Agenda of Policy and Regulatory Committee

POLICY AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE

Membership: 11

Meeting Cycle: Meets on a six weekly basis, as required or at the
requisition of the Chair

Quorum: Half of the members

Membership Hearings: Minimum of either 3 or 4 elected members (including the Chair) and alternates who have current certification under the Making Good Decisions Training, Assessment and Certification Programme for RMA Decision-Makers. The inclusion of an independent Commissioner as the rule rather than the exception

Reports to: Council

PURPOSE:

• To assist the Council monitor the development of strategies and policy that meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

• To consider matters relating to the regulatory and quasi-judicial responsibilities of the Council under legislation. This includes, without limitation, matters under the RMA including the hearing of resource management applications.

Determine:

· Maintain an overview of work programmes carried out by the Council's Environmental Consents, Regulatory Services and strategy and policy development activities.

• Draft policies for public consultation, excluding those that will subsequently be required to follow a statutory process

• Approval and forwarding of submissions on matters related to the Committee’s area of responsibility

• Hearing and deciding notified resource consent applications.

• Hearing and deciding objections to conditions imposed on resource consents

• Hearing and deciding any matter notified under the Local Government Act 2002

• Hearing and deciding objections to the classification of dangerous dogs under section 31 of the Dog Control Act 1996 and abatement notices regarding barking dogs under section 55 of that Act

• Hearing and deciding objections to the classification of dogs as menacing dogs under sections 33A and 33C of the Dog Control Act 1996

• Hearing objections to specified traffic matters where the community board wishes to take an advocacy role

• Exercising the power of waiver under section 42A (4) of the Resource Management Act of the requirement to provide parties with copies of written reports prior to hearings

• Authorising the submission of appeals to the Environment Court on behalf of Council

• To appoint a subcommittee of suitably qualified persons to conduct hearings on behalf of the Committee. The Chair of the Policy and Regulatory Committee is also delegated this function.

• All statutory requirements under the Reserves Act 1977 that require the Department of Conservation to ratify.

Conduct of Hearings:

• To conduct hearings where these are required as part of a statutory process[1].

• Hearing of submissions required on any matters falling under the Terms of Reference for this committee or delegating to a panel to undertake hearings (this delegation is also held by the Chair of the Policy and Regulatory Committee).

General:

• Any other matters delegated to the Committee by Council in accordance with approved policies and bylaws.

NOTE:

The Ministry for the Environment advocates that Councils offer specialist RMA training in areas of law which are difficult to grasp or where mistakes are commonly made. This is to complement the Good Decision Making RMA training that they run (which is an overview and basic summary of decision making, rather than an in-depth training in specific areas of the RMA). Therefore in order to facilitate this, the RMA training run for councillors that wish to be hearings commissioners is mandatory.

Reasons for the importance of the training:

1 Hearings commissioners are kept abreast of developments in the legislation.

2 Legal and technical errors that have been made previously are avoided (many of which have resulted in Environment Court action which is costly, time consuming and often creates unrealistic expectations for the community).

3 The reputation of Council as good and fair decision makers or judges (rather than legislators) is upheld.

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Policy and Regulatory Committee

Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

Monday 30 April 2018 commencing at 5.30pm.

ORDER PAPER

Public Business

1. APOLOGIES

Mayor Wallace for lateness.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Generally up to 30 minutes is set aside for public comment (three minutes per speaker on items appearing on the agenda). Speakers may be asked questions on the matters they raise.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

4. For Committee input prior to Community Plan Committee referral – 6 June 2018

a) Encroachment Licence Fees (18/522)

Report No. PRC2018/2/105 by the Principal Policy Advisor 15

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the recommendations contained in the report be discussed.”

b) Sea Level Rise - Actions and Recommendations (18/524)

Report No. PRC2018/2/104 by the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning 27

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

5. Recommendations to Council - 22 May 2018

i) Representation Review - Draft Proposal for Public Consultation (18/537)

Report No. PRC2018/2/108 by the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning 33

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That recommendations (i), (ii) and (iv) be discussed and (iii) to read: establishes a subcommittee comprising Mayor Wallace (or his Deputy), Cr Cousins and Cr Barratt to consider and approve the representation options developed for community consultation.”

ii) Reserve Revocation - Molesworth Street Reserve (18/464)

Report No. PRC2018/2/99 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 64

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

iii) August Street Encroachment (18/415)

Report No. PRC2018/2/100 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 69

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

iv) Land Exchange - Tocker Street (18/414)

Report No. PRC2018/2/106 by the Reserves Asset Manager 73

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

v) Proposed Lease to Hutt Cricket Academy - Hutt Recreation Ground Grandstand (18/523)

Report No. PRC2018/2/110 by the Asset Manager, Parks 77

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

vi) Allowing Free-Floating Car Sharing in Hutt City (18/508)

Report No. PRC2018/2/113 by the Sustainability and Resilience Manager

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

vii) Earthquake-Prone Priority Buildings (18/498)

Report No. PRC2018/2/107 by the Seismic Assessment Officer 87

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That recommendations (i) and (ii) contained in the report be endorsed and (iii) to read: agrees to establish a subcommittee comprising of Cr Cousins, Cr Edwards, and Cr Bridson, with alternates, Cr Lewis and Cr Barry to:

(a) hear submissions on the proposed Priority Routes and Earthquake-Prone Buildings proposal;

(b) recommend the appropriate action to Council for consideration and approval; and

(c) be given delegated authority to approve minor amendments to the Priority Routes and Earthquake-Prone Buildings proposal prior to public consultation.”

viii) Review of Policy on Appointment of Members of the District Licensing Committee (18/271)

Report No. PRC2018/2/101 by the Committee Advisor 109

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

6. Proposed Consultation on Reserve Classification, Walter Mildenhall Park (18/348)

Report No. PRC2018/2/111 by the Asset Planner 118

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

7. General Manager's Report (18/421)

Report No. PRC2018/2/120 by the Divisional Manager Environmental Consents and the Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services and Emergency Management 123

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

8. Information Item

Policy and Regulatory Committee Work Programme (18/422)

Report No. PRC2018/2/46 by the Committee Advisor 153

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the information contained in the report be noted.”

9. QUESTIONS

With reference to section 32 of Standing Orders, before putting a question a member shall endeavour to obtain the information. Questions shall be concise and in writing and handed to the Chair prior to the commencement of the meeting.

10. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

CHAIR'S RECOMMENDATION:

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:

11. ECNZ Track Land Acquisition (18/427)

The general subject 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(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

(A)	(B)	(C)

General subject of the matter to be considered.	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter.	Ground under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution.


ECNZ Track Land Acquisition.	The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities (s7(2)(h)). The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) (s7(2)(i)).	That 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 exist.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as specified in Column (B) above.”

Susan Haniel

Committee Advisor

15 30 April 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

03 April 2018

File: (18/522)

Report no: PRC2018/2/105

Encroachment Licence Fees

Purpose of Report

1. To seek Council approval for the new range of encroachment licence fees.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that the Community Plan Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that the current Policy on Private Use of Hutt City Council Land was adopted by Council in 2003 and therefore is due for review;

(ii) notes that the review will be completed in two stages, first stage is the review of the current encroachment fees, the second stage a review of the current policy as it relates to encroachments and reserve land;

(iii) notes that in preparing the draft Long Term Plan (LTP) it was indicated (in the fees and charges section) that encroachment fees were being reviewed and may alter as a result of the review;

(iv) notes that Council has indicated that a “market value of land” approach should be used when reviewing the setting of encroachment fees and that the first stage of the review has been completed accordingly;

(v) agrees that the following fees be adopted by Council:

a) application fee (new applications) $300.00

b) application fee (alterations to existing use) $300.00

c) changes to existing licences $100.00

d) annual licence fees – for gardens, single garage, double garage, drainage reserves and pavement encroachments – be set as outlined as Option 3 in the report. This takes into consideration the area and value of the encroachment area;

(vi) agrees that any change to encroachment licence fees be phased in so that the change is made when each licence is due for its next annual licence payment or within 12 months if the anniversary is soon after the decision to increase licence fees is made;

(vii) agrees that the Chief Executive be given the discretionary power around establishing the annual licence fee for encroachment licences where there are unusual or exceptional circumstances to consider and on an annual basis the CEO to report to the Finance and Performance Committee on any exercise of this discretionary power; and

(viii) agrees that the recommendations as noted above subject to any amendments or changes made by the Policy and Regulatory Committee for inclusion in the final LTP.

For the reason that the current policy has not been reviewed since 2003, and Council has indicated that a market value approach should be used when reviewing encroachment fees.

Background

2. The current Policy on Private Use of Hutt City Council Land was adopted by Council in 2003 and needs to be reviewed. This will be done in two stages - a review of the current encroachment licence fees followed by a review of the current policy relating to encroachments and reserve land. This report presents recommendations concerning the first stage of the review.

3. There are currently 278 encroachment licences issued by Council. There are four types of licences – garages (211), gardens (21), drainage (39) and street pavement (7).

4. In preparing the draft LTP (in the fees and charges section) it was noted that the encroachment fees were being reviewed and may alter as a result of the review. Any recommendations from the Policy and Regulatory Committee concerning encroachment fees will be referred to the Community Plan Committee for inclusion in the final LTP.

5. The current fees are:

Application fee (new licence applications) $173.00

Application fee (alterations to existing use) $58.00

Annual licence fee:

Gardens $115.00pa

Single garage $128.00pa

Double garage $256.00pa

Drainage reserve $57.50pa

Pavement encroachment $57.50pa

Discussion

Application fee (new applications)

6. The Licence Application fee is currently set at $173.00 and is charged when a person applies for an encroachment licence. The current fee was originally set in 2003 to cover Council costs. The cost to Council to process a new encroachment licence is now $300.00. Officers recommend that the application fee be changed to $300.00 to cover actual costs and that the fee is reviewed every two years to ensure it continues to cover costs.

Application fee (alterations to existing use)

7. This application fee is currently set at $58.00 and is payable for when licensees request changes to an existing use e.g. extending the size of a garage. The current cost to Council to process these changes is $300.00 as the same process is involved as that involved in processing a new licence application. Officers recommend that the application fee for alterations to an existing use be changed to $300.00 and be reviewed every two years to ensure it continues to cover costs.

Changes to existing licences – property bought or sold

8. The need to change existing licences occurs when a property is bought or sold. Change to the licence holder requires issuing a new licence and updating annual fee charging arrangements. Cost to Council is $100.00. This is not currently a cost Council charge for. It is recommended that a charge of $100.00 be introduced and regularly reviewed to ensure it continues to cover costs.

Annual licence fee

9. The annual licence fee is the annual payment by a licence holder to Council for continued use of the encroachment. The Council has indicated recently that a market value approach should be used when reviewing these fees. Given this indication officers have undertaken an analysis of the land area and the land value of each encroachment licence. Attached to this report as Appendices 1 and 2 are graphs showing the land area and land value of existing licences. This shows that there is a wide range of land areas and land values.

10. Outlined below are the charges other Councils in the Wellington region make for encroachment licences. This indicates the Hutt City Council current fee structure is lower compared to other Councils. It should also be noted that both Wellington and Porirua City Councils set some of their charges based on the encroachment area.

Wellington City Council

For road reserves use a fee structure based on a mix of fixed charges and fixed cost per m2.

· Application fee $460 (incl GST)

· Minimum fee $103.50 and a standard fee calc charge of $14.46/m2 (incl GST) so:

o 50m2 = $723.00 incl gst

o 25m2 = $361.50 incl gst

The standard fee rate per m2 reviewed every 2-3 years based on Consumer Price Index (CPI). Only adjust rate when CPI has moved enough to warrant change.

Porirua City Council (PCC)

The only charge is for structures (garages, car ports, exterior lifts and signs) with an annual fee of $7.40m2 (+GST). The current $7.40m2 rate is reviewed annually and any change is based on percentage increase in rates from the previous year. So based on $7.40m2:

· 50m2 = $370.00

· 25m2 = $185.00

Pavement encroachments not are licenced – PCC removed that requirement as an incentive to increase the vibrancy of their CBD by making it easy to place tables and chairs on the pavement.

Licence gardens but don’t charge for these licences

Upper Hutt City Council

Road reserve (including pavement) encroachment licence - $115.00

Kapiti Coast District Council

Only charge is for an Outdoor Dining Licence - $150.00pa

Options

11. Four options have been prepared for the Committee to consider:

a. Option 1: Status quo. Continue with the current flat fees for each encroachment type – do not take the variations in each encroachment area and value into account; OR

b. ‘Option 1(a)’ increase fees to get parity with other Councils in the region; OR

c. Option 2: Revised flat fee. Flat fees for each encroachment type, similar to option 1 but altered to reflect the area and value of the land occupied through the existing encroachment licences. The proposed annual fees are calculated based on the percentage of private benefits, the median encroachment area and median land value per sqm of the existing licences, plus GST; OR

d. Option 3: Discounted market rent. Takes into consideration the area and value of the encroachment area. For this option the percentage of private benefits, plus the 10 year average price to rent ratio (to convert value to rent) plus GST is used.

12. Looking at the pros and cons of these three options the first option (Option 1 and Option 1A) is easy to implement. Everyone knows how much we charge.

13. Option 2 provides an opportunity to consider the area of the land subject to the encroachment and the value of the land however it means that people pay the same fee whether they live in a prime location or in semi-rural areas.

14. Option 3 enables Council to consider both the value of the land and the lands location thus reflecting the variations in value between land in a prime location and other land. Option 3 also produces the fairest result because it reflects the value of the land both in terms of the square metres involved and the location of the land.

15. The following criteria have been used in a scoring system to determine the public-private benefits ratio as it relates to encroachment types. A private benefit means the net benefit an individual receives when something is used or consumed exclusively by them. A public benefit means the net benefit the community receives when something is available to be used or consumed by the general public.

a. Exclusiveness – no one can use or access the specified land

b. Unrestricted use – no limitation on use of the specified land

c. Effects on the land or surrounding environment, and

d. Other considerations that make Council reluctant (or interested) to offer the type of encroachment.

16. Attached to this report as Appendix 3 is the resulting score for the four types of encroachment licences. A verbal report will be tabled at the meeting to explain in more detail how this scoring system can be used to establish new annual encroachment fees. Using these results the chart below shows what the effect is on the proposed new annual fees.

Encroachment type	Option 1 Status quo ($)	Option 2 Revised flat fee ($)	Option 3 average fee based on % of market rent ($)	Difference ($)
Garage (per car park)	128.00	271	271	143
Garden	115.00	780	780	665
Drainage Reserve	57.50	914	914	856
Pavement	57.50	288	288	231

Option 1(a): Having noted the fees charged by other Councils in the Wellington region as outlined in paragraph 10 above, another option is to charge at an equivalent amount.

17. How does this affect Council income? The chart below shows the change in income based on the three options outlined above. Option 1(a) is also an option once the level of the fees is established.

Encroachment type	Option 1 Status quo ($)	Option 2 Revised flat fee ($)	Option 3 % of market rent
Garage	30,077	65,693	73,543
Garden	2,401	14,240	21,744
Drainage Reserve	2,159	30,990	40,271
Pavement	550	1,756	1,712
Total	35,188	112,679	137,270
% increase in income compared to Status quo	-	220%	290%

18. Why does Council earn more in Option 3 above? A person with an average encroachment licence will pay the same in Options 2 and 3; however, Option 3 takes into consideration the area of land and the location therefore as some people have much larger encroachment areas on prime locations they will pay more.

Discretionary power

19. Providing the CEO with a discretionary power around establishing the annual licence fee for encroachment licences where there are unusual or exceptional circumstances to consider is recommended. On an annual basis the CEO can then report to the Finance and Performance Committee on any exercise of this discretionary power.

Options

20. Given the approach Council wishes to take – to move to a more market value approach - four options have been presented for consideration. While this report presents options or approaches that could result in some significant increases in licence fees, it should be noted that the current fees have not changed in 15 years.

21. Attached as Appendix 4 is a range of examples (shown as lower, medium and upper) to illustrate how Options 2 and 3 works for each encroachment type.

22. It is recommended that Option 3 be adopted to reflect changes in market value and encroachment licence fees be reviewed on a regular basis.

Transitional provisions around new licence fees

23. The new licence fees will be established by Council when it adopts the LTP. It could make the new fees effective from 1 July 2018. Treasury staff have requested that the change be phased in so that the change is made when each licence is due for its next annual licence payment or within 12 months (if the anniversary is soon after the decision to increase licence fees is made). Officers recommend that Council adopt this approach.

Consultation

Survey to test proposed approach to the review

24. A survey managed by Public Voice was undertaken in 2017 to test public support for the approach suggested around setting fees for this review. 657 responses were received.

25. The survey asked if the application fee should cover the administration cost Council incurs when reviewing an application - 77% said ‘Yes’, 14% said ‘No’ and 9% ‘Don’t know’.

26. The survey also asked if respondents thought a public-private policy framework should be used to decide how much people using public (Council) land should pay - 76% said ‘Yes’ , 8% said ‘No’ and 15% ‘Don’t know’.

Legal Considerations

27. The conditions of Hutt City Council Encroachment licences enable Council to change the licence fee at its discretion.

Financial Considerations

28. The current fee structure has not been reviewed since 2003. The potential increase in revenue from encroachment licence fees is indicated in the chart above – refer to paragraph 17 above.

Other Considerations

29. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it is recommending an approach that is cost-effective because it is recommending a fee structure that enables Council to recover its costs and annual licence fees that are based on the market value of the land being used.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Appendix 1: The Land Area of existing licenses	23
2 ⇩	Appendix 2: The Land Value of existing licences	24
3 ⇩	Appendix 3: Public Private benefit - scoring	25
4 ⇩	Appendix 4: A hypothetical range of encroachment licence fees for each encroachment type	26

Author: Graham Sewell

Principal Policy Advisor

Reviewed By: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Attachment 4

Appendix 4: A hypothetical range of encroachment licence fees for each encroachment type

A hypothetical range of encroachment areas for each encroachment type
Garage					Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
		Encroachment area (sqm)	Land Value ($/sqm)	Total value of the Enc area ($)	Status quo ($)	Revised flat fee ($)	% of market rent ($)
	UPPER	50	450	22,500	128	271	920
	Median	20.1	330.3	6,622	128	271	271
	LOWER	15	170	2,550	128	271	104

Garden					Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
		Encroachment area (sqm)	Land Value ($/sqm)	Total value of the Enc area ($)	Status quo ($)	Revised flat fee ($)	% of market rent ($)
	UPPER	100	450	45,000	115	780	1840
	Median	53.4	357.1	19,071	115	780	780
	LOWER	20	170	3,400	115	780	139

Drainage Reserve					Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
		Encroachment area (sqm)	Land Value ($/sqm)	Total value of the Enc area ($)	Status quo ($)	Revised flat fee ($)	% of market rent ($)
	UPPER	250	450	112,500	57.5	914	3738
	Median	160.0	171.9	27,506	57.5	914	914
	LOWER	50	100	5,000	57.5	914	166

Pavement					Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
		Encroachment area (sqm)	Land Value ($/sqm)	Total value of the Enc area ($)	Status quo ($)	Revised flat fee ($)	% of market rent ($)
	UPPER	30	1200	36,000	57.5	288	552
	Median	18.4	1022.5	18,813	57.5	288	288
	LOWER	10	700	7,000	57.5	288	107

Appendix 4

28 30 April 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

04 April 2018

File: (18/524)

Report no: PRC2018/2/104

Sea Level Rise - Actions and Recommendations

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this paper is to:

a. Update the Committee on actions being taken related to sea level rise and climate change.

b. Make recommendations to the Committee concerning budget expenditure to address community concerns about and involvement in Council’s response to local sea level rise and climate change issues.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that the Community Plan Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes the mapping of sea level rise and climate change impacts occurring at regional level does not show in detail the effect of sea level rise on individual assets and households and therefore does not provide sufficient granularity to assist Council to successfully plan for and protect vulnerable parts of the city;

(ii) makes a budget allocation in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan to:

(a) acquire and use sea level rise maps to identify threatened places, assets and communities in Lower Hutt and develop specific response options. The indicative cost is $100,000; and

(b) begin engagement with Lower Hutt communities to build a common understanding of the risks faced by the community particularly the potential environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts associated with of climate change. The indicative cost is $100,000.

For the reasons outlined in the report below.

Background

2. At the Policy and Regulatory Committee meeting 31 July 2017, the Committee asked officers to prioritise and ascertain any additional costs required for:

i. legal expertise to assess any likely liability vis a vis land use decisions and the impact this has on where people decided or will decide where to build/live/carry out business; and

ii. acquiring and using sea level rise maps to identify threatened places, assets and communities and specific response options. This would require an interactive software tool to be developed and used at an indicative cost of $100k. This would provide Council with firm data on which to plan for adaptation and mitigation for individual assets and households. Data at this granular level would assist Council to successfully plan for and protect vulnerable parts of the city; and

iii. to provide a report to the Policy and Regulatory Committee by the end of 2017 regarding any additional costs needed for this work to proceed, to enable consideration prior to forwarding to the Community Plan Committee.”

3. This report addresses items (ii) and (iii) above. Officers have completed the initial analysis of Council’s potential legal liability vis a vis land use decisions and the impact this has on where people decided or will decide where to build/live/carry out business. A separate paper will be prepared to address this question for the Policy and Regulatory Committee meeting on 2 July 2018.

Discussion

4. There are several pieces of work currently being undertaken addressing issues related to sea level rise and climate change that are occurring around the region. Below is a short summary of these.

Wellington Region Natural Hazards Strategy

5. The purpose of this Strategy is to ensure that the communities of the Wellington region work together to understand and reduce risks from natural hazards. Membership comprises:

· GWRC – climate change, rivers, coastal and policy teams

· WREMO

· Wellington Water

· Lifelines

· Regional Territorial Authorities

6. There is a Steering Group (which is there to ensure there is regional collaboration within these disciplines on the issues relating to all the natural hazards relevant to Wellington) and three Working Groups (each with its own terms of reference) which are focused on:

· research

· planning

· engagement

7. The research group is currently pulling together data on regional sea level rise trends to:

a. provide regional guidelines for each council to use

b. establish a good consistent science base for the region and provide information to the planning and engagement working group

This will ensure consistency when developing provisions in plans, LTP’s (where applicable) and consultation material

8. The planning group is developing consistent seismic provisions and a consistent sea level rise policy with common standards across the region. This will include a guidance toolbox to assist planners.

9. The engagement group (while recognising that each Council may be at different stages in the planning process and have different relationships with their community) is focused on:

a. establishing best practice approaches from agency experiences

b. developing a region wide communication approach on sea level rise

c. using information and supporting the planning and research groups where applicable to ensure a clear link between the different aspects of work being completed.

Wellington Region Climate Change Councillors Working Group

10. This group includes one main and one alternate elected member from each council in the Wellington region^{^[2]} and three mana whenua representatives. The purpose of the group is to provide a forum via which councils and mana whenua from across the Wellington Region can network, discuss issues, share information and where appropriate, achieve a consistent approach across all jurisdictions on climate change mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (preparing for impacts such as sea level rise, drought and enhanced natural hazards effects).

11. There are benefits for each Council from participating in a regional working group that provides coordination, facilitates joined up action and enables consistent leadership, advocacy and communications in relation to climate change. Hutt City Council agreed the Terms of Reference for the group in principle at its meeting in December 2017.

12. At its last meeting on 16 March the Wellington Region Climate Change Councillors Working Group moved towards recommending that the Wellington region use the same approach as that used in Hawkes Bay (Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy 2120) to progress their work.

13. The Project Team in Hawkes Bay based their work on the Ministry for the Environment Guidance for Local Government on Coastal Hazards and Climate Change. They undertook comprehensive hazard and risk assessments for coastal erosion and coastal inundation, and seven coastal units for priority response were identified and agreed. Each priority unit has a recommended 100 year plan that is divided into approaches to managing coastal hazard risks in the short (0 to 20 years); medium (20 to 50 years) and long term (50 to 100 years).

14. A key concept underlying this approach is responding to uncertainty with pathways – people have choices about the pathways that they follow at different points in time. Adjustments can be made in response to changing hazards and pre-defined triggers (decision points).

15. Securing broad community support for the approach was key to the success of the project. Lessons learnt included:

a. Ensuring that the process was a ratepayer up process rather than a Council down process

b. Bringing the community “into the tent”

c. Disseminating knowledge – making sure people in the community can access information easily

d. Developing community champions

e. Blending political, technical and academic skills

f. Having the right people in the process at the right time

16. The pinch point was the “who pays” question and this continues to be debated. If the Wellington Region Climate Change Councillors Working Group does recommend to participating Councils that the Hawkes Bay approach should be used here then it is likely that, if agreed to by all Councils, HCC will be asked to contribute financially to this work.

LGNZ survey to support understanding the impacts of climate change on local government infrastructure

17. Local Government New Zealand is undertaking a Climate Change Programme that intends to provide an evidence base to support a comprehensive framework for policy advocacy and decision making.

18. A key project under the programme is to assess and understand the impacts of sea level rise on local government infrastructure. For that effort, LGNZ has coordinated with NIWA to utilise GIS data to pinpoint 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 3.0 metre elevations. This information is being overlaid with each council’s GIS information to show where exposed infrastructure exists and to understand its depreciated and replacement value.

19. Hutt City Council has provided its data for this work to LGNZ’s consultants (Tonkin and Taylor), and it is currently being analysed.

20. While this work does provide some useful information on the Council’s exposure in relation to various sea level rise elevations, it does not show in detail the effect of sea level rise on individual assets and households. Therefore, the project does not provide a sufficient granularity to assist Council to successfully plan for and protect vulnerable parts of the city.

Wellington Water

21. Wellington Water Ltd is in the process of stormwater modeling the Western Hills and Petone. This will provide a detailed and accurate tool to understand the impacts that both sea level rise and increased rainfall intensity could have on the pipe and stream networks ability to drain these areas in a flood. This work is focused on the local drainage network response and will be completed by the end of June 2018. Discussions with Wellington Water indicate that this tool will quantify the impacts of climate change as well as provide a powerful communication tool for engaging in evidence based assessment of options to manage this risk.

22. However there are other areas particularly around Waiwhetu and Eastbourne that are also vulnerable to climate change impacts and detailed modeling of these areas is planned for in the next two years.

23. It will be essential for Councils to work alongside Wellington Water as knowledge experts to engage with its communities to develop responses and to discuss how those responses will be timed and paid for.

Comment

24. At this stage there are no plans to undertake comprehensive regional mapping of sea level rise in the short term. Hutt City Council will not have access to firm data on which to plan for adaptation and mitigation for individual assets and households until mapping is completed. This will impact on Council’s ability to successfully progress plans to protect vulnerable parts of the city.

Options

25. The options are:

a. to agree to making a recommendation to the Community Plan Committee that it makes budget provision for sea level rise mapping and community engagement (as recommended;) OR

b. to not agree to making such a recommendation; OR

c. to ask officers to complete further work to develop more accurate costings for consideration in the 2019 Annual Plan.

26. Officers recommend Option (a).

Consultation

27. Officers have had discussions with GWRC and Wellington Water Ltd.

Legal Considerations

28. Officers have completed an initial analysis of Council’s potential legal liability vis a vis land use decisions and the impact this may have on where people decided or will decide to build/live/carry out business. A separate paper will be prepared to address this question for the Policy and Regulatory Committee meeting on 2 July 2018.

29. In summary, forewarned is forearmed – it is better to tell people of the possibility that they may be affected by sea level rise and/or climate change than not to say anything. To do this it is also best for Council’s to ensure that they take into account the most recent, accurate information known to inform decision. Citizens have expectations that local councils will make prudent decisions regarding where people can settle and buildings erected.

Financial Considerations

30. Investing in sea level rise mapping and community engagement has budget implications for the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

Other Considerations

31. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it addresses the issue of sea level rise and climate change and their likely impact on the current and future needs of the lower Hutt community. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it recommends that the Committee consider recommending that the Community Plan Committee be asked to consider funding sea level rise mapping and community engagement as part of the Long Term Plan budget.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Author: Jörn Scherzer

Sustainability and Resilience Manager

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

34 30 April 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

06 April 2018

File: (18/537)

Report no: PRC2018/2/108

Representation Review - Draft Proposal for Public Consultation

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of a proposed package of options to developed further and used for community consultation before Council makes a decision on the final Representation Review draft proposal for public consultation.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council :

(i) directs officers to develop a package of options for further community consultation and report back to the Policy and Regulatory Committee on 2 July 2018 with a draft representation proposal based on the results of that consultation;

(ii) notes that the proposed package options are:

a) Status quo for Council; plus either no second tier representation OR Community Panels OR Community Boards and Community Panels (as the latter is the status quo for second tier);

b) Council elected as a mix of ward and at large plus Community Panels;

c) Council elected at large only plus Community Boards OR Community Panels;

(iii) establishes a subcommittee to consider and approve the representation arrangement options developed for community consultation; and

(iv) notes that Council, once it has agreed on a draft proposal, must publicly notify that proposal no later than 8 September 2018.

For the reasons outlined in the report below.

Background

2. Section 19H of the Local Electoral Act requires Council to review its representation arrangements, develop a proposal for public consultation that complies with the requirements of sections 19M and 19N of the LEA, and publicly notify that proposal no later than 8 September in the year before an election.

3. Workshops have been held with Council (on 27^th March) and Community Boards and Community Panels to ensure their views can be considered by the Committee when making their recommendations to Council on options for further community consultation before Council decides on the final the draft Representation Review proposal for public consultation. Seven Community Board, ten Community Panel members and three Councillors attended the Representation Review workshop held on 9 April 2018.

4. A Citizen's Panel survey was undertaken to gauge the community’s views on a number of issues including:

a. remaining with the status quo for Councillor representation, or a move to the election of Councillors ‘at large’, or a mix of ‘wards’ and ‘at large’

b. whether Council should have the same number of Councillors as currently

c. whether the City should continue with boards and Panels or make a change.

5. The survey was also publicised on line through Neighbourly and Hutt City Council’s Face Book page. Please note that seventy five percent of those who took part were self-selected. In other words they were not part of the 1000 randomly selected Citizen's Panel but had either:

a. Put their name forward or had their name put forward by officers because they have said they want to be contacted to give their views on Council proposals;

b. Seen the invitation on Facebook or Council’s web site

6. This result is unusual in that typically those completing Citizen's Panel surveys are equally represented in terms of being part of the random selection and self-selected.

Discussion

Citizen's Panel Survey

7. A Citizen’s Panel survey was undertaken to determine the community’s views on a number of issues including:

a. remaining with the status quo for Councillor representation, or a move to the election of Councillors ‘at large’, or a mix of ‘wards’ and ‘at large’ and

b. whether Council should have the same number of Councillors as currently

c. whether the City should continue with Boards and Panels or whether there should be a change

8. There were 633 responses to the survey and it is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Satisfaction with current representation arrangements

9. The majority (51%) of respondents are satisfied or very satisfied with current representation arrangements in the city. A large number were neutral (34%) however few were dissatisfied (11%) or very dissatisfied (4%). There were 71 comments as to why people were dissatisfied. The majority of these were related to people’s perception that Councillors that they did not vote for because of the ward system were making decisions on their behalf and so the system was not representative.

10. Some felt that ward Councillors were only interested in certain parts of the ward e.g. Eastbourne, Petone and Maungaraki. Others felt that some Councillors were motivated by central government politics and were driving certain agendas because of this and that Council lacked diversity.

Are all parts of the city are equally represented by Council?

11. Fifty percent (50%) of respondents felt that all parts of the city are equally represented by Council although 23% did not think this was so. Areas with community boards were seen as being overrepresented. Those that thought that all parts of the city are not equally represented felt that the Central and Harbour wards are overrepresented and areas with Community Boards. The areas seen as underrepresented were Naenae, Wainuiomata, Stokes Valley, Kelson. This may indicate a need for Council to increase communication with residents in these areas to make them aware of the work and investment that is happening in those communities.

What distinct communities do you think make up Lower Hutt?

12. Respondents were somewhat confused by this question with many referring to communities of interest such as the disability community, Maori, older people, young people, arts and crafts, sports and business. Those who understood the question to mean geographical areas of Lower Hutt focused on wards and suburbs with Petone, Central Hutt and Wainuiomata. Some based this on the fact that Petone and Wainuiomata were once Borough Councils.

How do you think Councillors should be elected?

13. Results were very close for this question with 41% of respondents supporting ward based representation and 41% supporting a mix of at large and wards. A further 16% who preferred at large only for the whole city then the option of mixed at large and ward representation is favoured by more respondents.

14. Those who supported at large made comments such as:

Gives voters more scope on who they want to govern for the next three years. Also it enables a holistic view of who is standing so better choices can be made. After all, we are one city and we should get to vote for the best available regardless of where they reside.

A fairer way to ensure a better representation across the city

Anyone on council should be elected by the whole city as they are representing us

15. Respondents were concerned that competition between wards and the need for ward Councillors to show that they were doing something for “their ward” was detrimental to the city as a whole, that it led to piecemeal development as Councillors promote their ward first and that sometimes protection of ones 'turf' takes priority over what is best for the community overall.

16. Those who supported a mix of at large and ward based representation made comments such as:

Allows for some ward representation but also the option to include other representation that can come from outside of the wards.

As it would give more of a combine selection. And less bias from immediate locations.

Because I believe it gives the option to elect the best candidates while ensuring some councilors are tied to a particular area.

17. Respondents saw the approach as fairer in that everyone got to vote for some Councillors. This was because many felt that they did not get a say in who were Councillors in other wards yet it was these people who were influencing decisions that Council was making. Respondents thought this was undemocratic.

18. Those who preferred a ward based system were concerned that without it their ward would “miss out”. People felt ward Councillors were “more accountable” to those living in the ward and that ward interests were better served by a ward system.

Because it is important who represents area where you live

Because wards distinct interests need a voice

Communities need fair representation and a strong voice at the table. Wards allow that

How many Councillors should there be?

19. The majority of respondents (69%) thought that the number of Councillors should remain as it is. There was some support for a smaller Council (16%) and 10% supported a larger Council. There seems to be little appetite for change with 71% supporting a Council of 10-14 Councillors plus the Mayor.

Which option for second tier representation do you prefer?

20. The response to this question was mixed. Those who supported Community Boards and Community Panels across the city (29%) were followed, in terms of numbers by those who wanted no second tier representation (18%). The remaining respondents were spread as follows:

· Community Boards only - across the city – 15%

· Community Panels only - across the city – 13%

· Community Boards only - where they currently exist (Wainuiomata, Eastbourne and Petone) – 12%

21. Those who preferred Community Boards and Community Panels across the city generally came from areas where there are Community Boards and had comments as follows:

Because members of community boards are elected they are more accountable. A good stepping stone for people who may wish to become Councillors. Boards need to work closely with the ward Councillors.

Community Boards have statutory standing and discipline that community panels don't. Council could make even better use of community boards and the existing ones must stay at least.

Community Boards play a key role but it’s not fair they are in some areas and not others.

It makes sense - Petone had its own Borough Council for 100 years and is very distinct from the rest of Hutt City due to its history and heritage as NZ's first planned settlement. It basically thrives on its own without a lot of input from the Council as shown by the lack of any plans for Petone in its LTP or AP.

It works for us in Eastbourne

22. Those people who preferred no second tier representation made comments such as:

Lower Hutt is not big enough to need any second-tier representation. The present system adds nothing to our city's governance and is merely a sop to lingering resentments from a few people in suburbs who hark back to their prehistoric separate status.

Not necessary if councilors and officials doing their jobs.

Second tier is not needed. Technology can now do a superior job.

The Council needs to be effective in decision making. The community boards don't achieve anything and get hijacked by small but vocal special interest groups rather than representing the communities’ interests at large.

The present Community Boards are a relic of the old boroughs. Were needed at that time but now all parts of Hutt City should be treated equally.

23. Other comments related to Community Boards and Community Panels across the city included:

There are communities outside Wainui, Eastbourne and Petone that would benefit from community board/panels. Local government amalgamation happened 30 years ago, it is time to move on from these three communities being treated differently from the rest.

There needs to be fair representation across the whole city, not just a few areas that have all the voice for their wards and the rest of the city has nothing.

These are distinctive communities with specific issues

The current communities with boards have specific needs that need to be considered in all Hutt decisions. They grew independently, prior to merging with the Hutt and their identities need to be maintained.

Local communities need visible representation and mentors but this should be kept as low key and accessible as possible.

24. It is clear that those communities that have Community Boards want to keep them. Wainuiomata (41%) strongly supported retaining Community Boards in the existing areas. However, there were only 44 respondents from Wainuiomata compared with 112 from Central.

25. The Wainuiomata, Petone and Eastbourne communities see themselves as being distinct from Lower Hutt city and that not having a Community Board would disadvantage them. On the opposite side, those without Community Boards see it as unfair that those communities have “extra” representation and that this puts them at an advantage over other communities in the city.

26. The support for Community Boards came predominantly from Wainuiomata, Petone and Eastbourne. There was a reasonably strong level of support for the status quo of Community Boards and Community Panels across the city.

27. Those expressing a positive opinion about Community Panels thought that these Panels did provide a level of local representation and that their main advantage was their informal nature and most importantly the access to funding for local community projects as a result of Panel members not being salaried. Those who weren’t as supportive felt that the informality was a disadvantage and that Panels were undemocratic.

If you are going to have a second tier representation it should be uniform across the city. Community boards are expensive and in my opinion lead to grandstanding and a waste of money. Community panels where there is no payment means people who wish to be on one are there because they care.

Community Panels are good because, they form a closer link between local communities and local Community & Residents Associations, such as Maungaraki, Kelson, Normandale etc, which from what I have seen, continues to work well

Community Panels are not democratic nor transparent and can be stacked around issues. Community Boards offer an effective way of delivering some of the roles and responsibilities of Council and allow input from the community. For fairer representation, they should be rolled out across the city

Money goes directly to community projects. Same system across the city.

28. Respondents were asked if they supported a targeted rate for Community Boards. Twenty three per cent (23%) supported this proposal, 57% did not support the proposal and 20% did not know.

Demographics

29. Just over one third (37%) of respondents were aged between 16 and 49 years. The other results were 50-59 (19%), 60-69 (22%) and through to 70 years and over (21%). Fifty two per cent (52%) were female and 48% male.

30. The Northern (11%) and Wainuiomata (9%) wards were the least represented in terms of respondents with Central (23%), Harbour (20%), Eastern (19%) and Western (18%) being the highest.

Next steps and Options

31. On the basis of the survey results officers recommend that options for further the city’s representation arrangements be developed for further community consultation. Officers suggest the following options be further developed for community consultation:

a) Status quo for Council; plus either no second tier representation OR Community Panels OR Community Boards and Community Panels (as the latter is the status quo for second tier)

b) Council elected as a mix of ward and at large plus Community Panels – provides for a ward Councillor to work closely with the local Community Panel to consider the funding of local projects and make recommendations to Council

c) Council elected at large only plus either Community Boards OR Community Panels - provides a ward level “voice” and enables communities to work closely with their Community Board or Community Panel (depending on which is favoured)

32. Officers suggest that these options be presented as a package rather than separately. For example, if Council was to move to a mix of ward and at large then the community may see a greater need for second tier representation in the form of a Board or a Panel.

33. The costs of each option should be clearly stated in the options for consultation. A number of survey respondents commented on the cost of both Boards and Panels with many viewing this as money that could not be otherwise invested in the city and/or their local community.

Consultation

34. Workshops have been held with Council and with Community Boards and Community Panels. Officers are recommending that Council develop representation options for further community consultation.

35. If Council agrees, further community consultation on options for the city’s representation arrangements will be undertaken.

Legal Considerations

36. Section 19H of the Local Electoral Act requires Council to review its representation arrangements, develop a proposal for public consultation that complies with the requirements of sections 19M and 19N of the LEA. Council, once it has agreed on a draft proposal, must publicly notify that proposal no later than 8 September 2018.

Financial Considerations

37. There will be some cost associated with community consultation on representation arrangement options.

Other Considerations

38. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it proposes a rigorous process to assist Council in deciding on a formal draft proposal for representation arrangements for Lower Hutt city. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it ensures that Council will put forward a draft proposal that best represents the community’s view and in so doing reduce the possibility of an appeal against that proposal.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Representation Review 2018 Survey results	41

Author: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

65 30 April 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

26 March 2018

File: (18/464)

Report no: PRC2018/2/99

Reserve Revocation - Molesworth Street Reserve

Purpose of Report

1. This report considers the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the Molesworth Street Reserve, following public notification. A plan of the reserve is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

i) notes that there were no submissions to the proposal to revoke the reserve status of the Molesworth Street Reserve; and

ii) confirms the proposal to revoke the local purpose reserve status of the property and make the property available for sale for the development of housing.

For the reasons outlined in the report.

Background

2. At its meeting of 12 December 2017 Council resolved to publicly notify a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the Molesworth Street Reserve and make the property available for housing, for the following reasons;

a. the reserve has a low reserves value as independently assessed, with poor visibility and drainage and low use;

b. there are other reserves in the immediate vicinity that help meet local recreation need;

c. the proceeds of the sale of the property will enable other Council reserve priorities to be undertaken, such as those identified in the Valley Floor Review Implementation Plan.

3. Officers had previously undertaken general consultation on the future of the reserve, which was reported to a meeting of this Committee on 21 November 2017.

4. The proposal to revoke the reserve status of the property was publicly notified (Hutt News and Council website) between 27 February and 27 March 2018. Council did not receive any submissions/objections. A copy of the public notice is attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

Discussion

5. The general consultation carried out last year supported the independent assessment of reserve values that the Molesworth Street Reserve is not well used.

6. There are other reserves in the immediate vicinity that are more developed and provide adequate green open space for the local community.

7. Council policy is to consider revoking the reserve status of reserve properties that have been assessed as having a low reserve value.

8. As there are no further submissions or objections to consider, Council is free to confirm its proposal.

Options

9. Council has two options. The first is to confirm its proposal to revoke the reserve status of the reserve, forward its decision to the Department of Conservation for ratification and then proceed to dispose of the property for housing purposes. This is the preferred option.

10. The second option is to decide to retain the property as reserve.

Consultation

11. Council sought the views of the community on the future of the reserve both locally and city-wide last year before resolving to notify the revocation proposal.

12. The proposal was notified in the Hutt News on 27 February 2018 and was published on the Council website from 27 February to 27 March 2018.

13. Local iwi were notified of the proposal but at the time of writing this report no response has been received.

Legal Considerations

14. The Council resolution and background information will be forwarded to the Department of Conservation for ratification and a formal gazette notice to enable the reserve status to be removed from the two titles that make up this property.

15. As the property is already within the General Residential Activity Area there will be no need to undertake a Plan Change.

16. A legal title review undertaken by The Property Group reveals that there are no offer back requirements under the Public Works Act for this property.

Financial Considerations

17. The property is currently being valued. As is the usual Council practice, the property will be first offered to Urban Plus Ltd at the assessed current valuation for residential development.

Other Considerations

18. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of local government in that it considers the future of a Council owned community asset.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Plan of Molesworth Street Reserve	67
2 ⇩	Public Notice Molesworth Street Reserve Revocation	68

Author: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager City and Community Services

70 30 April 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

20 March 2018

File: (18/415)

Report no: PRC2018/2/100

August Street Encroachment

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to consider a proposal to rectify a long standing encroachment at 43 August Street in Stokes Valley.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that the formed driveway to 2/43 August Street, Stokes Valley is partially located on Council land, having been constructed around 1987;

(ii) agrees to rectify the encroachment by way of a boundary adjustment;

(iii) agrees to sell the encroached area to the property owner of 2/43 August Street, with all costs to be met by the purchaser; and

(iv) agrees, once the boundary adjustment has been completed, to publicly notify a proposal to declare and classify the balance of the property as recreation reserve.

For the reason that this will effectively rectify the encroachment.

Background

2. The owner of 2/43 August Street in Stokes Valley has approached Council about rectifying a driveway encroachment that has been in existence for 30 years. A plan showing the encroachment as it was in 1988 is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

3. The driveway is partially located over Council-owned property that is managed as reserve. The Council property is 15.8 hectares in area being Part Lot 31 on Deposited Plan 8248. It is within the Hill Residential Activity Area of the District Plan.

4. The proposal is to carry out a boundary adjustment to rectify the encroachment. The area of the encroachment is approximately 190m² incorporating the sealed driveway and a small strip of maintained land adjacent to the driveway. The Council land beyond the driveway is steep and heavily bushed.

5. It is proposed that once the boundary adjustment is made the balance of the Council land be declared and classified as recreation reserve. This property appears to have been overlooked when other properties in this area were reviewed as part of the Land Review Project. The property is generally steep, has good bush coverage and would be difficult to develop for housing. This matter would be the subject of a separate report, following public notification of the proposal.

Discussion

6. The sealed driveway, which has been in existence for 30 years, has no value to Council as reserve and does not provide suitable access to the adjoining Council land. To the general public it would simply appear as a private driveway. The proposal to undertake a boundary adjustment will resolve the issue once and for all and will enable the owner of 2/43 August Street to be able to sell the property with legal certainty of tenure.

Options

7. Council could do one of three things in responding to this situation.

a. Regularise the encroachment by way of a boundary adjustment. This is the preferred option as it permanently resolves a situation that involves a fixed structure (driveway), providing access to this rear property.

b. Regularise the encroachment by way of issuing a licence. While this option could be used it is not recommended as licences require administrative input over time and do not automatically get assigned with a change in ownership, leaving some uncertainty for the property owner.

c. Require the owner to remove the encroachment. This is not recommended as it is a long standing encroachment and would remove physical access to the rear property.

Consultation

8. There is no requirement to consult.

Legal Considerations

9. There are no legal considerations at this time.

Financial Considerations

10. The owner of the property at 43A August Street has agreed to meet all costs associated with the boundary adjustment as well as the purchase of the land. Total payment will be capped at $20,000.

Other Considerations

11. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of local government in that it effectively resolves a long standing property issue.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Flat 2, 43 August Street Encroachment Plan	72

Author: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager City and Community Services

74 30 April 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

19 March 2018

File: (18/414)

Report no: PRC2018/2/106

Land Exchange - Tocker Street

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to gain approval in principle to exchange a small area of reserve land in Walter Nash Park for an area of privately owned land of similar value. A plan showing the details of the proposed exchange is attached as Appendix1 to the report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) endorses in principle a proposal to exchange 100m2 of council reserve for an equal area of adjacent privately owned land, as shown in the plan attached as appendix 1 to the report, and

(ii) requests officers to publicly notify, in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 requirements, Council’s intention to exchange the land.

For the reason that the current boundary is unsuitably placed, crossing a public footpath and splitting the ownership of the Tocker Street heritage gates. By undertaking the land swap, the public access can be secured and the western part of the gates can be brought into public ownership and protected.

Background

2. Council currently manages the area of neighbourhood reserve known as Walter Nash Park in Taita. The land has a legal description of Lot 1 DP 33319 and includes a playground, ballcourts and public green space. The park is also home to the Hutt Valley Darts Association and will be home to the Waimarie Croquet Club, once current developments to the greens are complete. The park has road frontages on Molesworth Street, Reynolds Street and Tocker Street.

3. The entrance on Tocker Street is a pedestrian entrance that passes no 1A Tocker Street, which consists of privately owned flats, formerly constructed and owned by Hutt City Council. The owners of these flats, which consist of three blocks each with two units, have approached Council, proposing a land swap to remedy a difficult boundary.

4. At the Tocker Street entrance are a set of heritage gates. These were originally the entrance to Riddiford Park, in Laings Road and were a gift to the city by a former Deputy Mayor John Mitchell. With the current boundaries in place, the eastern side of the gates is in public ownership, whilst the western side is within private property.

5. Council has recently invested over $300,000 on infrastructure improvements in Walter Nash Park, including an upgrade to the pedestrian walkway running alongside the Tocker Street flats and work to make the Tocker Street entrance more appealing and inviting. Additionally, Waimarie Croquet Club is relocating to the Park having invested a similar amount renovating the old bowling greens. Supergrans is running ‘Common Ground’ - a community led development project aimed at increasing the park user base and encouraging local ownership of the space.

6. The proposed land swap will not only secure the public ownership of the main footpath into the park, but will secure the public ownership of the western side of the heritage gates. In exchange the private owner will gain a more cohesive area of land at the northern edge of the current plot which will be large enough to allow the building of a fourth set of flats, if desired

Discussion

7. The current boundary currently crosses the main footpath into the park and is seen by the community as a public walkway. It is important to secure this access way to enable future maintenance and continued public access.

8. The heritage gates are well loved by the community and are viewed as a community asset. Under private ownership the western side of the gates has no protection against demolition or inappropriate development. By bringing them into public ownership, both sides of the gates can be protected and upgraded, as funding allows.

Options

9. Council has three options for responding to this situation

a. To carry out a land swap, exchanging two equally sized parcels of land. This is the preferred option as it secures the assets for public ownership at zero cost to Council, over and above the legal and surveying fees. This also provides the landowner with an opportunity for future development of an additional housing unit.

b. To purchase the required land from the landowner. This will have to be negotiated and funded, but may be preferable to the community who use the park.

c. To maintain the status quo. This is the least preferred option as valuable community assets will remain in the hands of private owners with no protection.

Consultation

10. No formal consultation has occurred to date with the intent that once approved in principle the proposal would be publicly notified and submissions sought.

11. Significant local consultation was undertaken during the production of the ‘Common Ground Concept Plan’, which was written in 2016, and formed the basis of landscape plans recently undertaken. Through this process there was some local opinion that the flats were inappropriate for the area and should be removed.

Legal Considerations

12. Council can enter into an exchange of reserve land under section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977. Before a resolution can be passed Council must advertise its intention to exchange the land and consider any objections.

Financial Considerations

13. The land areas are of approximately equal size and adjacent and are therefore considered to have equal dollar values, therefore the land would be exchanged in equality.

14. Council will meet the full legal costs for the land swap while the private owner will meet any additional costs related to future build proposals. Council’s costs will be covered by existing budgets.

Other Considerations

15. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it secures the public ownership of key park infrastructure and heritage structures, thus securing their future for the benefit of residents. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because there is no net cost to Council over and above the legal and surveying costs.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Map showing boundary readjustments for Tocker St. Flats	76

Author: Janet Lawson

Reserves Asset Manager

Reviewed By: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager City and Community Services

78 30 April 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

04 April 2018

File: (18/523)

Report no: PRC2018/2/110

Proposed Lease to Hutt Cricket Academy - Hutt Recreation Ground Grandstand

Purpose of Report

1. This report seeks approval to issue a lease to the Hutt Cricket Academy to operate an indoor cricket training facility within the Hutt Recreation Ground grandstand

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council agrees to lease the first floor of the Hutt Recreation Ground Grandstand to Hutt Cricket Academy for a term of 15 years.

Background

2. Council entered into an 18-year lease with Cricket Wellington (CW) in 1999 to operate an indoor cricket training facility from the first floor of the grandstand.

3. CW operated the facility for some 13 years until 2013 when the facility was sub-leased to the Hutt Districts Cricket Club and subsequently the Hutt Cricket Academy (the Academy). The Academy then undertook to upgrade the facilities and through various funding agencies, invested approximately $200k into the facility over a period of 2-3 years. The facility is now regarded as the best of its type in the region where club and elite players, teams and groups can receive additional and specific training.

4. The head lease (and consequently, sub-lease) reached its final expiry date in December 2017 with both CW and the Academy separately seeking to obtain the head lease.

5. The Academy no longer wants to operate under a sub-lease arrangement and wishes to lease the premises directly from Council. The Academy wants to continue to operate the facility it has recently invested heavily in, and by all accounts, operates successfully.

6. Officers have met separately with both parties, and while CW prefers it be issued with the lease, as the regional sporting organisation responsible for managing and developing cricket in the region, it has agreed to not pursue the issue in the interests of maintaining a mutual relationship with the Academy. CW acknowledges the good work the Academy is currently doing and the investment it has made. CW however, has asked that two specific lease provisions, which officers consider to be reasonable under the circumstances, be included in the lease:

a. That CW be given the opportunity to take on the lease should the Academy disband, no longer want the lease or for any other reason; and

b. That an operational review provision be included in the lease. The provision, for all intents and purposes, will be based around regular meetings between CW, the Academy and Council, to look at performance of the facility ensuring it is achieving the desired outcomes for all parties.

Discussion

7. CW is the regional sporting organization (RSO) tasked with managing and developing cricket in the wider Wellington region. The Academy is a recently created (2013) incorporated society established for the purposes of fostering, supporting and driving cricket talent in the Hutt Valley area primarily, and wider Wellington region generally. The Academy provides, among other things:

a. Support to cricketers of all ages from junior level through to elite players, sometimes at minimal to no cost;

b. Opportunities for lower grade youth to experience cricket, at no cost through the holiday programs;

c. Use of the facility and equipment for organisations not directly related to cricket e.g. personal trainers; persons recovering from injury

d. Access to the facility for local schools

8. The Academy has held a sub-lease of the facility with CW since 2013. During this period, the Academy has refurbished the facility to provide first class modern facilities and technology; and access to experienced coaches and mentors.

9. It is clear from discussions with both parties that each organization is dedicated to ensuring that the facility is operating well and providing additional cricketing opportunities for all cricket players.

10. CW acknowledges that the Academy is doing a good job and is prepared to provide support in an agreed form to the Academy.

Options

11. The Committee can either agree to grant to the Hutt Cricket Academy, a lease or not. Officers and CW supports the Academy’s request.

Consultation

12. CW and the Academy have both been consulted. There is no advantage to consult beyond these parties as the facility’s shape and design limits what the space can be used for.

13. Issuing a new lease limited to the Academy is a continuation of the existing purpose and use of the facility.

Legal Considerations

14. Leasing of reserve land is a function of the Reserves Act 1977. The Minister of Conservation has delegated the authority to local authorities to issue leases on Council owned reserves. Council has delegated this responsibility to community boards and committees for reserves in their area

Financial Considerations

15. Costs associated with the granting of a lease of this nature are minimal and will be met from within existing operational budgets.

16. The current annual rent for the facility is $12,500 + GST. This rent was set in 2013 during the last rent review process. Prior to issuing a new lease, officers will engage an independent valuation to ensure rent is set at the appropriate level.

Other Considerations

17. Officers have advised the Academy that any development plans will need Council approval and also require the support of the significant other users of the Hutt Rec.

18. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it is a statutory process delegated under statute to local government and required to enable a community use of a Council reserve.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Aaron Marsh

Asset Manager, Parks

Reviewed By: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager City and Community Services

82 30 April 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

29 March 2018

File: (18/508)

Report no: PRC2018/2/113

Allowing Free-Floating Car Sharing in Hutt City

Purpose of Report

1. To seek the Committee’s approval for enabling operators to implement free-floating car share operations in Hutt City.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that each car share vehicle can take up to 15 vehicles off the road by offering more travel choice and displacing under-utilised vehicles, thereby reducing pressure on parking;

(ii) approves the implementation of an annual or quarterly fee for approved car share vehicles, instead of requiring users of those car share vehicles to pay for parking each time they park a vehicle;

(iii) approves an exemption for car share vehicles to display a parking coupon and coupon exemption permit under section 3.2 of the Hutt City Council Bylaw 2017; and

(iv) approves an exemption for approved car share vehicles to comply with parking time restrictions P60 and longer.

Background

2. Car sharing is a way by which people can book a provider’s cars by the minute, hour or day, with all costs such as fuel, insurance and parking included. Users become members of the providers, and can then find, book and unlock vehicles by smart phone.

3. Various car share operating models exist, such as A-A “round-trip” (a user picks up a car and drops it off at the same location) or A-B “one-way or free-floating” (a user picks up the car, and drops it off somewhere else). The car share business model has grown exponentially overseas, with car sharing schemes in operation in many cities internationally. In Germany alone, there are now 165 car share operators across 677 cities and communities, with a total of 2.1 million users.

4. Car sharing is now also available in New Zealand: in Wellington, Christchurch and Auckland. Christchurch currently has the largest number of car share vehicles, with Yoogo Share operating approximately 100 fully electric vehicles, with Christchurch City Council also utilising the service for their pool vehicle needs.

5. Notably, each car share vehicle tends to take up to 15 vehicles off the road, by households giving up their second or third vehicle, organisations reducing their fleet sizes, or people forgoing the purchase of a replacement car, see McKinsey & Company (2012), US Transport Research Board (2004), Eliot Martin et al. (2009) and TSRC (2016). While the overall kilometers travelled may remain about the same, it is achieved with fewer vehicles as vehicle utilisation is higher. This has both private and public benefits.

6. By using car share vehicles instead, users can reduce their transport costs, improve flexibility (as they have access to all the car share vehicles in that area), and potentially enable an increase in spending on other non-automotive products and services.

7. There are also benefits to the wider community in that car sharing can reduce pressure on the limited parking space available, due to the removal of vehicles from the wider fleet.

8. MEVO, a car share provider currently operating in Wellington, would like to offer free-floating car share vehicles in Hutt City. MEVO has received expressions of interest from potential users in Lower Hutt, including the CBD area, which indicates that there is demand for this service.

9. In order for a free floating system to work in Hutt City, a user would need to be able to simply park the car and walk away, without having to worry about parking tickets or certain time restrictions. Therefore, two key changes would need to be made to Hutt City’s current parking approach:

a. Instead of users of approved car share vehicles paying for parking on a per-use basis, the car share provider would need to be able to pay for the parking of its vehicles on an annual or quarterly basis.

b. Approved car share vehicles would need to be exempt from complying with certain parking time restrictions (excluding loading zones, and car parks with time restrictions below 60 minutes).

10. Such an approach is possible with a technical solution. However, a formal decision is required by the committee, to enable this under Section 3.2 of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017.

Discussion

No adverse impacts on availability of parking expected

11. Enabling free-floating car sharing in Hutt City is not expected to result in adverse impacts on the availability of parking. This is because instead of setting aside dedicated car parks for car share vehicles, as is done in various A-A type systems, users in A-B type car share systems effectively compete for the same parking space with any other user. Therefore, they do not receive preferential treatment in this regard.

12. As car share systems have been shown to enable a reduction in overall vehicles (each car share vehicle can take up to 15 vehicles off the road), the availability of car share vehicles in Hutt City would contribute to fewer vehicles competing for parking.

13. Note that MEVO has confirmed that they are also planning to install charging locations for their electric car share vehicles, as in a conventional A-A type “round trip” system. However, they have a preference to install these on private land where possible (eg in association with businesses), and users will be offered incentives (eg free minutes of car share use) when they return vehicles to a charging location rather than leaving the vehicle at on-street car parks. This would further improve the availability of on-street parking.

No adverse impacts on Hutt City income from parking

14. The providers of free-floating car share vehicles are expected to pay for parking just like any other user. Therefore, enabling free-floating car sharing does not mean a reduction in Council parking revenue.

15. However, instead of collecting the parking on a per-use basis, the car share provider would need to be able to pay for the parking of its vehicles on an annual or quarterly basis.

16. The annual or quarterly parking fee would be calculated based on the actual parking space occupancy time for each vehicle at each CBD paid parking space. Note that at present, the average revenue from a CBD paid parking space is approximately $1,100 per space per year.

17. As car share vehicles are tracked by GPS, it is relatively easy to estimate the time they have spent parked in zones subject to a fee, and associated costs can be recovered on an annual or quarterly basis.

18. Note that any parking fee increases are passed on automatically to the car share provider.

No adverse impact from removing time restrictions

19. In order for a free floating system to work in Hutt City, a user would need to be able to simply park the car and walk away, without having to worry about parking tickets or certain time restrictions. There will likely be occasions when a car share vehicle will remain parked beyond the time restrictions, and it is due to those situations that approved car share vehicles would need to be exempt from complying with parking time restrictions (but excluding loading zones, and car parks with time restrictions below 60 minutes).

20. Car2Go, a free floating car share provider operating in Seattle (USA) showed that, immediately following its launch, its vehicles remain parked in metered parking just over two hours (on average). However, this average duration decreased to just over an hour within the first six months of operations. Indeed, the more successful a car share operation, the less time a vehicle will remain parked at a particular location. Therefore, for the majority of time, car share vehicles are expected to remain within time restrictions.

21. Note that even though there will likely be occasions when a car share vehicle will remain parked beyond the time restrictions, officers consider that this can be justified by the benefits car sharing will bring to Hutt City businesses and residents – which could otherwise not be realised (eg reduced vehicle numbers, reduced pressure on parking, etc).

22. Notwithstanding the above, car share vehicles would be subject to parking compliance for all car parks with time restrictions less than 60 minutes, loading zones and all other parking restrictions.

Reducing carbon emissions

23. Car sharing has been shown to result in reductions to carbon emissions (see TSRC, 2016). This is especially so in cases where operators utilise electric vehicles and the electricity is low-carbon.

24. MEVO is only utilising plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for its car share operation, with approximately 61% of current travel in electric-mode only (as most trips are relatively short), and with all remaining emissions set off voluntarily by MEVO. Considering that New Zealand’s electricity supply is 80% renewable and from low-carbon sources, it can be expected that the addition of MEVO services in Hutt City will likely lead to carbon emission reductions.

Enabling free-floating could mean a first in Australia and New Zealand

25. While free-floating car sharing is becoming increasingly common in Europe and North America, it has not yet been implemented in any New Zealand or Australian city, albeit Wellington City is currently considering supporting MEVO in similar means to that discussed in this paper.

26. Hutt City could become the first city in New Zealand and Australia to enable free-floating car sharing, and this in turn could be a useful story in the context of strengthening its image of being open for business, and promoting Hutt City’s drive to attract technology investment.

Options

27. Three options have been considered:

a. Option 1 involves no change to the current policy; ie car share providers would be free to offer their services but would need to comply with parking time restrictions and pay for the parking of their vehicles on a pay-per-use basis.

b. Option 2 involves a change to Hutt City’s current approach to parking, by enabling approved car share operators to pay for parking on an annual or quarterly basis, and by exempting them from complying with certain parking time restrictions.

c. Option 3 involves setting aside reserved parking spaces for car share vehicles, as is done in A-A type car share systems.

28. Option 1 describes the status-quo, and despite the three major cities in New Zealand having car share operators and community interest in having car share vehicles operating in Hutt City, there is no current provider operating. This is because car sharing is a full cost service, and it is not practical for their business model to be viable or sufficiently attractive in this context. MEVO is very unlikely to introduce the service if this option is chosen.

29. Option 2 is possible with a technical solution and there are no legal barriers to this occurring under the existing by-law. However, a formal decision is required by Council to formally enable this. This is the option recommended by Council Officers.

30. Option 3 is possible albeit would require traffic resolutions setting aside those car parks on a case by case basis, in a similar way to what is done for electric vehicle charging locations. However, car share providers have not yet requested such car parks in Hutt City. In the case of MEVO, their current preference is to work with businesses in order to set up relevant car parks on private land, albeit relevant requests could be considered in the future.

Consultation

31. No formal consultation has been carried out with CBD businesses and residents as we do not anticipate any adverse effects.

32. The decision is not considered to be a Significant Decision because:

a) It does not detrimentally impact the wellbeing of Hutt City;

b) It is not expected to have significant impact on persons affected by the decision;

c) It is not contrary to a position taken in the Long Term Plan;

d) There is expected to be no financial cost to Hutt City;

e) It does not significantly impact on the integrity of a strategic asset;

f) No new user charges are being introduced;

g) The effects of the decision are reversible subject to contract conditions yet to be negotiated with the service provider;

h) No particular urgency is required;

i) A high degree of public interest and controversy is not expected.

Legal Considerations

33. Section 3.2 of the Hutt City Council Traffic Bylaw 2017 allows Council to impose, by resolution, any conditions it sees fit in relation to time restricted parking.

34. The officer’s recommendation requires Council to resolve under Section 3.2, that approved car share vehicles would be except from displaying paid parking tickets and/or coupons and would be exempt from the time restrictions applied to P60 and higher time restricted parking spaces.

Financial Considerations

35. There are no financial considerations as the car share provider is expected to fully cover the costs of parking, albeit on an annual or quarterly basis, rather than a per-use basis.

Other Considerations

36. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it enables the introduction of car share services in line with growing demand for such services. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because there is expected to be no financial cost to Hutt City.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Jörn Scherzer

Sustainability and Resilience Manager

Author: Geoff Stuart

Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services and Emergency Management

Author: Damon Simmons

Traffic Asset Manager

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

88 30 April 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

28 March 2018

File: (18/498)

Report no: PRC2018/2/107

Earthquake-Prone Priority Buildings

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to propose that we consult the public using the special consultative procedure described under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, as part of the legislative requirements for identifying Priority Earthquake-prone Buildings.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) uses the special consultative procedure described under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 to identify thoroughfares with sufficient vehicular and pedestrian traffic, onto which parts of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings could fall in the event of an earthquake;

(ii) does not use the special consultative procedure described under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 to identify strategically important routes which could be impeded by the collapse of buildings in the event of an earthquake;

(iii) agrees to establish a subcommittee to:

(a) hear submissions on the proposed Priority Routes and Earthquake-Prone Buildings proposal;

(b) recommend the appropriate action to Council for consideration and approval; and

(c) be given delegated authority to approve minor amendments to the Priority Routes and Earthquake-Prone Buildings proposal prior to public consultation.

For the reasons that

(i) is a legislative requirement under section 133 AF(2)(a) of the Building Act 2004, and

(ii) officers were able to confirm that there were no routes in Lower Hutt that meet the criteria of section 133AE(1)(f) of the Building Act 2004 and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) guidance on identifying priority buildings.

Background

2. The system for identifying and managing earthquake-prone buildings changed on 1 July 2017, when the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 came into force. The amendment act created new requirements, powers and time frames to address earthquake-prone buildings.

Priority Buildings

3. One of the key changes was the introduction of the concept of ‘Priority buildings’. Priority buildings are broadly defined as buildings that pose a greater risk to the public than other earthquake-prone buildings, or that are critical to emergency response, in the event of an earthquake.

4. Priority earthquake-prone buildings must be identified and remediated within shorter timeframes than other earthquake-prone buildings:

· Territorial Authorities in High Seismic Risk regions (Lower Hutt falls within this category) must identify priority buildings by the end of 2019.

· Owners of priority earthquake-prone buildings must remediate their buildings within half the time (seven and a half years) of other earthquake-prone buildings (fifteen years), to reduce the risk to life safety more promptly.

5. There are a number of priority buildings which are automatically classified in the Building Act.

6. Other priority buildings must be identified using the process outlined in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) guidance document Priority Buildings: A Guide to the earthquake-prone building provisions of the Building Act and sections 133AF(2)(a) & (b) of the Building Act 2004:

· Section 133AF(2)(a) states that Council must use the consultative procedure in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 to:

identify any part of a public road, footpath, or other thoroughfare in an area of medium or high risk –

i. onto which parts of an unreinforced masonry building could fall in an earthquake; and

ii. that has sufficient vehicular or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritizing the identification and remediation of those parts of unreinforced masonry buildings;

and

· Section 133AF (2) (b) states that Council may, in its discretion, use the special consultative procedure to identify buildings that could impede a strategic transport route.

For the full sections 133AE and 133AF of the Building Act refer to Appendix 1 as attached to the report. A link to the full guidance document has also been provided in the Statement of Proposal.

Discussion

7. There are two categories of Priority Buildings that require justification via public consultation:

· Priority buildings on strategic routes

Buildings with the potential to impede a transport route of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response) if the building were to collapse in an earthquake. (Refer section 133AE (1)(f) and 133AF(2)(b)).

· Priority buildings in high traffic areas

Parts of Unreinforced Masonry (URM) buildings that could fall from the building in an earthquake onto thoroughfares with sufficient vehicular and pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritisation. (Refer section 133AE (1) (e) and 133AF(2)(a)).

Identifying Strategic Routes

8. Section 133AF (2) (b) outlines that Council has discretion to identify buildings that have the potential to impede strategic transport routes of importance. In addition to section 133AE(1)(f) the definition of strategic transport routes has been further defined in the priority buildings guidance document as being:

Routes likely to be used by emergency services in:

· transiting from their bases to areas of need in a major emergency where there are no alternatives routes available, or

· transiting to central services such as hospitals, where there are no alternative routes available.

9. This criterion was applied to the ‘priority routes for re-opening after a major emergency’ that have been identified as part of Councils proposed Civil Defense Emergency Management Plan.

10. It was concluded that there are no streets that fit these criterion. Specifically, the buildings on the streets did not fit the potentially earthquake-prone criteria, or multiple alternative routes that would be available in an emergency were identified.

Identifying High Traffic Areas

11. MBIE has provided a guidance document for use in identifying high vehicular and pedestrian traffic areas.

12. The criterion is essentially the same as that used in the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery (Unreinforced Masonry Buildings) Order 2017, to identify unreinforced masonry buildings needing urgent attention.

13. Hutt City Council Officers have therefore used the list of streets approved in the Order in Council as the basis for the streets identified for consultation under this amendment act.

14. See Appendix 2 for an excerpt of the guidance document describing the criterion.

15. Further analysis of the building data has included some streets that were rejected by MBIE as part of the Hurunui/Kaikoura Earthquakes Recovery Order.

16. The proposed list of streets to take to public consultation are:

· Jackson Street, Petone (that part of Jackson Street between Cuba Street and Petone Avenue)

· Cuba Street, Lower Hutt (that part of Cuba Street between Emerson Street and Montague Street)

· High Street, Lower Hutt (that part of High Street between Daly Street and Melling Road)

· Bunny Street, Lower Hutt

· Everest Avenue, Naenae

· Hillary Court, Naenae

· Rimu Street, Eastbourne

A Summary of Proposal is attached as Appendix 3 to the report. Refer to the Statement of Proposal attached as Appendix 4 to the report for maps of these listed streets.

Options

Option 1

Council uses special consultative procedure to identify:

· High traffic streets that fit the criteria outlined in 133AE (1) (e) only.

Option 2

Council uses special consultative procedure to identify:

· High traffic streets that fit the criteria outlined in 133AE (1)(e),

and

· Strategically important routes that fit the criteria outlined in 133AE (1) (f) and the MBIE guidance.

Option 3

Council does not use special consultative procedure to identify priority buildings for either category.

17. Due to the legal implications outlined in paragraphs 23 – 26, and the analysis undertaken in paragraphs 11 - 15, Officers concluded Option 1 is the only feasible option. It is therefore recommended that Council accept Option 1.

Consultation

18. MBIE have provided a template to inform the special consultative procedure required for identifying priority buildings under the Building Act 2004. This has been incorporated into the Statement of Proposal.

19. The consultation process is strictly to identify the streets that may fit the criteria discussed above, and not the individual buildings.

20. The Statement of Proposal will describe the context in which we have to identify the streets and outline the criteria that was used to identify the streets listed in paragraph 14.

21. Council website pages and other informational media will be updated accordingly to inform the general public.

22. The questions posed to the public will be:

· Do you agree with the thoroughfares identified for prioritization?

· If not, which thoroughfares do you disagree with and why?

· Are there any other thoroughfares that meet the criteria but are not listed?

Legal Considerations

23. The use of the special consultative procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 is a legal requirement under section 133AF of the Building Act 2004.

24. Council must use the special consultative procedure to identify the thoroughfares with sufficient vehicular and pedestrian traffic where there are parts of URM buildings that could fall in an earthquake.

25. Council has discretion to identify the routes of strategic importance that may be impeded if a building were to collapse in an earthquake. However, if buildings do need to be identified for prioritisation of this type, the special consultative procedure needs to be undertaken.

26. Council must undertake the special consultative procedure within a time frame that enables the territorial authority to meet the applicable time frame under section 133AG(4) for identifying potentially earthquake-prone priority buildings in its district, as outlined in paragraph 4 above.

Financial Considerations

27. It is considered that there may be some financial implications to building owners that receive earthquake-prone building notices with a priority timeframe. For Council this is a legal requirement that must be undertaken.

Other Considerations

28. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002.

29. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of local government in that it will prioritize the higher risk earthquake-prone buildings within the Hutt City.

30. It will also help to mitigate the potential hazard that parts of unreinforced masonry buildings pose to the community, as required by the Building Act 2004.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Sections 133AE and 133AF of the Building Act 2004	94
2 ⇩	Priority Buildings Guidance - High Traffic Areas Criterion	96
3 ⇩	Summary of Proposal - Priority routes May 2018	98
4 ⇩	Statement of Proposal: Priority Routes and Earthquake-prone Buildings May 2018.	100

Author: Patrick Sweetensen

Seismic Assessment Officer

Author: Chris Hoddinott

Seismic Assessment Officer

Reviewed By: Bradley Cato

General Counsel

Reviewed By: Derek Kerite

Building and Quality Assurance Manager

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Attachment 1

Sections 133AE and 133AF of the Building Act 2004

appendix I:

Section 133 AE of the Building Act 2004 - Meaning of priority building

(1) In this subpart, priority building means any of the following that are located in an area of medium or high seismic risk:

(a) a hospital building that is likely to be needed in an emergency (within the meaning of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002) to provide—

(i) emergency medical services; or

(ii) ancillary services that are essential for the provision of emergency medical services:

(b) a building that is likely to be needed in an emergency for use as an emergency shelter or emergency centre:

(c) a building that is used to provide emergency response services (for example, policing, fire, ambulance, or rescue services):

(d) a building that is regularly occupied by at least 20 people and that is used as any of the following:

(i) an early childhood education and care centre licensed under Part 26 of the Education Act 1989:

(ii) a registered school or an integrated school (within the meaning of the Education Act 1989):

(iii) a private training establishment registered under Part 18 of the Education Act 1989:

(iv) a tertiary institution established under section 162 of the Education Act 1989:

(e) any part of an unreinforced masonry building that could—

(i) fall from the building in an earthquake (for example, a parapet, an external wall, or a veranda); and

(ii) fall onto any part of a public road, footpath, or other thoroughfare that a territorial authority has identified under section 133AF(2)(a):

(f) a building that a territorial authority has identified under section 133AF(2)(b) as having the potential to impede a transport route of strategic importance (in terms of an emergency response) if the building were to collapse in an earthquake.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) and (b), the likelihood of a building being needed in an emergency for a particular purpose must be assessed having regard to—

(a) any national civil defence emergency management plan made under section 39 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002; and

(b) the civil defence emergency management group plan approved under section 48 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 that covers the district in which the building is situated.

(3) If only part of a building meets the criteria set out in subsection (1), only that part of the building is a priority building.

(4) Whether a building is a priority building affects—

(a) the deadline by which a territorial authority must identify whether the building or a part of the building is potentially earthquake prone (see section 133AG); and

(b) the deadline for completing seismic work on the building or a part of the building, if it is subject to an EPB notice (see section 133AM).

Section 133AE: inserted, on 1 July 2017, by section 24 of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 (2016 No 22).

Section 133 AF of the Building Act 2004 - Role of territorial authority in identifying certain priority buildings

(1) This section applies to a territorial authority whose district includes any area of medium or high seismic risk.

(2) The territorial authority,—

(a) for the purpose of section 133AE(1)(e) (prioritising parts of unreinforced masonry buildings), must use the special consultative procedure in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 to identify any part of a public road, footpath, or other thoroughfare in an area of medium or high seismic risk—

(i) onto which parts of an unreinforced masonry building could fall in an earthquake; and

(ii) that has sufficient vehicle or pedestrian traffic to warrant prioritising the identification and remediation of those parts of unreinforced masonry buildings; and

(b) for the purpose of section 133AE(1)(f) (prioritising buildings that could impede a strategic transport route),—

(i) may, in its discretion, initiate the special consultative procedure in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 to identify buildings for that purpose; but

(ii) must not identify buildings for that purpose other than in accordance with the special consultative procedure.

(3) However, a territorial authority is not required to act under subsection (2)(a) if there is no reasonable prospect of any thoroughfare in its district satisfying the criteria set out in subsection (2)(a)(i) and (ii).

(4) If a territorial authority is required by subsection (2)(a) or decides under subsection (2)(b) to use the special consultative procedure in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, it must use the procedure within a time frame that enables the territorial authority to meet the applicable time frame under section 133AG(4) for identifying potentially earthquake-prone priority buildings in its district.

Section 133AF: inserted, on 1 July 2017, by section 24 of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 (2016 No 22).

110 30 April 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

28 February 2018

File: (18/271)

Report no: PRC2018/2/101

Review of Policy on Appointment of Members of the District Licensing Committee

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to gain the Committee’s and Council’s approval to update the Appointment of Members of the District Licensing Committee Policy (the Policy).

2. The Policy is being reviewed because the District Licensing Committee Appointment Panel will make recommendations to Council for appointments and reappointments to the District Licensing Committee (the DLC) later this year.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) adopts the amendments to the Appointment of Members of the District Licensing Committee Policy, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report (shown as tracked changes); and

(ii) appoints Cr Cousins and Cr Edwards as members of the Appointment Panel.

For the reason that the current Appointment of Members of the District Licensing Committee Policy needs to be reviewed every five years.

Background

3. The Policy arose after the passing of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act). The Act brought about changes to how liquor licensing was administered. From 2012, DLCs became responsible for considering all licence applications and renewals, regardless of whether they were contested or uncontested.

4. The Policy was first adopted in July 2013 prior to the establishment of the DLC. The purpose of the Policy is to:

a. contribute to the performance of regulatory functions by meeting the statutory obligations imposed on council for the establishment of the DLC; and

b. ensure that the process for appointing members to the DLC is robust and transparent.

5. Members are appointed to the DLC for a five year term. The DLC was formed in 2013 and the current memberships will expire in October 2018. The Policy needs to be reviewed prior to any further appointments or reappointments.

Discussion

6. In summary the Policy sets out:

a. statutory and territorial authority requirements

b. requirements regarding who can be appointed to the DLC

c. an appointment process

d. conflicts of interest

e. remuneration.

7. Under the Policy, the Panel identifies a shortlist of candidates whom it considers meet the relevant criteria and forwards those to Council together with a report explaining why those candidates meet the criteria. The Panel makes a recommendation. Council will, after receiving a report from the Panel, decide in a public excluded Council meeting whether to accept the candidates.

8. Under the Act, appointments can be made for up to five years. Futhermore, under the Act, The DLC must be treated as a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908, and is responsible for making decisions to grant or refuse applications.

9. The draft changes to the Policy are attached as Appendix 1 to the report, shown as tracked changes.

10. Council undertook an organisational review in 2017 which has restructured the positions of some Council staff. The membership of the Appointment Panel has been affected by Council’s restructure in that one of the positions no longer exists, and another of the positions is currently unfilled. The positions are respectively those of General Manager Regulatory and Governance, and Manager Environmental Health. The proposed replacement members are General Counsel and the Divisional Manager Environmental Consents.

11. The second change to the policy clarifies which sections of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 are being used in the Policy.

Options

12. Council may decide to accept the proposed changes or make alternative changes to the Policy.

Consultation

13. This report deals with the adoption of a policy for the Appointment of Members of the District Licensing Committee. Therefore no public consultation is required.

Legal Considerations

14. Council is required to give effect to the aspects of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

Financial Considerations

15. The review of this policy does not specifically carry any financial implications.

Other Considerations

16. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it meets the current and future needs of the community. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it delivers quality performance of regulatory functions.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Policy for the Appointment of Members of the District Licensing Committee	112

Author: Susan Haniel

Committee Advisor

Reviewed By: Kathryn Stannard

Divisional Manager, Democratic Services

Approved By: Bradley Cato

General Counsel

119 30 April 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

12 March 2018

File: (18/348)

Report no: PRC2018/2/111

Proposed Consultation on Reserve Classification, Walter Mildenhall Park

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to gain approval to carry out consultation on a proposal to classify land within Walter Mildenhall Park in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977. Any decision about classification would be made, following a Council recommendation in the July 2018 meeting round.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee:

(i) directs officers to undertake consultation on a proposal to classify 4 properties as Local Purpose Reserve (Community Buildings) in Walter Mildenhall Park in accordance with the Reserve Act 1977; and

(ii) requests that officers report back with the consultation results in the July 2018 round of meetings.

Background

2. Walter Mildenhall Park covers 4.3993 ha and is comprised of four Certificates of Title. Although the land held within all four titles has status under the Reserves Act 1977, none has been classified. This should have occurred soon after 1977. This report recommends that Council carry out consultation on a proposal to classify four properties within Walter Mildenhall Park as reserve.

3. Classification is being considered in anticipation of a new Naenae Community Hub being developed on the north eastern corner of Walter Mildenhall Park.

Discussion

4. Reserves are classified to ensure their control, management, development, use and preservation for appropriate reserve purposes. Classifications are outlined in the Reserves Act 1977 and those that could be applied to Walter Mildenhall Park are Local Purpose Reserve (Community Buildings) and Recreation Reserve. The idea is that the new uses of the reserve will be consistent with the classification.

5. The 2016-2026 Reserves Strategic Directions Council prioritises classification under the Reserves Act 1977 as a means of protecting land and giving certainty to the decision making processes for reserves.

6. A concept for the Naenae Community Hub is being developed and implementing the concept will involve Council issuing a lease over part of Walter Mildenhall Park to the Community Facilities Trust.

Options

7. The Committee could resolve to consult on different classifications. Some properties could be classified as Recreation Reserve and others as Local Purpose Reserve (Community Buildings). A lease under the Reserves Act would be issued for the proposed Community Hub.

Consultation

8. The Reserves Act 1977 requires Council to carry out consultation before making a resolution on a proposal to classify land as Reserve. The proposed consultation satisfies the requirements of Section 119 of the Act.

Proposed Date	Proposed Task
30 April 2018	Policy and Regulatory Committee decide whether consultation on proposal to classify as reserve should be undertaken
8 May 2018	Public Notice in Hutt News and HCC website to outline proposal and invite written submissions
8 June 2018	Deadline for submissions
2 July 2018	Policy and Regulatory Committee meet to consider submissions and report about classifying properties Policy and Regulatory Committee makes recommendation to Council
24 July 2018	Council considers Policy and Regulatory Committee’s recommendations and makes resolution
August 2018	Publish notice in NZ Gazette setting out classification
August 2018	LINZ updates Certificates of Titles

9. The results of the consultation would be reported back to the July 2018 round of meetings. A Council recommendation is required before the Certificates of Titles can be amended to identify the classification.

10. Consultation on the Naenae Community Hub is being undertaken outside the Reserves Act process of classification.

Legal Considerations

11. Council owns the four titles that make up Walter Mildenhall Park. Copies of the titles are attached as Appendix 1 to the report. Although all of the land within all four titles has status under the Reserves Act, none have been classified.

	Certificate of Title	Area	Improvements
A	WN939/62	1.5852ha	Naenae Olympic Pool complex Naenae Community Hall part ball court
B	WN19A/338	.3766ha	part ball court
C	WN50B/91	.0381ha	Menz Shed
D	WN50B/92	2.3994ha	badminton hall public tennis court public petanque piste Regional Bowls Centre Treadwell Street Hall

12. Walter Mildenhall Park sits within the General Recreation Activity Area of the District Plan.

13. The management of Walter Mildenhall Park is guided by the Facilities Reserve Management Plan.

Financial Considerations

14. The cost of carrying out consultation on the proposal to classify land within Walter Mildenhall Park is expected to be less than $1,000. This expense can be met from existing operational budgets managed by the Parks and Gardens Division.

Other Considerations

15. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it achieves Reserves Act compliance. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because the consultation simply requires advertising and officer time.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Walter Mildenhall Park - plan illustrating Certificates of Title - March 2018	122

Author: Kelly Crandle

Asset Planner

Reviewed By: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager City and Community Services

124 30 April 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

20 March 2018

File: (18/421)

Report no: PRC2018/2/120

General Manager's Report

Purpose of Report

1. The Policy and Regulatory Committee requested a General Manager’s report containing information on major consents, hearings, appeals to the Environment Court and enforcement matters.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee notes the contents of this report.

Background

2. This report covers the activities of two divisions in the City Transformation Group; being Regulatory Services and Environmental Consents. The Environmental Consents division process consent applications under the Resource Management Act, the Food Act, the Sale & Supply of Alcohol Act and the Building Act (resource and building consents, liquor and food licenses and District Licensing reports), as well as LIMs and property enquiries under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. It also offers an Eco Design Advisor service across the city and a part service in Upper Hutt City Council. Regulatory Services deal with trade waste applications, bylaws, animal services and parking.

3. The report firstly covers Environmental Consents and secondly Regulatory Services. Environmental Consent data is attached as Appendix 1 to the report. Environmental Health Inspection data is attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

4. Regulatory Services data is attached as Appendix 3 to the report.

Discussion – Environmental Consents

5. The division continues to experience an increase in application numbers across the board. Viewed annually, there has been about a 10% increase in work across the division.

6. Of particular note is the increase in building applications in the first three months of 2018. When compared with the first three months in 2017, there has been a 56% increase (resulting in an increase of $35,475,299 in value of building work).

7. The external review of the resource in the Environmental Health Team has been completed, and we are currently recruiting for a number of positions.

Building Team

By the third quarter of 2016/2017 financial year, the value of building work for building consents issued was $116,498,216. For the same period this financial year, the value of building work totalled $143,237,726. This is an increase of $26,739,510, being a 23% increase.

Recent building consent applications received of note include:

· Rymans, 25 Graham Street, new retirement wing - $6.6 m development.

· 135 Jackson Street, earthquake strengthening and new apartments - $3 m development

· Rona Bay wharf refurbishment - $2 m spend.

· 77 Waione Street, Kennards Hire centre, new showroom - $1.6m

8. Our building consents team has been working on various process improvements highlighted in the recent IANZ audit in February. One of the changes that has been implemented is to change the way amendments to building consents are handled. The change has streamlined the steps taken to align it more closely with the building consent process creating a more efficient process.

9. Our seismic assessment officers have been busy engaging with all owners of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings to ensure the required work will be completed by the end of September 2018 (extended period). Strengthening work must be completed or substantially complete by this date in order to avoid any further action.

10. To reflect changes to the earthquake provisions of the Building Act, a report has been written by our seismic assessment team to be presented to the Policy and Regulatory Committee in May. This identifies priority buildings under the Building Act. A priority building is one which requires only half the normal time allowed to strengthen or demolish it. This will affect URM buildings on high pedestrian or vehicular traffic routes.

Resource Consents

Recent resource consent applications received of note include:

11. Taita Drive, Avalon – application by Urban Plus Limited for a 28 lot subdivision with 24 new houses on land to the north of Avalon Park next to the Avalon tennis Club

12. Housing New Zealand applications in Fairfield as follows:

· 34 - 48 Durham Crescent - 7 new residential units (52 bed spaces in total)

· 10 - 24 Durham Crescent - 7 new residential units (52 bed spaces in total)

· 160 - 172 Cambridge Terrace –14 new residential units (96 bed spaces in total)

Recently granted resource consents

13. 429 Jackson Street, Petone – consent has been granted for a private development of 56 houses on this vacant land, previously occupied by Housing New Zealand star blocks.

14. 101 Whites Line East, Waiwhetu – consent has been granted for a Housing New Zealand development of 20 houses on this vacant site.

15. Summerset, Hathaway Avenue – consent has been granted to the Summerset Group to carry out an initial stage of earthworks on the site of District Plan Change 35 to prepare it for future development.

The earthworks involve approximately 8,000m³ of cut and 9,000m³ of fill.

No building work is proposed as part of this application.

Council has not yet received an application for the retirement village.

16. Rona Bay Wharf, Eastbourne – consent has been granted for maintenance and repair work to the wharf, which is listed as a heritage structure in the District Plan.

17. 71 Dudley Street, Hutt Central - consent has been granted for increasing the height of the building and converting it to short stay accommodation (six shared backpacker rooms and 40 private double bedrooms).

18. Eastern Hutt Road, Taita – consent has been granted for a new industrial park development with 13 tenancies.

Environmental Health

19. The review of the Environmental Health Team has been completed and recruitment is being undertaken currently.

20. The review looked at the demands placed on the team, assessed the resourcing needed to meet those demands and areas where efficiency and effectiveness could be improved.

21. It has resulted in some structural changes, with some additional resource in the areas identified to be under particular pressure – being the food area. It has also addressed the under-resourcing for the provision of the service to Upper Hutt City Council.

22. The administration for the team has been moved to the Environmental Support Team, which currently provides administration to the entire Environmental Consents Division – this will provide more consistency and efficiency to the processes.

23. Changes to processes and work practices are already being implemented.

24. With the resignation of the Manager, Environmental Health and several team members, the team is under significant work pressure. Currently statutory timeframes are being met.

Alcohol

25. There has been a small increase (8%) in the number of liquor license applications in the third quarter in the current financial year compared with the third quarter in the 2016/17 year.

Litter

26. There has been a 36% in the number of litter infringement in the third quarter in the current financial year, compared to the same period in the previous financial year. The increase is a result of an increase in the number of complaints from some members of the community, as well as increased dumping at recycling stations.

Food premises

27. The deadline for food premises to be registered under the Food Act was 31 March. Officers have been concentrating on contacting all food premises individually which had not registered, with a high success rate. As a result we now have a large number of registrations to process.

28. Three food premises were closed due to vermin/cleaning issues. These have all now been re-opened after satisfactorily addressing those issues.

Enforcement matters from Regulatory Services

Animal Services

29. Animal services held a three day workshop with Mark Vette covering dog behavior and training techniques. The staff found the hands on training very interesting and excellent in up skilling techniques.

30. We have employed an additional ACO to cover both cities, and weekend work which ensures no staff work alone. We had identified the risk to staff when working alone while dealing with menacing or dangerous dogs. We have shared the cost of this with Wellington City Council.

Trade Waste

31. In our last report the Committee was advised that in the last year the Trade Waste team has added over 50 new businesses to their register. This trend has continued and we are looking at an increase of approximately 10% for the year, of businesses requiring trade waste monitoring.

Parking Services

32. Parking Services have issued 1215 more tickets than last year to date. Also noted was a drop in the number of infringements going to Court by 3% or 195. And an increase in the amount that is paid directly over the counter of $90K year to date.

33. Parking Services have six types of reminder notices that they put under the windscreen for worn tires, expiring warrants and registrations, parking causing inconvenience to vehicle entrance users, parking safety near schools and parking your car for sale. Staff have noticed a growing appreciation of those that receive these notices and we receive many more emails thanking the team for a reminder rather than a fine.

Emergency Management

34. In the last report the committee was advised that the Emergency Management Office had 52 staff on the roster. Since then we have run a further induction programme and we have 18 new volunteers under training.

35. We have undertaken an audit of the Blue Lines that were put down between August to December last year. Disappointingly 15 require repainting, which will be done in the spring.

36. Secondary Schools Rescue Training programme continues, with the second full day of training being done on 9 April at the old Wainuiomata college site. Seventy pupils from seven high schools are participating in rescue techniques, first aid and searching techniques.

Consultation

37. Consultation was undertaken with affected parties on notified resource consents.

Legal Considerations

38. The group administers the RMA, the Building Act, LGOIMA, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, Food Act and other legislation. No other legal considerations apply in terms of the content of this paper.

Financial Considerations

39. There are no financial considerations.

Other Considerations

40. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that meets the current needs of the community by ensuring that development is dealt with in a controlled and legitimate manner.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Environmental Consents Graphs at the end of March 2018	129
2 ⇩	Environmental Health's graphs from Jan - March 2018	148
3 ⇩	Regulatory Services enforcement actions to 31 March 2018	151

Author: Geoff Stuart

Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services and Emergency Management

Author: Helen Oram

Divisional Manager Environmental Consents

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Attachment 1

2018 Policy and Regulatory Work Programme.

2018 POLICY & REGULATORY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME

Description	Author	Cycle 3, 2018	Cycle 4, 2018	Cycle 5, 2018	Pending
General Manager’s Report	K Kelly	ü	ü	ü
Representation Review	W Moore	ü
Smoke-free Policy	B Gall / J Pritchard	ü
Pencarrow Coast Road Policy Review	B Hodgins	ü
Korimako Road Encroachment	B Hodgins	ü
Naenae Library Site Reserve Revocation	B Hodgins	ü
Days Bay Reserve Classification	K Crandle	ü
Smokefree Wainuiomata	B Gall		ü
Discount Registration for Therapy Dogs	L Dalton				ü
Risk and Resilience Costs Update	W Moore				ü
Bell Park – proposal for the development of Bell Park	B Hodgins				ü
Wellington Region Natural Hazards Management Strategy	A Cumming				ü
Parking Policy Review	W Moore / J Pritchard				ü
Activity Report: Environmental Management (Regulatory services and Emergency Management)	H Oram				ü
Activity Report: Environmental Management (Environmental Consents)	H Oram				ü
Smokefree Outdoor Public Places Policy	J Pritchard				ü

[1] When acting in this capacity the committee has a quasi-judicial role.

[2] Greater Wellington Regional Council; Wellington City Council; Hutt City Council; Upper Hutt City Council;

Porirua City Council; Kapiti Coast District Council; Masterton District Council; Carterton District Council;

South Wairarapa District Council

Deputy Mayor D Bassett	Cr L Bridson
Cr C Barry	Cr J Briggs
Cr T Lewis	Cr M Lulich
Cr C Milne	Cr L Sutton
Mayor W R Wallace (ex-officio)

PARKING SERVICES	January	February	March
Infringements	2331	2638	3354
Stationary offences (WOFs, tyres)	846	872	1094

ANIMAL SERVICES	January	February	March
Dogs impounded	74	71	67
Infringements issued	4	0	0
Prosecutions	0	0	0