Agenda of Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting

	Authorising Body	Mayor/Council
	Status	Standing Committee
COUNCIL COMMITTEE	Title	Strategy and Policy Committee Terms of Reference
	Approval Date	19 December 2019
	Responsible Officer	Chief Executive

Purpose

The purpose of the Strategy and Policy Committee (the Committee) is to set direction for the district, determine specific outcomes that need to be met to deliver on that vision, and set in place the strategies, policies and work programmes to achieve those goals.

In determining and shaping the strategies, policies and work programme of the Council, the Committee takes a holistic approach to ensure there is strong alignment between the objectives and work programmes of the strategic outcomes of Council, being:

· Better data and information

· Affordable core infrastructure

· Improved Council capabilities and performance

· Address affordability

· Civic leadership and advocacy

· Empowering communities

The Committee will review the effectiveness of the following aspects:

· Trust and confidence in decision-making by keeping our communities informed and involved in decision-making.

· Operational performance including strategy and policy development, monitoring, and reporting on significant projects, including, but not limited to:

o FN2100

o District wide strategies (Infrastructure/ Reserves/Climate Change/Transport)

o District Plan

o Significant projects (not infrastructure)

o Financial Strategy

o Data Governance

o Affordability

· Consultation and engagement including submissions to external bodies / organisations

To perform his or her role effectively, each Committee member must develop and maintain

his or her skills and knowledge, including an understanding of the Committee’s responsibilities, and of the Council’s business, operations and risks.

Power to Delegate

The Strategy and Policy Committee may not delegate any of its responsibilities, duties or powers.

Membership

The Council will determine the membership of the Strategy and Policy Committee.

The Strategy and Policy Committee will comprise of at least seven elected members (one of which

will be the chairperson).

Mayor Carter

Rachel Smith – Chairperson

David Clendon – Deputy Chairperson

Moko Tepania

Ann Court

Felicity Foy

Dave Collard

John Vujcich

Belinda Ward – Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board

Non-appointed councillors may attend meetings with speaking rights, but not voting rights.

Quorum

The quorum at a meeting of the Strategy and Policy Committee is 5 members.

Frequency of Meetings

The Strategy and Policy Committee shall meet every 6 weeks but may be cancelled if there is no business.

Committees Responsibilities

The Committees responsibilities are described below:

Strategy and Policy Development

· Oversee the Strategic Planning and Policy work programme

· Develop and agree strategy and policy for consultation / engagement.

· Recommend to Council strategy and policy for adoption.

· Monitor and review strategy and policy.

Service levels (non regulatory)

· Recommend service level changes and new initiatives to the Long Term and Annual Plan processes.

Policies and Bylaws

· Leading the development and review of Council's policies and district bylaws when and as directed by Council

· Recommend to Council new or amended bylaws for adoption

Consultation and Engagement

· Conduct any consultation processes required on issues before the Committee.

· Act as a community interface (with, as required, the relevant Community Board(s)) for consultation on policies and as a forum for engaging effectively.

· Receive reports from Council’s Portfolio and Working Parties and monitor engagement.

· Review as necessary and agree the model for Portfolios and Working Parties.

Strategic Relationships

· Oversee Council’s strategic relationships, including with Māori, the Crown and foreign investors, particularly China

· Oversee, develop and approve engagement opportunities triggered by the provisions of Mana Whakahono-ā-Rohe under the Resource Management Act 1991

· Recommend to Council the adoption of new Memoranda of Understanding (MOU)

· Meet annually with local MOU partners

· Quarterly reviewing operation of all Memoranda of Understanding

· Quarterly reviewing Council’s relationships with iwi, hapū, and post-settlement governance entities in the Far North District

· Monitor Sister City relationships

· Special projects (such as Te Pū o Te Wheke or water storage projects)

Submissions and Remits

· Approve submissions to, and endorse remits for, external bodies / organisations and on legislation and regulatory proposals, provided that:

o If there is insufficient time for the matter to be determined by the Committee before the submission “close date” the submission can be agreed by the relevant Portfolio Leaders, Chair of the Strategy and Policy Committee, Mayor and Chief Executive (all Councillors must be advised of the submission and provided copies if requested).

o If the submission is of a technical and operational nature, the submission can be approved by the Chief Executive (in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Leader prior to lodging the submission).

· Oversee, develop and approve any relevant remits triggered by governance or management commencing in January of each calendar year.

· Recommend to Council those remits that meet Council’s legislative, strategic and operational objectives to enable voting at the LGNZ AGM. All endorsements will take into account the views of our communities (where possible) and consider the unique attributes of the district.

Fees

· Set fees in accordance with legislative requirements unless the fees are set under a bylaw (in which case the decision is retained by Council and the committee has the power of recommendation) or set as part of the Long Term Plan or Annual Plan (in which case the decision will be considered by the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan and approved by Council).

District Plan

· Review and approve for notification a proposed District Plan, a proposed change to the District Plan, or a variation to a proposed plan or proposed plan change (excluding any plan change notified under clause 25(2)(a), First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991);

· Withdraw a proposed plan or plan change under clause 8D, First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

· Make the following decisions to facilitate the administration of proposed plan, plan changes, variations, designation and heritage order processes:

§ To authorise the resolution of appeals on a proposed plan, plan change or variation unless the issue is minor and approved by the Portfolio Leader District Plan and the Chair of the Regulatory committee.

§ To decide whether a decision of a Requiring Authority or Heritage Protection Authority will be appealed to the Environment Court by council and authorise the resolution of any such appeal.

§ To consider and approve council submissions on a proposed plan, plan changes, and variations.

§ To manage the private plan change process.

§ To accept, adopt or reject private plan change applications under clause 25 First Schedule Resource Management Act (RMA).

Rules and Procedures

Council’s Standing Orders and Code of Conduct apply to all the committee’s meetings.

Annual reporting

The Chair of the Committee will submit a written report to the Chief Executive on an annual basis. The review will summarise the activities of the Committee and how it has contributed to the Council’s governance and strategic objectives. The Chief Executive will place the report on the next available agenda of the governing body.

STRATEGY AND POLICY COMMITTEE - MEMBERS REGISTER OF INTERESTS

Name	Responsibility (i.e. Chairperson etc)	Declaration of Interests	Nature of Potential Interest	Member's Proposed Management Plan
Hon John Carter QSO	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Programme	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Program
Hon John Carter QSO	Carter Family Trust
Rachel Smith (Chair)	Friends of Rolands Wood Charitable Trust	Trustee
	Mid North Family Support	Trustee
	Property Owner	Kerikeri
	Friends who work at Far North District Council
	Kerikeri Cruising Club	Subscription Member and Treasurer
	Vision Kerikeri	Financial Member
Rachel Smith (Partner)	Property Owner	Kerikeri
	Friends who work at Far North District Council
	Kerikeri Cruising Club	Subscription Member
	Vision Kerikeri	Financial Member
	Town and General Groundcare Limited	Director. Shareholder
David Clendon (Deputy Chair)	Chairperson – He Waka Eke Noa Charitable Trust	None		Declare if any issue arises
	Member of Vision Kerikeri	None		Declare if any issue arises
	Joint owner of family home in Kerikeri	Hall Road, Kerikeri
David Clendon – Partner	Resident Shareholder on Kerikeri Irrigation
David Collard	Snapper Bonanza 2011 Limited	45% Shareholder and Director
David Collard	Trustee of Te Ahu Charitable Trust	Council delegate to this board
Deputy Mayor Ann Court	Waipapa Business Association	Member		Case by case
	Warren Pattinson Limited	Shareholder	Building company. FNDC is a regulator and enforcer	Case by case
	Kerikeri Irrigation	Supplies my water		No
	District Licensing	N/A	N/A	N/A
	Ann Court Trust	Private	Private	N/A
	Waipapa Rotary	Honorary member	Potential community funding submitter	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Properties on Onekura Road, Waipapa	Owner Shareholder	Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact (positive/adverse)	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Property on Daroux Dr, Waipapa	Financial interest	Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact (positive/adverse)	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Flowers and gifts	Ratepayer 'Thankyou'	Bias/ Pre-determination?	Declare to Governance
	Coffee and food	Ratepayers sometimes 'shout' food and beverage	Bias or pre-determination	Case by case
	Staff	N/A	Suggestion of not being impartial or pre-determined!	Be professional, due diligence, weigh the evidence. Be thorough, thoughtful, considered impartial and balanced. Be fair.
	Warren Pattinson	My husband is a builder and may do work for Council staff		Case by case
Ann Court - Partner	Warren Pattinson Limited	Director	Building Company. FNDC is a regulator	Remain at arm’s length
	Air NZ	Shareholder	None	None
	Warren Pattinson Limited	Builder	FNDC is the consent authority, regulator and enforcer.	Apply arm’s length rules
	Property on Onekura Road, Waipapa	Owner	Any proposed FNDC capital work in the vicinity or rural plan change. Maybe a link to policy development.	Would not submit. Rest on a case by case basis.
Felicity Foy	Flick Trustee Ltd	I am the director of this company that is the company trustee of Flick Family Trust that owns properties Seaview Road – Cable Bay, and Allen Bell Drive - Kaitaia.
	Elbury Holdings Limited	This company is directed by my parents Fiona and Kevin King.	This company owns several dairy and beef farms, and also dwellings on these farms. The Farms and dwellings are located in the Far North at Kaimaumau, Bird Road/Sandhills Rd, Wireless Road/ Puckey Road/Bell Road, the Awanui Straight and Allen Bell Drive.
	Foy Farms Partnership	Owner and partner in Foy Farms - a farm on Church Road, Kaingaroa
	Foy Farms Rentals	Owner and rental manager of Foy Farms Rentals for dwellings on Church Road, Kaingaroa and dwellings on Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, and property on North Road, Kaitaia, one title contains a cell phone tower.
	King Family Trust	This trust owns several titles/properties at Cable Bay, Seaview Rd/State Highway 10 and Ahipara - Panorama Lane.	These trusts own properties in the Far North.
	112 Commerce Street Holdings Ltd	Owner of commercial property in Commerce Street Kaitaia.
	Foy Property Management Ltd	Owner of company that manages properties owned by Foy Farms Rentals and Flick Family Trust.
	Previous employment at FNDC 2007-16	I consider the staff members at FNDC to be my friends
	Shareholder of Coastline Plumbing NZ Limited
Felicity Foy - Partner	Director of Coastline Plumbing NZ Limited
Felicity Foy - Partner	Friends with some FNDC employees
Kelly Stratford	KS Bookkeeping and Administration	Business Owner, provides bookkeeping, administration and development of environmental management plans	None perceived	Step aside from decisions that arise, that may have conflicts
	Waikare Marae Trustees	Trustee	Maybe perceived conflicts	Case by case basis
	Bay of Islands College	Parent Elected Trustee	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Karetu School	Parent Elected Trustee	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Māori title land – Moerewa and Waikare	Beneficiary and husband is a shareholder	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Sister is employed by Far North District Council			Will not discuss work/governance mattes that are confidential
	Gifts - food and beverages	Residents and ratepayers may ‘shout’ food and beverage	Perceived bias or predetermination	Case by case basis
	Taumarere Counselling Services	Advisory Board Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting
	Sport Northland	Board Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting
	He Puna Aroha Putea Whakapapa	Trustee	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting should they apply for funds
	Kawakawa Returned Services Association	Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting should they apply for funds
	Whangaroa Returned Services Association	Member	May be perceived conflicts	Should conflict arise, step aside from voting should they apply for funds
	National Emergency Management Advisor Committee	Member		Case by case basis
	Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi	Tribal affiliate member	As a descendent of Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi Council relations	Declare a perceived conflict should there appear to be one
	Te Rūnanga ā Iwi o Ngāti Hine	Tribal affiliate member	Could have a perceived conflict of interest	Declare a perceived conflict should I determine there is a conflict
	Kawakawa Business and Community Association	Member		Will declare a perceived conflict should there appear to be one
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Chef and Barista	Opua Store	None perceived
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Māori title land – Moerewa	Shareholder	None perceived	If there was a conflict of interest, I would step aside from decision making
Moko Tepania	Teacher	Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Kaikohe.	Potential Council funding that will benefit my place of employment.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Chairperson	Te Reo o Te Tai Tokerau Trust.	Potential Council funding for events that this trust runs.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Tribal Member	Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa	As a descendent of Te Rarawa I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rarawa Council relations.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Tribal Member	Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa	As a descendent of Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa Council relations.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Tribal Member	Kahukuraariki Trust Board	As a descendent of Kahukuraariki Trust Board I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Kahukuraariki Trust Board Council relations.	Declare a perceived conflict
	Tribal Member	Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi	As a descendent of Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi I could have a perceived conflict of interest in Te Rūnanga ā-Iwi o Ngāpuhi Council relations.	Declare a perceived conflict
John Vujcich	Board Member	Pioneer Village	Matters relating to funding and assets	Declare interest and abstain
	Director	Waitukupata Forest Ltd	Potential for council activity to directly affect its assets	Declare interest and abstain
	Director	Rural Service Solutions Ltd	Matters where council regulatory function impact of company services	Declare interest and abstain
	Director	Kaikohe (Rau Marama) Community Trust	Potential funder	Declare interest and abstain
	Partner	MJ & EMJ Vujcich	Matters where council regulatory function impacts on partnership owned assets	Declare interest and abstain
	Member	Kaikohe Rotary Club	Potential funder, or impact on Rotary projects	Declare interest and abstain
	Member	New Zealand Institute of Directors	Potential provider of training to Council	Declare a Conflict of Interest
	Member	Institute of IT Professionals	Unlikely, but possible provider of services to Council	Declare a Conflict of Interest
	Member	Kaikohe Business Association	Possible funding provider	Declare a Conflict of Interest
Belinda Ward	Ward Jarvis Family Trust	Trustee
	Kenneth Jarvis Family Trust	Trustee
	Residence in Watea
Belinda Ward (Partner)	Ward Jarvis Family Trust	Trustee and beneficiary
	Kenneth Jarvis Family Trust	Trustee and beneficiary
	Residence in Watea	Trustee

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

15 June 2021

MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe
ON Tuesday, 4 May 2021 AT 9.32 am

PRESENT: Cr Rachel Smith, Cr David Clendon, Mayor John Carter (HWTM), Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Cr Dave Collard, Cr Felicity Foy, Cr Kelly Stratford, Cr Moko Tepania, Cr John Vujcich, Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board Belinda Ward

IN ATTENDANCE:

STAFF PRESENT: Shaun Clarke (Chief Executive Officer), Andy Finch (General Manager Infrastructure and Asset Management), Dean Myburgh (General Manager District Services), William J Taylor, MBE (General Manager Strategic Planning and Policy - Acting), Jaime Dyhrberg (General Manager - Corporate Services - Acting)

1 Karakia TimatAnga – Opening Prayer

Councillor Moko Tepania opened the meeting with a prayer/karakia.

Chair Rachel Smith thanked William J Taylor, MBE (General Manager Strategic Planning and Policy – Acting) for standing in as General Manager Lead on the Strategy and Policy Committee.

2 NGā WHAKAPāHA ME NGā PāNGA MEMA / Apologies and Declarations of Interest

Apology

Resolution 2021/12

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That the apology received from His Worship the Mayor for lateness be accepted and leave of absence granted.

Carried

3 NGā tONO kŌRERO / Deputation

Nil

4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 4.1 document number A3052687, pages 14 - 19 refers.

Resolution 2021/13

Moved: Cr Moko Tepania

Seconded: Cr Dave Collard

That the Strategy and Policy Committee agrees that the minutes of the meeting held 23 March 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

5 Reports

5.1 Proposal for a Treated Water Supply Bylaw

Agenda item 5.1 document number A3144932, pages 20 - 41 refers.

motion

Moved: Cr Rachel Smith

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) agrees, under section 156(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002, to consult on a draft Treated Water Supply Bylaw in a manner that gives effect to the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002;

b) approves the Treated Water Supply Bylaw Proposal, including the draft bylaw, in attachment 1 be made publicly available for the purpose of the consultation;

c) agrees the period for making written submissions on the proposal will end on 31 May 2021;

d) agrees that if any person wishes to make an oral presentation of their submission, that presentation will take place on Tuesday 8 June 2021, and:

i) the hearing will be conducted by the whole Committee; or

ii) the hearing will be conducted by a subcommittee and appoint members to that subcommittee;

e) authorises the chief executive to make minor changes to the Treated Water Supply Bylaw Proposal to correct grammatical or spelling errors, or formatting.

Amendment

Moved: Cr Rachel Smith

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

c) agrees the period for making written submissions on the proposal, be agreed upon between Chairperson Smith, Cr Clendon and the Chief Executive Officer;

CARRIED

Against: Cr Ann Court

The amendment became the substantive motion.

Resolution 2021/14

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Cr David Clendon

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

b) approves the Treated Water Supply Bylaw Proposal, including the draft bylaw, in attachment 1 be made publicly available for the purpose of the consultation;

c) agrees the period for making written submissions on the proposal, be agreed upon between Chairperson Smith, Cr Clendon and the Chief Executive Officer;

d) agrees that if any person wishes to make an oral presentation of their submission, that presentation will take place on Tuesday 8 June 2021, and:

i) the hearing will be conducted by the whole Committee; or

ii) the hearing will be conducted by a subcommittee and appoint members to that subcommittee;

e) authorises the Chief Executive Officer to make minor changes to the Treated Water Supply Bylaw Proposal to correct grammatical or spelling errors, or formatting.

Carried

5.2 New Parking and Road Use Bylaws

Agenda item 5.2 document number A3137326, pages 42 - 47 refers.

Resolution 2021/15

Moved: Deputy Mayor Ann Court

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That the Strategy and Policy Committee makes the following recommendation to Council:

That Council determine, under section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, that two new bylaws regulating parking and road use, made under the Land Transport Act 1998, are the most appropriate way of addressing the problems in the Far North District:

i) competition for space in the central business districts.

ii) congestion in the central business districts.

Carried

Against: Cr Ann Court

The meeting was adjourned from 10.54 am to 11.05 am.

5.3 Control of On-site Wastewater Disposal Systems Bylaw

Agenda item 5.3 document number A3122244, pages 48 - 63 refers.

Resolution 2021/16

Moved: Deputy Mayor Ann Court

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That the Strategy and Policy Committee makes the following recommendation to Council:

That Council agree, under section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing problems related to the maintenance of on-site wastewater disposal systems in the Far North District.

At 11:11 am, Cr Moko Tepania left the meeting

Carried

5.4 Review of Psychoactive Substances Local Approved Products Policy 2014

Agenda item 5.4 document number A3155136, pages 64 - 76 refers.

Resolution 2021/17

Moved: Deputy Mayor Ann Court

Seconded: Cr Kelly Stratford

That the Strategy and Policy Committee makes the following recommendation to Council:

That Council:

a) agree that the Psychoactive Substances Local Approved Policy has been reviewed.

b) agree that the Psychoactive Substance Local Approved Policy should continue without amendment.

At 11:20 am, Cr Moko Tepania returned to the meeting.

Carried

Abstained: Member Belinda Ward and Cr Moko Tepania

At 11:26 am, Mayor John Carter joined the meeting.

Cr Clendon provided an update the Strategy and Policy Committee on his portfolio on Climate Change.

At 11:39 am, Mayor John Carter left the meeting. At 11:44 am, Mayor John Carter returned to the meeting.

5 Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer

Chairperson Smith closed the meeting with a karakia/prayer.

6 tE kAPINGA hUI / Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 11.46 am.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Strategy and Policy Committee meeting to be held on 15 June 2021.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

15 June 2021

5 Reports

5.1 Resident Opinion Survey

File Number: A3215681

Author: Richard Edmondson, Manager - Communications

Authoriser: Shaun Clarke, Chief Executive Officer

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek Strategy and Policy Committee approval of a proposal to change the frequency of the Resident Opinion Survey from annually to quarterly.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· The Council undertakes an annual Resident Opinion Survey in May-June to measure satisfaction with services, as well as broader perceptions of the Council

· Undertaking the survey at the same time each year ensures that survey results are comparable with those of previous years

· However, it also means that perceptions of the Council may be influenced by seasonal or topical issues that affect services or public sentiment

· Key Research, which carries out the survey on behalf of the Council, has recommended undertaking the survey four times a year instead of annually

· This would allow elected members and staff to identify seasonal fluctuations in satisfaction levels, which would provide a more rounded picture of public opinion

· Surveying the community quarterly would also allow the Council to respond to feedback more quickly and assess the effectiveness of remedial action plans

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee agrees to the changes of the frequency for the Resident Opinion Survey from annually to quarterly in 2021/22.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The Council undertakes an annual telephone survey of residents in May-June to measure satisfaction with its services and facilities, as well as perceptions of other reputation drivers, including vision and leadership, financial management and value for money. It includes key results from the annual survey in its Annual Report and staff use survey feedback to assess the effectiveness of services and to inform service delivery planning. Survey results are also reported to the Strategy and Policy Committee and the survey report is posted on the Council’s website in the interests of accountability and transparency. In the 2015-25 Long Term Plan, key business units had performance targets linked to survey results. These were removed in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan in lieu of other performance measures. However, questions about these services were retained in the survey so the organisation could track customer and resident satisfaction levels from year to year.

In 2018, the Council entered into a partnership with Tauranga-based market research company Key Research to deliver the annual survey after using the services of two other research companies in previous years. Elected members at the time had tasked the Chief Executive with developing a reputation index for the Council. Key Research was the only company that offered a reputation measurement system based on a robust methodology. Key Research also undertakes surveys on behalf of a number of New Zealand and Australian councils, including Northland Regional Council and Kaipara District Council, so it is well-qualified to advise the Council on effective survey approaches. One idea staff have been discussing with Key Research is changing the survey frequency from annually to quarterly. A number of councils Key Research provides services to undertake four surveys a year for reasons outlined in this report. Key Research is recommending that the Council does the same in 2021/22. Elected members have tasked the Chief Executive with investigating this and completion of this report is a key performance indicator (KPI) for the Chief Executive in 2020/21. Staff have investigated the costs and benefits of this approach by talking to Key Research and staff at other councils which survey on a quarterly basis. The findings of this research are presented here in support of the recommendation above.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Proposal

The Council currently undertakes an annual Resident Opinion Survey in May-June each year. This ensures that survey results are comparable with those of previous years. However, it also means that perceptions of the Council may be influenced by weather or topical issues that affect public sentiment. For example, rural respondents may be less satisfied with the unsealed roading network in May-June because autumn/winter rain causes potholes and surface damage. This period is also when the Council adopts its Annual and Long-Term Plans. Unpopular decisions by Council or other topical issues may also impact on respondents’ overall impressions of the organisation. For example, when this report was written, there was widespread concern in the community about the designation of Significant Natural Areas on private land. Another weakness of the current survey is it asks respondents to provide feedback about a service they may have used 11 months ago. It is possible that they may not recollect their experience of the service and may be more likely to remember a negative experience than a positive one.

Key Research has recommended replacing the annual survey with a quarterly survey. This would provide the Council with four ‘snap shots’ each year and a more rounded picture of its performance. It would also allow staff and elected members to identify seasonal fluctuations in satisfaction levels. Key Research undertakes quarterly surveys for South Waikato District Council. Its end of year survey results for 2019/20 show significant variances across quarters. For example, the percentage of people who were satisfied with the Council’s overall performance was 70% in Quarter One of 2019/20, but 87% in Quarter 3. The percentage of people satisfied with roads and footpaths increased by 13% between Quarter 1 and Quarter 4. Staff at South Waikato District Council say the Council has undertaken its survey for at least the last five years and there are no downsides to this survey cycle.

Staff are asking the Committee to consider whether to replace the annual resident survey with a quarterly survey in 2021/22. The first survey would be undertaken at the end of the first quarter in September 2021 and subsequent surveys would be undertaken in December 2021, March 2022, and June 2022. The survey questions would remain the same as the current questions for comparability. The Council would receive results in the form of a dashboard (see graphic below as an example), allowing elected members and staff to monitor performance indicators throughout the year instead of annually. Staff are also investigating whether to replace the phone survey with a postal/online survey. While this method of surveying is cheaper than a phone survey, it also carries certain risks and staff are currently assessing these.

Strategic alignment

The proposal is closely aligned with strategic priorities in the Long-Term Plan 2018-28. These direct the Council to:

· develop systems and processes that produce meaningful robust data, so it has the best information to make the best decisions for communities

· demonstrate capable, credible leadership and good governance

· empower communities by hearing their voices.

Undertaking a resident survey is also a requirement of the CouncilMARK™ performance assessment framework.

Benefits

Undertaking the survey quarterly and reporting the results to the Strategy and Policy Committee would:

· support a more customer-centric and data-driven approach to the delivery of services

· allow the Council to identify seasonal and topical issues that impact on satisfaction levels and the Council’s reputation

· improve the accuracy of feedback because respondents would be able to refer to recent rather than distant experiences

· allow staff to respond to customer feedback more quickly, as well as monitor the effectiveness of remedial action plans

· support strategic priorities in the Long-Term Plan 2018-28 as outlined above.

Costs and risks

Cost differences between an annual phone survey and a quarterly phone survey are shown below. There is only a marginal difference between these, and costs would be lower if the Council chose to switch from a phone survey to a postal/online survey. There would be additional staff time involved in reporting the survey results. However, these reports could be standardised to save time and analysing and acting on the results should be part of day-to-day business for an organisation that is genuinely customer-centric. Undertaking a quarterly survey shouldn’t result in ‘survey fatigue’ in the community because it is unlikely that Key Research would randomly select the same 500 people to survey when building the samples. Key Research hasn’t identified any risks with the proposed approach which has been used by other councils.

Survey frequency

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

Quarterly survey

$29,355

$31,600

$32,000

Annual survey

$30,240

$30,850

$31,195

All figures exclude GST

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

To support a more customer-centric and data-driven approach to the provision of services and the management of Council’s reputation.

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The Manager – Communications has included $38,600 per annum in the Long-Term Plan 2021-31 to cover the costs of an annual or quarterly survey.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

Nil

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	The decision is of low significance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	The Council has no statutory duty to undertake a resident survey. That said, the proposal is consistent with the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002 which is to provide for democratic and effective local government that recognises the diversity of New Zealand communities. The proposal also supports the Council’s strategic priorities as set out in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	The resident survey is a district-wide exercise.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	The current survey allows for the segregation of responses according to ward and other variables, including whether the respondent is Māori. Undertaking the survey quarterly will give the Council a more accurate picture of how Māori view the Council and its services, allowing elected members and staff to include their views in its decision-making.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	The Manager – Communications has sought feedback on the proposal from senior Council managers and is seeking approval from Elected Members who are also affected by the proposal.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The Manager – Communications has included $38,600 + GST per annum in the Long-Term Plan 2021-31 to cover the costs of an annual or quarterly survey.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

15 June 2021

5.2 Kōkiri Ai te Waka Hourua Strategy (Sport Northland)

File Number: A3201318

Author: Ana Mules, Team Leader - Community Development and Investment

Authoriser: William J Taylor MBE, General Manager - Corporate Services

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek support in principle for the Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua Regional Sports, Active Recreation and Play Strategy.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Sport Northland have commissioned the development of a regional sport, active recreation and play strategy called Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua 2021-2030

· There is also a Far North Spaces and Places Implementation Plan under development, linking in parks and reserves

· These documents aim to provide high-level strategic frameworks to guide Council’s future decision making and Council staff from the across the business have contributed to their development

· Sports, recreation, parks and play contribute greatly to community wellbeing and under the Local Government Act 2002 it is Council’s obligation to “…promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future”

· From an operations perspective, the accountability and responsibility for advocating and supporting sports, recreation, parks and play in the Far North District is not with any single role, team or group within Council. This includes the accountability and responsibility for the implementation of any new initiatives that would come from an implementation plan for a Strategy like Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua 2021-2030.

· Staff anticipate high sector and community expectations to deliver Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua and the Far North Spaces and Places Plan, while being aware of the resourcing limitations staff are currently working under that are likely to impact on successful implementation.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee recommend that Council supports in principle the Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua Regional Sports, Active Recreation and Play Strategy to allow time to plan how this strategy will be resourced and implemented.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Sport Northland has commissioned Recreation, Sports and Leisure (RSL) consultants to work with key stakeholders (e.g. hauora organisations, councils, sporting codes, communities and Sport New Zealand) to develop a regional sport, active recreation and play strategy. The strategy provides a snapshot of the current situation in the region including key demographics, participation trends, challenges, opportunities and advantages.

The strategy is called Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua 2021-2030 and was completed on 7 April 2021 [Attachment One]. It covers the Far North, Kaipara and Whangarei Districts’ and provides a high-level strategic framework to guide future decision making for play, active recreation and sport. For councils this means informing future long-term and annual plans.

Sitting under this strategy will be a Far North Spaces and Places Implementation Plan, which is currently in development. This is also being led by RSL and is due for completion by 23 July 2021.

Council staff from across the business have contributed to the development of both the Strategy and Plan.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The current independent review of local government is likely to support a move away from the ‘transactional relationships’ councils often have with communities, to ‘sustainable relationships’ with a requirement that councils are more accountable to their communities, forming partnerships with mana whenua and central/local government to better provide for the social, environmental, cultural, and economic wellbeing of communities.

In this context, sports, recreation and play contribute greatly to community wellbeing. Communities that participate in sport and recreation develop strong social bonds, are safer places and the people who live there are generally healthier and happier than in places where physical activity isn't a priority. Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua considers not just the activities and programmes delivered, but also the spaces and places that support play, active recreation and sport activities across Te Tai Tokerau/Northland. The Far North Spaces and Places Plan currently in development will explore this further, so it is therefore useful to bring parks and reserves, a natural fit, into this discussion – connecting people and place.

Benefits of Sport, Recreation, Parks and Play

Social

Environmental

Economic

Cultural

· Develops Personal Development and Growth

· Physical Health

· Self Esteem and Self Reliance

· Creativity and Sense of Accomplishment

· Creates More Fun

· Enhances Pleasure

· Reduces Stress

· Increases Life Satisfaction

· Promotes Psychological Wellbeing

· Reduces Pollution

· Promotes Clean Air and Water

· Preserves Open Space

· Protects the Ecosystem

· Increases Community Pride

· Reduces Healthcare Costs

· Reduces Vandalism and Crime

· Enhances Property Value

· Catalyst for Tourism

· Community spend (cafes, accommodation etc)

· Employment (ground keepers, referees, event’s organisers etc)

· Connected Families

· Strengths Social Bonding

· Promotes Ethnic & Cultural Harmony

· Reduces Alienation

· Develops Strong Communities

· Connects to whenua/land

From a legal perspective, it is Council’s obligation under Sections 3 and 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to “…promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future”. In the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) Section 5, the purpose is to “…promote the sustainable management 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 wellbeing and for their health and safety while;

• sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to
meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

• safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

• avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Also relevant is Section 1 (Reserves and Parks Management and Preservation) of the Council’s current 2017 Reserves Policy, in which item 16 states: “Council may encourage other bodies and individuals to meet the recreation, leisure, and amenity needs of the district by providing land, works and services, and funding”.

Both documents also compliment Council’s draft 80-year strategy FN2100 based on our vision 'He Whenua Rangatira - a district of sustainable prosperity and wellbeing'. This states that Council intends to;

“… reflect the ambition and dreams of Far North communities” and that “… much of what the Council does has long-lasting impacts on the communities of the Far North. Many of the parks, playgrounds, roads, water supply and other services were conceived decades ago, and they continue to serve us now and into the future. That means our decision making needs to be far-sighted.”

There is also an equity issue to consider, as the strategy states “…students at high decile schools are more involved in sport (69.4%) than those in medium (43%) and low decile schools (48.2%).” There are 72 schools in the Far North District. 62 (86%) are low decile, 8 are mid decile and 2 are high decile. Affordability is also highlighted in the strategy, including the cost of travel and participation in play, active recreation and sport and the limited ability to fund maintenance of facilities and operations, including programmes. Declining volunteerism is also a key sector challenge, with the declining availability of volunteers including referees, coaches, administrators. Facility quality and distribution is also identified as a challenge; however it is noted that there are a number of facility projects currently underway across the region, which are an important part of the ongoing work towards resolving some of the facility gaps identified. Other key opportunities include working in partnership, changing funding models, increased promotion and supporting community-led initiatives. For example, the strategy suggests that in our more rural remote areas, our resources might be better used assisting to “…develop marae to include provisions for participation including adequate accessible playground/areas for tamariki, space for kaumatua/kuia to enjoy physical movement, and other provisions based on local whānau needs/wants”.

From an operations perspective, the functions and accountabilities of sports, recreation, parks and play has no single ‘home’ within Council and resources are spread across the organisation. There are currently external frustrations felt working with Council in this space, and there were submissions made to the 2021-2031 LTP to this effect. Staff anticipate high sector and community expectations to deliver Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua and the Far North Spaces and Places Plan, while being aware of the resourcing limitations staff are currently working under that are likely to impact on successful implementation. This is a risk to Council that should be considered, however with the future implementation Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua there is also an opportunity for Council to use the guidance that the strategy provides to do things better and differently in this space. It should also be noted that not everything in the strategy is new, unplanned, unbudgeted work. For example, “… Advocate to Waka Kotahi (NZTA) for improved pathways (for walking and cycling) to provide safer recreation opportunities” is something staff are already delivering through the Integrated Transport Plan and current work programmes.

We need to acknowledge that Council is not currently resourced to give full effect to the strategy and therefore recommend that Council ‘support in principle’ rather than ‘adopt’ until such time as further consideration is given to reviewing resource requirements to deliver on this strategy.

Options

Option No.	Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
1	Support in principle the Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua strategy	Allows time to plan out how this strategy will be implemented and who will ‘drive’ it, including preparing business cases for annual and long-term plans	Key stakeholders frustrated by slow progress within Far North District and support for strategy could appear to be ‘tepid’.
2	Adopt the Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua strategy	Gives the impression that implementation is more immediate, and that Council is fully supportive and resourced to deliver everything in the strategy	Without required resources like project owner/‘driver’ or budgets, implementation is likely to be unsuccessful.
3	Do not support the Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua strategy	No extra resourcing required and focus on BAU can continue without interruption	Opportunity lost to review and improve how we deliver on sports, rec, parks and play in the Far North. Breakdown in relationships in this sector.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

Option 1 is recommended - support in principle the Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua strategy - as there are resourcing issues that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua.

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

The Far North population is forecast to continue to rise, the demands on current and the development of new sports, recreation, parks and play facilities will only increase.

Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua has missed the 2021-31 LTP cycle, however with business cases, projects will be able to be included in future Annual/Long Term Plans.

There is also a staff resourcing issue, with sports, recreation, parks and play being spread across the organisation, with no single point of contact and therefore no clear ‘driver’ of this strategy.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua Strategy - A3186630 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	The level of significance is considered to be low for the following reasons; · any financial implications can be planned for over time · the document is not a statutory requirement · it is consistent with legislation and council policies.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Council’s community development framework is relevant as it defines the approach we take in supporting the development of Far North communities. The framework includes; Increasing opportunities for communities to determine the things they care about, Providing communities a chance to have their say and engage in meaningful dialogue on the things that affect them. Empowering communities to design, prioritise and engage on local initiatives. Building community spirit. The following Long Term Plan community outcomes are also considered to be of relevance; Communities that are healthy, safe, connected and sustainable. Proud, vibrant communities. Prosperous communities supported by a sustainable economy. A wisely-managed and treasured environment that recognises the special role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki The strategy also supports the delivery of FN2100, Council’s vision of He Whenua Rangatira and Sections 3 and 10 of Local Government Act 2002 to “…promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future” and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) Section 5, to “…promote the sustainable management 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 wellbeing and for their health and safety.” Also relevant is Section 1 (Reserves and Parks Management and Preservation) of the Council’s current 2017 Reserves Policy, in which item 16 states: “Council may encourage other bodies and individuals to meet the recreation, leisure, and amenity needs of the district by providing land, works and services, and funding”.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	This strategy has regional relevance. Implementation needs to work closely with the Community Boards, with these Boards having delegations for "civic amenities", including; - Amenity lighting - footpaths/cycle ways and walkways - Public toilets - Reserves - Halls - Swimming pools - Lindvart Park – a Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board civic amenity.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	Iwi, hapū and whanau engaged in the development of this strategy via working groups and surveys and the strategy separates out challenges directly affecting Māori so that these can be effectively addressed.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	The strategy, or more specifically the implementation of the strategy, will be of interest to a large proportion of the Northland population. Sports, recreation, parks and play is something our communities really care about. A great deal of effort has gone into the strategy by Sport Northland and RSL to capture the thoughts and aspirations of everyone affected.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua has financial implications. It has missed the 2021-31 LTP cycle, however projects may be able to be included in future Annual/Long Term Plans. There is also a staff resourcing issue, with sports, rec, parks and play being spread across the organisation, no single point of contact and therefore no clear ‘driver’ of this strategy, including writing and business cases for future financial planning.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

15 June 2021

5.3 Speed Limit Bylaw Review Statement of Proposal

File Number: A3186147

Author: Caitlin Thomas, Strategic Planner

Authoriser: William J Taylor MBE, General Manager - Strategic Planning and Policy (Acting)

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To adopt a consultative procedure for proposed new speed limits in the review area of west State Highway 1 (Kaitāia-Awaroa and Broadwood-Kohukohu), Moerewa urban area, and Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· The Speed Limits Bylaw 2019 is the statutory instrument that sets speed limits on local roads that Far North District Council is responsible for. As part of the national “Road to Zero” Road Safety Strategy, Council is required to review all speed limits in the district over time, with an initial focus on high benefit, self-explaining areas. The reviews are being led by the Northland Transportation Alliance (NTA) on a regional basis to ensure consistency across the region and to achieve cost savings.

· The Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 and the Local Government Act 2002 require Council, in its role as a Road Controlling Authority, to consult on proposed changes to speed limits. This agenda item seeks approval from Council to consult with the community on proposed new speed limits within the Kaitāia-Awaroa; Broadwood-Kohukohu; and Moerewa urban areas, as well as on Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach.

· The Kaitāia-Awaroa Road, which extends to Broadwood and Kohukohu has been marketed as part of the Twin Coast Discovery Highway and therefore attracts both local traffic, as well as increasing numbers of tourist traffic. This road is also one of the highest speed related crash risk roads in Northland. The Moerewa urban area, including Otiria Road, has a high serious and fatal crash history. The speed limit review in this catchment will compliment recent changes to speed limits on State Highway 1.

· Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach is being reviewed as part of the implementation of the recently released Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach Management Plan.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) adopt the attached “Statement of Proposal – Proposed Amendments to the Speed Limits Bylaw 2019” for consultation.

b) agrees to undertake consultation on the proposed changes to speed limits set out in the attached Statement of Proposal in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedures set out in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c) confirms that the submission period will last for a period of six weeks from 29^th June 2021 to 10^th August 2021.

d) authorises the Chief Executive to make any necessary minor drafting or presentation amendments to the attached Statement of Proposal and to approve the final design and layout of the documents prior to final printing and publication.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Section 22AB(1)(d) of the Land Transport Act 1998 provides for a Road Controlling Authority (Council) to make a Bylaw that sets speed limits for the safety of the public, or for the better preservation of any road.

NTA is leading a regional programme of speed reviews as part of the implementation of the national Road to Zero; Road Safety Strategy. The Road to Zero Strategy requires all Road Controlling Authorities (Council) to review the speed limits on roads under their control.

The purpose of the review is to set speed limits that are safe and appropriate for the road environment with the principle aim of reducing fatal and serious harm crashes. Whilst all roads will be reviewed, the initial focus is on roads where the evidence shows that the greatest benefit can be achieved through speed management. Evidence includes risk assessments; key stakeholder input; and areas where the community has consistently raised concerns over speed management.

The Kaitāia-Awaroa Road and Ahipara Road have been identified in the top 10% roads were the highest benefit will be accrued from better speed management. Otiria Road in the Moerewa urban area has also been identified within the top 10% of High Benefit Roads.

Review Area

The review area is the largest area that NTA has reviewed to date and includes three separate areas, including:

· An area to the west of State Highway 1, north of the Hokianga Harbour to Awanui incorporating Ahipara, Broadwood and Kohukohu. Due to its size, this area has been divided into two sub-catchments of Kaitāia-Awaroa (northern half) and Broadwood-Kohukohu (southern half).

· Moerewa urban area.

· Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach.

The review area specifically excludes State Highways and the larger Kaitaia urban area.

Speed Review Programme

The speed reviews are being undertaken as part of a coordinated region wide speed review programme. Reviews are being undertaken catchment by catchment, with the highest risk catchments or roads being prioritised. Although the highest risk catchments are prioritised, coordination between districts is required to ensure that cross boundary issues are addressed consistently, and nearby communities are consulted in a coordinated manner.

The government is currently reviewing the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017, which provides the legal framework for speed limit reviews. Proposed changes to the Rule include aspects such as speed limits near schools, Urban Traffic Areas, and the legal mechanisms for identifying speed limits. If adopted, some of the proposed changes will provide greater flexibility in reviewing speed limits in larger urban areas such as Kaitaia and Kerikeri.

The current speed limit review programme identifies the following areas as the next for review:

· Kerikeri – Bay of Islands area will be reviewed late in 2021, with the expectation that proposed changes to the Setting of Speed Limits rule are adopted.

· Kawakawa - Russell and Old Russell Road will be reviewed in mid-2022 in conjunction with the adjacent Tutukaka Coast Review in Whangarei District.

It is recognised that there is a strong community desire to review specific roads in the Kerikeri area sooner than programmed. Bringing these roads forward would slow the review of other higher risk roads and would result in multiple consultations in the same area, resulting in significant additional cost and the potential for community confusion in the consultation process.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Public consultation

Section 2.5 of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 identifies the groups and organisations that must be consulted before setting a new speed limit. This includes any local communities that may be affected by the proposed speed limit. Consultation must be undertaken in accordance with Section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Given the large area covered by the review area, the changes proposed, and community interest, it is proposed to consult in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedures set out in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. This will be given effect to by:

· Directly notifying statutory consultees as set out in Section 2.5 of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017, as well as key stakeholders, as identified by NTA and Section 22AD (3) of the Land Transport Act 1998.

· Public notice will be placed in media with the information able to be viewed at Council service centres.

· Key community groups within the review area, including marae, sports clubs and schools will be notified directly and encouraged to pass information onto their communities.

· Drop-in sessions will be organised at a variety of venues throughout the review area, with NTA staff available to meet with community groups.

· The Statement of Proposal, along with detailed technical review information will be made available on Council’s website.

Council is required to ensure that there is reasonable opportunity for persons to present their views to Council in a manner that is appropriate to the preferences and needs of those persons. To facilitate this, a hearing date will be reserved.

Consultation timetable

Community engagement is a key part of the speed review process, with community “buy-in” important to a successful lowering of serious injury and fatal crashes. The relative remoteness of the review area is expected to give rise to additional community engagement challenges. Given the expected challenges and the need to directly engage with a variety of community groups, sports clubs, and marae, a longer than normal submission period is recommended.

It is proposed to have a six-week submission period, commencing on 29th June, and closing on 10th August.

Next steps

Following the public consultation process, all submissions will be reviewed and summarised and a determination will be made as to whether a hearing will be required to enable submitters to present their views in person.

If Council decides to make the proposed amendment to the Bylaw, the change will be publicly notified and appropriate changes to signage will be implemented.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

Council is required to consult the affected community when proposing new speed limits in accordance with Section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002. In the case of this Speed Limit review, it is assessed that Section 156(1)(a)(ii) applies. It is therefore recommended that Council utilise the Special Consultative Procedures set out in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3) PĀnga PŪtea me ngĀ wĀhanga tahua / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no ongoing financial and budgetary implications of this decision. However, it should be noted that changes to speed limits will incur an initial cost for new signage, which will be met within existing budgets.

In the case of new variable speed limits for school zones, there may be additional costs in the order of $40,000 per school zone if Council chooses to install electronic variable speed limit signs. The use of conventional static signs can be met within existing budgets.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Kaitaia Awaroa Statement of Proposal - A3192941 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Significance has been determined as “Low” under Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Land Transport Act 1998 Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 Local Government Act 2002
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	This decision enables Council to consult the community on proposed new speed limits in the Kaitāia-Awaroa; Broadwood-Kohukohu; Moerewa urban; and Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach areas.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	The speed limit review includes Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach. The proposed speed limits give effect to Action A:38 of the Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach Management Plan which includes the following Action: Undertake changes to the FNDC Bylaw(s) specifying safe speed limits and other measures along Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach including: 1. 30km/per hour speed limit within 200m of any beach accessway or any activity (e.g. boat launching, people fishing etc) on the beach; 2. 60km/per hour speed limit for the remainder of the beach
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	This decision enables a consultation process to be undertaken, whereby community views can be obtained before making final decisions.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no ongoing financial implications associated with this decision.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

15 June 2021

www.fndc.govt.nz

Memorial Ave, Kaikohe 0440
Private Bag 752, Kaikohe 0440

askus@fndc.govt.nz
Phone 0800 920 029

Statement of Proposal

Speed Limits Review – Kaitāia-Awaroa; Broadwood-Kohukohu; Moerewa urban; and Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach

Introduction

Far North District Council is proposing to amend our Speed Limits Bylaw 2019 as part of an ongoing programme to review speed limits on the district’s roads. Council is a Road Controlling Authority and is responsible for setting speed limits on all roads within the Far North District (except State Highways) and is reviewing speed limits across the District as part of a nationwide programme under the governments “Road to Zero” National Road Safety Strategy.

This ‘Statement of Proposal’ (SOP) document is a legal requirement when Council is proposing to make, amend or revoke a Bylaw. The SOP is the document that is made available to you as part of the consultation process to provide background information on the proposal to assist you in providing your thoughts to Council on the topic.

This SOP includes some background information to help you understand how proposed changes to speed limits are arrived at, as well as a summary of the proposed speed limit changes within the speed review areas, which include:

· Kaitāia-Awaroa Catchment, including Ahipara and the Kaitāia-Awaroa Road.

· Broadwood – Kohukohu Catchment, which includes an area to north of Hokianga Harbour and west of State Highway 1.

· Moerewa urban area, including Otiria Road and Taumatamakuku Settlement (excludes State Highway 1).

· Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach.

In addition to the information in this SOP, Council has also provided more detailed technical information on the review process and the matters that we have considered when proposing new speed limits.

Background

All Councils are required to review the speed limits on roads within their District as part of the governments Road to Zero National Road Safety Strategy. We are doing this in collaboration with the other Council’s in Northland as part of a regionwide programme.

We set the speed limits with the Far North Speed Limits Bylaw 2019, which is made under the Land Transport Act 1998.

Because we have so many roads, we have decided to use a catchment-based approach to speed limit reviews, with the highest risk areas being reviewed first. This Statement of Proposal sets out proposed new speed limits in an area to the north of the Hokianga Harbour, west of State Highway 1, up to and including Awanui. The review does not include the State Highway or the Kaitāia urban area. In addition to this area, we are also reviewing speed limits in the Moerewa urban area and on Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach.

We will provide ongoing information about our speed review programme on our website at www.fndc.govt.nz/speedlimitsbylaw.

When changing a speed limit, we are required to consider a range of matters, including crash risk information, the design and nature of the road and the surrounding land-uses, especially how the road is accessed from properties and what the road is used for. We are also required to consider the community views on any proposed speed limit.

Your Feedback

Before finalising and setting any new speed limits, Council want to hear your views and feedback on our proposals.

This Statement of Proposal provides you with the background and reasons for the proposed speed limits, as well as a summary of the statutory issues Council is required to consider when setting speed limits and where you can get more information. This Statement of Proposal also sets out the proposed changes to speed limits in the review area in map form.

If you want more detailed information on the matters that we have considered when proposing the new speed limits, you can visit our website at www.fndc.govt.nz/speedlimitsbylaw for detailed speed review reports and additional information.

You can also call us on 0800 920 029 or 09 401 5200 or visit one of our offices if you would like to have a copy sent to you.

How to have your say

Your views on the proposed new speed limits are important to us, but we need your feedback by 5pm on Tuesday 10^th August 2021.

There are several ways you can have your say. You can download a submission form from our Website and email, post or deliver it to us. You can also make a submission online.

Please ensure that you state in your submission if you want to present your submission in person at a Council hearing.

How to make a submission

Council encourages any person or organisation with an interest in the Speed Limits Bylaw 2019 to give feedback. Submissions can be made between 29^th June and 5pm, Tuesday 10^th August 2021. To make a submission you can:

· submit online https://www.fndc.govt.nz/speedlimitsbylaw

· email your comments to submissions@fndc.govt.nz

· drop-off a written submission at any Council service centre or library

· post your submission to: Far North District Council, Private Bag 752, Kaikohe 0440.

Timeline for considering the proposed speed limit changes

Submissions Period: 29^th June until 5pm Tuesday 10^th August 2021

Hearings (if required): October 2021

Reasons for the proposed new speed limits

We are reviewing our speed limits as part of the governments Road to Zero National Road Safety Strategy; National Speed Management Guidance; and the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017.

The speed limits on many of our roads were set at a time when speed limits were restricted to 50km/h in urban areas, 100km/h in most other places, with a few 70km/h zones where there was a semi urban environment. We now have greater options to identify safe and appropriate speed limits that match the road environment.

Over time, our District has changed, with more vehicles on the road, and more people visiting remote parts of our District. The Kaitāia-Awaroa Road from Kaitāia to Ahipara, Broadwood and Kohukohu are part of the Twin Coast discovery Highway. This provides much needed economic benefit to these remote areas, but also brings drivers that are unfamiliar with these roads.

A combination of increased traffic and speed limits that are too high for the road environment has led to high numbers of serious injury and fatal crashes on our roads. Reducing speed limits so that they appropriate for the road environment is one part of improving road safety so everyone can get to their destination safely. Road improvements, better vehicles and driver education are also part of the focus on road safety.

Far North Road Statistics

Between 2016 and 2021 there were 8,183 recorded crashes in Northland. 3,224 of those recorded crashes occurred in the Far North District. The proportion of crashes in Far North District increases with severity, with nearly half of serious injury and fatal crashes in Northland occurring in the Far North District.

Over the period 2016 to 2021, there were 297 serious injury crashes that resulted in one or more people being hospitalised for more than three days. Over the same period, there were 69 fatal crashes resulting in one or more fatalities. Travel speed (traveling too fast for the road) contributed to 31.97% of those serious injury or fatal crashes in the Far North District.

There is a real need to reduce the toll on our communities by ensuring that speed limits are safe and appropriate for the wider road environment.

Why the Review Areas have been chosen.

This Statement of Proposal provides a summary of the reasons for the proposed changes to speed limits within the review area. There is more information in the detailed speed review report. This can be viewed on our website.

The Kaitāia-Awaroa Road has been identified as a High Benefit Road (top 10%) where the personal risk of driving on the road is high. Personal Risk is a measure of the danger to each individual using a road and takes into account the traffic volumes on the section of road.

The roads that branch off the Kaitāia-Awaroa road are often narrow, unsealed and torturous, making high speeds unsafe.

The Broadwood-Kohukohu catchment area is a continuation of the Kaitāia-Awaroa catchment and is characterised by roads with a High Infrastructure Risk. The Infrastructure risk is a measure of road safety risk based on key design and infrastructure features. A high Infrastructure Risk Rating indicates that the road will not support higher speed limits.

The Moerewa urban area has been included in this review due to a high number of serious injury and fatal crashes within the urban area, particularly along Otiria Road. Otiria Road is identified as a top 10% High Benefit Road.

Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach has been included as part of the implementation of the Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Beach Management Plan for Ninety Mile Beach. The Management Plan has been produced, in consultation with the community, by the Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board (the Board) as part of the Te Hiku Iwi Treaty of Waitangi Settlement legislation.

Will it take longer to get where I am going?

In most cases, the average driver will get to their destination in about the same time that they are now. This is because the actual speed that you drive on a road is often much slower than the posted speed limit. The Technical Report (available on Council’s website) provides details on the free flow speed of roads in the review area.

People who travel at an unsafe speed, whether or not they are exceeding the speed limit, may experience a small increase in journey time, but for many journeys, this will be measured in seconds rather than minutes.

A 5km journey travelled at 100km/h will take 3 minutes, the same journey travelled at 80km/h will take just 45 seconds longer.

Speed Environments

We now have more options for speed limits. In the past, speed limits were restricted to 50, 70 and 100kmph. As a result, our current speed limits do not always match the road environment. In some cases, we have a default 100kmph speed limit on narrow unsealed roads, with one lane bridges and little visibility around corners. On many roads within the review area, it is both difficult and dangerous to drive at the current posted speed limit.

Matching the speed limit with the road environment achieves safer, more appropriate, and predictable speeds and travel times. If you drive down one road, the speed limit should be similar to any other road that has the same look and feel to it.

We have provided a description of the speed limits expected in different road environments that we have used to set safe and appropriate speed limits that are consistent across Northland.

20kmph	· Shared Space areas that are predominantly used for pedestrian activities. Areas will typically include street furniture and landscaping, or street design that promotes casual pedestrian activities and car parking areas.
30kmph	· Shared Space areas that provide equal access to pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles · Beach access, including informal parking for pedestrian access to beaches. · Most beaches (with the exception of parts of Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē / Ninety Mile Beach) · Some Central Business District areas, particularly where there is on-road parking and pedestrians crossing roads, either at controlled or uncontrolled crossing points, but not a formal shared space. · Areas that incorporate engineered solutions specifically designed and installed to slow traffic, including speed bumps, traffic islands and planting.
40kmph	· Urban areas where there are facilities that generate significant additional pedestrian activity such as schools, shopping centres, sports facilities or other developed recreational areas. · Urban streets in small rural and coastal communities. · Some very narrow or torturous unsealed access roads
50kmph	· Urban roads that have a high residential density and provide arterial connections through the community, but no facilities that would generate significant additional pedestrian activity such as schools, shopping centres, sports facilities or other developed recreational areas.

60kmph	Semi-urban or rural roads that meet one or more of the following criteria: · Significant industrial or commercial activity · A road principally used for access to rural residential dwellings with a narrow single lane carriageway or a carriage way that has no centre line marking · A road where significant residential or other development is directly accessed, including approaches to urban areas. · Some sealed roads that are torturous in their alignment Most unsealed roads
70kmph	· Transitional roads that do not meet the 60kmph semi-urban speed environments but have characteristics that an 80kmph speed limit is inappropriate. Generally, 70kmph zones will be discouraged, except where there is an existing 70kmph zone.
80kmph	· General rural sealed roads with clearly marked centre lines, shoulder areas and are not torturous in terms of curves.
100kmph	· Rural arterial routes that are of high quality with a wide carriageway, clearly marked or separated lanes, shoulder areas and exhibit some form of engineered safety features.

Statutory Considerations

The Speed Limits Bylaw is made under Section 22AD of the Land Transport Act 1998. There is no limitation on when this Bylaw must be reviewed. In addition, the determinations required under Section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 are not required.

Section 4.2 of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 requires Council, in its capacity as a Road Controlling Authority to have regard to:

a) NZTA information about speed management

b) NZTA Speed Management Guidance

c) The function and use of the road

d) Crash risk for all road users

e) The characteristics of the road and roadsides

f) Adjacent land-use

g) The number of intersections and property accessways

h) Traffic volume

i) Any planned modifications to the road

j) The views of interested persons or groups*

Detailed information about the matters that Council must have regard to under Section 4.2 of the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2017 is provided in separate “Speed Review Reports” for each review area, and can be viewed on our website at www.fndc.govt.nz/speedlimitsbylaw.

*The views of interested persons or groups includes feedback received as part of this submission process.

Proposed Changes

The proposed changes to speed limits are set out for each review area in this document. Maps identify the review areas at the beginning of each review section in this document. Tables are provided so that you can compare the current speed limit with the proposed speed limit. Maps set out the proposed new speed limits.

Proposed Changes to Urban Traffic Areas

An Urban Traffic Area identifies an urban area where the speed limit is generally the same. Because of the number of roads within an urban setting, the Urban Traffic Area identifies an area using a map. Urban Traffic Areas identified within this Review include Ahipara, Awanui and Moerewa. The proposed Urban Traffic Areas reflect existing and future growth.

We are proposing a speed limit of 40kph on most roads within the Urban Traffic Areas, with a few exceptions. The boundary of the Proposed Urban Traffic Areas and new speed limits are set out in a map.

Proposed Changes to Individual Roads

Where we are proposing a change to the speed limit on a road that is outside of an Urban Traffic Area, we have identified the road and set out the current posted speed limit and the proposed new speed limit in tables. We have also included a map of the proposed new speed limits.

In most cases, the proposed new speed limits on open roads will reduce to 80kmph because our roads do not meet the safety standards of a higher speed limit. On many of these roads, you will find that your journey time will not increase significantly because it is not possible to safely travel at a higher speed. The proposed speed limits on unsealed roads will be generally lower than that of a sealed road.

On a few roads, we are proposing a much lower speed limit. This is because these roads, either have a shared use purpose or are particularly narrow or unsealed. These roads are generally used for local access purposes.

School Speed Zones

The Road to Zero National Road Safety Strategy seeks to improve road safety around schools and other educational institutions, by ensuring that there is a lower, more appropriate speed limit outside all schools. This can be achieved through either a permanent speed limit or a Variable Speed Limit.

We are seeking to lower the speed limit outside schools to a maximum of either 30kph or 40kph in urban areas and 60kph in rural areas. Most schools in the review area already have a School Speed Zone in force. We are seeking feedback on whether we need to consider changes to these zones and identify where new School Speed Zones are needed.

The Road to Zero National Road Safety Strategy emphasises a 30kph speed limit (Variable) outside most urban schools. At the time of notification of this review, changes to the Setting of Speed Limits Rule have been proposed to enable the intent of the Road to Zero National Road Safety Strategy.

Variable school speed limits introduce a lower speed limit of 30kph or 40kph outside schools for a period 35 minutes before school starts and 20 minutes at the end of the school day. At other times, the normal speed limit applies. We have included a separate section in this document to identify proposed new speed limits around Schools. The proposals and zones are set out in map form.

Kaitāia – Awaroa Speed Review Area

The Kaitāia-Awaroa Catchment is set out in the map below (Figure 1). The area extends to the west and southwest of State Highway 1 from the intersection with State Highway 10 at Awanui in the north to Te Rore Road in the south. The catchment area includes Whangapē near the Awaroa River.

The review area does not include the Kaitaia urban area or State Highway 1.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Kaitāia-Awaroa Speed Limit review Area

Note: This Map provides an outline of the Kaitaia-Awaroa Catchment Area being reviewed. Due to the scale of the map, not all roads are shown.

Proposed Speed Limit Changes – Kaitāia – Awaroa Catchment

In Far North District Council’s capacity as the Road Controlling Authority (RCA), the following amendments to the posted speed limits within Kaitāia-Awaroa Catchment area as set out in figure 1 (above) are proposed:

Road Name	Existing Posted Speed Limit	Proposed Speed Limit
Ahipara Road from Kaitāia-Awaroa Rd to Kokopu Street	100	80
Ahipara Road from Kokopu Street to Foreshore Rd	100 / 50	40*
Albatross Alley	50	40
Araroa Road	100	40
Awaroa Road from Haumanga Rd to Pawarenga Rd	100	80
Barriball Road	100	60
Bell Road	100	60
Bonnetts Road	100	60
Braithwaite Road	100	60
Brass Road	100	60
Broadwood Road from Pawarenga Rd to 1160 Broadwood Rd	100	80
Broadwood Road from 1160 Broadwood Rd to Carmen Rd (extends 70kph zone approx. 120m east)	70	60
Broadwood Road from Carmen Rd to Mangamuka Rd*	100	80
Brott Road	100	60
Carr Road	100	60
Cemetery Road (Takahue)	100	60
Clarke Road	100	60
Collard Street	50	40
Crene Road	100	60
Diggers Valley Road	100	60
Duke Street from SH1 to Matarau Rd	50	40
Duke Street from Matarau Rd to Gill Rd	50	60
Dysart Road	100	60
Eaton Road	100	60

Table 1.1: Summary of proposed Speed Limit changes – Kaitāia – Awaroa Catchment

*Note: Existing Variable School Speed Limit proposed to be 30kph.

** Note: Broadwood Road crosses the catchment boundary between Kaitāia-Awaroa Catchment and Broadwood-Kohukohu catchment.

Road Name	Existing Posted Speed Limit	Proposed Speed Limit
Foreshore Road from Ahipara Rd to 320 Foreshore Rd	50	40
Foreshore Road from 320 Foreshore Rd to Wreck Bay Rd	100	40
Fryer Road	100	60
Gill Road from SH1 to Duke St	50	50
Gill Road from Duke St to Sandhills Rd	100	80
Gill Road from Sandhills Rd to Bonnetts Rd	100	60
Gumfields Road	100	60
Haumanga Road	100	60
Hicks Road	100	60
Hui Road	100	60
Kaiawe Road	100	60
Kaitāia -Awaroa Road from Pukepoto Rd to 332 Kaitaia - Awaroa Rd	50	50
Kaitāia -Awaroa Road from 332 Kaitāia-Awaroa Rd to Okahu Rd	70	80
Kaitāia-Awaroa Road from Okahu Rd to 662 Kaitaia - Awaroa Rd	100	80
Kaitāia-Awaroa Road from 662 Kaitaia Awaroa Rd to 854 Kaitāia-Awaroa Rd	70	60
Kaitāia-Awaroa Road from 854 Kaitāia Awaroa Rd to 80m North of 2529 Kaitāia-Awaroa Road (35.262777, 173.210269).	100	80
Kaitāia-Awaroa Road from 80m North of 2529 Kaitāia-Awaroa Road (35.262777, 173.210269) to 40m east of Whangapē Rd Intersection. (Herekino School and Herekino)	100	60
Kaitāia-Awaroa Road from 40m east of Whangapē Rd Intersection to Haumanga Rd	100	80
Kaka Street (Ahipara)	50	40
Kakapo Road	50	40
Karawaka Street	50	40
Kauhanga Road	50	40
Kokopu Street	50	40
Korora Street	50	40
Kotare Street	50	40
Larmer Road	100	80

Table 1.2: Summary of proposed Speed Limit changes – Kaitāia – Awaroa Catchment (cont.)

Road Name	Existing Posted Speed Limit	Proposed Speed Limit
Long Street (Awanui)	50	40
Mamari Village Road	100	40
Manukau Road	100	60
Masters Access Road	100	60
Matarau Road	50	40
Mcdonald Road (Diggers Valley)	100	60
Moa Street	50	40
Munn Road	100	60
Nga Karoa Road	100	60
Okahu Downs Drive	100	60
Okahu Road from Substation to Kaitaia-Awaroa Rd	100	80
Okakewai Road	100	60
Orowhana Rd	100	40
Owhata Road	100	40
Poseidon Way	50	40
Powell Road (Diggers Valley)	100	60
Puckey Road	100	60
Puhata Road	100	60
Pukemiro Road	100	60
Queen Street (Awanui)	50	40
Rangikohu Road (Epikauri Road)	100	60
Reed Road	100	60
Reef View Road	50	40
Roma Road from Foreshore Rd to 56 Roma Rd	50	40
Roma Road from 56 Roma Rd to Kaitaia-Awaroa Rd	100	60
Ruaroa Road	100	60
Sandhills Road from Ahipara Road to 1456 Sandhills Rd (end of seal)	100	80
Sandhills Road from 1456 Sandhills Rd to Gill Rd	100	60
Settlement Way	100	60
Simpson Road (Takahue)	100	60
Smith Road (Herekino)	100	60

Table 1.3: Summary of proposed Speed Limit changes – Kaitāia – Awaroa Catchment (cont.)

Road Name	Existing Posted Speed Limit	Proposed Speed Limit
Sturmfel Road	100	60
Takahe Road	50	40
Takahue Domain Road	100	40
Takahue Road	100	80
Takahue Saddle Road (Broadwood)	100	60
Takahue Saddle Road (Takahue)	100	60
Tangonge Road	70	60
Tasman Heights	50	40
Tatana Road	100	60
Te Rore Road	100	60
Tui Street (Ahipara)	50	40
Wainui Road (Wainui)	100	60
Waiotehue Road	100	60
Waitehuia Road	100	60
Warner Road	100	40
Weka Street	50	40
Werner Road	100	60
West Road	50	60
Whangapē Road from Kaitāia-Awaroa Rd to Puhata Rd	100	80
Whangapē Road from Puhata Rd to Owhata Rd	100	60
Whangapē Road from Owhata Rd to end	100	40
Wharo Way	50	40
Wireless Road	100	60
Wreck Bay Road	100	40
Yuretich Road	100	60

Table 1.4: Summary of proposed Speed Limit changes – Kaitāia – Awaroa Catchment (cont.)

Broadwood – Kohukohu Speed Review Area

The Broadwood-Kohukohu Catchment is set out in the map below (Figure 2). The area extends to the west of State Highway 1 and includes roads that are located north of the Hokianga Harbour and south of the Kaitāia-Awaroa Catchment area.

The review area does not include the Kaitāia urban area or State Highway 1.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 4: Kohukohu-Broadwood Speed Limit review Area

Note: This Map provides an outline of the Broadwood-Kohukohu Catchment Area being reviewed. Due to the scale of the map, not all roads are shown.

Proposed Speed Limit Changes – Broadwood-Kohukohu Catchment

In Far North District Council’s capacity as the Road Controlling Authority (RCA), the following amendments to the posted speed limits within Broadwood-Kohukohu Catchment area as set out in figure 4 (above) are proposed:

Road Name	Existing Posted Speed Limit	Proposed Speed Limit
Beach Road (Kohukohu)	50	40
Blue Mountain Road	100	40
Broadwood Road from 1160 Broadwood Rd to Carmen Rd*	70	60
Broadwood Road from Carmen Rd to Mangamuka Rd	100	80
Buchanan Road	100	60
Carmens Road	100	40
Church Street (Kohukohu)	50	40
Crallans Road	100	60
Creamery Road from Hawkins Rd to Blue Mountain Rd	100	60
Creamery Road from Blue Mountain Rd to end	100	40
Grove Road	100	60
Guest Road	100	60
Happy Valley Road	100	60
Hawkins Road (Kohukohu)	100	60
Hobson Road (Mangamuka)	100	60
Hohaia Road	100	40
Humphreys Road	100	60
Irvine Road	100	60
Jacksons Road (Omahuta)	100	60
Kahikatoa Road	100	60
Kauaepepe Road	100	60
Kirkpatrick Road	50	40
Kohe Road	100	60
Kohukohu Road from Mangamuka Rd to Approx. 400m North Rakautapu Rd (current 100kph/50kph boundary)	100	80
Kohukohu Road from Approx. 400m north Rakautapu Rd to 80m south of Mariner St	50	40
Kohukohu Road from 80m south of Mariner St to West Coast Rd	100	80
Kowhitikaru Road	100	60
Makene Road	100	60
Mangamuka Road	100	80
Mangamuka School Road	100	60
Mangataipa Road	100	60

*Note: Proposed Variable School Speed Limit option at Broadwood School.

Table 2.1: Summary of proposed Speed Limit changes – Broadwood-Kohukohu Catchment

Road Name	Existing Posted Speed Limit	Proposed Speed Limit
Maning Street	50	40
Mansbridge Road	100	60
Marriner Street	50	40
Mata Road	100	60
Matawera Road	100	60
Mihirau Road	100	60
Motukaraka Point Road	100	60
Motuti Road	100	60
Mudgway Road	100	60
Old Beach Road	50	40
Omahuta Forest Road	100	60
Omahuta Road	100	60
Orira Road	100	60
Otengi Road	100	60
Paparangi Drive (Mitimiti)	100	40
Paponga Road	100	60
Pawarenga Road from Awaroa Rd to Runaruna Rd	100	80
Pawarenga Road from Runaruna Road to end (at Harbour)	100	60
Perry Road	100	60
Poieke Road	100	60
Potter Street	50	40
Proctor Road	100	60
Puketawa Road	100	60
Rakautapu Road from Kohukohu Rd to approx. 80m south of Public Cemetery (existing 50 / 100kph boundary)	50	40
Rakautapu Road from approx. 80m south of Public Cemetery (existing 50 / 100kph boundary) to Paponga Rd	100	60
Rangi Point Road	100	60
Runaruna Road	100	60
Saleyard Road (Broadwood)	70	60
School Road	100	60
Smith Deviation Road	100	40
Tamaho Road	100	60
Tauteihiihi Road	100	60
Tautoro Road	50	40
Te Huahua Road	100	60
Te Karaka Road	100	60
Te Riha Roadway	100	40
Te Tio Road	100	60

Table 2.2: Summary of proposed Speed Limit changes – Broadwood-Kohukohu Catchment (cont.)

Road Name	Existing Posted Speed Limit	Proposed Speed Limit
Te Umuhuki Road	100	60
Teachers Road (Broadwood)	70	40
Umawera School Road	100	40
Wairoa Stream Road	100	60
Warawara Forest Road	100	60
West Coast Road from Kohukohu Rd to Runarua Rd	100	80
West Coast Road from Runarua Rd to Otengi Rd	50	40
West Coast Road from Otengi Rd to Te Karaka Rd	100	80
West Coast Road from Te Karaka Rd to Hohaia Rd	100	60
West Coast Road from Hohaia Rd to end	100	40
Whangapē Track Road	100	60
Windy Hill Road	100	60
Yarborough Street	50	40

Table 2.3: Summary of proposed Speed Limit changes – Broadwood-Kohukohu Catchment (cont.)

Ahipara School – Ahipara Road

Ahipara School caters for students in Years 1 to 8. The school has approximately 230 students and is situated on Ahipara Road, at the main entrance to the Ahipara township (figure 11). Ahipara School is rated as a high priority for speed management intervention.

It is proposed to reduce the permanent speed limit within the Ahipara urban area from 50kph to 40kph. This includes the area outside Ahipara School. There is an existing Variable School Speed Limit in place at Ahipara School. This zone sets a speed limit of 40kph for a period 35 minutes before school starts and 20 minutes at the end of the school day.

It is proposed to reduce the Variable School Speed Limit from 40kph to 30kph. The further lowering of the Variable Speed Limit reflects the direction provided in the road to Zero National Road Safety Strategy, as well as the road environment that provides limited drop-off and pick-up areas, as well as cafés, sports clubs, and fields opposite the school.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 11: Proposed Variable School Speed Limits around Ahipara School

Herekino School – Kaitāia – Awaroa Road

Herekino School is a small rural school that caters for students in Years 1 to 8. The school has approximately 30 students and is situated on Kaitāia-Awaroa Road at Herekino (figure 12). Herekino School is rated as a low-medium priority for speed management intervention.

It is proposed to reduce the 100kph speed limit outside the school to 60kph (refer Proposed Speed Limits Map Kaitāia-Awaroa Catchment above). The reduction to 60kph is consistent with the road to zero National Road Safety Strategy which seeks a 60kph speed limit outside rural schools.

The proposed permanent 60kph speed limit includes the small area of residential dwellings located at the intersection of the Kaitāia-Awaroa Road and Whangapē Road.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 12: Proposed Speed Limits around Herekino School

Broadwood Area School – Broadwood Road

Broadwood Area School is a composite school catering for Years 1 to 15 with approximately 72 students. The School is located on Broadwood Road at the western end of the small settlement of Broadwood (figure 13). Broadwood Area School is rated as a medium priority for speed management intervention.

It is proposed to reduce the existing 70kph speed limit to 60kph through the Broadwood settlement and extend the proposed 60kph zone to Carmen Road to better encompass Broadwood Area School. The reduction to 60kph is consistent with the road to zero National Road Safety Strategy which seeks a 60kph speed limit outside rural schools.

An option is to introduce a new Variable School Speed Limit outside the school. This zone would introduce a 40kph speed limit outside Broadwood School for a period 35 minutes before school starts and 20 minutes at the end of the school day. At other times, the normal speed limit (60kph) would apply.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 13: Proposed Speed Limits and Variable School Speed Limit option around Broadwood Area School

Te Kura o Hata Maria (Pawarenga) – Te Riha Roadway

Te Kura o Hata Maria is a small rural, full primary school catering for Years 1 to 8 located on Te Riha Roadway off Pawarenga Road (figure 14). Kura o Hata Maria School is rated as a low priority for speed management intervention.

It is proposed to reduce Te Riha Roadway from 100kph to 40kph as it is a short, no exit road that is very narrow and unsealed. The School is located near the end of Te Riha Roadway. A Variable School Speed limit has not been proposed.

Te Kura Taumata o Panguru – West Coast Road Panguru

Te Kura Taumata o Panguru is a composite school catering for Years 1 to 15. The school has approximately 30 students and is situated off West Coast Road, Pungaru (figure 15). The school is set well back from the road and is rated a medium priority for speed management intervention.

It is proposed to reduce the speed limit through the Pungaru Settlement where Te Kura Taumata o Panguru is located from 50kph to 40kph to reflect the small rural township character of the area. The proposed 40kph speed limit is consistent with the Road to Zero National Road Safety Strategy and a Variable School Speed limit has not been proposed.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 14: Proposed Speed Limits around Te Kura o Hata Maria School

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 15: Proposed Speed Limits around Te Kura Taumata o Panganui School

Kohukohu School – Beach Road Kohukohu

Kohukohu School is a full primary school catering for Years 1 to 8 with approximately 38 students. Kohukohu School is located on Beach Road in Kohukohu (figure 16) and is rated a medium priority for speed management intervention.

It is proposed to reduce the speed limit in the Kohukohu urban area from 50kph to 40kph to reflect the small rural community character of Kohukohu, which includes Beach Road. The proposed 40kph speed limit is consistent with the Road to Zero National Road Safety Strategy and a Variable School Speed limit has not been proposed.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 16: Proposed Speed Limits around Kohukohu School

Mangamuka School – School Road

Mangamuka School is a contributing school catering for Year 1 to 6 with approximately 22 students. Mangamuka School is located on School Road, off State Highway 1 near Mangamuka (figure 17). The school is rated a low priority for speed management intervention.

It is proposed to reduce the speed limit on School Road from 100kph to 60kph to reflect the unsealed character of the road. Mangamuka School is located at the end of School Road up a narrow driveway. The proposed 60kph speed limit for School Road is consistent with the Road to Zero National Road Safety Strategy and a Variable School Speed Limit has not been proposed.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 17: Proposed Speed Limits around Mangamuka School

Umawera School – Umawera School Road

Umawera School is a contributing school catering for Years 1 to 6 with approximately 34 students. Umawera School is located at the intersection of State Highway 1 and Umawera School Road (figure 18). Umawera School is rated as medium priority for speed management intervention.

The main parking area for the school is accessed off both State Highway 1 and Umawera School Road with the pedestrian entrances located on Umawera School Road. It should be noted that State Highway 1 is managed by Waka Kotahi (NZTA) and is outside the scope of this speed limit review.

It is proposed to reduce the speed limit on Umawera School Road from 100kph to 40kph as it is a short, no exit road that is very narrow and unsealed. A Variable School Speed limit has not been proposed.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 18: Proposed Speed Limits around Umawera School

Moerewa School – Ōtiria Road Moerewa

Moerewa School is a composite school catering for Years 1 to 10 with approximately 135 students. Moerewa School is located on Ōtiria Road in Moerewa (figure 19), which has been identified as a High-Risk Road (top 10%) for speed related crashes.

Moerewa School is rated a high priority for speed management intervention.

It is proposed to reduce the speed limit along Ōtiria Road where the school is located from 50kph to 40kph to reflect the residential character of the road and the risk rating of the road. Given the High-Risk rating of Ōtiria road, and the long straight leading into Moerewa School, a Variable School Speed Limit of 30kph is proposed. A 30kph Variable Speed Limit reflects the direction provided in the road to Zero National Road Safety Strategy, as well as the high-risk nature of the road environment.

It should be noted that the implementation of a 30kph Variable School Speed Limit on Ōtiria Road may require additional physical works to be undertaken to ensure that the road environment matches the proposed speed limit.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 19: Proposed Speed Limits around Moerewa School

Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Taumarere – Station Road Moerewa

Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Taumarere is a composite school catering for Years 1 to 15 with approximately 170 students. The school is located on Station Road in Moerewa township (figure 20). Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Taumarere is rated a low-medium priority for speed management intervention.

It is proposed to reduce the speed limit on Station Road from 50kph to 40kph to reflect the small community character of Moerewa. The proposed 40kph speed limit is consistent with the Road to Zero National Road Safety Strategy and a Variable School Speed limit has not been proposed.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 20: Proposed Speed Limits around Te Kura Kaupapa Maori 0 Taumerere School

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

15 June 2021

Purpose of report

The purpose of the report is to provide a debrief on the Navigating Our Course engagement programme to guide the design of future public consultations and, more generally, inform the organisation’s approach to engagement.

These questions were posed to those staff members who participated in Navigating Our Course, and their responses inform this report.

• Did we achieve our objectives?

• What went well and what didn’t go so well?

• What opportunities for improvement did we identify and implement?

• What lessons have we learned and what recommendations can we make, based on the experience, to support the new “up and out” priority for the organisation?

Background

In March 2021 we embarked on the most ambitious programme of engagement Council has ever staged. Navigating Our Course drew together four separate projects that were interdependent in one way or another. Of these, only one was a statutory consultation – the Long-Term Plan 2021-31. The other three were pre-cursors to statutory consultations and, whilst “informal” in nature, the outcomes of the engagement would have impact on the project’s progression. Arguably this has already been seen in the recent Extraordinary Council Meeting decision to establish Māori Wards (an “informal” question under the Representation Review).

We designed and implemented a multi-channel campaign, structured around a roadshow that gave us physical presence in four key locations (Kawakawa, Kerikeri, Kaikohe and Kaitaia) supported by “satellite” events at markets, a marae and town halls. The extensive digital campaign facilitated easy online engagement. In total we hosted 22 events in 19 townships.

Coherent story

We crafted a narrative to ensure the public could understand the projects in their own right, but also in the context of a bigger journey to He Whenua Rangatira – A district of sustainable prosperity and wellbeing. This was communicated with support of an illustrator (League of Live Illustrators) and Council’s Communications team. We made use of Council channels (rates newsletter, email, the Weekender) and advertising in all local newspapers throughout the duration of the campaign.

Cross-organisation collaboration

The Engagement Team led the programme, with full collaboration of the Tier 3 Managers in charge of each project. It was a cross-organisation effort, with appeal to the project teams and people leaders to encourage their staff to get involved in the engagement.

Risks

The risks we identified are listed below. These risks (apart from Covid-19 risk) did emerge at low levels, but not enough to outweigh the opportunities and benefits. This report explores aspects of these risks.

1. A single issue will dominate the combined consultation caused by the controversial nature of some issues we are consulting on. This may compromise the engagement opportunities for co-projects.

2. Public may object to consultation on so many projects at one time which may result in people disengaging from the process, citing confusion or a sense of being overwhelmed.

3. Staff are overstretched to deliver on projects which may mean that they are not able to fully support the consultation.

4. Our partners and key strategic stakeholders feel they have not been either involved in the projects or given sufficient notice to review prior to general public consultation

5. Community cases of Covid-19 causing a local, regional or national lockdown will impact the ability to do a road trip or attend physical locations.

6. Elected members not engaged/advocating will limit ability to connect with public positively on big issues.

7. Lack of continuity or alignment between our planning

8. Overlap with consultation from other agencies e.g. NRC

Did we achieve our objectives?

1) Don’t confuse the public

Strong collateral, consistent messaging and clear ways of providing feedback meant that the risk of confusing the public with four big projects was minimised.

Events were well-managed and consistent. Staff were briefed and informed enough to respond to questions on most topics.

2) Enable political advocacy and elected member engagement with public

On the whole, elected member participation was excellent, with some going over and above what was hoped for. Every event had some elected member presence.

3) Don’t dilute individual statutory processes

It is possible that feedback numbers on individual projects might have been higher if we were not consulting on so many projects at once, but this must be balanced with fact we could not have resourced such a visible presence on those individual projects.

4) Genuine engagement: Make it easy for the public to understand the issues and have their say whichever way suits them so they feel they have had the opportunity to actively participate in the decision-making process

Collateral designed to support people to provide feedback in any way that suited. This included verbal/oral submissions taken by members of staff, or staff supporting public to use online survey on iPads at sessions, or meeting notes from public events (Rawene/Broadwood).

5) Capture feedback in a way that is analysable, reportable and enduring

By using Open Forms (via website) and a single email inbox submissions@fndc.govt.nz and – critically - staffing this incoming stream of information with a dedicated team member minimised the risk of confusion or of “missing” feedback.

Analysis still underway.

6) Reach beyond our usual submitting audience – demographics and locations

Need to compare results with historic information. Not yet complete.

7) Contribute measurably to each individual project so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

The story we told of Navigating Our Course is perhaps more compelling to us, than our audience. The most important thing was that we were visible and available to engage.

8) Avert crisis between rates increases and SNAs that instigates another “Can the Plan”

Much of this is outside the control of the programme of engagement. It is still to play out.

What worked…

Multiple projects

The broad approach provided opportunity for people to engage with elected members and Council staff on matters that were important to them. Having multiple feedback “buckets” meant there was a home for everything.

Visible and present – go to the people
This was the most extensive roadshow we have undertaken as a Council. Being located on the street or at markets allowed us to capture people who otherwise might not engage with us. Some communities we visited weren’t happy, often the conversations were hard but, regardless, members of the community appreciated our presence. We reached most communities who wanted us to visit, and we listened. Many people who would not ordinarily have participated in Council processes made submissions on things that are important to them.

What emerged was that if we want to know our communities, to understand their issues and build trust in Council, we should be doing this kind of engagement all the time.

“This type of community engagement (i.e. going to markets, giving people the opportunity to informally chat, ask questions etc.), physically out and about within our communities should be something we incorporate into BAU. It is hard! But regular visibility in our communities will help with big systemic challenges that Council faces within our communities such as distrust, accusations of a lack of transparency, and common misconceptions/untruths. It also gives people the opportunity to engage with us informally on their terms by us going to them, not just expecting them to come to us.”

Drop-in venues

A “home base” allowed communities to schedule time to come to talk to us when it suited them. It also allowed word to spread, and for people to revisit if they had further questions. A venue where members of the public could sit down with both staff and elected members added tremendous value in terms of quality dialogue.

Additionally, the drop-in venues supported staff – they were able to attend to BAU (connectivity) whilst being available to talk with public as required.

Te Hononga was too far off street to capture daily foot traffic, but a beautiful venue!

Kerikeri’s Ngāti Rēhia base afforded great street frontage and supported good dialogue with a broad section of the community. Sharing the space wasn’t always straightforward, but it was a great opportunity for collaboration with one of our valued partners.

Kaikohe’s Te Wā suited a more central set up which supported group conversation. This model was replicated in Kaitāia’s Digital Hub, out of staff and elected member choice.

Staff, elected members and community aligned

A number of participants observed that it was a positive experience to work with other Council staff with whom they wouldn’t usually cross paths. Through these interactions, we gained a broader understanding of how Council works, built new relationships and felt more engaged with Council.

Also, many staff appreciated the opportunity to talk directly with the public:

“…it was a valuable experience to talk to our communities that our actions directly affect. Often, we can become disconnected from our people … in our day to day work behind a computer, and we don’t always realise the impact our work has.”

Many volunteers enjoyed working more closely, and in a less formal setting, with elected members. There was value in the ability to interact in this public, shared space in which you have someone articulating a community need/issue, the decision makers who can advocate for that person, and also the operational people who might give insight or learn from that interaction. Often, a case of feeling heard was the biggest win. We cannot measure the value this added, other than anecdotally.

An observation made by Mayor Carter was that potentially we reduced the number of submissions we received on the Long Term Plan because people’s queries were dealt with during the consultation process so they didn’t feel they needed to make a submission.

What didn’t work

Multiple projects

For some people, engaging on four different projects at the same time was an impediment.

“This criticism was only … received from very engaged … members of the community who will submit on all projects regardless. Most members of the community appreciated the opportunity to submit across different projects at the same time or would just engage on the kaupapa they were interested in.”

…not enough time

The time factor, when combined with the import of what we were seeking feedback on, was a significant criticism. The reality of the rates proposal did not land until later in the consultation, at which point public perception was that we were trying to fast track a complex issue through a process without adequate time for people to digest the impact of the changes. It could also be argued that rather than “not enough time” we simply put too much into the rate package without sufficient educational work in the lead-up to help people understand.

Strategic approach to engaging with our partners and key stakeholders

By design, the Navigating Our Course programme was a grass roots approach. It did not actively engage the political and executive channels.

While we introduced the concept to project teams and elected members at an early stage, we did not identify and plan for specific approaches to strategic partners, apart from at a high level (letter from Mayor to iwi chairs).

The process revealed the lack of good understanding of the status of our relationships, who “owns” them, and our obligations to partners and stakeholder agencies, and the most appropriate channels to leverage for engagement.

Rural Māori engagement

Navigating Our Course was intended to be an all-inclusive programme, with the agility to adapt to our audiences as required – from market, to town hall to marae. This succeeded in many areas, but it did not advantage rural areas, with less connection to our “serviced” centres and often poor broadband (and with that, an increased expectation to be able to engage in person). Communities in these remote rural areas feel disenfranchised and lacking power or influence in Council decision-making processes.

While many members of Far North Māori communities made use of the accessibility and visibility of our drop-in venues, others felt they had been disregarded. This could have been avoided through better understanding of these communities – who to talk to, how to reach them. Elected members contributed to our knowledge-base through the design process, but it was challenging as there is no established process around identifying and capturing that knowledge - no central database or CRM.

Furthermore, cultural competency in many areas of Council is low. Those who have inclination to participate in community engagement aren’t necessarily the ones best equipped with understanding of tikanga Māori. This left staff feeling vulnerable and communities feeling we were not making the effort to engage on their terms.

Digital ENGAGEMENT

· We created a digital hub on the Council website, which hosted all the material available via the roadshow. This meant online users could access all the relevant information and provide feedback at their convenience. We opened up a discussion forum on most project pages to encourage dialogue or respond to questions about the feedback process. Each project page allows users to subscribe so they receive updates when new information is added.

Website analytics

· During the Navigating Our Course engagement period (01 March-06 April 2021) there were:

· 17,321 page views of the section www.fndc.govt.nz/yoursay (total page-views of fndc.govt.nz during this period were 195,105).

· 13,866 were unique page views (total unique page views on site during this period were 148,867).

· This is almost a 1000% increase in action on this page compared the previous period (Jan/Feb 2020) and over 3000% increase on this same time the previous year. Unfortunately, we cannot compare to the 2018-28 Long Term Plan consultation as it was hosted on a different platform for which we do not have statistics.

· Of these views:

· 1773 went no further than the main landing page /your say and 8163 are attributed to the Long-Term Plan pages.

· 1800 page views of the District Plan during this period (bearing in mind they have another platform sharing the traffic).

· Representation Review had over 1000 page views

· Far North 2100 received slightly more than 600.

· The average time on the page for this area of Council’s website during this period was three minutes, with the Representation Review and the Draft District Plan was five minutes. The Long Term Plan kept people for three minutes on its initial page, and then longer when they drilled down – four minutes on the sample rates database page. The average time spent on Council’s site during this period was 01:17.

Social media insights

Facebook/Instagram activity period 01 March to 06 April

- Page posts 31

- People reach 45,000 with 3200 “engaged users” (clicked etc.)

- Combined, the posts received a total of 700 likes, 254 comments and were shared 167 times.

- Video stats:

o 9.8k reach

o 4.8kminutes viewed

o 252 reactions (likes etc.) of which only one angry face

o 82 comments and 67 shares.

- Paid advertising: 28,316 people reached and 401 link clicks.

On Linked In (01 March to 06 April period):

- 10 page

- 9555 impressions, 5019 of which were unique

- 851 click throughs

- 170 likes

- 14 shares

Conclusion

Never stop learning.

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

15 June 2021

6.2 Update on Draft District Plan Engagement

File Number: A3213473

Author: Greg Wilson, Manager - District Planning

Authoriser: Darren Edwards, General Manager - Strategic Planning and Policy

TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report

To provide information on the engagement process and high-level outcomes to date associated with the release of the draft District Plan and outline the next steps in preparing for notification of a Proposed District Plan.

WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY

Council is fully reviewing the Operative Far North District Plan 2009 (District Plan) and a draft District Plan was made available for community feedback in March 2021. It is important that landowners, tangata whenua, communities and stakeholders have opportunities to become aware of the making of the new plan and what it means for them and the sustainable management of our district - creating great places and supporting our people.

It is equally important that Council listen to the concerns, ideas and commentary from Far North communities on how the draft plan direction may impact upon cultural, social, economic and environmental wellbeing. Whilst engagement continues on the draft district plan, engaging with Iwi and targeted groups on specific plan topics such as significant natural areas (SNAs) and historic heritage. A synopsis of key feedback points has been prepared to assist with Council’s awareness and oversight. Detailed analysis will be brought to July Strategic Planning and Policy Committee with further directions outlined on key draft plan topics.

TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Update on Draft District Plan Engagement.

tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background

The role of a district plan through the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is to manage land use and subdivision. A district plan has a ten-year life and certain content is subject to review within shorter periods. A consolidated review is being undertaken to align with a range of national and regional directions that have direct implications for Far North communities.

The new plan is also being authored in accordance with new national planning standards, changing the structure of the plan and incorporating mandatory content. The District Plan must also play a role in representing a new strategic direction for the district. The plan’s ten year lifespan must bring together strands from Council’s long term strategic direction represented in FN2100 whilst demonstrating how we can meet our statutory requirements to ensure that the supply of zoned land and infrastructure meets the district’s expected demands for housing and business land.

The draft District Plan has been developed in a new digital format designed to allow more direct access to site specific information, allowing individuals, landowners, and communities more direct access to property information and how land use and subdivision is managed.

Making available a draft District Plan offers value to the plan making process.

Feedback on the draft allows for validation of key plan elements and adjustment to address gaps and new information.

The consolidated review is an entirely new plan that has been developed from the ground up and responding to new directions in resource management issues. This is a draft district plan that is subject to a new National Planning Standard and which must provide direct alignment to higher order policy instruments including the Northland Regional Council’s Regional Policy Statement.

Releasing a draft enables administration to make changes outside of any formal RMA process, that will commence with the notification of a proposed plan.

The draft district plan has been in development since 2016. Engagement has been undertaken with Far North communities in two previous iterations, both in 2016 and 2018/2019 including a series of roadshows and information sessions in key locations.

The most recent iteration, including the provision of maps and full draft plan text, is an extension on the previous engagement. Inclusion of spatial planning elements including maps containing zones and resource overlays obviously represents a much more specific level of detail. It does however develop on the policy framework progressed through the previous engagement.

Community engagement via the ‘jump on board’ in March 2021 road show allowed for the community to become aware, understand and engage with the suite of Council planning documents, whilst comprehending the overall strategic direction on the draft District Plan. Face to face meetings with the community allowed for instruction on the use of the e-plan format and for awareness of the direction of the new district plan.

MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps

Far North communities were invited to provide feedback via a structured feedback questionnaire as well as an opportunity for open commentary.

The questionnaire was framed under the context of the nine separate Significant Resource Management Issues. This allowed for a direct line of understanding of why certain zones, rules and policies and other methods have been applied in order to remedy big picture problem statements. Provided in Attachment One is a synopsis of the key headline issues that have been identified to date in the analysis of the feedback against the Significant Resource Management Issue.

The period for feedback on the non-statutory draft opened on March 6 2021 and was extended to May 7 2021. At that time there were 321 survey responses, and approximately 330 individual pieces of feedback outside of the survey. Council continues to receive feedback since the close of this period, including from agencies, sector, and advocacy groups.

There are two topical issues that continue to be highlighted by the community and these relate to SNAs and historic heritage. These topics are subject to ongoing targeted engagement and further reporting to Council will be brought to the July 2021 Strategy and Policy Committee. The programme for targeted engagement on SNA mapping was extended to 11 June and a separate programme for engagement on heritage areas is being developed for June through to August.

The feedback has also identified a number of locations that factored strongly in comments regarding the appropriateness of the draft zones. The management of a variety of land uses in and around Waipapa figures prominently with requests for further consideration of enablement of lifestyle zoning, methods to integrate land uses with new sports and recreational land uses as well as managing expansion of industrial zones. Many coastal communities raised concerns over the appropriateness of draft zones in the coastal environment. Feedback and requests for expanded residential zoning and associated infrastructure also figured prominently with our major urban communities.

Engagement with Iwi Authorities is being carried out in May through to July. This engagement will allow for further refinement of the plan prior to the development of the proposed plan.

Ongoing review, summary and detailed analysis is being prepared for the full suite of feedback from community, targeted engagement and Iwi authorities. Progress will continue to be reported to the Strategy and Policy Committee with the aim of developing a proposed plan for notification in the calendar year.

PĀNGA PŪTEA ME NGĀ WĀHANGA TAHUA / Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Council has a legal obligation to have a district plan and review that plan. Ongoing engagement and refinement of plan content will continue to draw on staff resource and allocated budget for district plan processes, including the use of external specialists.

There may be relevant matters that fall outside of the current version of the plan, that must be given regard to under the RMA, such as new highly productive land and biodiversity provisions in national direction instruments.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Synopsis of Feedback to Date on Draft District Plan - A3215316 ⇩

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	This is a matter of low significance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	This report complies with the Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	It is the responsibility of each meeting to confirm their minutes therefore the views of another meeting are not relevant.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	There are no implications on Māori in confirming minutes from a previous meeting. Any implications on Māori arising from matters included in meeting minutes should be considered as part of the relevant report.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences.	This report is asking for the minutes to be confirmed as true and correct record, any interests that affect other people should be considered as part of the individual reports.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision arising from this report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report.

Pukepoto School – Kaitaia – Awaroa Road

Figure 10: Proposed Speed Limits around Pukepoto School