Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting - Thursday, 13 February 2025

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

13 February 2025

5 Te Whakaaetanga o Ngā Meneti o Mua / Confirmation of Previous Minutes

5.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

File Number: A5056459

Author: Marysa Maheno, Democracy Advisor

Authoriser: Aisha Huriwai, Manager - Democracy Services

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

The minutes are attached to allow Council to confirm that the minutes are a true and correct record

of previous meetings.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council confirm the minutes of the Council meeting held 12 December 2024 are a true and correct record.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / 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) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The minutes of the meetings 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.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

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

previous meetings.

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

There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision as a result of this report.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. 2024-12-12 Council Minutes [A5015693] - A5015693 ⇩

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	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. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	There are no implications for Māori in confirming minutes from 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 (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities).	This report is asking for 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.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

13 February 2025

6 Ngā Pūrongo / Reports

6.1 Maritime Facilities Bylaw - Analysis of Submissions and Adoption of a new Bylaw

File Number: A4910501

Author: Dan Bowmar, Policy Advisor

Authoriser: Roger Ackers, Group Manager - Planning & Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to seek approval from Council to adopt a new Maritime Facilities Bylaw under sections 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act 2002.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· The proposed new Maritime Facilities Bylaw (Bylaw) will replace the current Maritime Facilities Bylaw 2002 and the Mooring Charges Bylaw 2002

· On 07 April 2022 after a review of the Maritime Facilities and Mooring Charges Bylaws, Council approved the development of a new Maritime Facilities Bylaw, under sections 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act 2002.

· On 06 September 2022, the Council approved a proposal for the proposed new Bylaw to be released for public consultation. This consultation was put on hold by the CEO at the time.

· On 21 September 2023, the Council approved a new proposal for the proposed new Bylaw to be released for public consultation.

· Initial consultation on the proposal was from 12 October to 16 November 2023, with oral submissions heard on 09 July 2024

· Attachment 1 shows the recommended changes to the draft amended Bylaw in response to submissions.

· Attachment 2 shows recommended changes to the draft

· Attachment 3 is the final recommended new Bylaw.

TŪTOHUNGA / RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

a) approve the recommendations in the staff report in attachment 1 that:

i) the preliminary clause, clauses 4 to 10, clause 14 and clauses 19, 20, and 21, are amended to improve certainty and clarity

ii) no changes are made to clauses 1 to 3, 11 to 13, 15 to 18, and 22 to 23

b) adopt the new Maritime Facilities Bylaw in attachment 3 under sections 145 of the Local Government Act 2002 and every other enabling power and authority

c) revoke the Maritime Facilities Bylaw 2002 and the Mooring Charges Bylaw 2002.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

On 08 February 2002, the Maritime Facilities and Mooring Charges Bylaws were adopted.

On 07 April 2022 (resolution 2022/18 refers), after a review of the two bylaws, Council approved the development of a new Maritime Facilities Bylaw, under sections 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act 2002.

On 06 September 2022 (resolution 2022/56 refers), Council approved a proposal for the proposed new Bylaw to be released for public consultation. This consultation was put on hold by the CEO at the time.

On 21 September 2023 (resolution 2023/113 refers), Council approved a new proposal for the proposed Bylaw to be released for public consultation.

The period during which people could make written submissions on the proposal was 12 October to 16 November 2023 while oral submissions were heard on 09 July 2024. Forty-two submissions were received in total - 36 written submissions (21 online and 15 by email) and 6 oral submissions.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Support for the proposed Bylaw

From 36 written submissions:

· 18 submitters (50%) supported the proposed Bylaw – 8 gave full support (22%) while 10 supported the Bylaw in part (28%)

· 11 did not support the Bylaw (31%)

· 7 were unsure (19%)

Reasons for supporting the proposed bylaw in part or in full were:

· Support for the principles and values of the proposed Bylaw (expressed in a submission representing approximately 80% of Ōpito Bay residents)

· The Bylaw is reasonable and fair (4 responses)

· Support for combining the two existing Bylaws (2 responses)

Concerns and queries:

1. General concerns regarding:

· Balance given to recreational users versus commercial users (5 responses)

· Enforcement of the Bylaw (4 responses)

· Removal of the rights of mooring holders (1 response)

· Re fees and charges (1 response)

· The maritime facilities should be privatised (1 response)

2. Concerns about Council’s role regarding the proposed Bylaw

· Council does not have the authority to make the Bylaw (1 response)

· Duplication of the powers of Council and NRC (1 response)

· Suspicion about Council’s hidden agenda (1 response)

· Who is responsible for improvements to maritime facilities? (1 response)

3. Concerns from commercial users

· Re the fee structure and fairness (4 responses)

· Needing clarity around implementation details (3 responses)

· Impact on small businesses and industries (3 responses)

· The regulatory burden (2 responses)

· Infrastructure maintenance and revenue use (1 response)

· Commercial access to the facilities (1 response)

4. Māori and Treaty Matters

· Treaty of Waitangi obligations (2 responses)

· Consultation and Inclusivity (2 responses)

· Māori rights and access (1 response)

· Free and accessible marine assets (1 response)

· Accountability and mitigation of harm (1 response)

5. Concerns that are wider than the proposed Bylaw

· Concerns about health and safety of the facilities (1 response)

· Council should use other methods of charging (1 response)

· Concerns about the Ōpito Bay ramp specifically (1 response on behalf of approximately 80% of Ōpito Bay residents)

· Concerns about the Windsor Landing ramp specifically (1 response)

· Need to take a broad view of a complex issue (1 response)

· Lack of investment (1 response)

· Rules for privately owned maritime facilities (1 response)

· Re ‘further engagement’ mentioned in the Proposal document (1 response)

Feedback on specific clauses in the Bylaw:

In addition to the general positive feedback and concerns summarised above, submitters commented or made suggestions on fifteen clauses in the draft Bylaw. This feedback is analysed in Attachment 1. The analysis resulted in two recommendations by Council staff to amend or delete these clauses to improve certainty and clarity:

1. Amendment to Clause 6(2) - Prohibition of unsafe practices on, under or about any maritime facility

· Clause 6(2) states “No persons shall engage in any activity or unsafe practice on, under or about any maritime facility”

· Staff agree with a submission that the word ‘unsafe’ should be included in this Clause as follows: “No persons shall engage in any unsafe activity or unsafe practice on, under or about any maritime facility”

2. Deletion of Clause 20 - Wastewater discharge

· Clause 20 states: “When berthing at, coming alongside or using any Maritime Facility the Master or owner of every Vessel must ensure that they have sealed all waste water discharge seacocks with the exception of bilge, refrigeration and engine cooling system discharge points and shall permit officers of the Northland Regional Council, Far North District Council or their agents to board Vessels at any time to inspect the Vessel and/or to check any discharges”

· A submission pointed out that this Clause is an overreach as rules and regulations are already enforced by Northern Regional Council and Maritime New Zealand

· Staff agree that it is unnecessary for this provision to be included in the Bylaw, as issues regarding discharges to water are already covered by the Resource Management Act 1991 and administered by Northern Regional Council and others.

COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 155 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

1) Bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the problem

A review by Allen and Clarke Policy and Regulatory Specialists Ltd, identified that a bylaw is the most appropriate way to address perceived problems regarding maritime facilities as there is no other regulatory instrument or method with which Council could use to manage and regulate the maritime facilities under its jurisdiction. This was agreed by Council on 07 April 2022 for the purposes of section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002

2) Form of the Bylaw

If the recommended changes are agreed to, Council staff advise that the amended Maritime Facilities and Fees Bylaw in Attachment 3 is an appropriate form of bylaw for the purposes of section 155(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002.

3) Compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

As required by section 155(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002, before a local authority makes a bylaw, it must determine whether the proposed bylaw has any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Part 2 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 sets out twenty rights that are affirmed and protected, that may only be subject to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Section 155(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the Council to determine if the proposed bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

An assessment identified that Section 18: Freedom of Movement, may be impacted by the new bylaw in that the Council may limit access to maritime facilities according to commercial or recreational use and to ensure health and safety.

The purpose of the bylaw is to impose reasonable limitations on behaviour and access to maritime facilities to enhance the safety of the community and minimise the incidence of public disturbance. The provisions in the Proposed Maritime Facilities Bylaw are justified because they only limit the rights of individuals to the extent it is reasonable to do so, for other people’s rights and freedoms to be maintained.

Therefore, any limitations on the right to freedom of movement are justified in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Next steps will include:

· Licensing Process for Commercial Operators

· Fees and Charges for Commercial Operators

· Communications with Commercial Operators and the Wider Public

· A Review of the Maritime Management Agreement to Ensure Alignment with the New Bylaw

Licensing Process for Commercial Operators

Far North Holdings Limited will have a Principal Policy Statement for the Commercial Use of Recreational Maritime Facilities document available for commercial operators. This policy aims to:

1. establish sustainable commercial use of the Council’s recreational maritime assets where appropriate

2. ensure public access and enjoyment of these assets

3. ensure the fair and equitable use of recreational maritime assets by all users

4. ensure the safety and environmental integrity of all users.

This policy relates directly to commercial use over recreational assets.

The policy will cover:

· The scope and purpose of the policy

· Commercial use and fees

· Assessment criteria

· Fees and Charges

· Permitted use

· The application process

· Application review and processing

· Approval and conditions of use

· Payment and payment options

· Payment methods

· Use without approval

A Commercial Use of Recreational Maritime Facilities Application Form will also be available to commercial users as the initial part of the application process.

These documents will be available on the Far North Holdings Limited website and available to those that request it by email or phone. They will be outlined in clear and easy to understand language for commercial operators.

Fees and Charges for Commercial Operators

Commercial fees and charges will be set and consulted on in the fees and charges section of the Long-term Plan. Any fees or charges would be managed and collected by Far North Holdings Limited.

Recreational fees and charges will not be set in 2025. This may be looked at a later stage. As with the commercial fees, recreational fees and charges would need to be set and consulted on through the Long-Term Plan and these would be managed and collected by Far North Holdings Limited.

Swing mooring charges are levied and collected by Northland Regional Council. It is charged via the Navigation Safety Bylaw (Section 4) and charges are levied through Council’s Fees and Charges.

Communications with Commercial Operators and the Wider Public

A communications plan will be developed once commercial fees and charges have been set and consulted on in the fees and charges section of the Long-term Plan.

This is to ensure that:

1. commercial operators are aware of what is expected with commercial licencing, fees, and charges

2. commercial operators know where to find relevant information and documentation for the application process

3. wharf wardens are made aware of what is happening

4. the wider public and made aware of what is happening.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The new Maritime Facilities and Fees Bylaw in Attachment 3 can be made, under sections 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act 2002 because, following the changes recommended in the report in Attachment 1:

a) A bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the problem; and

b) The bylaw is an appropriate form of bylaw; and

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

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

The operational costs for amending the bylaw are expected to be minimal (less than $1,000 plus staff time and resources) and will be met from existing operational budgets.

Operational costs for implementing the bylaw, for example administrating the licensing process, will be managed by Far North Holdings Limited and offset by fees and charges.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Analysis of Submissions - A5060183 ⇩

2. Tracked Changes to Maritime Facilities Bylaw - A5060185 ⇩

3. Proposed Maritime Facilities Bylaw - A5060187 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

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

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

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

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

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

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	In line with the Significance and Engagement policy the recommendation to make a new Bylaw 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, section 145, 146 and 155 apply 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 bylaw recommended in this report has District wide relevance.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	Seeking the views and input of iwi in the development of bylaws is integral. Access to maritime facilities plays a part in ensuring the wellbeing of tangata whenua. Māori were given an opportunity to contribute during the engagement and consultation stage of the bylaw development process, and a number of submissions were made from a Māori perspective.
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 who were included in the Bylaw development and consultation process included: · local residents affected by maritime facility use · commercial and recreational users of maritime facilities · Far North Holdings Ltd · Northland Regional Council
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The operational costs for amending the Bylaw are expected to be minimal (less than $1,000 plus staff time and resources) and will be met from existing operational budgets.
Chief Financial Officer review.	This report has been reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

13 February 2025

6.2 Initiation of public consultation on the granting of a ground lease over 36 Recreation Road, Kaikohe - Sportsville

File Number: A4961745

Author: Michelle Rockell, Team Leader - Property Management

Authoriser: Trent Blakeman, Acting Group Manager - Delivery and Operations

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek resolution from Council to initiate public consultation on the granting of a new ground lease over 36 Recreation Road, Kaikohe, Part Lot 3 DP 22327, and Lot 31 DP 10045, being recreation reserve under Section 54 Reserves Act 1977, to Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated have managed Lindvart Park since 1 January 2018 under the management agreement with Far North District Council.

· A Reserve Management Plan over Lindvart Park was executed in July 2018.

· The Long Term Plan 2021-2031 included a contribution of $3,226,493 for the construction of a new sporting facility to be located at Lindvart Park.

· On 24 August 2022, Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville obtained building consent from Far North District Council to build this new sporting facility. This facility, known as Papa Hawaiiki, was opened to the public in April 2024 and is owned by Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated.

· In April 2024 Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated formally requested a new ground lease over the site occupied by the new sporting facility.

· The Reserves Act 1977 requires public consultation on the issuing of a lease over a Recreation Reserve.

· Public consultation for the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 occurred but was not specific about the new sporting facilities.

· At the time of writing this report, public consultation for the legal occupation of the Recreation Reserve has not occurred. This report seeks to ensure due process is followed under Section 54 Reserves Act 1977.

· This report was presented to Kaikohe – Hokianga Community Board on 25 October 2024 who passed the recommendation to Council.

TŪTOHUNGA / RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

a) commence the public consultation process on the granting of a new ground lease to kaikohe & districts sportsville incorporated, over approximately 485.7m2 of land being lot 31 dp 10045 and 7,067.5m2 of land being part lot 3 dp 22327, vested in far north district council as recreation reserve, located at 36 recreation road, kaikohe.

the terms of the proposed lease shall be:

term: 30 years (10+10+10) – allowed for under the reserves act 1977

rental: $121 plus gst for 2024/25 and reviewed annually in conjunction with the fndc fees and charges schedule.

b) appoint the kaikohe-hokianga community board to hear any submissions received in response to the consultation process and to make recommendations to council.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

The Kaikohe – Hokianga Community Board passed the following recommendation on 25 October 2024:

A black and white document with text

Description automatically generated

Lindvart Park Recreation Reserve is vested in Council and has been managed by Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated as per the Management Agreement between the group and Far North District Council since being formalised on 1 January 2018.

Through the Management Agreement, Kaikohe and Districts Sportsville is responsible for preserving the park for public use by ensuring the ongoing maintenance and up-keep, club management and public access to Lindvart Park along with development of a strategic plan for improvement, development and enhancement of Lindvart Park.

Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated exist to promote sport in Kaikohe and extend this area beyond to all outlying settlements for which Kaikohe is the main town centre, for example Hokianga.

The Long Term Plan 2021-2031 included a capital contribution of $3,226,493 to the new Lindvart Park Kaikohe – Sportsville project. On 7 April 2022, Council resolved to re-affirm this contribution:

A close up of a document

Description automatically generated

A close-up of a document

Description automatically generated

In August 2022, Far North District Council approved building consent to Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated and the new sporting facility, known as Papa Hawaiiki, was built and open to the public in April 2024. No formal discussions had been made in regard to a ground lease prior to this time.

The complex is owned by Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated, who received funding from Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Far North District Council, Northland Rugby Club, Foundation North, Department of Internal Affairs Lotteries and Grassroots to complete this build.

Papa Hawaiiki consists of two indoor basketball courts, a meeting room and viewing platform on a mezzanine floor. The building has sprung wooden floors and is capable of hosting National basketball tournaments.

The complex aims to highlight a return of basketball to Kaikohe with a focus on developing basketball and other indoor sports, such as volleyball. The development of the complex has enabled the community (including the wider area of Hokianga) the ability to participate in sports that had previously been inaccessible due to lack of facilities or travel constraints.

Since the sports facility opened in April 2024, schools such as Kura Kaupapa o Kaikohe and Kaikohe Christian School, neither of which have school gymnasiums utilise the building during the day for enhancement of their wider curriculum. It has also been utilised in the evenings for teams participating in Badminton, Table Tennis, Basketball, Netball and Turbo Touch.

Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated have received numerous enquiries for various events such as Matariki celebrations, Masters sports tournaments, youth days, kapa haka, fight nights and regional sport gatherings. Papa Hawaiiki has the ability to accommodate these events where in the past there has been no facility available for these groups.

The facility is open 24/7, users are provided their own access swipe cards, catering for all abilities with wheelchair access to both floors.

A aerial view of a building

Description automatically generated

Aerial view of proposed leased area in red.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The sporting facilities available at Lindvart Park prior to the construction of Papa Hawaiiki were outdated and undersized. The construction of this new facility has given Lindvart Park a new lease of life and there has been an increase in members of the public utilising the facility since its inception.

As per the Reserves Act 1977 section 54, public consultation is required on the granting of a lease over recreation reserve.

Public Notification

Sections 119 and 120 of the Act require that before granting a lease the proposal must be publicly notified and all submissions/objections to the proposal are to be in writing and where requested, a submitter must be given the opportunity to appear before Council or a committee of Council, to speak to their objection/submission. Every submission/objection in relation to the proposal must be considered before proceeding with the proposal.

The options available for this site are:

Option 1 (recommended):

That Council:

a) commence the public consultation process on the granting of a new ground lease to Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated, over approximately 485.7m2 of land being Lot 31 DP 10045 and 7,067.5m2 of land being part Lot 3 DP 22327, vested in Far North District Council as recreation reserve, located at 36 Recreation Road, Kaikohe.

The terms of the proposed lease shall be:

Term: 30 years (10+10+10) – allowed for under the Reserves Act 1977

Rental: $121 plus GST for 2024/25 and reviewed annually in conjunction with the FNDC fees and Charges Schedule.

b) appoint the Kaikohe – Hokianga Community Board to hear any submissions received in response to the consultation process and to make recommendations to Council.

Option 1 will allow Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated to continue providing their service to the community.

Option 2:

a. Decline Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated request for a new ground lease

b. Ask Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated to remove any existing building(s) and associated assets from the reserve and reinstate the recreation reserve at their cost.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

Building Consent was given by Far North District Council to Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated for the establishment of this building on 24 August 2022. Construction was completed in 2024, with the facility opening in April 2024.

Through this new sporting facilities, Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated provide a beneficial service to the community, bringing life to the sporting world in Kaikohe and surrounding areas. Resolving to vacate the land (including removal of the building) will be detrimental to the Community, Whānau and Tamariki of the area.

As per the Reserves Act 1977, Council can grant exclusive leases to part or all of a reserve for a maximum term of 30 years.

Public Notice is a statutory requirement under Reserves Act for the leasing of a Recreation Reserve.

Public consultation will enable the Kaikohe – Hokianga Community Board and Council to assess the community’s engagement with the Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated proposal, albeit retrospectively. Public consultation gives the community the opportunity to put forward alternative options for the occupation of the building and/or the use of the site.

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

The Long Term Plan 2021-2031 included a capital contribution of $3,226,493 towards the build of this facility, which was reaffirmed by Council in April 2022. A public access agreement will be noted within the proposed lease in order to establish Far North District Councils capital contribution as an intangible asset. This would be of the above amount and will be depreciated over time to provide for strategic assert renewals (structural areas and services). Any renewals required to the internal fit out would be directly funded by Kaikohe & Districts Sportsville Incorporated, or through additional grants or fund raising.

Far North District Council provided the group an annual operation grant of $40,000 for the facility. This amount was increased by $35,000 for a total of $75,000 per annum at the April 2022 Council meeting to support ongoing operational costs. The capital contribution and total operational grant (inclusive of increase) were provided for and represented an increase in ward rate of $4.70 per SUIP.

The lease will provide for the lessee to continue to be responsible for all ongoing maintenance of the associated land, including responsibility for the payment of all utility charges, rates and insurances.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Sportsville Management agreement final - A4909399 ⇩

2. Letter informing on request to lease - A4910316 ⇩

3. Record of Title Lot 31 - A4911100 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

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

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

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

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

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

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Medium
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	FNDC Reserves Policy: The Policy supports a long-term lease being offered to community orientated groups wanting a permanent base. The Reserves Act 1977: Section 119 and 120 require that public consultation be initiated prior to the granting of a lease
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.	Delegation to the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board to provide recommendations to the Council in respect of applications for the use and/or lease of reserves not contemplated by an existing reserve management plan.
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.	Far North District Council recognises the significant role of tangata whenua as set out in the Working with Māori chapter in the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031. It is important to notify tangata whenua in the Kaikohe locality of the lease proposal prior to the public consultation. Te Hono was approached to provide advice on who the main contacts were in the first instance. A letter (attached) was sent via email to Te Uri O Hua representatives to inform them of the requested lease. These representatives are mandated (within the hapū) under tikanga as a spokesperson/representative of Te Uri O Hua hapū, who are through whakapapa direct descendants of the tupuna who resided on the whenua until soon after it became an asset of the Crown/Council. At the time of writing this report a response has not been received. When this lease goes for public consultation, the information will be redistributed Te Uri O Hua representatives to seek feedback as part of the public consultation 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).	Public consultation and Iwi consultation will be progressed as per the Reserves Act 1977 and the FNDC Engagement Policy. This will allow Council to identify any people or groups who may be affected or have interest in the matter.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	All upgrade and maintenance costs fall to the lessee. The appropriate community rent for the land is set by the FNDC Fees Charges Schedule.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

13 February 2025

6.3 Initiation of public consultation on disposal of sections of Kerikeri reserve

File Number: A4981808

Author: Robin Rawson, Parks & Reserves Planner

Authoriser: Roger Ackers, Group Manager - Planning & Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek the approval of Council to initiate public consultation under the Reserves Act 1977 to consider possible revocation of areas of a reserve fronting Kerikeri Road and Morcom Lane (Lot 10 DP 62588) to facilitate the legalisation of an existing retaining wall on a neighbouring property (which has been built across the boundary and marginally into the reserve) by a boundary adjustment.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Council has received a request from Investore Property Limited to legalise the encroachments of an existing private retaining wall on the Woolworths Kerikeri supermarket property where it extends onto two parcels of Council owned land.

· One of the affected properties is held in a fee simple title and the other is a recreation reserve.

· Legalisation of the occupation of the wall is required for approval of a building consent to repair the wall and any required resource consent.

· In the short term a licence to occupy is adequate for gaining consents and undergoing work on the wall. This process can be completed via staff delegations.

· In the long term, revocation of a section of reserve to allow a boundary adjustment would provide greater certainty to the owner of the long-term occupation and would absolve Council from responsibility for the retaining wall structure.

· In accordance with the Reserves Act 1977, public consultation is required to consider revocation of a section of a reserve to allow a boundary adjustment by subdivision.

· On 24 October 2024, the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board expressed support for a licence to occupy as a short-term action, and the initiation of public consultation to consider revocation areas of the reserve underlying the retaining wall.

· Property staff will assess the effects of the encroachments on fee simple land and are delegated to approve licences to occupy.

· Council approval is required for revocation of a reserve.

· Council approval is required for sale of any Council land; and these options will be reported to Council for approval after public consultation and a hearing under the Reserves Act 1977, (should this be necessary).

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a) approve the initiation of a public consultation process under Section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 to revoke small parts of Recreation Reserve (Lot 10 DP 62588 – owned by the Far North District Council) underlying an existing retaining wall owned by Woolworths Ltd;

b) appoint Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board to hear any submissions received in response to the consultation processes and to make recommendations to the Council in respect of the reserve classification and revocation.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Investore Property Limited has contacted Council to request landowner approvals to do necessary and high priority remediation work to existing retaining walls at the edges of their Kerikeri supermarket site (Woolworths) to stabilise the wall and prevent further movement that could result in failure of the wall. The footprint of existing walls has moved since construction and the walls extend into adjoining Council properties to the north-west and south-west with a maximum encroachment of 430mm (refer Appendix 1).

Investore Property Limited seeks agreement from Council for a course of action that will allow consents to be obtained and future works to take place to remediate the walls. Options to enable this work are considered in the following section. Investore Property Limited has stated that the completion of remediation works is expected to ensure that there is no further movement of the wall over the next 50 or more years. The building consent application to remediate the wall will need to demonstrate at least 50 year structural durability. e two Council properties that are the subject of this request are identified in Appendix 1. One is a fee simple title owned by Council that was purchased to help facilitate the future Kerikeri western ring bypass. It contains a residential building that is currently being used for short-term tenancies to FNDC transitional staff. The other property is a recreation reserve which is used for drainage and public access.

The Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board approved the following resolution on 24 October 2024 (Alternate resolution 2024/1):

a) Endorse the issuance of a LTO to allow remediation of the wall to begin.

b) Approve the initiation of a public consultation process under Section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 to revoke areas of reserve underlying an existing retaining wall.

c) Agree to hear any submissions received in response to the consultation processes and to make recommendations to the Council in respect to the revocation.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

This section assesses possible Council responses to the request from Investore Property Limited and was prepared with contributions from Legal Services, Delivery and Operations and Property Management. It includes recommendations for actions to provide a short-term solution and a long-term solution.

	Options	Advantages, disadvantages, costs
1	Walls rebuilt outside of Council land	· No further action required from Council staff · Disruption to supermarket activities over long period · Expected temporary disruption to adjoining properties including Council properties greater than for other options because of extent of works · Council would have no legal responsibility for the rebuilt wall · Possible reputational risk to Council for not being more accommodating due to rebuilding costs to applicant (estimate $1.5 million from applicant) and small impact on Council land.
2	Boundary adjustments after reserve revocation (recommended option for the long-term if supported by public consultation)	· Would result in the private retaining wall not being on Council owned land and providing wall owners with greater certainty · Council would be absolved from any responsibility in the event of failure of the wall as no part would be on Council land · Public notification needed under Section 24 of Reserves Act 1977 for revocation of (small) areas of land where the retaining walls are on reserve · Revocation and boundary adjustments requires approval from Council Elected Members · Applicant to pay resource consents costs, valuation, legal and survey costs, land purchase costs or equivalent.
3	Easements	· Provides an enduring legal right for structures to occupy land · Long-term solution that would legalise the retaining walls on Council land · Council could decide that public notification was not needed as structures largely underground and minimal encroachment · Council resolution needed for approval of reserve easement · Council liability would need to be addressed by easement agreement · Applicant to pay costs including $476 application fee under current policy, additional valuation, legal and survey costs, land costs or equivalent.
4	Lease	· Provides a temporary right for structures to occupy land · Not consistent with Reserves Act 1977 – not a recreational activity and does not recognise long-term use · Public notification may still be needed · Not permanent and does not provide all parties assurance · A lease longer than 35 years requires subdivision consent · Council liability would need to be addressed by lease agreement · Applicant to pay $484 application fee and other costs.
5	Licences to Occupy (recommended option for the short-term only, to accommodate building works)	· Provides a temporary right for structures to occupy land that can be rescinded at any time · Fast, can be completed by Council staff to plan for remediation works · Not consistent with Reserves Act 1977 – not a recreational activity and does not recognise long-term use · Not permanent and does not provide all parties assurance · Council remains affected – as a landowner. · Applicant to pay $121 application fee · Property staff are delegated to consider and approve licences to occupy Council land.

Recommended Actions:

A licence to occupy, (option 5 – short term solution) would allow building and any other necessary consents to be obtained and works progressed however a boundary adjustment after reserve revocation (option 2- long term solution) would remove Council liability for remediation in the event of failure of the wall.

Transport issues

Council's Senior Transport Planner has discussed the plans of the retaining wall with the Consultant Engineer for the Kerikeri CBD Road Designation project and advises that:

‘legalisation of this wall in the current location is not expected to constrain the location of any future road corridor. The current proposed road corridor is a high-level concept design from 2006 from which no degree of precision can be inferred. This is not the only road corridor option being considered. This matter presents the opportunity for Council to engage with a key stakeholder for the CBD road designation and ideally gain support for the concept even in principle and thus de-risk their future involvement in the RMA process.

If supported by public consultation, Council approval would be needed for reserve revocation to allow boundary adjustments for both the reserve land and fee simple property at 16 Butler Road.

Construction issues

In addition to legalisation of the occupation of sections of the wall, a construction works agreement is being considered that would need to be agreed to allow Woolworths to undertake the remediation works. This would be finalised by staff and cover practical matters including the following:

· Woolworths paying for alternative accommodation (for short term rentals at 16 Butler Road) during construction works.

· Planting within the reserve at the edge of the wall to be removed to allow for construction will need to be replanted when works are completed.

· Construction requirements including access.

Assessment against Policies

The criteria for the disposal of parks and reserves is outlined in Section 3 and Schedule 2 of the Council Parks and Reserves Policy. In this instance, the areas of reserve that are being considered for revocation are sufficiently small that the proposal is not inconsistent with this policy.

Next steps

Revocation of a reserve and property sale are at the discretion of Council; and these options will be reported to Council for decision after public consultation and a hearing under the Reserves Act 1977, (should this be needed).

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

A boundary adjustment after reserve revocation is a suitable a long-term outcome as the private retaining wall would no longer be located on Council land. Revocation of reserve status of a section of the reserve and subsequent boundary adjustment would remove Council from any responsibility and potential liability regarding the building works associated with the retaining walls performed by Woolworths, as well as the wall itself once the works are completed. This option is consistent with the Reserves Act 1977.

A licence to occupy can be agreed as a temporary measure to gain necessary consents, facilitate repairs, revocable once a boundary adjustment is in place.

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

Staff time working with Woolworths to understand the issue, and look at potential solutions is not cost recoverable, as it was done outside any application process. Expenses to facilitate the reserve revocation and boundary adjustment will be charged to the applicant when application is lodged and processed for a licence to occupy, a reserve revocation for the purposes of a boundary adjustment, and a subdivision by boundary adjustment. Any areas of land subject to boundary adjustment and transferred to Woolworths will be valued, and reasonable compensation paid to Far North District Council. Council will be requiring that Woolworths pay the costs associated with undertaking the public engagement process on the reserve (e.g. public notice in a newspaper). If there is impact on Council tenants and a loss of revenue or costs incurred, that will also be considered through any agreement with Woolworths.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Kerikeri Reserve - A4877078 ⇩

2. Record of Title NA65D/309 (Council's Freehold Land) - A4924501 ⇩

3. Record of Title 566382 (Recreation Reserve) - A4924505 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

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

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

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

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

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

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Areas of reserve (if revoked) and fee simple land that would be involved in any future boundary adjustments are small, and sale will not prevent possible future plans for use of the remaining areas of Council properties. Failure to remove legal liability for wall failure where walls remain on Council land has potential with a small likelihood to result in unbudgeted financial expenditure. Overall, the level of significance to Council is assessed as being low. The boundary adjustment is very significant to Woolworths/Investore and there is potential reputational loss to Council if legalisation is not actioned.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	The proposed revocation of reserve land will not affect use of the remaining area and is therefore not inconsistent with the Parks and Reserves Policy. Public consultation is required under the Reserves Act to assess applications for the revocation of recreation reserves.
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 issue is site specific. The Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board has endorsed both a licence to occupy as an interim process and the public consultation required to consider the suitability of revocation of areas of reserve land.
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.	Staff have met with and provided plans showing the occupation of the retaining wall to Ngāti Rēhia who have not raised concerns at this time.
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).	Council’s Infrastructure Asset and District Facilities Teams were consulted as stakeholders and have not expressed any concerns about the proposal. The public will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed reserve revocation.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Staff time so far is not recoverable. Expenses for processing any application will be charged to the applicant. Areas of land that may be transferred are small and land cost will be by valuation.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

13 February 2025

6.4 Annual Plan 2025/26

File Number: A5049955

Author: Angie Thomas, Acting Chief Financial Officer

Authoriser: Charlie Billington, Group Manager - Corporate Services

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek approval to consult on the Annual Plan 2025/26 with the option for the community to provide feedback.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· The request is applied under the basis of section 95, (2A) of the Local Government Act 2002 as follows: Subsection (2) does not apply if the proposed Annual Plan does not include significant or material differences from the content of the Long Term Plan for the financial year to which the proposed Annual Plan relates.

· The council has as part of its Annual Plan (AP) process – reviewed all budgets pertaining to capital and operational spending and where applicable reductions have been applied.

· The rates increase is as published in the Three Year Long Term Plan (LTP) 2024-27 at 11.3%. The council will continue to look for savings and apply where practical.

· The proposed Annual Plan makes minor amendments to the capital works programme and operational budgets which do not trigger the council’s Significant and Engagement Policy 2021 requirement to consult.

· Not reconsulting on issues already addressed in the LTP 2024-27 leads to cost savings for the ratepayer.

· Under the current LTP 2024-27, Council’s main focus is repairing our transport network and to continue to make progress on weather related damage repairs.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council approve to inform only on the Annual Plan 2025/26 and enable the community to provide feedback.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

As part of the AP process, four workshops were held with elected members in preparing the annual plan.

These workshops reviewed all planned projects and operational budgets for the upcoming financial year, establishing the direction for the Council’s work programmes. They also assessed any incomplete projects from the previous year, which are subsequently carried forward into the current year’s programme.

On conclusion of this process, Council is to determine if public consultation is required.

Consultation

Consultation is when Councils publicly notify proposals, invite and receive written submissions from residents, and often hold hearings so submitters can speak to their feedback. Councils then deliberate on all submissions before making final decisions. This process is designed to provide transparency, accountability, and community involvement in local governance.

In the context of an AP, the requirement for consultation is met when issues or changes are made to a LTP (which has already undergone consultation), and those issues or changes meet the threshold of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy (attachment 1).

At the conclusion of the workshops on the 2025/26 AP, no issues were identified that met the threshold for formal consultation.

Inform Only

When consultation is not required, Council can elect to adopt an inform only approach. This approach involves providing clear, accessible information about the Council’s plans or decisions without a structured submission process or formal hearings. In the context of an AP, Inform only is suitable when changes from the LTP are deemed minor and do not meet the Policy’s significance thresholds.

The 2025/26 AP

On conclusion of AP workshops held with Elected Members, a budget was presented necessitating a 11.3% rates increase. This budget includes minor operating and capital changes to the published in the Three Year LTP 2024/27 was 11.3%, but the changes do not meet the threshold for consultation under the significance and engagement policy.

Council will continue to seek savings where feasible.

Other consultation

In 2025 several other consultations will be undertaken at the same time, seeking feedback on other important topics such as Te Pātukurea (Kerikeri-Waipapa Spatial Plan) and Local Waters Done Well. Adopting an inform only approach for the Annual Plan 2025/26 allows greater focus on these other consultations.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

· As outlined at the 10 December 2024 Annual Plan workshop, discussions were held regarding an inform only process on the already adopted LTP 2024-27 rate increase of 11.3%, or less if applicable noting any minor changes.

· Items raised to date have not been deemed significant under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2021, with proposed rates increases aligning with the Three Year Long Term Plan 2024-27.

Option 1 – inform only with the option for feedback (recommended option):

· Website only with the option to give feedback - March to April

· Hearings – not required Deliberations – not required Adoption of Annual Plan 2025/26 - 25^th June 2025

Pros:

· Allows for public participation through feedback.

· Council is transparent on any minor changes from the LTP2024-27.

· Focus on other consultations.

· Reduced costs and resourcing as compared to consultation.

Cons:

· Less opportunity for the public to be able to provide feedback compared to consultation.

Option 2 – no consultation:

· Notify the community of the intent to adopt the annual plan – March

· Hearings – not required

· Deliberations – not required

· Adoption of Annual Plan 2025/26 – 25^th of June 2025

Pros:

· Council is transparent on any minor changes from the LTP2024-27.

· Focus on other consultations.

· Reduced costs and resourcing as compared to consultation.

· Good practice to notify with the inclusion of any differences and why these are not significant or material. The proposed funding impact statement for the year and reference to levels of service for the year.

Cons:

· No opportunity for the public to provide feedback.

Option 3 – consultation:

· Consultation document adoption - February

· Public consultation with submissions - March to April

· Hearings for verbal submissions – April

· Deliberations – May

· Adoption of Annual Plan 2025/26 – 25^th June 2025

Pros:

· Allows for greater ability for the public to participate in the annual plan process by providing submissions and attending hearings.

· Council is transparent on any minor changes from the LTP2024-27.

Cons:

· Reduced costs and resourcing as compared to other options.

· Need to be clear on what issue is being consulted on (this needs to include the impact on level of service, impact to the ratepayer and impact on debt)

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation for option 1.

By proceeding with Option 1, the public can participate by providing feedback on the proposed plans. No significant changes have been identified in the 2025/26 Annual Plan that would require a formal consultation process. This also reduces costs to ratepayers.

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

There are no additional budget requirements.

Attachments

Nil

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance schedule:

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

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

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

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

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

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	Low.
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 Significance and Engagement Policy 2021
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 Annual Plan 2025/26 process have budgets and information that pertain to Community Boards which have been considered through the workshops.
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.	Implications to Māori have been included in the LTP 2024-27 Te Mahi Tahi Me Te Māori which continues to be embedded in the Annual Plan 2025/26.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.	This report does not have any implications for persons identified in legislation.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Financial implications are covered within operational budgets.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Acting CFO wrote this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

13 February 2025

6.5 Adoption of Amended Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy

File Number: A5053227

Author: Shayne Storey, Team Leader - Policy & Bylaws

Authoriser: Roger Ackers, Group Manager - Planning & Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To approve the adoption of the Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy without amendment.

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Under the Building Act 2004, Council must have a policy on dangerous and insanitary buildings.

· On 13 June 2024, following a review of the Dangerous, Insanitary, and Earthquake Prone Buildings Policy, Council resolved that the Policy continue with amendment and that the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy Statement of Proposal in be released for public consultation (Resolution 2024/82 refers)

· Consultation took place from 17 June to 17 July 2024 and oral submissions were heard on 3 December 2024.

· Council staff have analysed the submissions and recommend no changes to the draft amended Policy in response to these submissions (see attachment 1)

· Attachment 2 is the proposed final amended Policy for adoption.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council makes the Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy under section 132 of the Building Act 2004.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Section 131 of the Building Act 2004 (the Act) requires all councils to adopt a policy on dangerous and insanitary buildings. A review of the Policy identified that it did not align with current legislation, including a requirement to remove the earthquake prone section of the Policy. On June 13, 2024, Council determined the Policy should continue with amendment and approved the release of the Statement of Proposal for public consultation (Resolution 2024/82 refers).

The period during which people could make submissions on the Statement of Proposal was from 17 June to 17 July 2024. Thirty-five written submissions were received, with 31 received online and 4 via email. One person who made a written submission also made an oral submission, which was heard by the Council on 3 December 2024.

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

The report in Attachment 1 summarises the public submissions and recommends no change to the draft Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy in response to these submissions.

If this recommendation is agreed to, Council staff advise that the amended Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy in Attachment 2 is an appropriate form of policy for the purpose of section 132 of the Building Act 2004.

Of the 31 submissions received online, 79% supported the proposal to amend the policy to meet statutory requirements and 88% supported maintaining a reactive approach.

Several submitters acknowledged that maintaining public health and safety is a priority and that the proposed policy helps Council fulfil its legal obligations under the Building Act 2004. These submissions emphasise the importance of the policy in safeguarding the community.

One submitter praised the council’s proactive approach to ensuring the well-being of the community, particularly regarding dangerous and insanitary buildings.

Another submitter noted that Far North residents should not be permitted to create and live in unsanitary and unprofessionally established housing, highlighting a concern about substandard housing in the district.

Content and form of the proposed policy

Council staff have addressed the content and form of the proposed policy by ensuring it:

• is certain (clear)

• has removed reference to earthquake prone buildings

• is consistent with relevant laws and legislation.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The submissions indicate support for the policy’s focus on public health and safety, as well as the Council's role in managing dangerous and insanitary buildings. No significant opposition to the policy was raised in these submissions.

The statutory requirements under section 132 of the Building Act 2004 regarding the adoption and review of a dangerous and insanitary building policy have been met.

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

The costs to implement the amended Policy will come from existing operational budgets. Staff do not expect the amendments to the policy to alter the existing operational expenditure regarding dangerous and insanitary buildings.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Analysis Report- Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy - A5033476 ⇩

2. Draft Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy - A4690023 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

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

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

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

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

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

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	As retaining the status quo is consistent with existing policies, the level of significance as determined by the Significance and Engagement Policy is low
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Section 132 of the Building Act 2004 Section 83 of the 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 Policy has District wide relevance and is mostly operational in nature, therefore, the views of the Community Boards have not been sought
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	The decision is this report is not significant nor does it relate to land and/or any body of water. The Policy is a statutory policy and mostly operational in nature. There is very limited scope for the community to influence the decisions in this report. The recommended option is to maintain the general approach of a reactive Policy.
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 Policy is a statutory policy and mostly operational in nature. There is very limited scope for the community to influence the decisions in this report. The recommended option is to maintain the general approach of a reactive Policy.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The cost of implementing and consulting on the recommended option is minimal (less than $1000) and will be met from existing operational budgets.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

13 February 2025

6.6 Review of Class 4 Gaming and TAB Venue Policy

File Number: A5053400

Author: Dan Bowmar, Policy Advisor

Authoriser: Roger Ackers, Group Manager - Planning & Policy

Take Pūrongo / Purpose of the Report

To seek approval for the continuation of the Class 4 Gaming and TAB Venue Policy

WhakarĀpopoto matua / Executive Summary

· Council is required to have a Class 4 gaming policy under section 101 of the Gambling Act 2003

· Council is also required to have a TAB venue policy under section 96 of the Racing Industry Act 2020

· On 03 August 2023, Council approved an amended Class 4 Gaming and TAB Venue Policy under section 102 of the Gambling Act 2003 and section 97 of the Racing Industry Act 2020 (Resolution 2023/92 refers)

· Council is required to complete a review of the policy every 3 years under section 102 of the Gambling Act 2003

· The Class 4 Gaming and TAB Venue Policy was due for review 09 February 2025. However, under subsection 102(6) of the Gambling Act 2003, it does not cease to have effect and remains in place while it is due for review

· The Policy has been reviewed by Council Staff following section 102 of the Gambling Act 2003 and section 97 of the Racing Industry Act 2020.

tŪtohunga / Recommendation

That Council:

a) agree the Class 4 Gaming and TAB Policy has been reviewed under section 102 of the Gambling Act 2003 and section 97 of the Racing Industry Act 2020

b) approve, under section 102 of the Gambling Act 2003 and section 97 of the Racing Industry Act 2020, the continuation of the Class 4 Gaming and TAB Venue Policy.

1) TĀhuhu kŌrero / Background

Council is required to have a Class 4 gaming policy under section 101 of the Gambling Act 2003.

Council is also required to have a TAB venue policy under section 96 of the Racing Industry Act 2020.

This policy cannot prohibit Class 4 gaming and/or TAB gambling in the district but must address the location and number of Class 4 gaming venues and standalone TAB venues.

On 03 August 2023, Council approved the adoption of an amended Class 4 Gaming and TAB Venue Policy under section 102 of the Gambling Act 2003 and section 97 of the Racing Industry Act 2020 (Resolution 2023/92).

Under section 102 of the Gambling Act 2003, and section 97 of the Racing Industry Act 2020, Council is required to complete a review of a policy within 3 years after the policy is adopted and then within 3 years after each subsequent review is completed.

The Policy has been reviewed by Council Staff under section 102 of the Gambling Act 2003 and section 97 of the Racing Industry Act 2020 (See review report - Attachment 1).

2) matapaki me NgĀ KŌwhiringa / Discussion and Options

Staff have completed a separate report to capture the review of the Policy (Attachment 1). For further information please refer to the full report.

Council staff have reviewed the Policy to ensure that it:

· is certain (clear)

· consistently follows the intent of a sinking lid policy

· applies a sinking lid policy to both Class 4 gaming venues and standalone TAB venues

· is consistent with relevant laws and legislation.

The Far North District is more vulnerable to the detrimental effects of problem gambling. The current policy uses a sinking lid approach. This approach is working as the number of class 4 gaming venues in the District have decreased from 25 to 17, and the number of class 4 gaming machines in the District have decreased from 314 to 262 since implementation of the sinking lid policy. Therefore, a sinking lid policy is the most appropriate way to address the establishment of both Class 4 gaming and TAB venues in the Far North District.

Under section 102 of the Gambling Act 2003, when conducting a review of the Policy, the Council must consider whether to include a relocation policy. When considering a relocation policy, the Council must consider the social impact of gambling in high-deprivation communities in the Far North District.

A relocation policy (defined in section 101 of the Gambling Act 2003) is a policy setting out if and when the Council will allow a venue to replace an existing venue to which a class 4 venue licence applies.

The intent of the Act with regard to relocation policies is to support the movement of class 4 gaming venues to areas at less risk of gambling related harm such as away from sensitive sites or areas of high deprivation.

The Act states that when considering a relocation policy, the Council must specifically consider the social impact of gambling in high-deprivation communities within the district.

The current policy allows the relocation of Class 4 gaming machines under the following circumstances:

a. Where two or more clubs, with existing licenses, may legally merge, at which time the maximum number of machines should not exceed 18, and the venue must be suitably located to meet the criteria of this Policy; or,

b. Where a business which holds an existing Class 4 gaming license, wishes to relocate from its current premises to a new venue within the District, and take all or fewer of its existing machines to those new premises. Council will only consider such applications for relocations due to:

i. a natural disaster, fire or other damage to the present venue, or

ii. expiry of lease on present venue, or

iii. the building of a new premises or refurbishment of an existing building as a new venue.

c. No machines may be left at the current venue.

d. A new venue will not be considered if it is defined as a venue declared unfit under section 4 of the Gambling (Harm Prevention and Minimisation) Regulations 2004.

e. Applications for relocation of machines to a new premise will be subject to public notification and referred to the relevant Community Board for consideration and comments, as well as other key interested parties (e.g., iwi/hapū, the Police, Te Whatu Ora).

f. A new Class 4 gaming venue must not be within 100 metres of any other Class 4 gaming venue.

g. A new Class 4 gaming venue must not be in a higher deprivation area than the existing venue.

h. New Class 4 gaming venues shall be in Commercial, Industrial, General Coastal, Rural Living or Rural Production zones, or within sports clubs or public houses and shall be eligible for consent provided the venue is at least 100 metres from any Kindergarten, early childhood centre, school, place of worship, Marae, or other community facility, and 100 metres from any Residential, Coastal Residential, Coastal Living, or Recreational Activities zones.

i. If it is not practicable to apply a 100 metre proximity policy, then the distance becomes a discretionary condition. The Council will then make the decision.

j. Following the Waikiwi precedent, certain kinds of moves will not trigger the Council’s relocation policy. If the relocation to a different site meets the following criteria, it may not be a change of venue:

a. the new building is in very close proximity to the existing site

b. the venue name will be the same

c. ownership and management of the venue will be the same

d. patrons and the public will regard it as the same venue.

Under section 101(4) of the Gambling Act, when considering the location for a relocated venue, the Council may have regard to the following matters:

a) the characteristics of the district and parts of the district:

b) the location of kindergartens, early childhood centres, schools, places of worship, and other community facilities:

c) the number of gaming machines that should be permitted to operate at any venue or class of venue:

d) the cumulative effects of additional opportunities for gambling in the district:

e) how close any venue should be permitted to be to any other venue:

f) what the primary activity at any venue should be

The relocation policy maintains the intent of the ‘sinking lid’ policy by only allowing relocation when circumstances arise outside of the control of the owner of the business such as fire or other damage to the present venue.

If a class 4 venue changes site in line with the above requirements, it is not considered a new venue and therefore does not require a council consent, nor is it considered a relocation and it will not trigger the application of a council’s relocation policy.

Council must have regard to the social impact and harm prevention of gambling within the district.

95% of the 17 class 4 venues in the Far North District are in areas of medium high and very high deprivation. The demographics of the Far North District mean that our communities are more vulnerable to the detrimental effects of problem gambling. A large proportion of the Far North District consists of the highest deprivation areas, and 50% of the population of the Far North is Māori. Both factors significantly increase the risk of gambling harm.

In 2022, the total money spent on class 4 EGMs in the Far North District was $17.1 million, however only $4.7 million was returned to the district in grants to community and sporting groups. The figures suggest that, overall, a significant amount of money is taken out of the district.

The policy reflects the social impacts of gambling in the Far North District and aligns with current legislation.

Next Steps
A review without amendment does not require consultation, under section 102 of the Gambling Act 2003. Therefore, Council is able to approve the continuation of the policy without consultation. Extensive consultation was undertaken in 2023 when amending the current policy.

The review report in Attachment 1 recommends a continuation of the Class 4 Gaming and TAB Venue Policy.

If Council approves a continuation of the policy without amendment, the policy will be due for the next review in 2028.

TAKE TŪTOHUNGA / REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

Council staff advise that the Class 4 Gaming and TAB Venue Policy in Attachment 2 is an appropriate form of policy for the purposes of section 102 of the Gambling Act 2003 and section 97 of the Racing Industry Act 2020.

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

The operational costs for amending the policy are expected to be minimal (less than $1,000 plus staff time and resources) and will be met from existing operational budgets.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Review of Class 4 Gaming and TAB Venue Policy Feb 2025 - A5055943 ⇩

2. Class 4 Gaming and TAB Venue Policy 2023 - A4327980 ⇩

Hōtaka Take Ōkawa / Compliance Schedule:

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

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

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

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

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

He Take Ōkawa / Compliance Requirement	Aromatawai Kaimahi / Staff Assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	The decision to review the Policy is of low significance as it does not involve the change of ownership or control of a strategic asset or other important asset, and it is not inconsistent with Council’s plans and policies.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Sections 102 of the Gambling Act 2003, section 97 and 98 of the Racing Industry Act 2020 and sections 10 and 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 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.	The proposal has District wide relevance. The current policy already includes everything that is within Council’s power to control and therefore Community Boards’ views have not been sought.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water. State the possible implications and how this report aligns with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.	The decision in this report is not significant and does not relate to land and/or any body of water. However, Māori are significantly more likely than non-Māori to be negatively impacted by the harmful effects of gambling.
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).	· community groups concerned about class 4 gaming and TAB venues in their community · the gaming trust industry · Te Whatu Ora - Public Health Northland · social service organisations.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	The operational costs for amending the Bylaw are expected to be minimal (less than $1,000 plus staff time and resources) and will be met from existing operational budgets.
Chief Financial Officer review.	This report has been reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

13 February 2025

7.2 Far North 2100 Progress Report

File Number: A5059273

Author: Steve Rylands, Senior Policy Advisor

Authoriser: Roger Ackers, Group Manager - Planning & Policy

TAKE PŪRONGO / Purpose of the Report

To provide a progress report on the implementation of Far North 2100 (FN2100).

WHAKARĀPOPOTO MATUA / Executive SummarY

Far North 2100 was adopted by Council in 2021. It is a strategy that is intended to realise the vision of “He Whenua Rangatira – A District of Sustainable Prosperity.” It is intended to set Council directions. It also sets the aspirations for the economic and social development of the region.

The implementation of Far North 2100 was intended to be undertaken through initiatives that are grouped under five “drivers of change”:

· putting the wellbeing of the communities and people first

· promoting resilient economic growth for sustainable prosperity

· active response to climate change

· connecting people, businesses, and places

· protect the natural environment for future generations.

Highlights of progress in implementing the FN2100 drivers of change include:

· promoting resilient economic growth through the adoption of Te Rerenga - Taitokerau Northland Economic Wellbeing Pathway

· the Climate Action Policy that sets adaptation, emissions reduction and climate-related risk management objectives

· commencement of the District Wide Spatial Strategy that enables the district to take a long-term spatial view of wellbeing, infrastructure objectives and growth

· the Proposed District Plan (PDP), which has mechanisms to protect indigenous vegetation and fauna, indigenous biodiversity, and versatile soils.

FN2100 is scheduled to be reviewed in 2025.

TŪTOHUNGA / Recommendation

That Council receive the report Far North 2100 Progress Report.

tĀHUHU KŌRERO / Background

FN2100 was adopted by Council and published in 2021. It is a strategy that is intended to realise the vision of “He Whenua Rangatira – a district of sustainable prosperity.”^{^[1]} FN2100 was the culmination of consultation with the community extending back to 2014.

For the Council, it is intended to guide the direction of land-use, infrastructure and planning, by supporting the District Plan, the Long-Term Plan, and infrastructure plans. It is also an aspirational plan for the Far North. For the District, it provides guidance for “investment decisions, community development and our cultural identity.”^{^[2]}

FN2100 incorporates three strategic objectives:

· Communities of Care – social and cultural prosperity

· Growth – promoting economic prosperity

· Stewardship – Promoting environmental prosperity.

The implementation of FN2100 was to be undertaken through initiatives grouped under five “drivers of change”:

· putting the wellbeing of the communities and people first

· promoting resilient economic growth for sustainable prosperity

· active response to climate change

· connecting people, businesses, and places

· protect the natural environment for future generations.

FN2100 seeks to promote the Far North around its comparative advantages. It also seeks to diversify the economy so that the region is more resilient to economic shocks. The actions in FN2100 relate to both the core business of Council – e.g. spatial planning, and advocacy for the region.

MATAPAKI ME NGĀ KŌWHIRINGA / Discussion and Next Steps

Staff have completed a separate report to capture the progress on FN2100 (Attachment 1). For further information please refer to the full report.

Highlights of Council Actions to Support FN2100

Putting the wellbeing of the communities and people first

Council staff have developed draft social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing indicators^{^[3]}.

Te Pae o Uta is a highlight for the Council. It is a wide-ranging strategy to create enablers across staff to respond more effectively to Māori and to empower communities, working collaboratively.

Promoting resilient economic growth

Te Rerenga Taitokerau Northland Economic Wellbeing Pathway is a comprehensive evidence and strength-based strategy that encompasses the collective aspirations of the Far North. Council endorsed the strategy at its12 October 2024 Council meeting.

Council has actively participated in the Joint Regional Economic Development Committee, which is focussed on raising economic growth in the region.

Active response to climate change

Council has adopted a Climate Action Policy that sets adaptation, emissions reduction and climate-related risk management objectives.

Sustainability guidance is integrated into the procurement policy.

Council has published 2022-2023 footprint reports for Te Taitokerau Northland and Te Hiku o Te Ika Far North District.

Council disclosed climate change impacts, risks, opportunities and key work in the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan.

Te Tai Tokerau Climate Adaptation Strategy was adopted in 2022, and a regional work programme has been established.

Council has developed a Community Adaptation Programme and started Stage One of the programme, Community Adaptation and Planning, in the Hokianga area.

Connecting people, business and places

Council has successfully implemented the “Nothing But Net” programme to break down barriers to accessing the internet for Far North communities.

The District Wide Spatial Strategy is a planning document that will look at 30 to 50 years into the future. It is focused on how the Far North should grow and function. It looks at how settlements, or selected locations, work together and how we connect with the wider region.

A high performing transport system is important for social connections and lifting productivity. It was identified as one of the actions in FN2100. Council has developed a Programme Business Case in conjunction with key stakeholders to support an Integrated Transport Strategy.

Scheduled Review

A review of FN2100 is scheduled for 2025. The review will be undertaken by Council staff, with targeted engagement with the community. This would allow staff to make informed recommendations to Council about the prerequisites for success for a refreshed FN2100. Subject to the outcome of this review, any amendments to FN2100 would be redeveloped through a codesign process with the community.

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

There are no budgetary implications from this report.

Āpitihanga / Attachments

1. Far North 2100 Progress Report for Council - A5060374 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

13 February 2025

8 Te Wāhanga Tūmataiti / Public Excluded

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Recommendation

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

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

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
8.1 - Te Raupo Road Easement	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege	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
8.2 - Kaitāia Wastewater Overflow Reduction Contract Award	s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information	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
8.3 - Emergency and Resilience Works Supplier Panel - Supplier Recommendation	s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities	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
8.4 - Confirmation of Previous Minutes - Public Excluded	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities 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
8.5 - Council Public Excluded Open Resolutions Update February 2025	s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege 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

and that the Kaiwhakawhitireo Kawiti Waetford and Community Board Chairs remain in the public excluded part of the meeting.

[3] The Government has announced its intention to remove references to wellbeing from the Local Government Act 2002. This briefing does not analyse the implications of that announcement for FN2100.