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 book keeping, 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

20 July 2021

MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Memorial Avenue, Kaikohe
ON Tuesday, 15 June 2021 AT 9.30 am

PRESENT: Chair Rachel Smith, Cr David Clendon, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Cr Dave Collard, Cr Felicity Foy, Cr Kelly Stratford, Cr Moko Tepania, Cr John Vujcich, Member Belinda Ward

IN ATTENDANCE:

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

1 Karakia TimatAnga – Opening Prayer

Cr Moko Tepania opened the meeting with a karakia and prayer.

2 Ngā Whakapāha Me Ngā Pānga Mema / Apologies and Declarations of Interest

Apology

Resolution 2021/18

Moved: Chair Rachel Smith

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Ann Court

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

Carried

3 Ngā Tono Kōrero / Deputation

Nil

4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 4.1 document number A3052693, pages 16 - 21 refers.

Resolution 2021/19

Moved: Cr John Vujcich

Seconded: Cr Felicity Foy

That the Strategy and Policy Committee agrees that the minutes of the meeting held 4 May 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

5 Reports

5.1 Resident Opinion Survey

Agenda item 5.1 document number A3215681, pages 22 - 27 refers.

Resolution 2021/20

Moved: Chair Rachel Smith

Seconded: Cr Moko Tepania

That the Strategy and Policy Committee agrees to the changes of the frequency for the Resident Opinion Survey from annually to quarterly in 2021/2022.

Carried

5.2 Kōkiri Ai te Waka Hourua Strategy (Sport Northland)

Agenda item 5.2 document number A3201318, pages 28 - 70 refers.

motion

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

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.

At 10:01 am, Deputy Mayor Ann Court left the meeting.

Amendment

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

b) request an update report on the progress of the resource and implementation and adoption of the of the Kokiri Ai Te Waka Hourua Strategy be brought to the first Strategy and Policy Committee meeting in 2022.

CARRIED

The amendment became the substantive motion.

Resolution 2021/21

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) 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.

Carried

5.3 Speed Limit Bylaw Review Statement of Proposal

Agenda item 5.3 document number A3186147, pages 71 - 106 refers.

Resolution 2021/22

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Cr Felicity Foy

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.

At 10:40 am, Chair Rachel Smith left the meeting and Cr Clendon took the Chair. At 10:43 am, Chair Rachel Smith returned to the meeting and took the Chair.

At 11:00 am, Cr Kelly Stratford left the meeting. At 11:03 am, Cr Kelly Stratford returned to the meeting.

At 11:15 am, Deputy Mayor Ann Court returned to the meeting.

Carried

Abstained: Cr Ann Court

The meeting was adjourned from 11.22 am to 11.32 am.

6 Information Reports

6.1 Navigating Our Course - Engagement Debrief

Agenda item 6.1 document number A3187154, pages 107 - 113 refers.

Resolution 2021/23

Moved: Cr John Vujcich

Seconded: Cr David Clendon

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Navigating Our Course - Engagement Debrief.

Carried

6.2 Update on Draft District Plan Engagement

Agenda item 6.2 document number A3213473, pages 114 - 116 refers.

Resolution 2021/24

Moved: Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded: Cr John Vujcich

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

Carried

7 Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer

Cr Stratford closed the meeting with a karakia.

8 Te Kapinga Hui / Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 12.31 pm.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Strategy and Policy Committee meeting to be held on 20 July 2021.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 July 2021

5 Reports

5.1 Solid Waste Bylaw Consultation

File Number: A3190598

Author: Briar Macken, Planner

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

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek approval to consult on the continuation without amendment of the Solid Waste Bylaw

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· On 08 April 2021, the governing body of the Council determined that the Solid Waste Bylaw should continue without amendment.

· The Local Government Act 2002 requires the Council to consult after conducting a bylaw review.

· The proposal document contains the information required to be made publicly available for consultation.

· The consultation period is for five weeks from 26 July 2021 to the 27 August 2021.

· Oral submissions will be heard on 07 September 2021.

· The Strategy and Policy Committee has the necessary delegations to conduct the hearing of submissions though it could choose to appoint a subcommittee to conduct the hearing.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) agrees, under section 160(3)(b)(ii) of the Local Government Act 2002, to consult on the continuation without amendment of the Solid Waste Bylaw in a manner that gives effect to the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002;

b) approves the Solid Waste Bylaw Proposal, including the bylaw, in attachment one and two, be made publicly available for the purpose of the consultation;

c) agrees the period for making written submissions on the proposal will begin on 26 July 2021 end on 27 August 2021;

d) agrees that if any person wishes to make an oral presentation of their submission, that presentation will take place on Tuesday 7 September 2021 and the hearing will be conducted by the whole Committee;

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

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

On 08 April 2021, under section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, the governing body of the council determined that the Solid Waste Bylaw 2016:

· is the most appropriate way of addressing solid waste problems in the Far North District

· is the most appropriate form of bylaw

· does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

Section 160 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires consultation following a bylaw review.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Legal requirements for consultation

Continuing without amendment the Solid Waste Bylaw is not a significant decision under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Therefore, section 160 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the Council to consult in a manner that meets the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002. This includes:

· giving submitters information in a manner and format that is appropriate

· encouraging people to give their views and have a reasonable opportunity to present those views in either a written or verbal manner

· being clear about the purpose of the consultation and the scope of the decisions to be taken

Section 160(4) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires, for consultation purposes, the Council to make publicly available:

· a copy of the bylaw to be continued

· the reasons for the proposal

· a report of any relevant determinations by the local authority under Local Government Act 2002, section 155.

Attachment 1 and 2 are the proposal document that meets the requirements of section 160 and a copy of the bylaw to be continued.

Consultation period

Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 does not stipulate a minimum length of time for consultation, however a consultation period of at least four weeks is considered best practice. Therefore, consultation will open on 26 July 2021 and close on 27 August 2021, which is a period of five weeks.

Hearing submissions

Council staff expect there will be a reasonably high level of interest in the bylaw because the community is passionate about solid waste related issues such as fly tipping, recycling and kerbside collections. Although solutions to these issues sit outside the scope of a bylaw.

It is likely some people will want to make an oral presentation of their views on the bylaw directly to elected members. The Strategy and Policy Committee has the necessary delegations to conduct hearings of submissions. Alternatively, a subcommittee of the Strategy and Policy Committee could be appointed, under clause 30(2) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, to hear the submissions. Council staff recommend the whole Committee conducts the hearing.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

The Council is required to consult after deciding a bylaw should continue without amendment. The proposal document in Attachment 1 meets the provisions of section 82A of the Local Government Act 2002 that prescribe the information the Council is required to make publicly available for consultation. The consultation process will meet the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 by:

· providing an opportunity for people to give their views on the proposal, the period to end on 27 August 2021

· the Strategy and Policy Committee conducting hearings of oral presentations of submissions on 7 September 2021.

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

The cost of the consultation process will be met within existing budgets.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Proposal - Solid Waste Bylaw - A3170453 ⇩

2. Solid Waste Bylaw 2016 - A2674692 ⇩

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	As retaining the status quo will have little effect on ratepayers or level of service, the level of significance for the Proposal as determined by the Significance and Engagement Policy is low.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	The Local Government Act 2002 prescribes the requirements for the Council to consult before it makes a bylaw. The relevant provisions are described and discussed in the report.
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 Proposal has district-wide relevance and the bylaw is to maintain status quo, therefore the Community Board’s views have not been sought.
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.	Seeking the views and input of iwi in the development of bylaws is integral. Tāngata whenua will be informed of the Proposal and invited to provide their input.
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 following affected or interested people will be directly notified of the consultation on the new bylaw: · Waste collection service providers · Community groups concerned about solid waste in their community · Ngā Tai Ora – Public Health Northland · Northland Regional Council
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The cost of consulting on the proposed bylaw will be met from existing operational budgets.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 July 2021

5.2 Pou Herenga Tai Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw Review

File Number: A3242948

Author: Briar Macken, Planner

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

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is for the Strategy and Policy Committee to recommend to Council to agree the Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw should continue with amendment.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· The Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw (Bylaw) is due for review by 08 September 2021.

· The Bylaw aims to protect public health and safety, minimise nuisance, and minimise damage to the Cycle Trail.

· A bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address the regulation of the Cycle Trail

· The Bylaw is no longer an appropriate form because it is not certain (clear), and it is not consistent with relevant laws and legislation.

· The Bylaw should continue with amendment.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee recommend that Council:

a) agree, under section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, that a Bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing problems related to the Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail.

b) agree, under section 155(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the current Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw is not the most appropriate form because:

i) it is not consistent with relevant laws and legislation

ii) it is not certain.

c) agree, the Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw be continued with amendment to:

i) ensure consistency with relevant laws and legislation

ii) improve certainty

d) note, that under section 155(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, a full analysis of any implications regarding the Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 cannot be completed until the amendments to the bylaw have been written.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw (Bylaw) was made on 08 September 2016. Under section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Bylaw is due for review by 08 September 2021. The Council is required under section 160 of the Local Government Act 20020 to consider whether the Bylaw:

· is still the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems with respect to the cycle Trail

· is still the most appropriate form of bylaw

· gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Problems to be addressed

The Determination Report (15 June 2016)^{^[1]} stated that “A bylaw is the most appropriate way of managing the Trail because there is no single regulatory instrument for the management of the use of the Trail which is on private land, Crown land, road reserve, and land vested under the control of the Council”.

The following problems were identified:

· Protecting public health and safety including:

· restricting access to cyclists and pedestrians

· prohibiting motorised vehicles

· control of dogs

· control of horses.

· Protecting the public and adjoining landowners from nuisance

· Minimising damage including:

· restricting horses.

A review of RFS data and internal consultation with Council and Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust staff has not identified any additional problems relating to the Cycle Trail.

Review findings

The review identified that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address the following problems relating to the Cycle Trail:

· Protecting public health and safety including:

o restricting access to cyclists and pedestrians

o control of dogs.

· Protecting from nuisance including:

o control of stock

o control of camping.

· Minimising damage including:

o restricting construction or earthworks.

Therefore, the Bylaw is still the most appropriate way of addressing those problems with respect to the Cycle Trail.

However, the review identified that the form of the Bylaw is no longer appropriate.

A bylaw is not the most appropriate way to address problems relating to:

· the control of litter

· protecting the environment on or near the Cycle Trail.

Some provisions in the Bylaw are not certain. Therefore, amendments are required to improve clarity particularly regarding:

· the definition of the Cycle Trail

· the areas of the Cycle Trail which are already covered by existing legislation.

The Bylaw is not consistent with relevant laws and legislation including but not limited to:

· Dog Management Bylaw

· Solid Waste Bylaw

· Land Transport Rules

· Freedom Camping Act 2011

· Local Government Act 2002

· removing reference to revoked bylaws.

This report considers what other options for the form of the bylaw may be more appropriate.

Option One: The Bylaw continues with amendment (recommended option).
The Bylaw stays in force and amendments are made to ensure the Bylaw:

· is consistent with relevant laws and legislation

· has improved clarity and certainty.

Consultation is required on the proposed amendments.

Advantages and disadvantages of amending the Bylaw

Advantages	· Bylaw will align with relevant laws and legislation · Bylaw will allow for easier enforcement of provisions · Bylaw will have improved clarity and certainty

Disadvantages	· Implementation costs (likely to be minor)

Option Two: Status Quo: The Bylaw continues without amendment

The Bylaw stays in force with no changes.

Consultation is required on continuing the bylaw without amendment.

Advantages and disadvantages of the status quo

Advantages	· No change management process required
	· No implementation costs required

Disadvantages	· Bylaw is not consistent with relevant laws and legislation · Bylaw does not easily enable Council staff to enforce certain provisions · Potential for reputation risk as Bylaw is not effective nor certain.

Option Three: Do nothing: Allow the Bylaw to auto revoke

Allowing the Bylaw to auto-revoke and not implementing another viable option to protect public health and safety along the Cycle Trail is not a reasonably practicable option.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

A bylaw is still the most appropriate way of addressing the problems with the Cycle Trail.

A new form of bylaw is needed to ensure the Bylaw:

· is consistent with relevant laws and legislation

· is certain (clear).

Next Steps

If Council agrees with the recommendation, a new form of bylaw will be drafted and is planned to be presented to the Strategy and Policy Committee early 2022.

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

The cost of consulting on continuing the Bylaw with amendment will be met from existing operation budgets.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Review Research Report - Pou Herenga Tai - Cycle Trail - A3221774 ⇩

2. Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw 2016 - A2674350 ⇩

3. Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw 2016 - Schedule 1 - A1777664 ⇩

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	In line with the Significance and Engagement Policy the recommendation to continue the bylaw with amendment will have little effect on financial thresholds, ratepayers, specific demographics or levels of service. The recommendation is consistent with existing plans and policies and we already consulted on the original bylaw. Therefore, the level of significance is low.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	The Local Government Act 2002, sections 145, 146, 155 and 160 applies to the decision recommended in this report.
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.	As the recommendation is to continue a bylaw, the Community Boards views have not been sought.
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.	Seeking the views and input of iwi in the development of bylaws is integral. Māori will be given an opportunity to contribute during the early engagement and consultation stage of the bylaw development process.
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).	Affected and interested parties will be given an opportunity to share their views and preferences during the consultation phase including: · Community groups concerned about the Cycle Trail in their community · Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust · Northern Transport Alliance · Neighbouring property owners
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The cost of consulting on retaining the current bylaw will be met from existing operation budgets.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 July 2021

1 Purpose

To describe and discuss the review of the Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw (2016).

2 Context

The New Zealand Cycle Trail project (Nga Haerenga) is a New Zealand Government initiative, co-funded with local councils to build and operate a network of cycle trails or ‘Great Rides’ throughout the country. Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail (Cycle Trail) is an 87 km cycle trail starting at Opua on the east coast and traversing across to the Hokianga Harbour on the west coast.

The Council’s Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Bylaw (Bylaw) was made on 08 September 2016. Under section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Bylaw is due for review by 08 September 2021. The Council is required under section 160 of the Local Government Act 20020 to consider whether the Bylaw:

· is still the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem with respect to the cycle Trail

· is still the most appropriate form of bylaw

· gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3 Problem definition

3.1 Original problem statement

The original determination report to Council (15 June 2016)^{^[2]} stated that “A bylaw is the most appropriate way of managing the Trail because there is no single regulatory instrument for the management of the use of the Trail which is on private land, Crown land, road reserve, and land vested under the control of the Council”.

However, in the same determination report the following problems were also mentioned:

· Protecting public health and safety including:

o restricting access to cyclists and pedestrians

o prohibiting motorised vehicles

o control of dogs

o control of horses

· Protecting the public and adjoining landowners from nuisance

· Minimising damage including:

o restricting horses.

These problems are reflected in the Bylaw clause 4 which states the purpose of the Bylaw is to:

· protect, promote and maintain the safety of people using the Trail or working and living in proximity to the Trail

· protect from nuisance those using the Trail or working and living in proximity to the Trail

· minimise damage to the Trail

· protect and maintain the natural and wildlife values and habitats in the vicinity of the Trail.

3.2 Other problems relating to the Cycle Trail not currently controlled or addressed by the Bylaw

A review of RFS data and internal consultation with Council and Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust staff has not identified any additional problems relating to the Cycle Trail.

3.3 Scope

In scope

Problems relating to the Pou Herenga Tai – Twin Coast Cycle Trail which are a function of Council to control or address.

Out of scope

· All other recreation grounds, reserves, shared paths or roads in the Far North District as these are (or are planned to be) regulated by other policy instruments.

· Parts of the Cycle Trail which cross a road, as roads are regulated by the Land Transport Act 1998.

4 Council’s role relating to the Cycle Trail

Nga Hereanga was initially a central government initiative to create one consistent and continuous cycle path the length of New Zealand. However, central government consultation identified that utilising, upgrading and extending existing paths was more financially viable. Therefore, central government provided funding to local authorities to develop suitable cycle trails in their districts.

Under section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002, the purpose of local government is to “… promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future”. The use of the Cycle Trail can have a positive effect on a community’s wellbeing through direct impacts, such as affecting the physical health of people by encouraging active movement and affecting economic wellbeing by encouraging tourism.

The Council is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the Cycle Trail as an asset. The Council has a service level agreement with the Pou Herenga Tai Twin Coast Cycle Trail Trust who undertake operational management of the Cycle Trail.

4.1 Local Government Act 2002

Council can make a bylaw under section 145 of the Act for the following purposes:

· protecting the public from nuisance

· protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety

· minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

Under section 146 (b) (vi) Council can also make a bylaw for the purpose of:

“managing, regulating against, or protecting from, damage, misuse, or loss, or for preventing the use of, the land, structures, or infrastructure associated with reserves, recreation grounds, or other land under the control of the territorial authority”.

Whilst the Cycle Trail crosses land that is not owned by Council, easement agreements have been put in place which state that property owners need to adhere to any policy instrument relating to the Cycle Trail. It is therefore reasonable to categorise the Cycle Trail as infrastructure associated with land under the control of Council.

4.2 Land Transport Act 1998

The Cycle Trail crosses and utilises land that is road and therefore Council can make a bylaw under section 22AB for multiple reasons including but not limited to:

· restricting the use of motor vehicles on unformed legal roads for the purposes of protecting the environment, the road and adjoining land, and the safety of road users

· prescribing the use of roads and cycle tracks, and the construction of anything on, over, or under a road or cycle track

· prohibiting or restricting parking on specified roads or parts of a road.

5 Review of Bylaw

5.1 Protecting public health and safety

Restricting access to cyclists and pedestrians

The aim of the Cycle Trail is to provide a safe space for cyclists and pedestrians. Due to the Cycle Trail being quite narrow in places and made from loose material, motorised vehicles were perceived to be a risk to the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. Therefore, the Bylaw prohibits motorised vehicles from entering the Cycle Trail.

RFS data shows that there have been a few incidences where people in motorised vehicles have been using the Cycle Trail, resulting in a ‘near miss’ with a cyclist. The RFS data supports the perceived problem that motor vehicles on the Cycle Trail may be unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists.

However, more research is required to identify why vehicles have been using the Cycle Trail. For example, does signage need to be improved or are people wilfully ignoring the Bylaw and why?

Given that the Cycle Trail crosses different types of land ownership, and that motorised vehicles may cause harm to cyclists and pedestrians, a bylaw remains an appropriate regulatory tool for restricting access to motorised vehicles on the trail.

Control of dogs

To protect the safety of both cyclists and dogs, the Bylaw stipulates that dogs are allowed on the Cycle Trail only when on a leash. RFS data and internal consultation identified incidences of dogs attacking users of the Cycle Trail. All dog attacks were from dogs not on a leash. The data supports the perceived problem that uncontrolled dogs can cause harm to the public.

Since implementing the Bylaw, the Council made the Dog Management Bylaw and Dog Management Policy in 2018. The Cycle Trail Bylaw is not consistent with the dog management policy instruments which do not allow dogs on the trail where the Cycle Trail passes through private land.

Duplicating regulation across multiple policy instruments does not follow best practice guidelines. Therefore, the clauses in the Bylaw relating to dogs should be revoked, and dog regulation should remain in the Dog Management Bylaw.

Control of horses

Cyclists may scare horses, especially where the Cycle Trail is quite narrow, leading to potential harm to all users of the Cycle Trail. Horse hooves may cause damage to the Cycle Trail as the surface of the Cycle Trail is not suitable for horse use. Therefore, the Bylaw restricts access to the Cycle Trail for horses. As an outcome of consultation, the Bylaw allows horse trekking events to be held four times per year with the consent of Council.

There is still hesitancy to give consent for horse events due to managing the health and safety of other users of the Cycle Trail, managing potential nuisance such as ensuring the opening and closing of gates, managing horse excrement on the Cycle Trail, and managing any potential damage to the Cycle Trail caused by horse hooves.

Further research is required to ensure that the Bylaw is in the appropriate form to manage the potential impact of horses to the Cycle Trail and its users.

5.2 Protecting from nuisances

Control of stock

Stock wandering on the path can be a safety issue for cyclists but also a nuisance for users of the path and neighbouring landowners. Controlling stock is a responsibility of landowners to maintain their property and fences, but also for users of the Cycle Trail to keep gates closed. The Bylaw includes multiple provisions to prevent wandering stock.

RFS data and internal consultation supports the perceived problem of wandering stock. However, more research is required to identify the causes of wandering stock for example, are communication tools regarding the closing of gates sufficient to enable public compliance.

The issue of wandering stock can be enforced under the Impounding Act 1955. However, Council does not have the resources (e.g., cattle truck, sufficient access to the Cycle Trail) to be able to enforce under the Impounding Act 1955.

The Bylaw regulates the use of the Cycle Trail and requires property owners to gain consent from Council, before using the Cycle Trail as a stock race. There have been incidences of neighbouring property owners using the Cycle Trail as a path for moving stock, leading to damaged plants etc. More research is required to ensure that appropriate mechanisms are put in place to enable ongoing communication with property owners regarding the provisions in the Bylaw.

More research is required to identify the most appropriate way to manage and regulate the issue of stock of the Cycle Trail.

Control of Camping

To prevent nuisance to both users of the Cycle Trail and neighbouring residents, camping is prohibited along the Cycle Trail.

The Reserves Act 1977 prohibits camping in any reserve, therefore any components of the Cycle Trail which are on land designated as reserve can be regulated by the Reserves Act 1977.

The Freedom Camping Act 2011 defines freedom camping as camping within 200m of a motor vehicle accessible area, or the mean low-water springs line of any sea or harbour, or on or within 200m of a formed road. Much of the Cycle Trail is on or within 200m of a motor vehicle accessible area or a formed road. Council can restrict or prohibit freedom camping on council-controlled land under the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

Therefore, a bylaw (made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011) is an appropriate regulatory tool to prohibit camping along the Cycle Trail.

5.3 Minimising damage to the Trail

The Bylaw prohibits damage to the Trail. The Bylaw minimises unintentional damage from neighbouring property owners by requiring consent for activities such as establishing a new driveway or path that crosses the Cycle Trail.

The Cycle Trail is considered infrastructure associated with land under the control of Council. Council has the power to recover for damage by wilful or negligent behaviour under section 175 of the Local Government Act 2002. However, bylaws can act as a deterrent and therefore just having a bylaw in place can prevent damage and be used as another tool to protect Council’s asset.

Therefore, a bylaw remains an appropriate regulatory tool for preventing and enforcing incidences of damage.

5.4 Protecting the environment

Council does not have the power to make a bylaw protecting the environment under the Local Government Act 2002. Therefore, a bylaw is not the most appropriate regulatory tool for protecting the environment.

The Bylaw should be amended to remove the purpose of the Bylaw (4.1 (d)) which states “Protect and maintain the natural and wildlife values and habitats in the vicinity of the Trail”.

5.5 Is the bylaw certain?

In determining if a bylaw is the appropriate form of bylaw, the bylaw needs to be certain e.g., it uses clear wording so people will understand what they are required to do.

Some of the language used in the bylaw is outdated and inconsistent with modern legislative drafting styles.

There are several provisions in the bylaw that are unclear, for example, the meaning of the Cycle Trail as outlined in the Bylaw. The Bylaw refers to the map provided in Schedule 1 which does not give any definitive land markings. The maps should be updated to provide a clearer definition as to the area in which the Bylaw applies.

The Bylaw states that the Cycle Trail is subject to existing laws where the path is within a Roadway. This component of the Bylaw is unclear. Roadway is not a definition commonly used in other legislation, although is defined in the Land Transport Rules. The Cycle Trail crosses land that is defined as road and therefore subject to regulation under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 and the Land Transport Act 1998. It could therefore be that these are the existing laws the Bylaw was referring to.

So that the public can easily interpret the Bylaw, the Bylaw needs to be amended to ensure ease of understanding and clarity, particularly where the Bylaw risks contradicting existing legislation.

5.6 Alignment with other relevant laws and legislation

The Bylaw refers to Council’s Control of the Use of Public Places Bylaw which has been revoked. The Bylaw will need to be amended to ensure that the Bylaw aligns with Council’s current policy instruments.

The Bylaw allows for the use of wheeled recreation devices and mobility devices on the Cycle Trail. Definitions for these devices and motorised vehicles are copies from Land Transport Rules that are in the process of being amended. To ensure consistency across policy instruments and to avoid any confusion, the Bylaw definitions should align with Land Transport Rule definitions by cross-referring to them, not copying them. This will ensure that when the Rules are amended the content of the bylaw will continue to be correct. (To illustrate, Waka Kotahi are currently consulting on new definitions for some types of vehicles (e.g., e-skateboards, powered unicycles, hoverboards and a range of mobility devices– see the Accessible Streets rules package ^{^[3]}.)

To protect public health and safety and to minimise nuisance, consent from Council is required for any event held on the Cycle Trail. The components regarding events need to align with Council’s other Bylaws. For example, the Solid Waste Bylaw requires events to have a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

The Bylaw prohibits littering on the Cycle Trail. Litter and littering in general are regulated by the Litter Act 1979. Litter Control Officers have the power to issue an infringement notice under the Litter Act 1979, whereas a bylaw made under the Local Government Act 2002 requires prosecution to enforce. Therefore, Council staff enforce littering under the Litter Act 1979. Duplicating regulation across multiple policy instruments does not follow best practice guidelines. Therefore, a bylaw is not the most appropriate regulatory tool for preventing and enforcing incidences of littering and clauses referring to littering should be revoked.

The Land Transport Act 1998 gives Council the power to make a bylaw for several reasons which may apply to the Cycle Trail. The Land Transport Act 1998 includes powers to issue infringement notices for certain offences which may allow for easier enforcement of the Bylaw. More research is required to identify if the Bylaw should also be made under the Land Transport Act 1998.

6 Discussion

6.1 Is a bylaw still the most appropriate way to address the regulation of the Cycle Trail in the Far North District?

The review has identified that a bylaw is still the most appropriate way to address the following problems relating to the Cycle Trail:

· Protecting public health and safety including:

o restricting access to cyclists and pedestrians

o control of dogs

· Protecting from nuisance including:

o control of stock

o control of camping.

· Minimising damage including:

o restricting construction or earthworks.

A bylaw is not the most appropriate way to address problems relating to

· the control of litter

· protecting the environment on or near the Cycle Trail.

6.2 Is the bylaw the most appropriate form of bylaw?

The form of a bylaw is about its content and how it is drafted. A bylaw will be appropriate if it:

· deals with the identified problems

· meets the objectives it is intended to achieve

· is certain, e.g. it uses clear wording so people will understand what they are required to do

· is enforceable and able to be implemented and administered effectively and efficiently

· considers the relationship of Māori to land, water, sites, wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga

· complies with all relevant laws and legislation.

The costs and benefits of a bylaw also need to be considered and the form of a bylaw will be appropriate if the benefits outweigh the costs.

The Bylaw has provisions which deal with the identified problems. However more research is required to identify:

· why motorised vehicles are accessing the Cycle Trail

· whether the Bylaw appropriately manages the potential impact of horses to the trail and its users

· the causes of wandering stock

Some provisions in the Bylaw are not certain. Therefore, amendments are required to improve clarity particularly regarding

· the definition of the Cycle Trail

· the areas of the Cycle Trail which are already covered by existing legislation or bylaws.

The Bylaw is not consistent with relevant laws and legislation including but not limited to:

· Dog Management Bylaw

· Solid Waste Bylaw

· Land Transport Rules

· Freedom Camping Act 2011

· Local Government Act 2002

· removing reference to revoked bylaws.

Therefore, the Bylaw is not the most appropriate form of bylaw and should be amended.

6.3 Does the Bylaw give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?

As the Bylaw is not the most appropriate form of bylaw a full assessment under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is not currently possible.

However, the only rights or freedoms under the Bill of Rights Act potentially engaged by the Bylaw are likely to be the rights to freedom of movement in relation to the restriction of access to the Cycle Trail for motorised vehicles and dogs. Limitations on these rights must be no more than is reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of the Bylaw. The Bylaw limits these rights only to the extent that they create a danger to health and safety or a nuisance to others or the public generally.

Therefore, the Bylaw does not raise any implications under and is not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights because any limitations of rights are justified.

7 Conclusion

A bylaw is the most appropriate way to regulate the use of the Cycle Trail to protect public health and safety, and minimise nuisance and damage. The Bylaw needs to be amended to ensure that the Bylaw is easily understood and aligns with relevant laws and legislation.

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 July 2021

5.3 Significant Natural Areas Project Options

File Number: A3260126

Author: Emily Robinson, Policy Planner

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

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek a decision on the next steps for the Significant Natural Areas mapping project.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· In March 2021 a Draft Proposed District Plan was released for a period of non-statutory consultation. The draft included provisions and planning maps to gather community feedback before notification of the Proposed District Plan at the end of 2021.

· The Draft Proposed District Plan included Significant Natural Area (SNA) maps, and rules relating to these areas. The draft SNA maps identified 42% of the District being potentially significant and therefore a mailout to 9000 affected landowners occurred in May 2021.

· This signaled the start of a targeted feedback period to refine the mapping and gather feedback on SNAs.

· A large volume of public feedback was received, much of which was criticism of both the process and the imposition for landowners. A decision now needs to be made by the Strategy and Policy Committee on the direction of the SNA project, as well as the implications this may have on the District Plan review.

· Having heard the voice of the community the Mayor supported by Councillors has been proactively working with Minister James Shaw, Minister Kelvin Davis, tangata whenua and other key stakeholders to provide a positive outcome as Council progresses in its development of the proposed District Plan. A further update in relation to these discussions will be provided to the September Strategy and Policy Committee.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee approve:

That the Significant Natural Areas project continues, with the refinement of Significant Natural Area maps occurring in the second half of 2021 before notification of the Proposed District Plan in December 2021. Rules relating to Significant Natural Areas will be included in the Proposed District Plan.

Or;

That the development of the proposed District Plan continues with the removal of Significant Natural Areas mapping and replaces this with a suitable policy framework that gives effect to the National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity and notifying the Proposed District Plan within six months of its gazettal, which is expected in December 2021. In the event that the National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity is not gazetted, the Proposed District Plan is notified in 2022 and gives effect to the relevant suite of higher order planning instruments, but excludes the mapping of Significant Natural Areas as a plan method.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

In March 2021 a Draft District Plan was released in order to gather feedback from the community on the proposed provisions and related planning maps for the District Plan review. Through this draft engagement process, SNA maps and rules relating to the management of indigenous biodiversity was also released. This method was consistent with the policy direction shared with the community during engagement in 2018 and 2019 on the draft policy framework for the new district plan.

The SNA mapping project, undertaken in conjunction with Kaipara and Whangarei District Councils, responded to directions in higher order planning documents to arrive at more specific methods for significant indigenous species and habitats. The draft mapping identified 42% of the Far North District as being potentially affected. This resulted in approximately 9000 affected landowners. A mailout was undertaken to notify each of the landowners at the start of May to create further awareness. This signalled the start of a targeted engagement period, with the purpose of refining the accuracy of the SNA maps and gathering feedback on the proposal to inform the policy direction and methods for inclusion in the Proposed District Plan. A large volume of public feedback was received, much of which was criticism of both the process and the imposition on landowners.

The SNA project attained a national political profile due to the public interest and concern it has raised with respect to the potential cultural and economic impacts from the management methods in the draft plan. Mayor Carter, alongside other elected members have represented the issue at a national level with Mayor Carter meeting with Associate Environment Minister James Shaw in Wellington to highlight the concerns that the community has raised regarding SNAs, and the unique situation the Far North is in with such a high coverage of indigenous biodiversity.

Plan Making Process

In accordance with section 79 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), a local authority must commence a review of a District Plan within 10 years. Council began the review of the Far North District Plan in 2016 and consulted district wide with ‘let's put a pin on it’ to understand from communities what their issues were and what is working and not working.

The draft policy framework was later released in 2018, including objectives, policies and indicative rules. This was also subject to a district wide consultation exercise similar to that undertaken in 2016. The draft policy framework included a chapter on indigenous biodiversity identifying the context and methods for identifying significant natural areas, as well as draft rules for clearance within and outside of SNAs. Targeted engagement on SNA methods with affected landowners was planned for 2020, however the public health risks associated with COVID-19 rendered this approach inappropriate. An alternative approach relied on the completion of a draft district plan, including maps, with allowance for targeted engagement on key topics, including SNAs.

The Draft District Plan was released in 2021, which built on the draft policy framework in terms of providing rules and mapping across the district. Consultation was undertaken in conjunction with the Long-Term Plan, FN2100 and the Representation Review. Feedback on the Draft District Plan was open from March until May. The notification of the Proposed District Plan is working towards the end of 2021.

Statutory Obligations for the protection of indigenous vegetation

The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna is a requirement under Section 6 of the RMA, as a matter of national importance. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) requires the protection of indigenous biological diversity and in doing states that any activities must avoid adverse effects in the coastal environment. Case law from the Supreme Court^{^[4]} has made it clear where policies are expressed in clearly directive terms, such as use of the word “avoid”, a decision-maker may have no option but to implement them.

The requirement is repeated in the Regional Policy Statement for Northland 2016 (RPS) with respect to avoiding adverse effects on indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna in the coastal environment. The requirement to protect indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna outside of the coastal environment is not as onerous and allows adverse effects to be avoided, remedied or mitigated so they are not significant. The RPS gives territorial authorities a two-year time frame to integrate rules relating to the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna into their District Plans.

Central Government has developed a Draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB) and has indicated a planned gazettal at the end of 2021. The draft NPSIB has requirements to identify and map significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna with criteria listed in Appendix 1 of the NPSIB. The NPSIB also has a five-year timeframe for this work to be undertaken in accordance with a number of principles and methods for engagement, as well as more enabling provisions aimed at enabling development of Māori Freehold land.

The culmination of the above legislation means that Council has a responsibility to protect and maintain areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna through a District Plan.

Significant Natural Areas Mapping Project

Council has worked collaboratively with both the Kaipara and Whangarei District Councils to identify and map areas of significant indigenous vegetation throughout the region. This work commenced in 2018, with draft maps being supplied to Council in 2020.

At the start of May 2021, a mail out to affected landowners was undertaken. This involved sending letters, information packs and ecological reports to approximately 9,000 property owners who had potential SNAs identified on their property. The purpose of the mail out was to create further awareness of the issues and proposed methods, refine the SNA mapping and gather feedback on the draft policy framework and associated methods as a part of a non-statutory engagement program.

The mail out generated a large amount of public interest with over 3000 pieces of feedback being received, as well as the District Plan team fielding a large volume of calls and queries through email. The District Plan team also attended several hui and town meetings throughout May and June, generated by concerns that the community had around the project. A SNA livestream was also held on the 8^th of June with representatives from council and a number of organizations to answer questions around SNAs. Tangata whenua had a particular concern with the processes followed for the SNA mapping project to date, as well as the implications that the SNA rules may have on their whenua.

Due to the large volume of public concern around the project, a direction is now sought from the Committee as to whether the SNA project is pursued and in what form SNAs take in the Proposed District Plan, keeping in mind our statutory obligations at both the national (NZCPS) and regional (RPS) level. Given Central Governments indication that the gazettal of the NPSIB will be at the end of 2021, it is also worth considering options around the timing of notification for the Proposed District Plan.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Option 1 - Continue the mapping project as planned, with the refinement of SNA maps occurring in the coming months before notification of the Proposed District Plan in December 2021.

This would include using oblique aerial imagery and site visits where requested to ensure that the SNA maps are as accurate as possible for inclusion in the Proposed District Plan. This option relies on refinement through engagement but would provide certainty for Council in terms of where SNAs are so they can be protected in accordance with the direction from central government and regional council. This method may also represent greater efficiencies and effectiveness due to less costs being passed onto individual landowners through requirements to undertake ecological assessments for resource consent applications. However, this method is also acknowledged to have a high level of community anxiety and concern, including concerns over cultural appropriateness and economic costs of compliance. Because of this level of concern, Option 1 is seen as having a high level of risk in terms of Council’s relationships with Far North communities.

Option 2 - Discontinue SNA mapping project based on public concern and introduce methods in the draft District Plan that seek to achieve outcomes for biodiversity as required by higher order plans and directions.

Removing SNA maps in the District Plan would mean that the rule framework controlling the management of areas of indigenous vegetation will still need to ‘give effect’ to the RMA, NZCPS and RPS, and this will likely result in a more stringent rule framework than what is currently proposed with the inclusion of SNA maps. This is most relevant to those areas identified as having SNAs in the coastal environment where the test is to ‘avoid’ adverse effects. This option potentially puts the onus on every landowner in the district, particularly in the coastal environment, that has indigenous flora on their property to undertake an ecological assessment for land use activities and subdivision to ensure that proposed activities do not adversely affect a SNA. This method may result in a high cost for individual landowners when wanting to develop their land, and therefore may not dispel the community concern around SNAs.

Option 3 - Delay notification of the Proposed District Plan until the NPSIB is gazetted. Gazettal of the NPSIB is expected at the end of 2021 however, to allow for integration of a policy and rule framework into the Proposed District Plan, notification of the plan would occur in approximately April 2022. This option would allow for the framework afforded to indigenous biodiversity management in the NPSIB, including specific principles and processes for engagement, a potentially more enabling framework for the use of Māori land and recognition of continuation of existing pastoral land uses. This would allow the SNA maps to go through a long collaborative process before being integrated into the Plan at a later date. This option allows us to fulfil our statutory obligations under the RPS, while working towards aligning with the NPS in an achievable timeframe.

In the event that gazettal of the NPSIB does not occur within a timely manner (i.e six months after expected gazettal), the notification of the Proposed District Plan would go ahead and give effect to any relevant higher order planning documents, such as the RPS.

It is considered that this option would have the lowest level of risk in terms of both fulfilling statutory obligations and addressing community concern. However, it should be noted that there are other regulatory requirements at play when considering this option. Council’s statutory requirements under the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 are due to come into play at the start of 2022 which may result in further work to integrate these requirements into a Proposed District Plan. As well as this, RMA reform offers another level of uncertainty, and there is a need to notify the Proposed District Plan prior to this occurring at the end of 2022. Therefore, ensuring that the plan is notified within the first half of 2022 is integral to this option being viable.

Option 4 - Discontinue the SNA project and maintain Operative District Plan approach to indigenous vegetation management.

This option would rely on including a similar policy framework for vegetation clearance in the Proposed District Plan as to what is in the Operative District Plan. This approach would involve having vegetation clearance thresholds and rules based on zoning. This would not fulfil our statutory obligations for the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation at both the national and regional level. This method would be not be defensible in statutory plan making processes given the nature of change in resource management obligations and methods since the District Plan was made operative in 2009 and is not considered a viable option.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

It is recommended that the Policy & Strategy Committee and/or Council endorse and support Option one, two or three.

Option one would deliver the most efficient and effective outcomes for protection of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna by adding a level of certainty to where indigenous biodiversity is located without putting the onus on landowners to identify it through individual ecological assessments. However, Far North communities have expressed significant concerns with the mapping method and therefore this option has a high level of risk to the organisation associated with it.

Both options two and three provide alternative pathways to responding to the higher order documents and are defensible in statutory plan making processes.

Option two would be responsive to the directions set out in the RMA, NZCPS and RPS, however has the potential to have high costs transferred onto individual landowners through the requirement of ecological assessments being undertaken as a part of resource consent processes.

Option three involves delaying the notification of the proposed plan to enable the principles, processes and methods within the NPSIB to be expressed by the Proposed District Plan. This method acknowledges the stronger focus on working with communities in developing appropriate planning methods including maps, and ideally would allow for appropriate resourcing for implementation, that would be expected to take place over a number of years.

Option four is not supported as it would not represent a defensible approach given Council’s statutory responsibilities and the changes to the resource management regulatory environment since the making of the Partly Operative District Plan in 2007.

Overall, Option one, two or three will fulfil Council’s statutory obligations, however this would be achieved in different ways. Although Option 1 is likely the most efficient and effective way to manage areas of significant indigenous vegetation, in lieu of this being a viable option due to community concern, either Option two or three are seen as preferable as they allow Council to fulfil its statutory requirements under the RMA, the NZCPS and the RPS.

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

There are no immediate budgetary requirements. The SNA mapping project to date has been covered by the District Plan budget. However, further resources may be required once a direction on the SNA project is decided. This is outside of the scope of the current report.

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

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 engagement we have undertaken so far has been non-statutory, however as the public interest in the project has increased, the significance of the issue has become high.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	In accordance with section 79 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), a local authority must commence a review of a District Plan within 10 years. The RMA requires the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation as a Section 6 matter (matter of national importance. The Regional Policy Statement for Northland (2016) requires areas of significant indigenous vegetation to be protected and maintained, and for adverse effects to be avoided in the coastal environment. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) requires the protection of indigenous biological diversity and in doing states that any activities must avoid adverse effects in the coastal environment.
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 is a District wide issue.
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.	A large portion of Māori Freehold Land has had a potential SNA identified on it, and therefore the effect on Māori is significant. Throughout the feedback period, there was a large amount of concern raised by Māori over the proposal. This has been taken into account in the authoring of the current report. Targeted iwi engagement on the Proposed District Plan is occurring in the second half of 2021, in the lead up to notification of the plan at the end of 2021.
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).	There has been a considerable amount of community concern around SNAs, which is in part why this report has been written. Although our process is under the RMA, the feedback period we undertook in March-May was non-statutory. We are currently collating feedback submitted through the SNA survey, and this will be used to inform a Section 32 report for the management of indigenous biodiversity under the RMA.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no immediate budgetary or financial implications.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 July 2021

5.4 Appointed Member Allowances Policy

File Number: A3267254

Author: Caroline Wilson, Manager - District Administration

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

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

Seek a recommendation to Council to adopt the policy on appointed member allowances.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· The Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee (JCCAC) has prompted the possible need for an appointed member allowances policy to be adopted. There is no clarity from the Northland Regional Council (the administering body) to date as to whether appointed members from each of the Councils will be remunerated according to the policy of the administering body or from each individual Council – the terms of reference for the joint committee are silent on this matter.

· There is increasing interest in appointing external expertise to Councils own committees.

· This policy has been created in consultation with the councils within the region to ensure a consistent approach and fee structure for appointed members.

· Council currently doesn’t have a policy under which it can remunerate our appointed member to JCCAC.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee recommend that Council adopt the Appointed Members Allowances Policy.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Council has not previously appointed external experts to their committees, with the exception of the Assurance Risk and Finance Committee which has had an independent member for a number of triennia, under a contractual arrangement.

Council recently entered into an agreement for a Joint Climate Change Adaptation Committee and is also discussing options for external participation at a committee level.

The joint committee terms of reference have been silent on the matter of appointed members remuneration and whether the administering body’s policy apply (in this case NRC) or whether each individual councils’ own policy will apply. This is still a work in progress.

It is time to consider the adoption of a policy to ensure appointed members are fairly and transparently recompensed for their participation and provide clarity to the current appointed member’s remuneration irrespective of the decision made by NRC and the JCCAC.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The council recognises that appointed (non-elected) members bring skills and expertise to the decision-making process. Having a fair and transparent allowances policy ensures that the financial impact of their participation does not act as a disincentive to participation. A transparent, fair and balanced policy on the payment of allowances to appointed members promotes public confidence in the council’s financial stewardship.

Many councils have independent advisory committees and/or specific expertise appointed to committees of Council. In such cases, councils have adopted an allowances policy to provide a consistent and transparent approach to recognising their contribution and encouraging expertise to the table that may otherwise not be available to members in their decision-making.

This policy was designed in consultation with the Northland Regional, Whangarei and Kaipara District Councils to ensure consistency and equity particularly in light of the joint committee. It also sets the rules for future appointments to council committees.

The policy principles are the same across the region, with some minor localised variations, and the fee structure is relatively consistent.

The three other Northland based Councils either have the following fee structure or are about to propose the following fee to their Council at their next Council meeting. The TOAT fee has been added to assist with comparison.

Council	Meeting Fee
Northland Regional	$240
Whangarei District	$280
Kaipara District	$240
Far North District	$240
TOAT Member (set in legislation)	$275

Cost comparison across other Councils sees the fees set between $170 - $400 per meeting fee. Some provide only hourly rates between $50 to $70 per hour, up to a typical maximum of $600 per meeting (Auckland City). The allowance is less than the current pro-rata equivalent of the councillor base rate (determined by the Remuneration Authority) but above the minimum allowable and will be closer if/when we move to 10 councillor structure through the representation review.

This policy will apply to any appointed members to governance committees of the Far North District Council, or any joint committees where the Far North District Council is either the administering body or has their own appointed members. Appointed members would also be eligible to claim vehicle and travel time allowance, under the current Elected Members Allowances and Reimbursement policy.

Option 1 – adopt the policy

In this option we adopt the policy which is aligned with a regional approach to remuneration of appointed members. This ensures a high degree of consistency, particularly as we may appoint expertise in the future that has been previously appointed to other councils within the region. It would resolve any issue of perceived disparity with the fee structure and payable allowances. This is the preferred option.

Option 2 – not adopt the policy at this stage

We could wait for direction from NRC which may be forthcoming prior to this policy coming before Council for adoption. It does require a change to JCCAC terms of reference and approval from each Council which could mean this is delayed until later this year. As we have not yet received a report on a participation model at committee level, we are not yet required to have a policy in place. However it might be considered prudent to have this approved for when Council does decide to pursue this option and provide clarity to any potential candidates related to allowances. This is not the preferred option.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

Adopt the policy on appointed members allowances to ensure Council is prepared for appointing external expertise to Council committees and/or joint committees.

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

Budget has been allocated in the 2021-2022 financial year should Council wish to pursue the option of appointing external expertise to Committees.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Appointed Members Allowances Policy - A3270283 ⇩

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	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.	Elected Members Allowances and Reimbursement Policy relates for the provision of vehicle mileage and travel time claims.
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 has district wide relevance.
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.	There is no particular significance for Māori.
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).	There is no identified interested parties.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Budgetary provision has been made in the 2021-22 financial year.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 July 2021

Context

This policy has been developed in consultation with the Northland Regional, Whangarei District and Kaipara District councils to ensure fair, transparent and consistent payment of allowances to non-elected (appointed) members.

Elected members’ remuneration, expenses and allowances are governed by the Remuneration Authority. The Authority does not concern itself in a council’s methods or policies for rewarding or compensating non-elected members.

Legislative Context

The Local Government Act 2002 (Schedule 7, clause 31(3)) provides that the Council may appoint to a committee or subcommittee a person who is not an elected member if that person has the skills, attributes and knowledge that will assist the work of the committee or subcommittee.

Principles

The principle of this policy is for the allowances paid to appointed members to be transparent, accountable, and fair by:

1 appointed members not being financially disadvantaged by their participation in committees, working parties or other bodies.

2 the financial impact of participation in committees, working parties or other bodies is not a disincentive to participation.

3 Fees being set on a fair but conservative basis to reflect an element of public service involved.

The expected outcome of this policy is public confidence in the council’s financial stewardship and alignment with our regional counterparts, particularly as appointed members may be engaged to more than one committee and at more than one council within the district.

Application of this Policy

1 This policy applies to attendance at the following:

a. Standing Committee Meetings: i.e. a committee appointed by the council (only) that meets on a regular basis to address specific issues covered by the committee's delegations;

b. Joint Committee or Subcommittee Meetings if their appointment has been approved by council or committee formal resolution;

c. Standing Committee or Subcommittee Workshops if the membership has been approved by council or committee resolution;

d. Meetings of any other sub-ordinate bodies set up by Standing Committees or Subcommittees if the membership has been approved by council or committee resolution;

e. Scheduled meetings of External Bodies; provided council has approved by resolution that the appointed member will represent council at these meetings.

2 This policy does not apply to:

a. The Mayor and Elected Members, who have their remuneration agreed through the Remuneration Authority and a decision of the Council at the beginning of each triennium;

b. Boards established under specific legislation (e.g. Te Oneroa-a-Tōhe Beach Board) which have separate and specific allowances;

c. The District Licensing Committee Chair and Members, who have remuneration set by Government regulation;

d. Independent Hearing Commissioners engaged by the Council, who are remunerated separate from this policy;

e. Internal or external staff attending a committee or panel meeting as part of their employment;

f. Any appointed member whose participation on a committee, subcommittee, working party or external body is remunerated by a government agency, another local authority or private/public interest group.

g. The council’s independent Deputy Chair of the Assurance Risk and Finance Committee, as that member is paid by contractual agreement;

h. Appointments to a Community Board committee or working party recognising that their role is advocacy and largely for the public good;

i. Council established community committees or working parties, (for example - but not limited to - hall, reserves, cemetery committees);

j. Workshops or functions not organised by Democracy Services.

Meeting (workshop) Allowance

a. The council will pay a daily meeting (workshop) allowance for members of $240 and $300 for the chair. For clarity, if a member attends two meetings (workshops) on the same day, the allowance may only be claimed once for that day. Members may choose to not claim this allowance;

b. The meeting (workshop) allowance covers all work associated with participation in the meetings of the body, including that performed outside of meetings (e.g. preparation and post-meeting follow-up);

c. The allowance will not be paid If a meeting/workshop is cancelled with two days notice.

Appointed members are eligible to claim travel and meeting allowances if a meeting lapses due to lack of a quorum and they have travelled to that meeting;

d. The meeting (workshop) allowance does not cover specific work that may be required of member(s) of the body/group over and above participation in meetings. Such additional or extra work will be remunerated by other means, via specific contract or koha, for example. and must be approved and recorded by the body before it is undertaken and is subject to agreement by the council.

Vehicle Mileage and Travel Time Allowance

The council will pay the vehicle mileage and travel time allowance as set out in its current Elected Members’ Expenses and Allowances Policy. The annual cap and minimum distance requirements of the Elected Members’ Expenses and Allowances Policy apply. Eligible appointed members may choose to not claim mileage.

The allowance will not be paid for any mileage that is not associated with travel between a member’s primary residence and properly scheduled meetings of a committee or subcommittee, in the member’s own vehicle, and by the most direct route that is reasonable in the circumstances.

Exceptions

Exceptions to this policy can be made in certain circumstances on a case by case basis. An application must be made to the Chief Executive or their delegate for approval through Democracy Services.

Procedure for claiming allowances

a. After each meeting, the appointed member is to send an invoice for the allowances they wish to claim, along with relevant receipts to accountspayable@fndc.govt.nz. For the purposes of this policy, appointed members are not classed as employees of Council and must adhere to relevant IRD requirements in relation to tax and expenses.

b. The Council will aim to pay allowances within a fortnight of receipt of an invoice.

Related information

Far North District Council’s Elected Members’ Expenses and Reimbursement Policy - elected-members-allowances-and-reimbursement-policy-2017.pdf (fndc.govt.nz)

Monitoring and Review

The Democracy Services team is responsible for overseeing implementation of this policy and for providing guidance for decisions made under the policy.

It will be reviewed:

1. When a formal request to do so is received from either:

a. A northland region local authority (to maintain a level of regional consistency with meeting and workshop fees);

b. From the chair of a committee or subcommittee

2. At the end of each triennium.

3. If there is a legislative amendment that requires a review of this policy.

4. If a recommendation to review is received by Audit New Zealand.

[4] SC 82/2013 [2014] NZSC 38 Environmental Defence Society Inc v New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited