the public of this decision. In addition, another hearing date(s) would need to be set and submitters invited to speak at the hearing.

5.5 The Plan Change 5 provisions would not become operative. This may delay potential housing developments waiting for Plan Change 5 provisions to become operative. It may also create additional uncertainty for residents and submitters by further delaying decisions on submissions.

Attachments:

1 ⇨	Plan Change 5 Hearings Committee Report and Recommendations	ENV-17-4-24-585	Vol 1
2 ⇨	Plan Change 5 Record of Attendees and Apologies from Submitters for this hearing	ENV-17-4-24-569	Vol 1
3 ⇨	Plan Change 5 Summary Recommendations - Topic 1 - final	ENV-17-4-24-563	Vol 1
4 ⇨	Plan Change 5 Summary Recommendations Report - Topic 2 final	ENV-17-4-24-564	Vol 1
5 ⇨	Plan Change 5 Summary Recommendations Report - Topic 3 final	ENV-17-4-24-565	Vol 1
6 ⇨	Plan Change 5 Summary Recommendations Report - Topic 4 final	ENV-17-4-24-566	Vol 1
7 ⇨	Plan Change 5 Summary Recommendations Report - Topic 5 final	ENV-17-4-24-567	Vol 1
8 ⇨	Plan Change 5 Summary Recommendations Report - Topic 6 final	ENV-17-4-24-568	Vol 1
9	Plan Change 5 Section 32 Evaluation Report	ENV-17-4-23-323	Vol 2
10	Plan Change 5 Section 32AA Evaluation Report	ENV-17-4-24-558	Vol 2
11	Plan Change 5 Hearings Committee Recommended Hastings Medium Density Residential Zone Map	ENV-17-4-24-582	Vol 2
12	Plan Change 5 Hearings Committee Recommended Flaxmere Medium Density Residential Zone Map	ENV-17-4-24-581	Vol 2
13	Plan Change 5 – Hearings Committee Recommended Havelock North Medium Density Residential Zone Map	ENV-17-4-24-583	Vol 2
14	Plan Change 5 - District Plan Tracked Changes - Section 2.4 Urban Strategy	ENV-17-4-24-526	Vol 2
15	Plan Change 5 - District Plan Tracked Changes - Section 2.6 Medium Density Residential Strategy	ENV-17-4-24-527	Vol 2
16	Plan Change 5 - District Plan Tracked Changes - Residential Overview Chapter	ENV-17-4-24-528	Vol 2
17	Plan Change 5 - District Plan Tracked Changes Section Medium Density Residential Zone Chapter	ENV-17-4-24-570	Vol 2
18	Plan Change 5 – District Plan Tracked Changes - Edited Section 7.2 Hastings General Residential Zone	ENV-17-4-24-577	Vol 3
19	Plan Change 5 - District Plan Tracked Changes - Edited Section 8.2 Havelock North General Residential Zone	ENV-17-4-24-578	Vol 3
20	Plan Change 5 – District Plan Tracked Changes - Edited Section 9.2 Flaxmere General Residential Zone	ENV-17-4-24-579	Vol 3
21	Plan Change 5 – District Plan Tracked Changes Edited Section 30.1 Subdivision and Land Development	ENV-17-4-24-580	Vol 4
22	Plan Change 5 - District Plan Tracked Changes Edited Section 33.1	ENV-17-4-24-584	Vol 4
23	Plan Change 5 – District Plan Tracked Changes - Appendix 26	ENV-17-4-24-535	Vol 5
24	Plan Change 5 - District Plan Tracked Changes - Appendix 27	ENV-17-4-24-536	Vol 5
25	Plan Change 5 – District Plan Tracked Changes - Appendix 28	ENV-17-4-24-537	Vol 5
26	Plan Change 5 – District Plan Tracked Changes - Appendix 29	ENV-17-4-24-538	Vol 5
27	Plan Change 5 - District Plan Tracked Changes - Appendix 38	ENV-17-4-24-539	Vol 5
28	Plan Change 5 – District Plan Tracked Changes - Appendix 60	ENV-17-4-24-540	Vol 5

Thursday, 24 October 2024

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Council Meeting

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Council

Nā:

From:

Janine Green, Licensing Inspector

Te Take:

Subject:

Local Alcohol Policy Review

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 This Report updates Council on the Hastings District Council and Napier City Council Joint Local Alcohol Policy (LAP).

1.2 This Report seeks a decision whether to continue with the LAP, and if so, whether to maintain a joint LAP with Napier City Council (NCC) or have a HDC specific LAP.

1.3 Section 75 of ‘The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012’ (the Act) specifies that a territorial authority (TA) may have a LAP relating to the sale, supply, or consumption of alcohol within its district.

1.4 Section 76 of the Act specifies that two or more TA’s may adopt a single LAP.

1.5 Council resolved in 2013 that Napier and Hastings would develop a joint LAP for the region to provide consistency under Section 76 of the Act.

1.6 At a Council Meeting on 16 July 2019, Council approved the final LAP with an enforcement date of 21 August 2019, and 21 November 2019, for the hours provisions as required under the Act.

1.7 Section 97 of the Act specifies that “a territorial authority that has a LAP must review it utilising the Special Consultative Procedure (under the Local Government Act 2002) no later than 6 years after it came into force.”

1.8 At its Meeting on 13 July 2021 Council resolved to review the policy in six years rather than three.

“That the Council approve a review of the Hastings District Council and Napier City Council Local Alcohol Policy in six years (commencing October 2024) or sooner if required, as per Section 97 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.”

1.9 This Report recommends that Council continue to have a LAP and reviews the LAP in accordance with the Act.

1.10 This Report recommends transitioning to an individual LAP as part of the Review process to simplify administration and improve efficiencies/effectiveness. Officers recommend this approach captures efficiency gains whilst enabling the two Councils to administer consistent policies and collaboratively contribute to reductions in alcohol related harm in Hawke’s Bay.

1.11 This Report recommends Council establishes a suitable joint governance structure with NCC to oversee the LAP Review for consistency as appropriate.

1.12 If Council resolves to revoke the LAP, it is a requirement under the Act to still complete a Special Consultative Procedure. Revocation of the LAP means Council would administer the Act under the more lenient Act provisions.

1.13 NCC will consider a similar Report at their committee meeting on 24 October.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That Council receive the report titled Local Alcohol Policy Review dated 24 October 2024.

B) That Council resolves to continue to have a Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) under Section 75 of The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (The Act).

C) That the Chief Executive Reviews Councils LAP under Section 97 of The Act with the goal of contributing to the reduction of alcohol related harm in our community.

D) That Council resolves to have an individual LAP for the Review process in Recommendation C.

E) That Council establishes a suitable joint governance structure with Napier City Council to oversee the LAP Review for consistency as appropriate.

F) Council notes a Draft LAP and Statement of Proposal will be bought back to Council for approval prior to commencement of the Special Consultative Procedure under The Local Government Act 2002, which is a requirement under the Act when reviewing an LAP under Section 97 of The Act.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 The Act allows Councils to have an LAP to control where and when alcohol can be sold.

3.2 Council resolved in 2013 that Napier and Hastings would develop a joint LAP for the region to provide consistency under Section 76 of the Act.

3.3 The joint LAP was developed over several years between 2012 – 2017. The Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) was completed in 2013 as part of that process.

3.4 The LAP was appealed by three parties and a negotiated settlement was made with those parties. The LAP came into force in August 2019, with the hour’s provisions coming into force three months later in November 2019, as required by law. (LAP attached as Attachment One)

3.5 On the 16 July 2019 Council resolved:

“That in accordance with Section 90 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012:

· The Local Alcohol Policy is publicly notified

· The Local Alcohol Policy comes into force on 21 August 2019

· The Local Alcohol Policy hours provision in Section 5 of the Local Alcohol Policy, come into force on 21 November 2019.

That a preliminary review be considered in three years after the policy becomes operative with a full review required within 6 years of the enforcement date. That a research working party of the key agencies is developed to start gathering evidence to support the review of the Local Alcohol Policy in 6 years by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.”

3.6 Under Section 97 of The Act, ‘A territorial authority that has a LAP must review it, using the SCP no later than 6 years after it came into force.”

3.7 In July 2021 Council and NCC resolved:

3.8 Between 2019 and 2024 stakeholder meetings have occurred and research and data collection has been undertaken to inform the LAP Review process.

4.0 Discussion

4.1 Since July 2021, Officers have obtained, completed, and considered,

· Research and data capture as required under Section 78 of the Act

· Legal advice

· Other council LAP reviews

· Changes to legislation

· Stakeholder feedback

· Advantages and disadvantages of maintaining a LAP and the merits of individual LAP’s.

4.2 Continuing with an LAP

4.2.1 Research and Data

4.2.2 Data has been gathered in 2021 and again in 2024 as per the requirements of The Act. Alcohol related harm Emergency Department (ED) presentation data has shown a reduction over time. In the 2019 financial year there were 896 alcohol related ED presentations reducing to 618 for the 2024 financial year. Presentations tend to peak from 8.00pm and over the weekend.

4.2.3 Police data shows that alcohol related crime and incidents have fluctuated over the last 5 years. Incidents are higher in the summer months. Incidents tends to be at their highest over the weekend and steadily increase from 5.00pm, peak at 11.00pm and continue to the early hours of the morning.

4.2.4 Stakeholder Feedback

4.2.5 Both Police and Health believe the LAP is an effective tool, is contributing to a reduction in alcohol related harm and should be maintained and strengthened.

4.2.6 Changes to Legislation

4.2.7 Under the original legislation submitters could appeal the LAP provisions. Council and NCC were previously appealed by three parties and a lengthy and expensive process resulted in a negotiated settlement.

4.2.8 Clauses within the Act which allowed organisations and individuals to appeal LAP’s have been revoked. Parties can seek a Judicial Review on process issues only.

4.2.9 Other Council LAP reviews

4.2.10 There have been 10 LAP reviews and 8 are in progress. Generally other council reviews have kept the current provisions in their original LAP’s or made them more restrictive by making changes to opening hours, density provisions and increased discretionary conditions.

4.2.11 Auckland Council’s adoption of their LAP, after several years of appeals has set an example for Councils who had either discarded their LAP or are reviewing their LAP, to make their provisions more stringent subject to public support and supporting data.

4.2.12 The Auckland Council case law has removed the need for a direct causal nexus between policy and alcohol related harm data. It has allowed for a precautionary principal approach in policy making that legitimises the adoption of preventative measures to address potential risks to the public of alcohol related harm.

4.2.13 HDC other Alcohol harm reduction work

4.2.14 Council and NCC in collaboration with various agencies, adopted a Joint Alcohol Strategy (JAS) in 2017 aimed at minimising alcohol-related harm. The JAS supports a combination of regulatory, preventative and educational interventions to address alcohol-related issues.

4.2.15 Within this strategic framework, the LAP is one of six Council areas of influence designed to reduce alcohol-related harm.

4.2.16 The LAP serves as a robust legislative instrument for regulating alcohol licensing, which plays a critical role in reducing alcohol-related harm within our community.

4.2.17 Council and NCC are reviewing the JAS. The LAP Review is required by legislation and independent of the JAS review. Officers will continue to work together to ensure a cohesive Council approach to alcohol harm reduction.

4.2.18 The diagram shows how the LAP fits within the JAS.

4.3 The LAP review process

4.3.1 The diagram illustrates the process for the LAP Review.

4.4 Revoke the LAP - Process

4.4.1 If Council resolves to revoke the LAP, a SCP is required under Section 96 of the Act. The provisions under the LAP (hours, location provisions, discretionary conditions) would be revoked and all conditions would revert to the more lenient Act provisions.

Element or provision	SSAA 2012 Default restrictions	LAP restrictions
Hours – On licences	Monday to Sunday - 8.00 am to 4.00 am	Taverns/bars/pubs/night-clubs: Monday to Sunday - 8.00 am to 3.00 am AND One way door from 2.00 am Cafes/restaurants/wineries/winery restaurants – 8.00am to 2.00 am
Hours – Club licences	Monday to Sunday - 8.00 am to 4.00 am	Monday to Sunday - 8.00am to 1.00 am
Hours – Off licences	Monday to Sunday - 7.00 am to 11.00pm	Grocery Stores and Supermarkets: Monday to Sunday – 7.00 am to 10.00 pm All other Off licences: Monday to Sunday – 9.00 am to 10.00 pm
Hours – remote sales (internet only)	Any day at Any time	Any day at Any time
Special Licences	Any day at Any time	Any day at Any time (with restrictions under the District Plan)
Other conditions	None	No Further off licences (bottle stores) within: Flaxmere Camberley Maraenui Discretionary conditions guided by principals – connection, impact and reasonableness: CCTV / Exterior lighting No glass containers at specific times Number of security or door staff Limits on number of drinks per sale, drink sizes and types

4.5 Rationale for Transitioning to Individual LAPs

4.5.1 When the LAP process began in 2013, the rationale for Council and NCC to have a Joint LAP included improved efficiency, shared financial responsibilities for potential legal appeal costs, and consistency in policy provisions across the region.

4.5.2 Based on subsequent operational experience, the LAP process and legislative change (removal of LAP appeal rights), Officers recommend transitioning to individual LAP’s to simplify the process and improve efficiency and effectiveness.

4.5.3 Consistency in policies

4.5.4 Under both scenarios, (joint or individual LAP’s), there is a risk of divergence of provisions. Consistency in the hours provisions in the LAP’s is important to avoid unintended consequences, regardless of whether the LAP is joint or individual. For example, disparities in closing hours may lead to the migration of customers from one district to another, potentially increasing alcohol related harm.

4.5.5 Well-designed individual LAP’s can consistently support regional strategic objectives.

4.5.6 If Council resolves to transition to individual LAP’s Officers from Council and NCC will collaborate closely.

4.5.7 A suitable Joint Governance structure with ‘Terms of Reference’, is recommended to ensure consistency. This Entity can convene after the draft LAPs are developed and before public consultation. The Entity can consider the draft LAP’s for regional consistency and provide recommendations to Council and NCC to assist their deliberations.

4.5.8 Alcohol Related Harm Reduction Outcomes

4.5.9 There is a strong focus on reduction in alcohol related harm with separate or joint LAPs.

4.5.10 Public Information

4.5.11 Comprehensive joint ‘Communications Plan’ will seek to ensure our communities and stakeholders are informed about the LAP Review process and can make submissions.

4.6 Joint LAP Process

4.6.1 Each Council completes the required work and comparative analysis. They then negotiate and try to align LAP elements.

4.6.2 A joint LAP Review requires the following additional steps:

· Additional Milestones; A 25-milestone project plan for a joint LAP compared to a 15- milestone plan for individual LAPs.

· Additional Reporting and Analysis; At four points in the process additional reports and comparative analysis are required.

· Parallel Timeframes: Coordination of timelines between Councils to ensure alignment.

· Terms of Reference and Joint committee: Establish a Joint Committee for the SCP and hearings process. A Terms of Reference is developed.

· Outcome Analysis: Analyse and align outcomes from SCP procedures and hearings.

· Ongoing Negotiations: Conduct formal negotiations between councils at each decision- making stage.

· Additional Council Meetings: Negotiations may necessitate additional Council Meetings.

· Joint Policy Drafting: Collaboratively negotiate and draft the LAP.

· Aligned Adoption Dates: Align adoption and enforcement dates across the Councils.

4.6.3 Each Council must develop a research report and associated data to comply with Section 78 (2) of the Act. This involves considering individual district plans, policies, objectives, licensed environments, demographics, and harm statistics. An additional report will be created detailing the comparative analysis, which will inform what changes can or cannot be made in the LAP.

4.6.4 A similar process is required during the Issues and Options stage of the Review, where both councils will draft issues and options papers, followed by a comparative analysis report. This is repeated at the consultation stage and the preferred position stage.

4.6.5 The research data may show significant differences in issues influencing what can or cannot be changed in the LAP.

4.6.6 A SCP is required to be completed under the Act in accordance with the LGA 2002. This process is more complicated when receiving submissions for two council areas and analysing and reporting on that feedback. This is compounded if the feedback varies significantly between districts.

4.6.7 A preferred position paper is developed, and a second draft LAP is developed for approval by Council. Two Councils require aligned timeframes, processes and negotiated LAP provisions for each decision-making stage. Negotiated provisions may affect alcohol related harm outcomes if the LAP is no longer suited to the local environment.

4.6.8 In adopting a final LAP, Council alignment is required for adoption and setting enforcement dates.

4.7 Other Councils joint LAP reviews

4.7.1 Of the 6 joint LAPs around the country, two councils moved from a joint LAP to individual LAP’s during their review process, a third partially split from three to two councils. The remaining Councils are yet to complete their review.

4.8 Council Direction

4.8.1 Officers are at Step 1 of the Review Process (Section 4.3.1). Council direction is sought on the following two matters:

1. Does Council want to continue with the LAP (and associated Review) as per the 2021 Council Resolution or revoke the LAP?

2. Does Council want to continue with a joint LAP with NCC or move to an individual LAP for the Review Process?

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

Recommendation one:

That Council approve the continuation of the Local Alcohol Policy and review.

Associated options:

Option one: Continue with having a LAP.

Option two: Revoke the LAP.

Recommendation two:

That the Council approves a transition to an individual LAP for the LAP Review Process.

Associated options:

Option one: Individual Policy and begin Review.

Option two: Status Quo – Joint Policy and begin Review.

5.1 Option Analysis

5.1.1 The tables below discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the two recommendations.

Option one - Continue with the LAP and continue the review		Option two - Revoke the LAP
Advantages	Disadvantages	Advantages	Disadvantages
· Reduction of hours (on/ off/club licences) helping to reduce Alcohol related harm	· Time taken in associated LAP work	· Less officer time involved in preparing a final draft LAP	· Increase of hours for all licence types which may result in increased Alcohol related harm
· Location provisions to protect the most vulnerable populations			· Alcohol licences could establish or increase in our most vulnerable communities
· Additional discretionary conditions to apply to licences			· DLC has less tools at their disposal to protect the amenity and good order of our communities
· Additional tools for the DLC to utilise to reduce Alcohol related harm			· Potential increase in Alcohol related harm
· Potential to strengthen the LAP and reduce harm further in our community			· Push back from Police, Health and potentially the public
· Increased chance of reduction of ARH			· There is still the requirement to do a SCP to revoke a LAP

Associated Option one: Individual policy and begin review.		Associated Option two: Status Quo – Joint policy and begin review.
Advantages	Disadvantages	Advantages	Disadvantages
· Ease of administration of the LAP review process - research / SCP process / approval	· May be slightly more costly, legal costs won’t be split (however legal costs to review the LAP will be minimal)	· Split of legal costs (if any now there is no appeals process)	· A lengthier more complicated process with extra steps required (15 milestones vs 25 Milestones)
· Streamlined processes - Increased efficiency and reduced timeframe - a 15 milestone project vs a 25-milestone project	· Police could have different licensing conditions to enforce if policy provisions are different (however this could occur under a joint policy)	· Ease of Police enforcement of the LAP if conditions were the same. (This can occur in both a joint or individual policy)	· Extra work / time for coordination of council meeting dates and parallel process
· No potential for additional council meetings due to differing council provisions	· Potential divergence of provisions - A council may decide to add provisions to LAP that may cause unintended consequences. (However, this can be managed and can occur if joint or individual)	· Councils are seen to be working together	· Extra work /time for potential extra council meetings if councils had differing prospective provisions
· No need for closed Council meetings due to one council making decisions before another	· Public perception may be negative regarding moving from a joint to individual policy due to perceived efficiencies of a joint LAP. (This can be managed through effective communications)		· Extra reports required at each major step of the process
· Individual LAPs would align with enforcement and decision-making functions that occur at the TA level not regionally			· Inconsistencies in prospective provisions of the two councils, requiring negotiation, that may result in a less locally tailored LAP
· Simplified documentation process · Focused analysis and reporting · Eliminates need for extensive comparative analysis & reports			· Overall process and requirements of a joint policy is more complicated & time consuming which may affect the project overall completion date and policy enactment date
· Reduce organisational complexities and allow each TA to tailor its policies to local needs, enhancing responsiveness to community priorities and decreasing alcohol related harm			· Future reviews may require the same coordination and extra time if a joint policy was continued
· Operational Independence: Individual LAPs enable councils to operate independently yet concurrently, expediting decision-making without the need for prolonged formal negotiations			· Requirement of closed meetings due to one council making decision before the other
· Maintained Consistency: Individual policies can still align with regional objectives, such as in the joint Alcohol Strategy, ensuring coherence in outcomes while allowing for local customisation · The LAP could be mirrored by both councils to ensure consistency			· More complex documentation process · Additional formal analysis required at 4 stages of the process
· Financial Considerations: Recent legislative changes have removed the previous financial benefits. · developing individual policies now presents a more practical and financially sound approach
· Future reviews or changes are easily completed

5.2 Officers recommend conducting individual LAP Reviews simultaneously, this will enhance efficiency and streamline the process, while contributing to the regional goals related to reducing alcohol-related harm.

5.3 Officers recommend a suitable joint Council governance structure is developed to oversee the Council LAP’s to provide appropriate consistency. A joint Communications Plan will keep messaging consistent and ensure communities of interest are informed about how they can participate in and submit to the Review process.

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 If approved by Council, start the LAP Review Process as required under the Act.

Attachments:

1 ⇨

Regulatory Operations - Liquor Licensing - Policy - LAP DOCUMENT FINAL APPROVED COPY (DATED AUGUST 2019 ON FRONT COVER)

REG-14-3-19-237

Vol 6

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

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

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This proposal promotes the performance of regulatory functions for the purpose of preventing harm and creating safe and healthy environments for people. The proposal also contributes towards reducing public nuisance and threats to public health and safety through appropriate policy controls for the wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

Maori and pacific people are overrepresented in alcohol related harm statistics, however no known impacts for mana whenua / iwi / tangata whenua above and or beyond the general community population specifically in relation to this policy review.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

The policy is required under the Act to be reviewed every six years.

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

The policy process will incur fees associated with a legal review and costs for Special Consultative Procedure and administration /officer time. These will be covered from existing Planning and Regulatory budgets in the 2024-2025 years.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

Section 79 of the Act requires the use of the SCP under The LGA 2002, for the LAP Review. Preliminary stakeholder consultation has been done.

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

The LAP Review must use the SCP under the LGA 2002.

Risks

REWARD – Te Utu

RISK – Te Tūraru

Public health benefits of having a LAP –

reducing alcohol related harm.

Providing tools for the District Licensing Committee to regulate where and when alcohol is sold and supplied in the region.

Supporting stakeholder groups wish for the continuation of the LAP to protect and promote public health and safety.

Increase efficiencies, reduce complexities of having an individual LAP vs a joint LAP.

Potential divergence of provisions in Council LAPs which can occur with individual or joint LAPs.

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

Will be briefed on the LAP Review.

Thursday, 24 October 2024

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Council Meeting

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Council

Nā:

From:

Tony Manunui, Building Consents Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Waiver of Building / Resource Consent Fees for Cyclone Recovery Residential Building Work

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 Council at its meeting on 7^th September 2023 resolved to;

· Waive fees for Cyclone Gabrielle recovery building works for residential dwellings that were subject to red or yellow placards under the Rapid Building Assessment.

· The fee waiver was approved to 30^th June 2024 with an unbudgeted provision of up to $500,000 funded from the General Rate.

1.2 Council at its meeting on 23^rdMay 2024 resolved to extend the fee waiver to November 2024.

1.3 Council has to date waived the following fees;

a) 7/9/23 to 30/06/24 - 110 consents/applications totalling $218,352.25

b) 1/7/24 to 8/10/24 - 19 consents/applications totalling $66,499.60

c) Total 129 consents/ applications $284,851.85

1.4 The level of eligible consents being processed, has reduced considerably with the last consent received by Council on 21 August 2024, and 4 consents are currently being processed.

1.5 This Report recommends;

· Council concludes its Policy of ‘Waiver of Building / Resource Consent Fees for Cyclone Recovery Residential Building Work’ (Policy) at the end of February 2025.

· Council promulgates its decision (to conclude its Policy at the end of February 2025) to the ‘community of interest’ which may be potentially eligible for a Consent Fee Waiver, so consent applicants have 4 months to organise their consent process.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That Council receive the report titled Waiver of Building / Resource Consent Fees for Cyclone Recovery Residential Building Work dated 24 October 2024.

B) That Council concludes its Policy of ‘Waiver of Building / Resource Consent Fees for Cyclone Recovery Residential Building Work’ at the end of February 2025.

C) The Council directs the Chief Executive to promulgate its decision in Recommendation B to the ‘community of interest’ which may be potentially eligible for a Consent Fee Waiver, so consent applicants have 4 months to organise their consent process.

D) That Council approves the payment of any costs arising because of forgone revenue from decisions in Recommendation B, as unbudgeted expenditure.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 At its meeting on 7 September 2023, Council resolved to waive building / resource consent fees for building recovery works (because of Cyclone Gabrielle) for eligible residential properties to 30 June 2024.

3.2 The Council approved fee waivers up to a value of $500,000 as unbudgeted expenditure in 2023 -24 and would review this decision before 30 June 2024. The budget was funded from the General Rate.

3.3 At its meeting on 23 May 2024, Council resolved to continue the waiver of consent fees, and to review its decision in November 2024.

3.4 Council has to date waived the following fees;

· 7/9/23 to 30/06/24 - 110 consents/applications totalling $218,352.25

· 1/7/24 to 8/10/24 - 19 consents/applications totalling $66,499.60

· Total 129 consents/ applications $284,851.85

3.5 The last consent received for processing and eligible for waiving of consent fees was 21^st August 2024

3.6 There are currently 4 consents in the system being processed and eligible for waiving of consent fees if they are finalised and issued. 2 of the consents are from 2023.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 Council introduced this Policy to assist the worst affected residential property owners who could repair their homes to ‘get back on their feet’.

4.2 The level of eligible consents being processed, has reduced considerably with the last consent received by Council on 21 August 2024, and 4 consents are currently being processed.

4.3 It is difficult for officers to forecast the number of remaining eligible consents. Given no consents have been received in almost 2 months, it is assumed the level of demand is quickly reducing.

4.4 The Recommendation to conclude the Policy at the end of February 2025, acknowledges;

· It will by this time be two years since the Cyclone,

· Promulgation of the cessation of the Policy at the end of February 2025 provides 4 months for remaining eligible consent applicants to organise their consent applications.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

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

5.1 Council concludes its Policy of ‘Waiver of Building / Resource Consent Fees for Cyclone Recovery Residential Building Work’ (Policy) at the end of February 2025.

Advantages

· Council will have helped the worst Cyclone affected residential property owners who could repair their homes to ‘get back on their feet’ for two years.

· After providing 4 months’ time for any remaining eligible property owners to organise their consents, Council will return to its usual policy for fee payments and cost recovery of building consent processing costs.

Disadvantages

· None noted.

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

5.2 Council does not conclude its Policy of ‘Waiver of Building / Resource Consent Fees for Cyclone Recovery Residential Building Work’ (Policy) at the end of February 2025.

Advantages

· None noted.

Disadvantages

· Council will not return to its usual policy for fee payments and cost recovery of building consent processing costs. The General Rate will have an unbudgeted drawdown to pay for costs arising from forgone consent revenues.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

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

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This proposal has assisted with Community Wellbeing by aiding Cyclone damaged property owners with their recovery.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

N/A

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

Covered in the Report

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

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

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

N/A

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

The Rural Community Board will be briefed on Councils decision.

Te Rā Hui: Meeting date:	Thursday, 24 October 2024
Te Wā: Time:	1.00pm
Te Wāhi: Venue:	Council Chamber Ground Floor Civic Administration Building Lyndon Road East Hastings
Te Hoapā: Contact:	Democracy and Governance Services P: 06 871 5000 \| E: democracy@hdc.govt.nz
Te Āpiha Matua: Responsible Officer:	Chief Executive - Nigel Bickle

Mematanga: Membership:	Tiamana Chair: Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst Ngā KaiKaunihera Councillors: Ana Apatu, Marcus Buddo, Alwyn Corban, Malcolm Dixon, Michael Fowler, Damon Harvey, Henry Heke, Kellie Jessup, Tania Kerr (Deputy Mayor), Eileen Lawson, Hana Montaperto-Hendry, Simon Nixon, Wendy Schollum, Heather Te Au-Skipworth and Kevin Watkins
Tokamatua: Quorum:	8 members
Apiha Matua Officer Responsible:	Chief Executive – Nigel Bickle
Te Rōpū Manapori me te Kāwanatanga Democracy and Governance Services:	Louise Stettner (Extn 5543)

1.0	Opening Prayer – Karakia Whakatūwheratanga
2.0	Apologies & Leave of Absence – Ngā Whakapāhatanga me te Wehenga ā-Hui At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received. Leave of Absences had previously been granted to Councillor Heke and Councillor Dixon
3.0	Conflict of Interest – He Ngākau Kōnatunatu Members need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have. This note is provided as a reminder to Members to scan the agenda and assess their own private interests and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be perceptions of conflict of interest. If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the relevant item of business and withdraw from participating in the meeting. If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the General Counsel or the Manager: Democracy and Governance (preferably before the meeting). It is noted that while Members can seek advice and discuss these matters, the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.
4.0	Confirmation of Minutes – Te Whakamana i Ngā Miniti Minutes of the Council Meeting held Tuesday 27 August 2024. (Previously circulated) Minutes of the Council Meeting held Thursday 19 September 2024. (Previously circulated)
5.0	Mayor's Verbal Update	9
6.0	Howard Street (Designation HDC - 25) Road Naming	11
7.0	Waimārama Bylaw Update Report	23
8.0	Adoption of Annual Report and Annual Report Summary for the year ended 30 June 2024	35
9.0	Proposed Amendments To Schedule Of Meetings	39
10.0	Plan Change 5 - Recommendations of the Hearings Committee	41
11.0	Local Alcohol Policy Review	45
12.0	Risk and Assurance Committee Recommendations from 14 October 2024 meeting	57
13.0	Waiver of Building / Resource Consent Fees for Cyclone Recovery Residential Building Work	59
14.0	Requests Received Under The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) Update	63
15.0	Minor Items – Ngā Take Iti
16.0	Urgent Items – Ngā Take Whakahihiri
17.0	Recommendation to Exclude the Public from Items 18, 19 and 20	67
18.0	Office Building Lease
19.0	Municipal Building Tenancy
20.0	CE Matters (Supplementary Agenda to be circulated separately)

Item 14 Requests Received Under The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) Update
LGOIMA Report to October Counci Meeting	Attachment 1

1.1 This Report updates Council on the Hastings District Council and Napier City Council Joint Local Alcohol Policy (LAP).

1.2 This Report seeks a decision whether to continue with the LAP, and if so, whether to maintain a joint LAP with Napier City Council (NCC) or have a HDC specific LAP.

1.12 If Council resolves to revoke the LAP, it is a requirement under the Act to still complete a Special Consultative Procedure. Revocation of the LAP means Council would administer the Act under the more lenient Act provisions.

1.13 NCC will consider a similar Report at their committee meeting on 24 October.

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

RECOMMENDATION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC