council - hurunui district · item order of business pages x apologies: ... 95 - 103 104 - 107 108...

COU

NC

IL

Counc i l Agenda 9.30am, Thursday, 26 October 2017 Council Chambers, 66 Carters Road, Amberley. Community Partnership in Growth and Wellbeing

Council Membership:

Mayor Winton Dalley (Chairperson) Cr Nicky Anderson Cr Marie Black Cr Vince Daly Cr Dick Davison Cr Jason Fletcher Cr Fiona Harris Cr Julia McLean Cr Geoff Shier Cr Michael Ward

Quorum: no less than 5 members

***************************************************

The purpose of local government: (1) The purpose of local government is—

(a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and

(b) to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

(2) In this Act, good-quality, in relation to local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions, means infrastructure, services, and performance that are— (a) efficient; and (b) effective; and (c) appropriate to present and anticipated future

circumstances.

(Local Government Act 2002 – Amendment Act 2012)

Hurunui District Council – 26 October 2017 TIMETABLE

Time Item 9.30am Meeting commences. 10.30am Morning tea. 12.30pm Lunch. 1.00pm Hurunui Health Development Services Group – Marie Black Chair;

Ruth Robson – Canterbury Clinical Network; Bill Eschenbach – Canterbury Rural Primary Health Organisation.

2.45pm Regular Discussion with ECan Councillor Claire McKay. 3.00pm Afternoon tea. 3.15pm Council workshop on the Long Term Plan 2018-28.

ITEM ORDER OF BUSINESS PAGES

Apologies: Cr Ward – leave of absence. Affirmation (see opposite page) Conflict of Interest Declarations Recording Device Urgent Business

1 Minutes for Confirmation: Council meeting – 28 September & 12 October 2017 3 - 19 & 20 - 21 2 Forward Programme 22

3 Mayor’s Diary 23 - 24

4 Council’s Working Groups Status Report 25

5 Decision Items: 5.1 Long Term Plan Review – Community Outcomes.....……………………………………..5.2 Council Properties Deemed Surplus..................................................................5.3 Funding Application for Former Amuri Council Chambers............................... 5.4 Funding Application for Kowai Council Chambers............................................ 5.5 Formation of Anderson Road – Amberley Business Park..................................5.6 Reappointment of Independent Member – Hurunui Tourism Board............... 5.7 Proposal to Develop a Regional Relationship with Nagano Prefecture, Japan.5.8 Council and Committees Meeting Schedule 2018…………………………….……………5.9 Remuneration Authority Correspondence………………………….………………………… 5.10 NZTA National Land Transport Programme Budget 2017/2018……………………..

26 - 29 30 - 36 37 - 71 72 - 76 77 - 92 93 - 94 95 - 103 104 - 107 108 - 126 127 - 131

6 Discussion Items: Nil.

7 Information Items: 7.1 Hurunui-Waiau Zone Committee Update………………………………………………..…….7.2 Youth Council Update……………………………………………………………………………………7.3 Update from the Regulatory Committee meeting……………………..………………….7.4 Update from the Infrastructure Committee meeting……….……………………......…7.5 Update from the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee meeting…..……………………

132 133 134 135 136

8 Forward Communications Councillors to raise any issues for the forward communications programme.

9 Public Excluded (See resolution next page.)

9 PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION

THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED, THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO THE MATTERS AND THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48 (1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Grounds under section 48 (1) for the passing of this resolution

Pages

Item 9.1 Minutes of the 12 October Extraordinary Meeting

The minutes contain information withheld to protect the privacy of individuals.

Section 48(1)(a)(i) & Section 7(2)(a).

140 - 141

Item 9.2 Chief Executive Officer’s Performance Review

The report contains information withheld to protect the privacy of individuals.

Section 48(1)(a)(i) & Section 7(2)(a).

142 - 152

Significance Consideration

(Guidelines from Hurunui District Council’s ‘Significance and Engagement’ Policy)

The Council, in considering each matter, must be:

a. Satisfied that it has sufficient information about the practicable options and their benefits, costs and impacts, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions.

b. Satisfied that it knows enough about and will give adequate consideration to the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decisions to be made.

Questions a. Does the Council have sufficient information about the issue, proposal, decisions or other

matter? b. Does the issue, proposal, decisions or other matter:

Affect all or a large portion of the community in a far-reaching way? Have a potential impact or consequence on the affected persons (being a number of

persons) that is substantial? Have financial implications on the Council’s resources that would be substantial? Generate (or would be expected to generate) a high degree of controversy? Have any impact on Council’s capacity to undertake its statutory responsibilities? Fail to flow logically or consequentially from a decision in the Council’s Long Term Plan?

Evaluation Council officers preparing these reports will have regard to Council’s policy on significance. Councillors will make the final assessment on whether the subject under consideration is to be regarded as being significant or not. Unless the Council explicitly determines that the subject under consideration is to be deemed significant then the subject will be deemed as not being significant.

AFFIRMATION:

WE PLEDGE THAT WE WILL FAITHFULLY AND IMPARTIALLY USE OUR SKILLS, WISDOM AND JUDGEMENT THROUGHOUT THE DISCUSSIONS AND DELIBERATIONS AHEAD OF US TODAY IN ORDER TO MAKE RESPONSIBLE AND APPROPRIATE DECISIONS FOR THE BENEFIT OF HURUNUI DISTRICT AT LARGE. WE COMMIT INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COUNCIL TO THE PRINCIPLES OF INTEGRITY AND RESPECT, AND TO UPHOLDING THE VALUES THAT WE BELIEVE DISTINGUISH AND ENRICH OUR DISTRICT.

Meeting Council Time and Date 9.30am, 28 September 2017 Venue Council Chambers, 66 Carters Road, Amberley. Agenda http://www.hurunui.govt.nz/your-council/meeting-calendar/

(Scroll to the applicable meeting on the calendar.)

Members Present

Mayor Winton Dalley (Chairperson) (from 10.19am) Councillors Marie Black, Vince Daly, Dick Davison, Jason Fletcher (from 9.43am), Fiona Harris, Julia McLean and Geoff Shier.

In Attendance Hamish Dobbie (Chief Executive Officer), Judith Batchelor (Manager Regulatory Services), Jason Beck (Manager Support Services), David Edge (Manager Infrastructure Services – Assets), (Dan Harris (Manager Infrastructure Services - Delivery), Alex Taylor (Communications Officer), Audrey van der Monde (Manager Public Services) and Graham Sutherland (Council Secretary).

Apologies Cr Anderson. Cr Fletcher for lateness. Cr Ward – leave of absence.

THAT THE APOLOGIES BE ACCEPTED.

Harris/Davison CARRIED

Affirmation Cr Shier read the affirmation as attached to the Council agenda.

Conflict of Interest Declarations

Nil.

Recording Device

A recording device was used for the purpose of the accuracy of the minutes.

Urgent Business Late Report – Amberley Craft Market Request

THAT THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 24 AUGUST 2017 ARE CONFIRMED.

Black/Shier CARRIED Matters arising Cr Black asked when the committees membership matter would be addressed and Mayor Dalley said a workshop would be scheduled once all councillors were available as it was agreed that all councillors should be involved. THAT THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 24 AUGUST 2017 ARE CONFIRMED.

Black/Davison CARRIED

3

2. Forward Programme

The Forward Programme for 2017 was provided for councillors’ information. THAT THE INFORMATION BE RECEIVED.


3. Mayor’s Diary

The Mayor’s diary arrangements for the preceding period were provided. THAT THE INFORMATION BE RECEIVED.


4. Council’s Working Groups/ Projects Status Report

The Council considered the table of working groups and projects and noted progress with each.

With respect to Queen Mary Hospital, Cr Davison said the Council had been through iterations regarding outside investment and said he understands that the Council would have a fresh look at wider investment in the site. The Chief Executive Officer said this would be part of the LTP process and the Manager Regulatory Services said officers were also looking at getting the Soldiers Block up to standard for public use.

Cr Fletcher arrived at the meeting at 9.43am.

Cr McLean provided an update on the Amberley Pool project and said the Amberley Ward Committee held a second workshop the previous night where Steve Prescott from Ashburton and Graeme Abbot provided three options with costing elements and in principle as a group a recommendation would go to the Amberley Ward Committee next month and then to full Council. She said the information provided in the workshop was well received. The Manager Public Services asked councillors to keep an eye on the next Amberley Ward Committee agenda as there would be a full report going to that meeting, which would then come to the Council.

Cr Black advised that with respect to Together Hurunui, a NZ Police appointment for the governance group had been made, being Senior Sergeant Rob Ellis. Michelle Cole had also been appointed to the governance group as a mental health professional with experience working in the district, so the governance group now has good personnel on board.

THAT THE INFORMATION BE RECEIVED.

Black/Fletcher CARRIED

5. DECISION ITEMS

5.1 Code of Conduct – Amended Legislation Appendix

The Manager Public Services reported that the Local Government Act requires all local authorities to have a Code of Conduct for the elected members of the Council. The Code is to be reviewed by the Council every three years within the first 18 months after the beginning of each triennium. At its meeting on 24 August 2017, the Council reviewed and approved its Code of Conduct but noted that the legislation appendix required updating. The updated appendix was attached for approval. Cr Black asked if Community Board members had the same requirements placed on them by the Health and Safety at Work Act as for councillors. The Chief Executive Officer said that according to advice, they are not considered as

4

“officers” but this was not explicit and until the matter is tested in court, it would not be known for sure. The Manager Public Services said the biggest difference is that councillors have larger responsibilities across the Council for Health and Safety, whereas Community Board members have influence only for a small segment of the district. The Chief Executive Officer said that strict legal liability does not apply in the role as councillors as they are exempted from that, but elected members still have duties and responsibilities. Cr Black asked about the wording used in the attached appendix and was informed that it was standardised wording used across the sector as a summary for legislative briefs for councillors at the beginning of the triennium. Mayor Dalley said councillors probably need to accept the position that this is untested in the courts and this standard approach is appropriate. The Chief Executive Officer said he can seek more up to date advice on this, including the situation of Community Board members, particularly if they had wider delegations. THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE AMENDMENTS TO THE LEGISLATION APPENDIX TO ITS CODE OF CONDUCT, AS ATTACHED TO THE REPORT. Fletcher/Harris CARRIED

(The resolution was carried unanimously, thereby fulfilling the requirement for a 75% majority of members present.)

5.2 Projects to be Carried Forward to the 2017/18 Year

The Manager Support Services reported that with the completion of the 2016/17 financial year, Council staff had an opportunity to assess the final cost for particular items of Capital and Operational Expenditure. Due to various reasons, some projects were not able to be completed before the end of the financial year and the report listed those projects that staff and ward committees wished to be carried forward into the 2017/18 financial year. During the budget process, staff identified several projects that had been specifically deferred and these projects have formed part of the Capital Programme for 2017/18 already, therefore will not form part of the schedule. The Manager Support Services addressed the list of budget items and noted that the November 2016 earthquake had an effect and there was a lot of deferred work as a result. Mayor Dalley noted that ward amenity accounts usually have a number of carried forward amounts, for projects on reserves for example. The Manager Support Services said some ward committees like to keep their budgeted funds held for identified projects that may not be started or completed and this money will sit in their amenities funds, but are not identified as key projects to be carried forward. Cr Davison said that in Amuri there was an understanding that the Committee can accumulate funds for projects which may not be in the current year and this perhaps warrants another category. The Manager Support Services said that Amuri likes to ring fence those funds but for other wards it was not as tightly held and these amounts are already carried over in opening balances in those ward accounts. Cr Daly asked about the Cheviot intake funding that was not on the list and the Manager Support Services said this was a deferred item in the Annual Plan and there was money sitting in the budget for this current year. In response to a question from Cr Daly about roadside construction, the identified carried

5

forward is the unspent amount for Cheviot, so funding for Cheviot footpaths projects will come from those funds. Cr Fletcher asked about a carried forward for the Hanmer Springs gardeners for the track network project. The Manager Support Services said the Manager Regulatory Services had alerted him to this as it was not on the list, but the Council can allow for this as a separate item for the Hanmer Springs amenity rates, which would be $8,136 for gardeners wages and $8,352 for materials. In response to a question from Cr Shier about the likelihood of all this carried forward work being completed in the current financial year, the Chief Executive Officer said he asked his managers whether there was the capacity to do the work and they have assured him that they will get the work done. He said he applies strict discipline to the carried forward process. In response to a question from Cr Daly regarding any projects taken out that would not get done, the Manager Support Services said there were projects under operational expenditure that were not done but they are not carried forward as this was not about creating slush funds, but was about identifying work that can be completed in this financial year. THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE LISTED PROJECTS BEING CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE 2016/2017 FINANCIAL YEAR TO THE 2017/2018 FINANCIAL YEAR AND RECORDED AS PART OF THE AMENDED BUDGET FIGURES FOR MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTING PURPOSES, SUBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF $16,488 FOR THE HANMER SPRINGS GARDENERS’ WAGES AND MATERIALS FOR THE TRACK NETWORK PROJECT. Fletcher/Shier CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 10.25am for the Council to be introduced to new Council staff, followed by morning tea and reconvened at 10.48am.

5.3 Statement of Proposal for Proposed Freedom Camping Bylaw

The Policy Planner advised that the Council's Freedom Camping Bylaw (2011) was developed under the Local Government Act 2002 and has been under review in accordance with statutory timeframes. During the review, the Council resolved that a bylaw remained necessary; however it determined the Freedom Camping Act 2011 contained more appropriate bylaw-making powers. Following consultation with local committees, boards and stakeholders, a statement of proposal has been prepared for use in the consultation procedure required by the Freedom Camping Act and Local Government Act. It includes a proposed bylaw and corresponding minor amendments to the Reserves Management Plan. A summary of information had also been prepared to provide a high-level overview of the proposal. Council direction was also sought regarding a funding request received from the Responsible Camping Forum to support its summer social media campaign. The Policy Planner proceeded to explain the draft bylaw and consultation requirements and worked through the attached appendices. She said the consultation requirements were to use the Special Consultative Procedure under the Local Government Act and depending on the number of submitters either hear the submissions in an ordinary Council meeting or hold an extraordinary meeting. The Policy Planner said the proposal sets out the

6

changes and why they are considered necessary. The Statement of proposal is requesting feedback on matters identified and appropriate measures to prevent negative effects like littering and there are measures to ensure consistency regarding bylaws and reserve management plans. The Policy Planner advised that the proposed bylaw had undergone a legal review and the drafted bylaw meets the legal requirements. The Policy Planner explained how in development, officers took a general approach to permitting activity around public toilets, prohibiting activity around towns and allowed areas where vehicles are self-contained. The Policy Planner noted that there was a late circulated appendix containing maps and identifying prohibited areas. Cr Daly said the identified area north of the Hurunui Bridge on State Highway 1 would not work as it was LINZ land involved and the Council cannot apply its authority there. The Policy Planner said there is a move to include LINZ and New Zealand Transport Agency land in future, but there was no timeline on that. The Policy Planner explained the key definition of making camp and Cr Daly said people can close up their van and make it look like they are only parked. The Policy Planner said they are allowed to just park as these are parking spaces as well, but there would be signs put up to inform people of the rules. Cr Davison asked where people can freedom camp in a tent or non-self-contained vehicle and the Policy Planner said the lawyers advised to have tents and non-self-contained vehicles considered together. Cr Fletcher said this matter is unclear and it was agreed that tents should be specified for the prohibited areas in the attached schedules. Cr McLean asked how people can find out whether they can or cannot camp in certain areas. The Policy Planner said there will be some applications and other information processes available. Cr McLean said there were only seven options allowed so the Council should make these obvious on its website so it is very clear, as no one will read the freedom camping bylaw. Cr Fletcher noted that Hanmer Springs transfer station is accessible 24 hours a day for waste disposal facilities and this should be included in schedule 4. The Policy Planner discussed the area behind the shops on Rutherford Recreation Reserve in Culverden and said it was originally approved by the Amuri Community Committee as a prohibited area due to security risk, however officers do not think there is cause, as the upgrade of the toilet area means there will be increased lighting and security cameras. The Policy Planner said the area in Amberley that officers feel should be in the permitted table is the section in the carpark at the rear of the Council building, from 8pm to 8am and for self-contained vehicles only. Cr Fletcher said he fully endorsed this as the area falls within an hour of the airport and is an appropriate spot for travellers to park up and have a rest for the night. Cr Black asked if allowing this area would have flow on effects, as there was limited parking space and it may affect the function of the area. The Chief Executive Officer said there may be slight inconvenience if a few spaces were taken up, but there were other parking options available for regular users.

7

Cr Davison said that in general he did not see this process as an alternative to people using established campgrounds, but as an opportunity for some to camp near toilets and to discourage anti-social behaviour by some freedom campers. The Policy Planner advised that there were also comments received regarding concern around prohibiting residential areas, as this will capture family and friends staying in campers and also the matter of a legally parked camper with no one in it, but this would not be outside the rules. Cr Shier agreed that the matter regarding having a self-contained vehicle outside properties could potentially affect residents who have visitors staying, but hoped it would not be a problem if managed sensibly. The Policy Planner provided examples of signage and said when officers bring back the bylaw after consultation, the signage types would be provided for feedback. Cr Davison said there should be positive signs directing people to where they can go. The Policy Planner referred councillors to the request that had been sent to all local authorities and stakeholders, asking for funding to revamp the Responsible Camping website and to run a social media campaign about being responsible. In response to a question from Cr McLean, Mayor Dalley said there was no budget for this request and the Council would need to agree to where it would be funded from. He said the Council should make an in-principle decision first about whether to contribute. Cr Davison said he preferred that the Council does its own promotion in its own district. Cr McLean noted the Council had not contributed before but she was happy for a contribution to be made. Cr Black said she thought it was a good step forward as there was a lot of media interest in poor behaviour so a positive move to improve behaviour was useful. Mayor Dalley said as the Council and district takes pride in its tourism, it might be appropriate to contribute to this positive campaign. The Manager Regulatory Services said she would be able to fund this out of the Regulatory Services policy budget. THAT THE COUNCIL AGREES TO CONTRIBUTE FUNDING OF $2,000 TO THE RESPONSIBLE CAMPING FORUM’S 2017/18 SUMMER SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN AND DIRECTS OFFICERS TO RESPOND TO THE FORUM’S REQUEST ACCORDINGLY.

Shier/Fletcher CARRIED Mayor Dalley said the Council had been through this bylaw process carefully as every district was struggling with this issue and he said officers had done a good job of stepping through the process. He noted that some amendments had been agreed during the discussion as detailed below:

Insert designated areas within Chisholm Crescent carpark (27 Chisholm Cres, Hanmer Springs) and the Amberley Council offices, south carpark (66 Carters Road, Amberley) to Schedule 2, Table 3 of the proposed bylaw. Update Schedule 3 (maps), the area-assessment and the interactive map as required; Insert “tents prohibited” to all areas within Schedule 2, Table 3 of the proposed bylaw, excluding Glenmark Domain and the Scargill Motunau Reserve.

8

Insert the Hanmer Transfer Station to Schedule 4 of the proposed bylaw as a recycling bank location; and Update the Statement of Proposal document to refer to the interactive map.

THAT THE COUNCIL:

RESOLVES THAT IT IS SATISFIED THE PROPOSED RESPONSIBLE FREEDOM CAMPING BYLAW MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 11 OF THE FREEDOM CAMPING ACT 2011;

ADOPTS THE STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL (APPENDIX 2) AND SUMMARY OF INFORMATION (APPENDIX 3) FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11 OF THE FREEDOM CAMPING ACT AND SECTION 83 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002, FROM 2 OCTOBER TO 8 NOVEMBER 2017;

APPROVES THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RESERVES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR INCLUSION IN THE STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL’S DISCRETION IN SECTION 41(9) OF THE RESERVES ACT 1977; AND

AUTHORISES THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO MAKE MINOR DRAFTING, EDITING AND/OR LAYOUT AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO FINAL PRINTING AND PUBLICATION, IF NECESSARY; AND INCLUDING THE AMENDMENTS AGREED IN THE MEETING.

Davison/Fletcher CARRIED Cr Davison congratulated Policy Planner Rachel Elliot for her excellent work on this project.

5.4 St James Reclassification Project – Request to Add Hanmer Springs Community Board Member to Working Group

The Policy Planner advised that the Hanmer Springs Community Board requested that a member of the Community Board be added to the working group to consider the St James Reclassification Proposal, so that the views and interests of the Hanmer Springs community are represented. For clarity, officers were also seeking that, following preparation of the submission, the working group has delegated authority to make a submission on behalf of the Council. The Policy Planner noted that subject to Council approval of an additional member, the Community Board has nominated Mary Holloway to join the working group. THAT THE COUNCIL:

AGREES TO ADD A MEMBER OF THE HANMER SPRINGS COMMUNITY BOARD TO THE WORKING GROUP THAT WILL CONSIDER THE ST JAMES RECLASSIFICATION PROPOSAL; AND

AGREES THAT THE WORKING GROUP HAS DELEGATION TO MAKE A SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL.

Daly/McLean CARRIED

5.5 Setting a fee for Deemed Permitted Activities under

The Policy Planner reported that the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (RLAA) is making a number of changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Included in these changes is the requirement and discretion for local authorities to issue Deemed Permitted Activities, of which there are two types;

9

the Resource Management Act 1991

Deemed Permitted Activity Boundary Activities and Deemed Permitted Marginal or Temporary Activities. It is proposed to charge $235 for a Boundary activities and $370 for Marginal or Temporary Activities.

Under section 36 of the RMA, territorial authorities may set fees for Deemed Permitted Activities; furthermore this section directs that fees may only be charged in accordance with section 150 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and using the consultative criteria set out in section 82 of the LGA. It was proposed to publicly notify the Deemed Permitted Activity Fees for three weeks – using various forms of media. A Statement of Proposal will be prepared and public submissions accepted, with submitters provided with an opportunity to have their submissions heard and considered by the Council. The Policy Planner said the new deemed permitted activity fees approach was a simpler and faster process and the Council wanted to set fees to reflect the actual costs. For boundary activities, like a setback or recession plain breach, the Council would apply costs for one hour of planner processing and $100 administration costs, as the information has to be lodged in Council records. In response to a question from Cr Daly regarding what things are marginal or temporary breaches, the Policy Planner said the Act does not say and but it is where the effects are practically no different from effects that are permissible. For example, he said the effects for a 20 metre setback may be indiscernible at 19.9 metres and there would be Council discretion in this case rather than having to apply for a non-permitted activity consent. Mayor Dalley commented that this appeared to be moving back to effects-based rather than rules-based and it comes with a small cost. The Policy Planner said for these the fee would be $370 as it would require more time, calculated at two hours and the $100 administration fee. In terms of temporary activities, the Policy Planner said these would be of short duration and would subsequently be remedied, so it can be considered on a case by case basis. Mayor Dalley noted on page 91 the deemed permitted activity relative to neighbours, only refers to one neighbour, not plural and he asked if this should be not just choosing one neighbour but all neighbours, if multiple properties are affected. The Policy Planner confirmed this was the case. Mayor Dalley asked if the fees were reasonable in relation to other fees and charges and officers confirmed they were. The Policy Planner said it was a financial advantage for applicants who may otherwise have to go through a full consent process. In response to a question from Cr Fletcher regarding whether this sets any precedents, the Manager Regulatory Services said it does not set a precedent, but was just way to expedite these type of matters in a practical way on a case by case basis. In response to a question from Cr Harris regarding the difference in fees, the Policy Planner said the boundary activity is a tick box exercise whereas it was a discretionary matter for the other, where there would be a report required and more officer time involved. The Policy Planner noted that option 2 in the report is the recommended option and this includes a targeted consultation as detailed in section 82 of the Local Government Act, which was not the full Special Consultative Procedure which is prescribed in section 83.

10

THAT THE COUNCIL AGREES TO THE PROPOSED FEES FOR DEEMED PERMITTED ACTIVITIES.

THAT THE COUNCIL RESOLVES TO PUBLICLY NOTIFY THE PROPOSED DEEMED PERMITTED ACTIVITY FEES FOR THREE WEEKS UNDER THE CONSULTATIVE PROCEDURE IN SECTION 82 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002, AS DESCRIBED IN OPTION 2 IN THE AGENDA REPORT.

THAT THE COUNCIL HEAR ANY SUBMISSIONS AND MAKE ANY NECESSARY AMENDMENTS BEFORE ENACTING THE FEES. Fletcher/Black CARRIED

5.6 Regulatory Services Refunds Policy

The Policy Planner reported that the Remissions, Refunds and Waivers Policy relates to the resource and building consent functions of the Regulatory Services team. The policy sets out when a partial or full refund of fees can be considered. The policy is overdue for a review and refresh and the last update was in 2007. It is not in the current policy format and contains outdated service references. On review, officers consider that the content of the policy is mostly still relevant, but could be presented in a more readable and less repetitive format. The reviewed policy was attached as Appendix 2 to the report. Cr Davison noted that the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee received this report and had no issues. The Manager Regulatory Services said the fund was never oversubscribed and it was a good process. THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE REVIEWED REGULATORY SERVICES REFUNDS POLICY AS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA REPORT. Davison/Shier CARRIED

Presentation: Civil Defence for Elected Members

Civil Defence Brief for Elected Representatives – Allan Grigg, Emergency Management Officer and Neville Reilly, Group Controller, Canterbury Civil Defence and Emergency Management.

The presentation covered the structure of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) and the role of elected members. The Emergency Management Officer said the role of elected members in an event is not related to the declaration powers, as elected members cannot declare their own powers, which is a fundamental democratic principle. The Controller will be the holder of authority. The declaration is made by the mayor, elected representative, or Chair of the Group Committee and Controllers cannot declare. The Mayor or councillors cannot direct and coordinate. The Group Controller must direct and Coordinate while local Controllers direct and coordinate as well but must follow the Group Controllers’ direction The role of elected members is governance and it needs to be across the four “R’s” as follows:

Reduction – how council decision making considers the impact of hazards and risks; Readiness – consulting communities about how they prepare to cope through an emergency and how the council prepares to respond to it Response – supporting communities through information sharing between them and the EOC to inform response planning and decisions

11

Recovery – supporting communities through information sharing between them and the Recovery Management Team to inform recovery planning and decisions.

In response to a question from Cr Davison, the Emergency Management Officer said there was a separate declaration process for recovery and the emergency period includes some recovery processes, but not full the recovery process. Neville Reilly said he wanted to acknowledge the leadership of Mayor Dalley and Councillors and all staff in the Hurunui EOC during what was a very significant event. He said it was a real challenge to manage and things do not always go smoothly. He also wanted to acknowledge the Controllers as they had limited training but performed very well and will be so much better for all that experience gained. Neville Reilly said he received feedback about how challenging the experience was and how much more engaged they were now. Cr Davison said the recovery was a much more difficult and long term process and how to focus on this and give it appropriate attention was the challenge now. Neville Reilly said he considered there were shortcomings in the process as it is expected that local authorities would run the recovery, but the real issue is getting money to do work and this should go to Councils rather than be managed through government departments. He said this was a national recovery and he thought it would have been better at getting public resources to the right places. He suggested there is a need to make the legislation better. Cr Davison said a lot of the recovery has been a voluntary effort and much of it not through state agencies, as people have different processes for coping. He said most have worked out that recovery is more complex than the emergency itself. Mayor Dalley said the recovery will go on for a long time but it also starts immediately. He said the Council had two water schemes out of action and there appeared to be a conflict between response control and recovery processes and the stages when the declaration ceased and recovery started. He said recovery was going on right from the start in terms of everyone involved, dairy sheds were getting fixed, water teams were out in the field and there were cases of utilities teams not getting access to where they needed to go to aid recovery. The Emergency Management Officer said that given there had been a lot of significant events in the last 10 years, there may need to be a national recovery team, a small number of professional people that comes in to focus on this. Neville Reilly said the psycho-social issues were also a big problem to address. Cr Daly said the problem can be that the victims of the earthquake may have to pay for it when costs land on Councils. Mayor Dalley agreed and said government funding is a significant issue, where there were successes with money provided and local agencies being allowed to get on with the work but also examples of government providing money, but then keeping tight control over its use. He said there needs to be a fundamental change in how this done in future. The Chief Executive Officer said there was a third issue where the government makes no funding available and it makes the situation even more difficult. He agreed this was a national matter that needs attention.

12

Cr Black said her own experience of the recovery is that it is a long term event and money has not come as expected, or as promised in some instances. She said the CERA model was looked to as an example where it was well resourced and managed, and while no events are the same, there was a similar expectation of that kind of recovery support, which has not eventuated. Mayor Dalley said this is the current model and a review is sitting waiting for the outcome of government formation and there will potentially be a different model for the future. The Emergency Management Officer acknowledged this but said if a decision to change is made, it may take a long period yet before implementation.

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.42pm and reconvened at 1.14pm.

Presentation: Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

Health and Safety Presentation – Team Leader Human Resources. The Team Leader Human Resources gave a presentation focused on the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, which came into force on 4 April 2016. He said there were three areas of particular significance, a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU), supply chains and officers. He said a PCBU is currently owned by the ‘employer’ and moves the focus on from ‘do I have a duty’, to if and how that duty has been discharged and more about the impact/influence of a PCBU upon workers and others. The Team Leader Human Resources said the PCBU needs to prevent exposure to hazards and consider how to keep hazards under control in the workplace. The Team Leader Human Resources said elected members have responsibility but not liability under the Act and Cr Davison commented that this may be immaterial as members would have moral responsibility for the safety of employees. The Team Leader Human Resources said it was clear as to who has responsibility and it was a positive duty. He said everyone has duties and now it was a matter of what they are and how to discharge them. He said the matter of what was reasonably practicable, is the litmus test and cost factors are way down the bottom in terms of mitigation. He said an officer is a body corporate or any person compatible with a director of a company, so the Chief Executive Officer, elected members and senior managers who have influence as a whole on the organisation are covered in this respect. Cr Davison said Health and Safety was health as well as safety and asked how far does the Council go with interfering with the health of staff. The Team Leader Human Resources said that as soon as people are at work, the Council has a responsibility and suggested it was also a matter of happy people being safe and healthy people. He said it was also about mental health and the Council has an Employee Assistance Programme, has initiatives like wellness week and there is also some discretion in the code of conduct for staff. The Team Leader Human Resources said the organisation was currently looking at drug and alcohol testing as well and Cr Fletcher said he would advise that the Council do more than just look at the matter, as it was becoming an important issue in the workplace. The Team Leader Human Resources said it was a difficult area to manage effectively and involves considerations of influence and impairment, as well as the rights of staff. Mayor Dalley thanked the Team Leader Human Resources for the presentation.

13

6. DISCUSSION ITEMS

Nil.

7. INFORMATION ITEMS

7.1 November 2016 Earthquake - Civil Defence Response Review

The Emergency Management Officer advised that a review report had been written summarising the findings of a large number of debriefs/reviews for the response to the November 2016 earthquake event. The review recommendations were included in the report, with the review report attached as an appendix. Measures/improvements that have already been undertaken since the earthquake response had also been captured in this report. Cr Davison noted that this whole matter was about dealing with people and said his recollection was that sometimes things worked very well and sometimes people were tripping over each other. He asked how much involvement there was from psychologists, given it was very much a people management matter and dealing with people under stress. The Emergency Management Officer said there was zero involvement in the response itself, which Cr Davison suggested may be a mistake as the Council needs to try to understand how to deal with people from day one in an emergency event and there needs to be some sort of psychological input. The Emergency Management Officer said a lot of training and preparation is informed by psychology, but there was no direct involvement in an emergency event. Mayor Dalley said it was the subject of submissions that this kind of support was not there, as the Civil Defence Act disrupts and overrides normal social infrastructure in terms of communications and structure for the community and it takes a long time to get things in place afterwards. He said there were already societal support structures in place, like for the recent drought for example, that look after the community on a daily basis, so wondered why in an emergency, these structures that operate normally all the time are disrupted. Cr Black said in an emergency state with people running on adrenaline, it was about knowing and understanding relationships and there were no simple answers, but when dealing with people in an emotional state, more can be done in this area. Cr Davison said his point was about having psychologists in the room to observe and advise at the time. Cr McLean agreed that understanding the adversity experienced by the community meant it was important to have people as the central focus of the response. Mayor Dalley said the majority of recommendations in the report were common sense, but he had some issues and corrections to information reported that was not accurate. He said his corrections did not affect the recommendations but rather the accuracy of the reporting. In response to a question from Cr Shier about the end user of this report, Mayor Dalley said it was a Council paper and not necessarily for external use, but was to look at what was great in the response and what was not. He said the Council cannot review the current structure at this stage as it did not know the result of the legislation review that was ongoing. The Chief Executive Officer said the Council asked for an internal review to see what lessons there were, as he said some things go well and some things do not, so the Council wants to learn from the experience.

14

The Emergency Management Officer said the Council needs to find a way to share information with the public and with stakeholders and whether they get this document or another document that gives feedback specific to them, was not agreed yet. He said this was presented for councillors’ feedback first and he would take direction from there. Cr McLean asked if all recommendations were being actioned and the Emergency Management Officer said they were either being done now or being built into his work plan. Cr Black noted that there were some references to individual names in the document and wondered if all names should be removed for privacy reasons. The Emergency Management Officer agreed and said he would also make sure feedback was captured right, and noted that this was the interpretation of three different people’s work. He acknowledged there needed to be better wording in some respects, particular around referring to some feedback as hearsay for example. Mayor Dalley noted on page 113 the comment that a local declaration could have been made earlier and he said absolutely it could have been made earlier, but no criticism of the timing was intended. Cr Daly said that as councillors, they could be proactive to help the Emergency Management Officer to get people keen and forward to him any names of people interested in taking on local roles. The Emergency Management Officer said the issue is whether in a years’ time after memories dull a bit, there would be the same level of engagement in the community. Cr Fletcher noted the comments in the report regarding the Land Search and Rescue (LSAR) comments about perhaps not utilising their skills as much as possible. He said this relates to national teams coming in to assist and whether if the review direction heads that way, it is about teaching locals that they need to be open to these people coming in to help. The Emergency Management Officer commented that LSAR have all the technical skills but not necessarily the psychosocial skills sometimes needed to help reduce stress levels for local people. Mayor Dalley said this was an extension of what he was saying earlier, that there are a variety of people coming in with a range of skills, but it comes in over the top and tries to dictate to local people, so there would always be a tension. Cr Fletcher said they still need guidance from local institutions but incoming people have different command and control processes that may conflict with this. Mayor Dalley that that in effect, these organisations carry on and do it because they believe they need to. However he said those overarching controls need to empower local organisations to do what they are experts at, rather than disempowering them and this was essentially about good people management. Cr Harris said she noticed in a lot of the reported conversations there was talk about who has the “power” but it is really the “responsibility” and sometimes when power is referred to all the time, it creates a certain attitude is response, as opposed to responsibility to lead. She suggested that if the terminology refers to responsibility rather than control and power, it affects the way people come into that role as well as those interacting with the responders. Mayor Dalley noted on page 114 the comment about an invalid assumption regarding the hierarchy of control and said it is clear there is a hierarchy and that Hurunui controllers have authority to exert over the response, but the Group Controller can come in over top. He said this is not always clear in

15

practice, as he remembered talking to the local controller who was told by the Group Controller that they cannot do a certain action. He said in practice, local controllers are fully subservient to Group. The Emergency Management Officer noted that local controllers were making decisions each day that were not going through the Group Controller, so there is some autonomy. The Chief Executive Officer said officers were working on the recommendations and will report back on those, so this was an opportunity for initial discussion, to make corrections and then go out to sectors with the learnings. He said there was another sector meeting coming up soon and officers were trying to get regular meetings established. He said the intention was to present this information to be received, with corrections and feedback noted and officers will then report back on progress with the recommendations. Mayor Dalley said in terms of engagement, the Council may need give some thought to what goes out to stakeholders. He suggested that the elected members send in feedback to the Emergency Management Officer and he will make corrections and remove references to names as agreed. The Chief Executive Officer said the report does not have views from the local controllers included and he would like to see a section on this, as there will be important learnings from them too. Mayor Dalley noted the comments about the local controller working in Waiau and said he believed he did an excellent job, did what needed to be done and made some wise decisions. Mayor Dalley said he opposed the idea put forward in the report that he had excessive delegation and thinks his steadying influence on the community and the confidence he inspired in the community, was of great benefited. The Emergency Management Officer said this was a reference to him doing a great job over the delegation and the model of leaving a controller in place locally for a long period is something to pick up as a recommendation. Mayor Dalley also noted that the agriculture sector was a big part of the response and held regular conference calls and sector meetings. He said it was important for that sector to have some credibility within Group level or national civil defence, so rather than people out in the field making requests not being responded to, they can be accepted as legitimate and credible requests. It was agreed that members would send any corrections to the Emergency Management Officer and officers would continue to work with stakeholders. THAT THE INFORMATION BE RECEIVED.

Fletcher/Daly CARRIED

7.2 Hurunui-Waiau Zone Committee Update

The Council Secretary provided an update on recent activity of the Hurunui-Waiau Zone Committee. Cr Daly gave a further oral update and noted the Hurunui recreation water quality survey and its conclusion that water quality deterioration at the SH7 river bridge was confirmed as bird population faecal bacteria and at SH1 it was swimmable most of the time. Cr Daly said there was a good report on the economic profile of the district and a braided river Immediate Steps funding project to control black-backed gulls, as they were having an effect on local populations of terns, as well developing as an island in the river to support nesting areas.

16

THAT THE INFORMATION BE RECEIVED.

Davison/Shier CARRIED

7.3 Update from the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee

The Council considered the update from the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee meeting on 14 September 2017. Cr Davison spoke to the report and summarised the items and discussion. THAT THE INFORMATION BE RECEIVED.


7.4 Update from the Regulatory Committee

The Council considered the update from the Regulatory Committee meeting on 21 September 2017. Cr Black spoke to the report and summarised the items. She noted the annual dog control statistics were presented and an update provided on compliance matters. The Committee also participated in a Resource Management Act webinar. THAT THE INFORMATION BE RECEIVED.


7.5 Update from the Infrastructure Committee

The Council considered the update from the Infrastructure Committee meeting on 21 September 2017. Cr Daly spoke to the report and summarised the items and discussion. He reported that the Committee received a good presentation on stormwater presentation and the Manager Infrastructure Services - Assets would provide that to other councillors, as it was worth watching. THAT THE INFORMATION BE RECEIVED.


Urgent Business Amberley Craft Market – Request to Operate Pop Up Market

The Manager Regulatory Services circulated this late report and noted that there was some uncertainty about whether it had been submitted earlier, although officers could not find evidence of it and the event was now not far away, therefore the matter required urgent Council attention. THAT THE MATTER OF URGENT BUSINESS BE ACCEPTED AND THE COUNCIL AGREES TO DEAL WITH IT AT THIS MEETING.

Davison/Harris CARRIED The Manager Regulatory Services reported that a request was made by the Amberley Craft Market for a pop up event on Thursday 26 October 2017 in either the area beside the Amberley Public Toilets or Chamberlain Park. Thursday 26 October is the same date as the Christmas Country Fete. The pop up market is proposed to have approximately 8-10 stallholders with parking on the street for both sites. No second hand goods or food is included and the market is proposed to be set up at 8.00am and being open from 9.00am to 3.00pm, with pack up completed by 4.00pm. The Manager Regulatory Services said officers considered that having this on the site near the toilets and the Council building, on what was a busy meeting day, would create parking and congestion difficulties. With respect to the

17

Chamberlain Park site, officers advised that development work would be going on at the park and this may create some difficulty also, so the recommendation was that the request be declined. Cr McLean said the reason for these stalls for a one-off event was because they feel they cannot afford the fee charged at the Fete, so it was seen as an alternative way to take advantage of increased activity on that day. She said she would like the Council to find a way to accommodate these stallholders as it was also an incentive for people to stop in Amberley and have a look around. Cr Fletcher said he did not think it would be a one-off request and it was taking advantage of the marketing work done by the Fete. Cr Shier said one of the Council’s strategic directions is more growth in business and tourism and he said the Council should find some way for this to happen in that context. He said it was only for one day and was trying to get as many people as possible to stop in Amberley. He acknowledged the traffic will be high, but it would not fill the town and was very temporary, as visitors may stop for a few things then head up to the Fete. Cr Shier said that overall the impacts would be less than minor and temporary, so the Council should find a way to make it happen, as this group was part of the fabric of Amberley. Cr Davison said Culverden had a long and convoluted history around the Fete and alternative markets. He said this idea was taking advantage of someone else’s private enterprise and he said they can do it on a private property site if they wish. He favoured declining the application for this year and suggested that they get organised for next year in a manner that does not impact on parking and congestion. He said that given the history in Culverden, this sort of initiative needs to be discussed and organised well in advance. Cr Harris said the Council was being asked if the market can use the Council carpark area or Chamberlain Park, not whether they can have the market at all. She said this would be a very busy day and was likely to be a solid stream of traffic flowing through the area. Cr Black said she did not think the Council carpark site was appropriate and there was not a lot of available space and parking around Chamberlain Park either. Mayor Dalley said the Council had a new strategy and an entity to encourage local businesses to work together, so he did not know if they have talked to other businesses and whether they had a conversation with the Fete people. He wondered if a more considered process was better and he did not want to put this community in the same position as the Culverden community had been through, so he encouraged this group to work with other affected parties. Mayor Dalley said he did not consider the Council carpark site as suitable and had mixed views about whether it would work on Chamberlain Park, given work going on and limited parking space. Cr Harris said it was the group’s responsibility to find a suitable site and if it wants to promote Amberley then they will find a site in Amberley, but they could think about other sites like in Waipara for example. Mayor Dalley said the matter today was about whether the Council would allow the market in the two sites identified. He said whether or not the Council supports the recommendation, it does not stop them from finding an alternative site.

18

Cr McLean sought clarification regarding whether a section of Chamberlain Park can be closed off and it was noted that an area at the front could be roped off to allow 8-10 tents. The Manager Regulatory Services said they would need resource consent under the District Plan as a temporary event and may need carparking. The Manager Infrastructure Services - Delivery said officers working on Chamberlain Park were confident that they could keep people safe as the work area would be roped off and the main activity was moving hardfill material by wheelbarrow at that stage of the project. Cr Davison suggested the group could approach carpark sites on commercial land on the other side of Carters Road, as that would not need Council approval. THAT THE COUNCIL DECLINES THE REQUEST FROM THE AMBERLEY CRAFT MARKET TO USE THE COUNCIL PROPERTY BESIDE THE AMBERLEY PUBLIC TOILETS FOR A POP UP MARKET ON 26 OCTOBER 2017. Davison/Black CARRIED Cr Black suggested that this proposal show respect to a growing business concept, with respect to the Fete, and that out of courtesy they discuss this with the Fete owner regarding what they are planning to do, particularly given there was new business investment and this proposal was aiming to capitalise on the marketing and promotion done by the Fete. Cr Davison said he was strongly against this due to history of Fete issues in Culverden and giving a message to the new Fete owner that the Council was facilitating competition on its land, would not send a good message, so he was opposed to the application at this stage. Mayor Dalley said he did not want to see community conflict on this and thinks this proposal should be managed through a new process of being collegial. Moved Cr McLean, seconded Cr Shier, the following motion: “That a section of Chamberlain Park be roped off and made available to the Amberley Craft Market for a pop-up market on 26 October 2017.”

The motion was put and LOST, 3:4 on a show of hands. Mayor Dalley said there was strong feeling about this matter but he said councillors can work with the group and see if they can work with businesses and other events to make something happen. He said there might be short term disappointment on this matter, but a more collegial approach would potentially be good for everyone. He noted that he Council had a fund to support events and wants to work with groups and organisations. He said this was about supporting events in other areas, working in a mutual promotional way and for mutual benefit.

Meeting Ended The meeting ended at 2.59pm. The next ordinary meeting will be on 26 October 2017.

19

Meeting Council (Extraordinary) Time and Date 11.00am, 12 October 2017 Venue Council Chambers, 66 Carters Road, Amberley. Agenda http://www.hurunui.govt.nz/your-council/meeting-calendar/

(Scroll to the applicable meeting on the calendar.)

Members Present

Mayor Winton Dalley (Chairperson), Councillors Nicky Anderson, Marie Black, Dick Davison, Julia McLean and Geoff Shier.

In Attendance Hamish Dobbie (Chief Executive Officer), Judith Batchelor (Manager Regulatory Services) and Graham Sutherland (Council Secretary).

Apologies Councillors Vince Daly, Jason Fletcher and Fiona Harris. Cr Michael Ward – leave of absence.

THAT THE APOLOGIES BE ACCEPTED.

Davison/Black CARRIED

Conflict of Interest Declarations

Nil.

Urgent Business Nil.

DECISION ITEMS

1. PUBLIC EXCLUDED

PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION THAT THE MEETING MOVE INTO PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION AND THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PUBLIC IS EXCLUDED, THE REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO THE MATTERS AND THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48 (1) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987 FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

20

Anderson/McLean CARRIED THAT THE MEETING RESUME IN OPEN SESSION AND THAT THE MATTERS DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC EXCLUDED SESSION REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL, EXCEPT FOR THOSE MATTERS APPROVED FOR RELEASE.


General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Grounds under s48 (1) for passing this resolution

Item 1 Sale of Council Property at 101 Carters Road, Amberley

The report contains information withheld to enable the Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities and negotiations.

Section 48(1)(a)(i) & Section 7(2)(h) & 7(2)(i).

Meeting Ended The meeting ended at 11.10am.

21

KNOWN COUNCIL FORWARD PROGRAMME 2017 (EXCLUDING PUBLIC EXCLUDED)

Meeting Date Report/Other Responsibility

23 November Staff Long Service Recognition MSS

Citizenship Ceremony CS

Secondary School Achievers Awards MPS

3 Waters Bylaw – approval to publicly notify MRS

Amberley Swimming Pool MPS

Significance & Engagement Policy MPS

Maori Decision Making Policy CEO

Levels of Service & Performance Measures for the LTP MPS

21 December Youth Council/Programme Presentation MPS

General 2017/18 Items (Dates to be advised.)

Long Term Plan Development MSS/MPS

Representation Review MPS

Governance Statement renewal MPS

Approval of Hurunui District Plan MRS

Fees & Charges Review MPS

Acronym Key: CEO – Chief Executive Officer MISA – Manager Infrastructure Services – Assets MISD – Manager Infrastructure Services – Delivery MPS – Manager Public Services MRS – Manager Regulatory Services MSS – Manager Support Services CS – Council Secretary ERM – Earthquake Recovery Manager

22

MAYOR’S DIARY

(This is a record of the Mayor’s official diary appointments only and does not reflect all meetings, duration of meetings or other activities associated with the Mayor’s role.)

26 September – 20 October 2017

26 September – 1 October 26 Catch-up ECan Weekly catch-up Hamish Visit Waiau School Workshop re integrated health entity for the Hurunui district 27 Radio talk with Compass Meeting re MOU ChCh to Picton cycle way Dr Rob Gordon presentation Women’s Institute Kaiapoi to receive EQ funds ENC meeting Meeting re Amberley Pool Waikari School Cultural Arts festival 29 Canterbury Police Remembrance Day, Christchurch 30 Scargill flower show Children’s paint workshop, Amberley 1 Oct Home School Variety concert 2-6 October 2 Age Concern lunch, Christchurch YES Camp 3 Weekly catch-up with Hamish Meeting with ratepayer LTP public engagement meeting, Waipara 4 Radio talk with Compass Primary Sector Earthquake Update meeting Meeting re Hurunui Health LTP public engagement meeting, Waikari Canterbury Business Awards 5 LTP workshop Meeting with Doug Martin, 3Waters Meeting with Ian Whitehouse LTP public engagement meeting, Rotherham 6 Catch up Gill Walsh Meeting with Shannon Beynon and Jonathon Leask Launch of Canterbury Country cricket YES Programme 9-15 October 9 Teleconference re HHSDG 10 Catch-up ECan Weekly catch-up Hamish Regional Management Committee meeting 11 Radio talk with Compass

23

Primary Sector Earthquake Update meeting 12 Regulatory committee meeting Extraordinary Council meeting 13 Pink Ribbon appeal 15 Book launch, Flaxmere 16-20 October 16 CEO performance review meeting Entity meeting, Auditor General Hurunui Tourism Board meeting Hurunui-Waiau Zone committee meeting 17 Weekly catch-up with Hamish Lunch with Serious Fraud Office, Christchurch Meeting with Leanne Bayler, All Right Campaign Meeting with Sally Lane, Compass FM 18 Radio talk with Compass Rural Support Trust and Civil Defence meeting Hurunui Rebuild, Waiau 19 Infrastructure committee meeting Finance Audit & Risk committee meeting Proud to be a Farmer launch, Fossil Point 20 HSTP&S meeting Opening GVT consignment store

24

COUNCIL WORKING GROUPS/PROJECTS STATUS REPORT

Start Date

Project Definition Membership (Chair)

Key Officer Progress/Status Key Date

16/5/12 Hanmer Heritage Forest

Jason Fletcher Winton Dalley Dick Davison HSCB member

Manager Regulatory Services

Establishing process for progressing this matter.

2011 Amberley Swimming Pool

Julia McLean (Councillor liaison)

Manager Public Services

Amberley Ward Committee considered the matter at its 17 October meeting.

Report to the 23 November Council meeting.

15/3/12 Queen Mary Historic Hospital Reserve

Dick Davison Jason Fletcher Nicky Anderson Fiona Harris


LTP discussion of priorities/ongoing work on grounds.

30 June 2019

18/12/14 Together Hurunui Project

Marie Black Mayor Dalley


Oral update to be provided by Councillor.

On list for regular updates to the Council.

25/5/17 Representation Review Working Group

Marie Black Fiona Harris Geoff Shier


Next meeting of working group to be in November.

Ongoing.

24/8/17 Significance & Engagement Policy Review Working Group

Jason Fletcher, Julia McLean Fiona Harris Vince Daly


Meeting held and list of criteria established.

Ongoing.

24/8/17 St James Reclassification Proposal Working Group

Mayor Dalley Jason Fletcher Fiona Harris Geoff Shier Mary Holloway

Senior Planner Awaiting Dept of Conservation proposal.

Ongoing.

12/10/17 Unformed Legal Roads Working Group

Policy Planner Ongoing

25

To: Council

Report Prepared By: Audrey van der Monde, Manager Public Services

Date: 26 October 2017

Significance Level: Low

Long Term Plan Review – Community Outcomes

Recommendation THAT THE COUNCIL CONFIRMS THE COMMUNITY OUTCOMES FOR THE 2018-28 LONG TERM PLAN.

Executive Summary It is a mandatory requirement for the Council to state the community outcomes it considers are relevant to the district.

This report provides the opportunity to discuss and review the existing community outcomes for use in the long term plan.

Community Outcomes Community outcomes are about community aspirations for the future. The term ‘community outcomes’ is used to describe what people consider important, not only to benefit today’s people, but for future generations. Community outcomes are about improving communities over time in a sustainable manner.

The community outcomes used in the Council’s long term plans have been relatively consistent since 2004. The main changes have been to simplify the meaning of them and to include only on those the Council has direct control over.

The Local Government Act has changed its definition and requirements of local authorities in respect to community outcomes to the degree they now have a far lesser role than they did originally. Now the only requirements for local authorities around community outcomes are to:

1. “A long-term plan must, to the extent determined appropriate by the local authority, describe the community outcomes for the local authority’s district or region.”

Local Government Act: Section 10, Part 1, 1 Community outcomes

2. “…identify the rationale for delivery of the group of activities (including the community outcomes to which the group of activities primarily contributes)”.

Local Government Act: Section 10, Part 1, 2 Groups of activities

There is no longer any requirement to report on the progress of the community outcomes (as there had been in the past) or to undertake community consultation to identify the outcomes (as there had been in the past).

26

In past years, we have sought public views to identify what our communities consider important for the future of the Hurunui district. Other community consultations and engagements have provided the Council with a good understanding of what people in the Hurunui consider to be important. The current community outcomes are described in the table below and each is aligned to the service or activity that the Council provides to contribute toward achievement of them. There may be many more community outcomes which can only be achieved through other organisations such as private businesses, central government departments, not for profit organisations and others.

Current Community Outcomes

The five community outcomes are as follows:

A desirable and safe place to live

A place where our traditional rural values and heritage make Hurunui unique

A place with a thriving local economy

A place with essential infrastructure

A place that demonstrates environmental responsibility

These outcomes still seem appropriate and relevant to today and in line with the Council’s own strategic direction. The appendix describes the outcomes and shows how they align with the Council’s activities.

Significance The community outcomes are considered to be of low significance in terms of the long term plan. The community is predominately concerned about what the Council actually does rather than lofty aspirations.

Engagement No specific consultation has been done on these community outcomes since the last long term plan. It is proposed that the Council ‘tests’ these outcomes when it consults and engages on the draft long term plan early next year.

Options

Option 1: Do nothing

The Council is not obliged to do anything or to make a decision. The current community outcomes would be inserted into the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan because it is a requirement to describe them in the Plan.

Option 2: Adopt the current community outcomes

This is the preferred option. It is the Officer’s view that the current outcomes are still relevant for use today. This option is cost efficient.

Option 3: Develop a new set of community outcomes

This option is available to the Council. No suggested alternative outcomes are offered. The Council is able to either select other outcomes from its own knowledge of the community, or to

27

undertake community engagement to seek communities view about what they consider to be important.

Appendices Community outcomes

Report Prepared by:

Audrey van der Monde Manager Public Services

Officer in Attendance: The report author will be in attendance to speak to this report.

28

Appendix 1: Community Outcomes and the Link to What Council Does (Activities)

Outcome Definition Council Activities (How we contribute)

Groups Individual services

A desirable and safe place to live

- We have attractive well designed townships

- Communities have access to adequate health and emergency services and systems and resources are available to meet civil defence emergencies

- Risks to public health are identified and appropriately managed

- Public services

- Regulatory services

- Sewerage

- Stormwater & drainage

- Roads & footpaths

Library, waste minimisation, property (including township maintenance), reserves, emergency services, compliance and regulatory functions (such as building and resource consents, liquor, food and dog licences), sewerage schemes, stormwater, drainage, roads, footpaths

A place where our traditional rural values and heritage make Hurunui unique

- People have a range of opportunities to participate in leisure and culture activities

- Our historic and cultural heritage is protected for future generations

- Public services

- Hanmer Springs Thermal Pools & Spa

Library, property (such as community halls, public toilets, swimming pools), reserves, Hanmer Springs thermal pools

A place with a thriving local economy

- We are seen as a good place to do business, to live and to visit

- Hanmer Springs Thermal Pools & Spa

Tourism, economic development (through Enterprise North Canterbury), Hanmer Springs thermal pools

A place with essential infrastructure

- We have a strong emphasis on service delivery across all infrastructure including roading, water (for drinking and development), waste water, stormwater and solid waste

- Water Supply - Sewerage - Stormwater &

Drainage - Roads &

Footpaths

Water and sewerage schemes, stormwater , roading (which includes roads, bridges, footpaths, street lighting, road safety)

A place that demonstrates environmental responsibility

- We protect our environment while preserving people’s property rights

- We minimise solid waste to the fullest extent, and manage the rest in a sustainable way

- Regulatory services

- Public services

- Sewerage

Resource consents, District Plan rules, subdivision inspection, waste minimisation

29

To: Council

Report Prepared By: Judith Batchelor, Manager Regulatory Services



Council properties deemed surplus.

Recommendation THAT THE COUNCIL RESOLVES THAT THE COUNCIL PROPERTY AT 116 ROTHERHAM ROAD NORTH AND 65 WILKIN STREET ROTHERHAM ARE SURPLUS.

THAT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE BE AUTHORISED TO SELL AT A PRICE THAT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEEMS APPROPRIATE AND THAT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE THE SALE IS NEGOTIATED WITH THE ADJOINING LANDOWNER.

Executive Summary Two Council properties have had expressions of interest in to purchase, from adjoining property owners and neither property is considered to be needed for Council or community use, with the exception of a fire trailer that is stored at 65 Wilkin Street in the existing building on the site.

Council Policy The Council policy for the Sale of Property

http://www.hurunui.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Policies/2017-Policies/Sale-of-Property-Policy-FINAL-17.08.2017.pdf

sets out the principles, responsibilities and policies for the sale of Council property.

The Policy requires that only the Council can make a decisions and pass a resolution that property is surplus and is to be sold. . The Council shall stipulate in their resolution to sell a property an acceptable price range or state whether the Chief Executive is authorised to sell at a price that the Chief Executive determines to be appropriate.

116 Rotherham Road The property at 116 Rotherham Road comprises 1.5 hectares of the site designated as “Rotherham Road North Transfer Station (D59). The total property is 3.9570 hectares. The rest of the property is leased by an adjoining property owner. The leasee has expressed an interest in purchasing the part of the site not required by the Council for the transfer station.

As the site is in one title, a subdivision will need to be carried out to create a title which is surplus to Council requirements. It is also noted that part of the site is covered by a HAIL site which relates to the previous landfill on the site, though this appears to be incorrectly mapped. This will need to be further investigated. The cost of the subdivision can be offset from the proceeds of the land sale. No quotes have been sought for this work, but it

30

is anticipated that the subdivision will be straight forward as the current title was created in 2007. A copy of the title is attached as Appendix 1.

65 Wilkin Street, Rotherham

65 Wilkin Street has an area of 2023m2 CT 6C/1189. An informal lease of the property had been in place since 1992. In July 2004 a lease was tendered for the yard and leased.

The leasee terminated the lease with effect from 30 September 2013, the lease was re tendered but no tenders received. Officers understand the site is mowed twice a year by a local contractor. The land was retained because the community fire trailer is housed in the building on site and at that time the local committee advised that there were no other alternatives. Any sale would be conditional on the ongoing storage of the fire trailer. The adjoining land owner has approached the Council about leasing the property including tidying the site by removing rubbish and fixing the fencing. It is understood he also has an interest in purchasing the property.

Land Values 116 Rotherham Road North - The site is zoned rural and at last valuation the property had a land value of $46,000.

65 Wilkin Street - The site is zoned residential 1 and at last valuation had a land value of $75,000.

Financial considerations

The proceeds from the sale of both properties would be used to offset Council debt.

Significance The issue is considered to have a low level of significance as the properties are likely to only be of interest to the adjoining property owners.

Engagement The process of selling Council freehold land that has been declared surplus must be publicly notified. The only exceptions shall be when a single party owns land on most boundaries of the said land, and to sell to an outside party could be seen as mischievous or unreasonable. In the case of 65 Wilkin Street the adjoin owner surrounds the property on all 3 sides. In terms of the 116 Rotherham Road North the adjoining landowner owns land on 2 sides of the property with the Councils transfer station and then the Waiau River being on the other side.

Appendices 1. Title searches of both properties

2. Photograph of 65 Wilkin Street

Report Prepared by:

Judith Batchelor



31

Identifier

Search Copy

Land Registration DistrictDate Issued 08 March 2007

Canterbury

COMPUTER FREEHOLD REGISTERUNDER LAND TRANSFER ACT 1952

CB48C/844

Prior ReferencesCB34C/143

InterestsSubject to Section 8 Atomic Energy Act 1945Subject to Section 3 Geothermal Energy Act 1953Subject to Section 3 Petroleum Act 1937Subject to Section 6 and 8 Mining Act 1971Subject to Part IV A Conservation Act 1987Subject to Section 5 Coal Mines Act 1979Subject to Section 261 Coal Mines Act 1979

ProprietorsHurunui District Council

Estate Fee SimpleArea 3.9570 hectares more or lessLegal Description Lot 1 Deposited Plan 83905

Transaction Id 51321677Client Reference acuebillas001

Search Copy Dated 11/08/17 10:01 am, Page 1 of 1Register Only

32

ProprietorsThe Amuri County Council

Estate Fee SimpleArea 2023 square metres more or lessLegal Description Lot 1 Deposited Plan 24925

Interests

Identifier

Search Copy

Land Registration DistrictDate Issued 17 November 1966

Canterbury

COMPUTER FREEHOLD REGISTERUNDER LAND TRANSFER ACT 1952

CB6C/1189

Prior ReferencesCBAM5/165

Transaction IdClient Reference srose002


34

Identifier CB6C/1189

Transaction IdClient Reference srose002


35

To: Council




Funding application for Former Amuri County Chambers

Recommendation THAT THE COUNCIL AGREE THAT A FUNDING APPLICATION BE MADE TO THE LOTTERY ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE GRANT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY TO BE PREPARED WITH RESPECT TO THE EARTHQUAKE STRENGTHENING AND REPAIR OF THE AMURI COUNTY CHAMBERS.

Executive Summary The Former Amuri County Chamber building located at 30 Mountainview Road, Culverden is identified as a heritage building in the Proposed Hurunui District Plan as Amended by Decisions 2016. The building has an unreinforced masonry (URM) façade and in February 2017 the Council received a section 124 notice that required the façade to either be tied back and made safe or removed. At the time, on the basis of earlier reports that the building was earthquake prone i.e. that it achieves less than 34% of the New Building Standard, officers decided that it was worth considering earthquake strengthening at the same time the URM issue was dealt with. Lottery Environment and Heritage makes grants for projects to restore, conserve and/or protect places, structures and large built objects as well as preparing plans, studies or reports that will help to achieve physical heritage projects and make sure they can last a long time. If requesting a grant of $250,000 Council needs to provide a feasibility study for the project. This report recommends that the Council support a funding application to the Lottery Environment and Heritage Grant for a feasibility study to be prepared with respect to the former Amuri County Chambers

Background The building has an URM façade and in February 2017 the Council received a section 124 notice that required the façade to either be tied back and made safe or removed. At the time, on the basis of earlier reports that the building was earthquake prone that is less than 34% NBS, officers decided that it was worth considering earthquake strengthening at the same time the URM issue was dealt with. Its future needs to be determined based on the amount of repair and strengthening work required to bring the building back up to code. The Council has requested 2 quotes for the URM work and to strengthen to 34% NBS. This includes strengthening or removal of the chimney. Only 1 of the quotes has been received. The 2nd quote is dependent on the outcome of asbestos testing. The first quote does not include asbestos removal if found.

Earthquake-prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings

Section 131 of the Building Act 2004 required territorial authorities (TAs) to adopt a policy on earthquake-prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings. The initial policy was adopted by Council on 18 May 2006 and reviewed in 2011. The Council Policy required buildings to be upgraded to 67% NBS.

37

Policy The Council’s Earthquake-prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy expired on 1 July 2017 when the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act came into legal effect

The Building (Earthquake –prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016

The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 was enacted by Parliament in May 2016. The Amendment Act addressed problems with the system for managing earthquake-prone buildings under the Building Act 2004 identified by the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission and as part of a comprehensive government review. The relevance of this new legislation is that when substantial renovations are proposed buildings will be required to upgrade so that they are 34% of the NBS.

Technical Assessments

A detailed engineering evaluation was completed by Calibre Consulting in June 2017 (refer Appendix 1). This report assessed the structure as <10% of the New Building Standard (NBS).

Calibre were asked to provide a preliminary strengthening design with two options. The first to only secure the URM and the second to secure the URM and strengthen to 34% of the NBS.

Lottery Environment and Heritage Grant

A review of funding opportunities has highlighted that this project would be eligible to submit for a Lottery Environment and Heritage Grant. Lottery Environment and Heritage makes grants for:

projects to restore, conserve and/or protect places, structures and large built objects; projects to tell the stories of places, structures and large built objects, or make them easier for people to visit; and preparing plans, studies or reports that will help to achieve physical heritage projects and make sure they can last a long time.

The following requirements need to be met when applying for a grant: Council needs to show that it can provide at least one-third of the total project cost. A project plan and timeline must be provided. If the project involves construction then simple concept drawings or floor plans need to be submitted. Any plans, studies or reports that are used to support the grant request must be by a person or organisation separate from Council and show they have the right experience and qualifications for their expert views. If the project requires resource consent, this must be approved before requesting a grant.

As well as the project budget and any other extra documents required, if requesting a grant of $250,000 or more, Council needs to provide:

A feasibility study for the project, A quantity surveyor’s report or a signed contract or three written quotes.

The next funding round closes on 21 February 2018.

Feasibility Study Lottery Environment and Heritage Grant also fund the costs of preparing plans, feasibility studies and reports for physical heritage projects. Requests for grants for feasibility studies must be for work to be done by a

38

person or organisation separate from the organisation requesting the grant, and show they have the right experience and qualifications for the type of study to be provided. Feasibility studies should show good project planning, a technical and financial assessment of whether a project is viable and practical and achievable. Studies need to state whether the project is likely to achieve its intended benefits and outcomes, and provide results that will last a long time. The feasibility study needs to include:

the size and scale of the project; a discussion of the current situation and what's needed; options to deal with existing problems; comments on risks and benefits of each option; comments on the best option or options; an outline for the planned approach; and an assessment of the group's ability to deliver the project and the results over time.

Requesting a feasibility study grant If requesting a grant for a feasibility study, Council needs to have already prepared the instructions for the writer of the feasibility study. A copy of these instructions must be sent with the grant request.

Quotes for a feasibility study must be based on these instructions. A grant will not be made if the feasibility study instructions are prepared by the person or organisation that will do the feasibility study.

As the cost of repair works to the Former Amuri County Chambers building is expected to exceed $250,000 Council will need to have a feasibility study prepared in order to apply for funding for the physical works. The cost of preparing a feasibility study is estimated to cost between $20,000-$30,000.

Resource consent requirements

The building is identified as H45 in Schedule 14.1 – Historic buildings and structures in the Proposed Hurunui District Plan as Amended by Decisions 2016 (“the PDP”). The building was formerly the Amuri County Council building. Rule 14.4.4. of the PDP lists as a controlled activity alterations and additions, and partial demolition, where the works are for the primary purpose of implementing seismic, fire or access building code upgrades, to a building or structure listed in Schedule 14.1. Therefore, a resource consent as a controlled activity is required from Council for the proposed strengthening. Generally, resource consent applications applied for by the Council are prepared by consultants. The cost for preparing this type of application would be approximately $3,000. The cost for processing a land use consent application for the breach of a District Plan rule relating to heritage buildings is $640. As the proposed activity would be a controlled activity Council’s policy is that these be allocated to Council officers to be processed under delegated authority unless there is a high risk of public controversy in which case it is recommended that the application be approved by an independent commissioner. An application for resource consent would need to clearly outline the proposed works and any actual or potential effects in relation to these works. As such, any application would be reliant on the outcome of the feasibility study.

39

Financial Considerations

There are a number of financial implications to be considered regarding fixing the URM issue and earthquake strengthening to 34% on the historical former Amuri County Chambers, and it is noted this information is correct at the time of writing this report. The cost of physical works to get the building up to 34% NBS is still being sought. A preliminary strengthening design has been received for both options. The Council would be expected to fund 1/3 of the total cost. This has not been budgeted in this financial year. The cost of preparing a feasibility study would be between $20,000-$30,000. Lottery Environment and Heritage makes grants for feasibility studies in addition to requesting a grant for the cost of works on the former Amuri County Chamber building. As such, these costs could potentially be met from this source. In the first instance it is recommended that Council apply for a grant for the cost of preparing a feasibility study. Any costs associated with this would be in relation to Council officers’ time preparing instructions and obtaining quotes for the funding application.

Engagement There has been no public consultation on this matter to date. The feasibility report would consider what form of stakeholder consultation would be appropriate depending on the different options identified.

Significance The application for a grant from Lottery Environment and Heritage for the preparation of a feasibility study (the recommendation in this report) is considered to be of low significance. The outcome of the proposed feasibility study would potentially be of higher significance as this would potentially have financial implications and would be of particular interest to the Culverden Community Committee, Heritage New Zealand as well as the general public.

Options

Option 1: Do Nothing This is not an option. A decision needs to be made as to the future of the former Amuri County Chambers based on the amount of repair and strengthening work required to bring the building back up to code (NBS).

Option 2: Apply for funding for a feasibility study

This option provides for the preparation of a feasibility study which would consider all the options for dealing with the former Amuri County Chambers building including comments on the risks and benefits of each option. The feasibility study would comment on the best option and provide an outline for the planned approach and how to achieve this. A feasibility study is also required to apply for further funding from the Lottery Environment and Heritage Grant with respect to works that may be required to upgrade the building.

Appendices Appendix 1: Detailed Seismic Assessment

Report Reviewed by:

Judith Batchelor Manager Regulatory Services

Officer in Attendance: The report author will not be in attendance at the meeting.

40

PREPARED FOR HURUNUI DISTRICT COUNCIL16 JUNE 2017

710259 RE 20170616 MJ

ORIGINALBUILDINGS & STRUCTURES

Detailed Seismic Assessment - 30 Mountainview Road, CulverdenReport

41

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Issue Date Issue Details Author Checked Approved

COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE

All intellectual property rights, including copyright, in designs developed and documents created by Calibre Consulting Ltd remain the property of this company. Any use made of such design or document without the prior written approval of Calibre Consulting Ltd will constitute an infringement of the rights of the company which reserves all legal rights and remedies in respect of any such infringement.

710259 RE 20170616 MJ DSA Report

Calibre ConsultingLevel 1323 Madras StreetCHRISTCHURCH 8013

Ph: +64 3 374 6515

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT

Task Name Signature

Project Manager Sean Gardiner

Prepared by Matt Johnson

Reviewed by Murray Wood

Approved for Issue by Murray Wood

42

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 1

2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 2

3 DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 3

3.1 Site CHARACTERISTICS....................................................................................... 33.2 Structural Description.............................................................................................. 3

3.2.1 Gravity Load Resisting System ................................................................. 43.2.2 Lateral Load Resisting System.................................................................. 4

4 DESKTOP STUDY ............................................................................................................ 5

5 SITE INVESTIGATIONS.................................................................................................... 6

5.1 Intrusive Investigations............................................................................................ 65.2 Damage Assessment .............................................................................................. 65.3 Survey ..................................................................................................................... 6

6 DETAILED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT................................................................................ 7

6.1 Engineering Parameters and Assumptions............................................................. 76.1.1 Seismic ...................................................................................................... 76.1.2 Geotechnical.............................................................................................. 76.1.3 Material Densities and Imposed Loads ..................................................... 76.1.4 Unreinforced Masonry ............................................................................... 76.1.5 Concrete .................................................................................................... 86.1.6 Timber ....................................................................................................... 8

6.2 Assessment Results................................................................................................ 86.3 Structural Vulnerability ............................................................................................ 9

6.3.1 Chimneys................................................................................................... 96.4 Critical Structural Weaknesses ............................................................................... 9

6.4.1 Diaphragm Connection to Walls ................................................................ 96.4.2 Connection of Concrete Entrance Façade to Roof Structure .................... 96.4.3 Brick Walls Out Of Plane ........................................................................... 9

6.5 Results Discussion.................................................................................................. 96.6 Other Comments................................................................................................... 10

6.6.1 Seismic Separation with Adjacent Building ............................................. 106.6.2 Water Damage & Timber Rot at Roof Eaves........................................... 106.6.3 Birds Nest in Roof Space ........................................................................ 10

7 PRELIMINARY SEISMIC STRENGTHENING AND EARTHQUAKE REPAIRS ............. 11

7.1 Seismic Securing of the Street Facing Façade..................................................... 117.2 Seismic Strengthening to 34% New Building Standard ........................................ 117.3 Seismic Strengthening to 67% New Building Standard ........................................ 117.4 Structural Repairs to Address Earthquake Damage ............................................. 12

8 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 13

9 IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER............................................................................................. 14

TABLES

Table 1: Lateral Resistance Summary....................................................................................... 8

FIGURES

Figure 3-1: Location Plan (image sourced from LINZ)............................................................ 3

43

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOSAPPENDIX B BUILDING PLANS FROM SITE MEASURE UPAPPENDIX C PRELIMINARY STRENGTHENING SKETCHES

44

710259 RE 20170616 MJ | REPORT | HURUNUI DISTRICT COUNCIL

DETAILED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT - 30 MOUNTAINVIEW ROAD, CULVERDEN | 1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Calibre Consulting Ltd has been engaged by Hurunui District Council to undertake a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) of the Amuri Council Chambers Building at 30 Mountainview Road, Culverden, and provide a preliminary strengthening design.

The seismic assessment indicates that the most critical structural elements, both the connection of the ceiling diaphragm to brick walls, and the connection of the concrete street facing façade to the building structure, have a current seismic capacity of <10% NBS. Failure of these joints may cause collapse or partial collapse of the building in a seismic event.

The following building components have been identified to have critical structural weaknesses and require seismic strengthening in order to achieve a minimum of 34% NBS. Recommended strengthening strategies are presented inSection 7 of this report.

Brick walls for out-of-plane loads

Connections between the brick wall bond beams and the ceiling/roof structure

Connections between the concrete entrance gable façade and the roof structure and/or internal walls

Brick chimneys

From the information gathered from the site inspections and damage assessment, we do not believe that there are any building verticality or settlement issues that affect the structural integrity or stability of the building.

As the limiting structural seismic capacity is < 34% NBS we conclude that the building is Earthquake-Prone and is likely to suffer damage during a moderate earthquake, we recommend strengthening to as high as possible with a minimum legal obligation of 34% NBS.

Strategies to achieve 34% NBS and secure the street facing facade are discussed and presented in Section 7.

Under the new Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, there are revised timeframes for potentially earthquake prone buildings to be strengthened or demolished. Based on the geographical location and Importance Level of this building it is classified as an ‘other building’ in an area of ‘high seismic risk’ and the timeframe is 5 years from the commencement date of the Act.

45



2 INTRODUCTION

Calibre Consulting Ltd has been engaged by Hurunui District Council to undertake a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) of the Amuri County Chambers Building at 30 Mountainview Road, Culverden, and provide a preliminary strengthening design for both the securing of the street facing façade in accordance with MBIE guidance and also the seismic strengthening of the whole building to at least 34% NBS.

The structural investigations involved the following:

Review of the IEP report issued by Spiire dated November 2012.

Intrusive and visual investigations were undertaken by Structural Engineer Matt Johnson of Calibre in May 2017.Some plaster linings to walls and ceilings were removed to allow for detailed inspection of the structuralelements. Access to the roof space and under floor space was gained to inspect structural elements. Photographs and measurements were taken and are presented in this report.

No geotechnical information specific to this site was available at the time of the assessment.

Desktop calculations of the global building capacity and of individual structural elements.

This report is a quantitative assessment of the building structure. A quantitative assessment involves determination of the existing seismic capacity of the building, based on inspections of the building, a desktop review of existing structural and geotechnical information, including existing drawings and calculations, if available, and the analytical calculations of the building’s strength. This quantitative report of the building is based on the assessment process as described in the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) ‘Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes’ 15 June 2011 issue (AISPBE) and relevant updates.

The purpose of the assessment is to accurately determine the building performance, and to make an assessment of the expected building strength in terms of percentage of new building standard (% NBS).

We note that the adjacent two storey building to the east of this building is considered to be a separate structure and as such is excluded from the scope of this report and has not been assessed. We have however assessed the seismic separation of the two buildings and comment on this in Section 6.6.1.

46



3 DESCRIPTION

3.1 SITE CHARACTERISTICSAmuri County Chambers is a Hurunui District Council owned building located at 30 Mountainview Road, Culverden.

The site is bordered by State Highway 7 to the west, a large parking area to the north, a two storey adjoining building to the east, and several other low level buildings to the south and east.

Figure 3-1: Location Plan (image sourced from LINZ)

3.2 STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTIONThe building is rectangular single storey structure approximately 17m long by 10m wide. The age of the building is unknown but is pre-1965.

The foundation system consists of reinforced (assumed) concrete walls, both around the perimeter of the building, and in a grid layout internal to the building. Tin encased concrete piles support floor bearers.

47



The ground floor consists of timber framed bearers and joists with timber panel flooring.

External walls are made up of a single inner brick skin, internal cavity and single outer brick skin. The width of the innerbrick, cavity and outer brick layer is 270mm as measured on site with intrusive drilling. The cavity is in the order of 50mm.The walls have a reinforced concrete header bond beam, 250mm deep by 270mm wide. Two double skin, no cavity, internal brick walls frame the hallway in an east-west direction. Some timber stud frame walls are present in the hallway and stair location. All walls are load bearing.

In the North-East corner of the building is a safe room consisting of 250mm thick reinforced concrete walls and a concrete slab lid at ceiling level.

There is a timber stair that leads to an upper floor hallway landing, the stair and the hallway is the access to the upper storey of the two storey adjacent building. The hallway landing is slightly lower that the ceiling level of the remainder of the single storey building. The upper storey landing is timber framed and is supported by the load bearing walls under. Although connected to the two-storey adjacent building, it does not appear that the hallway landing floor relies on the adjacent building for support.

The ceiling is supported by timber rafters landing on the load bearing walls under. 100x50 timber framed joists support a plaster and lathe ceiling diaphragm.

Timber roof rafters and trusses form a pitched roof with timber purlins, horizontal sarking and slate tile cladding.

The building height is approximately 4m at the eaves and 6m at the roof apex.

Along the western façade is a reinforced concrete gable entrance with parapet above roof level.

Brick chimneys are present at both the south and north ends of the building. The height of the chimneys above roof level is 2.7m.

3.2.1 GRAVITY LOAD RESISTING SYSTEM

The roof loads are supported by the timber framing of the roof and ceiling which are in turn supported by the load bearing brick and timber stud walls. The load bearing walls sit directly on concrete foundation walls. The timber framed ground floor is supported on the concrete foundation walls and tin encased concrete piles.

3.2.2 LATERAL LOAD RESISTING SYSTEM

For the longitudinal direction (north – south), the lateral stability system consists of the perimeter unreinforced masonry brick walls acting in plane; the reinforced concrete gable façade acting in plane; and the reinforced concrete walls of the safe room.

For the transverse direction (east – west), the lateral stability system consists of the perimeter and internal unreinforced masonry brick walls acting in plane; and the reinforced concrete walls of the safe room.

For both directions the loads of the out of plane walls and roof structure are distributed to the in plane walls via the roof sarking and ceiling plaster and lathe diaphragms. The roof diaphragm structure is connected to the concrete bond beam atop the lateral stability walls via a bolted timber chord. The lateral loads from the walls are transferred into the concrete foundation beams and into the ground.

48



4 DESKTOP STUDY

No relevant structural, architectural, or geotechnical drawings, reports or documents were knowingly available at the time of the DSA.

The desk top study consisted of information gathered as part of the intrusive investigations.

49



5 SITE INVESTIGATIONS 5.1 INTRUSIVE INVESTIGATIONSA site inspection, involving intrusive investigations and site measure ups, was undertaken in May 2017.

An access hatch into the ceiling space allowed the inspecting engineer to view and measure the roof and ceiling structure. It was also possible to view the top of the concrete bond beam, above the perimeter brick walls.

Access was gained to the foundations through the ground floor man hole in the cleaner’s cupboard under the stairs. From this the inspecting engineer was able to determine the foundation system of foundation beam walls and tin encased concrete piers.

The following intrusive investigations were undertaken:

Holes were drilled in the external brick walls to determine that they consisted of an internal and external single brick skins (11omm each) separated by a 50mm cavity.

Holes were drilled in the reinforced concrete safe walls to determine that these were 250mm thick.

A localised section of plaster was stripped off the internal lining of the western wall in the boardroom at the junction between the brick wall and the concrete façade element. It was not conclusive that there was any physical tie between the two surfaces.

A localised section of ceiling was cut and removed to inspect the perimeter concrete bond beam above the brick walls. This confirmed that the depth of the bond beam was 250mm.

Scratch tests of the external brick and mortar determined that they were of medium hardness and in good condition.

5.2 DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

The following damage was observed during the inspection:

Cracks in the plaster ceiling above the entrance foyer.

A diagonal crack in the internal brick wall as observed in the boardroom.

Cracking in the plaster at the brick wall and concrete façade junction in the boardroom. This plaster was removed as described in Section 5.1.

Cracks in the wall linings were observed in the stairs.

Water damage / timber rot was observed in two locations of the roof eaves, one on the western side adjacent the concrete entrance façade, and one on the eastern side adjacent the two storey building. Neither of these areconsidered earthquake damage.

5.3 SURVEYA zip-level survey was undertaken in the boardroom and foyer entrance. The results of the zip-level survey suggest that the floor has not experienced differential settlement. The levels were well within acceptable limits for a building of this age and within MBIE Guidelines. Visual inspections of the wall alignments did not suggest any out of plumb wall irregularities.

50



6 DETAILED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT

The seismic modelling and capacity assessment has been carried out in accordance with the following standards and guidelines.

New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes (commonly referred to as the NZSEE Red Book)

NZS1170.0:2002 Structural Design Actions – Part 0: General principles

NZS1170.1:2002 Structural Design Actions – Part 1: Permanent, imposed and other actions

NZS1170.5:2004 Structural Design Actions – Part 5: Earthquake actions

NZS3603:1993 Timber Design Code

NZS3101:2006 Concrete Design Code

6.1 ENGINEERING PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS

6.1.1 SEISMIC

Importance Level 2

Hazard factor Z = 0.4 (Culverden)

The earthquake resistance of the structure has been assessed under full earthquake loads which were obtained through NZS1170.5:2004 and includes analysis of the building in both directions.

The building was analysed using the equivalent static design method.

For out-of-plane behaviour, the walls have been considered as a ‘part’ and assessed in accordance with NZS1170.5 Section 8 Requirements for Parts and Components.

6.1.2 GEOTECHNICAL

In the absence of geotechnical information, it has been assumed that the site is Soil Class C. As per Hurunui District Council records, the site is zoned as Liquefaction Zone 4 which implies that there is no liquefaction risk.

6.1.3 MATERIAL DENSITIES AND IMPOSED LOADS

Unit weight of brick masonry of 18kN/m3

Unit weight of concrete of 24kN/m3

Dead load of the roof and ceiling structure of 0.6kPa

6.1.4 UNREINFORCED MASONRY

Ductility taken to be 1.0 and structural performance factor Sp calculated to be 1.0.

Strength reduction factor of 1.0

Assumed probable brick compressive strength of 26MPa

51



Assumed probable mortar compressive strength of 5MPa; cohesion of 0.5MPa; friction coefficient of 0.6; Adhesion of 0.25MPa.

Assumed probable masonry compressive strength of 14MPa (Table 10.5 NZSEE).

Assumed probable modulus of elasticity of 4200MPa.

6.1.5 CONCRETE

Assumed probable compressive strength of 25MPa

Assumed bond beam above brick walls had 2No. 12 diameter round reinforcing bars

Assumed gable façade was minimally reinforced.

6.1.6 TIMBER

Assumed bearing strength (for bolted connections) of 8MPa

Assumed timber connection type J5

6.2 ASSESSMENT RESULTSTable 1: Lateral Resistance Summary

Building Component Limiting %NBS

Brick walls – out of plane 14%

Brick walls – in plane 37%

Roof/ceiling diaphragm 36%

Diaphragm to wall connection <10%

Concrete entrance facade 100%

Concrete entrance façade connection to roof structure <10%

Chimneys 30%

The results presented in Table 1 indicate that the structure is earthquake-prone and will have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake.

A structural vulnerability is a structural weakness that limits the % NBS score for the building and a critical structural weakness (CSW) is a structural weakness that could lead to collapse of the building. The CSW and structural vulnerabilities are identified and discussed in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 below.

52



6.3 STRUCTURAL VULNERABILITY

6.3.1 CHIMNEYS

The two brick chimneys have been assessed as having a seismic capacity of 30% NBS.

Failure of the chimneys will not cause collapse of the building. However, they do pose a risk to life, both inside and outside of the building, and also could damage the building if they were to collapse in a seismic event.

6.4 CRITICAL STRUCTURAL WEAKNESSES

6.4.1 DIAPHRAGM CONNECTION TO WALLS

The capacity of the connection between the ceiling diaphragm and the brick wall bond beams has been assessed as having a seismic capacity of <10% NBS.

The connection was observed on site to be a perimeter timber chord skew nailed to the underside of the ceiling joists and bolted into the concrete bond beam with a single bolt at two metre centres.

This connection is critically important to the building structure as it transfers the seismic loads of the out-of-plane walls and roof structure into the in-plane lateral stability walls.

6.4.2 CONNECTION OF CONCRETE ENTRANCE FAÇADE TO ROOF STRUCTURE

The capacity of the connection between the roof and ceiling structure to the concrete entrance facade has been assessed as having a seismic capacity of <10% NBS.

The connection was observed on site to be two round bars fixed into the back face of the concrete façade and bolted to a timber truss within the roof. It was not possible to observe if there was any physical connection between the concrete façade and the concrete bond beams of the brick walls. As such it was assumed that there was no connection here.

The connection of the façade to the building structure is critical to restrain the façade from out-of-plane loadings and to prevent it from falling outwards. The façade element is also a lateral stability element in the in-plane direction. Hence out-of-plane failure could result in collapse or partial collapse of the building.

6.4.3 BRICK WALLS OUT OF PLANE

The capacity of the existing brick walls for out-of-plane loading has been assessed as having a seismic capacity of 14% NBS. These walls are critical elements to the building structure as they provide gravity support to the roof structure and are also provide lateral support (in-plane) to the building for seismic and wind loads.

Brittle failure of these walls could result in collapse or partial collapse of the building and pose a risk to people and property in the immediate vicinity of the wall, both inside and outside of the building.

6.5 RESULTS DISCUSSIONIn order to secure the street facing façade and entranceway only, the following building elements would need to be strengthened:

Brick walls along the street front for out-of-plane loads

53



Connections between the street front brick wall bond beams and the ceiling/roof structure


In order to bring the building up to at least 34% NBS, the following building elements would need to be strengthened:

All brick walls for out-of-plane loads



Brick chimneys (2No.)

In order to bring the building up to at least 67% NBS then, additional to the above, the following building elements would need to be strengthened:

Ceiling diaphragm

Brick walls for in-plane loads

Strengthening options for all of the above items are discussed in Section 7.

6.6 OTHER COMMENTS

6.6.1 SEISMIC SEPARATION WITH ADJACENT BUILDING

It was determined as part of the site inspection and during the desktop review that the single storey building (forming the subject of this report) and the adjacent two storey building, were constructed in such a way that they both had their ownindependent lateral stability systems. However, it was observed on site that the seismic separation of the two buildings was insufficient to emphatically assume that the movement of one building would not impact that of the other.

It is therefore recommended that the small section of brick wall between the two buildings is removed and replaced with a light weight cladding which will better facilitate the independent building movements under seismic loading.

6.6.2 WATER DAMAGE & TIMBER ROT AT ROOF EAVES

Two areas of water damage or timber rot was observed during the site inspection within the roof space. These were at the roof eaves, one directly to the south of the entrance façade gable on the western side of the building, and one directly to the south of the adjacent two storey building to the east of the building.

Neither of these were considered to be as a result of earthquake damage.

6.6.3 BIRDS NEST IN ROOF SPACE

A large bird’s nest was observed in the roof space directly behind the concrete gable façade at the entrance. This will need to be removed in order for strengthening works to the ceiling diaphragm connections and the façade tie back connections to be undertaken.

54



7 PRELIMINARY SEISMIC STRENGTHENING AND EARTHQUAKE REPAIRS

7.1 SEISMIC SECURING OF THE STREET FACING FAÇADEIn order to secure the street facing façade, the following preliminary structural options are recommended:

1. Along the street front brick wall (western face of building), install new steel wall studs to the internal face of the brick walls. Connect studs to the foundations and roof structure. Drill and anchor both layers of brick back to the new studs.

2. Along the street front brick wall (western face of building), install a new steel angle member to the concrete bond beam and ceiling. Anchor and secure into the bond beam and each ceiling joist.

3. Install a new steel tie between the street fronting concrete entranceway gable façade and the internal return walls.

Sketches of the above items are provided in Appendix B.

7.2 SEISMIC STRENGTHENING TO 34% NEW BUILDING STANDARDTo increase the structural seismic capacity to at least 34% NBS, the following preliminary structural options are recommended:

1. For all internal and perimeter brick walls, install new steel wall studs to the internal face of the brick walls. Connect studs to the foundations and roof structure. Drill and anchor both layers of brick back to the new studs.

2. Install a new steel angle member to the top of the brick wall concrete bond beams and ceiling. Anchor and secure into the bond beam and each ceiling joist.

3. Install a new steel tie between the street fronting concrete entranceway gable façade and the internal return walls.

4. Secure the chimney structure by either: 1) fill the chimney flue with reinforced concrete and anchor the chimney bricks into it (this will render the fireplace unusable); 2) providing a new external steel frame anchored to the chimney at roof level; 3) remove the chimney above roof level.

Sketches of the above items are provided in Appendix B.

7.3 SEISMIC STRENGTHENING TO 67% NEW BUILDING STANDARDTo increase the structural seismic capacity to at least 67% NBS, the following preliminary structural options are recommended:

1. Remove the ceiling diaphragm in the Boardroom and replace with a plywood diaphragm.

2. Strengthen the brick walls by either: 1) replace the internal skin of brick with a reinforced shotcrete wall; 2) add new steel bracing to the inside faces of the walls; 3) remove existing internal wall plaster and replace with a Fibre Reinforced Grout (FRG).

55



No sketches are provided for these options as the scope of this report is to meet 34% NBS only. However, we could investigate and advise any additional strengthening options if the Hurunui District Council wish to aim for a higher %NBS capacity.

7.4 STRUCTURAL REPAIRS TO ADDRESS EARTHQUAKE DAMAGEThe building appears to have minimal damage as a result of recent seismic events. Some cracking of plaster linings tothe walls and ceilings was observed.

The plaster lining on the walls is not a structural element but may be an indication of cracking to the bricks and/or mortar behind. It is suggested that the plaster is removed locally, brick walls inspected and repaired as required, and then re-plastered.

The plaster lining to the ceiling forms part of the existing ceiling diaphragm. It is recommended that it be repaired by replastering or removed and replaced with a plywood diaphragm.

56



8 CONCLUSION

Calibre Consulting have undertaken a detailed seismic assessment of Amuri County Chambers and developed preliminary strengthening designs and earthquake repair strategies.

The assessment has involved a detailed and intrusive investigation, structural modelling and analysis of the existing structure, calculation of the building component capacities to develop our findings and recommendations as outlined in this report.

The seismic assessment indicates that the most critical structural elements, the connections of the ceiling diaphragm to brick walls and the connection of the concrete street facing façade to the building structure, have a current seismic capacity of <10% NBS. Failure of these joints may cause collapse or partial collapse of the building in a seismic event.

The following building components have been identified to have critical structural weaknesses and require seismic strengthening in order to achieve a minimum of 34% NBS. Refer to Section 6.2 for details on the seismic assessment results.

Brick walls for out-of-plane loads



Brick chimneys (2No.)

As the limiting structural seismic capacity is < 34% NBS we conclude that the building is Earthquake-Prone and is likely to suffer damage during a moderate earthquake, we recommend strengthening to as high as possible with a minimum legal obligation of 34% NBS.

Strategies to secure the street facing façade and strategies to strengthen the building to achieve 34% NBS or 67%NBS and address existing earthquake damage are discussed and presented in Section 7.

Under the new Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, there are revised timeframes for potentially earthquake prone buildings to be strengthened or demolished. Based on the geographical location and Importance Level of this building it is classified as an ‘other building’ in an area of ‘high seismic risk’ and the timeframe is 5 years from the commencement date of the Act.

57



9 IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

This report has been prepared by Calibre Consulting Ltd for Hurunui District Council. No liability is accepted by Calibre Consulting or any employee or sub-consultant of Calibre Consulting with respect to its use by any other parties. This disclaimer shall apply notwithstanding that the report may be made available to other persons for an application for permission or approval to fulfil a legal requirement. Unless stated otherwise, this report and assessment herein are based on a visual and non-intrusive walk-around inspection of the building.

Calibre Consulting has not commented on the building’s degree of compliance with the New Zealand Building Act or any other relevant codes or standards other than the structural aspects.

Calibre Consulting has not attempted to assess the cost of repairs or the cost of replacement.

Recommendations contained in this report are subject to compliance with land rehabilitation and flood level requirements which are being assessed by others, and are included for guidance only.

Calibre Consulting is not responsible for obtaining agreement with the building owner or obtaining the necessary consents from councils for undertaking any building work.

In accepting delivery and/or using this report, the recipient agrees that he/she accepts the report on the basis set out herein.

58



APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOS

59



North western end of building Street front concrete gable façade. West side of building.

South western end of building Southern face of building with southern chimney visible.

South eastern end of building. Adjacent two storey building is seen to the right.

Eastern side of the building predominantly blocked by adjacent two storey building.

60



Northern face of building with northern chimney visible. Brick clad wall linking the two buildings. It is recommended that this is removed and replaced with a lightweight

cladding for seismic separation purposes.

Back face of concrete gable façade. Note large birds nest. Connection of concrete façade to roof structure.

Cracking of plaster ceiling in entrance foyer. Wall plaster removed to inspect brick wall and concrete façade interface

61



Plaster and lathe ceiling between joists and concrete bond beam (over brick wall)

Brick chimney within roof space appears tied into concrete bond beam.

62



APPENDIX B BUILDING PLANS FROM SITE MEASURE UP

63



APPENDIX C PRELIMINARY STRENGTHENING SKETCHES

67

To: Council

Report Prepared By: Helga Bennett, Senior Planner



Funding application for Kowai Council Chambers

Recommendation THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE AMBERLEY WARD COMMITTEE THAT A FUNDING APPLICATION BE MADE TO THE LOTTERY ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE GRANT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY TO BE PREPARED WITH RESPECT TO THE KOWAI COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

Executive Summary The Kowai Council Chamber building located at 1091 Upper Sefton Road, Balcairn is listed as a Category II Historic Site under the Historic Places Act 1993 and is identified as a Heritage building in the Proposed Hurunui District Plan as Amended by Decisions 2016. The building received some damage from the Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. The cost of works to bring the building up to 34% of the New Building Standard is estimated to be $410,000 with the estimate to bring the building up to 67% being $880,000. Lottery Environment and Heritage makes grants for projects to restore, conserve and/or protect places, structures and large built objects as well as preparing plans, studies or reports that will help to achieve physical heritage projects and make sure they can last a long time. If requesting a grant of $250,000 Council needs to provide a feasibility study for the project. At their meeting held on 17 October 2017, the Amberley Ward Committee agreed that funding should be sought to prepare a feasibility study which would consider all the options for dealing with the Kowai Council Chamber building. This report seeks that Council adopt the recommendation of the Committee that a funding application be made to the Lottery Environment and Heritage Grant for a feasibility study to be prepared with respect to the Kowai Council Chambers.

Background The Kowai Council Chamber building is occupied by the Kowai Archives Society. The building was formerly the Kowai County Council building and is listed as a Category II Historic Site under the Historic Places Act 1993. The building was opened in 1923 and stands as a visual reminder of the former local authority administration in the area, and as a peace memorial to local soldiers in World War I. It houses a roll of honour to local servicemen who served in either of the World Wars. In 1995, the Kowai Archives Society restored and began occupying the building which they continued to lease in exchange for maintaining the building and the grounds. The trust opened the building to the public on the second Sunday of each month for a few hours in the afternoon, or by arrangement for groups and researches. The building received some damage from the Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. Its future needs to be determined based on the amount of

72

repair and strengthening work required to bring the building back up to code. The Council received an insurance payout of $234,000 in 2012.

Earthquake-prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy

Section 131 of the Building Act 2004 required territorial authorities (TAs) to adopt a policy on earthquake-prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings. The initial policy was adopted by Council on 18 May 2006 and reviewed in 2011. The Council Policy required buildings to be upgraded to 67% NBS. The Council’s Earthquake-prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy expired on 1 July 2017 when the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act came into legal effect

The Building (Earthquake –prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016

The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 was enacted by Parliament in May 2016. The Amendment Act addressed problems with the system for managing earthquake-prone buildings under the Building Act 2004 identified by the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission and as part of a comprehensive government review. The relevance of this new legislation is that when substantial renovations are proposed buildings will be required to upgrade so that they are 34% of the NBS.

Technical Assessments

A detailed engineering evaluation was completed by Spiire in May 2013. This report assessed the structure as <5% of the New Building Standard (NBS).

Opus was approached in 2015 to provide an offer of service to undertake the seismic design, construction monitoring and preparation and submission of a NZ Lotteries Funding Application. Opus estimated their cost at that time as being approximately $114,610.00.

The cost of the physical works to get the Kowai Council Chamber building up to 67% NBS was estimated by Barnes Beagley Doherr Limited in 2015 to be in the vicinity of $880,000 with the estimate to bring the building up to 34% NBS being $410,000. The detailed engineering evaluation completed by Spiire and estimate by Barnes Beagley Doherr Limited can be viewed at the following link: http://www.hurunui.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/17-October-2017-Amberley-Ward-Committee-Agenda-Web.pdf A decision on the proposed strengthening works required was delayed until such time that the government made its decision

Lottery Environment and Heritage Grant

A review of funding opportunities has highlighted that this project would be eligible to submit for a Lottery Environment and Heritage Grant. Lottery Environment and Heritage makes grants for:

projects to restore, conserve and/or protect places, structures and large built objects; projects to tell the stories of places, structures and large built objects, or make them easier for people to visit; and preparing plans, studies or reports that will help to achieve physical heritage projects and make sure they can last a long time.

The following requirements need to be met when applying for a grant: Council needs to show that it can provide at least one-third of the total project cost.

73

A project plan and timeline must be provided. If the project involves construction then simple concept drawings or floor plans need to be submitted. Any plans, studies or reports that are used to support the grant request must be by a person or organisation separate from Council and show they have the right experience and qualifications for their expert views. If the project requires resource consent, this must be approved before requesting a grant.

As well as the project budget and any other extra documents required, if requesting a grant of $250,000 or more, Council needs to provide:

A feasibility study for the project, A quantity surveyor’s report or a signed contract or three written quotes.

The next funding round closes on 21 February 2018.

Feasibility Study Lottery Environment and Heritage Grant also fund the costs of preparing plans, feasibility studies and reports for physical heritage projects. Requests for grants for feasibility studies must be for work to be done by a person or organisation separate from the organisation requesting the grant, and show they have the right experience and qualifications for the type of study to be provided. Feasibility studies should show good project planning, a technical and financial assessment of whether a project is viable and practical and achievable. Studies need to state whether the project is likely to achieve its intended benefits and outcomes, and provide results that will last a long time. The feasibility study needs to include:

the size and scale of the project; a discussion of the current situation and what's needed; options to deal with existing problems; comments on risks and benefits of each option; comments on the best option or options; an outline for the planned approach; and an assessment of the group's ability to deliver the project and the results over time.

Requesting a feasibility study grant If requesting a grant for a feasibility study, Council needs to have already prepared the instructions for the writer of the feasibility study. A copy of these instructions must be sent with the grant request.

Quotes for a feasibility study must be based on these instructions. A grant will not be made if the feasibility study instructions are prepared by the person or organisation that will do the feasibility study.

As the cost of repair works to the Kowai Council Chamber building exceeds $250,000 Council will need to have a feasibility study prepared in order to apply for funding for the physical works. The cost of preparing a feasibility study is estimated to cost between $20,000-$30,000.

74

Resource consent requirements

The building is identified as H54 in Schedule 14.1 – Historic buildings and structures in the Proposed Hurunui District Plan as Amended by Decisions 2016 (“the PDP”). The building was formerly the Kowai County Council building and is listed as a Category II Historic Site under the Historic Places Act 1993. Rule 14.4.4. of the PDP lists as a controlled activity alterations and additions, and partial demolition, where the works are for the primary purpose of implementing seismic, fire or access building code upgrades, to a building or structure listed in Schedule 14.1. Therefore, a resource consent as a controlled activity is required from Council for the proposed strengthening. Generally, resource consent applications applied for by the Council are prepared by consultants. The cost for preparing this type of application would be approximately $3,000. The cost for processing a land use consent application for the breach of a District Plan rule relating to heritage buildings is $640. As the proposed activity would be a controlled activity Council’s policy is that these be allocated to Council officers to be processed under delegated authority unless there is a high risk of public controversy in which case it is recommended that the application be approved by an independent commissioner. An application for resource consent would need to clearly outline the proposed works and any actual or potential effects in relation to these works. As such, any application would be reliant on the outcome of the feasibility study.


There are a number of financial implications to be considered regarding earthquake repairs on the historical Kowai Council Chambers, and it is noted this information is correct at the time of writing this report. The cost of physical works to get the building up to 67% NBS is estimated to be in the vicinity of $880,000 with the estimate to bring the building up to 34% NBS being $410,000. The cost of undertaking the seismic design, construction monitoring and preparation of a funding application to Lottery Environment and Heritage would be approximately $114,610 (including the cost of resource consent application). The cost of preparing a feasibility study would be between $20,000-$30,000. Lottery Environment and Heritage makes grants for feasibility studies in addition to requesting a grant for the cost of works on the Kowai Council Chamber building. As such, these costs could potentially be met from this source. In the first instance it is recommended that Council apply for a grant for the cost of preparing a feasibility study. Any costs associated with this would be in relation to Council officers’ time preparing instructions and obtaining quotes for the funding application.

Engagement At their meeting held on 17 October 2017, the Amberley Ward Committee considered whether a funding application should be made to the Lottery Environment and Heritage Grant for the preparation of a feasibility study. The Committee agreed that this would be the best option and as such they recommend that Council prepare a funding application to the Lottery Environment and Heritage Grant for a feasibility study to be prepared with respect to the Kowai Council Chambers. There has been no public consultation on this matter to date. The feasibility report would consider what form of stakeholder consultation would be appropriate depending on the different options identified.

Significance The application for a grant from Lottery Environment and Heritage for the preparation of a feasibility study (the recommendation in this report) is considered to be of low significance.

75

The outcome of the proposed feasibility study would potentially be of higher significance as this would potentially have financial implications and would be of particular interest to the Kowai Archives Society, Heritage New Zealand as well as the general public.

Options

Option 1: Do Nothing This is not an option. A decision needs to be made as to the future of the Kowai Council Chambers based on the amount of repair and strengthening work required to bring the building back up to code (NBS).

Option 2: Apply for funding for a feasibility study

This option supports the recommendation of the Amberley Ward Committee and provides for the preparation of a feasibility study which would consider all the options for dealing with the Kowai Council Chambers building including comments on the risks and benefits of each option. The feasibility study would comment on the best option and provide an outline for the planned approach and how to achieve this. A feasibility study is also required to apply for further funding from the Lottery Environment and Heritage Grant with respect to works that may be required to upgrade the building.

Appendices Appendix 1: Detailed Engineering Evaluation (To be circulated.) Appendix 2: Quote for physical works to get building up to 67% NBS (To be circulated.)

Report Prepared by:

Helga Bennett Senior Planner

Report Reviewed by:



76

To: Council




Formation of Anderson Road, Amberley Business Park

Recommendation THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE COMMISSIONING OF DETAILED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR ANDERSON ROAD AND THE SERVCING REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION CONSENT.

THAT AN OPEN TENDER PROCESS BE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD AND SERVICES.

Background Discussion on a possible business park commenced about 5 years ago when a land owner approached Council officers to discuss a possible joint development with another land owner and the Council (because the Council owns adjoining land presently leased by the North Canterbury Sport and Recreation Trust and Cochranes Machinery Limited.

The land owners were aware of the existence of the Amberley Township Indicative Roading Plan which included a through road joining Courage Rd and Pound Street and a link to Carters Road.

In order to be able to traverse all the implications of a joint development, the Council appointed a working group of councillors, which previously met on several occasions to discuss details of the on-going negotiations. The working party has not met for a couple of years.

The Council has previously agreed to purchase land to secure the Courage/ Pound Road link now named Saleyard Drive.

Subdivision approval was granted to the Council for a 5 lot subdivision and road to vest which provides the link to Carters Road.

Anderson Road The subdivision conditions specify the standard for the new road. This includes a minimum legal width of 20 metres with a carriageway width of 12m and footpaths on both sides of the road. Heavy duty vehicle crossings are required to be formed to lots 1, 2 and 5.

The subdivision approval also has a number of other conditions relating to street lighting, stormwater, waste water, water reticulation, power and telephone and $9700 in development levies.

Detailed Design and Construction Costs

Council approval is sought to prepare detailed engineering drawings and costs for the construction of the road and services and to run an open tender process for the cost which is to be submitted to the Council before construction commences.

77

Desired Outcome The desired outcome is the creation of adjoining lots suitable for the location of businesses, with good road access to service those lots, and with a link between Courage Rd/Pound St and Carters Road for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians.

A secondary but nonetheless important desired outcome is to maximise the value of the Council owned land which now is surplus to requirements as the transfer station and recycling operations have moved. The land is currently leased. The new road will also provide for the further development of vacant land behind PGG Wrightson and an additional catalyst for further development on Saleyard Drive.

Engagement Council officers have been involved in a number of discussions with the then owner of the property directly behind the Council lot occupied by the recycling and transfer station. The discussion subsequently included the new owner of the property to the north fronting Courage Road. Previous community consultation which culminated in Plan change 13 strongly emphasised the need for a north south road link between Pound Street and Courage Road and these links were identified in the Amberley Infrastructure – Roading Plan.

The land behind the Council lot to the north was subdivided as stage 1 of Amberley Business Park. This had an existing ROW easement giving it access to Carters Road. Rather than continue with 2 narrow ROW it made sense to combine the 2 into a single wide access and that this be created as legal road. At this time Council officers also engaged with PGG Wrightson in relation to the proposal to form the ROW’s as road.

Significance The issue is considered to be of low significance. The indicative roading plan was part of Plan change 13 and was further discussed as part of the District Plan review. In addition the subdivision and road to vest has been subject to a resource consent process (albeit non-notified)

Financial implications The cost of constructing the road and services for the subdivision has not been budgeted in the current financial year and therefore, if approved, will need to be debt funded. Recent and proposed property sales are likely to partially or even wholly mitigate Council’s overall debt position in this instance.

Appendices Copy of subdivision decision

Report Prepared by:



78

DECISION OF THE HURUNUI DISTRICT COUNCIL

NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 95 & DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 104

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

Consent Number: RC160066 Applicant: Hurunui District Council Site Address: 73 & 77 Carters Road, Amberley Legal Description: Lot 2 DP 66977 and Lot 1 DP 77879 (CFR CB44C/1168)

Lot 3 DP 366578 (CFR 270193) Lot 2 DP 366578 (CFR 270186)

Description of Application: Six lot subdivision with Lot 6 to vest as road and boundary adjustment Activity status: Discretionary activity Zoning: Business 1A

Introduction Proposal Consent is sought for a six lot subdivision of two sites of 10,663m² located at 73 & 77 Carters Road, Amberley. The subdivision would create the following proposed lots: - Lot 1 of 2237m² - Lot 2 of 1444m² - Lot 3 of 1808m² - Lot 4 of 1653m² - Lot 5 of 1523m² - to be amalgamated with Lot 4 - Lot 6 of 2038m² - road to vest in Council

73 Carters Road is owned by AG Property Holdings and is occupied by PGG Wrightson. This site is made up of two titles and it is proposed to subdivide the rear lot into two lots with access off the new road. The balance lot will amalgamate with proposed Lot 5. The two titles are currently subject to section 75 of the Building Act 2004 because the building occupied by Wrightson straddles the title boundaries.

77 Carters Road is owned by Hurunui District Council and is currently leased to North Canterbury Sports and Recreation Trust and Cochrane’s Machinery Limited. It is proposed to subdivide along the new lease boundaries. As part of the consent for the Amberley Business Park at the rear of the site, a right-of-way easement was created to Carters Road. Rather than continue with two narrow and separate right-of-ways, it is proposed to combine these into a single wider access and for this be vested as legal road. The existing right-of-ways over Lots 2 and 3 DP 366578 would be surrendered. A small adjustment of approximately 1.5m in width is also proposed to the boundary between Lot 2 DP 49392 and Lot 1 DP 77879. Minor boundary adjustments are also needed to Lot 8 (Lot 51 DP 491631) and Lot 10 (Lot 52 DP 491631). The background to this subdivision is fully described in the resource consent application.

Appendix 179

Figure 1: Subdivision scheme plan Existing environment The site is located in the centre of the Amberley township. 73 Carters Road is occupied by PGG Wrightson and has been for some time and 77 Carters Road is occupied by a new gymnasium and fitness centre and a farm machinery supplier. This site was previously occupied by a recycling depot and re-use store. The land use is not expected to change as a result of the subdivision. The site is largely flat in topography and the existing vehicular access is partially chip sealed and partially metalled. Planning framework The Council is nearing the end of its District Plan Review process. The Proposed Hurunui District Plan as Amended by Decisions 2016 ('PDP') is at the stage where decisions on submissions and further submissions have been released and all appeals on provisions have been received. It is noted that the rules relevant to this proposal in the PDP are not subject to appeal and therefore in accordance with s86F of the Resource Management Act 1991, the PDP rules are to be treated as operative. Proposed Hurunui District Plan as Amended by Decisions 2016 The site is zoned Business 1A in the Proposed Hurunui District Plan as Amended by Decisions 2016 (“the PDP”). The following rules in the PDP are relevant to the proposal: Subdivision

5.3.11 Restricted discretionary activities 1. The following activities are restricted discretionary activities, provided they meet the relevant

standards:

(a) Subdivision that results in the creation of three or more lots (including balance lots), whether or not as a staged development, or further subdivision of a Computer Register (Certificate of Title) where the parent Computer Register (Certificate of Title) has been subdivided into three or more allotments (including any balance lots) since 18 August 2003.

Appendix 180

Standards and terms (i) The subdivision must comply with all the standards specified for controlled activities in Rule 5.5.9.

5.5.13 Non-complying activities The following activities are non-complying activities: 2. Subdivision which does not meet any one or more of the following:

(a) Subdivision that is listed as a restricted discretionary activity under Rule 5.5.11.1(a) and does not meet the listed standards;

The proposed subdivision would create one additional lot, however the parent Computer Register for 73 Carters Road has been subdivided into three or more allotments since 18 August 2003. However, as no stormwater management plan has been provided, the proposal does not meet standard 5.5.9.3(d) and consent is required as a non-complying activity.

5.5.12 Discretionary Activities 1. The following activities are discretionary activities, provided they meet the relevant standards:

(b) Subdivision of contaminated land that complies with all the standards for controlled activities of Rule 5.5.9.

Part of 73 Carters Road and all of 77 Carters Road have been identified as having been used in the past for Hazardous Activities and Industries (HAIL) on the Canterbury Regional Council’s (CRC) Listed Land Use Register. However, the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health prevails over this rule in the District Plan and therefore Rule 5.5.12 is not relevant. Transportation

8.4.4 Discretionary activities (Restricted) 1. The following activities are restricted discretionary activities:

(a) The creation of any new property vehicle crossing, or the use of existing vehicle crossings for a new activity (including the relocation of such vehicle crossings), for activities in which an excess of 100 equivalent car movements per day are generated;

The proposed vehicle crossings for Lots 1, 2 and 5 will create new property vehicle crossings for activities in which an excess of 100 equivalent car movements per day are generated. Accordingly, consent is required as a discretionary activity. Overall the proposal is a non-complying activity in terms of Rule 5.5.13.2(a) of the District Plan. National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES) The application is supported by a Detailed Site Investigation (“DSI”) prepared by CLL Service and Solutions Ltd. Based on the DSI, the proposed activity is on a piece of land that is, or is more than likely to be, a HAIL site. The activity is the subdividing of land, therefore the NES applies to the proposal. In accordance with Regulation 9(3), a DSI exists which states that the soil contamination does not exceed the applicable standard in Regulation 7 (guideline criterial for a commercial/industrial land use scenario). A copy of the DSI has been provided to Council and the DSI is considered adequate. Accordingly, the proposed is a controlled activity in terms of Regulation 9(3) of the NES. In terms of Regulation 8(3), it is also proposed to disturb approximately 100m³ of soil for the new road construction. This complies with the volume of soil which may be disturbed and taken away and the applicant has confirmed that all earthworks will be carried out in accordance with the CRC Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines. Soil disturbance activities are therefore a permitted activity.

Appendix 181

The DSI notes that if future development on proposed Lots 3 or 4 results in soil disturbance activities, then it is considered the piece of land will be covered by NES regulations and a subsequent resource consent may be required. Has the Council determined, in its discretion, to publicly notify the application? [Section 95A (1)]

No

Has the applicant requested that the application be publicly notified? [Section 95A(2)(b)]

No Does a rule or national environmental standard require public notification of the application? [Section 95A(2)(c)]

No

Pursuant to Section 95A, will the activity for which consent is sought have, or is likely to have, adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor? The Council considered that any adverse effects would be in terms of visual and amenity values, contaminated land, servicing and access provisions. In terms of visual and amenity values, the Council noted that no changes were proposed to the existing land uses and only one new lot is to be created. The only physical change as a result of the subdivision would be in relation to earthworks to create the new road and vehicle crossings. As the proposed road is in the location of two existing right of way strips and will combine these to a single wider access road, any adverse visual or amenity effects of the new road are considered to be less than minor. In terms of previous HAIL activities undertaken on the site, a DSI was provided that confirmed that it is highly unlikely that there will be a risk to human health if the subdivision was to proceed. Soil sampling identified that contaminant concentrations did not exceed the applicable standard in Regulation 7 of the NES for a commercial/industrial land use scenario. The Council noted that soil disturbance would be limited and complied with the permitted activity volumes. Sediment and erosion control measures are proposed which would ensure that any effects on the environment are less than minor. With respect to servicing, all lots except Lot 3 have existing water and sewer connections. One new connection to the Amberley Water Supply Scheme and Amberley and Districts sewerage scheme will be provided to Lot 3. No stormwater management plan was submitted with the application however Council’s Consultant Engineer considered that this was not necessary as the road drainage comprises a single swale and soakpit with overflows to the already designed/consented development to the east, and all the lots have existing disposal except Lot 3 which will be subject to a consent notice. The proposed new road replaces existing right-of-ways. New vehicle crossings are proposed to Lots 1, 2 and 5 and the proposed new road will also provide legal road access to the Amberley Business Park. A Transportation Assessment prepared by Novo Group was submitted with the application. The proposed new road complies with the District Plan requirements, however the new vehicle crossings are a discretionary activity due to their likely traffic generation. The Transportation Assessment considers the proposed road is adequately located to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network. The proposed road design is considered to be superior to the New Zealand standard as it allows for slightly wider traffic lanes and generous parking bays. The Transportation Assessment also considered the intersection design and capacity and a scenario test was undertaken based on the highest traffic generation scenario. The modelling demonstrated that the intersection would operate with an acceptable level of service and the assessment considered that any adverse effects on the transportation network would be appropriately mitigated. The Transportation Assessment further considered the location of the proposed road in relation to the existing Mobil Service Station northern most vehicle crossing. The Assessment considered whether this crossing should be closed due to its proximity to the proposed intersection and access taken off the proposed new road. However,

Appendix 182

due to the narrow width of the service station site, a complying position for a new vehicle crossing is not possible and there was also not enough space to accommodate the full length and turning radius of larger truck and trailer units. The Council noted that Carters Road is a state highway and as such, the New Zealand Transport Authority (“NZTA”) is required to provide their approval for the proposed new road. This approval has been provided and forms part of the application. The Council noted that there are no scheduled heritage items located on the site and no known risks from natural hazards on the site. Given the above matters, the Council was satisfied that any adverse effects on the environment would be less than minor. Notwithstanding the above, do any special circumstances exist in relation to this application which would lead you to conclude that the application should be notified? If the answer is yes, why? [Section 95A (4)] No Who may be considered an affected person in relation to this application? [Section 95E] The proposed new road will intersect with Carters Road (State Highway 1). NZTA controls vehicle access to and from the highway under the Transit New Zealand Act 1989. Given potential effects on the safety and efficiency of the state highway network, the Council considered that NZTA is an affected person in relation to this application. No other persons are considered to be adversely affected by the proposed activity. Has the written approval of every person who may be considered an affected person in relation to this application been obtained? [Section 95E (3)(a)] Yes If the answer to the above question is no, is it unreasonable in the circumstances to require the obtaining of every such approval? [Section 95E (3)(b)] N/A Recommendation:

That the application need not be publicly notified in accordance with Section 95A of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Statutory Requirements Section 104B states that after considering an application for a non-complying activity the consent authority may grant or refuse the consent and impose conditions under Section 108 if granted. Section 104D states that the consent authority may grant consent for a non-complying activity only if it is satisfied that either– (a) the adverse effects of the activity on the environment (other than any effect to which section 104(3)(a)(ii)

applies) will be minor; or (b) the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of—

(i) the relevant plan, if there is a plan but no proposed plan in respect of the activity; or (ii) the relevant proposed plan, if there is a proposed plan but no relevant plan in respect of the activity;

or (iii) both the relevant plan and the relevant proposed plan, if there is both a plan and a proposed plan

in respect of the activity. Section 104 states that subject to Part II, the consent authority must have regard to – (a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and

Appendix 183

(b) any relevant provisions of— (i) a national environmental standard; (ii) other regulations; (iii) a national policy statement; (iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement; (v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement; (vi) a plan or proposed plan; and

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

Section 104(3)(a)(ii) states the consent authority must not consider any effects on any person who has given written approval to the application. When considering an application for resource consent the consent authority shall have regard to Section 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991. What are the actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity? The proposal is a non-complying activity in terms of Rule 5.5.13.2(a) of the District Plan and as such the Council’s discretion was not restricted and any matter could be considered. Council considered that any actual or potential effects would be associated with visual and amenity effects, contaminated land, servicing and access. The Council noted there was no minimum allotment size within the Business 1A Zone in Amberley, but recognised that the proposal would achieve the 15m x 15m shape factor requirement. All lots would retain existing businesses on site except Lot 3 which is of a size that could support a future principal business building. The Council noted that there were no scheduled heritage items located on the site and no identified natural hazards. Earthworks would be limited to that necessary to construct the new road, therefore would not be visually obtrusive or environmentally damaging. Council was satisfied that the proposed subdivision would not have a significant impact on the topography of the site and the amenity values enjoyed within Amberley would be maintained. The Council noted that the site is an identified HAIL site but was satisfied with the conclusions of the DSI that it is highly unlikely that there will be a risk to human health if the subdivision was to proceed. Soil disturbance will be limited and the applicant has confirmed that earthworks will be undertaken in accordance with CRCs Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines and NZS 4431 Code of Practice for Earthfill for Residential Development. With respect to a potable water supply and effluent disposal, all lots except Lot 3 have existing connections and the Council was satisfied new connections to the Council’s reticulated water and wastewater disposal networks were available for Lot 3. Stormwater disposal would be via a single swale and soakpit in accordance with the Council’s Amberley Stormwater Management Plan and Council Global Stormwater Consent. With respect to access, the proposed lots will be serviced by the proposed road intersecting with Carters Road (State Highway 1). The applicant has advised that a 12m wide carriageway road will be formed and sealed within the proposed 20m wide road reserve. A 1.5m wide footpath will be formed on both sides of the road and new vehicle crossings constructed for Lots 1, 2 and 5. The Council noted that the Transportation Assessment confirmed that any actual or potential effects on the transportation network would be appropriately mitigated. Given these matters, NZTA has given their written approval to the application. Given the matters above, Council was satisfied that the actual and potential effects arising from the proposed subdivision would be adequately mitigated. How do any relevant objectives, policies, rules or other provisions of the District Plan relate to the proposal? Proposed Hurunui District Plan as Amended by Decisions 2016 Objective 4 seeks to provide adaptive, vibrant and healthy settlements that meets the economic, social and cultural needs of the District and North Canterbury while retaining their own character, environmental quality and sense of community. Policies 4.13 to 4.14 support this objective in terms aiming to consolidate business centres in the

Appendix 184

District and ensuring they have minimal impacts on residential activities. Policies 4.15-4.17 all seek to ensure that effects on residential activities are avoided and businesses with greater environmental effects locate in more appropriate zones. Objective 5 seeks to provide for subdivision, ensuring that the subsequent development is designed to ensure that the adverse effects on the environment are minimised, and the character of an area is maintained. This is supported by Policies 5.1 to 5.4 and 5.6 which seek to require that allotments are served or are capable of being adequately served with appropriate levels of infrastructure in order to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment; ensure the costs of the effects of new subdivision and development on the district’s infrastructure are fully addressed and fairly apportioned; require a pattern of subdivision that protects environmental values and systems and the potential of resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; ensures that the development provides a pattern and density of land use which protects, and where appropriate enhances, the character, values and natural and physical resources of the environment; and, to ensure that subdivision is designed to avoid, remedy or mitigate potential reverse sensitivity effects on other land uses. Council considered that the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the character and amenity anticipated within the business environment. Council considered that the site could be adequately serviced by public and private means, that would not affect the health and wellbeing of the immediate and wider community and that any cost involved in connecting to public services would be borne by the applicant. Council has also concluded that sufficient access to each allotment can be provided that would not affect the continued safe and functional management of Councils roading network or State Highway 1. Council considered that the future use of the allotments, particularly Lot 3 would be consistent with business activities within the receiving environment and the proposed Amberley Business Park. Overall, Council was satisfied that the proposal was in accordance with the objectives and policies of the Proposed Hurunui District Plan after Decision. Are there any other matters which are relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application (including Part II matters)? With respect to Part II of the Act, the proposal will continue to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Section 5 requires the promotion of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This means ensuring that the use and development of physical resources is managed in such a way as to enable people and communities to provide for their social and economic well-being while meeting the reasonable foreseeable needs of future generations and avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of the proposal on the environment. If the application is for a non-complying activity, does it meet at least one of the provisions of Section 104D (1)? Yes, the adverse effects would be less than minor and the subdivision would comply with the relevant objectives and policies.

Recommendation: That for the above reasons the application be approved pursuant to Sections 104 / 104B

of the Resource Management Act 1991, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF CONSENT General

1. The subdivision shall proceed in general accordance with the scheme plan prepared by KF Consilium (reference 1501/100_2, Rev A) and any other information provided with the application and referenced as RC160066 in Councils records.

2. Design and construction standards shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Hurunui District Plan,

and generally in accordance with NZS 4404:2010 Land Development and Subdivision Infrastructure and/or Waimakariri District Council’s Engineering Code of Practice, unless otherwise agreed by Hurunui District Council.

Appendix 185

Easements

3. All services and accessways serving more than one lot, or traversing lots other than those being served and not situated within an existing or proposed public road, shall be protected by easements shown in a memorandum on the survey plan and duly granted and reserved.

4. That all existing rights-of-way over the proposed road (Lot 6) shall be revoked. Amalgamation Condition

5. That Lots 4 and 5 heron be amalgamated and one computer freehold register be issued (LINZ Ref: TBC). Earthworks

6. That any soil that has been identified as contaminated and identified for removal from the site shall be removed and disposed of at a facility authorised to accept such material.

7. That the small pile of ash observed by Contract Environmental and identified in the DSI dated September 2016 on proposed Lot 3 be placed in a suitable container and disposed at an authorised landfill.

Erosion and sediment control

8. Measures shall be taken to minimise soil erosion, sediment discharge and dust nuisance during all works associated with the development.

Engineering Plans

9. The works shall be carried out generally in accordance with the submitted KF Consilium plans 1501/100_2 Rev A, 1501/101 Rev B, 1501/104 Rev A and 1501/105 Rev A. Prior to commencement of any works the following shall be provided to and approved by Hurunui District Council: a) Detailed engineering plans, specifications and calculations showing all works including standard details; b) Confirmation from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) by way of a stamp on the relevant plans,

or a covering letter referring to the relevant plans, that the designed Carters Road intersection works and associated road marking and signage is approved;

c) Confirmation from Hurunui District Council’s (HDC) Three Waters team that the proposed wastewater link to Carters Road is approved and that any cost sharing of, or contributions toward, the relevant works has been agreed between the applicant and HDC;

d) A design certificate in the form of NZS 4404:2010 Schedule 1A; e) A quality management plan setting out construction and materials testing methodologies and

inspection frequencies; f) Copies of any other resource consents granted in respect of this subdivision including any associated

approved plans and documents; g) A copy of the landscaping proposal and plans; and h) A copy of the street lighting proposal and plans (as prepared in consultation with HDC and the power

supply authority). Supervision and Setting Out

10. A suitably qualified person shall be engaged prior to commencement of works to supervise all engineering works and setting out, and their name and contact details provided to Hurunui District Council.

Street Lighting

11. Approved LED Street lighting shall be installed in accordance with AS/NZS1158 and the approved engineering plans.

Appendix 186

Stormwater 12. The proposed road shall be drained generally in accordance with the application and in accordance with the

approved engineering plans, with a swale and soakpit on the south side of the proposed road designed to cater for a 10% 1 hour AEP rainfall event, and with overflow from a 2% AEP rainfall event routed eastward to the consented Amberley Business Park stage 2B development (HDC ref RC140166). Each road soak pit shall be fitted with a pre-entry submerged outlet sump. Road swales shall be shaped to be suitable for mowing with a commercial ride-on rotary mower.

13. The existing stormwater drainage serving lots 4 and 5 shall be rationalised generally in accordance with the

application and in accordance with the approved engineering plans, with all private stormwater reticulation being entirely within the lots and discharging either to on-site soak pits or to the proposed road via approved kerb outlets.

14. All stormwater infrastructure laid under proposed roads, kerbs, footpaths or vehicle crossings shall be hardfill backfilled with AP65 or similar approved granular material to subgrade level.

15. The owners of lot 3 shall be advised that to comply with Council’s global stormwater discharge consent

(ECan ref CRC082988), the following shall apply: a) At the time of building on the lot, stormwater runoff from buildings and hardstand areas on the lots

resulting from up to and including the 24 hour 2% AEP rainfall event shall be managed so that no runoff enters any other property and no stormwater ponding remains on the ground longer than 48 hours after the cessation of rain;

b) For on-site soak pits, the following shall apply: - An investigation shall be carried out at each soak pit location to determine the soakage rate and

water table depth; - Soak pits shall be designed to cater for runoff from up to and including the 24 hour 10% AEP

rainfall event, with allowance made for overflow from larger events; - For soak pits dealing with roof and/or non-trafficable hardstand areas, roofs shall not be zinc-

coated (galvanised), and systems shall be sealed to prevent entry of contaminants; - For soak pits dealing with trafficable hardstand areas, soak pit base levels shall be at least one

metre above the water table, and pre-treatment shall be provided (e.g. vegetated swales and/or submerged outlet sumps).

c) A stormwater management plan for the on-site stormwater systems installed under this condition shall be submitted to Council for approval; and

d) The owner of the lot shall be responsible for undertaking all necessary maintenance to meet the requirements of the stormwater management plan submitted for the on-site stormwater systems installed under this condition.

16. Condition 15 shall be secured by consent notice registered on the certificate of title for lot 3.

Wastewater 17. The existing 225mm diameter wastewater main draining eastward and terminating in the proposed road

adjacent to lot 2 shall be extended westward and connected to the existing wastewater main in Carters Road in general accordance with the application and in accordance with the approved engineering plans, and in accordance with any agreements or confirmations as referred to in condition 9c.

18. The existing wastewater connections serving lots 1 and 5 shall be rationalised generally in accordance with the application and in accordance with the approved engineering plans, with each lot having an independent 150mm diameter connection to the public wastewater network.

Appendix 187

19. Lots 3 and 4 shall each be provided with an independent 150mm diameter connection to the public wastewater network in accordance with the approved engineering plans. Connections shall be laid to a point at least 1m inside the lot and at least 1.2m deep.

20. All wastewater infrastructure laid under proposed roads, kerbs, footpaths or vehicle crossings shall be hardfill backfilled with AP65 or similar approved granular material to subgrade level.

Water Reticulation

21. A new 100mm diameter water main shall be laid along each side of the proposed road in general accordance with the application and in accordance with the approved engineering plans, connecting the existing water main in the consented Amberley Business Park stage 2 development to the existing water main on the eastern side of Carters Road.

22. The existing water connections serving lots 1 and 5 shall be rationalised in accordance with the approved engineering plans, with each lot having an independent 20mm diameter (minimum) service connection to the public water network including associated meter boxes and fittings.

23. Lot 3 shall be provided with an independent 20mm diameter service (minimum) connection to the public water network in accordance with the approved engineering plans, including an associated meter box and fittings (excluding meter).

24. All water infrastructure laid under proposed roads, kerbs, footpaths or vehicle crossings shall be hardfill backfilled with AP65 or similar approved granular material to subgrade level.

25. The new watermains shall be pressure-tested in accordance with the quality management plan provided as per condition 9e, and sterilised with chlorine before being flushed to the sewer.

Roading

26. The road shall be constructed and marked generally in accordance with the application and in accordance with the approved engineering plans, generally as follows: a) The road reserve (lot 6) shall have a minimum legal width of 20m; b) The road shall have a carriageway width of 12m (measured kerb face to kerb face); c) The road shall have kerb and channel and a 1.5m wide footpath both sides; d) The road shall have a swale on its southern side, meeting the requirements of condition 12; e) The road shall be surfaced with either a two-coat chip seal or a 30mm layer of asphaltic concrete, and

shall consist of a minimum of 150mm AP40 on 150mm AP65, on a suitable subgrade; f) The footpaths shall be surfaced with a 100mm thick layer of 20 MPa concrete, on a minimum of 50mm

AP20 on a suitable subgrade; g) Pram crossings at the Carters Road intersection shall be set back eastward from the kerb tangent points

and provided with tactile pavers in the footpath adjacent; h) A suitable benchmark (plate, spike or similar) shall be set into the road’s northern kerb approximately

adjacent to the common lot 4/5 boundary; and i) A temporary reflective chevron board shall be erected at the eastern end of the road.

27. Prior to surfacing, Benkelman Beam testing shall be carried out on both road lanes at 10m intervals, with

no single deflection measuring more than 1.2mm and the average of all deflections measuring 1.0mm or less.

Appendix 188

28. Grass berms and swales within the road reserve shall be spread with good quality topsoil to a depth of at least 75mm, and rolled, raked and graded to an even surface with a suitable grass seed. The seeded surface shall be lightly rolled, and watered and mowed as required during the maintenance period.

29. Lot 6 shall be vested in Hurunui District Council as road. Vehicle crossings

30. Lots 1, 2 and 5 shall be provided with heavy duty vehicle crossings in accordance with the approved engineering plans and in general accordance with figure 8.11 of the Hurunui District Plan, including a reinforced kerb crossing beam generally in accordance with Waimakariri District Council drawing 201B.

Power and telephone 31. Each lot shall have the ability to connect to a telecommunications and electrical supply network at the road

boundary of the lot.

Works inspections 32. Works inspections will be carried out to ensure the work is completed in accordance with the approved plans

and specifications and to Hurunui District Council standards. These inspections will be undertaken by Council engineering staff for a fee as defined in Council’s Schedule of Fees and Charges, payable by the applicant. The applicant shall notify Council at least two working days prior to commencing various stages of the works to enable inspections to be carried out. Any other works directly associated with the development shall also be charged at the rates defined in Council’s Schedule of Fees and Charges. The minimum level of inspection shall be as follows: - Engineering/lighting/landscaping plan checking and approval – prior to commencement of works; - Roads and vehicle crossings:

- following excavation to subgrade / prior to placement of sub-base metal; - following placement of sub-base metal / immediately prior to pouring of kerbs; - following compaction of basecourse metal / immediately prior to surfacing;

- Footpaths: - following excavation to subgrade / prior to placement of sub-base metal; - following compaction of subbase metal / immediately prior to concreting;

- Stormwater, sewer and water reticulation: - water or air pressure testing of pipes including laterals and manholes; - bedding / prior to backfilling of trenches; - disinfection and flushing of lines;

- Power and telecom trenches: - bedding / prior to backfilling of trenches;

- Whole of works – prior to issue of a section 224(c) certificate. Where additional inspections are required because of faulty workmanship or work not being ready contrary to the receipt of a notification, such inspections will be carried out for an additional fee, in accordance with Council’s Schedule of Fees and Charges.

Engineering Completion

33. On completion of works the following shall be provided to Hurunui District Council: a) Completion certificates in the form of NZS 4404:2010 Schedules 1B and 1C; b) Written confirmation from NZTA that the works within Carters Road have been carried out and

completed to their satisfaction; c) Written confirmation from the relevant telecommunications and electrical supply network operators

that each lot has the ability to connect to, or has been connected to, a telecommunications and electrical supply network at the road boundary of the lot.

Appendix 189

d) A3 copies of as-built plans and an electronic copy in suitable format showing all works and information as detailed in NZS 4404:2010 Schedule 1D, and using NZTM2000 projection with levels to NZGD2000 datum. Plans shall be certified by a suitably-qualified person stating that they are a true and accurate record of what has been constructed;

e) Copies of all quality assurance testing and inspection records; and f) A schedule of quantities for all completed works to be vested in Hurunui District Council (to enable

valuation of assets to vest and maintenance bonds). Maintenance

34. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of all subdivision and associated works for a period of 12 months following the date of the issue of the section 224(c) certificate. A bond equal to 5% of the cost of construction works shall be lodged with Hurunui District Council for the same period, and maintenance shall include repair of any damage or defects in any of the works or services, however caused, associated with the development of the subdivision.

Advice Notes Works inspections Works inspections are an important component of the works. Please ensure contractors are aware of the inspection requirements outlined in this consent. Working in road reserve As per the letter from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to the applicant dated 2 February 2017, the applicant needs to obtain specific approval from NZTA to work within the Carters Road road reserve pursuant to section 51 of the Government Roading Powers Act 1989. The applicant needs to contact NZTA’s State highway network consultants (Opus International Consultants in Christchurch) at least 3 weeks prior to any work taking place within Carters Road. A Works Access Permit from Hurunui District Council may also be required – the applicant should check with HDC’s roading manager. If required the permit can be applied for online at www.beforeudig.co.nz or by ringing 0800 248 344. Part of this process involves preparation and approval of a Traffic Management Plan. Wastewater The applicant is advised to contact Hurunui District Council’s Three Waters team on 03 314 8816 as soon as possible to discuss and agree the requirements set out in conditions 9c and 17. It is understood some preliminary discussions have already taken place on this. Water Supply To satisfy the water supply conditions, applications will need to be made to Hurunui District Council to connect lots to the public water supply. As part of the application approval process, water modelling may be required – please contact Hurunui District Council’s Three Waters team on 03 314 8816 for further information and advice. Building consent A building consent may be required for the private drainage aspects of this project – please contact Hurunui District Council’s building team on 03 314 8816 for further information and advice. Power and Telephone There are often significant delays with getting telecom and power service provider approvals and signoffs. The applicant is advised to contact the relevant service providers early in the process.

Appendix 190

Development Contributions Development Contributions are required to be paid for each new lot on the plan of subdivision or for each new unit of demand constructed. Development Contributions must be paid prior to the issue of a certificate pursuant to section 224 of the Resource Management Act 1991 for Development Contributions charged as part of a resource consent. These contributions are currently: Reserves $750 for the Queen Mary Development (Whole District) $140 for the Amberley Domain Pavilion (Amberley Ward) $1690 for Amberley Township Reserves (Amberley township) $1510 for Amberley Ward Reserves (Amberley Ward) Network Infrastructure $2810 for District Sewer (District sewer area – meaning anyone on Council reticulated sewer) $1330 for District Urban Water (Urban water area – NB some ‘urban areas’ are on rural water) $930 for Amberley Stormwater (Amberley township) Note: Separate connection fee is in addition to above cost. Community Infrastructure $540 for Amberley Walking & Cycling Routes (Amberley township) resulting in a total of $9700.00 for each new unit of demand and a total of $9700.00 for Lot 3 of the subdivision. Note: The development contributions payable are those shown in the current Hurunui Long Term Community Plan (The Long Term Council Community Plan developed by the Hurunui District Council in compliance with the Local Government Act 2002). While development contributions are not required to be paid until immediately prior to the issue of a certificate pursuant to section 224 of the Resource Management Act 1991, please note the following:

If a 224 certificate is applied for within 2 years of the subdivision approval, or the development contributions are paid within the above period, the development contributions payable are those indicated in the subdivision decision above.

If the development contributions are not paid within the two year period, then the development contributions payable are those indicated in the Hurunui Long Term Community Plan current at the time the 224 certificate is applied for. These may vary from those indicated above.

Reported and Recommended by: _________________________ Fiona Small, Consultant Planner Date: 8 May 2017 Commissioner Comment

Appendix 191

For completeness I have considered whether as a non-complying activity the approval of the application would undermine the integrity of the District Plan and/or set a ‘precedent’ for the approval of similar applications in the future. However, it is my view that given the proposal is not contrary to, nor inconsistent with, the relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan, there is little threat to its integrity. Furthermore, I consider the effects of the proposal are minimal and that there is some degree of uniqueness associated with it. As such, I do not consider precedent effects would arise, which might cumulatively challenge the integrity of the District Plan. DECISION: That the above recommendation be adopted.

Dean Chrystal, Commissioner Date: 11 May 2017

Appendix 192

To: Council

Report Prepared By: Vanessa Nelmes, Tourism Marketing Officer



Reappointment Independent Member – Hurunui Tourism Board

Recommendation THAT THE COUNCIL AGREES TO REAPPOINT JANICE FREDRIC TO THE ROLE OF INDEPENDENT BOARD MEMBER, HURUNUI TOURISM BOARD FOR ANOTHER THREE YEARS.

Executive Summary The Hurunui Tourism Board consists of elected members, industry representatives and independent members. For the independent members their term is three years from appointment date.

Hurunui Tourism Board Terms of Reference. Term of Independent Board Members: the term of appointment will be no longer than 3 years and expire January 2017 and reappointment will be at the sole discretion of the Hurunui District Council.

Janice Fredric, current Hurunui Tourism Board chair has now exceeded her three year term which expired January 2017.

Background Past attempts to fill vacancies for independent board members has proved difficult and the most recent attempt in 2015 did not acquire anyone who was suitable for the role and had the right skills.

Desired Outcome The appointment continues to provide the Hurunui Tourism Board with an independent member in its membership structure and knowledge stability around the board table.


There are no financial considerations; in fact budget and time will be saved by not advertising this vacancy.

Options

Option 1: Do Nothing – there is no advantage to this option.

Option 2: Approve the reappointment

Advantages Disadvantages

No disruption to the Hurunui Tourism Board.

Retain skills and knowledge of board member.

Saving of budget and time involved in advertising role.

No known disadvantages.

93

Option 3: Request that the Hurunui Tourism Board advertises the independent role vacancy.

This option is not desired given the issues outlined above under Background and Financial Considerations.

Report Prepared by:

Vanessa Nelmes Tourism Marketing Officer

Report Reviewed by:

Audrey van der Monde Manager Public Services


94

To: Council

Report Prepared By: Hamish Dobbie, CEO



Proposal to Develop a Regional Relationship with Nagano Prefecture, Japan

Recommendation THAT THE COUNCIL ENDORSES THE CANTERBURY MAYORAL FORUM PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP TO ENTER INTO A REGION TO REGION RELATIONSHIP WITH NAGANO PREFECTURE, JAPAN

The Proposal The Canterbury Mayoral Forum has proposed that a region to region relationship be developed with Nagano Prefecture, Japan. Details of this proposal are attached (Appendix 1).

Desired Outcome That the Council considers the Canterbury Mayoral forum proposal and indicates their level of support so that this can be conveyed to the Canterbury Mayoral Forum meeting of 1 December 2017.

Significance This decision is not considered significant under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement There has been no pre-engagement regarding this decision. It is envisaged that engagement will occur through the usual channels following the decision and that appropriate engagement will occur in the future regarding any developments from this decision.

Appendices Appendix 1 - Region-to-region Memorandum of Understanding between the Canterbury Mayoral Forum and Nagano Prefecture, Japan

Report Prepared by:

Hamish Dobbie Chief Executive Officer


95

Region-to-region Memorandum of Understanding between the Canterbury Mayoral Forum and Nagano Prefecture, Japan

Purpose

1 On 25 August 2017, the Canterbury Mayoral Forum considered a proposal, brokered by Christchurch Educated Ltd, to enter into a region-to-region relationship with Nagano Prefecture in central Japan.

2 The Forum:

agreed in principle to develop a region-to-region relationship with Nagano Prefectureasked the secretariat to circulate information that Mayors and Chief Executives can share and discuss with member councils, for feedback to the next meeting of the Mayoral Forum on 1 December 2017.

Background

3 Nagano Prefecture (formerly known as Shinshu) is in central Japan, between the Tokyo and Nagoya metropolitan areas. It is the fourth largest region in Japan, with a population (2015) of 2.1 million. It is ranked the happiest region in Japan, and is one of the highest ranked regions for education.

4 Nagano Prefecture and the Canterbury region each have 10 districts, and there are some marked similarities in geography and economic activity: hot springs, wineries, skiing, tramping, star gazing, etc.

5 A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two regions would formalise and extend an existing relationship, which currently focuses on tertiary alliances, school relationships (including early childhood education and parenting programmes), study tours and teacher exchange.

6 By way of further background:

this initiative was partly prompted by a visit of Mr Kurane of the Nagano Prefectural Office to Christchurch in Oct-Nov 2015Nagano Prefectural University has recently decided to collaborate with Lincoln University and Ara Institute, focusing on business, food science/nutrition and English – there could be 50-80 students in greater Christchurch for several weeks each year

Appendix 196

of 2

Cobham and Casebrook intermediate schools have a two weeks’ trip to Japan in October this year, visiting Tokyo, Iwate and NaganoChristchurch Educated held a NZ Education Fair in Nagano and Matsumoto city in May 2015Shinshu University has collaborated on teacher training with the University of Canterbury, Merrin School and Halswell School since 2013 – and there are plans to extend thisconnections are being forged between Nagano Prefecture’s ECE programme ‘Shinshu

– as well as links to Plunketboth regions have a common interest in attracting migrant settlement.

7 The expansion of the Sister City concept to a ‘cousin-region’ arrangement means that a wider array of offerings could be available to both parties; for example, 2019 rugby world cup tours, farm management education, tramping guides / sports instructors exchange programmes, and other opportunities in tourism and farming.

8 The opposing seasons in both countries increases the potential for work and leisure exchanges in skiing, sports training and tourism. This aligns well with the CREDS Visitor strategy goal of attracting visitors outside the peak summer season.

9 On 14 August 2017, Mayor Lianne Dalziel, Chair of the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, met with Takeuchi Nobuhiko from the Nagano Prefectural Government, Asst Prof Tetsuhito Sakata from Teikyo University and Tony Oikawa, Japan Market Representative for Christchurch Educated.

Next steps

10 A draft of what a region-to-region relationship might look like, and an initial draft of a potential high-level MOU are attached as Appendix A. This material has been provided by Tony Oikawa as concept documents to support discussion between the parties.

11 With Mayoral Forum agreement, the secretariat will work with Christchurch Educated and the international team at Christchurch City Council to develop an MOU for Mayors to consider when they meet on 1 December 2017.

12 The MOU will be high level and mandate the subsequent development of a project plan and programme of practical actions with the Forum and member councils as they wish.

13 If there is support from member councils, and the Mayoral Forum agrees to a draft MOU at its meeting on 1 December 2017, the Chair could sign an MOU during a planned visit to Japan in March or April 2018.

Dr David Bromell, Mayoral Forum Secretariat 5 September 2017 [email protected]; T: 027 839 2708

Appendix 197

Appendix A: Concept documents provided by Tony Oikawa KJANZ, August 2017

Region to Region between Shinshu and Canterbury

Canterbury Similarity Shinshu/Nagano

Potentialities of Global Economic Alliance (To be discussed)

Kaikoura district Suwa area

Hurunui district North Shinshu area

Waimakariri district Matsumoto area

Christchurch City Nagano area

Selwyn district South Shinshu area

Ashburton district Taihoku area

Timaru district Josho area

Mackenzie district Saku area

Waimate district Kiso area

Waitaki district Kamiina area

Hot springs

Sea and lake

Winery

Terminal city

Tramping

Ski resort

Compact city

Star watching

Forest & animals

Natural energy

Ten Districts

Heart of Nation

Appendix 198

The draft of Partnership structure

between Shinshu and Canterbury as like cousin relationshipsUpdated as of 14th August 2017

Happiness Shinshu Region Canterbury Region

Nagano Prefectural Government Canterbury Mayoral Forum

Learnin Educators Students Teachers Employees Entrepreneurs

Family ECE Educators Parents Community Immigrants

Working Agriculture Tourism Outdoor Instructor

Enjoying Tourist Sporting Culture

Public Management Prefectural offices

City/district bodies

Christchurch City CouncilDistrict councils in Canterbury

Learning Christchurch EducatedENZ

Tertiary, Secondary, primary schools etc.

Family / Parenting ECE EducatorsPlunket / ParentFundraising CommunityINZ

Working Agriculture farm and Winery,CTA, Tourist Agencies, Outdoor Instructors, etc.

EnjoyingTourists, residences, Sport players and teams, Culture performers, etc.

Comprehensive Global PartnershipRegion to Region

Global Educational Alliance

TBA

TBA

TBA

TBA

Appendix 199

Where and what is ShinshuShinshu is the former name of Nagano prefecture and was used until Edo era. Currently, it appears in the slogan for the regions vision - “Shiawase Shinshu” (means the Happiness of Shinshu). It is located in the most central part of Japan, about one and half hours from Tokyo by Shinkansen (super express train). Nagano hosted the Winter Olympics in 1998 and has many popular ski areas in winter; also it has famous training places for rugby teams in summer. Nationwide statistics indicate that Shinshu has the number one ranking in Japan as the happiest region, the longest average life span, the most popular place to migrate, the largest number of villages, museums per population, production of vegetable, mountains of over 3,000m, day hot springs (onsens), moreover one of the most education-minded region in Japan. Refer in Japanese http://www.shiawase-shinshu.jp/data.

1.Public managementGGlobal training for public servant: In Oct/Nov 2015, Mr Kurane, a public servant of Nagano Prefectural Office (NPO) came to Christchurch to study NZ public organization and community. After he returned to Japan. he recommended to Governor Abe to set the new global exchange programme to learn public management system each other.

2.Education75 students will start short courses in Tertiary from 2019: Nagano Prefectural University which will be updated from two-years college in 2018 has just decided to send 75 students to Christchurch to start the regular short-term learning programme collaborated with Lincoln University and Ara Institute of Canterbury, focusing on business, food science/nutrition and English. This is to be continued at least four years. Over 20 student teachers have learnt at primary school since 2013: Shinshu University has been annually setting the short term training programme of current and training teachers collaborated with University of Canterbury, Merrin School and Halswell School since 2013. NZ Education Fair in Shinshu in Japan 2015: Christchurch Educated held the fair in Nagano and Matsumoto city in May 2015 and visited ten schools including elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools and university. Seven schools and a university from Christchurch could promote and feature their education and study abroad.

3. Family/Parenting

More popular Te / ECE visits: Nagano prefecture has just started their original method of ECE named ‘Shinshu Natural Learning’ since 2015. It can be said that Te is similar educational philosophy and method with them. We could expect some joint programme between two regions focusing on ECE as well as parenting and women’s environment in family and work

Appendix 1100

place. They are also interesting in Plunket which has been not existing in Japan yet. HHow to increase regional population (expected): Nagano prefecture has been faced at decreasing of population since 1980s while there is currently becoming the most popular place to migrant from nationwide among Japanese. We believe that showing more happiness life environment will influence to younger family mind. NPO is keen to learn the system of INZ which is continuously providing better and happier life to immigrants from worldwide.

4. Working/Industries (To be discussed)

Rugby World Cup 2019 (expected): Most Canterburian is keen to watch games of RWC2019 in nation-wide in Japan. It could be planned short trips to Shinshu area in autumn season suitable for tramping and hot springs because it is near metropolitan Tokyo, just one and half hour by train. Also there is some near Nagoya area, third largest city in Japan. We could produce any outbound travel packages with tourism industries, including visiting Nagano. All other ideas in tourism might be one of huge collaboration theme between Canterbury and Shinshu. Agriculture/Winery/Fruits (expected): Nagano prefecture is one of the largest production areas in agriculture such as apples, vegetables and grapes/wines. However, there has been faced in the lack of younger farmers for past several decades. It could be potential of learning the way of agriculture management and export development with Canterburian farmers. Employee exchange, agricultural working holiday, farm business alliance etc would be considerable. Tramping guide and sport/outdoor Instructors (expected): There are hundreds of mountains over 3000m, lakes, rivers, ski areas and sports training fields. For example, many Australian have been employed in Shinshu as ski instructors of winter season. We could plan exchange programme and any events for tramping guides and/or outdoor instructors etc because summer and winter season is opposite.

5. Enjoying/Lifestyle

Lifestyle partnerships as like cousin region (mid-long term): Sister City system has formerly contributed people in the world to connect each other in 20 century on the behaviour of cultural and educational activities. The brand-new ‘cousin region’ system, new-concepted by me, will aim flexible and global partnership in 21 century, building sustainable, diverse and economical relationships. See the below figure in my idea, between ten districts/areas of Canterbury and Shinshu.

Appendix 1101

Memorandum of Understanding

Nagano Prefectural Government in Japan and Canterbury Mayoral Forum in New Zealand (the Parties) agree to sign this memorandum of understanding indicates “Region to Region Global Collaboration” included the many educational, cultural and family life-based bilateral benefits between Shinshu/Nagano in Japan and Canterbury/Christchurch in New Zealand.

I. Region to Region Global Collaboration Goals:

(1) To strengthen friendships, relationships, understanding and appreciation between people in Shinshu/Nagano Prefecture and Canterbury/Christchurch.

(2) To deepen the understanding of and respect for each other’s traditional and modern cultures.

(3) To develop opportunities for children, students, teachers and parents/families to develop skills which enhance Japan and New Zealand relationships.

(4) To cover the collaborative opportunities of tertiary education alliances, school relationships in Early Childhood Education, primary and secondary school, various learning programme (study tours), teacher exchange and other relevant activities.

II. Extending other regional projects:

(1) When a new relationship in these regions is eventually formed, the Parties agree that these will be governed by separate documentation between the other parties.

Appendix 1102

. General objectives:

(1) The Parties agree to work cooperatively and to be following the laws prevailing in the respective countries.

(2) This Memorandum of Understanding will commence on the date the last party signs this document and be in effect for four (4) years.

(3) This Memorandum of Understanding can be automatically extended by agreement between the Parties, and may be modified, amended by agreement in writing by the Parties. Either party can give the other party three months’ notice in writing should they wish to terminate this agreement.

(4) This document is written in English and in Japanese. Both descriptions have equal validity.

Signed on behalf of the Parties:

Nagano Prefectural Government Canterbury Mayoral Forum

____________________________________ ________________________________

Date: _____ /_____/_____, _____________ Date: _____ /_____/_____, _____________

Appendix 1103

To: Council



Proposed Meeting Schedule 2018

Recommendation THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR 2018 AS ATTACHED TO THE REPORT.

THAT THE COUNCIL AGREES THAT THE COUNCIL AND ITS STANDING COMMITTEES MEET AS FOLLOWS:

Council (Meets on the last Thursday of each month at 9.30am.) 22 February 2018 29 March 2018 26 April 2018 31 May 2018 28 June 2018 26 July 2018 30 August 2018 27 September 2018 25 October 2018 29 November 2018 20 December 2018 Regulatory Committee/Public Services Committee (Meet on the Thursday, two weeks before the Council meeting, at alternating times.)

8 February 2018 15 March 2018 12 April 2018 17 May 2018 14 June 2018 12 July 2018 16 August 2018 13 September 2018 11 October 2018 15 November 2018 6 December 2018 Infrastructure Committee/Finance, Audit and Risk Committee (Meet on the Thursday, one week before the Council meeting, at alternating times.) 15 February 2018 22 March 2018 19 April 2018 24 May 2018 21 June 2018 19 July 2018 23 August 2018 20 September 2018 18 October 2018 22 November 2018 13 December 2018

Executive Summary The Council has traditionally adopted an annual meetings schedule towards the end of each year, for the coming year. This report proposes a meetings schedule based on Council and its four standing committees. Meeting dates for the Hanmer Springs Community Board and other committees will be scheduled over the coming weeks as members’ preferences are taken into consideration.

104

Background Adoption of a schedule of meetings is provided for under the Local Government Act 2002, but is not a mandatory requirement. The meeting schedule, if adopted, has a number of benefits. It provides a guide for elected members, committee members and staff for planning purposes. It also becomes a useful and transparent tool for the public and assists with advertising meetings in advance (as required by law). The recommended dates for the Council and the four standing committees are included, however the Hanmer Springs Community Board, Hurunui Hurunui-Waiau Zone Committee, Hurunui Tourism Board and Hanmer Springs Thermal Pools and Spa Management Committee are not included at this stage as these all have shared members and requires quite a coordinated effort to find dates that suit all members. These dates will be added at a later stage. It is recommended that for 2018, the Council meet on the last Thursday of each month, with the standing committees meeting over the two weeks prior to the Council meeting, on a Thursday also. The first two (Public Services and Regulatory Committees) will meet two weeks before the Council and the second two (Infrastructure and Finance, Audit and Risk Committees) will meet on the week before the Council, with the Committees alternating between morning and afternoon start times. The dates in December vary from this pattern due to the impact of Christmas. The full schedule of meetings will be updated as meeting schedules for all committees are agreed, for example all the ward committees are also yet to agree to their meetings. The schedule will be made available on the Council website and updated regularly.

Report Prepared by:

Graham Sutherland Council Secretary

Report Reviewed by:

Jason Beck Manager Support Services

G h S h l d

105

January 2018 February March April May June July August September October November December

Sat 1 1 Sat

Sun 1 1 2 2 Sun

Mon 1 New Year Holiday

2 Easter Monday

2 3 1 3 Mon

Tue 2 New Year Holiday

3 1 3 4 2 4 Tue

Wed 3 4 2 4 1 5 3 5 Wed

Thu 4 1 1 5 3 5 2 6 4 1 6 Public Services Cte (9.30am-12.30pm)

Thu

6 Regulatory Cte (1-4pm)

Fri 5 2

2 6 4 1 6 3 7 5 2 7 Fri

Sat 6 3 3 7 5 2 7 4 8 6 3 8 Sat

Sun 7 4 4 8 6 3 8 5 9 7 4 9 Sun

Mon 8 5 5 9

7 4 Queen’s Birthday

9 6 10 8 5 10 Mon

Tue 9 6 Waitangi Day 6 10 8 5 10 7 11 9 6 11 Tue

Wed 10 7 7 11 9 6 11 8 12 10 7 12 Wed

Thu 11 8 Public Services Cte (9.30am-12.30pm)

8 12 Public Services Cte (9.30am-12.30pm)

10 7 12 Regulatory Cte (9.30am – 12.30pm)

9 13 Regulatory Cte (9.30am – 12.30pm)

11 Public Services Cte (9.30am-12.30pm)

8 13 Finance, Audit & Risk Cte (9.30am-12.30pm)

Thu



12 Public Services Cte (1-4pm)



13 Infrastructure Cte (1-4pm)

Fri 12 9 9 13 11 8 13 10 14 12 9 14 Fri

Sat 13 10 10 14 12 9 14 11 15 13 10 15 Sat

Sun 14 11 11 15 13 10 15 12 16 14 11 16 Sun

Mon 15 12 12 16 14 11 16 13 17 15 12 17 Mon

Tue 16 13 13 17 15 12 17 14 18 16 13 18 Tue

Wed 17 14 14 18 16 13 18 15 19 17 14 19 Wed

Thu 18 15 Finance, Audit & Risk Cte (9.30am-12.30pm)

15 Regulatory Cte (9.30am – 12.30pm)

19 Finance, Audit & Risk Cte (9.30am-12.30pm)



19 Infrastructure Cte (9.30am – 12.30pm)


20 Infrastructure Cte (9.30am – 12.30pm)



20 Council Thu






19 Finance, Audit & Risk Committee (1-4pm)





Fri 19 16 16 20 18 15 20 17 21 19 16 Show Day 21 Fri

Sat 20 17 17 21 19 16 21 18 22 20 17 22 Sat

Sun 21 18 18 22 20 17 22 19 23 21 18 23 Sun

Mon 22 19 19 23 21 18 23 20 24 22 Labour Day 19 24 Mon

Tue 23 20 20 24 22 19 24 21 25 23 20 25 Christmas Day

Tue

Wed 24 21 21 25 ANZAC Day 23 20 25 22 26 24 21 26 Boxing Day Wed

Thu 25 22 Council 22 Infrastructure Cte (9.30am – 12.30pm)

26 Council 24 Infrastructure Cte (9.30am – 12.30pm)


26 Council 23 Finance, Audit & Risk Cte (9.30am-12.30pm)

27 Council 25 Council 22 Infrastructure Cte (9.30am – 12.30pm)

27 Thu






Fri 26 23 23 27 25 22 27 24 28 26 23 28 Fri

Sat 27 24 24 28 26 23 28 25 29 27 24 29 Sat

Sun 28 25 25 29 27 24 29 26 30 28 25 30 Sun

Mon 29 26 26 30 28 25 30 27 29 26 31 Mon

Tue 30 27 27 29 26 31 28 30 27 Tue

Wed 31 28 28 30 27 29 31 28 Wed

Thu 29 Council 31 Council 28 Council 30 Council 29 Council Thu

Fri 30 Good Friday 29 31 30 Fri

Sat 31 30 Sat

Sun Sun

January 2018 February March April May June July August September October November December

106

Key for Meetings of Council & Committees 2018 (Start times in brackets where agreed.) Council (9.30am)

LGNZ Rural Sector, Zone 5 & Conference

Hanmer Springs Thermal Pools & Spa Management Committee (HSTP&S)

Hurunui Tourism Board (1.00pm)

Hanmer Springs Community Board (1.00pm)

Ward and Community Committees

Youth Council

Finance, Audit and Risk and Infrastructure Committees

Hurunui-Waiau Zone Committee (HWZC)

Regulatory & Public Services Committees

Outside Committees i.e. Together Hurunui,

107

To: Council


Significance Level: Low Remuneration Authority Correspondence

Recommendation 1. THAT THE INFROMATION BE RECEIVED.

2. THAT THE COUNCIL PROVIDES FEEDBACK TO THE REMUNERATION AUTHORITY ON THE ASPECTS SET OUT IN THE DOCUMENT.

Executive Summary The Remuneration Authority (RA) seeks feedback on proposed changes to the Elected Members’ Remuneration structure for both the 2017/2018 year and in respect to longer term issues.

Background In May, the RA forwarded a consultation document to councils. The document sought feedback in two parts:

Immediate Issues, to which the Council provided its feedback in June. The Chair of the Remuneration Authority, Dame Fran Wilde, has provided an update in the email, attached as appendix 1.

Longer Term Proposals, to which feedback is sought before 15 December 2017. The extract from the Consultation Document on Longer Term Proposals is attached as appendix 2.

Rationale behind current proposal

The RA has decided to maintain a number of existing approaches in the current proposal. The principal ones are:

Maintaining a “total remuneration” approach rather than meeting fees. Using a size index to determine relativity between various councils. Adopting a “pay scale” for local government that is fair and seen to be fair. Reviewing the components of the council size index every three years and applying appropriate factors to territorial authorities and regional authorities. Recognising that unitary councils have dual responsibilities and sizing them accordingly.

Council Sizing Council sizing is used in determining relativity between Councils. The factors used are:

Population Operational expenditure Asset size Social deprivation Number of guest bed nights.

108

The RA has requested councils to think about other significant influences on council size that are not recognised by the factors identified and also the weighting attached to each of the current factors.

Mayoral Remuneration

The RA has asked whether the Mayor’s role should be treated as full time and is so how should this be treated and should there be a base remuneration level for all mayors/chairs.

Councillor remuneration

The RA has asked whether the councillor remuneration is continued to be approved by each council based on the pool. If this is to continue, is a 75% majority vote appropriate.

In addition, the RA has asked about external representation roles and whether they should be remunerated on the same basis.

A further query is in respect to directors on Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) and whether elected members appointed to the boards be paid the same directors fees.

Community Board remuneration

The RA has asked whether the community board remuneration should come out of the pool.

A local government pay scale

There is discussion about the relativity to central government elected members pay.

Appendix

Appendix 1: Update from the Remuneration Authority Chair Appendix 2: Consultation Document – Longer Term Proposals

Report prepared by:


Officer in Attendance: An officer will be in attendance to speak to their report.

109

Appendix 1

From: Info - Remuneration Authority <[email protected]> Date: 9 October 2017 at 9:20:16 AM NZDT To: Undisclosed recipients:; Subject: Update on Remuneration Authority Consultation Paper on Local Government Remuneration [UNCLASSIFIED]

Greetings all

This is an update on our work on the second part of our consultation paper on local government remuneration.

Submission process and engagement As advised in an email from our office on 13 September, we have extended the date for submissions on the proposals in the paper to December 15 2017.We are also in the midst of a process of engagement, utilising LGNZ Zone meetings and planned webinars over the next several weeks. We aim to run three webinars – a morning, an afternoon and an evening one – to give as many elected members as possible the opportunity to be involved. When we have times and date confirmed shortly we will notify you and would appreciate it if you could widely circulate the times to your councillors and community board members. Democratic Services Managers We also had a meeting with a group of local government Democratic Services managers for a number of councils. This proved very useful for us (and I hope for them) because these are the people who deal with the “nuts and bolts” of elected members’ pay and conditions. I thought it might be useful to copy them into emails such as this one so they have timely advice about our deadlines etc and any policy explanations we send to Mayor/Chairs and CEs. You are all very busy people and knowing from experience how easy it is for things to slip between the cracks, it seemed to me a good idea to include them on our mailing list when relevant. I would be grateful if CEs could ask their PA to send me the contact details of the correct person in your council. Expenses policies Previously the Remuneration Authority has asked councils to send in their expenses policies when they are changed. It is our view that this is unnecessary. We are happy to assist with explanations if our determination is unclear (in fact that is useful feedback so we can fix it next time) but we believe that checking that each council’s policy conforms to the determination is a role for your auditors. It should be quite simple and not time consuming for them. Leave without pay We have had a number of queries about what we consider to be an appropriate length of time after which s.8 of the recent determination (“Acting mayor or chairperson”) was applied. We consider that the time period is a matter for each council to decide as a matter of policy. I should point out, however, that in the case of paying someone else to undertake the duties of the person on leave, that leave has to be “total” – i.e. the person is not just absent from and unable to chair a meeting, but is not undertaking any mayor or chair duties, including constituent work or clearing emails. This is unlikely to apply to a mayor or chair who, for example, might miss one meeting while away overseas on a holiday. In that case it is highly likely they will still be heavily engaged in council issues via email or phone, even though not necessarily physically in the office. Thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope to catch up with more of you at zone meetings soon. Regards Fran Fran Wilde CHAIR

[email protected] | Telephone: +64 (0)4 499 3068 | Mobile: +64 (0) 21 888 075 PO Box 10084, Level 11, Resimac House, 45 Johnston St, Wellington 6011, New Zealand

110

Consultation Document Remuneration Authority 1

CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW

Part Three – Longer Term Proposals

Introduction

64. The Authority is seeking the views of local government (i.e. territorial authorities, unitary councils and regional councils) on the proposals set out below in this section of the paper. These changes will affect elected mayors, chairs and councillors, as well as community bard members, from every council except Auckland. Later this year we will be issuing an additional consultation paper on the Auckland Council, following the completion of its governance review. However, we are proposing that the general principles outlined in this paper around council sizing should apply to Auckland.

65. Please note that we are seeking the views of councils, not of individual elected members or

staff.

66. We would appreciate feedback to [email protected] by Friday October 20th 2017. Please email to [email protected]

Recent history of local government remuneration setting by the Authority

67. In late 2011 the Authority issued a discussion document - Review of Local Authority Remuneration Setting. This was followed in November 2012 by a further document - Remuneration Setting Proposals for Local Authorities - which outlined the system that the Authority was proposing to institute from the 2013 election. A copy of that document is attached as Appendix 1. It transpired that for a variety of reasons in the years 2014 to 2016 the Authority did not completely implement the proposed process. However, significant elements are in place. Importantly, the work which the Authority commissioned from the Hay Group in 2015 remains current in our view and has provided useful data to assist with our current considerations.

68. To assist with context, the main elements of the 2013 proposal are summarised below. They

were: a) Moving away from the traditional salary/meeting fee mix for local government

remuneration.

b) Creating a size index for councils derived from population and council expenditure.

c) Basing the remuneration for councillors/mayors/chairs on: the relative place of the council in the size index;

Appendix 2111


the job size of the positions as assessed for sample councils; the proportion of full time work as demonstrated by survey results; the Authority’s pay scale.

d) Providing a pool for each council equivalent to one councillor’s remuneration to be allocated for additional positions of responsibility.

e) Reviewing local government remuneration approximately two years after each election and setting the base remuneration for councillor and mayor/chair roles at the beginning of each election year, together with provision for changes in positions of responsibility within each council.

f) Recalculating annually each council’s place on the size index and, in the following July determination, automatically applying any increase warranted, with the proviso that any reductions in the base remuneration would not be implemented during the term of that council.

g) Providing a loading of 12.5% for unitary council remuneration to recognise their additional regional responsibilities.

h) Retaining arrangements for resource consent hearings whereby elected members can be paid an hourly fee in addition to their base remuneration.

i) Requiring councils to confirm their expenses policies only in election year rather than annually.

j) Retaining valuation methodology for mayor/chair vehicles with adjustments made each year on July 1 to coincide with the determination.

k) Various changes to community board remuneration setting.

69. The new system was in place for the 2013 Determination in which the Authority made the following comment: “Aware of its responsibility of fairness to both elected members and ratepayers, the Authority moderated both increases and decreases to smooth the transition to the new system”.

70. In the 2014 Determination, the same comment was made with the additional comment that

“this approach was continued, with moderation to reflect wage growth, this year”.

71. In 2015 the same comment was again made. However, in issuing that Determination the Authority said the following: “The relationships between council size and remuneration, as well as any necessity for moderation of large increases or decreases, will be reassessed during the 2015/16 year ready for implementation at the time of the 2016 local body elections”.

72. During 2015 the Authority reviewed the framework again, including job-sizing the positions

of a representative group of councils and assessing workloads. In issuing its 2016 Determination the Authority made the following comment: “The Authority found clear evidence regarding the size of positions but has less confidence in the evidence relating to workload. Given that uncertainty, the Authority has not proceeded to fully or partially implement increases that would in many cases have been well in excess of 10%. It has instead applied increases to the base remuneration payable to councillors ranging from 1.5% to 3% depending on the size of the council. This reflects at the higher level the movements in the

Appendix 2112


public sector remuneration more generally.” The following comment was also made: “The Authority is also concerned that the expectations placed on local representatives continue to increase and remuneration does not in all circumstances reflect the skill and effort required from members. It will therefore begin further work this year to establish an ongoing basis for remuneration that treats both the ratepayer and the elected member fairly”.

Rationale behind current proposal

73. While the legal requirements are set out above in paragraph 2 of Part One (above), the Authority members have also decided that these legal requirements (including attraction and retention of competent people) should be aimed at attracting a wide variety of competent people and balanced by the need to have a local government remuneration system that is accepted in the wider community. To enable this, we require a robust process that is as transparent as possible, intuitively plausible and sustainable for the foreseeable future.

74. We recognise that whether or not the level of financial reward matches the personal contribution of any elected member is not necessarily a significant determinant of the willingness of many people to stand for election. However, remuneration may be an issue for some, depending on personal circumstances, and it may also become an issue for an incumbent deciding whether or not to continue.

75. In considering this proposal, the Authority has decided to maintain a number of existing

approaches. The principal ones are: a) Maintaining a “total remuneration” approach rather than meeting fees.

b) Using a size index to determine relativity between various councils.

c) Adopting a “pay scale” for local government that is fair and seen to be fair.

d) Reviewing the components of the council size index every three years and applying appropriate factors to territorial authorities and regional authorities.

e) Recognising that unitary councils have dual responsibilities and sizing them accordingly.

Council Sizing

76. Overview

We define council size as the accumulated demands on any council resulting from its accountability for its unique mix of functions, obligations, assets and citizenry. The size of councils varies considerably. The most obvious difference is in the size of population with the biggest council (Auckland) having 1,614,300 citizens and the smallest (the Chatham Islands) just 610 at the last census. Even outside of these two, there still a wide population range from Christchurch (375,000) to Kaikoura (3,740).

77. However, despite their differences, there are also many similarities between different councils and the roles of elected representatives.

Appendix 2113


78. All local government representatives have a basic workload that includes decision-making around local plans, policies and regulations; civic representation; assisting constituents; and working with other organisations (public and private sector). Importantly, councils are also tasked with employing a chief executive and monitoring performance and delivery.

79. With regard to differences, as noted above, the starkest is in population, but even then there

is not an exact connection between population and work load. We have taken account of several characteristics in addition to population to compare the size of each council. We are limited by the ready availability of information. However, with the information that is available, we have been able to use statistical methods to identify several factors that are significant influences on the workload of Councils.

80. We can identify councils that are most likely to be comparable in size, despite differences in

what brings this about. Such comparisons can never be exact, because amongst all the councils there are influences on their size that are either unique or unable to be quantified using existing evidence. The analytical approach taken this year by the Authority will be further developed whenever the information base is able to reflect such situations.

81. We considered a variety of factors that could be used for sizing councils and, after

consultation and further analysis, we are proposing several factors, with some differences between territorial authorities and regional/unitary councils. The indicators for each factor came from official statistics and departmental reports, and they were analysed by standard statistical methods which enabled the variety of demands on councils from different sources to be compared and accumulated. The initial list of factors and the modelling was identified with a representative group of elected local authority leaders, and then developed further by the Authority.

82. The strong direct effects on size from population, assets and operational expenditure were

modified by differences in guest night stays, social deprivation levels and physical size.

Factors proposed to be used in sizing

83. Territorial authorities: a) Population. This factor not only determines the scale of services that a council will

provide, but also the rating base by which activities are funded. Population is most likely to be the indicator that most New Zealanders would use when asked to distinguish between various councils. The statistics we are using are the most recent population estimates by Statistics New Zealand.

b) Operational expenditure. In many cases, operational expenditure correlates with population, but there are also some differences - in particular when a council may be in the midst of a specific expansion programme in a particular area of activity. Our data is taken from the annual accounts of councils.

c) Asset size. This represents the capital base of the council that the council is required to manage, providing essential service such as water, wastewater, roads and flood protection, and also social infrastructure. One of the challenges in asset management is

Appendix 2114


to ensure that assets do not lose value. In recent years there has been greater focus on asset management in the sector, requiring (if it is undertaken rigorously) a higher degree of attention to detail on the part of elected members, not just the asset managers in the organisation. The data on asset size is also extracted from the consolidated annual accounts of councils and includes the value of their council controlled organisations (CCOs).

We acknowledge that there are different degrees of assets held by local government. Some have highly commercial assets with commercial boards comprising directors selected for their relevant competencies and business experience. Others have land holdings that are long-term and more “passive” investments. Others again are assets such as ports which although highly commercial and competitive are often also strategic assets for their local government owners.

There are also different degrees of oversight. Some councils are extremely “hands on” with their assets and others are more arms-length in their relationships, particularly with CCOs. We recognise that whatever measure of asset size is used, its relevance will differ somewhat among councils to a greater extent than is likely with other factors.

d) Social deprivation. This measures the differences between councils in their need to take account of economic disadvantage among citizens. We recognise that in many council districts the high level of social deprivation in some areas is counterbalanced by a higher economic status in others. However, we believe there are some councils that do not have this balance and that, given the reliance of many councils on rates income, for those councils a high level of social deprivation will have a significant impact. Data is drawn from the third quartile of the NZDEP index prepared from the last population census.

e) Number of guest nights. This represents the demands on councils (e.g. infrastructure development and service provision) resulting from visitors. We recognise that this is a current issue which may in future years be resolved and that it is but one sector in New Zealand’s economy which is of concern to local government. However, it has been raised with us on many occasions and we believe it is relevant to allow for such demands being faced by council at present. It may be that it is replaced by another factor in future years. For this factor we use the Monthly Accommodation Survey of Statistics New Zealand. We were unable to find any data on visitors who may pass through a district and use facilities but not stay overnight, or on the current vexed issue of freedom campers.

84. Regional councils:

Although all councils (territorial, regional and unitary) have a power of general competence, the legal responsibilities of regional councils and unitary councils differ from those of territorial authorities. The breadth of their mandate in national legal instruments (such as the Resource Management Act) requires regional and unitary councils to operate at a different scale from that of territorial authorities, especially in their focus on regulating and managing land and water. For example, regional and unitary councils must develop and administer Regional Plans and Unitary Plans, and territorial authorities must give effect to these plans, which drives behaviour around issues such as water quality (i.e. storm water and waste

Appendix 2115


water). In contrast, regional councils do not have the significant focus on social issues that is required from either unitary or territorial councils. Hence land size is inherently important to the work of a regional or unitary council. In measuring size, we are proposing to eliminate the deprivation index factor for regional councils and add a land area factor.

85. Unitary councils:

For some years, the Authority has added a loading of 12.5% to account for the additional regional council responsibilities of the four smaller unitary councils – Gisborne, Marlborough, Nelson and Tasman. This did not include Auckland, even though it is also a unitary council, because the remuneration for Auckland was considered separately when it was set up.

We are uncertain as to the basis for the 12.5%, and are thus proposing that this loading now be removed and that instead the size of these four unitary councils be measured by both the regional and the territorial authority factors. Thus the factors by which we measure the size of unitary councils would include both land area and social deprivation.

The Authority believes that with the additional regional council factor of land area included, this is a fairer way of sizing unitary councils.

With regard to the proposed factors to be used for sizing councils

Are there significant influences on council size that are not recognised by the factors identified?

Are there any factors that we have identified that you believe should not be used and why?

When measuring council assets, do you support the inclusion of all council assets, including those commercial companies that are operated by boards?

If not, how should the Authority distinguish between different classes of assets?

Weighting

86. The weight given to each factor was assessed intuitively by the Local Government Leadership Group, drawing on their knowledge and experience. These weights were then further refined by formal statistical analysis. The Authority has not yet completed this part of the exercise and, before we do, we would like to hear views on the proposed factors. Nevertheless, in our work to date, the following “order of magnitude” listing indicates what we consider to be the

Appendix 2116


relative importance of the various factors in determining size. They are listed here in terms of our current view of the highest to lowest influence on size.

87. Territorial authorities:

Population; operational expenditure Assets Deprivation index; visitor nights

88. Regional councils:

Operational expenditure; geographic size Assets; population Visitor nights

89. Unitary authorities:

Population; operational expenditure; geographic size Assets Deprivation index; visitor nights

90. When the weighting exercise is completed, the size of each council estimated in this way will become the size index.

Are you aware of evidence that would support or challenge the relativity of the factors for each type of council?

If you believe other factors should be taken into account, where would they sit relative to others?

Mayor/chair remuneration

91. The work that the Authority commissioned from the HayGroup in 2015 included a review and evaluation of the roles of mayor, regional council chair, committee chair and councillor across 20 councils.

92. The evidence reported by Hay was that mayor and regional council chair roles generally

require a full-time commitment, though this is not true in absolutely al cases. Even in smaller authorities where the mayor’s role may not be full time, the nature of the job means that it is usually difficult to get another job to supplement what might nt be a fulltime income. From the knowledge of members of the Authority and advice from a range of participants in local government, including the Advisory Panel, the Authority accepts that mayors/chairs are full time and we propose that mayor/chair remuneration be determined on this basis.

Appendix 2117


93. We are also proposing that there should be a “base pay” for all mayors/chairs. Additional remuneration would then be on top of this, depending on the size of the council.

Should mayor/chair roles should be treated as full time?

If not, how should they be treated?

Should there be a “base” remuneration level for all mayors/chairs, with additional remuneration added according to the size of the council?

If so, what should determine this “base remuneration”?

Councillor remuneration

94. The relativity between mayor/chair and councillors is somewhat more difficult to determine and we note that in 2015 the Authority suggested that although there was evidence about the size of positions, there was less evidence about workload.

95. We are aware that there are clear differences in both the job size and the workload of

councillors on different councils for a several reasons. There can also be significant differences in workloads of councillors within a single council. The influences on a councillor workload obviously include measurable factors such as population and the other indicators we have outlined above in paragraph 5, as well as the number of councillors, which varies from council to council.

96. However, other influences include current issues within a council area and individual

councillor interest in or affiliation to different interest groups. The latter also applies to workload differences amongst councillors on a single council, as does the appetite for work amongst different councillors. The Authority is not able to take account of such differences in our determinations. Nor are we able to provide for “performance pay”. This means that on any single council the remuneration of the hardest working councillor will be the same as that of the lowest contributor.

97. Having looked carefully at the sizing factors, and discussed mayor/chair and councillor

relativity with a variety of people, we have formed a view that we are unable to accommodate the differences between councillors on different councils with sufficient granularity to have a single national approach. The large metropolitan councils, for example, seem to have a higher councillor workload than of smaller rural and provincial councils, though this is not a universal rule. Additionally, there are differences between similar sized councils which are addressed at council level by the allocation of committee and portfolio responsibilities.

Appendix 2118


98. We are also conscious of the discrepancies amongst councils in the current relationships

between councillor remuneration and that of the mayor/chair. The range is from 54% down to 21%, and in some cases the proportion appears to be arbitrary. Discrepancies are also evident where councils of similar size (population) show variances of up to 10% in the ratio between councillors and mayors/chairs remuneration. Some of this may be historical - the legacy of previous approaches - or the result of councils having decreased or increased the number of councillors over time.

99. The Authority is looking at a new approach that, while providing a fiscal framework, would

put the decisions round the details of councillor remuneration into the hands of the local council, which we believe is better able to understand and reflect community needs than we are on a national basis.

100. We are looking at setting a total “governance/representation pool” that each council would

distribute. The pool would be linked to the size of the council and thus be irrespective of the number of elected members. Because we are now proposing formally that all mayor/chair roles be considered full time, the Authority would be in a positon to set the salary for that positon. Thus the mayor/chair remuneration would be separately allocated by the Authority, but included in the governance/representation pool allocated to each council. However, remuneration for all other positions – councillors, deputy mayor/chair, chairs of committees, portfolio holders etc and community board members – would be allocated from its own pool by each council. The council’s proposed allocations would be forwarded to the Authority for inclusion in the Determination.

101. The pool proposal was included as one alternative in the 1997 LGNZ consultation paper,

albeit the remuneration framework then was very different from how it has evolved today.

102. The advantages of this approach are that it focusses on the total governance and representation cost for each council (minus the mayor/chair) and that it allows each council to decide its own councillor and community board remuneration levels, including for positons of responsibility, reflecting its priorities for the current triennium. The total pool would be relative to the size of the council rather than to the number of elected members. Consequentially, if a council wished to increase its numbers via a representation review, and thus spread the workload, the allocated pool would need to be spread amongst more people. The reverse would also apply. It should be noted that if the workload for the whole council increased because of a change in the metrics of any factor(s) by which the council is sized, then the council would move to a higher ranking on the scale which would provide overall higher total remuneration pool.

103. The disadvantage is that no council is necessarily the master of its own destiny in terms of

numbers of councillors. It must convince the Local Government Commission of the need to increase or decrease numbers. However, we do note that where representation changes reflect changes in what we call the “size” of the council (as described above in para 77-91),

Appendix 2119


any changes should also be reflected in the remuneration pool available to the council so there would then be a direct connection.

104. The pool approach provides councils with the flexibility to provide differences in positons of

responsibility in a nuanced way. Because each council varies in terms of its committee/portfolio structure, this is an area where councils need discretion to decide. Current practice is for the Authority so set the councillor remuneration for each council, then to provide each council a “pool” equivalent to twice the base remuneration of one of its councillors to allocate to those undertaking specific positons of responsibility. These may include deputy mayor, committee chair, portfolio holder or other specifically designated roles. We have had no significant advice that the size of this extra pool is inadequate. However, we are aware that the provisions are applied in slightly different ways by different councils and that there are some councils that find the current provisions restrictive.

105. For example, there has been some confusion in the past as to whether every single councillor

on a council can receive part of this additional pool by being allocated a positon of responsibility. Generally, the Authority has not agreed to this when the council has proposed sharing the addition pool equally because this has simply amounted to a pay-rise for all councillors to move them above the level applied in the Determination. However, we have had enquiries about this and also observed current practice.

106. We propose that under the new regime (i.e. a total governance/representation pool for each

council) the following rules should apply: a) All roles and remuneration levels will need to be agreed by formal resolution of the

council, with a 75% majority.

b) A remuneration rate must be set for the base councillor role

c) The council needs to have a formal written role description for each additional positon of responsibility above that of the base councillor role.

d) The Authority will expect that any such roles within a council will have different levels of additional remuneration, depending on the nature and workload involved. In particular this needs to apply where every single councillor is allocated an additional position (as distinct from a more usual practice of having a deputy mayor/chair and a handful of committee chairs).

Should councillor remuneration be decided by each council within the parameters of a governance/representation pool allocated to each council by the Remuneration Authority?

If so, should each additional positon of responsibility, above a base councillor role, require a formal role description?

Appendix 2120


Should each council be required to gain a 75% majority vote to determine the allocation of remuneration across all its positions?

107. We also note that elected members are increasingly being appointed to represent their council on various outside committees and bodies. We propose that if any council wishes to do so, such appointments can also be captured under the process outlined above.

Should external representation roles be able to be remunerated in a similar way to council positions of responsibility?

108. The issue of director’s fees for elected members who are appointed to CCOs is a difficult one. On the one hand it could be said that a councillor sitting on a CCO is doing work that is similar to that of another councillor who may have a specified position of responsibility – or even less if the second councillor is, for example, a committee chair. However, the legal liabilities of CCO directors have become more onerous in recent years and may be more than those of elected members.

109. Those appointed as directors of CCOs need to be aware of the specific legislative duties and

regulatory obligations that are imposed on them, in their capacity as directors, by the various acts, including the Local Government Act 2002, the Companies Act 1993, the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, the Charities Act 2005 and the Public Audit Act 2001.

110. It is not for the Authority to determine whether or not elected members should be directors

of a CCO, but we do recognise the additional responsibility that is taken on in those cases and that it may require developing capabilities to meet obligations that are different from those required of other elected members. We also observe the increasing trend towards the appointment of external professional directors to such roles.

Do the additional demands placed on CCO board members make it fair for elected members appointed to such boards to receive the same director fees as are paid to other CCO board members?

Appendix 2121


Community Board remuneration

111. We note that 40 councils (more than half the territorial authorities) have community boards. We also note that there is a huge variety in the nature of the work undertaken by community boards and in the powers delegated to them. Some undertake substantial and substantive governance work on behalf of the council, whereas others are more in the nature of community representatives and advocates.

112. We are also aware that in some places community board members are doing work that

elsewhere might be undertaken by council officers. However, assuming that community boards are part of the governance/representation structure of a council, then this means that, all else being equal, the current cost of governance and representation for these councils could be relatively higher than that of councils which do not have them. Some councils fund the boards out of a targeted rate applied to the area that the board represents, whereas others use a general rate – i.e. the same as for funding the remuneration of councillors.

113. We suggest that if a council wishes to not cover remuneration for its community board

members from the proposed governance/representation pool, then a targeted rate should apply to the area represented by the particular community board. However, councillors appointed to represent the council on the community board would be paid from the governance/representation pool.

114. We also consider that is important that the functions undertaken by any community board are clearly and transparently defined by the council concerned and consider that all community board delegations should be by way of a formal council resolution.

Should community board remuneration always come out of the council governance/representation pool?

If not, should it be funded by way of targeted rate on the community concerned?

If not, what other transparent and fair mechanisms are there for funding the remuneration of community board members?

A local government pay scale

115. Local government has no exact equivalent. The nearest that we have in New Zealand is central government, yet even that is not an exact match.

Appendix 2122


116. Section 2 of this paper sets out the legal requirements that the Authority is required to consider in making determinations. The first of those requires that the Authority “shall have regard in particular to the need to achieve and maintain fair relativity with remuneration received elsewhere”. This is particularly difficult in determining the remuneration for local government elected members because there is no obviously relevant comparator group. The Authority considered and rejected as inappropriate the following:

a) Local government senior managers’ salaries.

Information on local government management remuneration is readily available in market salary surveys and through councils’ annual reports. However employees of councils are selected for the knowledge, skills and experience they hold relative to the needs of the employment role. Elected members do not fit that profile at all. They are democratically chosen by the electors to represent the interests of the people of a particular area and provide governance over the council’s operations. There is no logical alignment that would connect the remuneration of the two groups.

b) Central government sector senior managers’ remuneration. Information on public sector management remuneration is readily available in market salary surveys and the State Services Commission’s annual reports but this option suffers from exactly the same difficulties as option (a) above.

c) Remuneration of directors on boards, including public sector boards, commercial boards and large not-for-profit boards. A significant part of the work of elected members consists of representational activities of one sort or another. Most boards of directors do not have this role. Those that do are often in the not-for-profit or NGO sector and, even there, the nature and time requirements of the representational work, including managing constituency issues, is different. Further, most boards are governing an enterprise that is essentially focused on a single group of goods or services within one industry, whereas councils have a significant array of services that are not necessarily similar in any manner – for example, providing building consents compared to social services.

117. Other aspects of local government elected roles which differ from the above are:

The sheer “visibility” of the people involved, resulting in a lack of privacy. In some cases where the elected person is very high profile or important in a community, or when the community is very small, this is extreme and often their close family members are also impacted by this. This visibility is associated with the need for publicly elected representatives to “front” on difficult issues. This is less common amongst other boards members and managers. When something goes wrong on a council the councillors and mayor/chair are held to account by the public, whereas on a board it would normally (though we recognise not always) be the CEO.

Appendix 2123


The meeting requirements on local government are more onerous than they are in other sectors. The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and public expectation is that meetings will be held in public and that information behind decisions and actions will be readily available. Finally, and perhaps related to all the above, local government entities hold far more frequent meetings/workshops than do other governance boards and the distinction between governance and management is less clear than it is in most other models.

118. In the light of this, the Authority looked at a possible alignment with parliamentary

remuneration for comparative purposes. Even though (as we note above) local government is not an exact match to central government, parliamentarians are also democratically elected to represent sections of the populace, and those who are members of the Government of the day also exercise governance over the public service. Within the parliamentary group there are different levels of remuneration between backbenchers, ministers and some other identifiable roles.

119. Given the obvious difference between central and local government elected members, any remuneration alignment could not be a direct one-on-one relationship. However, the nature of the roles is such that there are also similarities and this is the closest the Authority can find to “fair relativity with remuneration received elsewhere”. As in other areas of our work, this decision involved a degree of judgement – there is no exact science here and we would observe that the utility and value of any elected person is in the eye of the beholder.

120. We therefore propose that mayor/chair remuneration be related to that of MPs, but capped

so that the highest remuneration for any individual mayor or chair cannot be more than that of a cabinet minister. All other mayor/chair roles would be provided with a relative alignment below that upper limit.

Is it appropriate for local government remuneration to be related to parliamentary remuneration, but taking account of differences in job sizes?

If so, should that the relativity be capped so the incumbent in the biggest role in local government cannot receive more than a cabinet minister?

If not, how should a local government pay scale be determined?

Appendix 2124


Timetable

121. The current practice of the Authority – major three-yearly reviews with annual updating in non-review years – has been a sensible approach. We propose to continue it in the interests of efficiency and also to reflect the fact that the data we are using for sizing is not necessarily available annually.

122. In the intervening years, we propose that any change in local government remuneration

reflect the change in the salary and wage rates for the public sector as shown in Statistics NZ’s Labour Market Statistics (LMS) which are produced quarterly. In 2014 the LMS replaced the Quarterly Employment Survey (QES), which was the mechanism chosen as the reference index when Parliament passed the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Act 2015. Therefore, changes in MP remuneration are also tied to the change in salary and wage rates as published in the LMS. In addition to salary and wage rates, the LMS contain information on New Zealand's official employment and unemployment statistics, number of filled jobs by industry group, total hours worked, levels of income, total gross earnings and paid hours, and average hourly rates by sector.

123. The cycle adopted by the Authority for setting local government remuneration will be as

follows: The first year of the cycle will be the local government election year. In that year the Authority will undertake a full review of council sizes, utilising the indicators described above. Prior to applying the result of the review, the Authority will apply the LMS changes to all local government remuneration, and the council sizing results will then be applied. This determination will be issued on or about July 1 for implementation from the date the council formally takes office following the local government election later that year. At that time the Mayor/chair remuneration will be applied but the remuneration for all other positions to be decided out of the “governance/representation pool” will be applied on the day following the day on which the council formally resolves its remuneration policy for that triennium. Until then, from the day of assuming office, all councillors will be paid the base councillor remuneration that applied in the preceding triennium. The new determination will apply till the council ceases to formally hold office at the next local government election. Meeting fees for RMA plan or consent hearings, as well as the parameters for expense reimbursement, will also be assessed at that time and any changes will apply to all councils at the same time as the remuneration changes. In the subsequent two years, the determination will again be issued on or about July 1 but on these occasions for immediate implementation. For all councils, it will contain adjustments reflecting the change in the LMS. There will be no changes in plan or consent hearing fees or expenses policies at this time.

Appendix 2125


This consultation process from now on

124. This proposal is being circulated to all councils to obtain feedback on the approach. The Authority would need to receive any written feedback that councils wish to make by 30 October 2017. We look forward to hearing from you.

125. For this year (2017) the Authority proposes to change remuneration according to the LMS

change and we also propose to introduce the new provisions outlined in Section Two of this paper. All other changes would be introduced for the year 2019. This timetable allows time for councils to fully discuss the proposals and give us their responses. It allows us to then refine and test our final model for the “governance/representation pool” prior to implementation.

126. We are conscious that 2019 is three years after the local government sector would have

been expecting changes. However, with our proposal to change the model for sizing councils and to radically change the way councillor remuneration is decided, we believe that such a time period is justified.

Appendix 2126

To: Council

Report Prepared By: David Edge, Manager Infrastructure Services - Assets



NZTA NLTP BUDGET 2017/2018

Recommendation THAT THE COUNCIL AGREES TO ACCEPT THE NZTA NLTP FUNDING PROGRAMME FOR 2017/2018 (AS PER APPENDIX 1) AND INCREASE THE CURRENT LTP BUDGET BY AN ADDITIONAL $881,876 ($432,119 LOCAL SHARE) TO MATCH FUND THE NZTA NLTP PROGRAMME OF WORKS FOR LOCAL ROADS ONLY.

Executive Summary The Hurunui District Council’s (HDC) roading budget, which is set through the Long Term Plan 2015/2025 (LTP) and subsequently through the Annual Plan 2017/2018 (AP) was based on an indicative co-investment prediction from New Zealand Transport Authorities (NZTA), and assuming full expenditure of the NLTP budget through 2016/2017.

At the end of July 2017, the approved NLTP 2017/2018 was released for all Road Controlling Authorities (RCA’s). The objective of this report is to align the HDC LTP budget 2017/18 to the NZTA NLTP budget 2017/18 and to set a committee decision regarding the management of any budgetary differences for the financial year 2017/2018.

Budget Comparisons [To be read in conjunction with Appendix 1] This report has progressed directly to the Council Committee given that the request is to approve monies in excess of that agreed in the LTP/AP for 2017/18 and approval for this additional expenditure is delegated to this committee only. HDC’s LTP 2015-2025 roading budget was created from information received from NZTA prior to April 2015, based on a projected three-year NLTP 2015/2018 programme. HDC have completed the second year of the three-year NZTA NLTP 2015/2018. This comparison is based on budget figures for Maintenance & Operations (local only), Renewals (local only), Road Safety Promotion, and Minor Improvements (local only).

This re-alignment of budgets has resulted in HDC having a shortfall of $432,119 local share monies through the 2017/2018 NLTP road maintenance programme.

This report excludes any budget considerations for any Emergency works and Preventative Maintenance works. However, there is $262,000 unsubsidised monies approved for roading through 2017/2018 and there

127

have been three emergency events that HDC have claimed for with a requirement for additional local share funding to be provided under this budget allocation.


The key issue is that the Council is required to set its budget for the Annual Plan well ahead of the financial year. This was done in conjunction with the indicative programme provided by NZTA, with the Council providing its 49% contribution to the Local Roads, Road Safety and the Minor Improvement Programme, with the work on the Special Purpose Road being 100% subsidised by NZTA. In this case, Route 70 is managed under NCTIR (NZTA) at 100% funding till advised otherwise. Councillors will recall that a further $262,000 of funding was provided through the General Rates on top of the matched funding to provide some local share of any costs that would be required to meet additional costs, particularly in respect to emergency reinstatement work. Unfortunately, the timing of the final budget from NZTA differs from the timing that Council needs to comply with to meet its requirements to adopt the Annual Plan before the end of June in each year. When the approved budget from NZTA was provided, it included $881,876 more for the Local Roads, Road Safety and the Minor Improvement Programme through 2017/18. The approval by this committee of match funding NZTA’s NLTP 2017/18 programme has no financial impact for 2017/18 given that the rates have already been struck for this year. However, this situation will be revised in 2018/19 once all expenditures are completed for the NLTP 2017/18. This predicted debt needs to be offset against the high expenditure (BAU) 2015/16 and low expenditure (BAU) 2016/2017, possibly balancing the debt out.

Further budget detail This report only serves to highlight the bottom line financial budget difference of the tow budget systems and seek clarification of which one to approve and follow.

Service Delivery will subsequently provide a budget breakdown of this committee’s subsequent approved budget to the Infrastructure Committee, highlighting a programme of works for all work categories to fully utilise the budget across 2017/18. This will include for the approved NZTA Earthquake Event funding of $3.335M for 2017/18.

This programme will then be used to track forecast against actual to ensure we do not lose any approved NZTA co-investment funding by the end of June 2018, noting that this is the final year of the NLTP 2015-2018 where no further carry-overs will be considered by NZTA.

Engagement HDC have consulted with NZTA and can confirm that the approved funding in the amount of $7,738,337 has been allocated for the NLTP 2017/18 for local roads only.

All RCAs have been advised that they are to determine if they can physically spend their 2017/18 approved programmes and to notify NZTA

128

at the earliest opportunity if they intend to have unmatched NZTA funding surplus available. These monies will then be freed up for redistribution across the national road network to where the demand for more funding is greatest.

Service Delivery have also engaged with the road maintenance contractor (Sicon) to ensure that they have the physical resources to undertake the workload prior to the end of this financial year.

Options

Option 1: RETAIN THE CURRENT HDC LTP ANNUAL PLAN ROADING BUDGET 2017/2018 ($6,856,461).


Less local share expenditure for 2017/18 against roading maintenance and renewals

Unaligned budget provisions (HDC LTP and NZTA NLTP) for all roading maintenance requirements for 2017/2018

Lack of one-truth tracking of actual expenditure against projected budget expenditure for clarity of explanation

HDC to return approved co-investment funding back to NZTA

Informs NZTA that our requested level of FAR for maintaining our road netwrok was too much and bodes poorly for our draft RLTP 2018-2028

Option 2: COUNCIL ENDORSES AND APPROVES THE NZTA NLTP BUDGET PROVIDED FOR 2017/2018 ($7,738,337).

AND REPLACES HURUNUI DISTRICT COUNCIL’S ANNUAL PLAN ROADING BUDGET (WITH AN ADDITIONAL $432,119 LOCAL SHARE) TO MATCH THE NZTA NLTP 2017/18 BUDGET ALLOCATION (AS PER APPENDIX 1) FOR EASE OF ALIGNED ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT, EXPECTED EXPENDITURE AND REPORTING.


Alignment of budget provisions (HDC and NZTA NLTP) for all roading maintenance requirements through 2017/2018

Clear one-truth tracking of

none evident

129

actual expenditure against projected expenditure for clarity of explanation

Ease of explanation to NZ Audit for end of year Annual Report

Assured expenditure of all monies allocated by NZTA for NLTP 2017/18

Appendices Appendix 1: NZTA NLTP 2017/18 comparison to HDC LTP 2017/18 Road Maintenance.

Report Prepared and Reviewed by:

David Edge Manager Infrastructure Services - Assets

Officer in Attendance: The Manager Infrastructure Services - Assets will be in attendance to speak to this report.

Glossary: NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency)

NCTIR (North Canterbury Transport Infrastructure Recovery)

NLTP (National Land Transport Programme)

RLTP (Regional Land Transport Programme)

RCA (Road Controlling Authroity)

BAU (business as usual)

LTP (Long Term Plan)

AP (Annual Plan)

HDC (Hurunui District Council)

SPR (Special Purpose Road)

FAR (Financial Assistance Rate)

Route 70 (Red Post Corner SH7 to SH1 through the Inland Road)

130

111 Sealed pavement maintenance 51 $900,000 $867,050 $32,950 $424,855 $459,000 $441,000 -$16,146112 Unsealed pavement maintenance 51 $580,000 $612,100 -$32,100 $299,929 $295,800 $284,200 $15,729113 Routine drainage maintenance 51 $205,000 $204,000 $1,000 $99,960 $104,550 $100,450 -$490114 Structures maintenance 51 $62,000 $61,100 $900 $29,939 $31,620 $30,380 -$441121 Environmental maintenance 51 $532,000 $503,970 $28,030 $246,945 $271,320 $260,680 -$13,735122 Traffic services maintenance 51 $170,000 $120,000 $50,000 $58,800 $86,700 $83,300 -$24,500131 Level crossing warning devices 51 $7,000 $7,000 $0 $3,430 $3,570 $3,430 $0140 Minor events 51 $100,000 $0 $100,000 $0 $51,000 $49,000 -$49,000151 Network and asset management 51 $500,000 $613,281 -$113,281 $300,508 $255,000 $245,000 $55,508211 Unsealed road metalling 51 $640,000 $621,765 $18,235 $304,665 $326,400 $313,600 -$8,935212 Sealed road resurfacing 51 $1,658,387 $1,061,698 $596,689 $520,232 $845,777 $812,610 -$292,377213 Drainage renewals 51 $280,000 $271,963 $8,037 $133,262 $142,800 $137,200 -$3,938214 Sealed road pavement rehabilitation 51 $705,000 $659,746 $45,254 $323,275 $359,550 $345,450 -$22,175215 Structures component replacements 51 $340,185 $403,256 -$63,071 $197,596 $173,494 $166,691 $30,905222 Traffic services renewals 51 $250,000 $239,140 $10,860 $117,179 $127,500 $122,500 -$5,321

221/212/213/214 Professional Services CAPEX 51 $0 $236,918 -$236,918 $116,090 $0 $0 $116,090$6,929,572 $6,482,988 $446,584 $3,176,664 $3,534,081 $3,395,490 -$218,826

111 Sealed pavement maintenance 100 $71,160 $61,200 $9,960 $0 $71,160 $0 $0113 Routine drainage maintenance 100 $5,100 $5,100 $0 $0 $5,100 $0 $0114 Structures maintenance 100 $2,500 $2,496 $4 $0 $2,500 $0 $0121 Environmental maintenance 100 $38,300 $38,304 -$4 $0 $38,300 $0 $0122 Traffic services maintenance 100 $4,300 $4,296 $4 $0 $4,300 $0 $0151 Network and asset management 100 $10,000 $9,996 $4 $0 $10,000 $0 $0213 Drainage renewals 100 $7,000 $6,996 $4 $0 $7,000 $0 $0215 Structures component replacements 100 $2,000 $2,004 -$4 $0 $2,000 $0 $0222 Traffic services renewals 100 $3,500 $3,504 -$4 $0 $3,500 $0 $0

$143,860 $133,896 $9,964 $0 $143,860 $0 $0

432Road Safety Promotion 2015-18-Road Safety 2015-2018 51 $100,831 $58,680 $42,151 $28,753 $51,424 $49,407 -$20,654

341Minor improvements 2015-18 - Local Roads 51 $707,934 $314,793 $393,141 $154,249 $361,046 $346,888 -$192,639

341 Minor improvements 2015-18 - SPR 100 $7,000 $0 $7,000 $0 $7,000 $0 $0$714,934 $314,793 $400,141 $154,249 $368,046 $346,888 -$192,639

$7,738,337 $6,856,461 $881,876 $3,359,666 $3,946,551 $3,791,785 -$432,119

Difference HDC Share LTP/NLTP Budget 2017/18

NZTA Work Category Activities/Programmes Description FARTotal NZTA Budget

2017/18NZTA share of NZTA

Budget 2017/18Total HDC LTP

Budget 2017/18HDC Share of NZTA

budget 2017/18

Difference Total NZTA/HDC LTP

2017/18

HDC Share of LTP Budget 2017/18

Local road improvements

Total Local road improvementsGrand total (excl. SPR)

Maintenance - Local Roads

Total Maintenance - Local RoadsMaintenance - SPR

Total Maintenance - SPRRoad safety promotion

Appendix 1131

To: Council


Hurunui-Waiau Zone Committee Update

Recommendation THAT THE INFORMATION BE RECEIVED.

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the recent activity of the Hurunui-Waiau Zone Committee. The Council’s representatives on the Committee may provide a further oral update at the meeting.

Background Since the last update to the Council, the Zone Committee met on 16 October 2017 at Hawarden. The agenda included the following items:

Update from Zone Committee members on activities and meetings attended that relate to the Committee’s outcomes for the zone. Correspondence:

Letter to Environment Canterbury re HWZC targeted approach Letter from Environment Canterbury to HWZC Letter from Rural Advocacy Network

Considering deferring a review of water-take consents (with respect to HWRRP minimum flows):

a) Technical evaluation of risks and implications for environmental values; - Suzanne Gabites and Ned Norton, ECan

b) Estimate of the cost to irrigators; - Andrew Barton, AIC Opportunity to notify HWRRP Plan Change in mid 2018 - Andrew Parrish and Lisa Jenkins, ECan Updated programme of work to progress the key issues in the zone:

1. Technical information; 2. Engagement and committee decision-making - Ian Whitehouse,

Lisa Jenkins and Ned Norton, ECan Zone Facilitator’s report:

Zone Committee’s initial thoughts for content of its 2017 Annual Report: key achievements and projects/activities to feature Input to Environment Canterbury’s Long Term Plan - Ian Whitehouse, ECan.

Next Meeting: 20 November in Waiau.

Report Prepared by:


Report Reviewed by:


Graham Sutherland

k

132

To: Council


Youth Council Update


Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the recent activity of the Youth Council. The Council’s representatives on the Youth Council may provide a further oral update at the meeting.

Background The Youth Council last met on Monday 11 September 2017 at Amberley. The agenda included the following items: Presentation: Alcohol Wise Hurunui (AWH) – Lois McGirr

Decision Reports

Hurunui Youth Council Panel – Scott Rose Appoint Youth Councillor to Secondary School Achievers Awards Selection Panel – Scott Rose

Information Reports

Development of a Hurunui Youth Strategy/Action Plan – Scott Rose Hurunui Youth Connector Update – Nikki Allen Mayor/Councillor Update on Council Matters

Next Meeting: Monday 13 November 2017.

Report Prepared by:


Report Reviewed by:


Graham Sutherland

133

To: Council Report by: Kait Murray, Committee Secretary Date: 26 October 2017

Infrastructure Committee Update


Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the recent activity of the Infrastructure Committee. The Council’s representatives on the Committee may provide a further oral update at the meeting.

Background Decision Items: There were no decision items for this meeting.

Discussion Items: Infrastructure Service Delivery Monthly Report Asset Works Programme 3 Waters and Roading HDC Drinking Water Compliance Report 2016/2017

Information Items: There were no discussion items for this meeting.

Report prepared by:

Kait Murray Committee Secretary

Report reviewed by:


134

To: Council

Report by: Graham Sutherland, Committee Secretary


Finance, Audit and Risk Committee Update


Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the recent activity of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee. The Chairperson and/or members will provide a further oral update at the meeting.

Background Since the last report to the Council, the Committee met on 19 October 2017 in Amberley. The agenda included the following items:

Finance Items: o Financial Report as at the end of September 2017 o Rates Arrears as at the end of September 2017 o Treasury Position as at the end of September 2017

Audit Items: o Audit New Zealand Management Report - Action Points

October 2017

Risk Items: o Council Insurance Revaluations o Health and Safety o Performance Report as at the end of October 2017

Next Meeting: Scheduled for 17 November 2017.

Report Prepared by:


Report Reviewed by:


k

136