Te Kaunihera o Tai Tokerau ki te Raki

 

 

AGENDA

 

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting

 

Tuesday, 19 October 2021

Time:

1.00 pm

Location:

held virtually via Microsoft TEAMs

 

 

Membership:

Cr Rachel Smith - Chairperson

Cr David Clendon -  Deputy Chairperson

Mayor John Carter

Deputy Mayor Ann Court

Cr Dave Collard

Cr Felicity Foy

Cr Kelly Stratford

Cr Moko Tepania

Cr John Vujcich

Member Belinda Ward

 

 


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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

19 October 2021

 

Far North District Council

Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting

will be held in the held virtually via Microsoft TEAMs on:

Tuesday 19 October 2021 at 1.00 pm

Te Paeroa Mahi / Order of Business

1          Karakia Timatanga – Opening Prayer. 15

2          Nga Whakapāha Me Ngā Pānga Mema / Apologies and Declarations of Interest 15

3          Te Tono Kōrero / Deputation. 15

4          Confirmation of Previous Minutes. 16

4.1            Confirmation of Previous Minutes. 16

5          Reports. 32

5.1            Adoption of Far North 2100. 32

5.2            Roading Policies Review.. 58

5.3            Naming Policy Proposal 100

5.4            Far North Spaces and Places Plan. 111

6          Information Reports. 170

6.1            Update on Spatial Planning. 170

6.2            Kaikohe Civic Hub Working Party update. 173

6.3            Future Libraries progress report 175

6.4            Museum at Te Ahu Strategy Update. 187

6.5            Natural and Built Environments Act Exposure Draft Submission. 212

6.6            Audit report for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan. 308

6.7            Strategic Planning & Policy Business Quarterly Report 322

6.8            Strategy and Policy Action Sheet Update October 2021. 353

7          Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer. 363

8          Te Kapinga Hui / Meeting Close. 363

 

 


1            Karakia Timatanga – Opening Prayer

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

Members need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Committee and any private or other external interest they might have. This note is provided as a reminder to Members to review the matters on the agenda and assess and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be a perception of a conflict of interest.

If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the meeting or of the relevant item of business and refrain from participating in the discussion or voting on that item. If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the Chief Executive Officer or the Team Leader Democracy Support (preferably before the meeting).

It is noted that while members can seek advice the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.

3            Te Tono Kōrero / Deputation

·                Jane Johnston – representing Kerikeri & Surrounds Ratepayers & Residents Association, and the Paihia & Districts Residents & Ratepayers.


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

4            Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1         Confirmation of Previous Minutes

File Number:           A3052749

Author:                    Marlema Baker, Meetings Administrator

Authoriser:             Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Democracy Services

 

Purpose of the Report

The minutes of the previous Strategy and Policy Committee meeting are attached to allow the Committee to confirm that the minutes are a true and correct record.

Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee agrees that the minutes of the meeting held 7 September 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

1) Background

Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28 states that a local authority must keep minutes of its proceedings. The minutes of these proceedings duly entered and authenticated as prescribed by a local authority are prima facie evidence of those meetings.

2) Discussion and Options

The minutes of the meeting are attached. Far North District Council Standing Orders Section 27.3 states that no discussion shall arise on the substance of the minutes in any succeeding meeting, except as to their correctness.

Reason for the recommendation

The reason for the recommendation is to confirm the minutes are a true and correct record of the previous meeting.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision.

Attachments

1.       2021-09-07 SPP Meeting Minutes - A3373641  


 

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.

Compliance requirement

Staff assessment

State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

This is a matter of low significance.

State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.

This report complies with the Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28.

State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.

It is the responsibility of each meeting to confirm their minutes therefore the views of another meeting are not relevant.

State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.

There are no implications on Māori in confirming minutes from a previous meeting. Any implications on Māori arising from matters included in meeting minutes should be considered as part of the relevant report.

Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences.

This report is asking for the minutes to be confirmed as true and correct record, any interests that affect other people should be considered as part of the individual reports.

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision arising from this report.

Chief Financial Officer review.

The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report.

 

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

   MINUTES OF Far North District Council
Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE
Held Electronically via Microsoft Teams
ON
Tuesday, 7 September 2021 AT 9.30 am

 

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

IN ATTENDANCE:

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

1            Karakia TimatAnga – Opening Prayer

Chair Rachel Smith opened the meeting with a karakia/prayer.

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

2.1         Apologies

Committee Resolution  2021/34

Moved:       Cr John Vujcich

Seconded:  Cr Moko Tepania

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive apologies from CE Shaun Clarke and Dean Myburgh and a leave of absence granted.

 

In Favour:       Crs Rachel Smith, David Clendon, Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Felicity Foy, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania, John Vujcich and Member Belinda Ward

Against:           Nil

carried

3            Ngā Tono Kōrero / Deputation

Nil

4            Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1         Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Agenda item 4.1 document number A3052731, pages 16 - 22 refers.

Committee Resolution  2021/35

Moved:       Deputy Mayor Ann Court

Seconded:  Cr John Vujcich

That the Strategy and Policy Committee agrees that the minutes of the meeting held 20 July 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

In Favour:       Crs Rachel Smith, David Clendon, Mayor John Carter, Ann Court, Felicity Foy, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania, John Vujcich and Member Belinda Ward

Against:           Nil

Carried

5            Reports

5.1         Update of Policy - Appointment of Directors to Council Organisations

Agenda item 5.1 document number A3326738, pages 23 - 31 refers.

Committee Resolution  2021/36

Moved:       Mayor John Carter

Seconded:  Cr Kelly Stratford

That the Strategy and Policy Committee recommend Council approve the updated Policy 2117 – Appointment and Remuneration of Directors for Council Organisations.

 

Amendment

Moved:       Cr David Clendon

Seconded:  Deputy Mayor Ann Court

b)   that the Chair of each CCO board shall be selected by the members of that board.

 

In Favour:       Crs David Clendon, Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Felicity Foy, Kelly Stratford and Member Belinda Ward

Against:           Crs Rachel Smith and John Vujcich

Abstained:       Crs Dave Collard and Moko Tepania

carried 6/2

The amendment becomes the substantive motion.

Moved:       Mayor John Carter

Seconded:  Cr Kelly Stratford

That the Strategy and Policy Committee;

a)   recommend Council approve the updated Policy 2117 – Appointment and Remuneration of Directors for Council Organisations.

b)   that the Chair of each CCO board shall be selected by the members of that board.

 

In Favour:       Crs Rachel Smith, David Clendon, Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Felicity Foy, Kelly Stratford, John Vujcich and Member Belinda Ward

Against:           Nil

Abstained:       Crs Dave Collard and Moko Tepania

Carried

 

5.2         Vehicle Crossings Bylaw - Recommendations for Making the New Bylaw

Agenda item 5.2 document number A3367916, pages 32 - 72 refers.

Committee Resolution  2021/37

Moved:       Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded:  Cr John Vujcich

That the Strategy and Policy Committee recommend Council:

a)      agree to the recommendations in the Staff report on submissions and recommendations for consideration in Attachment 1 that:

i)       No changes are made to clauses 12, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22 and 23 in the draft bylaw.   

ii)      Clause 4 is changed by:

1)      Adding the words “reconstruction, upgrading and relocation” after the word “construction”

2)      Deleting the words “and repair” after the words “and relocation”;

3)      Inserting the word “vehicular” after the words “vehicle crossings giving”;

4)      Adding the words “or another design approved by the council” after “engineering standards for vehicle crossings”.

iii)     Clause 5 is changed by:

1)      Deleting the definition of berm;

2)      Adding to the definition of vehicle crossing, the words “, but does not include paddock entrances with less than ten (10) stock movements per month” after “accessing the property”;

3)      Deleting subclause (2) and replacing with a new Clause 2:

“2. Related information boxes

Boxes headed ‘Related information’ in this bylaw are for information purposes only, and –

(a)     they do not form part of the bylaw; and

(b)     cannot be considered in the interpretation or application of a provision of this bylaw; and

(c)     may be inserted, amended or removed without formality”

4)      Adding a “related information box” referring to a new diagram to supplement the written definition of a vehicle crossing:

“The terminology associated with vehicle crossings is illustrated in diagram 1 in the Schedule to this bylaw”.

iv)     Clause 6 is changed by:

1)      In subclause (1), deleting the word “widen” and replacing with the word “upgrade”;

2)      In subclause (2), replacing the word “widened” with “upgraded”;

3)      In subclause (2), adding the words: “, or permission has been granted by the council for a private road or right-of-way under section 348 of the Local Government Act 1974” after “has been granted for this work”;

4)      Adding a new subclause (3): “An approval is not required to conduct minor repairs or to maintain a vehicle crossing”;

5)      Adding further information to the “related information” box as follows:

“Approvals are required for:

·    Construction i.e. building a new vehicle crossing

·    Reconstruction i.e. rebuilding a crossing which is broken and/or not fit for purpose

·    Upgrading e.g. widening a crossing, replacing metal with tarseal, replacing a culvert, or making safety improvements to a crossing

·    Relocating i.e. moving a crossing from one place to another.

Approvals are not required for:

·    Minor repairs i.e. refurbishing a crossing that is showing signs of wear and tear but is not broken (such as repairing a pothole)

·    Maintenance e.g. resealing the surface of the crossing with existing seal material or cleaning a culvert.

Whether or not an approval is required for work on the vehicle crossing, a Work Access Permit is required for all work on the road corridor (see clause 17). This is required under the National Code of Practice for Utility Operators' Access to Transport Corridors”.

v)      Clause 7 is changed by:

1)      Adding “or other council-approved design” after “appropriate engineering standard”;

2)      Adding “Council will respond to the applicant in 30 working days or less” after “the proposed vehicle crossing”.

vi)     Clause 8 is changed by:

1)      Adding the words “in its sole discretion” after “may grant an approval”;

2)      Adding the words “or other design approved by the council” after “the appropriate engineering standard”;

3)      Adding a new paragraph (b): “the council is satisfied that the proposed vehicle crossing will not cause undue impacts involving road safety or damage to the environment”.

vii)    Clause 9 is changed by:

1)      Adding the words “or other design approved by the council” after “appropriate engineering standard” in paragraph (a);

2)      Adding the words “or other design approved by the council” after “specified engineering standard” in paragraph (b);

3)      Replacing the word “mention” with “notice” in paragraph (b).

viii)   Clause 10 is changed by:

1)      Adding a “related information box” below paragraph (a).

“Chapter 15 of the District Plan (‘Transportation’) covers areas such as parking and access to private properties including where access is permitted and not permitted. It lists the criteria that will be used to assess road access such as traffic safety and congestion, foreseeable future changes to traffic patterns in the area, and the safety of pedestrians, disabled persons and cyclists, etc.”;

2)      Adding the words “the positioning of grates, and compliance with any covenants relating to the site” after “sump or utility connection” in paragraph (b).

ix)     Clause 11 is changed by:

1)      Adding the words “at a time” after “twelve (12) months” in subclause (1);

2)      Adding a “related information box” after subclause (2):

“If a temporary crossing is not being used currently but will be used again in many years’ time, as is common in the forestry industry, it will not have fulfilled its purpose and there is no need to remove the crossing unless it is unsafe or is causing damage to the road or drainage system”.

x)      Clause 13 is changed by:

1)      Deleting the words “twelve (12) months” and replacing with the words “3 years” in subclauses (1) and (2).

xi)     Clause 14 is changed by:

1)      Deleting the words “to another person or” and add the words “or to a different location at the property concerned” after the words “to another property” in subclause (2);

2)      Adding a new subclause (3): “Approvals may be transferred to another person at the same property, such as a new property owner, if the council has been notified in writing of this transfer”.

xii)    Clause 19 is changed by:

1)      Deleting the word ‘repair’ from subclause (1);

2)      Adding a new subclause (2): “Before issuing a written notice, the council will consult with the property owner regarding the best course of action.  This discussion will cover observed issues with the vehicle crossing such as safety concerns, and the crossing’s current and intended future use”.

xiii)   Clause 20 is changed by:

1)      Adding a new subclause (2): “Before issuing a written notice, the council will consult with the property owner regarding the best course of action.  This discussion will cover why the council considers the vehicle crossing is redundant or in excess of the reasonable requirements of the owner or occupier and will ascertain what is the crossing’s current and intended future use, if any”.

b)      agree the Vehicle Crossings Bylaw in Attachment 2:

i)     is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

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

c)      under section 145 of the Local Government Act 2002 and section 22AB(zk) of the Land Transport Act 1998, make the Vehicle Crossings Bylaw in Attachment 2.

In Favour:       Crs Rachel Smith, David Clendon, Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania, John Vujcich and Member Belinda Ward

Against:           Nil

Carried

 

5.3         Treated Water Supply Bylaw - Recommendations for making new bylaw

Agenda item 5.3 document number A3290593, pages 73 - 127 refers.

Committee Resolution  2021/38

Moved:       Chair Rachel Smith

Seconded:  Mayor John Carter

That the Strategy and Policy Committee recommend the Council:

a)      agree to the recommendations in the Staff report on submissions and recommendations for consideration in Attachment 1 that:

i)       No changes are made to clauses 6, 8, 10, 16, 17 to 19, 24, 26 to 30, 32 and 36 in the draft bylaw.   

ii)      Clause 4 is changed by:

1)      Adding the words “This applies to the supply of treated water from council-owned water schemes, not privately owned schemes.” after “from misuse”:

iii)     Clause 5 is changed by:  

1)      Adding a new definition:

“Drinking water emergency means a situation where water supply restrictions or interruptions may arise from:

(a)     water supply shortage or drought; or

(b)     water supply contamination or pollution; or

(c)     water supply infrastructure emergency repair; or

(d)     a natural failure or disruption to water supply which may endanger public health.

These emergencies may be initiated by the following authorities: The Minister of Health, the Medical Officer of Health, the Regional Council, the Council, and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group”.

2)      Adding a new “related information” box:

“In section 4 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 the definition of emergency includes failure or disruption to a lifeline utility.  An entity that supplies or distributes water to inhabitants of a city or district is a lifeline utility.

Section 69S of the Health Act 1956 provides the council may restrict or interrupt the supply of water in the event of emergency repairs but must notify the Medical Officer of Health within 24 hours and take all practicable steps to advise affected persons.

Section S69T of the Health Act 1956 provides the council must notify authorities if it identifies or foresees a risk to the adequate supply of drinking water and request these authorities apply their powers to mitigate the water supply risk.  The authorities include the Medical Officer of Health, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and the Northland Regional Council.

S69ZZA of the Health Act 1956 provides for the Minister of Health to declare a drinking water emergency if there is a serious risk of harm to public health arising from drinking water or if there is a lack of drinking water available.

Section 329 of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides the Northland Regional Council the right to issue water shortage directions which may restrict water takes”.

3)      Deleting subclause 5(2) and replacing with a new clause (clause 2):

“2. Related information boxes

Boxes headed “Related information” in this bylaw are for information purposes only, and –

(a)     they do not form part of this bylaw; and

(b)     cannot be considered in the interpretation or application of a provision of this bylaw; and

(c)     may be inserted, amended or removed without any formality.”

iv)     Clause 7 is changed by:

1)      Adding the following “related information” box after subclause (3):

“Approximately 400mm of the service pipe between the meter reader and the customer’s pipe is technically on council-owned property. Any work required by the customer on this section of the customer’s pipe is acceptable to the council”

v)      Clause 9 is changed by:

1)      Adding the words: “Customers can receive both ordinary and extraordinary supply” at the end of the existing “related information” box.

vi)     Clause 11 is changed by:

1)      Adding a new subclause “(3) A person who wants water supplied under subclause (1)(a) must be registered with the drinking water regulator”;

2)      Adding a “related information” box after the new subclause (3):

“The Director General of Health maintains the drinking water register.  Under section 69G of the Health Act 1956, the drinking water register means the register of drinking water suppliers and supplies maintained under section 69J of the Health Act 1956, which includes bulk water carriers”

vii)    Clause 12 is changed by:

1)      Adding a “related information” box after subclause (2):

“Section 69S(3) of the Health Act 1956 states a maximum timeframe of 8 hours for a planned interruption to supply, after which the supplier must have taken all reasonable steps to notify affected parties”.

viii)   Clause 13 is changed by:

1)      Adding a new “related information” box:

“The council applies a tolerance of ±3% to determine whether a customer’s water meter is reading correctly or incorrectly”.

ix)     Clause 14 is changed by:

1)      Adding the words “, excluding drinking water” after the words “treated water” in subclause (1);

2)      Adding the following words to the “related information” box:

“The Council can put in place treated water restrictions for health and safety reasons under section 145 of the Local Government Act 2002 as a precautionary step to avoid running out of water.  As of June 2021, these restrictions are explained on the waterwise website (Be water wise | Be water wise Northland), as follows:

Level Two: No sprinklers

Level Three: No hoses or sprinklers

Level Four: Essential use only - water suppled can only be used for drinking or cooking, to wash clothes and take showers”.

x)      Clause 15 is changed by:

1)      Replacing subclause (1) with: “During a drinking water emergency, the council may restrict, interrupt or prohibit the use of treated water.”;

2)      Adding a “related information” box after subclause (2):

“Examples of a drinking water emergency are when:

•        drought or water supply shortage has been identified;

•        water supply has been polluted or contaminated;

•        water supply infrastructure requires emergency repairs;

•        a natural failure or a disruption to the water supply occurs which is likely to endanger public health”.

xi)     Clause 21 is changed by:

1)      Replacing the words “in accordance with the following criteria” with “by considering the following matters”;

2)      Replacing the word “assess” with “consider” in subclauses (2), (3), (4) and (5).

xii)    Clause 22 is changed by:

1)      In subclause (1) adding the words “or decline” after “may grant” and replacing the words “if it is satisfied the application meets the assessment criteria” with “at its sole discretion based on consideration of the factors”;

2)      Deleting subclause (2) “The council may decline an application for an approval if it does not meet the assessment criteria in clause 22”.

xiii)   Clause 23 is changed by:

1)      Adding “, except where drinking water is involved” after “may be supplied” in paragraph (c).

xiv)   Clause 25 is changed by:

1)      Adding a new paragraph (b) in subclause (2) “providing any information requested by the council to demonstrate that any conditions under Clause 23 continue to be met”;

2)      Adding a new subclause (2) “An application for renewal must be made in the same manner as an application for an approval, with any necessary modifications”;

3)      Adding a new subclause (3) “The application for renewal will be assessed based on consideration of the factors described in clause 21”.

xv)    Clause 26 is changed by:

1)      Adding a new subclause (3) “The application for amendment will be assessed based on consideration of the factors described in clause 21”.

xvi)   Clause 28 is changed by:

1)      Adding the words “or the health and safety of any person” after “the water supply system” in subclause (1) paragraph (b).

xvi)   Clause 31 is changed by:

1)      In subclause (3) deleting the words “5 working days” and substituting “10 working days, except if the notice is given under subclause (2)(c), where the customer must comply within 5 working days”;

2)      In subclause (4) deleting the word “shall” and substituting the word “must”.

xvii)  Clause 35 is changed by:

1)      Deleting the amount “$20,0000” and substituting the amount “$20,000”.

xviii) Clause 37 is changed by:

1)      In subclause (1) adding the words “, except for ordinary supply approvals,” after the words “in clause 36”.

b)      agree the Treated Water Supply Bylaw in attachment 2:

i)       is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

ii)      the bylaw provisions are considered reasonable limits on the rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

c)      under sections 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act 2002, make the Treated Water Supply Bylaw in Attachment 2.

In Favour:       Crs Rachel Smith, David Clendon, Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania, John Vujcich and Member Belinda Ward

Against:           Nil

Carried

 

5.4         New Parking Bylaw - Approval of Draft for Public Consultation

Agenda item 5.4 document number A3275664, pages 128 - 146 refers.

Committee Resolution  2021/39

Moved:       Mayor John Carter

Seconded:  Cr Kelly Stratford

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approves the proposal for a new Parking Bylaw in Attachment 1 to be released for public consultation to meet the requirements of section 22AD of the Land Transport Act 1998 and section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002.

b)      authorises the Chief Executive to make minor changes to the proposal for a new Parking Bylaw to correct grammatical or spelling errors, or formatting.

c)      agrees the period for making written submissions on the proposal be from 13 September 2021 to 15 October 2021.

d)      agrees the Committee will hear any people who want to present their submissions orally on Tuesday 26 October 2021.

e)      agrees to delegate, to the Chair, the power to change the date of the oral presentations of submissions.

f)       directs Council staff to make all necessary logistical arrangements for people to be heard, on 26 October 2021, either in person in the Council Chambers or online via Microsoft Teams.

In Favour:       Crs Rachel Smith, David Clendon, Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania, John Vujcich and Member Belinda Ward

Against:           Nil

Carried

 

ADMIN NOTE:

·    That Community Boards will be engaged in the development of Local Parking Management Plans, separate to this Bylaw process.

 

Meeting adjourned 11:00 am – 11:10 am.

 

5.5         New Road Use Bylaw - Approval of Draft for Public Consultation

Agenda item 5.5 document number A3277425, pages 147 - 176 refers.

Committee Resolution  2021/40

Moved:       Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded:  Cr John Vujcich

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approves the proposal for a new Road Use Bylaw in Attachment 1 to be released for public consultation to meet the requirements of section 22AD of the Land Transport Act 1998 and section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002.

b)      authorises the Chief Executive to make minor changes to the proposal for a new Road Use Bylaw to correct grammatical or spelling errors, or formatting.

c)      agrees the period for making written submissions on the proposal be from 13 September 2021 to 15 October 2021.

d)      agrees the Committee will hear any people who want to present their submissions orally on Tuesday 26 October 2021.

e)      agrees to delegate, to the Chair, the power to change the date of the oral presentations of submissions.

f)       directs Council staff to make all necessary logistical arrangements for people to be heard, on 26 October 2021, either in person in the Council Chambers or online via Microsoft Teams.

In Favour:       Crs Rachel Smith, David Clendon, Mayor John Carter, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania, John Vujcich and Member Belinda Ward

Against:           Nil

Abstained:       Deputy Mayor Ann Court

Carried

 

5.6         New On-site Wastewater Disposal Systems Bylaw - Approval of Draft Bylaw for Public Consultation

Agenda item 5.6 document number A3287395, pages 178 - 190 refers.

Committee Resolution  2021/41

Moved:       Cr Felicity Foy

Seconded:  Chair Rachel Smith

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

a)      approves the proposal for a new On-site Wastewater Disposal Systems Bylaw in Attachment 1 to be released for public consultation to meet the requirements of section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002.

b)      agrees the period for making written submissions on the proposal be from 13 September 2021 to 15 October 2021.

c)      agrees the Committee will hear any people wanting to present their submissions orally on Tuesday 26 October 2021 and agrees to delegate, to the Chair, the power to change the date of the oral presentations of submissions.

d)      directs Council staff to make all necessary logistical arrangements for people to be heard, on 26 October 2021, either in person in the Council Chambers or online via Microsoft Teams.

In Favour:       Crs Rachel Smith, David Clendon, Mayor John Carter, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania, John Vujcich and Member Belinda Ward

Against:           Nil

Carried

6            Information Reports

6.1         Resident Opinion Survey 2020/2021

Agenda item 6.1 document number A3367554, pages 191 - 286 refers.

Committee Resolution  2021/42

Moved:       Cr Moko Tepania

Seconded:  Cr John Vujcich

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Resident Opinion Survey 2020/2021.

In Favour:       Crs Rachel Smith, David Clendon, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania, John Vujcich and Member Belinda Ward

Against:           Nil

.Carried

At 12:15 pm, Mayor John Carter left the meeting

 

6.2         Kaikohe Civic Hub Working Party update

Agenda item 6.2 document number A3270171, pages 287 - 288 refers.

TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Kaikohe Civic Hub Working Party update.

Deferred to 12 October 2021 Meeting

 

6.3         Natural and Built Environments Act Exposure Draft Submission

Agenda item 6.3 document number A3320129, pages 289 - 384 refers.

TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Natural and Built Environments Act Exposure Draft Submission.

Deferred to 12 October 2021 Meeting

 

6.4         Audit report for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan

Agenda item 6.4 document number A3334278, pages 385 - 398 refers.

TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Audit report for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

Deferred to 12 October 2021 Meeting

 

6.5         Future Libraries progress report

Agenda item 6.5 document number A3344015, pages 399 - 410 refers.

TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Future Libraries progress report.

Deferred to 12 October 2021 Meeting

 

6.6         Strategy and Policy Action Sheet Update July 2021

Agenda item 6.6 document number A3352503, pages 411 - 415 refers.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Action Sheet Update July 2021.

Deferred to 12 October 2021 Meeting

7            Te  Wāhanga Tūmatati / Public Excluded

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Committee Resolution  2021/43

Moved:       Cr Kelly Stratford

Seconded:  Cr Moko Tepania

That

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

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution

7.1 - i-SITE NZ Future Strategy Consultation

s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

 

b)   Member Adele Gardner be allowed to remain during public excluded with speaking rights, in relation to item 7.1 I-SITE NZ Future Strategy Consultation to provide input as Te Hiku Community Board Chairperson.

In Favour:       Crs Rachel Smith, David Clendon, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania, John Vujcich and Member Belinda Ward

Against:           Nil

Carried

 

              Motion to Defer Items due to Time Contraints

Committee Resolution  2021/44

Moved:       Chair Rachel Smith

Seconded:  Cr Moko Tepania

That items 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6, be deferred to the next Strategy and Policy Committee meeting. due to time constraints.

 

In Favour:       Crs Rachel Smith, David Clendon, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Mayor John Carter, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania, John Vujcich and Member Belinda Ward

Against:           Nil

Carried

 

Confirmation of Informations and Decisions to be Released in Public

Committee Resolution  2021/45

Moved:       Chair Rachel Smith

Seconded:  Cr Moko Tepania

That the Strategy and Policy Committee confirms the decision on item 7.1 I-Site NZ Future Strategy Consultation, contained in the part of the meeting held with public excluded, be restated in public meeting as follows:

In Favour:       Crs Rachel Smith, David Clendon, Deputy Mayor Ann Court, Mayor John Carter, Dave Collard, Felicity Foy, Kelly Stratford, Moko Tepania, John Vujcich and Member Belinda Ward

Against:           Nil

CARRIED

8            Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer

Chair Rachel Smith closed the meeting with a karakia/prayer.

9            tE kAPINGA hUI / Meeting Close

The meeting closed at 12:58 pm.

The minutes of this meeting will be confirmed at the Strategy and Policy Committee meeting to be held on 12 October 2021.

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

5            Reports

5.1         Adoption of Far North 2100

File Number:           A3377402

Author:                    Roger Ackers, Manager - Strategy Development

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

 

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

That Committee recommend to Council the adoption of the Far North 2100 Strategy.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

·      In December 2018 Council approved a project to deliver on the Council adopted vision ‘He Whenua Rangatira – A District of Sustainable Prosperity and Wellbeing’. 

·      The project to deliver this strategy was named Far North 2100.

·      The Far North 2100 project included a wananga, a combined iwi and Council hui, a summit, the distribution of a discussion document and then in 2021 consultation on a draft strategy as part of combined consultation on the District Plan, The Long Term and the Representation Review.

·      Elected Members workshopped ‘what next?’ for the Far North 2100 Strategy on 10 August 2021 where it was agreed that staff would put forward to committee the adoption of the Far North 2100 Strategy by Council.

·      The document Far North 2100 Strategy is attached to this report with a recommendation by staff to adopt this as the long-term strategy for the Far North District Council.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Committee recommend to Council the adoption of Far North 2100 Strategy.

 

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The District Vision, He Whenua Rangatira – A District of Sustainable Prosperity and Wellbeing was adopted in August 2015.

On 13 December 2018 Council approved the development of a District Strategy.  The concept of a strategy with and 80-year strategic planning horizon was realised by the name Far North 2100 given that the year 2100 represents that 80-year horizon.

 

Between January – September of 2019 staff completed and environmental scan, ran wananga with elected members and iwi invitees followed by a Council and iwi workshop and then concluding with a summit of strategic stakeholders and partners.

Following the workshops, a discussion document was developed and provided to workshop and summit attendees for feedback.

During the Covid-19 lockdown period of early 2020 staff developed a series of eight place based ‘graphic novel’ transformational opportunities to progress the thinking around an 80 year strategic planning horizon;

·    Health and Culture (Kawakawa 2100)

·    Transport and Industry (Ōtiria/Moerewa 2100)

·    Just add water (Kaikohe 2100)

·    Urban Sustainability (Bay of Islands City 2100)

·    Gateway - Te Hiku o Te Ika (Kaitāia in 2100).

Two District wide transformation opportunities based around economic development and connecting communities were also developed as part of this tranche of the Far North 2100 project.

The transformational opportunities were workshopped with elected members and community board members during 2020.

In the second half of the 2020 calendar year an internal steering group of key staff was established to oversee the drafting of Far North 2100. 

Two planned hui with iwi and hapū were cancelled due a lack of committed attendees.

On 17 February 2021 staff held a workshop with elected members on the draft Far North 2100 District Strategy.  Following the workshop, it was decided to include consultation on the draft Far North 2100 strategy in with the consultation on the District Plan, Long Term Plan and Representation Review.  Consultation on the draft Far North 2100 District Strategy closed in the first week of April 2021 with 49 submissions received on the Draft Far North 2100 District Strategy.

On 10 August 2021 staff led a workshop with elected members on ‘what next?’ for the Far North 2100 District Strategy now that consultation was complete.  Prior to the workshop attendees received the Far North 2100 Feedback Report that summarised submissions received during the informal community engagement undertaken during March and April 2021.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Option One: Adopt Far North 2100 (recommended)

·        Advantages

·     Council will have a higher-level strategy to inform all other strategies and plans going forward

·     The implementation plan contained in the strategy can now be implemented in alignment with approved LTP budgets that include budgets for Area (Spatial) Planning.  The 10 August 2021 workshop provided a clear direction to commence a review of the 2007 Kerikeri / Waipapa Structure Plan as the first Spatial Planning Project

·     This will further reinforce and support the implementation of the Far North District Council climate change roadmap

·     This will reinforce the development of an Economic Development Strategy for the Far North

·     This will further reinforce the development of Wellbeing measures that are appropriate for the Far North.

 

·        Disadvantages

·      Far North 2100 was drafted prior to the detailed announcements of local government reforms.  However, the strategy itself is at a level that drivers of change and objectives should endure through these reforms.  The strategy should be reconsidered when the local government reforms are more clearly understood by the Council and the District.

 

Option Two:  Do not adopt Far North 2100

Under this option Council will not adopt the Far North 2100 Strategy.  This will end the Far North 2100 project.

·        Advantages

·      Council will be able to decide again on the form and context of how the district’s long-term aspirations and vision will be developed, captured and realised through an implementation plan that includes, strategic relationship development and management, spatial planning, district plans and long-term plans going forward.

·        Disadvantages

·      There is no strategic objectives or response to any drivers of change as a justification for current work (no strategic context) that Council is currently undertaking beyond responding to operational matters.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

Staff presented options on ‘what next?’ for Far North 2100 to a Council workshop on 10 August 2021.  The outcome this workshop was a direction for staff to put forward to Council the adoption of the Far North 2100 Strategy.

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

There are no direct financial implications or the requirement for budgetary provisions that would result from the approval of the recommendation to adopt Far North 2100.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1.       Far North 2100 - A3377422  


 

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

Far North 2100 is a non-statutory strategy.  It was consulted on via public engagement events over the months of March and April 2021.

State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.

Local Government Act 2002

State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.

The Far North 2100 District Strategy has district-wide relevance but is not within the delegations of Community Boards to consider.

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.

Internally members of the Te Hono team have provided support, guidance and advice on the development of the Far North 2100 Strategy

Māori have been provided with the opportunity to provide feedback via;

·        A wananga in 2019 with invites to iwi chairs

·        A combined Council and iwi chairs hui in 2019

·        An invitation to hui on 2020 on the development of the draft Far North 2100 Strategy

·        The community engagement on the draft Far North 2100 over March and Early April 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).

The people that make up the Far North Community have been provided with the opportunity to provide their views and preferences on the Far North 2100 District Strategy via public engagement on the Strategy over the Months of March and April 2021.

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

There are no specific budgetary implications that go with the approval of the recommendation in this document.

 

In the 2021-31 Long Term Plan

Chief Financial Officer review.

The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

 

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

5.2         Roading Policies Review

File Number:           A3379712

Author:                    Briar Macken, Team Leader - Policy

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 consider several policies that have been reviewed and recommend to Council that each policy either continue with amendment, continue without amendment, or be revoked as recommended for each policy in this report.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

·      Eight roading related policies have been reviewed concurrently.

·      The review identified that a policy is still the most appropriate way to address road related issues of than for the installation of road mirrors.

·      Dust from unsealed roads, private roads and right of ways serving five lots or more, and the procurement of roading contractors for road maintenance are already covered by more appropriate policy instruments.

·      A separate options report will be presented for the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy.

·      The Road Speed Limits Policy should continue without amendment until central government proposals are finalised later in 2021.

·      The Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contributions Policy, and the Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy should be continued with amendment.

·      The Dust Management Policy, Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy, Road Maintenance Policy, and Road Mirrors – Private Crossings Policy should be revoked.

 

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee recommend that Council:

a)      agree, the Road Speed Limits Policy continue without amendment.

b)      agree, the Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contributions Policy, and the Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy be continued with amendment.

c)      agree, the Dust Management Policy, Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy, Road Maintenance Policy, and Road Mirrors – Private Crossings Policy be revoked.

 

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Local government best practice is to review non-legislated policies every six years, which is in line with section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002.

All eight roading related policies are due for review and have been reviewed concurrently to reduce the risk of policies being developed in isolation. The review includes the following eight policies:

·      Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution (2015)

·      Dust Management Policy (2016)

·      Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy (2014)

·      Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy (1998)

·      Road Maintenance Policy (1998)

·      Road Mirrors – Private Crossings Policy (2014)

·      Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy (2014)

·      Road Speed Limits Policy (2016)

The Council is required to consider whether a policy is still the most appropriate way to support decision making regarding roading related problems.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The Review Research Report – Roading Policies (Attachment 1), describes and discusses the review of the eight policies. An overview of the policies and review findings is outlined below.

Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution Policy

The Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution Policy outlines the process for neighbourhood communities who wish to fund the upgrade of their road. Since the policy was implemented, two communities have opted to self-fund their roading upgrades.

The policy:

·      empowers communities to make their own decisions about local roading infrastructure

·      ensures agreement of affected parties

However, the policy:

·      may lead to consultation bias as communities are expected to undertake consultation themselves

·      no longer aligns with the Waka Kotahi Funding Assistance Rate

·      includes components which refer to operational procedures.

Dust Management Policy

Dust from unsealed roads can impact adjacent residents, affecting their health as well as general quality of life.

The Dust Management Policy outlines:

·      the process for prioritising dust mitigation on roads e.g., full seal extension

·      potential financial assistance available for the community.

In June 2019, the components of the policy outlining the prioritisation process were superseded by the Far North District Council Road Prioritisation to Guide the Delivery of Road Asset Upgrades (Dust Matrix).

The potential financial assistance referred to in the policy is no longer available.

Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy

Council receives approximately 20 requests per year for Council to form and maintain a road.

The policy:

·      commits Council to continue to maintain roads as per the road maintenance schedule (Road Asset Maintenance Management)

·      outlines criteria for Council to follow when considering a request to maintain a road

·      outlines at which point along a road Council will accept responsibility for maintenance.

The review identified that the decisions regarding road maintenance are not strategically aligned with other Council decisions. Decisions regarding the prioritisation of road maintenance are often made in a reactive, ad-hoc manner.

Private Roads and Right of Ways Policy

The policy supports landowners who are finding it difficult to maintain their private roads or right of ways when multiple properties are involved by:

·      encouraging landowners to apply to have private roads and rights of ways serving five or more lots declared a public road

·      ensuring all future subdivisions with access serving five or more lots, access shall be declared public roads.

The policy has been superseded by the Operative District Plan.

Road Maintenance Policy

The Road Maintenance policy outlines the guidelines for procuring contractors to undertake road maintenance in the district.

The policy has been superseded by the following policy instruments:

·      some activities referred to in the policy are now subsidised by Waka Kotahi

·      Council sets the road maintenance strategy via the Regional Activity Management Plan

·      Council’s current Sustainable Procurement Policy outlines the process for roading procurement.

 

Road Mirrors – Private Crossings Policy

The policy outlines the exceptional circumstances in which an application to install a road mirror on a road would be accepted.

Road encroachments are regulated by section 357 of the Local Government Act 1974, therefore a policy regarding road encroachments duplicates legislation.

Components of the policy refer to operational matters. An external facing policy is not required for operational matters.

Internal guidelines should be developed to support staff to assess applications for road mirrors.

Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy

The policy aims to ensure correct addressing, so that emergency services and other services can locate a property.

The review identified that the policy gives appropriate guidance to ensure clear and unambiguous addressing.

However, elected members have identified that the current policy offers no guidance on the social and cultural aspects of naming and placemaking.

Road Speed Limits Policy

Council is required to use the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) document Land Transport Rule – The Setting of Speed Limits when considering whether a speed limit should be changed.

The policy aims to ensure that:

·      speed limits are safe, appropriate, and credible

·      speed limits are consistent with national standards

·      applications are processed effectively.

Only an initial review of the Policy has been completed as central government consulted on the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2021 in June 2021. The draft Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2021 proposes to amend the way in which speed limits are set by Road Controlling Authorities.  The Regional Council will most likely become responsible for setting speed limits and the Road Speed Limits Policy may need to be revoked.

Summary of Review Findings

The review has identified that a policy is not the most appropriate way to address the installation of road mirrors.

The review has identified that a policy is still the most appropriate way to address the following seven roading related issues:

·      Communities wishing to financially contribute to roading

·      Dust from unsealed roads

·      Prioritisation of roads for maintenance

·      Private roads and right of ways serving five lots or more

·      Procurement of roading contractors for road maintenance

·      Naming of roads

·      Setting of Speed Limits. 

However, the review identified that for the Dust Management Policy, Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy, and the Road Maintenance Policy the form of policy is no longer appropriate as the following issues are already covered by other more appropriate policy instruments:

·      Dust from unsealed roads

·      Private roads and right of ways serving five lots or more

·      Procurement of roading contractors for road maintenance.

 

The review identified that the Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution Policy contains provisions that are not consistent with legislation nor best practice. Therefore, amendments are required to ensure that the form of the policy is appropriate particularly regarding:

·      consistency with current Waka Kotahi guidelines

·      removing potential for consultation bias

·      removing operational procedures.

Consultation and engagement is required to develop amendments.

The review identified that the Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy does not support strategic alignment with other Council decisions. Therefore, amendments are required to ensure that the form of the policy is appropriate.

Further research and engagement is required to identify the appropriate form of policy.

The review identified that the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy does not provide appropriate guidance regarding social and cultural aspects of road naming. Therefore, amendments are required to ensure that the form of the policy is appropriate.

Further research and engagement is required to identify the appropriate form of policy. A separate report will be provided to Council to discuss options regarding the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy.

Central government proposals regarding speed limits are to be finalised later this year. The proposals may lead to significant amendments to the Road Speed Limits Policy. Further review of the Road Speed Limits Policy should occur once the central government proposals are finalised.

Options

The full options analysis is described in Attachment 2: Options Analysis – Roading Policies. An overview of the options analysis is described below.

The recommended option is to revoke the Dust Management Policy, Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy, Road Maintenance Policy, and Road Mirrors Private Crossings Policy as these policies duplicate more appropriate policy instruments.

To adhere to best practice, it is recommended to amend the Community Initiated Infrastructure Roading Contributions Policy.

The Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation Maintenance of Roads Policy does not strategically align with other Council policy instruments. The recommended option is to amend the policy. However, more research and engagement is required to identify the most appropriate form of policy.

The Road Speed Limits Policy will most likely require significant amendments once central government proposals are finalised later this year. Therefore, the recommended option is to continue the policy without amendment. A full review will be conducted once the central government proposals are finalised.

Table 1: Table showing summary of recommended options and key considerations for roading related polices

 

Recommended Option

Key Considerations

Community Initiated Infrastructure Roading Contribution (2015)

Continue with amendment

·    Communities continue to make decisions about local road infrastructure. 

·    Policy aligns with current legislation.

·    Policy will adhere to best practice.

·    Policy will ensure impartial consultation.

Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation Maintenance of Roads Policy (2014)

Continue with amendment

·    Policy strategically aligned with other Council policy instruments

·    More efficient use of resources with streamlined implementation.

Dust Management Policy (2016)

Revoke

·    Council follows best practice by streamlining policy instruments.

·    Cost effective as less resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

·    Increases clarity as financial assistance no longer applies.

Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy (1998)

Revoke

·    Council follows best practice by streamlining policy instruments.

·    Cost effective as less resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

Road Maintenance Policy (1998)

Revoke

·    Council follows best practice by streamlining policy instruments.

·    Cost effective as less resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

Road Mirrors Private Crossings Policy (2014)

Revoke

·    Council adheres to best practice by not including operational matters in external policy instruments and not duplicating legislation.

Road Speed Limits Policy (2016)

Continue without amendment

·    Policy sufficiently supports requests for road speed limit amendments.

·    Efficient use of resources to review policy once central government proposals are finalised.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

A policy is not the most appropriate method to address the installation of road mirrors. A policy is the most appropriate method to address other roading related issues. Dust from unsealed roads, private roads and right of ways serving five lots or more, and the procurement of roading contractors for road maintenance are already covered by more appropriate policy instruments.

A new form of policy is required for the Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contributions Policy, and the Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy.

A new form of the Road Speed Limits Policy may be required once central government proposals are finalised later in 2021.

Next Steps

If Council agrees with the recommendation, a new form of the Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contributions Policy, and the Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy will be drafted and presented to the Strategy and Policy Committee in 2022. The Road Speed Limits Policy will be reviewed once central government proposals are finalised.

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

The cost of continuing the policies with amendment will be met from existing operation budgets.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1.       Review Research Report - Roading Policies - A3392455

2.       Options Analysis - Roading Policies - A3392454

3.       Community Initiated Infrastructure - Roading Contribution 2015 - A1949904

4.       Dust Management Policy 2016 - A2125294

5.       Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation Maintenance of Roads Policy 2014 - A2685292

6.       Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy 1998 - A2685309

7.       Road Maintenance Policy 1998 - A2685323

8.       Road Mirrors - Private Crossings Policy2014 - A1949932

9.       Road Speed Limits Policy 2016 - A2685346  


 

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

In line with the Significance and Engagement Policy the recommendations to either continue, continue with amendment or revoke, the policies will have little effect on financial thresholds, ratepayers, specific demographics, or levels of service. The recommendation is consistent with existing plans and policies. 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 1974 and Land Transport Act 1998 applies to the decisions 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.

The roading policies have district wide relevance. However, views of the community boards will be sought when developing amendments to the policies that have been recommended to continue with amendment.

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 policies is integral. Māori will be given an opportunity to contribute during the early engagement and consultation stage of the policy 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 roading related issues in their community

·    Northern Transport Alliance

·    Property owners particularly affected by unmaintained roads.

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

The cost of continuing the policies with amendment 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

19 October 2021

 

 

1    Purpose

To describe and discuss the review of the:

·    Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution (2015)

·    Dust Management Policy (2016)

·    Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy (2014)

·    Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy (1998)

·    Road Maintenance Policy (1998)

·    Road Mirrors – Private Crossings Policy (2014)

·    Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy (2014)

·    Road Speed Limits Policy (2016)

 

2    Context and Situation

Local government best practice is to review non-legislated policies every six years, which is in line with section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002. The eight roading related policies are therefore all due for review.

 

The Council is required to consider whether a policy is still the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem with respect to roading. 

 

2.1     Council’s role relating to roading

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”. Roading plays a role in all aspects of wellbeing by providing connectivity and accessibility. Providing safer roads through activities such as maintenance, sealing and speed limits improves public health and safety.

 

2.1.1    Local Government Act 1974

Council has discretionary powers under Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974 to form and maintain roads in the Far North District (District). The Local Government Act 1974 does not compel Council to form and maintain carriageways on legal roads within their District.

 

In the Far North, there are approximately 2500 kilometres of legal roads which are shown on maps but are not maintained by the Council. There is no legal obligation to form or maintain any of these roads.

 

3    Objectives

3.1     Purpose of review

To determine whether a policy is still the most appropriate way to address problems regarding roading in the Far North District.

 

3.2     Review objectives

·    To define roading related problems in the Far North District that are within Council’s function to control.

·    To identify if a policy is still the most appropriate way to address roading related problems in the Far North District.

·    To identify if the policies meet current legislative requirements.

 

4    Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution Policy (2015)

 

Council’s role relating to roading infrastructure

The decision to develop roading infrastructure in the District is the responsibility of Council and Waka Kotahi. Waka Kotahi is responsible for state highways and Council is responsible for local roads. Local roading infrastructure is funded through rates and subsidies from Waka Kotahi.

 

An unsealed road is a metal or gravel road without any bitumen/tarmac surfacing. Council has a programme of maintenance that includes grading and pothole repair. The cycle for this programme is determined by traffic volume, or use. High volume traffic unsealed roads receive regular maintenance.

 

To best plan for roading upgrades, Council adopted the Far North District Council Road Prioritisation to Guide the Delivery of Road Asset Upgrades matrix in June 2019. Utilising this matrix, the Infrastructure Committee adopted a three-year unsubsidised seal extension programme in July 2021.[1]

 

Purpose of current policy

Council sometimes receives requests by a community to extend, renew, or develop new roading infrastructure that has not been planned for by Council.  The Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution Policy outlines the process for neighbourhood communities who wish to fund the upgrade of their road.

 

Review of policy

Since the implementation of the policy, two communities have agreed to self-fund their roading upgrades.

 

The policy follows best practice in that it:

·    empowers communities to make their own decisions about local roading infrastructure

·    ensures agreement of affected parties

 

The policy aims to ensure that appropriate consultation is conducted. Communities are to undertake their own consultation, following guidance from Council. However, it may be more appropriate for Council to undertake consultation as an impartial party. More research is required to identify the most appropriate method of consultation. 

 

The policy currently states that “The Community must contribute the equivalent of the NZTA subsidy (Funding Assistance Rate) which is currently 59% and Council shall fund the balance of all costs”. However, the Waka Kotahi subsidy has since increased to 69%. Further discussion is required with Elected Members to decide what the appropriate subsidy should be i.e., continue to remain at 59% or continue to align with Waka Kotahi subsidies.

 

Components of the policy refer to operational procedures. Best practice strategic policy should not include internal operational procedures. Therefore, the components referring to operational procedures should be revoked. However, internal guidelines could be developed to support staff to assess and process applications for roading contributions.

 

Therefore, a policy is an appropriate mechanism to manage community-initiated infrastructure roading contributions. However further research is required to ensure that the Policy is in the appropriate form.  

 

5    Dust Management Policy (2016)

Dust from unsealed roads can impact adjacent residents, affecting their health as well as general quality of life; for example, dust on washing lines, roof dust contaminating water supplies, and dust inside homes.

 

Increased logging truck movements during periods of dry weather can increase the number of complaints regarding dust nuisance.

 

Council’s role relating to dust management of unsealed roads

The District has 2,508 km of roads, only 35% (858km) of which are sealed. The decision to upgrade local roading infrastructure in the District is the responsibility of Council. Local roading infrastructure is funded through rates and subsidies from Waka Kotahi.

 

An unsealed road is a metal or gravel road without any bitumen/tarmac surfacing. Council has a programme of maintenance that includes grading and pothole repair. The cycle for this programme is determined by traffic volume, or use. High volume traffic unsealed roads receive regular maintenance.

 

Purpose of current policy

The purpose of this policy is to support the Council in allocating funding to address the worst affected

properties with a clear and consistent method that identifies health risk priority areas and potential

mitigation options.

 

Review of policy

The policy outlines

·    the process for prioritising dust mitigation on roads e.g., full seal extension

·    potential financial assistance available for the community.

 

The components of the policy outlining the prioritisation process have since been superseded by the Dust Matrix. Council adopted the Far North District Council Road Prioritisation to Guide the Delivery of Road Asset Upgrades matrix in June 2019. The Dust Matrix provides a more substantial criteria than the Policy. Utilising this matrix, the Infrastructure Committee adopted a three-year unsubsidised seal extension programme in July 2021.1

 

The matrix ranks unsealed roads according to criteria including:

·    traffic volumes

·    the number of homes, schools, marae and community facilities nearby

·    the distance between these buildings and roads

·    whether the road is a significant detour or is used by forestry traffic and heavy vehicles.

An algorithm selects the roads according to the prioritisation criteria and the data that is fed into the matrix. This ensures that roads are ranked fairly and objectively.

 

Council staff work closely with the forestry industry to align harvest activities with the matrix, so that roads where logging is planned are given higher priority for seal extensions.

 

Council’s website is up to date with clear, transparent information regarding the matrix and the prioritisation of seal extensions. The Dust Management Policy is not referred to on the webpages regarding road maintenance. The policy can still be found on Council’s Policies webpage.

 

The potential financial assistance referred to in the policy is no longer available.

 

Therefore, a policy is an appropriate mechanism to manage dust from unsealed roads. However, the Dust Management Policy is not the most appropriate form of policy. More appropriate policy instruments are already in place.

 

6    Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy (2014)

 

Council’s role relating to formation / maintenance of roads

Council has discretionary powers under Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974 to form and maintain roads in the District. Once public roads are formed Council does have some responsibility regarding maintenance to prevent public nuisance.

 

Purpose of current policy

The policy outlines the criteria for the prioritisation of the maintenance of roads in the District.

Review of policy

The policy:

·    commits Council to continue to maintain roads as per the road maintenance schedule (Road Asset Maintenance Management)

·    outlines criteria for Council to follow when considering a request to maintain a road

·    outlines at which point along a road Council will accept responsibility for maintenance.

 

Council receives approximately 20 requests per year for Council to form and maintain a road.  The policy is used to support responses to requests. If a request meets the criteria as outlined in the policy, the request is put before the governing body to decide if Council will maintain the road.

 

Staff have identified that the decisions regarding road maintenance are not strategically aligned with other Council decisions. For example, Council facilities have been installed along roads which are not currently maintained. The maintenance of roads can align with several strategic policy instruments (e.g., stormwater provisions, accessible walking and cycling network provisions, and travel demand management).  

 

Consequently, decisions regarding the prioritisation of road maintenance are often made in a reactive, ad hoc manner.

 

A policy is an appropriate mechanism to manage the prioritisation of the maintenance of roads. However, further research is required to ensure that the Policy is in the appropriate form. 

 

7    Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy (1998)

 

Council’s role relating to private roads and rights of way

Under the Local Government Act 1974, Section 349, Council may declare any private road or right of way to be a public road, subject to the roads being properly formed by the owners.

 

Purpose of current policy

Landowners can find it particularly difficult to arrange for the maintenance of private roads or right of ways when multiple properties are involved.  Therefore, the policy was developed to support landowners who are struggling to maintain their private roads or right of ways.

 

Review of policy

The policy consists of two clauses as follows:

·    landowners may apply to have private roads and rights of ways serving five or more lots declared a public road

·    all future subdivisions with access serving five or more lots, access shall be declared public roads.

 

The policy has been superseded by other policy instruments. Landowners can apply to vest a road as a public road by subdivision through the District Plan. Roads must meet the physical requirements of the Environmental Engineering Standards.

 

Therefore, a policy is an appropriate mechanism to manage private roads and right of ways serving five lots or more. However, the Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy is not the most appropriate form of policy. More appropriate policy instruments are already in place.

 

8    Road Maintenance Policy (1998)

 

Council’s role relating to road maintenance

Council has discretionary power to maintain roads within the District, under Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974. The maintenance of roads adheres to prioritisation criteria and is funded by both Waka Kotahi and rates.

 

Purpose of current policy

The Road Maintenance policy outlines the guidelines for procuring contractors to undertake road maintenance in the District.

 

Review of policy

The policy has been superseded by other policy instruments as follows:

·    some activities referred to in the policy are now subsidised by Waka Kotahi

·    Council sets the road maintenance strategy via the Regional Activity Management Plan.

·    Council’s current Sustainable Procurement Policy[2] outlines the process for roading procurement.

 

An operational database, the Road Asset Maintenance Management (RAMM), supports the Regional Activity Management Plan. The RAMM is a platform to hold all maintenance contract information and includes a hierarchy process for each road, in which contractors base their work programmes.

 

Therefore, a policy is an appropriate mechanism to manage procurement for road maintenance. However, the Road Maintenance Policy is not the most appropriate form of policy. More appropriate policy instruments are already in place.

 

 

9    Road Mirrors – Private Crossings Policy (2014)

 

Council’s role relating to road mirrors

Council does not have a specific role relating to road mirrors. However, Council has the power to regulate all road encroachments under section 357 of the Local Government Act 1974.
Council also has an obligation to ensure that activities and buildings on Council owned land do not negatively impact public health and safety.

 

Purpose of current policy

The policy outlines the exceptional circumstances in which an application to install a road mirror on a road would be accepted.

 

Review of policy

All road encroachments are regulated by the Local Government Act 1974 section 357 which states that all road encroachments must obtain approval from Council. A policy is not required regarding road encroachments which will duplicate the legislation.

 

The components of the policy refer to operational matters regarding requests to encroach on a road to erect a road mirror. An external facing policy is not required for operational matters.

 

Therefore, an external facing policy is not the most appropriate way to manage the installation of road mirrors.  However, internal guidelines should be developed to support staff to assess applications for road mirrors.

 

10 Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy (2014)

 

Council’s role relating to road naming and property numbering

Council has the power to name roads under the Local Government Act 1974, part 21, 319(j).

 

Purpose of current policy

The policy aims to ensure correct addressing, so that emergency services and other services can locate a property. It applies to both public and private roads.

 

Review of policy

The review has identified that the policy gives appropriate guidance to ensure clear and unambiguous addressing.

 

However, elected members have identified that the current policy offers no guidance on the social and cultural aspects of naming and placemaking.

 

Research has identified that naming processes are included in other policies including the Reserves Policy and Art and Memorials in Public Places Policy. Best practice would be to ensure consistency of naming procedures across Council. Some local councils (e.g. Wellington City Council, Hamilton City Council) have general naming policies in place and some local councils are in the process of developing general naming policies.

 

More research is required to ensure that policies regarding the naming of community spaces and places follow consistent guidelines and are not reviewed in isolation. 

 

Therefore, a policy is an appropriate mechanism to manage road naming and property numbering. However further research is required to ensure that the Policy is in the appropriate form.  

 

11 Road Speed Limits Policy (2016)

 

Council’s role relating to speed limits

Under the Land Transport Act 1998, Council as a Road Controlling Authority has the responsibility to set speed limit restrictions on local roads (i.e., all roads other than state highways).

 

Council is required to use the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) document Land Transport Rule – The Setting of Speed Limits[3] when considering whether a speed limit should be changed. The Setting of Speed Limits document sets out the method for calculating the speed limit for a section of road based on the following information:

·    the existing speed limit

·    the character of the surrounding land environment (e.g., rural, fring

·    e of city, fully developed)

·    the function of a road (i.e. arterial, collector or local)

·    detailed roadside development data (e.g. number of houses, shops, schools, etc.)

·    the number and nature of side roads.

 

Purpose of current policy

The policy aims to ensure that:

·    speed limits are safe, appropriate, and credible

·    speed limits are consistent with national standards

·    applications are processed effectively.

 

Review of policy

Waka Kotahi is in the process of implementing the Tackling Unsafe Speeds[4] programme. The programme aims to streamline the speed management process through a number of proposals including amending the Land Transport Act 2008 and implementing a new Settings of Speed Limits Rule (2021).

 

Central government completed consultation on the Settings of Speed Limits Rule 2021 in June 2021. The draft Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2021 proposes to amend the way in which speed limits are set by Road Controlling Authorities. 

 

The Regional Council will become responsible for setting speed limits. A Regional Speed Management Plan will be developed by the Regional Council which will:

·    align with the Regional Land Transport Strategy

·    identify roads which may require speed limit changes

·    outline the implementation process

·    outline the consultation process (to reduce consultation fatigue).

 

Components of the implementation of the new Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2021 are still unclear until the proposal is finalised.

 

If central government implements the proposed changes, the Road Speed Limits Policy will need to be revoked.

Therefore, it would not be an efficient use of resources to undertake an extensive review of the policy including potential amendments at this time.

 

It is important to note that a National Speed Limits Register is being developed. Once established, the Council’s Speed Limits Bylaw will also need to be revoked.

 

Therefore, a policy is an appropriate mechanism to manage road speed limits. Further review of the Road Speed Limits Policy should occur once the central government proposals are finalised.

 

12 Discussion

The roading policies were reviewed as a collective to ensure that policies were not developed in isolation.

 

12.1   Is a policy still the most appropriate way to address roading issues in the Far North District?

The review has identified that a policy is still the most appropriate way to address the following roading related issues:

·    Communities wishing to financially contribute to roading

·    Dust from unsealed roads

·    Prioritisation of roads for maintenance

·    Private roads and right of ways serving five lots or more

·    Procurement of roading contractors for road maintenance

·    Naming of roads

·    Setting of Speed Limits

The review has identified that a policy is not the most appropriate way to address the installation of road mirrors.

 

12.2   Is the policy in the most appropriate form?

The following issues are already covered by other more appropriate policy instruments and a separate policy is no longer required:

·    Dust from unsealed roads

·    Private roads and right of ways serving five lots or more

·    Procurement of roading contractors for road maintenance

The Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution Policy should be amended to ensure consistency with current Waka Kotahi guidelines, remove potential for consultation bias, and to remove operational procedures.

 

The Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy should be amended to ensure the policy supports strategic decision making of road maintenance.

 

The Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy should be amended to ensure appropriate guidance is provided regarding social and cultural aspects of road naming. However, further research is required to identify if a general naming policy would be a more appropriate form of policy.

 

The review identified the Road Speed Limits Policy is an appropriate form of policy. Further review of the Road Speed Limits Policy should occur once the central government proposals are finalised.

 

13 Conclusion

Policies regarding roading related issues remain a necessary mechanism for efficient and effective roading management in the Far North District. However, Council needs to ensure that the policies are in the most appropriate form to enable consistency across Council resources.


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

1    Purpose

This report identifies and assesses options for the review of the following seven roading related policies:

·    Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution (2015)

·    Dust Management Policy (2016)

·    Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy (2014)

·    Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy (1998)

·    Road Maintenance Policy (1998)

·    Road Mirrors – Private Crossings Policy (2014)

·    Road Speed Limits Policy (2016)

 

2    Context and Situation

Local government best practice is to review non-legislated policies every six years, which is in line with section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002. The eight roading related policies are therefore all due for review. The Council is required to consider whether a policy is still the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem with respect to roading. 

 

2.1     Council’s role relating to roading

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”. Roading plays a role in all aspects of wellbeing by providing connectivity and accessibility. Providing safer roads through activities such as maintenance, sealing and speed limits improves public health and safety.

 

2.1.1    Local Government Act 1974

Council has discretionary powers under Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974 to form and maintain roads in the Far North District (District). The Local Government Act 1974 does not compel Council to form and maintain carriageways on legal roads within their District.

 

In the Far North, there are approximately 2500 kilometres of legal roads which are shown on maps but are not maintained by the Council. There is no legal obligation to form or maintain any of these roads.

 

3    Problem Definition

Research has identified the roading policies were originally made to address the following roading related problems:

·    Communities wishing to financially contribute to upgrading roads not planned to be upgraded by Council

·    Dust from unsealed roads causing nuisance and a risk to public health and safety

·    Prioritisation of roads for maintenance

·    Coordinating the maintenance of private roads and right of ways serving five lots or more

·    Procurement of roading contractors for road maintenance

·    Residents wishing to install road mirrors which may cause risk to public health and safety

·    Communities requesting to amend road speed limits

 

4    Objective

The objective of a policy response is to ensure appropriate policy statements are in place to support Council decision making regarding roading related problems.

 

5    Methods to address problems

To determine the appropriateness of the provisions of the current policies, they have been assessed for:

·      Legality – are they consistent with applicable legislation?

·      Clarity – can the public and elected members easily understand their obligations?

·      Necessity – is there evidence of a problem that is being addressed?

·      Consistency – do they align with other Council policy instruments?

 

The policies have been assessed as a collective to ensure that the policies are not developed in isolation from each other. This process aims to utilise resources effectively.

 

6    Options

Under section 77 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council is required to:

·    seek to identify all reasonably practicable options

·    assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages

·    take into account the relationship of māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga.

 

6.1    Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution (2015)

Option one: Maintain the status quo – Continue the policy without amendment

Maintaining the status quo will allow for communities to continue to make decisions about local road infrastructure.

 

However, the policy does not align with Waka Kotahi current practice. Maintaining the status quo will potentially lead to confusion and discrepancies in trying to interpret the policy. For example, will communities be expected to subsidise 59% or 69%. The policy does not follow best practice in that it includes operational procedures. Operational procedures are subject to change more often than strategic decisions. Maintaining the status quo will not address that the policy currently allows for potential bias in consultation procedures.

 

Option two: Continue the policy with amendment (Recommended option)

Amending the policy will allow for communities to continue to make decisions about local road infrastructure.  Elected members will decide on a reasonable subsidy amount for communities to contribute, which may or may not align with Waka Kotahi but will set a clear standard. Amendments to the consultation requirements may be able to reduce potential for consultation bias.  Council will be able to adhere to best practice policy development by removing reference to operational procedures. Operational procedures are subject to change more often than strategic decisions and may therefore require amendments more often.

 

Option Three: Amalgamate the policy with the Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy

This option has similar advantages and disadvantages as in Option two: Continue the policy with amendment. Amalgamating the policy with the Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy may be a more efficient use of resources than having two separate policies. However, more research is required to identify the most appropriate form of policy for the Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy, which may unnecessarily delay the process for the Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution policy amendments and lead to unclear policy statements. Once specific amendments to both policies are completed, staff can still present a report recommending amalgamation if appropriate.

 

Option Four: Revoke the policy

Not having a policy in place may lead to ad hoc decisions regarding communities who wish to self-fund roading infrastructure. Increased resources may be required to respond to community requests.

 

Table 2: Table showing summary of options for the Community Initiates Infrastructure - Roading Contribution Policy

Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution (2015)

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option one:
Maintain status quo

·      Communities continue to make decisions about local road infrastructure. 

·      Policy does not follow best practice by including operational procedure.

·      Policy does not ensure impartial consultation.

·      Policy is not certain (clear)

Option two:
Amend the policy

(recommended)

·      Communities continue to make decisions about local road infrastructure. 

·      Policy aligns with current legislation.

·      Policy will adhere to best practice.

·      Policy will ensure impartial consultation.

 

Option three: Amalgamate the policy

·      Communities continue to make decisions about local road infrastructure. 

·      Policy aligns with current legislation.

·      Policy will adhere to best practice.

·      Policy will ensure impartial consultation.

·      Potential inefficient use of resources in developing amalgamated policy. 

·      Potential for policy to not be certain (clear).

Option four: Revoke the policy

 

·      May lead to ad hoc decisions regarding communities who wish to self-fund roading infrastructure.

·      May lead to increased resources managing requests.

 

6.2    Dust Management Policy (2016)

Option one: Maintain the status quo – Continue the policy without amendment

Maintaining the status quo may lead to reputational risk for the Council, as the policy refers to financial assistance which does not exist. Increased resources may be required for staff to process customer requests regarding financial assistance.

 

Option two: Continue the policy with amendment

Amending the policy will allow for the policy to align with current procedures and remove reference to financial assistance which no longer applies.  However, best practice policy process is to not duplicate other policy instruments. Increased resources are required to refer to and review multiple policy instruments and to ensure consistency between policies. Reputational risk may occur if discrepancies in policy instruments lead to inconsistent decisions.

 

Option three: Amalgamate the policy with the Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy

This option has similar advantages and disadvantages as in Option two: Continue the policy with amendment. However, amalgamating the policy with the Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy will be a more efficient use of resources than having two separate policies.

 

Option Four: Revoke the policy (Recommended option)

The components of the policy which refer to the process for prioritising dust mitigation on roads have been superseded by the Far North District Council Road Prioritisation to Guide the Delivery of Road Asset Upgrades (Dust Matrix). The Dust Matrix provides a more substantial equity focused criteria than the policy and the associated algorithm provides a fair and transparent approach.  Reduced resources are required to respond to community enquiries as information regarding specific road prioritisation can be easily sourced and shared.

 

Table 3: Table showing summary of options for the Dust Management Policy

Dust Management Policy (2016)

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option one:
Maintain status quo

None

·      Reputational risk as financial assistance no longer applies.

·      Policy does not follow best practice by duplicating other policy instruments.

·      Increased resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

Option two:
Amend the policy

 

·      Policy aligns with current procedures.

·      Policy does not follow best practice by duplicating other policy instruments.

·      Potential for reputational risk and Increased resources to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

Option three: Amalgamate the policy

·      Policy aligns with current procedures.

·      Allows for slightly more efficient and effective use of resources than option two.

·      Policy does not follow best practice by duplicating other policy instruments.

·      Potential for reputational risk and Increased resources to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

Option four: Revoke the policy

 

(recommended)

·      Council follows best practice by streamlining policy instruments.

·      Cost effective as less resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

None

 


 

6.3    Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy (2014)

Option one: Maintain the status quo – Continue the policy without amendment

Maintaining the status quo will ensure existing processes and policy criteria remain. No implementation process will be required. However, decisions regarding the maintenance of roads will continue in a reactive manner, with no alignment to other Council strategic decisions.

 

Option two: Continue the policy with amendment (Recommended option)

Amending the policy will allow for the policy to be strategically aligned with other policy instruments. 

An amended policy should support streamlined implementation of road maintenance requests, allowing for more efficient use of resources.

 

Further research, consultation and engagement is required to identify the most appropriate form of policy.

 

Option Three: Revoke the policy

Council staff receive several requests regarding road maintenance every month. Revoking the policy without a viable option in place will lead to inefficient use of resources. Decisions regarding road maintenance will be made completely ad hoc.

 

 

Table 4: Table showing summary of options for the Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy

Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy (2014)

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option one:
Maintain status quo

·      Existing processes and policy criteria remain.

·      Reputational risk as reactive decisions continue.

·      Policy does not allow for cross-council strategic alignment.

Option two:
Amend the policy

(recommended)

·      Policy strategically aligned with other Council policy instruments

·      More efficient use of resources with streamlined implementation.

 

Option three: Revoke the policy

 

·      No policy in place to support requests from the community, leading to inefficient use of resources.

·      Reputational risk as ad hoc decisions made.

 

6.4    Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy (1998)

Option one: Maintain the status quo – Continue the policy without amendment

Maintaining the status quo is not a practically viable option as the policy does not align with other Council policy instruments. The Operative District Plan is a more appropriate form of policy to manage private roads and rights of way.

 

Option two: Continue the policy with amendment

Amending the policy will allow for the policy to align with other Council policy instruments.  However, best practice policy process is to not duplicate other policy instruments. Increased resources are required to refer to and review multiple policy instruments and to ensure consistency between policies. Reputational risk may occur if discrepancies in policy instruments lead to inconsistent decisions.

 

Option Three: Revoke the policy (Recommended option)

Revoking the policy will improve consistency and clarity for policy decisions regarding private roads and rights of ways. No implementation process is required as the Operative District Plan already outlines the policy direction for private roads and rights of ways.

 

Table 5:Table showing summary of options for the Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy

Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy (1998)

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option one:
Maintain status quo

None

·      Policy does not follow best practice by duplicating other policy instruments.

·      Increased resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

Option two:
Amend the policy

 

·      Policy aligns with other Council policy instruments

·      Policy does not follow best practice by duplicating other policy instruments.

·      Increased resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

Option three: Revoke the policy

 

(recommended)

·      Council follows best practice by streamlining policy instruments.

·      Cost effective as less resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

None

 


 

6.5    Road Maintenance Policy (1998)

Option one: Maintain the status quo – Continue the policy without amendment

Maintaining the status quo is not a practically viable option as the policy does not align with current legislation or other Council policy instruments. The Sustainable Procurement Policy is a more appropriate form of policy to manage the process for roading procurement.

 

Option two: Continue the policy with amendment

Amending the policy will allow for the policy to align with current legislation and other Council policy instruments.  However, best practice policy process is to not duplicate other policy instruments. Increased resources are required to refer to and review multiple policy instruments and to ensure consistency between policies. Reputational risk may occur if discrepancies in policy instruments lead to inconsistent decisions.

 

Option Three: Revoke the policy (Recommended option)

Revoking the policy will improve consistency and clarity for policy decisions regarding road maintenance procurement. No implementation process is required as the Sustainable Procurement Policy already outlines the policy direction for roading procurement.

 

Table 6:Table showing summary of options for the Road Maintenance Policy

Road Maintenance Policy (1998)

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option one:
Maintain status quo

None

·      Policy does not follow best practice by duplicating other policy instruments.

·      Policy does not align with current legislation

·      Increased resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

Option two:
Amend the policy

 

·      Policy aligns with current legislation

·      Policy aligns with other Council policy instruments

·      Policy does not follow best practice by duplicating other policy instruments.

·      Increased resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

Option three: Revoke the policy

 

(recommended)

·      Council follows best practice by streamlining policy instruments.

·      Cost effective as less resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

None


 

6.6    Road Mirrors – Private Crossings Policy (2014)

Option one: Maintain the status quo – Continue the policy without amendment

Maintaining the status quo will ensure existing processes and policy criteria remain. No implementation process will be required. However, the policy does not follow best practice in that it duplicates legislation and refers to operational procedures. It is not an effective use of resources to review a policy which refers to operational matters.

 

Option Two: Revoke the policy (Recommended option)

Revoking the policy will ensure council adheres to best practice policy development.

Implementation will include the development of internal guidelines to support staff to assess applications for road mirrors and updates to Council’s website to provide clear communication regarding the installation of road mirrors.

 

Table 7: Table showing summary of options for the Road Mirrors - Private Crossings Policy

Road Mirrors – Private Crossings Policy (2014)

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option one:
Maintain status quo

·      Existing processes and policy criteria remain

·      Policy does not follow best practice by duplicating legislation

·      Policy does not follow best practice by including operational procedures

·      Inefficient use of resources to review a policy which refers to operational matters

Option two:
Revoke the policy

(recommended)

·      Council adheres to best practice by not including operational matters in external policy instruments.

None

 


 

6.7    Road Speed Limits Policy (2016)

Option one: Maintain the status quo – Continue the policy without amendment (Recommended option)

A full review of the Road Speed Limits Policy was not conducted as there are significant central government proposals regarding speed limits due to be finalised later in 2021. A full review of the policy will be required once the central government proposals are finalised.  Internal consultation identified that the policy sufficiently supports requests for road speed limits. According to the policy, new requests for road speed limits will not be considered until May 2022.

 

Option Two: Undertake a full review of the policy

A full review of the policy will identify if the policy requires amendments. However, the policy will most likely require major amendments once the central government proposals are finalised.

Table 1: Table showing summary of options for the Road Speed Limits Policy

Road Speed Limits Policy (2016)

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option one:
Maintain status quo (recommended)

·      Policy sufficiently supports requests for road speed limit amendments.

·      Efficient use of resources to review policy once central government proposals are finalised.

None

Option two:
Undertake a full review of the policy

 

·      Identify potential amendments

·      Inefficient use of resources as upcoming central government proposals may require major amendments.

 

7    Conclusion and Recommendation

The recommended option is to revoke the Dust Management Policy, Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy, Road Maintenance Policy, and Road Mirrors Private Crossings Policy as these policies duplicate more appropriate policy instruments.

 

To adhere to best practice, it is recommended to amend the Community Initiated Infrastructure - Roading Contributions Policy.

 

The Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation / Maintenance of Roads Policy does not strategically align with other Council policy instruments. The recommended option is to amend the policy. However, more research and engagement is required to identify the most appropriate form of policy.

 

The Road Speed Limits Policy will most likely require significant amendments once central government proposals are finalised later this year. Therefore, the recommended option is to continue the policy without amendment. A full review will be conducted once the central government proposals are finalised.

 


 

 

Table 8: Table showing summary of recommended options and key considertations for roading related polices

 

Recommended Option

Key Considerations

Community Initiated Infrastructure Roading Contribution (2015)

Continue with amendment

·      Communities continue to make decisions about local road infrastructure. 

·      Policy aligns with current legislation.

·      Policy will adhere to best practice.

·      Policy will ensure impartial consultation.

Dust Management Policy (2016)

Revoke

·      Council follows best practice by streamlining policy instruments.

·      Cost effective as less resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

·      Increases clarity as financial assistance no longer applies.

Limits of Council Responsibility for Formation Maintenance of Roads Policy (2014)

Continue with amendment

·      Policy strategically aligned with other Council policy instruments

·      More efficient use of resources with streamlined implementation.

Private Roads and Rights of Way Policy (1998)

Revoke

·      Council follows best practice by streamlining policy instruments.

·      Cost effective as less resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

Road Maintenance Policy (1998)

Revoke

·      Council follows best practice by streamlining policy instruments.

·      Cost effective as less resources required to review and refer to multiple policy instruments.

Road Mirrors Private Crossings Policy (2014)

Revoke

·      Council adheres to best practice by not including operational matters in external policy instruments and not duplicating legislation.

Road Speed Limits Policy (2016)

Continue without amendment

·      Policy sufficiently supports requests for road speed limit amendments.

·      Efficient use of resources to review policy once central government proposals are finalised.

 

 

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

Community Initiated Infrastructure – Roading Contribution Policy (#4112),Adopted: 2013
Reviewed: 5 June 2015
 

 

 

 

 

 


Background

Council can assist the community to develop and provide their own facilities and services, which in turn helps to deliver Community outcomes.

 

Council has developed a Community Assistance framework to provide fair, consistent and strategically aligned decision making when considering community requests for Council support.  Policy # 4112 is aligned with Council’s Community Assistance framework.

 

From time to time, Council will be approached by a Community of place, use, or interest to extend, renew, or develop new roading infrastructure that has not been planned for by Council.  This policy is developed to ensure that the percentage of contribution by both Council and Community is known and that those that are directly affected or are in the area of benefit are consulted and agree to fund the community share.

 

Objectives

1.   To support communities to develop community infrastructure which fulfils a demonstrated community need and aligns with Council’s strategic priorities.

2.   To enhance access and use by the general public of community infrastructure

3.   To enhance services that align with Council’s strategic prioritie

4.   To enhance community and Council capability for the development, renewal or replacement of Council owned roading infrastructure

5.   To ensure that the community and Council are aware of the obligations of each party prior to entering into a partnership to fund community infrastructure

 

Policy Statements

1.   The decision to develop infrastructure; whether extensions or improvements to existing roading is the Council’s alone and must align with Council’s strategic priorities and will be assessed against the following criteria:

a.   Whether the Council has a budget available to fund its share of the cost.

b.   Whether the works proposed are appropriate, taking into account maintenance and other ongoing costs.

c.   The traffic count on the road concerned

d.   Whether dust nuisance is a major issue where the sealing of a metal road is proposed

e.   Whether the works complete the sealing or other improvements to a road so it is all to one standard

f.    Whether, if a cost / benefit analysis was carried out, the quotient would be greater than 1.

 

2.   The Community must contribute the equivalent of the NZTA subsidy (Funding Assistance Rate) which is currently 59% and Council shall fund the balance of all costs.

3.   Where a targeted rate is used, funding for ongoing maintenance, including depreciation, over a defined timeframe (dependent on expected life of the asset) may be incorporated into the project cost.

 

4.   The responsibility to consult shall fall on the Community; however Council will need to ensure itself that the consultation process is fair and appropriate.  This would mean that the Community would present to Council a consultation plan and an indicative method for apportioning the Community cost if the Community decides it would like to pay a lump sum toward the project.

 

5.   Appropriate funding arrangements will be entered into with local property owners and/ or ratepayers where:

a.   Council has agreed in principle to the project;

b.   75% of the affected persons or those in the defined area of benefit,  agree with such funding arrangements (in cases other than a targeted rate, if some owners refuse to contribute to the scheme it can still proceed provided the remaining owners agree to meet the total contribution between them);

c.   For the purpose of this proposal, Community group members, affected persons or those in an area of benefit are all defined as affected property owners for targeted rating.

 

6.   The total cost calculation for the scheme and the calculation of the Community contribution are to be documented and will include quotations from suppliers, including professional services.  If Council Staff are to manage the scheme, an allowance of at least 5% will be included in the total cost.

 

7.   Funding arrangements options will include:

a.   The full and final payment from the Community Group; or

b.   The full and final lump sum payment for the project pro-rated to affected property owners; or

c.   A targeted rate over a fixed number of years, incorporating all financial charges (loans, interest etc.).

 

8.   If the funding agreement allows for all or part of the Community contribution to be received after the work has been completed an interest charge will be included as per Clause 6.

 

9.   Where the funding arrangement is as per Item 7 a. or b., legally binding agreements covering the total Community contribution must be received from property owners prior to the scheme proceeding.  These documents will be prepared and finalised by the Council’s Legal Department.

 

10.  Where the works are to be funded by a targeted rate, Council will then, pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002 and Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, consult on the proposed new rate in its next available Long Term Plan or Annual Plan.  (Note any new rate has to be introduced as part of the Annual or Long Term Plan process).

 

11.  Should the project payment be by way of a targeted rate, the Community must be made aware of the delay caused by fulfilling the Annual or Long Term Plan process.

 

12.  Where the agreement is with one party (e.g. a forestry company) the arrangement must be documented in the same way as set out in Item 9.

 

13.  Annual budgets for this activity need to be approved through either the Long Term Plan or the Annual Plan processes.  Unspent budgets will not normally be carried forward to the next financial unless the Council decides otherwise.

 

Procedures

1.   A request is received from the community for the upgrading of a public road on a cost share basis with Council.

 

2.   A copy of the Policy is sent out to the requestor

 

3.   The documentation required to accompany a formal request is received.

 

4.   The Roads Professional Services Unit (RPSU) arranges for the works proposed to be costed, for use in the consultation process.  The costs are to include :

a.   Physical works

b.   Professional services including supervision

c.   GST at the current rate

d.   In the case of road sealing works to be funded by way of a targeted rate, the cost of maintaining the road for the life of the pavement

e.   Interest at the current borrowing rate where payment of contributions is delayed until after the work is completed.

 

5.   Prior to the costing being sent to the requestor the payment schedule is checked by the Finance Department to ensure that it represents 65% of the cost of the works proposed.

 

6.   The payment schedule is sent to the requestor.

         

7.   The Council receives the completed documentation required from the requestor so that the proposal can be put before Council.

 

8.   The RPSU prepares an item on the application to go to the Infrastructure Committee of Council, including a recommendation.

 

9.   The recommendation of the Committee goes to the Council for acceptance or otherwise.

 

10.  If Council resolves not to fund its share of the cost of the works, then a letter is sent to the requestor, by the Governance Department, informing of the decision.

 

11.  If Council resolves to fund its share of the cost (in the case of a cost share by the affected  property owners), all the documentation relating to the proposal is sent to the Council’s Legal Department for preparation of the agreements required by Item 9 of the Policy.

 

12   A standard legal agreement is prepared by the Legal Department to ensure that payment is legally binding and can be pursued through normal debt collection processes, if not paid.

 

13   The specific legal agreements are prepared and sent out to the affected parties by the Legal Department.   

 

14   The signed legal agreements are returned to Council’s Legal Department.

 

15   Once the Department receives all the agreements, it advises the RPSU that all have been received.

 

16   The RPSU checks with the Finance Department to confirm whether all payments have been made, if the arrangement is to pay prior to the works commencing.

 

17   The RPSU arranges for plans to be drawn up and for the work to be carried out using the method it determines to be the most appropriate.

 

18   The work is completed and invoices are sent to the affected property owners, where it has been agreed that payment is delayed until the work is done.

 

19   If Council resolves to fund its share of the cost, and the Community has chosen to fund its share by way of a targeted rate, all the proposal information is sent to the Finance Department which arranges for the project and targeted rate to be included in the next Annual Plan or Long Term Plan, whichever is soonest.

 

20   When the project and rate are approved, the Finance Department advises the RPSU to proceed.

 

21   Where the agreement is with one party in regard to road works, the arrangement must include the standard legal agreement to pay the non-Council share of the cost.


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

Dust Management Policy (#4116),Adopted: June 2014

 

 

 

 

 


Background

Dust nuisance has always been an issue in rural areas of the Far North. However, as the volume of wood being harvested has increased in the Far North, so have the number of complaints of dust nuisance on un-sealed roads from adjoining properties.

 

Increased logging truck movements on unsealed roads is impacting adjacent residents, affecting their health as well as general quality of life; for example, dust on washing lines, roof dust contaminating water supplies, and dust inside homes.

 

Historical solutions such as applying used-waste oil are no longer environmentally acceptable. There are new products on the market but they are more expensive. Any surface treatment is temporary and repeat applications are necessary. 

 

There has been a demand from residents to seal road frontages to reduce dust nuisance. Sealing is an expensive option both in terms of capital outlay and the on-going cost of maintaining small sections of sealed road outside of the main sealed road network.

 

This issue is not confined to the Far North, and Northland Regional Council (NRC) has developed a Dust from Unsealed Roads Mitigation Strategy (dust mitigation strategy) that provides standard criteria to prioritise affected sites and a toolbox of mitigation options.

 

This strategy is a short term response to existing dust nuisance issues and a long term solution is being progressed through the development of a Northland Forestry Route Management Strategy to support an application to central government for additional funding.

 

The purpose of this policy is to support the Council in allocating funding to address the worst affected homes with a clear and consistent method that identifies health risk priority areas and potential mitigation options.

 

Reducing the effects of dust nuisance will require on-going collaboration with the forestry industry. The funds available in any one year will only address the worst impacted homes and help is required from the industry to support appropriate driver behaviour.

 

Definitions

PM10 – Particle is a collective term used to describe dust, fume, smoke, mist or fog, and particles less than 10 microns are called PM10.  These particles are small enough to inhale and are responsible for respiratory problems including coughs, chronic bronchitis, exacerbations of asthma and post-neonatal respiratory mortality.  Results of PM10 testing will be provided by Northland Regional Council

 

Objective

Health impacts and nuisance to adjoining properties from traffic on un-sealed roads is minimised as a result of the community, industry and the Council working together to implement affordable solutions.

 

Policies

1.   Council will use the policy criteria to assess the priority for each site as a health issue and/or a nuisance or other issue and allocate a numerical weighting representing the severity of each criteria measured.

 

2.   The Council will prioritise affected areas that have health issues by allocating a weighted weighting score if a PM10 dust particle level is recorded in close proximity e.g. 1.0m from the front of the house.

 

3.   The Council will seek to maximise the number of houses by clustering them for inclusion in a larger scale site assessment.

 

4.   The Council will develop a three year program of mitigation works using the most cost effective method that can be achieved within the available Dust Mitigation funding for the term of the harvest.

 

5.   The Council will re-assess the program if new sites are identified that are a higher priority and this may result in some existing sites being relegated down the list of priority. 

 

6.   The Council will use road user management tools such as speed restriction and if practicable an alternative route as soon as health issues or dust nuisance has been identified.

 

7.   The Council will support requests from the property owners under Policy # 4112- Community Initiated Infrastructure – Road Contribution Policy should a property owner and /or high road users fund the balance.  Council’s contribution will not come from dedicated Dust Mitigation budgets.

 

8.   Council will continue to investigate methods that will provide greater control over the effects of forestry activity on roads such as resource consent conditions or bylaws that provide greater control over traffic.

 

9.   The Council will develop an alliance agreement with the Northland Wood Council members that will include:

a.   Quarterly meetings with FNDC, WDC, KDC and NRC

b.   Discussion of areas of common strategic interest including:

i.    social assessment at existing and new harvest sites

ii.    Support for temporary speed restrictions

iii.   Advocating to members for alternative routes.

iv.  Other dust mitigation methods

c.   Promote the use of technology such as GPS data

d.   Keep the Council informed of new harvest sites and harvest periods

 

10.  The Council will actively encourage the community to:

a.   apply water to the road surface to reduce dust nuisance if practicable

b.   invest in windbreaks/landscaping to reduce wind speeds and minimise dust where appropriate

c.   have an EECA Healthy Home assessment including consideration of the installation of water supply filter and/or positive pressure roof cavity ventilation system.

 

11.  should these methods be determined to benefit the home owner, the Council may provide a level of subsidy of up to $3,000.

 

Procedures

1.   Council staff will assess all roads that are currently being used by forest traffic against the criteria to develop a road priority list.

 

2.   Sites will be identified and prioritised by:

 

a.   Health criteria: Residential houses where the standard for PM10 is exceeded 1m from the house.

 

b.   Nuisance and other criteria

 

·      number of occupied dwellings e.g. milking sheds, pack houses, homes

·      access to public facilities

·      deposition of dust

·      total suspended particles

·      total traffic volume and number/percentage of heavy vehicles in 24 hour period

·      duration of problem each day and for what period of time [months or years]

·      seasonality of problem

 

3.   Due to the scale of the problem and the limited funds available to address the issue, affected sites will be prioritised by assessing each site as a health issue and/or a nuisance or other criteria and then prioritise each site by allocating a numerical weighting representing the severity of each criteria measured.

 

4.   Council will ask NRC to test these sites to determine if the standard for PM10 is exceeded.  NRC will fund this from their budgets.

 

5.   Any sites with a PM10 dust particle level will receive an additional 100 points as a positive weighting.

 

6.   Council staff will cluster as many houses as practicable in each site assessment to maximise the homes that might benefit from the mitigation work.

 

7.   Council staff will assess the highest priority sites to determine the most cost effective method/or methods over the life of the harvest to reduce dust and the options will consider road surface treatments, road user management and adjoining property enhancements.

 

8.   This list will be developed so that a 3 year program can be adopted by Council that can be implemented within the available budget.

 

9.   Council will identify sites of dust nuisance and:

a.   Investigate if a more direct route to the sealed network is available that should be used even if it might be longer.

b.   Investigate if speed restrictions need to be imposed.

c.   Contact the Northland Wood Council and/or the local forestry contractor to advise them that dust is a nuisance and an alternative route must be used and/or implement voluntary speed restrictions.

d.   Contact Northland Wood Council should this collaborative approach not work and introduce formal traffic control measures and issue drivers not abiding by the speeds with infringement notices.

 

10.  The most cost effective methods below will be used to develop any mitigation works program:

a.   Road Surface Treatments:

·      Full seal extension

·      Seal road frontage

·      Apply an approved dust suppression product

·      Water the road

·      Treat the road surface

b.   Road Users Management:

·      Reduce traffic by using an alternative route

·      Reduce speed

c.   Adjoining Property Enhancements:

·      Slow the wind – planting of shelter belts

·      Reduce dust entering the home and water supply

 

11.  Community development staff will help property owners that wish to have an EECA Healthy Home assessment and provide assistance with funding and/or subsidy applications.

 

 


 

Appendix A – Site Scoring – Dust Management

 

Road Name

houses/km

PM10 and PM2.5 test

Dust  Deposition

Traffic Volume

% Heavy traffic

Duration and seasonality

Total Score

Princes Street

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The scoring will be based on the following ranges:

 

Criteria

1

2

3

4

5

Houses/km

1-5

6-10

11-15

15-20

>20

PM10

 

 

 

 

 

Dust Deposition

 

 

 

 

 

Number of vehicles/day

0-50

51-100

101-200

201-500

>500

% Heavy vehicles

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

>80

Duration of Harvest

0-1yr

1-2yr

2-3yr

3-5yr

>5yr

No. of public facilities on the road

0

1

2

3

4

 

Highlighted data needs to be confirmed by technical qualified person

 

 

 

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

Road Mirrors – Private Crossings Policy (#4114),Adopted: August 2014

 

 

 

 

 


Background

Council’s policy to date has been to not use or allow road mirrors.  Council’s position was that road mirrors are not considered safe for public use due to distortion which may encourage unfamiliar users to make bad decisions.

 

It is now considered that the use of road mirrors may be acceptable in some circumstances to enhance road safety. However, they should be subject to specific criteria and conditions.

 

Mirrors should only be used in specific situations due to the problems associated with them, such as limited visibility when raining or at dawn or dusk, difficulty for non- regular users and slight distortions of image.

 

Nevertheless, the provision of these devices at locations where other factors make it difficult to achieve the necessary sight distance may be considered an effective mitigation measure, providing the following specific requirements are met.

 

Mirrors are not always the most appropriate solution.  Accordingly, the approval of a road mirror is expected to be the exception rather than the norm.

 

This policy relates to existing private vehicle crossings.  It is not for use in regard to public roads.

 

Objectives

1.   To allow the use of road mirrors to improve safety at the intersections of driveways, private ways and other forms of private access with formed roads under the control of the Council.

 

2.   To promote a consistent decision making process in regard to approving road mirrors.

 

Definitions

In terms of this Policy, the following definitions apply:

 

ACCESS WAYS – include driveways that cross legal roads and paths, or steps that provide access to private property.

 

LEGAL ROAD a road as defined by the Local Government Act; generally this means any land owned by the Council that:

·      is laid out or constructed as a road or street or public highway is intended for the use of the general public

·      is vested in the Council for the purpose of a road as shown on a deposited survey plan or any other enactment

·      includes land from the  centre-line  to  the  private  property  boundary  and includes kerbs,  footpaths,  berms,  any  green  unoccupied  space  not formed as a road or footpath, and airspace above legal road.

 

ROAD MIRROR – a convex mirror installed for the purposes of aiding access to and from a site.

 

ENCROACHMENT LICENSEprovides the license holder with permission to erect and use a road mirror to aid with access to and from their site only. It does not create any legal interest in the land.

 

CORRIDOR ACCESS REQUEST (CAR) – is required for any activity that will alter or cause to be altered the surface of any part of the road reserve, including but not limited to excavating, drilling, resurfacing, and placement of any pipe, duct, pole, cabinet, or other structure below, on, or above the legal road.

 

Policies

1.   The safety and efficiency of the road network will not be unduly compromised by the erection of the mirror, consistent with policies for Resource Management purposes and the duties of Council under the Local Government Act.

 

2.   Mirrors will only be installed in areas with a 50km/hr speed limit or less, as speed environment relates directly to the stopping distance and consequently to the severity of an accident if one were to occur.

 

3.   A mirror will only be approved if it is impossible to improve sight distances by some other, practical means.  These means may include:

·      removal of vegetation,

·      trimming of a bank

·      realignment or removal of a structure such as a fence

·      relocation or realignment of a driveway

·      making the desired driving manoeuvre at another location

 

4.   A mirror is used only where the benefits of providing off-street parking will make the route safer for existing road users.  It is seen as appropriate to encourage off street parking in these areas to improve the deficiencies of the road network, which can sometimes only be achieved by the construction of a driveway with substandard sight distances relying on the installation of a mirror.

 

5.   In areas where parking on street does not create a congestion or safety issue and there is ample parking available, the application will be refused as the hazards associated with the driveway, even including the mitigation provided by a mirror, outweigh the adverse effects of the cars continuing to be parked on the street.

 

6.   Mirrors must be erected at such a height so as not to compromise pedestrian or vehicular safety (Typically 2.5 metres above any ground to which pedestrians have access).The

higher the mirror, the greater the benefit to motorists and the less likely it is to be vandalised.

 

7.   An Encroachment Licence is obtained if a road mirror is to be installed on a private structure within the boundaries of legal road.  All private structures within the road reserve are required to be covered by a Licence to Occupy to protect both the Council’s and installer’s interests.  The licence must be sought and gained prior to installation of the mirror.

 

8.   Council officers have the right to require a traffic report from a reputable traffic engineer at the applicant’s expense should they be uncertain whether the mirror will be beneficial or create additional hazards, though this is likely to be required in very few cases.

 

Procedures

The following procedures will be followed to ensure a consistent approach is taken with applications to install road mirrors:

 

1.   The applicant submits a request to be able to install a mirror for traffic safety reasons with the proposed location of the mirror attached and lists the perceived benefits of its installation.

 

2.   The request initially goes to the Development Consents & Engineering Standards Manager (DC & ES Manager).

 

3.   The relevant Roading Area Engineer carries out an assessment as to whether the mirror is warranted in regard to each item in the Policy Statement.

 

4.   The Area Engineer reports back to the DC & ES Manager on whether the mirror meets the requirements of the Policy.

 

5.   If the Area Engineer reports that the mirror is warranted, the DC & ES Manager will write to the applicant confirming that the mirror can be installed within the legal road subject to a Licence to Occupy (LTO) application being approved if a new supporting pole is required and a Corridor Access Request obtained.  The Manager includes an LTO application form with the letter.

 

6.   The LTO application is received and processed by Council.

 

7.   A further letter is sent to the applicant with the License enclosed, requesting that a CAR be applied for prior to installing the mirror.

 

8.   If the Engineer reports that the proposed mirror does not meet the Policy then the DC & ES Manager writes to the applicant confirming this.

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

5.3         Naming Policy Proposal

File Number:           A3382702

Author:                    Kirsten Griffiths, Strategic 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 develop a Naming Policy.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

·      Council has three policies that contain guidance for naming infrastructure: the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy 2014, the Reserves Policy 2017, and the Art and Memorials in Public Places Policy 2017.

·      The three policies are inconsistent.

·      Problems have been identified with the consultation process in the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy.

·      Opportunities have been identified to promote the use of te reo Māori and enhance cultural wellbeing in the Far North District.

·      A policy is still the most appropriate way to manage naming of community infrastructure.

·      The current policies are no longer in the most appropriate form because they are inconsistent and lack sufficient guidance for consultation on road naming.

·      A new, general Naming Policy should be developed.

 

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee recommend that Council agree to develop a new Naming Policy for roads, open spaces, and Council facilities.

 

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Council has three policies that contain guidance for naming infrastructure: the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy 2014, the Reserves Policy 2017, and the Art and Memorials in Public Places Policy 2017. The policies are inconsistent. The review of the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy 2014 identified that other councils were developing general naming policies.

Problems have been identified with the process for consultation with iwi on road names. Elected members have expressed a desire to improve the road naming process, and to promote and support the use of appropriate names in te reo Māori.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Council’s role in naming infrastructure

The Local Government Act 1974, part 21, 319(j), provides councils the power to name and to alter the name of roads. Under the Reserves Act 1977, section 16 (10), territorial authorities have the power to name reserves.

Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 outlines the purpose of local government - “to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.” Promoting the use of te reo Māori and ensuring that the names we give to community infrastructure reflect our people and their stories, will contribute to cultural wellbeing in the Far North District.

 

 

Research findings

The review of the existing policy guidance for naming infrastructure has identified that a policy is the most appropriate way to manage:

·      road naming and property numbering

·      the naming of reserves

·      requests to name community infrastructure after notable individuals

·      social and cultural aspects of naming and placemaking.

 

The review has also identified that a policy could be an appropriate way to manage the naming of other Council facilities, in order to have a consistent approach.

The review identified that the form of the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy is no longer appropriate. Some provisions in the Policy are not certain. Therefore, amendments are required to improve clarity particularly regarding guidance on the social and cultural aspects of naming and placemaking.

The social and cultural aspects of naming and placemaking represent issues that are wider than road naming alone. A new naming policy would.

·      streamline and clarify the Council’s policies

·      ensure that names reflect the unique culture and identity of the Far North District

·      encourage and enable the use of te reo Māori names where appropriate

·      enhance the social and cultural wellbeing of the Far North District.

Option One: Status quo: Current policies related to naming remain in place

The provisions for naming in the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy 2014, the Reserves Policy 2017, and the Art and Memorials in Public Places Policy 2017 will be retained in their current form.

Advantages and disadvantages of the status quo

Advantages

·    No resources required for implementation.

Disadvantages

 

·    Reputational impact to Council, because the continuing dissatisfaction expressed by iwi representatives and property owners will erode communication and relationships.

·    Lack of appropriate and clear guidance for elected members.

·    Inconsistent guidance for naming different types of community infrastructure.

Option Two: The Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy is amended

The Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy will be amended to include guidance and support to encourage the use of te reo Māori, and an improved consultation process, co-designed with iwi representatives. Appropriate and clear guidance will be provided for elected members to make decisions on road names. The provisions for naming in the Reserves Policy and the Art and Memorials in Public Places Policy will be unchanged.

Consultation and engagement is required to develop amendments.

Advantages and disadvantages of amending the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy

Advantages

·    Addressing the specific policy that is currently causing problems.

·    Opportunity to encourage the use of te reo Māori road names, as part of promoting social and cultural wellbeing

Disadvantages

 

·    Inefficient use of consultation and resource costs, as this would only deal with one category of infrastructure.

·    Inconsistent guidance for naming different types of community infrastructure.

 

Option Three: A general Naming Policy is developed (recommended option)

A new, general Naming Policy is developed for infrastructure (roads, open spaces, and council facilities)

Consultation and engagement is required to develop policy.

Advantages and disadvantages of a new Naming Policy

Advantages

·    Opportunity to encourage the use of te reo Māori, as part of promoting social and cultural wellbeing.

·    Opportunity to enhance placemaking through a more strategic approach to choosing names that reflect our communities.

·    Consistency and clarity through streamlined policy for naming.

·    Best practice approach.

Disadvantages

 

·    Implementation may require a change management process and additional resources.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

The development of a new Naming Policy is an appropriate way to address issues identified with the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy 2014, and to promote social and cultural wellbeing in the district through encouraging the use of names in te reo Māori. A consistent policy for naming community infrastructure is a best practice approach.

Next steps

If Council agrees with the recommendation, a new naming policy will be drafted and is planned to be presented to the Strategy and Policy Committee by July 2022.

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

The cost of consulting on developing a Naming Policy will be met from existing operating budgets.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1.       Naming Policy - Research Report - A3384850  


 

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

In line with the Significance and Engagement Policy, the recommendation to develop a new Naming Policy will have little effect on financial thresholds, ratepayers, specific demographics, or levels of service. 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 1974, part 21, 319(j), the Reserves Act 1977, section 16 (10), and the Local Government Act 2002, section 10, apply 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.

 

This proposal is to commence the development of a Naming Policy. The views of the Community Boards will form an important part of the development of this policy.

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 policy is integral. Māori will be given an opportunity to contribute during the policy 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 development of the Policy including:

·    Iwi / Hapū

·    Northland Transportation Alliance

·    Developers

·    Public

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

The cost of consulting on developing a Naming Policy will be met from existing operating budgets.

Chief Financial Officer review.

The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

 

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

1    Purpose

 

To describe and discuss issues related to naming of roads, open spaces, and council facilities, and to explore opportunities that a new, wider naming policy could create.

 

2    Context and Situation

 

Council currently has three policies that contain guidance for naming infrastructure: the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy 2014, the Reserves Policy 2017, and the Art and Memorials in Public Places Policy 2017.

 

Elected members and other interested parties have expressed a desire to improve the road naming process, and to promote and support the use of appropriate names in te reo Māori. The review of the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy 2014 identified that other councils were developing general naming policies. A concurrent review of the Reserves Policy 2017 identified that it contained a section on the naming of reserves and walkways. Further research identified provisions for naming infrastructure in the Art and Memorials in Public Places Policy 2017.

 

2.1     Council’s role in naming infrastructure

 

Territorial authorities play a significant part in the choice and approval of names, particularly with regard to infrastructure such as roads, parks and reserves, and Council facilities. Under the Local Government Act 1974, part 21, 319(j), councils have power to name and to alter the name of roads. Under the Reserves Act 1977, section 16 (10), territorial authorities have the power to name reserves.

 

Beyond the practical considerations for naming roads and reserves, under Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 the purpose of local government is “to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.” Ensuring that the names we give to community infrastructure reflect our people and their stories, and promoting the use of te reo Māori, will contribute to cultural wellbeing in the Far North district.

·                 

3    Objectives

·    To review the existing policy guidance for naming infrastructure.

·    To determine whether a new, broader naming policy for infrastructure is the most appropriate way to address issues related to the road naming process.

·    To assess whether a broader naming policy for infrastructure could offer the opportunity for significant additional benefits, particularly with regard to promoting the use of te reo Māori and enhancing cultural wellbeing in the Far North District.

·    To determine whether a new naming policy could streamline and clarify the Council’s policies.

 

4    Problem and Opportunity Statement

 

4.1     Scope

 

The scope is limited to infrastructure that is within Council’s power to name, in the Far North district. A naming policy could include guidance for naming several types of infrastructure: roads (both public and private); open spaces (reserves, parks, walkways); and Council facilities (community halls, civic spaces, recreation facilities). The precise scope will need to be developed in consultation with elected members and interested parties.

 

 

4.2     Requirements for road naming and property numbering

 

The Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy 2014 addressed a number of problems that were arising due to inaccurate naming and/or numbering of properties in the Far North district.[5] The ability to accurately identify specific locations is essential for emergency services. It is also crucial for many other services such as utilities, postal deliveries, and couriers.

 

The requirements for correct and straightforward identification of properties remain essential. Any new or amended policy must ensure that all problems with the accuracy of road naming and numbering are addressed.

·                 

4.3     Implementation of the current road naming policy

 

The problem that has prompted the proposal of a new naming policy has arisen from the implementation of the road naming policy. The Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board have required that all road names are approved in consultation with iwi. However, the current policy does not include procedural guidance for this consultation, and staff are under-resourced to undertake this work. Dissatisfaction with this process has been expressed by iwi representatives and elected members.

 

Any new or amended policy must ensure that problems with consultation with iwi, and communication between all interested parties, are addressed.

 

4.4     Naming in Aotearoa New Zealand and the Far North District

 

A naming policy offers opportunities to enhance cultural wellbeing in our district. Names have special significance. They connect people to the unique identity, stories, culture, and environment of the places to which they belong. Names should reflect the identity, culture, history, and geography of our unique places and communities.

 

Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori 2016 / The Māori Language Act 2016 recognises te reo Māori as a taonga and an official language of Aotearoa New Zealand. Promoting and revitalising te reo Māori is part of the wider partnership between the Crown and tangata whenua, as expressed in Maihi Karauna.[6]

 

The Far North District Council is uniquely positioned to be at the forefront of promoting te reo Māori, as part of the Council’s mandate to promote social and cultural wellbeing. Over 50% of our people are Māori. While the number of speakers of te reo Māori averages 4% nationally, in the Far North around 16% of our population speaks te reo Māori.[7] Adopting policies that encourage the use of Māori names offers an opportunity to enhance relationships between Council and iwi.

 

It should be noted that road naming, and names in general, can become a contentious issue. Recent reports in the media underline the reputational risk to the Council if this discussion is not conducted thoughtfully and with sensitivity.[8]

 

5    Review of current policies for naming infrastructure

 

5.1.1    Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy 2014

 

FNDC’s Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy 2014 aims to ensure correct addressing, so that emergency services and other services can locate a property.

 

The practical need for clear and unambiguous addressing continues to be relevant. That aspect of this policy is fit for purpose, and should be retained within any future policy. However, the current policy offers no guidance on the social and cultural aspects of naming and placemaking.

 

When property owners and developers apply for a road name to be approved by Council, the application form used has an appendix offering guidelines for choosing a road name. This guidance refers to the superceded Road Naming Policy 2012, and it is not included in the current 2014 policy. The appendix provides suitable categories from which names should be chosen: history associated with the area, cultural significance, geographic and natural features, a common theme in the location, or noteworthy people. It also states that all Māori names should be submitted to an iwi representative to ensure that they are correct, appropriate, and not offensive.  

 

The Community Boards have delegated authority to approve road names on behalf of Council. At present, the Te Hiku and Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Boards follow the guidance in the application form, and seek feedback from iwi representatives on all Māori road names. Issues have not been reported with this process.

 

The Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board have required that all road names are approved in consultation with iwi. While this request goes further than the guidelines taken from the superceded 2012 policy, it aligns with the Terms of Reference for Community Boards, namely, that they are expected to “4. Have special regard for the views of Māori.” It is also in alignment with the Council’s values of manaakitanga and respect for te Tiriti.

 

However, the implementation of this request has not been delivering satisfactory results. It does not appear to have resulted in any increase in the adoption of names in te reo Māori, or any improvement in communication between interested parties.

 

Staff report various problems. While many professionals involved in property developments are accustomed to consultation processes, and willing to complete the necessary work, there has sometimes been friction with property owners needing to seek council approval for names for private roads and right-of-ways, which they may view as council infringing on their rights over their property. A further problem arises when the time required to seek approval from LINZ and feedback from iwi representatives causes a delay in the consenting process. Council officers are under-resourced for consultation, and are not currently in a position to facilitate the level of dialogue and communication that may have been envisioned.

 

The current application form requires applicants to come up with a choice of three names, which are then submitted to LINZ for approval and to iwi representatives for feedback. For some property owners, particularly those who may have little other experience of consultation with iwi, and little knowledge of te reo Māori, the guidance in the form is unlikely to encourage them to consider a name in te reo Māori. There is no assistance offered for how to go about sourcing suggestions for appropriate names, should they wish to, and there is a risk that inappropriate names are submitted.

 

Correspondence received by FNDC suggests that some iwi representatives are unhappy with the way the road naming consultation process is working. For iwi representatives, the current process involves them receiving a list of three names with brief notes, to comment on. This post hoc approach to consultation does not offer the opportunity for iwi to have meaningful discussion or input. This does not encourage positive dialogue and relationship building.

 

While the request to consult on all road names aimed to improve communication between Council and tangata whenua, in practice it has not achieved the desired outcome.  The implementation of the request does not appear to have been designed with input from Council officers or iwi representatives. Further research, and in particular seeking input from iwi and hapu as to their priorities and capacity, is required to co-design a more meaningful consultation process. Enlisting the advice and support of iwi representatives will be paramount if we are to improve the road naming policy and its implementation.

 

A policy is the most appropriate mechanism to manage road naming and property numbering. However, further research is required to ensure that the policy is in the appropriate form, and consistent with naming guidelines for other community infrastructure.

5.1.2    Reserves Policy 2017

 

Council’s Reserves Policy 2017 includes a section on the naming of reserves and walkways. It states that names should reflect the history and use of the site, and that the public will be given one month to comment on a proposed name. The policy recommends that a Māori name should be considered if there is a strong Māori connection to a reserve, in consultation with tangata whenua. It also recommends that an appropriate ‘European’ name should be chosen when there is a strong ‘European’ cultural connection to a reserve. The policy also allows for dual naming (Māori/‘European’). All names for reserves require consultation with tangata whenua, reserve users, neighbours, and other interested parties.

 

As is the case with road naming, the Council Delegations to Community Boards (January 2013) authorise Community Boards to allocate names for reserves.

 

Staff do not report problems with the implementation of this policy. However, the description of the cultures of the Far North district as either Māori or ‘European’ is less than ideal. There is an opportunity to consider how the naming of reserves and the consultation process could be improved.

 

A policy is the most appropriate mechanism to manage the naming of reserves. However, further research is required to ensure that the policy is in the appropriate form, and consistent with naming guidelines for other community infrastructure.

 

5.1.3    Art and Memorials in Public Places Policy 2017

 

The third policy which makes reference to naming is the Art and Memorials in Public Places Policy 2017, which provides guidance when Council receives requests for public buildings, roads, and other facilities to be named after notable local individuals. The policy permits roads, buildings, structures, and open spaces to be named after individuals, as a memorial if the person has died, or with written consent if the individual is still living.

 

This policy does not include reference to consultation with iwi. Research up to this point has not identified problems arising from this policy.

 

A policy is an appropriate mechanism to manage the naming of roads, buildings, structures, and open spaces after individuals. However, further research is required to ensure that the policy is in the appropriate form, and consistent with naming guidelines for other community infrastructure.

 

5.1.4    Naming of other Council facilities in the Far North District

 

We do not have a policy for the naming of our public buildings. However, the process of naming new council facilities has worked well. Council officers report that names for Te Ahu in Kaitaia and Te Hononga in Kawakawa grew out of an organic, people-centred process, and reflect the kaupapa of their communities. There is an opportunity to draw on learnings from these successful initiatives to improve the way other infrastructure is named.

 

A policy could be an appropriate mechanism to manage the naming of other Council facilities. However, further research is required to ensure that such a policy is in the appropriate form, and consistent with naming guidelines for other community infrastructure.

 

5.1.5    Lack of consistency across the current policies

 

Of the three policies which include guidance for naming infrastructure, road naming is the one which has proven to be problematic in its implementation. However, there is also a broader issue, in that the policies do not present a consistent, strategic approach to this aspect of place-making. There is an opportunity to streamline and clarify Council’s approach to naming infrastructure in a broader naming policy, in the context of promoting social and cultural wellbeing and supporting the taonga of te reo Māori.

 

6    Discussion

 

The policy guidance for naming community infrastructure, found in three separate policies, was reviewed together, to ensure a consistent, best practice approach.

 

6.1     Is a policy still the most appropriate way to manage naming in the Far North district?

 

The review has identified that a policy is still the most appropriate way to manage road naming and property numbering, the naming of reserves, and requests to name community infrastructure after notable individuals.

 

The review has also identified that a policy could be an appropriate way to manage the naming of other Council facilities, in order to have a consistent approach.

 

6.2     Are the policies in the most appropriate form?

 

The Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy 2014 contains guidance on clear and unambiguous addressing, which is still fit for purpose, and this aspect of the policy should be retained. The policy does not include guidance on the social and cultural aspects of road naming. This aspect of the policy requires amendment or incorporation into a new, more general policy.

 

The guidance on naming in the Reserves Policy 2017 should be amended to describe the cultures of the Far North District more appropriately. The naming provisions in the policy require amendment or incorporation into a new, more general policy.

 

The Art and Memorials in Public Places Policy 2017 provides guidance when Council receives requests for public buildings, roads, and other facilities to be named after notable local individuals. The policy does not include reference to consultation with iwi. This aspect of the policy requires amendment or incorporation into a new, more general policy.

 

There is no Council policy for the naming of our public buildings. However, a policy could be an appropriate mechanism, in order to be consistent with naming guidelines for other community infrastructure.

 

6.3     Is a new, general naming policy the most appropriate mechanism?

 

Research undertaken to date indicates that a new, general naming policy is the most appropriate way to address the current problems related to the road naming process. While the current road naming policy covers the requirements for clear and unambiguous addressing, it offers no guidance on the social and cultural aspects of naming and placemaking.

 

With regard to road naming, the development of a strategic, cohesive naming policy offers the opportunity to:-

·    ensure that the views of interested parties are taken into account;

·    invite iwi representatives to have input into designing the level of communication and consultation that they would consider appropriate for road names;

·    promote the use of te reo Māori in road names; and,

·    improve guidance and support for developers and property owners to seek input from iwi and hapu for suggested road names, should they wish to.

 

The social and cultural aspects of naming and placemaking represent issues that are wider than road naming alone. Significant problems have not been reported with the implementation of the other policies that offer guidance on naming. However, there is an opportunity to improve the guidance in these policies, to mitigate the risk of future problems.

 

6.4     Could a broader naming policy for infrastructure offer the opportunity for additional benefits?

 

A new naming policy would offer several benefits, as it would:-

·    ensure that names reflect the unique culture and identity of the Far North district;

·    encourage and enable the use of te reo Māori names where appropriate;

·    take into account the social and cultural aspects of placemaking;

·    align with the Far North District Council’s values of manaakitanga and respect for te Tiriti; and,

·    enhance the social and cultural wellbeing of the Far North District.

 

6.5     Could a new naming policy streamline and clarify the Council’s policies?

 

Best practice is to provide consistency in naming across a variety of community infrastructure, and a more general naming policy would do this. Some local councils already have comprehensive naming policies in place (e.g. Wellington City Council, Waipa District Council, Tauranga City Council), and some are developing such policies (e.g. Hastings District Council).

 

7    Conclusion

 

At present, Council has three policies that make reference to naming: the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy 2014, the Reserves Policy 2017, and the Art and Memorials in Public Places Policy 2017. These policies are not cohesive. In particular, dissatisfaction has been expressed with the current road naming policy.

 

This research report has identified that the development of a new naming policy is an appropriate way to address issues identified with the Road Naming and Property Numbering Policy 2014, and to promote social and cultural wellbeing in the district through encouraging the use of names in te reo Māori. Further research, consultation with interested parties, and workshops with elected members are required to determine the most appropriate form and precise scope of this naming policy.

 

 

 

 

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

5.4         Far North Spaces and Places Plan

File Number:           A3389446

Author:                    Roger Ackers, Manager - Strategy Development

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

 

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek approval in principle for the Far North Spaces and Places Plan as the plan to deliver on Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua Regional Sports, Active Recreation and Play Strategy in the Far North

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

·      Sport Northland commissioned the development of a regional sport, active recreation and play strategy called Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua 2021-2030 and the development of an implementation plan for the strategy in the Far North - the Far North Spaces and Places Plan.

·      Council staff contributed to the development of these documents which aim to provide high-level strategic frameworks to guide Council’s future decision making. 

·      On 1 July 2021 Council agreed in principle to support 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.

·      Sport Northland consulted on the Far North Spaces and Places Plan with partner and stakeholder representatives of the Far North.

·      The resulting final Far North Spaces and Places Plan is attached to this report.

·      It is recommended that Council supports in principle the Far North Spaces and Places Plan as the plan to implement Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua 2021-2030.

 

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee recommend that Council supports in principle the Far North Spaces and Places Plan as the plan to implement Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua 2021-2030.

 

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Sport Northland commissioned Recreation, Sports and Leisure (RSL) consultants to work with key stakeholders (e.g. hauora organisations, councils, sporting codes, communities, and Sport New Zealand) to develop a regional sport, active recreation and play strategy.

The resulting strategy, Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua 2021-2030, was presented to the Strategy and Policy Committee on 20 June 2021. The Committee recommended that Council agree to support in principle 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.  Council carried this recommendation on 1 July 2021.

Sport Northland also commissioned Recreation, Sports and Leisure (RSL) to develop an implementation plan for Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua 2021-2030 in the Far North, the Far North Spaces and Places Plan.

The draft Far North Spaces and Plan was provided to representatives of Sport Northland partner and stakeholder groups in the Far North for feedback with the feedback period closing 23 July 2021.

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

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

 

Option No.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

1

Support in principle the Far North Spaces and Places Plan as the implementation plan for the strategy Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua 2021-2030

Allows time to plan how this strategy will be implemented and who will ‘drive’ it.  This will be including the preparation of business cases for annual and long-term plans

Key stakeholders frustrated by slow progress within Far North District and support for strategy could appear to be ‘tepid’.

2

Adopt the Far North Spaces and Places Plan as the implementation plan for the strategy Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua 2021-2030

Gives the impression that Council is fully supportive and resourced to deliver everything in the Far North Spaces and Places Plan

Without required resources such as a project owner / ‘driver’ or budgets, implementation is likely to be unsuccessful.

3

Do not support the Far North Spaces and Places Plan

No extra resourcing required and focused on BAU can continue without interruption

Opportunity lost to review and improve how we deliver on sports, rec, parks and play in the Far North.

Sector relationships may become fractured.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

Option 1 is recommended - Support in principle the Far North Spaces and Places Plan as the implementation plan for the Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua strategy as there are resourcing issues that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of Kōkiri ai Te Waka Hourua 2021-2030.

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

There are no direct financial implications and budgetary provisions that would result from the approval of the recommendation in this report.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1.       Far North Spaces and Places Plan - A3389443  


 

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement

Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment

State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

The level of significance is considered to be low for the following reasons;

·        any financial implications can be planned for over time

·        the document is not a statutory requirement

·        it is consistent with legislation and council policies.

State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.

Council’s community development framework is relevant as it defines the approach, we take in supporting the development of Far North communities. The framework includes;

Increasing opportunities for communities to determine the things they care about,

Providing communities a chance to have their say and engage in meaningful dialogue on the things that affect them

Empowering communities to design, prioritise and engage on local initiatives

Building community spirit

The following Long Term Plan community outcomes are also considered to be of relevance;

Communities that are healthy, safe, connected, and sustainable

Proud, vibrant communities

Prosperous communities supported by a sustainable economy

A wisely managed and treasured environment that recognises the special role of tāngata whenua as kaitiaki

The Far North Spaces and Places Plan also supports the delivery of FN2100, Council’s vision of He Whenua Rangatira and Sections 3 and 10 of Local Government Act 2002 to “…promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future” and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) Section 5, to “…promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources  in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety.”

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

State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.

 

This strategy has regional relevance.

Implementation needs to work closely with the Community Boards, with these Boards having delegations for "civic amenities", including;

Amenity lightingFootpaths/cycle ways and walkwaysPublic toiletsReservesHallsSwimming pools

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.

Iwi, hapū and whanau have engaged in the development of the strategy and the implementation plan via working groups and surveys.

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 Far North Spaces and Places Plan will be of interest to a large proportion of the Northland population. Sports, recreation, parks, and play is something our communities really care about.

 

State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.

There are no financial implications or budgetary provisions required to the support recommended decision in this report.

Chief Financial Officer review.

The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report

 

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

6            Information Reports

6.1         Update on Spatial Planning

File Number:           A3391562

Author:                    Roger Ackers, Manager - Strategy Development

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

 

TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report

To provide the Committee with an update on the spatial planning projects that are in progress.

WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY

·      Staff have initiated a project to review the 2007 Kerikeri/Waipapa Structure Plan as an outcome of the Far North 2100 workshop on 10 August 2021.  This report provides a summary of the project plan to deliver on this review.

·      An update on the Northland Urban Growth Partnerships is provided in this report.

 TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Update on Spatial Planning.

 

tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background

On the 10th of August 2021 staff led a workshop with elected members on ‘what next for Far North 2100?”.  

An outcome of the workshop was the direction to staff to undertake a review of the 2007 Kerikeri / Waipapa Structure Plan as the first spatial planning project initiated as part of the implementation of Far North 2100.

MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps

Kerikeri/Waipapa Structure Plan Review

The review of the Kerikeri / Waipapa Structure Plan will be guided by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) and will be based on the requirements of a Future Development Strategy as per Subpart 4 of the NPS-UD.

The review of the Kerikeri / Waipapa Structure Plan will guide, support, and inform the draft District Plan as we to notification of the District Plan.

Staff commenced the Kerikeri / Waipapa Spatial Plan review on 10 September 2021 with an initial meeting with Ree Anderson who has been engaged as the lead consultant on this project.  A similar meeting with the Infrastructure Planning Team was also held the week of 13 September.

The high-level tasks, deliverables, milestones, and planned dates for this Spatial Planning Project are as follows.  The planned dates below are being impacted by the continuation of Covid-19 alert levels across the Country:

Task, deliverable, milestone

Planned dates

Comment

Kick off workshop with elected member and the Bay of Islands / Whangaroa Community Board

September 2021

The workshop will cover the NPS -UD provisions, the 2007 Structure Plan, the elected rep views on the future, potential options for ways forward, potential governance structures and opportunities for stakeholder and community engagement

Key stakeholder workshops

October 2021

 

Community consultation for Initial feedback

15 November 2021 – 15 December 2021

 

Draft Spatial Plan

Early February 2022

 

Iwi and community hui on draft Spatial Plan

Between 21 and 25 February 2022

 

Formal consultation on a draft Spatial Plan

20 March 2022 – 20 April 2022

 

Hearings

Between 5 May 2022 and 10 May 2022

 

Final Kerikeri/Waipapa Spatial Plan to Committee and Council

June 2022

 

 

Northland Urban Growth Partnerships

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) has identified Northland as one of several priority geographic areas under the governments Urban Growth Agenda (UGA).  The objective of the UGA is:

“…to improve housing affordability, underpinned by affordable urban land. This objective is supported by wider objectives to:

•        improve choices about the location and type of housing.

•        improve access to employment, education, and services.

•        assist emission reductions and build climate resilience.

•        enable quality-built environments, while avoiding unnecessary sprawl.”

Urban growth partnerships formalise the relationships between the Crown, local government, iwi, and local communities in a particular geographic area to deliver the objective.  The urban growth partnerships have three aspects:

1.       Partnership – bringing together key Ministers, government agencies (e.g. Kāinga Ora, Ministry of Transport and Waka Kotahi), councils and iwi. The idea being that value can be gained from just sitting around the table and talking.  Ministers Mahuta and Henare have been nominated for Northland.

2.       Spatial plan – a high level plan which typically identifies growth areas and key infrastructure, within the context of constraints (such as flood hazards and high value natural areas).

3.       Programme – identification of key projects (typically combined with the spatial plan).

Staff from Northland’s four councils have been in discussions with MHUD and other central government agencies on the how an urban growth partnership model may look in Northland.  The discussions have focussed on the geographic scope of the spatial plan and identifying an appropriate group to oversee the spatial plan - the following is a summary of the discussions:

•        Whai Kāinga has been selected as the steering group for the urban growth partnership with Minister Mahuta directing that an existing group be used (rather than create a new one). 

•        Whai Kāinga leads the regional housing work programme which is one of four priorities under the Public Sector Regional Leads framework.  It consists of CEOs from the three territorial authorities (WDC, KDC and FNDC), Ngāpuhi and Kāinga Ora, MHUD Deputy Chief Executives and MSD, and TPK Regional Commissioners.  It is chaired by Eru Lyndon (MSD) as the Regional Public Sector Lead. 

•        Northland Regional Council isn’t represented on Whai Kāinga, but it’s proposed they be invited on for the urban growth partnership work. 

•        Whai Kāinga were comfortable with the prospect of an urban growth partnership being developed within its work programme.

•        Initial discussions have focussed on a corridor following State Highway 1 from Auckland to Bay of Islands.  However, recently MHUD have suggested it be expanded to include the whole of Northland.  The idea being it would achieve two goals –

·      address the high growth areas.

·      assist with spatial planning requirements as per the new Strategic Planning Act.

Northland Regional Council presented a report to the August Chief Executives Forum seeking the Mayoral Forums direction. The summary of direction is as follows:

The Mayors and Chairs.

•        Are committed to the project.

•        Support a whole of Northland approach.

•        Continue with Whai Kāinga as the steering group.

•        Look to further explore other governance options with the support of Te Kahu of Taonui and Minister Mahuta later in 2021.

MHUD has proposed that the Northland Urban Growth Partnerships include priority development areas (PDA).  These could be nodes of existing growth or potential for growth with seed projects.  The Far North District Council will be able to nominate places in the Far North as PDAs that would be reported back to the responsible minister as part of the regular reporting back by MHUD.

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

There are no financial or budgetary implications that would result from the information contained in this report

Āpitihanga / Attachments

Nil

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

6.2         Kaikohe Civic Hub Working Party update

File Number:           A3270171

Author:                    Bill Lee, Special Projects Manager - Te Hono

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

 

TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report

To provide the Strategy and Policy Committee with an update on the Civic Hub Working Party.

WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY

·      A working party was formed under the Strategy and Policy Committee to advance the development of a Civic Hub with stage 1, the building of a new library as the priority. 

·      The Kaikohe Civic Hub Working Party (KCHWP) has commissioned a study to assist with the formation of a recommendation to Council.

 TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Kaikohe Civic Hub Working Party update.

tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background

Council consulted on a Civic and Community Hub, including library, in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.  To incorporate the wider community facilities, Council needed partnerships and external funding of around $20 million for the Civic and Community Hub to be realised.  While the partnerships developed, despite all good intentions and a significant amount of work, we were unable to secure the further funding.

Council has subsequently decided to advance the Civic Hub, including library and at the 23 March Strategy and Policy Committee endorsed the creation of a Kaikohe Civic Hub Working Party (KCWHP) to determine a suitable site and scope.  The KCHWP consists of 4 Elected Members (with voting rights) along with 2 community representatives and 2 staff. 

Funding for the Civic Hub and Library was carried over into the first 3 years of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

The principal purpose of the KCWHP is to work collaboratively with the community in reviewing the options for building a Civic Hub in Kaikohe and supporting Council to deliver the project.  Phase 1 is the building of a new library facility, however, the KCWHP needs to consider it in the wider context of enhancing Kaikohe and the surrounding linkages.

The KCHWP has had 5 meetings during the 2020/21 financial year and has commissioned a study that will be undertaken by Ākau, which is discussed below.

MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps

The Kaikohe study / research work commissioned by the KCHWP comprises 3 pieces of interlinked work.  The studies are expected to be completed by the end of October 2021, with a view that the KCHWP will in a position to make a recommendation(s) to the Strategy & Policy Committee at the meeting, 30 November 2021.

These are set out below.

1.   Kaikohe Masterplan – To take a big picture overview of Kaikohe township and develop a masterplan of current and future opportunities.  The starting point for the masterplan will be the Waka Kotahi Township Plan and consider Community Plans and other planning documents developed for Kaikohe.  The plan will locate and map existing projects and identify next potential projects for development and funding.

2.   Broadway Concept Plan – The purpose of this plan is to consider the issues, opportunities linked to the main street of Kaikohe and how it connects to both current key spaces and future priorities as identified in the Masterplan. 

 

The issues being considered, but not restricted to, are - user experiences (vehicle, cycling, pedestrians), important sites, connections to side streets, heavy vehicle bypass and parking.  Consultation and engagement will be a key component for this study and the concept plan that emerges.

 

3.   Civic Hub Site Assessment – An assessment of suitable potential sites for the Civic Hub (Library as phase 1) within the context of the 2 previous studies.  This assessment will lead to a high-level spatial plan testing how the site would work, and any other projects required to facilitate the development.  The study will also identify drivers so that design reflects Kaikohe identity.

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

Budget provision for the Kaikohe Civic Hub (including Library) have been allocated in years 1 to 3 of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

Nil

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

6.3         Future Libraries progress report

File Number:           A3344015

Author:                    Chris Pigott, Manager - Libraries and Museums

Authoriser:             Dean Myburgh, General Manager - District Services

 

TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report

To provide an update about FNDC Libraries progress towards meeting Future Libraries strategic outcomes.

WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY

·      FNDC Libraries Future Libraries strategy was signed off by council in 2018. Since then, considerable work has been undertaken by the library team to achieve the outcomes listed in the strategy.

·      Progress in the last year includes the opening of the new library in Te Hononga in Kawakawa, improving access to children and teens through overdue fine removal, and an increase in the delivery of programming across the network. Online library use has also increased significantly over the past year.

·      Key work that is underway but not yet completed includes the addition of customer self-check machines and the implementation of a local history online database. Both are on track to be completed by the end of the calendar year.

·      One goal that has not significantly progressed is the development of a shared library network across all of Northland.

 TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Future Libraries progress report.

 

tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background

The Future Libraries strategy document was signed off in 20218. This is an update on progress against key focus areas.

MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps

1.       Completed in 2020-2021

Work was completed achieving the outcomes below:

I.     Opening of the new Kawakawa Library

The Te Hononga Centre opened in November 2020. The library team has worked hard to ensure the local community received full benefit from the space, with a high-quality collection and an innovative range of programmes and services. These include robotics and Minecraft session for children, and a well-attended ongoing sustainability programme.

II.    Removal of library fines for children and teens

Fines for children and teens were removed in July 2020. Over the next twelve months, borrowing by this group grew by 74%. This increase suggests that fees and charges had previously been viewed as a barrier by young people and their parents. Consideration should be given to the removal of all fines, with a clear benefit of more people using the libraries and reading.

III.   Outreach services

The outreach service continues to grow, with more visits into schools and into community spaces to provide access to books and other services. Successful outreach initiatives include the delivery of robotics sessions for children in Mangonui Hall, and increased use of the monthly pop-up library at Opononi. A van was secured for the service for two years with funding from the New Zealand Libraries Partnership Programme (NZLPP).

IV.   Digital programmes and services

The NZLPP also provided funding for staffing in a specialist Digital Programmes role. This staff member has developed a programme framework, grown the robotics programme into more libraries and into schools, and implemented MineCraft club, the most well attended programme for youth in libraries. Digital borrowing kits are also about to be launched. These will enable families to experiment with new and creative technologies at home.

V.    Services for Māori

The NZLPP also provided funding for staffing in a specialist Services for Māori role. This staff member has increased the size of the Māori book collection, developed an online Te Whare Pukapuka space that connects to useful resources, and started basic te reo and waiata classes with library staff. She has also connected with community groups to launch Purapura Pai at Kawakawa and Kaikohe, and with New Zealand Corrections to provide planter boxes for Matariki. An upcoming focus is building a framework for delivery of future services for Māori.

VI.   NZLPP roles

The two roles above are funded by NZLPP until June 30, 2022. Both have added value to our community services. Sustained delivery against the Future Libraries strategy will be compromised when these roles come to an end.

VII.  Programmes and services

An increased range of public programming is beginning to be offered across our library network. These include new early literacy programmes for 0-2-year old’s, Crafternoons, Robotics clubs, Lego clubs, Virtual Reality in retirement villages, MineCraft club, sustainability events, sensory play spaces, and a range of adult programmes including Armchair Travel. English as a second language and CV writing programmes.

VIII. Increased online content

New online databases Press Reader and Beamafilm have proved popular with customers and have contributed to a significant growth in the use of online content. Other additions included an app to support the learning of Te Reo, a research database and online New Zealand history collections. These were supported by funding from the NZLPP.

IX.   Partnerships

The library team has developed an increasing range of partnerships to support services. These include working with the digital team at Waitangi Museum for professional development, providing services into an increased number of schools, connecting with the team at Te Kono in Kaikohe and looking for opportunities for future collaborations with Creative Northland.

X.    Review

Libraries are currently reviewing their capacity and capability to delivery on the Future Libraries strategy and implementation plan, including comparisons against other similar libraries.

2.       Future work

Plans are underway to begin work in the areas below in the next financial year:

I.     RFID

RFID is the implementation of technology to enable customer self-service. It also facilitates a reduction of staff manual handling of library books. This will enable a shift in the library service delivery model, with increased focus on transformational community programming and services, and less transactional work. It is scheduled to be life in December 2021.

II.    Capturing the history of the Far North

Procurement has begun for a local history database that will enable the capture and telling of stories from across the Far North. This is planned to be live in early 2022.

III.   Adult Literacy

Research has begun into the delivery of adult literacy programmes run out of public libraries.

IV.   Northland libraries one card

Preliminary discussions have been held with Kaipara and Whangarei libraries about the potential for shared services, including one library card across the region.

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

Nil

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1.       Far North District Libraries Strategy - adopted Dec 2017 - A3369843  

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

6.4         Museum at Te Ahu Strategy Update

File Number:           A3399124

Author:                    Chris Pigott, Manager - Libraries and Museums

Authoriser:             Dean Myburgh, General Manager - District Services

 

TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report

To provide an update about the Museum at Te Ahu’s strategy.

WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY

·      The Museum at Te Ahu is managed by FNDC, and is a key contributor to the cultural well-being of the district

·      The Museum has launched a 2021-2026 strategy

·      The strategy has six focus areas that will help shape future services

 TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Museum at Te Ahu Strategy Update.

 

tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background

The Museum at Te Ahu is managed by FNDC with governance provided by the Far North Regional Museum Trust.

In January 2021, the Museum team completed work that resulted in the publication of the Museum Strategy 2021-2026 (attached for optional reading). FNDC staff led this work, with funding for the delivery of the strategy sourced externally via the Trust.

The Strategy Planning and Policy team were involved in the development of the strategy. They provided advice and supported public consultation and stakeholder workshops that were completed.

The strategy has six key focus areas, listed below.

Strategic Focus Areas

1.    Collaborate and respond.

2.    Be a hive of learning, discovering, and creating.

3.    Sustain ourselves financially (and become resilient).

4.    Enrich our collections.

5.    Go digital – both in the building and online.

6.    Make our physical spaces bigger and better.

MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps

There are no immediate requests to FNDC to increase the level of funding for the Museum. However, the Trust and FNDC staff are considering future applications during Long Term Plan and Annual Plan submission processes.

While most projects the Museum completes are externally funded, areas that may be appropriate for FNDC to consider supporting in the future include:

·      Increased staffing levels to support work to support local schools in the delivery of the new New Zealand History Curriculum

·      Increased staffing to support the implementation of new digital resources, including a new website, supporting recent database improvements and the use of emerging technologies as part of the visitor experience

·      Use of increased space within Te Ahu, leading to the development of an education space and an increased Taonga Māori collection

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

There are no financial implications.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1.       Te Ahu Museum Strategy - A3419678  

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

6.5         Natural and Built Environments Act Exposure Draft Submission

File Number:           A3320129

Author:                    Andrew McPhee, Senior Policy Planner

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

 

TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report

The purpose of the report is to inform the Strategy and Policy Committee of the submission prepared by the Far North District Council (Council) on the exposure draft for the Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA).

WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY

Central Government (Government) is in the process of reforming New Zealand’s resource management framework. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) will be repealed and replaced with three new pieces of legislation.

An exposure draft for the NBA is the first of those three new pieces of legislation available for comment and a submission was prepared and lodged by the Council on 3 August 2021.

A select committee will report their findings from the submission process for the NBA back to the House, which will inform further policy development on the reform process.

A second opportunity will be made available when the full NBA bill is introduced to Parliament, along with the Strategic Planning Act bill (SPA), in early 2022.

 TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Natural and Built Environments Act Exposure Draft Submission.

 

tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background

In February 2021, Government announced it would repeal the RMA and enact new legislation based on the recommendations of the Resource Management Review Panel. Government is preparing three new Acts:

·      Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) - the main replacement for the RMA and is designed to protect and restore the environment while better enabling development;

·      Strategic Planning Act (SPA) - requires the development of long-term regional spatial strategies to help coordinate and integrate decisions made under relevant legislation; and

·      Climate Adaptation Act (CAA) - supports New Zealand’s response to the effects of climate change and will address the legal and technical issues associated with managed retreat, as well as the funding and financing for adaptation.

In July 2021 Government released an exposure draft for the NBA, along with a parliamentary paper, and called for submissions on its content. No content has been made available for the SPA or CAA at this juncture.

A submission was prepared by Council on the exposure draft for the NBA and was lodged with the Ministry for the Environment on 3 August 2021 (see Attachment 1). The timing required for that submission meant approval could be obtained through the Strategy and Policy Committee (STRAT). The submission was prepared inhouse by a Council officer and content was consulted on with the following:

·      the Chair of the STRAT;

·      the Portfolio Leader;

·      the Chief Executive; and

·      the General Manager – Strategic Policy and Planning

The submission was lodged under delegated authority through the Strategy and Policy Committee Terms of Reference.

MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps

The content in the exposure draft for the NBA was high-level and did not provide a sufficient level of detail to allow Council to provide meaningful feedback. Any detail around the SPA or CAA and how they will relate to the NBA was also absent.

Council had a representative on the Resource Management Reform Reference Group (RMRRG) who had input into the submission on the exposure draft of the NBA for Taituarā. The Taituarā submission was comprehensive, and to reduce duplication to the Council submission concentrated on those matters of particular relevance to the Far North District (FND). Council’s submission stated that it should be read in conjunction with the Taituarā submission (see Attachment 2).

Council’s representative on the RMRRG also had an opportunity comment and feed into the Council submission.

In summary Council’s submission concentrated on the following topics:

·      Territorial authority functions – what role does local democracy have in the new legislative framework;

·      Tangata whenua – what is tāngata whenua’s role in the new legislation and how will that role will be resourced. What is the relationship with treaty settlement legislation;

·      The purpose of the NBA – what is the relationship between the natural and built environments;

·      Environmental limits and outcomes – how will environmental limits be set and will they be consistent across the country. Will there be a hierarchy for environmental outcomes;

·      Implementation and resourcing – how will the transition from the RMA and implementation of the NBA will be resourced. Where will the responsibility lie to resource the research to set environmental limits.

·      National planning framework (NPF) – what is the role of local government in developing the NPF and what functions will sit with territorial authorities vs planning committees;

·      Planning committees – what level of local representation will there be on the planning committee.

A select committee will now process the submissions received across the county and report their findings back to the House. It is expected that the submissions will help inform further policy development on the reform process. Government has indicated that a second opportunity will be made available when the full NBA bill is introduced to Parliament, along with the SPA, in early 2022.

Government’s intention is to enact both the NBA and the SPA in this parliamentary term.

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

There are no financial implications for Council contributing by way of submission to the exposure draft for the NBA. The preparation of the submission was absorbed within existing budgets.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1.       FNDC Submission NBA exposure draft_August2021 - A3324027

2.       Taituara_ submission on the exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environments Act - A3325384  

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

6.6         Audit report for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan

File Number:           A3334278

Author:                    Janice Smith, Chief Financial Officer

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

 

TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report

To present the Audit New Zealand management report on the 2021-31 Long Term Plan

WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY

Audit New Zealand are the appointed auditors for Council. They are charged with auditing the Council’s Consultation Document and the subsequent Long-Term Plan.

The output from the audit process is a management report that identifies any issues that require management attention.

 TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Audit report for the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

 

tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background

Audit New Zealand carried out the audit of the Consultation Document and the Long-Term Plan between January 2021 and June 2021.

The attached management report details the process followed and any matters raised during the audit.

MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps

The management report identifies three issues that were brought to Council’s attention. They were:

1.   Three waters reform:

The report notes that a “matter of emphasis” was included in the report and notes that:

 

Due to its uncertainty (three water reform), we have continued to conclude that bringing the readers’ attention to the three waters reforms by including an emphasis of matter paragraph in our opinion is appropriate

 

2.   Uncertainty over asset condition and performance information:

The report acknowledges that Council is on a journey to improve asset condition and performance information and that this was disclosed in the plan. The report noted that:

 

We have concluded it is still appropriate to include an emphasis of matter paragraph in our opinion highlighting to the reader the uncertainty over the water supply and wastewater asset condition and performance information

 

3.   Capital expenditure achievability:

The report makes comment on the previous levels of capital work achieved, particularly referencing the additional funds allocated to Council through the Economic Stimulus Employment Opportunities funds. The report noted that:

 

We have concluded it is still appropriate to include an emphasis of matter paragraph in our opinion highlighting to the reader the uncertainty over the water supply and wastewater asset condition and performance information

 

The report also contained three areas where management were asked to provide comments. Two of those areas related to future iterations of the plan (Infrastructure Strategy and Waka Kotahi funding).

 

The third specifically referred to the Consultation Document presentation of the proposed transition from land value rating to capital value rating. The comments noted:

 

The Office also found that the CD’s presentation of the proposed rates basis transition from land value (LV) to capital value (CV) phased over the 10-year period (that is, 90% LV/10% CV in year 1 through to 100% CV in year 10) was not in line with legislation as it appeared to apply to the general rate. This is because the basis for a general rate must either be 100% LV or 100% CV (it cannot be a mixture of the two).

 

Management have commented on this and provided the following response:

 

Council does not agree with your comment in relation to the proposed rate transition from LV to CV. Council proposed a “general rate” that was based 100% on land value. Council then proposed a “targeted differential” based on CV and that moved a proportion of the rates requirement from LV to CV over a 10-year period. The methodology followed did not create a composite rate as that is not legal under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The Consultation document showed the rate “examples” with a header indicating 90% LV/10% CV as that was the only way to incorporate the transition into the table. It did not mean that the General Rate was based on anything other than 100% of the underlying values. It is Council’s view that the comments above are incorrect.

 

To ensure that should Council wish to revisit a change to capital value in the future, the wording used to explain the transition will be reviewed externally to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

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

None

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1.       FNDC 21P - LTP Report to Governors - A3334155  

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

6.7         Strategic Planning & Policy Business Quarterly Report

File Number:           A3396885

Author:                    Gayle Andersen, Executive Assistant to General Manager

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

 

TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report

To inform the Strategy and Policy Committee about the activities undertaken by the Strategic Planning and Policy Group.

WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY

The Strategic Planning and Policy Business Quarterly provides an overview of Strategic Planning and Policy activity for the quarter ending September 2021.

 TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Strategic Planning & Policy Business Quarterly Report.

 

tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background

The Strategic Planning and Policy Group is responsible for strategic planning and policy, corporate planning, inwards investment and community funding, community and Māori development, district planning, strategic council relationships and the supporting of Council groups / departments with engagement.  The Group’s work programme has been refined to deliver identified service outcomes such as key performance indicators and projects of strategic importance to Council.

MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps

The Strategic Planning and Policy Group has developed a Business Quarterly report to provide an update on the broad spectrum of projects it is responsible for.  The report, combined with the extensive range of services the Group provides, will be revised, and updated on a quarterly basis to reflect changes in projects, scope of work and complexity.

In addition to this update, the business group will continue to apprise Elected Members via the usual channels of Council and Committee reports, workshops, and the Chief Executive Report to Council.

The purpose of the Business Quarterly is to show the planned progress of the work programme and the regular service delivery work undertaken by the Group.

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

There are no financial implications or budgetary provision required.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1.       Strategic Planning & Policy Business Quarterly July - September 2021. - A3426613  

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

6.8         Strategy and Policy Action Sheet Update October 2021

File Number:           A3409261

Author:                    Marlema Baker, Meetings Administrator

Authoriser:             Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Democracy Services

 

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To provide the Strategy and Policy Committee with an overview of outstanding decisions from 1 January 2020.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

·      Council staff have reintroduced action sheets as a mechanism to communicate progress against decisions/resolutions and confirm when decisions have been implemented.

·      The focus of this paper is on Strategy and Policy decisions.

·      Action sheets are also in place for Council and Community Boards.

 

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That the Strategy and Policy Committee receive the report Action Sheet Update October 2021.

 

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The Democracy Services Team have been working on a solution to ensure that elected members can receive regular updates on progress against decisions made at meetings, in alignment with a Chief Executive Officer key performance indicator.

Action sheets have been designed as a way to close the loop and communicate with elected members on the decisions made by way of resolution at formal meetings.

Action sheets are not intended to be public information but will provide updates to elected members, who, when appropriate can report back to their communities and constituents.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The outstanding tasks are multi-facet projects that take longer to fully complete.

The Democracy Services staff are working with staff to ensure that the project completion times are updated so that action sheets provided to members differentiate between work outstanding and work in progress.

Take Tūtohunga / Reason for the recommendation

To provide the Strategy and Policy Committee with an overview of outstanding committee decisions from 1 January 2020.

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

There are no financial implications or need for budgetary provision in receiving this report.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1.       SPP Action Sheet as at October 2021 - A3409206  

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Strategy and Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

19 October 2021

 

7            Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing Prayer

8            Te Kapinga Hui / Meeting Close



[1] Infrastructure Committee Meeting 21 July 2021

[2] Sustainable Procurement Policy

[3] Land Transport Rule – The Setting of Speed Limits

[4] Tackling Unsafe Speeds

[5] Document number A1579311

[6] Maihi Karauna: The Crown’s Strategy for Māori Language Revitalisation 2019-2023.

[7] 2018 Census.  

[8] Hamilton politicians shy away from mandatory Māori street names” Stuff, 5 August 2021. It should be noted that mandatory Māori street names was not in fact part of the proposed policy.

John Bryce was a ‘fundamentally awful person’ but Kiwis name streets after him” Stuff, 15 August 2021.