district living committee agenda

District Living Committee

Notice of Meeting A meeting of the District Living Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Forum North, Whangarei on:

Wednesday

12 June 2013 10.00am

Committee Cr S J Deeming (Chairperson)

His Worship the Mayor Cr C B Christie Cr A J Edwards

Cr S M Glen Cr P R Halse

Cr J S Jongejans Cr G M Martin

Cr B L McLachlan Cr S L Morgan

Cr K J Sutherland Cr W L Syers

Cr M R Williams Cr J D T Williamson

OPEN MEETING APOLOGIES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Members are reminded to indicate any items in which they might have a conflict of interest.

INDEX Item No Page No 1. Minutes of a Meeting of the District Living Committee held 8 May 2013 .................................. 1 2. Minutes of a Meeting of the Community Funding Subcommittee held 8 May 2013 ................. 5 3. District Living Group Monthly Report May 2013 ....................................................................... 6 4. Plan Change 93 – Urban Transition Environment Final Consideration .................................. 34 5. Private Plan Change 117 – Northpower Limited Critical Electricity Lines

Final Consideration ................................................................................................................. 52 6. Whangarei Harbour Water Quality Action Plan - Update ...................................................... 105 7. Toward Better Local Regulation ............................................................................................ 114 8. Disability Advisory Group – Terms of Reference .................................................................. 160

9. Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society Inc – Loan Application ........................................ 164 10. New Road Names – Resource Consents ............................................................................. 172 11. New Road Name – Riverside Drive to Port Road via the new Lower Harbour Bridge ......... 177 12. Weekend and Night time Economy Discussion Document ................................................... 191

Recommendations contained in this agenda are NOT final decisions. Please refer to the minutes for resolutions.

Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2012 – Decision making Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2012 in relation to decision making and in particular 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. Consideration has also been given to social, economic and cultural interests and the need to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment in taking a sustainable development approach.

District Living Committee 12 June 2013

1. Minutes: District Living Committee Wednesday, 8 May 2013

Minutes of a meeting of the District Living Committee of the Whangarei District Council held in the Council Chamber, Forum North on Wednesday 8 May 2013 at 10.00am Present: S J Deeming (Chairperson) His Worship the Mayor M C A Cutforth, Crs, C B Christie, A J Edwards, S M Glen, P R Halse, J S Jongejans, G M Martin, B L McLachlan, S L Morgan, K J Sutherland, W L Syers, M R Williams and J D T Williamson Also present: D McKenzie (NRC Biosecurity Senior Programme Manager) Lily MacKinnon, Ryan Marsich, Andrew Simpkin & Brad Olsen (Youth Advisory Group) In Attendance: Chief Executive Officer (M P Simpson), Group Manager District Living (P Dell), Community Services Manager (O Thomas), Economic Development Manager (P Gleeson), Resource Consents Manager (A Hartstone),Team Leader Futures Planning (K Grundy), Senior Specialist (Policy) (H McNeal), Senior Specialist Policy (D Coleman), Senior Specialist Urban Design and Policy (N Karlovsky), Senior Communications Adviser (R Pascoe), Media Relations Adviser (A Midson), Casual Communications Adviser (S Halliwell), Environmental Trends Analyst (S Seutter), Councillor Support (J Crocombe) and Senior Meeting Coordinator (C Brindle) 1. Confirmation of Minutes of a Meeting of the District Living Committee

held on 10 April 2013

Moved: Cr Edwards Seconded: Cr Morgan

“That the minutes of the meeting of the District Living Committee held on Wednesday 10 April 2013 having been circulated, be taken as read and now confirmed and adopted as a true and correct record of proceedings of that meeting.”

CARRIED

2. Confirmation of Minutes of a Meeting of the Community Funding Subcommittee held on 10 April 2013

Moved: Cr Syers Seconded: Cr Martin

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Community Funding Subcommittee held on Wednesday 10 April 2013 having been circulated, be taken as read and now confirmed and adopted as a true and correct record of proceedings of that meeting.”

CARRIED

3. District Living Group Monthly Report – April 2013

Moved: Cr Williams Seconded: Cr McLachlan “That the information be received.”

CARRIED

District Living Committee 2 12 June 2013

4. Draft Youth Policy

Moved: Cr Williams Seconded: Cr Edwards

“1. That the information be received. 2. That the Youth Policy 2013 be adopted. 3. That Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to make any changes to the draft Policy

agreed at this meeting and any necessary drafting, typographical or presentation corrections required to finalise the policy.”

CARRIED

5. Resource Consents Monitoring/Development Report Moved: Cr Edwards Seconded: Cr McLachlan “That the Resource Consents Monitoring/Development Report 2011-2012 be received.”

CARRIED Item 9 was taken after Item 5. Item 6 was taken after Item 9.

6. Review of District Plan Built Heritage Provisions

Moved: Cr Edwards Seconded: Cr Martin “1. That the report be received. 2. That Council endorse, as its preferred option for progressing Plan Change 124 (PC124), a

minimalist approach to the scheduling of built heritage items for protection under the District Plan based on the addition of items registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust but currently awaiting inclusion in the District Plan, and the correction of any minor inaccuracies in Appendix 3.

3. That increased reliance on the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for identification and

assessment of built heritage items of significance shall be supplemented by continued recognition of heritage at a more local level including implementation of non-statutory methods such as structure planning and sense of place initiatives.

CARRIED A break of 2 minutes was taken at 10.59am following Item 6.

7. 2013-2014 Annual Operating Fund

Moved: Cr Syers Seconded: Cr Martin

“1. That the information be received.

2. That the following resolution adopted by the District Living Committee on 10 April 2013, be now rescinded:

“3. The following indicative figures for grants from the 2014-15 Annual Operating Fund recommended by the Community Funding Subcommittee be notified to the following organisations:

a) CHART $190,600 b) Hikurangi Historical Museum Society $5,200 c) Mangakahia Sports Ground Society $26,800


d) Northland Craft Trust $38,200 e) Northland Society of Arts $10,000 f) Northland Youth Theatre $10,000 g) Ruakaka Recreation Centre $33,400 h) Surf Life Saving Northern Region $20,000 i) Tornado Youth Community Trust $20,000 j) Waipu Centennial Trust Board $58,000 k) Whangarei Art Museum Trust $280,000 l) Whangarei Citizens Advice Bureau $45,600 m) Whangarei Museum and Heritage Trust $365,000 n) Whangarei Quarry Gardens Trust $36,500 o) Whangarei Youth One Stop Shop Charitable Trust $11,100.”

And that the following recommendation be adopted:

“3. That the following indicative figures for the 2014-15 Annual Operating Fund recommended by the Community Funding Sub-Committee, to be confirmed by that year’s Annual Plan process, be notified to the following organisations:

a) CHART $184,800 b) Hikurangi Historical Museum Society $5,000 c) Mangakahia Sports Ground Society $25,900 d) Northland Craft Trust $37,000 e) Northland Society of Arts $9,700 f) Northland Youth Theatre $9,700 g) Ruakaka Recreation Centre $32,300 h) Surf Life Saving Northern Region $19,400 i) Tornado Youth Community Trust $19,400 j) Waipu Centennial Trust Board $56,200 k) Whangarei Art Museum Trust $271,600 l) Whangarei Citizens Advice Bureau $44,200 m) Whangarei Museum and Heritage Trust $354,000 n) Whangarei Quarry Gardens Trust $35,400 o) Whangarei Youth One Stop Shop Charitable Trust $10,700.”

CARRIED 8. Operational Support Fund - Review

Moved: Cr Syers Seconded: Cr Deeming

“1. That the information be received. 2. That the budget allocated for the 2013-2014 Operational Support Fund be held in reserve

pending the outcome of the Community Funding review, as recommended by the Community Funding Subcommittee.”

CARRIED Item 9 was taken after Item 5. 9. Presentation Northland Regional Council – Mediterranean Fan Worm

Moved: Cr Glen Seconded: Cr Jongejans

“That the information be received.”

CARRIED


The meeting closed at 1.05pm

Confirmed this 12th day of June 2013 S J Deeming (Chairperson)

District Living Committee 12 June 2013

2. Minutes: Community Funding Subcommittee Wednesday, 8 May 2013

Minutes of a meeting of the Community Funding Subcommittee of the District Living Committee held in the Council Chamber Forum North on Wednesday 8 May 2013 at 8.30am Present: Cr W L Syers (Chairperson) Crs S J Deeming, G M Martin and M R Williams In Attendance: Group Manager District Living (P Dell), Community Services Manager (O Thomas), Community Funding Officer (J Teeuwen) and Senior Meeting Co ordinator (C Brindle) 1. Community Funding – Community Fund Round 2 2012-2013

Moved Cr Williams Seconded Cr Deeming “1. That the information be received.

2. That grants from Round 2 of the 2012-13 Community Fund be made to the following organisations:

a) About Time Project $5,000 under Whangarei Lions

b) Healthy Hikurangi Trust $4,000

c) Northland AIDS Network Charitable Trust $1,000

d) Rugby League Northland $2,400

e) Sistema Whangarei $9,730 under Whangarei Youth Music

f) Volunteering Whangarei $5,000

g) Whangarei Migrant Centre $1,958

h) Whangarei Sustainable Living Festival $2,000

i) Whangarei Terenga Paraoa Marae $3,670

3. That the following applications to Round 2 of the 2012-13 Community Fund be declined:

a) CBEC EcoSolutions

b) MNB Productions

c) Regent Community Trust – Toy Library

d) SPCA Whangarei

e) The Whangarei Youth Community Trust.” CARRIED

The meeting closed at 8.34am

Confirmed this 12th day of June 2013 W L Syers (Chairperson)


3. District Living Group Monthly Report May 2013

Reporting officer Paul Dell (Group Manager District Living)

Date 21 May 2013

Resource Consents Manager The number of applications received during May remains fairly steady, noting that we have received several larger more complex applications, including the new Countdown supermarket at Regent and a new Bigsave Furniture store on Porowini Ave.

It is noted that May is the first month since September 2012 where all applications have been issued within 20 working days without the use of Section 37 under the RMA for any time extension. Section 37 is generally used where there is negotiation over draft conditions for consent and this pushes the timeframes out beyond 20 working days.

The new Urban Transition Environment provisions are now public, having been signed off by the Environment Court and pending Council adoption in June. Staff are already talking to landowners and their agents about likely proposals soon to be lodged to take advantage of the new zoning. In conjunction with this, we are receiving an increasing number of queries about the next steps for Council in terms of progressing further zone changes in the rural environment.

Staff have been processing an application for the designation of land in Maunu for a new dam and associated detention pond (called ‘Kotuku Dam’). The application has been lodged by the Northland Regional Council in its capacity as a designating authority and was publicly notified, with a relatively small number of submissions lodged. Due to the efforts by the applicant, all submissions from people wishing to be heard have been withdrawn, meaning that no formal hearing is now required to consider the submissions and reach a decision. Rather, it is intended that the Northland Regional Council (as regulatory body) and Whangarei District Council jointly appoint an independent Hearings Commissioner to deliberate and determine a decision on the application, without the need for a formal hearing. A recommendation is provided at the end of this report to appoint Mr Rob van Voorthuysen as a Commissioner for this purpose.

Policy and Monitoring Manager Celebrations as the Environment Court has signed off on two Consent Orders allowing the plan changes on the Urban Transition Environment and the Northpower Critical Lines to progress towards becoming operative. A decision on cost for Longview was also made with a neutral outcome.

The Plan Change for Te Hape Village can also progress with the purchase of a strategic property which opens the conversation with the landowners.

The District Plan process and methodology being followed by Council and promoted at various professional institutes was met with enthusiasm and is a hot topic in the professional social media. This might also influence the Ministry of the Environments view on a standardised template for district plans.

Staff presented on Council’s submissions to the Regional Policy Statement and decisions by the Northland Regional Council are expected before the Local Government elections.

Structure planning within the Inner City is progressing as are the Village Plans.

Building Consents Manager This month’s consented dollar value of building works at $18.40 million tops last month’s record high of $16.4 million for the previous year. The new record is further solidified by the continual steady flow of the residential new house builds overlaid with commercial building works.

During this time there were 164 building consents issued. Of this total figure 39 consents were granted for the Ruakaka sewage scheme leaving 125 building consents. Of the 125 consents, 114 were residential building consents with a value of $10.23 million and the remaining 11 were commercial with a value over $8.16 million.

Of the residential building consents 30 were for new house builds at a value of $7.93 million. The proportion in dollar values of residential to commercial building works consented is 56:44, i.e. 56% was for residential.


Strong momentum appears to be sustained with 168 building consents valued over $16 million received in this reporting period pending processing.

Inspections continue to fluctuate with 734 inspections done in May 2013 compared to last years 678 for May 2012. We expect inspections to pick up further reflecting the amount of building works consented and the amount of construction works in early foundation stage. During the month 186 Code Compliance Certificates were issued along with 114 Land Information Memorandums (LIMs), remaining in line with a more active real estate market.

Regulatory Services Manager The review of the Dog Management Policy and Bylaw has now been completed with the adoption of new policy and a bylaw by council on the 29 May. The Department will now focus on the review of the Public Places Bylaw which is expected to be completed mid 2014.

The implementation of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 is a primary focus of the Department as we go forward in the year. The Act comes into force in stages and from the 18 June 2013, licensing inspectors will be reporting on new criteria for premises licences, most significantly amenity and good order. The extent to which licensed premises affects the amenity of a neighbourhood (in respect of noise, vandalism and nuisance) will be taken into account at the time of licence grant. Between June and December council will need to develop a new committee structure and support processes, including appointing committee members drawn from the community. The Ministry of Justice and Local Government NZ are providing guidance on the new systems required and staff and elected members will attend various training workshops over the next few months. A report which will detail the new committee structures and processes will be placed before council in July.

Community Services Manager This last reporting period has seen some great milestones from across the department. Firstly, the community funding calendar has been completed. Following its annual report next month, this area will begin a comprehensive review, with councillors with any changes to be implemented for the 14/15 year.

Community safety has had some great results through the Community Officers and ongoing collaboration with the Police and Blue-club members. Conversations with the Ministry of Justice this month have been positive and we are looking forward to maintaining these levels of service with their on-going support.

Across our advisory groups we have seen a range of activity and ongoing improvements with how the whole organisation can utilise these groups. The Youth Advisory Group, especially, has had a memorable month; playing significant roles in our new youth policy and youth week as well as supporting a community request for a youth centre and seeking new members. They have an exciting working relationship with our Council and it is always visible with the level of energy they bring when working with us.

Volunteerism continues to be an establishing theme within the department. This month we have presented an opportunity to the Chief Executives of Northland Public Services (Northland Intersectoral Forum – NIF), to support the establishment of Whangarei’s Volunteer Centre. We have also received the nominations for WDC’s Civic Honours and in August our Council will acknowledge 4 significant residents of our district for their voluntary contributions.


Resource Consents

The Resource Consents Manager (A Hartstone) reports for May 2013

Volume of Resource Consents Received

Volume of Other Permissions Received

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13

Subdivision Consents Received Land Use Consents Received Total Consents Received

Trendline for total

0

5

10

15

20

25

30



Volume of Resource Consents Processed

Volume of Other Permissions Processed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Subdivision Consents Processed Land Use Consents Processed Total Processed

Trendline

0

5

10

15

20

25

30



Difference between Consents Received and Processed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Total Consents Received Total Consents Processed


Distribution of when a decision is made for Non-Notified Resource Consent and other Permission Applications

Performance Indicators

May 2013 (%)

Year’s average to

date (%)

Resource Consents Non-notified consents processed within statutory timeframes 100 100

Other Permissions Processed within statutory timeframes 100 100

223 Issued Within 10 working days 100 100

224 Issued Within 10 working days 100 100

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Decision within 0 - 15 working days Decision within 16 - 20 working daysDecision within 21 - 30 working days Decision within 31 - 40 working days


Timelines of Notified Resource Consents Processed

Timelines of Non-Notified Resource Consents Processed

Timelines of Other Permissions Processed

Within statutory timeframes 100% (0)

Outside statutorytimeframes 0% (0)


Outside statutory timeframes 0% (0)




Timelines of S223 Post-Approval Subdivision Certificates Processed

Timelines of S224 Post-Approval Subdivision Certificates Processed

Current Volume of Consent Applications

Rejected Applications

Date received Type Agent Reason

20/05/2013 LU Burgess & Treep The proposal does not comply with Chapter 47 of the District Plan.





0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Active Consents Suspended Consents


Appeals and other Matters

No appeals were received during the month of May.

Policy and Monitoring

The Policy and Monitoring Manager (P Waanders) reports for May 2013

District Plan Council’s decision is to provide for the revision of the District Plan through the rolling review. A programme has been developed to undertake this rolling review over the next 3 years. The review process has moved from a topic based approach to more of a spatial based approach. This enables better integration of the planning topics and more attention to be given to those geographic areas that are likely to be subject to the greatest change within the next ten year district planning cycle.

Plan Changes The following illustrates progress on the more significant plan changes presently being undertaken:

i) Plan Change 65 – Longview Estuary Estate Submissions against the claim for costs had been lodged with the Environment Court. The Environment Court has ruled not to award coasts and that every party pays their own cost.

ii) Plan Change 93 – Urban Transition Environment

The Environment Court has signed off on the Consent Order. A separate memorandum is included in this agenda to finally approve the Plan Change and to incorporate it into the District Plan.

iii) Plan Change 100 – Sites of Significance to Maori

Ngati Hine – The signing of the user agreement has been scheduled for 24 June 2013 and will take place at the Tau Henare Marae.

Ngatiwai and Patuharakeke – are finalising the information to be transfered to Council. Maps will be provided to staff working on the District Plan to progress the Plan Change early June.

Te Parawhau - Te Waiariki / Te Waiariki and Te Kahu o Torongare hapu research continues.

Ngati Hau has requested to extent their final time frame to the end of the year due to Treaty Claim Hearings priority.

iv) Plan Change 112 – Te Hape Village

A proposal to plan for a new access to the future Te Hape Village has been developed. NZTA have now confirmed that they will assist in the construction of the right turn bay on SH14 when the traffic requires such a bay. The property making access to Te Hape Road possible has been acquired. Discussions with the parties who want to develop their properties are being conducted in order to secure the route of the proposed link road during the subdivision stage. A consultant will also progress the Plan Change on behalf of Council in accordance with the Structure Plan adopted by Council.

v) Plan Change 113 – Ruakaka Racecourse

This private plan change which proposes the introduction of a new zone (Ruakaka Equine Environment or REE) was notified on 26 March 2013 for submissions closing on 26 April 2013. A summary of submissions is to be notified on 28 May 2013, with the closing date for further submissions being 12 June 2013.

vi) Plan Change 117 – Northpower Line Maintenance

The Plan Change has been signed off by the Environment Court and approved it. A separate memorandum is included in the agenda to finally approve the Plan Change and to incorporate it into the District Plan.

vii) Plan Change 123A – Network Utilities, Electricity Transmission


The Plan Change was approved in February 2013. Three appeals have since been lodged from Federated Farmers of New Zealand, Transpower New Zealand and Northpower. Additional parties have now joined the proceedings under s274 of the Act. Negotiation discussion and mediation will commence in the near future, and the Court has directed that Council report back in June regarding the outcome of these discussions.

viii) Plan Change 124 – Built Heritage

The Heritage Buildings and Objects Chapter of the District Plan is being reviewed, and will be limited to the ‘built’ aspects of heritage. The s32 report is presently under preparation, and was the subject of a District Living Focus Group meeting on 10 April 2013 for the purpose of seeking direction from Council on certain issues prior to advancing further with Plan Change 124. On 8 May 2013 the District Living Committee endorsed, as its preferred option for progressing the plan change, a minimalist approach based on items registered by the NZHPT, supplemented by continued recognition of heritage at a more local level through non-statutory methods such as structure planning and sense of place initiatives.

ix) Rural Plan Changes

Background research, constraint mapping and section 32 evaluation has commenced as part of the resultant rural plan changes.

In addition to the notified plan changes, the graphical report from the District Plan now includes progress on the informal pre-notification work presently being undertaken. Recognising Council’s emphasis on the notion of sense of place, planning work has been focussing on those geographic areas of the district that are or will be subject to the greatest change over the next 10-15 years. A briefing to update the Committee on this ‘change management’ approach will be scheduled over the next few weeks.


District Plan Change Progress

In Progress In ProgressCompleted Completed

OperativeAdopted by CouncilAppeals Resolved 12.6.13 12.6.13

Appeal Period Commenced 16.8.11 16.8.11 19.02.13Council Decision 10.08.11 10.8.11 13.02.13

Hearing Commenced 5.5.11 16.5.11 5.11.12 Interal ReviewReport Integration

Pre-Hearing Plan AlignmentFurther Submissions Close 14.12.10 14.8.12 Scenario Testing

Summary Notified 30.11.10 Ground TruthingSubmissions Close 26.4.13 27.10.10 27.7.12 Identify Methods

Public Notification 26.3.13 28.9.10 29.5.12 Develop Objectives & PoliciesAccepted by Council 13.3.13 8.9.10 Informal Consultation

Drafted Focus Groups32 Report Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation Draft Chapter OutlineFocus Group 8.9.10 4.4.13 Identify Outcomes

Outline of Proposal Information GatheringPlan Change # PC93 PC100 PC113 PC117 PC123A PC124 Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural Rural District District Rolling Review Topic

Urb

an T

rans

ition

Site

of S

igni

fican

ce to

Mao

ri

Rua

kaka

Rac

ecou

rse

Nor

thpo

wer

(Lin

e M

aint

enan

ce)

Elec

tiric

ity T

rans

mis

sion

s

Built

Her

itage

Kam

o C

hang

e En

viro

nmen

t

Kens

ingt

on C

hang

e En

viro

nmen

t

Oka

ra C

hang

e En

viro

nmen

t

Rur

al L

ivin

g En

viro

nmen

ts

Rur

al In

dust

ry E

nviro

nmen

ts

Rur

al P

rodu

ctio

n En

viro

nmen

ts

Biod

iver

sity

Papa

kain

ga D

evel

opm

ent

Proc

ess


Plan Formulation a) Rural Development Strategy

The final strategy was adopted by the District Living Committee on 13 March 2013. The Strategy is available on Council’s website.

b) Implementing the Urban Growth Strategy

See e) Urban Design below for implementation of CBD Sense of Place initiatives and Strategic Planning / Sustainable Futures 30/50.

c) Coastal Management Strategy

The Regional Policy Statement (RPS) was notified on 28 September 2012 and its provisions will need to be given regard to in assessing plan changes and resource consent applications from this date. The RPS contains maps defining the extent of the coastal environment and these maps and their associated draft policies will be given effect to through the District Plan rolling review. The lines on the maps will be challenged by various submissions to the RPS.

d) Landscape

In the notified Regional Policy Statement, areas have been identified as Outstanding Natural Landscapes, Outstanding Natural Features and Natural Character areas through the Northland Mapping project. Further submissions have been made to the proposed Regional Policy Statement to ensure consistent establishment of the maps. The landscape areas are debated through the RPS submissions.

e) Urban Design

Civil design of the CBD Stage 1 (laneway) to enable tendering of the project works, once approved and when finance is available, is now complete. Tender documents have been prepared for the Cameron James corner canopy, in readiness to go out to a design build tender when funding is released. Work is proceeding on developing a concept design for Carpark to Park encapsulating the preferred elements identified through public feedback as reported to the 20/20 Inner City Development Subcommittee in May.

A draft version of guidelines for intensive housing in Whangarei is being prepared.

Council’s Urban Designer is liaising with members of the Maungatapere business community about options for improving the visual profile of the township.

f) Preparations for the Northland Regional Policy Statement (RPS)

The Regional Policy Statement was notified on 28 September 2012 and submissions and further submissions closed. The Whangarei District Council’s submission and further submissions were lodged with the Regional Council.

The Regional Council published its Section 42A reporting officers’ reports, an annotated Proposed Regional Policy statement as Amended and a binder of changes to the landscape and coastal maps on 10 May 2013. Copies have been distributed to staff and have been recorded in Councils electronic document system.

Hearings are in progress until 21 June 2013. Staff have presented Council’s submission on 21 May 2013.

Strategic Planning/State of the Environment Monitoring and Reporting

a) State of Environment Monitoring and Reporting

A Staff member attended the Biodiversity Forum Meeting and Field Trip on 1 May 2013. An update of Northland wetlands and lakes projects was presented, and a World Wetlands Day proposal was tabled by Nathan Burkepile Fish and Game. The Forum is going to review attending the Northland Field Days for 2014, and perhaps attend two local shows preferably around Dargaville/North Kaipara and the Far North). The field trip was to Pukenui Forest, where Jerry Brackenbury and Max Hutchings outlined the the Pukenui Western Hills Forest Trust project, including management arrangements, funding, key conservation actions and community involvement.


David Mules, WWF, presented the Reconnect Northland Project and Ngaire Tyson from NZ Landcare Trust presented the flagship project for Reconnect Northland Project, the “Kiwi Coast”. The presentation was well attended by staff from Resource Consents, Parks and Reserves, Roading, Infrastructure Projects and Monitoring, Policy and Monitoring, ENL, Governance and Community Services.

A Staff member attended the Northland Kiwi Forum on the 9th of May. Key topics discussed where:

· Marunui Kiwi release (Mangawhai/Brynderwyns Hills) · New Kiwi Maps are ready to be published and available for distribution · Genetic testing to be carried out by the Canadian geneticist · WDC Dog/Kiwi brochure drafted and to sent out with dog registrations this year. Look at sharing

information with KDC and FNDC. · 100th Kiwi released from Limestone Island this month. · Council Roadshow planning is required. · A Forestry sub-committee is to be established, noted that Councils also own forestry. · Funding applications · Review of the Taxon plan for Northland brown kiwi

Conservation Covenant monitoring has been completed for the 2012/2013 financial year. Forty four covenants where monitored and the reports have been sent out to covenantors. We have received positive feedback from a number of property owners.

b) Strategic Planning/Sustainable Futures 30/50

The Whangarei Growth Strategy Sustainable Futures 30/50 Implementation Plan was adopted by Council on 10 April 2013. The Implementation Plan will now be printed and distributed to parties that have an implementing role and will also be added to the Council website.

c) Central Whangarei Structure Plan

The area covered includes (6) central areas of Whangarei not previously covered by Structure Plans. Work continues on the Central Whangarei Structure Plan. Areas for residential intensification are being investigated and density evidence is being worked on with GID spatial tools. A draft Precinct Plan for Hihiaua and the Town Basin area is being developed and internal discussions for capacity analysis including modelling is being conducted.

d) Village Plans

Staff from council continue to work with the Parua Bay Community Focus Group in implementing the village plan, especially. asset managers from Infrastructure and Services who are providing specialist support.

The Otangarei Neighbourhood Safety Panel hosted a workshop with residents on the 15th May 2013 at Otangarei Primary School, in association with Council and the Neighbourhood Policing Team. Approximately 20 member of the public participated in the workshop groups and a number of potential projects have been identified. A second workshop involving residents has been scheduled for the 12th of June to build consensus around priorities for action, responsibility for action, and/or possible timeframes for action. Details will be made available to residents through a newsletter distributed throughout Otangarei.

e) Whangarei Harbour Water Quality Action Plan

Draft Terms of Reference for this joint project have been agreed with Northland Regional Council. These are further detailed as an item in this agenda. A similar item has been included in the agenda of the Environmental Management Committee of Northland Regional Council.

f) Coastal Population Survey

A draft report has been prepared and is currently being peer reviewed for the Coastal Population Survey carried out over the summer period. This expected to be completed by the end of May.


g) Weekend and Night Time Economy Strategy

A discussion document has been drafted to examine the weekend and night time economy in Central Whangarei. This discussion document was considered at a Council Workshop on the 29th of May.

h) Genetic Engineering

Far North District Council at its meeting on 23 May passed the following resolution unanimously:

That the FNDC agrees and supports in principle the resolutions of the ICWP, including proceeding (in principle) with a plan change process to regulate the outdoor use of GMOs through provisions in the Far North District Plan in collaboration with other councils.

A decision is now awaited from Auckland Council after consultation on its draft Unitary Plan is completed. If it decides to include the proposed provisions from the Inter-council Working Party in their proposed Unitary Plan there will be three councils with a decision to proceed collaboratively down that statutory route. Given that, there may be a chance that Kaipara District Council will join the process. In addition, depending on how consultation goes on the Hastings District Council’s draft District Plan, they may well be including similar provisions in its proposed District Plan. They will be publically notifying the proposed District Plan potentially around the same time as councils in Northland/Auckland – September/October 2013. This presents further opportunities for collaboration and cost sharing.

i) Environmental Education

Staff attended and facilitated the social housing part of the Public Health training of 5, 5th year medical students. The presentations on various topics were of high standard.


Building Consents

The Building Consents Manager (B Rogers) reports for May 2013

Building Inspection Numbers

Value of Building Consents

678 472 489 580 501 662584

680 367 444555

505734

416 495542

559533 496 620 491

191509 460 511 678

60626551

71317632

82948878

9558 992510369

1092411429

12163

66747216

77758308

88049424

9915 1010610615

1107511586

12264

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Build

ing

Insp

ectio

n N

umbe

rs

Inspections Current Year Inspections Last Year

Inspection Cumulative Current Inspection Cumulative Last Year

678 472 489 580 501 662584

680 367 444555

505734

416 495542

559533 496 620 491

191509 460 511 678

60626551

71317632

82948878

9558 992510369

1092411429

12163

66747216

77758308

88049424

9915 1010610615

1107511586

12264

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Build

ing

Insp

ectio

n N

umbe

rs

Inspections Current Year Inspections Last Year

Inspection Cumulative Current Inspection Cumulative Last Year


Lodged Issued Suspended

Performance Indicators

May 2013 (%)

Year’s average to

date (%)

Building Consents Processed in 15 working days 29.27 33.40

Building Consents Processed in 20 working days 52.03 62.59

LIMs Within 7 working days 10.52 41.93

LIMs (Statutory Requirement) % within 10 days 47.37 93.02

PIMs Within 5 working days 37.80 38.54

Inspections Completed within 2 working days 100.00 99.99

Average BC processing time Note – ebenchmark average 10.5 days

9.67 10.85

Building Consents Issued - Commercial and Residential Percentages

106

135 14

3

159

127

157

148

106

72

84

180

137

168

104

89

169

114

176

163

128

115

85 86

169

112

164

35

26

45

70

48 46

36

55

44

37 37 36

44

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Consent Applications Received Consent Applications Issued Applications Suspended

Residential Value

$10,229,965 56%

Commercial Value

$8,163,369 44%

22 April 2013 - 24 May2013


Regulatory Services

The Regulatory Services Manager (G Couchman) reports for May 2013

Environmental Health The following is a summary of inspections/samples/notifications addressed

Item May 2013 (%)

Year to date cumulative

Number of inspections carried out on food premises 92 807

New VIP exemptions granted 2 44

Total number of VIP exemptions 8 135

Number of inspections carried out on other premises e.g. hairdressers, mobile shops, camping grounds 8 140

Number of water samples taken either at non-reticulated food premises or marine sampling/fresh water sampling 1 70

Number of Health Act nuisances e.g. odour, noise, dust, drainage, rodents, offal etc 10 155

Number of infectious diseases notified 20 197

AEE – Assessments of environmental effects including monitoring 3 47

Premises Inspection Grading

Each month inspections of food premises are undertaken prior to their annual registration

This annual registration inspection includes an assessment of the premises in terms of Council’s Food Premises Risk Evaluation System which assesses four areas of performance 1 Premises layout 2 Food hygiene conduct and practices 3 Cleaning and sanitising 4 Food handler training

A grade is allocated to the occupier of each premise from this assessment

Food premises gradings

Grade A+ Ohaeawai Chicken Co

Ltd Stall at Whangarei Grower’s Market

Waima Hill Organic Beef

Stall at Whangarei Grower’s Market

Newday Cafe & Catering

1387 Whangarei Heads Road, Parua Bay, Whangarei

Savoeun’s Pastry Cafe 119 Maunu Road, Whangarei

Subway Whangarei Rathbone Street, Whangarei

Subway Tarewa 15 Lower Tarewa Road, Whangarei

Subway Okara Port Road, Whangarei

The Apprentice 49 Raumanga Valley Road, Whangarei

Hot ‘N Juicy The Strand, 41 Cameron Street, Whangarei

Traditional Roast 63A Walton Street, Whangarei

Refuel Cafe ASB Leasure Centre, Western Hills Drive, Whangarei


Charlies Bakery 161 Kamo Road, Kensington, Whangarei

Hospital Fish Shop & Takeaways

117 Maunu Road, Whangarei

Grade A The Fruit & Vege Warehouse


Daffodil Dairy 45 Maunu Road, Whangarei

Maunu Superette 11 Maunu Road, Whangarei

Kara Valley Bacon 572 Kara Road, Maungatapere, Whangarei

Maunu Hot Bread Shop


Scoopys Icecream Parlour

Inside The Warehouse building, Port Road, Whangarei

The Coffee Guy Mobile Shop

GS Mitchell Mobile Shop

Caltex Whangarei 15 Lower Tarewa Road, Whangarei

Ruatangata Motors 5 Thorburn Road, Ruatangata, Whangarei

Apotams 595 Kamo Road, Kamo, Whangarei

Narbey Olive Oil 728 Ormiston Road, Waipu

Golf Country Club Kitchen

160A Pipiwai Road, Kamo, Whangarei

Adriatic Fisheries 91 Kamo Road, Kensington, Whangarei

Whangarei Netball Association

Kensington Avenue, Kensington, Whangarei

Onerahi Dairy 114A Onerahi Road, Onerahi, Whangarei

Kamo Mobil Mart 473 Kamo Road, Kamo, Whangarei

Happy Dragon Takeaways

404 Kamo Road, Kamo, Whangarei

Bin Inn – Kamo 386 Kamo Road, Kamo, Whangarei

Muffin Break The Strand, 41 Cameron Street, Whangarei

Oriental Foodmart 8 John Street, Whangarei

Cafe Latino Mobile Shop

Onerahi Hot Bread Shop

122 Onerahi Road, Onerahi, Whangarei

Patels Foodmarket 167a Kamo Road, Kensington, Whangarei

Destination Dairy 1 Ewing Road, Whangarei

Tikipunga Wholesale Meats

169 Kiripaka Road, Tikipunga, Whangarei

A Deco 70 Kamo Road, Kensington, Whangarei

Grade B+ Quarry Studio Cafe 21 Selwyn Avenue, Whangarei

Grade B Kamo Dairy 396 Kamo Road, Kamo, Whangarei

Kensington Foodmart 95 Kamo Road, Kensington, whangarei

Grade C


Food Premises Grades

Liquor Licensing Monthly Statistics

Item May 2013 (%)


Number of liquor licensing applications received 53 641

Number of premises inspections (routine) 13 195

Number of premises inspections (monitoring operations) 6 56

Regulatory Compliance

Complaints investigation May 2013 (%)


Total number of complaints received 39 322

Number of Building Act 2004 complaints 20 144

Number of Resource Management Act 1991 complaints 17 135

Number of Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 complaints 2 43

Number of complaints resolved during the month 26 273

Total number of complaints still under investigation 49

Compliance inspections

Number of land use resource consent conditions monitored 19 237

Number of Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 inspections 12 250

Enforcement actions

Number of abatement notices issued 2 8

109

212

30 30

1

126

234

26 200

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

A+ A B+ B C

Grades

Last year Jul 11-Jun 12

Cumulative year to date


Number of infringement notices issued 0 3

Number of Building Act – Notices to fix 0 1

Number of Building Act – warrants to alleviate immediate danger 0 0

Number of Building Act – dangerous/insanitary buildings 0 4

Number of prosecutions/other applications 0 0

Resource Management Act/District Plan Complaints

Building Act Complaints Investigated

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Monthly Low Historical Range Monthly Data

Monthly Average 12 Month Trend

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35




Land Use Resource Consents Monitored

Pool Inspections

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100




Environmental Northland

Dog Complaints

Stock Complaints

0

100

200

300

400

500

600



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90




Excessive Noise Complaints

Community Services

The Community Services Manager (O Thomas) reports for May 2013

Community Funding Community Fund Round 2 went before the Community Funding Sub-Committee on 8 May. 14 applications were received. 9 community groups received grants totalling $34,758.

Due to a low turnout of applications for Round 2 of the 2013-2014 Creative Communities Scheme, Creative New Zealand required that a one-off Round 3 was offered for this financial year. Advertising calling for applications began at the end of April and applications closed on Friday 17 May. 14 applications were received. Applications will be considered by the Creative Communities assessment Committee when they meet on 11 June 2013.

This concludes the funding calendar for 2012-3013. The annual 2012-2013 Community Funding report will go before the District Living Committee in July 2013. Work is now progressing on the 2013-2014 Community Funding Guide and Funding Calendar and these will be available on Council’s website by the end of May.

Planning is underway for the review of Council’s Community Funding. Initial discussions with the Community Funding Sub-Committee will take place in the beginning of the new financial year resulting in a draft proposal being completed. The review is to be completed and presented to Council for adoption by April 2014. It is expected that any changes will not take effect until the 2014-2015 financial year.

Community Safety The City Safe Call Centre recorded 301 reported activities for the period, being 11% down from the last period of 337 reported activities. Graffiti was slightly down from the previous period (74, down from 84), skateboard bylaw offending was slightly up (27, up from 22), and bikes in the mall was up (27, up from 18). Reported dishonesty was slightly down (10, down from 13), however, disorder was significantly up (14, up from 5). Reported activities for the CBD was slightly down (135, down from 140); consisting of Bank St. (8, down from 6), Cameron St. (50, down from 59), Dent St. (12, down from 19), James St. (15, up from 8), John St. (13, down from 17), Rathbone St. (20, down from 23), Robert St. (13, up from 8), Rose St. (7, down from

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500




14), Rust Av. (20, down from 25), Vine St. (10, down from 13), Walton St. (18, up from 10), and Water St (1, down from 10). The Town Basin area had 15 reported activities (down from 19), for abandoned shopping trolleys, graffiti and maintenance issues. Reported activities for the suburbs over the period showed a significant decrease for Tikipunga (2, down from 15), which is attributed to the finish of the Summer Safe Carparks Campaign on the 1st April, in Onerahi (11, down from 5), Avenues (9, down from 12) and Kamo (5, down from 7), and an increase in Kensington (11, up from 6).

During this period, which included the school holiday period from the 20th April to the 5th May, the Community Officers recorded 170 activities and had 1 skateboard seizure. The Community Officers assisted Police with dealing with the effects of an increased usage of legal highs in the CBD, which is often having a detrimental effect on the health of our youth and their ability to make good, rational decisions. They have attended a significant amount of incidents of disorder, graffiti and theft over the holiday period, and despite the advice being given about the adverse effects of taking these products, people are largely ignoring the advice given.

The Community Officers have continued to assist with a diverse range of activities from bylaw enforcement, moving on people begging for money around the CBD, loitering at the back of the Forum North complex & the Central City Carpark, assisting a young person with a complaint to the Police, assisting Police to locate shoplifters, recovering a stolen bike, preventing and reporting fights between youths, assisting during a domestic dispute, reporting truants, dealing with found property, reporting abandoned shopping trolleys and reporting Council maintenance issues about the CBD.

The reporting of CCTV activities within the CBD and Town Basin has seen a significant drop in the number of overall reported activities (89, down from 127), seeing a slight drop in offences reported (30, down from 31), and a significant drop in incidents reported (59, down from 96). The CCTV volunteers continue to work well with the City Safe Community Officers in identifying bylaw offending and potential incidents of disorder within the CBD.

Apr-May 2012

May-Jun 2012

Jun-Jul 2012

Jul-Aug 2012

Aug-Sep 2012

Sep-Oct 2012

Oct-Nov 2012

Nov-Dec 2012

Dec-Jan 2013

Jan-Feb 2013

Feb-Mar 2013

Mar-Apr 2013

Apr-May 2013

Total Activities 332 375 373 328 332 368 304 326 261 306 237 337 3016-Mth Ave 356 399 410 374 356 351 347 339 320 316 300 295 295

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

City Safe Call Centre Totals V's 6-Month Average


Apr-May 2012

May-Jun 2012

Jun-Jul 2012

Jul-Aug 2012

Aug-Sept 2012

Sept-Oct 2012

Oct-Nov 2012

Nov-Dec 2012

Dec-Jan 2013

Jan-Feb 2013

Feb-Mar 2013

Mar-Apr 2013

Apr-May 2013

INCIDENTS 53 42 64 27 56 53 60 98 46 96 89 96 59OFFENCES 13 19 33 13 27 24 38 30 25 21 24 31 30

-10

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

Total CCTV Activity - Incidents & Offences: Apr-May 2012 to Apr-May 2013

Apr-May 2012

May-Jun 2012

Jun-Jul 2012

Jul-Aug 2012

Aug-Sept 2012

Sept-Oct 2012

Oct-Nov 2012

Nov-Dec 2012

Dec-Jan 2013

Jan-Feb 2013

Feb-Mar 2013

Mar-Apr 2013

Apr-May 2013

Breach Liquor 7 9 13 7 9 14 25 22 15 13 16 17 13Damage 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0Dishonesty 1 3 2 1 3 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1Disorder 4 7 15 5 10 10 9 6 8 6 4 8 6Drugs 1 0 2 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 2 2 4Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Total CCTV Offences: Apr-May 2012 to Apr-May 2013


The reporting and recording of graffiti for this period includes all graffiti removal jobs attended by the various contractors to Council, as well as the Community Probation Service (CPS) community work programme. The CPS removes graffiti vandalism from Council parks, reserves and access-ways within the city on a weekly basis. D’Tag is the primary graffiti removal contractor to Council, which has, in addition to graffiti removal, the operation of the Supervised Work Programme (SWP) for youth offenders. The total graffiti removal jobs, attended by contractors within the district, during this period were slightly down (691, down from 700). Of these jobs, 554 (80%) were attended by D’Tag (up from 537), that included 133 (65%) of the 204 graffiti removal CRM jobs reported to Council. D’Tag removed a total of 2,495 individual tags and graffiti vandalism (up from 2,435), and a combined total of 2,650 items of graffiti vandalism were removed by Council contractors (up from 2,576) for the period.

The highest amount of graffiti removal jobs attended by our contractors, was in the City (159, down from 162), followed by Kamo (112, up from 66), Kensington/Regent (92, up from 60), Tikipunga (58, down from 94), Riverside (44, up from 2), Onerahi (36 up from 9), Raumanga (27, up from 6), Otaika (25, down from 27), Avenues (22, up from 11), Smeatons (13, up from 6), Maunu (13, down from 16), Morningside (11, up from 8), Otangarei (11, up from 7) however, the actual graffiti for Otangarei does not include graffiti that was removed by the Otangarei Trust. The rural area visited by D’Tag was Ruakaka (14, up from 8). The Community Probation Service (CPS) made 7 visits to each suburb over this period and removed a total of 87 tags (up from 82), with Kamo, Kensington and Tikipunga being the highest tag removal areas.

Apr-May 2012

May-Jun 2012

Jun-Jul 2012

Jul-Aug 2012

Aug-Sept 2012

Sept-Oct 2012

Oct-Nov 2012

Nov-Dec 2012

Dec-Jan 2013

Jan-Feb 2013

Feb-Mar 2013

Mar-Apr 2013

Apr-May 2013

Bikes In Mall 13 13 7 5 9 8 6 9 12 22 31 31 25Intoxicated 3 1 2 1 3 3 3 6 0 1 0 0 2Skateboards 30 20 49 16 37 37 48 74 31 65 47 32 21Suspicious 7 7 4 5 5 4 3 7 3 6 11 17 5Truancy 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0Vehicles 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0Other Incident 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Total CCTV Incidents: Apr-May 2012 to Apr-May 2013

Apr-May 2012

May-Jun 2012

Jun-Jul 2012

Jul-Aug 2012

Aug-Sept 2012

Sept-Oct 2012

Oct-Nov 2012

Nov-Dec 2012

Dec 2012-Jan 2013

Jan-Feb 2013

Feb-Mar 2013

Mar-Apr 2013

Apr-May 2013

D'Tag 264 362 255 290 417 300 287 289 209 326 276 320 330SWP 193 209 196 117 35 175 202 156 9 93 151 217 224Other 5 303 181 163 137

050

100150200250300350400450

Job Removals for D'Tag , SWP & Other WDC Contractors


The CCTV Activate Programme continues to be a benefit to the district, where 62 people have been reported for 31 offences, ranging from bylaw offending, dishonesty, disorder and graffiti from offending within the Central City Carpark and at Forum North.

Community Development Our Community Advisor, Carla Janssen, started on the 13th of May and has been getting to know the various members of our advisory groups, some of the familiar faces from the district’s NGO’s and government departments and learning our systems and procedures. With a background in law, mediation and nursing Carla brings more than one new string to the Community Services bow. Carla is also involved in a number of Community Groups herself, one of which is Friends of Matakohe/Limestone Island. One of her primary challenges will be further integrating the activities of our Community Advisory Groups across our business to ensure we are meeting the diverse needs of our district’s residents.

The Positive Aging Advisory Group met on the 7th of May and had a very interesting presentation from the WDC Waste and Drainage Manager, Andrew Carvell. There was a lively discussion about the importance of the community owning ‘the solution’ and to ask one’s self what they can do to assist. Andrew will be compiling the key messages from his presentation for the group to share with their respective networks to reinforce what we can all do to contribute to improving the water quality of our harbour. The group also met Senior Constable James McCullough from Police. James introduced himself and his role as acting Community Safety Officer. There was a request from the group for information on elder abuse, as they felt it was prevalent and often unreported. The Police have circulated this information to the members of our advisory group.

The Disability Advisory group met on the 21st of May and finalised their Terms of Reference. We are asking Council to receive this document in this month’s District Living agenda. Some discussions were had on a couple of accessibility issues. The first issue was the location of the disability car park at Farmers which a member of the public thought was too far from the front doors. The group, however, thought it was appropriately located because of other safety factors associated with the park. The other issue was the crossing at Central Ave and Western Hills. The group complimented Roading staff for liaising with the NZ Blind Foundation and installing tactile indicators in the footpath.

The Youth Advisory Group met of the 15th of May and this was an opportunity to debrief from what had been a busy Youth Week. The group were involved in 2 events and worked with our Communications staff to profile Youth Week and youth in Council the week before. The first event was a collaborative effort with Te Ora Hou. This was reported back to Councillors at the last district living committee by Councillor Williams who supported the event on the day. The second event was in support of the Migrant Centre’s International Families Day event where the Youth Advisory Group ran a quiz, for youth by youth. This too was a

Apr-May 2012

May-Jun 2012

Jun-Jul 2012

Jul-Aug 2012

Aug-Sept 2012

Sept-Oct 2012

Oct-Nov 2012

Nov-Dec 2012

Dec 2012-Jan 2013

Jan-Feb 2013

Feb-Mar 2013

Mar-Apr 2013

Apr-May 2013

D'Tag 1150 1795 1355 1156 1981 1832 1500 1226 1055 1229 1613 1218 1097SWP 1155 991 1343 727 285 1202 1503 757 52 696 1035 1217 1398Other 5 353 156 141 155

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Tag Removals for D'Tag , SWP & Other WDC Contractors

Apr-May 2012

May-Jun 2012

Jun-Jul 2012

Jul-Aug 2012

Aug-Sept 2012

Sept-Oct 2012

Oct-Nov 2012

Nov-Dec 2012

Dec 2012-Jan 2013

Jan-Feb 2013

Feb-Mar 2013

Mar-Apr 2013

Apr-May 2013

Jobs 457 571 451 407 452 475 489 445 223 722 608 700 691Tags 2305 2786 2698 1883 2266 3034 3003 1983 1112 2278 2804 2576 2650

0500

100015002000250030003500

Total Jobs Vs TotalTags Removed


successful event. The adoption of the Youth Policy was a highlight for the YAG and the interconnection with other youth groups, through the Youth Space initiative, is exciting too. The group plan to shape a public document from the research/survey results they collected during the establishment of the youth policy. The group has now been operating successfully for almost a year and are currently looking for 5 new members.

Advertising calling for nominations for the 2013 Civic Honours Awards began in early April and continued for a six week period. Nominations closed on Friday the 17th of May. 8 nominations were received. All nominations are confidential. The nominations will be considered by the Civic Honours Selection Committee when they meet on the 11th of June. The chosen recipients will be confirmed in the confidential section of the 26 June Council Meeting. The chosen recipients will be officially announced following the civic reception for them to be held on Wednesday the 21st of August.

Recommendation 1. That this report be received.

2. That Mr Rob van Voorthuysen be appointed as Hearings Commissioner, in conjunction with the Northland Regional Council to act as a joint Commissioner, in order to consider and make a decision on an application lodged by Northland Regional Council for a Notice of Requirement under Section 168 of the Resource Management Act. The delegation to consider and make a decision on an application under Section 168 is provided to the Commissioner by way of Sections 34 and 34A of the Resource Management Act, whereby the Council is delegating such functions, powers and duties as necessary to decide on the application for a Notice of Requirement.


4. Plan Change 93 – Urban Transition Environment, Final Consideration

Reporting officer Melissa McGrath (Senior Policy Planner)

Date of meeting 12 June 2013

Vision, mission and values

This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission and values statement as the provision of the Urban Transition Environment will achieve a more sustainable form of development in areas close to Whangarei City, thereby assisting in creating the ultimate living environment.

Background The Whangarei District Council Environment Committee at its meeting on 10 August 2011 approved Plan Change 93 (PC93) Urban Transition Environment. PC93 is a Council initiated plan change seeking to introduce an ‘Environment’ (zone) to the Operative District Plan including:

· New ‘Urban Transition’ Section – with objectives, policies and rules for the Environment, Land Use and Subdivision provisions.

· Updated District Plan maps – denoting the Urban Transition Environment.

Initially conceived under the Urban Structure Plans and Rural Residential areas, the proposed Urban Transition Environment (UTE) are situated on the fringes between (urban) Living and (rural) Countryside Environments. Where there has traditionally been a demand for lifestyle living in close proximity to the city. PC93 includes a description of the proposed UTE to identify the environmental outcomes sought in these transitional areas through the proposed objectives and policies.

Decision Following public notification and formal hearing of the plan change, at its meeting of 10 August 2011 the Whangarei District Council Environment Committee considered the Commissioners’ recommended decisions on submissions to PC93 and resolved:

“1. That the report and attachments be received. 2. That the report and recommendations of the Commissioners be approved in terms of Clause 29 of the

First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. 3. That the necessary notification of Council’s Decision be given in terms of Clause 11 of the First

Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.”

In total five appeals were lodged with the Environment Court. One appeal related to the provisions only, another from Northpower related to provision for critical infrastructure and three appeals were site specific, seeking to either be in or out of the proposed UTE. Mediation between parties was undertaken and a joint memorandum of parties was submitted to the Environment Court for consideration.

The Environment Court have subsequently considered the notice of appeal and the joint memorandum of the parties and have ordered by consent that the Operative District Plan is amended (as per the attachments). Recommendation 1. That the report and attachments be received.

2. That Plan Change 93 be approved in terms of Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

3. That the Plan Change be notified in terms of Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Attachments 1 Environment Court Consent Order dated 24 April 2013 – this attachment is too large to display online 2 Final District Plan Text, Urban Transition Environment Final District Plan Maps (Refer to Attachment 5 page 65 of agenda item for Private Plan Change 117) – this attachment is too large to display online

Urban Transition Environment UTE.1

Index UTE.1.1 Description & Expectations

The Urban Transition Environment provides for people who wish to live in close proximity to urban areas and associated amenities, but prefer to live in areas that have a rural outlook, ambiance and amenity on a section large enough to achieve a high degree of privacy without being a maintenance burden. The Urban Transition Environment is in essence a residential zone with a rural outlook. Infrastructure and network utility operations are located within, and in proximity to this Environment.

These Environments are situated on the fringes between (urban) Living and (rural) Countryside Environments, where there has traditionally been a demand for this type of lifestyle. In addition to providing a rural outlook for the residential enclaves, the uninhabited areas are being preserved for their recreational or conservation potential. Some of these areas contain high quality soils, so the protection of these areas for their food producing potential by avoiding fragmentation and overcapitalisation of the land is also expected.

The clustered residential enclave development pattern that is envisaged in the Urban Transition Environment constitutes the ‘final form’ of development for these areas. It is not the intention, nor should it be the perception that this will be a transition to a ‘future urban zone’. Accordingly it should be expected that notwithstanding the proximity of any strictly ‘urban’ services (such as reticulated wastewater and water supply) Council will resist service expansion on the basis that it would constitute unplanned expansion of services beyond its predetermined limits.

UTE.1 Urban Transition Environment

UTE.1.1 Description & Expectations

UTE.1.2 Eligibility Rules

Information Requirements

UTE.1.3 Objectives

UTE.1.4 Policy

UTE.2 Land Use

UTE.2.1 Discretionary Activities


UTE.2.3 Policies

UTE.3 Subdivision


UTE.3.2 Policies

UTE.3.3 Notification Rules


UTE.1.3 Objectives

The Management Plan Technique is available in this Environment as a discretionary activity. The policies set out in the land use and subdivision provisions shall form the basis of assessment for any such application in the Urban Transition Environment.

1. Opportunities are provided for people to live in close proximity to urban areas and associated amenities, in a manner that safeguards rural character and ecological and productive values.

2. Building sites are grouped together to maximise the extent of openness and rural outlook between clusters, and are sensitively located to achieve the maximum available privacy.

3. Allotment sizes are no larger than necessary to provide sufficient area for dwellings, accessory buildings and curtilage.

4. The uninhabited spaces between residential clusters are retained indefinitely, whilst providing for flexibility regarding their ownership, ongoing management, and productive uses.

5. Provision is made for addressing reverse sensitivity issues, where the uninhabited spaces around clusters are, or can be, used for productive agricultural or horticultural activities.

6. Small scale non-residential activities are provided for where their effects are compatible with a residential lifestyle environment.

1. To preserve rural character and amenity whilst enabling urban development in a transitional environment and maintaining factors that contribute to the rural character including:

Dominance of natural landforms with built features and roading subservient to and cohesive with these;

A sense of spaciousness;

Low night time light levels;

Dominance of natural features including landforms, watercourses, and vegetation.

Information Requirements

For the purposes of section 88 and schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act, an Assessment of Environmental Effects shall include consideration of the subject matter of the Urban Transition Environment policies.

UTE.1.4 Policy

a. Any activity that generates more than 30 daily traffic movements.

b. Buildings where the cumulative footprint exceeds 500m2 on any site.

c. Any activity that exceeds the noise levels set out in the Living 3 Environment.

d. The creation of impermeable surfaces where the cumulative impermeable area (including buildings) exceeds 1,000m

2.

e. Any signage that does not relate to activities onsite or is in excess of 2m2 per site.

f. Earthworks undertaken within a 12 month period resulting in more than 2,000m2 of

exposed soil at any one time, or a maximum cut or fill height of 2m.

g. The destruction of any indigenous wetland or the destruction or clearance of an area

exceeding 500m2 of predominantly indigenous vegetation that forms a contiguous area of

1.0ha or more.

h. Any activity that will damage, modify, or remove any heritage building, site or object, stone

wall or cultural Site of Significance identified in the District Plan.

i. Any artificial lighting that exceeds 10 lux when measured from the boundaries of the site.

j. The disturbance of an area exceeding 500m2 of significant habitats identified in the District

Plan Maps.

k. Any activity that does not meet the conditions for permitted activities in Appendix 8 Hazardous Substances.

l. Habitable buildings within 500m of a Mineral Extraction Area or the Business 4

Environment.

m. Construction or alteration of a building that exceeds a height equal to 3m plus the shortest

horizontal distance between that part of the building and the site boundary.

n. Establishment of any access, roading and/or parking spaces or associated facility which fails to comply with the Environmental Engineering Standards 2010.

o. The construction of any building or structure that is located within 20m of the boundary of a road shown on the planning maps.

p. The construction of any building that is located further than 50m from an existing building

or approved building platform within the Urban Transition Environment.

q. The construction or location of any habitable building within 30m of the Countryside

Environment.

r. The construction or location of any residential unit where the total residential density will

exceed one residential unit per 5000m2.


Activities not requiring consent as a discretionary activity shall be permitted activities.

Activities authorised by a consented Management Plan shall be permitted activities.

The construction of a dwelling or habitable building in an area subject to a ‘no dwelling’ restriction shall be a prohibited activity.

UTE.2

Land Use UTE.2.1 Discretionary Activities

UTE.2

Land Use UTE.2.3 Policies

1. Traffic Movements

To preserve rural character and amenity by limiting the establishment of activities that will generate high levels of traffic movements, beyond levels associated with residential activities in an urban environment.

2. Noise

To maintain noise levels at or below levels consistent with residential activities in the urban environment, taking into account the existing rural levels as measured at the boundaries of the site.

3. Signage

To preserve rural character and amenity by limiting the extent of signage per site.

4. Earthworks

To manage the effects of soil disturbance, dust, and sediment runoff by limiting the maximum area of exposed earthworks.

5. Indigenous Vegetation

To preserve rural character and amenity and to enhance biodiversity by limiting clearance of indigenous vegetation or the disturbance of land in identified significant habitats.

6. Lighting

To preserve rural character and amenity by limiting the establishment of lighting that exceeds levels consistent with residential activities in an urban environment.

7. Reverse Sensitivity

To manage reverse sensitivity effects by preventing any habitable building from being located in close proximity to the boundary of a Mineral Extraction Area, the Business 4 Environment or the Countryside Environment.

8. Access and Roading

To establish access and new roads in accordance with the Environmental Engineering Standards to ensure the safety and efficiency of the roading network (including State Highways).

9. Privacy/Sunlight

To avoid dominance of buildings and loss of access to sunlight, and to maintain a high level of privacy, by managing the height of buildings in relation to the distance from site boundaries.

10. Highly Versatile Soils

To preserve the productive capacity of highly versatile soils by limiting the extent of buildings and structures and locating them on the lowest quality soils within the site.

11. Wastewater

To manage the effects of wastewater by requiring site specific design of disposal facilities or evidence that demonstrates the effects of wastewater can be adequately addressed.

12. Stormwater

To manage the effects of stormwater runoff by limiting the extent of impermeable surfaces being any building or surface on the land which will not easily allow natural percolation of surface water into the ground.

13. Biodiversity

To preserve rural character and amenity and to enhance biodiversity by protecting areas of indigenous vegetation and habitats, and precluding earthworks or the construction of buildings or structures in identified areas.

14. Cultural and Heritage Values

To preserve cultural and heritage values by indentifying, protecting and avoiding any adverse effects on recognised features and sites.

15. Road Setbacks

To avoid ribbon development and maintain the rural outlook from State Highways and roads shown on the planning maps, by ensuring building platforms are setback from the road boundary.

16. Residential Intensity

To avoid the loss of a sense of open space and rural outlook by limiting the density of residential units in the Urban Transition Environment to reflect a low level residential intensity of development.

UTE.3

Subdivision UTE.3.1 Eligibility Rules

Subdivision that is in accordance with an approved management plan shall be a permitted activity.

All other subdivision proposals shall be considered as a discretionary activity.

The creation of any additional allotment within areas subject to a ‘no residential unit’ restriction shall be a prohibited activity.

UTE.3.2 Policies 1. Lot Size

To minimise the amount of unproductive land use and unnecessary curtilage by requiring additional allotments to be

as small as practicable.

2. Density

To limit the maximum yield of subdivision in the Urban Transition Environment to a low level residential density so as to maintain a sense of open space and rural outlook.

3. Clustering

To locate new building sites near any existing or proposed building site so as to maximise the extent of uninhabited space between residential clusters.

4. Uninhabited Spaces

To require the retention of the uninhabited spaces between residential clusters indefinitely by defining where buildings can be located.

5. Stormwater and Wastewater

To demonstrate that sustainable low-impact management of stormwater, and wastewater using best practicable options and present-day standards can be established prior to s224 certification.

6. Building Platforms and Access

To maintain outlook, amenity and privacy by requiring the identification and establishment of building platforms, accessways and any necessary landscaping prior to s224 certification.

7. Road Setbacks

To avoid ribbon development and maintain the rural outlook from State Highways and roads shown on the planning maps, by ensuring building platforms are setback from the road boundary.

8. Roading

To demonstrate that sustainable, low impact management of the roading network (including

State Highways) is achieved in accordance with the Environmental Engineering Standards 2010

prior to s224 certification.

9. Site Specific Design

To require all subdivision proposals to recognise and take into account all site-specific elements

and features, and present comprehensive design solutions.

10. Land Management

To require the uninhabited spaces between residential clusters to be contiguous wherever

practicable to preserve management flexibility.

11. Highly Versatile Soils

To require the subdivision design and the location of building sites to take into account and avoid

highly versatile soils, at a site-specific level.

12. Heritage

To require any historic features, Stonewalls and Heritage Buildings to be recognised and maintained or enhanced as part of any proposed subdivision or development.

UTE.3

Subdivision UTE.3.3 Notification Rules

The following activities shall be publicly notified:

a. More than 1 allotment larger than 2500m

2 except that more than 1

allotment larger than 2500m2 will be

allowed where that allotment in it’s entirety is subject to a conservation covenant, Reserve Act covenant or similar restriction.

b. Yield of a subdivision exceeding one residential lot per 5000m

2 of net site

area.

c. Location of new residential building sites further than 50m from an existing or proposed residential building site, within the Urban Transition Environment.

d. Indefinite retention of less than 50% of the total site area of the subdivision.

e. Creation of allotments less than 2000m2,

where the physical identification of suitable building platforms in accordance with the Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 can not be demonstrated.

f. Creation of allotments less than 2000m2,

where the identification and establishment of access ways in accordance with the Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 can not be demonstrated.

g. Location and construction of building platforms within 20m of the boundary of State Highways and roads shown on the planning maps.

h. Establishment and low impact management of the roading network (including State Highways) in accordance with the Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 can not be demonstrated.

13. Utilities

To ensure the lifestyle needs of the likely residents within the development and the wider community are provided for in relation to communication and electricity transmission or generation.

14. Fire Protection

To require adequate provision for a fire fighting water supply for every building site at the time of subdivision.

15. Walking and Cycling

To facilitate the provision of walkways, bridle trails, and cycleways for public access for recreation where desirable.

16. Outlook

To locate and orient building sites in a manner that allows each site to have a rural outlook while achieving a high level of privacy through good, considered design of the sites.

17. Environmental Benefit

To consider multi-unit or infill development on those lots smaller than 2500m2 where higher

densities of development are off-set by significant enhancement of natural and environmental features.

18. Ecological Corridors

To require any existing natural, waterways, ecological features and corridors to be recognised and maintained or enhanced as part of any proposed subdivision or development.

19. Significant Natural Areas

To require any existing Significant Natural Vegetation to be recognised and maintained or enhanced as part of any proposed subdivision or development.

20. Sites of Significance to Maori

To require any existing Sites of Significance to Maori to be recognised and maintained as part of any proposed subdivision or development.

21. Contaminated Soils

To ensure that subdivision and development proposals for land that may potentially be contaminated, either historically or through current practices, have verified that remediation has, or can be, undertaken prior to habitation.

22. Staging

To enable subdivision proposals to be carried out in a staged manner only where the full development potential of the site has been considered in a comprehensive manner.

UTE.3.2 Policies cont.


5. Private Plan change 117 - Northpower Limited Critical Electricity Lines, Final Consideration

Reporting officer Melissa McGrath (Senior Policy Planner)



This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission and values statement as the provision of electricity and the operation and maintenance of critical electricity lines is an important physical resource to the Whangarei District, essential to the economic and social wellbeing of the District. Management of natural and physical resources including electricity services, and how this provided for in the District Plan is a pivotal role in creating the ultimate living environment.

Background On 20 July 2010, a request for a private plan change (Plan Change 117) was made by Northpower Limited to change the operative District Plan definition of ‘minor upgrading’, so that any reference to ‘voltage’ would be deleted. The application furthermore provided for the addition of rules in the various Environment and Subdivision chapters of the Plan in order to specify trigger distances from critical electricity lines and substations, with critical electricity lines to be shown on the District Plan maps.

On 8 September 2010 the Whangarei District Council resolved pursuant to Schedule 1 Clause 25(2)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to accept the plan change request.

Plan Change 117 was notified between 28 September 2010 and 27 October 2010. A summary of 38 submissions received was notified for further submissions between 30 November 2010 and 14 December 2010. As a part of the notification process some 3,600 landowners who had critical infrastructure running across their properties or were within 15 metres distance from such infrastructure received information packs on the proposal.

Decision At its meeting of 10 August 2011 the Whangarei District Council Environment Committee considered the Commissioners’ recommended decisions on submissions to Private Plan Change 117 and resolved:

· “That the report and attachments be received. · That the report and recommendations of the Commissioners be approved in terms of Clause

29(4) of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. · That the necessary notification of Council’s Decision be given in terms of Clause 29(5) of the

First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.”

The Environment Committee adopted the Hearing Commissioners recommendation: That critical electricity lines should be identified on the District Maps, that the definition of minor upgrading should not be altered and that no additional provisions controlling land use activities around critical electricity lines should be inserted into the District Plan. All submitters were notified of the decision and the decision was publicly notified in local newspapers on 16 August 2011. Submitters had the opportunity to lodge an appeal with the Environment Court.

One appeal was received from Northpower Limited, and four parties lodged notice under section 274, New Zealand Transport Agency, Horticulture New Zealand Limited, Avocado Industry Council Limited and LMJ Limited. The scope of the appeal did not include the identification of critical electricity lines on the District Plan Maps.

The Environment Court has subsequently considered the notice of appeal and the joint memorandum of the parties and have ordered by consent that the Operative District Plan is amended (as per the attachments).


Recommendation 1. That the report and attachments be received.

2. That Private Plan Change 117 be approved in terms of Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

3. That the Plan Change be notified in terms of Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Attachments

1. Environment Court Consent Order dated 23 April 2013 – this attachment is too large to display online

2. Final District Plan Text, Critical Electricity Lines

3. Track Changes of District Plan Text Illustrating Consequential Changes to Meaning of Words

4. Final District Plan Text, Consequential Changes to Meaning of Words

5. Final District Plan Maps – This attachment is too large to display online

Index CEL.1 Critical Electricity Lines (CELs)

& Substations CEL.1.1 Description & Expectations CEL.1.2 Permitted Activity Land Use CEL.1.3 Restricted Discretionary Activities

– Land Use CEL.1.4 Restricted Discretionary Activities

– Subdivision CEL.1.5 Assessment Criteria CEL.1.6 Notification

CEL.1.1 Descriptions and Expectations NOTE: The following provisions apply district wide in addition to any other provisions in this Plan applicable to the same areas or site.

Critical Electricity Lines (CEL’s) and substations are the key components of the electricity network in the Whangarei District. To provide a resilient electricity network the use and development of CEL’s and substations must be sustainable, secure and efficient. CEL’s and substations can be vulnerable to inappropriate subdivision or building location to the extent that they can restrict access and affect the ability to maintain the CEL’s (lines, cables and support structures). Trees planted too close to lines or cables can disrupt supply. CEL’s are, or have the potential to be, critical to the quality, reliability and

CEL.1Critical Electricity Lines (CELs) & Substations

CEL.1.2 Permitted Activity Land Use

security of electricity supply throughout the district or region. These lines contribute to the social and economic wellbeing and health and safety of the district or region and are lines that:

Supply essential public services such as the hospital, civil defence facilities or Lifeline sites; or

Supply large (1MW or more) industrial or commercial electricity consumers; or

Supply 1000 or more consumers; or

Are difficult to replace with an alternative electricity supply if they are compromised.

The locations of CEL’s and designated substations are identified in the planning maps of the District Plan.

The following activities are permitted activities:

1. Within 10m of a CEL or the designation boundary of a substation:

i. Any building or structure that does not require building consent; or

ii. Alteration of any building that does not exceed outside the envelope or footprint of the existing building; or

iii. Earthworks that:

a. Are not directly above an underground cable(s); and b. Do not result in a reduction of existing ground clearance distances from overhead lines below the minimums prescribed

in the New Zealand Code of Practice 34:2001 (NZECP 34:2001); and c. Are in accordance with NZECP 34:2001.

2. Within 20m of a CEL or the designated boundary of a substation:

i. Planting of trees other than shelterbelts, production forestry or commercial horticultural operations.

3. Activities described in CEL.1.2.1 and CEL.1.2.2 that do not meet the requirements for permitted activities under CEL.1.2.1 and CEL.1.2.2 provided that:

EITHER

3.1 Prior to the commencement of any works:

i. Written notification has been provided to the Council; and

ii. The proposed activity is being carried out in accordance with the Electricity Act 1992 and associated regulations (NZECP 34:2001, the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 (SR 2003/375), and the Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010);

OR

3.2 The proposed activity is being carried out by a network utility operator or territorial authority in accordance with NZECP 34:2001.

CEL.1.3 Restricted Discretionary Activities – Land Use

CEL.1.2 Permitted Activity Land Use cont. Note: 1. Specified distances from CEL’s are to be measured from a point directly below the centreline of the line or cluster of lines, as

shown in Fig 1.

2. While only critical electricity lines are identified on the planning maps, works in close proximity to all electric lines can be dangerous. Compliance with NZECP 34:2001 as amended from time to time is mandatory for buildings, earthworks, and when using machinery or equipment within close proximity to any electric lines.

CEL.1.4 Restricted Discretionary Activities - Subdivision

CEL.1.6 Notification

CEL.1.5 Assessment Criteria

1. Activities described in CEL.1.2 that do not meet the requirements for permitted activities are restricted discretionary activities.

1. Subdivision within 32m of the centre line of a CEL, or within 32m from the designation boundary of a substation shall be a restricted discretionary activity.

When considering any restricted discretionary activity under CEL.1.3 and CEL.1.4, discretion will be restricted to:

i. the safe and efficient operation and maintenance of the electricity supply network, including:

a. The use, design and location of buildings; and

b. The mature size, growth rate, location, and fall zone of any associated tree planting, including landscape planting and shelterbelts; and

c. Compliance with NZECP 34:2001; and

d. Effects on public health and safety; and

e. Effects on access to CEL’s, designated substations and associated infrastructure for maintenance purposes.

For restricted discretionary activities under CEL.1.3 and CEL.1.4 the relevant network utility operator will be considered an affected party under s 95E of the Resource Management Act, 1991.

Track Changes of District Plan Illustrating the Consequential Changes to Chapter 4 Meaning Of The Words:

Extract of Section 4.3:

Minor Upgrading means an increase in the carrying capacity, efficiency or security of any network utility operation utilising the existing support structures or structures with the effects of a similar scale, character, bulk and form. It includes, in regard to electricity, telecommunication and radio-communication services:

The addition of circuits and conductors;

The reconductoring of the line with higher capacity conductors;

The resagging of conductors;

The addition of longer and more efficient insulators;

The addition of earth wires (which may contain telecommunications lines), earth peaks and lightning rods;

Additional telecommunication lines;

The replacement of existing cross arms with cross arms of an alternative design;

The replacement or alteration of existing antennaes;

The replacement or alteration of existing masts, poles and associated structures in the same or similar location and in accordance with the relevant New Zealand Standard.

Minor upgrading shall not include: a) Additional structures or the replacement of structures with the effects that are not of a similar

scale, character, bulk and form.

b) An increase in the voltage of the line unless the line, was originally constructed to operate at the higher voltage but has been operating at a reduced voltage.

Part B – Introduction – Meaning of the Words

Whangarei District Plan Chapter 4 Page 15

b) Areas where there has been 2 seam pillaring and greater than 100 metres of cover exists.

Mining Hazard Area 3 indicates areas where there is greater than 100 metres of cover. Although this is a low risk zone, it is possible for buildings to be affected by mining.

Minor Residential Unit means a residential unit located no more than 15.0 metres from another residential unit on the same site/lot with a gross floor area of no more than 70.0m2, excluding the gross floor area used exclusively for the storage of motor vehicles in association with the minor residential unit.

Minor Upgrading means an increase in the carrying capacity, efficiency or security of any network utility operation utilising the existing support structures or structures with the effects of a similar scale, character, bulk and form. It includes, in regard to electricity, telecommunication and radio-communication services:

The addition of circuits and conductors;

The reconductoring of the line with higher capacity conductors;

The resagging of conductors;

The addition of longer and more efficient insulators;

The addition of earth wires (which may contain telecommunications lines), earth peaks and lightning rods;

Additional telecommunication lines;

The replacement of existing cross arms with cross arms of an alternative design;

The replacement or alteration of existing antennaes;

The replacement or alteration of existing masts, poles and associated structures in the same or similar location and in accordance with the relevant New Zealand Standard.

Minor upgrading shall not include: Additional structures or the replacement of structures with the effects that are not of a similar scale, character, bulk and form.

Multi Title Site means a site where an activity is situated on two or more separate certificates of title and is indicated on the planning maps as a “Multi Title Site”.

Natural and Physical Resources* includes land, water, air, soil, minerals and energy, all forms of plants and animals (whether native to New Zealand or introduced), and all structures.

Natural Hazard* means any atmospheric or earth or water-related occurrence (including earthquake, tsunami, erosion, volcanic and geothermal activity, landslip, subsidence, sedimentation, wind, drought, fire or flooding) the action of which adversely affects, or may adversely affect, human life, property or other aspects of the environment.

District Living Committee 1 12 June 2013 66

6. Whangarei Harbour Water Quality Action Plan - Update

Reporting officer David Coleman (Senior Specialist - Policy)



This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission and values statement as the Whangarei Harbour Water Quality Action Plan sets out a vision that seeks to better manage this important body of water. It will support the achievement of the Council’s vision, in particular promoting sustainable lifestyles based around our unique environment.

Background In response to community concerns about the quality of water in the Whangarei Harbour, Northland Regional Council and Whangarei District Council jointly prepared a non-statutory water management strategy; Whangarei Harbour Water Quality Action Plan 2012. The strategy includes an initial assessment of uses and values of the harbour, a number of objectives, and actions to support these objectives.

A key initial action of the strategy is to form a collaborative advisory group consisting of key stakeholders that would be responsible for facilitating a number of objectives:

“Form a Whangarei Harbour and Catchment Advisory Group to confirm/amend the proposed water quality objectives for the Whangarei Harbour and establish freshwater objectives for the upper Whangarei Harbour sub-catchments (Action 22).

“Translate freshwater objectives and Whangarei Harbour water quality objectives into water quality limits and targets (Action 23).

“Assess the need to amend current policies and rules and/or develop new policies and rules to manage direct and diffuse source discharges to achieve freshwater objectives and Whangarei Harbour water quality objectives (Action 24).”

This group will be tasked with making recommendations to both councils on their respective functions relating to harbour water quality. It is also hoped that the group will help foster cooperation and joint responsibility among stakeholders in the management of water resources in the Whangarei Harbour and catchments.

Draft terms of reference for the Whangarei Harbour Catchment Advisory Group Proposed Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Whangarei Harbour Catchment Advisory Group have been attached to this agenda item for consideration by the District Living Committee. The Proposed TOR continue the partnership approach to better managing Whangarei Harbour and catchments.

With regard to Whangarei District Council, it is recommended that the group be an advisory group to Whangarei District Council. With regard to Northland Regional Council, it is recommended that the group be a subcommittee of the Environmental Management Committee. Being a subcommittee of EMC is in line with the treatment of other catchment programmes under the Waiora Northland Water Programme.

Once the proposed TOR have been adopted by both councils, nominations for membership will be invited. Once nominations have been received and assessed, a recommendation on membership will be made jointly to the Environmental Management Committee and the District Living Committee, once again reflecting the partnership approach.


Recommendation 1. That the report be received.

2. That the Committee approves the Terms of Reference as attached.

3. That the Committee appoints Councillor B L McLachlan as the Whangarei District Council’s representative on the Whangarei Harbour Catchment Advisory Group.

Attachment

Whangarei Harbour Catchment Advisory Group: Proposed Terms of Reference

Proposed Terms of Reference: Whangarei Harbour

Catchment Group

Background

The Whangarei Harbour Catchment is situated on the east coast of Northland and has an area of

approximately 300 km2. The catchment drains to a large drowned river valley/large estuarine system

of approximately 107 km2, which is highly valued for its ecological, economic, recreational, and

cultural values. The catchment has heterogeneous geology, soils, and land uses, and is comprised of

a number of smaller sub-catchments.

In response to community concerns about the quality of water in the Whangarei Harbour Northland

Regional Council and Whangarei District Council jointly prepared a non-statutory water management

strategy (Whangarei Harbour Water Quality Action Strategy, 2013). The strategy sets out and

coordinates the respective actions of both councils to maintain and improve harbour water quality.

Northland Regional Council is responsible, under the Resource Management Act 1991, for managing

the quality and quantity of water resources in the region. This is to be achieved through a framework

of water management objectives and water quality and quantity limits for all waterbodies in

Northland. Whangarei District Council is responsible, under the Local Government Act 2002 and the

Health Act 1956, for the maintenance and provision of public water services, including water supply,

stormwater drainage, and wastewater reticulation and treatment in the Whangarei District.

The Whangarei Harbour Catchment has been identified by Northland Regional Council in its

programme for implementing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management as a

priority catchment for the setting of catchment-specific water management objectives and limits.

Catchment objectives and water quality and quantity limits need to be included in a regional plan

(the appropriate document is currently the Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland, or in the

future a combined regional plan).

A key action of the Whangarei Harbour Water Quality Action Strategy is to form a collaborative

stakeholder advisory group which will be tasked with making recommendations to the

Environmental Management Committee of Northland on catchment-specific water management

objectives and limits, and management actions (regulatory and/or non-regulatory) to meet the

objectives and limits.

The Environmental Management Committee will implement the recommendations of the group

where they are able to do so and will promote the recommendations that require the endorsement

of other committee/s, Northland Regional Council, or stakeholders.

The group will also make recommendations to Whangarei District Council on aligning the

management and provision of public water services and future land use development with water

management objectives for the harbour and its catchment.

The following terms of reference apply to the Whangarei Harbour Catchment Group (the Catchment

Group).

Purpose: The purpose of the Catchment Group is to work collaboratively to make consensus

recommendations on maintaining and improving the state and management of

water resources in the Whangarei Harbour and its catchment.

Its specific functions are:

1. To work with the Northland Regional Council and its Environmental

Management Committee to deliver the Waiora Northland Water programme

in the Whangarei Harbour Catchment.

2. To discuss and develop water management objectives, policies and rules for

the Whangarei Harbour Catchment to be included in the Regional Water and

Soil Plan for Northland (or other relevant regional plan).

3. To help coordinate efforts to maintain and improve the quality of water in the

Whangarei Harbour and its catchment by leveraging public and private

resources and fostering cooperation and joint responsibility among

stakeholders, including by making recommendations to the Infrastructure

Services Committee of Whangarei District Council on water infrastructure

management and land use development decisions.

Establishment: The Catchment Group is established as:

1. A sub-committee of the Northland Regional Council Environmental

Management Committee under the Local Government Act 2002, and

2. An advisory group Whangarei District Council

Membership: Composition

Membership of the Catchment Group will reflect a balanced cross-section of

interests in the Whangarei Harbour and its catchment. It is expected that members

will engage with their organisations and wider networks to share information and

to bring forward knowledge and information to the Catchment Group. The

composition of the Catchment Group is as follows:

One member appointed by the Environmental Management Committee (who

must be an elected councillor of Northland Regional Council)

One member appointed by Whangarei District Council (who must be an

elected councillor)

One member appointed by Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngapuhi and hapu

One member appointed by Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua and hapu

One member appointed by Ngati Wai Trust Board and hapu

One member nominated by farming interests

One member nominated by forestry interests

One member nominated by fisheries interests

One member nominated by other business/industry interests

One member nominated by recreational interests

One member nominated by environmental interests

Three members from the community at large:

o Two from the sub-catchments of the upper harbour

o One from the sub-catchments of the middle/lower harbour.

Additional members

The size of the Catchment Group will achieve a balance between representation of

interests and the need for an efficient process to fulfil the group’s functions.

Where it is evident that an important interest or perspective is not represented on

the Catchment Group, the Environmental Management Committee of Northland

Regional Council will consider adding another member, taking into account their

skills and knowledge, their availability, and the need to keep the group to a size

that can effectively and efficiently work together.

Chairperson: The Catchment Group will select a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson from

among its members.

If it is in the interests of the Catchment Group the Environmental Management

Committee of Northland Regional Council will appoint an independent facilitator to

support the Chairperson, or to fulfil the role Chairperson, for an open or fixed

period

The role of the Chairperson/Facilitator is to:

Ensure a fair and equitable group process

Create an environment where members can work together in good faith, with

respect and with an open mind.

Facilitate input from all members of the group so that every voice is heard

Ensure that the Catchment Group operates in accordance with its principles

Ensure that the group has adequate support and information to efficiently and

effectively carry out its terms of reference

Provide or acquire guidance on collaborative decision making techniques,

including constructive ways to voice disagreement and negotiate potential

outcomes.

Meetings: Frequency

It specific tasks will likely demand a considerable amount of time of the Catchment

Group. Members should anticipate a commitment of approximately two years

comprised of 6 – 10 meetings per year (approximately one day duration, and a half

day (average) preparation), as well as work assignments.

Attendance requirements

Members are expected to attend all meetings to assist the Catchment Group to

make meaningful progress and build consensus.

Substitutes are discouraged. However, the Chairperson will have discretion to

approve a substitute so long as a written submission is provided in reasonable

advance of a meeting.

If a meeting is missed, or if a substitute does participate, members are expected to

catch-up and must not re-litigate matters that have been agreed to in their

absence. Unsatisfactory attendance may lead to termination of membership in the

group by the Chairperson

Observers

Catchment Group meetings are intended to provide a space for robust discussion

and debate. Observers may be permitted to attend subject to the following

conditions:

1. Observers must provide advance notice to the Chairperson of their intention

to attend.

2. Observers do not have the right to cast a vote.

3. Should the observer wish to address a specific issue they must provide a

written request to the Chairperson accompanying their notification to attend

the meeting.

4. Observers are required to abide by the operating principles of the group.

5. The Chairperson has the right to ask the observer to leave a meeting.

The project manager and members of the Technical Advisory Group are expected

to attend and contribute to meetings.

Quorum

A quorum shall include the Chair or Deputy Chair and a minimum of 50% of the

normal membership.

Collaborative decision

making: A credible commitment to a collaborative process is required of the Catchment

Group. Decisions must be made by consensus (or near consensus) not majority

rule.

Consensus is defined as every member of the Catchment Group agreeing that they

can accept a decision / recommendation.

In the event that neither a consensus nor near consensus decision can be reached

then the Chairperson will request assistance from the Technical Advisory Group

and/or an independent facilitator to advance the deliberations of the Catchment

Group.

In the event that the Catchment Group is still unable to reach a decision, the

Chairperson must recommend to the Environmental Management Committee that

Northland Regional Council and/or Whangarei District Council that they address or

make recommendations on the matters that the group is unable to reach

consensus or near consensus on.

As the Catchment Group is undertaking a collaborative exercise based on

consensus decision-making, at the end of a process, members will be asked to

declare whether they can support the outputs and recommendations to the

Environmental Management Committee of Northland Regional Council and/or

Whangarei District Council. Members will be expected to promote outputs and

decisions to the interests, organisations, and constituents that they represent.

Operating principles: To this end all members will:

Recognise that ecological, social, cultural and economic considerations are all

an integral part of collaborative catchment planning.

Develop and maintain effective and inclusive working relationships through

open communication, respect, trust, and cooperation.

Commit to collaborative discussions and decision making.

Follow Chatham House Rules: Members are free to discuss matters with other

parties (except the media), but are not to attribute people to the opinions or

options being discussed.

Not prejudice contributions made by other members, i.e. notwithstanding any

recommendations or agreements reached by the group, nothing said within

the group process may be used in subsequent planning or legal processes.

Not make any public statements on, or relating to, the workings of the group

without agreement from the Chairperson. (This also applies to technical

advisors, staff and others who attend the meetings in support of the

Catchment Group).

Support decisions and recommendations reached by consensus by the group

in subsequent public discussion, including appearing at any subsequent

hearing if requested. Members will however be permitted to submit

individually on decisions of either council on matters that the Catchment

Group was unable to reach consensus on.

Key tasks: In regard to the Environmental Management Committee of Northland Regional

Council:

1. To identify uses and values of water in the Whangarei Harbour and its

catchment

2. To establish catchment objectives (desired environmental outcomes) relating

to the identified uses and values

3. To determine water quality and quantity limits/targets that specify the

maximum or minimum conditions to meet the water management objectives

4. To determine the policy and management options (regulatory and non-

regulatory) to achieve the catchment objectives, including by reviewing the

respective actions of Northland Regional Council and Whangarei District

Council set out in the Whangarei Harbour Water Quality Action Strategy 2013.

In regard to Whangarei District Council:

5. To make recommendations on aligning the maintenance and provision of

water infrastructure and future development planning with catchment

objectives.

Key outputs and Timeframes:

A report to the Environmental Management Committee documenting: agreed

draft catchment objectives, limits, and management actions; details on the key

points of deliberation and rationale for decisions, and any areas where consensus

could not be reached.

[Initially suggest July 2015, however the deliverables could be staged over a

period of time leading up to this date].

Administration and support: Administrative

Northland Regional Council and Whangarei District Council will provide

secretariat and administrative support.

Independent facilitator

The Catchment Group may request an independent facilitator to assist or fulfil

the role of the Chairperson for fixed period or the full period of the group.

Technical Advisory Group

The Catchment Group will be supported by a Technical Advisory Group made up

of technical advisors from a range of field relevant to the functions of the

Catchment Group, including: environmental science, water infrastructure,

matauranga Maori and Maori values, farm systems and land management,

economics, social science, and resource management.

Application: To fulfil its functions the term of the Catchment Group is expected to be at least

two years.

These terms of reference will be reviewed on an annual basis by the Catchment

Group and the Environmental Management Committee of Northland Regional

Council and will be updated or modified as required.

Northland Regional Council will retain discretion to change the nature of the

group subject to changes to the Resource Management Act 1991.


7. Towards Better Local Regulation Reporting officer David Coleman (Senior Specialist Policy)



This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission and values statement as it relates to possible changes to the way that legislation concerning regulatory roles for local government are prepared and implemented.

Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to report on Towards better local regulation, prepared and published by the New Zealand Productivity Commission (NZPC). NZPC is an independent Crown entity initiated by Government in 2011. According to the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act (2010) “The principal purpose of the Commission is to provide advice to the Government on improving productivity in a way that is directed to supporting the overall well-being of New Zealanders, having regard to a wide range of communities of interest and population groups in New Zealand society.”

Since its inception, NZPC has prepared reports on a diverse range of topics, including housing affordability, international freight transport services, Trans-Tasman economic integration, the services sector and local government regulatory performance. Whilst these reports do not represent Government policy, they are given their due weight as high quality advice by Government. Council prepared a brief submission on housing affordability and an extensive submission on local government regulatory performance inquiries.

Towards better local regulation The NZPC announced that local government regulation was the subject of inquiry in May 2012. An issues paper was released in July 2012. Council prepared an extensive submission with input from across Council, especially from department s with substantive regulatory roles such as building officers, environmental health officers, consent planners, bylaws coordinators. WDC submission was considered within the Draft Report released by NZPC in December 2012.

Staff subsequently reviewed this draft document to assess whether further submissions would be necessary, but overall the document was deemed to be fair and reflective of WDCs position on the regulatory framework. This view was outlined in an acknowledgement submission letter.

The final report was released in May 2013, and contains 29 recommendations that represent a comprehensive package of measures to the preparation and delivery of regulations in New Zealand. Key findings in the report include the following:

· That local government regulatory activity sits within a wider regulatory framework that is high complex and inter-connected;

· That there are weaknesses in the design and implementation of regulation, highlighted by issues such as the disconnects between the preparation of regulation, normally done by central government, and the implementation, usually done by local government;

· That local government administers approximately 30 pieces of primary legislation and has a secondary role in many others across a wide range of portfolios;

· That local government generally undertakes its role within the confines of the enabling statutes; · That many factors, including increased trade-offs between economic, social and environmental

priorities and community demands are creating an increasingly challenging environment for local government operations;

· That any allocation of regulatory roles between local and central government needs greater consideration than what has happened in the past;

· That regulation making from central government with direct impacts on local government’s regulatory roles needs to be subject to higher levels of rigour;

· That substantial interaction between local and central government sectors during the development of regulation is required;

· That quality management systems are necessary to ensure consistent and accurate decision-making, along with more consistent monitoring requirements across the local government sector.


Government is yet to table an official response to the findings and recommendations of this report, but it is likely that some recommendations will be incorporated in future changes to the regulatory landscape.

Attached to this item is the Towards better local regulation report summary.

Recommendation That this report is received.

Attachment

Summary of the Towards Better Local Regulation report by the New Zealand Productivity Commission

Towards better local regulationSummary version

May

20

13

The Productivity Commission aims

to provide insightful, well-informed

and accessible advice that leads to

the best possible improvement in

the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

Towards better local regulation Summary of final report May 2013

2 Summary of final report

The New Zealand Productivity Commission

Date: May 2013

The Commission – an independent Crown entity – completes in-depth inquiry reports on topics selected by the Government, carries out productivity-related research and promotes understanding of productivity issues. The Commission’s work is guided by the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act 2010.

Information on the Commission can be found on www.productivity.govt.nz, or by calling +64 4 903 5150.

ISBN: 978-0-478-39529-7 (online only)

Inquiry contacts

Administrative matters: T: (04) 903 5150 E: [email protected] Other matters: Steven Bailey Inquiry Director T: (04) 903 5156 E: [email protected] Website www.productivity.govt.nz

Disclaimer

The contents of this report must not be construed as legal advice. The Commission does not accept any responsibility or liability for an action taken as a result of reading, or reliance placed because of having read any part, or all, of the information in this report, or for any error, inadequacy, deficiency, flaw in or omission from this report.

http://www.productivity.govt.nz/

mailto:[email protected]


Towards better local regulation 3

Terms of Reference Local Government Regulatory Performance Context

1. The Government has launched ‘Better Local Government’, an eight-point reform programme to improve the legislative framework for New Zealand’s councils. It will provide better clarity about councils’ roles, stronger governance, improved efficiency and more responsible fiscal management. These local government reforms are part of the Government’s broader agenda. We are rebalancing the New Zealand economy away from the increased public spending and debt of the previous decade. We are building a more competitive and productive economy. This requires that both central and local government improve the efficiency of delivering public services.

2. Local government, at both regional and territorial level, is involved in many regulatory roles covering, for example, building, resource management, food safety, and alcohol. There is no consistent approach regarding what regulatory functions are most effectively achieved nationally or locally. There is also a concern in local government that functions are allocated to councils without adequate mechanisms for funding. The issue of what is best regulated at the national and local level is also important to the private sector which, through rates, taxes and fees, funds both. There are opportunities to improve New Zealand’s productivity through a more efficient regulatory framework.

Scope

3. Having regard to the context outlined above, the Commission is requested to undertake an inquiry into opportunities to improve regulatory performance in local government. For the purposes of this inquiry, the Commission should:

Regulatory Functions of Local Government

a. identify the nature and extent of key regulatory functions exercised by local government;

b. perform a stocktake to identify which local government regulatory functions are undertaken on the direction of central government and which are undertaken independently by local government;

c. develop principles to guide decisions on which regulatory functions are best undertaken by local or central government;

d. identify functions that are likely to benefit from a reconsideration of the balance of delivery between central and local government, or where central government could improve the way in which it allocates these functions to local government;

Improving Regulatory Performance in Local Government

4. Taking into account the principles developed in point (c) above:

e. assess whether there is significant variation in the way local government implements its regulatory responsibilities and functions, and the extent to which such variation is desirable. For example whether variation reflects differences in local resources or preferences or insufficient direction from central government;

f. identify opportunities for both central and local government to improve the regulatory performance in the local government sector. For example how to overcome any key capability, resourcing, or regulatory design constraints;


g. examine the adequacy of processes used to develop regulations implemented by local government and processes available to review regulations and regulatory decisions made by local government; and

h. recommend options to allow for the regular assessment of the regulatory performance of the local government sector, for example, whether common performance indicators can be developed to assess performance.

Other matters

5. Where possible, the Commission should seek to quantify relevant costs and benefits of recommendations it makes in the inquiry. The Commission should prioritise its effort by using judgement as to the degree of depth and sophistication of analysis it applies to satisfy each part of the Terms of Reference.

6. The inquiry should not make recommendations that would directly affect representation or boundary arrangements for local government.

Consultation Requirements

7. The Commission should take into account existing and ongoing work in this area to avoid duplication, including the Government’s eight-point reform programme, resource management reviews, the Local Government Rates Inquiry, and the Auditor-General’s work on performance management.

8. In undertaking this inquiry the Commission should consult with key interest groups and affected parties. To ensure that the inquiry’s findings provide practical and tangible ways to improve regulatory performance, the Commission should work closely with Local Government New Zealand, the wider local government sector and government agencies with regulatory regimes that affect local government.

Timeframe

9. The Commission must publish a draft report and/or discussion paper(s) on the inquiry for public comment, followed by a final report, which must be submitted to each of the referring Ministers by 1 April 2013.

HON BILL ENGLISH, MINISTER OF FINANCE HON DAVID CARTER, MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT HON JOHN BANKS, MINISTER FOR REGULATORY REFORM


Contents Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................................... 3

About the summary version ................................................................................................................... 6

Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 7

1 About this inquiry ...................................................................................................................... 20

2 Local government in New Zealand ............................................................................................. 21

3 Pressures and challenges ........................................................................................................... 22

4 Assessing the regulatory system ................................................................................................ 24

5 Improving regulatory design ...................................................................................................... 27

6 Allocating regulatory responsibilities ......................................................................................... 29

7 Improving local government’s regulatory capability .................................................................. 31

8 Local authority regulatory processes .......................................................................................... 33

9 Local regulation and Mäori ........................................................................................................ 36

10 Monitoring and enforcement ..................................................................................................... 37

11 Improving regulatory performance assessment .......................................................................... 39

12 Making it happen ....................................................................................................................... 41


About the summary version

This ‘summary version’ provides the key points, findings and recommendations from the Commission’s final report of the inquiry into local government regulatory performance. It is designed to give you a quick route into the key insights from our examination of local government regulation in New Zealand.

The final report itself follows the release of an earlier draft report and issues paper; consideration of submissions on both papers; a large number of meetings with interested parties; and the Commission undertaking its own research and analysis of issues central to local government regulatory performance.

For more information about the final report please visit our website www.productivity.govt.nz or call us on 04 903 5150.

Format of the summary version

Key points

The key points box at the start of each chapter is a summary of the main considerations and findings on each topic.

F Findings

R

Recommendations



Overview The Commission has been asked to identify opportunities for both central and local government to improve the regulatory performance of local government. This includes regulation-making processes, appropriate principles for the allocation of regulatory roles between central and local government, and better ways to assess the regulatory performance of local government.

The Commission has carried out an extensive assessment of local government regulatory performance, including substantial engagement with local authorities and other interested parties. This report sets out a reform programme to improve local government regulatory performance. This overview provides a summary of the report.

Why is this inquiry important?

Regulation affects many aspects of our lives – from the environment and buildings we live in, to the food we eat and the water we drink. Regulation is part of doing business and can have a major impact on a firm’s profitability and growth. Local government regulatory activities therefore have a clear impact on regional economic growth and, ultimately, national economic growth and community wellbeing. Importantly, local government regulation is a means by which communities can take responsibility for their own wellbeing.

Making the right regulatory decisions and implementing regulation efficiently is therefore important to New Zealand’s social, environmental and economic performance. Regulatory decisions that are soundly conceived, properly monitored and enforced can change behaviour in positive ways, safeguarding future wellbeing without imposing unnecessary costs. In contrast, poorly conceived and implemented regulatory arrangements not only fail to achieve the objectives sought, but also impose unintended costs that can undermine the very purpose of regulatory intervention and the cohesiveness of communities.

The process of amending existing regulation, or designing new regulation, has an added dimension when local government is involved. The analysis supporting a regulatory initiative not only needs to ensure that design and implementation will provide net benefits to society, but should also assess whether central or local government is best placed to carry out the regulatory function.

Getting these things right is critically important, considering the breadth of regulatory activity and workload of local authorities. Local government plays an important role in implementing central government policies. Around 30 pieces of primary legislation have been identified that confer regulatory responsibilities on local government, and many more regulations are found in secondary instruments (Chapter 2). These range from land and resource use under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), to standards for constructing buildings, food and hygiene regulations, the control of liquor and gambling activity, waste management and beyond.

These regulatory responsibilities are critical to central government achieving its broader policy objectives. As partners in production and implementation of regulation, central government has a strong interest in the regulatory performance of local government. Achieving good regulatory outcomes must be underpinned by a strong working relationship between both levels of government.

The Commission’s approach

Local government regulatory activity sits within a wider regulatory system that is complex, multi-level and mutually dependent. The fact that more than one level of government plays a role in designing, monitoring, enforcing and reviewing regulations raises inherent risks to regulatory efficiency and performance. It is therefore unhelpful to think about individual component parts in isolation from the wider regulatory system. The regulatory system as a whole determines the quality of regulatory outcomes. The elements of this system are interconnected and all of the elements need to be operating effectively. For example, initiating and shaping regulatory proposals—often done by central government—happens before implementation—often done by local government. Regulations need to be designed with a view to how they can be implemented most effectively, and the lessons from implementation need to feed back into regulatory re-


design, where necessary. Interdependencies such as this highlight that achieving good outcomes is an ongoing responsibility of both levels of government.

The Commission’s approach to this inquiry was to take a ‘whole-of-system’ view that transcends levels of government. That is, to examine the underlying institutions, principles and processes that constitute the regulatory system, and identify possible performance improvements in the regulation-making process, implementation, monitoring and enforcement, allocation of regulatory roles and assessment of regulatory performance.

The regulatory system can be thought of as consisting of six elements (Figure 0.1). These elements are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

Figure 0.1 The regulatory system

Local government in New Zealand

New Zealand has had a system of local government since the 1840s. Established and empowered by statute, local government has been dramatically restructured and reshaped numerous times over the years by central government through legislative change.

Local government’s structures and powers have reflected its dual roles as providers of local public services and enablers of local democracy. More recently, its dual roles have been explicitly recognised in legislation. The statutory purposes of local authorities are to enable democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and 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.

The powers invested in local authorities are extensive and diverse. They span a spectrum from devolved powers that confer substantial discretion and autonomy on local authorities, to delegated powers to implement regulation with little or no discretion. Most of the regulation made or administered by local authorities is either required by statute, or reasonably required for fulfilling a role delegated by statute. The Commission has found that local authorities have made only limited use of their power of ‘general

A policy problem is identified and alternative

policy responses evaluated by central government

agencies

Cabinet considers proposed regulation (Cabinet papers and Regulatory Impact

Statements)

Regulation proceeds through the Parliamentary process

(for Statute) or the Executive Council (for Order in Council)

Local authorities implement regulations with varying degrees of policy discretion (administer,

monitor and enforce)

Courts settle disputes, interpret law and

undertake judicial review

Councils provide performance assessments

Central government undertakes post-

implementation reviews

Institutions, principles and

processes


competence’ under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and that most bylaws are made under enabling statutes rather than under the more general provisions of the LGA.

The nature and extent of local government’s relationship with central government is context-specific, depending on the particular regulatory framework. Some regulatory frameworks explicitly provide that the relevant Minister or central government department has powers of review and intervention in local authorities’ exercise of specific regulatory functions. In the absence of such an explicit statutory power of review and intervention, a local authority is not accountable to the relevant Minister or government department for the exercise of its regulatory powers.

It is important to note that, while local authorities were created by statute, they are not, as sometimes characterised, ‘agents’ of central government that are required to implement national priorities, and be accountable to central government for operational performance. This agency characterisation seems to reflect a misunderstanding of the respective roles of, and relationship between, local and central government. Local authorities exercise a range of types of powers and have varying degrees of discretion and autonomy, depending upon the specific regulatory context (Chapter 2).

The important point here is that central government has purposefully made the decision to decentralise decision making to local government in many areas.

The regulatory task: Pressures and challenges

In providing regulatory services, the role of local government in facilitating local democracy and providing local services manifests itself in a number of ways. For example, the function of territorial authority building consent authorities to ensure that buildings meet the requirements of the Building Code is an example of a purely service delivery role. The performance of local authorities in these types of roles will be mainly judged on their capacity and ability to carry out regulatory functions to a national standard. At the other end of the spectrum, the requirement under the RMA to make district and regional plans is part of councils’ democratic role. The performance of local authorities will be judged on their ability to consult and reflect community interests and preferences and, importantly, their ability to reconcile different community interests and reach a decision.

In the middle of the spectrum is a raft of other regulations that have been conferred on local government, because it is believed that local government is best placed to tailor regulation to the specific characteristics, needs and preferences of diverse local communities (Figure 0.2).

Figure 0.2 The spectrum of local authorities’ powers

The challenge for local government in carrying out these regulatory roles is to implement and administer those regulatory functions conferred in a way that produces the outcomes that Parliament intended. However, local authorities undertake these complex regulatory roles in an increasingly challenging environment. Certainly, the task is getting harder, and will continue getting harder, for a number of reasons (Chapter 3).

Some councils experiencing population growth face difficult trade-offs between different priorities for the use of resources. Other councils experiencing population decline face challenges in undertaking regulatory roles due to shortfalls in capability. Increasing diversity and greater community expectations present difficulties for local authorities in reconciling different community interests and making decisions (Box 0.3).

Devolved powers(Local democracy function)

Delegated powers(Service delivery function)

Resource Management

Act

Building Code

Regulations relating to dog control, liquor licencing, environmental health, food safety and hazardous

substances

Some policy discretion Limited policy discretion


Pressures on the physical environment generate a greater need for more technical information and technical skills in order to make decisions relating to environmental pressures. Local authorities in New Zealand are very diverse. Box 0.1 highlights some of the diverse characteristics of New Zealand’s territorial authorities.

Local government must navigate through a legislative environment that poses its own challenges. There has been a steady stream of new statutes over the last decade affecting local government regulatory activities to different degrees. Councils also face risk of exposure to legal challenge for losses where a duty of care is owed in undertaking regulatory responsibilities.

Alongside pressures on councils, there are important regulatory cost pressures on business that impact on productivity and profitability, and ultimately the economy. These include the compliance costs of meeting regulatory obligations; delays in obtaining responses from local authorities and holding costs associated with sequencing of multiple regulatory requirements and decisions by local authorities; and the wider economic costs incurred from regulation that distorts productive behaviour of individuals and businesses. These costs are often hidden, as projects are not undertaken, or are undertaken at a smaller scale than would have been the case in a better regulatory environment.

The Commission’s survey of business indicates that regulatory cost pressures are a concern for businesses. Of those businesses that had contact with local government through the regulatory process, 39% reported that local government regulation places a significant financial burden on their business. Nearly half of respondents thought the time and effort involved in complying with local authority regulations is too large, and 70% of respondents were dissatisfied with the fees charged.

When there is pressure on the regulatory system, there is a greater risk of poorer regulatory outcomes, and costs could be higher than they need to be to achieve the regulatory outcomes sought. A robust regulatory system needs to provide regulatory institutions, principles and processes that can tackle the pressures and challenges of delivering quality regulation in a changing environment.

How well is the regulatory system performing?

The current regulatory system is not working as well as can reasonably be expected (Chapter 4). Some of the problems stem from the design of regulations at the central government level, some are problems with the way regulation is implemented and administered by local government and, lastly, there are generic weaknesses with the regulatory system as a whole.

Design of regulation A number of weaknesses in the design processes for developing regulations that are devolved or delegated to local government have been identified.

Incentives faced by central government for rigorous analysis – There is evidence that central government accountability is weakened when the implementation of regulatory functions is decentralised and, as a result, the political and fiscal costs of that regulation are (in part or full) transferred to local authorities. This ‘accountability disconnect’ weakens incentives on central

Box 0.1 Diversity among New Zealand’s territorial authorities

Local authorities vary markedly in the size of their population and the income levels of residents. While, overall, New Zealand’s population is projected to grow, that growth is concentrated in key areas, and two-fifths of territorial authority areas are expected to experience population decline. These differences can drive very different regulatory demands at the local government level.

Physical endowments and industrial structures also vary widely across New Zealand’s territorial authorities. Employment data indicate a pattern of larger ‘hub’ territorial authorities with a diverse range of economic drivers. Beyond them are smaller, often more rural territorial authorities characterised by a narrower range of activities. This drives different regulatory needs and the need for different types of regulatory capacity and capability across territorial authorities.


government to undertake rigorous analysis when designing regulation, and to think about the full range of costs, benefits and impacts when considering the case for regulatory intervention.

The level and quality of implementation analysis – There is insufficient analysis of local government’s capability or capacity to implement regulation prior to devolving or delegating additional regulatory functions, or making changes to existing functions. Weaknesses in implementation analysis may be linked to the observation that few central government agencies have staff with an in-depth knowledge of the local government sector.

The level and quality of engagement with the local government sector – Engagement with the local government sector in the design of new regulations is generally poor and, as such, is undermining the quality of local regulation. The inadequacy of engagement with local government by central government was a recurring theme emerging from this inquiry and, in part, has its origins in poor working relationships and a lack of common understanding between central and local government.

The performance of regulatory quality assurance processes – The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) process has a valuable role to play in ensuring the quality of regulations delegated or devolved to local government. However, at present, this value is not being fully realised. Too often, the RIS requirements are seen as an ‘administrative hurdle’ rather than an integral part of the policy design process and a vital source of information for regulatory decision makers.

Implementation and administration Local government’s ability to achieve regulatory outcomes is critically dependent on the quality of its internal decision-making processes, quality management practices, governance and its capability in regulatory administration. During the course of the inquiry, it has become clear that weaknesses exist in the way in which some regulations are being implemented, administered and enforced. These can often be traced back to gaps in regulatory capability.

Regulatory decision-making processes – While decision-making processes used by local government are generally adequate, considerable room for improvement exists in several areas. Specifically, there is scope to better tailor regulatory objectives to local conditions, increase the breadth of the regulatory options considered and undertake better assessment of implementation issues. There are also concerns expressed by inquiry participants about the inflexibility and lack of discretion of the statutory requirements to consult under the LGA.

Consistency and quality management problems – The single biggest issue businesses have in their dealings with councils is the perceived inconsistency in the application and administration of regulatory standards. Businesses perceive variation to be as common in regulatory areas with national standards as in areas where councils have a level of autonomy and discretion to tailor responses to local conditions. Of particular concern is inconsistency in the application of regulations within individual councils.

Governance issues – There is evidence that, in some cases, councillors have become inappropriately involved in regulatory decisions.

Monitoring and enforcement – Quality regulatory design can be significantly undermined if monitoring and enforcement are done poorly. The adoption of risk-based approaches to monitoring and enforcement activity could, in general, be improved to better achieve compliance and efficient resource use. There are gaps in the enforcement tools available to councils to achieve compliance and quality regulatory outcomes. There is also evidence that, in some instances, penalty levels are disproportionately low and are leading to weak deterrence and enforcement.

Generic system issues More generally, a number of broader weaknesses in the regulatory system have been identified that are undermining the system’s efficiency and effectiveness in achieving regulatory outcomes.


Performance assessment

The current performance assessment framework for local government is not delivering to expectations. The following issues were identified.

There is a weak ‘whole-of-system’ mindset when thinking about regulatory performance – that is, a lack of focus on how the regulatory regime is performing overall.

Performance reporting and post-implementation reviews provide few feedback loops to assist councils to improve the way they deliver regulatory functions and to assist central government to improve policy.

Local government performance measures are often dominated by externally-imposed formal obligations, such as timeliness and transactional measures, with little emphasis and transparency of regulatory impacts and outcomes. This situation is partly driven by statutory reporting requirements and partly by the inherent difficulty of measuring impacts and outcomes.

Regulatory performance assessment is largely seen by councils as a compliance exercise for central government, rather than as an important means of improving the performance of regulation administered by local authorities.

Local regulation and Mäori

Mäori are a significant and distinct community of interest for local authorities. Indeed, the RMA and the LGA impose specific obligations on local authorities to include Mäori in regulatory decision making. To appropriately involve Mäori in decision making, councils must effectively mesh two different systems of governance – local representative democracy, and the tikanga of local iwi. There are questions around whether the current legislative framework adequately allows for Mäori participation in decision making and whether it permits local government to adequately take account of the tikanga of local iwi. The current systems for including Mäori in decision making rely heavily on the often constrained capacity of local iwi.

Poor central and local government interaction

A recurring theme during this inquiry was the poor state of the relationship and interface between central and local government, across all aspects of the regulatory system. Within local government, there is considerable dissatisfaction with central government agencies, with frequent claims that central government agencies lack respect for, and understanding of, local government’s role and purpose. At the same time, central government agencies tend to downplay the role of local government in New Zealand’s democratic system. On the other hand, central government points to problems with monitoring and enforcement, delays and inconsistency as symptomatic of broader deficiencies within the local government sector. Criticism is also levelled at local government for its reluctance to act as an agent of central government in regulatory implementation and administration.

The uneasy interaction between central and local government is having a detrimental effect on New Zealand’s regulatory system. Indeed, the weaknesses identified in this report often have their origins in, and are perpetuated by, the strained relationship between central and local government. This poor relationship is rooted in divergent views and understandings of the nature of the respective roles, obligations and accountabilities of the two spheres of government.

A more productive relationship and interface between central and local government is required if regulatory outcomes are to be improved. A circuit breaker is needed to ‘reset’ the relationship in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness with which the regulatory system operates. This includes having a close look at the current institutional arrangements that act as an interface between the two spheres of government, the principles and processes that should govern this interaction, and the capacity and institutional substance required to underpin a properly functioning relationship (Chapter 12).

How can the situation be improved?

The Commission has identified the following critical areas where the regulatory system can be improved to boost the regulatory performance of local government:


Regulatory design

Allocating regulatory responsibilities

Local government regulatory capability

Local government regulatory processes

Mäori involvement in local regulation

Monitoring and enforcement

Regulatory performance assessment

The recommendations for improving local government regulation proposed in this report will only be successful, and lead to enduring improvements, if there are supportive institutional arrangements put in place to make changes. How this could happen is outlined in Chapter 12.

Improving regulatory design As noted above, central government regulation making needs to improve in a number of areas. Improvements are needed in four related areas:

the interface between central and local government needs to be improved with local authorities recognised as ‘co-producers’ of regulatory outcomes;

incentives to undertake rigorous policy analysis need to be strengthened along with accountability for providing quality advice on regulatory issues;

central government agencies need to enhance their knowledge of the local government sector and increase their capability to undertake robust implementation analysis; and

meaningful engagement and effective dialogue with local government needs to occur early in the policy process.

To move forward will require both central and local government to demonstrate a commitment to fostering a more open and productive relationship and interface. To this end, there would be significant value in developing a ‘Partners in Regulation’ protocol, which articulated an agreed set of behaviours and expectations that would apply when developing and implementing local regulation.

The protocol would aim to promote a constructive interface between central and local government by:

developing a common understanding of, and respect for, the roles, duties and accountabilities of both spheres of government; and

articulating an agreed set of principles to govern the development of regulations with implications for the local government sector.

The protocol would be a jointly created document signed by the Government and representatives from the local government sector. To signal strong commitment, it could be signed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Local Government. This would increase the protocol’s status as a ‘whole-of-government’ document. It is equally important that local government illustrates ownership and commitment to the protocol. For this to occur, signatories to the protocol must be seen by the sector as legitimate representatives with the authority to ‘speak for councils’.

The Commission does not envisage that the protocol would be a legally binding document. However, the requirements of the protocol should be added to the Cabinet Office Manual, along with a directive that the principles be complied with in formulating local regulation in all but exceptional circumstances. At the same time, progress towards implementing the protocol should be included in the performance assessments of relevant central government. Likewise, the protocol should include a provision that local authorities include a ‘statement of intent to comply’ in their annual reports.


Importantly, the protocol would be an avenue through which both spheres of government could acknowledge that the current relationship and interaction is not working to best effect, and take positive steps to improve the situation. More formal and legally binding options could be considered in the future if the protocol failed to have the desired impact. Other options incentivising compliance with the protocol are discussed in Chapter 5.

In addition to the protocol, other measures that would improve central government regulation making include specific guidance on the development of RISs covering local government regulatory issues, the development of strategies to lift the capability of officers to undertake analysis of the local government sector, and the development of joint regulatory change programs.

Allocating regulatory functions The Terms of Reference for this inquiry require the Commission to develop principles to guide decisions about which regulatory functions are best undertaken by local or central government.

A careful and systematic application of relevant principles can result in an allocation of responsibilities between central and local government that better achieves the objectives sought for regulatory interventions. However, the allocation of functions is rarely simple in practice. Every case will have unique circumstances and implications that impact on the choices made for allocating responsibility.

The Commission has developed a framework to guide the allocation of regulatory roles (Chapter 6). The framework addresses the key allocation questions: Who should be responsible for setting the regulatory standard or policy, and who should implement and administer the regulation?

Should the regulatory standard or policy be determined centrally or locally? Factors relevant to this choice include the communities of interest that will be affected by the regulation; where the costs and benefits are likely to fall; how those responsible for setting the regulatory standard or policy can be held to account for decisions; and consideration of the merits or otherwise of accepting variability in regulatory outcomes across regions.

Should the regulation be implemented and administered centrally or locally? Considerations include whether or not implementation requirements are likely to vary from region to region; the potential for cost efficiencies in allocating responsibility centrally or locally; the existence of incentives on the regulator that might hamper the effective delivery of regulation; the location of the knowledge and capability to implement the regulation; and whether suitable arrangements for funding administration of the regulation exist centrally or locally.

The Regulatory Impact Analysis Handbook and the Cabinet Office Manual should be updated with a requirement to use the allocation framework where proposals for new or amended regulatory responsibilities are being considered. This would help ensure that Cabinet has the relevant information when considering proposals to allocate new or amended regulatory responsibilities to local government.

There are opportunities to use the framework to review existing regulation, such as the reviews undertaken as part of government agencies’ regulatory review programmes. The framework should also be used where there is a change in the skills and capabilities required of the regulator, where there are changes in the institutional arrangements, where there is mounting evidence of poor regulatory outcomes that require remedial action, where there are changes in technology, or where the regulation is simply outdated.

More broadly, the allocation framework could be adapted and applied to consider:

the allocation of regulatory responsibilities between territorial and regional authorities;

the allocation or reallocation of functions between local authorities and other agencies such as district health boards; and

when trans-national regulatory arrangements may have merit.


Improving local government capability The capability of local government as a regulator is a key determinant of regulatory outcomes. Concerns have been raised about local government’s regulatory capability in a number of areas. Data limitations make it difficult to assess the significance of these concerns, but the local government sector itself sees room for capability improvement.

It is important that the local government sector is the driving force behind improving its own capability. The policy challenge is to find an approach in which both levels of government perform roles that complement each other, without undermining the accountability of local government for building its own capability.

The Government should use existing mechanisms for central-local government consultation more effectively, or develop new ones, to:

ensure that both levels of government understand the regulatory outcomes that central government is seeking and their relative importance; and

identify resource and capability gaps that may prevent councils from achieving these outcomes, and determine how these gaps will be addressed.

Many of the capabilities embodied in people, processes, technology and assets are transferrable, so an important option available to councils to address capability gaps in delivering regulatory functions is to coordinate with other councils, or engage with third parties such as independent contractors. While there is room for improvement, there is already a significant amount of formal and informal cooperation, coordination, and sharing of resources amongst local authorities, which is generally seen as successful. Importantly, the Government needs to provide sufficient lead-in times for new regulation, in order to ensure that councils have time to consider opportunities for local cooperation and collaboration in administering and enforcing the regulation.

Improving local authority regulatory processes There are improvements local authorities can make to their regulatory decision making. Some improvements rely on ‘leadership from the top’ in local authorities, but good processes can also reduce the variability in the quality of the analysis undertaken to make decisions.

It is well-established that transparency can improve regulatory decision making. To improve transparency, councils should make publicly available on council websites, using a standardised template format, the key components of the analysis underpinning regulatory decisions, and the information used in making decisions.

Statutory requirements can also sometimes impede efficient regulatory processes, such as mandatory requirements for the level of consultation to be undertaken. The LGA should be amended to enable local authorities to take an approach to consultation that is proportionate to the level of discretion they have to regulate, and the significance of the issue.

There is considerable debate about the participation process under the RMA, in particular whether it incentivises early and full participation by councils and participants, or whether it incentivises parties to ‘keep their powder dry’ for the Environment Court. The evidence suggests that councils and participants have incentives to resolve issues rather than go to court, and appeals to the Environment Court are mostly resolved through mediation. The success of mediation processes suggests that participants are prepared to compromise and participate constructively in the RMA decision-making process, if this process is run well. The Ministry for the Environment should consider the feasibility of making the Environment Court’s mediation capability available to support local authority plan-making processes earlier in the planning process.

There is a general need to improve quality management systems to resolve inconsistency in administration and enforcement of regulation. This has been largely accepted by the local government sector during engagement meetings. The features of good quality management systems, and ways that good practice can be facilitated within councils are outlined in chapter 8.


Councillors have an important governance role in driving performance improvements in local authority regulatory processes. However, it is also possible for councillors to become inappropriately involved in regulatory matters. Where councillors are involved in regulatory decisions, it is important that an appropriate separation is maintained between the governance and advocacy roles of councillors.

Requirements to use independent hearings panels (IHPs) in resource management decisions can weaken the accountability and ownership that councillors have for regulatory decisions. The impact of further expanding the use of IHPs on councils’ decision-making role, and councils’ accountability to their communities, should be carefully considered.

Mäori involvement in local regulation Although tikanga Mäori and the ‘Rule of Law’ are two distinct systems of governance, when it comes to regulation there are ways that they can mesh appropriately. This is important for effectively involving Mäori in regulatory decision making. Meshing the two systems of governance can be achieved by focusing on:

establishing appropriate ‘secondary rules’ about who decides on what is regulated, when, and how;

supporting Mäori involved in decision making through appropriate provisions for tikanga Mäori in rules and plans; and

providing appropriate legal backstops and safeguards.

Chapter 9 discusses several frameworks for thinking about how local authorities could better include Mäori in decision making. The solutions these frameworks lead to may be more diverse than just extending the use of co-management agreements.

There is already plenty of experimentation occurring within local government with respect to involving Mäori in decision making, although it is distributed unevenly across the sector. Some of these experiments are set out in chapter 9.

Improving monitoring and enforcement An appropriate mix of compliance promotion and deterrence is likely to be the best enforcement strategy. The enforcement challenge is striking the right balance between persuasion, coercion and expense in securing regulatory compliance.

There are indications of a low level of prioritisation of monitoring and enforcement resources based on risks. This situation can be improved by pooling experience and databases among councils to identify trends and patterns in compliance, and encouraging councils to separate their monitoring and enforcement activities and budgets from consent processing activities and budgets. Improvements in monitoring will also come about through formal coordination between councils and other monitoring and enforcement agencies.

Constraints on the use of infringement notices, combined with the low level of fines where infringement notices can be used, may inhibit councils’ capacity to encourage compliance with regulation. To improve this situation, the agencies responsible for regulation that local government enforces should work with LGNZ to identify regulations that should be supported by infringement notices, and to identify penalty levels that are disproportionately low, relative to the offence.

At the moment, regulations enabling councils to impose infringement notices (under s259 of the LGA) need to be made on a council-by-council basis. This is a cumbersome process, and the only infringement notices that have been made on this basis are those under navigation bylaws. S259 should be broadened, so that regulations can be drafted enabling infringement notices for similar kinds of bylaws across local authorities, rather than on a council-by council basis.

Assessing regulatory performance Regulatory staff and decision makers throughout New Zealand routinely gather and distribute information about the performance of a regulatory activity, process or system, and critically examine this information.


When done well, such activities can drive continuous improvement in the way regulation is designed, implemented and administered. It can also provide vital information for holding councils to account for the efficient and effective discharge of regulatory duties.

There are several leading performance assessment practices in local government. Some local authority annual reports already apply an outcome-based approach to performance assessment. The Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM) provides practical guidance material on performance management, and there are strong relationships between local authorities and their auditors. Several local authority inquiry participants also commended some central government performance assessment approaches, such as audits of Building Control Authorities and the biennial RMA survey.

The Commission has developed a framework for examining potential improvements to regulatory performance assessment (Figure 0.3).

Figure 0.3 Framework for an effective performance assessment system

A package of initiatives will improve performance assessment.

The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) should work with local authorities to remove instances where authorities provide the same data to more than one department, and make central government administrative datasets available to local authorities to assist in the assessment of regulatory performance.

The DIA should work with LGNZ and SOLGM to assess the costs and benefits of common measures of regulatory services, and prepare a framework for implementation.

The Treasury, LGNZ and SOLGM should jointly trial the concept of a ‘health check’ of a regulatory regime, in which experts from local and central government would summarise the problems and opportunities in an area of local government regulation.

This package will help rebalance the performance assessment framework for local government, rather than creating additional performance assessment requirements.

Making it happen

This report has identified many opportunities to improve the performance of local regulation in New Zealand and has set out recommendations that, taken together, would make up an ambitious reform agenda. It has highlighted that local government regulation is mostly shaped by central government.

A key theme is that central government should have a continuing role in contributing to good regulatory outcomes, even when regulation is delegated or devolved to local government. To operate effectively, New Zealand’s regulatory system needs effective engagement and collaboration between the two levels of government. At present, there are diverse understandings and attitudes towards the respective roles, responsibilities, accountabilities and constitutional settings of both levels of government. While the quality of engagement will be influenced in the short term by personal relationships, enduring inter-governmental cooperation depends on the effectiveness of supporting institutional arrangements.

The Commission has made 29 recommendations for improving local government regulation. However, these recommendations, if accepted by the Government, will not lead to enduring improvements unless there are supportive institutional arrangements, which may involve some organisational change and more clarity about roles and responsibilities for driving reform. The fact that the Government has seen the need

The best performance assessment system for

local government regulation...

...collects the right

information on

performance ...

... puts it into the right format ...

... with the right analysis

and commentary

...

... and sends it to the right

people, to inform the

best decisions.


to implement a wide-ranging review of local government regulation, together with the deficiencies in performance of the regulatory system and poor interface between the two levels of government that have been found by this inquiry, suggest that the current institutional arrangements are not adequate.

This has prompted the Commission to consider alternative arrangements for managing the relationship between the two levels of government. The reform programme proposed in this report culminates in nine functions that need to be carried out in order to secure effective implementation (Box 0.2). Currently, responsibility does not appear to be clear-cut for some of these functions.

A more precise definition of these functions, combined with clear allocation of responsibilities for performing them, is likely to improve local government regulatory performance. However, if the Government wishes to implement the recommendations in this report, it would need to explore options that go further than allocating some extra functions within the current organisational arrangements. It is also worth considering whether more far-reaching organisational changes—including strengthening the organisations within each level of government, and creating a new organisation dedicated to improving the relationship and interface between the two levels of government—would encourage better outcomes.

An inter-governmental forum A model that builds on the existing inter-governmental forums, while creating a step-change from the current situation, would create more effective engagement between both levels of government.

New arrangements could involve:

a forum at the political level, with ministers and mayors as members. The existing Central Government-Local Government Forum (jointly chaired by the Prime Minister and Chair of LGNZ) could provide the starting point. However, the proposed revamped forum would need to be quite different in terms of its profile and agenda, in order to be recognised as a key place where nationally significant issues are considered on an ongoing basis through a structured and continuing work programme;

a forum of chief executives – from both levels of government. The recently-established Central-Government-Local Government Chief Executives Forum is a useful model, but its work programme and profile would need to be enhanced as it would provide support to, and give effect to the decisions of,

Box 0.2 Functional requirements

The Commission has identified the following functions that are necessary to implement and progress the recommendations made in this report. Both levels of government are potentially involved in each of these functions, although in several cases the lead needs to be taken by central government.

Ensuring that there is a clear statement of desired regulatory outcomes

Promoting effective engagement between the two levels of government

Developing and implementing the central government - local government ‘Partners in Regulation’ protocol

Implementing the new framework for allocating regulatory functions between central and local government

Promoting a ‘whole-of-government’ approach to local government

Promoting and developing regulatory capability

Undertaking research into new regulatory techniques and encouraging their diffusion

Fostering evaluation and improvement of the enforcement of regulation

Reviewing whether regulation enforced by local government remains fit for purpose


the forum of ministers and mayors. The Chief Executives Forum would have the capacity to make some decisions on its own account, but would perform an advisory role in relation to significant issues that need to be determined by the forum of ministers and mayors;

the Chief Executives Forum could be supplemented by a set of topic-specific forums, similar to the Chief Executives Environment Forum. Alternatively, there could be one or more steering groups made of middle level managers, whose role is to ensure that tasks that are determined by either of forum of leaders are completed; and

adequate support from both levels of government, probably through a small secretariat, with experienced staff drawn from both sectors and funded through existing budgets.

The two levels of government should therefore consider establishing new joint institutional arrangements, which might grow out of the existing ones but would be a step change from them in terms of status, resourcing and priority. To be effective, these new arrangements would need:

a clearly defined role, which might be to initiate, develop and monitor the implementation of significant initiatives to improve the achievement of regulatory outcomes requiring cooperative action by both levels of government. Performing this role is likely to involve the new organisations in the nine functions listed in Box 0.2;

high-level representation from both levels of government, at senior ministerial level from central government and a small representative group of mayors and chief executives from local government. A key role of the local government representatives would be to provide feedback to the sector as a whole; and

the capacity to set up working groups or task forces to examine particular issues, under direction from one of the forums or from a steering group that the forums choose to set up.


1 About this inquiry

Key points

Regulations affect many aspects of our lives—from the environment and buildings we live in, to the food we eat. Regulation is part of doing business and can have a major impact on a firm’s profitability and growth. Local government regulatory activities have a clear impact on regional economic growth, and ultimately national economic growth. The impacts and outcomes of regulation are all around us.

When designed well, and enforced efficiently and effectively, regulation can help achieve broader economic, social and environmental goals that underpin wellbeing. Equally, poor regulation damages achievement of these goals.

The Government has asked the Commission to undertake an inquiry into opportunities to improve regulatory performance in local government. Specifically to:

- develop principles to guide decisions on which regulatory functions are best undertaken by local or central government;

- identify opportunities for both central and local government to improve the regulatory performance of local government; and

- recommend options for regularly assessing the regulatory performance of the local government sector.

The scope and breadth of the regulatory functions of local government is extensive. The Commission has identified more than 30 pieces of primary legislation that confer regulatory responsibilities on local government, and many regulations in secondary instruments.

Local government regulatory activity sits within a wider regulatory system that can be characterised as complex, multi-level and mutually interdependent. This raises inherent risks to regulatory efficiency and performance.

The Commission’s approach to this inquiry is to take a ‘whole-of-system’ view. That is, to examine the underlying institutions, principles and processes of the regulatory system and identify possible performance improvements in the regulation-making process, implementation, monitoring and enforcement, allocation of regulatory roles and responsibilities and assessment of regulatory performance.


2 Local government in New Zealand

Findings

Key points

Local government has a long history in New Zealand, originating out of provincial settlements, the need for service delivery at the local level and the articulation of local requirements and preferences.

Local government’s structures and powers have reflected its dual roles as a provider of local public service and enabler of local democracy. More recently, the dual role has been explicitly recognised in legislation establishing and empowering local government. The statutory purposes of local authorities are to enable democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and 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.

As a creature of statute, established and empowered by legislation, local government has been frequently restructured and reshaped over the years by central government through legislative change.

In the absence of explicit legal or fiscal relationships, local and central government are most accurately regarded as two spheres of a system of collective decision making, each with revenue-collection powers to fund the implementation of its particular policies and programmes, and accountable to their respective voters.

The nature and extent of local government’s relationship with central government is context-specific, depending on the particular regulatory framework. Some regulatory frameworks explicitly provide that the relevant Minister or central government department has powers of review of, and intervention in, local authorities’ exercise of specific regulatory functions. In the absence of explicit statutory recognition of a line of accountability, a local authority is not accountable to the relevant Minister or government department for the exercise of its regulatory powers.

Recent changes to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) have given the Minister of Local Government enhanced general powers of intervention in local authorities.

The powers invested in local authorities are extensive and diverse. They span a spectrum between powers that confer substantial discretion and autonomy to local authorities, to delegated powers to implement regulation with little or no discretion.

Most of the regulation made or administered by local authorities is either required by statute or reasonably required for fulfilling a role delegated by statute.

F2.1 There is no inherent agency or accountability relationship between local authorities and central government simply because local authorities are established and empowered by statute. The relationship between central and local government is context-specific, depending upon the particular regulatory framework.


3 Pressures and challenges

Key points

Local authorities undertake complex regulatory roles in an increasingly challenging environment. The main pressures acting on local government in performing their regulatory functions are:

- population growth in some local authorities (posing difficult trade-offs between different priorities for the use of resources) and population decline in other local authorities (posing challenges in undertaking regulatory roles due to shortfalls in capability);

- increasing diversity and greater community expectations, which present difficulties for local authorities in reconciling different community interests and making decisions;

- a steady stream of new statutes over the last decade affecting local government regulatory activities to varying degrees;

- a greater need for more technical information and technical skills in order to make decisions relating to environmental pressures; and

- risk of exposure to legal challenge for losses where a duty of care is owed in undertaking regulatory responsibilities.

Alongside pressures on councils, there are important regulatory cost pressures on business that impact on productivity and profitability, and ultimately the economy. These include:

- compliance costs of meeting regulatory obligations;

- delays in obtaining responses from local authorities and holding costs associated with sequencing of multiple regulatory requirements and decisions by local authorities; and

- wider economic costs that are incurred from regulation that distorts productive behaviour of individuals and businesses. These are often hidden, as projects are not undertaken, or are undertaken at a smaller scale than they would have been.

The Commission’s survey of business showed that almost three quarters of businesses had at least some contact with local government through the regulatory process. Of those that did:

- 39% report that local government regulation places a significant financial burden on their business; and

- nearly half of respondents thought the time and effort involved in complying with local authority regulations is too large, and 70% of respondents were dissatisfied with the fees charged.

When there is pressure on the regulatory system, there is a greater risk of poorer regulatory outcomes, and costs could be higher than they need be to achieve the regulatory outcomes desired. New Zealand’s regulatory system therefore needs to be strong enough to be able to respond to these pressures.


Findings

F3.1 Different regulatory challenges are faced by regions experiencing population growth compared to regions experiencing population decline. Local authorities experiencing population decline face less demand for regulatory services and may have difficulty undertaking their ‘service delivery’ regulatory roles due to shortfalls in capability. Local authorities that are growing may face difficulties in making trade-offs in reconciling the different priorities for the use of resources.

F3.2 Increasing diversity and greater community expectations present difficulties for local authorities in reconciling different community interests and making decisions.

F3.3 There has been a steady stream of new statutes over the last decade, affecting local government regulatory activities to varying degrees.

F3.4 Councils making decisions with environmental implications increasingly need access to:

technical information and skills in interpreting technical information;

methods of modelling uncertain scenarios; and

skills in engaging with communities and stakeholders on technical issues.

F3.5 Local authorities have an acute and increasing awareness the risk of exposure to legal challenge for losses where a duty of care is owed in undertaking their regulatory responsibilities.

F3.6 Delays in obtaining responses from local authorities, and the sequencing of multiple regulatory requirements and decisions by local authorities, can impose substantial holding costs on business.


4 Assessing the regulatory system

Key points

The Commission has identified a number of weaknesses in the regulatory system. Some of these weaknesses stem from shortcomings in the regulatory design process at the central government level. Others stem from the way regulation is implemented and administered by local government. There are also generic weaknesses within the regulatory system as a whole.

Weaknesses at the central government level include poor options analysis, a lack of quality engagement with local government during policy development and limited implementation analysis.

These weaknesses are compounded by quality assurance processes that are only partially effective, and by reduced incentives on central government agencies to undertake rigorous policy analysis when political and fiscal costs are (in part or full) transferred to local authorities.

While decision-making processes used by local government are generally adequate, considerable room for improvement exists – there could be better tailoring of regulatory objectives to local conditions, consideration of a broader range of options and better account taken of implementation issues.

The single biggest issue businesses have in their dealings with councils is perceived inconsistency in the application and administration of regulatory standards. Businesses perceive variation to be as common in regulatory areas with national standards as in areas where councils have a level of autonomy and discretion to tailor responses to local conditions.

Councillors can sometimes become inappropriately involved in regulatory decisions.

The statutory requirement for notified resource consent applications to be heard by independent hearings panels (if requested by an applicant), combined with the limited ability of councils to reject the recommendations of such panels, diminishes councillors’ ability to ‘own’ and be accountable for resource management decisions.

The level of monitoring and enforcement activity that is occurring at the local level is inadequate in some areas, and councils lack the appropriate enforcement tools to achieve regulatory outcomes.

Issues with the quality of analysis and decision making, concerns in the business community about inconsistencies in the way regulations are administered, and the problems identified with monitoring and enforcement, may signal underlying capability weaknesses.

The inquiry has uncovered a number of broader weaknesses in the regulatory system.

- Performance reporting and post-implementation reviews provide few feedback loops to assist councils to improve the way they deliver regulatory functions.

- There are questions around whether or not the current systems for including Mäori in decision making rely too heavily on a level of capacity that often is not available in Mäori organisations. If the system is reliant on participants possessing a level of capability and capacity that they do not have, then the desired outcomes are unlikely to be achieved.

- There is a poor relationship and interaction between central and local government. This is having a detrimental impact on New Zealand’s regulatory system.

If regulatory outcomes are to be improved, then a more productive relationship and interface is needed between central and local government.


Findings

F4.1 Current institutional arrangements can shield central government from the full fiscal and political cost of assigning regulatory functions to local government. This can have the effect of reducing the quality of regulations.

F4.2 There is often limited analysis of local government’s capability or capacity to implement regulations prior to the allocation of additional regulatory functions (or changes to existing functions).

F4.3 Central government agencies with oversight responsibility for regulations do not have knowledge of the local government sector commensurate with the importance of the sector in implementing these regulations.

F4.4 Engagement with local government during the design of new regulations is generally poor, resulting in a missed opportunity to improve the quality of policy advice from central government agencies and the resulting quality of regulation.

F4.5 The Regulatory Impact Statement process has a valuable role to play in ensuring the quality of regulations delegated or devolved to local government. However, at present this value is not being fully realised.

F4.6 While decision-making processes used by local government are generally adequate, considerable room for improvement exists in several areas.

F4.7 Businesses perceive variation to be as common in regulatory areas with national standards as in areas where councils have a level of autonomy to tailor responses to local conditions.

F4.8 There are indications of a low level of prioritisation of monitoring and enforcement resources based on risks. Constraints on the use of infringement notices—combined with the low level of fines where infringement notices can be used—can also inhibit councils' capacity to encourage compliance with regulation.

F4.9 Currently, few performance assessments provide feedback loops aimed at improving council delivery of regulatory functions. Further, there is a need for more focus on how activities across a regulatory regime fit together and influence each other.

F4.10 Local government performance measures are often dominated by timeliness and transactional measures. These measures do not provide a sufficient basis to determine whether local authorities are achieving impacts associated with their regulatory activity, or whether regulation is achieving its intended outcomes.

F4.11 Performance assessments are often seen by councils as a compliance exercise for central government rather than as a means of improving their own performance.

F4.12 To appropriately involve Mäori in decision making, councils must effectively mesh two different systems of governance – local representative democracy, and the tikanga of local iwi.


F4.13 The current system for involving Mäori in resource consent decisions is often mismatched to the capability of Mäori. On the strength of evidence from business, Mäori and local authorities, the current system for involving Mäori in consent decisions does not appear to be working well for anyone, due largely to the costs and timeframes involved.

F4.14 The lack of effective interaction between central and local government is having a detrimental impact on New Zealand’s regulatory system. The uneasy relationship between the two spheres of government is rooted in divergent views and understandings of the nature of their respective roles, obligations and accountabilities.


5 Improving regulatory design

Key points

In a number of areas, central government regulation making is below the standard set for the public sector. These areas include the level and quality of engagement with local government, the rigour and content of implementation analysis and the performance of quality assurance processes.

Improvements are needed in four key areas:

- the interface between central and local government needs to be improved;

- incentives to undertake rigorous policy analysis need to be strengthened;

- central government agencies need to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the local government sector; and

- meaningful engagement with local government needs to occur early in the policy process.

To move forward will require both central and local government to demonstrate a commitment to fostering more open and constructive interaction. To this end, there would be significant value in developing a protocol that articulated an agreed set of behaviours and expectations that would apply when developing and implementing regulations.

The protocol would be a jointly developed document signed by representatives from both local and central government.

Other measures that would improve the quality of regulations delegated or devolved to local government include:

- the development of strategies to lift the capability within central government agencies to undertake rigorous analysis of issues impacting on the local government sector;

- greater scrutiny by the Treasury’s Regulatory Impact Assessment Team of regulatory proposals impacting on the local government sector; and

- the development of a regulatory change programme that signals areas of local government regulation that may come under review in the coming 12-24 months.


Recommendations

R5.1

Central and local government should work together to develop a ‘Partners in Regulation’ protocol. The protocol should develop an agreed set of principles to govern the development of regulations that will have implications for the local government sector.

R5.2

The Government should add the requirements of the ‘Partners in Regulation’ protocol to the Cabinet Manual. A Cabinet directive should be given for all agencies to act in accordance with the protocol. Progress towards implementing the protocol should be included in the performance assessments of central government agencies.

R5.3

A review of the ‘Partners in Regulation’ protocol should be conducted a suitable amount of time after it is introduced. The review should be undertaken by an independent party appointed by the Minister of Local Government in consultation with LGNZ.

R5.4

The ‘Partners in Regulation’ protocol should include a provision that local authorities include a 'statement of intent to comply' in their annual plan.

R5.5

Central government agencies should develop strategies to increase, and then maintain, their knowledge and understanding of the local government sector.

R5.6

The trigger for involving the Treasury’s Regulatory Impact Assessment Team in scrutinising Regulatory Impact Statements should be amended to explicitly cover proposals that have a significant impact on local government.

R5.7

The Government, in consultation with local government, should develop and publish a regulatory change programme that signals areas of local government regulation that may come under review in the coming 12-24 months.


6 Allocating regulatory responsibilities

Key points

The Terms of Reference for this inquiry require the Commission to develop principles to guide decisions about which regulatory functions are best undertaken by local or central government.

A careful and systematic application of relevant principles can result in an allocation of responsibilities between central and local government that better achieves the objectives sought for regulatory interventions. However, the allocation of functions is rarely simple in practice. Every case will have unique circumstances and implications that impact on the choices made for allocating responsibility.

A framework is provided to guide the allocation of regulatory roles between central and local government. The framework addresses the following key allocation questions.

- Should the regulatory standard or policy be determined centrally or locally? Factors relevant to this choice include the communities of interest that will be affected by the regulation; where the costs and benefits are likely to fall; how those responsible for setting the regulatory standard or policy can be held to account for decisions; and consideration of the merits or otherwise of accepting variability in regulatory outcomes across regions.

- Should the regulation be implemented and administered centrally or locally? Considerations include whether or not implementation requirements are likely to vary from region to region; the potential for cost efficiencies in allocating responsibility centrally or locally; the existence of incentives on the regulator that might hamper the effective delivery of regulation; the location of the knowledge and capability to implement the regulation; and whether suitable arrangements for funding administration of the regulation exist centrally or locally.

The Commission recommends updating the Treasury Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Handbook and the Cabinet Office Manual, with a requirement to use the allocation framework where proposals for new or amended regulatory responsibilities are being considered. The framework should also be used to review existing regulation, including where:

- there are changes in the skills and capabilities required of the regulator;

- institutional arrangements have changed; and

- there is mounting evidence of poor regulatory outcomes.

The framework could be adapted and applied more broadly to consider:

- the allocation of regulatory responsibilities between territorial and regional authorities;

- the allocation or reallocation of functions between local authorities and other agencies such as district health boards; and

- when trans-national regulatory arrangements may have merit.


Recommendations

R6.1

The allocation framework should be used by central government agencies when recommending new regulation or amendments to regulation where local government is involved. This would be achieved through updating the Regulatory Impact Analysis Handbook and the requirements in the Cabinet Office Manual.

R6.2

Agreement to use the allocation framework should be part of the proposed regulatory protocol between local and central government.

R6.3

The allocation framework should be used to review existing regulation, such as reviews undertaken as part of government agencies’ regulatory review programmes. The framework should also be used where there are issues with capability or there is evidence of poor regulatory outcomes.


7 Improving local government’s regulatory capability

Key points

The local government sector needs to be the driving force behind improving its own capability.

The challenge is to find an approach in which both levels of government perform roles that complement each other, without undermining the underlying responsibility of local government for building its own capability.

The Government should use existing forums, or develop new ones, to:

- ensure that both levels of government understand the regulatory outcomes that central government is seeking and their relative importance; and

- identify resource and capability gaps that may prevent councils from achieving these outcomes, and determine how they will be addressed.

Coordination between councils or contracting with third parties for regulatory services can lead to improved performance through utilisation of better capability. However, coordination and contracting is more likely to be successful where councils have information on ways to cooperate and contract, sufficient time to consider implementation options when new regulatory tasks are introduced, and clear guidance on regulatory tasks.

Improving the capability of local government requires a multi-faceted approach undertaken cooperatively by both levels of government; however, current organisational arrangements do not appear to be building momentum to lift the capabilities of local government.


Findings

Recommendations

F7.1 Responses to the Commission’s survey of councils indicate that, while there may be room for improvement and reprioritisation of effort, there is a significant amount of formal and informal cooperation, coordination and sharing of resources occurring amongst local authorities, which is generally seen as successful.

R7.1

The guidelines for preparing Regulatory Impact Statements should be amended, to require departments sponsoring regulation that will be delegated to local government to include in their statements—following reasonable consultation with local government—the costs of improving to an acceptable level the capabilities in local government to administer and enforce the regulation.

R7.2

The Government should use existing forums, or develop new ones, to:

ensure that both levels of government understand the regulatory outcomes that central government is seeking and their relative importance; and

identify resource and capability gaps that may prevent councils from achieving these outcomes, and determine how they will be addressed.

R7.3

Relevant departments should consult with local government about the adequacy of guidance material and the potential benefits and costs of options for improving it.

R7.4

The Government should work with local government to develop a process for reviewing the regulatory practices of local government that is voluntary, and involves self-assessment and publication of findings.

R7.5

The Government should provide sufficient lead-in times for new regulation in order to ensure that councils have time to consider opportunities for local cooperation in administering and enforcing the regulation.


8 Local authority regulatory processes

Key points

There are improvements local authorities can make to their decision making. Some improvements rely on ‘leadership from the top’ in local authorities, but good processes can also reduce the variability in the quality of the analysis undertaken to make decisions. There are also ways to increase the transparency of local regulatory decision making by producing information in a standardised way and making it available on council websites. At the very least, this would allow stakeholders to quickly access the key information that had been used to support regulatory decisions.

The consultation or public participation requirements for decision making differ between the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). There is a blanket requirement that all new bylaws or changes to bylaws go through the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) process. There is a case for amending the LGA to enable local authorities to take an approach to consultation proportionate to the level of discretion they have and the significance of the issue they have to regulate.

There is considerable debate about the participation process under the RMA, in particular whether it incentivises early and full participation by councils and participants, or incentivises parties to ‘keep their powder dry’ for the Environment Court.

- The evidence suggests that councils and participants have incentives to resolve issues rather than go to court, and appeals to the Environment Court are mostly resolved through mediation.

- Evidence of the efficacy of the Environment Court’s mediation process in resolving appeals challenges the view that participants are unwilling to compromise.

- There may be value in the mediation capability of the Environment Court being made available to councils earlier in the plan-making process.

There is a general need to improve quality management systems that would ordinarily be used to resolve consistency issues. This has been largely accepted by the sector during engagement meetings. The Commission outlines the features of good quality management systems and ways that good practice can be facilitated within councils.

Councillors have an important governance role in driving performance improvements in local authority regulatory processes. However, it is also possible for councillors to become inappropriately involved in regulatory matters. Where councillors are involved in regulatory decisions, it is important that an appropriate separation is maintained between the governance and advocacy roles of councillors.

Requirements to use independent hearings panels (IHPs) in resource management decisions can weaken the accountability and ownership that councillors have for regulatory decisions. The impact of further expanding the use of IHPs on councils’ decision-making role, and councils’ accountability to their communities, should be carefully considered.


Findings

Recommendations

F8.1 While processes have been found to be adequate, there remains considerable room for improvement in local government decision-making processes, specifically in regard to more specific tailoring of regulatory objectives to local conditions, better options analysis and better implementation analysis.

F8.2 Regulatory decisions made by local government would benefit from the use of templates that ensure that the key components of the analysis underpinning the regulatory decision, and information used in making decisions, is set out in a standardised format.

F8.3 Participants in local authority processes under the Resource Management Act are usually not incentivised to hold back information they already have, but there are incentives to only gather information and evidence once the main issues in contention are clarified. Currently, clarification is more likely to happen after the submissions hearing process.

F8.4 Evidence from the success of mediation processes suggests that participants are prepared to compromise and participate constructively in the Resource Management Act decision-making process, if this process is run well.

F8.5 The quality of engagement and the initial Resource Management Act decision-making process can reduce the likelihood of appeals.

F8.6 Providing more guidance can help reduce inconsistent administration of regulation in some instances, but reducing inconsistency will often be achieved by the local authority concerned improving its management practices.

F8.7 Local authorities may have very limited ability to diverge from the recommendations made by independent hearings panels. The requirement to use a hearings panel weakens the accountability of councillors to the community for the decisions made.

F8.8 The inclusion of councillors on independent hearings panels can call into question the impartiality of such panels. However, accredited councillors can play an important role on hearings panels and any perceived lack of independence can be managed through strong principles for managing conflicts of interest, quality processes for running hearings panels and competent chairing of hearings panels.

R8.1

Councils should make publicly available on council websites, using a standardised template format, the key components of the analysis underpinning regulatory decisions and the information used in making decisions, to improve transparency.

R8.2

The Local Government Act 2002 should be amended to enable local authorities to take an approach to consultation proportionate to the level of discretion they have to regulate, and the significance of the issue.


R8.3

The Ministry for the Environment should consider the feasibility of making the Environment Court’s mediation capability available to support local authority plan-making processes earlier.

R8.4

The Department of Internal Affairs should begin the process to strengthen the statutory requirements on local authorities to separate prosecution decisions from political involvement.

R8.5

The Ministry for the Environment should consider the impact of expanded requirements to use independent hearings panels on the decision-making role of councils, and councils’ accountability to their communities for the resource management decisions they make.


9 Local regulation and Mäori

Recommendations

R9.1

Local authorities should aim to support Mäori who are involved in decision making with sufficient inclusion of tikanga Mäori in plans, policies and regulations to be able to meaningfully adjudicate whether particular proposals align with tikanga Mäori.

Key points

It is generally accepted that the Crown cannot transfer its obligations and responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) impose certain obligations on local authorities in respect of Mäori, but they do not delegate to local authorities the Crown’s obligations and responsibilities under the Treaty.

It is the Crown’s responsibility to interpret its obligations under the Treaty and to translate these into policy and procedural requirements for local authorities. There is a question about whether or not the policy and procedural requirements in the RMA and LGA, with respect to facilitating participation by Mäori in local authorities’ decision making, satisfy the Crown’s responsibility.

Local authorities are presented with two particular challenges:

- Where Mäori have a kaitiaki interest in regulation, local authorities are challenged to effectively mesh two governance systems in a way that works for both parties and the community.

- The decision-making system relies largely on levels of capacity that often are not present in local Mäori groups.

Mäori have an interest in the regulatory system, especially for environmental management, that stems from their relationship with the environment (which can include a kaitiaki relationship). Both the RMA and LGA can be interpreted as requiring provision for this relationship to be made in the regulatory decision-making process.

A kaitiaki relationship is more complicated than a strict question of who owns or who regulates a resource. Mäori might have a kaitiaki relationship with an environmental feature that they do not have a legal property title to (notwithstanding native title claims).

Adequate systems, processes and rules need to be in place to mitigate the perceived risk that recognition of tikanga Mäori might be used as an excuse for inappropriate commercial gain by Mäori (accepting that such an abuse would run counter to the kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga values that exist within tikanga Mäori). The Commission has identified good practice models to help achieve this.

There are rules within any regulation about who exercises or is involved in the exercise of the powers set out in the regulation. Arguably, it is these process or decision rules (rather than the actual content of the regulation) that are of most importance to maintain, enhance or restore the kaitiaki relationship.

Local authorities should aim to support Mäori who are involved in decision making with sufficient inclusion of tikanga Mäori in plans, policies and regulations to be able to meaningfully adjudicate whether or not particular proposals align with tikanga Mäori.


10 Monitoring and enforcement

Key points

Monitoring and enforcement activities are critical to effective regulation. Investment in good policy-making processes can be significantly undermined if monitoring and enforcement are done poorly.

The Commission has reviewed local authority practices against four features of an effective enforcement strategy: a risk-based approach, sufficient compliance monitoring, adequate enforcement tools and sufficient penalties to deter non-compliance.

There are indications of a low level of prioritisation of monitoring and enforcement resources based on risks. This situation can be improved by pooling experience and databases among councils to identify trends and patterns in compliance, and encouraging councils to separate their monitoring and enforcement activities and budgets from consent processing activities and budgets. Improvements in monitoring will also come about through formal coordination between councils and other monitoring and enforcement agencies.

Improvements in enforcement tools and penalties are required. Constraints on the use of infringement notices—combined with the low level of fines where infringement notices can be used—can inhibit councils’ capacity to encourage compliance with regulation. To address this:

- The agencies responsible for regulation that local government enforces should work with Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) to identify regulations that could usefully be supported by infringement notices and identify penalty levels that are disproportionately low, relative to the offence.

- Section 259 in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA)—relating to the empowerment of infringement notices—should be amended to enable regulations to be made for infringement notices for similar kinds of bylaws across local authorities, rather than on a council-specific and bylaw-specific basis.

Taken together, these proposals will improve council enforcement strategies and enhance the ability of the wider regulatory system to generate desired outcomes.


Findings

F10.1 Strategies that councils can use to maintain monitoring and enforcement priorities while meeting statutory timeframes include:

allocation of consent processing and consent monitoring responsibilities to two different teams; and

a ring-fenced budget for monitoring and enforcement activities

Recommendations

R10.1

To promote risk-based allocation of monitoring and enforcement resources in councils, the Department of Internal Affairs, Local Government New Zealand and the Society of Local Government Managers should identify opportunities to pool regulatory experience and databases among councils and central government regulators, to identify trends and patterns in compliance. This work should involve the Privacy Commissioner in order to protect the integrity of private information.

R10.2

Territorial authorities should formally coordinate with other monitoring and enforcement agencies, including the police, when administering, monitoring and enforcing liquor licensing.

R10.3

Agencies responsible for regulations that local government enforces should work with Local Government New Zealand to identify regulations that could usefully be supported by infringement notices and penalty levels that need to be increased.

R10.4

Section 259 of the Local Government Act 2002—relating to the empowerment of infringement notices—should be amended to enable regulations to be made for infringement notices for similar kinds of bylaws across local authorities, rather than on a council-specific and bylaw-specific basis.


11 Improving regulatory performance assessment

Key points

Hundreds of regulatory staff and decision makers throughout New Zealand frequently gather information about the performance of a regulatory activity, process or system, and reflect critically on this information. When done well, such activities drive continuous improvement in the way regulation is undertaken.

Leading practice in performance assessments include some outcome-based annual reports by local authorities, practical Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM) guidance material, some of the regulatory performance frameworks administered by central government and strong auditor/local authority interaction.

However, Chapter 4 noted several key weaknesses in current performance assessment practice.

- Weak system mindset and insufficient feedback loops between central and local government—current performance assessment arrangements do not adequately recognise that regulatory performance is the 'sum of individual parts' of the overall system.

- Lack of balance in what is measured—local government performance measures are often dominated by measures of timeliness and transactional measures, when a broader range of measures might contribute to better regulatory outcomes.

- Insufficient focus on use of performance information—nearly six out of ten councils (58%) do not use performance information to improve the administration of their regulatory functions.

The Commission proposes a package of initiatives to improve performance assessment:

- The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) should work with local authorities to remove any instances where authorities provide the same data to more than one department, and make central government administrative datasets available to local authorities to assist in the assessment of regulatory performance.

- The DIA should work with Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and SOLGM to assess the case for common measures of regulatory services, and prepare a framework for implementation.

- The Treasury, LGNZ and SOLGM should jointly trial a ‘health check’ of a regulatory regime, in which experts from local and central government would summarise the problems and opportunities in a specific area of local government regulation.

Taken together, this package should help rebalance the performance assessment framework for local government and promote its usefulness.


Findings

Recommendations

R11.1

The Department of Internal Affairs should work with local authorities to:

remove any instances where authorities provide the same data to more than one department; and

make central government administrative datasets available to local authorities to assist in the assessment of regulatory performance.

R11.2

The Department of Internal Affairs should work with Local Government New Zealand and the Society for Local Government Managers to assess the case for common measures of regulatory services, and prepare a framework for implementation.

R11.3

The Treasury, Local Government New Zealand and the Society for Local Government Managers should jointly trial the concept of a ‘health check’ of a regulatory regime, in which experts from local and central government would summarise the problems and opportunities in an area of local government regulation.

F11.1 There are several leading practices in relation to local government regulatory performance assessment, including:

Society of Local Government Managers guidance material;

some local authority annual reports that have moved away from transactional performance measures toward outcome-based, impact-based, and service-based measures;

International Accreditation New Zealand auditing processes for Building Control Authorities;

the Ministry for the Environment biennial Resource Management Act performance survey; and

auditor/local authority interaction.

F11.2 Performance assessment should be most frequent when there is evidence of performance shortfalls and when the potential for performance improvements is the greatest. For regulations where performance improvements would not add significant value, assessment may not need to be so regular.

F11.3 As practical steps to increasing the use of performance information by decision makers, performance reports can highlight the benefits of using performance information to improve performance and seek feedback from local government decision makers on the preferred format for reporting.


12 Making it happen

Recommendations

R12.1

Each level of government should:

review whether its current organisations are capable of developing and implementing a reform programme for local government regulation;

jointly consider establishing new inter-governmental arrangements, the purpose of which would be to initiate, develop and monitor the implementation of significant initiatives to improve the achievement of regulatory outcomes that require cooperative action by both levels of government.

Key points

Local government regulation is mostly shaped by central government. To operate effectively, New Zealand’s regulatory regime needs effective engagement and collaboration between the two levels of government.

At present, there are diverse understandings and attitudes towards the respective roles, responsibilities, accountabilities and constitutional settings of the two levels of government.

To encourage the achievement of good regulatory outcomes by local government, nine functions need to be performed, involving both levels of government. Responsibility does not appear to have been allocated for some of these functions.

These gaps, combined with the current lack of effective engagement between the two levels of government, suggest that new organisational arrangements may be needed to bring about the effective implementation of the reform agenda proposed in this report.

Effective relationships between leaders can improve the situation, but enduring improvement requires an effective institutional structure to give substance and support to engagement between the two levels of government.

This structure needs to involve both politicians and officials with the support of a small secretariat. Elements of the necessary structure already exist, but require more status and priority.

Each level of government should:

- review whether its current organisations are capable of developing and implementing a reform programme for local government regulation; and

- jointly consider establishing a new inter-governmental forum, the purpose of which would be to initiate, develop and monitor the implementation of significant initiatives to improve the achievement of regulatory outcomes that require cooperative action by both levels of government.


8. Disability Advisory Group – Terms of Reference

Reporting officer Carla Janssen (Community Services Adviser)



This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission and values statement as this document presents the Terms of Reference for our Disability Advisory Group; representatives from the disability sector that we work with to enhance our operational decision making. Introduction The principle objective of the Community Services department in the Long Term Plan 2012 – 2022 is:

“To build communities where people feel safe and are able to participate in a range of community activities that benefit both individuals and the wider community”.

To achieve this objective and contribute towards the purpose of the Local Government Act (2012) the Community Services department has made the commitment to focus on community development and community safety. The empowerment and increased utilisation of Council’s community sector advisory groups such as the Disability Advisory Group (DAG) is seen to be the key to meeting these outcomes.

Background The DAG has its genesis in the Disability Sector Reference Group (DSRG) formed in 2005. In its founding year, the Terms of Reference for the group were adopted by Whangarei District Council (WDC). These were guided by the New Zealand Disability Strategy, a central government initiative adopted in 2001. In 2012 the DSRG was renamed the DAG in alignment with the two other WDC community advisory groups; the Youth Advisory Group (YAG) and the Positive Aging Advisory Group (PAAG). In the process of deliberating the renaming of the group it was decided to revise the Terms of Reference to better reflect the group’s purpose, goals and operation. The DAG meets monthly to represent the diverse interests, perspectives and expertise of the disabled community in Council process, thereby assisting Council to meet the present and future needs of the District. The Terms of Reference provide a comprehensive framework for the operation of the group, which along with independent members, currently represent the following organisations:

· Arthritis New Zealand · Brain Injury Association · Deaf Aotearoa · Disabled Persons Action · Idea Services · NorthAble · Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind · Tiaho Trust.

The DAG’s role is to build stronger relationships and communication between Council and the disabled community. The group also provides a forum for communication and collaboration amongst the organisations represented, as well as encouraging wider participation from the disability sector.

Conclusion

The attached Terms of Reference provide improved clarity of the roles and responsibilities for the stakeholders of the Disability Advisory Group. This will also provide consistency across our other community advisory groups. These Terms of Reference will assist us to engage with members of the District’s disability sectors and therefore support Council’s operational decision making.


Recommendation 1. That the Terms of Reference for Whangarei District Council’s Disability Advisory Group be received.

2. That Council confirms the Disability Advisory Group Terms of Reference.

Attachment

DAG – Terms of Reference - 2013 (Trim Ref 13/16805)

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of the Disabled Advisory Group is to: Ensure Disabled persons perspectives are provided to the Council on the range of issues covered by

the Council, as well as issues relating directly to disability To recommend courses of action to Whangarei District Council that involve disabled persons Promote and improve understanding of disability issues that affect disabled persons Assist in bringing about positive changes for all those concerned in an interdependent way

2. GOALS

The goals of the Disability Advisory Group are to: Build strong partnerships / relationships between disabled persons and the Council Promote and enhance the interests, perspectives, knowledge and judgement of disabled persons Provide opportunities for disabled persons to gain more confidence in working with local authorities Ensure disabled persons are included and encouraged to be involved in decision making and

problem solving on all aspects of disability issues 3. ADVISORY ROLE

The Disability Advisory Group will: Advise Council on disability issues in the planning and developing of Council services Advise Council on how the views and opinions of disabled persons can be represented and

progressed Provide accessibility advice to Council on matters of urban design, planning and infrastructure Advise Council on matters relating to policy and strategic development

4. RESPONSIBLITIES

Disability Advisory Group members are required to: Commit themselves to attending Disability Advisory Group meetings on a monthly basis Provide Disability Advisory Group information back to their organisations / community groups /

networks Assist Council to promote issues affecting disabled persons to the community If a safety issue arises between meeting dates members are encouraged to utilise City Safe to

enable the issue /s to be tabled at the next meeting Assist and support the Council to find positive solutions that are focussed on ways forward for

disabled persons 5. CONDUCT

Disability Advisory Group members must: Report any potential conflict of interest to the Council as soon as possible Maintain a positive public image and not bring the Council into disrepute through their actions Abide by the direction of the Chairperson / Co-chairperson Arrive to meetings on time Have mobiles switched / turned off If unable to attend a meeting for whatever reason advise the group as soon as possible before the

meeting with apologies If unable to attend would be advantageous to appoint another member from their organisation /

community group / network to sit in their place Consider other persons views / opinions with respect and an open mind and accept their will be

differences between us all e.g. disability / personality Enable others to a fair opportunity to speak and give their view / opinion Raise a hand if wanting a turn to voice your view / opinion Agree to be a team player

Disability Advisory Group: Terms of Reference – May 2013

6. MEMBERSHIP

Membership to the Disability Advisory Group will be: Based on an endorsed representative of an organisation or community group or network or

individuals who have living experience with a disability and volunteer or are asked to join and are able to supply two referees

A person who is able to contribute to the diversity of the Disability Advisory Group – diversity being of range of impairment such as physical, sensory, intellectual, developmental, neurological etc

Membership to the Disability Advisory Group will also be based on 2 categories from the sector: I. Service providers specialising in meeting the needs of the disability community II. Individuals who have living experience with a disability

Service providers are encouraged to support a user of their service to be engaged on the Disability Advisory Group.

7. TERM OF APPOINTMENT

The standard term of appointment will be one year. Members can ask for their membership to be extended for additional terms. Extended terms of appointment must be approved by the Chairperson of the Disabled Advisory Group and the Community Services Advisor for the Whangarei District Council. The term of appointment can be less than one year if a member: Resigns Misses more than 3 consecutive meetings If a Disability Advisory Group member resigns, a replacement will sourced by the Chairperson and the Community Services Advisor for the Whangarei District Council.

8. GROUP SIZE

The Disability Advisory Group size will be of a maximum of 12 persons, as diverse as possible including a minority of able persons, plus a Council representative and staff member, and if wanted or needed by a disabled person themselves, “background” caregivers / support persons.

9. SELECTION PROCESS

Membership occurs by nomination of a group or person at a Disabled Advisory Group meeting. This will be minuted and the invitation will be made through the Chairperson and a show of hands will be asked for with majority ruling.

10. OPERATION AND OTHER MATTERS

Whangarei District Council will oversee the administration of the Disability Advisory Group The group will meet up to 12 times per year Should conflict occur, the Chairperson / Co-Chairperson and group will work with the Community

Services Adviser to resolve the conflict. If the conflict involves any of the mentioned parties then mediation can be requested.

Half of the current number of members, not including vacancies, must be present for the group to have a quorum. Any less than half the group and the meeting will not go ahead.

11. REVIEW

The Terms of Reference will be reviewed every three years. Any suggestion for changes will need to be an agenda item for a Disabled Advisory Group meeting. All changes to the Terms of Reference will be subject to the approval of the Whangarei District Council.

12. SUSTAINABILITY

The Disability Advisory Group must operate within the constraints of budget support and venue size.

By signing the Terms of Reference you agree to everything outlined above.

Name: ................................................................................................

Date: ................................................


9. Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society Inc - Loan Application

Reporting officer Jenny Teeuwen (Community Funding Officer)



This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission and values statement as it supports a recreation club to maintain its facility for the benefit of the local community.

Introduction The purpose of Council’s community loans is to provide assistance to recreation providers with developing assets for recreation purposes. There is no limit to the amount an applicant can request; however the interest free nature of the loans is generally reserved for the first $100,000. Both the Council’s community funding policy and community funding guide outline the funding conditions of these loans.

The Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society have applied for a $45,000 interest free community loan to go towards the renovation of the hall at the Ngunguru Sports and Recreation. If approved, this loan would be sourced from Community Development Fund 1 (Reserve Development). The purpose of this fund is for developing community assets for recreation purposes on land that is Council owned.

Overview of the Applicant The Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society is a registered incorporated society that owns and manages the Ngunguru Sports and Recreation complex on Kopipi Crescent, Ngunguru. The sports complex is sited on Council land being Lot 7 on Deposited Plan 135338 (7.5443 hectares more or less) and Lot 1 on Deposited Plan 90198 (6.3170 hectares more or less) (see Attachment 1). The Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society have a grounds lease agreement with Council for this land for the term of 44 years commencing 23 October 2003.

The sports complex site comprises of a main clubrooms building with bar and restaurant facilities, lockable Gaming Room, and men’s and women’s shower and toilet facilities; a hall which is situated at the southern end of the main complex building; tennis courts, golf course, sports field, and an outdoor bowling green and clubrooms owned by the Ngunguru Bowling Club. The complex site also has a 2 bedroom cottage currently tenanted to an on-site caretaker.

The complex has an overall current membership of 476. Members are able to participate in the activities of the complex’s many associated clubs including the golf, tennis, bowling, badminton, pool, and fishing clubs.

The Project The hall is a major part of the Ngunguru Sports and Recreation complex (see Attachment 2). It is approximately 712m² and approximately 40 years old. It is a typical late 60s/early 70s design with no internal lining. Over recent years the hall floor has caused considerable concern from moisture and condensation destroying the integrity of the floorboards. The hall is used by a wide range of people and ages and is currently used for:

- Rollerskating (mostly younger local residents) - Badminton (3 times per week) - Indoor Bowls (until recently due to state of the floor) - Fundraising events - Community events - Weddings and funerals - School performances/plays.


The hall in its current state is under utilised. The Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society’s committee have completed a full review of the maintenance projects to be undertaken over the next 2 to 3 years and these are listed below. Quoted prices for each project are listed alongside.

1. Removal and installation of hall floor $ 55,308.25 2. Supply and fix longrun steel to roof $ 15,936.11 3. Install composite wall linings in hall $ 12,825.00 4. Manufacture and install new kitchen units $ 10,591.00 5. Install new water tanks, pump etc $ 26,105.00 6. Replace corroded copper piping $ 7,500.00

Total $ 128,265.36

Because of the hall’s condition, the Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society’s committee has made the hall renovation its priority and wish to carry out the first 3 items on the list immediately. This work totals $84,069.36 (see Attachment 3 for quotes). To undertake the work, the Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society have requested a loan of $45,000.

The remainder of the listed projects will be completed once the loan for the hall renovation is repaid.

Financial Assessment The Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society has requested a loan of $45,000. Income for the organisation is mainly through subscriptions, gaming and bar. Rent is also received from an on-site cottage occupied by the complex caretaker. The organisation’s financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2012 shows a net cash surplus of $74,768 and forecasted surplus for the next few years shows sufficient revenue streams to cover the loan repayments of $5,625 per annum.

The organisation has sufficient assets with which to secure the loan.

Attachment 4 shows the loan and the respective impact on both the Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society and Council.

Conclusion The Ngunguru Sports and Recreation complex provides a focal point for the local Tutukaka Coast community. It is well utilised by a cross section of sporting codes and the community; however the hall in its current state is under utilised. It is the intention of the complex committee to provide a welcoming facility which is both aesthetically pleasing and completely functional. This project benefits all ages and will provide a safe, friendly environment for everyone to enjoy.

Recommendations 1. That the information be received.

2. The Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society be approved a loan of $45,000 from the Whangarei District Council’s Reserve Development Fund subject to the following terms and conditions:

a) The loan shall be interest free.

b) The loan shall be for a period of 8 years.

c) Loan repayments shall be made in equal quarterly instalments.

d) Security is taken over the assets of the Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society.

e) The Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society meets all legal expenses in relation to the loan documentation throughout the term of the loan including its subsequent discharge.

f) The Ngunguru Sports and Recreation Society will undertake to provide to Whangarei District Council a copy of its audited financial accounts no later then five months after the end of its financial year throughout the term of the loan.

Attachments 1. Map 2. Photograph of hall 3. Quotes 4. Financial report from WDC Finance Department


10. New Road Names – Resource Consents

Reporting officer Linda Wheeler (Team leader – Support, Resource Consents)



This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission and values statement as it supports clear and unambiguous property addressing for emergency and utility services, contributing to community safety and well being.

Applications for the naming of new roads Applications for the naming of new roads have been received for the following Resource Consents:

1. Beasley Burgess Surveyors Limited – McCarthy Developments Ltd – RC40424

This is a new private road at 39 Silverstream Road Whangarei

Private Road – Proposed road names

· North View Heights · Puke Tai Place · Perro Place.

2. Reyburn & Bryant - EJR Limited – RC39135

This is a new private road at Shoemaker Road Waipu

Private Road – Proposed road names

· Market Garden Way · Fraser Close · Connor Place.

Recommendation 1. That the new private road at 39 Silverstream Road be named North View Heights.

2. That the new private road at Shoemaker Road Waipu be named Market Garden Way.

Attachments

1. Application and road map for subdivision located at Silverstream Road Whangarei

2. Application and road map for subdivision located at Shoemaker Road Waipu

Private Bag 9023 | Whangarei 0148 | New Zealand T: 09 430 4200 | 0800 WDC INFO | 0800 932 463 | F: 09 438 7632

W: www.wdc.govt.nz | E: [email protected]

13/36761

Application for the naming of a new road

Subdivision at 39 Silverstream Road Whangarei – McCarthy Developments Ltd – RC40424 Below is a summary of the road name submissions from the developer in order of preference

Proposed status & class of road

Proposed road name Reason and relevance Accepted/Rejected

Local Māori consulted & evidence supplied

Private Right of Way

North View Heights This was chosen as the property faces north, is elevated with extensive views to the north

Accepted

N/A

Puke Tai Place The Maori name for hill and the sea/coast.

Accepted

Yes

Perro Place The Spanish word for dog, the owner has a faithful dog.

Accepted

N/A

Consultation TRIM 13/36749

Recommendation That the private way at 39 Silverstream Road be named North View Heights.

Document References TRIM 12/85434 Original road name application (as a result of a subdivision) received 30 October 2012.

TRIM 12/88685 – Acceptable name explanation



13/36945

Application for the naming of a new road

Subdivision at Shoemaker Road Waipu – EJR Limited – RC39135 Below is a summary of the road name submissions from the developer in order of preference




Private Right of Way

Market Garden Way The site was previously a market garden

Accepted N/A

Fraser Close Fraser is an historical Scottish name with ancestral links to the settlers in the area.

Accepted

N/A

Connor Close Connor is an historical Scottish name with ancestral links to the settlers in the area.

Accepted

N/A

Consultation N/A

Recommendation That the private way at Shoemaker Road be named Market Garden Way.

Document References TRIM 13/26472 Original road name application received on 11 April 2013.


11. New Road Name Riverside Drive to Port Road via the new Lower Harbour Bridge

Reporting officer Linda Wheeler (Team Leader - Support Resource Consents)




Application for the naming of a new road – Resource Consent Whangarei District Council (Roading) LU1000018

This is a new public road across Pohe Island connecting Riverside Dr and Port Rd via the new Lower Harbour Bridge.

Public Road

· William Fraser Drive · Iwitahi Drive · Dave Culham Drive.

Recommendation That the new public road across Pohe Island connecting Riverside Drive and Port Road via the new Lower Harbour Bridge be named William Fraser Drive.

Attachments

1. Application for the naming of a new road (Trim 13/38455) 2. Applicants supporting information (Trim 13/34883) 3. Map of public road (Trim 13/38454)



Application for the naming of a new road Background With the construction of the new public road across Pohe Island connecting Riverside Dr and Port Rd via the new Lower Harbour Bridge progressing towards completion, the length of new road now requires naming before its completion and opening.

Condition 4 of the resource consent issued for the new road and bridge requires the new road to be named in accordance with Councils Road Naming Policy. Briefly, the Policy specifies that:

· Consultation must be undertaken in accordance with Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 for any new road name, particularly where Maori names are proposed.

· Where Maori names are proposed, consultation must ensure that any names are ‘...appropriate, spelt correctly, interpreted correctly, and not be offensive to Maori.’

· There ‘....must be a reason for each name, including any meaning, origins, historical background, relationship with a theme, link with the area, etc. Names are to reflect the historical, geographical or cultural significance associated with the area, a common or established theme in the area...or the name of a noteworthy person.’

The Policy provides guidance on a general approach to weighting of suggested names in order to achieve a preference. The highest weighting is given to names reflecting the history or culture associated with a local area. Examples include early settlers or notable people of an area, or a name of local cultural significance to Maori. Lesser weighting is given to geographical features of the area or a notable person from the wider District.

Suggested Road Names Below is a summary of the road name submissions from the developer in order of preference.




Public Road William Fraser Drive Named after William McKenzie Fraser, Surveyor, Civil Engineer, Conservationist, Local Politician and Ethnological Collector.

(see attached )

Accepted

N/A

Iwitahi Drive

Recommendation from Te Parawhau Taumata The proposed name for the Road is Iwitahi meaning - People of one mind.

(see attached)

Accepted

Yes

Dave Culham Drive Named after David (Dave) Culham

The businessman, former district councillor and supporter of community groups and sporting organisations had a huge influence on the lives of hundreds of Whangarei people and on the city itself over the past half-century

(see attached)

Accepted

N/A

2

Consultation Management of the Lower Harbour Bridge Project has been undertaken on behalf of Council by the Lower Harbour Bridge Project Control Group which was a committee of Councillors and Senior Staff appointed by the I&S Committee.

The Project Control Group chose to call for public submissions for the naming of the Road and Bridge Structure separately. Attachment 2 shows a summary of the public submissions received.

As part of the public submission process Council consulted with local Iwi over the bridge naming process and met with a panel of kaumatua representing Te Parawhau (Taipari Munro), Ngati Kahu O Torongare (Richard Shepherd), Ngati Wai (Te Warihi Heteraka) and Buster Whautere representing Urban Maori.

Recommendation That the new public road across Pohe Island connecting Riverside Dr and Port Rd via the new Lower Harbour Bridge be named William Fraser Drive

LHBr Project Control Group 1 22 May 2013 Trim 13 / 34883

1. Lower Harbour Bridge and Road Naming

Reporting officer J Devine (Roading Manager)

Date of meeting 22 May 2013

Introduction Condition 4 of the Whangarei District Council land use consent issued for the construction of the Hatea River Bridge Crossing Project requires:

“...The consent holder shall submit three proposed road names for the new road. In accordance with Whangarei District Council’s “Road Naming policy” the three names are to be specified in order of preference, with justification for each name as it relates to historical, geographical or cultural significance. This information is to be supplied to the Whangarei District Council’s Subdivision Officer for presentation to the Whangarei district Council for their consideration.”

A copy of the WDC Road Naming Policy is attached for your information.

The Project Control Group has also been tasked with recommending to Council for adoption a separate name, or names, if desired for the bridge structure although this is not a consent requirement.

The project Control Group decided to call for public submissions on proposed names for the new road and separately if desired for the stand alone bridge structure. The list of public submissions received is shown below.

Public Submissions The following is a summary of the public submissions received for the naming of the road across Pohe Island and a separate name for the bridge structure if desired.. Full details of individual submissions are shown in the attachment.

Bridge Name Road name Submission No.

Hatea Bridge

55 Hatea South

6

The Hinge on Hatea

24 Pohe Bridge William Carruth Road 7, 59 Pohe Island Bridge William Fraser Drive 9, 11, 21, 45, Te Pohe Island Bridge Island Way Drive 51 Pohe Wai Passage Bascule Byway 68

William Fraser Bridge Pohe Avenue 8, 60, 63 William Fraser Memorial Bridge William Fraser Memorial Drive 79

Fraser Rd 28

William Fraser Drive 9

Cobham Bridge

4 Goodison Drive Bridge Goodison Drive 17 The David Culham Bridge

18, 34

The David Cullen Memorial Bridge

20 Culham Bridge Culham Rd 57 Culham-Howe Bridge

61

The Lloyd Trigg Memorial Bridge Victoria Cross Drive 29 Springford Bridge /Crossing

30

The Ralph Trimmer Memorial Bridge Opau Rd 40 The Caledonia Bridge

37


Bridge Name Road name Submission No.

Rememberance Bridge

65 Gallipoli Parade Bridge Gallipoli Parade 72 Gateway Bridge Gateway Road 14 Manaia Gateway Bridge Whangarei Heads Arterial Drive 27 The Gate The Gate Express Way 32 Seagate (or Sea Gate) Sea Gate Way 64 Oceangate (or Ocean Gate) Bridge Ocean Gate Way or Gate Way 65, 80 Moana Gate Pohe Portal 65 River Mouth Bridge

80

Ocean Doorway

80 Ocean Portal

80

Portal Bridge

80 Portal Craft Bridge

80

Horizon Bridge Horizon Approach 22, 44 Beach Bridge Bay Escape Rd 25 Hi-Way Bridge

26

The Flyer Fraser Rd 28 Hatea River-Watch Bridge

36

River–Watch Bridge

36 Heron Bridge Heron Bridge Rd 39

Te Matau a Pohe Pohe Island Dr 23 Te Matau Bridge Te Hononga Dr 13 Hei Matau 0 Manaia Matau district 19, 69 Matau (fish hook) Taniwha Drive 10, 38

Hei Matau Bridge Hei Matau South (the South Fish Hook Approach) 43, 69

Hei Matau North ( the North Fishhook Approach). 43

Iwitahi Bridge

78 Raumati Bridge

31

Te Parawhau Bridge Tahuhu Drive 31

Ngati Wai Drive 31

Hatea Whiti Tahi Hatea 41 Taiho te Maori Tahi

42

Terenga Paraoa

46 Te Tau Ihu Bridge Te Tau Ihu Road 49

Waka Tiwai Road 49

Waka Tiwai Link Road 49

Te Pohe Motu bridge

50 Te Motu Bridge Te Motu Island Drive 50 Te Koru A' Parihaka Parihaka Junction Road 53 Rohe Potae Bridge Rohe Potae Parade 2 Te Awa Roa Road Bridge Te Awa Roa Road 5 Parihaka Junction Harbour Lights Way/Extension 53 Mawhitwhiti Mawhiti 56 Wakanui Bridge

66

Putiputi o Whangarei - Ki Manaia

67 Here Nga Taonga - Ki Parihaka Me Whangarei 67


Bridge Name Road name Submission No. Here Te Taonga O Whangarei Ki Manaia

67

Te Puawai O Whangarei Ki Parihaka

67 Tu Kaha Ki Parihaka Mo Tatou

67

Hikuwai Hikuwai Road 70 Wairangi

71

Kai Ora Taniwha

74 Tirarau Bridge Tirarau Drive 75 Te Tirarau Kukupa Bridge

75

Whiti Taniwha Taniwha Drive 76 Whangarei o Hatea Whititoru Bridge Whiti Pohe Island Drive 77 Flash Bridge

1

Freedom Bridge Get Away Drive 54 Smoke Free Bridge

58

Long Awaited Bridge

59 Waka Bridge

59

Tranquility

62 Deep Bridge Hillary Lane 73 Sunshine Bridge Bridge Lane 73 Silver Bridge Rocky Road 73 Blue Bridge Crown Street 73 Jaw Bridge

80

Condyle/Condyloid Bridge

80 Mandible/Mandibular Bridge

80

Kauae Bridge (Jaw Bridge)

81 Heads Highway Bridge

50

Welcome Bridge Haere Mai Drive 47 Harmony

52

Made in China Arohatia Way 35 Bieber Bridge Fancy Drive 73 Eurotranz

82

Keith Urban Drive 12

Link Rd 65

Bascule Rd 3

Recommendation

a) That the following three road names be submitted to Council for the road crossing Pohe Island:

1

2

3

b) That the following name(s) be submitted to council for naming of the bridge structure

1

Attachments:

1. Public submissions – Lower Harbour Bridge and Road Naming (trim 13/25176) 2. WDC Road Naming policy (trim 09/53114)


Public Submissions

78. Submitter: Mira Norris

Comments: Recommendation from Te Parawhau Taumata Significance: Bridge The proposed name for the Bridge is Iwitahi meaning - People of one mind. The proposed name of IwitahiI reflects the relationship between Maori and early Pakeha settlers and the important practice of gifting/selling Maori land to the early colonial settlers/manuhiri for the sole purpose of creating and maintaining peace. This name also weaves together all the cultures in Whangarei who are of course all ratepayers but more especially the name acknowledges the special relationship between Hapu who have Mana Whenua status and reside in the greater Whangarei area. Mana Whenua are the Kaitiaki within this area and are the guardians of all the natural resources such as the Hatea river for the benefit of current and future generations. They are also responsible hosts who are required to maintain the unique and special relationship generated when host and visitors come together.

Bridge Name Road Name

Trim: Iwitahi Bridge

13/28576

Nil

18. Submitter: Jenn Lovatt

Comments: I had only recently arrived back in Whangarei when David Culham died. I read all about how he has contributed to Whangarei and the North all his life and about his many achievements in business through many ups and downs so I think my suggestion should be considered. Also any boss who gives treats of sweets to the office staff when he visited has to be considered.


Trim:

The David Culham Bridge 13/17797

Nil

20. Submitter: D I Dobson

Comments: I think the bridge should be named after a person who has contributed great service towards this city and its people. This would be an honour for the family of the late David.


Trim:

The David Culham Memorial Bridge 13/17972

Nil


20. Submitter: D I Dobson

Comments: I think the bridge should be named after a person who has contributed great service towards this city and its people. This would be an honour for the family of the late David.


Trim:

The David Culham Memorial Bridge 13/17972

Nil

Comments: Obituary Northern Advocate 13 Dec 2012: Whangarei lost one of its most loyal and hardworking citizens when Dave Culham QSM died at his home in Russell on Tuesday. The businessman, former district councillor and supporter of community groups and sporting organisations had a huge influence on the lives of hundreds of Whangarei people and on the city itself over the past half-century. His son Shane yesterday took the coffin containing his 81-year-old father's body to an informal wake at Culham Engineering, the Whangarei business Mr Culham established in 1958. After the ceremony, former Whangarei mayor Stan Semenoff said Mr Culham's death was "like a kauri tree falling". "He will be missed. He is among a handful of people who will go down in history for the massive contributions they made to Northland," Mr Semenoff said. "He provided a heap of pay packets to families and the photos on the walls at Culham Engineering of sports organisations he supported are a mile long." Mr Culham, who was awarded the Queen's Service Medal last year for his services to business and the community, grew up on a Taipuha dairy farm. He boarded at Whangarei Boys' High School and went on to complete a five-year boilermaking apprenticeship. The company he later founded at age 27 trained more than 500 apprentices over the years. After local-government amalgamation in 1989, Mr Culham was elected to the Whangarei District Council. Today's deputy mayor, Phil Halse, served three terms with him. "Dave helped overhaul the Whangarei water supply and influenced the development of Wilson's Dam in Bream Bay, which was, until this year, council's largest civil engineering project," Mr Halse said. "He was heavily involved in redevelopment of the Town Basin and he was pivotal in setting up the Whangarei Art Museum." The council will pay formal tribute to Mr Culham at its final meeting of the year next Wednesday. A private celebration of his life will be held at his Russell home tomorrow and a memorial service will be held at a date to be advised. He is survived by his wife, Gay, six children, eight grandchildren and three great-grandchildren

Road Name Dave Culham Drive


79. Submitter: D Fraser

Comments: Significance: Reasons for and background of William McKenzie Fraser Surveyor, Civil Engineer, Conservationist, Local Politician and Ethnological Collector. Moved to Maungatapere in 1880 where he attended school until he left in standard 3 to learn bush craft from Maori friends and surveying from a future brother in law. For a number of years he was gum digging, bush felling, road making and contract surveying in the Mangakahia District. During this time, he studied by candlelight and obtained Civil Engineering Qualifications. From 1907 to 1918,William Fraser was the Whangarei County Council Engineer. 1907 - Prepared the prospectus for the new Maungatapere Dairy Factory and convened, along with W.M.Hawkins, the first meeting of settlers. W.M.Fraser was a foundation Director and Secretary of the Dairy Factory which opened for business on the 15th of October 1907. 1919 Appointed to the position of Consultant Engineer to the Whangarei Hospital Board. In 1920 he began a 27 year association as an employee of the Whangarei Harbour Board, working as Engineer,Secretary,Harbourmaster,Treasurer and later as Superintendent. At one stage while employed as Secretary and Engineer he would write to himself as Engineer and then reply by sending letters in return. 14th July 1922. Whangarei Harbour Board adopted a report from a sub-committee headed by W M Fraser, recommending the "stop banking and draining of a harbourside area of about 200 acres for an eventual multi- sports ground for Whangarei. Due to his energy, skill and foresight he created an efficient organization and initiated major changes to the Harbour. Under his supervision, many hundreds of hectares of land were reclaimed from the Harbour. This facilitated the development of a deep sea port, and provided sites for industry and recreation, and added to the income for local authorities. He also paved the way for the establishment of Fertilizer works and envisioned the construction of an Oil Refinery. His reclamation work also included the mud flats surrounding Pohe Island which was approx 1250 sq metres in area and had been bought by the Harbour Board. This reclamation was turned into 3 farm lets and along with the area reclaimed adjacent to Okara Park is the site for the new bridge. In 1947 he resigned from his positions as an employee, and stood successfully for both the Harbour Board and Whangarei County Council, at the local body elections. In 1950 and 1953, he was elected to the Whangarei County Council, the Whangarei Borough Council and to the Whangarei Harbour Board. In 1956 he stood only for the Whangarei County Council. 1922 Accepted position of Honorary Inspector of Island Sanctuaries offered by


Government. 1922 - Accepted Acting Harbormasters’ role along with existing position as Engineer at no extra Salary to save harbour board expenses. 1922 - Architect of the 120000 pound ($240000) scheme-the Town Wharf and Harbour Board Offices were built, and the channel was deepened to enable the old Kioreroa wharf to be used by overseas ships. The wharf was shifted from Onerahi to Kioreroa. 1923 - Made Honorary Life Member of Whangarei Cruising Club for "services and contributions over many years. 1924 Met owners of Manaia (Whangarei Heads) and negotiated right to purchase over 6 months by government or local bodies, to stop milling of significant Kauri, Puriri, Totara and Rimu. WM Fraser claimed "the land which includes Mt Manaia was a great scenic asset with little risk of fire". Was successful in arranging finance and area was declared a Scenic Reserve. 1924. Honorary Inspector of Fisheries. (govt. appointment) As early as 1924 was recognized as a New Zealand authority on reclamation of tidal harbour flats. 4th Julyl924 Request from Stanley Bay Improvement Society, Auckland, seeking advice on reclaiming "Tidal Marsh" for formation of Stanley Park Reserve and subsequent reply offering services free of charge. 1950. Request from Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Park of Auckland Airways Committee, asking for "your advice as an expert on methods that yielded soil that would stand considerable weights at an early date (which is not so with Ministry of Works method of reclaiming land from Harbours)". He wished to discuss whether the needed extra space required at Mangere could be provided by using his methods of Harbour Reclamation. WMF replied that as he had retired from practice as a civil engineer, he would offer his services free of charge. After a meeting with Sir Keith Park his methods were subsequently used. Also called on by Thames and Tauranga Harbour Authorities to advise and help with their reclamation schemes. 1920's successful in bid to make Waipoua Forest a Sanctuary and remained on Waipoua Forest Sanctuary Committee for over 30 years. 1920's. Made Honorary Warden of all the outer Islands of Northland.ie Three Kings, Poor Knights, Hen and Chicken group and Great Barrier Is. 1928. Explored Lady Alice Island with Her Excellency the Lady Alice Fergusson party, locating Ancient Maori Villages and Burial caves, drawing detailed maps of same. 1928. Invited by Her Excellency Lady Alice Fergusson to accompany her party to the Three Kings Islands so that he may investigate the history of Native occupancy of the Islands. As a result of this expedition, his Notes, sketch plan of the island and


photo's ,were published by The N Z Journal of Science and Technology in1929. 1930.Instrumentalin having Lady Alice Island (Hen and Chicken Islands) named after Lady Alice Fergusson (wife of the Governor General) In recognition of the great interest she took in the indigenous life of New Zealand and he was also Instrumental in having Lady Alice Island declared a sanctuary for Native Flora and Fauna. 1932,appointed Harbormaster and Collector of Customs. 1939.Letter from Whangarei Maori Council confirming appointment to Whg Maori Council (gazette 22/6/1939) "trusting you can help our council to Improve the conditions of Maori in Northland. 1950/51Chairman Whangarei District War Memorial Committee. 1951Chairman Parks Committee -Whg Borough Council. 1956 Chairman Works Committee-Whg County Council. Life Member Whg Beautification Society Life Member Waipu Caledonian Society. Patron Whangarei Ladles Gardening Club 1958 Put Motion to Council reformation of A.H Reed Park. Received letter from A.H.Reed to WMF,stating that ''I am honoured by the Council Resolution in the naming of the Park after me, but am humbled and believe that you of all people should be honored before myself for your magnificent contribution to our area. Relationship with Maoridom. Fluent Speaker of Maori, Maori Name -Wiremu Pereiha. 1924 Honorary Inspector of Fisheries 1928 Chairman of Native Fisheries Committee - Responsible for Allocating Oysters to Parua Bay Native Oyster Reserve Committee 1934 (July )Committee were-Hone Pohe, James Cross, Mio Mahanga, Wiri Mahanga, Tori Wetiwha and Hore Pohe. Chairman Wiremu Pereiha(William Fraser). 1939 Letter from Whangarei Maori Council confirming appointment to Whangarei Maori Council (gazette 22-6-1939) "trusting you can help our council to improve the conditions of Maori in Northland. 1941(June 251h) Article in" The Bulletin" "One of the M.L.'s best appointments to the recently-created N Z Maori Councils is William McKenzie Fraser, of Whangarei. A Scot and an Engineer, he is a trusted councilor of the Maori Race; speaks their language fluently and is reputed to ‘have been Intimate with the last Tohunga. Fraser, who is Engineer to the Whangarei Harbour Board, is as well known in the


North as the Kauri." 1959 Advocate Headline States " Maori Committee Hopes to stop Rifling of Burial Caves" • 21 Maori, mostly Elder5,from 12 Tribes or sub-tribes formed a Committee to Protect Maori Burial Caves from being despoiled, and to see that bodies of ancestors are re-interred in hallow ground. Maori elders requested that W.M.Fraser represent Pakeha (subject to his approval). At the Funeral of W.M.Fraser Whangarei Tribal Committee were represented by MohiTito, Ngunguru-Pataua Tribal Committee by Henare and Ngaronoa Mahanga. Whangarei Women’s Maori Welfare league by Mrs. E D Randall. Pall Bearers included C A Lovell {chairman Whangarei County Council). Ken Haslett (Deputy Mayor, Whangarei Borough Council). Henare Kepa ( representing Maoridom ). C.M.Smith ( Deputy Chairman, Whangarei Harbour Board ). A.H.Pickmere ( Whangarei Forest and Bird Society). Typical of many telegrams, letters etc to Family, is the following Telegram, from Mr. Mane Te Paa, Kamatua, of Ruawal, "Have learned with deep regret of the passing of your distinguished husband and father. The Great Totara in the forest of Tane Mahuta has fallen and the crash thereof has reverberated far and wide. His interest In, and love for the Maori people were legendary, and because of this, his loss will be mourned much more deeply by Maoridom". Northern Advocate Editorial, Page 2,15th September,1960. W.M.Fraser. "A true son of the Pioneers, he gained much of his vast knowledge of Science, both Natural and Practical, from personal study, keen observation and his penchant for winning confidence and trust. Especially was this so of the Maori people. He became a confidant of many of their most sacred secrets. There were few, if any, who knew so much about the early life and customs of the Ngapuhi, and the race in general. Over the years, he built up what is probably the finest private collection of Maori Artifacts assembled in this country.



Trim: William Fraser Memorial Drive

13/29159

William Fraser Memorial Bridge

LU1000018 Whangarei District Council (Roading)

Public Road to be Named

Public Road

Public Road to be named


12. Weekend and Night Time Economy Discussion Document

Reporting officer Sonya Seutter (Environmental Trends Analyst)



This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission and values statement by providing a strategy to assist in invigorating the weekend and night time economy, encouraging the council to work together with businesses and create opportunities within the inner city for families, youth, professionals, as well as visitors.

Background Information The Weekend and Night Time Economy Draft Discussion Document is intended to stimulate thinking on opportunities for activities in the inner city that could invigorate the weekend and night time economy over the next 30 years. A vibrant, high amenity, people friendly, mixed use living, working and entertainment environment is essential to attracting new businesses, creative professionals, entrepreneurs, skilled workers, innovative developers and tourism operators. It is also essential to the success and retention of existing business and for attracting and retaining young people in the district.

At present, Whangarei has a limited weekend and night time economy. Many parts of the city suffer from lack of activity on the weekends and in the evenings and there is an absence of a coherent and integrated weekend and night time specific place making strategy. Council has a role to play in creating a canvas for a dynamic, diverse and multi purpose weekend and night time economy in which public culture and commercial culture intersect. This would be best done in collaboration with the business community, the arts and culture community, the Youth Advisory Group and other interested parties.

The Whangarei Growth Strategy and Implementation Plan identified a need for a strategy to improve weekends and night times in the inner city, drawing people in and contributing to a stronger economy.

New infrastructure initiatives planned for the CBD, along with mixed use and residential intensification opportunities in the inner city are drivers for a comprehensive document to plan activities in the area for the future.

Encouraging the formation of alfresco dining activities in the inner city allows Council to contribute to the framework for a successful alfresco dining community, thus building on the weekend and night time economies.

The new Youth Policy approved clear goals that ensure the District has a range of public recreational facilities and activities to meet the needs of youth as well as greater access to tertiary education and training opportunities. By working with the businesses and organizations in the inner city, we can attract and keep our youth in the community.

This discussion document is intended to compliment the structure plan for Whangarei City and the comprehensive development plan for the inner city.

Recommendation 1. That this document be received.

2. That this document be discussed by Council Officers with various stakeholders.

Attachment

Weekend and Night Time Economy Discussion Document – this attachment is too large to display online

Supplementary Agenda Item No. 1


13. New Road Names – Resource Consents

Reporting officer Linda Wheeler (Team Leader – Support, Resource Consents)




Applications for the naming of new roads have been received for the following resource consent: Blue Wallace Surveyors Ltd – Totara Parklands – SD1200080

Public Roads – Proposed road names Road A: Wairau Drive

Road B: Okaihau Place

Road D: Maui Place

Road E: Lake Drive

Road F: Rotokauri Rise

Road H: Timara Avenue

It is noted that the applicant has chosen to name the roads after lakes of New Zealand. Some initial consultation with local Iwi regarding the possible use of locally derived Maori names appears to have been undertaken. However advice was then received indicating that local Iwi did not wish to be involved with the road naming.

As the subdivision is staged, further road names for other parts of the development will be required at a later date. It is expected that these road names will follow the same theme.

Recommendation That the new public road A at Totara Parklands Tikipunga be named Wairau Drive

That the new public road B at Totara Parklands Tikipunga be named Okaihau Place

That the new public road D at Totara Parklands Tikipunga be named Maui Place

That the new public road E at Totara Parklands Tikipunga be named Lake Drive

That the new public road F at Totara Parklands Tikipunga be named Rotokauri Rise

That the new public road H at Totara Parklands Tikipunga be named Timara Avenue

Attachments:

1. Application and road map for subdivision located at Corks Road Tikipunga

district living committee agenda

Documents