|
|
|
|
AGENDA
Ordinary Council Meeting Tuesday, 24 September 2024
|
|
|
Date: |
Tuesday, 24 September 2024 |
|
Time: |
6.00 pm |
|
Location: |
Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building, 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra
(A link to the live stream will be available on the Central Otago District Council's website.)
|
|
Peter Kelly Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
24 September 2024 |
Notice is hereby given that a Council Meeting will be held in Ngā Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building, 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra and live streamed via Microsoft Teams on Tuesday, 24 September 2024 at 6.00 pm. The link to the live stream will be available on the Central Otago District Council’s website.
Order Of Business
3 Submitters that Wish to be Heard
24.11.1 Submitters that wish to be Heard.
Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 August 2024
24.11.2 Declarations of Interest Register
7 Community Board Chair Update
24.11.3 Community Board Chair Update
24.11.4 Road Stopping - Swindon Street, Ophir
24.11.5 One District: Central Otago Consultation results
24.11.7 Psychoactive Substances Policy Renewal
24.11.8 Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw
24.11.9 Private Plan Change 21 (Fulton Hogan - Parkburn) Decision Ratificaiton
24.11.10 Plan Change 20 (Heritage) Hearings Panel Decision Ratification
24.11.11 Destination Management Update
24.11.12 Visitor Levy and Short Term accommodation
24.11.14 Procurement Panels: Professional Services
24.11.15 Status Reports for Cromwell Rising Main and Cromwell Drinking Water Upgrade
24.11.16 September Wastewater Compliance Status Update
24.11.17 Status Update for Clyde Street and Water Upgrade
24.11.18 September 2024 Governance Report
24.11.19 Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 9 September 2024
24.11.20 Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 12 September 2024
12 Resolution to Exclude the Public
24.11.22 Improving Digital Connectivity in Central Otago.
24.11.23 September 2024 Confidential Governance Report
24.11.24 Confidential Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 9 September 2024
Members His Worship the Mayor T Cadogan (Chairperson), Cr N Gillespie, Cr T Alley, Cr S Browne, Cr L Claridge, Cr I Cooney, Cr S Duncan, Cr S Feinerman, Cr C Laws, Cr N McKinlay, Cr M McPherson, Cr T Paterson
In Attendence P Kelly (Chief Executive Officer), L Fleck (General Manager - People and Culture), J Muir (Three Waters Director), S Righarts (Group Manager - Business Support), D Rushbrook (Group Manager - Community Vision), D Scoones (Group Manager - Community Experience), L van der Voort (Group Manager - Planning and Infrastructure), W McEnteer (Governance Manager)
1 Karakia
Cr Alley will begin the meeting with a karakia.
2 Apologies
3 Submitters that Wish to be Heard
24.11.1 Submitters that wish to be Heard.
Doc ID: 1902519
1. Purpose
Individual submitters will speak to their districtisation submission.
Nil
4 Public Forum
Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 August 2024
|
24 September 2024 |
MINUTES
OF A Council Meeting
OF THE Central Otago District
Council
HELD AT Ngā Hau e
Whā, William Fraser Building, 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra
AND LIVE STREAMED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS ON Wednesday, 28 August 2024 COMMENCING AT
10.30 am
PRESENT: His Worship the Mayor T Cadogan (Chairperson), Cr T Alley, Cr S Browne, Cr L Claridge, Cr S Duncan, Cr S Feinerman, Cr C Laws, Cr N McKinlay, Cr T Paterson
IN ATTENDANCE: P Kelly (Chief Executive Officer), L Fleck (General Manager - People and Culture), J Muir (Three Waters Director), S Righarts (Group Manager - Business Support), D Rushbrook (Group Manager - Community Vision), D Scoones (Group Manager - Community Experience), L van der Voort (Group Manager - Planning and Infrastructure), Q Penniall (Infrastructure Manager), L Hunter (Solid Waste Team Leader), R Williams (Community Development Advisor), G Robinson (Property and Facilities Manager), P Fleet (Roading Manager), L Stronach (Team Leader – Statutory Property), R Parker (Team Leader – Enforcement & Animal Control), W McEnteer (Governance Manager)
1 Karakia
His Worship the Mayor gave a karakia to begin the meeting.
2 Apologies
|
Apology |
|
Resolution Moved: Claridge Seconded: Paterson That the apologies received from Crs Cooney, Gillespie and McPherson be accepted. Carried |
3 Public Forum
Clare Hadley and Harriet Jopp – Manuherekia Catchment Group
Ms Hadley spoke on behalf of the Manuherikia Catchment Group. She presented statistics concerning various minimum flow rates of the Manuherekia River and the possible costs in production, rates and land values. She then responded to questions.
Denise Graham – Victim Support (grant applicant)
Ms Graham spoke in support of the grant application for Victim Support before responding to questions.
David Ritchie – Central Otago Heritage Trust (grant applicant)
Mr Ritchie spoke in support of the grant application for Central Otago Heritage Trust before responding to questions.
Fiona Reeve - huddl (grant applicant)
Ms Reeve spoke in support of the grant application from huddl before responding to questions.
Rebekah de Jong, Jan Bean and Brian Budd – Central Otago Arts (grant applicant)
Ms Bean spoke in support of the grant application from Central Otago Arts before responding to questions.
Sarah Fredric – Life Education Trust (grant applicant)
Ms Fredric spoke in support of the grant application for Life Education Trust before responding to questions.
4 Confirmation of Minutes
|
Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Browne That the public minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 31 July 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record. Carried |
5 Declarations of Interest
Members were reminded of their obligations in respect of declaring any interests. Ct Paterson declared an interest in item 24.10.3. She did not take part in the discussion or vote on the item.
6 Community Board Chair Update
|
24.10.2 Community Board Chair Update |
|
Tamah Alley, Chair of the Vincent Community Board discussed matters of interest to the Board. She showed a short video segment before giving an update on recent events in the Vincent Ward. |
7 Reports
Note: Cr Alley assumed the Chair as the Community Vision and Experience portfolio lead.
Note: Ct Paterson declared an interest in item 24.10.3. She did not take part in the discussion or vote on the item.
|
24.10.3 2024/25 District Wide Grant Applications - 1st Round |
|
To consider the first round of the district wide grant applications for the 2024/25 financial year. After discussion it was noted that the funding for the 2024/25 financial year was exhausted so there would be no second round for district wide grants. |
|
Resolution Moved: Cadogan Seconded: Claridge A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Declines the application for $10,000 to NZ Council of Victim Support Groups Inc. towards operating expenses due to demand on funds available. C. Allocates $46,440 to Sport Otago towards operating costs for Sport Central from the 2024/2025 district community grants budget. D. Allocates $44,000 to the Central Otago Heritage Trust towards operational costs from the 2024/25 community grants budget. E. Allocates $4,000 to the Life Education Trust delivery costs from the 2024/25 district community grants budget. F. Allocates $44,000 to the Central Otago District Arts Trust towards operational costs from the 2024/25 community grants budget. G. Declines the application for $4,000 to the Plunket Society towards Central Otago community services due to demand on the funds available. H. Allocates $5,000 to Volunteer South towards the costs for huddle from the 2024/25 district community grants budget. I. Allocates $7,560 to Central Otago Health Inc towards administrative costs from the 2024/25 district community grants budget. J. Notes there will be no second round of district wide community grant applications for the 2024/25 financial year. Carried |
Note: Cr McKinlay assumed the Chair as the Three Waters and Waste portfolio lead.
|
24.10.4 Review of Fees and Charges for Hazardous Waste Disposal |
|
To consider the proposed changes to the fees and charges schedule for hazardous waste disposal. |
|
Resolution Moved: Duncan Seconded: Paterson That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Approves the proposed changes to the fees and charges scheduled for hazardous waste disposal, including the introduction of a minimum charge for items less than 1 kg. Carried |
Note: His Worship the Mayor resumed the Chair.
|
24.10.5 Dog Control Policy and Practices Report 2023-2024 |
|
To consider the dog control policy and practices undertaken in the 2023/2024 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 Duncan assumed the Chair as the Community Vision and Experience portfolio lead.
|
24.10.6 Additional Mobility Parking - Tarbert Street - Alexandra |
|
To consider the installation of a new mobility park outside the WINZ building 57 Tarbert Street, Alexandra. |
|
Resolution Moved: Paterson Seconded: Alley That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Approves the installation of a restricted parking area for a new mobility park outside 57 Tarbert St, Alexandra. Carried |
|
24.10.7 Road Stopping and Legalisation adjacent 1190 Teviot Road |
|
To consider a proposal to legalise the formed road, and to stop part of the unformed legal road, adjacent to 1190 Teviot Road. |
|
Resolution Moved: Feinerman Seconded: Alley That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Agrees to legalise the road as formed between rapids 1190 and 1205 Teviot Road, and to stop two parcels of unformed legal road, as shown in figure 5 (the Legalisation Plan), in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981, subject to: - The parcel marked ‘A’ being stopped and amalgamated with Record of Title OT12A/127. - The parcels marked ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ being taken, then vested in Council as legal road. - The parcel marked ‘E’ being stopped and amalgamated with Record of Title 170533. - The owner of 1190 Teviot Road paying $15,000 plus GST (if any) as the net value of the stopping and legalisation of the western side of Teviot Road. - The owner of 1205 Teviot Road paying $1,985 plus GST (if any) as the net value of the stopping and legalisation of the eastern side of Teviot Road. - The owner of 1190 Teviot Road pays all costs associated with the registration of all easements. - The stopping and legalisation being approved by the Minister of Lands. - The final survey plan being approved by the Chief Executive. - The valuer’s fees being waived. - Each party paying their own legal fees. - Council paying a one third share of all remaining costs. - The owners of 1190 and 1205 Teviot Road paying the other two thirds share of all remaining costs (in a 70/30 split as agreed between themselves). C. Authorises the Chief Executive to do all that is necessary to give effect to the resolution. Carried |
Note: His Worship the Mayor resumed the Chair.
Note: Cr Alley left the meeting at 12.08 pm.
|
24.10.8 Capex Report on Cromwell Memorial Hall |
|
To provide capex updates on the Cromwell Memorial Hall Project. |
|
Resolution Moved: Cadogan Seconded: Laws That the report be received. Carried |
Note: Cr Alley returned to the meeting at 12.12 pm.
|
24.10.9 2024/25 Organisational Business Plan |
|
To receive the 2024/25 Organisational Business Plan. |
|
Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Browne That the report be received. Carried |
8 Mayor’s Report
|
24.10.10 Mayor's Report His Worship the Mayor spoke to his report and also discussed the LGNZ conference. In particular he noted the comments from the Prime Minister and also Minister Brown regarding the core business of local government and expectations that they have for the sector. |
|
Resolution Moved: Cadogan Seconded: Alley That the Council receives the report. Carried |
9 Status Reports
|
24.10.11 August 2024 Governance Report |
|
To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations, consider Council’s forward work programme, business plan and status report updates. |
|
Resolution Moved: Cadogan Seconded: Paterson That the report be received. Carried |
10 Community Board Minutes
|
24.10.12 Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 30 July 2024 |
|
Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Duncan That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 30 July 2024 be noted. Carried |
|
24.10.13 Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 1 August 2024 |
|
Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Duncan That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 1 August 2024 be noted. Carried |
|
24.10.14 Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 6 August 2024 |
|
Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Duncan That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 6 August 2024 be noted. Carried |
|
24.10.15 Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 8 August 2024 |
|
Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Duncan That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Maniototo Community Board Meeting held on 8 August 2024 be noted. Carried |
|
24.10.16 Minutes of the Extraordinary Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 13 August 2024 |
|
Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Duncan That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Extraordinary Cromwell Community Board Meeting held on 13 August 2024 be noted. Carried |
11 Date of Next Meeting
The date of the next scheduled meeting is 25 September 2024.
12 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:
Carried |
The public were excluded at 12.28 pm and the meeting closed at 12.45 pm.
|
|
6 Declarations of Interest
24.11.2 Declarations of Interest Register
Doc ID: 1903325
|
Report Author: |
Wayne McEnteer, Governance Manager |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Saskia Righarts, Group Manager - Business Support |
1. Purpose
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
Appendix 1 - Council Declarations of Interest ⇩
|
|
7 Community Board Chair Update
24.11.3 Community Board Chair Update
Doc ID: 1897769
1. Purpose
Anna Harrison, Chair of the Cromwell Community Board will join the meeting to discuss matters of interest to the Board.
Nil
|
|
8 Reports
24.11.4 Road Stopping - Swindon Street, Ophir
Doc ID: 1909570
|
Report Author: |
Garreth Robinson, Property and Facilities Manager |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Louise van der Voort, Group Manager - Planning and Infrastructure |
1. Purpose of Report
To consider a proposal to stop and sell part of Swindon Street.
|
That Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Agrees to stop approximately 650.5m2 of unformed legal road fronting Swindon Street, and 317 square metres of the unnamed unformed legal road, as shown in figure 5 (the Proposed Stopping Plan), in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981, subject to: - The land (stopped road) being sold at valuation as prescribed in the Public Works Act. - The parcels marked ‘A’ and ‘B’ being stopped and amalgamated with Record of Title OT366/26. - The parcels marked ‘C’ and ‘D’ being stopped and amalgamated with Record of Title OT188/110. - Easements (in gross) in favour of, and as approved to the satisfaction of, Aurora Energy Limited, being registered on the resulting titles if required. - The owner of Record of Title OT366/26 paying all costs associated with the preparation and registration of any easements required by Aurora Energy Limited. - The two applicants paying all other costs, including Council’s legal fees, in equal shares. - The stopping and legalisation being approved by the Minister of Lands. - The final survey plan being approved by the Chief Executive.
C. Authorises the Chief Executive to do all that is necessary to give effect to the resolution. |
2. Background
At their meeting of 9 September 2024, the Vincent Community Board (the Board) considered a proposal to stop approximately 650.5m2 of unformed legal road fronting Swindon Street and 317m2 of the unnamed unformed legal road. The board agreed with the recommendation in the report.
Clause 13 of the request references that the normal practice is for applicants to pay market valuation for the land. The applicant has requested that this be waived in this instance because of a number of reasons raised in the request. These are addressed as follows:
Landowners have responsibility for determining the location of the property boundaries. The boundaries shown on the record of title are absolute, and the landowner has the responsibility of understanding where the boundaries are located on the ground.
The position of the boundaries should be understood before purchasing the property or before undertaking any building project. This can be achieved by locating survey pegs or having a surveyor define the boundaries.
Council does not require a full survey at the time of application of building consent and the buildings and water connections must be located in the position shown on the site plan submitted with the consent. This requires the landowner to understand where the boundaries are on the ground. The building consent is issued on this basis.
There are a number of situations where the property is located across boundaries. Unless a formal agreement has been entered into (for example a licence to occupy), there is no agreement to occupy the council or road.
The fact that time has passed does not constitute approval to occupy Council land or road reserve.
Locating buildings outside of a flood hazard does not constitute approval to occupy Council land or road reserve, unless a formal agreement has been entered into. The letter of request is attached as appendix 1.
The Roads
Swindon Street adjoins the western side of the Ida – Valley Omakau Road about 1.7 kilometres south of Omakau. From there, the road, which is well formed, runs westward through the township of Ophir to its end at the start of the Ophir Bridge Road. An overview of Swindon Street, which is about 800 metres long and 30 metres wide, as shown below in figure 1.
Figure 1 – Overview of Swindon Street
An unnamed unformed legal road (the road) adjoins the northern side of the intersection of Swindon Street and Ophir Bridge Road. The road runs eastward, parallel to Swindon Street, to its end at the start of MacDonald Street. The road is not formed for roading purposes but there is a track formed on part of the road and this is well used by local residents. An overview of the road, which is about 290 metres long and 20 metres wide, is shown below in figure 2.
Figure 2 – Overview of the Unnamed Unformed Legal Road (the ULR)
Private Encroachment
Section 3 Block VI Town of Ophir (Section 3) is located at the western end of the Ophir township adjacent to the intersection of Swindon Street and the unnamed legal road. The improvements on Section 3, which is a triangular property, include a dwelling that was relocated to the site in 1989, a freestanding garage, a small shed, fencing, lawns, and a selection of gardens.
Section 2 Block VI Town of Ophir (Section 2) is located immediately to the east of Section 3. Section 2 is a rectangular property. The improvements on Section 2 include a dwelling with an attached garage, two sheds, lawns, and a selection of gardens. An overview of Sections 2 and 3, as have been represented spatially in GIS, are shown below in figure 3.
Figure 3 – Overview of Sections 2 and 3 Block VI Town of Ophir
In 2023, the owners of Sections 2 and 3 noticed that the fence on the mutual boundary did not appear to align with the legal boundary. After some investigation, it was determined that the owners of Section 2 had encroached the mutual boundary and were occupying a slither of Section 3. A cross check to GIS also showed that the eastern boundary of Section 2 was further to the east than represented in GIS. A plan of the encroachment, and the approximate location of the true eastern boundary of Section 2, is shown below in figure 4.
Figure 4 – Plan of private encroachment and approximate location of true eastern boundary of Section 2.
Encroachments to Legal Road
While researching their legal boundaries, the owners of Sections 2 and 3 also discovered that they both encroach the legal road to varying degrees. Those encroachments are described as follows:
- The garage, small shed, and some gardens on Section 3, all encroach the unformed legal road that runs behind the property.
- The dwelling, some fencing, and some gardens on Section 3, all encroach Swindon Street.
- The dwelling, garage, and ‘front garden’ on Section 2 all encroach Swindon Street.
Agreement to Legalise Private Encroachment
The owners of Sections 2 and 3 have agreed to resolve the private encroachment by performing a boundary adjustment. On completion of the boundary adjustment, part of Section 3, about 198 square metres, will be sold and added to Section 2.
Application to Stop Legal Road
To resolve their encroachments to the legal road, the owners of Section 2 have now applied to stop part of Swindon Street, with the owners of Section 3 applying to stop part of Swindon Street and part of the unnamed road that runs behind the two properties. A plan of the proposed stopping, which also shows the recently surveyed boundary adjustment, is shown below in figure 5 and is summarised in the table below that.
Figure 5 – Plan of the Proposed Stopping (with recently surveyed boundary adjustment).
|
Schedule of Road to be Stopped |
|||
|
Parcel: |
Being Part of: |
Area (m2 - approx.): |
Parcel to be Amalgamated with: |
|
A. |
Unnamed legal road |
317.00 |
Section 3 Block VI TN of Ophir/RT OT366/26 |
|
B. |
Swindon Street |
408.00 |
Section 3 Block VI TN of Ophir/RT OT366/26 |
|
C. |
Swindon Street |
18.50 |
Section 2 Block VI TN of Ophir/RT OT188/110 |
|
D. |
Swindon Street |
224.00 |
Lot 1 DP 604359/ RT OT188/110 |
Table 1 – Schedule of Road to be Stopped (as shown in figure 5).
3. Discussion
Roading Network
The unnamed legal road that runs off Swindon Street and behind Sections 2 and 3 has a legal width of about 20 metres. Its current formation, which ‘swoops’ around Section 3 then on past Section 2, has come about through regular informal use.
If parcel A is stopped, the width of the first 40 metres of the western end of the unnamed road will be reduced and will range from 11 metres to 19 metres as shown below in figure 6, which is sufficient for future roading purposes.
Figure 6 – Overview of Post Stopping Width – Western End of the ULR.
Swindon Street has a legal width of approximately 30 metres. The formed road, which is well centred through the legal road, is about 8-9 metres wide. This leaves an unformed width of about 10 or 11 metres either side of the road.
If parcels B – D are stopped, the unformed road width on the northern side of the western end of Swindon Street will be reduced to about 3 metres. This is also sufficient for future roading requirements as it provides for both a footpath and any future widening of the road as shown below in figure 7.
Figure 7 – Overview of Post Stopping Widths – Western End of Swindon Street
Utility Networks & Provider Requirements
Aurora Energy Limited (Aurora) have an overhead pole network running through Swindon Street. Part of that network runs through the legal road in front of Sections 2 and 3, and part (an underground cable), runs around Section 3 and into the unnamed legal road as shown below in figure 8.
Figure 8 – Aurora’s Overhead Pole Network
If the stopping is approved, Aurora will require an easement (in gross) to protect:
- Any part of the stay identified in figure 8 that is located in or above parcel B,
- Any part of the underground cable identified in figure 8 that is found to be located in parcel B,
- Any other part of the overhead network that comes to be located in or above any part of the road that is to be stopped.
Legislation, Policy, & Statutory Procedure
Council’s Roading Policy determines the appropriate statutory procedure for stopping a legal road or any part thereof. The policy for selecting the correct statutory process is outlined in section 8.5 of Council’s Roading Policy, which says:
The Local Government Act 1974 road stopping procedure shall be adopted if one or more of the following circumstances shall apply:
a) Where the full width of road is proposed to be stopped and public access will be removed as a result of the road being stopped; or
b) The road stopping could injuriously affect or have a negative or adverse impact on any other property; or
c) The road stopping has, in the judgment of the Council, the potential to be controversial; or
d) If there is any doubt or uncertainty as to which procedure should be used to stop the road.
The Local Government Act process requires public notification of the proposal. This involves erecting signs at each end of the road to be stopped, sending letters to adjoining owners/occupiers and at least two public notices a week apart in the local newspaper. Members of the public have 40 days in which to object.
The Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure may be adopted when the following circumstances apply:
e) Where the proposal is that a part of the road width be stopped and a width of road which provides public access will remain.
f) Where no other person, including the public generally, are considered by the Council in its judgment to be adversely affected by the proposed road stopping;
g) Where other reasonable access will be provided to replace the access previously provided by the stopped road (i.e. by the construction of a new road).
It is proposed that the Public Works Act 1981 procedures be adopted for this application for the following reasons:
- The proposal is to stop part of the legal road widths only.
- Public access will not be adversely affected.
4. Financial Considerations
Council’s Roading Policy determines that the applicant is responsible for all costs and expenses associated with their road stopping. This includes purchase of the land at valuation, which is determined on a before and after basis, as prescribed in the Public Works Act 1981.
Other costs include valuer’s fees, survey and LINZ fees, LINZ Accredited Supplier and legal fees, and the costs associated with the preparation and registration of any easements.
While those costs would all usually be shared equally by the joint applicants, in this instance, it is proposed that the owner of Section 3 meets all costs associated with the preparation and registration of any easement required by Aurora, with the applicants sharing all other costs, including Council’s legal fees, equally.
Income from the sales of the stopped road will be paid to the Roading Administration Management (Unsubsidised) Account. From there it will be used to fund the correction of public roading matters such as the encroachment of formed roads.
5. Options
Option 1 – (Recommended)
To recommend that the Council agrees to stop approximately 650.5m2 of unformed legal road fronting Swindon Street, and 317 square metres of the unnamed legal road, as shown in figure 5, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981, subject to:
- The land (stopped road) being sold at valuation as prescribed in the Public Works Act.
- The parcels marked ‘A’ and ‘B’ being stopped and amalgamated with Record of Title OT366/26.
- The parcels marked ‘C’ and ‘D’ being stopped and amalgamated with Record of Title OT188/110.
- Easements (in gross) in favour of, and as approved to the satisfaction of, Aurora Energy Limited, being registered on the resulting titles if required.
- The owner of Record of Title OT366/26 paying all costs associated with the preparation and registration of any easements required by Aurora Energy Limited.
- The two applicants paying all other costs, including Council’s legal fees, in equal shares.
- The stopping and legalisation being approved by the Minister of Lands.
- The final survey plan being approved by the Chief Executive.
Advantages:
· The applicant’s various occupations of unformed legal road will be legalised.
· The income received will be used to fund the correction of other public roading issues.
· Is consistent with the provisions of Council’s Roading Policy and with the Public Works Act.
Disadvantages:
· None.
Option 2
To not agree to stop (an unformed) part of Swindon Street, or part of the unnamed unformed legal road, as shown in figure 5 (the Proposed Stopping Plan).
Advantages:
· None.
Disadvantages:
· The applicant’s various occupations of unformed legal road will not be legalised.
· Will not generate income that could fund the correction of other public roading issues.
· Does not recognise the provisions of Council’s Roading Policy or the purpose of the Public Works Act 1981.
6. Compliance
|
Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions |
Road stopping applications are governed by Council’s Roading Policy, and the:
- Public Works Act 1981, or the, - Local Government Act 1974.
Road stoppings promote the economic wellbeing of the community by generating income from the disposal of land that is held (but not required) for roading purposes.
|
|
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc. |
Council’s Road Stopping Policy applies to the application.
Consideration of this policy has ensured that the appropriate statutory process, being to legalise the road in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981, will be followed.
|
|
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts |
There are no climate change impacts related to the recommendation.
|
|
Risks Analysis |
There are no risks to Council associated with the recommendation.
|
|
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external) |
The Significance and Engagement Policy has been considered, with none of the criteria being met or exceeded.
Notice of the completed road stopping will be published in the New Zealand Gazette.
|
7. Next Steps
1. Stopping/Legalisation approved by Council September 2024
2. Applicants advised of outcome On release of the resolution
3. Suppliers engaged September 2024
Appendix 1 - Stopping application - Swindown Street.pdf ⇩
|
|
24.11.5 One District: Central Otago Consultation results
Doc ID: 1843678
|
Report Author: |
Saskia Righarts, Group Manager - Business Support |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Peter Kelly, Chief Executive Officer |
1. Purpose of Report
To consider the results of the consultation and decide whether or not to further districtise council services.
|
That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Notes and considers the submissions made on the districtisation proposal. C. Decides whether or not to further districtise council services.
|
2. Background
Earlier this year a paper was presented to Council recommending a change in the level of community board delegations. The rationale behind the paper was to move more of the strategic spending decisions to the Council level to ensure a district-wide future focussed funding model was more readily achieved. Current predictions will see Council reach its funding cap (debt to revenue ratio of 175%) in the 2025/26 financial year. Officers are currently investigating options to achieve a credit rating which will enable to the revenue to debt ratio to increase to 280%.
Following presentation of the paper, Council left the paper on the table as they directed that this was a conversation about districtisation of services (services to be funded at the district rather than the ward level) rather than delegations per se. At the district level, 82% of services are funded – with pools, parks, community facilities, grants, and cemeteries funded at the ward level. Council has undertaken districtisation of activities previously, namely three waters and roading, and while having varying impacts on rates across the wards these have advantaged smaller and more rural areas.
Following conversations with community boards and Council, at the 31 July Council meeting Council adopted the consultation document for completing districtisation entitled ‘One District: Central Otago’ CODC’s district-wide approach to providing our services and activities.
Three options were provided to the community to provide feedback on:
Option 1: Full districtisation of properties, parks, cemeteries, pools and museums.
|
Average impact per rating unit each LTP year |
|||
|
Ward |
Status Quo |
Districtisation |
Variance |
|
Cromwell |
$889 |
$837 |
-$52 |
|
Maniototo |
$947 |
$837 |
-$110 |
|
Teviot Valley |
$604 |
$837 |
$233 |
|
Vincent |
$799 |
$837 |
$38 |
Option 2: Districtise property, parks, cemeteries, pools and museums, but include a rating adjustment for the Teviot Valley ward to offset pool charges.
|
Average impact per rating unit each LTP year |
|||
|
Ward |
Status Quo |
Districtisation |
Variance |
|
Cromwell |
$889 |
$854 |
-$35 |
|
Maniototo |
$947 |
$854 |
-$93 |
|
Teviot Valley |
$604 |
$645 |
$41 |
|
Vincent |
$799 |
$854 |
$55 |
Option 3: Status quo, no change. Property, parks, cemeteries, pools and museums continue to be funded by ward rates.
The consultation period ran for one month and closed on 31 August 2024. The consultation report is attached as Appendix 1.
3. Discussion
There were meetings held in each of the wards and one online session. In addition, the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer gave presentations to a number of community groups throughout the consultation period.
|
Community |
Date/Time |
Number of attendees |
|
Maniototo |
Thursday 8 August 7pm-8pm |
12 |
|
Teviot Valley |
Monday 12 August 7pm-8pm |
49 |
|
Alexandra |
Wednesday 14 August 7pm-8pm |
8 |
|
Cromwell |
Monday 19 August 7pm-8pm |
91 |
|
Districtwide (online) |
Tuesday 27 August 7pm-8pm |
34 |
There were 336 submissions made through either Let’s Talk Kōrero Mai or hard copy form. A summary of the data is at appendix 1.
The results showed respondents overwhelmingly indicated a preference for the status quo to remain with 75% supporting this position. The majority of respondents were from Cromwell Ward, with 231 of 336 (68%). Just over half of respondents were in the 60+ age group.
The data broken down by ward is as follows:
|
|
Cromwell Ward |
Teviot Valley Ward |
Maniototo Ward |
Vincent Ward |
|
Total submissions |
231 |
34 |
15 |
49 |
|
Option 1 |
15 |
0 |
5 |
20 |
|
Option 2 |
9 |
14 |
9 |
8 |
|
Option 3 |
207 |
20 |
1 |
21 |
Respondents were given the option to provide further explanation about the “Reasons for your choice?” 387 comments were received. The information below outlines the most common themes. The inclusion of quotes following each theme are representative of the sentiment expressed by many. Respondents from Cromwell are more heavily represented than other wards. Verbatim comments can be found in appendix 2.
Maintain local funding and or decision making local (113 comments) – Respondents indicated that they wanted to keep funding local (58 comments, 43 of those comments were from the Cromwell Ward), keep decisions local (18 comments, 11 of those comments were from the Cromwell Ward), or keep the status quo (35 comments, 34 of those comments were from the Cromwell Ward).
“I would prefer my rates go towards projects in my area that I will be able to use/benefit from rather than projects out of the area that I will never use/benefit from.”
Maintain community board power (41 comments) – Respondents indicated that they did not want to remove power from community boards (39 comments, 38 of those comments were from the Cromwell Ward) and some noted that community boards are needed to advocate for their local community (2 comments).
“I share the concerns of the Cromwell Community Board on how this will impact the role of the community boards. I believe it's important to have strong local voices and representation to council from our community boards and would not like to see their roles diminished.”
Concern regarding land sales (62 comments) - There was a view by many that community boards should maintain control over land sales. Of the comments received, sixty-one indicated that they were from the Cromwell Ward. One respondent did not indicate their ward.
“Cromwell's assets have been well managed and respected by current and previous community boards. The value of these assets should remain within the ward, as should any realisation of the assets. Districtisation of Cromwell's assets would be punishment for the good work of our local leaders.”
Support for districtisation (52 comments) – Comments received indicate either that centralised decision making at the Council-level makes sense (25 comments) or that centralised funding at the Council-level makes sense (26 comments).
“Assets and funding better handled at District level - Ward too political and is too parochial, obstructive and resistant to change.”
Not enough information (21 comments) – Respondents noted that more information was required to make an informed decision.
“The survey is missing important relevant information "this proposal may also change the role of the Community boards and how they interact with Council." No detail on what those changes might be! Endowment land - more detail needed in the legal aspect of what the original endowments intentions were spelled out to be.”
Money savings ideas (17 comments) – Alternative approaches were recommended to alleviate the budget shortfall, including a reduction in services to stay in budget (13 comments), not progressing the Cromwell Hall as it’s a “nice to have” (3 comments) and one recommendation to increase debt.
“Council needs to be more transparent with its spending and debts - time to be realistic and look at must do’s (eg water) and put to the people what they consider nice to haves.”
Consultation felt rushed (14 comments) – Respondents wanted additional time to consider the proposal and the potential implications.
“This is being rushed through, with an appalling absence of quality detail being supplied by council staff to a massively important step to the future well being of Cromwell and its ratepayers.”
Cromwell land grab (10 comments) – Some in the Cromwell Ward indicated that they considered the proposal to be a “land grab” and expressed the concern that it would be for short-term gain.
“I have quite a hangup in what you are going to do about the endowment land and who is going to benefit from this.”
Community board views
Community boards were canvassed on their opinion which was shared with councillors in the report presented to the 31 July 2024 meeting. In summary, the Cromwell and Teviot Community Boards do not support the proposal to further districtise services, whereas the Vincent Community Board does. The Maniototo Community Board has not expressed a formal written view of the proposal. The submissions from the community boards are attached to this Report at Appendices 3-6 for reference.
4. Financial Considerations
These will differ for each ward if Council decides on either option 1 or option 2. There will be no immediate changes in predicted rate increases for each ward if option 3 is chosen. However, financial decision making longer-term will be more challenging if further districtisation was not to occur.
5. Options
Option 1
Full districtisation of properties, parks, cemeteries, pools and museums.
Advantages:
· Better enables Council to take a district wide and long-term strategic financial view.
· Will enable better decisions about prioritisation of activity and provision of services across the district.
Disadvantages:
· The Teviot Valley residents may feel disadvantaged given the predicted rates impact for them.
· It is not the favoured view from the community.
Option 2
Districtise property, parks, cemeteries, pools and museums, but include a rating adjustment for the Teviot Valley ward to offset pool charges.
Advantages:
· Recognises that the Teviot Valley does not have a council owned pool and adjusts the rates for this.
· Better enables Council to take a district wide and long-term strategic financial view
· Will enable better decisions about prioritisation of activity and provision of services across the district.
Disadvantages:
· It is not the favoured view from the community.
Option 3
Status quo, no change. Property, parks, cemeteries, pools and museums continue to be funded by ward rates.
Advantages:
· No extra effort in the back end for staff as existing financial arrangements would stay the same.
· Is the favoured view from the community.
Disadvantages:
· It does not recognise the future risk to the community as a whole in not having a district-wide funding approach.
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 the community’s feedback in the decision whether to or not to continue districtisation of council services.
|
|
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc. |
This decision could result in a need to change to key financial policies (eg revenue and funding policy, rating policy). These would need to be amended for the 2025-34 Long-term Plan.
|
|
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts |
No immediate considerations as to sustainability, the environment or climate change.
|
|
Risks Analysis |
There are three potential options and they each carry various risks – including public expectation/reputation risks and financial risks
|
|
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external) |
There has been formal consultation on this topic with community and this report includes the results of this consultation. |
7. Next Steps
If either option 1 or 2 is agreed by Council, the relevant policies and finance changes will occur during the development of the 2025-34 Long-term Plan. Regardless of the Council decision on this paper, the delegations paper left on the table earlier this year (pending the conversation on districtisation) will be brought back before Council before the end of the year.
Appendix 1 - One District Central Otago report ⇩
Appendix 2 - Written Feedback Received for the One District Central Otago Consultation ⇩
Appendix 3 - Submission from CCB on Districtisation ⇩
Appendix 4 - Submission from TVCB on Districtisation ⇩
Appendix 5 - Submission from VCB on Districtisation ⇩
Appendix 6 - Consultation Document 2024 ⇩
|
|
24.11.6 Mayor's Report
Doc ID: 1903316
1. Purpose
To consider an update from His Worship the Mayor.
|
That the Council receives the report.
|
At the start of last month’s report, I celebrated the success of Finn Butcher and Nicole Sheilds at the Paris Olympic Games and today, incredibly, I start this report noting the success of another Clyde athlete (albeit a part-time resident) with Anna Grimaldi’s stunning victory in the 200 m T47 event at the Paris Paralympics. I have seen Anna practicing her sprints along Sunderland Street during her many summer holidays at her family’s holiday home here and what a joy it was to see her win that race.
By way of update from the last report; Nicole will be guest of honour at the Blossom Festival this year and a special event honouring Finn’s medal will be held in Alexandra on the afternoon of 26 October.
Finn’s success on the water was very hard won and I think any success in the three waters space will be similarly so. There is a lot of work ahead of council to not only create our water delivery plan, but to try to find a way to work with other councils to get the economy of scale that is so desperately needed. Because of our geographical size and relatively low population, there is a genuine risk that we could become an “orphan council”; one that others do not want to join with. Having said that, if that is the case, there will be an awful lot of orphan councils across the country. We continue to work with councils both near and not so near to find a way forward that all our residents can benefit from into the future.
The other phrase of the day at the moment is “Regional Deals”. These have been talked about as a solution to some problems for a number of years now, primarily based on the success of the Manchester model out of the UK. I attended a webinar mid-month from the DIA on how the New Zealand version of regional deals will operate. While it seems that here is still quite a lot unknown about the way forward, what was made clear at the webinar is that there will be no money from government and no devolution of power from Central to Local government either.
Along with Peter, Tamah, Sally, and Deputy Chair VCB Jayden and CCB member Wally, I attended the LGNZ Annual Conference in Wellington. This, as always, was an interesting few days, opening with a clear message from government that the four well-beings will be removed and that councils must get back to basics. As always with these things, most of the value lay in the korero around the events, not that coming from the main stage. I certainly felt there was benefit to a council like ours in having the Community Board conference held at the same place and time, enabling Board members to share in some of the events.
By the time this report is tabled, the districtisation discussion will have concluded. This has been a lot of work for staff and councillors as we tried to get the community to understand why this hard topic was being discussed. I gave 14 presentations to different groups or public meetings which is the most I have done on any topic in my time as Mayor, signifying the importance I place on this korero. I’ll talk more on this in the meeting once the outcome is known.
I have continued working alongside Mayor Glyn of Queenstown and three local MPs with the assistance of a specialist consultant in the field on putting a plan to maximise the private money to the public need for health services in the Otago Central Lakes. The need across Central Otago and Queenstown Lakes is palpable. Growth has far outstripped the already under-pressure hospitals we have locally. Health Action Wānaka put out a press release this month which quoted Health New Zealand figures that showed that Dunstan and Lakes District hospitals needed an additional 29 beds between them to achieve parity with other similar rural hospitals. Amongst other things, that release said “We have 0.71 inpatient beds per 1000 people in the Dunstan and Lakes District hospitals catchments, while 1.2 inpatient beds per 1000 people is the average at other level 3 rural hospitals across the country.
On top of the lack of beds, Dunstan Hospital is 199 km from a large hospital with specialist care (tertiary hospital), making it the second most isolated (level 3*) rural hospital in the country, and at 183 km from a large hospital, Lakes District Hospital is the third most isolated level 3 rural hospital in New Zealand’.
And those figures are based on the 2018 census and almost certainly don’t reflect how truly bad things are now. Since then, the growth between us and QLDC has been staggering. Central Otago gained 12.7% between census, QLDC 21.1%. Between us and QLDC, we have two of the highest growth rates in country (#2 and #5 of 67).
Our citizenship ceremony on August 30th was a really special one. As usual, great stories were told of love, challenges and adventures that led people to Aotearoa and Central Otago. Alongside that, we had a number of firsts when children from Terrace School came to honour their teacher with a haka when she gained her citizenship, with Deputy Mayor Neil Gillespie making two sons-in-law kiwis and a film crew recoding the event for the TV programme “The Hui”. They were here doing a piece on a council and a mayor trying to bring te ao Māori and te reo into their roles.
Linda and I have had the pleasure of attending two FENZ Gold Star presentations over the last few weeks – one for Tony Smiths 25 years with the service, latterly with the rural squad out of Alexandra and the other for Alexandra Brigade member Jason McDonough who did many years with the RNZAF fire crews before joining the Alexandra brigade. Twenty-five years is an incredible period of time to volunteer for anything, and to do it for something so important and so challenging as being a firefighter, with all that now encompasses, is truly remarkable and something well worth honouring.
Tamah, Sally and I attended a National Security briefing from the NZ SIS. I have been through a few of these now and the messages remain the same, being that we need to be cautious in our roles.
Speaking of being cautious, I attended the Otago CDEM meeting where again, we were reminded of the threats that disaster poses, especially with the AF8 potential being so high. The public don’t get to see the behind the scenes planning that occurs for such eventualities but be assured, there is an awful lot of it. While the best laid plans of mice and men can go awry, when the next big event happens, we will be in much better shape as a result of this mahi.
Following that was an Otago Mayoral Forum meeting. We were joined by our Southland hoamahi to discuss Three Waters then on our own talked Unitary councils, Waitangi Day commemorations, a DIA restructure, regional deals and the new Dunedin Hospital.
There have been a few fun events I have attended in the past month as well. Poolburn School hosted its inaugural Paddock Golf Day in appalling conditions. I had the pleasure of hitting of the first ball (which cleared the water obstacle being an irrigation dam) and then gratefully retreated to the warmth. The weather gradually eased as teams traversed ten very challenging holes with the fairways laid out by Cam Nicolson with the tees and holes designed by the schoolkids. A great day had by all. I also attended and spoke at the opening of the Winterstellar exhibition at Central Stories, which is in its fifth year. This is a truly wonderful celebration of the precious taonga that is our night sky and goes from strength to strength every year.
I also attended a Haehaeata Trust planting day at the Half Mile. It was great to join so many positive people at this contentious site willing to do the mahi to reclaim the entrance to Alexandra from the devastation of wilding pines infestation.
I also had the pleasure, as I have every year as Mayor, of being a judge in the Kiwibank Local Hero of the year part of the New Zealander of the year awards. It is a great thing to be able to sit down for a couple of hours and read about the magnificent work so many people do behind the scenes to make our great place what it is.
Nil
|
|
24.11.7 Psychoactive Substances Policy Renewal
Doc ID: 1488242
|
Report Author: |
Alix Crosbie, Senior Strategy Advisor |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Dylan Rushbrook, Group Manager - Community Vision |
1. Purpose of Report
To consider the draft Psychoactive Substances Policy for consultation under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.
|
That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Approves the draft Psychoactive Substances Policy for consultation. |
2. Background
Psychoactive substances are a range of drugs that have been designed to mimic established illicit drugs, such as cannabis, cocaine, MDMA, and LSD. For a long period of time, the national regulatory framework struggled to stay ahead of manufacturers of these types of drugs. New chemicals were developed to replace those that had been banned due to harm caused/potential for harm.
The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 was put in place to circumvent that cycle. The Act establishes requirements for psychoactive substances to prove ‘no more than a low risk of harm’ as assessed by the advice of an expert advisory committee.
The Act also establishes the ability for territorial authorities to develop a ‘Local approved products policy’. This policy restricts the location where any psychoactive substances can be sold.
No psychoactive substances have been approved for sale under this Act. The policy ensures that, should a substance be approved in the future, a retailer would need to apply for a licence to operate from an approved location.
The Act requires the policy be amended or replaced in accordance with the special consultative procedure in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.
Council has had a policy in place since September 2014. It was last reviewed in June 2019.
3. Discussion
The Policy was reviewed by the Senior Strategy Advisor and Planning and Regulatory Services Manager in April 2024. This review found no changes to the legislative or local environment, and the policy to be working effectively.
The policy limits the locations of sale of any psychoactive substances approved to the Business Resource Areas as identified in the District Plan. Business Resource Areas are located within:
· Alexandra
· Clyde
· Cromwell
· Naseby
· Omakau
· Ranfurly
· Roxburgh
The Policy reiterates further restrictions as laid out in the Act, including proximity to schools, churches, social agencies, mental health facilities, parks/playgrounds, community centres, recreational facilities, and other sites established as ‘sensitive sites’ under the Act. In practice, this severely limits the locations under which sales of psychoactive substances can take place.
The review recommends the policy be renewed for a further five-year period. The 2019-2024 policy relied heavily on the Act and transcribed several portions. This language has been changed to a ‘plain English’ approach, with minor text changes for consistency of language in the policy.
4. Financial Considerations
Related costs are minor and part of existing budgets – limited to the costs associated with consultation. Consultation will be packaged with other reviews in the Regulatory space to further reduce this cost.
5. Options
Option 1 – (Recommended)
Approve the draft policy for consultation recommending renewal for an additional five-year period.
Advantages:
· Maintains approach to minimising harm caused by psychoactive substances
· Ensures community retain influence over the location of retail premises selling psychoactive substances should any be approved by the Director-General of Health for sale in the future.
Disadvantages:
· Minor costs and staff time associated with the renewal of the policy at five year intervals.
Option 2
Do not approve the renewal of the policy. Formally resolve for the policy to cease to have effect.
Advantages:
· Minor reduction in workload and cost associated with the maintenance of the policy.
Disadvantages:
· Low risk that a psychoactive substance may be sold within the district.
· Reduction in the communities influence over the location of retail premises able to sell psychoactive substances should any be approved by the Director-General of Health for sale in the future.
6. Compliance
|
Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions |
This decision promotes the social wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by limiting the potential harm caused by psychoactive substances.
|
|
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 |
No environmental impact.
|
|
Risks Analysis |
No risk.
|
|
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external) |
Consultation under the special consultative process is a requirement of section 69 of the Psychoactive Substance Act 2013.
|
7. Next Steps
The Policy will be consulted on alongside other relevant regulatory policies/bylaws (Gambling Policy, Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw).
Following consultation, a report will be provided to council requesting adoption – or other actions as determined by the feedback received.
Appendix 1 - Psychoactive Substances Policy ⇩
Appendix 2 - Statement of Proposal ⇩
Appendix 3 - Business Resource Area Maps ⇩
|
|
24.11.8 Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw
Doc ID: 1493693
|
Report Author: |
Alix Crosbie, Senior Strategy Advisor |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Dylan Rushbrook, Group Manager - Community Vision |
1. Purpose of Report
To consider approving the draft Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw and Statement of Proposal for public consultation.
|
That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Approves the draft Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw and Statement of Proposal for public consultation. C. Agrees a bylaw is the most appropriate method for addressing the issue.
|
2. Background
The Alcohol Restrictions Bylaw prohibits consuming, possessing, or bringing alcohol into specific areas of the district during specific time periods.
• In Alexandra, Clyde and Cromwell from 10pm to 7am the following day on any Thursday to Sunday.
• A 24-hour alcohol restriction in Alexandra, Clyde and Cromwell from midnight the Thursday before the start of Blossom Festival weekend to midnight on the Saturday of the Blossom Festival weekend; and
• A 24-hour alcohol restriction in Alexandra, Clyde and Cromwell from midnight on Christmas Day to midnight Boxing Day; and
• 24-hour alcohol restriction in Alexandra, Clyde and Cromwell from midnight on New Year’s Eve to midnight New Year’s Day.
The specific boundaries are outlined in the bylaw and attached to this statement of proposal.
The bylaw also allows Council to put a Temporary Alcohol Restriction Zone in place by resolution – prohibiting the consumption, possession, or bringing of alcohol into that specific area during a specific temporary time period.
The restrictions are in place to prevent and manage disorderly behaviour involving alcohol, and to assist in minimising alcohol related harm. Anti-social behaviour in the town centres, and during specific holiday periods or Blossom Festival, may also impact on the reputation of the district as a tourist and holiday destination.
Police have advised that the bylaw is a useful and necessary deterrent and enforcement tool to enable the Police to continue to help minimise alcohol related public disorder and harm in public places.
Council have had alcohol restrictions in place through bylaws since 2004. Specific alcohol restrictions were also in place prior to 2004 through Council resolutions.
• In 2004, a Bylaw was adopted that regulated consumption of alcohol in public places
• In 2008, this bylaw was updated to include a permanent alcohol restriction for Alexandra and Clyde during set hours and days.
• Cromwell was included in the bylaw during the 2019 review, in response to evidence demonstrating the need for the restriction.
Council is required to review the bylaw every five years.
3. Discussion
The Local Government Act 2002 requires that before deciding that a bylaw should continue without amendment, a territorial authority must be satisfied that the level of crime or disorder experienced before the bylaw was made (being crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area concerned) is likely to return to the area to which the bylaw is intended to apply if the bylaw does not continue.
A review of the bylaw and in discussion with the Police, found the bylaw is operating effectively, with only a small number of Alcohol Infringement Offence Notices issued by the Police. This demonstrates that the community are largely self-compliant, in part due to a long-standing approach of the bylaw, signage, and communication along with the ability of the Police to enforce the bylaw where necessary.
During the discussions with the Police, no additional areas have been identified to be included in the bylaw.
Staff recommend renewing the bylaw in its current format – with no changes – for an additional five-year period.
Statement of Proposal
The Statement of Proposal has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and includes:
• The reason for the proposal
• Consideration whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem
• Consideration whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw.
• Assessment that the level of crime or disorder experienced before the bylaw was made is likely to return to the area to which the bylaw is intended to apply if the bylaw does not continue.
• That bylaw can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms; and a high level of crime or disorder (being crime or disorder caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area concerned) is likely to arise in the area to which the bylaw is intended to apply if the bylaw is not made; and the bylaw is appropriate and proportionate in the light of that likely crime or disorder.
• A statement that the current bylaw is to be revoked.
• A draft of the proposed bylaw
Discussion with Police indicates that the level of crime or disorder experienced before the bylaw was made is likely to return if the bylaw does not continue.
The areas of restriction were informed by information provided by the Police, St John, and Southern District Health Board that demonstrated the timing and locations of most alcohol related incidents.
A legal opinion was undertaken when the previous bylaws were introduced, and it was considered that there were no implications under the Bill of Rights Act 1990. As this proposed bylaw continues these principals, it is not considered that there are any implications under the Bill of Rights Act 1990.
There have been no substantial changes to the legislative environment since 2019. A bylaw remains the most effective tool.
Other options considered include:
• Not having a bylaw: this would limit Police powers in reducing and responding to crime or disorder that has been caused of made worse by alcohol consumption. Police would only be able to intervene when specific disorderly or criminal conduct was observed; and may have difficulty controlling a large crowd of intoxicated persons. There is likely to be an increase in public disorder, including littering, and it may cause some members of the public to feel unsafe.
• A total ban across the district: there is insufficient evidence of high levels of crime or disorder that have been caused or made worse by general alcohol consumption across the district.
4. Financial Considerations
There are no specific financial considerations. The consultation will be accommodated under existing budgets. Where possible, advertising will be packaged with other reviews in the regulatory space to further reduce costs. .
5. Options
Option 1 – (Recommended)
Approve the draft Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw and Statement of Proposal for public consultation.
Advantages:
· Continue to proactively manage the potential for alcohol-related harm in public places.
· Continue to provide Police with an enforcement mechanism for alcohol related crime and disorder.
Disadvantages:
· Some of the community may believe this is an unnecessary limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.
Option 2
Do not have a bylaw. Do not restrict alcohol in public places.
Advantages:
· Some of community may support this approach as they viewed a bylaw as an unnecessary limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.
Disadvantages:
· Likely increase in alcohol-related harm, crime and disorder.
· Reduces enforcement tools available to Police.
· inconsistent with current approach to managing alcohol related issues.
Option 3
District-wide alcohol ban.
Advantages:
· Assists in preventing the potential for alcohol-related harm in public places across the district.
· Provides the Police with an enforcement mechanism for alcohol related crime and disorder.
Disadvantages:
· Insufficient evidence of harm – does not meet criteria of the Local Government Act.
· Potential infringement upon Bill of Rights due to decision-making without clear evidence.
6. Compliance
|
Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions |
This decision promotes the social, cultural, environmental, and economic wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by minimising alcohol-related harm.
|
|
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc. |
This decision aligns with other plans, including the sale and supply of alcohol and other regulatory functions.
|
|
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts |
Small environmental consideration relating to a potential increase in littering if restrictions were lifted.
|
|
Risks Analysis |
There are health and safety risks associated with anti-social behaviour. This decision seeks to minimise the risk.
|
|
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external) |
Specific consultation requirements to be followed under section 147 of the Local Government Act 2002.
|
7. Next Steps
Full community consultation will be undertaken in accordance with the Local Government Act.
Following consultation, a report will be provided to council requesting adoption – or other actions as determined by the feedback received.
Appendix 1 - Alcohol in Public Places Bylaw ⇩
Appendix 2 - Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Statement of Proposal ⇩
Appendix 3 - Maps of restricted areas ⇩
|
|
24.11.9 Private Plan Change 21 (Fulton Hogan - Parkburn) Decision Ratificaiton
Doc ID: 1891374
|
Report Author: |
Ann Rodgers, Principal Policy Planner |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Louise van der Voort, Group Manager - Planning and Infrastructure |
1. Purpose of Report
To consider the recommendation by an appointed independent hearings panel to approve proposed private Plan Change 21 to the Central Otago District Plan.
|
That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Accepts the recommendation pursuant to clause 29 (4) (a) of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 to approve Plan Change 21 to the Central Otago District Plan. C. Serve a copy of its decision on the person who made the request and every person who made a submission/further submission along with a statement of the time within which an appeal may be lodged. D. Publicly notify that it has approved the plan change. |
2. Background
Plan Change 21 (PC21) is a Private Plan Change request by Fulton Hogan Limited to re-zone approximately 120 ha of land at Parkburn Quarry. The purpose of the plan change is to provide for a more efficient and appropriate use of the site, post quarrying activities, by providing for a range of urban zonings (residential, industrial and business).
The plan change was accepted for processing under clause 25 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 at the 14 December 2022 Council Meeting.
The subject site is in two titles, legally described as:
(a) Sections 64-65 Block IV Wakefield SD (OT10B/1452); and
(b) Part Section 62-63 Block IV Wakefield SD and Part Section 63 Block IV Wakefield SD and Section 1 SOP 365897 and Section 4 SOP 557380 (Identifier
1019401).
The site is bordered to the west by SH6 and adjoins Lake Dunstan to the east. The boundary to the south is the edge of the current urban area of the Pisa Moorings settlement. The boundary to the north contains another quarrying activity.
The specific zonings sought through PC21 are:
(a) 81.15ha of land to Residential Resource Area / Low Density Residential (as per PC19);
(b) 10.09ha of land to Residential Resource Area / Medium Density Residential (as per PC19);
(c) 4.72ha of land to new Business Resource Area (3);
(d) 2.32ha of land to new Industrial Resource Area (2); and
(e) 22.28ha of land to new Industrial Resource Area (3).
The new Business Resource Area (3) zoning (BRA(3)) modifies the provisions contained in Section 8 applying to all Business Resource Areas including:
(a) New Policy (8.2.9) specific to BRA(3), seeking to provide for convenience retail activities serving the local community within this area.
(b) New Rule (8.3.1(iv)), providing for travellers’ accommodation, and specified shops, as a permitted activity.
(c) Application of Rule 8.3.3(ii) to BRA(3), making buildings within the area a restricted discretionary activity, to control the scale and design of buildings; and
(d) New standard (8.3.6(vx)), limiting the floor space for shops permitted under 8.3.1(iv).
The new Industrial Resource Area (2) zoning (IRA(2)) and a new Industrial Resource Area (3) (IRA(3)) proposes the following modifications to the existing provisions:
(a) New Objective (9.1.3), seeking to ensure these areas fit into the landscape;
(b) New Policy (9.2.6), specific to IRA(2) and (3), directing that subdivision design and other mitigation measures are employed to ensure that built form and activities within these areas are of a yard-based nature and not highly visible from SH6 or Lake Dunstan; and
(c) New standards (9.3.5(ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii)) which limit the size of ancillary offices, apply a building coverage limit, restrict building material and colours, apply setbacks, and require riparian planting to be undertaken.
PC21 also proposes to amend the Planning Maps to include a Building Line Restriction along the SH6 boundary of the site.
The Request sought to future proof PC21 by identifying which zonings proposed in PC19 would apply to different parts of the residential areas sought in the Request, once PC19 reaches the stage of being made operative. PC21 proposes to adopt the Low Density and Medium Density residential zones and provisions in PC19.
PC21 was heard by a three person Hearings Panel made up of two independent hearings commissioners (Commissioner Gary Rae and Commissioner Ros Day-Clevin) and Councillor Cooney.
3. Discussion
Fourteen original submissions and three further submissions were received in response to the notification of PC21. Seven original submissions were supporting, three were neutral and four were opposing.
Following the release of the s42A report, the Request was amended by replacing the Future Masterplan with a proposed Structure Plan together with amendments to the Plan rules (Section 7: Residential Resource Area section) to link to the Structure Plan. The amendments included new provisions as follows:
(a) Rule 7.3.3(i)(c), limiting subdivision within the Parkburn area to a total of 543 residential allotments;
(b) Matter of discretion 7.3.3(i) for subdivision, relating to the general compliance with the proposed Structure Plan;
(c) Standard 7.3.6(vi)(j), limiting the creation of residential allotments within the Parkburn Area until specified roading upgrades have been completed;
(d) Standard 7.3.6(xiii), requiring all activities and development to be carried out in general accordance with the Parkburn Structure Plan;
(e) Standard 7.3.6(xiv), limiting development with the Parkburn Area to 271 residential allotments prior to specified servicing upgrades being completed;
(f) Rule 7.3.5(ix) stating failure to comply with the above standards (7.3.6(iv)(j), 7.3.6(xiii) and 7.3.6(xiv)) is a non-complying activity; and
(g) The Parkburn Structure Plan, included as Figure 7.2.
The amended Request also included an Integrated Transport Assessment; an updated Economic Assessment; and a Soil and Land Use Capability Classification Assessment.
Further changes were made to the application as a result of a Joint Witness Statement (‘JWS’) by the expert planners and traffic engineers representing Requestor (Mr Vivian and Mr Smith), and Waka Kotahi NZTA (Ms Dempster and Mr Johnston), and as supported by Ms White the section 42A report author.
These included:
(a) A change to Rule 7.3.6(vi)(j) to require specified upgrades to the intersections onto SH6 prior to development occurring (to complement the existing rule’s requirement for intersection improvements after 271 allotments);
(b) A change to Standard 9.3.5 to require upgrades to the existing northern intersection onto SH6 prior to any further industrial activity within the Parkburn Structure Plan area; and
(c) A new matter of discretion for subdivision for an internal road connection to Pony Court as part of the first stage of development, as well as internal access to the lakeside trail for each stage of the development.
The Structure Plan was amended to include the Pisa Village Development Limited (PVDL) land, which is a narrow strip of land immediately adjoining to the south, which if rezoned the same as for the adjacent residential zoning proposed by PC21 could potentially accommodate some 15 residential units. This was in response to the submission by PVDL, who had sought the inclusion of this land through its submission; and some additional refinements and rationalisations of the provisions, in response to matters that were discussed at the hearing.
The updated Structure Plan is provided in Figure 1 below.
 |
Figure 1
The recommendation of the Hearings Panel is to approve the Plan Change. A copy of the recommendation is attached to this report as Appendix 1.
The recommendation accepts the proposed changes to the Business and Industrial Zone provision in the operative District Plan and makes some specific changes to the PC19 decision as they relate to PC 21, in particular the inclusion of a new rule referring specifically to the existing scheduled activity on the Parkburn site, and new rules in the Low (LRZ-S8) and Medium Density Zones (MRZ-S14) that specifically refer to the Structure Plan indicting no residential development can occur within the Parkburn area until such time as the following infrastructure requirements are met:
“… i. The Cromwell Wastewater Treatment plant has been upgraded to implement nitrogen removal and increase the capacity of the membrane treatment plant; and
ii. The Cromwell and Pisa Moorings Water schemes have been combined and a regional council water take consent issued: OR
iii. All relevant consents have been obtained to privately service the area with a communal supply (designed to enable connection to a public NC network when available).
4. Financial Considerations
All costs associated with the processing of the private plan change are met by the requestor (Fulton Hogan). Following notification of a decision any costs associated with any subsequent appeals will be met from existing budgets.
5. Options
Option 1 – (Recommended)
Adopt and notify the decision of the Hearings Panel on PC21 in accordance with clause 11 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.
Advantages:
· Facilitates the release of new residential zoned land for development in Cromwell;
· Provides for future use of the site following cessation of gravel extraction.
Disadvantages:
· No known disadvantages.
Option 2
Decline to adopt and notify the decision of the Hearings Panel on PC 21.
Advantages:
· No known advantages.
Disadvantages:
· Reputational damage as the Panel has heard and considered expert evidence from the requestor and submitters, who may feel let down by a decision not being issued.
6. Compliance
|
Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions |
This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities as Plan Change 21 has been through a publicly notified process in accordance with the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991.
AND
This decision promotes the social, economic, and environmental wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by providing for urban growth in a manner that can be serviced by critical infrastructure.
|
|
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc. |
Plan Change 21 amends the District Plan in a manner that is consistent with National Planning Standards and that reflects the outcomes of the Cromwell and Vincent Spatial Plans by adopting the PC19 provisions.
|
|
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts |
Plan Change 21 has been developed and processed in accordance with the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The purpose of the RMA is “….to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.”
Section 5 of the RMA defines what is meant by sustainable management as “… managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while— (a)sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b)safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c)avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”
|
|
Risks Analysis |
The provisions of the Resource Management Act stipulate a statutory process to be followed. That process has been followed. There are no identifiable risks associated with the acceptance of the recommendation other than a risk of appeal to the Environment Court.
|
|
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external) |
There is a high degree of significance and all legislative process requirements under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 have been followed.
|
7. Next Steps
Notify the decision on the plan change pursuant to clause 11 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act. The decision will be subject to an appeal period of 30 working days under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991.
If no appeals are received the plan change will become operative and the provisions of PC 21 will become fully operative.
If an appeal is received on the plan change, the provisions subject to an appeal will not become operative until those appeals have been resolved.
Appendix 1 - PC21 Recommendation Report 7 August 2024 Final.pdf ⇩
|
|
24.11.10 Plan Change 20 (Heritage) Hearings Panel Decision Ratification
Doc ID: 1861441
|
Report Author: |
Ann Rodgers, Principal Policy Planner |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Louise van der Voort, Group Manager - Planning and Infrastructure |
1. Purpose of Report
To adopt the decision of the Hearings Panel on Plan Change 20.
|
That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Adopts the decision on Plan Change 20. C. Approves the notification of the decision in accordance with Clause 11 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991. D. That the Heritage Guidelines be included in Councils Policy Register. E. That Councils Roading Policies be amended to include a requirement to seek heritage expertise input at the design phase of any upgrades undertaken in a Heritage Precinct that involve street furniture, paving or lighting upgrades.
|
2. Background
Plan Change 20 (PC20) was approved for notification by Council on 9 November 2022.
PC20 proposed minor changes to Section 11 (Heritage Precincts) of the Plan, to better align the matters of discretion and information requirements for resource consents required for built development in a heritage precinct. The change is based upon additional information that the Council has received about the values and characteristics of these precincts in the form of draft Heritage Guidelines prepared for the Council and attached in Appendix 1.
The draft Heritage Guidelines were developed for Council by Dr Glen Hazelton following an extensive review of the history and character of each precinct. The purpose of the guidelines is to assist in protecting the unique character of each precinct and encouraging new development that is sympathetic to and enhances these characteristics.
The guidelines sit outside the District Plan and are to be read alongside the relevant objectives, policies, and rules.
Section 86B (3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides for any rule in a proposed plan that protect historic heritage to have immediate legal effect from the date of public notification, accordingly the proposed changes to Plan Change 20 had legal effect from the date of notification.
3. Discussion
Submissions received in response to the notification of PC20 were generally supportive of the introduction of Heritage Guidelines to guide and enable appropriate development in heritage precincts across the Central Otago District.
The intention of the introduction of PC20 was to assist anyone wishing to undertake built development in a Heritage Precinct by providing design guidance at an early stage in terms of what should be considered.
Landscaping
The main issue raised in terms of the provisions themselves was around the extent of endemic indigenous vegetation being included as a matter of discretion (4) when assessing a new development.
“…4. Landscaping, including the extent to which new landscaping uses native plantings using species endemic to the area and the extent to which established vegetation will be maintained, and…”.
The Panel heard from two submitters on the matter of landscaping. One submitter raised concerns that in a largely Victorian era built precinct, such as Clyde, exotic traditional plantings such as Holyhocks, Roses, Lavender and fruit trees etc, were also appropriate in terms of the heritage character of the precinct.
Another submitter sought amendments that would require endemic native plantings.
The Panel agrees that including a matter of discretion that considered the extent of endemic indigenous vegetation in isolation was not appropriate, accepting that in the context of Victorian era historic heritage precincts, exotic plantings were also appropriate and recommended that the matter of discretion be amended as follows:
“…4. Landscaping, including the
extent to which new landscaping uses native plantings using species endemic to
the area, and the extent to which established vegetation will be
maintained, and the extent to which new plantings reflect the historic
character and cultural practices of the precinct, and ...”
Several submitters raised general concerns around ensuring inappropriate development was not able to occur within a heritage precinct. The Panel were satisfied with Mr Vincent’s view, as the author of the section 42A report, that there was sufficient scope in the matters of discretion and guidelines to ensure an appropriate outcome in terms of future development.
Heritage Guidelines
The Panel also heard from the Central Otago Heritage Trust who would like to see additional precincts (such as Cambrians) considered in the future and that a map of each precinct would be helpful in the guidelines. The Panel agrees that this would be helpful to users of the guidelines and requests that they be amended accordingly.
The Heritage Guidelines sit outside the District Plan and are not incorporated by reference, which means is that they are not technically part of the decision before the Panel in the context of the Schedule 1 Plan Change process under the Resource Management Act.
The Panel is of the view that it is appropriate for the guidelines to sit outside the plan, as there is further work to be undertaken to add to them as part of the next phase of reviewing the heritage provisions in the Plan, but have asked that they be included in Councils Policy register for transparency so that they can be reviewed through that process.
The Panel also heard from a submitter who sought that Council consider the Heritage Guidelines when undertaking roading upgrades and other work within a heritage precinct. In considering this request the Panel found that while the guidelines don’t specifically provide for street furniture, paving or lighting upgrades, it would be appropriate for there to be some specific heritage input into such works when they occur in a heritage precinct. The Panel have recommended the Roading Policies be amended to include reference to seeking expert heritage impact advice in the planning stage of such projects.
The recommended decision of the hearings Panel is attached in Appendix 2 and amended Section 11 in Appendix 3.
4. Financial Considerations
The development of and progress of Plan Change 20 is subject to statutory processes and is funded from the existing District Plan review budget.
5. Options
Option 1 – (Recommended)
· Ratify the decision of the Hearings Panel and approve the notification of the decision in accordance with Clause 11 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.
· Include the Heritage Guidelines be included in Councils Policy Register.
· Update Councils Roading Policies to include a requirement to seek heritage expertise input at the design phase of any upgrades undertaken in a Heritage Precinct that involve street furniture, paving or lighting upgrades.
Advantages:
· Enables the future protection of heritage values within Heritage Precincts.
· Provides guidance and certainty to property owners who want to develop within a heritage precinct.
· Demonstrates that Council is committed to ensuring the special character of heritage precincts is maintained.
Disadvantages:
· No known disadvantages.
Option 2
Don’t ratify the decision of the Hearings Panel
Advantages:
· No know advantages.
Disadvantages:
· Declining would require re-notification and removal of current protection afforded through the plan change having immediate legal effect.
· Reputational damage as the Panel heard and considered evidence from generally supporting submitters, who gave their time to speak to their submissions and who may feel let down by a decision not being issued.
6. Compliance
|
Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions |
This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities by and on behalf of communities as Plan Change 20 has been through a publicly notified process in accordance with the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991.
AND/OR
This decision promotes the (social/cultural/economic/environmental) wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by enabling appropriate development in heritage precincts in a way that considers the impact of that development on the character and values of that precinct.
|
|
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc. |
Not applicable as the decision requested will amend the District Plan.
|
|
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts |
Plan Change 20 has been developed in accordance with the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The purpose of the RMA is “….to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.” Section 5 of the RMA defines what is meant by sustainable management as “… managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while— (a)sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b)safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c)avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”
|
|
Risks Analysis |
The provisions of the Resource Management Act stipulate a statutory process to be followed. That process has been followed. There are no identifiable risks associated with the acceptance of the recommendation other than a risk of appeal to the Environment Court.
|
|
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external) |
There is a high degree of significance and all legislative process requirements under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 have been followed, including consultation and engagement. |
7. Next Steps
Publicly notify the decision on the plan change in accordance with clause 11 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act. The decision will be subject to an appeal period of 30 working days under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991.
If no appeals are received the plan change will become operative and the provisions of PC20 will become fully operative.
If an appeal is received on the plan change, the legal effect will remain until those appeals have been resolved, after which the plan change will become operative.
Appendix 1 - PC00020 Heritage Guidelines.pdf ⇩
Appendix 2 - PC 20 Decision.docx ⇩
Appendix 3 - SECTION 11 as amended by PC20.docx ⇩
|
|
24.11.11 Destination Management Update
Doc ID: 1895337
|
Report Author: |
Anthony Longman, Head of Destination |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Dylan Rushbrook, Group Manager - Community Vision |
1. Purpose
To consider [type summary text here].
|
That the report be received.
|
2. Discussion
In September 2022 the Central Otago Destination Management Plan (DMP) was publicly released after endorsement from Council (May 2022) and Kāi Tahu (August 2022). The DMP is based around how tourism can enable the future states outlined by the community and support the delivery across the four well-beings. The role of Tourism Central Otago is to coordinate and facilitate the management and marketing of Central Otago as a visitor destination aligned to the DMP.
Since adoption an independent Destination Advisory Board has been formed (replacing a former Tourism Advisory Board) to support the Tourism Central Otago team to work strategically towards the implementation of the Plan’s aspirations. The Destination Advisory Board is designed to have a mix of local and national representatives that bring a diverse range of backgrounds and experience to our long-term thinking.
The Advisory Board is currently comprised of:
Mark Frood, Appointed, Chair
Chris Roberts, Appointed
Shayne Forrest, Appointed
Mark Button, Operator Representative
Kate Hines, Youth Representative
Dani McDonald, Kāi Tahu Representative
Tamah Alley, Council Representative
The Board is carrying a vacancy in one role due to the resignation of Tara Druce early this year and have capacity for an intern role for a high school student.
The Board meets 4-5 times per year to give guidance and support to the TCO team to prioritise and activate the building blocks of the DMP, incorporating the aspirations and projects with our traditional activity. The guiding principle of a community first approach has helped shape our positioning in marketing activity, storytelling, product development and placemaking.
Current Visitor Industry Statistics
The ‘Central Otago Economic and Social Context Report’ commissioned to inform the development of the new Economic Strategy shows that the tourism sector in the Central Otago District employed an average of 1,768 people in 2023. This amounted to 12.1% of Central Otago District's total employment in 2023 as compared to 10.7% in 2000.
Spending by visitors to Central Otago totalled $282 million in the year ending March 2023, which was 37% above its pre-Covid level from 2019, compared to a 22% increase nationally over the same period. Central Otago’s faster visitor spending growth is well above the 19% rate of inflation which has occurred over the period, suggesting that visitor spending is higher in real terms than before the pandemic. Central Otago’s visitor economy is heavily orientated towards the domestic market. In the year ended March 2023, 86% of visitor spending was by domestic travellers, with international visitors representing 14% of spending. By comparison, domestic travellers represented 73% of visitor spending nationally over the same period.
“Visitor spending filters into a range of industries as visitors travel, stay, shop, eat, and do activities. The visitor economy can also enhance Central Otago’s brand by exposing travellers to products they can purchase once they return home (e.g. wine) and provides a window into the area for people looking to live, work, or do business.” Benje Patterson.
The ratio of international visitors, both in Central Otago and nationally, has slowly increased since March 2023 as international travel recovers.
The importance of growing and supporting visitation from international markets for Central Otago is critical, with a softer domestic travel market during 2024. By focussing on ensuring that Central Otago’s product offerings are known within Australia, and further afield through strategic marketing and partnerships is critical. TCO promotes Central Otago in the Australian market directly and through relationships with travel trade, media and alongside industry partners such as Tourism New Zealand and Ngā Haerenga NZ Cycle Trail Inc.
In long-haul markets Tourism Central Otago works with our Southern Lakes International Marketing Alliance partners (Destination Queenstown and Lake Wānaka Tourism) to ensure representation through Tourism New Zealand activity in market and with travel trade.
Market Perception research
Tourism Central Otago commissions on-going Market Perception Research from Angus & Associates to understand how the perception of, and interest in, Central Otago is changing over time.
In the latest report for the Year end June 2024, the report indicates that Central Otago remains a highly appealing destination for the domestic market, especially for those who have visited the region recently. Net Promoter Score (NPS) is used to measure visitors’ propensity to recommend travel destinations. The domestic visitor NPS for Central Otago is +15 (the same as last year’s), indicating that there are more advocates for the region than there are detractors (versus a regional benchmark of +2). NPS is considerably higher amongst more recent visitors (+47), although this is two points lower compared with last year’s.
Three in ten New Zealand travellers intending to travel domestically in the next 12 months indicate that they ‘definitely will’ or ‘probably will’ visit Central Otago – this proportion is higher compared with the previous year. The most common barriers to visiting remain consistent with previous year’s results, including having no specific reasons to visit, no connections there, and the inconvenience of getting to the region.
Perceived difficulties in travelling to Central Otago are significantly higher than for other regions, as is a lack of knowledge about the region (i.e., not knowing enough about what there is to do there).
Seven in ten New Zealanders travelled domestically in the past 12 months. Among these, 7% visited Central Otago and 5% stayed overnight in the region. These proportions are lower compared with those in the previous two years. Visitors were more likely to be from neighbouring regions (Canterbury, Otago and Southland) and were more likely to be older (60+). Half of future visitors (those saying they will definitely visit Central Otago in the next 12 months) live in Canterbury (21%) or Auckland (30%).
While the proportions of Australian travellers who visited and stayed overnight in Central Otago remains on par with the previous year, the familiarity of Australian travellers with Central Otago has seen an improvement – reflected in the decreased proportion of those who have never heard of the region (29% vs 33%). The proportion of those who don’t know much about what there is to do in the region remains considerable (40%), indicating plenty of opportunity to educate. NSW and Victoria provided three quarters of all Australian visitors in the past 12 months. Compared with domestic travellers, Australian visitors to Central Otago are younger, with 54% under 50 (compared to 44% under 50 for New Zealanders).
Progress on Destination Management Plan Building Blocks
TCO are activating the building blocks and community first approach of the DMP across a range of areas including; marketing, storytelling, product development and placemaking.
Additional focus has been put on Education & Capability, Partnerships, Experience Development and Destination Stewardship – where we can leverage the attention of our visitors, the contribution they make to place (economically and socially) and the relationships that are formed between community and visitors to ensure positive word of mouth, and on-going connection to place.
Building Block - Inspiring Environmental Stewardship
Utilising the skills of local and national industry leaders we have started communicating and educating the local tourism industry with programmes related to Tourism Sustainability, Waste Minimisation and Accessible Tourism.
Building connections and awareness with and of local organisations such as Central Otago Wilding Conifer Control Group, Haehaeata Natural Heritage Trust, Mokomoko Sanctuary, Tiaki Māniatoto, Lake Dunstan Charitable Trust, Mokihi Trust, Thomson Creek Catchment, and Manuherekia Catchment Group.
Building Block - Next Generation Community Engagement
Ensuring on-going connections with key community groups and local initiatives such as the local Business Groups, community organisations, schools and clubs to understand how the tourism sector impacts on, and benefits from the visitors.
Building Block - Making a Difference with Placemaking
Utilise the isite team to develop and distribute resources to help educate positive visitor behaviours and where to go for information in towns not serviced by information centres. These leaflets were made available to CODC Libraries and Service Centres.
Supporting Council’s Regional Identity Advisor and Kāi Tahu (through Aukaha) to build an increased awareness and integration of the stories of mana whenua through the Regional Identity section of centralotagonz.com website and also through projects such as the Alexandra Riverside Park project.
Building Block - Advancing Workforce and Talent Development
TCO continues to support the Economic Development Manager and Welcoming Communities programme to help promote Central Otago as a place to work, and to help retain and welcome the workers already in the region.
Building Block - Authentic Branding and Customer Engagement
Positioning and awareness of Central Otago to relevant markets continues to be a primarily function of Tourism Central Otago, with on-going work in supporting PR & Media, Travel Trade, Business Events and Digital Content.
A new Spring ‘Escape’ marketing campaign kicked off on September 1st and will continue throughout September and October. This campaign aims to raise awareness of the region and encourage visits to a variety of persona-based itineraries available on centralotagonz.com targeted at those in our local drive markets of Otago, Southland and Canterbury.
TCO continues to facilitate the delivery of regional campaigns, content creation, and hosting of media across a range of digital and traditional media platforms to showcase Central Otago as a visitor destination.
Since launching the DMP in September 2022 TCO has worked with media and journalists to secure coverage and marketing features of Central Otago have included: NZ Herald, Stuff Media, NZ Mountain Biker, NZ Cycling Journal, NZ Food Story with Ben Bayly, Kia Ora Magazine, Telegraph UK, Tourism New Zealand Japan, Sunrise TV Australia, MiNDFOOD, Motorhomes, Caravans & Destinations, Sydney Morning Herald, Gutsy Girls Adventure Film Tour, Big Bike Film Night, Explore Travel (AU), AA Traveller, Spoke Magazine, Conde Naste, The Press, Gisborne Herald, ODT, Wilderness Magazine, Cuisine Magazine, Broadsheet Australia, Pedestrian TV, and Escape Travel
Building Block - Leading Cross-Sector Partnerships
To drive and progress the DMP it is important that we look beyond the traditional view of tourism and engage across various sectors in the district.
The development of the Central Otago Events Framework clarifies the role of Tourism Central Otago in supporting the development of events industry and what opportunities there are for leveraging our strengths in different sectors to drive increased awareness, visitation and spend, and increasing the capability of local events.
A first success from this project was TCO working with local event organisers to secure promotional funding for 11 events through Regional Events Promotion Fund managed by MBIE.
Building Block - High Impact Tourism Alliances
The Southern Way project (formally 45 South) launched a collaborative marketing campaign with Air New Zealand the Southern Airports Alliance in July 2024. A first of its kind campaign that encouraged visitors to fly in one airport, and out another, and worked with rental car companies to remove one ways fees from car bookings. The goal of the promotion was to encourage longer stays, lower impact itineraries, and impactful travel.
The Otago Trails Marketing initiative between the four RTO’s and five Trail Trusts continues to promote and market Otago as the home of Trails in New Zealand. Increasing awareness of five Great Rides (Ngā Haerenga NZ Cycle Trail) and ensure that visitors and locals are able to support our communities, environment and businesses.
Regional Tourism New Zealand has continued to provide support, training and advocacy for RTO’s across the country, building awareness and connection between the various Destination Management Plans across the country.
Building Block - Sustainable Funding and Investment
Cycle Trail Demand Forecasts – TCO commissioned an independent report to analysis trail counter data across the Great Rides to inform future usage of the trail network across the region. an independent report that provides a comprehensive analysis of current trail usage and forecasted future demand of Central Otago’s Ngā Haerenga Great Rides with a focus on how council, trusts and trail operators can look to manage growth proactively.
The report was completed by independent infrastructure advisors Utility NZ and developed data-based future scenarios to analyse the expected growth of the cycle and walking trails within the region, and the connections between these trails and neighbouring districts (Queenstown Lakes District, Clutha District and Dunedin City).
As expected, demand on the trails correlates to warmer seasons, with 80% of annual demand occurring between November and April each year. Demand is highest during January, February, and March. Demand on the Otago Central Rail Trail tends to peak in March and April. Tourism New Zealand is now totally focused on attracting off-peak visitation which will play into helping extend the trail seasons earlier into Spring, and later into Autumn.
The Lake Dunstan Trail experienced early demand and usage up to 10 times higher than the original business case and projections indicate continued growth. High demand is also evident for other Great Rides in the region with the Roxburgh Gorge Trail and Clutha Gold Trail both seeing 50% increase in numbers over the past five years, and this trend is expected to continue as new trails and connections are finished.
Considering the data from surrounding Great Rides the projected annual demand for the Kawarau Gorge Trail (currently under construction) is expected to be between 80,000 to 100,000 trips per year starting from 2026. The Lake Dunstan Trail is projected to experience a resurgence in demand upon opening of the Kawarau Gorge Trail.
Building Block - State-of-the-art Connectivity
We are continuing to develop and enhance the centralotagonz.com website platform as the primary destination for locals, visitors and businesses to get knowledge of the Central Otago communities, local businesses, product offerings and regional stories.
Building Block - Exceptional New Product Development
TCO has worked with the Southland District Council to apply for Heartland Ride recognition of the Nevis Road between Bannockburn and Garston. Heartland Rides are mostly on-road routes through scenic landscapes that links to the Great Rides.
Central Otago Business Events has built on its membership to promote the region as a destination for small-medium conference and incentive groups. Highlights over the last two years include attendance at Meetings, operator capability building, and hosting of key industry in region to build knowledge of place and product offering.
In May Central Otago Business Events secured a 9-page feature on Central Otago in Meeting News Magazine, which also featured a case-study on the Sustainable Trails Conference held in Cromwell in March 2024.
TCO have continued worked with Trails Trusts and neighbouring RTOS as the trail network expands to ensure that communication, data and marketing are aligned and maximises the value and opportunities of the trail network to our communities.
DMP projects identified to progress in the coming year are:
Collaborate with the Regional Identity Advisor and Aukaha to integrate mana whenua principles, values and stories of our region throughout centralotagonz.com
Continue to enhance our strategic alliances and drive the visitor industry towards a more sustainable future through the Southern Way and Otago Cycle Trail Collaboration
Support Council and Community Placemaking initiatives with a key focus on the Alexandra Riverside Park
Work with event organisers to enhance or reposition existing and new events and festivals to attract visitors to the region to support seasonality and regional dispersal. A key mechanism will be utilising the new Events Framework and the MBIE Regional Events Promotion Fund.
Continue to monitor and be part of discussions in the tourism funding space and ensure that CODC as TCOs primary funder is well positioned, while exploring new models.
3. Attachments
Nil
Nil
|
|
24.11.12 Visitor Levy and Short Term accommodation
Doc ID: 1895342
|
Report Author: |
Dylan Rushbrook, Group Manager - Community Vision |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Peter Kelly, Chief Executive Officer |
1. Purpose of Report
To consider Council’s position on localised visitors levies and give direction to staff whether they should progress a workstream on the rating of short-term rentals in preparation for consultation through the long-term plan.
|
That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Adopts a formal supportive position of Queenstown Lakes District Council’s proposal to introduce a localised visitor levy. C. Adopts a supportive position on the introduction of a localised visitor levy within Central Otago in the absence of a national visitor levy. D. Instructs staff to provide a cost/benefit analysis on the introduction of a commercial or targeted rate on short-term rental properties within Central Otago.
|
2. Background
Through Regional Tourism New Zealand, Tourism Central Otago has long advocated for a national solution to tourism system funding. A key building block of the Destination Management Plan is the establishment of sustainable funding to support and manage the visitor economy. The funding could support local government manage the destination and enable investment in infrastructure, particularly infrastructure which is strained by growing visitor numbers.
Central Otago District Council has never publicly stated a position on visitor funding solutions, aware it doesn’t wish to jeopardise the position of Queenstown Lakes District Council and Destination Queenstown which have long advocated for Queenstown to have a local visitor levy.
Local Government cannot develop or introduce new levies without Central Government approval. Queenstown Lakes District Council had the approval of Central Government to explore the option, and subsequently went through a local referendum process in 2018 on the adoption of a localised visitor levy. It received support from the community, and was heading towards implementation had it not been for COVID-19. More recently, once again Queenstown has become vocal in its desire to introduce a localised levy to support their destination management and infrastructure needs.
At a national level there is the International Visitor Levy which has just been raised to $100 per visitor which in the past had provided funding for national tourism and conservation initiatives. Up to now this money has been invested in things such as data, capability building and workforce development. How the International Visitor Levy is spent is still under review, and there may be some change in how this is spent, but staff anticipate it will primarily still be focused on national problems and solutions. Another factor that is not in Central Otago’s favour in relation to sourcing funding from the International Visitor Levy is the relatively small number of International visitors that come to Central Otago, should the funds be directed to destinations based on their visitor mix.
Rotorua Lakes Council through its recently completed long term plan process has just approved the charging of commercial rates to short term rental providers. In effect this means properties that are available for more than 60 nights on platforms such as AirBnB will be charged a targeted rate, rather than the residential rate they previously were covered by. While not a visitor levy, it is another example of a local government authority finding a means to have visitors pay part of their way and those that benefit from visitors coming to the region being put on an even playing field with commercial accommodation providers who pay commercial rates and other compliance and regulatory costs.
Central Otago has enjoyed significant growth in its visitor economy, with spend up 39% since 2019 which is well above the national average. That growth has primarily been in the domestic market, though operators are reporting a slight slowdown in that market right now as cost living pressures come on. At the same time, growth is happening in international markets, particularly the Australian market which is well served by direct flight connections in to Queenstown Airport.
With further investment from both the public and private sectors into the visitor economy, it is expected Central Otago will continue to experience growth. Furthermore, taking into account Queenstown Airport’s Masterplan and the strong offerings of Queenstown, Wanaka and Milford Sounds there is little doubt Central Otago will experience further visitor demand and related impacts of increased visitors into the future.
3. Discussion
The Queenstown proposal is that a levy is applied to the accommodation spend per night of a visitor stay. It aims to capture commercial and short-term rental accommodation such as AirBnB. Due to the many channels in which accommodation is distributed, the Queenstown proposal seeks support from Central Government as the collection agency, then returning it back to Queenstown Lakes District Council to appropriate the spend as required.
Tourism Central Otago would prefer a national levy, but it is unlikely to eventuate in the short to medium term.
It is now the view of staff that Central Otago District Council should publicly support the Queenstown Lakes District Council proposal for a localised levy in the absence of a national solution being forthcoming.
While publicly supporting the Queenstown proposal, it would also be advantageous for Central Otago District Council to form a public position on localised visitor levies within Central Otago. By adopting a supportive position on the adoption of localised levies, staff can then seek to position council as a fast follower should Queenstown get approval from Central Government.
It is expected there will be some resistance from the commercial accommodation sector initially at the introduction of a levy that will impact on their guests. Staff have not directly engaged with the sector on this proposal as it is primarily a policy position rather than implementation of a levy. Should Council support localised levies, staff will begin engaging with representatives from the commercial accommodation sector to work through how the best outcome could be achieved for Central Otago.
In addition, as staff work towards developing the next long-term plan, there is investigative work being undertaken to understand if the Rotorua Lakes Council approach of putting a targeted rate on short term rental providers would also work in Central Otago.
Early indications are favourable, but this has not been well tested. To progress any further, staff need some direction from Council if this is an option they wish to pursue as it will tie up resources. The next stage is to understand the cost/benefit analysis to ensure there is a worthwhile return on any investment Council would need to make on implementing and maintaining such a process.
It is currently intended that only standalone short-term rentals are being considered, not instances where someone may be letting a room within their primary dwelling. This will need to be worked through in further detail to understand the implications and any unintended consequences before a formal recommendation is put in front of Council.
Should staff find the cost/benefit analysis is favourable, they will bring a paper back to councillors for their consideration to include as part of the consultation in the long-term plan.
To provide context, the Rotorua Lakes Council has this statement in their recently adopted LTP in relation to short term rentals;
A challenge for Rotorua is to strike the right balance between support for commercial accommodation providers, short-term rental providers, housing (rental and market purchases) and the reputation and promotion of Rotorua as a great place to visit.
Growth in the short-term rental accommodation from approximately 2018 has caused a fragmented visitor accommodation model across Rotorua. It has also taken properties that could otherwise be rented to or purchased by Rotorua people out of the market, adding to the impacts of our housing shortage.
The short-term accommodation sector provides an effective and alternative product offering to motels and hotels. What needs to be monitored is a balance between the products and a fairness and equity approach applied to ensure good outcomes for the Rotorua district as a whole.
Council has agreed to introduce a rating policy that will see short-term accommodation providers running a business contributing their fair share. The policy will introduce the ‘business and economic development targeted rate’ on properties that:
• Are advertised (available) for 60 days or more /year
• List the whole dwelling on a property
• Single room/ spare bedrooms/granny flat excluded
• General rate remains as residential
With any new funding, the most important question is how it is spent to achieve the greatest possible outcome, in this instance for the ratepayers of Central Otago.
Localised visitor levy;
As proposed in the QLDC model, a small portion is allocated towards destination management but the bulk of the funding is to be directed to infrastructure upgrades and development.
Short-term rentals;
Should the short-term rental commercial or targeted rate be progressed, the total sum is likely to be relatively small ($100-250k). Staff would recommend this goes towards supporting work programs that help the district navigate the challenges of rapid population growth. This is obviously quite broad, so would need to be tightened up before any such rate is implemented. This would be part of the cost/benefit analysis work staff will undertake.
4. Financial Considerations
Financial impacts are not understood and would need to be worked through with Finance both from a cost and revenue perspective before implementing any changes.
5. Options
Option 1 – (Recommended)
Council formally supports QLDC’s approach to introducing a localised short term visitor levy. Supports Central Otago District Council taking its own position on a localised short term visitor levy, and instructs staff to bring back a cost/benefit analysis of introducing a commercial or targeted rate on short-term rental properties within Central Otago.
Advantages:
· Shows support for QLDC
· Opens up new revenue opportunities for CODC
· Creates equity across commercial and private short term rental accommodation
Disadvantages:
· Will create concern within the accommodation sector
Council formally supports QLDC’s approach to introducing a localised short term visitor levy. Supports Central Otago District Council taking its own position on a localised short term visitor levy. Instructs staff not to progress the cost/benefit analysis work in relation to a commercial or targeted rate against short-term rental properties within Central Otago.
Advantages:
· Shows support for QLDC
· Opens up a new revenue opportunity for CODC
Disadvantages:
· Does not create an equity across commercial and private short term rental accommodation
· Will create concern within the accommodation sector
Option 3
Council formally supports QLDC’s approach to introducing a localised short term visitor levy. Does not support Central Otago District Council taking its own position on a localised short term visitor levy and instructs staff not to progress the cost/benefit analysis work in relation to a commercial or targeted rate against short-term rental properties within Central Otago.
Advantages:
· Shows support for QLDC
Disadvantages:
· Does not create an equity across commercial and private short term rental accommodation
· No additional revenue opportunities for CODC
Option 4
Council formally does not support QLDC’s approach to introducing a localised short term visitor levy. Does not support Central Otago District Council taking its own position on a localised short term visitor levy and instructs staff not to progress the cost/benefit analysis work in relation to a commercial or targeted rate against short-term rental properties within Central Otago.
Advantages:
· Gives staff a clear direction and has zero work program impact
Disadvantages:
· Does not create an equity across commercial and private short term rental accommodation
· No additional revenue opportunities for CODC
· Does not show support for QLDC
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 enabling additional revenues streams that can support the wellbeings.
|
|
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc. |
Yes – links to the Destination Management Plan that outlined the need for establishing sustainable funding models to support destination management and visitor infrastructure.
|
|
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts |
Not clearly known, however there is likely to be opportunities to enhance sustainability and environmental work programs identified through the Destination Management Plan.
|
|
Risks Analysis |
Staff will follow closely both QLDC and RLDC to learn from their experience of implementing a visitor levy.
|
|
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external) |
Any future decisions about introducing new levies and rates will require public consultation. The short-term rental rate could be a topic for this years LTP consultation should it progress further after staff carryout a cost/benefit analysis.
|
7. Next Steps
Staff will work with the Mayor’s office on how to support the QLDC proposal. Further work will be undertaken by staff in relation to CODC matters and reported back to Council as part of the LTP work program.
Nil
|
|
24.11.13 Procurement Panels - 3 Waters Strategic Planning, Technical Design and Operational Support Services
Doc ID: 1904458
|
Report Author: |
Patrick Keenan, Capital Projects Programme Manager |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Julie Muir, Three Waters Director |
1. Purpose of Report
To consider implementing a Professional Services Panel to support three waters strategic planning, technical design and operational support services.
|
That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Approves procurement of a panel for strategic planning, technical design and operational support services for three waters activities. C. Approves a three-year term for the panel for strategic planning, technical design and operational support services for three waters activities.
|
2. Background
This report is to outline the recommended approach to procure specialist planning, technical design and operational support services to support the delivery of the three waters programme for a three-year term.
Council’s Procurement Policy requires three quotes or a supplier panel to be in place for procurement of services >10,000-$200,000. Professional advice and services for specific tasks for councils three waters services typically falls within this range. Undertaking individual procurement for all of these would be time consuming and is not cost effective.
Currently these services are being procured in an ad-hoc manner. Procurement of these services is varied and sporadic and this panel will provide a more streamlined and cost effective procurement process.
Council’s three waters services team has a large forward work programme of operational and capital projects to deliver where the following professional services are required:
· Strategic Planning
- Preparation of business cases to support capital development
· Technical design and operational support services, targeted to support the three waters capital programme and the implementation of government mandated standards in the following areas:
- Water and wastewater treatment
- Reticulation new scheme design or replacements
- Stormwater design
- Emerging requirements
Council staff are looking to establish a panel of skilled professional services providers to support the delivery of the projects. The key objectives are:
· to provide ease of engagement of professional services while complying with procurement policy
· to support the smooth delivery of the Long-Term Plan capital programme for three waters
· to drive improved service delivery from technical design service providers
· to deliver more cost-effective targeted services for Council
This work is primarily undertaken be specialist engineering consultancies, most of which operate internationally with NZ offices in the main centres.
There are up to five consultancies that could undertake this work, with varying levels of technical expertise. In the past Council has relied mainly on one or two consultancies to undertake this work and now wish to broaden the number of consultancies used to ensure the large programme of work is completed in a timely manner. Having a panel with multiple consultancies will allow this to occur.
3. Discussion
The three waters team have a large programme of complex projects to deliver in the coming years. The backdrop of the Local Water Done Well government initiative highlights the need for Councils to deliver as effectively as possible using the resources available. Council staff are required to receive advice on capital and operational aspects that are broader than narrow technical perspectives.
This can be achieved through clear project briefs and well-defined objectives, procured through a panel approach. Rather than a narrow technical perspective which runs a higher risk of sub optimal overall results.
A procurement panel will assist with a higher likelihood of more positive results than currently, with faster procurement, improving innovation, cost efficiency and compliance in Council’s delivery of the three waters programme.
Following a review of previous projects and outcomes the Panel Principles were developed to guide procurement:
• Proactive project support, technical expertise with client outcome focus
• Solution focussed
• Demonstrate evidence-based decision making
• Understand the client’s budgets
• Provide client interface and bring together the right technical people for projects
• Have good relationships with key Council staff
• Provide timely internal project and programme management for the Council
• Provide value for money
The principles are obvious however via a procurement panel format each project will be evaluated against these principles and other agreed performance criteria and an annual review will be carried out to analyse the performance of panellists. This will ensure the benchmark is set and the focus remains consistent.
The performance of providers will guide the allocation of future work as the process evolves.
The procurement panel approach is deemed low risk. The key risks identified during the development of this initiative were understood with mitigation actions proposed as outlined in the following table.
|
Risk |
Mitigation action |
Responsible |
|
1. Ensuring enough suppliers both existing and new participate in the process |
Early engagement with suppliers, informing of the procurement process and outcome sought. The method to achieve this outcome is to advertise advance notice of contract opportunity to the market via the Government Electronic Tenders System (GETS). A three-year term is a more attractive proposition to suppliers. |
Project procurement team |
|
2. Conflict of Interest and confidentiality risk |
Ensure all individuals involved in the procurement understand and declare potential Conflicts of Interest. Ensure forms are signed and managed by probity auditor or facilitator. |
Probity Auditor / Facilitator |
|
3. Scope of services not understood by suppliers |
Ensure the scope of services is well understood within Council and project briefs are well defined and agreed with suppliers before commencement.
|
Project lead for CODC |
|
4. Council doesn’t have sufficient work for the panel members |
Clarify within the procurement framework to prospective tenderers that the Client does not guarantee the Consultant the allocation of work under the Professional Services Panel.
|
Capital Projects Programme Manager |
4. Financial Considerations
There are no major implications to budget or cost should this recommendation be implemented. Specific work packages allocated under the panel will have project briefs with budgets aligned to approved budgets.
While the cost implications of traditional procurement methods are minimal, the potential delays can negatively impact overall programme delivery. Council has an objective to deliver capital works to the annual plan and long-term timeframes. Meeting these timeframes is essential to enable Council’s financial team to appropriately manage overall expenditure, income and treasury functions.
An outline of estimated general annual costs based on previous specialist professional service expenses is below.
|
Service |
Predicted annual average cost |
Commentary |
|
Strategic Planning |
Up to $200,000 |
Business cases, responding to current and emerging legislation. |
|
Technical Design Services |
Up to $1,200,000 |
Water, wastewater, stormwater, |
5. Options
Option 1 – (Recommended)
Approve establishment of a procurement panel for strategic planning, technical design and operational support services for a three-year term.
Advantages:
· Securing the required skilled resource to assist delivery of a large and complex programme from a limited pool of providers.
· The skills of the providers and their staff is well understood from an expertise and cost perspective. Enabling the right resources to be targeted at the right tasks.
· A panel promotes a more holistic approach with a stronger focus on defined project briefs and outcomes.
· Panels can provide flexibility by tailoring to meet specific needs, allowing for direct sourcing, competitive quotes, or rotation among suppliers.
· Foster stronger relationships with suppliers enabling them to better understand and deliver on Council’s key objectives before commencement of pieces of work
• A three-year term is a more attractive proposition than ad hoc engagement for suppliers. There will be a higher likelihood of receiving more advantageous offers for Council via the tender process.
Disadvantages:
· Over-reliance on a limited number of suppliers.
· If key personnel become unavailable or leave, then like for like replacements are not always possible.
· Regulatory changes in government procurement rules or policies could affect how panels operate. There doesn’t appear to be any imminent changes from this perspective in current Local Water Done Well proposals.
Option 2
Retain the status quo of ad hoc procurement of strategic planning, technical design and operational support services for a three-year term.
Advantages:
· If new suppliers of services come into the market, then their services may be utilised.
Disadvantages:
· The current procurement process for individual components of work results in longer delivery times.
· Higher number of non-standard procurement reports required to enable timeframes to be met for obtaining advice, or for low value professional services advice to engage suppliers who have historical knowledge of issues.
· Many professional suppliers are not prepared to provide quotes for work of low value.
6. Compliance
|
Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions |
This decision promotes the economic wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by provision of more efficient and cost-effective procurement process and services, securing skilled providers for the three waters team to utilise for a three-year term.
|
|
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc. |
Yes. In particular, the Procurement Policy.
|
|
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts |
No major implications expected.
|
|
Risks Analysis |
Refer to discussion section. No substantial risks. The proposed recommendation improves the current procurement process. Refer advantages of the recommended option.
|
|
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external) |
The matters being reported are not significant.
|
7. Next Steps
• Advertise advance notice of contract opportunity to the market. This will describe the offer and gauge the level of market interest and give potential providers an opportunity to understand what Council is proposing before going through the full formal procurement process.
• Prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP).
• Select panellists based on the best available combination of experience, resources, capacity, process, and price.
Nil
|
|
24.11.14 Procurement Panels: Professional Services
Doc ID: 1899519
|
Report Author: |
Patrick Keenan, Capital Projects Programme Manager |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Julie Muir, Three Waters Director |
1. Purpose of Report
To consider implementation of a Professional Services Panel to support 3-Waters capital programme delivery.
|
That the Council A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Approves procurement of a panel for professional services panel for legal, planning and survey expertise for three waters activities. C. Approves a three-year term for the professional services panel for legal, planning and survey expertise for three waters activities.
|
2. Background
This report is to outline the recommended approach to procure specialist legal, planning and surveying professional services via a panel arrangement to support the delivery of the three waters capital programme and operational activities.
Council’s Procurement Policy requires three quotes or a supplier panel to be in place for procurement of services >10,000-$200,000. Professional advice and services for specific tasks for councils three waters services typically falls within this range. Undertaking individual procurement for all of these would be time consuming and is not cost effective.
Currently these services are being procured in an ad-hoc manner. Procurement of these services is varied and sporadic and this panel will provide a more streamlined and cost effective procurement process.
There is a strong market and high competition for the range of professional services Council is seeking. However, the quality of delivery, understanding of local issues and technical specialist skills varies considerably. The identified suppliers that can deliver these services range from small local professional services to larger national service providers.
The procurement process will allow the Council to clearly communicate its main objectives to potential providers. These objectives include ensuring ease of engagement while adhering to procurement policies, supporting the efficient delivery of the Annual Plan and the Long-Term Plan for Three Waters, and offering cost-effective services. Additionally, panellists are expected to provide expert advice to the broader organisation where required.
3. Discussion
The procurement panel approach is deemed low risk. The key risks identified during the development of this initiative were identified with mitigation actions proposed as outlined in the following table.
|
Risk |
Mitigation action |
Responsible |
|
1. Ensuring enough suppliers both existing and new participate in the process |
Early engagement with suppliers, informing of the procurement process and outcome sought. The method to achieve this outcome is to advertise advance notice of contract opportunity to the market via the Government Electronic Tenders System (GETS). |
Project procurement team |
|
2. Conflict of Interest and confidentiality risk |
Ensure all individuals involved in the procurement understand and declare potential Conflicts of Interest. Ensure forms are signed and managed by probity auditor or facilitator. |
Probity Auditor / Facilitator |
|
3. Scope of services not understood by suppliers |
Ensure the scope of services is well understood within Council and project briefs are well defined and agreed with suppliers before commencement.
|
Project lead for CODC |
|
4. Council doesn’t have sufficient work for the panel members
|
Clarify within the procurement framework to prospective tenderers that the Client does not guarantee the Consultant the allocation of work under the Professional Services Panel.
|
Three Waters Director |
4. Financial Considerations
There are no major implications to budget or cost should this recommendation be implemented. Specific work packages allocated under the panel will have project briefs with agreed budgets aligned to approved budgets.
While the cost implications of traditional procurement methods are minimal, the potential delays can negatively impact overall programme delivery. Council has an objective to deliver capital works to the annual plan and long-term timeframes. Meeting these timeframes is essential to enable Council’s financial team to appropriately manage overall expenditure, income and treasury functions.
An outline of estimated general annual costs based on previous specialist professional service expenses is below.
|
Service |
Predicted annual average cost |
Commentary |
|
Legal |
Up to $70K |
Contract law and property expertise required. |
|
Planning |
Up to $240K |
Consenting and District Plan expertise required. |
|
Survey |
Up to $30K |
Easements, asset inventory and pre and post project works expertise required. |
5. Options
Option 1 – (Recommended)
Approve procurement of a panel for professional legal, planning and survey expertise for a three year term.
Advantages:
· Streamlining the procurement process of professional expertise by pre-approving suppliers, reducing the time and effort needed to source goods and services.
· Via the procurement process the pre-approved suppliers are vetted for quality and reliability, ensuring consistent service delivery. There will also be annual evaluation of performance.
· Panels can provide flexibility by tailoring to meet specific needs, allowing for direct sourcing, competitive quotes, or rotation among suppliers.
· The skills of the providers and their staff is well understood from an expertise and cost perspective. Enabling the right resources to be targeted at the right tasks.
· Foster stronger relationships with suppliers enabling them to better understand and deliver on Council’s key objectives before commencement of pieces of work
Disadvantages:
· Over-reliance on a limited number of suppliers can pose risks if those suppliers face issues. The agreements being proposed do allow some flexibility to procure outside the panel if necessary.
· Regulatory changes in government procurement rules or policies could affect how panels operate. There doesn’t appear to be any imminent changes from this perspective in current Local Water Done Well proposals.
Option 2
Retain the status quo of ad hoc procurement of legal, planning and survey services
Advantages:
· If new suppliers of services come into the market, then their services may be utilised.
Disadvantages:
· the current procurement process for individual components of work results in longer delivery times
· higher number of non-standard procurement reports required to enable timeframes to be met for obtaining advice, or for low value professional services advice to engage suppliers who have historical knowledge of issues.
· Many professional suppliers are not prepared to provide quotes for work of low value.
6. Compliance
|
Local Government Act 2002 Purpose Provisions |
This decision promotes the economic wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future by provision of more efficient and cost-effective procurement process and services.
|
|
Decision consistent with other Council plans and policies? Such as the District Plan, Economic Development Strategy etc. |
Yes. In particular, the Procurement Policy.
|
|
Considerations as to sustainability, the environment and climate change impacts |
No implications expected.
|
|
Risks Analysis |
Refer to discussion section.
|
|
Significance, Consultation and Engagement (internal and external) |
The matters being reported are not significant. Noting however that the success of the procurement panel being implemented may have a wider organisational benefit to other Council departments should they choose to engage suppliers from the panel.
|
7. Next Steps
· Advertise advance notice of contract opportunity to the market. This will describe the offer and gauge the level of market interest and give potential providers an opportunity to understand what Council is proposing before going through the full formal procurement process.
· Prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP).
· Select panellists based on the best available combination of experience, resources, capacity, process, and price.
Nil
|
|
24.11.15 Status Reports for Cromwell Rising Main and Cromwell Drinking Water Upgrade
Doc ID: 1903503
|
Report Author: |
Patrick Keenan, Capital Projects Programme Manager |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Julie Muir, Three Waters Director |
1. Purpose
To consider status reports for the Cromwell Rising Main and Cromwell Drinking Water Upgrade projects.
|
That the reports be received.
|
2. Discussion
Status Reports
The August 2024 status reports for the Cromwell Rising Main and Cromwell Drinking Water Upgrade projects have been provided for information to Council (see Appendix 1 and 2).
Appendix 1 - Cromwell Water Treatment Upgrade Dashboard Report ⇩
Appendix 2 - Cromwell Rising Main Dashboard Report ⇩
|
|
24.11.16 September Wastewater Compliance Status Update
Doc ID: 1896094
|
Report Author: |
Philippa Bain, Water Services Customer and Compliance Team Leader |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Julie Muir, Three Waters Director |
1. Purpose
To consider progress on achieving Otago Regional Council Consent (ORC) compliance for Central Otago District Council (CODC) wastewater activities.
|
That the report be received.
|
2. Discussion
Council has seven wastewater treatment plants located at Cromwell, Alexandra, Lake Roxburgh Village, Roxburgh, Omakau, Ranfurly and Naseby.
In January 2023, the Otago Regional Council (the ORC) audited the wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). The audit identified several maintenance issues and non-compliances with resource consent conditions, resulting in issuing of abatement notices for five of our wastewater treatment plants.
Of these five, Alexandra and Cromwell have both recently achieved compliance (Alexandra - May 2024, Cromwell July 2024). The remaining three sites (Roxburgh, Ranfurly and Naseby) are still under abatement notice.
This report provides an update on the progress of the works to address these issues.
In April 2024, ORC carried out their annual audits for all the wastewater sites. Audit reports have now been received for all treatment plants since the last update to Council. The final audit reports (Roxburgh, Lake Roxburgh Village and Ranfurly) are attached with a high-level summary provided below.
Site Specific Status Updates
The detailed abatement notice work programs for each site are attached as an appendix and changes since July 2024 are shown in bold. A high-level summary of each site is provided below.
Alexandra
No longer operating under an abatement notice as of May 2024. The plant continues to operate within its consent limits.
With the increase in temperatures, the treatment plant is beginning to experience seasonal changes, including the development of foam bulking in the aeration basin. To address this, regular monitoring of the biomass within the aeration basin has been conducted to better understand the underlying causes.
The monitoring results indicate a generally healthy biomass with good diversity and an abundance of higher life forms. However, the presence of foam causing bacteria has been identified as a contributing factor to issues related to sludge settleability and foaming. These bacteria are commonly associated with elevated levels of fat, oil and grease (FOG), in the incoming wastewater.
The foaming issue is currently being monitored and managed through chlorine dosing. Chlorine dosing increases the operational costs, and ongoing foaming is an indication of poor settling within the clarifier. If this continues it will result in non-compliance with consent conditions.
CODC staff are reviewing trade waste licenses within the Alexandra catchment, to identify possible sources of elevated FOG. These sources will be visited for an initial conversation regarding trade waste practises.
Council has been issuing trade waste licenses when the need for these is identified through building permits or the environmental health teams. There is no routine administration or monitoring undertaken of the licenses, and there is no annual management fee. Council does not have a current trade waste bylaw to address non-compliance with the licenses or businesses which are operating without trade waste licenses.
Management of trade waste will need to be addressed within the next 12 months to ensure the plant can continue to operate within compliance levels, particularly as demand increases due to population and economic growth.
Cromwell
The abatement notice issued to Cromwell in October 2021 for elevated nitrogen levels has been officially cancelled by the ORC as of 22 August 2024. The ORC recognised the substantial efforts made by the CODC to achieve compliance at this site.
The August 2024 sample was the tenth consecutive month to comply with all resource consent limits. A separate report will be provided regarding the nitrogen upgrade proposed to be undertaken in 2024/25 at the Cromwell plant.
Roxburgh
The 2024 ORC audit report for the Roxburgh discharge to land consent, has been received. The site was graded as having "moderate non-compliance," reflecting an improvement from the "significant non-compliance" rating in the 2023 audit. The ORC noted substantial improvements made at the site in its 2024 report.
The areas of moderate non-compliance were associated with pH and dissolved oxygen levels, elevated nitrogen levels in the effluent, and damage to wavebands.
With desludging now completed and additional monitoring underway to assess the effectiveness of the work carried out so far, CODC applied for an extension of the abatement notice to allow sufficient time to achieve full compliance. The extension has been granted until 31 August 2025.
The consent requires effluent monitoring in February and August each year. The August 2024 sample was compliant for all parameters except for total nitrogen in the effluent. The result of 37.4mg/L slightly exceeded the consent limit of 35mg/L. A resample has been completed.
This is the lowest total nitrogen level recorded for August since 2017 and is attributed to the desludging. An aerator will be installed within the next two months. Based on experience with the Cromwell site, it is anticipated that the combination of desludging and addition of aeration will result in the Roxburgh site meeting all compliance requirements.
Naseby
CODC submitted a report to ORC regarding ponding on the Infiltration basin and requirements for the wetland. ORC have advised CODC to lodge a formal application for a consent variation regarding these issues.
Beca are preparing the consent variation, and it is expected to be lodged in six weeks.
Wet weather experienced through August and early September caused elevated ponding levels within the infiltration basins. These were managed carefully and no discharge outside of the basins occurred.
The consent requires effluent monitoring in July each year. The July 2024 sample was compliant for all parameters.
This site will require desludging in the next three years to increase pond capacity and improve the discharge quality to ensure the discharge remains compliant.
Ranfurly
The Ranfurly wastewater treatment plant has two resource consents for discharge to water, and air. In the 2024 ORC audit, the consents were graded as below.
|
Type of consent |
Compliance grade |
Reasons for the non-compliances |
|
Discharge to Air Permit RM11.110.03 |
Low Risk Non-Compliance |
One occurrence of late completion of 3 monthly odour monitoring |
|
Discharge to Water Permit RM15.004.02 |
Significant Non-Compliance
|
Lack of appropriate flow monitoring and verification Exceedance of effluent consent limits Elevated downstream results in comparison to the upstream Maintenance and Operation of the wetland Management of inflow and infiltration |
CODC received the NIWA wetland specialist report in August. This report has been reviewed in conjunction with the interstage sampling data and plant performance report.
Based on all expert advice and analysis, a renewal of the wetland is necessary which will include desludging and replanting. Before proceeding with the wetland renewal, it is recommended that the ponds be desludged to prevent any further carryover into the renewed wetland.
The proposed operational funding of $500,000 for pond desludging was removed from the 2024/25 Annual Plan budgets to limit rates increase. Funding has been included in the draft 2025/26 budgets. In the interim, resource consent requirements and a plan and contract documents for the desludging will be progressed so the work can proceed when funding is available.
The Imhoff tank continues to experience issues following the sudden and abnormal discharge of material into the Ranfurly wastewater network in February 2024. Staff are currently reviewing a proposal from the contractor to implement a more intensive approach to remove the affected sludge. This will result in increased operating cost for this site.
Lake Roxburgh Village
The 2024 ORC audit report for the Lake Roxburgh Village discharge to land consent, has been received. The site was graded as having "moderate non-compliance," reflecting an improvement from the "significant non-compliance" rating in the 2023 audit.
The areas of moderate non-compliance were associated with lack of appropriate discharge flow monitoring. This has been addressed with the installation and verification of a discharge flow meter.
The consent that the 2024 audit was carried out under is now expired, with a new discharge consent issued on 18 July 2024. Discussions are continuing with iwi regarding the proposed upgrade to this site. Increased funding has been provided in the draft 2025/26 capital budgets to meet increased cost estimates for the upgrade.
Appendix 1 - 2024 September Council Update Attachment.docx ⇩
Appendix 2 - 2024 ORC WWTP Audit reports merged (Roxburgh, Lake Roxburgh Village, Ranfurly).pdf ⇩
|
|
24.11.17 Status Update for Clyde Street and Water Upgrade
Doc ID: 1912528
|
Report Author: |
Quinton Penniall, Infrastructure Manager |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Louise van der Voort, Group Manager - Planning and Infrastructure |
1. Purpose
To consider an update on the Clyde Street and Water Upgrade.
|
That the reports be received.
|
2. Discussion
Status Reports
The September 2024 status update on the Clyde Street and Water Upgrade have been provided for information to Council (see Appendix 1).
Appendix 1 - Report for Clyde Street and Water Upgrade ⇩
|
|
9 Status Reports
24.11.18 September 2024 Governance Report
Doc ID: 1897778
|
Report Author: |
Wayne McEnteer, Governance Manager |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Saskia Righarts, Group Manager - Business Support |
1. Purpose
To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations, consider Council’s forward work programme, business plan and status report updates.
|
A. That the report be received. B. That Council approves 24.6.2 from the Teviot Valley Community Board meeting dated 12 September 2024. |
2. Discussion
Status Reports
The status reports have been updated with any actions since the previous meeting (see Appendix 1).
Representation Review 2024
The final determination from the Local Government Commission for the Representation Review 2024 has been released. It was previously sent to all elected members for their information (see Appendix 2).
NLTP Final Decision from Waka Kotahi
The New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) Board has confirmed the final funding allocations for the 2024-27 period under the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP). These allocations, outlined in the attached document (see Appendix 3), reflect the Government’s priorities for transport as set out in the GPS 2024, focusing on growth, resilience, safety, and value for money. Council’s roading team will present on the impact of these decisions for the 2024/25 year and considerations for future years.
2024/25 Teviot Valley Community Board Grants
As part of the 2024/25 Annual Plan process, Council resolved (Res 24.7.3):
“That the Council agrees with the Teviot Valley Community Board that the grants budget for the Teviot Valley remain at $5,200*[1] for the 2024/25 Annual Plan, and that any extra requests will be allocated from the reserves fund, as required.”
The Board has $5,000 to distribute annually through its community grants pool, and $2,000 to distribute in its promotions grant pool. At its meeting held on 12 September 2024, the Board approved requests for funding that exceeded their budgeted grants pools by $600 in the community grants pool, and $1,967 in the promotions grants pool. The grants report noted that there was an estimated $22,374 in the Teviot Grants reserve fund at year end June 2024, and $18,915 available in the Teviot Valley Promotions reserve fund. During the meeting, the Board were advised that approval from Council was required for this use of these reserves.
Council is asked to approve the following resolution:
|
24.6.2 2024/25 Community and Promotions Grants Applications - 1st Funding Round |
|
To consider the first round of the community and promotions grant applications for the 2024/25 financial year. After discussion it was agreed that the Puna Rangatahi should receive the full amount they had applied for. The Board allocated over their allotted amount for community grants so recommended to Council to uplift money from their community grant reserve fund. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Dalley Seconded: Feinerman That the Teviot Valley Community Board A. A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. B. Allocates $1,600 to Puna Rangatahi towards operational expenses for the Teviot Ward from the 2024/2025 Teviot Valley community grants budget. C. Allocates $2,000 to the Roxburgh Pioneer Energy Brass Band towards operational expenses from the 2024/2025 Teviot Valley community grants budget. D. Allocates $2,000 to Teviot District Museum Inc. towards operational expenses from the 2024/2025 Teviot Valley community grants budget. E. Notes Council resolution (24.7.3) advising that the Board can consider requests from its reserves fund and recommends to Council that $600 will come from the Teviot Valley community grant reserve fund. Carried |
|
Note: Mr Jessop assumed the Chair.
After discussion it was agreed that the Roxburgh Entertainment Centre should receive the full amount they had applied for. The Board allocated over their allotted amount for promotions grants so recommended to Council to uplift money from their promotions grant reserve fund.
Note: Cr Feinerman left the meeting at 11.11 am and returned to the meeting online at 11.12 am.
|
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Jessop Seconded: Booth F. Approves a grant of $2,967 to Roxburgh Entertainment Centre Improvement and Promotions Inc for two exterior lightboxes for the front of the theatre. G. Approves a grant of $1,000 to Central Otago District Arts Trust for Cover to Cover literary event in Roxburgh 2024, subject to the event taking place. H. Notes that it is each grant recipient’s responsibility to obtain and/or have in place the appropriate consents, plans and licences (including resource consent, health and safety plans etc.) as required by legislation, agencies, property owners and/or individuals to undertake the projects. I. Notes Council resolution (24.7.3) advising that the Board can consider requests from its reserves fund and recommends to Council that $1,967 will come from the Teviot Valley promotions grant reserve fund. Carried |
Appendix 1 - Council Status Updates ⇩
Appendix 2 - Representation Review Determination ⇩
Appendix 3 - Central Otago District Council NLTP final decision letter ⇩
|
|
10 Community Board Minutes
24.11.19 Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 9 September 2024
Doc ID: 1912433
|
Report Author: |
Wayne McEnteer, Governance Manager |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Saskia Righarts, Group Manager - Business Support |
|
That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 9 September 2024 be noted.
|
Appendix 1 - Minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 9 September 2024
|
9 September 2024 |
MINUTES OF A mEETING OF THE
Vincent Community
Board
HELD IN THE Ngā
Hau e Whā, William Fraser Building, 1 Dunorling Street, Alexandra
AND LIVE STREAMED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS ON Monday, 9 September 2024 COMMENCING AT
10.00 am
PRESENT: Cr T Alley (Chairperson), Dr R Browne, Mr J Cromb, Mr T Hammington, Mr D Johns
IN ATTENDANCE: T Cadogan (Mayor), P Kelly (Chief Executive Officer), L van der Voort (Group Manager - Planning and Infrastructure), S Righarts (Group Manager - Business Support), D Rushbrook (Group Manager - Community Vision), D Scoones (Group Manager - Community Experience), A Mason (Media Marketing Manager), R Williams (Community Development Advisor), G Bailey (Parks and Recreation Manager), G Robinson (Property and Facilities Manager), T Bates (Property Officer), W McEnteer (Governance Manager)
1 Apologies
|
Apology |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Cromb That the apology received from Cr McPherson and Paterson be accepted. Carried |
2 Public Forum
Andy Davey, Paula Stephenson and Graham Creighton – Central Stories (ADMI)
Mr Davey and Ms Stephenson spoke to the community grant application for Central Stories before responding to questions.
Ashlee Peters – Alexandra Toy Library
Ms Peters spoke to the community grant application for the Alexandra Toy Library before responding to questions.
Nigel Murray – Lower Manorburn Working Group
Mr Murray spoke to the community grant application for the Lower Manorburn Working Group before responding to questions.
Andy Davey - Winterstellar
Mr Davey spoke to the promotions grant application for Winterstellar before responding to questions.
Mike Coggan and Olivia Bolwell – Otago Cricket
Mr Coggan spoke to the promotions grant application for Cricket Otago before responding to questions.
Tash Kane – Puna Rangatahi
Ms Kane spoke to the community grant application for Puna Rangatahi before responding to questions.
Lena Sutherland – Alexandra BMX club
Ms Sutherland spoke to the promotions grant for the Alexandra BMX Club before responding to questions.
3 Confirmation of Minutes
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Browne Seconded: Hammington That the public minutes of the Vincent Community Board Meeting held on 30 July 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record. Carried |
4 Declarations of Interest
Members were reminded of their obligations in respect of declaring any interests. There were no further declarations of interest.
5 Reports
|
24.8.2 2024/25 Community and Promotions Grants Applications - 1st Funding Round |
|
To consider the first round of the community and promotions grant applications for the 2024/25 financial year. After discussion there was agreement with the recommendations made by staff for community grants. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Cromb Seconded: Johns That the Vincent Community Board A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Allocates $6,000 to Puna Rangatahi towards operational costs of the Alexandra service from the 2024/25 Vincent Community Board community grants budget. C. Allocates $2,500 to the Alexandra & Districts Pipe Band inc. towards hall hire costs from the 2024/25 Vincent Community Board community grants budget. D. Allocates $82,000 to the Alexandra and Districts Museum Inc towards operating costs from the 2024/25 Vincent Community Board community grants budget. E. Declines the application for $11,499.67 for the Lower Manorburn Reserve transitioning to native vegetation project as there is no reserve management plan in place for the reserve. F. Allocates $1,500 to the Alexandra Toy Library towards operating costs from the 2024/25 Vincent Community Board community grants budget. Carried |
|
After discussion it was noted that the promotions grant allocation had previously been exhausted so there was no money to disperse this round. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Browne Seconded: Johns G. Declines the application for $4,000 to Winterstellar Charitable Trust for Central Otago International Dark Sky Reserve initiation. H. Declines the application for $8,656 to Alexandra BMX Club for 2025 South Island BMX titles – costs towards materials including toilets, fencing, sound and lime for track I. Notes that it is each grant recipient’s responsibility to obtain and/or have in place the appropriate consents, plans and licences (including resource consent, health and safety plans etc.) as required by legislation, agencies, property owners and/or individuals to undertake the projects. Carried |
|
After discussion it was noted that while no monetary support could be given to Winterstellar, the Board would investigate a letter of support. The Board requested a report from staff to consider options for a letter. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Cromb Seconded: Browne J. Requests a report to come back to the Board to consider a letter of support for an International Dark Sky Reserve in the Vincent Ward. Carried |
|
24.8.3 Otago Cricket Grant Accountability Report |
|
To consider the promotion grant accountability report received from Otago Cricket Association. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Johns Seconded: Browne That the report be received. Carried |
|
24.8.4 Grant Application Otago Cricket Association 2024 T20 Super Smash |
|
To consider an application from Otago Cricket Association received outside the publicised grant funding round for a promotion grant for the T20 Super Smash games at Molyneux Park December 2024. After discussion it was noted that the promotions grant allocation had previously been exhausted so there was no money to disperse this round. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Cromb That the Vincent Community Board A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Declines to approve a grant for the 2024-25 year T 20 Super Smash Cricket costs of broadcast towers and sight screens from the Promotions Grant budget cost centre 2033. Carried |
|
24.8.5 Manorburn Recreation Reserve Committee |
|
To consider removing the Manorburn Recreation Reserve Committee as a subcommittee of the Vincent Community Board. After discussion, Members thanked the Manorburn Recreation Reserve Committee for their work through the years. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Browne Seconded: Hammington That the Vincent Community Board A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Agrees to remove the Manorburn Recreation Reserve Committee as a subcommittee of the Vincent Community Board. C. Recommends to Council to remove the Manorburn Recreation Reserve Committee as a subcommittee of the Vincent Community Board from the delegations register at its next opportunity. Carried |
|
24.8.6 Notice of Intention to Prepare a Reserve Management Plan - Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve |
|
To request that the Vincent Community Board resolves to notify a Draft Reserve Management Plan for the Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve. After discussion a report from staff was requested regarding a potential management agreement with the Lower Manorburn Working Group. |
|
Moved: Cromb Seconded: Browne That the Vincent Community Board A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Agrees in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 that Council notifies to the public its intention to prepare a Reserve Management Plan for the Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve and calls for written suggestions on the proposal. C. Agrees in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 to notify for submission a Draft Reserve Management Plan for the Manorburn Dam Recreation Reserve. D. Requests a report regarding a potential management agreement with the Lower Manorburn Working Group to the next meeting of the Board. Carried |
Note: With the permission of the meeting, item 24.8.14 was moved forward.
|
24.8.14 Road Stopping - Swindon Street, Ophir |
|
To consider a proposal to stop and sell part of Swindon Street. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Hammington That the Vincent Community Board A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Recommends that the Council agrees to stop approximately 650.5m2 of unformed legal road fronting Swindon Street, and 317 square metres of the unnamed unformed legal road, as shown in figure 5 (the Proposed Stopping Plan), in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981, subject to: - The land (stopped road) being sold at valuation as prescribed in the Public Works Act. - The parcels marked ‘A’ and ‘B’ being stopped and amalgamated with Record of Title OT366/26. - The parcels marked ‘C’ and ‘D’ being stopped and amalgamated with Record of Title OT188/110. - Easements (in gross) in favour of, and as approved to the satisfaction of, Aurora Energy Limited, being registered on the resulting titles if required. - The owner of Record of Title OT366/26 paying all costs associated with the preparation and registration of any easements required by Aurora Energy Limited. - The two applicants paying all other costs, including Council’s legal fees, in equal shares. - The stopping and legalisation being approved by the Minister of Lands. - The final survey plan being approved by the Chief Executive.
C. Authorises the Chief Executive to do all that is necessary to give effect to the resolution. Carried |
|
24.8.7 Molyneux Stadium |
|
To consider the status of the Molyneux Stadium and a staged investment approach for maintenance and compliance work to retain the building and bring it up to standard. After discussion it was agreed that a decision on Molyneux Stadium should wait until the outcome of the districtisation discussion was known. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Hammington Seconded: Johns That the Vincent Community Board Agrees to leave the item to lie on the table until the outcome of the districtisation discussion is known. Carried |
Note: Mr Cromb left the meeting at 11.51 am.
|
24.8.8 2025-34 Long-term Plan: Timeline |
|
To provide the Vincent Community Board with a copy of the 2025-34 Long-term Plan process timeline. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Hammington That the report be received. Carried |
Note: Mr Cromb returned to the meeting at 11.52 am.
6 Mayor’s Report
|
24.8.9 Mayor's Report His Worship the Mayor gave an update on his activities within the Vincent Ward. Among his activities he noted attending the inaugural Poolburn School Paddock Golf tournament and the work being done on the Riverside Park are and Alexandra Library. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Cromb That the Vincent Community Board receives the report. Carried |
7 Chair's Report
|
24.8.10 Chair's Report |
|
The Chair gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting: · Attended districtisation meetings in Ranfurly and Alexandra. · Noted a recent lunch at the Vulcan Hotel in St Bathans. · Attended the LGNZ conference and noted the session featuring Nicola Willis. · Attended a national security briefing. · Visited the Riding for the Disabled grounds and where they had moved into in the old jockey club. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Cromb That the report be received. Carried |
8 Members' Reports
|
24.8.11 Members' Reports |
|
Members gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting: Dr Browne reported on the following: l Chaired two Creative Writers Circle meetings. l Attended a meeting of the Central Otago District Arts Trust. l Attended the AGM of the Central Otago District Arts Trust. l Attended a meeting of the Alexandra and District Museum board. l Attended a meeting of Keep Alexandra Clyde Beautiful. l Attended a public meeting on districtisation. l Performed with a chamber orchestra in Bannockburn and in Alexandra. l Assisted with a demonstration concert for the Saturday Morning Music Classes. Mr Hammington reported on the following: · Attended meetings of Blossom Festival committee. · Attended the Bike Ambassadors course. · Attended the AGM for Promote Dunstan. · Attended the districtisation meeting in Alexandra. · Attended the Winterstellar night sky session . Mr Johns reported on the following: · Attended meetings of the Alexandra Rugby Club and Alexandra Golf Club. · Assisted with hosting the Otago Country rugby team. · Noted he had been keeping in touch with vallance cottage around their activities. Mr Cromb reported on the following: · Noted the recent passing of King Tūheitia · Attended a meeting of ACOSS · Attended the recent citizenship ceremony · Attended a meeting of the Riverside Park committee · Attended the LGNZ conference · Noted the recent discussion on Māori wards and the number of councils that had voted to keep them. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Hammington That the report be received. Carried |
9 Status Reports
|
24.8.12 September 2024 Governance Report |
|
To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations and consider the status report updates. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Cromb That the report be received. Carried |
10 Date of The Next Meeting
The date of the next scheduled meeting is 29 October 2024.
11 Resolution to Exclude the Public
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Alley Seconded: Cromb 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:
Carried |
The public were excluded at 12.06 pm and the meeting closed at 12.11 pm.
|
|
24.11.20 Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 12 September 2024
Doc ID: 1924330
|
Report Author: |
Wayne McEnteer, Governance Manager |
|
Reviewed and authorised by: |
Saskia Righarts, Group Manager - Business Support |
|
That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 12 September 2024 be noted.
|
Appendix 1 - Minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 12 September 2024
|
12 September 2024 |
MINUTES OF A mEETING OF THE
Teviot Valley
Community Board
HELD IN THE Roxburgh
Service Centre, 120 Scotland Street, Roxburgh
AND LIVE STREAMED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS ON Thursday, 12 September 2024 COMMENCING AT
10 am
PRESENT: Mr N Dalley (Chairperson), Mr M Jessop, Ms G Booth, Cr S Feinerman (via Microsoft Teams), Mr R Read
IN ATTENDANCE: T Cadogan (Mayor), P Kelly (Chief Executive Officer), S Righarts (Group Manager - Business Support), D Rushbrook (Group Manager - Community Vision), D Scoones (Group Manager - Community Experience), R Williams (Community Development Advisor), A Longman (Head of Destination), Q Penniall (Infrastructure Manager), W McEnteer (Governance Manager)
1 Apologies
|
Apology |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Dalley Seconded: Booth That the apology for lateness received from Mr Jessop be accepted. Carried |
2 Public Forum
Jan Bean – Central Otago District Arts Trust
Ms Bean spoke to the promotions grant application for Central Otago District Arts Trust before responding to questions.
Peter McDougall – Trees in Millers Flat, Districtisation and Rates
Mr McDougall raised three issues, the first around trees that are waiting to be planted in Millers Flat. He also voiced his support of a district model of museums. Finally he was concerned about how the rates apportionment document was written. He noted that it was not clear and that it looked like ratepayers were getting charged multiple times for the same thing. He then responded to questions.
Doug Dance – Brass Band
Mr Dance spoke to the community grant application for the Roxburgh Pioneer Energy Band before responding to questions.
Ann Rodgers – Roxburgh Entertainment Centre Improvement and Promotions
Ms Rodgers spoke to the promotions grant application for the Roxburgh Entertainment Centre Improvement and Promotions before responding to questions.
Tash Kane – Puna Rangatahi
Ms Kane spoke to the community grant application for Puna Rangatahi before responding to questions.
Note: Cr Feinerman left the meeting at 10.31 am and returned at 11.32 am.
3 Confirmation of Minutes
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Dalley Seconded: Feinerman That the public minutes of the Teviot Valley Community Board Meeting held on 1 August 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record. Carried |
4 Declarations of Interest
Members were reminded of their obligations in respect of declaring any interests. Mr Dalley declared an interest in item 24.6.2. He left the Chair and did not discuss or vote on the item.
Note: Mr Dalley declared an interest in the promotions grant portion of item 24.6.2. He left the Chair and did not discuss or vote on the item.
Note: Mr Jessop joined the meeting at 10.51 am.
5 Reports
|
24.6.2 2024/25 Community and Promotions Grants Applications - 1st Funding Round |
|
To consider the first round of the community and promotions grant applications for the 2024/25 financial year. After discussion it was agreed that the Puna Rangatahi should receive the full amount they had applied for. The Board allocated over their allotted amount for community grants so recommended to Council to uplift money from their community grant reserve fund. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Dalley Seconded: Feinerman That the Teviot Valley Community Board A. Receives the report and accepts the level of significance. B. Allocates $1,600 to Puna Rangatahi towards operational expenses for the Teviot Ward from the 2024/2025 Teviot Valley community grants budget. C. Allocates $2,000 to the Roxburgh Pioneer Energy Brass Band towards operational expenses from the 2024/2025 Teviot Valley community grants budget. D. Allocates $2,000 to Teviot District Museum Inc. towards operational expenses from the 2024/2025 Teviot Valley community grants budget. E. Notes Council resolution (24.7.3) advising that the Board can consider requests from its reserves fund and recommends to Council that $600 will come from the Teviot Valley community grant reserve fund. Carried |
|
Note: Mr Jessop assumed the Chair.
After discussion it was agreed that the Roxburgh Entertainment Centre should receive the full amount they had applied for. The Board allocated over their allotted amount for promotions grants so recommended to Council to uplift money from their promotions grant reserve fund.
Note: Cr Feinerman left the meeting at 11.11 am and returned to the meeting online at 11.12 am.
|
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Jessop Seconded: Booth F. Approves a grant of $2,967 to Roxburgh Entertainment Centre Improvement and Promotions Inc for two exterior lightboxes for the front of the theatre. G. Approves a grant of $1,000 to Central Otago District Arts Trust for Cover to Cover literary event in Roxburgh 2024, subject to the event taking place. H. Notes that it is each grant recipient’s responsibility to obtain and/or have in place the appropriate consents, plans and licences (including resource consent, health and safety plans etc.) as required by legislation, agencies, property owners and/or individuals to undertake the projects. I. Notes Council resolution (24.7.3) advising that the Board can consider requests from its reserves fund and recommends to Council that $1,967 will come from the Teviot Valley promotions grant reserve fund. Carried |
Note: Mr Dalley resumed the Chair.
|
24.6.3 2025-34 Long-term Plan: Timeline |
|
To provide the Teviot Valley Community Board with a copy of the 2025-34 Long-term Plan process timeline. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Dalley Seconded: Jessop That the report be received. Carried |
6 Mayor’s Report
|
24.6.4 Mayor's Report His Worship the Mayor gave an update on his recent activities and noted approximately fifty people in attendance at the districtisation meeting in Roxburgh. He also noted that he had been unable to attend recent business breakfast meetings, but hoped to attend the next one. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Dalley Seconded: Booth That the Teviot Valley Community Board receives the report. Carried |
7 Chair's Report
|
24.6.5 Chair's Report |
|
The Chair gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting: · Noted attendance at a number of AGMs at the moment. Noted that community groups are generally in good health but there is a dearth of volunteers. · Attended the Teviot Museum AGM and noted the work being done on their new building. Also noted how possible districtisation might work in the museum space. · Attended a meeting of the Teviot Valley Rest Home and noted the challenges in this space. · Attended the districtisation meeting in Roxburgh and noted that it was well attended. · Noted a meeting to discuss the 10 year economic strategy work with staff. · Attended a Long-term Plan workshop in Alexandra. · Noted there are a lot more people at the Roxburgh business breakfast. · Noted that effort was needed to look to see what the Board might want to take to the Long-term Plan process. · Noted that he will attend the 25 September Council meeting to discuss districtisation. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Dalley Seconded: Booth That the report be received. Carried |
8 Members' Reports
|
24.6.6 Members' Reports |
|
Members gave an update on activities and issues since the last meeting: Mr Read reported on the following: · Attended the districtisation meeting in Roxburgh. · Noted that the community garden group welcomed a new member. Also noted that the community garden shop is open three times per week. Ms Booth reported on the following: · Attended the districtisation meeting in Roxburgh. · Attended the session on economic development. Mr Jessop reported on the following: · Attended the recent business breakfast. · Attended the Millers Flat coffee group. · Attended a meeting of Teviot Prospects and noted the project to reinstate the living wall and to improve public seating in Scotland St, Roxburgh. · Noted speaking with staff regarding the Millers Flat Domain. · Noted that there was an idea to beautify the Millers Flat toilets and paint them to resemble a miner’s hut. · Noted local concern about Millers Flat gold mine. · Attended the districtisation workshop in Alexandra. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Dalley Seconded: Booth That the report be received. Carried |
9 Status Reports
|
24.6.7 September 2024 Governance Report |
|
To report on items of general interest, receive minutes and updates from key organisations and consider the status report updates. Staff gave an update on recent work completed on the Millers Flat bridge and it was noted that the project was completed on time and on budget. Members thanked staff for their work. There was also an update on the uptake of use of the organics bin in the Teviot Valley. |
|
Committee Resolution Moved: Dalley Seconded: Jessop That the report be received. Carried |
10 Date of The Next Meeting
The date of the next scheduled meeting is 31 October 2024.
The meeting closed at 12.25 pm.
...................................................
CHAIR / /
|
24 September 2024 |
11 Date of the Next Meeting
The date of the next scheduled meeting is 15 October 2024.
|
24 September 2024 |
12 Resolution to Exclude the Public
