Agenda of Policy and Regulatory Committee

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

Policy and Regulatory Committee

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

Monday 24 September 2018 commencing at 5.30pm.

ORDER PAPER

Public Business

1. APOLOGIES

An apology from Cr Edwards has been received.

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. Hearing of Submissions to the Representation Review (18/1491)

4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

5. Recommendations to Council - 9 October 2018

i) Representation Review (18/1412)

Report No. PRC2018/4/254 by the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning 13

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the submissions to the Representation Review be received and that the matter be discussed."

ii) Heritage Policy Review (18/1387)

Report No. PRC2018/4/247 by the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning 95

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

iii) Purchase and Sale of Property for Advancing Strategic Projects - Updated Policy (18/1420)

Report No. PRC2018/4/242 by the General Manager, City Transformation 111

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

iv) Stanley Street Easement (18/1391)

Report No. PRC2018/4/243 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 127

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

v) Property Sale - Wainuiomata (18/1421)

Report No. PRC2018/4/244 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 130

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

vi) Wainuiomata Hill Road - Road Stopping and Vesting (18/1446)

Report No. PRC2018/4/245 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 134

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

vii) Wainuiomata Marae Development (18/1451)

Report No. PRC2018/4/246 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 138

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

viii) Local Alcohol Policy (18/1416)

Report No. PRC2018/4/253 by the Principal Policy Advisor 142

ix) Smoke-free Policy - Report Back on Smokefree Areas (18/1426)

Report No. PRC2018/4/248 by the Activator 162

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

x) Alcohol Ban at Days Bay Beach for Concert (18/1409)

Report No. PRC2018/4/249 by the Commercial Events Developer 177

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

6. Strategic Waste Reviews (18/1433)

Report No. PRC2018/4/250 by the Sustainability and Resilience Manager 205

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

7. General Manager's Report (18/1308)

Report No. PRC2018/4/251 by the Divisional Manager Environmental Consents 211

Chair’s Recommendation:

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

8. Information Item

Policy and Regulatory Committee Work Programme (18/1379)

Report No. PRC2018/4/125 by the Committee Advisor 240

Chair’s Recommendation:

"That the report be noted and received.”

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. Review of Private Use of Public Land Policy (18/1027)

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.


Review of Private Use of Public Land Policy.	The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons. (s7(2)(a)). The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities (s7(2)(h)).	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

22 24 September 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

27 August 2018

File: (18/1412)

Report no: PRC2018/4/254

Representation Review

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s decision on the content of its final representation proposal.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) considers the submissions received on the proposed representation arrangements for Hutt City for the 2019 local authority elections and;

(a) chooses to retain the initial draft proposal, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report, for representation arrangements for Hutt City’s 2019 local authority elections OR

(b) chooses to alter the initial draft proposal for representation arrangements for the 2019 local authority elections to reflect the submissions made, that is:

1) agrees Council elections be held at large; OR

2) agrees that Council elections be held with a mix of at large and wards; AND

3) agrees to adjust the Wainuiomata and Harbour Ward boundaries as suggested in Submission D by including the western side of the ridge out to Baring Head in the Harbour Ward; AND

4) agrees to establish Community Boards across Lower Hutt City; AND

5) agrees to merge the Petone and Eastbourne Community Boards into a single Community Board to represent the Harbour Ward as suggested in Submission E; AND

6) agrees that there will be no review of second tier representation arrangements in 2021 and wait a further six years (2024) before reviewing all representation arrangements (note that this was not part of the draft proposal for representation)

(ii) directs officers to draft the final representation proposal for public notification.

For the reasons outlined in the report.

Background

2. On 24 July 2018 Hutt City Council reviewed its representation arrangements, and resolved that the following draft proposal apply for the Council and its Community Boards for the elections to be held on 19 October 2019 that:

a. the Council will comprise 12 Councillors with two Councillors to be elected from each of six wards

b. the Mayor will be elected at large

c. the names, boundaries and number of Councillors for each of the wards are set out below:

Proposed ward name		Boundaries		No. of Councillors
Northern Ward		The existing boundary of the Northern Ward including Tawhai, Holborn, Delaney and Manuka area units (Stokes Valley) and the Taita South, Taita North area units		Two
Eastern Ward		The existing boundary of the Eastern Ward including the Naenae North, Naenae South, Epuni East, Waiwhetu North and Waterloo East area units		Two
Western Ward		The existing boundary of the Western Ward including the Normandale, Maungaraki, Belmont, Kelson, Tirohanga, Haywards-Manor Park, Melling and Alicetown area units plus all of Wakefield St, Alicetown		Two
Central Ward		The existing boundary of the Central Ward including the Avalon East, Avalon West, Boulcott, Hutt Central, Woburn North, Waterloo West, Epuni West area units		Two
Wainuiomata Ward		The existing boundary of the Wainuiomata Ward including the Fernlea, Homedale West, Glendale, Homedale East, Parkway, Arakura and Pencarrow area units		Two
Harbour Ward	The existing boundary of the Harbour Ward including the Korokoro, Petone Central, Esplanade, Eastbourne, Moera, Waiwhetu South, Gracefield and Wilford, area units		Two

3. Council also proposed that the existing second tier representation arrangements continue. The names, boundaries and number of Community Board and Community Panel members for each of the existing communities are set out below:

Proposed community name	Boundaries	No. of members
Petone Community Board	The existing boundary of the Harbour Ward including the Korokoro, Petone Central, Esplanade, , Moera, Waiwhetu South, Gracefield and Wilford, area units	Eight – six elected members and two Councillors
Eastbourne Community Board	Eastbourne area unit	Seven – five elected members and two Councillors
Wainuiomata Community Board	The existing boundary of the Wainuiomata Ward including the Fernlea, Homedale West, Glendale, Homedale East, Parkway, Arakura and Pencarrow area units	Eight – six elected members and two Councillors
Eastern Community Panel	The existing boundary of the Eastern Ward including the Naenae North, Naenae South, Epuni East, Waiwhetu North and Waterloo East area units	Six – four appointed community members and two Councillors
Western Community Panel	The existing boundary of the Western Ward including the Normandale, Maungaraki, Belmont, Kelson, Tirohanga, Haywards-Manor Park, Melling and Alicetown area units plus all of Wakefield St, Alicetown	Seven – five appointed community members and two Councillors
Central Community Panel	The existing boundary of the Central Ward including the Avalon East, Avalon West, Boulcott, Hutt Central, Woburn North, Waterloo West, Epuni West area units	Seven – five appointed community members and two Councillors
Northern Community Panel	The existing boundary of the Northern Ward including Tawhai, Holborn, Delaney and Manuka area units (Stokes Valley) and the Taita South, Taita North area units	Six – four appointed community members and two Councillors

Consultation

4. Council received nine submissions on its draft proposal. The submissions are attached as Appendix 2 (note Appendix 3 provides census information on the ethnic groups in Lower Hutt and is part of Submission C) to the report and propose the following:

A. The issue is too complicated and Council is paid to do the job. The submitter further proposes that the changes do not go ahead as there has been insufficient information provided to council employers (meaning rate payers) as to why a change is necessary (Robert Prowse);

B. Council is elected at large and reduced in size. The submitter notes that 5-6 directors are required for efficiency for public and private companies Warren Thessman);

C. Council is elected either at large or a mix of at large and wards with one Councillor per ward as per the boundaries set out in the draft proposal and six elected at large. The submitter notes that there are many secondary communities of interest that cover the whole city; (Max Shierlaw);

D. Council is elected in a mix of at large and wards. The submitter notes that this approach allows for better democracy; (Derek Wilshere);

Community Boards should be established across the city (Derek Wilshere);

The Harbour Ward should include the western side of the ridge out to Baring Head as this would preserve the spiritual and cultural mandate of Te Whanganui-a-Tara (Derek Wilshere);

E. Council is elected at large. The submitter notes that people don’t just live their lives in their neighbourhood – they live them across the city and region (Matt Young);

Community Boards should be established across the city. The submitter notes that consistency in second tier representation was asked for by respondents to the surveys undertaken on representation prior to Council making its draft representation arrangements proposal (Matt Young);

The Petone and Eastbourne Community Boards are merged into a single Community Board to represent the Harbour Ward (Matt Young);

F. The issue of continuing with Community Boards is reviewed in 2021 to determine the effectiveness of Community Boards. The submitter notes that the surveys undertaken prior to Council making its draft representation arrangements proposal indicate that residents feel they are entitled to certain levels of representation (Margaret Willard);

G. The present arrangements remain with the three existing Community Boards. The submitter notes that Community Boards are democratically elected meaning their first responsibility is to that community, they are independent and they link the Council to the community. The submitter further notes that the current Community Board areas are culturally distinct and very different geographically from each other and the rest of the city and should retain their own Community Boards (Eastbourne Community Board).

Community Boards should be established across the city as this would give all residents equal and independent representation (Eastbourne Community Board);

H. The election of Councillors warrants further investigation and consultation. The submitter notes that the feedback from the surveys undertaken prior to Council making its draft representation arrangements proposal was not clear cut (Wainuiomata Community Board);

Second tier representation remains and that the status quo should be retained for the next six years rather than being reviewed in 2021. The submitter notes that their recommendation is guided by the results of the surveys undertaken prior to Council making its draft representation arrangements proposal (Wainuiomata Community Board);

I. There should be Community Boards across the city. The submitter notes that these should be well officer supported and very well-functioning Community Boards with suitable delegations and sharing of functions involved (Petone Community Board).

There is no review of Community Boards in 2021 (Petone Community Board).

Discussion

Community of interest

5. One of the most contested aspects of any Representation Review is the phrase “community of interest” and what this means in terms of whether people are fairly and effectively represented.

6. The term “community of interest” is not defined in the Local Electoral Act 2001 and can mean different things to different people. One definition (which can be found on the Local Government Commission’s web site http://www.lgc.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/The-Concept-of-Community-of-Interest-Discussion-Paper.pdf) describes it as a three dimensional concept:

a. Perceptual – a sense of belonging to a clearly defined area;

b. Functional – the ability to meet with reasonable economy the community’s requirements for comprehensive physical and human services; and

c. Political – the ability of the elected body to represent the interests and reconcile the conflicts of all its members

7. These are distinguishable as the subjective (perceptual) and objective (functional) dimensions and because of this relate to different qualities and measurements. The political dimension involves both subjective and objective aspects.

8. The first dimension of community of interest, encompassing subjective interpretation, considers people’s perceptions of the identity of the area to which they feel they belong. A community of interest can be said to exist where people feel an affinity or compatibility with the area and the people who live there. They see each other as having like interests and value systems and often equate that sense of identity with the “local” in local government.

9. The second dimension, or objective interpretation of community of interest, looks at the existing functional relationships between people living in the same area. This has conventionally been a measure of local activity patterns: where people go to shop, bank, school, church, play sport and socialise. In this sense the measure of a strong community of interest is that of the vast majority of people going towards a common centre for services, and having common membership of sports clubs and other community organisations.

10. The regular activity patterns of communities have implications for the provision and maintenance of facilities and amenities provided by local government. For example, the provision and maintenance of roads, footpaths, street lighting, garbage collection, parking, and traffic control, statutory functions such as planning, building, health and dog inspection and the provision of community services such as libraries, public pools, and community information.

11. The third dimension of community of interest integral to local government is the political one, which encompasses the organisational objective of participatory democracy. Local government’s mandate is to act as the voice of local opinion. That voice should be representative of all the people who use and/or contribute to the facilities and services provided by the Council. It must be able to represent and reconcile differing interests, which will require public confidence in its leadership.

12. The more closely a group of people in a locality has these attributes, the more confidently they can be said to have a community of interest. Because the three dimensions relate to different qualities however, the practical difficulty in applying the definition will be the relative weighting attributed in each case to the three dimensions.

13. In terms of perception, submissions by the current Community Boards and others state that Eastbourne, Petone and Wainuiomata are “communities of interest” with interests separate enough from the rest of the city to warrant the retention of their Community Boards.

14. Two of the submitters propose that Community Boards be established in the other areas of the city as it is inequitable for some areas of the city to have Community Boards while others do not. The proposals are not made on the basis that each of these communities (the Northern, Eastern, Western and Central communities) are “communities of interest” with interests separate enough from the rest of the city to warrant the establishment of Community Boards. Rather they are made on the basis of the results of surveys undertaken prior to Council notifying its draft representation arrangements proposal.

15. When analysed in terms of the three dimensional concept of “community of interest” in terms of the functional relationships between people living in the city, that is where people “live, work and play”, people who live in all Lower Hutt’s different communities interact on a daily basis with the rest of the city and each other. That is, they shop, bank, go to school, play sport and socialise across the city and are not constrained by their physical geography in any way from doing so. Also, all the physical services for these communities and the rest of the city are provided by the Hutt City Council. For example, the Central Ward forms the greater part of Lower Hutt’s central city.

16. Based on this analysis of “community of interest”, the current Community Board areas and those other areas of the city do not meet the three dimensional test as “communities of interest” separate from Lower Hutt and therefore requiring separate elected representation.

17. Five submissions (two from individuals and the three existing Community Boards) comment on establishing Community Boards across the city on the basis of equity. Having no Community Boards in the city would also address the equity issue.

18. Other criteria for deciding on whether or not there are communities of interests separate from the city as a whole are:

a. Distinctiveness Are there communities with a distinct interest separate from the rest of the city? Isolated communities?

b. Access Physical proximity to the territorial authority offices, staff and elected members may be an important consideration. Is it difficult for people to access territorial authority offices?

c. Effective governance: Are more devolved forms of decision-making desirable in order to provide effective governance for the territorial authority area?

Effective representation

19. Effective representation means representation that reflects “significant characteristics of the electorate such as gender, ethnicity, socio-economic class, locality and age” and “encourages close links and accountability between individual elected members and their constituents”

Te Whanganui-a-Tara

20. Advice was sought regarding the suggestion that the Harbour Ward should include the western side of the ridge out to Baring Head as this would preserve the spiritual and cultural mandate of Te Whanganui-a-Tara. Te Whanganui-a-Tara is indivisible from itself, that is, it is “intact spiritually and culturally” through its own being and not through which Council ward it sits in. It does not “belong” to a ward and whether it is part of the Eastbourne area unit or the Wainuiomata area unit is not relevant to its spiritual and cultural integrity.

Process

21. A number of submitters focus on the process undertaken prior to Council making its draft representation arrangements proposal.

Options

22. Council can:

A. Choose to retain the initial proposal for representation arrangements for Hutt City’s 2019 local authority elections and publicly notify this as its final proposal OR

B. Alter the draft final proposal for representation arrangements for the 2019 local authority elections to reflect the submissions made, that is:

i. agrees Council elections be held at large; OR

ii. agrees that Council elections be held with a mix of at large and wards; AND

iii. agrees to adjust the Wainuiomata and Harbour Ward boundaries as suggested in Submission D by including the western side of the ridge out to Baring Head in the Harbour Ward; AND

iv. agrees to establish Community Boards across Lower Hutt City; AND

v. agrees to merge the Petone and Eastbourne Community Boards into a single Community Board to represent the Harbour Ward as suggested in Submission E; AND

vi. agrees that there will be no review of second tier representation arrangements in 2021 and wait a further six years (2024) before reviewing all representation arrangements (note that this was not part of the draft proposal for representation)

23. In making its choice Council needs to consider a number of issues and must also take into account the decision-making requirements set out in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. Section 76(4) requires a territorial authority to:

· Identify communities of interest in the territorial authority area;

· Decide on the basis of election (for territorial authorities only)

· Decide whether to establish or retain Community Boards; and

· Ensure there is provision of fair and effective representation for electors and communities of interest and compliance with the ‘+/-10% rule’.

24. A local authority’s final proposal must be made in light of the submissions lodged on its initial proposal or else the initial proposal should be retained.

25. Where any person exercises the right to be heard only those members of the local authority who hear the submissions can participate in the decision making on those submissions.

Legal Considerations

26. There are no legal considerations.

Financial and other Considerations

27. There will be considerable financial and resource implications if Council decides to establish Community Boards across the city.

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. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it proposes an approach for Council to develop its final formal proposal for representation arrangements for Lower Hutt city. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it ensures that Council meets its obligations under Sections 19H, 19M and 19 N of the Local Electoral Act.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Final Draft Representation Proposal 2018	23
2 ⇩	Representation Review 2018 Submissions - version with added items	27
3 ⇩	Census data ethnicity for Representation Review - Submission C	78
4 ⇩	Draft Representation Proposal 2018 - submissions analysis	92

Author: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Attachment 1

Final Draft Representation Proposal 2018

REVIEW OF REPRESENTATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE 2019 LOCAL AUTHORITY ELECTIONS

Notice is given pursuant to section 19M of the Local Electoral Act 2001 that Hutt City Council (“the Council”) has conducted a review of representation arrangements for the 2019 local authority elections.

At a meeting held on 24 July 2018, the Council determined by resolution a proposal on its representation arrangements for the 2019 elections. This is the Council’s initial proposal and is now open for public submissions. We need your comments by 5.00pm on 3 September 2018.

COUNCIL REPRESENTATION

It is proposed that:

· the Mayor will be elected at large.

· the Council will comprise 12 Councillors with two Councillors to be elected from each of six wards.

The names, boundaries and number of Councillors for each of the wards are set out below:

Proposed ward name	Boundaries	No. of Councillors
Northern Ward	The existing boundary of the Northern Ward including Tawhai, Holborn, Delaney and Manuka area units (Stokes Valley) and the Taita South, Taita North area units	Two
Eastern Ward	The existing boundary of the Eastern Ward including the Naenae North, Naenae South, Epuni East, Waiwhetu North and Waterloo East area units	Two
Western Ward	The existing boundary of the Western Ward including the Normandale, Maungaraki, Belmont, Kelson, Tirohanga, Haywards-Manor Park, Melling and Alicetown area units plus all of Wakefield St, Alicetown	Two
Central Ward	The existing boundary of the Central Ward including the Avalon East, Avalon West, Boulcott, Hutt Central, Woburn North, Waterloo West, Epuni West area units	Two
Wainuiomata Ward	The existing boundary of the Wainuiomata Ward including the Fernlea, Homedale West, Glendale, Homedale East, Parkway, Arakura and Pencarrow area units	Two

Proposed ward name	Boundaries	No. of Councillors
Harbour Ward	The existing boundary of the Harbour Ward including the Korokoro, Petone Central, Esplanade, Eastbourne, Moera, Waiwhetu South, Gracefield and Wilford, area units	Two

POPULATION PER COUNCILLOR^{^[2]}

Western - 1:8300

Harbour - 1: 9540

Northern - 1:8050

Central - 1:8550

Eastern - 1:8775

Wainuiomata - 1:9225

Total - 1:8725 (average for city)

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

Section 19V(2) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 requires that the population of each ward, divided by the number of Councillors to be elected by that ward, produces a figure no more than 10% greater or smaller than the population of the city divided by the total number of Councillors. This proposal satisfies this requirement.

COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION

The Council considers that the existing ward structure provides for fair and effective representation of all communities of interest across the City. The Council also considers that any representation arrangements for communities of interest across the City must be equitable.

It is therefore proposed that the existing second tier representation arrangements, three elected Community Board and four Community Panels, remain. The names, boundaries and number of Community Boards and Ward Community Panels members are set out below:

Proposed community name	Boundaries	No. of members
Petone Community Board	The existing boundary of the Harbour Ward including the Korokoro, Petone Central, Esplanade, , Moera, Waiwhetu South, Gracefield and Wilford, area units	Eight – six elected members and two Councillors
Eastbourne Community Board	Eastbourne area unit	Seven – five elected members and two Councillors
Wainuiomata Community Board	The existing boundary of the Wainuiomata Ward including the Fernlea, Homedale West, Glendale, Homedale East, Parkway, Arakura and Pencarrow area units	Eight – six elected members and two Councillors
Northern Community Panel	The existing boundary of the Northern Ward including Tawhai, Holborn, Delaney and Manuka area units (Stokes Valley) and the Taita South, Taita North area units	Six – four appointed community members and two Councillors
Eastern Community Panel	The existing boundary of the Eastern Ward including the Naenae North, Naenae South, Epuni East, Waiwhetu North and Waterloo East area units	Six – four appointed community members and two Councillors
Western Community Panel	The existing boundary of the Western Ward including the Normandale, Maungaraki, Belmont, Kelson, Tirohanga, Haywards-Manor Park, Melling and Alicetown area units plus all of Wakefield St, Alicetown	Seven – five appointed community members and two Councillors
Central Community Panel	The existing boundary of the Central Ward including the Avalon East, Avalon West, Boulcott, Hutt Central, Woburn North, Waterloo West, Epuni West area units	Seven – five appointed community members and two Councillors

COMPARISON WITH CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS

The proposal makes no changes to the current representation arrangements.

RIGHT OF INSPECTION AND PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

Copies of the proposal and plans showing the ward and community boundaries are available for public inspection on the Hutt City Council website www.huttcity.govt.nz or by visiting the following locations during opening hours:

· Customer Service Centre, Main Council Building, 30 Laings Rd, Lower Hutt

· Petone Community Library, Britannia Street, Petone

· Moera Community Library, Randwick Road, Moera

· Walter Nash, Community Hub, Taita

· Eastbourne Community Library, Rimu Street, Eastbourne

· Wainuiomata Community Library, Queen Street, Wainuiomata

· Naenae Community Library, Hillary Court, Naenae

· Koraunui Stokes Valley Community Hub, Scott Court, Stokes Valley

For any further information please call 570 6666 during normal business hours.

Any person may make a written submission on the Council’s proposed representation arrangements. Submissions should be addressed to Representation Review, Hutt City Council, Private Bag 31912, Lower Hutt (or faxed to 569 4290) and must be received no later than 5.00pm on 3 September 2018. A final decision will be made at a Council meeting in early October 2018. Submitters are asked to please indicate in their submission whether they wish to be heard.

PROCEDURE AFTER CLOSE OF SUBMISSIONS

After considering submissions, Council must decide whether or not it will amend its proposed representation arrangements. The Council’s final representation proposal will be publicly notified and members of the public may lodge an appeal or objection. If the Council receives any appeals or objections then the Local Government Commission must determine the Council’s representation arrangements.

Tony Stallinger

Chief Executive

Attachment 4

Draft Representation Proposal 2018 - submissions analysis

DRAFT REPRESENTATION PROPOSAL - SUBMISSIONS ANALYSIS

Derek Wilshere

· Supports a mix of ward and at large for electing Council

· Suggests 15-19 Councillors as this allows for his suggested model of mixed representation

· Proposes that there should be no Mayor - the elected Council elects its Chair

· Supports Community Boards continuing to be democratically elected and uniformly cover council’s rohe (Lower Hutt) acorss the city

· Community Boards should be required to develop a community plan that is consultative, ongoing and provides a basis for accountability to both Council and the community

· Believes the Harbour Ward should include the western side of the ridge out to Baring Head as this would preserve the spiritual and cultural mandate of Te Wanganui a Tara

Max Shierlaw

· Elections for Council should be at large and not ward based - the electoral system be changed to either at large or one Councillor per ward as per the boundaries set out in the draft proposal and six Councillors elected by the City at large as Lower Hutt comprises a single community of interest which covers the whole city

· States that Council has not followed Local Government Commission guidelines in that it did not identify communities of interest in Lower Hutt

· States that the city is made up of a large number of secondary communities of interest. However the boundaries are imprecise and vary in population size. It is not practical for each of these communities to be represented by a Councillor. A city-wide system would make it more likely for these communities to be represented than a ward based system

· Lower Hutt previously operated an at large system prior to 1989 and Councils were more reflective of Lower Hutt’s diverse communities of interests than the ward based Councils in Lower Hutt have been

Robert Prowse

The submitter makes a general comment on the complicated nature of local representation and asking Council to get on with the job. In a second submission he proposes that the changes do not go ahead because insufficient information has been provided as to why the change is necessary.

Virginia Horrocks on behalf of the Eastbourne Community Board

· Supports the retention of current Community Boards in Eastbourne, Petone and Wainuiomata

· Recommends the extension of Community Boards across the city – this would give all communities equal and independent representation

· Notes the description of the role of Community Boards in the consultation documents has been mistakenly narrow ^{^[3]}

· Believes that Eastbourne, Petone and Wainuiomata are culturally distinct and very different geographically from each other and from the rest of the city and should have their own separate Community Boards

Margaret Willard

· Supports status quo for Council – guarantees Council representation for each ward

· Questions value of Community Boards particularly where Boards conduct their formal meetings six times a year and do little more

· Believes the findings from the surveys reveal people consider that they are entitled to certain levels of representation and that the surveys would have provided more value if they had explored the effectiveness of existing representation

· Supports a review in 2021 (NB: this is not part of the draft representation proposal)

Wainuiomata Community Board

· Notes that the Wainuiomata ward is strongly in favour of retaining the status quo for the election of Councillors

· Notes that second tier representation appears to be well supported across the city

· Supports the retention of the status quo for second tier representation

· Does not support a review of second tier representation in 2021 (NB: this is not part of the draft representation proposal)

· Suggests that work is done with the community over the next five years to explore different models of representation including greater delegation for Community Boards (NB this is not part of the drat representation proposal)

Matt Young

· Supports a mixed approach to the election of Councillors as this would encourage a bigger pool of candidates and increase voter choice and that at large election would provide for greater diversity and competition

· Geographic representation is limiting- people don’t live in just their wards they live in the across the city

· Younger people surveyed gave greater support to the mixed model

· Supports Community Boards across the city as people surveyed wanted consistency in representation across the city

· Comments that second tier representation not done well and that delegations should be reviewed. (NB this is not part of the drat representation proposal)

· Believes that the Eastbourne and Petone Community Boards should be willing to merge

Warren Thessman

· Believes 12 Councillors are too many – 5-6 directors are required for efficiency reasons in the public and private companies he has been Chair of over the years

· Preference is no wards and all Councillors elected at large

Petone Community Board

· Supports Community Boards across the city with suitable delegations and sharing of functions with Council

· Does not support the merger of the Petone and Eastbourne Community Boards – two distinct communities of interest

· Addresses the inclusion of Community Panels in surveying and options for representation

· Notes the description of the role of Community Boards in the consultation documents has been mistakenly narrow ^{^[4]}

· Does not support a review of second tier representation in 2021 (NB this is not part of the drat representation proposal)

97 24 September 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

20 August 2018

File: (18/1387)

Report no: PRC2018/4/247

Heritage Policy Review

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Committee’s approval of the draft Terms of Reference for the Heritage Policy review, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) either:

(a) agrees to the proposed definition of heritage as a starting point for the discussion of heritage in Lower Hutt; OR

(b) agrees to the proposed definition of heritage with amendments;

(ii) either:

(a) approves the draft Terms of Reference for the Heritage Policy review, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report; OR

(b) approves the draft Terms of Reference for the Heritage Policy review with amendments.

For the reasons outlined in the following report.

Background

2. On 26 April 2018, a workshop was held with Councillors to discuss:

a. Councillors’ views on the approach needing to be taken for protecting heritage buildings.

b. How the system for protecting heritage buildings works including Council’s current Heritage Policy, existing legislation, the current District Plan approach and previous work.

3. Officers suggested, and Councillors supported, a whole-of-Council approach being taken beginning with a full review of Council’s current Heritage Policy.

Discussion

4. Officers have held internal discussions focused on understanding the full breadth of the heritage discussion and ensuring that the work planned will provide Council with a solid platform on which to base the Heritage Policy to ensure that:

a. Heritage is clearly defined and a best practice policy framework for the management of cultural and built heritage in Lower Hutt is developed.

b. Public understanding of the rationale for protecting and enhancing cultural and built heritage in Lower Hutt and what is best practice in this area is increased and/or enhanced.

c. The policy can be used as the basis for future Council decisions concerning the use of all available means to protect cultural and built heritage in Lower Hutt.

Defining heritage

5. The following definition of heritage is suggested. This definition covers the breadth of cultural and built heritage to ensure that the discussion of heritage is not limited by place, time or “type” of heritage. It also acknowledges the importance of ideas and memories to our collective understanding of both our past and our future.

“Heritage is the full range of our inherited traditions, monuments, art, objects, and culture. Most important, it is the range of contemporary activities, meanings, and behaviours that we draw from that heritage. Heritage includes, but is more than preserving, excavating, displaying, or restoring a collection of old things. It is both tangible and intangible, in the sense that ideas and memories--of songs, recipes, language, dances, and many other elements of who we are and how we identify ourselves--are as important as historical buildings and archaeological sites.

Heritage is, or should be, the subject of active public reflection, debate, and discussion. What is worth saving? What can we, or should we, forget? What memories can we enjoy, regret, or learn from? Who owns "The Past" and who is entitled to speak for past generations? Active public discussion about material and intangible heritage--of individuals, groups, communities, and nations--is a valuable facet of public life.”

Heritage Buildings List to align with NZ Heritage List

6. At its meeting of 19 September 2018, the District Plan Committee considered a draft change to the District Plan that would align the heritage buildings list in the District Plan with the NZ Heritage List managed by Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga. The plan change would add three buildings not currently in the District Plan but included or nominated for inclusion on the NZ Heritage List. The plan change would also tidy up the District Plan listings by moving a NZ Heritage Listed structure to be in the same list as other NZ Heritage Listed buildings and removing a building that was lost to fire and has been removed from the NZ Heritage List.

7. The plan change is a first step to address the issues discussed by Councillors in the workshop of 26 April 2018. Further changes to the District Plan may be required as a result of the development and implementation of the Heritage Policy.

8. If the District Plan Committee recommends that the draft plan change should proceed, the plan change would go to full Council for consideration prior to being publicly notified and consulted on under the provisions of the Resource Management Act. An update will be available at the meeting.

Options

9. The Committee can recommend that Council approves the terms of reference OR approves the terms of reference with amendments.

Consultation

10. There will be wide ranging consultation with a range of interested parties as well as with the community generally.

Legal Considerations

11. There are no legal considerations at this stage.

Financial Considerations

12. There will be some cost associated with completing the work.

Other Considerations

13. 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 will ensure that the community has a clear understanding of the heritage of Lower Hutt and why it is important to protect and enhance it. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it will provide a robust platform on which future decisions concerning heritage in Lower Hutt can be made.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Final Heritage Policy Review Project Plan August 2018.	98

Author: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Attachment 1

Final Heritage Policy Review Project Plan August 2018.

project plan

Heritage Policy Review

Contents

HERITAGE POLICY REVIEW.. 1

1. PROJECT RESPONSIBILITIES. 2

2. PROJECT TITLE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. 2

3. ALIGNMENT WITH COUNCIL’S VISION, STRATEGIES AND PRIORITIES. 2

Council’s four key strategies. 2

SLT Priorities for 2014 – 2017. 3

Other plans and policies. 3

4. DESIRED OUTCOMES AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES. 3

5. PROJECT ACTIVITIES and key milestones. 3

6. FUNDING.. 4

Internal funding. 4

External funding. 4

7. STAKEHOLDERS/PARTNERS. 4

Internal Stakeholders/Partners. 4

Primary Internal Stakeholders/Partners (Working Group) 4

Secondary Internal Stakeholders/Partners (Contributors) 4

External Stakeholders/Partners. 5

8. ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS PLAN. 5

9. ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS. 6

10. RISKS. 6

11. REPORTING AND DECISION MAKING.. 6

1. PROJECT RESPONSIBILITIES

Project Sponsor

Kim Kelly, GM City Transformation Group

Project Working Group

Wendy Moore (Project Manager), Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Drew Cumming, Divisional Manager, District Plan

Helen Oram, Divisional Manager, Environmental Consents

Paki Maaka, Urban Design Manager

Jennie Henton, City Archivist

Liz Castle, Community Library and Heritage Services Manager

Debbie Hunter, Community Adviser Funding and Community Contracts

Arawhetu Berdinner, Community Curator, PSM

Clark Stiles, Heritage Specialist, Petone Library

2. heritage Policy review

Community concern about the recent loss of built heritage and increasing interest in cultural heritage has prompted Council to review its Heritage Policy 2008.

The specific outcomes being sought are:

· Review Council’s Heritage Policy 2008

· Establishment of a best practice policy framework for the management of cultural and built heritage in Lower Hutt

· Increasing public understanding of the rationale for protecting and enhancing cultural and built heritage in Lower Hutt and what is best practice in this area

· A revised Council Heritage Policy

Heritage is the full range of our inherited traditions, monuments, art, objects, archives and culture. Most important, it is the range of contemporary activities, meanings, and behaviours that we draw from that heritage. Heritage includes, but is more than preserving, excavating, displaying, or restoring a collection of old things. It is both tangible and intangible, in the sense that ideas and memories--of songs, recipes, language, dances, oral stories and many other elements of who we are and how we identify ourselves--are as important as historical buildings and archaeological sites.

Heritage is, or should be, the subject of active public reflection, debate, and discussion. What is worth saving? Who do we acknowledge and celebrate? What can we, or should we, forget? What memories can we enjoy, regret, or learn from? Who owns "The Past" and who is entitled to speak for past generations? Active public discussion about material and intangible heritage--of individuals, groups, communities, and nations--is a valuable facet of public life.

3. ALIGNMENT WITH COUNCIL’S VISION, STRATEGIES AND PRIORITIES

The project contributes to the following outcomes in Council’s Long Term Plan

· A healthy and attractive built environment

· A strong and diverse economy

· A safe community Council’s vision – A great place to live work and play

§ Council’s four key strategies – Urban Growth Strategy, Leisure and Well Being Strategy, Environmental Sustainability Strategy and the Infrastructure Strategy

Council’s four key strategies

Which of Council’s 4 main strategies does the project implement? Explain how in the table below.

Environmental Sustainability

Urban Growth Strategy

Leisure and Wellbeing

Infrastructure Strategy

Thriving and distinctive centres that anchor Lower Hutt

Our thriving business and retail centres are distinctive and memorable public spaces, with quality, well-designed buildings.

The Central City and Petone are recognised as the heart of the city, anchoring our sense of place and are regionally significant centres of commerce and great living.

The libraries, the Dowse and the Petone Settlers Museum together preserve and make available the city’s history from settlement to modern day.

Protect people, property and the environment.

Contribute to creating liveable communities that allow for a wide range of activities to take place.

Any project being undertaken should also align with identified organisational priorities:

§ Better Local Government Services

§ World Class Facilities

§ Economic and Social Development

SLT Priorities for 2018-2021

The Strategic Leader Team has developed four strategic priorities to focus on over the next three years. Explain how your project assists with the implementation of one or more of these priority areas.

Priority

How it fits

Provide the best local government services

People understand Council’s Heritage Policy and heritage is protected and enhanced where appropriate.

Access to heritage is enabled through the provision of digital and hardcopy, online delivery and exhibitions and through full descriptions of archives.

Building owners are supported in their dealings with Council and can access best practice advice.

Stimulate economic and social development

Encourage retention and appropriate development of heritage buildings recognising the economic benefits associated with protecting and enhancing cultural and built heritage in the city.

An authentic story of Lower Hutt’s cultural and built heritage, who we are and how we developed, is key to becoming a vibrant city that attracts new residents, develops a strong identity and builds social capital. The importance of the development of Lower Hutt to the region and the uniqueness of the city.

People understanding their heritage and connecting to it.

Leveraging heritage story to attract visitors e.g. Heritage Week

Other plans and policies

Make reference to other plans and policies here, internal or external that may influence the outcome of the project or be influenced by the outcome of the project.

Project	Description/ Relevance/ Impact
Petone 2040	This work has cohesive residential streets that have remained relatively intact since they were first laid down in the late 1800s and early to mid-1900s. These areas provide significant townscape value for Petone, establishing its identity as one of the earliest settled parts of the Wellington Region. Petone 2040 proposes that the areas specifically identified has having a ‘Constant’ or ‘Critical’ townscape sensitivity and quality should be identified for special protection within the District Plan. This does not suggest that some level of change is not possible within those areas but rather special controls should apply to ensure the positive, coherent and important characteristics are not compromised by new development or alteration. The authors recommend that the Hutt Valley Heritage Inventory, undertaken in 2007, is extended and updated.
City Centre Transformation Plan	This study shows how Lower Hutt’s present-day form has been shaped by historical development patterns. The earliest building in central Hutt was built in 1872 and designed in a simple Neo-Georgian style. Most other houses in the area were built in the first quarter of the twentieth century. The houses were built in styles popular at the time including the Stick, English Domestic Revival, Queen Anne and Italianate and represented the best local and national architects such as Helmore and Cotterill, Frederick de Jersey Clere, Crichton and McKay. In the late 1940s, 50s and early 60s Lower Hutt was at the forefront of architectural development in New Zealand. The council was the first in New Zealand to employ a town planner, R D H Hill, and with the Mayor, they planned a complete rejuvenation of the central city, starting with replanning roads and construction of an urgently needed new civic centre. Private and government building owners followed suit, building new office buildings, schools and railway infrastructure. The style exclusively chosen for these new buildings was the Modern Movement. Setting the scene for the profusion of nationally significant Modern Movement buildings in the central Hutt was the Post Office on the corner of Andrews Ave and High Street. It was built in 1940 and designed by the most influential architect of the time, Government Architect JT Mair. The next major building project was the Hutt Civic Centre, designed by Structon and King Cook and Dawson and is the jewel in the crown of Modern Movement buildings in the Hutt. This complex was built between 1956 and 1959 and was the only such civic centre to be completed in New Zealand. It was stated at the opening ceremony “we are now in the proud position of a city with a focal centre in which a group of magnificent buildings symbolises a highly developed sense of civic pride”. Council has invested in the civic precinct to ensure that the heritage values of the precinct are maintained and enhanced building on Lower Hutt’s long tradition as a garden city
Naenae Structure Plan	Naenae's heritage is unique in the region. Modernism was a style used for Naenae's Hillary Court shopping centre, the Naenae pool and nearby industrial buildings, such as the Resene factory. Heritage elements were included in the rebuilt Naenae railway station. Naenae was New Zealand's most fully realised and cohesive example of the garden city, an idea first conceived in late 19th century Britain to create a fully planned residential community. It was designed by the government architect to provide good housing close to factories, shops and the commuter rail line to Wellington.
District Plan - Plan Change to include Heritage NZ listed buildings in the current District Plan	Councillors signalled at a workshop in April 2018 that buildings already listed by Heritage NZ should be included in the District Plan as soon as possible
Hutt City Council Archives Strategic Plan 2018 – 2023 DOC/18/23673	The Council’s holdings are accessible and in demand Provide multiple access points for people to explore and find heritage. Promote holdings through the media, exhibitions, tours and presentations.

4. PROJECT ACTIVITIES and key milestones

Date	Required Action	Accountability	Responsibility
	Review of heritage in Lower Hutt	Drew Cumming	Consultant
	Form Advisory Group made up of stakeholders and community representatives (include Arts and Culture Subcommittee, historical societies/experts etc)	Wendy Moore	Wendy Moore Jennie Henton Liz Castle Director of the Dowse
	Secure iwi consultant to: · undertake Maori built and cultural heritage stock take · develop approach to engaging with iwi · undertake engagement with support from HCC officers	Wendy Moore	Iwi consultant in consultation with appropriate staff
	Undertake community engagement including survey	Wendy Moore	Wendy Moore
	Economic study of heritage (wider than just buildings) – costs, benefits, financial solutions, incentives, private property rights, hedonic value	Wendy Moore	Hamed Shafiee
	Understanding regulatory environment – Building Act, District Plan	Helen Oram	Helen Oram Paki Maaka Drew Cumming
	Understanding of funding environment – this is more about ensuring that those looking for funding know where, how, what, when	Wendy Moore	Debbie Hunter Ministry of Culture and Heritage
	Develop stronger relationships between heritage advocacy groups and community	Wendy Moore	Wendy Moore Helen Oram Jennie Henton
	Complete policy review and draft	Wendy Moore	Wendy Moore
	Begin District Plan changes to implement policy (if required)	Drew Cumming	Drew Cumming
	Heritage story – context, place, cultural landscape, how the story can be told (see Archives work)	Wendy Moore	Wendy Moore Jennie Henton Liz Castle Director of The Dowse

5. Budgetted FUNDING

Priority	Name the resource	Minimum $	Maximum $
HIGH PRIORITY	Review of heritage buildings in Lower Hutt - consultant	$20,000	$50,000
HIGH PRIORITY	Engagement – wide engagement with stakeholders and the community – consultant and HCC staff	$5000	$10,000
	Mana whenua – relationship between culture and Maori built heritage – iwi consultant	$5000	$10,000
MEDIUM PRIORITY	Understanding the history of Lower Hutt, its development and future – HCC staff	In budget
	Heritage survey – explore heritage values of city, collections in institutions and the personal collections of residents	$3000	$4000

LOW PRIORITY


Total Amount in $		$33,000	$74,000

6. Risks and Mitigation

The following risks and mitigation strategies related to the review of Council’s Heritage Policy have been identified.

Risk	Rate Your Risk	Mitigation
Failure to ensure broad community discussion and input into the development of the Heritage Policy		· Focus initial engagement on broader aspects of cultural and built heritage and the history and heritage of Lower Hutt and the relevance to residents · Undertake Public Voice survey to ascertain overall community attitudes towards cultural and built heritage and their willingness to pay for community benefits provided by private owners of heritage buildings
Public focus on private property rights	High	· Factor a discussion about private property rights into early stakeholder engagement particularly focussing on known existing heritage building owners – both buildings and private residences · Reframe conversation as “opportunity” · Focus on intergenerational asset
Political reluctance to use all available means to protect cultural and built heritage	High	As above – involve Councillors in these early discussions with known existing heritage building owners – both buildings and private residences
People want funding to help them look after their heritage whatever form that may take	Medium	· Council considers reinstating funding assistance for buildings and culture · Build understanding of funding available – where, when, how, how much · Recognising greater costs for Earthquake Prone (EQP) buildings · Build connections with other services like The National Preservation Office Te Tari Tohu Taonga
Criticism about focus on Maori heritage	Medium to high	Work closely with local iwi and community generally to alleviate any concerns and fears Develop communication piece/s on history of Te Awa Kairangi

Adverse reaction to the possibility of inclusion of Heritage NZ listed buildings in the current District Plan because other buildings considered to be heritage buildings are not being included. This risk is particularly high for the Petone area.		· Communication about this plan change needs to focus on the reason for the immediate inclusion of these buildings in the District Plan ahead of other buildings. That is, these buildings are already listed or nominated · Listen and work to understand people’s concerns.

7. STAKEHOLDERS/PARTNERS

Internal Stakeholders/Partners

Stakeholders are people who have an interest in the project e.g. will be affected by either the process of the project or the outcome in some way, have skills/information that will assist work on the project

The following internal stakeholders have been identified:

Primary Internal Stakeholders/Partners (Working Group)

Group/Division	Positions (or Interest)
City Transformation Group	· Kim Kelly · Helen Oram · Drew Cumming · Paki Maaka
Corporate Services	· Jennie Henton – City Archivist
City and Community Services	· Arawhetu Berdinner · Director, the Dowse · Liz Castle, Petone Library · Clark Stiles, Petone Library · Jo Wehrly, Collections manager, the Dowse · Debbie Hunter, Community Advisor Funding and Community Contracts

Secondary Internal Stakeholders/Partners (Contributors)

Division/Individuals	Positions (or Interest)
City and Community Services	· Matt Reid, · Council as a building owner/manager

ELECTED BODIES/ MEMBERS

Body	Members
Councillors	Particularly Harbour, Eastern and Central wards
Community boards and Community Panels	Particularly PCB, ECB, Eastern Community Panel, Central Community Panel
Members of Arts and Culture Subcommittee	Desiree Mulligan, Noel Woods

Important External Stakeholder/Partner groups

· Iwi

· Local historical and heritage groups

External Stakeholders/Partners

The following current or potential external stakeholders have been identified:

Local and Central Government

Departments/Agency	(Potential) Link/ Involvement
Ministry of Culture and Heritage	· Dean Whiting (Maori) · Helen McCraken
Heritage NZ	· Jamie Jacob · Alison Dangerfield
GWRC	Regional policy statement
Alexander Turnbull Library, Archives NZ and Te Papa

Community and Other Groups

Group	Involvement
Local historical societies	Membership of Community Advisory Group
Local heritage experts	As above
Iwi
Petone 2040 group
National Preservation Office Te Tari Tohu Taonga
Archives and Records Association of New Zealand Te Huinga Mahara (ARANZ)

8. ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

See Engagement Plan attached

9. assumptions and constraints

§ What assumptions have you made regarding the project that will affect your ability to achieve the outcome

ú Council will champion the new policy/strategy and make the necessary decisions to protect and enhance the city’s cultural and built heritage.

ú SLT will support officers during the review of the Heritage Policy

ú Contractors/consultants will deliver their part of the project work

ú Staff collaboration

§ What are the constraints e.g.

ú A suitable iwi consultant will need to be contracted as this work cannot be completed by internal staff

ú A suitable consultant will need to be retained to undertake a full heritage inventory for the city

ú The project must be completed in a defined time frame which cannot be changed

10. risks

Risk	Rate Your Risk	Mitigation
Process is too slow and other Heritage Buildings are demolished before the policy is developed	High	Progress work as quickly as possible particularly in high risk areas such as Petone, High St and Naenae
Public focus on private property rights	High	· Factor a discussion about private property rights into early stakeholder engagement particularly focussing on known existing heritage building owners – both buildings and private residences · Reframe conversation as “opportunity” · Focus on intergenerational asset
Political reluctance to list heritage buildings in District Plan (private property rights)	High	As above – involve Councillors in these early discussions with known existing heritage building owners – both buildings and private residences
People want funding to help them look after their heritage whatever form that may take	Medium	· Council considers reinstating funding assistance · Build understanding of funding available – where, when, how, how much
Criticism about focus on Maori heritage	Medium	Develop communication piece/s on history of Te Awa Kairangi
It is difficult to achieve a collaborative approach across Council and/or Council staff cannot agree on common vision	Medium	Address concerns and set clear goals

11. REPORTING AND DECISION MAKING

Report name	Who makes decision	Needs sign off from	Due date
Approval of project plan	Policy and Regulatory Committee		24 September 2018
Approval of draft Heritage Policy for consultation	Policy and Regulatory Committee		30 April 2019
Approval of final Heritage Policy	Policy and Regulatory Committee	Council	30 June 2019

115 24 September 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

27 August 2018

File: (18/1420)

Report no: PRC2018/4/242

Purchase and Sale of Property for Advancing Strategic Projects - Updated Policy

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide an updated policy for consideration, amendment if necessary, and adoption.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council approves the updated Policy on Purchase and Sale of Property for Advancing Strategic Projects.

For the reasons that this policy has been updated in line with a series of interviews on this matter and the views of the majority of interviewees has been captured.

Background

2. Council approved the current “Purchase and Sale of Property for Advancing Strategic Projects Policy” in May 2013. Following five years of activity under this policy, a request was made for a review of the policy. This was timely given that length of time the policy has been in operation.

3. A Terms of Reference for this review was agreed and is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

4. As part of the review of the policy the following has occurred:

a. One on one interviews with nine people including members of the Working Group, Councillors and Council officers.

b. A review of policies from six other Councils that relate in some way to property purchase.

c. Development of a revised policy consistent with legal and other requirements.

Discussion

5. Most aspects of the current policy and suggestions for change were agreed to by those interviewed as part of this review. Any area where there was not majority agreement are noted in the commentary below.

6. Key areas of discussion and agreement were discussed below with a comment on where in the updated policy, a matter has been addressed.

Framework

7. This Policy provides a framework for Council to undertake the purchase, holding and/or sale of property for the purchase of advancing its economic objective to grow the wealth of the city. It is not a policy for the intent of purchase, holding and/or sale of property to achieve a return on property purchase, holding and or sale.

8. However Council does have a requirement to be prudent in its activity and a point on this has been added to the policy under 2.1 Objectives.

9. The Policy applies to purchase, holding or sale of property for advancing strategic projects across the whole city. This has been made more explicit by including wording in section 1.1. Overview, which reflects this.

Membership

10. A number of suggestions were provided during interviews as to potential additions and deletions for members of this Working Group as discussed below:

a. Delete current position of “One Council representative to the board of Urban plus Ltd, if neither the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee nor the Chair of the City Development Committee is a Council appointee to the board of Urban Plus Ltd”. This option has never been used to date and having both the Chair of City Development Committee and Finance and Performance on the Working Group are seen to be suitable. This suggestion is recommended and is included in the draft Policy attached.

b. Add the Mayor: Whilst the Mayor is Exofficio on this Working Group (as he is on all Council Committees and Working Groups), there is some benefit in having this role explicitly on the Working Group. One of these is that this would provide formally for a five member Working Group with the majority being elected members. This suggestion is recommended and is included in the draft Policy attached.

c. Add either the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or GM Corporate Services. This suggestion was raised due to the need to have a financial assessment over the property transactions. This concern is dealt with by ensuring the CFO is included in the assessment before a matter is bought to the Working Group. This suggestion is not recommended and is not included in the draft Policy attached.

d. Add an independent member to the Working Group. Officers view is that the purchase, holding or sale under this Policy needs to align with the strategic intent and direction of the Council and an independent person could not provide this oversight. Independent experts are used as part of the assessment undertaken by officers before a recommendation is put to the Working Group. This suggestion is not recommended and is not included in the draft Policy attached.

e. Add the Chair of the Policy and Regulatory Committee. Officer’s view is that the two Chairs of the Committees already on this Working Group are more relevant for this Working Group. This suggestion is not recommended and is not included in the draft Policy attached.

Roles and Responsibilities

11. This was an area of concern raised in the interviews in that interviewees wanted more clarity provided on the roles and responsibilities of each of the parties involved in the implementation of this Policy.

12. The attached Policy includes a section in the Terms of Reference (page 9 of the Policy) which outlines the roles for Council officers, Working Group members, Councillors, Urban Plus and 3^rd parties which will be applied in the normal course of assessing and agreeing to purchase, hold or sell a strategic property.

Monitoring and Reporting

13. This was an area of concern raised in the interviews in that interviewees wanted more clarity provided on the monitoring and reporting of activity related to the implementation of this Policy.

14. The current Policy provides for a six month report to the Finance and Performance Committee. This remains in the Policy.

15. A suggestion was made to include comment on activity under this Policy to every Finance and Performance Committee. Officer’s view is that this is best done under the current regular reporting in the General Managers report to the City Development Committee as the reporting at the stage during the process relates more to development of the city than financial aspects.

16. Officers have included an additional reporting requirement in the attached Policy under Section 5.1 Monitoring and Reporting, which provides for a post implementation review about whether the strategic purpose of the purchase and sale (e.g. more jobs), has been achieved.

Risk assessment

17. This was an area of concern raised in the interviews in that interviewees wanted more clarity provided about the type and level of risk assessment completed during the assessment of whether to purchase, hold or sell a property. Whilst Officers view is that this assessment is normally completed, it is appropriate to make this point more explicit in the Policy.

18. Section 4.1 Policy Implementation now includes in the table of Actions, the following “Undertake assessment of risks (as relevant in each case) including legal, construction, financial, reputational, delay risks. This assessment should also include a view on the risks/consequences if the planned development and/or purpose for purchase does not occur”.

Cover sheet

19. During interviews there were some concerns raised about ensuring that all aspects that need to, are considered in the process of assessing whether to purchase, hold or sell a property. Officer’s view is that this occurs currently but to provide more certainty, we have updated the Policy to provide for a “cover sheet” to go with each report.

Options

20. Options for this policy are:

a. Approve the policy as is.

b. Approve the policy with amendments.

c. Do not approve the policy and request additional work from officers.

Consultation

21. Consultation with regards to updating the policy included those as identified in the Terms of Reference.

22. A review of policies from six other Councils was undertaken as part of this review. Many do not have similar policies. Those that do note that the purchase or holding or sale of property is for strategically important; strategically necessary; strategic, social or investment purposes; necessary to achieve its strategic vision.

23. The updated Policy is more comprehensive in its detail than other similar policies, particularly around process and criteria.

24. The updated policy was considered by Audit NZ who whilst advising that they do not and cannot advise on policy setting, nevertheless provided some points which officers have used to provide more clarity in certain parts of the policy.

Legal Considerations

25. The updated Policy has had a legal review and is compliant with all legal requirements.

Financial Considerations

26. There are no financial considerations with regards to the policy itself.

27. The Policy includes comment on financial considerations and under what circumstances the Working Group can approve purchase, hold or sale of a property.

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. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it provides for property purchase to grow the economic wealth of the city. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it ensures that the process to purchase, hold or sell a property follows a rigorous process.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Review of our Purchase and Sale of Property for Advancing Strategic Properties Policy	116
2 ⇩	Policy - Purchase and Sale of Property for Advancing Strategic Projects - AMENDED VERSION August 2018	117

Author: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

Reviewed By: Bradley Cato

General Counsel

Approved By: Tony Stallinger

Chief Executive

140 24 September 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

03 September 2018

File: (18/1451)

Report no: PRC2018/4/246

Wainuiomata Marae Development

Purpose of Report

1. This report provides information to Council on a proposed joint-venture housing development on the land surrounding the Wainuiomata Marae and considers options for the Council owned reserve adjacent to the Marae.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that the Wainuiomata Marae Trust is considering a proposal with Housing New Zealand for Papakāinga housing on part of the land that it manages in trust which is adjacent to the Marae;

(ii) notes that the Trust wishes to discuss with Council the future of the local purpose reserve on Parkway in regards to enabling a cohesive development for all of the land surrounding the Marae;

(iii) agrees to consider options for the Council reserve land including the possibility of revoking the reserve status and vesting it in the Wainuiomata Marae Trust in terms of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993; and

(iv) directs officers to publicly notify a proposal to revoke the reserve status of the local purpose reserve situated at 9 Wellington Road, for the purpose of adding this land to the existing area of the Maori reservation under the control of the Wainuiomata Marae Trust.

Background

2. The Wainuiomata Marae Trust (the Trust) has been working closely with Housing New Zealand on a proposal to develop Papakāinga housing on the Maori Reservation land that surrounds the Marae buildings. The Trust considers that there needs to be a cohesive development plan for all of the land surrounding the Marae of which a sizeable area fronting Parkway and Wellington Road, officially known as 9 Wellington Road, is Council owned reserve.

3. An aerial plan showing the two distinct areas (Maori Reservation and Local Purpose Reserve) is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

4. The Trust is keen to explore with Council the possibility of the local purpose reserve being vested as Maori Reservation so as to enable the land to be developed and managed under a single control. Its vision would be to retain much of the Council reserve as developed green space, given that it is the main street frontage and entrance to the Marae, but could also include part of the proposed Papakāinga housing development at the western end, a relocated driveway entrance and relocation of Kohanga Reo facilities.

5. A feature that the Trust sees as being a part of the Papakainga is the inclusion of a learning playground with the theme based on Aotearoa, New Zealand, where through the design of play the heritage of earlier times is depicted. Carved pou would be a feature throughout not only the playground but also the Papakainga

6. The intent would be to seek a Plan Change so that the land could be rezoned within the Community Iwi Activity Area, which would provide consistency and greater flexibility for its development.

Discussion

7. The Council reserve land at 9 Wellington Road has not been well utilised for a number of years with only some informal sport having been played on it previously. There are no plans, or in fact budget provision, for its development in the future.

8. The Council reserve is important to the Trust in that it contains its main driveway and entrance to the Marae and is the main street frontage, providing the Marae with high visibility from the road.

9. Officers consider that removing the reserve status of the land and vesting as Maori Reservation is a logical move that will provide the Trust with greater control and flexibility in developing the area in a cohesive manner.

10. The Trustees for the Maori Reservation include a Council appointee, thereby ensuring that Council has formal input into the decisions of the Trust in respect of the development of the land.

11. Should the land not be required in the future for its purpose as Maori Reservation, it would come back into Council ownership and control.

Options

12. There are at least three options that Council could consider;

a. agreeing to the proposal to add the Council reserve land to the land controlled by the Trust as Maori Reservation; or

b. retaining the Council land as reserve and work with the Trust in developing a cohesive development plan for the two areas; or

c. to do nothing.

Consultation

13. Council will need to publicly notify the proposal and consider any objections. These would be reported back to a subsequent meeting of this Committee or if required a separate sub-committee hearing.

Legal Considerations

14. Council will need to revoke the reserve status of the property at 9 Wellington Road as a first step if it wishes to proceed with the proposal. This will require Department of Conservation approval. From previous correspondence this should not be an issue as the land will still be retained for the community as reserve under the auspices of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

15. Application will need to be made to the Maori Land Court to have the property vested as Maori Reservation in terms of s338 and s340 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

Financial Considerations

16. The costs associated with undertaking the process to revoke the reserve status and establish the property as Maori reservation are mostly legal and will be met from existing budgets.

Other Considerations

17. 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 Council reserve land.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Plan of Wainuiomata Marae Surrounding Land	141

Author: Bruce Hodgins

Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens

Approved By: Matt Reid

General Manager City and Community Services

145 24 September 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

27 August 2018

File: (18/1416)

Report no: PRC2018/4/253

Local Alcohol Policy

Purpose of Report

1. To recommend Council publicly notify that the amendment to the Hutt City Local Alcohol Policy has been adopted and set the date the amendment to the Local Alcohol Policy will come into force.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes that the appeals on the amendment to the Hutt City Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) have been settled and the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) notified Council that the appeals are at an end on 7 August 2018;

(ii) notes that, pursuant to section 87(1) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (SASA), this means the amendment to the LAP was adopted 30 days after Council publicly notified it on 29 August 2017, being 28 September 2017;

(iii) instructs offices to give the required further public notice that the amendment to the LAP has been adopted under section 90(1) of the SASA, in the form required by clause 19 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations 2013;

(iv) resolves that the amendment to the LAP will come into force:

(a) for the amendments to element 1.2, on 19 October 2018;

(b) for the amendments to element 1.1, on 25 January 2019; and

(v) instructs officers to carry out all other matters required by the SASA and associated regulations, including notifying affected parties under s90(5) of the Act, giving ARLA a copy of the amended LAP under s91(2) of the Act and ensuring the amendment LAP is published and displayed in accordance with clause 20 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations 2013.

For the reason that Council needs to complete the legal formalities associated with the adoption of the LAP.

Background

2. Council resolved in May 2016 to prepare and consult on an amendment to the LAP and approved a proposed amended LAP in March 2017 for public consultation.

3. The proposed amendments were:

· Function Centres be added to the LAP with the same conditions as Taverns, Hotels and Nightclubs (refer clause 1.1);

· Cinemas hours be 7.00am – 3.00am the following day, Monday to Sunday, and licensed on the condition that their on-licenses are linked to the business of a cinema (refer to ‘Cinemas’ under clause 1.1);

· The maximum number of off-licences permitted in Naenae, Stokes Valley, Taita, Avalon, Hutt Central and Wainuiomata shall be the number of off-licences in the area at the time this policy is adopted (refer clause 1.2).

4. In June 2017, following the hearing of submissions, Council adopted the proposed amendments. Once public notice of the proposed amendment was given two appeals were received.

5. Following discussions with the objectors they agreed to withdraw their appeals, provided an explanatory document that outlines the way in which a cap established in the LAP will operate, was adopted by Council.

6. The final legal step requires Council to give notice of the adoption of the amended LAP and set a date on which the amended elements will be in force.

Discussion

7. Attached as Appendices 1and 2 to this report is the LAP and map of the areas where the off-licence caps will operate. Attached to the LAP as is an Explanatory Document. The Explanatory Document was drafted to ensure it was clear what happens when an off-licence is sold or an operator wishes to move the premises, or in what situation a new and different kind of off-licence is permitted.

8. The Document provides more detail as to how the caps in the LAP will operate in practice. Council has recently agreed to this document and made the associated resolutions in its meeting on 24 July 2018. Officers will ensure the explanatory document is provided with the LAP so that detail is not lost and is easy to refer to in the future.

9. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and associated regulations prescribe what Council needs to do to give public notice concerning the adoption of the LAP.

10. Because the amendments to element 1.1 of the LAP deal with a change in hours, they must not be brought into effect earlier than 3 months after public notice is given. The balance of the LAP can become effective once public notice is given. The date the LAP is adopted also establishes the number of licences permitted in each area under element 1.2 of the LAP.

11. The cap for the relevant areas will be:

a. Hutt Central – 11

b. Avalon – 1

c. Naenae – 4

d. Taita – 3

e. Stokes Valley – 3

f. Wainuiomata – 6

12. The actual off-licences are described in the spreadsheet attached as Appendix 4 to this report. There is one current anomaly in that the actual number of off-licences in Avalon is currently 2, which is higher than the cap number of 1 (based on the number at the time of adoption). For this reason, Avalon will essentially have a ‘sinking lid’ until the number is reduced back to 1.

13. There would not ordinarily be such a large time discrepancy between when the LAP was considered adopted and when it was resolved to be in force. The reason for this Council had appeals which were then withdrawn. Our external legal advice (agreed with the appellants) was that the effect of the withdrawal was to treat the appeals as if they had never been made. Normally appeals push out the adoption date to the date the appeals are dismissed or the LAP is amended as a result of them.

Options

14. The first option is to declare dates that the amendment to the LAP will be in force, pursuant to section 90(1) of the Sale and Supply of Act 2012.

15. The second option is to discontinue the amendments to the LAP. This would not affect the existing LAP, which will continue.

Consultation

16. There are specific requirements outlined in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and regulations that Council has followed and must follow.

Legal Considerations

17. There are legal requirements outlined in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and regulations that Council has followed and will follow.

Financial Considerations

18. There are no financial considerations to note at this stage.

Other Considerations

19. 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.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	LAP presented for adoption by Council.	146
2 ⇩	Appendix 1: Local Alcohol Policy.	156
3 ⇩	LAP Explanatory Document	157
4 ⇩	Off Licence Numbers for Cap	160

Author: Graham Sewell

Principal Policy Advisor

Reviewed By: Bradley Cato

General Counsel

Reviewed By: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

169 24 September 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

29 August 2018

File: (18/1426)

Report no: PRC2018/4/248

Smoke-free Policy - Report Back on Smokefree Areas

Purpose of Report

1. Report back on the Smokefree Outdoor Public Places Policy, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i) notes the report on the second 12 months of implementing the Smokefree Lower Hutt Action Plan 2016-19;

(ii) approves the recommendation of the Wainuiomata Community Board to designate the area of Queen Street as a smokefree area as outlined in yellow in the map attached as Appendix 2 to the report; and

(iii) notes that officers will continue to explore designating areas in suburban shopping centres as smokefree. In 2018, we are exploring the following areas: the CBD, Jackson Street, Taita, Naenae and Moera. Officers will report back to Council with recommendations in relation to these areas.

For the reasons that this option of designating the area of Queen Street as a smokefree area will increase the number of smokefree outdoor public places with a particular focus on areas where children and families congregate and socialise and where the impact from the visibility of smoking is greatest. Exploration into designating the CBD, Jackson Street, Taita, Naenae and Moera as smokefree areas, is because these are centres that either have high foot traffic or high rates of smoking.

Background

2. In May 2016, Council adopted a comprehensive smokefree outdoor public places policy. The goal of the policy is to support smokers to quit while raising a smokefree generation. The objectives of the policy are to:

· further denormalise smoking for children and young people by reducing its visibility in public places;

· contribute to improved health and wellbeing by reducing smoking and the impacts of second-hand smoke.

3. From 1 July 2016 the following areas in Lower Hutt are smokefree:

a. Playgrounds;

b. Outdoor public swimming pools;

c. Parks and sports grounds, including skate parks;

d. Bus shelters;

e. Train stations;

f. Beaches;

g. Outdoor public areas around council buildings and facilities;

h. Council run and funded events. Council will work with event organisers to encourage events for which it provides funding to be smokefree;

i. Outdoor pavement dining areas;

j. Explore designating areas in town centres as smokefree areas.

4. The policy is focused on discouraging smoking in public places through signage, promotion and marketing, and working in communities across the city. The focus for signage is on the most popular areas, areas where children and families congregate or socialise, and areas where there are high smoking rates.

Discussion

Implementation

5. Led by Healthy Families Lower Hutt, Council is implementing the policy through the Smokefree Lower Hutt Action Plan 2016 – 2019.

6. Healthy Families Lower Hutt agreed and made the commitment to lead implementation of Council’s Policy to ensure there was a focused and coordinated approach to delivery, and to ensure its success. Healthy Families Lower Hutt has begun the process to embed implementation within the relevant teams in Council, with a view to transitioning out of the leadership role from December 2018.

7. Healthy Families Lower Hutt will continue to play a role in smokefree environments across Lower Hutt.

8. Progress of implementation is reported below, against the actions in the Smokefree Lower Hutt Action Plan 2016 – 2019.

Communication and engagement

9. Maximising the visibility of smokefree messaging, through signage, promotion and marketing, is crucial to communicating the policy and a key part of demonstrating Council leadership.

10. In partnership with Council’s Communications Team, Healthy Families Lower Hutt developed the ‘Lower Hutt proud to be smokefree’ brand which includes positive messaging and links to quit smoking support services.

11. In response to community feedback, which indicated some communities did not resonate with ‘Lower Hutt proud to be smokefree’, more localised ‘proud to be’ signage was developed. For example: Taita proud to be smokefree, Wainuiomata proud to be smokefree and Stokes Valley proud to be smokefree.

12. To date, Healthy Families Lower Hutt has used a range of methods and channels to promote the Lower Hutt proud to be smokefree brand. Some of these promotions include: raising the Lower Hutt proud to be smokefree flag on Council building, the use of digital notice boards at Council facilities, media releases and news articles in local newspapers, and the Smokefree Lower Hutt webpage.

Smokefree areas

13. Signage has been installed in priority suburbs with high smoking rates. These suburbs are: Wainuiomata, Moera, Stokes Valley, Naenae, Taita and Pomare.

Playgrounds and outdoor public swimming pools

14. To date, signage has been installed at 54 parks, playgrounds and sportsgrounds across the city. Smokefree signs have been installed at approximately 30 (out of 38) playgrounds across the city, in priority suburbs. All outdoor public swimming pools have had ‘Lower Hutt proud to be’ signage installed.

Smokefree train stations and bus shelters

15. Healthy Families Lower Hutt has worked with GWRC to ensure that smokefree signage is installed at all train stations in Lower Hutt. All bus shelters across the city have had ‘Proud to be smokefree’ stickers installed. Adshell agreed to the installation of small green smokefree stickers in all their bus shelters.

Smokefree outdoor pavement dining

16. Implementation of this aspect of the policy continues to be challenging. There is poor uptake by businesses offering outdoor pavement dining and observing Council’s policy by displaying smokefree signage and not providing ashtrays. We estimate that there are approximately 40 businesses currently offering outdoor pavement dining, 10 businesses across the city are observing Council’s policy.

17. To date, there has been varying yet consistent direct and indirect engagement with businesses who offer outdoor pavement dining, in an effort to encourage support of Council’s policy.

18. Direct engagement has included: letters to businesses, the development and distribution of an information sheet on smokefree outdoor pavement dining and Council’s policy, blurbs in ‘Street Talk’ the Jackson Street Programme’s newsletter and email communication to all businesses with an invitation to meet face-to-face. Indirect engagement with businesses has included: promotion of smokefree outdoor pavement dining through digital and print media.

19. To date, ten businesses across the city are observing clause (i) of Council’s policy by displaying smokefree signage and not providing ashtrays.

20. There is an opportunity as part of the current review of the Private Use of Hutt City Council Land Policy to align Encroachment Licence requirements, with the Smokefree Outdoor Public Places Policy - smokefree outdoor pavement dining.

21. A report to the Policy and Regulatory Committee seeking Council support to progress the smokefree outdoor pavement dining aspect of Council’s policy is being tabled at the Policy and Regulatory meeting of 24 September. The report recommends Council include a smokefree condition to the contract for businesses leasing public land from Council for the purposes of outdoor pavement dining, and implements time-limited incentives (up to two years) by reducing or removing the charge for leasing that land.

Smokefree outdoor areas in town centres

22. As part of the 2016 policy, Council requested that officers explore designating areas in town centres as smokefree.

Stokes Valley

23. In October 2017, Scott Court, Stokes Valley was the first town centre to be designated smokefree.

Wainuiomata

24. The Wainuiomata Community Board alongside Healthy Families Lower Hutt, community organisations and members of the community focused on raising awareness of smokefree areas in Wainuiomata. Awareness raising activities have included: a smokefree presence at the ‘Wellness in Wainui’ expo, promoting the results of the ‘Smokefree Queen Street’ survey, insight gathering with Pukeatua School, development of the ‘Wainuiomata proud to be smokefree’ messaging, news articles and paid space in the Wainuiomata News and Hutt News, along with promotion on social media.

25. In June 2018, a report was presented to the Wainuiomata Community Board which resulted in the Board resolving to undertake a questionnaire throughout the Queens Street area, to gain public feedback about the Smokefree proposal and recommend that Council designate the area of Queen Street to the Policy and Regulatory Committee in September.

26. At the Wainuiomata Community Board meeting held on 5 September 2018 the Board resolved to recommend to Council to designate the area of Queen Street as smokefree (outlined in Appendix 2). The Wainuiomata Community Board will continue to work alongside Healthy Families Lower Hutt and Regional Public Health to allow families to have the best outcomes possible.

Jackson Street, Petone

27. Healthy Families Lower Hutt has engaged with the Petone Community Board to develop a local engagement and consultation process on a smokefree Jackson Street. This engagement plan includes: stakeholder engagement, a survey on the proposal for a smokefree Jackson Street and engagement with businesses of Jackson Street.

Moera

28. Healthy Families Lower Hutt has begun engagement with community members and local businesses in Moera. As well as engaging with council officers and stakeholders who work in the Moera community, to date engagement has occurred with Moera Pharmacy, Mo Town café, Moera Community Hall and Randwick School. The engagement is to gather community insights on progressing a smokefree Moera.

Naenae

29. Healthy Families Lower Hutt has begun engagement with local businesses in the area of Hillary Court, Naenae. As well as engaging with council officers and stakeholders who work in the Naenae community, on the proposal for a smokefree Naenae. To date, engagement has occurred with Naenae Medical Centre, Pacific Health Service and Naenae Dental Centre, who all have smokefree signage installed outside their practice. Other engagement has occurred with Oasis Network and most recently Trade Kitchen.

30. The Naenae Market has been actively promoted as smokefree, as well the presence of smokefree flags at the weekly market.

Taita

31. Healthy Families Lower Hutt will begin engagement with the community of Taita in the coming months.

CBD

32. Healthy Families Lower Hutt has been working closely with the CBD Development Manager to promote and support smokefree messaging in the CBD. During the month of May, support was provided to Queensgate Shopping Centre who implemented their smokefree policy and installed the ‘Lower Hutt proud to be smokefree’ signage in outdoor areas of the shopping centre. Quit smoking support was provided by service providers at Queensgate Shopping Centre on World Smokefree Day 31 May.

Smokefree Council events

33. A Smokefree Summer campaign developed by Healthy Families Lower Hutt was rolled out over the summer period to raise awareness of what places across the city are smokefree. The campaign included promotion of smokefree events via the City Events team.

34. Healthy Families Lower Hutt have developed a Smokefree Lower Hutt Event Toolkit to assist community event organisers to host a smokefree event. The toolkit is available on the Smokefree Lower Hutt webpage.

35. Council’s Event Support Fund application form now includes a smokefree statement on the ‘Notes to applicants’ stating that in accordance with Council’s Smokefree Outdoor Public Places Policy, public spaces are smokefree and Council encourages any public event to be smokefree.

Smokefree outdoor public areas around Council buildings, including the Civic Centre

36. Community hubs, libraries, swimming pools and community halls have had ‘proud to be smokefree’ signage installed.

37. Smokefree messaging is being incorporated into integrated signage. The signs incorporate the smokefree/auahi kore logo with other messaging. For example, the new integrated signs at the Civic Centre.

Cessation support

38. Support for Council staff to quit smoking can be accessed through the smokefree page on OurSpace. In addition to this, at the staff Wellness expo in August staff were provided with the opportunity to access quit smoking support services via Takiri Mai Te Ata Regional Stop Smoking Service.

39. All messaging around Council’s Smokefree Outdoor Public Places Policy, including the proud to be smokefree brand, includes the contact details of Quitline and Takiri Mai Te Ata Regional Stop Smoking Service. The Smokefree Lower Hutt webpage also includes information on how and where to access quit smoking support.

Engagement with central government and local government partners

40. We continue to share our resources and learnings with Upper Hutt City Council and have offered our support should they wish to review their current Smokefree Policy in parks and open spaces.

41. We presented at the Regional Tobacco Control seminar hosted by the Health Promotion Agency on smokefree environments to share learnings and progress with the wider sector.

42. We continue to support the Health Promotion Agency on their national smokefree campaigns.

Develop monitoring, review and evaluation of the policy

43. Healthy Families Lower Hutt and Strategy and Planning have responsibility for monitoring and evaluation of the policy.

44. We have conducted public perception surveys via the Smokefree Lower Hutt Citizens Panel Survey conducted by Public Voice. Two surveys have been completed to date and a further survey is scheduled for late 2018/early 2019.

45. Overall, key results from the public perception survey in 2017, indicate there is strong support for smokefree outdoor areas in the CBD, Jackson Street and suburban shopping centres (over 80% for each). There is very strong support for Lower Hutt becoming increasingly smokefree (90%) including a smoking ban in all public places where children area likely to go (89%).

46. A question was included in the 2017 public perception survey asking “Is there anything else that you think Council could do to support a Smokefree Lower Hutt?” There was encouragement to increase promotion, signage, education and advertising of smokefree areas. Other areas that were suggested to become smokefree (with multiple comments) included: smokefree cars, Queensgate shopping centre and the riverbank market.

47. Census data will be used to monitor levels of smoking in the city and progress towards the goal of Smokefree Aotearoa 2025.

Next Steps

48. Healthy Families Lower Hutt will continue to lead implementation of Council’s Smokefree Outdoor Public Places Policy and embed the policy where possible, to business as usual across Council with the intention to transition out of leading implementation of the policy, from December 2018.

49. The Smokefree Outdoor Public Places Policy comes up for review in June 2019. There is opportunity to assess the effectiveness of implementation and explore amendments going forward, the following are insights to be further explored:

a. the use of electronic cigarettes in outdoor public places, has been raised by stakeholders. In response to this, officers will further explore other TLA’s who have included e-cigarettes in smokefree outdoor public places policies.

b. the current Policy allows for smokefree bus shelters, however to gain consistency across public transport hubs, it may to useful to include all bus stops and shelters.

c. The presence of smoking outside of education settings has been raised by stakeholders, community members and the school community. In response to this, officers will further explore other TLA’s who have included footpaths in front of education settings, in their smokefree policy.

Consultation

50. We have engaged with communities and stakeholders and recommendations contribute to wellbeing. Smokefree environments – particularly areas where children and families socialise – have a high amount of public support.

Legal Considerations

51. There are no legal considerations.

Financial Considerations

52. Any funding implications will be covered by the annual Smokefree Lower Hutt budget for three years up to 2019.

Other Considerations

53. 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:

a. Reducing the visibility of smoking can contribute to de-normalising smoking behaviour for children and young people and therefore contribute to the health and wellbeing of future generations.

b. The policy does this in a way that is cost-effective because it can contribute to reducing the prevalence of smoking long-term and therefore reduce health and other costs. Effective implementation is dependent on good promotion. The policy does not rely on council officers enforcing the approach, which would not be practical or cost-effective.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Smokefree Outdoor Public Places Policy (includes Action Plan) 13 June 2016	170
2 ⇩	Smokefree Queen Street Map	176

Author: Lucy Kingsbeer

Activator

Reviewed By: Hayley Goodin

Healthy Families Manager

Approved By: Wendy Moore

Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning

180 24 September 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

24 August 2018

File: (18/1409)

Report no: PRC2018/4/249

Alcohol Ban at Days Bay Beach for Concert

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to request a temporary alcohol restriction to minimize the risk of alcohol related anti-social behaviour on Days Bay Beach during the Fat Freddy’s Drop concert at Williams Park between the hours of 12:00 midday to 9:00pm January 21^st, 2019. Currently Days Bay Beach is an alcohol free zone from 9pm to 5am. Whilst alcohol is consumed on the beach only very occasionally the opportunity to do so at such close proximity to the concert will increase the likelihood of unruly beach behaviour, water trouble, traffic incidents, rubbish and pollution. We do acknowledge the Days Bay Beach is available for public use (non-alcohol related) during this time.

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council approves a temporary Alcohol Free Zone and relevant temporary signage along the Days Bay Beach between 12:00 midday and 9pm on January 21^st, 2019 for the area marked yellow on the map attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

For the reasons that there is no restriction on the consumption of wholesale alcohol on Days Bay beach between 5:00am and 9:00pm, this increases the probability of anti-social and unsafe behaviour for the duration of the concert. Council’s Promotions and Events team, the NZ Police and the Chair of the Eastbourne Community Board unanimously agree an alcohol ban on the Days Bay Beach 21^st January, 2019 is the most sensible action.

Background

2. There is no restriction on the consumption of alcohol on Days Bay Beach between the hours of 5:00am to 9:00pm on all days of the year except for Guy Fawkes.

3. On the 21^st January 2019 a concert is taking place at Williams Park. This is a new event to Days Bay. The event will run from 2:00pm to 9:00pm. It is a ticketed event with private food and beverage sales permitted inside the gated venue. The potential for anti-social behavior to the detriment of the Beach, the community and the event is the reason for this request.

Discussion

4. The Hutt City Council Control of Alcohol in Public Places Bylaw 2016 is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

5. Clause 3.1 of the Control of Alcohol in Public Places Bylaw 2016 allows for an alcohol ban to put in place by Council by resolution under clause 3.1. However, clause 3.4 requires the test in section 147B of the Local Government Act 2012 to be met (and also lists some matters Council may take into account).

6. Section 147B requires that “before making . . . a resolution relating to a bylaw under section 147, a territorial authority must be satisfied that –

(a) there is evidence that the area to which the bylaw applies (or will apply by virtue of the resolution) has experienced a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area; and

(b) the bylaw, as applied by the resolution,—

(i) is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the evidence; and

(ii) can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms.

7. Guy Fawkes night is currently the only date at Days Bay Beach with a 24hr alcohol ban. This ban continues to be supported by Police and Council parks staff as outlined below;

a. In 2004 the Police supported continuation of the alcohol ban under new 2004 bylaw on Guy Fawkes night to prevent public disorder and this has reduced incidence of alcohol abuse.

b. Parks staff commented: Continue the ban as it is an area that experiences large numbers of young adults using the beach and park particularly wanting to party at end of school year.

8. Council may also take into account the following matters, set out at clause 3.4 of the Bylaw:

3.4 (a) states: “whether it is necessary to consult with the public to gauge community views on a proposed alcohol ban area”. The Eastbourne Community Board has been consulted and supports the proposal. See Eastbourne Community Board Chair Virginia Horrocks email of support attached as Appendix 4 to the report.

3.4 (d) states: “the likelihood that alcohol will be present in the proposed alcohol ban area on the days or period specified”. It is in Police Inspector James McKay’s view that Days Bay Beach proximity to Williams Park will attract persons unable or unwilling to purchase tickets to the concert and as a result there is a likelihood for the non-prudent consumption to be undertaken by some. See Inspector James McKay’s letter of recommendation attached as Appendix 3 to the report.

Options

9. If a negotiated point must be reached then a designated area to the far southern end of the Days Bay Beach could be considered however we believe this would only advertise the fact you can consume alcohol in this space.

Consultation

10. The alcohol ban at Days Bay Beach on the 21^st January has been discussed with James McKay – Area Prevention Manager Lower Hutt Police, the Chair of the Eastbourne Community Board Virginia Horrocks, Hutt City Council General Counsel Bradley Cato and Team Leader Environmental Health, Dean Bentley.

Legal Considerations

11. If Council implements an alcohol free zone under the bylaw and it is not supported by the required level of evidence, the area will be subject to challenge and any infringements issued under it may be challenged.

Financial Considerations

12. Temporary Signage only.

Other Considerations

13. This recommendation does not wish to take the right away from the public to enjoy an alcoholic beverage at Days Bay Beach. This recommendation is trying to protect this right for the future. Currently alcohol may be consumed on the Beach 7 days a week 5:00am to 9:00pm and this is a well-respected right. This concert could bring in the wrong crowd who will not be in a contained and secure concert space marshalled by security officers, but left to their free will on a public beach. This has the potential to cause risk and harm to the community.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Hutt City Council Control of Alcohol in Public Places Bylaw 2016	181
2 ⇩	Days Bay Beach highlighting the area public can consume alcohol and concert venue	202
3 ⇩	Inspector James McKay letter of recommendation	203
4 ⇩	Letter of support from Chair of Eastbourne Community Board	204

Author: Dean Grocott

Commercial Events Developer

Reviewed By: Carla Steed

Divisional Manager Promotions and Events

Reviewed By: Dean Bentley

Team Leader Environmental Health

Reviewed By: Bradley Cato

General Counsel

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

210 24 September 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

30 August 2018

File: (18/1433)

Report no: PRC2018/4/250

Strategic Waste Reviews

Purpose of Report

1. This report provides a brief overview of the scope of three strategic projects to review our waste management system, as well as the upcoming review of Council’s Refuse Collection and Disposal Bylaw.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee:

(i) notes that officers are undertaking reviews and are developing business cases in three waste management areas: kerbside collection, a potential resource recovery centre, and hazardous waste, with the results due by March 2019;

(ii) notes that officers have commenced a review of Council’s Refuse Collection and Disposal Bylaw;

(iii) notes that officers are planning to conduct a workshop with councillors in early 2019 to assist in problem definition and options analysis for the new bylaw; and

(iv) notes that a new bylaw will need to be in place by no later than 1 April 2020.

Background

2. In late 2017, the Councils in the Wellington region, including Hutt City Council, approved a new Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) 2017-2023.

3. This plan sets out all the waste management and minimisation projects and activities that Council commits to undertake during that period. It comprises both operational projects (such as undertaking various educational activities or funding resource recovery activities at the transfer station at Silverstream landfill) and projects of a more strategic nature.

4. With regard to strategic projects, officers have commenced reviews and the development of business cases, to inform future actions, in the following three waste management areas: kerbside collection, resource recovery before the landfill gate, and (residential) hazardous waste.

5. Consulting firm Morrison Low, with key expertise in waste management and experience with Treasury’s Better Business Case approach, has been selected to assist Council in all three of these reviews. Review work will be undertaken between September 2018 and March 2019, with relevant decisions to be made following that.

Discussion

Kerbside collection

6. The WMMP requires that the current kerbside approach be reviewed, and a business case be developed. The review is timely as the contract for Council’s kerbside collection (currently held by Waste Management NZ) is coming up for re-tender during 2019, and in deciding the future approach, there is now an opportunity to consider a number of strategic and operational factors.

7. A key strategic factor is that the waste market is currently under-going significant changes.

8. On the one hand, the viability of collecting some recyclable materials is at risk as China is no longer available as an export market, which has impacted the value of some recyclable materials. Unless new markets can be secured, this could impact the justification and viability for collecting certain types of recyclable materials, particularly plastics type 3-7.

9. On the other hand, the new Labour-led government has shown renewed interest in the waste sector, with several initiatives under investigation. This includes a potential increase in the levy on waste deposited at landfills and renewed interest in approaches where producers take more responsibility for the products they make. For example, the potential introduction of a Container Deposit Scheme in the future could lift recycling rates and reduce litter and marine pollution, but could also affect Council’s approach to kerbside collection of recyclable materials (eg it could remove some of the key products normally collected at the kerbside).

10. The review is also an opportunity to test the benefits and costs of alternative operating models. Council’s kerbside approach is a mixed model whereby residents have access to a council-operated rubbish bag service (users pay for the weekly service via the fees charged for the bags) but residents are also free to choose their own weekly rubbish bin collection service offered by a number of providers. In addition, Council offers a recycling collection service, and the operation of a small number of recycling stations, which is funded by a targeted rate.

11. However, there are other operating models, ranging from fully privatised to fully council controlled. For example, Kapiti District Council does not offer a council-operated rubbish bag service and all residents are free to choose their own collection service provider. The review is an opportunity to test the benefits and costs of different operating models, and learn from the experience.

12. But the review will also consider some more practical and operational issues. For example, the amount of recycling has increased over time, and open crates to collect these items may no longer be suitable or sufficient. This is especially evident on windy days, where this type of collection approach can contribute significantly to wind-blown litter, which in turn enters storm water drains and ultimately reaches Wellington Harbour and the ocean. Therefore, the review will consider the benefits and costs of using wheelie bins for kerbside recycling, taking into account relevant experience in other councils (eg Porirua City Council recently changed from crates to bins).

13. In summary, the key outcome of the strategic kerbside collection review is expected to be that Council has certainty about the costs and benefits of various kerbside collection options and operating models, before commencing the next tender process. Effectively the review will inform what type of system Council will procure a service provider for.

Resource Recovery Centre

14. The WMMP requires that Council investigate the business case regarding the establishment of a Resource Recovery Centre (RRC). In its most basic form, this usually entails a free to use facility and shop where residents can drop off unwanted yet reusable items, before going to the landfill.

15. The review will consider a number of questions regarding a potential resource recovery facility, including but not limited to the following:

a. An assessment of the waste and resource recovery market, ie the value of items that could be collected and/or processed at an RRC, including whether markets exist for materials/reused products.

b. An assessment of operating models for an RRC (eg council owned/operated vs privately owned/operated), and relevant lessons learnt in other councils.

c. A cost-benefit analysis and/or multi criteria analysis of the various options, including its effect on greenhouse gas emissions and the degree to which the various options contribute to WMMP targets.

d. An assessment of the level to which such a facility could replace the existing resource recovery activities at the Silverstream landfill, and what incentives or other systems may need to be in place for residents to improve diversion of key waste streams through an RRC.

16. The key outcome of the project is expected to be that Hutt City Council has certainty about the advantages and disadvantages, and associated costs and benefits of an RRC in the Hutt Valley, before committing future funding. Note that such a facility could have benefits for the wider Hutt Valley. Therefore, Upper Hutt City Council is participating in, and contributing to, this review.

Hazardous waste

17. Under the WMMP, Council has operated a hazardous waste collection drop-off day (“Hazmobile”), usually annually. In recent years this was held at the riverside carpark. The justification for this is that various hazardous items such as old paints and garden chemicals require specialist treatment, and thus should not be disposed at the landfill.

18. The WMMP requires that the effectiveness, scope and location of this service be reviewed and this provides an opportunity to consider the management of residential hazardous waste more widely as there are three key short-comings with the current Hazmobile approach.

19. First, while a collection drop-off day can capture various hazardous waste products, residents may need to dispose of hazardous waste items at other times during the year and may not be able to wait until the next Hazmobile. Hence, the Hazmobile may be ineffective in reaching at least a share of total hazardous wastes originating from households.

20. Second, the Hazmobile may duplicate other services. For example, residents can drop off waste oil, car and boat batteries, paints and gas cyclinders at the transfer station at Silverstream landfill, and a voluntary industry-led take-back scheme is in place for paint.

21. And third, the Hazmobile has in the past been run with heavy reliance on untrained volunteers. However, this may not be appropriate considering the hazardous nature of the waste.

22. The review will consider a number of questions regarding hazardous waste management, including but not limited to the following:

a. An assessment of the different (residential) hazardous waste streams, and recommended management of these.

b. An assessment of the benefits and costs of all available options and operating models for hazardous waste management in the Hutt Valley (eg maintain Hazmobile vs permanent drop-off point vs contract a provider to provide relevant services vs working with other councils in order to provide hazardous waste services).

c. Consideration of what incentives or other systems may need to be in place for residents to improve collection and correct disposal of hazardous waste.

23. The key outcome of the review is that Council has certainty about the advantages and disadvantages, and associated costs and benefits of various hazardous waste management options, before committing to the next collection day (or the introduction of an alternative approach). Overall, improved management of hazardous waste from residents should result in improved environmental risk management.

24. The WMMP requires that Council conduct a Hazmobile at least biennially, and the next event should be held (or an alternative approach be implemented) by no later than November 2019. Planning for the next event (or the alternative approach) is scheduled to commence as soon as the review has been completed, and a decision on the preferred option has been made.

25. Note that it is not possible to conduct a Hazmobile while the three strategic reviews are under way. This is because the reviews require significant staff resourcing and funding from a limited budget.

Refuse Collection and Disposal Bylaw

26. Council has in place a Refuse Collection and Disposal Bylaw, which provides the Council with the legal powers to regulate refuse-related kerbside collection activities, recycling stations, and various other waste disposal matters. A new bylaw needs to be in place by no later than 1 April 2020.

27. In line with the WMMP action to “investigate and if feasible, develop, implement and oversee monitoring of a regional bylaw or a suite of regionally consistent bylaws”, officers have commenced a project to review the Refuse Collection and Disposal Bylaw.

28. Importantly, as other councils will also need to review their bylaws over the next few years, this review work will be strongly supported by our regional WMMP planner, a resource employed by the eight regional territorial authorities to support the development and implementation of the WMMP. This is to realise efficiencies in assessing and analysing various waste management issues, many of which present similar challenges to the different councils.

29. Challenges to effective and efficient forms of waste management and minimisation within the Wellington region include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Comparatively high (per capita) waste disposal rates within the region

b. Comparatively low (per capita) kerbside recycling rates within the region

c. Unrealised potential to reduce carbon emissions

d. Incomplete waste data to inform effective decision-making

e. Ensuring the adequate provision of onsite waste and recycling service areas within future multi-unit developments.

30. Council officers plan to conduct a workshop with councillors in early 2019 to assist in problem definition and options analysis, with the legal bylaw process and associated consultation process to take place between the third quarter of 2019 and early 2020.

Consultation

31. With regard to the three strategic reviews, no formal consultation with residents or businesses has yet been carried out, although once options with relevant benefits and costs have been developed, a consultation process could be carried out.

32. With regard to the Refuse Collection and Disposal Bylaw, public consultation will be part of the legal bylaw process between the third quarter of 2019 and early 2020. The exact timing of consultation is yet to be confirmed.

Legal, financial and other considerations

33. At this point in time there are no legal, financial or other considerations.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Jörn Scherzer

Sustainability and Resilience Manager

Author: Graham Sewell

Principal Policy Advisor

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

218 24 September 2018

Policy and Regulatory Committee

31 July 2018

File: (18/1308)

Report no: PRC2018/4/251

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.

Recommendation

That the Committee notes the contents of this report.

Background

2. This report covers the activities of two divisions in the City Transformation Group. It firstly covers Environmental Consents and secondly Regulatory Services.

3. Environmental Consent data is attached as Appendix 1 to the report, and Regulatory Services data is attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

4. The Environmental Consents division processes 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.

5. Environmental Health services are provided for Upper Hutt City Council as well as Lower Hutt. The Environmental Consents team offers an Eco Design Advisor service across the city.

6. Regulatory Services deal with trade waste applications, bylaws, animal services, parking and emergency management.

Discussion – Environmental Consents

7. It is too early in the financial year to track any trends – the numbers are remarkably similar to the same period in the last financial year. The only exception is Code Compliance Certificates (the final sign off for built developments) is up by 31%.

8. The division continues to experience an increase in application numbers (building and resource consents, LIMs, food premises, liquor licence applications) across the board.

Building Team

9. The total value of work for building consents issued from 1 January to the end of July is $198m from a total of 868 building consents.

10. This equates to a 53% increase in the value of work and a 21% increase in the number of consents for the same period last calendar year.

11. The Building Team recently made a submission to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) on the building products assurance systems. This has come as a result of MBIE acknowledging that the current Codemark product approval system is not fit for purpose.

12. Recent building consent applications received of note include:

· Bob Scott retirement village – Internal fit-out of four level apartment block - $6.6m

· Callaghan Innovation Research Ltd – New MSL building, structural and building envelope works - $4m

· 135 Jackson Street – Earthquake strengthening, four new retail shops with four apartments above - $3m

· Zany Zeus, 43 Seaview Road - Stage 1 – steel structure, walls and services - $2m

Earthquake prone buildings

13. We are pleased to report that all of the buildings with unreinforced masonry (URM) facades and/or parapets that were issued Section 124 notices have now completed structural securing work. It has taken a huge effort by the building owners, structural engineers and contractors to meet the 10 September 2018 deadline. Our officers have played an integral part in working with the owners, engineers and contractors to ensure the work has been completed in time.

14. Hutt City Council began with a list of 72 affected unreinforced masonry buildings, 25 of those buildings required physical securing work. There is funding available from both central and local government for half of the costs up to $25,000 for two storeys and up to $65,000 for three storeys or more. Officers will be working with owners for the funding applications and to obtain final documentation to lift the notices.

15. Consultation period has come to a close on the list of streets for priority buildings in relation to the new earthquake provisions of the Building Act. There was only one submission made and has been duly considered by Council committee. The completion of this phase allows us to commence work on identifying potentially earthquake prone buildings in accordance with the requirements of the Building Act.

Eco Design Advice

16. The Eco Design Advisor remains fully booked with appointments.

17. As well as getting appointments via our usual channels, there are lots of referrals coming in from the Wellhomes programme run by the District Health Board.

Resource Consents Team

18. Recent resource consent applications received of note include:

· Hathaway Avenue, Boulcott – the resource consent application by Summerset Villages for the construction and operation of a retirement village was publicly notified at the applicant’s request on 17 July 2018. Submissions closed on 14 August 2018. There were 175 submissions received, of which 127 are in opposition, 38 in support and 10 neutral or unclear. The applicant made a request that the application be direct referred to the Environment Court. Council had until 11 September to decide whether it accepted this request. The decision was delegated to the Divisional Manager Environmental Consents or to the General Manager City Transformation and the applicant’s request to refer the decision to the environment court has been granted.

· 20A Bauchop Road, Waterloo – a resource consent application from Urban Plus Ltd has been received for a new development comprising of 28 houses with associated subdivision and earthworks. The application is currently being assessed.

· 96A Witako Street, Epuni (former bowling club land next to Copeland Street reserve) - a resource consent application from Urban Plus Ltd has been received for a new development comprising of 38 houses with associated subdivision and earthworks. The application is currently being assessed.

· Waterloo Interchange – a resource consent application from the Greater Wellington Regional Council has been received to establish a commuter park ’n’ ride carpark (185 spaces) next to the Waterloo Railway Station on the site currently occupied by the Hutt Valley Bus Depot. The application is currently being assessed.

Recently granted resource consents

19. In the financial year to date we have received 34 resource consents, which is very similar to that received in the same timeframe in the previous year.

20. 307 Jackson Street, Petone – resource consent has been granted for partial demolition of the building on this site in the Jacksons Street heritage area. The proposal involves the removal of the rear part of the building which contributes little to the heritage value of the Jackson Street precinct. Council has prosecuted the owner of this property for lack of compliance with an earthquake prone building notice.

21. 135 Witako Street, Epuni – resource consent has been granted for a new medical centre and ancillary activities on the site previously occupied by the Naenae Bowling Club. The application was limited notified to one neighboring property. No submission was received.

22. Former Manor Park School site (corner of Manor Park Road and Ford Road) – resource consent has been granted for earthworks across this site to ready it for a future residential development /23 lot subdivision. The earthworks will raise the site to mitigate flood risk and to make it suitable for residential development.

23. Housing New Zealand, Epuni – resource consents have been granted for three currently vacant Housing New Zealand properties at Durham Crescent and Cambridge Terrace to provide a total of 28 new units across the three sites.

24. 255 Rata Street, Naenae – resource consent has been granted to Wesley Community Action Ltd for a new 25 unit social housing development on the site of the Wesleyhaven aged care facility.

25. 1041A High Street (land next to Avalon Intermediate School) - resource consent has been granted for earthworks across this site to ready if for a future residential development / 32 lot subdivision. The earthworks will raise and level the site to mitigate flood risk and make it suitable for residential development.

Land Information Memoranda (LIMs) Team

26. In the financial year to date we have received 83 LIMs, which is very similar to the same timeframe last year. The percentage of commercial LIMs has increased three-fold.

27. We are currently increasing the LIM officer resource by 24 hours in recognition that the workload has increased to the point that last financial year we did not meet our KPI in the Annual Plan.

Environmental Health Team

Recruiting

28. Recruitment is on-going, with three of the six positions being filled. It is proving difficult to recruit experienced environmental health officers to do food work, but we have some choice for alcohol licensing officers.

Alcohol

29. Blackbull Liquor, Rutherford Street - An application for a new off-licence (bottle-store) that was heard by the District Licensing Committee (DLC) in October 2017 was appealed by an objector. This was heard by the Alcohol Regulatory Licensing Authority (ARLA) on 29th May 2018. ARLA over turned the DLC decision and declined the application. The applicant has appealed ARLA’s decision to the High Court.

30. Ava food store, Cuba Street - An application for the renewal of an off-licence (grocery store) was heard by the District Licensing Committee on 18^th April 2018. The application was opposed by the Medical Officer of Health who had concerns that it did not meet the criteria for a grocery store. The DLC granted the application, but with several conditions requiring the licensee to provide accurate sales revenue figures in strict accordance with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations 2013. The applicant has since appealed the decision to ARLA.

31. Hutt Old Boys Marist Rugby Football Club, Myrtle Street - hearing for a club licence renewal was held on 29^th June and the decision of the DLC was to grant the licence, but subject to some fairly strict conditions and truncated for a period of two years.

32. After hours compliance checks of high risk premises were carried out in June and July. While the degree of compliance left a lot to be desired, there were no significant issues identified. This is being monitored by the team.

Food premises

33. The Ministry of Primary Industries now requires the food portion of the Environmental Health Team’s business to be accredited (similar to that required in the Building Team). The ministry has informally reviewed the team’s Quality Management System (QMS) and provided feedback. The recommendations are being incorporated into the QMS.

34. The Environmental Health Officers who are acting as “food verifiers” – checking food businesses in the field have also been assessed by the ministry and have all been found to be operating correctly.

35. Due to staff resourcing, the team is behind in completing verifications and are currently working through verifications for operators that were due in April. It is understood that most, if not all Councils are in a similar position because of the nationwide shortage of qualified environmental health officers.

Noise

36. The team is receiving a few noise complaints regarding heat pump noise, which is typical of this time of year.

37. A very contentious noise issue involving the use of a generator at a residential dwelling seems to have been resolved. The tenant’s power had been cut off for several months, hence the use of a noisy generator. Claims were made that power was required to operate a nebuliser, as the tenant was asthmatic. Various attempts to assist the tenant in reconnecting the power were made by Housing New Zealand (landlord), Chris Bishop’s Office and Council, all to no avail. The tenant was uncooperative in providing evidence of the need for a nebuliser, and was ultimately advised that standard operating procedures for noise control would be followed, likely to result in the seizure of the generator. There have been no complaints since then.

Health

38. A working group has recently been established to discuss ‘hoarding’ to find ways the relevant agencies can appropriately and effectively resolve this. There are often mental health/age concern issues involved and therefore a collaborative approach between Council and Regional Public Health (social workers/mental health/age concern) is seen as the best option.

After Hours On-Call Roster/Phone Tree

39. Officers have reviewed the out of hours call outs for smoke and noise complaints to ensure we are providing a cost effective and efficient service.

40. The result is smoke nuisances, both after hours and during normal working hours are now contracted out.

41. A slight change to noise control processes has been implemented also.

42. This will in effect save Council thousands of dollars each year in on call allowances and call out fees.

Enforcement matters from Regulatory Services

Animal Services

43. Animal Services have had a busy time with dog registrations, 9654 invoiced and to date approximately 8800 have registered. This is on par with the last 3 years.

44. We did have a problem with a number of owners not receiving there invoices so at the end of July we resent 2014 new invoices and extended the payment period until the end of August.

45. Wellington is hosting the annual Animal Control conference this year for the 4^th year in a row.

Parking Services

46. We are moving on business as usual.

47. The one significant thing that is happening that has been unprecedented in the past is the unusually high number of people wishing to contest their tickets in Court. Currently we have 9 matters before the Court whereas traditionally we only have 10 to 12 matters heard in court yearly.

Emergency Management

48. EOC training this quarter has progressed from preparing and delivering briefings in June, to exercising our Tsunami Orange Zone evacuation plan in July and planning for reconnaissance tasks in August. These trainings highlighted some updates required to our Tsunami and Reconnaissance plans. Good progress is already being made on development of our Local Earthquake Response Plan. We are working towards an earthquake exercise on November 14, the Kaikoura earthquake anniversary.

49. There was a minor flooding activation early in July, and involvement in the two Seaview fires (more details below under Trade Waste).

Trade Waste

50. Recently we have had several large industrial fires in Seaview, the first was at Macaulay Metals on 19 July involving fire in a large pile of accumulated materials and the second involved a large multitenant building at 106 Hutt Park Road on 27 July.

51. The Macaulay fire was likely caused by an incorrectly disposed of lithium battery being inadvertently cut by a shear. It set fire to a large pile of materials containing insulation (in fridges) and plastics. The fire was difficult to extinguish. Stormwater treatment devices on site had fortuitously been cleaned the day before and provided some level of protection against pollution for the Waiwhetu Stream. Other than Council involvement in a neighbour’s concerns about the site there is limited need for Council follow-up on the fire. Lithium batteries cost around $15 per kg to dispose of properly hence some people and scrap dealers hide them in other wastes.

52. The 106 Hutt Park Road fire was believed to have started from a plug board in one of the five tenancies. The fire spread rapidly and damaged most of the large building. The building had an asbestos roof. Given its tendency to energetically shatter in fires, the spread of asbestos pieces was quite significant and has affected its own land and around 8500sqm of the neighbouring property (Building Solutions, old Ford factory) and up to the fence for Macaulays some 150m away. There are at least five insurance parties involved. Thus far they are paying for the cleanup of their property but progress is slow and the cost will be high. An asbestos removal company (ATL) is managing the property and associated asbestos materials risk on behalf of the owner and insurer. Demolition of the entire building should hopefully occur in the near future. Options to ensure demolition should the owner stall are being explored. Ongoing wet but not overly windy conditions are helping manage risks and there is a specialised foam sprayer for dry days.

53. Issues around plastics in stormwater have continued with several manufacturers implicated in discharges of “nurdles” or “beads”. Many of which are finding their way to Evans Bay beach and elsewhere. One monthly cleanup at Evans Bay also recovered 300 Hutt City pay and display dockets. One local manufacturer implicated, IML, has installed litter baskets in two adjacent stormwater (SW) sumps.

54. A recent meeting of local plastics manufacturers showed them to be very proactive and most already had good systems in place to prevent losses to stormwater. Most have also received visits from Greater Wellington and/or Hutt City Council officers. The transport companies have yet to all be visited and they are now considered a major source of the losses to stormwater. Steps by the manufacturers to require better performance by carriers will assist. The plastic nurdle discharge to stormwater issue is not new, and would appear to go back to the 1970’s when Wellington, Lower Hutt, Christchurch and Auckland showed the greatest densities of nurdles on beaches. It is a global issue. It is also far from our only plastic issue in the stormwater system.

55. A trial of “litta-traps” in stormwater sumps will occur along a portion of Jackson Street during September and October. The section chosen has particular issues with litter in sumps. We are working with Weltec engineering students who will be managing the devices and they will categorize and document the materials captured. Around eight to 10 sumps in the Regent to Nelson Streets portion will have devices fitted.

Consultation

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

Legal Considerations

57. 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

58. There are no financial considerations.

Other Considerations

59. 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 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 Consent Graphs	219
2 ⇩	Regulatory Services enforcement actions for June and July 2018	238

Author: Helen Oram

Divisional Manager Environmental Consents

Author: Geoff Stuart

Divisional Manager, Regulatory Services and Emergency Management

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, City Transformation

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

[2] The population figures used are the estimated resident population as at 30 June 2017 provided by the Statistics NZ.

[3] Note that in each of the survey’s respondents were provided with a link to the Terms of Reference for both Community Boards and Community Panels which provided a full description of each groups responsibilities and accountabilities

[4] Note that in each of the survey’s respondents were provided with a link to the Terms of Reference for both Community Boards and Community Panels which provided a full description of each groups responsibilities and accountabilities

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	June	July
Infringements	2968	3287
Stationary offences (WOFs, tyres)	983	1150

Description	Author	Cycle 5, 2018	Pending
General Manager’s Report	K Kelly	ü
Alcohol Licensing Fee-Setting Bylaw	O Miller	ü
Smoke-free Lower Hutt Implementation Plan	B Gall		ü
Smokefree Outdoor Public Places Policy	J Pritchard		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: - City Growth & Sustainability - Regulatory Services and City Resilience (Emergency Management)	G Stuart		ü
Activity Report: - City Growth & Sustainability – Environmental Consents	H Oram		ü
Naenae Library Site Reserve Revocation	B Hodgins		ü
Policy Information on Emissions Targets	J Scherzer		ü

ANIMAL SERVICES	June	July
Dogs impounded	67	65
Infringements issued	26	1
Prosecutions	-	-