Agenda of Council meeting - Wednesday, 3 November 2021

Council Meeting Agenda

3 November 2021

MINUTES OF A Council Meeting OF THE Central Otago District Council
HELD AT Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building, 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra ON Wednesday, 22 September 2021 COMMENCING AT 10.30 am

PRESENT: His Worship the Mayor T Cadogan (Chairperson), Cr N Gillespie (via Microsoft Teams), Cr T Alley, Cr S Calvert (via Microsoft Teams), Cr L Claridge, Cr I Cooney, Cr S Duncan, Cr S Jeffery, Cr C Laws, Cr N McKinlay, Cr M McPherson, Cr T Paterson

IN ATTENDANCE: S Jacobs (Chief Executive Officer), L Macdonald (Executive Manager - Corporate Services), J Muir (Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services), L van der Voort (Executive Manager - Planning and Environment), S Righarts (Chief Advisor), N Aaron (Community Development Advisor), P Penno (Community and Engagement Manager), I Evans (Water Services Manager), C Green (Infrastructure Finance Officer), Q Penniall (Environmental Engineering Manager), J McCallum (Roading Manager), F Somerville (Roading Administration Assistant), L Stronach (Statutory Property Officer), D Campbell (Planning Manager), A Rogers (Principal Policy Planner), L Webster (Regulatory Services Manager), K McCulloch (Corporate Accountant), G Robinson (Property Manager), P Keenan (Capital Projects Programme Manager), M De Cort (Communications Coordinator) (via Microsoft Teams), R Williams (Governance Manager) and W McEnteer (Governance Support Officer)

1 Apologies

There were no apologies.

2 Public Forum

Leigh Overton – Central Otago Health Inc

Leigh Overton spoke on behalf of Central Otago Health Inc about the organisation’s application for funding before responding to questions.

Rebekah de Jong and Jan Bean – Central Otago Districts Arts Trust

Rebekah de Jong and Jan Bean spoke on behalf of Central Otago District Arts Trust about the organisation’s application for funding before responding to questions.

Owen Booth and John Brimble – Sport Otago

Owen Booth and John Brimble spoke on behalf of Sport Otago about the organisation’s application for funding.

Jo Knight – Sport Central

Jo Knight spoke on behalf of Sport Central about the organisation’s application for funding.

Sam Marshall

Sam Marshall spoke about the current waste services review, waste services in the Maniototo and the hours of the Ranfurly transfer station before responding to questions.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Paterson

That the public minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 11 August 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

4 Declaration of Interest

Members were reminded of their obligations in respect of declaring any interests. His Worship the Mayor declared an interest in item 21.7.10. Cr Jeffery declared an interest in items 21.7.11, 21.7.16 and 21.7.18. Cr Paterson declared an interest in item 21.7.2. Cr Calvert declared an interest in item 21.7.2. Cr Cooney declared an interest in item 21.7.18. Each withdrew from discussions and did not vote on those items.

5 Reports for Decisions

Note: Cr Jeffery assumed the Chair as the Economic Development and Community Facilities portfolio lead.

Note: Crs Calvert and Paterson declared an interest in item 21.7.2. They withdrew from discussions and did not vote on the item.

21.7.2 Council Community Grant Applications 2021-24 Financial Year

To consider round one of applications to the 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 Council general grants fund and to determine the grant allocation of each applicant.

After discussion it was agreed to approve the grant for Central Otago Health Inc to ensure continuity in their operations of which Council has been a constant supporter. It was noted that Dunstan Hospital was an important asset for the community.

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Considers the following applications:

i. Central Otago Health Inc to cover administration costs

2021/22 Requested: $7,556 Approve: $7,556

2022/23 Requested: $7,556 Decline: $0

2023/24 Requested: $7,556 Decline: $0

ii. Central Otago Heritage Trust to cover operational costs

2021/22 Requested: $40,000 Approve: $40,000

2022/23 Requested: $45,000 Decline: $0

2023/24 Requested: $50,000 Decline: $0

iii. Central Otago District Arts Trust to cover operational costs

2021/22 Requested: $47,488.10 Approve: $31,250

2022/23 Requested: $67,926.47 Decline: $0

2023/24 Requested: $63,458.16 Decline: $0

iv. Life Education Trust Heartland to cover operational costs in Central Otago

2021/22 Requested: $5,000 Approve: $3,000

2022/23 Requested: $5,000 Decline: $0

2023/24 Requested: $5,000 Decline: $0

v. Sport Otago for Sport Central operational costs in Central Otago

2021/22 Requested: $48,000 Approve: $41,549

2022/23 Requested: $48,960 Decline: $0

2023/24 Requested: $49,960 Decline: $0

vi. Sport Central for annual sports awards

2021/22 Requested: $1,000 Decline: $0

2022/23 Requested: $1,000 Decline: $0

2023/24 Requested: $1,000 Decline: $0

Carried

Note: Cr Cooney left the meeting at 11.26 am and returned at 11.28 am.

Note: Cr Duncan left the meeting at 11.26 am and returned at 11.27 am.

Note: Cr McKinlay left the meeting at 11.28 am and returned at 11.31 am

Note: The Mayor left the meeting at 11.28 am and returned at 11.30 am

21.7.3 District Museum Function

To consider options on the sector-led delivery of the district museum function following deliberations and direction from councillors on the Long-term Plan 2021-31.

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Notes eight sector-led models were considered and analysed to provide the delivery of the district museum function.

C. Notes a sector-led trust model is likely to be the most effective mechanism to deliver the district museum function.

D. Endorses the establishment of a new sector museum trust to deliver the district museum function.

E. Approves a portion of the $50,000 allocated to this function is retained for staff to facilitate the establishment of the trust by paying legal fees to review the trust deed and establishing the new trust.

F. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a performance agreement with the new entity upon which overall delivery will be measured against.

G. Approves on the evidence of the establishment of the trust and the signing of the performance agreement the remaining balance of the $50,000 is transferred to this new entity.

H. Approves that council will have active involvement in the trust with the appointment by the Chief Executive Officer of one staff member as a council representative on the trust.

I. Approves that the district museum function will be delivered by the new trust for a trial period of two years with regular reporting to council on progress and delivery.

J. Notes that any decision regarding funding beyond the two-year period will be considered under the museum investment framework soon to begin.

Carried

Note: The Mayor assumed the Chair.

Note: Cr McPherson left the meeting at 12.03 pm and returned at 12.05 pm.

21.7.4 Next Stages of Three Waters Service Delivery Reform

To update Council on the Government’s 30 June 2021 and 15 July 2021 Three Waters Reform announcements, which change the reform process previously outlined in 2020, the specific data modelling Council has received to date, the implications of the revised Three Waters Reform proposal for Council alternative service delivery options and next steps (including uncertainties).

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Notes the Government’s 30 June and 15 July 2021 Three Waters Reform announcements

C. Notes officer’s advice on the accuracy of the information provided to Council in June and July 2021 as a result of the RFI and WICS modelling processes.

D. Notes officer’s analysis of the impacts of the Government’s proposed three water service deliver model on the Central Otago community and its wellbeing, including the impacts on the delivery of water services and water related outcomes, capability and capacity, Central Otago District Council’s sustainability (including rate impact, debt impact, and efficiency).

E. Notes the analysis of three waters service delivery options available to Council at this time provided in this report.

F. Notes that a decision to support the Government’s preferred three waters service delivery option is not lawful (would be ultra vires) at present due to section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), which prohibits Council from divesting its ownership or interest in a water service except to another local government organisation, and what we currently know (and don’t know) about the Government’s preferred option.

G. Notes that Council cannot make a formal decision on a regional option for three waters service delivery without doing a Long-term plan amendment and ensuring it meets section 130 of the LGA.

H. Notes that the Government intends to make further decisions about the three waters service delivery model after 30 September 2021.

I. Notes that it would be desirable to gain an understanding of the community’s views once Council has further information from the Government on the next steps in the reform process.

J. Requests the CEO to give feedback to the Government on the following changes to the Government’s proposal:

· Entrenching protections against privatisation in legislation in such a manner that these cannot be overturned by a simple majority of parliament.

· Requirements for entities to develop strong relationships with councils in respect to planning for growth

· Legislative requirements to use growth projections and spatial plans as a basis for planning for future growth, with 30 year plans which demonstrate that capacity requirements for growth have been incorporated into forward work planning.

· That the entities be required to implement a funding mechanism similar to development contributions to enable cumulative effects of growth to be funded in an equitable manner across the entity area.

· Establishment of a water ombudsman, as well as further legislative mechanisms that ensure consumer rights.

· Legislative requirement for standardised pricing for baseline services that is a level of service that meets minimum compliance requirements irrespective of location.

· That service levels higher than baseline could be paid for by the specific community who receives that benefit

· Government review the rating legislation around the 30% uniform annual charges cap. This will need to be reviewed with consideration given to increasing the cap to possibly 40%. Alternatively, Central Government may need to consider funding rating reviews for all councils that will breach the 30% cap under the current regime.

· That certainty be provided to local providers and contractors to ensure there is no negative financial or economic impact on local economies.

· Competency-based non-iwi appointments to the representative group should reflect the community in which they deliver services to (such as rural and urban representatives). Individuals who have local government experience (such as former mayors and local government staff) should be eligible for appointment.

K. Notes that the Chief Executive will report back once they have received further information and guidance from Government, LGNZ and Taituarā on what the next steps look like and how these should be managed.

L. In noting the above, agrees it has given consideration to sections 76, 77, 78, and 79 of the Local Government Act 2002 and in its judgment considers it has complied with the decision- making process that those sections require (including, but not limited to, having sufficient information and analysis that is proportionate to the decisions being made).

Carried

Note: Cr Alley left the meeting at 12.30 pm and returned at 12.31 pm.

Note: Cr McKinlay assumed the Chair as the Three Waters portfolio lead.

21.7.5 Ripponvale Water Supply

To gain approval to undertake the necessary works on the Ripponvale Water Supply Scheme in order to improve its long-term resilience and ensure it complies with any requirements of the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards.

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: McPherson

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Notes the revised programme of work on the Ripponvale Water Supply Scheme.

C. Agrees that Fulton Hogan are engaged to undertake the work as a variation to the maintenance contract.

D. Notes that $300,000 of the upgrade is funded through Stimulus Funding.

E. Notes that stimulus funded work must be complete by 30 March 2022.

Carried

21.7.6 Procurement for Three Waters Stimulus Projects

To receive an update on the procurement of three waters projects and consider a change in procurement approach for the remainder of the work under the Three Waters Stimulus programme.

Resolution

Moved: Alley

Seconded: Duncan

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Notes the update on the Three Water Stimulus programme of work.

C. Rescinds the decision to run an open tender for the stimulus funded falling main project and Manuherekia pipe crossing (Part of Resolution 21.2.15B).

D. Agree that remaining work to be funded with water stimulus funding be undertaken as a variation to the Water Services Maintenance Contract.

Carried

Note: The meeting adjourned at 12.56 pm and resumed at 1.31 pm.

Note: The Mayor assumed the Chair as the Sustainable Practices portfolio lead.

21.7.7 Recycling cost increases

To consider and provide information on cost increases for processing of kerbside recycling at the Frankton Materials Recovery Facility.

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves a budget increase of $30,000 from general reserves for processing of recycling at the Frankton materials recovery facility.

Carried

21.7.8 Appointment of a consultant for the development and tender of Council's Waste Contract

To consider the direct appointment of a consultant to support the development and tender of all stages of Council’s new waste services contract.

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Paterson

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the direct appointment of Morrison Low for the development and tender of Council’s waste services contract.

Carried

Note: Cr Duncan assumed the Chair as the Roading portfolio lead.

21.7.9 Maniototo Bridges and District Wide Bridge Strategy Update

To provide an update for the three Maniototo Bridges currently closed to traffic, along with an update on the development of a district wide bridge strategy.

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: McKinlay

That the report be received.

Carried

Note: The Mayor declared an interest in item 21.7.10. He withdrew from discussions and did not vote on the item. The Deputy Mayor assumed the Chair.

21.7.10 Road Renaming Approval Report - Portion of Ferraud Street

To ratify the Vincent Community Board’s recommendation to rename a portion of Ferraud Street in Clyde to Seaton Street.

Resolution

Moved: Claridge

Seconded: McPherson

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Renames a portion of Ferraud Street to Seaton Street.

Carried

Note: The Mayor assumed the Chair.

Note: Cr Jeffery declared an interest in item 21.7.11. He withdrew from discussions and did not vote on the item.

21.7.11 Proposed Road Stopping - Unnamed Road off Tarras-Cromwell Road

To consider a proposal to stop the end of an unnamed unformed road off Tarras-Cromwell Road in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the proposal to stop approximately 430 square metres (the western end) of the unnamed unformed road off Tarras – Cromwell Road as shown in figure 4, subject to:

- Public notification and advertising in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974.

- No objections being received within the objection period.

- The land being exchanged for an easement (in gross) in favour of the Central Otago Queenstown Trails Network Trust over the area marked “1” in figure 2.

- The land being amalgamated with Record of Title OT365/40 (Section 1636R Block III Tarras Survey District).

- The Central Otago Queenstown Trails Network Trust paying all other costs associated with the stopping.

C. Authorises the Chief Executive to do all that is necessary to give effect to the resolution.

Carried

Note: With the agreement of the meeting, item 21.7.13 was moved earlier.

Note: Cr Gillespie assumed the Chair as the Planning and Regulatory portfolio lead.

21.7.13 Dog Control Policy and Practices Report 2020 - 2021

To consider the dog control policy and practices undertaken in the 2020/2021 financial year, in accordance with Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996.

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Alley

That the report be received.

Carried

Note: Cr McPherson left the meeting at 1.58 pm and returned at 2.00pm.

Note: Cr Duncan left the meeting at 2.11 pm.

21.7.12 Plan Change 18 Cromwell Industrial Resource Area Extension

To consider a plan change to extend the Industrial Resource Area in Cromwell.

Resolution

Moved: McKinlay

Seconded: Laws

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Recommends that Plan Change 18 be notified and processed in accordance with the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Carried

Note: Cr Duncan returned to the meeting at 2.15 pm.

Note: The Mayor assumed the Chair.

21.7.14 Cromwell Town Centre Project Structure

To consider the project structure and proposed high-level timeline for the planning and design phase of the Cromwell Town Centre upgrade development.

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Laws

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the project structure and programme.

C. Approves appointment of recommended Cromwell Community Board member to the Advisory Group.

D. Appoints Nigel McKinlay to the Advisory Group.

Carried

21.7.15 Request for Minister of Conservation's consent to granting of easement over Local Purpose Reserve [PRO 61-2067-E1]

To consider granting the consent of the Minister of Conservation (under delegated authority) to the granting of an easement (in gross) over Section 1 Survey Office Plan 496959 and Section 1 Block XXXVIII Town of Alexandra (Local Purpose (Cemetery) Reserve) to Aurora Energy Limited.

Resolution

Moved: McPherson

Seconded: Cooney

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Agrees to grant the consent of the Minister of Conservation (under delegated authority) to the granting of an easement (in gross) over Section 1 Survey Office Plan 496959 and Section 1 Block XXXVIII Town of Alexandra (Local Purpose (Cemetery) Reserve) to Aurora Energy Limited.

Carried

Note: Cr Jeffery declared an interest in item 21.7.16. He withdrew from discussions and did not vote on the item.

21.7.16 Request for Minister of Conservation's consent to the granting of a grazing lease over recreation reserve [PRO: 65-7040-L10]

To consider granting the consent of the Minister of Conservation (under delegated authority) to the granting of a grazing lease over part of the Roxburgh Recreation Reserve.

Resolution

Moved: Duncan

Seconded: Claridge

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Agrees to grant the consent of the Minister of Conservation (under delegated authority), to Council granting a grazing lease over 4500 square metres of Part Section 181 Block II Teviot Survey District being part of the Roxburgh Recreation Reserve.

Carried

21.7.17 Carry-forwards from 2020/21 and Forecast Changes for the 2021/22 Financial Year

To consider a revised budget for the financial year 2021/22 including carry-forwards from the 2020/21 financial year and forecast budget changes.

Resolution

Moved: Jeffery

Seconded: Gillespie

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Authorises carry-forwards to complete 2020/21 capital projects of $23.3 million, as per Appendix 1 in the report.

C. Authorises Health and Safety to use $15,305 of District Reserves, being funding received in 2020/21 financial year, as per Appendix 2 in the report.

D. Authorises $30,223 use of District Reserves arising from the Libraries Partnership Programme Grant of $50,138 received in the 2020/21 financial year, as per Appendix 3 in the report.

E. Authorises $44,365 use of District Reserves from funding received in 2020/21 financial year across the four libraries to complete this year’s planned works, as per Appendix 4 in the report.

F. Authorises the Roading activity to use $600,000 of District Reserves from funding received in 2020/21 for the Clyde River Park access road and to support the Tourism Infrastructure Funding (TIF) as per Appendix 5 in the report.

G. Authorises the use of $8,000 from the Maniototo General Reserves to complete the oval irrigation as per Appendix 6 in the report.

H. Authorises $11,702 of Vallance Cottage Reserves be used to complete 2020/21 programme of work as per Appendix 7 in the report.

I. Authorises $40,000 of Central Stories Reserves to complete 2020/21 maintenance programme as per Appendix 8 in the report.

J. Authorises the CEO to use $180,000 of District Reserves from funding received in 2020/21 financial year, to continue with the organisational and cultural leadership as per Appendix 9 in the report.

K. Authorises $35,000 from District Reserves to progress the museum sector work from funding not used in 2020/21 that transferred into district reserves as per Appendix 10 in the report.

L. Authorises the use of $37,500 of District Reserves for an already externally funded shared resource of an Inland Economic Development Advisor as per Appendix 11 in the report.

M. Authorises the use of $50,000 of district reserves, required to meet the Welcoming Communities position expenditure, as per Appendix 12 in the report.

Carried

Note: Crs Jeffery and Cooney declared an interest in item 21.7.18. They withdrew from discussions and did not vote on the item.

21.7.18 Appointment of Hearings Panel Alternatives

To appoint Cr Cooney as the alternative member to the Hearings Panel and Cr Jeffery the alternative Chair of the Panel.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Alley

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Appoints Cr Ian Cooney to join Cr Neil Gillespie, Cr Stephen Jeffery and Cr Martin McPherson as the Central Otago District Council’s Hearings Panel. Cr Cooney is appointed as the alternate member of the Panel who may be called upon in situations of absence or conflicts of interest.

C. Appoints Cr Stephen Jeffery as the alternative Chair of the Hearings Panel, subject to Cr Jeffery receiving Chair accreditation.

Carried

6 Reports for Information

Nil

7 Mayor’s Report

21.7.19 Mayor's Report

His Worship the Mayor presented his report.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Duncan

That the Council receives the report.

Carried

8 Status Reports

21.7.20 September 2021 Governance Report

To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations, consider Council’s forward work programme and the legacy and current status report updates.

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Claridge

That the Council receives the report.

Carried

9 Community Board Minutes

21.7.21 Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 31 August 2021

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Jeffery

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 31 August 2021 be noted.

Carried

21.7.22 Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 2 September 2021

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Jeffery

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 2 September 2021 be noted.

Carried

21.7.23 Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 7 September 2021

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Jeffery

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 7 September 2021 be noted.

Carried

21.7.24 Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 9 September 2021

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Jeffery

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 9 September 2021 be noted.

Carried

10 Date of Next Meeting

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 3 November 2021.

11 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Resolution

Moved: Cadogan

Seconded: Alley

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
Confidential Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting	s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) s48(1)(d) - that a right of appeal lies to any court or tribunal against the decision of the Central Otago District Council in these proceedings	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7 s48(1)(d) - that the exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation in any proceedings to which this paragraph applies.
21.7.25 - Lake Dunstan Water Supply Project Report	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.7.26 - September 2021 Confidential Governance Report	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.7.27 - Confidential Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 31 August 2021	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.7.28 - Confidential Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 2 September 2021	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
21.7.29 - Confidential Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 7 September 2021	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

The public were excluded at 2.44 pm and the meeting closed at 3.15 pm.

3 November 2021

5 Reports

21.8.2 Forming of Unformed Legal Road - Cambrians

Doc ID: 555071

1. Purpose of Report

To consider an application to form an unformed legal road for property access at Cambrians.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the request to form an unformed legal road to provide property access for the applicant, with the following conditions:

(i) The road be formed to the relevant right of way subdivision standard.

(ii) The road be surveyed to ensure construction occurs within the legal alignment.

(iii) The survey and road construction are undertaken at no cost to Council.

(iv) The applicant is responsible for maintaining the road in the future to a safe standard. If Council does not believe the condition of the road is safe and the applicant does not remedy this after notification, then Council may undertake work to make the road safe and recover this cost from the applicant.

(v) The applicant acknowledges they are aware that Council does not accept any responsibility for future maintenance costs.

(vi) The applicant shall not locate any improvements on the road without the prior consent of the Council.

(vii) The applicant shall not impede others from using the road.

(viii) All costs associated with fencing and cattle stops will be the responsibility of the applicant.

(ix) As the existing track from the end of Cambrian Road is not maintained by Council, all costs associated to provide suitable access to form this section of unformed legal road will be the responsibility of the applicant (i.e. the existing track to reach this area may require metalling prior to construction being undertaken)

2. Background

Council have received a request from Calder Surveying, on behalf of their client Cambrian Hills Limited (the applicant) to form an unformed legal road corridor in Cambrians.

Calder Surveying are in the process of preparing an application for the subdivision of two lifestyle properties off the end of Cambrian Road. There is an unformed legal road which provides legal access to this portion of the property.

This section of unformed legal road is located between two portions of Section 102 Block I ST BATHANS Survey District, which is owned by the neighbours to the applicant, Thomas Cardy and Jamie Pickford.

The process to form an unformed legal road is described within Section 9 of the Councils Roading Policy (January 2015). This details the process and delegations for approving the forming of an unformed legal road corridor for the two possible situations:

· Delegated authority is provided to the Roading Manager to provide consent to form an unformed legal road when all the affected and interested parties are in agreement.

· Delegated authority is provided to Council to consider applications to provide public access or form an unformed legal road when the parties are not in agreement. All parties will have equal opportunity to address the Council.

Both the applicant and neighbouring property have confirmed to Council that support was not unanimous, so the application is being referred to Council for consideration.

The neighbouring property owners, Thomas Cardy and Jamie Pickford, have provided the following reasons for opposing formation:

· Concerns regarding the suitability of the existing access track leading to this section of unformed road. This section of access track is located within road reserve and is currently used by Thomas Cardy and Jamie Pickford (among other possible users) for access. This existing formed access track is not maintained by Council.

· Concerns around road formation regarding potential subdivision of applicant’s land

· They believe road forming will have a significant impact on their land adjoining either side of the unformed legal road.

Location plan, Cambrians. Affected unformed legal road corridor highlighted in yellow.

3. Discussion

Section 9 of the Roading Policy outlines the following information is to be provided by the applicant regarding forming an unformed legal road corridor:

Information to be provided	Applicant Response (summarised)	Council Officer Response
The reason for requiring access?	To provide property access.	This is a valid and appropriate reason to form an unformed legal road.
If the reason is for providing property access, does the property front an existing formed legal road?	No, this section of the property does not front an existing formed legal road.	N/A
Any improvements that are located on the road such as buildings, plantings, fencing, reservoirs etc.	Existing electric gateway of neighbouring property is within the legal road corridor, applicant wishes to relocate this away from the affected road corridor area and into neighbouring property.	Council has no licence to occupy recorded on file for approval to install this electric gate within legal road corridor.
How access is currently provided	Access to this area is across farmland and over rough terrain. This would not be practical to provide long term access to this potential subdivision site, considering a legal road corridor adjoins this parcel of land proposed for development.	N/A
Whether affected property owners are aware of the application and if so, have they provided agreement	Neighbouring property are aware of application, have not provided support to form.	Council was notified by both the applicant and the affected neighbouring property that agreement was not reached.

Section 9 of the policy outlines the following conditions in regard to forming an unformed legal road corridor:

1. The road be formed to the relevant subdivision standard.

2. The road be surveyed to ensure construction occurs within the legal alignment.

3. The survey and road construction are undertaken at no cost to Council.

4. The applicant is responsible for maintaining the road in the future to a safe standard. If Council does not believe the condition of the road is safe and the applicant does not remedy this after notification, then Council may undertake work to make the road safe and recover this cost from the applicant.

5. The applicant is aware that Council does not accept any responsibility for future maintenance costs.

6. The applicant shall not locate any improvements on the road without the prior consent of the Council.

7. The applicant shall not impede others from using the road.

Section 9 of the Policy outlines the following considerations in regard to forming an unformed legal road corridor:

Considerations	Council Officer Response
Legal implications	The Local Government Act 1974 gives Council control over all roads within the district, it also provides the ability to allow or refuse a legal road corridor to be formed. Requests to form roads or provide access along unformed legal roads have the potential to result in landowner disagreement. The process outlined within section 9 of the Roading Policy has been developed to ensure that Council meets its legal obligation when considering requests to form legal roads, while also ensuring the impact on the adjoining landowners/affected parties is considered.
The cost of the work and future maintenance costs	Section 9 of the Roading Policy outlines that all costs associated with forming and maintaining a section of unformed legal road is at the applicant’s expense.
Feasibility of forming a road within the legal alignment	Councils roading team have inspected the site and formation is deemed feasible.
Safety issues	The roading team have inspected the site, no safety concerns have been raised with the proposal.
History	The applicant has confirmed that an Archaeological Assessment (AA) will be undertaken of the affected area prior to any construction commencing. The outcome of the assessment is to be made available to Council prior to an approval permit being granted (should permission be given from Council to form the road).
Type of use proposed	The applicant has requested formation for property access to a proposed subdivision. The applicant has expressed it will be formed to Council’s right of way development standards which would be appropriate.
Opportunities for alternative access	The application was assessed by the roading team and the proposed application is considered the most appropriate means to utilise existing means of public access. Any easement agreements for alternative options over private property would be between the applicant and affected landowner(s).
Fencing and gates	The proposed formation area runs through the middle of an open paddock area, and the unformed legal road corridor is not fenced along either of its boundaries. The applicant has proposed to leave the road corridor open and largely unfenced, but it is proposed that cattle stops at each end of the formation will be installed in lieu of fencing. Gates will also be proposed to accommodate an existing stock movement easement and to provide alternative access around cattle stops if the road corridor is to be formed. As per Section 9 of the Roading Policy, all costs associated with the fencing and cattle stops are the responsibility of the applicant. The roading team have no concerns with the fencing proposal.
The impact of adjoining landowners and land uses	This application is only seeking permission to form the unformed legal road, consideration on other factors such as privacy and any implications of subdividing the applicant’s property would be considered during a separate resource consenting process. In regard to road formation, the proposal is not considered to have any effects more than minor for the adjoining landowner or land use.
Any other relevant matters	N/A

Proposed fencing plan provide by applicant

4. Financial Considerations

As outlined in Section 9 of the Roading Policy, the cost of all associated works for forming a road is the responsibility of the applicant.

If Council approve formation, a formation permit will be provided to the applicant outlining the conditions of which formation is approved.

An approval permit contains the following conditions in relation to financial considerations for forming a road:

· The survey and road construction are undertaken at no cost to Council

· The applicant is responsible for maintaining the road in the future to a safe standard. If Council does not believe the condition of the road is safe and the applicant does not remedy this after notification, then Council may undertake work to make the road safe and recover this cost from the applicant.

· The applicant is aware that Council does not accept any responsibility for future maintenance costs.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve request to form unformed legal road to provide property access for the applicant, with conditions as set out in Section 9 of Council’s Roading Policy.

Advantages:

· Application aligns with expectations in Section 9 of the roading policy

· Providing property access is an appropriate reason to allow the formation of an unformed legal road corridor

Disadvantages:

· Outcome will go against neighbouring affected party expectations

Option 2

Decline formation of unformed road to provide property access for the applicant

Advantages:

· Decision will meet neighbouring affected party expectations

Disadvantages:

· Council could face legal challenge if it unreasonably withholds consent to form a road in order to provide property access

· Application aligns with Section 9 of the roading policy, to decline the application would be contrary to Council Policy

· Providing property access is an appropriate reason to allow the formation of an unformed legal road corridor

· Outcome will go against applicant’s expectations

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes This decision aligns with Council’s Roading Policy 2015 and Roading Bylaw 2020.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no sustainability or environmental implications of this decision
Risks Analysis	Council could face legal challenge if it unreasonably withholds consent to form a road in order to provide property access.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	This decision does not trigger any significance thresholds.

7. Next Steps

1. If formation is approved - a formation permit will be compiled by Council’s Roading Officers, it will include all conditions as specified within Section 9 of the Roading Policy and any specific conditions as a result of Councils decision.

2. The applicant will notify Council of its timeframe should they wish to form the unformed legal road corridor, construction will then be monitored by Council Roading Officers to completion.

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

James McCallum	Julie Muir
Roading Manager	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
20/10/2021	20/10/2021

3 November 2021

21.8.3 i-SITE NZ Future Network Proposal

Doc ID: 555540

1. Purpose of Report

To approve non-binding expressions of interest be submitted for Ranfurly and Roxburgh i‑SITE’s to remain in the VIN Inc future network and a non-binding expression of interest be submitted on behalf of Alexandra and Cromwell Information Centres as outlined in the proposal document.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Authorises staff to submit a non-binding expression of interest on behalf of Ranfurly and Roxburgh i-SITEs to become Tier Two centres.

C. Authorises staff to submit a non-binding expression of interest on behalf of Alexandra and Cromwell information centres to become Tier One or Two centres.

2. Background

In 2019 VIN Inc (trading as i-SITE NZ) contracted Australasian tourism specialists, Stafford Strategy to conduct an in-depth review of the National i-SITE Network. The review provided recommendations, to enable any future network to be nationally consistent and locally relevant to visitors and our local communities.

The outcomes of Stafford Strategy findings and recommendations are in the attached Business Case Study.

The analysis by Stafford Strategy of the i-SITE network provided six options for the future. these six options, two were selected to be presented to the network.

Option 1: Do nothing/Status Quo

Option 2: Tiered Network Model

The draft proposal of the Future Network was released, by the board of VIN Inc, to the membership in July 2021 to begin the required consultation process. Staff considered this document and supplied appropriate feedback on the details outlined in the proposal. The VIN Inc board reviewed supplied feedback and the final Future Network Proposal was the determined result after collating all the memberships responses.

3. Discussion

The proposal for the Tiered Network Model is for there to be a similar number of locations that there are currently but operating in a two-tiered structure.

· Tier 1 locations would be concept stores in key locations. These would choose to meet higher membership requirements under an amended VIN Inc constitution and co-invest with the government in an internal upgrade to provide enhanced visitor experience. They would continue to be members of VIN Inc.

· Tier 2 locations would operate under secondary brand, with lower membership commitments to reflect their ongoing investment. They would not be members of VIN Inc but would operate under a licensing agreement.

The two tiers would work in partnership and be closely aligned. Tier 1 concept stores would be the hubs that would work closely with the tier 2 locations, cross promoting one another to customers. The new network would need a good geographical spread of both tiers to be viable and relevant to customers and owners alike.

The business case study delves further into the economic and financial appraisal, benefits for communities and provides an overview of the i-SITE position should Option 2 – Tiered Network Model, be accepted.

It is important to note that Option 2 - Tiered Network Model, is dependent on VIN Inc receiving funding from Central Government. Should Central Government chose not to fund this option the network automatically defaults to - Do Nothing / Status Quo.

Non-financial impacts on Central Otago i-SITE operations

Licencing agreement

As a tier two centre there is risk in operating under a licencing agreement as decisions made by the VIN Inc board can be passed down to licensees with no opportunities for recourse.

Identified risks include;

· Requirement to highlight Qualmarked operators of which there are a limited number in Central Otago

· Preferred suppliers of VIN Inc competing against Central Otago suppliers

· Ongoing fees and charges changes

· Marketing campaigns not aligned to Central Otago regional values

Campaign Marketing & Awareness

VIN Inc currently develops, or is in partnership with, marketing campaigns that run throughout the summer period. The “Do Something New NZ”, Tiaki Promise, Responsible Camping and Trees that Count are campaigns currently running in partnership with Tourism New Zealand. The future network proposal extends on this existing framework to increase campaign frequency, add additional campaigns, and offer added benefit to future partnerships, to encompass the entire year. This enables the Central Otago i-SITEs to utilise and leverage off national campaigns to encourage visitation to the region.

Data Security

The required data sharing clause of the proposal has been highlighted as a potential risk. The information collection and storage would have to conform to Council protocols and meet the required standards IS have in place. Further discussion is to take place once expressions of interest have been recorded.

Destination management

The future network will focus on giving visitors information so they can safely and responsibly travel throughout New Zealand and have a positive impact on the places they visit. This aligns with the intent of Central Otago’s i-SITEs and regional destination management planning work that Tourism Central Otago is leading on behalf of Council.

The future network will be the embodiment of destination management for visitors across New Zealand. There will be a need to align with the lead agencies in each region, as well as initiatives being led at a national level such as the Tiaki Promise or Tourism Sustainability Commitment. Tourism Central Otago is the owner of those initiatives and works closely with the i-SITE teams to implement such initiatives, therefore there will be no change in process to what is already in place.

Commercial Agreements

i-SITE owners are currently responsible for instituting and implementing all commercial agreements with suppliers for; advertising rates, commissions, point of sale systems, retail, and other related software/hardware contracts. This individual approach reduces the ability to negotiate better deals for these systems.

The proposal outlines a Business Development Manager Role who would be responsible for securing and implementing commercial supply agreements for the entire network. Thereby increasing the bargaining capacity for commercial agreements, resulting in the best possible financial outcomes for supply and service arrangements.

Future Growth

The proposal indicates that should there be a request from another entity to open or operate a licensed centre at any stage in the future, this must be ‘supported’ by the Regional Tourism Organisation. In Central Otago’s case that is Tourism Central Otago, and so therefore Council.

This creates risk for Council being the gatekeepers to private business, however it does ensure any proposed new sites understand and can align to regional tourism goal and destination management planning.

Future Support Funding

The board of VIN Inc have been clear in their belief there is unlikely to be any future support funding from VIN Inc, Central Government or any other national agency beyond what is being offered in this initial proposal.

This effectively means any entity coming in after the binding expression of interest period has lapsed will be paying full cost for branding, refurbishments and any other costs in retrofitting or setting up a new i-SITE centre.

Alexandra and Cromwell Information Centres

As non-members of the existing i-SITE network, neither Alexandra nor Cromwell information centres can express an interest in being either a tier one or tier two operation. Due to the requests of VIN Inc to keep the details of the proposal confidential until recently, neither business has been given a fair chance to assess the proposal and decide if they would in theory be either a tier one or tier two.

As MoU partners, preference is that these centres align with the decisions for Roxburgh and Ranfurly i-SITEs.

Staff believe the is an opportunity for Council to enter a non-binding expression of interest in having either a tier one or tier two in Alexandra and/or Cromwell, then transfer that interest to the MoU partners once the binding decision is required. This will give those partners more time to review the proposal and make an informed decision that best suits their operation. There is no risk or cost associated with this action.

Expressions of Interest

Central Otago has been given an extension to submit a non-binding expression of interest on the 3^rd of November 2021.

A final date for submitting formal binding expressions of interest is to be confirmed.

4. Financial Considerations

Staff are still working through what those additional costs would be, and how they are to be funded in the future. These will be presented to Council in a future report before signing the binding agreement, submission date to be confirmed.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Council makes a non-binding expression interest to have both Ranfurly and Roxburgh i‑SITEs become Tier Two locations under the new proposal. Council also makes a non-binding expression of interest to have either Tier One or Tier Two centres in Alexandra and Cromwell, subject to further guidance from MoU partners.

Advantages:

· Gives Council staff more time to assess proposal and report back to Council

· Central Otago retains connection with national network which has a stronger presence

· Aligns to goals of Council’s tourism strategy and intended outcomes of destination management planning

· Council retains licence to operate i-SITEs in Central Otago

· As a Tier Two location, Ranfurly would still be able to explore co-location opportunities

· Provides opportunity for MoU partners to assess proposal in full

Disadvantages:

· No input into future network planning

· Loss of autonomy of centre marketing initiatives

Option 2

Council declines to enter an expression of interest and operates Ranfurly and Roxburgh centres independent of the national network.

Advantages:

· Centres will retain greater autonomy

Disadvantages:

· Costly to setup – rebranding, new systems, possibly new hardware

· Annual operational expected to increase without national procurement support

· Additional ongoing resource required for training and development

Option 3

Council only enters an expression of interest for Ranfurly to become a Tier Two location. Roxburgh operates independently but with support through the Ranfurly management in a manner consistent with how MoU partners in Alexandra and Cromwell now operate.

Advantages:

· Reduces expected setup and annual operational costs

Disadvantages:

· Inconsistent visitor experience

· Additional resources required for training and development

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social/cultural/economic/environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by keeping Central Otago visitor centres connected to national initiatives.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Central Otago Tourism Strategy 2018-28
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	None apparent
Risks Analysis	As noted in Option One there are risks associated with gaps in the proposal which staff are working to fill with VIN Inc.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Impacts are only significant to i-SITE Centres, Alexandra Information Centre and Forage Information Centre. Those stakeholders have been informed, as has the Tourism Central Otago Advisory Board.

7. Next Steps

With Council approval, staff will sign the non-binding agreement and investigate further the proposal.

Staff will present Council with a follow up paper outlining costs and operational implications and all available options.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Final i-SITE New Zealand Proposal ⇩

Appendix 2 - i-SITE New Zealand Business Case Study 2021 ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Shirley Clark	Dylan Rushbrook
Ranfurly i-SITE Team Leader	General Manager Tourism Central Otago
15/10/2021	20/10/2021

3 November 2021

21.8.4 Smokefree and Vapefree Policy update

Doc ID: 553326

1. Purpose of Report

To consider the Smokefree and Vapefree Policy developed through the review of the existing Smokefree Policy.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Adopt the updated Smokefree and Vapefree Policy

2. Background

Council developed a Smokefree Policy in 2011. The policy is reviewed at regular intervals to ensure it remains relevant with legislation and public health advice. The policy was last reviewed in 2018. A copy of this version of the policy is attached.

The policy is aligned with the Government’s policy goals as written in Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. These goals have a target that fewer than 5% of New Zealanders choose to smoke in 2025. There are a number of actions behind meeting this goal, particularly reducing the visibility of smoking within the community.

Both Council and the government’s policy goals recognise the harm caused by secondhand smoke and seek to reduce the community’s exposure.

There was a key change to legislation within the last review period, as the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Act 2020 restricted vaping and the sale of vape products.

The Cancer Society and Southern District Health Board submitted on the Council’s Smokefree Policy during the Long-term plan submission process in early 2021. The public health advice contained within the submission was considered in this review of the policy.

Their submission also suggested policy changes be supported with educational tools such as signage and promotion. Both the Cancer Society and the Southern District Health Board offered to work with Council to review and promote the policy.

The recommendations in the submissions from the Cancer Society and Southern District Health Board included:

· Include vaping and vape products in the Smokefree Policy

· Smokefree-Vapefree signs that are visible and in good condition be installed in parks, playgrounds, and sportsgrounds

· Smokefree-Vapefree signs installed in new Council developments

· Promotion of the policy requested as an educational tool

· Outdoor dining areas should be smokefree and vapefree

· Council adopt the government goal for Smokefree Aotearoa 2020

The Smokefree Policy was reviewed with all of these suggestions in mind. Staff have met with representatives from the Cancer Society and the Southern District Health Board throughout the review process.

3. Discussion

A new Smokefree and Vapefree Policy has been drafted to replace the existing Smokefree Policy.

The new policy includes the following changes:

· Vaping being included in the policy with specific mention in the title, definitions, and references throughout

· Smoking was already prohibited on all council owned parks and reserves, tracks and walkways, sportsgrounds or playgrounds. The new policy has included a ten-metre perimeter around these facilities when on any council-owned land (not private property). This is to take into account the health information provided by the Cancer Society on there being ‘no safe distance’ from secondhand smoke, and potential for harm at distances over five metres.

· Council has already designated all outdoor dining areas on Council land to be smokefree. The updated policy has also designated these areas to be vapefree.

· Significant text amendments to streamline the policy. The former policy included information on government policy targets – this has been replaced with a link to Smokefree Aotearoa 2025.

· The former policy supported Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 and associated policy goals. This has been included again in the updated policy.

Additional work accompanies this policy, though is not within the scope of the policy itself.

Signage

The Cancer Society submission has requested the Smokefree Policy include Smokefree-Vapefree signage that is visible and in good condition in parks, playgrounds, and sportsgrounds.

Rather than adding additional signs, staff recommend integrating the message into the existing signage. It is cost-prohibitive to update all signage immediately and it has not been accounted for in LTP budgets. Signage would therefore be updated over time through our renewals process.

Communications

Smokefree Aotearoa 2025, the Cancer Society submission, the Southern District Health Board and the existing Council Smokefree Policy have a consistent approach in prioritising education over enforcement.

To that end, staff will develop a communications plan for the updated policy. This will include:

· Developing key messages on the updated policy

· Promoting the updated policy through our online and print channels

· Working with the Cancer Society and Southern District Health Board for promotion of the policy through their media and promotion channels

4. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Council adopts the Smokefree and Vapefree Policy.

Advantages:

· Policy is aligned with public health advice given by the Cancer Society and Southern District Health Board

· Policy accounts for the development of vaping and associated legislation

· Council is responsive to feedback from stakeholders

Disadvantages:

· No disadvantages

Option 2

Council does not adopt the Smokefree and Vapefree Policy and extends the existing Smokefree Policy for a further three years

Advantages:

· No advantages

Disadvantages:

· Policy does not take vaping and associated legislation into account

· Policy does not take public health advice given by the Cancer Society and Southern District Health Board into account

· Policy is out of date and needs updating to improve readability and consistency against other Council policies

5. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social, cultural, economic, and environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future. Smoking, vaping, and secondhand smoke have related harms with implications across all four wellbeings. This decision supports government policy goals to improve overall wellbeing.
Financial implications – Is this decision consistent with proposed activities and budgets in long term plan/annual plan?	This decision is consistent with the activities and budgets in the long term plan/annual plan. The key expense is the replacement of all smokefree signs. The decision to replace these signs through the renewals process brings the cost in line with the existing envelope.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	This policy is consistent with existing plans. It replaces the existing Smokefree Policy by expanding on its key principles.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There is an environmental link to air quality – particularly in the immediate environment. Reduction in smoking has a positive associated impact through the reduction of cigarette litter, though this is not a primary consideration for this policy.
Risks Analysis	There are no risks identified.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Community consultation has not taken place on the updates to the policy. The updates were developed with stakeholder groups who approached council directly through the Long-term plan process. The changes have a low degree of significance as assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy. There is no negative impact on wellbeing in the district; no financial or ratings impact; and it does not impact Council levels of service. There may be people interested in the changes, particularly the decision to include vaping and designate vapefree areas. As nicotine is already a controlled substance, and vaping restricted though legislation, Council has considered knowledge it has previously gained about community views and determined this interest does not meet the level of significance to require consultation.

6. Next Steps

If the policy is approved, it will be updated on the Council website.

Staff will notify the Cancer Society and Southern District Health Board. A communications plan will be developed and communications will be made on the respective media channels.

Signage will be updated through the renewals process to reflect areas are both smokefree and vapefree.

The policy will be reviewed on a three-year cycle.

7. Attachments

Appendix 1 - New Smokefree and Vapefree Policy ⇩

Appendix 2 - 2018 Smokefree Policy ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Alix Crosbie	Saskia Righarts
Senior Strategy Advisor	Chief Advisor
18/10/2021	20/10/2021

Council meeting

3 November 2021

Smokefree and Vapefree Policy 2021

Team and Department:	Planning and Environment
Document ID#:	CentralDocs ID
Approved by:	Council
Effective Date:	June 2021
Next Review:	June 2024

Purpose

To reduce the impact of smoking and tobacco use on non-smokers, through reduced exposure to second-hand smoke and the de-normalisation of smoking at council controlled facilities.

Objectives

Objectives include:

· Support Government policy goals for Smokefree Aotearoa 2025

· Ensure Council owned areas, including parks, playgrounds, and facilities, are and remain smokefree

· To amend the definition of Smokefree in Central Otago to include vaping, consistent with the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Act 2020 – an amendment to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990

· To restrict vaping in smokefree areas

· To improve the health and well-being of our communities through decreasing the prevalence of smoking and decreasing public exposure to second-hand smoke.

· To increase the likelihood that people, particularly rangatahi, will remain smokefree by reducing the number of places where they see others smoking.

Principles

Central Otago District has three high-level Community Outcomes, determined by the community, that all planning and policies align:

This policy is consistent with these outcomes through:

· Placing the health and wellbeing of the community at the forefront

· Reducing cigarette waste, and other associated toxins, from disposal in the environment

Other principles include:

· Guidance by national legislative and policy direction, with community input

· Taking an educational approach aimed at lessening the effect of smoking on the community, rather than individual punitive measures

· A strong focus on providing smokefree public environments

Scope

This policy covers Central Otago District Council’s position in relation to:

· Smokefree public places

· Smokefree Events

This policy focuses on where people are requested not to smoke.

Whether people choose to become smokefree is outside the scope of this policy. Assistance to become smokefree is offered through health agencies.

This policy includes both traditional tobacco based smoking products, and newer products including dry heat and vaping.

Definitions

For the purposes of this policy, the definition of smoking includes:

· To smoke, hold, or otherwise have control over an ignited tobacco product, weed, herb, plant, or controlled substance

· To smoke, hold, or otherwise have control over an ignited product or thing whose customary use is or includes the inhalation from it of the smoke produced from its combustion or the combustion of any part of it

· Use of a heated tobacco product that has a device that uses or facilitates the use of heat to aerosolise nicotine from tobacco leaf directly

· Use of a vaporiser or vaping device

· For clarity, the definition includes tobacco and all associated products such as cigarettes, cigars, pipes; vaping products, regardless of the nicotine content; herbal smoking; controlled and illegal drug use.

Designated Smokefree areas in Central Otago are to be free from inhaling smoke or vapour from any of the products or substances listed above.

Smokefree and Vapefree Public Places

The following areas are designated smokefree and vapefree:

· All council owned parks and reserves, tracks and walkways, sportsgrounds and playgrounds. A ten metre smokefree and vapefree perimeter is designated around these facilities on any council owned land.

· Within ten metres of public pedestrian entrances to Council owned buildings (including libraries, swimming pools, sport facilities, etc.)

o For the main entrance to Council’s civic buildings, the smokefree area will include the full forecourt from the public footpath.

· Bus stops, including a ten-metre perimeter from bus shelters, signs, or bus stop markings.

· Areas set up primarily for café or dining purposes on publicly owned land and Council owned tables in public areas.

Smokefree and Vapefree Community Events

To promote healthier public places and a healthier Central Otago:

· Events held at any of Council’s public places must be smokefree.

· Public events receiving Council funding will be required to support smokefree messages.

Education and Enforcement

Signage promoting positive smokefree messages have been installed in appropriate places. This policy is educational rather than punitive.

The Council will:

· Update and clarify the definitions of smoking and smokefree to include vaping and associated products through this policy

· Communicate these changes to the public via Council social media channels and by publication of this policy on the Central Otago District Council website

· Amend documentation around the use of any council land or venue for an event to include vaping

· Update signage at strategic locations through renewals

Links

Smokefree Aotearoa 2025

This policy confirms and reinforces existing council smokefree policies and Reserve Management Plans.

Legislation

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990

· The Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Act 2020 commenced on 11 November 2020, amending the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 and renaming it to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990.

· The Smoke-free Environments Act, which prohibits smoking inside workplaces and other public enclosed areas. The Act also refers in Section 20 to local authorities having powers to provide greater protection from tobacco smoke.

3 November 2021

21.8.5 Proposal to Revoke Part of the Greenway Reserve off Waenga Drive, Cromwell

Doc ID: 555357

1. Purpose of Report

To consider a recommendation from the Hearings Panel to revoke the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification for 619m² (subject to survey) from Lot 201 DP 359519 which is part of Waenga Drive Greenway Reserve.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Agrees with the Hearings Panel recommendation to the revocation of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification from the specified 619m2 (subject to survey) area from Lot 201 DP 359519.

C. Agrees to notify the Minister of Conservation in writing of the resolution and request the revocation be approved and notified by Gazette notice.

2. Background

Council’s Hearings Panel (the Panel) considered a request received from Foodstuffs South Island Properties Ltd (Foodstuffs) to purchase 619m² of greenway adjacent to the New World Supermarket site in Waenga Drive, Cromwell. The request would potentially enable the expansion of the New World Cromwell site. To facilitate that request requires the revocation of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification from the specified 619m² (subject to survey) area from Lot 201 DP 359519.

The application was considered by the Panel comprising Cr N Gillespie (Chair), Cr M McPherson and Cr S Jeffery on 14 September 2021. The hearing was reconvened on October 5, 2021, to enable the Panel to undertake deliberations on the application.

3. Discussion

A request from Foodstuffs South Island Properties Ltd (Foodstuffs) to purchase 619m² of greenway adjacent to the New World site in Waenga drive was considered by the Cromwell Community Board (the Board) at its meetings of 5 February 2019 and 30 June 2020.

At its meeting on 15 June 2021 the Board recommended that Council agree to sell the specified Part of the Waenga Drive Greenway Reserve on terms and conditions which included the requirement for public notification of the revocation of the reserve status and the Minister of Conservation consenting to the revocation of the reserve status.

Reserves Act 1977

The purpose of the Reserves Act 1977 is to provide for and to protect reserves for the benefit of the community.

The reserve is subject to section 23 of the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act). Council is the administering body of the reserve.

The reserve is classified as a Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve. The purpose of an amenity reserve is to provide and retain areas for local purpose amenity use.

Pursuant to section 24 and 24A of the Reserves Act 1977, the Council (as administering body) should:

· Resolve that the reservation of the reserve should be revoked and provide reasons – completed.

· Publicly notify the proposal and specify the reasons for the proposal - completed.

· Council’s Hearings Panel will hear any submissions received and make recommendations to Council – completed.

· Council makes a resolution on the recommendations received from the Hearings Panel – under consideration.

· If the decision is to revoke the reserve status, notify the Minister of Conservation in writing of the resolution and request the revocation be approved and notified by Gazette notice; and

· Receive the decision of the Minister of Conservation and notify the affected parties.

· On receipt of the Gazette notice record the revocation and arrange disposal.

If revocation of the reserve status is confirmed the land will be subdivided, then sold to Foodstuffs South Island Limited.

Sections 24 and 24A of the Reserves Act 1977 outline the provisions for making, receiving, and considering submissions to a proposal by the administering body to exercise its powers under the Act. It also provides for the revocation of reserve status.

The proposal to revoke the reserve status of part of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification from the specified 619m² (subject to survey) area from Lot 201 DP 359519 is consistent with section 24(1)(b) of the Reserves Act which states that where:

the local authority within whose district a reserve is situated or the administering body of any reserve notifies the Commissioner in writing that, pursuant to a resolution of the local authority or of the administering body, as the case may be, it considers for any reason, to be stated in the resolution, that the classification or purpose of the whole or part of the reserve should be changed to another classification or purpose, or that the reservation of the whole or part of the land as a reserve should be revoked,—

then, subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, the Minister [of Conservation] may, in his or her discretion, by notice in the Gazette, change the classification or purpose of the whole or part of the reserve, which thereafter shall be held and administered for that changed classification or purpose, or revoke the reservation of the whole or part of the land as a reserve.

The following provisions which are applicable to the proposal to revoke part of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve are found in sections 24(2)(b) – (h). These include:

· the requirement to publicly notify the proposal to change the classification and to specify the reason or reasons for the proposal.

· the requirement to invite every person claiming to be affected by the proposed reclassification to give notice in writing of his or her objections to the proposed change.

· having the Minister of Conservation consider the proposed change of classification and all objections received during the submission period.

The role of the Minister of Conservation also includes:

· being satisfied that the revocation conforms with the provisions of the Reserves Act, and;

· ensuring that due process has been followed.

Public notification in accordance with Reserves Act 1977 seeking submissions on the proposal was undertaken.

Twelve submissions were received and considered by the Panel.

Concerns raised by submitters which sat outside the Reserves Act 1977 process included:

· Increased traffic movement through and around the site.

· Connectivity to the Mall.

· New World needs to be relocated to allow the town centre to grow.

· Pedestrian safety.

· Details on fencing heights and type.

The report to the Hearings Panel meeting held on 14 September is attached as Appendix 1.

The Panel adjourned the hearing into the proposal to revoke part of the Waenga Drive Reserve on Tuesday 14 September at 12.30pm to move to deliberations.

The Panel considered the process it would follow to make its recommendation and determined that its deliberations would be held in public meeting. A copy of the Hearing Panel minutes is attached as Appendix 2.

The Panel also noted that in submissions and during the Hearing, the submitters sought for assurances that would give them certainty that their concerns would be addressed, and the undertakings being proffered by Foodstuffs be implemented.

To enable the Panel to undertake its deliberations it resolved that Foodstuffs be requested to provide to the Panel and the submitters, any written response it has to the submissions made and confirm any provisions, conditions, or undertakings it is prepared to commit to should the Council determine that the revocation of the reserve proceed.

Foodstuff’s response is attached as Appendix 3 and is provided to Council for information.

After considering the submissions, the Panel has made a recommendation to Council. The Council will then make the final determination of whether to proceed with the proposed revocation of the reserve. If the decision is to revoke the reserve status, Council will request that the Minister of Conservation approve the revocation.

DECISION

The Panel has heard and considered both verbal and written submissions to the proposed revocation of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification from the specified 619m² (subject to survey) area from Lot 201 DP 359519.

The request for revocation is to facilitate the sale of the land to Foodstuffs South Island Limited. This will enable Foodstuffs to expand the operational footprint of Cromwell New World.

Reserve land is set aside for the enjoyment of the community. Any sale of reserve land is not considered lightly and is the least preferred option. The Panel noted that the submissions against the proposals have made valid points.

Given the constraints of the current New World site and agreed conditions that will provide enhancements to the remaining reserve land, the application to revoke the reserve status of the land to facilitate the redevelopment of the New World site is considered acceptable.

The Panel acknowledges that the proposed revocation will reduce the available open space in the immediate vicinity. However, the balance of the reserve will continue to function as a Local Purpose Reserve as classified. Additionally, the balance of the reserve will be enhanced through the proposed landscape plan.

RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with Resolution 21.5.4 and in consideration of the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, the Panel recommend to Council the revocation of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification from the specified 619m² (subject to survey) area from Lot 201 DP 359519.

4. Financial Considerations

The cost of the application will be covered by Foodstuffs South Island Limited.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Agrees with the Hearings Panel recommendation to the revocation of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification from the specified 619m2 (subject to survey) area from Lot 201 DP 359519.

Advantages:

· The Hearings Panel have heard and considered all submissions through an open and public process that followed the Reserves Act 1977 requirements.

· New World Cromwell can expand to meet the demands of a growing community.

· The reserve area will be enhanced at the applicant’s expense.

· Foodstuffs South Island have committed to undertaking several mitigation measures as part of the proposed development of the site.

Disadvantages:

· There will be a loss of greenspace.

Option 2

Do not agree with the Hearings Panel recommendation to the revocation of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification from the specified 619m2 (subject to survey) area from Lot 201 DP 359519.

Advantages:

· There will be no loss of greenspace.

Disadvantages:

· New World Cromwell will not be able to expand on its current site.

· The reserve will not be enhanced.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by following the public notification requirements of the Reserves Act 1977.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Council has no policy for sale of reserve land, any application is considered on a case-by-case basis.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The decision will not impact on sustainability or climate change. However, the reserve area adjacent to the proposed development will be enhanced.
Risks Analysis	There is no risk in following the recommendation as the processes set out in the Reserves Act have been followed.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The proposal was publicly notified in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

7. Next Steps

· If the decision is to revoke the reserve status, the Minister of Conservation will be notified in writing of the resolution and will be requested to approve the revocation and that the revocation is notified by Gazette notice; and

· Receive the decision of the Minister of Conservation and notify the affected parties.

· On receipt of the Gazette notice, record the revocation and arrange disposal.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Hearings Panel Report 14 September ⇩

Appendix 2 - Hearings Panel Minutes 14 September 2021 ⇩

Appendix 3 - Foodstuffs South Island Supplementary Evidence ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Gordon Bailey	Garreth Robinson
Parks and Recreation Manager	Acting Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
6/10/2021	20/10/2021

Council meeting

3 November 2021

Hearings Panel

14 September 2021

Report for Decision

PROPOSAL TO REVOKE PART OF THE GREENWAY RESERVE OFF WAENGA DRIVE CROMWELL

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To consider submissions received on the proposal to revoke the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification for 619m² (subject to survey) from Lot 201 DP 359519 which is part of Waenga Drive Greenway Reserve.

BACKGROUND

A request was received from Foodstuffs South Island Properties Ltd (Foodstuffs) to purchase 619m² of greenway adjacent to the New World Supermarket site in Waenga Drive, Cromwell. The request would potentially enable the expansion of the New World Cromwell site. This request was considered by the Cromwell Community Board (the Board) at meetings on 5 February 2019 and 30 June 2020.

The Board resolution of 30 June 2020 recommended the following.

That the Community Board:

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Recommends Council agree to sell 619m² (subject to survey) from Lot 201 DP 359519, known as Waenga Drive Greenway Reserve, to the adjoining landowner Foodstuffs South Island Properties Ltd, on terms and conditions to be agreed by the Chief Executive Officer and at a price based on valuation advice.

C. Recommends Council include the following minimum terms and conditions:

• The land being developed in line with the landscape concept plan provided by the purchaser.

• The Chief Executive determining the sale price based on valuation advice.

• The Chief Executive agreeing to the final detail of the redevelopment of the reserve immediately adjoining Cromwell New World and that work is arranged and funded by the purchaser. The final sign off of practical completion is to be by the Parks and Recreation Manager.

• The purchaser obtaining resource consent for the boundary adjustment and all necessary land use consents.

• The purchaser meeting all survey and legal costs.

• Public advertising under Section 24(2) of the Reserves Act of revocation of the reserve status. Costs to be covered by the applicant.

• The Minister of Conservation consenting to revocation of the reserve status over the 619 m² of reserve land.

D Recommended that all submissions received will be considered by Council’s Hearings Panel.

E Recommended that the Chief Executive Officer be delegated the authority to determine the final terms of sale

Council has entered into a conditional sale and purchase agreement with Foodstuffs South Island Limited, the sale price remains confidential, but the agreement includes the following conditions;

Additionally, the sale and purchase agreement is conditional upon:

(a) the Purchaser obtaining satisfactory Consents on terms and conditions acceptable in all respects to the Purchaser and to the Vendor within 3 years of the date of this Agreement; and

(b) the Purchaser’s Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, giving its approval as to the form and content of this Agreement on or before 30 October 2020; and

(c) the Purchaser reviewing the title to the property in all respects including any registered interests, easements, covenants, memorials or similar and, at its sole discretion, approving the same on or before 30 October 2020; and

(d) the Purchaser notifying the Vendor within 5 years of the date of signing this Agreement by both parties, that a separate record of title for the Property has been obtained; and

The conditions referred to in clause (a) and (d) above have been inserted for the benefit of both parties.

The Agreement is further conditional upon:

(e) the Purchaser undertaking the Amenity Works prior to settlement;

(f) the Purchaser undertaking the Improvement Works prior to settlement; and

(g) the Purchaser obtaining the consent of the Minister of Conservation to the revocation of the reserve status of the Property.

The conditions referred to in clause (a) and (b) above have been inserted for the sole benefit of the Vendor.

At its meeting on 15 June 2021 the Board recommended that Council consider progressing the revocation of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification from the specified 619m² (subject to survey) area from Lot 201 DP 359519.

The Council resolved at its meeting on 30 June 2021 the following:

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Agrees to progress the revocation of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification from the specified 619m² (subject to survey) area from Lot 201 DP 359519.

C. Agrees public notification of the proposed revocation in accordance with section 24(2)(b) of the Reserve Act 1977.

D. Agrees (following the successful completion of the public notification process, and decision) that the Minister of Conservation is notified in writing of the Council decision and request that the specified part of Waenga Drive Greenway Reserve be approved for revocation and notified in the Gazette.

E. Agrees that if reserve status of the specified Part of Waenga Drive Greenway Reserve is successfully revoked via Gazette notice, that all affected parties are notified and the underlying land is disposed of, subject to subdivision, to the adjoining landowner being Foodstuffs South Island Properties Limited on behalf of Cromwell New World.

F. Agrees that the remainder of Lot 201 DP 359519 of the Waenga Drive Greenway Reserve (excluding the relevant part of Waenga Drive Greenway Reserve in recommendation B above) remain as Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve.

A copy of the reports to the Board and Council are attached as Appendices 1, 2, and 3.

STATUTORY PROCESS

Reserves Act 1977

The purpose of the Reserves Act 1977 is to provide for and to protect reserves for the benefit of the community.

The reserve is subject to section 23 of the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act). Council is the administering body of the reserve.

The reserve is classified as a Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve. The purpose of an amenity reserve is to provide and retain areas for local purpose amenity use.

Pursuant to section 24 and 24A of the Reserves Act 1977, the Council (as administering body) should:

· Resolve that the reservation of the reserve should be revoked and provide reasons.

· Publicly notify the proposal and specify the reasons for the proposal.

· Council’s Hearings Panel will hear any submissions received and make recommendations to Council.

· Council makes a resolution on the recommendations received from the Hearings Panel.

· If the recommendation is to revoke the reserve status, notify the Minister of Conservation in writing of the resolution and request the revocation be approved and notified by Gazette notice; and

· Receive the decision of the Minister of Conservation and notify the affected parties.

· On receipt of the Gazette notice record the revocation and arrange disposal.

If revocation of the reserve status is confirmed the land will be subdivided, then sold to Foodstuff South Island Limited.

STATUS OF THE PROPOSAL

It is Council’s statutory duty to consult with the community in its decision making under the Reserves Act 1977. The proposal to revoke the reserve status and dispose of part of the Waenga Drive Greenway Reserve was publicly notified, giving the opportunity for the public to make submissions

The public notice to revoke the reserve status was advertised in Council’s ‘Noticeboard’ in the Central Otago News edition of 8 July 2021, the Cromwell Bulletin 15 July and on Council’s website from 8 July to 9 August.

A copy of the Notice of Intention [as advertised] is attached as Appendix 4.

A copy of the Statement of Proposal [with submission form] is attached as Appendix 5.

A copy of the proposed Landscape Plan is attached as Appendix 6.

PROVISIONS FOR CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS

The following provisions which are applicable to the proposal to revoke part of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve are found in sections 24(2)(b) – (h). These include:

· the requirement to publicly notify the proposal to change the classification and to specify the reason or reasons for the proposal.

· the requirement to invite every person claiming to be affected by the proposed reclassification to give notice in writing of his or her objections to the proposed change.

· having the Minister of Conservation consider the proposed change of classification and all objections received during the submission period.

The role of the Minister of Conservation also includes:

· being satisfied that the revocation conforms with the provisions of the Reserves Act, and;

· ensuring that due process has been followed.

SUBMISSIONS

Twelve submissions have been received following public consultation.

· 4 submitters supported the proposal and 8 submitters objected to the proposal.

Five submitters have asked to present their submissions, they are:

· Stephen Curruth

· Alex Brooker for Foodstuffs South Island Limited

· Katie Lindsay

· Murray Petrie

· Irene and Dave Wallace

Copies of the submissions received are attached as Appendix 7.

Revocation of Reserve

A summary of the submissions received objecting to the proposal is set out below.

· That the proposal to revoke a portion of the Waenga Drive Amenity Reserve is contrary to the need to provide sufficient areas of greenway reserve that compensate for intensification of buildings/infrastructure.

· Council has a duty to properly consider the long-term effects of this proposal within the context of its long-term plans and the provisions of adequately sized greenway reserves within those plans.

· The rationale of selling portions of defined greenway reserve to fund the maintenance or further development of other areas of undefined reserves is a deeply flawed concept and arguably against the public interest of Cromwell residents.

· The Council has a duty to act in the interests of all ratepayers and not in the narrow interests of a single business entity (Foodstuffs) operating in Cromwell.

· The Council has erred considerably in its currently pre-determined approach to respond to a proposal put before it by a single business (Foodstuffs).

· Encroachment of commercial activity closer to residential boundary.

· Alternatives sites should be considered.

· Leasing the reserve land required rather than selling it.

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT

Of the four submitters supporting the proposal to revoke part of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve. Their reasons include:

· The greenway area will be enhanced at no cost to Council.

· While reduced in size the reserve will still achieve its purpose.

· New World needs to expand to keep up with a growing community.

· The landscape design is sympathetic to neighbours.

SUMMARY OF OTHER CONCERNS RAISED

Concerns raised by submitter the which sit outside the Reserves Act 1977 process include:

· Increased traffic movement through and around the site.

· Connectivity to the Mall.

· New world needs to be relocated to allow the town centre to grow.

· Pedestrian safety.

· Details on fencing heights and type.

CONFIRMATION OF DUE PROCESS

Section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 provides Council with the mechanism for revoking the classification status of a reserve or any part thereof. It also details the process and steps which must be followed to implement the change of classification.

In accordance with the provisions of section 24, and in consideration of the proposed revocation, the following steps have been taken:

Step Date

1. Resolution of the Cromwell Community Board 30 June 2020

2. Resolution of Council 30 June 2021

3. Notice of Intention and Statement of Proposal Advertised 08 July 2021

4. Invitation to affected parties to make submissions 08 July - 9 Aug 2021

5. Hearing of submissions 14 September 2021

After considering the submissions, the Hearings Panel will make a recommendation to Council. The Council will then make the final determination of whether to proceed with the proposed revocation of the reserve. If the decision is to revoke the reserve status, Council will request that the Minister of Conservation approve the revocation.

PROVISIONS FOR CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS

While section 24(2)(c) of the Reserves Act 1977 provides every person claiming to be affected by the proposed revocation with a right of objection, those objections must relate specifically to the proposal to the revocation of the reserve classification.

The panel’s attention is drawn to subheading Revocation of Reserve, which indicates that 8 objections have been received that comply with section 24(2)(c) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Consideration should also be given to the section 24(2)(h) of the Reserves Act 1977 which specifies that:

any person who does not lodge an objection in accordance with this subsection [24(2)] shall be deemed to have assented to the change of classification or purpose or the revocation of reservation set forth in the public notification.

Reserve land is set aside for the enjoyment of the community. Any sale of reserve land is not considered lightly and is the least preferred option. The submissions against the proposals have made valid points. Given the restraints of the current New World site and agreed conditions that will provide enhancements to the remaining reserve land, the application to revoke the reserve status of the land to facilitate the redevelopment of the New World site is considered acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION

The proposed revocation of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification from the specified 619m² (subject to survey) area from Lot 201 DP 359519, is to facilitate the sale of the land to Foodstuffs South Island Limited. This will enable Foodstuff South Island to expand the operational footprint of Cromwell New World.

The proposed revocation will reduce the available open space in the immediate vicinity. However, the balance of the reserve will continue to function as a Local Purpose reserve as classified.

The balance of the reserve will be enhanced through the proposed landscape plan. The proposed plantings will further reduce any perceived impacts.

Therefore, in accordance with Resolution 21.5.4 and in consideration of the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, I recommend the revocation of the Local Purpose (Amenity) Reserve classification from the specified 619m² (subject to survey) area from Lot 201 DP 359519.

SCHEDULE OF ATTACHMENTS

Appendix 1: Report to Cromwell Community Board 5 February 2019.

Appendix 2: Report to Cromwell Community Board 30 June 2020.

Appendix 3: Report to Central Otago District Council 30 June 2021.

Appendix 4: Copy of submissions received.

Appendix 5: A copy of the Notice of Intention [as advertised].

Appendix 6: A copy of the Statement of Proposal [with submission form].

Appendix 7: A copy of the proposed Landscape Plan.

Report author:

Gordon Bailey

Parks and Recreation Manager

27/08/2021

3 November 2021

Logo, company name

Description automatically generated

21.8.6 Plan Change 17 - GIS Mapping

Doc ID: 555018

1. Purpose of Report

To consider approval of Plan Change 17.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves Plan Change 17 without modification in accordance with Clause 10 (1) of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.

C. Directs that the decision to approve Plan Change 17 be publicly notified, and the Central Otago District Plan be amended.

2. Background

In November 2019 Central Government released the National Planning Standards (NPS). The purpose of the first set of NPS is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system by providing nationally consistent:

· structure

· format

· definitions

· noise and vibration metrics

· electronic functionality and accessibility

This will apply to all regional policy statements, regional plans, district plans and combined

plans under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

The implementation standard requires within twelve months of the NPS coming into effect (November 2020) plans to be hosted on a local authority webpage no more than three clicks (three pages or pop-ups) from the local authority’s home page; up-to-date webpage; addresses for policy statements and plans must be provided to the Ministry for the Environment; and plans must have keyword search functionality. The operative Central Otago District Plan (the Plan) complies with this requirement.

The NPS also requires District Plans to transition to an interactive electronic format (ePlan). The ePlan format requires GIS mapping and the proposed plan change will facilitate the transition to compliance with the National Planning Standard requirements. The Plan is in the process of being transitioned to ePlan and the conversion to GIS spatial mapping has resulted in some errors and anomalies being identified. Clause 20A of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 allows Council to correct any minor errors in an operative policy statement without going through a plan change process. Some of the changes necessary are considered beyond the scope of clause 20A of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (Clause 20A).

The intent of Plan Change 17 is to convert the existing page by page Computer Aided Design (CAD) drawn mapping to a seamless GIS layer, enabling transition to ePlan as required by the NPS.

3. Discussion

Plan Change 17 was publicly notified along with an evaluation pursuant to section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 on 8 July 2021 (See Appendix 1). Three submissions were received from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, Transpower New Zealand Ltd and Otago Regional Council. All submissions were in support of the proposed changes to the GIS mapping. No submitters wished to be heard.

Heritage New Zealand supports the review and correction of the mapping and heritage schedule in operative Central Otago District Plan, the correction of items on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rāngi Kōrero (the List) and has provided confirmation that items on the List are correct.

Transpower New Zealand supports the proposed map changes which provide for more accurate mapping of the High Voltage Transmission Lines (HVTL), and more effective implementation of the corresponding HVTL provisions within the District Plan itself.

Otago Regional Council supports the correction of errors and anomalies identified through the process of transferring the operative Central Otago District Plan to an on-line interactive plan (ePlan).

A summary of the submissions received was publicly notified on 19 August 2021 with submissions closing Thursday 2 September 2021 (See Appendix 2). No further submissions were received.

Pursuant to clause 8C of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 as no submitters wish to be heard, no hearing is required.

A report prepared pursuant to section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 and recommending approval of the plan change is attached (Appendix 3).

4. Financial Considerations

The costs associated with the processing of the plan change will be borne internally through staff time in Planning and Environment and Information Services. No costs associated with an appeal to the Environment Court are likely as all submissions received are in support of the Plan Change as notified.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve Plan Change 17 without modification in accordance with Clause 10(1) of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991

Advantages:

· Will enable the conversion of the operative District Plan from a paper-based plan to an online interactive format (ePlan) as required by National Planning Standards.

Disadvantages:

· No obvious disadvantages

Option 2

Not approve Plan Change 17 in accordance with Clause 10(1) of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991

Advantages:

· No obvious advantages

Disadvantages:

· Transitioning to online interactive format (ePlan) for the operative District Plan and compliance with National Planning Standards will not be possible.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	The plan change process under the provisions of the Resource Management Act is a democratic public process and an assessment of the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being was included in the section 32 analysis as publicly notified. Three submissions were received in response to public notification, all in support of Plan Change 17. No submitters wished to be heard in support of their submissions.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes - the following Council Policies were considered: · Central Otago District Plan - the plan change reflects the zoning and provisions of the operative Central Otago District Plan.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	The plan change does not impact on these matters as no material changes have been made to the operative Central Otago District Plan.
Risks Analysis	There are no risks associated with this decision.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The plan change has been publicly notified in accordance with the First Schedule to the RMA, three submissions were received all in support. No other parties are considered to be affected.

7. Next Steps

Publicly notify Council’s decision on Plan Change 17 and give effect to the changes.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Plan Change 17 - Section 32 Report ⇩

Appendix 2 - Plan Change 17 - Summary of Submissions ⇩

Appendix 3 - Plan Change 17 - Section 42a Report ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Ann Rodgers	Garreth Robinson
Principal Policy Planner	Acting Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
20/10/2021	21/10/2021

Council meeting

3 November 2021

COMMENTS INQUIRY ON THE NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS BILL: PARLIAMENTARY PAPER
OTAGO-SOUTHLAND COUNCILS’ JOINT SUBMISSION

This submission is from the ten councils of Otago and Southland regions:

§ Central Otago District Council,

§ Clutha District Council,

§ Dunedin City Council,

§ Environment Southland,

§ Gore District Council,

§ Invercargill City Council,

§ Otago Regional Council,

§ Queenstown Lakes District Council,

§ Southland District Council, and

§ Waitaki District Council.

Address for service:
Telephone:	03 4
Fax:	03 4
Email:
Contact person:

Introduction

Otago and Southland’s councils thank the Environment Select Committee (Select Committee) for the opportunity to submit on the exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA).

The signatories acknowledge that there is still a significant amount of work to be done on the design of the new legislative system, including drafting the balance of the NBA and the Spatial Planning Act (SPA) and the Climate Change Adaptation Act (CAA). There is also a considerable amount of work to be done to put in place necessary arrangements to enable an effective transition from the current system to the new one.

While we appreciate it was never intended that the exposure draft would contain all the detail that will be included in the final Bill, not being able to consider a comprehensive proposal, made up of the NBA, SPA and CAA, makes it challenging to comment on the draft NBA provisions.

In preparing this submission, signatories were supported by their planning teams, who provided technical input on the exposure draft and its possible implications.

This submission reflects the signatories’ shared view on the proposal and may be supplemented by individual comments from each of the councils.

Overall position

Councils have put significant investment in implementing the current resource management system, and these investments are ongoing. Many councils in the Otago and Southland regions have recently completed a review of their plans or have started a review process. The implementation costs of a new system will be substantial, especially in view of the more recent plan reviews. Depending on the timing of change, it is also likely to be disruptive to current work programmes and forward progress towards supporting additional housing capacity and work to implement the Government’s freshwater package. Such costs and delays will only be worthwhile if the new resource management system brings significant improvements to the current system, which at this stage is uncertain.

In our view, to be effective, the new system needs to provide:

1. Strong directions and priorities that usefully guide decision-making at every level;

2. The ability to provide for local conditions, including the local environment, and local communities’ aspirations

3. A strong monitoring, assessment and review process; and

4. Clear and unambiguous legislation.

The NBA draft, as it stands, does not give us confidence that the reform will meet these expectations, and enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the resource management system.

The strong focus on environmental bottom-lines (“environmental limits”), and the weak requirement to “promote” environmental outcomes implies that environmental degradation will be tolerated down to bottom lines. This is against the stated reform’s objective to “protect and restore the environment (...)”.

In addition, the lack of focus on the built environment is unlikely to result in enabling good-quality urban development, which is also one of the key purposes of the reform.

We also note that many questions remain on the planning committee model that is being proposed, how it is going to work, and whether it is the most appropriate model.

Treaty Clause

Before expanding further on our concerns with the exposure draft, we acknowledge the importance of a deep and significant partnership with mana whenua on resource management and offer our support in principle for the draft Treaty Clause, and the requirement to “give effect to”, rather than “take into account” te Tiriti o Waitangi.

We note that the practical implications of this change are still uncertain and wish to see some clarification on the matter. We agree with the Resource Management Panel that guidance on how to implement te Tiriti should be developed. We would like confirmation that such guidance will be provided in the full Bill.

A lack of clear directions and priorities

The NBA exposure draft does provide the purpose and direction that is needed for effective and efficient resource management; and to inform decision-making.

Purpose of the Act

As a foundation to the Act and to its implementation, the purpose section needs to be clear and unambiguous. As it is, the draft purpose of the Act falls short of these expectations and is likely to give rise to long and costly arguments and litigation, as planning processes will try to achieve a purpose many will interpret differently.

In particular:

§ The definition of “Te Oranga o te Taiao” is ambiguous, and not limiting. “Incorporates” implies that there are components to the concept which are not listed in the definition. And as it is not a tikanga concept, it is likely to meet the same interpretation challenges as the concept of “Te Mana o te Wai” in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (2020) (NPSFM);

§ The term “uphold” is vague and lacks strength. Moreover, it is not appropriate to some of the elements of “Te Oranga o te Taiao” (“upholding the interconnectedness of all parts of the natural environment”);

§ The health of the natural environment is also a concept open for interpretation;

§ There is no priority or guidance over how conflicts between Te Oranga o te Taiao and the ability of people to support their needs should be managed.

Under section 5, environmental limits and environmental outcomes are the key two mechanisms by which the purpose of the Act is to be achieved. The direction to “comply with” environmental limits, and “promote” environmental outcomes seems to give precedence to environmental limits, relative to outcomes. For the Act to effectively change the focus of resource management from managing effects to achieving outcomes, there should be a higher emphasis on the environmental outcomes.

Environmental outcomes

Clause 8 (Environmental outcomes) should complement the purpose of Act and provide more detail over what needs to be achieved, and what resource management’s priorities are. The current draft provides a long list of outcomes, between which conflict is inevitable. No clear priority between these outcomes is provided, unless it is implicit through their order; or through the list provided in section 13.

Although we acknowledge the intention of providing guidance on how conflicts will be resolved through the National Planning Framework and the Natural and Built Environments Plans (plans), a clear sense of priorities between outcomes within the NBA itself will make for a more efficient system, avoid lengthy and costly litigation on how conflicts should be resolved, and greatly assist decision-makers.

Given that, under draft section 13, the National Planning Framework is required to provide direction on only nine of the 17 environmental outcomes listed in section 8, the National Planning Framework is unlikely to provide appropriate direction to resolve key conflicts unless the Ministry for the Environment extends its scope to additional, discretionary, outcomes. In particular, guidance would be useful from government on how to enable urban development (section 8(k) and (l)) and protect highly productive land from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development (section 8(m)(iii)).

The National Planning Framework and plans could usefully provide guidance on how to resolve conflicts between outcomes if they were to translate the NBA’s environmental outcomes into a set of mutually compatible outcomes adapted to the place they apply to. This would also better reflect the need for local place-based planning decisions to reflect the needs and values of the communities affected by them, and the variation that exists across New Zealand’s regions, cities and districts.

Enabling management of local conditions and aspirations

We support the fact that national directions be required, rather than discretionary, on matters of national significance. We also support the setting of environmental limits at a central level. As demonstrated by the NPSFM, national bottom-lines set useful parameters to the engagement of local communities on objectives, policies and rules for their local environment.

Regions can have a large variation in climate, geophysical and ecosystem characteristics, and economic, social and cultural characteristics. The trade-offs, outcomes and limits prescribed in legislation can only be meaningful if they are adapted to the local environment and to local communities’ aspirations.

The NBA exposure draft should provide adequately for the tailoring of provisions to local and regional communities and their environment:

§ It should allow for plans to set environmental limits unless prescribed by the National Planning Framework (Section 7(2))

§ It should explicitly provide for plans setting provisions, including environmental limits, which are more stringent than the National Planning Framework’s provisions.

We note that Schedules 1 and 2 are currently placeholders, and that the exposure draft does not provide any indication of what community engagement will be expected as part of the preparation of both the National Planning Framework and plans. The growing importance given to national directions, and the regionalisation of plans, could curtail local communities’ input in environmental management if participation processes are not adequate. The processes set out in both Schedules 1 and 2 should ensure that there is adequate input from local and regional communities, on the decisions that affect them, and the places in which they live.

Monitoring, assessment, and review

We agree with the Resource Management Review Panel (Randerson Report) finding that under the current RMA the link between environmental monitoring and reporting and the assessment and review of plans has been weak. The evaluation and assessment framework for both plans and national directions should be strengthened. We note that the explanatory material released with the exposure draft recognises that the monitoring, assessment and review of the National Planning Framework have not been provided for in Parts 3 and 4 of the exposure draft, and that these matters will be part of the full Bill. We seek confirmation that the full Bill will set up a stronger monitoring and assessment framework that applies across the whole system.

As highlighted by the Resource Management Review Panel, the lack of clear goals and measurable outcomes has partially accounted for inadequate monitoring and oversight in the resource management system. Not requiring the National Planning Framework and plans to set clear and measurable environmental outcomes is likely to undermine future provisions on the monitoring, assessment and evaluation of plans and the National Planning Framework.

Setting a clear and unambiguous framework

It is difficult to understand from the exposure draft what the various planning instruments (National Planning Framework and plans) will look like, and how they will interact. The strength, format and level of specificity of the National Planning Framework’s provisions are uncertain, especially when it comes to the “strategic goals”, “vision”, “direction” and “priorities” it must prescribe. Similarly, the level at which environmental limits will be set in the National Planning Framework is uncertain. Lastly, there no is clear provision on the relationship between national and regional rules. These are important matters, that need to be clarified to facilitate the implementation of the reform.

It is also important that the NBA integrates with the SPA and CAA. It remains to be seen how well the three pieces of legislation will integrate, and ultimately contribute to the achievement of the Government’s reform objectives.

The language used in the Act should be clear and unambiguous. At present this is not achieved with terms such as “promote”, “further”, or “uphold” creating opportunities for misunderstanding and potential litigation. The relative weakness of these terms contribute to the Act not providing a strong sense of direction, and leaves many of its core concepts and provisions open for interpretation and challenge.

In addition, the draft deviates from the traditional RMA terminology, without providing a clear indication of what the change means (e.g. “marine environment” vs. “coastal environment”; or “matters” vs. “issues). Using terms which have been reviewed and interpreted by Courts over the years provides the benefits of case-law and some certainty over how commonly used concepts are to be interpreted. The purpose of this change from status quo is not entirely clear, and creates uncertainty and ambiguity.

A lack of focus on the urban environment and urban form

One of the stated objectives for the reform of the Resource Management system is to better enable development. However, there is little emphasis on urban development and urban form. Even though it is mentioned in Part 2 of the exposure draft, it is unclear how urban development is to be provided for in plans. Presumably, it is expected that such direction will be provided by the National Planning Framework. However, given the reform’s objectives, and the housing crisis New Zealand is experiencing, the exposure draft could have been expected to provide for development more explicitly.

It is our understanding that regional spatial strategies will be instrumental in directing urban growth and development where it is most appropriate. The NBA exposure draft does not, however, draw an explicit relationship between regional spatial strategies and plans, in providing for urban growth.

The only focus of the sections addressing urban development is about quantity of supply, and there is no mention of the quality of the built environment, including the quality of housing, the liveability of new housing/mixed use areas, or the importance of good urban design to people and community wellbeing. These matters are of critical importance to councils and their communities and this should be reflected as a key outcome to be achieved in the NBA.

We note that the NBA seems to put more emphasis on urban development than on rural development. It is unclear whether rural development is to be enabled to the same degree as urban development, or whether rural development will be subjected to a more restrictive framework. The importance of development in small rural towns should be recognised in the NBA.

Lastly, Section 7 requires environmental limits to be prescribed for matters which relate to the natural environment. Consideration should be given to whether environmental limits could also be set in relation to the built environment and its link to human health.

Planning committees

The proposal to move the responsibility for plan making from local authorities to planning committees raises many issues that need to be addressed before one can judge whether this model is appropriate or not. For example:

§ The responsibility of “maintaining the plan” is not well defined and could be interpreted in different ways.

§ The composition of the planning committee may raise issues with respect to its representativeness. Potentially, residents of rural, sparsely populated councils, will be “over-represented” relative to residents of larger cities and districts with high populations driven by the visitor economy.

§ The draft NBA sections and explanatory material do not provide direction over how decisions will be made by the committee (consensus/majority).

§ Similarly, there is no indication whether committee members are expected to have specific skills and competence, or if they will be appointed for their ability to bring in a local perspective to decision-making.

§ The draft NBA does not clarify the organisational structure of the committee and its secretariat. Is it expected that secretariat officers will be made of employees seconded from councils? Or will they be employed by the committee? Such questions result in uncertainty as to ongoing resourcing and skill requirements for local councils.

Lastly, we note that councils are expected to fund the secretariat. Beyond the likely challenges of designing a funding system that is equitable for all local authorities in the region, this removes councils’ control over part of their budgets, as spendings will be authorised by a third party. This is likely to create practical challenges which need to be considered and addressed before this new model is confirmed.

In view of these challenges, and of the impact of this new model on local councils’ resourcing and functioning, Otago/Southland councils would welcome an opportunity to engage with MfE on the planning committee model before the full bill is submitted to Parliament for first reading.

Transition

The resource management reform will have a significant impact on local councils, and clear implementation timeframes and transition provisions will be critical for councils to plan ahead, and resource their future activities. The implementation process and transition timeframes should be developed as soon as possible, in consultation with local councils, mana whenua, and all other parties which will have functions under the Act.

They should be designed to keep momentum on ongoing planning work seeking to bring about positive change; and to coordinate with the local government reform.

RELIEF SOUGHT

1) Develop direction on how to give effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi in the full Bill

2) Review Part 2 of the NBA to clarify the Act’s purpose, and provide clear priorities and directions to guide decision-making

3) Consolidate and prioritise the outcomes set out in clause 8.

4) Require the National Planning Framework to address protection of highly productive land as an additional matter in section 13.

5) Require the National Planning Framework and plans to set clear priorities and measurable environmental outcomes for the matters and geographical areas they address.

6) Enable Planning Committees to:

a. Set environmental limits, even when not prescribed to do so through the National Planning Framework;

b. Set provisions, including environmental limits, that are more stringent than those in the National Planning Framework

7) Require appropriate community participation at both regional and local level in Schedules 1 and 2

8) Revise the draft, and clarify its terminology, to ensure that its provisions are clear and set out a clear planning architecture

9) Clarify how the NBA and other legislation will interact

10) Make more explicit provision on how plans will interact with regional spatial strategies for urban development

11) Recognise and provide for the importance of the quality of the built environment and the importance of quality housing and good urban design for people and community wellbeing; and consider setting environmental limits that relate to the built environment

12) Refine the planning committee model, in consultation with local councils, including those from Otago and Southland

13) Engage with local councils, including those from Otago-Southland, on the implementation of the new system, and on transition provisions

14) Design the implementation processes and timeframes to keep momentum on ongoing planning work seeking to bring about positive change; and to coordinate with the local government reform

Yours faithfully

Central Otago District Council

Clutha District Council

Dunedin City Council

Environment Southland

Gore District Council

Invercargill City Council

Otago Regional Council

Queenstown Lakes District Council

Southland District Council

Waitaki District Council

3 November 2021

Logo, company name

Description automatically generated

21.8.8 Options for Disinfection of Community Water Supplies

Doc ID: 556296

1. Purpose of Report

To consider future options for disinfection of community water supplies to provide bacterial treatment.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Notes that current chemical deliveries arrangements result in a lack of resilience in provision of service.

C. Directs staff to provide a report outlining the work required to meet Hazardous Substances and New Organism Act requirements for the delivery of chlorine to existing treatment sites.

D. Agrees to the phased transition of chlorine gas disinfection as community water supplies are upgraded

2. Background

Council currently uses liquid chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) for bacterial treatment on all council water supplies. This was the historical method for chlorine treatment. There are several issues which arise as a consequence of using to liquid chlorine, and treatment using chlorine gas is now the preferred method within the water industry.

None of Council’s water treatment plants meet Hazardous Substances and New Organism Act (HSNO) requirements for the storage of either gas or liquid chlorine and consequently chemical suppliers will not deliver direct to any site.

Liquid chlorine for use on these sites is currently delivered to a local swimming pool contractor, who then delivers this to the treatment sites when it is required. Delivery sometimes occurs when the treatment operators are not on site, as it is incorporated with other client deliveries. In the summer, the local supplier has a high demand for services and chlorine due to private and commercial pool use peaking in the area. This can result in delays to chlorine being delivered to Council’s water treatment plants.

Sites that receive bulk quantities of liquid chemicals typically require the installation of safety showers near delivery points. There are no showers at any Central Otago water treatment plants.

A review of all sites is currently underway to identify improvements required to enable delivery of these chemicals directly to site by the suppliers. A report regarding the financial implications of these requirements will be provided to council in early 2022.

3. Discussion

Liquid chlorine shouldn’t be any older than three months from manufacture to use. This means that it is unable to be stored for any length of time and cannot be stockpiled for use in emergencies. Issues such as floods and road closures have historically impacted on supply, and product levels have dropped to critical levels during these events. There are operational challenges in ensuring that the tanks are kept filled, while ensuring adequate turnover of product during off-peak times. Due to supply issues during peak periods, product sometimes needs to be transferred between sites when the local supplier is unable to keep up with demand.

Liquid chlorine can lose strength during high temperature periods over summer. This increases the risk of low chlorination and drinking water non-compliances. It can also freeze during cold periods.

The benefits of chlorine gas are that it does not age and does not lose any of its disinfection capability. It is not susceptible to changes in temperature and can maintain a far more effective residual disinfection level. Chlorine gas is also easier to source, with 70kg cylinders able to be delivered to smaller sites and 1 tonne cylinders to larger sites. A 70kg cylinder can last up to six months on a small site and continue to deliver an appropriate level of disinfection across this period.

Improvements would be required to existing treatment sites to enable a transition from the use of liquid chlorine to chlorine gas. This includes providing storage space within buildings, ventilation, and audible and visual alarms. All of Council’s water treatment plants are programmed for upgrades, with the exception of Roxburgh. The most cost effective way to transition to chlorine gas would be to include this as part of the programmed treatment plant upgrades. A separate review will be undertaken for Roxburgh.

4. Financial Considerations

Changing to chlorine gas disinfection would incur additional capital costs to comply with HSNO requirements but would have lower operating costs.

The following table provides an example of operating cost savings from a treatment plant with the capability of delivering up to 20 MLD per day, which is similar to the capacity of the proposed Lake Dunstan Water Supply.

Year	Cost – Chlorine Gas	Cost – Liquid Hypochlorite	Annual difference
2016	$161K	$298K	$137k
2021	$165K	$305K	$140k

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

A phased transition to chlorine gas disinfection is implemented as water treatment plant upgrades are undertaken.

Advantages:

· Provides more reliable disinfection process

· Adds resilience to Council’s water treatment plants

· Chlorine gas does not age and suffer from temperature fluctuations

· Lower operational and whole of life costs

· More readily available than liquid chlorine therefore better supply chain reliability

Disadvantages:

· Potentially higher initial capital cost

Option 2

Retain liquid chlorine disinfection for the future. Additional upgrades will still be required to comply with HSNO requirements.

Advantages:

· Continuation of status quo for existing plants but noting upgrades to meet HSNO requirements will still be required.

Disadvantages:

· Offers a less robust disinfection process

· Higher operational costs

· Requires greater operator input

· Quality of the product is highly dependent on temperature fluctuations and age of product

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the social and environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by continuing with the provision of clean safe water supplies to our communities.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The decision to continue providing clean safe water is consistent with Council approved Infrastructure Strategy, Activity Management Plans and Water Safety Plans.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no sustainability or environmental impacts identified as a result of this decision.
Risks Analysis	The current process and site provisions carry health and safety risks which need to be addressed. A review of the sites is currently underway to identify the work required to address this. The use of liquid chlorine presents supply and storage duration risks which could be addressed by changing to chlorine gas.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	This decision will not trigger any provisions in the Significance and Engagement Policy and consultation on the matter is not considered to be required.

7. Next Steps

· Assessments of all water treatment plants is underway to identify the requirements to meet HSNO regulation requirements.

· A report outlining the work required to be undertaken to meet the HSNO requirements, and estimated costs of this work will be provided to Council in early 2022.

· Water treatment plant upgrades will be designed for chlorine gas disinfection.

· Additional improvements required to enable chlorine gas to be used at the Roxburgh treatment plant will be identified and programmed.

· Water Safety Plans will be amended to reflect this change in process.

8. Attachments

Nil

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Ian Evans	Julie Muir
Water Services Manager	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
15/10/2021	20/10/2021

3 November 2021

Logo, company name

Description automatically generated

21.8.9 Waste services review feedback results

Doc ID: 554392

1. Purpose

To consider the results from the waste services review survey.

Recommendations

That the report be received.

2. Feedback Results

At the meeting of 11 August 2021 Council approved the ‘Have Your Say on Our Waste Services’ document for community feedback. The engagement document and survey enabled the public to provide feedback on the proposed kerbside services and their current use of council’s waste services. A copy of the report to Council, engagement document and survey are attached.

The survey was available from the 25^th of August through to the 24^th of September. There was a strong response from community with 870 surveys returned. The majority of responses came from the Vincent and Cromwell Wards with 32% of all responses from those living in Alexandra, and 24% from people living in Cromwell.

There was a good response from the Maniototo with the majority of these respondents from Naseby and Ranfurly.

There was a comparatively low response rate from those living in Teviot Valley, with only 34 respondents from Roxburgh.

There was a strong response from Queensberry residents with 55 surveys completed.

Chart, pie chart

Description automatically generated

A picture containing chart

Description automatically generated

Kerbside Collection

The feedback document detailed three potential kerbside collection options for the community to consider. They were asked to select a preference and provide feedback on that preference if they chose to.

Of the 791 respondents who provided an answer to this question, 44% preferred Option 1 – Improved status quo, 36% preferred Option 2 – Weekly rubbish collection. Twenty percent of respondents preferred Option 3 – Weekly organic collection.

Chart, pie chart

Description automatically generated

Option 1 – Improved status quo

Option 1 introduces an additional 240L bin for a four-weekly collection of greenwaste (a green lid bin). The glass (blue) bin would change to a more regular four-weekly collection, in a smaller 140L bin. This option will also allow a choice of a 240L or 140L rubbish (red) bin. The 240L mixed recycling (yellow) bin would move to a consistent fortnightly collection.

The key themes that came through in the comments from those who selected Option 1 were that people like the addition of the green waste bin and the ability to choose the rubbish bin size. Comments regarding the glass bin were conflicting with some saying they would want the glass bin collected more frequently and some saying they do not need it picked up so often. Respondents who selected Option 1 were generally happy with the current system and did not require a lot of change.

A common suggestion for this option included considering a change in the frequency of the green waste collection to be more often than 4-weekly, particularly during summer months.

Option 2 – Weekly rubbish collection

Option 2 is an enhancement on Option 1. In addition to the four-weekly greenwaste and glass collections, this option also introduces weekly rubbish bin collections. Both the rubbish and glass bins would be a smaller 140L bin. As in Option 1, the 240L mixed recycling bin would be collected fortnightly.

It is worth noting that the majority of those who do not currently have kerbside collection service selected Option 2. The key themes that came through in the comments from those who selected Option 2 were that people liked the increase in frequency of rubbish collection (mostly due to this helping reduce the smell of rubbish particularly during summer months) and the addition of the green waste bin.

Option 3 – Weekly organic collection

Option 3 introduces an 80L organics bin to collect both food and greenwaste every week. The rubbish bin will still be collected fortnightly but residents would be able to choose between a 240L or smaller 140L option. As in Options 1 and 2, the 140L glass (blue) bin would be collected every four weeks and the 240L mixed recycling (yellow) bin would be collected fortnightly.

The key themes that came through in the comments from those who selected Option 3 were that they liked the addition of the weekly organic collection. There were a number of reasons given including that they approved of green waste being taken out of landfill; suggestions to make compost to sell; collection of weekly organic material would reduce smell especially in summer.

Transfer Stations

Seventy-eight percent of all respondents use one of the transfer stations in the district. The graph below shows the number of respondents that selected each transfer station.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

Respondents who selected Alexandra or Cromwell transfer stations were asked which days they typically use the transfer station and at what time of the day. The trend is very similar for both Alexandra and Cromwell with the majority of respondents using the transfer station at the weekend.

Chart, waterfall chart

Description automatically generated

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide a comment with 109 comments made. The main theme that came through in the comments was that the transfer station use is occasional and does not relate to a particular time. Another strong theme related to using the transfer stations as a method to dispose of greenwaste.

Respondents who selected Ranfurly or Roxburgh transfer stations were asked which days they typically use the transfer station.

Chart, waterfall chart

Description automatically generated

There is a similar trend between the Ranfurly and Roxburgh transfer stations, though the sample size for Roxburgh is smaller. The weekend is the most common time for respondents to use the transfer stations. Several comments were made asking for the Ranfurly transfer station not to be closed and to keep the operating hours as they are now or to extend them particularly in summer.

Overall respondents do not want to see the operating hours of transfer stations reduced throughout the district.

Cromwell Re-use Shop

Results indicate strong support from the Cromwell Ward for a local re-use shop to be established. While there was a large proportion stating they would not use a re-use shop this feedback was from Alexandra based respondents who already have access to the resource recovery park on Boundary Road.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

General Feedback – Transfer Stations

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide any further feedback about the transfer stations. The key themes of the 209 comments received are detailed below.

· Unhelpful staff at Cromwell Transfer Station.

· Free greenwaste drop-off should remain in-place.

· Ranfurly Transfer Station hours should remain as they are or extend in summer.

· Ability to dispose of other waste (e-waste, soft plastics)

· The cost of disposing of waste is expensive.

General Feedback – Waste Services

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide any further feedback about waste services in general. The key themes of the 318 comments are detailed below.

· Rubbish should be collected weekly in summer.

· All bins should be emptied more frequently.

· Request for collection in areas currently not serviced (Queensberry, Tarras and Pateaora).

· Inclusion of a green bin is a great idea.

· Want the ability to opt-out of the greenwaste/organics service.

· Need the ability to recycle more materials (e.g. fruit punnets and meat trays).

· Bin latches are required to stop lids blowing open.

· Mix of comments relating to the need for the blue bin to be collected more and less frequently.

Next Steps

· Completion of Business Case for Waste Services Review, incorporating community feedback, Councillor feedback and the transfer station review outcomes.

(November 2021)

· Council decision on recommended future services.

(December 2021)

· Council approval of procurement plan.

(December 2021)

· Development of tender documents

(November 2021 – January 2022)

· Tender out to market

(January 2022 – March 2022)

· Recommended tenderer to Council

(June 2022)

· Service commencement

(July 2023)

3. Attachments

Appendix 1 - Council Report - 11 August 2021 ⇩

Appendix 2 - Waste Services Engagment Document ⇩

Appendix 3 - Waste Services Feedback Questions ⇩

Appendix 4 - Waste Services Feedback Analysis ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Quinton Penniall	Julie Muir
Environmental Engineering Manager	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
20/10/2021	20/10/2021

Council meeting

3 November 2021

21.6.9 Waste Services Review

Doc ID: 545510

1. Purpose of Report

To review public information prepared for community feedback on Council’s waste and recycling services.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Approves the ‘Have Your Say on Our Waste Services’ document for community feedback.

2. Background

Council is committed to cutting carbon emissions and reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfills.

The costs of waste disposal are continuing to increase. In June 2020, central government introduced auctioning for New Zealand Emission Units (NZUs) together with an increase on the price cap on NZUs from $25/tonne to $50/tonne. In July 2020, central government announced it will increase the Waste Disposal Levy through a progressive increase to $60/tonne by July 2024.

All of Council’s waste contracts come to an end on 30 June 2023. New contracts need to be awarded by July 2022 in order to meet lead in times for trucks and equipment.

The contracts which are coming to the end of the contracted period are shown below.

Contract	End Date
Transfer Stations Includes operation and transfer to landfill	30 June 2023
Kerbside Rubbish Collection Includes supply of wheelie bins	30 June 2023
Kerbside Recycling Collection (Mixed Recycling and Glass) Includes supply of wheelie bins	30 June 2023
Landfill-Victoria Flats Option to negotiate early release from landfill agreement	30 June 2029
Wastebusters	30 June 2023
Enviroschools (REAP)	30 June 2023

The total value of these contracts is approximately $4.3 million. This includes waste levy and the emissions trading scheme charges.

Transfer stations are located in Alexandra, Cromwell, Ranfurly and Roxburgh. The transfer stations accept a variety of materials including general rubbish, recycling and greenwaste. Anyone can drop a car load of greenwaste off at transfer stations for no charge. Larger loads incur a small fee. The Alexandra and Cromwell transfer stations are open seven days per week, while the Ranfurly and Roxburgh transfer stations open in the afternoon on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday in summer and Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday in winter.

Wastebusters operate a recycling hub and re-use shop in Alexandra where second-hand items and materials can be taken for re-use and recycling. There is currently no equivalent facility in Cromwell.

There are dedicated rubbish drop-off facilities in Tarras and Patearoa. These services use Council branded rubbish bags that must be purchased from Council service centres or the Tarras Store.

In addition to recycling drop-offs at the transfer stations, there are recycling drop-off facilities in Omakau, Oturehau, Patearoa, Poolburn, Roxburgh, Ranfurly and Tarras. These are public facilities which have no user charges.

There is an increasing public expectation that waste, in particular organics (food waste and greenwaste), will be managed in an environmentally sustainable manner. Most local authorities are considering introducing an organics service or have already committed to introducing them.

Kerbside food waste collections are currently in place or in progress in Auckland, New Plymouth, Waikato district, Whakatane, Kawerau, Christchurch, Selwyn, Waimakariri, Hutt, Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty, Hamilton, Ruapehu, Dunedin and Wellington. Queenstown Lakes District Council are currently preparing an organics strategy that considers the introduction of kerbside organic collections alongside other interventions.

Further work is being undertaken on investigating processing of greenwaste, and potentially food waste, within Central Otago. As part of this work the potential of a combined Queenstown / Central Otago facility located within Central Otago district is also being considered. A report will be provided in early 2022 with the options for this.

3. Discussion

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact freight networks, community feedback is needed now to help inform what should be collected at kerbside, and what other supporting services should be provided to ensure effective and efficient waste management. This will allow the successful contractor enough time to be ready to commence a new service from 1 July 2023.

Currently the kerbside collection consists of three 240L bins. The rubbish (red lid) bin is collected fortnightly. The mixed recyclables (yellow lid) bin is also collected fortnightly, except on the eighth week, when it is swapped out for the glass (blue lid) bin collection.

The annual cost of the kerbside service is $334.

Options for an improved kerbside collection service have been developed and assessed using the Better Business Case methodology, including the following steps:

· Development of a longlist of options for the collection system and assessment of these options against strategic objectives and critical success factors.

· Shortlisting of options and an economic assessment (financial and non-financial) of the shortlisted options to identify three recommended options for consultation.

Shortlisting of options has been undertaken with an economic assessment (financial and non-financial) of these options to identify three recommended options for community feedback.

The options developed include:

Option 1: Improved status quo

Option 1 is the minimum change considered. It introduces an additional 240L bin for a four-weekly collection of greenwaste (a green lid bin). The glass (blue) bin would change to a more regular four-weekly collection, in a smaller 140L bin. This option will also allow a choice of a 240L or 140L rubbish (red) bin. If the smaller 140L rubbish bin is chosen it will have a discounted rate, of approximately $40 per annum. The 240L mixed recycling (yellow) bin would move to a consistent fortnightly collection.

The estimated annual cost for Option 1 is approximately $350 to $400.

Option 2: Weekly rubbish option

The estimated annual cost for Option 2 is approximately $400 to $450.

Option 3: Weekly organic collection

Option 3 introduces an 80L organics bin to collect both food and greenwaste every week. The rubbish bin will still be collected fortnightly but residents would be able to choose between a 240L or smaller 140L option. If they choose the smaller 140L rubbish bin they will pay a discounted rate of approximately $40pa for kerbside service. As in Options 1 and 2, the 140L glass (blue) bin would be collected every four weeks and the 240L mixed recycling (yellow) bin would be collected fortnightly.

The estimated annual cost for Option 3 is approximately $430 to $500.

Further information is available in the ‘Have Your Say on our Waste Services’ document in Appendix 1. The proposal is that the public will have the opportunity to provide feedback from the 25^th of August 2021 through to the 24^th of September 2021.

Feedback is also being sought on the use of Council’s other waste services. This includes transfer stations, recycling drop offs and re-use shops. The survey will be available online through SurveyMonkey. Paper copies will be able to be printed at libraries and service centres. The survey questions are available in Appendix 2.

Results from the community feedback will be provided to Council along with the proposed procurement plan in November.

4. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Approve the ‘Have Your Say on our Waste Services’ document for community feedback.

Advantages:

· The public have an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposals and current use of other Council waste services.

· Information on how people use current services will enable robust decision making.

Disadvantages:

· None

Option 2

Decline to approve the ‘Have Your Say on our Waste Services’ document and not seek community feedback.

Advantages:

· None.

Disadvantages:

· No opportunity for the public to provide input.

· Limited information available on how the public use Council services.

5. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision promotes the environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by ensuring options are available for waste to be disposed of in an appropriate manner.
Financial implications – Is this decision consistent with proposed activities and budgets in long term plan/annual plan?	The proposal is being accommodated within existing budgets.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	Yes
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	Yes The proposed options for feedback supports the actions of Council’s Sustainability Strategy and Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.
Risks Analysis	There are no significant risks to Council associated with the proposal.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	Community feedback will occur from 24 August 2021 to 25 September 2021.

6. Next Steps

· Preparation of the consultation documentation and planning for the consultation exercise.

(August 2021)

· Council approval of the shortlisted options for public consultation.

(August 2021)

· Carry out public consultation on the proposed service changes.

(August - September 2021)

· Completion of Business Case for Waste Services Review, incorporating consultation outcomes, Councillor feedback and the transfer station review outcomes.

(October 2021)

· Council decision on recommended future services.

(November 2021).

· Council approval of procurement plan.

(November 2021).

· Development on tender documents.

(November 2021 – January 2022).

· Tender out to market.

(January 2022 – March 2022).

· Recommended tenderer to Council.

(June 2022)

· Contact awarded.

(June 2022)

· Service commencement.

(July 2023)

7. Attachments

Appendix 1 - DRAFT Have Your Say on Our Waste Services.pdf

Appendix 2 - DRAFT Waste Services Feedback Questions.pdf

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Quinton Penniall	Julie Muir
Environmental Engineering Manager	Executive Manager - Infrastructure Services
4/08/2021	4/08/2021

Council meeting

3 November 2021

‘Have your say on our waste services’ survey analysis

October 2021

Introduction

The Central Otago District Council rubbish and recycling services contract comes to an end on 30 June 2023. The waste services team wanted the community’s feedback on three potential options for kerbside collection to help inform their decision about any changes that may be required to the service.

The team also took the opportunity to find out more about how the community use the transfer stations across the district and to gather some feedback about what the community think about waste services in general.

There were 870 responses received from the community. The following report summarises the feedback.

Location

Respondents were asked to provide their town/location. This was so that the feedback received could be categorised by location to provide more accurate information for each area of the district. It allows us to see if there are any specific trends within wards and/or towns.

The majority of responses came from the Vincent and Cromwell Wards with 32% of all responses from those living in Alexandra, and 24% from people living in Cromwell. There was a good response from the Maniototo with the majority of these respondents from Naseby and Ranfurly. There was a comparatively low response rate from those living in Teviot Valley, with only 34 respondents from Roxburgh.

Eighty-one percent of all respondents live in urban centres around the district, with 19% living rurally. Note: for the purposes of this analysis, those living rurally are defined by whether the area they live in has a rapid number associated with it.

Number of respondents by ward

Figure 1. No. of respondents - ward

Number of respondents from each town

Figure 2. No. of respondents - town

Current Services

The community was asked which of the current waste services they use.

Eighty-six percent of all respondents use the kerbside collection service, which corresponds with the number of respondents who live in urban centres. Sixty-five percent of respondents use a transfer station and 33% use the Alexandra re-use centre. Of note, 18% of those who use the Alexandra re-use centre live outside of the Vincent Ward.

Waste services used across the district

Figure 3. Current service usage across the district

Waste services used by town

Figure 4. Current service usage by location

Kerbside Collection

The ‘Have your say on our waste services’ document detailed three potential kerbside collection options for the community to consider. They were asked to select a preference and provide feedback on that preference if they chose to.

Kerbside collection - option preference

Figure 5. Option preference

Of the 791 respondents who provided an answer to this question, 44% preferred option 1 – improved status quo, 36% preferred option 2 – weekly rubbish collection. Twenty percent of respondents preferred option 3 – weekly organic collection.

The following information provides the key themes that came through in the comments.

Option 1 – Improved status quo

Green and organic waste (51 comments) – most of these comments were respondents expressing the fact that they liked the inclusion of a green waste bin with this option, ‘Adding Greenwaste removal is a fantastic idea’, ‘Strongly support the introduction of a green/food waste collection’. A few comments mentioned that the green waste bin should be collected more frequently than 4-weekly, ‘Would prefer 3 weekly or 2 weekly pickup for green waste’, ‘The only change I would propose is that the frequency of the green waste changes for the seasons’. Eight comments said they would like to be able to opt out of having a green waste bin, ‘Don't need a green waste bin! Should be an option to not get this!’, ‘would be nice to have the green waste bin as optional, not everyone would want or need it’.

Bin size (20 comments) – these comments mentioned that respondents like the small blue bin with many saying they would prefer a small red bin also, ‘Smaller rubbish & glass bin’, ‘Smaller red and blue bins, alongside green waste collection would suit our household perfectly’. Some respondents mentioned that they like the choice of red-bin size with this option.

Blue bin (17 comments) – there was a mix of comments with some people saying they would like the blue bin to be collected more frequently and some saying they don’t use it or that it doesn’t need to be collected 4-weekly, ‘Glass needs to be collected more often over Xmas it's currently a joke’, ‘But probably don't need glass picked up as often, once every couple of months would be heaps’.

Status quo (16 comments) – these respondents were happy with the current system. ‘For 2 of us current situation is more than adequate’, ‘No real need for change for us’.

Option 2 – Weekly rubbish collection

No kerbside collection (27 comments) – these respondents all said they did not currently have kerbside collection. The majority were from Queensberry and two mentioned they were just off the collection route. ‘We live in Queensberry and we have no options available here’, ‘We have no collection’.

Weekly rubbish (20 comments) – these respondents liked this option because of the weekly rubbish collection, the main reason given was to reduce the smell of rubbish particularly during summer months. ‘Rubbish weekly especially in summer would be good as the bins get very smelly with the heat if only emptied every 2nd week’, ‘Red bin needs to be picked up weekly’.

Green and organic waste (11 comments) – these comments mentioned that they liked the addition of the green waste bin.

Option 3 – Weekly organic collection

Green and organic waste (45 comments) – the majority of comments from respondents who chose option 3 mentioned they liked the addition of the weekly organic collection. Reasons included that they approved of green waste being taken out of landfill; suggestions to make compost to sell; collection of weekly organic material reduces smell especially in summer, ‘A compost service is well overdue and would reduce the amount of food being thrown into red bins.’ ‘I think including a food and green waste option will make the biggest impact on reducing waste.’ ‘Definitely compostable collection would reduce landfill waste.’

Urban

Figure 6. Kerbside collection option preference – urban

With the majority of all respondents from urban centres, the preference selection remains consistent with that of the total number of respondents. There is no obvious change in trend.

Rural

Figure 7. Kerbside collection option preference – rural

It’s important to note the smaller sample sizes of those living rurally. Of note, the majority of respondents from Naseby selected option 1 – improved status quo. In contrast, the majority of respondents from Queensberry and Tarras selected option 2 – weekly rubbish collection.

Transfer stations

The community was asked which transfer station they use most frequently.

Seventy-eight percent of all respondents (681) use one of the transfer stations in the district. The graph below shows the number of respondents that selected each transfer station.

Transfer station usage – district-wide

Figure 8. Transfer stations usage across the district

Forty-four percent use the Alexandra transfer station and 38% use the Cromwell transfer station.

Alexandra/Cromwell transfer stations

Respondents who selected Alexandra or Cromwell transfer stations were asked which days they typically use the transfer station and at what time of the day.

Days of the week

Figure 9. Alexandra/Cromwell transfer stations – days of the week

The trend is very similar from both Alexandra and Cromwell with the majority of respondents using the transfer station at the weekend.

Time of day

Figure 10. Alexandra/Cromwell transfer stations – time of day

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide a comment (109 comments were made). The main theme that came through in these comments was that they use the transfer station occasionally (73 mentions), ‘No particular time as it’s very occasional use’, ‘Only use it occasionally 2 or 3 times a year’, ‘Infrequently like once a year’.

Another strong theme to come through in these comments was ‘green waste’ (23 mentions). All of these comments said that they use the transfer station to dispose of green waste. ‘No particular day or time to drop off green waste only’, ‘To get rid of green waste’, ‘Only use occasionally to get rid of garden rubbish, maybe going only once per month’.

Ranfurly/Roxburgh transfer stations

Respondents who selected Ranfurly or Roxburgh transfer stations were asked which days they typically use the transfer station.

Figure 11. Ranfurly/Roxburgh transfer stations – days of the week

All respondents were asked what they use for the transfer station for, residential or commercial waste or both, as well as what services at the transfer station they use most. The following four graphs show this information for across the district and by transfer station.

Residential vs commercial waste district-wide

Figure 12. Residential vs commercial waste – district-wide

Residential vs commercial waste by town

Figure 13. Residential vs commercial waste – by town

Services used at transfer stations – district-wide

Figure 14. Services most used at transfer stations – district-wide

Services used at transfer stations – by town

Figure 15. Services most used at transfer stations – by town

Cromwell re-use shop

The community were asked to indicate whether or not they would use a re-use shop at the Cromwell transfer station. Seven-hundred and forty respondents answered this question.

Figure 16. Cromwell re-use shop – district-wide

Forty-six percent of those who responded to this question said they would use a re-use shop in Cromwell at least one per year. It is worth noting that of those respondents who selected ‘No, I wouldn’t use a re-use shop in Cromwell’, 157 are based in Alexandra and already have access to this service in their town.

General feedback

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide any further feedback about the transfer stations and about waste services in general. The key themes are detailed below.

Transfer stations (209 comments)

There were 37 comments received about the Cromwell transfer station. Twelve of these were negative comments regarding staff with references to staff being rude, unhelpful and not very friendly. ‘Some staff need to be friendlier’, ‘The staff are super grumpy and unhelpful!’, ‘To be honest I would rather all my waste and green waste go in the wheelie bin as I am so intimidated by the staff in Cromwell’. Some mentioned that they would like to see a re-use centre available at the Cromwell transfer station. Three comments referred to the layout at Cromwell saying the area to dispose of waste is too small.

Thirty-two comments referred to green waste including, composting green waste and selling it; that respondents use the transfer station mostly for green waste disposal; that free green waste drop off is good and should remain; and to keep the Ranfurly green waste disposal option.

There were a number of comments asking for the Ranfurly transfer station not to be closed and to keep the operating hours as they are now or to extend them particularly in summer. Respondents do not want to see the operating hours of transfer stations reduced throughout the district.

Twenty-two comments mentioned recycling; ability to drop off soft plastics; more separation of recyclables is needed at transfer stations; holes for glass bottle recycling aren’t big enough; there’s a need for options to dispose of e-waste.

Twenty-one comments referred to cost; transfer stations are too expensive; all green waste services should be free; particular mention of the cost to dispose of rubbish in Ranfurly.

Waste services (318 comments)

Eighty-nine comments mentioned the kerbside collection service, most of these comments were in regard to the kerbside schedule and how often the bins should be collected. These included weekly rubbish collection during summer in particular, red and yellow bins both collected weekly, empty all bins more frequently. Many comments were requesting collection service for areas not in the current schedule i.e. Tarras, Queensberry (22 comments), Patearoa.

Eighty-three comments mentioned green waste. The majority of these comments simply said they felt the addition of green waste collection would be great; suggestions to compost green waste; some questions around how green waste would be disposed of; a couple of respondents said they would want to opt out of having a green waste kerbside collection bin.

Fifty comments referred to waste minimisation. Targeted initiatives to reduce waste needed; more education around what can and cannot be recycled; need to be able to recycle more materials i.e. meat trays and fruit punnets; concerns raised around what will happen to the large 240lt bins if people choose the smaller bins i.e. will they be re-used; rubber ties needed for bins so lids don’t blow open; options to dispose of e-waste.

Blue bin was mentioned 39 times with the key themes being that the blue bin needs to be collected more frequently and on the other hand some felt they didn’t need a blue bin at all. ‘The blue bin needs to be collected more often’, ‘Would like glass bin picked up more frequently’, ‘Most people barely use their blue bins... most people would use them once or twice a year and never full’, ‘Green bin is essential as far as I am concerned; the blue bin could go!’.

3 November 2021

Logo, company name

Description automatically generated

21.8.10 CouncilMARK programme

Doc ID: 556643

1. Purpose of Report

To provide an outline of the CouncilMARK programme run by Local Government New Zealand and provide advice on this Council’s participation in the programme.

Recommendations

That the Council

A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance.

B. Notes that the CouncilMARK programme is a programme designed to review organisational performance.

C. Notes that participation in the programme is very resource intensive and the organisation is currently juggling multiple work programme commitments.

D. Agrees to not participate in this programme at this point of time.

2. Background

There has been recent interest from the community that the Council undergo an independent review and participate in the CouncilMARK programme. This paper outlines the CouncilMARK programme and the benefits and costs of being involved in the programme.

The CouncilMARK programme is designed to improve the knowledge of the work a council does and supports the council to further improve the service and value they provide. The programme incorporates an independent assessment system, and the council receives an overall rating and commentary on their performance as part of the process. The programme has four priority areas:

· Governance, leadership and strategy

· Financial decision making and transparency

· Service delivery and asset management

· Communicating and engaging with the public and business

As part of the review, council is required to submit a significant portfolio of information, including things such as:

· The 2021-31 Long-term Plan

· Business satisfaction surveys

· Annual resident survey

· All key guiding strategies and policies (eg Sustainability Strategy, Economic Development Strategy)

· Most recent annual plan

· Two business cases

· Two management reports to Council

· Audit reports

· Chief Executive’s performance agreement

· A community engagement plan

· Risk register

· Financial reports

As part of the process the assessors complete a site visit and will meet with the Mayor, elected members, the Chief Executive, a broad selection of staff and external stakeholders (eg iwi, Waka Kotahi, regional council, community and business groups). Council also has to supply comprehensive information under each of the four priority areas in addition to providing the documentation above. See Performance Assessment Framework attached for an overview of the detailed information that is required in the process.

3. Discussion

There are several potential benefits from participating in this process, such as understanding the key areas for organisational improvement and developing actions to improve in these areas. It also facilitates transparency of council operations to members of the public and enables comparisons with other councils who have recently participated in the programme (for the South Island this is: Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, Mackenzie District Council, Environment Canterbury, Queenstown Lakes District Council, Waitaki District Council and Dunedin City Council).

Alongside these benefits, there are costs to being involved in the programme. The most significant one of these is elected member and staff time required. As outlined above and contained in the attachment, a significant portfolio of information is required to be collected as part of the process. While one staff member could be appointed to co-ordinate the collation, information is required from all parts of the business. While some of this already exists and is easily located (eg 2021-31 Long-term Plan) other information will need to be drawn from various sources and a document/response provided (refer to the list of questions for each priority area in the attachment). This will take hundreds of hours of staff time from across the business, and in discussions with councils that have been through the process this time commitment cannot be underestimated.

Council is currently juggling multiple competing priorities, the most significant of these are the three waters reform, the resource management reform and the future for local government review. Council’s participation in these reforms is already tightly balanced against delivering on the business as usual and the project commitments made to the community in the 2021-31 Long-term Plan. Council cannot absorb participation in the CouncilMARK programme in the current staffing levels, and if Council were to progress in the current environment a discussion about what projects get deferred or dropped more additional resourcing is required. Staff stress and retention in a competitive market is also a factor for consideration. Some areas of the business already have resourcing challenges, and having just come out of high workloads with the long-term plan into reform participation the timing of involvement in a programme such as CouncilMARK needs to be carefully considered.

For elected members, the programme also comes with time commitments with interviews and consideration of the report’s findings and actions to be taken added to the current council work programme. As elected members are all aware 2022 is an election year which increases the workload of elected members, and participation in the CouncilMARK programme will add additional pressure.

Council staff are committed to ensuring organisational excellence, and already undertake a range of measures to understand and monitor performance (eg the regulatory services audits and the Ministry for the Environment monitoring and compliance reporting). As a part of business as usual commitments staff have embedded business planning into their work programmes and regular reporting against the performance measures contained within the Long-term Plan will be reinstated. Both of these actions will ensure greater transparency of council activity.

4. Financial Considerations

If Council chooses to participate in the programme, there will be both the actual cost to the organisation to register in the programme and the resourcing costs (estimated in the hundreds of hours, with one council recently estimating it took nearly 1000 hours of staff time and elected member time). The direct financial cost in participate in the programme is a one-off payment of $26,000 plus GST and disbursements. There is no budget assigned for this cost in the 2021-31 Long-term Plan.

5. Options

Option 1 – (Recommended)

Agrees to not participate in the CouncilMARK programme at this current time.

Advantages:

· Ensures council can continue to deliver on the 2021-31 Long-term Plan commitments to community and ensure that Central Otago’s voice is heard in the significant local government reforms underway.

Disadvantages:

· Does not meet the expectations from some members of the community for Council to participate in the programme.

· Does not enable a CouncilMARK organisational review to be undertaken.

Option 2

Agrees to participate in the CouncilMARK programme and agrees to discuss reprioritisation of work programme commitments or increasing staffing levels in a future Council meeting.

Advantages:

· Will deliver on some members of the community’s view that Council should participate in the CouncilMARK programme.

· Will enable a CouncilMARK organisational review to be undertaken.

Disadvantages:

· May require some significant projects to be deferred or stopped.

· May not deliver on the commitments made to the community as part of the Long-term Plan 2021-31.

· Risk that council does not participate in the local government reforms as well as it could.

· May lead to employee job dissatisfaction and loss of staff in a competitive job market.

· Will add pressure to elected members time during an election year.

· CouncilMARK’s value versus the costs to the organisation has not yet been fully assessed.

· Unbudgeted expenditure.

Option 3

Agrees to participate in the CouncilMARK programme within current staffing levels and deliver on all current commitments

Advantages:

· May enable an organisational review to be undertaken.

Disadvantages:

· Unsustainable workloads will lead to loss in staff morale.

· Significant risk of losing staff in a competitive market, which could result in council not delivering well across the business and loss of reputation in the community.

· Significant risk that material provided to CouncilMARK is incomplete leading to little value in being involved in the programme.

· Significant risk that business as usual and long-term project commitments are not done well or deferred.

· CouncilMARK’s value versus the costs to the organisation has not yet been fully assessed.

· Unbudgeted expenditure.

6. Compliance

Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions	This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by considering a request for Council to conduct an organisation review by participating in the CouncilMARK programme.
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc.	The recommended option is consistent with relevant plans and policies, particularly the commitments made under the 2021-31 Long-term Plan.
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts	There are no direct considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts.
Risks Analysis	There is a risk for the recommended option that it may be viewed by some members of the community as an unwillingness to partake in a review.
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external)	The recommended option does not meet the threshold of the Significance and Engagement Policy. If Council decides to progress with CouncilMARK and reprioritise or stop some projects, consultation with the community might be required dependant on what those projects are.

7. Next Steps

None required.

8. Attachments

Appendix 1 - CouncilMARK Performance Assessment Framework.pdf ⇩

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Saskia Righarts	Louise van der Voort
Chief Advisor	Acting Chief Executive Officer
22/10/2021	26/10/2021

Council meeting

3 November 2021

Meeting Schedule 2022

Month	Day	Date	Time	Meeting
January	Wednesday	26	10.30am	Council

February	Tuesday	1	2.00pm	Vincent Community Board
	Thursday	3	2.00pm	Teviot Valley Community Board
	Tuesday	8	9.30am	Hearings Panel
	Tuesday	15	2.00pm	Cromwell Community Board
	Thursday	17	2.00pm	Maniototo Community Board
	Friday	25	9.30am	Audit and Risk Committee

March	Tuesday	8	9.30am	Hearings Panel
	Wednesday	9	10.30am	Council
	Tuesday	22	10.00am	Creative Communities Assessment Committee
	Tuesday	22	2.00pm	Vincent Community Board
	Thursday	24	2.00pm	Teviot Valley Community Board
	Tuesday	29	2.00pm	Cromwell Community Board
	Thursday	31	2.00pm	Maniototo Community Board

April	Tuesday	12	9.30am	Hearings Panel
	Wednesday	20	10.30am	Council

May	Tuesday	3	2.00pm	Vincent Community Board
	Thursday	5	2.00pm	Teviot Valley Community Board
	Monday	9	2.00pm	Cromwell Community Board
	Tuesday	10	9.30am	Hearings Panel
	Thursday	12	2.00pm	Maniototo Community Board
	Thursday (if required)	19	2.00pm	Cromwell Community Board (hearings and deliberations if required)
	Friday (if required)	20	2.00pm	Vincent Community Board (hearings and deliberations if required)
	Monday (if required)	23	2.00pm	Maniototo Community Board (hearings and deliberations if required)
	Tuesday (if required)	24	2.00pm	Teviot Valley Community Board (hearings and deliberations if required)

June	Monday	1	10.30am	Council (hearings and deliberations if required)
	Friday	3	9.30am	Audit and Risk Committee
	Monday	13	2.00pm	Vincent Community Board
	Tuesday	14	9.30am	Hearings Panel
	Thursday	16	2.00pm	Teviot Valley Community Board
	Tuesday	21	2.00pm	Cromwell Community Board
	Thursday	23	2.00pm	Maniototo Community Board
	Wednesday	29	10.30am	Council (to adopt LTP and set rates if not 1 June)

July	Tuesday	12	9.30am	Hearings Panel
	Wednesday	13	10.30am	Council
	Tuesday	26	2.00pm	Vincent Community Board
	Thursday	28	2.00pm	Teviot Valley Community Board

August	Tuesday	2	2.00pm	Cromwell Community Board
	Thursday	4	2.00pm	Maniototo Community Board
	Tuesday	9	9.30am	Hearings Panel
	Wednesday	24	10.30am	Council

September	Tuesday	6	2.00pm	Vincent Community Board
	Thursday	8	2.00pm	Teviot Valley Community Boad
	Monday	12	2.00pm	Cromwell Community Board
	Tuesday	13	9.30am	Hearings Panel
	Thursday	15	2.00pm	Maniototo Community Board
	Tuesday	20	10.00am	Creative Communities Assessment Committee
	Wednesday	28	10.30am	Council
	Friday	30	9.30am	Audit and Risk

October	Saturday	8		ELECTION DAY
	Tuesday	11	9.30am	Hearings Panel
	Wednesday	19	9.00am	Induction Day
	Wednesday	26	2.00pm	Inaugural Council Meeting
	Monday	31	2.00pm	Inaugural Vincent Community Board

November	Tuesday	1	2.00pm	Inaugural Cromwell Community Board
	Wednesday	2	2.00pm	Inaugural Teviot Valley Community Board
	Thursday	3	2.00pm	Inaugural Maniototo Community Board
	Tuesday	8	9.30am	Hearings Panel
	Wednesday	9	10.30am	Council
	Wednesday	16	9.00am	Council Workshop
	Tuesday	22	2.00pm	Vincent Community Board
	Tuesday	22	10.00am	Sport NZ Assessment Committee
	Thursday	24	2.00pm	Teviot Valley Community Board
	Tuesday	29	2.00pm	Cromwell Community Board

December	Thursday	1	2.00pm	Maniototo Community Board
	Friday	2	9.30am	Audit and Risk Committee
	Tuesday	13	9.30am	Hearings Panel
	Wednesday	14	10.30am	Council

Holiday Dates 2022
New Year’s Day Observance	Monday	3 January
Day After New Year’s Holiday Observance	Tuesday	4 January
Waitangi Day Observance	Monday	7 February
Otago Anniversary Day	Monday	21 March
Good Friday	Friday	15 April
Easter Monday	Monday	18 April
ANZAC Day	Monday	25 April
Queen’s Birthday	Monday	6 June
Matariki	Friday	24 June
Labour Day	Monday	24 October
Christmas Day Observance	Monday	26 December
Boxing Day Observance	Tuesday	27 December

Executive Committees are on an as required basis.


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Wednesday, 3 November 2021
Date:	Wednesday, 3 November 2021
Time:	10.30 am
Location:	Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra Due to COVID-19 restrictions and limitations of the physical space, public access will be available through the livestream and Microsoft Teams. The link to the livestream will be available on the Central Otago District Council’s website
Louise van der Voort Acting Chief Executive Officer

Name	Member’s Declared Interests	Spouse/Partner’s Declared Interests	Council Appointments
Tamah Alley	Manuherikia Irrigation Co-operative (shareholder) Cromwell Youth Trust (Trustee) Blue Light Central Lakes (Chair) NZ Police (Sworn Constable) Oamaru Landing Service (OLS) (family connection) Cliff Care Ltd (family connection)	Manuherikia Irrigation Co-operative Society Ltd (shareholder) Emergency Management Otago Group Controller (employee)
Tim Cadogan	Alexandra Musical Society (member) Otago Chamber of Commerce Central Otago Advisory Group member Dunstan Golf Club (member) Alexandra Squash Club (member)	Two Paddocks (employee) Blossom Festival Committee member FarmFresh (Family member sells for this entity)	Airport Reference Group Maniototo Curling International Inc Eden Hore Steering Group Tourism Central Otago Advisory Board Ministerial Working Group on Responsible Camping LGNZ Governance and Strategy Group
Shirley Calvert	Central Otago Health Services Ltd (Employee) Cromwell Rotary (member) Cromwell and District Community Trust Old Cromwell Town (subscription member)		Central Otago Wilding Conifer Group
Lynley Claridge	Affinity Funerals (Director) Central Otago Chamber of Commerce (Advisory Panel)	Affinity Funerals (Shareholder)	Alexandra Council for Social Services
Ian Cooney	Castlewood Nursing Home (Employee)		Omakau Recreation Reserve Committee Promote Alexandra
Stuart Duncan	Penvose Farms - Wedderburn Cottages and Farm at Wedderburn (shareholder) Penvose Investments - Dairy Farm at Patearoa (shareholder) Fire and Emergency New Zealand (member) JD Pat Ltd (Shareholder and Director)	Penvose Farms - Wedderburn Cottages and Farm at Wedderburn (shareholder) Penvose Investments - Dairy Farm at Patearoa (shareholder)	Otago Regional Transport Committee Patearoa Recreation Reserve Committee Design and Location of the Sun for the Interplanetary Cycle Trail Working Group
Neil Gillespie	Contact Energy (Specialist - Community Relations and Environment) Clyde & Districts Emergency Rescue Trust (Secretary and Trustee) Cromwell Volunteer Fire Brigade (Deputy Chief Fire Officer) Cromwell Bowling Club (patron) Otago Local Advisory Committee - Fire Emergency New Zealand Returned Services Association (Member)		Lowburn Hall Committee Tarras Community Plan Group Tarras Hall Committee
Stephen Jeffery	G & S Smith family Trust (Trustee) K & EM Bennett’s family Trust (Trustee) Roxburgh Gorge Trail Charitable Trust (Chair) Roxburgh and District Medical Services Trust (Trustee) Central Otago Clutha Trails Ltd (Director) Teviot Prospects (Trustee) Teviot Valley Community Development Scheme Governance Group Central Otago Queenstown Network Trust
Cheryl Laws	The Message (Director) Wishart Family Trust (Trustee) Wooing Tree (Assistant Manager - Cellar Door) Daffodil Day Cromwell Coordinator	Otago Regional Council (Deputy Chair) The Message (Director)	Cromwell Resource Centre Cromwell Historical Precinct
Nigel McKinlay	Transition To Work Trust (Board member) Gate 22 Vineyard Ltd (Director) Everyday Gourmet (Director) Central Otago Wine Association (member) Long Gully Irrigation Scheme (member)
Martin McPherson	Alexandra Blossom Festival	CODC (employee) CODC (employee) (Daughter)
Tracy Paterson	Matakanui Station (Director and shareholder) Matakanui Development Co (Director and shareholder) A and T Paterson Family Trust (trustee) A Paterson Family Trust (trustee) Central Otago Health Inc (Chair) Bob Turnbull Trust (Trustee / Chair) John McGlashan Board of Trustees (member) New Zealand Wool Classers Association (board member) Central Otago A&P Association (member)	Matakanui Station (director and shareholder) Matakanui Development Co (director and shareholder) A Paterson Family Trust (trustee) A and T Paterson Family Trust (trustee) Federated Farmers (on the executive team) Omakau Irrigation Co (director) Matakanui Combined Rugby Football Club (President) Manuherikia Catchment Group (member) Omakau Domain Board	Central Otago Health Inc Manuherikia River Group

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

David Campbell	Garreth Robinson
Planning Manager	Acting Executive Manager - Planning and Environment
12/10/2021	26/10/2021

Report author:	Reviewed and authorised by:

Rebecca Williams	Louise van der Voort
Governance Manager	Acting Chief Executive Officer
11/10/2021	15/10/2021