Agenda of Council - 3 March 2016

N-logotype-black-wide Nelson City Council

3 March 2016

Page No.

Opening Prayer

1. Apologies

Nil

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

5. Mayor's Report

6. Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - Annual Report 2014-15 8 - 47

Document number R5306

Recommendation

THAT the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - Annual Report 2014-15 (R5306) and its attachment (A1469480) be received.

7. Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit: Draft Business Plan 2016/17 48 - 70

Document number R5314

Recommendation

THAT the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit: Draft Business Plan 2016/17 (R5314) and its attachment (A1501600) be received;

AND THAT Council adopt the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Draft Business Plan 2016/17 (A1501600).

8. Betts Carpark Special Housing Area 71 - 86

Document number R5302

Recommendation

THAT the report Betts Carpark Special Housing Area (R5302) and its attachments (A1503472 and A1499622) be received;

AND THAT the design controls in attachment 1, (A1503472) to be included in a Request for Expressions of Interest for the sale and development of Betts Carpark Special Housing Area, be approved;

AND THAT Council expresses a preference for the sale of Betts Carpark (Pt Lot 2 DP 224) for development as a Special Housing Area.

9. Special Housing Areas 87 - 98

Document number R5354

Recommendation

THAT the report Special Housing Areas (R5354) and its attachment (A1503228) be received;

AND THAT Council approve the extension of Saxton Special Housing Area over part of the Richards property (Lot 4 DP 8212) as shown in the attachment (A1503228), subject to the Saxton master plan agreement specified in the Council resolution of 17 December 2015 being entered into;

AND THAT Council approve a new Beach Road Special Housing Area adjoining the Ocean Lodge Special Housing Area over the Elliot and Menzies (Lots 1 & 2 DP 530) properties as shown in the attachment (A1503228);

AND THAT Her Worship the Mayor recommend the Beach Road area to the Minister of Building and Housing for consideration as a Special Housing Area under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013;

AND THAT Her Worship the Mayor recommend the Saxton Special Housing Area after the master plan conditions have been met.

10. Nelson City and Tasman District Regional Landfill - Joint Venture Proposal 99 - 140

Document number R5512

Recommendation

THAT the report Nelson City and Tasman District Regional Landfill - Joint Venture Proposal (R5512) and its attachments (A1504294 and A1504295) be received;

AND THAT Council approve a Joint Venture model as the preferred option for the management of Tasman District and Nelson City Councils’ landfills;

AND THAT a 50:50 Joint Venture is preferred, with a one-off payment of $4.2 million paid by Tasman District Council to Nelson City Council to compensate for the difference in midpoint landfill values between York Valley and Eves Valley be approved;

AND THAT for Eves Valley, operational control of all land used for the existing landfill and for Stage 3 landfill purposes will be transferred to the Joint Venture and that for York Valley operational control of all of the land currently used (but not the land designated for Stage 2) will be transferred to the Joint Venture (noting that, for formal decision-making purposes, maps and legal descriptions will be provided);

AND THAT both councils retain buffer land and designations, and that should any alternative use be proposed, the views and preferences of the joint venture will be taken into account in determining the future use of that land;

AND THAT the structure, governance, funding and ownership aspects of the landfill Joint Venture will be the subject of a future report to both Councils, noting the intention that this Joint Venture be similar to Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit;

AND THAT the Nelson City Council will undertake consultation on the proposal through its Annual Plan 2016/17 process and that, concurrently, Tasman District Council will engage with its community through its engagement on its Annual Plan 2016/17 whilst acknowledging that Tasman District Council may need to amend its Long-term Plan in July 2016 to enable this transaction (as the Eves Valley landfill is a strategic asset);

AND THAT, subject to confirmation through the Annual Plan consultation processes, the Joint Venture formally commence 1 July 2017 with the one-off payment of $4.2 million to be made from Tasman District Council to Nelson City Council on that date;

AND THAT from the date of 3 March 2016 (being the date both Councils consider the proposal) both Councils will continue to support the model in the way they manage their landfills in anticipation of it being the approved outcome;

AND THAT prior to commencement of the Joint Venture on 1 July 2017, that each Council continue with all necessary work to establish the Joint Venture in anticipation of approval of the proposal;

AND THAT all direct and external costs for establishment of the Joint Venture will continue to be shared 50:50 between both Councils;

AND THAT the Chief Executive be instructed requested to establish with Tasman District Council a Joint Venture project team for this purpose and do all necessary work for the purpose of establishing the Joint Venture for landfill operations from 1 July 2017;

AND THAT all the statements in this recommendation be subject to the Tasman District Council passing equivalent resolutions on the joint landfill management.

11. Approval of Draft Annual Plan 2016/17 141 - 172

Document number R5525

Recommendation

THAT the report Approval of Draft Annual Plan 2016/17 (R5525) and its attachments (A1448943, A1458865 and A1509118) be received;

AND THAT Council adopts the amended Significance and Engagement Policy (A1509118);

AND THAT Council approves the Draft Annual Plan 2016/17 (A1448943) as an accurate reflection of its proposed variations to year two of the Long Term Plan 2015-25;

AND THAT Council approves the Consultation Document for the Draft Annual Plan 2016/17 (A1458865) for public consultation from 11 March 2016 to 5pm 11 April 2016;

AND THAT the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive be delegated to approve any minor amendments required to the draft Annual Plan 2016/17 or the Consultation Document.

12. Lewis Stanton Update 173 - 174

Document number R5537

Recommendation

THAT the report Lewis Stanton Update (R5537) be received.

Public Excluded Business

13. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

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

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:

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Nelson Regional Development Agency - Appointment of Chair and Recruitment of Board Members	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Nelson Regional Development Agency - Appointment of Chair and Recruitment of Board Members

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(a)

To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

14. Re-admittance of the public

Recommendation

THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.

Note:

· Lunch will be provided. (delete as appropriate)

Council

3 March 2016

REPORT R5306

Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - Annual Report 2014-15

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To present the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) Annual Report 2014/15 to Council.

2. Delegations

2.1 Council has responsibility for oversight of NRSBU activity.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - Annual Report 2014-15 (R5306) and its attachment (A1469480) be received.

4. Background

4.1 The NRSBU was established by the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils in July 2000. Its purpose is to manage and operate the wastewater treatment facilities at Bell Island and the associated reticulation network efficiently and in accordance with resource consent conditions and to meet the needs of its customers.

4.2 The five customers are the Nelson City Council, Tasman District Council, Enza, Alliance and Nelson Pine Industries.

5. NRSBU Annual Report

5.1 This Annual Report is a review of what has been achieved by the NRSBU in the 2014/15 financial year and its level of performance against Key Performance Indicators.

5.2 The NRSBU met its targets with a surplus of $1,934,722. The expenses are 3% less than the budget.

5.3 The total income is $72,300 less than budget as the trade waste charges were less than envisaged.

5.4 The total expenses were $161,022 less than budget largely due to reduced depreciation arising from the 2014 valuation. There were increased costs related to the establishment costs for the re-tendered Biosolids disposal contract.

5.5 In the main, the business plan targets have been met and resource consents complied with.

5.6 The few exceptions relate to the following level of service performance targets not being met;

· There were 3 pump station overflows; 1 resulted from equipment failure and 2 from operator error.

· The contractor did not respond to alarms within the contracted time frame on two occasions.

5.7 The operational procedures and pump control systems have been reviewed and amended to minimise future occurrence.

5.8 A total of $368,635 worth of renewals were completed during the year out of a budget of $658,000. The renewals were programmed based on age and condition. After undertaking condition assessments it was found that some of the renewals did not need to be implemented, so not all the renewals budgeted were completed.

5.9 The flow and loads into the treatment plant have been trending down over recent years. This effectively reduces the need to undertake treatment capacity upgrades in the short to medium term.

6. Alignment with relevant Council policy

6.1 The Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council have a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that was reviewed and signed in September 2015, as approved by Council on 3 September 2015.

6.2 This MoU constitutes the ‘terms of reference’ as required under Section 30A (2) (c) of the Local Government Act 2002.

7. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

7.1 This decision to receive this report is not significant under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

8. Consultation

8.1 The NRSBU is owned by both the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils and its activities are included in the Long-term Plans and Annual Plans of both Councils. Consultation is undertaken by both Councils in the preparation and adoption of those plans.

9. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

9.1 There is a representative of iwi on the NRSBU Board along with a representative of the customers. Both are members but do not have voting rights.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The NRSBU Annual Report 2014-15 has been adopted by the Board on 18 September 2015 and forwarded to both the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils on 2 December 2015.

Richard Kirby

Consulting Engineer

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1469480 - NRSBU Annual Report 2014-15

Council

3 March 2016

REPORT R5302

Betts Carpark Special Housing Area

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the Design Controls to be included in a Request for Expressions Of Interest (REOI) for the sale and development of Betts Carpark (343 Trafalgar Square) as a Special Housing Area.

2. Delegations

2.1 No committee of Council has delegations for the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 and therefore this matter needs to be considered by Council.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Betts Carpark Special Housing Area (R5302) and its attachments (A1503472 and A1499622) be received;

AND THAT Council expresses a preference for the sale of Betts Carpark (Pt Lot 2 DP 224) for development as a Special Housing Area.

4. Background

4.1 On 17 December 2015 Council resolved that Betts Carpark be recommended to the Minister of Building and Housing for consideration as a Special Housing Area (SHA) under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHA).

4.2 Council also resolved “that officers report back to Council on specified design controls which could be included in a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) process to dispose of Betts Carpark (Pt Lot 2 DP 224)”.

4.3 Cabinet has since made an Order In Council gazetting Betts Carpark a Special Housing Area on 18 February 2016. Council is now able to accept applications under HASHA for the development of the site until the 16 September 2016 when the Order in Council is revoked.

4.4 The Betts Carpark SHA provides for qualifying development criteria of:

Must be a predominantly residential development

Maximum number of storeys that a building may have : 4

Maximum calculated height that the building must not exceed: 15m

Minimum dwelling or residential site capacity: 12

4.5 Betts Carpark SHA is a means for Council to lead and stimulate residential activity in the city centre. The Property Asset Review indicated a desire to sell the site subject to specifying design controls at the time of sale. Design criteria will assist in ensuring that the future development of the site contributes to Council’s strategic outcomes of providing greater opportunities for inner city living, quality urban design and enhancing the vitality of the city.

5. Discussion

Process and Timeline

5.1 The Order in Council making Betts Carpark a SHA will be revoked on 16 September 2016 providing a short window of opportunity for developers to submit an application for resource consent. Council will need to implement an REOI process for Betts Carpark as soon as possible if it wishes to provide for a resource consent process under HASHA. This would be closely followed by Council considering the Expressions of Interest and the information provided by the respondent, seeking Request for Proposals (RFP) from shortlisted parties.

5.2 Concept design proposals and a purchase price are not required as part of the REOI. Respondents to the REOI will be shortlisted based on their skills, experience and financial and delivery capacity, along with their acknowledgment of the outcomes Council seeks for the site.

5.3 The RFP will require the parties to submit concept designs and will enable Council to negotiate for the sale and purchase with the preferred developer. The RFP’s received will be reported back to Council for a decision on the preferred developer and that report will also seek that the Chief Executive be delegated authority to negotiate and conclude agreement for the sale and purchase of Betts Carpark. The likely timeframe is as follows:

3 March Report to Council seeking approval of REOI

7 March REOI requested

4 April REOI closes

11 April Panel decides Shortlisted Parties and issues RFP’s

16 May RFP process closes

2 June Report to Extraordinary Council meeting seeking conditional sale of Betts Carpark to winning RFP.

1 July Sale and Purchase Agreement signed

5.4 This will enable the developer to get a consent application submitted under HASHA within the window from July to September 2016.

5.5 It is proposed that a panel of officers including an independent external adviser with either urban design or commercial development expertise (such as Graeme McIndoe) shortlists the REOI’s prior to seeking RFP’s.

5.6 The REOI and RFP processes create no obligation on Council to sell Betts Carpark for any of the proposals put forward. In the event that Council decides not to proceed with any of the proposals, the SHA will simply fall away when the Order in Council is revoked on 16 September 2016.

Design Controls

5.6 Officers have sought the architectural advice of Irving Smith Jack for the development of the specified design criteria that are to be included in the REOI. The criteria are drafted to ensure that:

● Special Housing Area requirements are met, including the qualifying development criteria and timeframes.

● Future development represents the outcomes sought by Council.

● Site opportunities are maximised and constraints acknowledged.

● They provide a viable and attractive proposition for potential purchasers/developers.

5.7 The controls define a series of criteria against which proposed development schemes can be assessed by Council. Key objectives are for a design that:

a. is suitable adjacent to residential and open space uses in this prominent central city location.

b. is a high quality, interactive design to the street edge.

c. uses appropriately scaled design elements and an appropriate provision of space, openings and materiality.

d. considers amenity and liveability of residential units.

e. integrates vehicle and pedestrian circulation within development.

f. incorporates suitable landscape elements.

g. includes quality, sustainable design and building practices.

5.8 Officers have commissioned a concept under the design controls to test them and illustrate spatially to the Council, particularly in terms of bulk, location and orientation, what might be expected as an outcome of the RFP process. These concept plans are provided in attachment 2. The concepts do not illustrate a potential design in terms of the look and materiality, just the bulk, location and orientation in terms of the design criteria.

5.9 The concept plans are not part of the REOI or RFP process, they are only for the purpose of illustrating to the Council as part of this report what the design controls mean spatially. Council can expect that there will be a range of designs proposed by developers that are able to meet the Design Controls and will be assessed by Council as part of the RFP process.

6. Options

6.1 Council approved Betts Carpark to become a SHA on 17 December 2015, and Cabinet has since made an Order in Council to formalise that. Council has three options:

6.2 Option 1 : Do nothing. Council can choose not to advance the development of the site as a SHA any further. This option would not achieve Council’s goals in terms of enhancing city centre vitality and inner city housing opportunities, and it would not make use of the significant opportunity to add value to a Council owned asset through the SHA process. This option is in conflict with Council’s previous resolution and does not maximise the potential financial return to ratepayers from the management of this asset, particularly given the Property Asset Review has signalled this site should be disposed of.

6.3 Option 2: Council Development/Partnership. Council could choose to either develop Betts Carpark as a SHA itself, or in partnership with a developer. This option would potentially achieve Council’s goals in terms of enhancing city centre vitality and inner city housing opportunities, and it would make use of the significant opportunity to add value to a Council owned asset through the SHA process. However given the short development window before HASHA is repealed and given there is no staff resource to enable this to occur this is not seen as a realistic option.

6.4 Option 3: Sell Betts Carpark subject to controls. This option is low risk to Council, particularly given the design controls and development delivery requirements of the REOI and RFP process. Council retains certainty over the outcome without the financial risk, and enables the selected developer to maximise appropriate development potential of this prime site, thereby adding value to Council’s asset for ratepayers and levering some of Council’s strategic outcomes for the city centre.

Option 3 is the recommended option.

7. Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1 This matter is not in contradiction with any Council policy or strategic document. Council previously approved in 17 December 2015 that Betts Carpark become a SHA, with the intention that it be developed via an REOI process. This report seeks approval for the REOI document.

8. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

8.1 This matter is not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

9. Consultation

9.1 The public have not been consulted on this matter. The purpose of HASHA is to enhance housing affordability by increasing land and housing supply through a streamlined consent process. The process of establishing SHAs under HASHA does not require public consultation and consideration of resource consents under HASHA have reduced consultation and appeal rights.

9.2 The report to make Betts Carpark a SHA received by Council on 17 December 2015 was publicly available and received some media attention. The limited notification process available under HASHA can provide opportunity for those adjacent landowners considered to be most affected by the proposal to participate in the planning process.

9.3 Betts Carpark is currently leased to a number of parties for the purpose of parking at $85 per month per park. The term of the lease is monthly and requires one month’s notice of any intention to terminate. Should Council approve this report then officers intend to contact the tenants to advise of the REOI process and the possibility that the monthly leases may be cancelled by one month’s notice.

9.4 The decision to sell Betts Carpark is a decision that is subject to the decision making process set out in the Local Government Act 2002. Council will need to consider who may be affected by or has an interest in Council’s decision to sell the land, and give those persons an opportunity to comment on the proposal to sell. This can occur concurrently with the REOI process. Feedback will also be sought from Betts Carpark leasees and reported to Council for consideration.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 Maori have not been consulted on this matter.

11. Conclusion

11.1 This report seeks Council approval of the Design Controls to be used as part of a Request for Expressions Of Interest (REOI) for the sale and development of Betts Carpark as a Special Housing Area. The Design Controls will ensure that Council retains certainty over the development outcome without the risks of undertaking it itself. It also enables the selected developer to maximise appropriate development potential of this prime site, thereby adding value to Council’s asset for ratepayers while leveraging strategic outcomes and urban design goals for the city centre.

11.2 The Design Controls will ensure that any future development on Betts Carpark considers the sites locality, adjoining development and residences, while maximising development opportunity under HASHA and achieving high quality urban design.

11.3 The timeframe available for achieving the REOI and subsequent RFP process prior to finalising the sale and purchase agreement is very tight given HASHA is being repealed on 16 September 2016. If Council wishes to utilise the SHA over Betts Carpark then the REOI process needs to begin now.

Lisa Gibellini

Senior Planning Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1503472 Betts Carpark Design Controls

Attachment 2: A1499622 Betts Carpark Concept from Design Controls

Council

3 March 2016

REPORT R5354

Special Housing Areas

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide an update to Council on targets under the Housing Accord and to approve one additional Special Housing Area (SHA), and extend another.

2. Delegations

2.1 No committee of Council has delegations for the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act therefore the matter needs to be considered by full Council.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Special Housing Areas (R5354) and its attachment (A1503228) be received;

AND THAT Council approve a new Beach Road Special Housing Area adjoining the Ocean Lodge Special Housing Area over the Elliot and Menzies (Lots 1 & 2 DP 530) properties as shown in the attachment (A1503228);

AND THAT Her Worship the Mayor recommend the Beach Road area to the Minister of Building and Housing for consideration as a Special Housing Area under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013;

AND THAT Her Worship the Mayor recommend the Saxton Special Housing Area after the master plan conditions have been met.

4. Background

4.1 On 17 December Council resolved that ten sites be recommended to the Minister of Building and Housing for consideration as Special Housing Areas (SHA) under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013(HASHA). Cabinet has since approved nine of those sites and they have been made SHAs by an Order in Council dated 18 February 2016.

4.2 The tenth site, Saxton, has not yet been recommended to the Minister of Building and Housing as a SHA because Council resolved that the Saxton SHA was approved subject to an agreement between Council and the landowners requiring a master plan. The purpose of the master plan is to ensure infrastructure and open space network connectivity is achieved.

4.3 This report provides an update on progress towards the Housing Accord targets, the creation of SHA’s, the Saxton master plan agreement and additional interest registered in the creation and expansion of SHA’s.

4.4 Due to HASHA being repealed on 16 September 2016, the close off date for Council to consider additional SHA’s will be the 2 June 2016 Council meeting. After that date it will be administratively difficult to get areas gazetted and still allow time for resource consent applications to be submitted.

5. Discussion

Housing Accord Targets

5.1 The Accord contains housing and allotment supply targets to measure Council’s progress in increasing residential supply. Progress against the targets 6 months on from signing the Accord, is shown in the table below.

5.2

Nelson Housing Accord: Progress against Year 1 Targets February 2016
	Year 1 Aspirational Targets	Half-year Progress July-December
Yield of serviced residential lots (titled) from residential zoned land	100	49
Total dwellings	240	89

Data Sources:

Yield of serviced residential lots (titled) from residential zoned land: LINZ Data Service, NZ Property Titles dataset

Total dwellings: Statistics NZ – Building Consents Issued, July-December.

5.2 Targets for both titled lots and total dwellings have not been met for the half year. Council is only one titled lot short of achieving the target, but 31 building consents below the target. The new titles include 18 lots in Waimeha Stage 3 of the Wahanga development near Champion Road. The new consents include 12 townhouses at Summerset Retirement Village in Stoke.

Saxton Special Housing Area

5.3 Officers invited the landowners of the Saxton SHA to a meeting to discuss Council’s master plan resolution on 29 January 2016. The purpose of the meeting was to facilitate a collaborative approach to the landowners, to assist with identifying what information needs to be provided as part of the master plan, and how infrastructure is timed and funded across the SHA given the short timeframe of HASHA. The landowners have since advised that they will be working together and have appointed one team of professional advisers to assist them with the master plan.

5.4 Following Council’s decision on the 17 December 2015 and subsequent media attention, officers received requests from two adjoining landowners Rick Griffin (187 Champion Road) and Tony Richards (3A Hill Street North) seeking that part of their properties also be included in the Saxton SHA.

5.5 Officers have consulted with the existing landowners in the Saxton SHA. Their view on extending the area is that it is appropriate for the Richards property to be included as its right of way passes through the SHA and they are therefore already involved in negotiations. Officers agree with this view and support this area being added to Saxton SHA.

5.6 The existing Saxton SHA landowners consider that the Griffin property which is zoned residential and has access off Champion Road, could be a separate SHA so as to limit the number of parties involved in the Saxton master plan. The concern is that the more landowners involved, the more difficult it is to arrive at an agreement on a master plan under the time constraints. Officers agree with the existing Saxton SHA landowners and consider it impractical to add a 7^th property into the mix when Saxton SHA is not reliant on it, given the time constraints of HASHA. Further investigation of the ability to service the Griffin property is required, including an approach to Tasman District Council, before it can be considered as an independent SHA.

Beach Road Special Housing Area

5.7 Officers have also received a request from a landowner adjoining the Ocean Lodge SHA that their property be considered as an SHA. The Ocean Lodge SHA has been approved by Cabinet and is unable to be extended. A new SHA could however be proposed for the adjoining sites at 45 & 47 Beach Road. This SHA should have a slightly lower qualifying development criteria than the Ocean Lodge site so that it transitions from the suburban commercial zone to the residential zone.

6. Options

6.1 The criteria for SHAs are detailed in Attachment 1 and are summarised below along with officer recommendations as to whether they would be suitable and meet the requirements of HASHA:

Option	Name	Recommendation
1	Saxton	Suitable subject to master plan approach
3	Beach Road	suitable

6.2 The criteria used to evaluate suitability and each sites assessment are detailed in Attachment 1 along with a map identifying each area. The criteria include the HASHA requirements that need to be satisfied (adequate infrastructure and demand for residential housing), consistency with the Accord, and alignment with the Nelson Resource Management Plan.

6.3 Some sites already have sufficient infrastructure connections. Other sites require additional connection and/or capacity to be provided. Where this isn’t already a project in the Long Term Plan the necessary infrastructure will need to be provided by the developer. The SHA’s will not result in any additional infrastructure costs on Council.

7. Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1 This aligns with the direction set by Council for SHA’s at the 17 December 2015 Council meeting.

8. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

8.1 This matter is not significant in terms of Council’s Significance an Engagement Policy.

9. Consultation

9.1 The public have not been consulted on this matter. HASHA does not require that any consultation is undertaken in identifying SHAs. Time has not allowed for specific community consultation on the location of potential SHAs. Notification of adjacent landowners may occur when resource consents relating to qualifying developments are considered.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 Maori have not been consulted on this matter.

11. Conclusion

11.1 It is now 6 months since Council signed the Housing Accord. The Accord Steering Group will be meeting shortly to discuss Council’s progress in meeting its Accord targets. This report provides an update to Council on how Council is tracking against the Accord targets.

11.2 Following the approval of ten SHA’s by Council on 17 December 2015, officers have received requests for two new SHA’s. This report seeks Councils approval for one new SHA and the extension of Saxton SHA to include part of an adjoining property.

Lisa Gibellini

Senior Planning Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1503228 Saxton and Beach Rd Special Housing Areas

Council

3 March 2016

REPORT R5512

Nelson City and Tasman District Regional Landfill - Joint Venture Proposal

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the option of establishing a joint venture to operate a regional landfill for the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council.

2. Delegations

2.1 Council has the delegation to make this decision.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Nelson City and Tasman District Regional Landfill - Joint Venture Proposal (R5512) and its attachments (A1504294 and A1504295) be received;

AND THAT Council approve a Joint Venture model as the preferred option for the management of Tasman District and Nelson City Councils’ landfills;

AND THAT all direct and external costs for establishment of the Joint Venture will continue to be shared 50:50 between both Councils;

AND THAT all the statements in this recommendation be subject to the Tasman District Council passing equivalent resolutions on the joint landfill management.

4. Background

4.1 Both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council are responsible for promoting effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their respective territorial boundaries (collectively the Nelson-Tasman region) under Part 4 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (the Act).

4.2 Nelson City Council owns and operates the York Valley landfill at 34 Market Road, Bishopdale, Nelson and the Tasman District Council owns and operates the Eves Valley landfill at 214 Eves Valley Road, Waimea West, Tasman.

4.3 Both Nelson City and Tasman District Councils have prepared and adopted a Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (JWMMP) dated April 2012 pursuant to section 45 of the Act.

4.4 Policy 3.1.5 of the JWMMP states that the Councils will jointly make the most effective and efficient use of York Valley and Eves Valley landfill space. Method 3.1.5.1 to achieve this policy states:

The Councils will investigate a joint landfill solution as a matter of priority in the first year this plan is operative (and the options will include using one landfill as a regional facility serving both Districts or that the two landfills will be used for separate materials).

4.5 Policy 3.1.6 of the Joint Plan states that the Councils are to ensure jointly that there is landfill capacity in the two Districts for the safe disposal of waste. Method 3.1.6.1 to achieve this policy states:

The Councils will continue to provide a landfill disposal service for the disposal of approved waste that is sourced from within the Districts.

4.6 In 2014, following further investigation by the Councils, Nelson City and Tasman District proposed joint use of a single regional landfill facility to accept all residual solid waste generated in the Nelson-Tasman region. The proposal was for:

§ the York Valley landfill to become the regional landfill facility from 1 July 2015 to accept all waste generated within the Nelson-Tasman region until the current operational area of the landfill is at capacity (anticipated at the time to be in approximately 2031);

§ the Eves Valley landfill to have all necessary consents and approvals to accept up to two years waste from the Nelson-Tasman region in case of unforeseen temporary closure of the York Valley landfill;

§ at the point where the current operational area of the York Valley landfill reaches capacity, Tasman to have established a regional landfill facility (whether at Eves Valley or elsewhere) which will be operated by Tasman and available to accept all waste generated within the Nelson-Tasman region on terms and conditions that reciprocate operation of the York Valley landfill as a regional landfill facility by Nelson.

4.7 In August 2014 the two Councils signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The MoU outlined a “contract for service” approach, where Nelson City Council would own and operate York Valley and Tasman District Council would pay the standard landfill disposal fees, but receive an annual lump sum and a share of the operating surplus of the landfill from the Nelson City Council. This MoU was the basis of public consultation by Nelson City Council.

4.8 In December 2014, following public consultation by NCC, the Councils considered a modified MoU and in April 2015 the MoU was signed by the Councils. The key change in the MoU was regarding the funding of future landfill capacity from 2030.

4.9 In April 2015 the MoU was signed by both Councils.

4.10 In parallel with this, work had commenced on development of a binding agreement. During the development of this binding agreement it became clear that the reciprocal terms and conditions (as outlined in Clause 11 of the MoU) were being interpreted differently by each Council. Agreement was therefore not reached on the ‘contract for service’ approach.

4.11 Both Councils still wanted to reach agreement and therefore agreed to undertake an independent review to assess options and associated implications for each Council. It was intended that this review would help both Councils reach an agreement.

4.12 This independent review was completed by Deloitte in October 2015. Although it provided accurate and factual information on the solid waste activities undertaken by each Council, it did not result in an agreement being reached.

4.13 Both Councils still wanted to reach agreement. During deliberations on the independent review it was agreed that perhaps it would be better to consider a joint venture model – one along the lines of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU).

4.14 In the NRSBU model the Councils effectively share assets and capital expenditure 50:50 and operations are governed by a joint committee of the Councils. This NRSBU approach has worked well for over 15 years.

4.15 It was agreed that before any deliberations could occur that a valuation be undertaken of each Council’s landfills and landfilling operations.

5. Landfill Valuations

5.1 In November 2015, both Councils agreed to commission a valuation. A scope and process was developed for the purpose informing the level of assets/equity that each Council could contribute to a joint venture proposal to operate a regional landfill.

5.2 In December the Councils jointly engaged Deloitte to provide them with an independent commercial / business valuation of the landfill operations of each Council. Morrison Low and Associates were also jointly engaged to peer review the Deloitte valuation.

5.3 A separate valuation was completed of each landfill operation based on each Council continuing with the status quo (i.e. no regional landfill) for the next 45 years. This included operating the current landfills, re-consenting existing areas as necessary and consenting, developing and operating new areas over this period.

5.4 The following were the key features of the valuations;

§ valuing the current day consented landfills operations as an ongoing business proposition;

§ a discounted cashflow approach (which involves forecasting the cash revenue and expenses that the landfill operations could generate over their life and deducting the capital costs that are necessary to generate that revenue);

§ inclusion of post closure costs of each landfill;

§ inclusion of the capital costs of extending, consenting and developing additional stages to enable landfilling to occur for the 45 year period;

§ using 2014/15 waste disposal volumes and the Councils’ own growth projections for the life of the consented landfills;

§ current gate charges remaining unchanged over the 45 year period;

§ an appropriate range of commercial Weighted Average Costs of Capital (WACC) that would apply to landfills;

§ sensitivity analysis around changes in waste volumes, operating costs, gate charges and capital costs over the 45 year period.

5.5 A draft Valuation Report (Deloitte) and a draft Peer Review Report (Morrison Low) were released to both Councils in early February 2016. Council officers met with Deloitte and Morrison Low to discuss the report and on 10 February the valuation was presented by Deloitte to a joint workshop of the Councils. Copies of finalised reports are attached to this report.

5.6 The Valuation Report outlines the reasoning behind adopting a ‘fair value’ standard to each landfill asset. It then outlines the valuation approaches and assumptions.

5.7 The valuation report highlights that the accounting aspects of the landfilling operations are treated differently by each Council. Deloitte has reviewed and assessed the financial information and has ‘ring fenced’ the respective costs and revenues of each Council’s operations to ensure that both landfills have been valued on a similar basis.

5.8 The valuations have been determined based on the landfilling operations for each Council over the next 45 years. This is considered standard practice within the valuation sector.

5.9 The following tables summarise the valuations outlined in the Deloitte Report, using the range of appropriate Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) for a landfill. The value split between existing and future landfill stages is shown in the pie charts following the tables;

Eves Valley Landfill	Low ($’000)	High ($’000)
Current Stage Valuation	3,722	3,733
Future Stage 3 Valuation	8,881	10,015
Combined Landfill Valuation	12,603	13,749
Midpoint	13,176

Table 5.9A Eves Valley Landfill Valuations

York Valley Landfill	Low ($’000)	High ($’000)
Current Stage Valuation	21,023	22,090
Future Stage 2 Valuation	17	91
Combined Landfill Valuation	21,040	22,181
Midpoint	21,611

Table 5.9B York Valley Landfill Valuations

Pie Charts showing contributions of Current and Future Stages

to the Landfill Valuations

5.10 As shown above, the value of the future stage at Eves Valley makes a significant contribution to the Eves Valley combined valuation. While the capital investment required at Eves Valley Landfill beyond Year 3 would be significant, it would be gradual and spread over the life of the Stage. The associated revenue generated compensates for that capital investment and consequently has increased the value of the Eves Valley landfill.

5.11 Correspondingly, the tables show that the value of the future stage at York Valley makes very little contribution to the York Valley combined valuation. This is because the capital investment for York Valley is not required until Year 32 and any revenue would not be realised until Year 33. The discounting factor over 32 years severely diminishes that value of that investment and revenue in today’s dollars.

5.12 The Valuation Report and the Peer Review Report are robust. They give a good indication of the value of each Council’s landfilling operations and are a fair assessment of the value that each would bring to a joint venture.

5.13 At a joint workshop of the Councils on 10 February, Councillors from both Councils indicated support for a joint venture and that the joint venture model should be structured along the lines of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit.

5.14 A joint venture on an equal value basis is important. An equal joint venture enables better decision making and sharing of risk and benefits. Because of the difference in values of the landfills, if the two Councils are to hold equal value in the joint venture then a “true up” payment will be required from Tasman District Council to Nelson City Council to recognise the greater value of the York Valley landfill. This true up payment would be half the difference of the landfill values.

5.15 Although the valuation for York Valley includes future Stage 2 being constructed in year 32, Council has indicated that at this stage it would prefer not to include it in the valuation (although it would need to be protected for future use). This would then limit the York Valley value to the current operational footprint. The value would then range between $21.023 million and $22.090 million, giving a midpoint of $21.557 million. The value of Stage 2 at York Valley ($0.17-$0.91 million) is not significant in the overall valuation.

5.16 It is proposed therefore that the joint venture regional landfill model would include:

· the Eves Valley current stage (Stage 2) plus future Stage 3 (which combined have a midpoint value of $13.176 million), and

· the York Valley current stage ($21.557 million).

5.17 The difference in the midpoint values is in the order of $8.4 million. To create a 50:50 joint venture ownership model Tasman District Council would need to contribute half of the difference ($4.2 million) to Nelson City Council.

5.18 There will be a need to protect the future landfill development options and therefore both Councils need to retain buffer land and designations accordingly. Should either Council propose any alternative use of bordering land then the views and preferences of the joint venture will need to be taken into account in determining the future use of that land.

5.19 It is proposed that the Joint Venture will formally commence on 1 July 2017. It is recommended that a joint venture project team be established to work through the details of establishing the joint venture model.

6. Options

6.1 The options available to Council are;

§ Status Quo - Retain the status quo and continue with owning and operating York Valley landfill and TDC continue to own and operate Eves Valley landfill;

§ Regional Landfill - Establish a regional landfill with a 50:50 joint venture model between NCC and TDC, as recommended in this report;

§ Consider other options – Continue discussions with Tasman District Council on other options to establish a regional landfill.

6.2 The status quo option does not align with the JWMMP, so if it was pursued the JWMMP would need to be amended to remove the objective of establishing a regional landfill.

6.3 The regional landfill option comprising a 50:50 joint venture ownership model aligns closely with the objectives of the JWMMP. Previous work has shown that a regional landfill is the most efficient and cost-effective and reduces commercial risk and overall capital requirements.

6.4 Considering other options is still available to both Councils, should the 50:50 joint venture option not be pursued, but a joint venture approach is considered the most equitable and workable model.

7. Strategy and Risks

7.1 Continuing to work on a regional approach for landfill management, on a joint venture basis is consistent with discussions held recently in a joint workshop of the Councils. Discussions with Tasman District Council indicated a high level of support for the proposal.

7.2 There remains a risk that following consultation Council decides not to proceed. The same risk exists for Tasman District Council.

7.3 These risks are partially mitigated by:

· the resolutions considered at that joint workshop

· the joint objectives of the JWWMP, and

· considerable work to date that has illustrated the long term benefits of a joint landfill arrangement.

7.4 Further risks arise if the proposal is delayed and decisions are not programmed to be made until after the local government elections in October 2016. The priorities and commitment of each council may change following the election.

7.5 Risks relating to the joint venture model itself will be presented in a subsequent report when matters of governance and finances will be considered in detail.

8. Alignment with relevant Council policy

8.1 The management and minimisation of solid waste aligns with the JWMMP which has been adopted by both NCC and TDC.

8.2 This decision is consistent with Council’s intentions of establishing a regional landfill.

8.3 The costs of establishing and operating the Joint Venture model have not been established to date. However the indicative forecasted costs and revenues derived from the management and operation of a regional landfill have indicated savings to both Councils.

8.4 This proposal aligns with Nelson 2060, as it helps Council deliver its vision and goals in regard to waste management and minimisation and creating a desirable place to live. It meets its sustainability principles and it is a good investment.

9. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

9.1 This decision is not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

9.2 The York Valley landfill is not a strategic asset.

10. Consultation

10.1 The Joint Venture model proposal, should it be approved, will be included in the Draft Annual Plan 2016/17.

11. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

11.1 Maori have not been consulted.

12. Conclusion

12.1 The Valuation Report and the Peer Review Report are robust and give a good indication of the value of each Council’s landfilling operations over the next 45 years.

12.2 The Eves Valley Landfill has an indicative value between $12.603 million and $13.749 million giving a midpoint of $13.176 million.

12.3 The York Valley Landfill has an indicative value between $21.040 million and $22.181 million giving a midpoint of $21.611 million.

12.4 Although the valuation for York Valley includes future Stage 2 being constructed in year 32, the Nelson City Council has indicated that it would prefer not to include it in the valuation at this stage. This would limit the York Valley value to the current operational footprint. The value would then range between $21.023 million and $22.090 million giving a midpoint of $21.557 million.

12.5 It is proposed that the joint venture regional landfill model include the Eves Valley Current Stage plus future Stage 3 with midpoint value of $13.176 million plus the York Valley current stage with midpoint value of $21.557 million.

12.6 The difference in the midpoint values is in the order of $8.4 million. To create a 50:50 Join venture model TDC would need to contribute half of the difference being $4.2 million to NCC.

12.7 Both Councils have indicated that the joint venture model should be structured similar to the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit.

12.8 It is proposed that a joint venture project team be established to work through the details of establishing the joint venture model.

12.9 It is proposed that the Joint Venture will formally commence on 1 July 2017.

12.10 There is a need to protect the future landfill development options and therefore both councils need to retain buffer land and designations accordingly. Should either Council propose any alternative use then the views and preferences of the joint venture will need to be taken into account in determining the future use of that land.

Richard Kirby

Consulting Engineer

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1504294 Deloittes Landfill Valuation Report

Attachment 2: A1504295 Morrison Low Landfill Valuation Peer Review Report

Council

3 March 2016

REPORT R5525

Approval of Draft Annual Plan 2016/17

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the draft Annual Plan 2016/17 and Consultation Document.

1.2 To consider an amendment to the Significance and Engagement Policy.

2. Delegations

2.1 This is a decision for Council.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Approval of Draft Annual Plan 2016/17 (R5525) and its attachments (A1448943, A1458865 and A1509118) be received;

AND THAT Council adopts the amended Significance and Engagement Policy (A1509118);

AND THAT Council approves the Draft Annual Plan 2016/17 (A1448943) as an accurate reflection of its proposed variations to year two of the Long Term Plan 2015-25;

AND THAT Council approves the Consultation Document for the Draft Annual Plan 2016/17 (A1458865) for public consultation from 11 March 2016 to 5pm 11 April 2016;

AND THAT the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive be delegated to approve any minor amendments required to the draft Annual Plan 2016/17 or the Consultation Document.

4. Background

4.1 The draft Annual Plan 2016/17 is an exceptions document. It presents changes to the 2016/17 work programme and financial policies from what was outlined in the Long Term Plan 2015-25.

4.2 The Draft Annual Plan 2016/17 and Consultation Document have been developed after discussion at Council workshops held on 24 and 25 November 2015, 8 December 2015 and 10 and 11 February 2016.

4.3 The Annual Plan 2016/17 is prepared under section 95 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), and the Consultation Document is prepared under section 95A of the LGA.

4.4 The Consultation Document is proposed to be released to the public for feedback through the submissions process which will run from 11 March to 11 April. Submitters who wish to speak directly to Council will have the opportunity at hearings on 3 and 4 May. Council listens to and reflects on the community views provided through that process. Officer advice on the matters raised by the community and on any new issues that have emerged will be provided by way of a report to the 11 and 12 May deliberations meeting. Having deliberated on all relevant matters Council will make decisions on any changes to the draft Annual Plan. The Plan will be updated accordingly and adopted at the Council meeting on 2 June.

5. Discussion

Significance and Engagement Policy

5.1 The Significance and Engagement Policy (the Policy) was adopted ahead of the Long Term Plan 2015-25. The Policy sets out how Council will engage with the community on issues in relation to the level of “significance” of the issue. There are some matters which still require a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) to be undertaken, however the number of such situations was reduced following changes to the Local Government Act in 2014.

5.2 Currently, the Policy notes that a SCP will be undertaken where mandated by law, and also states specific cases where the LGA still requires a SCP.

5.3 Recent advice from the Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM) is that it is preferable that policies do not specifically set out circumstances where a SCP is mandated. As legislation changes, these requirements will also change. Current wording of the policy is ambiguous and may be interpreted as requiring a SCP for all changes to financial policies which is not the case.

5.4 It is recommended that an amendment is made to the Policy to remove the specific references to when a SCP is to be used. The recommended amendment is highlighted in the draft revised Significance and Engagement Policy (see Attachment 3).

5.5 Consultation on this amendment to the Significance and Engagement Policy is not recommended. It is an amendment for the purposes of clarity, as the current wording could be misleading and lead to the policy becoming outdated as legislation changes.

Performance measures and Targets

5.6 In a change from previous years, only performance measures and targets will be reported in the Annual Plan. Previously, where data was available, interim updates on current performance were included. This has been less than ideal as the format of the Annual Plan did not provide a good vehicle to tell the story of progress towards achieving each measure. Some targets had updates, others used figures that were quite out of date. The best place for reporting on achievement of targets is the Annual Report and all measures will have detailed treatment in that document which is to be prepared at the end of the financial year. At that point a full year’s new data is available to measure achievement of targets against.

5.7 There are some wording changes to performance measures to reflect the new mandatory performance measures required by the Department of Internal Affairs. The wording changes were recommended by Audit in its letter to Council on the audit for the year ending 30 June 2015. This matter was reported to the Audit, Risk and Finance Committee meeting on 18 February and consequent changes have been made and explained in the draft Annual Plan.

5.8 The Historic Places Act 1993 was repealed by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. The performance measure relating to this Act has been updated to reflect this name change.

5.9 Council provides a regulatory programme (resource consents and compliance). The target for this level of service for 2016/17 has been updated from the Long Term Plan 2015-25 to correct an inconsistency in the target relating to limited notified consents.

Changes to Financial Policies

5.10 Proposed changes to financial policies are included in the draft Annual Plan. These changes include:

· Adding wording to the definition of ‘separately used or inhabited part of a property’ to assist in clarity of interpretation.

· Providing for remission of Uniform Annual General Rates and Wastewater Charges for SUIPs that are less than 20m².

· Removing the requirement for professional financial advice to be sought in the Rates Postponement Policy and adding clarity to how the 80% equity limit is calculated.

5.11 Legal advice has been sought on the changes to financial policies. Initial indications are that separate consultation may be required and officers will update at the meeting.

5.12 There is also a change to the differential rates due to changes to recycling. Council proposes to adopt a policy that commercial rates are set to collect 25.1% of the total rates excluding water annual charge and water volumetric rate, Clean Heat Warm Homes and Solar Saver charges. The rationale for this policy change is to ensure that the commercial ratepayers do not bear the cost of recycling bins as they do not receive this service. If the percentage collected from commercial rates had not been adjusted downwards for the recycling bins initiative then commercial ratepayers would have paid through the general rate.

Carry Forwards

5.13 Requests to carry forward 2015/16 budget into the 2016/17 financial year will be made through the Corporate Reports to the Audit, Risk and Finance Sub-Committee throughout the remainder of this financial year. A final carry forward request will be compiled after reconciliation work has been completed at financial year end, with approval requested from the Governance Committee on 25 August 2016.

6. Options

6.1 Council is required by the Local Government Act 2002 to prepare and adopt an Annual Plan for each financial year. Council has the option to approve the attached draft Annual Plan 2016/17 and Consultation Document. Alternatively Council can agree changes to the draft Annual Plan or the Consultation Document, noting that substantive changes will require amending the timetable for consultation and decision making.

7. Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1 The draft Annual Plan 2016/17 is an exceptions document and presents changes from the Council Long Term Plan 2015-25.

8. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

8.1 The Annual Plan is significant to members of the community and, consistent with the Significance and Engagement Policy, will be consulted on through a Consultation Document to be delivered to each household. Submissions are invited from the community and hearings will be held for those who wish to speak directly to Council.

9. Consultation

9.1 Consultation on the draft Annual Plan 2016/17 will run from 11 March 2016 to 5pm on 11 April 2016.

9.2 During consultation there will be three public drop-in sessions. Drop in sessions will be advertised in the consultation material and Live Nelson. The sessions are as follows:

· Wednesday 23 March, 5-6pm, Elma Turner Library

· Sunday 3 April, 11am – 12pm, Nellie Nightingale Library Memorial

· Wednesday 6 April, 11.30am – 12.30pm, Stoke Library

9.3 The Consultation Document will be distributed as a Live Nelson special edition to be delivered 16 March. The Consultation Document covers major changes to projects and the public is directed to the full draft Annual Plan for more information. Note that a Word version of the Consultation Document is attached to this report but the design version will be tabled at the Council meeting on 3 March 2016.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 Maori will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Annual Plan 2016/17 as part of the consultation process.

11. Conclusion

11.1 It is recommended that Council approve the draft Annual Plan and Consultation Document and approve the amendment to the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Nicky McDonald

Senior Strategic Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1448943 Draft Annual Plan 2016/17 (Circulated separately)

Attachment 2: A1458865 Consultation Document on the Draft Annual Plan 2016/17

Attachment 3: A1509118 Amended Significance and Engagement Policy

Engagement on Other Matters

4.4. Outside of matters where it remains mandatory for a special consultative procedure to be undertaken, Council will determine the appropriate level of engagement on a case by case basis.

4.5. Council may decide that it will use a special consultative procedure if the matter is of high significance, or it may choose another form of appropriate consultation. In instances where significance is judged to be moderate, engagement with the community could involve consulting through an advisory committee or focus group, public meetings, or surveys.

4.6. When Council decides that a matter is of low to moderate significance, or in instances where it is considered that the views of the community are already known, it may make a decision on behalf of the community and then inform the community of the outcome. This may be, for instance, through publication on the Council website, in the local media, or other appropriate means.

5. Principles of Engagement

5.1. In any engagement process undertaken with the community, that engagement will be in proportion to the matter being considered. When any engagement takes place, other than simply providing information, we will:

· Seek to hear from everyone affected by a decision;

· Ask for views early in the decision making process so that there is enough time for feedback to be provided, and for this to be considered properly;

· Listen and consider views in an open and honest way;

· Respect everyone’s point of view;

· Provide information that is clear and easy to understand;

· Consider different ways in which the community can share views with us;

· Ensure that the engagement process is efficient and cost effective.

6. Information Requirements

6.1. Council will ensure that, when conducting any engagement or consultation process in relation to a significant decision, it provides:

· Clear information on what is being proposed and why it is being proposed;

· Sufficient information on which to provide meaningful feedback;

· The advantages and disadvantages of each option being considered;

· What impacts, if any, will occur if the proposal goes ahead;

· How the community can provide its views;

· The timeframe for completing the community engagement or consultation;

· How submitters and participants can learn about the outcome.

7. Engagement with Iwi

7.1. Council will take into account its obligations as outlined under legislation including Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013 and all other relevant Acts. Council will also take into account National Policy Statement Frameworks, and will honour all engagement processes, agreements and memorandums of understanding developed with Maori as they relate to its decision-making processes.

8. Definitions Used in This Policy

Community	A group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common. Includes interested parties, affected people and key stakeholders.
Decisions	Refers to all the decisions made by or on behalf of Council including those made by officers under delegation. (Management decisions made by officers under delegation during the implementation of council decisions will not be deemed to be significant).
Engagement	Is a term used to describe the process of seeking information from the community to inform and assist decision making. There is a continuum of community involvement.
Significance	As defined in Section 5 of the LGA 2002 in relation to any issue, proposal, decision, or other matter that concerns or is before a local authority, means the degree of importance of the issue, proposal, decision, matter, as assessed by the local authority, in terms of its likely impact on, and likely consequences for: (a) The district or region; (b) Any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the issue, proposal, decision, or matter; (c) The capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.
Strategic Asset	As defined in Section 5 of the LGA 2002 in relation to the assets held by the local authority, means an asset or group of assets that the local authority needs to retain if the local authority is to maintain the local authority’s capacity to achieve or promote any outcome that the local authority determines to be important to the current or future well-being of the community, and includes: 1. Any asset or group of assets listed in accordance with section 90(2) by the local authority; and (a) Any land or building owned by the local authority and required to maintain the local authority’s capacity to provide affordable housing as part of its social policy; and (b) Any equity securities held by the local authority in I. A port company within the meaning of the Port Companies Act 1988; II. An airport company within the meaning of the Airport Authorities Act 1966.

Criteria	Higher Significance	Lesser Significance
Change in levels, or delivery, of service provided by Council.	There is a major and/or long term change to services.	There is a medium to low level of change to services.
Level of financial impact.	There is a major and long term financial impact.	There is a medium to low level of impact.
Impact on the community.	The decision would have a major impact on sections or all of the community.	The impact on the community is medium to low.
Decision involves a “strategic asset” as listed in this policy.	The decision involves the sale or transfer of more than 20% of a strategic asset.	The decision does not impact on the Council’s ownership of the asset.
Impact on Council debt or level of rates.	The impact is major and/or long term on either debt levels or rates.	The impact is of a medium to low level
Reversibility of decision.	The decision is irreversible and would impact negatively on future generations to a high degree.	The decision is not irreversible, or if it were, the impact on future generations would not be high.
Building on previous decisions.	The matter is considered to be significant by other criteria, and has not been previously consulted with the community.	The decision or action is consequential to, or promotes, a decision or action already taken by Council or the views of the community on this matter are already known.
Historic interest.	There is a history of the matter generating wide and intense public interest and a reasonable expectation that this will again be so.	There is no history of the matter generating widespread interest.