AGENDA
Ordinary meeting of the
Nelson City Council
Thursday 16 June 2016
Commencing at 9.00am
Council Chamber
Civic House
110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
Membership: Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Luke Acland, Ian Barker, Ruth Copeland, Eric Davy, Kate Fulton, Matt Lawrey, Paul Matheson (Deputy Mayor), Brian McGurk, Gaile Noonan, Pete Rainey, Tim Skinner and Mike Ward
Nelson City Council
16 June 2016
Opening Prayer
1.1 An apology has been received from Councillor Luke Acland
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
3.1 Updates to the Interests Register
3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda
4.1 Kerry Neal
Kerry will speak about the Code of Conduct and how this appears to be restricting Elected Members from expressing their views and the Role of External Appointees and how members of the public cannot contact them directly.
4.2 Matthew Bouterey - Urban Oyster Bar and Eatery
Matthew, from the Urban Oyster Bar and Eatery, Sprig and Fern, and La Gourmandise, will speak about outdoor dining.
4.3 Iain Sheves, General Manager Property - Wakatu Incorporation
Iain Sheves, from Wakatu Incorporation, will speak about the Ocean Lodge Special Housing Area Amendment.
4.4 Mark Sherlaw
Mark Sherlaw will speak about a proposed comprehensive housing development at 42 Domett Street also with access from 365 Hardy Street.
Document number M1916
Recommendation
THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 2 June 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record.
Document number M1869
Recommendation
THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 5 May 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record.
6. Status Report - Council - 16 June 2016 60 - 72
Document number R6041
Recommendation
THAT the Status Report Council 16 June 2016 (R6041) and its attachment (A1168168) be received.
Document number R5975
Recommendation
THAT the Mayor's Report (R5975) and its attachments (A1561963 and A1561996) be received;
EITHER:
AND THAT in light of enquiries from Dr Catherine Strong, Council officers review the Elected Members Code of Conduct as adopted on 20 November 2016 to revise wording that has the potential to fetter free speech in a way that is unhelpful to local democracy, and bring a revised version to the next ordinary meeting of Council for adoption;
OR:
AND THAT, having considered the points raised by Dr Catherine Strong, Council reconfirms the current Elected Members Code of Conduct as adopted on 20 November 2016;
AND THAT Council registers its interest in being a Foundation Council in the Local Government New Zealand Local Government Excellence Programme (subject to further details being acceptable to Council);
AND THAT Council does/does not proceed with a poll at the Local Body Elections;
AND THAT if Council resolves to proceed with a poll the poll question is [to be tabled at the meeting].
8. Notice of Motion - A Poll on Nelson's Traffic Issues 83 - 85
Document number R6074
Recommendation
THAT the Nelson City Council conduct a poll at the same time as the 2016 local body election on the following question:
Do you think a new road should be built down the Railway Reserve (The Southern Link)
A) Yes
B) No
9. Works and Infrastructure 31 March 2016 - Toi Toi Grove - Transport Connection 86 - 87
Document number R6069
Recommendation
THAT the report Works and Infrastructure 31 March 2016 - Toi Toi Grove - Transport Connection (R6069) be received;
AND THAT, recognising the connectivity and resilience benefits to the city, that Council propose via the Annual Plan consultation process in 2017/18 to include an amendment to the Long Term Plan 2015/25 (and consequently the Development Contributions Policy) to include the construction of the Princes Drive/Montreal Heights intersection for a cost of $1 Million.
10. Special Housing Areas - Supplementary Recommendations 88 - 109
Document number R6066
Recommendation
THAT the report Special Housing Areas - Supplementary Recommendations (R6066) and its attachment (A1562166) be received;
AND THAT the following motion, moved and seconded at the Council meeting on 2 June 2016, be left to lie on the table until another meeting of Council:
THAT Council approve 19 & 21 Beach Road (A1548015) as a potential Special Housing Area;
AND THAT the following motion, left to lie on the table at the Council meeting on 2 June 2016, be left to lie on the table until another meeting of Council:
AND THAT Her Worship the Mayor recommend those potential areas (Tahunanui Drive and Beach Road) and the amendment to Ocean Lodge SHA to the Minister of Building and Housing for consideration as Special Housing Areas under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013.
AND THAT Council approve the amendment to the qualifying development criteria for the number of storeys for the Ocean Lodge Special Housing Area (A1548018).
11. Crematorium Delivery Review - Supplementary Report 110 - 139
Document number R5737
Recommendation
THAT the report Crematorium Delivery Review - Supplementary Report (R5737) and its attachment (A1521528) be received;
AND THAT based on the feedback received with respect to pet/animal cremations that pet/animal cremations continue at the Nelson crematorium;
AND THAT it be confirmed, at this stage, not to proceed with a new pet/animal cremator and the $150,000 provision set aside for this in the 2016/17 year be removed;
AND THAT the need for a new pet/animal cremator be re-assessed in two years’ time allowing officers time to assess the demand for pet/animal cremations in the region;
AND THAT services for private cremations continue to be offered and that clear requirements be placed on Council’s website;
AND THAT to offset any potential risk, that all cremation fees be increased by 5% from 1 July 2016.
12. Trafalgar Centre - Lift and Lighting Business Case Update 140 - 144
Document number R5935
Recommendation
THAT the report Trafalgar Centre - Lift and Lighting Business Case Update (R5935) and its attachments (A1550731 and A1550732) be received;
AND THAT Council request the business cases be considered separately, by members of the group with delegated authority who have no interest or conflict in the matter, to ensure sound decision making on the provision of a lift, and sport lighting at the Trafalgar Centre.
13. Revoking the Moratorium on New Outdoor Dining Spaces 145 - 160
Document number R5921
Recommendation
THAT the report Revoking the Moratorium on New Outdoor Dining Spaces (R5921) and its attachments (A1526853 and A1553144) be received;
AND THAT the moratorium on using any additional public car parking spaces for outdoor dining be revoked;
AND THAT that the total number of public car parking spaces made available for outdoor dining be capped at thirty-three public car parking spaces until 30 June 2019;
AND THAT approval of new applications for outdoor dining on public car parking spaces be delegated to the Chief Executive.
14. Addition to delegations relating to activities under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 161 - 165
Document number R5799
Recommendation
THAT the report Addition to delegations relating to activities under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (R5799) and its attachment (A1525766) be received;
AND THAT Council delegate powers to the Chief Executive under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (section 23) to consider applications and issue consents.
15. Preparation for the 2016 Local Elections 166 - 168
Document number R5383
Recommendation
THAT the report Preparation for the 2016 Local Elections (R5383) be received;
AND THAT in accordance with Regulation 31(2) of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001, the candidates’ names on voting documents for the 2016 triennial local election be in computerised random order.
16. Administrative Matters 169 - 193
Document number R5836
Recommendation
THAT the report Administrative Matters (R5836) and its attachments (A1551006, A1103850, A1550897, A1551189, A1509979, A1181155) be received;
AND THAT Council approves/declines approximately $924 of funding from the additional funding pool to enable Councillor Lawrey to attend the Local Government New Zealand Conference in 2016;
AND THAT Council approves/declines approximately $309 of funding from the additional funding pool to enable Councillor Fulton to attend the Local Government New Zealand Conference in 2016;
AND THAT the Delegations Register be updated to reflect the appointments to the Regional Pest Management Committee, and the resignation of Councillor Acland from the Youth and Community Facilities Trust.
17. Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting 194 - 200
Document number R5965
Recommendation
THAT the report Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting (R5965) and its attachment (A1552098) be received;
AND THAT the following constitute Council representation at the 2016 Annual General Meeting:
Presiding Delegate: Her Worship the Mayor
Other Delegates: Councillor __________
Councillor __________ or Chief Executive
Or if Her Worship the Mayor is unavailable
Presiding Delegate: Councillor __________
Other Delegates: Councillor __________
Chief Executive
Observers: Councillor __________
Councillor __________
18. Hearings Panel - Other - 11 April 2016 201 - 205
Document number A1531240
Recommendation
THAT the minutes of a meeting of the Hearings Panel – Other, held on 11 April 2016, be received.
19. Hearings Panel - Other - 5 May 2016 206 - 207
Document number A1545372
Recommendation
THAT the minutes of a meeting of the Hearings Panel – Other, held on 5 May 2016, be received.
20. Works and Infrastructure Committee - 10 May 2016 208 - 215
Document number M1876
Recommendation
THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 10 May 2016, be received.
Please note that as the only business transacted in public excluded was to
confirm the minutes and receive the status report, this business has been
recorded in the public minutes. In accordance with the Local Government
Official Information Meetings Act, no reason for withholding this information
from the public exists.
20.1 Capital Project Budget Status Report
Recommendation to Council
THAT with respect to the Montcalm/ Arrow/Washington Valley/Hastings stormwater upgrade project that $116,000 be transferred from the current provision in 2016/17 to 2015/16 to maintain continuity of this multi-year project.
20.2 Future of Green Waste
Recommendation to Council
THAT following a review of green waste services at the request of Council:
THAT Nelson City Council partner with Tasman District Council to call for public tenders with respect to their green waste in June 2016;
AND THAT failing success with this approach with Tasman District Council, that officers be authorised to negotiate a contract with a commercial operator to accept Nelson City Council’s green waste;
AND THAT in the interim, Council continues to take green waste at the Pascoe Street transfer station;
AND THAT the outcome of the tendering process, either in partnership with Tasman District Council, or with a commercial operator, be reported back to the Works and Infrastructure Committee for a decision.
21. Planning and Regulatory Committee - 19 May 2016 216 - 217
Document number M1892, Hearing of Submissions
Recommendation
THAT the minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 19 May 2016, be received.
22. Planning and Regulatory Committee - 19 May 2016 218 - 221
Document number M1893
Recommendation
THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 19 May 2016, be received.
23. Chief Executive Employment Committee - 23 May 2016 222 - 224
Document number M1899
Recommendation
THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Chief Executive Employment Committee, held on 23 May 2016, be received.
24. Community Services Committee - 26 May 2016 225 - 232
Document number M1907
Recommendation
THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Community Services Committee, held on 26 May 2016, be received.
24.1 Funding Reallocation for Youth Activities in 2016/17
Recommendation to Council
THAT the $100,000 allocated to the Youth and Community Facilities Trust in the 2016/17 draft Annual Plan be reallocated to youth activities for 2016/17 only, in alignment with Community Investment Fund processes;
AND THAT the funding be allocated in line with the Youth section of Council’s Social Wellbeing Policy 2011 and the Community Assistance Policy 2015 with consideration given to resulting gaps in the services provided by Youth and Community Facilities Trust;
AND THAT Council engages with stakeholders in the youth sector to develop a Youth Strategy to guide future Council support for youth development and activities.
25. Governance Committee - 26 May 2016 233 - 240
Document number M1911
Recommendation
THAT the unconfirmed minutes of an extraordinary meeting of the Governance Committee, held on 26 May 2016, be received.
25.1 Uniquely Nelson - Memorandum of Understanding
Recommendation to Council
THAT the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Uniquely Nelson and Nelson City Council (A1380525) be approved as the MoU for the 2016/17 year.
25.2 Civic Assurance Directors' Remuneration and Reappointments
Recommendation to Council
THAT in the matter of reappointment of Directors Messrs MA Butcher and AJ Marryatt that Nelson City Council submit a proxy vote against.
25.3 Internal Audit Report to 31 March 2016
Item from Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee meeting - 10/05/2016
Recommendation to Council
THAT Council note the internal audit findings, recommendations and status of action plans up to 31 March 2016 (R5793).
25.4 Corporate Report to 31 March 2016
Item from Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee meeting - 10/05/2016
Recommendation to Council
THAT the transfer of legal budget from the Corporate activity to the Planning activity in 2015/16 in order to obtain economic and traffic evidence for the submission to Tasman District Council on the proposed Progressive Enterprises Ltd Private Plan Change be noted.
26. Planning and Regulatory Committee - 2 June 2016 241 - 243
Document number M1914
Recommendation
THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 2 June 2016, be received.
26.1 Deliberations on Fees and Charges for Resource Consent, Food Act and Fencing of Swimming Pools Act activities commencing 1 July 2016
Recommendation to Council
THAT the amended table in Section 5 of this report (R5876) be used as the basis of providing responses to submitters on the matters raised in submissions;
AND THAT the amended draft Fees and Charges Resource Consents and Resource Management Act Planning Documents as detailed in Attachment 1 (A1546954) be adopted;
AND THAT the draft Food Act 2014 Fees and Charges as detailed in Attachment 2 (A1546317) be adopted;
AND THAT the draft Building Unit Fees and Charges Swimming Pools monitoring fee as detailed in Attachment 3 (A1547270) be adopted.
Note: The amended draft Fees and Charges Resource Consents and Resource Management Act Planning Documents and respsonses to submitters can be found on the Google Drive for Councillors or are available in hard copy on request to an Administration Adviser.
Public Excluded Business
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 |
Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 2 June 2016 |
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)(b)(ii) · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
|
|
2 |
Confirmation of Minutes - 5 May 2016
|
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 · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
|
3 |
Status Report - Council - 16 June 2016
|
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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
|
4 |
Winding up of Nelson Regional Economic Development Agency and Tourism Nelson Tasman Ltd
|
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 · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
|
|
5 |
Akersten Street Hardstand and Travel Lift
|
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)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information
|
|
6 |
Chief Executive Employment Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 23 May 2016 These minutes contain no recommendations to Council |
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. |
|
7 |
Community Services Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 26 May 2016 These minutes contain recommendations to Council regarding · Stoke Community and Sports Facility – User Agreements · Community Lease – Get Moving, Saxton Field · Community Lease – Tahunanui Community Centre |
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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). |
|
8 |
Extraordinary Governance Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 26 May 2016 These minutes contain no recommendations to Council |
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. |
|
28. Re-admittance of the public
Recommendation
THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting.
Note:
· This meeting is expected to continue beyond lunchtime.
· Lunch will be provided at 12.30pm.
· Youth Councillors Taylah Shuker and Ben Rumsey will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)
Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 2 June 2016, commencing at 9.05am
Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors L Acland, I Barker, R Copeland, E Davy, K Fulton, M Lawrey, P Matheson (Deputy Mayor), B McGurk, G Noonan, P Rainey, T Skinner and M Ward
In Attendance: Chief Executive (C Hadley), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Strategy and Environment (C Barton), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Senior Strategic Adviser (N McDonald), Manager Communications and Acting Manager Libraries and Heritage Facilities (P Shattock), Manager Administration (P Langley), Senior Accountant (T Hughes), Administration Adviser (E-J Ruthven), and Youth Councillors (H Goldthorpe and S Kuo)
Opening Prayer
Councillor Noonan gave the opening prayer.
1. Apologies
There were no apologies.
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
Attendance: Councillor Fulton joined the meeting at 9.07am.
Her Worship the Mayor noted that there were seven additional public forum presentations to those listed in the agenda. She added that items 8 (Public Feedback on Proposal to Sell Bett Carpark) and 9 (Special Housing Areas) of the agenda would be taken immediately after the public forum presentations.
Her Worship the Mayor also noted that there were minor amendments to the officer recommendation relating to the Annual Plan 2016/17, and there was a correction to the recommendation to exclude the public, including section 7(2)(b)(ii), and removing section 7(2)(j) from the table included in the recommendation.
3. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Public Forum
4.1 Belinda Fletcher
Ms Fletcher spoke about the proposal to sell Bett Carpark for a special housing development. She said that she did not support the sale of Bett Carpark, and preferred that it be retained for the benefit of the community, for example as a park.
She added that, if the site were to be sold for housing, she would support stricter planning and design requirements, including limiting the height of any new building to two storeys. She noted her concerns that the Special Housing Area process was weighted towards developers’ interests.
In response to a question, Ms Fletcher explained that, while Church Hill was across the road, it was difficult for anyone with limited mobility to access.
4.2 Barbara Tanner
Ms Tanner spoke about the proposal to sell Bett Carpark for a special housing development, and tabled a document outlining the potential consequences of the proposed development on her neighbouring property (A1557595).
She said that she supported residential developments in the inner city, as long as the impact on residents already living there were taken into account. She noted that the proposed design control of a 2.4 metre set-back on the Bett Carpark site did not apply for the first 10 metres from the street frontage, and she explained the potential effects this could have on her property.
In response to a question, she said that public access to proposed plans would potentially alleviate concerns regarding the design for the site.
|
Attachments 1 A1557595 - Tabled Document - Public Forum - Barbara Tanner |
4.3 Andrew Stanger on behalf of Natalia Harrington - Hybrid Homes and Living Ltd
Mr Stanger spoke on behalf of Natalia Harrington, of Hybrid Homes and Living Ltd, in relation to a proposed Special Housing Area in Dodson Valley. He tabled his presentation (A1558533), and documents detailing the proposed site plans (A1557081). He said that the number of proposed sections had been increased, in order to better align with the aims of the Housing Accord, and he outlined infrastructure currently in place to support the development.
In response to questions, Mr Stanger confirmed that Hybrid Homes would be able to apply for resource consent prior to the September 2016 cut-off date, and that a range of house sizes would be possible, due to the range of proposed section sizes. He said that no consultation with neighbouring property owners had been undertaken to date.
|
Attachments 1 A1558533 - Public Forum Presentation - Andrew Stanger (on behalf of Hybrid Homes and Living Ltd) 2 A1557081 - Public Forum Tabled Document - Andrew Stanger (on behalf of Hybrid Homes and Living Ltd) |
4.4 Christopher Vine and Christie Carlson (in place of Larry Rueter)
Christopher Vine and Christie Carlson, in place of Larry Rueter, spoke about the proposal to sell Bett Car Park for a special housing development, and Mr Vine tabled a copy of his presentation (A1559060).
Mr Vine spoke about the history of the historic house that had previously occupied the site, and noted the importance of good architectural design for any potential building for the site.
In response to questions, Mr Vine and Ms Carlson noted the importance of Nile Street to the character of Nelson City. They noted their support in principle to development of the site, subject to appropriate design and height controls.
|
Attachments 1 A1559060 - Public Forum - Tabled Document - Christopher Vine and Christie Carlson (in place of Larry Rueter) |
4.5 Elizabeth Dooley – Nelson Meeting New Zealand Society of Friends
Ms Dooley spoke on behalf of Nelson Quakers about the proposal to sell Bett Carpark for a special housing development. She displayed a watercolour drawing of the area from 1869 (A1558528).
She said that development of the site had the potential to enhance the inner city, but noted the importance of good design, given the special character of Nile Street. She suggested that the height of any building should not exceed two storeys, and emphasised the importance of having a garden on site.
|
Attachments 1 A1558528 - Public Forum - Tabled Document - Elizabeth Dooley - Nelson Meeting New Zealand Society of Friends |
4.6 Doug Craig – Heritage Nelson (previously Nelson Heritage Advisory Group)
Mr Craig spoke on behalf of Heritage Nelson (previously Nelson Heritage Advisory Group) about the proposal to sell Bett Carpark for a special housing development. He displayed a photo of the historic house that had previously occupied the site (A1558798).
Mr Craig said that Heritage Nelson agreed with intensified development within the central business district, subject to appropriate building and design controls. He spoke about the history of the site and its trees, including a heritage-listed rata. He suggested that any development of the site should proceed through the regular resource consent process, rather than the special housing area process.
In response to a question, he explained the likely height of the previous historic house on the site, and emphasised the importance of any proposed designs being sensitive to the heritage nature of the area.
|
Attachments 1 A1558798 - Public Forum Presentation - Doug Craig - Heritage Nelson (previously Nelson Heritage Advisory Group) |
4.7 Jill Southon
Jill Southon spoke about the proposed Special Housing Area for Tahunanui Drive, and tabled a document (A1558150). She outlined concerns regarding the height and size of the proposed development, particularly in light of transport, parking pressures and stormwater issues in the area.
She outlined her concerns regarding the lack of consultation that had taken place regarding the proposal to classify the site as a Special Housing Area, and suggested that any development on the site should have fewer units and storeys than proposed.
Attendance: Councillor Copeland left the meeting at 10.16am.
In response to a question, she suggested that a development of equal height to ‘The Sands’ development would be excessive for the site, and suggested that a two storey development would be appropriate.
|
Attachments 1 A1558150 - Public Forum - Tabled Document - Jill Southon |
Attendance: Councillor Ward left the meeting at 10.19am.
4.8 Steve Cross
Steve Cross spoke about the proposed Special Housing Area for Tahunanui Drive. He suggested that the proposed development would alter the character of the Tahunanui area, and that there was no clear demand for more apartment-style dwellings in the area.
Attendance: Councillor Copeland returned to the meeting at 10.21am.
Mr Cross suggested that the decision to recommend the site as a Special Housing Area would trigger Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, and that community feedback on this matter should have been sought. He added that any development of the site should proceed under the regular resource consent process.
Attendance: Councillor Ward returned to the meeting at 10.23am.
In response to a question, Mr Cross suggested that properties in the proposed development would be unlikely to be affordable for first-home buyers.
4.9 John Molyneaux
John Molyneaux spoke about the proposed Special Housing Area for Tahunanui Drive. He explained his concerns that Special Housing Areas were being used as a tool to push through development, that there was insufficient demand for the type of proposed development, and that no community consultation had been undertaken.
Mr Molyneaux also noted infrastructure issues associated with the proposed development, including concerns regarding stormwater from properties on the hillside above, parking and traffic pressures at the Tahunanui Drive/Bisley Avenue intersection.
4.10 Alastair Cotterill
Alastair Cotterill spoke about the proposed Special Housing Area for Tahunanui Drive. He outlined his concerns that the proposed development would have on drainage, stormwater and parking in the area.
Attendance: Councillor Copeland left the meeting from 10.37am to 10.41am.
Mr Cotterill said that the proposed development would change the character of the area. He suggested that a smaller scale development proceeding through the regular resource consent process would be appropriate, providing that sufficient community consultation were undertaken.
In response to questions, he explained his concerns that the proposed development would not contribute to affordable housing in Nelson.
4.11 Ken Beckett
Ken Beckett spoke about the proposal to sell Bett Carpark for a special housing development. He suggested that the matter should be deferred to the Council meeting on 16 June 2016, and that the proposed designs should be made public to enable an opportunity for community members to express their views. He added that delaying the decision until 16 June would still allow sufficient time for the potential purchaser to apply for a resource consent prior to 16 September 2016.
Attendance: The meeting adjourned for morning tea from 10.52am to 11.06am.
5. Public Feedback on Proposal to Sell Bett Carpark
Document number R5772, agenda pages 73 - 131 refer.
Group Manager Strategy and Environment, Clare Barton, and Development Projects Planner, Lisa Gibellini, presented the report. Ms Gibellini outlined the feedback process and issues raised, and tabled additional feedback received from residents living near to Bett Carpark since the deadline for feedback had closed (A1560111).
|
Resolved CL/2016/139 THAT the report Public Feedback on Proposal to Sell Bett Carpark (R5772) and its attachments (A1544721 and A1554221) be received. Her Worship the Mayor/McGurk Carried |
In response to questions, Ms Gibellini outlined the opportunities for consultation with iwi through the resource consent process under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHA). She also clarified that the rationale for not having the 2.4 metre set-back for the first 10 metres from the road boundary was to ensure an active edge to the street, and to avoid multiple vehicle entrances.
Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 11.19am to 11.21am.
In response to further questions, Ms Barton and Ms Gibellini gave a power point presentation (A1560215) and tabled documents (A1560204) giving an example of a typical commercial building that would be allowed on the site under the current Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP), noting that any such development could be built up to the boundary of the site, with a permitted height of 12 metres.
There was a discussion regarding Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. In response to a question, the Chief Executive, Clare Hadley, explained that the decision to recommend Bett Carpark as a Special Housing Area had not triggered the requirements of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. She added that the decision of whether to sell Bett Carpark was, however, of a degree of significance requiring Council to take into account the views of people likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter.
In response to further questions, Ms Gibellini explained that the rata tree on site was protected by land covenant as well as being heritage-listed, but that there were no limits on removing other trees on site. She added that it would be possible to include additional conditions as part of a sale and purchase agreement if Council desired protection of other trees.
|
Resolved CL/2016/140 THAT Council use the public feedback received, including tabled documents (A1560111), in considering whether or not to sell Bett Carpark for a qualifying development under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013. Noonan/Davy Carried |
|
Attachments 1 A1560111 - Additional Feedback - Proposed sale of Bett Carpark 2 A1560215 - Power Point presentation 3 A1560204 - Tabled Document |
6. Special Housing Areas
Document number R5858, agenda pages 132 - 148 refer.
Group Manager Strategy and Environment, Clare Barton, and Development Projects Planner, Lisa Gibellini, presented the report. They tabled a map of the proposed Special Housing Area at 19 & 21 Beach Road, to replace the map on page 138 of the agenda (A1560156).
Ms Gibellini advised that, since the concerns expressed in public forum, she had spoken with the applicants of the proposed Special Housing Areas for 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive, and 19 & 21 Beach Road, both of whom had indicated they were happy to reduce the maximum height of the proposed developments to 15 metres. She added that Council had also received feedback from the New Zealand Transport Authority in relation to the proposed development at 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive, and that no issues had been identified, other than a request that access be provided from Bisley Avenue.
It was agreed that the second clause of the officer recommendation be separated, to consider the proposal for 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive separately to that from 19 & 21 Beach Road.
In response to questions, Ms Gibellini explained that the Special Housing Area process allowed Council to approve a building ‘envelope’, and that detailed site plans and resource consent applications would follow at a later point. She outlined the resource consent process under HASHA.
In response to further questions, Ms Barton confirmed that Council could not require particular types of accommodation through Special Housing Areas.
There was a further discussion regarding Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. In response to questions, Mrs Hadley explained that the decision on whether to recommend the areas discussed in the officer report as Special Housing Areas did not trigger Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, and no community consultation on this decision was required.
In response to questions relating to the proposed development at 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive, Ms Gibellini confirmed that a multi-storey building on the site would probably have a shading effect, but that daylight considerations would only be an issue for the boundary of the site adjoining the residential zone. She said this would be considered through the resource consent process. She confirmed the maximum development height currently allowed for the site under the NRMP was 10 metres.
In response to questions relating to the proposed Special Housing Area in Dodson Valley, Ms Gibellini explained the aims under Nelson’s Housing Accord. She said despite rural zoning the site could be considered for a Special Housing Area, but that even with 24 lots, the proposed development did not have sufficient intensity to meet the aims of the Accord. She confirmed that if the site and amended qualifying development criteria were to be considered further, amendments would need to be brought back to the 16 June 2016 Council meeting for consideration.
Attendance: Councillor Ward left the meeting from 12.07pm to 12.09pm.
In response to questions in relation to the Ocean Lodge Special Housing Area, Ms Gibellini explained the developer’s proposed changes and confirmed her understanding that the development of the balance of the site would still include commercial elements. She added that the developers had indicated that car parking was integral to the design.
Attendance: Councillor Copeland left the meeting from 12.13pm to 12.15pm, Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 12.16pm to 12.17pm, and Councillor Fulton left the meeting from 12.16pm to 12.18pm.
|
Resolved CL/2016/141 THAT the report Special Housing Areas (R5858) and its attachments (A1548015, A1548048, A1551280, and A1548018) be received. Her Worship the Mayor/Ward Carried |
|
Attachments 1 A1560156 - Tabled Document - replacement page 138 of agenda |
6.1 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive
There was discussion regarding stormwater issues. In response to a question, Ms Gibellini explained that the developer would be required to ensure adequate provision was made for stormwater as part of the design.
Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 12.38pm to 12.39pm, during which time Councillor Acland left the meeting and returned at 12.41pm.
In response to further questions, Ms Gibellini confirmed that a height limit of 15 metres should still meet the qualifying criteria of the Housing Accord, although no designs had been proposed to date. She said that Council could impose financial contributions relating to the effects of the development, but could not require that the developer otherwise widen the footpath in this area.
Councillor Fulton, seconded by her Worship the Mayor moved a motion
THAT Council approve 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive (A1548048) as a potential Special Housing Area with the maximum number of storeys being three and the maximum height of 12 metres in qualifying criteria.
Councillors discussed the motion, and a variety of views for and against were expressed.
The motion was put and lost.
6.2 19 & 21 Beach Road
Councillor Davy, seconded by Councillor Matheson moved a motion
AND THAT Council approve 19 & 21 Beach Road (A1548015) as a potential Special Housing Area.
Councillor Fulton, seconded by Councillor Noonan, moved an amendment to add additional words to the motion
AND THAT Council approve 19 & 21 Beach Road (A1548015) as a potential Special Housing Area with the maximum number of storeys being three and the maximum height of 12 metres in qualifying criteria.
Councillors discussed the amendment and a variety of views for and against were expressed.
The amendment was put and lost, and the meeting returned to the original motion.
Her Worship the Mayor advised that the item would lie on the table, to be considered again later in the meeting.
Attendance: The meeting adjourned for lunch from 1.11pm to 1.41pm.
Her Worship the Mayor advised that the meeting would consider the public excluded item, and return to item 9, Special Housing Areas, later in the meeting.
7. Exclusion of the Public
|
Resolved CL/2016/142 THAT, in accordance with section 48(5) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, Graeme McIndoe remain after the public has been excluded, for Item 3 of the Public Excluded agenda (Consideration of Bett Carpark Request for Proposals – Sale of Bett Carpark for Special Housing Area), as he has knowledge that will assist the Council; AND THAT, in accordance with section 48(6) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the knowledge that Graeme McIndoe possesses relates to urban design and the assessment of the Bett Carpark proposals. Her Worship the Mayor/Matheson Carried |
|
Resolved CL/2016/143 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: Her Worship the Mayor/Matheson Carried |
|
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 |
Consideration of Bett Carpark Request for Proposals - Sale of Bett Carpark for Special Housing Area
|
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)(b)(ii) · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
The meeting went into public excluded session at 1.44pm and resumed in public session at 4.04pm.
During the public excluded session, a resolution was passed to extend the meeting beyond six hours, in accordance with Standing Order 3.3.7.
8. Re-admittance of the Public
|
Resolved CL/2016/144 THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting. Her Worship the Mayor/Matheson Carried |
Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 4.04pm to 4.10pm, during which time Councillor Fulton left the meeting.
Her Worship the Mayor advised that the meeting would consider item 7 (Adoption of the Annual Plan 2016/17) and item 10 (Elected Members’ Reimbursement and Expenses Policy 2016-2019) prior to returning to item 9 (Special Housing Areas).
9. Adoption of the Annual Plan 2016/17
Document number R5584, agenda pages 49 - 72 refer.
Senior Strategic Adviser, Nicky McDonald, and Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison, presented the report. Ms McDonald tabled an updated copy of page 91 of the Annual Plan 2016/17 (A1560174), and an extract from the officer recommendation to strike the rates, showing minor amendments (A1560175).
Attendance: Councillor Copeland left the meeting at 4.14pm, and Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 4.15pm.
Her Worship the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Barker, moved the motion in the officer report, with the amendments as noted in the tabled document.
Councillors discussed the Annual Plan 2016/17 and expressed their views in relation to Council’s debt levels.
Her Worship the Mayor advised that the item would lie on the table, so that the meeting could consider item 5 of the agenda (Confirmation of Minutes – 11 & 12 May 2016).
|
Attachments 1 A1560174 - Tabled Document - updated page 91 Annual Plan 2016/17 2 A1560175 - Tabled Document - amendments to officer recommendation to strike the rates |
10. Confirmation of Minutes
10.1 11 & 12 May 2016
Document number M1879, agenda pages 17 - 47 refer.
|
Resolved CL/2016/145 THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 11 and 12 May 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record. Barker/Fulton Carried |
11. Adoption of the Annual Plan 2016/17 (continued)
The meeting returned to consider the adoption of the Annual Plan 2016/17.
The motion was put and a division was called:
|
Councillor Acland |
Aye |
|
Councillor Barker |
Aye |
|
Councillor Copeland |
Apology |
|
Councillor Davy |
Aye |
|
Councillor Fulton |
Aye |
|
Councillor Lawrey |
Aye |
|
Councillor Matheson |
Aye |
|
Councillor McGurk |
Aye |
|
Councillor Noonan |
Aye |
|
Councillor Rainey |
Aye |
|
Councillor Skinner |
No |
|
Councillor Ward |
Aye |
|
Her Worship the Mayor |
Aye |
The motion was passed 11-1, with one apology.
|
Resolved CL/2016/146 THAT the report Adoption of the Annual Plan 2016/17 (R5584) and its attachments (A1518261, A1551142 and A1551144) be received; AND THAT the Annual Plan 2016/17 be adopted; AND THAT the Mayor and Chief Executive be delegated to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the Annual Plan 2016/17 being released to the public; AND THAT the Nelson City Council sets the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2016 and ending on 30 June 2017. The revenue approved below will be raised by the rates and charges that follow. Revenue approved: General Rate $35,678,248 Uniform Annual General Charge $8,371,750 Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge $4,897,421 Waste Water Charge $6,864,245 Water Annual Charge $3,518,255 Water Volumetric Charge $8,209,263 Clean Heat Warm Homes and Solar Saver $553,113 Rates and Charges (excluding GST) $68,092,295 Goods and Services Tax Total Rates and Charges $78,306,139 The rates and charges below are GST inclusive. (1) General Rate A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential land value basis as described below: · a rate of 0.67343 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential – single unit” category. · a rate of 0.67343 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential empty section” category. · a rate of 0.74077 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “single residential unit forming part of a parent valuation, the remainder of which is non-rateable” category. This represents a 10% differential on land value. · a rate of 0.74077 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “multi residential” category. This represents a 10% differential on land value. · a rate of 1.67415 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a 148.6% differential on land value. · a rate of 1.42431 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a 111.5% differential on land value. · a rate of 1.17379 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a 74.3% differential on land value. · a rate of 0.92395 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a 37.2% differential on land value. · a rate of 2.41829 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a 259.1% differential on land value. · a rate of 1.98191 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a 194.3% differential on land value. · a rate of 1.54620 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a 129.6% differential on land value. · a rate of 1.10981 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a 64.8% differential on land value. · a rate of 2.30852 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty)” category. This represents a 242.8% differential on land value. · a rate of 1.89975 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a 182.1% differential on land value. · a rate of 1.49098 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a 121.4% differential on land value. · a rate of 1.08220 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a 60.7% differential on land value. · a rate of 0.43773 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “rural” category. This represents a minus 35% differential on land value. · a rate of 0.60609 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “small holding” category. This represents a minus 10% differential on land value. (2) Uniform Annual General Charge A uniform annual general charge under section 15 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $413.27 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit. (3) Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge A targeted rate under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $271.47 per rating unit, (excluding rural category, small holding category and residential properties east of Gentle Annie saddle, Saxton’s Island and Nelson City Council’s storm water network). (4) Waste Water Charge A targeted rate for waste water disposal under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of: · $389.54 per separately used or inhabited part of a residential, multi residential, rural and small holding rating units, that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain. · For commercial rating units, a waste water charge of $97.39 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain. Note: a “trade” waste charge will also be levied. (5) Water Annual Charge A targeted rate for water supply under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of: Water charge (per connection) $194.99 (6) Water Volumetric Rate A targeted rate for water provided under Section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of: Price of water: Usage up to 10,000 cu.m/year $2.036 per m³ Usage from 10,001 to 100,000 cu.m/year $1.517 per m³ Usage over 100,000
cu.m/year
Summer irrigation usage over
10,000 cu.m/year (7) Clean Heat Warm Homes A targeted rate per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that has been provided with home insulation and/or a heater to replace a non-complying solid fuel burner under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of: · For properties levied the Clean Heat Warm Homes as a result of agreements entered into after 1 July 2011, the targeted rate for each year for 10 years will be the total cost of the installed works excluding GST, divided by 10, plus GST. · For properties levied the Clean Heat Warm Homes as a result of agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011 the targeted rate of:
(8) Solar Hot Water Systems A targeted rate for any separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit that has been provided with financial assistance to install a solar hot water system under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of the following factors on the extent of provision of service (net cost of the work including GST after deducting EECA grant, plus funding cost): · 0.14964 (including GST) for agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011, multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work adjusted for any increased GST. · 0.13847 (including GST) for agreements entered into after 1 July 2011 multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work. Other Rating Information: Due Dates for Payment of Rates The above rates (excluding water volumetric rates) are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable in four instalments on the following dates:
Rates instalments not paid on or by the Last Date for payment above will incur penalties as detailed in the section “Penalty on Rates”. Due Dates for Payment of Water Volumetric Rates Residential water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:
Special (final) water volumetric rates will be payable 14 days from the invoice date of the special (final) water reading as shown on the water invoice. Commercial water volumetric rates: last date for payment will be the 20th of the month following the invoice date as shown on the water volumetric rate invoice. The penalty date will be the fourth business day after the Last Date for Payment. Penalty on Rates Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Council authorises the following penalties on unpaid rates (excluding volumetric water rate accounts) and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them: · a charge of 10% of the amount of each rate instalment remaining unpaid after the due date as shown above to be added on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each rate instalment notice. · an additional charge of 10% will be added to any balance remaining outstanding from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) as at 31st December 2016 on 6 January 2017. · a further additional charge of 10% will be added to any balance remaining outstanding from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) as at 30 June 2017 on 6 July 2017. Penalty on Water Volumetric Rates Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Council authorises the following penalties on unpaid volumetric water rates and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them: · a charge of 10% of the amount of each volumetric water rate account remaining unpaid on the penalty date as shown in the above table and also shown on each volumetric water rate account. Penalty Remission In accordance with Council’s rate remission policy, the Council will approve the remission of the penalty added on instalment one due to late payment provided the total annual rates are paid in full by 21 November 2016. If full payment of the annual rates is not paid by 21 November 2016 the penalties relating to the first instalment outlined above will apply. The above penalties will not be charged where Council has agreed to a programme for payment of outstanding rates. The Group Manager Corporate Services is given discretion to remit rates penalties either in whole or part in accordance with Council’s approved rates remission policy, as may be amended from time to time. Discount on Rates Pursuant to Section 55 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Council will allow a discount of 2.0 percent of the total rates (excluding volumetric water rates) where a ratepayer pays the year’s rates in full on or before the due date for instalment one being 22 August 2016. Payment of Rates The rates shall be payable at the Council offices, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson between the hours of 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and 9.00am to 5.00pm Thursday. Where any payment is made by a ratepayer that is less than the amount now payable, the Council will apply the payment firstly to any rates outstanding from previous rating years and then proportionately across all current year rates due. Her Worship the Mayor/Barker Carried |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Resolved CL/2016/147 THAT the revised Nelson City Council Rates Postponement Policy (A1551144) and Rates Remissions Policy (A1551142) as attached be adopted. Davy/Barker Carried |
12. Special Housing Areas (continued)
A question was raised regarding the effect that a 15 metre building could have on sunlight angles for neighbouring properties.
|
Resolved CL/2016/148 THAT pursuant to Standing Order 3.12.1 the remaining elements of item 9 (Special Housing Areas) be left to lie on the table, and not be further discussed at this meeting, but will be re-considered at the Council meeting scheduled to be held in the Council Chamber on 16 June 2016, commencing at 9.00am. Her Worship the Mayor/Barker Carried |
13. Elected Members' Reimbursement and Expenses Policy 2016-2019
Document number R5479, agenda pages 149 - 179 refer.
Manager Administration, Penny Langley, presented the report. In response to a question, she explained that there was sufficient detail in the proposed policy to address private Plan Change situations in the future.
Attendance: Councillors Acland and Rainey left the meeting at 4.40pm.
|
Resolved CL/2016/149 THAT the report Elected Members' Reimbursement and Expenses Policy 2016-2019 (R5479) and its attachments (A355751, A1538389, A1547293 and A1546381) be received; AND THAT Council adopts the Elected Members’ Reimbursement and Expenses Policy (A1546381) as attached to report R5479, to be submitted to the Remuneration Authority for approval. Davy/McGurk Carried |
14. Mayor’s Report
Document number R5994
Her Worship the Mayor advised that this item would be considered at the Council meeting on 16 June 2016.
15. Administrative Matters
Document number R5993, agenda pages 180 - 182 refer.
Her Worship the Mayor advised that this item would be considered at the Council meeting on 16 June 2016.
16. Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting
Document number R5965, agenda pages 183 - 188 refer.
Her Worship the Mayor advised that this item would be considered at the Council meeting on 16 June 2016.
There being no further business the meeting ended at 4.45pm.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
|
|
Council 16 June 2016 |
REPORT R6041
Status Report - Council - 16 June 2016
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To provide an update on the status of actions requested and pending.
2. Recommendation
|
THAT the Status Report Council 16 June 2016 (R6041) and its attachment (A1168168) be received. |
Shailey Burgess
Administration Adviser
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1168168 - Status Report - Council
|
|
Council 16 June 2016 |
REPORT R5975
Mayor's Report
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To update Council on several matters.
2. Recommendation
3. Mayor’s Report – 2 June
3.1 At the Council meeting on 2 June 2016, I advised that my report to that meeting would be considered at the Council meeting on 16 June 2016. For the sake of efficiency, the items for both meetings have been combined in this report.
4. Housing Strategy
4.1 Council has previously discussed the need for further work on housing in Nelson to look at general areas such as affordability and choice alongside specific issues such as emergency housing and Council’s own community housing.
4.2 Councillor Ward has long championed the idea of a Strategy to bring together the various strands of work and in the last few months he has put on paper some of his thinking about a possible scope and vision. These ideas set the scene for a broader discussion on how we might choose to live in our region and are complementary to the regulatory approach the Nelson Plan will be providing on housing.
4.3 Councillor Ward has presented his vision to me. It is a fine draft and one I can endorse. I would like to use Councillor Ward’s paper to start a discussion with our community to help inform the incoming Council later this year on options for moving forward with a Strategy. Officers will also be undertaking some pre-consultation over the coming months with key stakeholders in the community. Councillor Ward has expressed a desire to engage early with the Developers Advisory Group and I will be supporting that approach.
5. Mayor’s Discretionary Fund
5.1 Waihaere Mason and Jane du Feu of the Whakatu Marae Committee attended an event hosted by Governor-General Sir Jerry Mateparae and Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler to unveil the new banknotes at Government House in Wellington on 11 April. I have donated $565 from the Mayor’s Discretionary Fund to contribute to costs of travel to this event for both committee members.
5.2 I have also donated $200 to support funding for Natasha Bannister from Nelson College for Girls who has been selected to play for the New Zealand U19 Volleyball team. The team will be competing in the South East Asian Junior Women’s Championship and the Asian Junior Women’s Championship in Thailand in July.
6. Elected Members’ Code of Conduct
6.1 The Elected Members Code of Conduct (the Code) was adopted by Council on 20 November 2014. It was last updated by Council resolution on 15 October 2015.
6.2 In April 2016 I was contacted by Fran Tyler, researcher for Dr Catherine Strong a Senior Lecturer at Massey University, to answer questions on the Code. Dr Strong had noted that the Code had been modified and was curious to understand why.
6.3 The modification was as a result of an extensive review undertaken by The Deputy Mayor, Councillor McGurk and Councillor Acland ahead of Council adopting the Code in November 2014.
6.4 The specific change Dr Strong was interested in was the inclusion of the following paragraphs:
5.10 Elected members public statements expressing their opinion on matters before the Council shall not criticise the conduct of the Council, other elected members or officers of the Council.
5.11 The Mayor may deal with the news media and make public statements relevant to the non-statutory role as a community leader. Where the views expressed are the Mayor's own and are not made on behalf of the Council, this must be clearly stated. No statements made in this capacity shall undermine any existing policy or decision of the Council.
6.5 Dr Strong’s proposition is that this change essentially fetters free speech in a way that is unhelpful to local democracy.
6.6 This change was not highlighted in the report and at the time I did not notice this specific change. I suspect other elected members may have missed this amendment to the Code for the same reason.
6.7 In responding to my enquiry regarding the change, I was advised that when the Code was reviewed, the rationale for changing the media section (and dealing with confidential information) was drawn from paragraph 3.27 of the Auditor General's guidelines on Local Authority Codes of Conduct:
3.27 Dealing with the news media is covered in 81 codes. Such provisions frequently emphasise that generally only the mayor (or chief executive or other officially designated spokesperson) may speak publicly for the council, but that ordinary members are free to express a personal view to the media (or in some other public forum) so long as they do not state or imply that their views represent the council (and so long as they do not disclose confidential information or compromise the impartiality or integrity of staff). Some codes cover correct ways for seeking to make information public.
6.8 The revised wording in the Code, adopted by Council, was based on the suggestions from the Auditor General and modelled on an example from the Whakatane District Council.
6.9 I was also advised that in this wording, there is no intended restriction on elected members speaking as an elected member or as a member of the public but the elected member needs to make it clear in what capacity they are speaking. When speaking as the representative of the Council or committee of council then elected members are expected to reflect the view and decision of the Council or committee. An elected member may express a contrary view or an opinion that they do not agree with a decision. The Code also makes reference to the personal liability of members (Auditor General's guidelines on Local Authority Codes of Conduct paragraph 3.17) and also the distinction between governance and management and the role of staff.
6.10 In light of this exchange of information, I have reviewed the original Code and the current Code and I agree with Dr Strong’s proposition that a strict interpretation of paragraphs 5.10 and 5.11 has the potential to fetter free speech in an unhelpful way. The Code needs to support a constructive culture based on respect for each other, staff, and the institution of Council. But it must also respect the value of free speech and public debate.
6.11 On this basis, I propose that the Code is amended to address this specific issue. I suggest that officers review the Code and bring back revised wording for adoption to the next Council meeting to ensure there is continuity between paragraphs. A recommendation is included in this report to this effect.
6.12 It should be noted that Section 9.2 of the Code states that amendments to the Code of Conduct require a resolution supported by 75 per cent or more of the elected members of Council present.
6.13 However, if Council is unconcerned by the current wording in the Code it may wish to reconfirm the wording as adopted on the basis of this report.
7. Local Government Excellence Programme prospectus
7.1 Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) have released the Local Government Excellence Programme prospectus. A copy of it can be found here: http://www.lgnz.co.nz/local-government-excellence-programme/ and a one page summary is included as Attachment 1.
7.2 The Local Government Excellence Programme is a strategic initiative for the sector and has been designed to help demonstrate and lift the service and value we deliver to our communities.
7.3 The Programme incorporates a comprehensive, independent assessment system that will see councils assessed by an independent team of expert assessors. Each participating council will receive an overall rating and commentary on their performance, with the results made public.
7.4 Each council will then be encouraged to shape its own response to the results, determining its own success for its community.
7.5 On 29 March 2016 LGNZ held a workshop in Nelson to outline the programme. I attended that workshop along with several councillors. We were impressed with the presentation and expressed a desire to participate in the programme.
7.6 The Programme’s prospectus outlines the key features of the Programme and how Council can register its interest in being a Foundation Council for the first year of this new Programme. Foundation Councils will have the unique opportunity to help refine and design the Programme in July 2016 and lead the charge for the sector.
7.7 The selection of Foundation Councils will be based on the level of Council support; demonstration of this programme being prioritised in Council’s work place for 2016/17; details of an indicative budget for the Programme; and details on who will lead the Programme within the Council. LGNZ seeks a mix across all sectors of local government, and a balance between North and South Island councils.
7.8 It is difficult to determine some of these points without all the supporting information, particularly in relation to cost and its impact on resourcing (and the consequential impact on other council priorities). I hope this material will be available before Council considers the matter.
7.9 Registrations of interest close 5.00pm Friday 24 June 2016. Foundation Councils will be announced in early July 2016.
7.10 A supporting document, Local Government Excellence Programme Prospectus – Performance Assessment System, will be released shortly. This document provides members with detailed information on the performance assessment system, including the working set of the performance indicators and the indicative cost for Foundation Councils.
7.11 I am keen to see our Council work towards best practice and to be transparent and accountable. I would welcome Council’s support to register its interest as a Foundation Council in this programme.
8. Referendum on Nelson Southern Link
8.1 At a Council workshop on 31 May 2016 I invited councillors to express their interest in considering a referendum or poll on transport matters in Nelson specifically on the construction of a road in the area known as the Nelson Southern Link. It is not a matter that elected members had considered previously as part of a work programme.
8.2 At the workshop, officers provided verbal background on the matters that needed to be considered in undertaking a poll and the relevant timeframes. This information is included as Attachment 2 and includes material on likely costs.
8.3 With respect to timeframes, to hold a poll in conjunction with this year’s Local Body Election, the electoral officer must be notified and the poll question identified by 1 July 2016. The poll and the poll question must be confirmed by resolution of Council and this is the last ordinary meeting of Council that would meet that timeframe.
8.4 While at the workshop there was minimal interest expressed from councillors in bringing the option of a poll forward I believe it is appropriate to allow the opportunity to be debated and resolved at a meeting that would meet the timeframe should Council wish to propose a poll question and proceed with a poll. Therefore, I advised councillors after the workshop on 31 May 2016 that such an option would be included in the Mayor’s report of 16 June 2016.
8.5 The workshop discussion included questions around whether a poll should be taken regionally to cover the same geographic area of interest as identified in the New Zealand Transport Agency Nelson Southern Link Investigation given people and businesses in the wider region are impacted by arterial roading decisions. Council may wish to consider this aspect as part of its decision on a poll.
8.6 Given the ratepayers will need to cover the cost of the poll Council may also wish to identify the community benefits that the poll aims to achieve, noting that the poll is not binding.
8.7 Appropriate recommendations are provided in this report to allow a poll and poll question, or not.
9. City Development - A City that’s pressed ‘GO’
9.1 The 2015/2016 Annual Plan builds on the work of the Long Term Plan in progressing city development. Much of our work to date has been underground addressing core infrastructure or moving projects through development phases. This is vitally important work and it will be ongoing across the life of the Long Term Plan as we continue to address a backlog of critical infrastructure upgrades.
9.2 But also looking ahead we have some exciting projects on our books that are really going to engage the public. As examples:
· The Suter Gallery will reopen its doors and invite old and new generations to become friends.
· The Trafalgar Centre earthquake strengthening and redevelopment will be completed as the Trafalgar Centre Northern End is constructed.
· As we head to summer, work in Rutherford Park will be completed with major new areas of greenspace and landscaping connecting the Maitai Walkway. Our vision of an active urban park becomes a reality.
· The Nelson School of Music restoration and rebuild will be underway.
· The Indoor Cricket and Shooting facility will be constructed.
· Development at the Marina will be refined and get underway.
· Greenmeadows Community facility construction will commence and Stoke Urban Design projects will move forward.
9.3 The Haven Precinct reaches development stage as we create walking and cycling connections, quality public spaces and opportunities for private investment. In my opinion, this project is overdue. It was in my first term on Council as Deputy Mayor, that I requested of Martin Byrne, Chief Executive of Port Nelson Limited, that the Port relinquish the old Reliance Engineering site on Haven Road to allow a better city to sea connection. Achieving that outcome was the first critical step in what we have now called the Haven Precinct.
9.4 The Elma Turner Library redevelopment is set to get underway. Preliminary work on the Elma Turner Library project had resulted in vacant space in Civic House and the State Advances Building being reserved as a possible site for redevelopment.
9.5 I’m extremely pleased that submitters to the Annual Plan responded to my somewhat provocative Mayor’s message and gave such clear feedback on their preferred location for our city library – it stays riverside.
9.6 We are now able to activate the vacant space in Civic House and the State Advances Building. This brings an exciting opportunity to revitalise this end of Trafalgar Street, addressing underperforming assets, and responds to the message from retail, hospitality and commercial sectors to actively invite investment in the central business district.
9.7 It is important to understand that Council’s decision on the library is much more than a decision about a valued community facility. It is the stepping stone to opening up a new Riverside Precinct for the city that properly addresses the Maitai River and Trafalgar Street Bridge creating a gateway to our city, linking the city to Rutherford Park and the Trafalgar Centre, and beyond that the Haven Precinct.
9.8 The area between the Maitai River, Para Para Road, Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street is land that warrants a coordinated development plan that identifies complementary public and private land use. What could we see in this location in the next 2, 5, 10, 15 years? My vision for this area is very different from what it looks like now. I see public open space, views and walkways to the River, no more drive through premises on gateway sites, modern offices, a key civic building in the library, apartment living. What else?
9.9 Wakatu Incorporation (Wakatu) submitted to the Annual Plan and spoke strongly on the value of the library in its current location. Subsequent to our Annual Plan decision-making, the Chief Executive and I met with representatives of the Wakatu Board to understand the direction that Wakatu wish to take with their land in this area. Wakatu communicated a strong desire to take an urban planning approach that develops a vision for this precinct; one that realises the public and private benefits of this valuable location. In coming months, I welcome further council wide discussions with Wakatu and others. My objective is for us to think creatively and develop concepts not just for the library building, but this broader public/private precinct that will be a gateway to our city.
Rachel Reese
Mayor of Nelson
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1561963 - Local Government Excellence Programme prospectus summary
Attachment 2: A1561996 - Nelson Southern Link Poll Background Information
|
|
Council 16 June 2016 |
REPORT R6074
Notice of Motion - A Poll on Nelson's Traffic Issues
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider the notice of motion from Councillor Rainey.
2. Delegations
2.1 This is a matter for Council to consider.
3. Recommendation
4. Background
4.1 The procedure for a Notice of Motion is dealt with in Council’s Standing Orders. The relevant portions of the Standing Orders relating to this Notice of Motion are set out below:
Standing Order 3.9.15 Revocation or alteration of resolutions
A notice of motion for the revocation or alteration of all or part of a previous resolution of the Local Authority is to be given to the Chief Executive by the member intending to move such a motion.
(a) Such notice is to set out:
i. The resolution or part thereof which it is proposed to revoke or alter;
ii. The meeting date when it was passed; and
iii. The motion, if any, that is intended to be moved in substitution thereof.
(b) Such notice is to be given to the Chief Executive at least 5 clear working days before the meeting at which it is proposed to consider such a motion and is to be signed by not less than one third of the members of the Local Authority, including vacancies.
(c) The Chief Executive must then give members at least 2 clear working days notice in writing of the intended motion and of the meeting at which it is proposed to move such.
Standing Order 3.10.1 Notices of Motion to be in writing
Notices of motion must be in writing signed by the mover, stating the meeting at which it is proposed that the notice of motion be considered, and must be delivered to the Chief Executive at least 5 clear working days before such meeting.
4.2 A copy of the Notice of Motion received by the Chief Executive from Councillor Rainey is attached.
Clare Hadley
Chief Executive
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1561164 - Notice of Motion Poll on Southern Link Councillor Pete Rainey
|
|
Council 16 June 2016 |
REPORT R6069
Works and Infrastructure 31 March 2016 - Toi Toi Grove - Transport Connection
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider an item left to lie on the table at the Council meeting on 5 May 2016, in relation to Toi Toi Grove – Transport Connection
2. Delegations
2.1 This report provides additional information in relation to an item left to lie on the table at the Council meeting on 5 May 2016.
3. Recommendation
4. Background
4.1 The Works and Infrastructure Committee considered a report titled Toi Toi Grove – Transport Connection in the Public Excluded part of its meeting on 31 March 2016, and made a recommendation to Council on this matter.
4.2 The recommendation to Council was subsequently left to lie on the table at the 5 May Council meeting, to be considered at the 16 June 2016 Council meeting, to enable further information relating to the matter to be provided.
5. Discussion
5.1 The recommendation to Council from the Works and Infrastructure Committee proposed the inclusion of an intersection in the 2018/28 Long Term Plan as a committed project.
5.2 This should be included in the Development Contributions Policy. To achieve this, it must be consulted on within Council’s Long Term Plan. Therefore, an amendment to Council’s Long Term Plan 2015/25 is required as an initial step towards completing this project.
5.3 The proposed recommendation recognises this by suggesting that Council propose an amendment to Council’s Long Term Plan 2015/25, to take place alongside the consultation process for the Annual Plan 2017/18.
6. Options
6.1 Council may consider the proposed recommendation, as if it were a recommendation from the Works and Infrastructure Committee.
7. Alignment with relevant Council policy
7.1 The report presented to the Works and Infrastructure Committee on 31 March 2016 considered the alignment of the project with relevant Council policy.
8. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy
8.1 The proposed recommendation suggests that Council propose an amendment to the Long Term Plan 2015/25, to be undertaken via the consultation process for the Annual Plan 2017/18. This is not a significant decision under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
9. Consultation
9.1 The proposed recommendation suggests that Council propose an amendment to the Long Term Plan 2015/25, to be undertaken via the consultation process for the Annual Plan 2017/18.
10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process
10.1 No consultation with Māori has been undertaken.
Rhys Palmer
Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading
Attachments
|
|
Council 16 June 2016 |
REPORT R6066
Special Housing Areas - Supplementary Recommendations
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider part of the recommendation left to lie on the table at the 2 June 2016 Council meeting, regarding the amendment to the gazetted Ocean Lodge Special Housing Area (SHA) qualifying development criteria.
1.2 In light of additional SHA requests, to consider leaving the remaining recommendations to lie on the table to allow further information to be gathered and presented comprehensively to another Council meeting.
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
4. Background
4.1 Council considered report R5858 Special Housing Areas at the 2 June 2016 Council meeting, and resolved to receive the report and its attachments.
4.2 At that meeting, a motion was put and lost for the proposed SHA at 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive.
4.3 The remaining recommendation (as below) was left to lie on the table, with the first clause having been moved and seconded:
THAT Council approve 19 & 21 Beach Road (A1548015) as a potential Special Housing Area;
AND THAT Council approve the amendment to the qualifying development criteria for the number of storeys for the Ocean Lodge Special Housing Area (A1548018);
AND THAT Her Worship the Mayor recommend those potential areas (Tahunanui Drive and Beach Road) and the amendment to Ocean Lodge SHA to the Minister of Building and Housing for consideration as Special Housing Areas under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013.
5. Discussion
5.1 At the 2 June 2016 Council meeting, councillors raised queries about the proposed SHAs.
5.2 Since that meeting there have also been additional requests received for further SHAs.
5.3 Also since that Council meeting officers have received advice about the possible use of a legal deed between SHA applicants and Council as a means of ensuring certainty as to the end development on the SHA site.
5.4 To enable informed decision-making and a comprehensive evaluation of SHAs, it is recommended that Council consider a Special Housing Area report at another Council meeting. The report will consider:
· 19 & 21 Beach Road
· Farleigh proposed SHA
· Additional SHA requests
· The use of a legal deed between SHA applicants and Council
· The recommendation of SHA areas to the Minister of Building and Housing for consideration as Special Housing Areas under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013.
5.5 To enable this to happen, it is recommended that clauses one and three of the recommendation left to lie on the table on 2 June 2016, remain on the table until another Council meeting. This will allow sufficient time for applicants to provide further information to address the issues raised by Council on the 2 June, and for officers to undertake an assessment of that information and advise Council accordingly.
5.6 Another council meeting before the end of June will be the last time SHAs are brought to Council for approval.
5.7 The delaying of the consideration of these and the additional proposed SHAs until another Council meeting before the end of June will not affect the tight timelines to which SHA applicants need to adhere. The Minister’s Office has confirmed that this delay will result in any approved SHAs missing the 6 July Cabinet meeting; however the Minister’s Office has confirmed it is prepared to take any approved SHAs to a special Committee Meeting of Cabinet on 11 July 2016. This will in effect result in minimal delays for SHA applicants.
5.8 In the meantime, Council is able to consider the amendment to the qualifying development criteria for the number of storeys for the Ocean Lodge Special Housing Area (A1548018). Please refer to the 2 June 2016 report at Attachment 1 (R5858 Special Housing Areas) for further detail on this matter.
Lisa Gibellini
Development Projects Planner
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1562166 - Copy of report R5858 Special Housing Areas
|
|
Council 16 June 2016 |
REPORT R5737
Crematorium Delivery Review - Supplementary Report
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To advise Council of the feedback received with respect to the crematorium.
1.2 To confirm the future of and level of service with respect to pet/animal cremations.
2. Delegations
2.1 Further information has been requested by Council and therefore this is a matter for Council to consider.
3. Recommendation
4. Background
4.1 Council resolved on 24 March 2016:
“THAT it be confirmed that Council retain ownership of the crematorium and keep it operating;
AND THAT approval be given to renew the main cremator as set out in the Long Term Plan 2015/25.”
4.2 Council also resolved that the following four recommendations be left to lie on the table subject to supplementary information being collated and brought back to Council.
“AND THAT it be confirmed not to proceed with a new cremator and the $150,0000 provision set aside for this in the 2016/17 year be removed;
AND THAT all cremation fees be increased from 1 July 2016 transitioned over a three year period with equal annual increases of 15% per annum, with year one to be $575 including GST;
AND THAT services for private cremations be promoted;
AND THAT until such time as a commercial pet/animal cremator is up and running pets/animals continue to be cremated.”
4.3 Work on relining the dedicated human main cremator is underway.
5. Discussion
Feedback summary
Feedback from ratepayers was requested via an 11 March media release and closed on 21 April 2016. Twelve replies were received and these are summarised (as they pertain to pet/animal cremations and fee increases) below. Refer to Attachment 1 for the full feedback.
|
Feedback |
Continue with pet/animal cremations |
Increase fees |
Support private cremations |
|
Veterinary clinics/centres |
|
|
|
|
Halifax Vet |
Yes |
|
|
|
Stoke Vet |
Yes |
|
|
|
Ratepayer |
|
|
|
|
Mr Steve Cross |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Mr Paul Briggs |
No |
|
|
|
National Council of Women of NZ |
Yes |
|
|
|
Sinnet Frisk |
Yes |
|
|
|
Diane Colquhoun |
Yes |
|
|
|
Nancy Eisenberg (see below) |
|
|
|
|
Funeral directors |
|
|
|
|
Simplicity Funerals |
|
Yes moderate |
No |
|
Shone and Shirley |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Anisy funeral services |
Yes |
No |
No |
5.1 The submission from Mr Steve Cross recommended exiting the crematorium business and undertaking no additional expenditure. Council has already resolved to retain the crematorium and renew the main cremator.
5.2 The submission from Nancy Eisenberg related to what gets burnt in the cremators.
5.3 One submitter did not confirm whether their feedback can be made public. The submission has been circulated to councillors separately.
5.4 In line with a suggestion at the Council meeting, a copy of the redacted report was sent to all veterinary practices and funeral directors who use the crematorium. One further submission (included above) was received.
5.5 In summary the majority of feedback was for council to continue to provide for pet/animal cremations (for reasons of choice and affordability) and not to promote private cremations.
Views of the Crematorium Medical Referee
5.6 The views of the Crematorium Medical Referee were sought. Whist he had no specific views on the issues covered in this report he did raise an area of concern relating specifically to the increasing urgency funeral directors were requiring cremations to take place following death, and that this was putting pressure on both Council staff and the crematorium medical referees.
5.7 The reason for the increased urgency from the funeral directors was primarily due to their lack of storage facilities (with only one funeral director and the Nelson hospital morgue having storage facilities).
5.8 This increased urgency, with very strict protocols (and paperwork) having to be followed and adhered to, could in his opinion lead to potential mistakes.
5.9 Whilst this concern is not part of the issues that are been addressed as part of this report, this concern does need to be addressed and officers will explore this further with the funeral directors and the crematorium medical referee with urgency.
6. Options
Pet/animal cremations
6.1 There are arguments both for and against continuing with pet/animal cremations as well as providing a dedicated pet/animal cremator.
6.2 On the one hand the service does provide a public good - to the general public and through the services provided to the veterinary practices.
6.3 On the other hand if Council purchases a new pet/animal cremator at a considerable capital investment (along with around $12,500/annum opex including interest and depreciation) and then lost a portion of that business to a commercial operator, this would place Council investment at risk and would require an increase in fees. The question is whether Council would retain enough pet/animal cremations to justify the cost of a new pet/animal cremator. If this turned out not to be the case then that would affect the cost recovery model.
6.4 Whilst veterinary practices have indicated their preference for choice with respect to where they cremate pet/animals, Council is dealing with ratepayers’ money and need to carefully consider this with respect to public good versus risk.
6.5 One veterinary practice has indicated that if the crematorium stopped pet/animal cremations that they would cease offering this service to their clients.
6.6 However, Council could still decide (based on strong feedback from the veterinary sector and an increasing trend in pet/animal cremations) to offer choice to residents and veterinary practices and continue to provide pet/animal cremations.
6.7 Pet/animal cremations could continue, as is currently the practice, in the second cremator. This second cremator would still serve as a back-up to the main cremator for human cremations. Officers have scrutinised and witnessed the standard operating procedures from the management contractor and view the issue of reputation risk as low - procedures are robust.
6.8 Should maximising the number of pet/animal cremations in the second cremator at any one time continue as standard practice, inefficiency could be minimised as this would be no different to that of cremating a single human body – both utilise around 35 litres of diesel per cremation. Cremating individual pets or smaller numbers, in one go, is inefficient.
6.9 There is no cold storage provision at the crematorium, but the veterinary practices deliver pets/animals to the crematorium frozen and correctly wrapped.
6.10 It is acknowledged that that there are factors other than just risk that could be considered. This could include a comprehensive financial review in a couple of years’ time as a minimum, to allow the effectiveness of the private commercial pet/animal cremation service versus Nelson’s crematorium to be ascertained.
6.11 Officers, based on the risk of losing potential business, competing with a commercial operator for pet/animals and high cost (both capital and opex) of a dedicated pet/animal cremator, do not support the purchase of a new pet/animal cremator at this stage, but support that this be re-assessed in two years’ time.
Fees
6.12 Any fee increase is dependent on the decision Council makes with respect to pet/animal cremations.
6.13 Pet cremations have been subsidising the cost of human cremations. If the decision is made to discontinue with pet/animal cremations then it follows that fees for human cremations will need to increase. As previously reported to Council, should pet/animal cremations be stopped, that in order to retain the 90 user pays, 10 public funding split, fees would need to increase from $500 to around $720 and officers previously recommended that this be transitioned over a three year period with equal annual increases of 15% per annum.
6.14 However, should Council make the decision to continue with pet/animal cremations, fees need to be assessed against the Revenue and Funding Policy (90 user pays, 10 public). The actual recovery in 2014/15 was 91% and therefore within the policy.
6.15 Any decision to continue with pet/animal cremations would need to be made noting the risk that the Nelson crematorium will be in competition with a commercial operator and still runs the risk of not meeting the 90/10 funding split if pet/animal cremations decreased.
6.16 To mitigate these risks, officers support:
· increasing all cremation fees by 5% from 1 July 2016; and
· monitoring recovery against the policy with actual pet/animal cremation numbers assessed over the next two years to ascertain the implication and demand of private commercial pet/animal cremation services.
Services for private cremations
6.17 Nelson allows private cremations and this offers choice to families. There have been approximately 6 private cremations in the last 18 months.
6.18 The level of service offered at the Nelson crematorium does not extend to the services that a funeral director offers. There is no intention of increasing this level of service.
6.19 The crematorium does not provide for body storage, body transportation, caskets or body embalming. The crematorium operator has confirmed that bereaved families are not always fully aware of all the procedures required to cremate a body. This includes legal paperwork, potential body storage etc. Clarity on the minimum requirements would be useful.
6.20 As a minimum Council’s crematorium, for private cremations, does require the body to be presented in a leak proof container (such as a body bag) to prevent the escape of body fluids as this is a health and safety issue. It is not uncommon for bodies not to be in a casket due to the family not wishing to pay for a casket.
6.21 These are all requirements that a family needs to consider and quite often they don’t until time of death and working through these many issues at a time of high stress for the family is not ideal.
6.22 One funeral director service in Nelson offers partial services for private cremations. Whilst a family could address all issues with respect to a private cremation (provided they know about them in advance) most will still require involvement from a funeral director at some level.
6.23 Feedback from funeral directors operating in the area cite a number of concerns with respect to Council promoting private cremations including:
· Health and safety (covered above);
· Unfairness as this is their core business;
· Complexities of dealing with bodies (covered above);
· Potential increase in their fees and charges to offset possible loss of income/business if more private cremations are undertaken;
· Potential to stop providing partial services for those wanting to undertake private cremations;
· Potential to cease using the Nelson crematorium.
6.24 Any increase in fees will still provide a lower cost option to those wishing to undertake a private cremation – costs would still be significantly cheaper than a basic package from a funeral director.
6.25 The choice factor aside, there are practicalities families wishing to undertake a private cremation will face. These should not be under estimated and can be exacerbated during a time of high stress and mourning.
6.26 Whilst possible to continue to provide for private cremations, Council (through its management contractor) needs to be careful not to expand their role by trying to be helpful to those wishing to undertake private cremation.
6.27 For this reason officers are in support of continuing to provide for private cremations but not to actively promote this service. Officers will however provide relevant and complete information with respect to private cremations on Council’s web site.
7. Alignment with relevant Council policy
7.1 The current 2015-25 LTP includes for a new pet/animal cremator in 2016/17.
8. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy
8.1 Any decision to continue or not with pet/animal cremations, or increase fees or not, is not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement policy.
9. Consultation
9.1 Consultation with Nelson residents was undertaken via media release with the community and closed on 21 April 2016.
9.2 A redacted report was also sent out to all veterinary practices and funeral directors who use the crematorium.
10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process
10.1 No consultation with Maori has been undertaken.
11. Conclusion
11.1 Council has already previously resolved to retain ownership of and continue to run the crematorium.
11.2 Council left the resolutions with respect to pet/animal cremations, fee increase and private cremations to lie on the table subject to additional information. That additional information is contained in the body of this report.
11.3 Feedback has been received and Council need to make an informed decision based on that feedback. The majority of the feedback has been in favour of retaining pet/animal cremations for reasons of choice, affordability and service offered at the crematorium.
11.4 A risk still exists that Council purchases a pet/animal cremator and loses business to a private commercial operator and the impact of this is that fees will need to increase. Officers view this risk as high and do not support purchasing a new pet/animal pet cremator at this time.
11.5 However, Council could still make the decision, based on the majority of feedback received from ratepayers and veterinary practices, to provide choice and continue to provide pet/animal cremations in the second cremator. This has a degree of operational risk but is deemed to be low.
11.6 No fee increase (other than CPI) is proposed.
11.7 With respect to private cremations, officers support this service continuing but not overtly advertising this.
Alec Louverdis
Group Manager Infrastructure
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1521528 - Summary of feedback
|
|
Council 16 June 2016 |
REPORT R5935
Trafalgar Centre - Lift and Lighting Business Case Update
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To advise Council of the process used to date in respect to considering a lift and sport lighting for the Trafalgar Centre.
2. Delegations
2.1 Council resolved in June 2014 for matters relating to the Trafalgar Centre to be reported to the Council.
3. Recommendation
4. Background
4.1 Council resolved on 14 April 2016:
AND THAT business cases be developed to consider the value of a lift to access the eastern mezzanine floor, and High Definition television lighting in the main stadium and authority be delegated to the Mayor, Chair of Works & Infrastructure and Chair of Community Services Committees (or their deputies) and the Chief Executive to act on the outcomes of the business cases
4.2 On 28 April 2016, officers presented the two business cases to the Mayor, Chair of Community Services Committee and the Chief Executive. The Works and Infrastructure Committee was not represented.
4.3 The Deputy Mayor was also present.
5. Discussion
5.1 The business cases for the lift (Attachment 1) and sport lighting (Attachment 2) recommended not to proceed with either a lift or sport lighting as part of the Trafalgar Centre upgrade. These recommendations were approved.
5.2 The Chair of Community Services, Cr Rainey, notes on the interest register his interest in a company Rockquest Promotions Ltd. Whilst this company does not provide sport lighting it has equipment capable of lifting that kind of lighting into position. Cr Rainey did not draw attention to that interest at the time of the meeting.
5.3 The group with delegated authority was constituted to provide representation from two committees and the Mayor’s Office. One committee has not been represented.
5.4 To ensure sound decision making, and good governance practice, it would be appropriate to ask the full group with delegated authority to meet again, to consider both matters. This would also allow the opportunity for any interest to be declared.
6. Alignment with relevant Council policy
6.1 This report is in line with Council’s position of re-opening the Trafalgar Centre as it is outlined in the 2015-25 Long-Term.
7. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy
7.1 This decision is not significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
8. Consultation
8.1 No consultation was carried out in this specific matter.
9. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process
9.1 No consultation was carried out with Maori.
10. Conclusion
10.1 On 28 April 2016, the two business cases recommending not to proceed with either a lift or sport lighting as part of the Trafalgar Centre upgrade projects were considered.
10.2 Subsequently two issues have arisen: one relating to representation and one to the matter of interests. It is appropriate for the full group to meet again.
Clare Hadley
Chief Executive
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1550731 - Trafalgar Centre Lift Business Case Summary
Attachment 2: A1550732 - Trafalgar Centre Lighting Business Case Summary
|
|
Council 16 June 2016 |
REPORT R5921
Revoking the Moratorium on New Outdoor Dining Spaces
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider revoking the moratorium on the use of public car parking spaces for outdoor dining in the central business district (CBD).
2. Delegations
2.1 The moratorium on use of public car parking spaces for outdoor dining is a cross-committee issue as it relates to business (Governance), parking policy (Planning and Regulatory) and roads/streets (Works and Infrastructure), therefore the matter is being presented to Council.
3. Recommendation
4. Background
4.1 The moratorium on exclusive use of public car parking spaces for commercial activity was introduced in 2003, following a series of outdoor dining application requests, with Council resolving:
THAT the Chief Executive be authorised to issue a moratorium on consideration of applications for outdoor dining on carparks in the CBD for the ensuing twelve months.
4.2 The aim was to stem the flow of applications and restore balance to the parking needs of the inner city alongside those of individual trader. Over the last thirteen years the moratorium has been periodically extended.
4.3 In May 2015, the Works and Infrastructure Committee asked that the Policy on Licenses for Street Stalls and Outdoor Dining, including the moratorium on public parking spaces be reviewed.
4.4 The intention was to consider how outdoor dining might contribute to city centre vibrancy and issues that might arise should the moratorium be revoked.
4.5 In April this year, a Council workshop on outdoor dining, street stalls and the moratorium was held with support for revoking the moratorium expressed by those present.
4.6 This report discusses options for next steps. It does not cover review of the policy which could be addressed in the future.
5. Discussion
Current situation
5.1 There are currently thirteen active licences for outdoor dining which occupy twenty-one public car parking spaces. These are predominately found in the CBD with one site situated in the city fringe.
5.2 An additional site located at the Alton Street Fish Stop has a temporary one year licence granted as a placemaking trial which is due to expire November 2016.
5.3 Under current licence agreements, the licensee pays an annual fee per allocated public car parking space, plus an application fee per licence. The licensee is responsible for all costs for development of the site including installation of storm water sumps, structures and barriers.
5.4 Additionally, the licensee is responsible for all costs for removal of sites upon termination of the licence for which the licensee pays a bond of $1000 per public car parking space at the time of signing. Removal of sites is currently estimated to be approximately $2,500 per car parking space.
5.5 Council could consider raising the bond to counter the risk of potential costs to the ratepayer when a business closes, however this would need to be considered against the value becoming prohibitive to businesses seeking a licence.
5.6 Main features of the licence include:
- They are limited to the adjacent business only;
- They are personal and non-transferable;
- There is no right to sublet the sites.
5.7 Terms are for six year periods with no right of renewal, however in practice, provided there is no reason to conclude a licence, most are renewed on a continuing basis.
6. Options for extension of outdoor dining and car parking supply
6.1 Councils current Level of Service, as detailed in the Long Term Plan and Transport Asset Management Plan, is for short term parking in the CBD to be 85% occupied when measured during a weekday in the first week of December.
6.2 The latest survey data was collected on 10 December 2015. This survey showed that there was a maximum occupancy of 82% which indicates that there are an additional 68 spaces available before the 85% target is met.
6.3 It is important to note that the survey undertaken in December 2015 is a single snapshot on one day, in a single year, and does not describe the variation likely to be seen from year to year and month to month.
6.4 Previous years’ data is available but is less relevant as it was collected before users became familiar with the current parking management regime (first hour free and $1.50/hr after that) and modified their behaviour in response.
6.5 As a result officers recommend that the limitations of the December 2015 survey be recognised and any decision making adopt a conservative approach. Specifically, it is recommended that a limited number of additional spaces be released for use for outdoor dining over the next three years to allow additional demand data to be gathered so the relationship between reduced parking supply and target occupancy can be monitored.
6.6 Making an additional twelve spaces available provides balance between outdoor dining opportunities against the risk of parking demands increasing beyond the target 85% occupancy.
6.7 While twelve additional spaces is conservative in regard to CBD parking supply and its occupancy, it is just over half of the existing spaces available of outdoor dining so represents a significant increase in the context of supply of space for this purpose.
7. Stakeholder views
7.1 The CBD Panel established as an outcome of the Long Term Plan 2015-25 has discussed outdoor dining. At its meeting on 11 November 2015 the Panel considered an increase in street dining as one way to improve and contribute to inner city vitality. It was felt that it would help create lively, active streets and encourage passers-by to explore areas where they could see people gathering.
7.2 The Chief Executive of the Chamber of Commerce and Manager of Uniquely Nelson both support the reintroduction of more outdoor dining opportunities as a way to contribute to the invigoration of lively active spaces within the CBD in balance with traffic flow and car parking supply.
7.3 There is current interest in a new area of outdoor dining from a group of hospitality businesses in the CBD. They have approached Council with a proposal and are keen to have something in place for next summer.
8. Options
8.1 Options for the moratorium are:
|
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
1. Continue with the moratorium whereby no further outdoor dining requests would be considered |
No further work would be required Outdoor dining opportunities remain capped Council’s position is clear in respect of further applications |
Lost opportunity to add further value to inner city vibrancy Outdoor dining opportunities remain limited to those who successfully made applications prior to the moratorium
|
|
2. Remove all outdoor dining |
Council’s position is clear towards outdoor dining Parking supply would increase
|
Loss of inner city vibrancy created through outdoor dining Existing structures would need to be removed and licences repealed (or left to expire) Licensees would not support the decision
|
|
3. Revoke the moratorium with no limits on additional parking space licences |
Opens up opportunities for outdoor dining on a case by case basis Contributes to inner city vibrancy Equal opportunity for businesses towards allocation of parking spaces for outdoor dining
|
Reduction in car parking supply within the CBD and potential for the shopping public to be disadvantaged by the removal of spaces May not be supported by local businesses and residents accessing the CBD No time allowed for effects on parking demand patterns to be monitored and responded to |
|
4. Revoke the moratorium with limits by increasing the number of parking spaces made available for outdoor dining but cap them at 12 additional spaces made available over a three year period |
Car parking supply and outdoor dining can be controlled to ensure an appropriate balance The effect of outdoor dining on central city vibrancy and car parking supply can be monitored and responded to Council seen to be taking a proactive approach towards inner city vitality
|
Capping outdoor dining influences the opportunity for fairness through what’s essentially a ‘first in first served’ basis
|
8.2 Officers recommend option 4, whereby the moratorium would be revoked to allow for a controlled increase of applications for outdoor dining on public car parking spaces to be received in alignment with Council’s current objective of increasing inner city vitality. This option recognises the economic value of outdoor dining to inner city business and its contribution to inner city vibrancy in balance with the public requirement for accessible public car parking spaces across the CBD.
9. Approval by Council
9.1 Prior to the moratorium being established, outdoor dining applications were authorised by the Chief Executive and have since been delegated to the Group Manager Infrastructure.
9.2 It seems appropriate, given Council’s objectives for CBD enhancement, that should the moratorium be revoked, that all applications be brought to the Chief Executive for approval.
9.3 In making decisions about applications, officers will take into account the site’s contribution towards enhancement of the CBD along with any impact of the local environment including adjacent businesses.
10. Alignment with relevant Council policy
10.1 Commercial Occupation of Footpaths, Car Parks and Parking Squares Policy (2000). The outcome sought by this policy is: “To permit controlled use of the footpaths, car parks and parking squares for commercial activities which enhance the vitality and vibrancy of the city, while maintaining pedestrian and road user safety and access, ensuring adequate parking, whilst minimising any negative impacts on other businesses or retailers in Nelson City”. The extension of outdoor dining activities is consistent with this outcome.
10.2 Council’s inner city vision and key outcomes include:
o We are a business-friendly region..…small, locally-owned businesses are an essential part of the community and central city (Community Outcomes 2014)
o The economic health and vitality of the central city is a priority (Council’s Priorities for the Next Three Years, Long Term Plan 2015-25)
o The City will be a vibrant, attractive place in which people can live, work, and play, and in which business can operate successfully now and into the future (Nelson Plan)
o Support for well-designed outdoor dining and street vending stalls in the city centre (Heart of Nelson 2009)
o Establish a coherent design for Church St including outdoor dining opportunities (Heart of Nelson 2009)
o Our economy thrives and contributes to a vibrant and sustainable Nelson (Nelson 2060)
11. Costs
11.1 Revoking the moratorium would see additional time required for officers to assess applications, prepare Council reports and manage further licensing agreements. There would be no additional costs for the establishment of outdoor dining structures as these are borne by the applicant.
12. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy
12.1 These are not significant decisions under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
13. Consultation
13.1 The issue has been discussed with the Chamber of Commerce, Uniquely Nelson and a range of CBD stakeholders.
14. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process
14.1 Maori have not been consulted on this issue.
15. Conclusion
15.1 Officers recommend that the moratorium on public car parking spaces for outdoor dining be revoked.
15.2 Officers recommend a conservative approach is taken towards any subsequent allocation of public car parking spaces, with a cap to safeguard car parking supply, and monitoring of outdoor dining to ensure an appropriate balance is achieved.
15.3 The recommendation is for the cap to total thirty-three public car parking spaces. Current allocation is twenty-one public car parking spaces and this would leave a further twelve spaces to be made available over a three year period.
15.4 Officers recommend that the Chief Executive approve all new applications for use of outdoor dining on public car parking spaces.
Gabrielle Thorpe
Community Partnerships Adviser
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1526853 - Policy for Commercial Occupation of Footpaths, Carparks, and Parking Squares 2000 (not including appendices of licence templates)
Attachment 2: A1553144 - Map of current outdoor dining sites across the CBD
|
|
Council 16 June 2016 |
REPORT R5799
Addition to delegations relating to activities under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider the delegation of powers to the Chief Executive under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (the Act), to consider applications and issue consents.
2. Delegations
2.1 Delegation of powers to the Chief Executive is a matter for full Council.
3. Recommendation
4. Background
4.1 The Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (the Act) provides for councils to consider applications and issue consents made under that Act. The current Officer delegations do not address the provisions of this Act as it is a relatively new process for the Council.
4.2 Applications made under the Act are similar to resource consent applications made under the Resource Management Act (RMA). It is proposed there be a consistency for processing of consents under both Acts. To enable this consistency it is necessary for delegation to be given to the Chief Executive. In turn the Chief Executive would then delegate to the same officer level established for RMA applications.
4.3 Refer to Attachment 1 (A1525766) for proposed delegations.
5. Discussion
5.1 There are eight Special Housing Area (SHA) sites approved by Cabinet, one SHA pending subject of a master plan process and a further four in the process of being recommended for approval. These sites have the potential to yield over 1000 residential units.
5.2 Applications under the Act need to be received and confirmed as complete by 16 September 2016. At that date the Act is repealed. Council officers expect applications to be lodged shortly.
5.3 In order for Council officers to process these applications in a timely way the powers under the Act need to be delegated to the Chief Executive.
6. Options
6.1 The Council can choose to delegate powers to the Chief Executive under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (section 23), or can decline to do so, in which case all processing and decision making for applications made under this Act will need to occur at the Council level.
7. Alignment with relevant Council policy
7.1 This matter is not in contradiction to any Council policy or strategic 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.
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 anticipated applications under the Act will be received before September. A delegation of powers to the Chief Executive is required to enable officers to process these applications in a timely manner.
Mandy Bishop
Manager Consents and Compliance
Attachments
|
|
Council 16 June 2016 |
REPORT R5383
Preparation for the 2016 Local Elections
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To obtain a Council decision regarding the order of candidates’ names on voting documents for the 2016 local government election.
2. Delegations
2.1 Election matters have not been delegated to a committee, therefore this is a decision for Council.
3. Recommendation
4. Background
Early Processing of Voting Papers
4.1 In previous triennial local elections, Council has resolved to process voting papers during the voting period. This processing involves the opening of the envelopes and scanning of the votes, and enables preliminary results to be available more quickly following the close of the voting period.
4.2 The Local Electoral Act Amendment Act 2013 enabled the electoral officer to make this decision at their discretion (Local Electoral Act 2001, 80(1)), therefore it is no longer a matter for Council consideration.
Candidates’ Names on Voting Documents
4.3 Regulation 31(1) of the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 provides that candidates’ names on the voting document may be arranged in one of three ways; alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order or computerised random order. Regulation 31(2) provides that Council may resolve which of these three ways is used. Regulation 31(3) provides that if there is no such resolution, the candidates’ names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.
4.4 In 2013 Council resolved that candidates’ names be arranged in computerised random order.
5. Discussion
5.1 Alphabetical Order of Surname: This method is self-explanatory.
5.2 Pseudo-Random Order: Using this method, the names of candidates are listed in a random order, and all voting documents use the same order. If this method is used, the candidates’ names would be placed in a container, mixed together and then drawn out, with the candidates’ names being placed on all voting documents in the order in which they are drawn. If Council decides to use pseudo-random order, any person is entitled to attend at the place where the order of candidates’ names will be arranged, and a public notice is required to be given of the date and time it will occur.
5.3 Computerised Random Order: Under this method, the order of candidates’ names is determined randomly by computer for each voting document so that the order of names of candidates, will vary from one document to another.
5.4 There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these methods. It is considered that the fairest option for all candidates is computerised random order. For this reason, this option is recommended.
6. Options
6.1 It is recommended that Council resolve to order candidates’ names on voting documents in computerised random order.
6.2 Council can choose a different method as detailed in the discussion above. If Council does not make a decision on this matter, the default order type will be alphabetical order by surname.
7. Alignment with relevant Council policy
7.1 This decision being asked of Council is not inconsistent with any previous Council decision.
8. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy
8.1 This matter is not significant under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
9. Consultation
9.1 Consultation has not been carried out regarding this matter.
10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process
10.1 Maori have not been consulted on this matter.
Penny Langley
Manager Administration
Attachments
|
|
Council 16 June 2016 |
REPORT R5836
Administrative Matters
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To report on a number of administrative matters in order to keep Council up to date.
1.2 To consider applications for funding from the one-off opportunities pool for travel and training.
2. Delegations
2.1 This is a report for consideration by full Council.
3. Recommendation
4. Administrative Matters Report – 2 June 2016
4.1 At the Council meeting on 2 June 2016, Her Worship the Mayor advised that the Administrative Matters report to that meeting would be considered at the Council meeting on 16 June 2016. For the sake of efficiency, the Administrative Matters items for both meetings have been combined in this report.
5. Elected Members Travel and Training Expenditure
Travel and Training Expenditure to 30 April 2016
5.1 At the 12 November 2013 Council meeting it was resolved to take a whole of triennium based approach to budgeting for elected members travel and training.
5.2 At the start of the triennium, each councillor was allocated $5000 for individual travel and training. It was agreed that expenditure would be reported back to every alternate Council meeting.
5.3 It was also agreed that following attendance at an event, elected members would provide a report back to the Chief Executive for sharing with fellow councillors via the Councillors Newsletter. Councillors are reminded to ensure a report back from any training is provided in a timely manner.
5.4 Attachment 1 is a table showing expenditure to 30 April 2016.
Application for funding from the one-off opportunities pool
5.5 Also at the 12 November 2013 Council meeting, a funding pool of $28,975 was set aside for one-off opportunities in the current triennium. Council agreed the criteria for use of the pool as set out in Attachment 1. It is for Council to decide how the pool is allocated, in advance of expenditure taking place and in line with the agreed criteria,
5.6 There is currently $14,610 remaining in the pool for one-off opportunities. Council must formally approve expenditure from this pool in advance, and in line with the agreed criteria set out in Attachment 1. Priority is to be given to opportunities that are open to, and will benefit, all elected members.
5.7 Councillor Lawrey – application for funding
5.7.1 Councillor Lawrey wishes to attend the Local Government New Zealand conference in Dunedin in July this year. The remit Council has proposed to investigate the relocation of more government services to regional centres (supported by Council on 5 May 2016) will likely be discussed at the Annual General Meeting.
5.7.2 This triennium Councillor Lawrey has spent $3551 of his total individual budget of $5000 as follows: 2014 LGNZ conference ($1257); and 2015 LGNZ conference ($2094). This leaves Councillor Lawrey with a remaining budget of $1649 as of May 2016.
5.7.3 The approximate costs of flights ($558), registration ($1445) and accommodation ($570), give a total of $2573 to attend the LGNZ conference. There is a shortfall of $924.
5.7.4 To that end, Councillor Lawrey has requested to access approximately $924 of funding from the additional funding pool.
5.8 Councillor Fulton – application for funding
5.8.1 Councillor Fulton wishes to attend the Local Government New Zealand conference in Dunedin in July this year.
5.8.2 This triennium Councillor Fulton has spent $2,696 of her total individual budget of $5000 as follows: LGNZ training in November 2013 ($790); Media training in 2014 ($649); and 2014 LGNZ conference ($1257). This leaves Councillor Fulton with a remaining budget of $2304 as of May 2016.
5.8.3 The approximate cost of flights ($598), registration ($1445) and accommodation ($570), give a total of $2613 to attend the LGNZ conference. There is a shortfall of $309.
5.8.4 Accordingly, Councillor Fulton has requested to access approximately $309 of funding from the additional funding pool.
5.9 Council needs to consider these requests and pass resolutions accordingly.
6. Meeting attendance
6.1 Elected members’ meeting attendance is recorded for purposes such as official information requests.
6.2 In order to improve transparency on this matter and in line with good practice it seems prudent to routinely report meeting attendance. Providing it this way also allows elected members an opportunity to ensure the record is correct.
6.3 Attachment 3 is a table showing meeting attendance from 20 February 2016 to 13 May 2016.
7. Interests Register
7.1 At the start of the triennium all elected members were requested to declare their interests.
7.2 There is a standing item on each Council and committee meeting agenda asking for updates to the Interests Register and for elected members to identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda. The Interests Register is included as Attachment 4.
7.3 In order to improve transparency and in line with good practice it seems prudent to routinely report on elected members interests. This allows elected members an opportunity to ensure the Register is correct.
8. Schedule of Documents Sealed
8.1 Attachment 5 is the Schedule of Documents Sealed.
9. Other Matters
Updates to Delegations Register
9.1 At the Council meeting on 5 May 2016, Council resolved to establish a Regional Pest Management Committee. It also noted the resignation of Councillor Acland as trustee of the Youth and Community Facilities Trust. Both of these matters require updates to Council’s Delegations Register, which can only be made by resolution of Council.
Selection, Appointment and Remuneration Policy for External Appointees on Council Committees
9.2 The Selection, Appointment and Remuneration Policy for External Appointees on Council Committees (External Appointments Policy) was approved by Council on 15 May 2014. The Policy is included as Attachment 6 (A1181155).
9.3 Effectiveness Review
9.3.1 Section 7.1 of the External Appointment Policy states that “Council will conduct a review of the effectiveness of the addition of external appointees at the mid-point of the triennium.”
9.3.2 At the mid-point of the triennium the appointees had been in their roles for only approximately a year.
9.3.3 On the basis that a year is too short a time to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of appointees, a review of effectiveness was not undertaken at that time. As it is now nearing the end of the appointees’ term it is not practicable to undertake such a review.
9.4 Policy review
The policy will be reviewed in accordance with Section 8.1 of the External Appointment Policy which states that “This policy shall be reviewed three yearly at the commencement of each triennium.”
Penny Langley
Manager Administration
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1551006 - Elected Members Travel and Training Expenditure to 30 April 2016
Attachment 2: A1103850 - Elected Members Travel and Training Budget Criteria 2013-2016
Attachment 3: A1550897 - Elected Members meeting attendance 20Feb2016-14May2016
Attachment 4: A1551189 - Elected members - Interests Register 2013-2016
Attachment 5: A1509979 - Schedule of Documents Sealed 20Feb2016-13May2016
Attachment 6: A1181155 - Selection, Appointment and Remuneration Policy for External Appointees on Council Committees
|
|
Council 16 June 2016 |
REPORT R5965
Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider Council’s representation at the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) 2016 Annual General Meeting (AGM).
2. Delegations
2.1 This is a decision for Council.
3. Recommendation
4. Background
4.1 The 29th AGM of LGNZ is to be held in Dunedin on 24 July 2016 as part of the LGNZ Conference.
4.2 As Council is a member of LGNZ, it is entitled to representation at the 2016 AGM.
4.3 The maximum number of delegates for each local authority at the AGM is determined by that local authority’s population and subscription levels. Council is entitled to be represented by three delegates at the 2016 AGM.
4.4 Please note that the number of representatives at the AGM does not affect the number of delegates able to attend the conference.
4.5 The representation of each member authority is determined by the Mayor or Chair of each local authority. Representation is made up of members which include elected members and staff of all fully financial local authorities.
4.6 The AGM is open to members only and delegates must register by 17 June 2016. The registration form is attached for information.
4.7 The Mayor and Councillor Skinner are currently booked to attend the conference, as is the Chief Executive. Councillors Barker and Fulton have indicated their interest in attending the LGNZ Conference.
4.8 Councillor Lawrey also wishes to attend as it is likely Council’s remit (in which he has an interest) will be considered at the AGM. A request for funding from the elected members’ one-off opportunity funding pool to support Councillor Lawrey’s trip is also on the Council agenda for 16 June 2016.
5. Discussion
5.1 Representation at the AGM is made up of a presiding delegate, other delegates and observers.
5.2 Council should consider who is best to fill these roles.
Presiding delegate
5.3 A presiding delegate is the person responsible for voting on behalf of the authority at the AGM. One presiding delegate must be appointed.
5.4 It would be usual for the presiding delegate to be the Mayor. However, if the Mayor is unavailable to attend, it is proposed that another Councillor be appointed as the alternate presiding delegate.
Other delegates
5.5 Council may be represented by up to two other delegates. According to the LGNZ Constitution a delegate can include officers of local authorities.
5.6 If the presiding delegate is absent from the AGM, ‘other delegates’ may vote on behalf of the local authority.
5.7 Debates at the AGM can prompt the need for advice. Attendance of the Chief Executive at the delegates table to provide this function if required is good practice.
Observers
5.8 Persons attending the AGM as observers will have no speaking or voting rights and will be seated separately from the main delegation.
Remit process
5.9 The remit process was outlined in the Mayor’s Report of 24 March 2016.
5.10 The deadline for lodging remits with LGNZ was 13 June 2016.
Obituaries
5.11 LGNZ request obituary notices for inclusion in the AGM proceedings for the period from 19 July 2015 onwards. These should be advised in writing no later than 13 July 2016.
6. Options
6.1 Council can either appoint attendees as delegates for the purposes of voting at the 2016 LGNZ AGM or not.
7. Alignment with relevant Council policy
7.1 The decision to appoint delegates to vote at the LGNZ AGM is not inconsistent with any previous decisions of Council.
8. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy
8.1 This decision is not considered to be significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
9. Consultation
9.1 No consultation has been undertaken on this matter.
10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process
10.1 No consultation with Maori has been undertaken on this matter.
Penny Langley
Manager Administration
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1552098 - Local Government New Zealand AGM 2016 Registration Form and Information
Minutes of a meeting of the Hearings Panel - Other
Held in Ruma Marama, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 5 May 2016, commencing at 8.15am
Present: Councillor B McGurk (Chairperson) and Deputy Mayor P Matheson
In Attendance: Investigator/Contracts Supervisor (M Hollows), Roading Network Coordinator (T Chapman) and Administration Adviser (J McDougall)
1. Confirmation of Order of Business
There was no change to the order of business.
2. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
3. Temporary Road Closure (Light Nelson Festival)
Document number A1538713, agenda pages 4-9 refer.
Investigator/Contracts Supervisor, Mark Hollows, presented the report, and advised that no feedback had been received since the proposed road closure was advertised.
Mr Hollows noted that the event would take place during a holiday break at the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, meaning that there would be less people than usual parking in the area.
It was noted that five days would be a long closure for residents.
In answer to a query, Mr Hollows advised that all the residents in Hardy and Alton Streets had been visited personally, been given a copy of the advertisement and had been given the opportunity to give feedback. He said that other streets in the vicinity of the Light Nelson Festival e.g. Tasman Street had received a letter box drop about the proposed closure.
It was noted that over the five days of the Festival, approximately 20,000 people would visit the area and parking could be a problem.
A traffic management plan was requested as the event was being held in the evening and there would be many pedestrians in nearby streets such as Collingwood and Hardy Streets.
It was noted that residents needed to be able to both leave and return to their homes during the road closures.
It was suggested that the traffic management plan could include: no parking (or parking on one side only) on Tasman Street and possibly parts of Nile Street to allow for traffic and pedestrian flow; a designated residents parking area on the NMIT campus and/or Buxton carpark (only 100m away); and consideration of the fact that Queens Gardens would be part of the Light Nelson Festival.
Resolved
THAT the report Temporary Road Closure (Light Nelson Festival) (A1538713) and its attachment (A1540102) be received;
AND THAT, subject to a suitable traffic management plan, the Hearings Panel approve the application for the temporary road closures for the Light Nelson Festival from Friday 8 July until Wednesday 13 July 2016)
McGurk/Matheson Carried
Officers agreed to prepare a traffic management plan for discussion with Councillors McGurk and Matheson. It was agreed that decisions about parking and traffic management would be advertised, prior to the Light Nelson Festival event.
There being no further business the meeting ended at 8.29am.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
Minutes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Tuesday 10 May 2016, commencing at 9.00am
Present: Councillor E Davy (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors I Barker, L Acland, R Copeland, M Lawrey (Deputy Chairperson), G Noonan and T Skinner
In Attendance: Councillor M Ward, Chief Executive (C Hadley), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Senior Asset Engineer - Solid Waste (J Thiart), Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading (R Palmer), Asset Engineer - Transport (C Pawson), Manager Communications and Acting Manager Libraries and Heritage Facilities (P Shattock), Youth Councillors (M Dahal and B Rumsey), and Administration Adviser (L Canton)
1. Apologies
There were no apologies.
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
There was no change to the order of business.
3. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Public Forum
4.1 Graham Wells – Recycling and Rubbish Collection
Mr Wells did not attend.
5. Confirmation of Minutes
5.1 31 March 2016
Document number M1798, agenda pages 8 - 16 refer.
|
Resolved WI/2016/032 THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held on 31 March 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record. Davy/Skinner Carried |
Attendance: Councillor Acland joined the meeting at 9.03am.
6. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 10 May 2016
Document number R5849, agenda pages 17 - 21 refer.
|
Resolved WI/2016/033 THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 10 May 2016 (R5849) and its attachment (A1150321) be received. Lawrey/Copeland Carried |
7. Chairperson's Report
There was no Chairperson’s report.
Transport and Roading
8. Main Road Stoke Speed Limit - Deliberations Report
Document number R5622, agenda pages 22 - 72 refer.
Asset Engineer – Transport, Chris Pawson, presented the report.
In response to questions regarding cyclists, Mr Pawson explained how cycle safety issues around the Elms Street intersection were addressed in the concept design for safety improvement works in that section of Main Road Stoke.
Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor joined the meeting at 9.09am.
In response to further questions, Mr Pawson said it was expected that reducing the speed limit from 80km/hour to 60km/hour would result in increased throughput and a small but unnoticeable increase in travel time.
Mr Pawson presented the concept design for safety improvement works (A1550184).
Council Davy moved and Councillor Acland seconded the recommendation in the officer’s report.
Councillors speaking in support of the motion noted the importance of addressing cycle safety. Some concerns with the narrowing of the southbound on-road cycle lane were noted. Officers said they expected any remaining safety issues would be identified in a post-construction audit.
|
Attachments 1 A1550184 - Elm Street Intersection layout |
|
Resolved WI/2016/034 THAT the report Main Road Stoke Speed Limit - Deliberations Report (R5622) and its attachments (A1521274, A1486083 and A1521649) be received; AND THAT it be agreed that the speed limit on Main Road Stoke between Saxton Road and Salisbury Road be reduced from 80km/h to 60km/h on completion of the Elms Street/Main Road Stoke intersection safety improvements and associated speed reduction measures; AND THAT schedules G and I in the Speed Limits Bylaw 2011 be amended to reflect this change; AND THAT physical works approved at the Elms Street/Main Road Stoke intersection be funded from the Minor Improvements budget in 2016/17. Davy/Acland Carried |
9. Waimea Road Refuge - Consultation outcomes
Document number R5770, agenda pages 73 - 77 refer.
Senior Asset Engineer - Transport and Roading, Rhys Palmer, presented the report and gave a PowerPoint presentation (A1546729) on the Waimea Road Refuge concept plan. He explained that the presentation showed desire lines which influenced the placement of pedestrian refuges and showed that the pedestrian refuge was appropriately sited.
In response to questions, Mr Palmer explained how safety issues for pedestrians and motorists were addressed in the concept plan. He added that although the cyclist pinch point identified by a submitter did exist, it would not be exacerbated and on balance, the new design was a safer solution than the current situation where pedestrians crossed at will.
|
Attachments 1 A1546729 - Waimea Road pedestrian refuge consultation outcomes |
|
Resolved WI/2016/035 THAT the report Waimea Road Refuge - Consultation outcomes (R5770) and its attachment (A1531450) be received; AND THAT in line with community feedback, approval be given to construct a pedestrian refuge in the location shown in attachment 1 at an estimated cost of $30,000. Lawrey/Copeland Carried |
Water, Wastewater, Stormwater
10. Capital Project Budget Status Report
Document number R5818, agenda pages 78 - 80 refer.
Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report.
|
Resolved WI/2016/036 THAT the Capital Project Budget Status Report (R5818) be received; Davy/Lawrey Carried |
|
Recommendation to Council WI/2016/037 THAT with respect to the Montcalm/ Arrow/Washington Valley/Hastings stormwater upgrade project that $116,000 be transferred from the current provision in 2016/17 to 2015/16 to maintain continuity of this multi-year project. Davy/Lawrey Carried
|
SOLID WASTE
11. Future of Green Waste
Document number R5797, agenda pages 81 - 85 refer.
Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report. Senior Asset Engineer - Solid Waste, Johan Thiart, joined the meeting.
In response to questions, Mr Louverdis explained the likely volumes and costs of the green waste collected at Pascoe Street transfer station and how it would be stored whilst options for further disposal were considered. He confirmed that, once a solution for green waste was agreed, the public would not experience any change to the current service at the Pascoe Street transfer station.
In response to further questions, Mr Louverdis said that discussions with Tasman District Council on a potential partnership for green waste would most likely include non-priced attributes and price. He explained that discussions would reserve Nelson City Council’s right to explore other options, and that Nelson City Council would not be bound by any outcome of the joint tender with Tasman District Council.
Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 10.23am.
Councillor Acland moved and Councillor Davy seconded the recommendations in the officer report.
During discussion of the motion, councillors discussed the possibility of further education to encourage ratepayers to deal with their green waste at home in line with the Nelson 2060 strategy’s sustainability and lifestyle principles, but it was also noted that intensified housing limited space for home composting.
Attendance: Councillor Lawrey returned to the meeting at 10.28am.
Some councillors expressed a view that a contract with a commercial operator was preferred over a joint approach with Tasman District Council. It was suggested that eventually the cost of taking green waste to the transfer station may override the convenience aspect to ratepayers.
It was noted that the ability to take green waste to the Pascoe Street transfer station was valued by ratepayers. Mr Louverdis said it was anticipated that the new arrangement would maintain the current level of service to ratepayers as ratepayers would still take green waste to the transfer station. Councillors requested that the outcome of the tendering process be reported back to the Works and Infrastructure Committee before a final decision was made.
Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 10.43am to 10.53am.
With the agreement of the mover and seconder, the last clause of the motion was amended to incorporate a report back to the Committee for decision.
|
Resolved WI/2016/038 THAT the report Future of green waste (R5797) be received. Acland/Davy Carried |
|
Recommendation to Council WI/2016/039 THAT following a review of green waste services at the request of Council: THAT Nelson City Council partner with Tasman District Council to call for public tenders with respect to their green waste in June 2016; AND THAT failing success with this approach with Tasman District Council, that officers be authorised to negotiate a contract with a commercial operator to accept Nelson City Council’s green waste; AND THAT in the interim, Council continues to take green waste at the Pascoe Street transfer station; AND THAT the outcome of the tendering process, either in partnership with Tasman District Council, or with a commercial operator, be reported back to the Works and Infrastructure Committee for a decision. Acland/Davy Carried |
12. Exclusion of the Public
|
Resolved WI/2016/040 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: Davy/Lawrey Carried |
|
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 |
Works and Infrastructure Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 31 March 2016 |
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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). |
|
2 |
Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 10 May 2016
|
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)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information |
The meeting went into public excluded session at 10.55am and resumed in public session at 11.00am.
Please note that as the only business transacted in public excluded was to confirm the minutes and receive the status report, this business has been recorded in the public minutes. In accordance with the Local Government Official Information Meetings Act, no reason for withholding this information from the public exists.
|
13. Confirmation of Minutes - Public Excluded |
|
|
|
Document number M1799, public excluded agenda pages 3 – 6 refer. |
|
|
Resolved WI/2016/041 THAT the minutes of part of the meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, held with the public excluded on 31 March 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record. Davy/Lawrey Carried |
|
14. Status Report - Works and Infrastructure Committee - 10 May 2016 - Public Excluded |
|
|
|
Document number R5850, public excluded agenda pages 7 – 8 refer. |
|
|
Resolved WI/2016/042 THAT the Status Report Works and Infrastructure Committee 10- May 2016 (R5850) and its attachment (A1150333) be received. Davy/Noonan Carried |
15. Re-admittance of the Public
|
Resolved WI/2016/043 THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting. Davy/Noonan Carried |
There being no further business the meeting ended at 11.00am.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee to hear submissions to the Draft Fees and Charges Resource Consent Activity and Fencing of Swimming Pools fees and Charges
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 19 May 2016, commencing at 9.01am
Present: Councillor B McGurk (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors I Barker, R Copeland, E Davy, K Fulton (Deputy Chairperson), M Lawrey, M Ward and Ms G Paine
In Attendance: Councillor P Matheson, Chief Executive (C Hadley), Group Manager Strategy and Environment (C Barton), Manager Communications and Acting Manager Libraries and Heritage Facilities (P Shattock), and Administration Adviser (J McDougall)
Apology: Councillor K Fulton
1. Apologies
|
Resolved PR/2016/025 THAT an apology be received and accepted from Councillor Fulton. McGurk/Davy Carried |
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
There was no change to the order of business.
3. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Hearing of Submissions to the Draft Fees and Charges Resource Consent Activity and Fencing of Swimming Pools Fees and Charges
Document number R5900, agenda pages 4 - 13 refer.
4.1 Brad Cadwallader – Cadwallader Tree Consultancy – Draft Fees and Charges Resource Consent Activity
Mr Cadwallader spoke to his submission, and suggested that “qualified arborist” be replaced by the words “suitably qualified and experienced arborist”.
In response to a question, Mr Cadwallader said that a Level 5 arborist qualification would be appropriate for assessing heritage trees, and he thought there were probably four to five people in the Nelson area with this qualification.
He suggested adding a clause that, where a tree was causing serious structural damage to a dwelling and it was proven that there was no practical remedy available, there should be no consent fee for the removal of the tree.
He suggested further that the consent fee for the pruning or trimming of heritage trees, confirmed in writing by a qualified arborist, to be conducted according to best arboricultural practice, should be $500 rather than $1300.
4.2 David Marsh – Fencing of Swimming Pools Fees and Charges
Mr Marsh spoke to his submission. He suggested that no inspection should be required where swimming pool fences or gates were permanent fixtures, and where property owners confirmed in writing to Council every three years that no changes had been made, and the fences and/or gates were functioning correctly.
There being no further business the meeting ended at 9.16am.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 19 May 2016, commencing at 9.17am
Present: Councillor B McGurk (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors I Barker, R Copeland, E Davy, M Lawrey, M Ward and Ms G Paine
In Attendance: Councillor P Matheson, Chief Executive (C Hadley), Group Manager Strategy and Environment (C Barton), Manager Communications and Acting Manager Libraries and Heritage Facilities (P Shattock), Manager Consents and Compliance (M Bishop), Manager Building (M Brown), Manager Environmental Programmes (D Evans), and Administration Adviser (J McDougall)
Apology: Councillor K Fulton
1. Apology
|
Resolved PR/2016/023 THAT an apology be received and accepted from Councillor Fulton. McGurk/Davy Carried |
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
There was no change to the order of business.
3. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Public Forum
There was no public forum.
5. Confirmation of Minutes
5.1 21 April 2016
Document number M1843, agenda pages 5 - 11 refer.
|
Resolved PR/2016/024 THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 21 April 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record. Lawrey/Ward Carried |
6. Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - 19 May 2016
Document number R5899, agenda pages 12 - 14 refer.
|
Resolved PR/2016/025 THAT the Status Report Planning and Regulatory Committee 19 May 2016 (R5899) and its attachment (A1155974) be received. Davy/Ward Carried |
7. Chairperson's Report
Document number R5916, agenda page 15 refers.
|
Resolved PR/2016/026 THAT the Chairperson's Report (R5916) be received, and the contents noted. McGurk/Paine Carried |
Regulatory
8. Building Unit Fees and Charges from 1 July 2016
Document number R5774, agenda pages 16 - 26 refer.
Manager Building (Martin Brown) spoke to the report. In answer to a query, Mr Brown advised that applications regarding the erection of marquees often came in less than 20 days before the date needed, which resulted in extra work, and therefore costs, for staff and inspectors.
Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor left the meeting at 9.34am.
Group Manager Strategy and Environment (Clare Barton), confirmed that officers had delegated power to set fees and charges.
Councillor McGurk, seconded by Councillor Ward, moved the following motion from the officer report.
THAT the report Building Unit Fees and Charges from 1 July 2016 and its attachment (A1535679) be received and noted.
Concern was expressed about the increases and it was suggested that, in future, if fees need to be raised that it be done incrementally.
Attendance: Ms Paine declared an interest.
A division was called:
|
Councillor Barker |
No |
|
Councillor Copeland |
No |
|
Councillor Davy |
No |
|
Councillor Fulton |
Apology |
|
Councillor Lawrey |
No |
|
Councillor McGurk |
Aye |
|
Councillor Ward |
Aye |
|
Her Worship the Mayor |
Absent |
|
External appointee – Glenice Paine yes |
Interest declared |
The motion was lost, 4-2.
Policy and Planning
9. Strategy and Environment Report for 1 January to 31 March 2016
Document number R5424, agenda pages 27 - 44 refer.
Manager Consents and Compliance (Mandy Bishop) and Manager Building (Martin Brown), presented the report.
Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 9.47am to 9.50am.
In response to a query, Ms Bishop advised that parking wardens took action regarding vehicles being advertised for sale at the roadside.
|
Resolved PR/2016/027 THAT the report Strategy and Environment Report for 1 January to 31 March 2016 (R5424) and its attachment (A1514360) be received. Davy/Ward Carried |
There being no further business the meeting ended at 9.57am.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
Minutes of a meeting of the Chief Executive Employment Committee
Held in Ruma Ana, Level 2B, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Monday 23 May 2016, commencing at 1.03pm
Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors L Acland and P Matheson (Deputy Mayor)
In Attendance: Chief Executive (C Hadley), Administration Adviser (S Burgess), and External Adviser (P Bell)
1. Apologies
There were no apologies.
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
There was no change to the order of business.
3. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Public Forum
There was no public forum.
5. Confirmation of Minutes
5.1 22 February 2016
Document number M1717, agenda pages 6 - 9 refer.
|
Resolved CEE/2016/005 THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Chief Executive Employment Committee, held on 22 February 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record. Matheson/Acland Carried |
6. Exclusion of the Public
Paul Bell, of Intepeople, was to be in attendance for items 2 and 3 of the Public Excluded agenda and, accordingly, the following resolution was required to be passed:
|
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 |
Chief Executive Employment Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 22 February 2016 |
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. |
|
2 |
Chief Executive's Performance Report - Third quarter update
|
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 |
|
3 |
Draft KPIs 2016/17
|
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 |
The meeting went into public excluded session at 1.05pm and resumed in public session at 2.01pm.
7. Re-admittance of the Public
|
Resolved CEE/2016/008 THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting. Her Worship the Mayor/Matheson Carried |
There being no further business the meeting ended at 2.01pm.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
Minutes of a meeting of the Community Services Committee
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 26 May 2016, commencing at 9.03am
Present: Councillor P Rainey (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors M Lawrey, P Matheson, G Noonan (Deputy Chairperson), T Skinner and M Ward
In Attendance: Councillors I Barker, K Fulton and B McGurk, Chief Executive (C Hadley), Group Manager Community Services (C Ward), Manager Communications (P Shattock), Manager Administration (P Langley), Administration Adviser (S Burgess), and Youth Councillors (K Phipps and A James)
1. Apologies
There were no apologies.
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
There was no change to the order of business.
3. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Public Forum
4.1 Friends of the Glen
Bernard Downey, Merin Burdon, Bob Burdon and Nicole Gooley spoke to the Committee about the history of the Glen Playground land and the development of the Playground. They thanked Council and its officers for the support and funding for the Playground. A PowerPoint presentation was given (A1555358) which showed photos of the Playground’s development.
Mr Downey and Ms Gooley raised concerns about ditch drainage at The Glen, and provided detail of overflows onto properties.
On behalf of Council, the Chairperson thanked the Glen Playgroup and Friends of the Glen for their efforts regarding the Glen Playground.
|
Attachments 1 A1555358 - Friends of the Glen - Glen Playground Presentation |
4.2 Nelson Multicultural Council
Barbara Bedeschi and Soheil Ighani gave a PowerPoint presentation (A1554792) and provided a handout (A1554788) on the Nelson Multicultural Council (NMC).
Ms Bedeschi spoke about the purpose and history of the NMC and the challenges it faced with the recent reduction in funding and staff. She emphasised the NMC’s function of being a gateway organisation for migrants and refugees when they move to Nelson.
Ms Bedeschi said the NMC wished to start dialogue with Council to discuss collaboration, joint initiatives, connections and long term planning, for the benefit of both the community and Council. She spoke about the dream to create a migrant hub for ideas, business, leadership and diversity.
In response to questions, Ms Bedeschi advised that the NMC had enough funding to pay their coordinator for a further six months, and would likely be closed in eight months if further funding could not be arranged. She said the NMC would need $145,000 per annum to provide an appropriate level of service.
In response to further questions Ms Bedeschi explained the welcome centre on Bridge Street had been moved to the second storey to save money. She said the NMC needed skilled people to join its Board, as well as funding for analysis of the situation with regards to migrants and refugees.
|
Attachments 1 A1554788 - Nelson Multicultural Council Handout 2 A1554792 - Nelson Multicultural Council PowerPoint |
5. Confirmation of Minutes
5.1 14 April 2016
Document number M1830, agenda pages 8 - 14 refer.
|
Resolved CS/2016/024 THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Community Services Committee, held on 14 April 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record. Ward/Matheson Carried |
6. Status Report - Community Services Committee - 26 May 2016
Document number R5933, agenda pages 15 - 18 refer.
In response to a question, Group Manager Community Services, Chris Ward, provided further detail on the progress of the successful Arts Fund concepts.
|
Resolved CS/2016/027 THAT the Status Report Community Services Committee 26 May 2016 (R5933) and its attachment (A1157454) be received. Skinner/Noonan Carried |
7. Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson gave an update on meetings regarding the draft Marina Strategy, highlighting that some common feedback had been received. He also spoke about continued work with the BMX Club at Saxton Field.
The Chairperson advised that the Youth and Community Facilities Trust had ceased operations, and thanked the Trust on behalf of Council for its work in the community.
Recreation and Leisure
8. Stoke Community and Sports Facility - Fees and Charges
Document number R5724, agenda pages 19 - 25 refer.
Manager Operations and Asset Management, Peter Anderson, and Major Projects Engineer, Darryl Olverson, presented the report. An update to the Community Centre Hire fees was tabled (A1556888).
It was noted that the heading in the main hall fees table ‘Meeting Non-Commercial/Cultural’ would be adjusted for greater clarity.
In response to a question, Group Manager Community Services, Chris Ward, advised that the proposed fees were similar to those charged by other facilities which were well used.
|
Resolved CS/2016/028 THAT the report Stoke Community and Sports Facility - Fees and Charges (R5724) and its attachment (A1546950) be received; Lawrey/Ward Carried Resolved CS/2016/029 AND THAT the amended Stoke Community and Sports Facility Fees and Charges as per Attachment 1 (A1546950) of Report R5724 be approved for 2016/17. Matheson/Ward Carried |
|
Attachments 1 A1556888 - Stoke Community and Sports Facility Updated Main Hall fees |
Community Development
9. Funding Reallocation for Youth Activities in 2016/17
Document number R5897, agenda pages 26 - 29 refer.
Manager Community Partnerships, Shanine Hermsen, presented the report.
|
Resolved CS/2016/030 THAT the report Funding Reallocation for Youth Activities in 2016/17(R5897) be received. Rainey/Lawrey Carried |
In response to questions, Ms Hermsen explained that Council funding for the Youth and Community Facilities Trust (YCT) had previously been for youth recreation activities and the manager’s salary. She added the YCT also received community investment funding and provided a range of other services.
Concerns were raised about gaps in service that may result from the YCT ceasing operations.
In response to a question, Group Manager Community Services, Chris Ward, advised that emergency housing was primarily an issue for central government. He added that the YCT had focussed on wraparound support for youth with emergency housing needs.
In response to a question, Ms Hermsen advised that a Youth Strategy would enable Council to go into more detail about planning for youth, as opposed to the high-level vision information in Council’s Social Wellbeing Policy.
Councillor Ward, seconded by Councillor Noonan, moved a motion:
THAT the $100,000 allocated to the Youth and Community Facilities Trust in the 2016/17 draft Annual Plan be reallocated to youth activities for 2016/17 only, in alignment with Community Investment Fund processes;
AND THAT the funding be allocated in line with the Youth section of Council’s Social Wellbeing Policy 2011 and the Community Assistance Policy 2015 with consideration given to resulting gaps in the services provided by Youth and Community Facilities Trust;
AND THAT Council engages with stakeholders in the youth sector to develop a Youth Strategy to guide future Council support for youth development and activities.
The Committee discussed the motion, with some concerned the reference to gaps in services provided by the YCT would limit the allocation of funding.
Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 10.19am to 10.24am.
The efforts of the trustees of the YCT and the Chairperson of the Community Services Committee were acknowledged.
|
Recommendation to Council CS/2016/031 THAT the $100,000 allocated to the Youth and Community Facilities Trust in the 2016/17 draft Annual Plan be reallocated to youth activities for 2016/17 only, in alignment with Community Investment Fund processes; AND THAT the funding be allocated in line with the Youth section of Council’s Social Wellbeing Policy 2011 and the Community Assistance Policy 2015 with consideration given to resulting gaps in the services provided by Youth and Community Facilities Trust; AND THAT Council engages with stakeholders in the youth sector to develop a Youth Strategy to guide future Council support for youth development and activities. Ward/Noonan Carried
|
REports from Committees
10. Nelson Youth Council Update
Document number R5931, agenda pages 30 - 40 refer.
Nelson Youth Councillors, Alana James and Keegan Phipps, spoke about the recent Rockquest event, initiatives in youth employment, the youth councillors’ plan of action, and how the Nelson Youth Council was shown as a model example of a youth council at the recent Aotearoa Youth Declaration conference.
|
11. Youth Council Minutes - 22 March 2016 |
|
|
|
Resolved CS/2016/032 THAT the minutes of a meeting of the Nelson Youth Council, held on 22 March 2016, be received. Rainey/Lawrey Carried |
|
12. Youth Council Minutes - 13 April 2016 |
|
|
|
Resolved CS/2016/033 THAT the minutes of a meeting of the Nelson Youth Council, held on 13 April 2016, be received. Rainey/Skinner Carried |
Attendance: Councillor Ward left the meeting at 10.33am.
|
13. Community Investment Funding Panel - 15 April 2016 |
|
|
|
Resolved CS/2016/034 THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Community Investment Funding Panel, held on 15 April 2016, be received. Rainey/Ward Carried |
14. Exclusion of the Public
Attendance: Councillor Ward returned to the meeting at 10.37am.
|
Resolved CS/2016/035 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: Noonan/Matheson Carried |
|
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 |
Community Services Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 14 April 2016 |
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. |
|
2 |
Status Report - Community Services Committee - 26 May 2016
|
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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
|
3 |
Stoke Community and Sports Facility - User Agreements
|
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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
|
4 |
Community lease - Get Moving, Saxton Field
|
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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
|
|
5 |
Community lease - Tahunanui Community Centre
|
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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
The meeting went into public excluded session at 10.37am and resumed in public session at 12.01pm, during which time Her Worship the Mayor left the meeting.
15. Re-admittance of the Public
|
Resolved CS/2016/036 THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting. Rainey/Skinner Carried |
There being no further business the meeting ended at 12.01pm.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Minutes of an extraordinary meeting of the Governance Committee
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 26 May 2016, commencing at 1.57pm
Present: Councillor
I Barker (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors L Acland
(Deputy Chairperson), E Davy,
K Fulton, P Matheson, B McGurk, G Noonan, and P Rainey, and Mr J Murray and Mr
J Peters
In Attendance: Councillor M Ward, Group Manager Strategy and Environment (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (C Ward), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Senior Strategic Adviser (N McDonald), Manager Communications and Acting Manager Libraries and Heritage Facilities (P Shattock), and Administration Adviser (E-J Ruthven)
Apologies: Her Worship the Mayor for lateness, and Mr John Peters for early departure
1. Apologies
|
Resolved GOV/2016/046 THAT apologies be received and accepted from Her Worship the Mayor for lateness, and Mr John Peters for early departure. Davy/McGurk Carried |
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
The Chair advised of two late items for the public excluded part of the meeting, and that procedural resolutions needed to be passed for the items to be considered at the meeting.
2.1 Bett Carpark - Referral to Council
Document number 5974, late item refers
In response to a question, Group Manager Strategy and Environment, Clare Barton, explained the timeframes behind the late item.
|
Resolved GOV/2016/047 THAT the item regarding Bett Carpark - Referral to Council be considered at this meeting as a major item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable a timely decision to be made. McGurk/Murray Carried |
|
Attachments 1 A1559027 - Tabled Document - Late Item - Bett Carpark - Referral to Council |
2.2 Civic Assurance Directors’ Remuneration and Reappointments
Document number 5973, late item refers
|
Resolved GOV/2016/048 THAT the item regarding Civic Assurance Directors’ Remuneration and Reappointments be considered at this meeting as a major item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable a timely decision to be made. Davy/Matheson Carried |
3. Public Forum
There was no public forum.
4. Confirmation of Minutes
4.1 21 April 2016
Document number M1845
|
Resolved GOV/2016/049 THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Governance Committee, held on 21 April 2016, be confirmed as a true and correct record. Davy/McGurk Carried |
5. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
6. Status Report - Governance Committee 26 May 2016
There was no status report.
7. Chairperson's Report
The Chairperson advised that a report regarding directorships of Council Controlled Organisations would be on the agenda of the next Committee meeting.
|
Resolved GOV/2016/050 THAT the Chairperson’s oral report be received. Barker/Murray Carried |
Governance
8. Bett Carpark - Referral to Council
Document number R5974, late item refers.
In response to questions, Ms Barton highlighted that, should a Council decision to sell Bett Carpark be made later than 2 June 2016, the purchaser would face significant time constraints for the resource consent application process.
Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor joined the meeting at 2.12pm.
The Committee discussed whether to refer the item to Council for consideration at its meeting on 2 June 2016.
During discussion, it was noted that Committee members were unaware of the details of the proposals received by Council with respect to the Bett Carpark Special Housing Area, and accordingly, it was difficult to assess whether the matter should be referred to Council at this stage.
Attendance, the meeting adjourned from 2.17pm to 2.33pm, during which time Councillor Fulton left the meeting.
The Chairperson advised that the item would lie on the table, to be considered later in the meeting.
Attendance: Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 2.35pm.
9. Civic Assurance Directors' Remuneration and Reappointments
Document number R5973, late item refers.
Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison, presented the report.
Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor left the meeting from 2.34pm to 2.35pm.
|
Resolved GOV/2016/051 THAT the report Civic Assurance Directors' Remuneration and Reappointments (R5973) and its attachment (A1554033) be received. McGurk/Davy Carried |
|
Resolved GOV/2016/052 THAT in the matter of remuneration of directors of the New Zealand Local Government Insurance Corporation Ltd that Nelson City Council submit a proxy vote against the proposal to increase fees by 15%. Davy/Acland Carried |
There was a discussion regarding the officer recommendation with regards to the reappointment of directors.
In response to a question, Ms Harrison outlined the number of terms that the directors seeking reappointment had served for.
Attendance: Councillor Davy left the meeting from 2.40pm to 2.44pm.
|
Recommendation to Council GOV/2016/053 THAT in the matter of reappointment of Directors Messrs MA Butcher and AJ Marryatt that Nelson City Council submit a proxy vote against. Matheson/Noonan Carried |
10. Bett Carpark - Referral to Council (continued)
The meeting returned to consider the item Bett Carpark – Referral to Council.
It was noted that the discussion regarding whether to proceed with any of the Bett Carpark proposals received would be held in public excluded session.
Attendance: Councillor Davy left the meeting at 2.50pm.
Committee members discussed further the time constraints relating to the Special Housing Area process, and a variety of views were expressed as to whether the matter should be referred to Council.
During discussion, Committee members noted the difficulties involved with undertaking robust public engagement with the community regarding the potential developments for Bett Carpark, due to the public excluded nature of the sale process, and confidentiality of proposed designs.
|
Resolved THAT the report Bett Carpark - Referral to Council (R5974) be received; AND THAT the Governance Committee refer to Council its delegation regarding the sale of land, in respect of the proposal to sell Bett Carpark. Her Worship the Mayor/Fulton |
Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor left the meeting at 3.06pm.
11. Uniquely Nelson - Memorandum of Understanding
Document number R5683
Group Manager Community Services, Chris Ward, presented the report and introduced Simon Duffy, of Uniquely Nelson.
Mr Duffy explained that Uniquely Nelson had expanded its view of the concept of the Nelson CBD, and alongside retailers, would now also promote other providers that brought people into the wider CBD area, such as Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, The Suter Art Gallery and others.
Attendance: Councillor Acland left the meeting at 3.08pm, and Mr Peters left the meeting at 3.09pm.
In response to a question, Mr Duffy explained that retailers had generally been in favour of Uniquely Nelson taking a broader view, recognising that other activities in the central city often impacted positively on retailers and hospitality providers.
There was a discussion regarding the Memorandum of Understanding. In response to a question, Group Manager Community Services, Chris Ward, explained that Uniquely Nelson’s performance had not been specifically measured against the points in the Memorandum of Understanding, but that during the review of the Economic Development Agency and the creation of the Nelson Regional Development Agency, it had been noted that Uniquely Nelson provided good value to the city.
Mr Duffy then outlined a new initiative undertaken by Uniquely Nelson, ‘LoveNelson’, which allowed Nelson retailers to have an online trading presence.
|
Resolved GOV/2016/054 THAT the report Uniquely Nelson - Memorandum of Understanding (R5683) and its attachments (A1380525 and A1547869) be received. Rainey/Noonan Carried |
|
Recommendation to Council GOV/2016/055 THAT the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Uniquely Nelson and Nelson City Council (A1380525) be approved as the MoU for the 2016/17 year. Murray/Rainey Carried
|
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES
12. Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee - 10 May 2016
Document number M1874, agenda pages 44-49 refer.
Attendance: Councillor Rainey left the meeting from 3.28pm to 3.29pm, and Councillor Fulton left the meeting from 3.28pm to 3.30pm.
|
Resolved GOV/2016/056 THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee, held on 10 May 2016, be received. Murray/McGurk Carried |
12.1 Internal Audit Report to 31 March 2016
|
Recommendation to Council GOV/2016/057 THAT Council note the internal audit findings, recommendations and status of action plans up to 31 March 2016 (R5793). Murray/Barker |
12.2 Corporate Report to 31 March 2016
|
Recommendation to Council GOV/2016/058 THAT the transfer of legal budget from the Corporate activity to the Planning activity in 2015/16 in order to obtain economic and traffic evidence for the submission to Tasman District Council on the proposed Progressive Enterprises Ltd Private Plan Change be noted. Murray/Noonan |
Attendance: Councillor Rainey left the meeting at 3.31pm.
13. Commercial Subcommittee - 10 May 2016
Document number M1877, agenda pages 50-52 refer.
|
Resolved GOV/2016/059 THAT the unconfirmed minutes of a meeting of the Commercial Subcommittee, held on 10 May 2016, be received. Murray/Noonan Carried |
14. Exclusion of the Public
|
Resolved GOV/2016/060 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: Matheson/Noonan Carried |
|
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 |
Governance Committee Meeting – Public Excluded Minutes – 21 April 2016 |
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)(i) |
|
2 |
Commercial Subcommittee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 10 May 2016 |
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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). |
The meeting went into public excluded session at 3.33pm, and resumed in public session at 3.36pm.
15. Re-admittance of the Public
|
Resolved GOV/2016/061 THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting. Noonan/Barker Carried |
There being no further business the meeting ended at 3.36pm.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 2 June 2016, commencing at 4.51pm
Present: Councillor B McGurk (Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors I Barker, K Fulton (Deputy Chairperson), M Lawrey, and M Ward
In Attendance: Group Manager Strategy and Environment (C Barton), Manager Communications and Acting Manager Libraries and Heritage Facilities (P Shattock), Manager Administration (P Langley) and Administration Advisers (S Burgess and J McDougall)
Apologies: Councillors R Copeland and E Davy, and Ms G Paine
1. Apologies
|
Resolved PR/2016/028 THAT apologies be received and accepted from Councillors R Copeland and E Davy, and Ms G Paine. McGurk/Barker Carried |
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
There was no change to the order of business.
3. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Public Forum
There was no public forum.
5. Confirmation of Minutes
Document number R5972, agenda pages 5 - 6 refer.
Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop, noted that the last paragraph of 4.1 of the draft minutes currently read as follows:
He suggested further that the consent fee for the removal of heritage trees confirmed in writing by a qualified arborist as diseased or a threat to public safety should be $500 rather than $1300.
Ms Bishop recommended that the wording be amended to read as follows:
He suggested further that the consent fee for the pruning or trimming of heritage trees, confirmed in writing by a qualified arborist, to be conducted according to best arboricultural practice, should be $500 rather than $1300.
|
Resolved PR/2016/029 THAT the amended minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 19 May 2016 (R5972), be confirmed as a true and correct record. Barker/Ward Carried |
Regulatory
6. Deliberations on Fees and Charges for Resource Consent, Food Act and Fencing of Swimming Pools Act activities commencing 1 July 2016
Document number R5876, agenda pages 7 - 20 refer.
Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop, and Manager Building, Martin Brown, presented the report.
Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor left the meeting at 4.55pm.
Ms Bishop said that officers supported the $500 consent fee for the pruning or trimming of heritage trees, as suggested by a submitter and that the fee schedule and response to submitters would be amended.
It was noted that a lower fee of $500 for pruning and trimming would be likely to encourage early intervention where a tree appeared to be diseased, a threat to public safety or causing damage to structures.
|
Resolved PR/2016/030 THAT the report Deliberations on Fees and Charges for Resource Consent, Food Act and Fencing of Swimming Pools Act activities commencing 1 July 2016 (R5876) and its attachments (A1546954, A1546317 and A1547270) be received. Lawrey/Fulton Carried |
|
Recommendation to Council PR/2016/031 THAT the amended table in Section 5 of this report (R5876) be used as the basis of providing responses to submitters on the matters raised in submissions; AND THAT the amended draft Fees and Charges Resource Consents and Resource Management Act Planning Documents as detailed in Attachment 1 (A1546954) be adopted; AND THAT the draft Food Act 2014 Fees and Charges as detailed in Attachment 2 (A1546317) be adopted; AND THAT the draft Building Unit Fees and Charges Swimming Pools monitoring fee as detailed in Attachment 3 (A1547270) be adopted. McGurk/Lawrey Carried
|
There being no further business the meeting ended at 4.58pm.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
