Council Tuesday 16 July 2019 at 10.30am
|
|
|
|
Council Meeting
16 July 2019
Northland Regional Council Agenda
Meeting to be held in the Council Chamber
36 Water Street, Whangārei
on Tuesday 16 July 2019, commencing at 10.30am
Recommendations contained in the council agenda are NOT council decisions. Please refer to council minutes for resolutions.
Item Page
Housekeeping
1.0 apologies (whakapahĀ)
2.0 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (WHAKAPUAKANGA O MUA)
3.0 Health and Safety Report 5
4.0 Council Minutes/Action Sheet/Council Working Party and Working Group Updates
4.1 Confirmation of Minutes - 18 June 2019 8
4.2 Receipt of Action Sheet 18
4.3 Working Party Updates and Chairpersons' Briefings 21
5.1 Proposed Regional Plan - Decisions on Genetically Modified Organisms Submissions 23
5.2 Proposed Regional Plan - Appeals 58
5.3 Enhanced Marine Protection for Mimiwhāngata 63
5.4 Draft Submission - Climate Change (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill 66
5.5 Amendments to Elected Members' Expenses and Allowances Policy 77
5.6 Regional Software Holdings Limited Statement of Intent 2020-2022 83
5.7 Inter-regional Marine Pest Management - Consultation Results and Next Steps 99
5.8 NRC Appointment of Trustee onto Northland Events Centre Trust 145
5.9 Northland Inc. Limited: Statement of Intent 2019-2022 148
5.10 Policy on Hazardous and Controlled Substances for Pest Control 176
5.11 Rates Resolution - Typographical Error 180
5.12 Manea Footprints of Kupe - Confirmation of Definitions 184
5.13 Mt Tiger Harvest Results - 1991 Stand 186
6.1 Chair's Report to Council 197
6.2 Chief Executive’s Report to Council 199
7.0 Receipt of Committee Minutes 222
8.0 Business with the Public Excluded 238
8.1 Confirmation of Confidential Minutes - 18 June 2019
8.2 Receipt of Confidential Committee Minutes
8.3 Human Resources Report
8.4 The Kensington Redevelopment Project
8.5 Marsden Maritime Holdings Ltd - Appointment of Directors
ACC - Accident Compensation Corporation AHB - Animal Health Board ALGIM - Association of Local Government Information Management AMA - Aquaculture Management Area AMP – Asset Management Plan/Activity Management Plan BOI - Bay of Islands BOPRC - Bay of Plenty Regional Council CAPEX - Capital Expenditure (budget to purchase assets) CBEC - Community, Business and Environment Centre CDEM - Civil Defence Emergency Management CEG - Co-ordinating Executive Group – Northland Civil Defence management team CEO - Chief Executive Officer CIMS - Co-ordinated Incident Management System (emergency management structure) CMA - Coastal Marine Area CPCA - Community Pest Control Areas CRI - Crown Research Institute DHB - District Health Board DOC - Department of Conservation DOL - Department of Labour DPMC - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet ECA - Environmental Curriculum Award ECAN - Environment Canterbury EE - Environmental Education EECA - Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority EEZ - Exclusive Economic Zone EF - Environment Fund EMA - Employers and Manufacturers Association EMC - Environmental Management Committee EOC - Emergency Operations Centre EPA - Environmental Protection Authority FDE - Farm Dairy Effluent FNDC - Far North District Council FNHL - Far North Holdings Limited FPP - First Past the Post – voting system for NRC elections GE - Genetic Engineering GIS - Geographic Information System GMO - Genetically Modified Organism HSNO - Hazardous Substances & New Organisms Act HBRC - Hawke's Bay Regional Council HEMP - Hapū Environmental Management Plan Horizons - Brand name of Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council HR - Human Resources HSWA - Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 IEMP - Iwi Environmental Management Plan IPPC - Invited Private Plan Change: a process to allow Aquaculture Management Areas to be established IRIS - Integrated Regional Information System KDC - Kaipara District Council KPI - Key Performance Indicator LATE - Local Authority Trading Enterprise LGA - Local Government Act 2002 LGNZ - Local Government New Zealand LGOIMA - Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 LGOL - Local Government Online LTP - Long Term Plan LTFS - Long Term Financial Strategy MCDEM - Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Mgmnt MFE - Ministry for the Environment MHWS - Mean High Water Springs MMH - Marsden Maritime Holdings Limited MNZ - Maritime New Zealand MOH - Ministry of Health |
MOT - Ministry of Transport MPI – Ministry for Primary Industries MSD - Ministry of Social Development NCMC - National Crisis Management Centre NES – National Environmental Standards NDHB - Northland District Health Board NZRC - New Zealand Refining Company (Marsden Point) NGO - Non-Governmental Organisation NIF - Northland Intersectoral Forum NIWA - National Institute of Water and Atmosphere NORTEG - Northland Technical Advisory Group NZCPS - New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement NZTA - New Zealand Transport Agency NZQA - New Zealand Qualifications Authority NZWWA - New Zealand Water and Wastes Association OFI - Opportunity for Improvement ORC - Otago Regional Council OSH - Occupational Safety & Health (now Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) PCBU – Person Conducting Business or Undertaking PDF - Portable Document Format PPE - Personal Protective Equipment RAP - Response Action Plan RAQP - Regional Air Quality Plan RCP - Regional Coastal Plan RFI - Request for Information RFP - Request for Proposal RTC - Regional Transport Committee RLTS - Regional Land Transport Strategy RMA - Resource Management Act 1991 RMG - Resource Managers Group (Regional Councils) RMZ - Riparian Management Zone ROI - Return on Investment RPMS - Regional Pest Management Strategy RPS - Regional Policy Statement RSG - Regional Sector Group RTO - Regional Tourism Organisation RWASP - Regional Water and Soil Plan SIPO – Statement of Investment Policy and Objectives SITREP - Situation Report SMF - Sustainable Management Fund SOE - State of Environment (or) State Owned Enterprise SOLGM -Society of Local Government Managers SPARC - Sport & Recreation New Zealand SRC - Southland Regional Council (Environment Southland) STV - Single Transferable Vote SWAG - Surface Water Allocation Group SWPA - Sustainable Water Programme of Action TA - Territorial Authority: City & District Councils TAG -Technical Advisory Group Tier 1 - Site level plan or response for an oil spill Tier 2 - Regional level plan or response to an oil spill Tier 3 - National level plan or response to an oil spill TLA - Territorial Local Authority – City & District Councils TMP - Treasury Management Plan TOR - Terms of Reference TPK - Te Puni Kōkiri (Ministry of Maori Development) TRAION - Te Rūnanga a Iwi o Ngāpuhi TRC - Taranaki Regional Council TROTR -Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa TUANZ - Telecommunications Users Association of NZ WCRC - West Coast Regional Council WDC - Whangarei District Council WHHIF - Whangarei Harbour Health Improvement Fund WRC - Waikato Reginal Council WSMP – Workplace Safety Management Practices WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant |
Council Meeting item: 3.0
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Health and Safety Report |
ID: |
A1208421 |
From: |
Beryl Steele, Human Resources Manager |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
This report provides an overview of health and safety activity during the month of June 2019.
Reporting has improved with the implementation of the online reporting system. Considerable work has been put into the risk and hazard register, training matrix, monitoring programme, orientation, policy and traffic management plans. In some areas, some tidying up is still necessary but the bulk of the work has been completed. The traffic management plan process is taking a bit longer than initially anticipated but it is progressing well.
That the report ‘Health and Safety Report’ by Beryl Steele, Human Resources Manager and dated 2 July 2019, be received.
Background/Tuhinga
YTD results:
Legend |
|
LTI – Lost Time Injury |
1 |
MTI – Medical Treatment Injury |
2 |
FTI – First Aid Treatment |
1 |
INC – Incident |
19 |
Nil – No injury (but recorded) |
1 |
DPI – Discomfort, Pain and Injury |
44 |
HAZ – Hazard |
11 |
SEC – Security |
4 |
Near Miss |
12 |
|
|
|
|
YTD Total |
95 |
Items of note
· Reporting is improving with the new online reporting form.
· There was an agrichemical spill in front foyer by stairwell. The lid was not on properly after being dropped off by the courier. The courier has been spoken to re the location for dropping off of chemicals (to be at the rear of the building). Also, staff will check that lids are on properly before moving them.
Health and Safety Manual / Policies / Documentation
· Health and Safety Strategy draft re-visited by committee – remains WIP.
· All updated policies will have been reviewed by the end of the first week of July and should be ready to go to the H&S Committee for feedback before going to OMT and then ELT.
Risk Management, Equipment, Legislation Review
Risks
· The new H&S Risk Register is about to be implemented replacing the old one. Once implemented there will be a project to ensure all risks are reviewed by the relevant department.
Health and Safety visits, training and other
Training
· We are still working on getting evidence of training. We have changed the process for moving forward to increase ability to record evidence.
· An initial traffic controller course has been completed. We will be booking in another course for remaining staff that need to attend along with Site Traffic Management Supervisor training.
· 4WD training has been booked.
General
· General H&S Update Presentation to be given at OMT.
· Traffic Management Plan (TMP) – following up with person who is putting together our generic plans. As at the time of writing the report a response had not be received.
· Contractor Engagement training on Cognise is up and running. Feedback to date is positive.
· The H&S Induction module on Cognise should be ready to go live the first week of July.
· We are looking into the potential for measles vaccinations.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Nil
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Dave Tams |
Title: |
Group Manager, Corporate Excellence |
Date: |
02 July 2019 |
Council Meeting item: 4.1
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Confirmation of Minutes - 18 June 2019 |
ID: |
A1208454 |
From: |
Chris Taylor, Governance Support Manager |
That the minutes of the council meeting held on 18 June 2019 be confirmed as a true and correct record.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: Council Minutes - 18 June
2019 ⇩
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Chris Taylor |
Title: |
Governance Support Manager |
Date: |
10 July 2019 |
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Receipt of Action Sheet |
ID: |
A1208400 |
From: |
Chris Taylor, Governance Support Manager |
Executive summary/Whakārapopototanga
The purpose of this report is to enable the meeting to receive the current action sheet.
That the action sheet be received.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: Action Sheet - July 2019 ⇩
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Chris Taylor |
Title: |
Governance Support Manager |
Date: |
10 July 2019 |
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Working Party Updates and Chairpersons' Briefings |
ID: |
A1197719 |
That the report ‘Working Party Updates and Chairpersons' Briefings’ be received.
Planning Working Party (Chair: Cr Joce Yeoman)
The Planning Working Party met on 5 June 2019. The topics for discussion included:
· Planning Work Programme
· Coastal Occupation Charging
· National Planning Standards
· Proposed Regional Plan - update on appeals
· Whangārei District Council Urban Plan Changes
Following discussion, the working party provided advice on the following next steps:
· Email draft submission on WDC plan changes to all councillors for comment.
· Present to the CEs’ Forum about hazards mapping, RPS obligations and risks from inaction to all councils (including legal advice around the risks).
· Provide risk advice to the Risk and H&S Working Party.
· Present to council about the levers NRC has available to manage the risks of development if district council plan changes do not include hazard maps and associated rules.
Risk and Health and Safety Working Party (Councillor Joce Yeoman)
The Risk and Health and Safety Working Party met on 11 June 2019. The topics for discussion included:
· Review Risk Register
Risk of cyber security – New system should help alleviate risk. Deloitte being engaged as part of yearend audit process to look at IT maturity model. Cyber Insurance to increase from $1M to $2M upon renewal.
· Manage Funds update
· Sustainable Solvents
· Health & Safety update
· TAs ignoring our flood inundations maps
Following discussion, the Risk and Health and Safety Working Party provided advice on the following next steps:
· To be continued, Traffic management, ProMapp, Hazardous substance, Occupational Health Monitoring, 12-month review schedule.
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Jonathan Gibbard |
Title: |
Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement |
Date: |
10 July 2019 |
Council Meeting item: 5.1
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Proposed Regional Plan - Decisions on Genetically Modified Organisms Submissions |
ID: |
A1198905 |
From: |
Ben Lee, Strategic Policy and Planning Manager and Jonathan Gibbard, Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
The Proposed Regional Plan for Northland (Proposed Plan) was notified in September 2017. At the same time, council delegated authority to a Hearing Panel of three to conduct the hearing into submissions on the Proposed Plan and make recommendations to council on the Proposed Plan in response to submissions.
At its meeting on 20 March 2018, council withdrew the delegation to conduct the hearing for the submissions seeking the addition of provisions for genetically modified organisms. The effect of this was that full council heard those submissions.
Council adopted the recommendations of the Hearing Panel at its 16 April 2019 meeting.
Council has now considered all submissions on the addition of provisions for genetically modified organisms in the Proposed Regional Plan for Northland. This report presents two potential decision reports for council – one to include provisions to manage genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area, and the other to not include any provisions to manage genetically modified organisms.
1. That the report ‘Proposed Regional Plan - Decisions on Genetically Modified Organisms Submissions’ by Ben Lee, Strategic Policy and Planning Manager and Jonathan Gibbard, Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement and dated 28 June 2019, be received.
2. That council adopts Attachment _________ as its decisions on the submissions on the addition of provisions for genetically modified organisms in the Proposed Regional Plan for Northland in accordance with Clause 10, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.
3. That notification of the council decisions on submissions on the addition of provisions for genetically modified organisms in the Proposed Regional Plan for Northland be on or before 6 August 2019.
Background/Tuhinga
Council began the process of preparing the new regional plan in 2014. It started with a review of the current three regional plans (Air, Water and Soil and Coastal), which included a series of workshops hosted by council and attended by over 100 people.
The Draft Regional Plan for Northland was released for public feedback in August 2016. Nearly 290 people and organisations provided feedback.
The Proposed Regional Plan for Northland (Proposed Plan) was publicly notified in September 2017, with further submissions notified in March 2018. Over 400 submissions and further submissions were received.
Over 80 submissions were on the inclusion of provisions for genetically modified organisms. This was despite a statement in the notified version of the Proposed Plan that council had reserved its decision on including provisions to regulate genetically modified organisms.
The Northland Regional Council delegated the function of hearing the submissions on the Proposed Plan and making recommendations to the council to a Hearing Panel. The exception was the submissions on the addition of provisions for genetically modified organisms - the full council heard these submissions separately.
Hearings on the Proposed Plan (excluding genetically modified organisms) were held between August and October 2018. Hearings for submissions on the addition of provisions for genetically modified organisms were held on 30 and 31 October 2018, and reconvened on 26 February 2019. The hearing was then adjourned for council to go into public excluded deliberations. During the course of the deliberations council requested further information (issued via formal minutes).
All the information presented to council, including the staff Section 42A report, audio from the hearings and council issued minutes, is on the council’s public website – www.nrc.govt.nz/newregionalplan.
Two potential decision reports are presented for council:
· Attachment 1 is a decision report to support the inclusion of provisions to manage genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area and to not include provisions to manage genetically modified organisms on land.
· Attachment 2 is a decision report to support not including any provisions to manage genetically modified organisms
The recommendation is that council adopt one of the decision reports as its decisions on the submissions for the addition of provisions for genetically modified organisms.
Council is legislatively required to make its decisions by 6 September 2019 (two years after the date of notification of the Propose Regional Plan for Northland)[1].
Assuming council makes its decision, the next step will be to publicly notify the decisions. This will be done in the three weeks following the council meeting. Submitters will then have 30 working days to lodge appeals (if they consider it necessary) with the Environment Court.
Considerations
1. Options
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
1 |
Make a decision to adopt Attachment 1 or Attachment 2 as the council decisions on submissions on the addition of provisions for genetically modified organisms. |
Meets legal requirements (Clause 10, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991). Consistent with submitter expectations that council will make a decision. Avoids risk of legal challenge, Minister for the Environment investigation and reputational risk associated with not making a decision (see option number 2). |
The decision to include or not provisions regulating genetically modified organisms has not been the subject of the consultation etc. as prescribed by clauses 2-3C of Schedule 1 of the RMA as would normally occur for regional plan provisions. There is an estimated low risk of legal challenge to council accepting that the submissions on genetically modified organisms are in scope. |
2 |
Do not make a decision to adopt Attachment 1 or Attachment 2 as the council decisions on submissions on the addition of provisions for genetically modified organisms. |
Maintains position as set out in the statement in the notified version of the Proposed Plan that council has reserved its decision on including provisions to regulate genetically modified organisms. |
High risk of successful legal challenge that council is not meeting its legal obligations to make a decision under Clause 10, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991. Would incur costs (legal and staff) that have not been budgeted. Potential risk of Minister for the Environment formally investigating council for not performing its legal duty. Potential reputational risks of council not following proper process. |
3 |
Make a decision on the submissions on the addition of provisions for genetically modified organisms that is different to either Attachment 1 or 2. |
Uncertain (would depend on the decision). |
The decision would not satisfy Clause 10, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991, which requires that a decision must include the reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions and must include a further evaluation of the proposed policy statement or plan undertaken in accordance with section 32AA. Risk of successful legal challenge (the level of risk would depend on the decision). Potential reputational risks of council not following proper process. |
While there are risks with each option, staff recommend that council makes a decision (Option 1) because on balance it carries the least risk and costs.
2. Significance and engagement
In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, the decision (as set out in the recommendations) is considered to be of low significance when assessed against council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, because it has followed a legislatively prescribed consultation process. The Proposed Plan has been prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991, which involves a public consultative process (Schedule 1).
Being of low significance under council’s Significance and Engagement Policy does not mean that this matter is not of significance to tangata whenua and/or individual communities, but that council is able to make decisions relating to this matter without undertaking further consultation or engagement.
Should council follow Option 2 or Option 3, it is not considered a significant decision in accordance with council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, as the decision does not meet any of the criteria that would automatically deem it a significant decision, and it only triggers one of the thresholds[2] (the high level of legal risk). Therefore, council could make these decisions without needing to undertake further public consultation.
3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
The preparation and notification of the Proposed Plan was subject to various sections of the Resource Management Act 1991, including sections 30, 32, 34A, 39B, 63–70 and Schedule 1. The decisions being recommended are consistent with the relevant sections of the Resource Management Act.
There is the inevitable risk of the council decision being appealed to the Environment Court – this cannot be avoided as it is right conferred by legislation. The costs of council participating in the appeals process have been accounted for in the Long Term Plan.
As outlined in Options 2 and 3 above, an alternative decision is likely to be subject to legal and reputational risks. The legal costs to council could be high and have not been accounted for in the Long Term Plan.
Further considerations
4. Community views
As discussed, the inclusion or not of provisions for genetically modified organisms has not followed the normal RMA process (including requirements for consultation prior to notification). The community did, however, have the ability to make further submissions in response to the original submissions seeking the inclusion of provisions for genetically modified organisms.
This has resulted in a significant portion of the community not being adequately engaged with.
People who formally submitted on the Proposed Plan will have the ability to lodge an appeal to the Environment Court once the decisions have been publicly notified. In addition, those persons or groups that have an interest greater than the public generally also have the ability to become a s274 party to appeal proceedings whether they lodged an original submission or not (s274 parties only have the ability to support or oppose appeals).
5. Māori impact statement
Māori have consistently raised concerns about the use of genetically modified organisms. However, the manner in which the process has unfolded means that due to legislative and timing constraints council has not unfortunately been able to meet council’s normal standards for engagement and involving Māori in its RMA decision making processes.
One avenue for iwi and hapu to challenge the decision, if they have missed the opportunity to lodge an original submission or further submission, is to become a s274 party to any appeal proceedings through the Environment Court.
6. Financial implications
There have been significant costs associated with preparing and notifying the Proposed Plan. However, these costs have been accounted for in the Long Term Plan and procedurally, council was legally obliged to notify the plan and follow the process outlined in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
If council decides to include provisions to regulate genetically modified organisms in the Proposed Plan, there is the possibility of financial implications from implementation. However, these have not been quantified due to considerable unknown variabilities and will require further consideration.
Should council proceed with Option 2 or 3 then the additional costs (legal and staff time) of dealing with legal challenges has not been accounted for in the Long Term Plan.
7. Implementation issues
If the decision is to not include provisions for genetically modified organisms, then there will be no implementation issues other than likely ongoing pressure and lobbying to include provisions through future processes (e.g. annual plan and long term plan).
If provisions are included, council will be required to implement the provisions. There is a very low likelihood that council will have to process resource consents for the use of genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area (based on current evidence for demand within the life of the plan). There may be some elevated community pressure (but no legal requirement) on council to pay for the clean-up of any accidental or illegal release of genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: Council decision on GMO
submissions - Option supporting inclusion of provisions for gentically modified
organisms ⇩
Attachment 2: Council decision on GMO
submissions - Option not supporting inclusion of provisions for gentically
modified organisms ⇩
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Malcolm Nicolson |
Title: |
Chief Executive Officer |
Date: |
10 July 2019 |
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Proposed Regional Plan - Appeals |
ID: |
A1208110 |
From: |
Michael Day, Natural Resources Policy Manager |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
The Proposed Regional Plan for Northland – Decisions Version (Proposed Plan) was publicly notified on 4 May 2019. There was a 30-working day period for submitters to lodge appeals to the Environment Court against the council’s decision. This concluded on Monday 17 June 2019.
A total of 23 appeals were received. These appeals canvas many parts of the Proposed Plan (rules, objectives, policies and maps) but there are a number of rules that are not subject to appeal. Pursuant to s86F of the Resource Management Act 1991, all rules that are not subject to appeal must now be treated as operative.
This report provides an update on key points of appeal, appeal resolution process and concludes with the recommendation that one councillor and the Group Manager – Strategy, Governance and Engagement be delegated the ability to make decisions on council’s behalf for resolving appeals on the Proposed Regional Plan.
1. That the report ‘Proposed Regional Plan - Appeals’ by Michael Day, Natural Resources Policy Manager and dated 1 July 2019, be received.
2. That Councillor Yeoman and the Group Manager – Strategy, Governance and Engagement be delegated the ability to make decisions on council’s behalf for resolving appeals on the Proposed Regional Plan for Northland that are generally aligned with the direction already set by council.
Background/Tuhinga
The Proposed Regional Plan for Northland (Proposed Plan) was notified in September 2017. At the same time, council delegated authority to a Hearing Panel of three members (Councillor Yeoman and two independent commissioners - Rob van Voorthuysen[3] and Miria Pomare) to conduct the hearing into submissions on the Proposed Plan and make recommendations to council on the Proposed Plan in response to submissions[4].
At the April 2019 council meeting, council accepted and adopted the recommendations of the Hearings Panel on decisions and provisions and matters raised in submissions to the Proposed Plan. The Decisions Version of the Proposed Plan was publicly notified on 4 May 2019. Any person who made a submission on the Proposed Plan had the chance to appeal the council’s decision in respect of those matters noted[5]. The last day for lodging appeals with the Environment Court was 17 June 2019.
A total of 23 appeals were received. These can be viewed on the council’s public website - https://www.nrc.govt.nz/your-council/about-us/council-projects/new-regional-plan/council-decision/appeals-to-proposed-regional-plan-council-decision/.
Any person who has an interest greater than the general public can join the proceedings as a s274 party. Importantly, they cannot expand the scope of the appeals (a s274 party essentially supports or opposes a primary appeal). The closing date for becoming a s274 party was 8 July 2019. Staff will provide a verbal update at the council meeting relating to numbers of s274 parties.
Key points about the appeals:
· Whilst we have only received 23 appeals, their scope and range vary greatly. They cover the rules, objectives, policies and maps. There are also appeals asking for new (additional) provisions to be inserted into the Proposed Plan.
· The vast majority of coastal (s12 RMA) provisions (policies and rules), freshwater (s13 RMA) rules and wetland rules are all subject to appeal.
· In relation to policies, there are quite a few appeals on the coastal policies and policies that relate to managing adverse effects on natural character, outstanding natural landscapes and features as well as indigenous biodiversity. However, there are many policies that have not been appealed.
· There are also many rules, especially in the Discharges to Land and Water section (C.6) and the Discharges to Air section (C.7) that have not been appealed.
Procedurally, pursuant to s86F of the Resource Management Act 1991, all rules that are not subject to appeal must now be treated as operative. An ‘Appeals Version’ of the Proposed Plan is in the process of being created and will be uploaded onto the regional council’s public website shortly. This will clearly set out which provisions (of the plan) are subject to appeal and who has appealed the provisions.
Resolving appeals – process
The Environment Court has indicated that it wishes to proceed with addressing the appeals promptly. To this end, it has directed that the regional council prepare a memorandum which:
· proposes a topic structure for the efficient case management of the proceedings which identifies the relevant issues for resolution, the council’s suggested course of action for each topic, and the relationship between the proposed topics and the appeals and case parties;
· identifies the appropriateness of any preliminary group meetings (charrettes) to identify an order to deal with matters for mediation;
· identifies those topics and appeals that may be conveniently case managed together;
· identifies any preliminary legal issues that may need to be addressed prior to mediation; and
· identifies any matters unsuitable for mediation which require a timetable to hearing.
The memorandum must be filed with the Court and served on all case parties by 26 July 2019. Additionally, a preliminary callover conference has been scheduled for Wednesday 14 August 2019. This is essentially to ascertain from parties the status of proceedings and to discuss with parties the possible use of Court conducted mediation or other alternative dispute resolution.
In relation to mediation, the Court strongly encourages participants to have the mandate to make decisions at these meetings. Council can resolve appeal matters through informal negotiations, but the Court will only sign off on an appeal matter if all the relevant parties are in agreement. This avenue is often used for minor matters and/or when there are only a small number of parties.
Any matter not resolved by mediation or negotiation will then go to a Court hearing.
Resolving appeals – council representation
Council needs to decide how it will represent its position and make decisions through the appeal negotiations and mediations process. It is recommended that this be delegated to one Councillor and the Group Manager – Strategy, Governance and Engagement. The persons with this delegation will need to be available to attend meetings or are available by phone during these negotiations to confirm council position and provide direction.
Two people are preferable to one, to ensure the decisions are generally consistent with council direction and it means that if one is unavailable for a meeting, then the other will hopefully be able to attend. It is also administratively efficient to have a small number of people, such as to get urgent agreement on mediated provisions. The decision makers will be supported by staff, legal and any specialist advice required on the matters under appeal.
It is further recommended that the scope of this delegation be limited to confirming agreements with appellants that are generally aligned with the direction already set by council. Any significant departure from the direction already set by council will need to come back to a full council meeting for consideration. Including a senior staff member with these delegations will reduce the workload on individual councillors and enable the negotiations to progress during the election period and help with continuity of decision making. Following elections, staff will bring a further report back to council to both update council on progress and reconfirm its approach to resolving appeals.
Considerations
1. Options
The options analysis below relates to the number of councillors that will be delegated the ability to make decisions on council’s behalf for resolving appeals on the Proposed Regional Plan.
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
1 |
Delegate to one councillor and Group Manager – Strategy, Governance and Engagement, the ability to resolve appeals |
Nimble decision-making process to resolve appeals that are generally aligned with council direction. Provides the ability for decision makers to confer with one another to ensure appropriate decisions are made. Allows the negotiations process to proceed during the election period. |
None apparent. |
2 |
Delegate this responsibility to two councillors |
Similar advantages to those in option 1. |
Will put a high workload on two councillors and may cause disruption to negotiations during the election period. |
3 |
No delegation (full council consideration) |
Ensures all councillors are evenly involved. |
Would become administratively in-efficient for multiple councillors to be involved. Administrative burden – all consent orders would have to be considered in publicly excluded council meetings. This is very resource and time inefficient. It is highly likely that negotiations will be occurring during the election period, meaning this option really isn’t practical. |
The staff’s recommended option is 1.
2. Significance and engagement
In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, because it has previously been consulted on, is provided for in council’s Long Term Plan, and is part of council’s day-to-day activities. As the Proposed Regional Plan has been prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991, it is subject to the Schedule 1 process, which involves a robust and thorough public consultative process.
Being of low significance under council’s Significance and Engagement Policy does not mean that this matter is not of significance to tangata whenua and/or individual communities, but that council is able to make decisions relating to this matter without undertaking further consultation or engagement.
3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
The preparation and development of the Proposed Plan (including the current appeals phase) is subject to various sections of the Resource Management Act 1991, including sections 30, 32, and Schedule 1. Procedurally, the decisions being recommended are consistent with the relevant sections of the Resource Management Act.
Being a purely administrative matter Community Views, Māori Impact Statement, Financial
Implications, and Implementation Issues are not applicable.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Nil
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Jonathan Gibbard |
Title: |
Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement |
Date: |
04 July 2019 |
Council Meeting item: 5.3
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Enhanced Marine Protection for Mimiwhāngata |
ID: |
A1205082 |
From: |
Justin Murfitt, Strategic Policy Specialist and Jonathan Gibbard, Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
Ngātiwai has expressed a desire to build on existing marine protection already in place at Mimiwhāngata with a view to enhancing the ecological and cultural values of the marine environment for the benefit of both Māori and the wider community. While the marine park in place at Mimiwhāngata prohibits commercial fishing, and provides partial protection from the effects of recreational fishing, the Ngātiwai seeks to build on this existing mechanism using traditional tikanga approaches.
Council staff and Ngātiwai have been in discussions as to how this could be progressed collaboratively (council has allocated resource specifically to support such initiatives in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan). This paper provides an update to council and seeks council support to continue progressing these discussions.
1. That the report ‘Enhanced Marine Protection for Mimiwhāngata’ by Justin Murfitt, Strategic Policy Specialist and Jonathan Gibbard, Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement and dated 21 June 2019, be received.
2. That staff continue to work with Ngātiwai to discuss opportunities to further enhance marine protection at Mimiwhāngata.
3. That regular updates / progress reports are provided to the Natural Resources Working Party.
Background/Tuhinga
Creating new marine protected areas in New Zealand has historically proven difficult primarily due to the limited mechanisms and flexibility provided by current legislation (such as the Marine Reserves Act 1977). Northland, while having a unique and highly valued marine environment, has a relatively low area of its coastal marine area under formal protection from fishing / harvest activity (about 0.12% in marine reserve and 0.06% in marine park). We are also aware that several communities have struggled to progress proposals for enhanced marine protection despite thorough research and consultation and a high level of public support. For these reasons, council confirmed its support for greater marine protection through the allocation of resources for supporting marine protected area proposals in its 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.
Council’s view is that the most practical way to advance marine protection is to support / partner with community led initiatives that can demonstrate environmental, cultural, social and economic benefits and contribute to a national and regional marine protected area network. The Marine Management Working Party (now disestablished) previously considered several community-led proposals in Northland against a set of criteria – these were:
· Cost (to get proposal operative)
· Time (to become operative)
· The capability behind the proposal (expertise and resourcing)
· Buy-in (from Māori, community, commercial and recreational fishers)
· Impact (ecological, economic and recreational).
Of the three proposals assessed against these criteria, Mimiwhāngata proved to be the most feasible option, provided tangata whenua were supportive and ready to proceed (results of this assessment are available on request. The Ngātiwai Trust Board has advised that iwi and hapu are keen to proceed and investigate opportunities to further enhance marine protection at Mimiwhāngata.
Also, in response to a letter sent by the CEO’s of both Ngātiwai Trust Board and council to the Minister of Conservation (Hon. Eugenie Sage) in April of this year, the Northland conservancy of the Department of Conservation has also indicated a willingness to participate in the project.
The first key steps would be to establish a project team with representatives from Ngātiwai, the Department of Conservation and council (and possibly other stakeholders / agencies). This would then be followed by development of a detailed project plan.
Considerations
1. 1. Options
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
1 |
Council support the Mimiwhāngata proposal |
Greater likelihood of enhanced marine protection. Opportunity to further strengthen council relationship with Ngātiwai. |
Limited council resources will not be available to support potential future marine protected area proposals. |
2 |
Council do not support / participate in the project |
No demand on staff time or council resources. |
Less likely enhanced marine protection will be provided in Northland. Resources allocated would be underutilised. |
The staff’s recommended option is Option 1.
2. Significance and engagement
In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because it has previously been consulted on and provided for in council’s Long Term Plan. This does not mean that this matter is not of significance to tangata whenua and/or individual communities, but that council is able to make decisions relating to this matter without undertaking further consultation or engagement.
3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
The decision is consistent with policy and legislative requirements given the allocation of resources to support marine protected area proposals were consulted on and allocated in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.
Further considerations
4. Community views
There are likely to be a range of community views on enhanced marine protection – if the proposal proceeds in a formal sense, there will be opportunity for the public / community to have their say. In addition, council has signalled and consulted on such initiatives in its 2018‑2028 Long Term Plan.
5. Māori impact statement
Māori have a strong interest in marine protected area proposals given potential impacts on access to customary resources and their role as kaitiaki. The intention is to partner with Ngātiwai and support a tangata whenua led process that ensures tangata whenua views are actively reflected in the process and any proposal developed as a result. Any formal marine protected area proposal would also include an engagement and consultation process.
6. Financial implications
Resources have been allocated for this purpose in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan. While marine protection can be complex and contentious, staff do not envisage the need for additional resources at this time.
7. Implementation issues
Progressing marine protected area proposals has been problematic under the current legislative regime and there are a number of community-led initiatives that have struggled to proceed. This is one of the reasons council elected to allocated resources in its 2018-2028 Long Term Plan. The degree of implementation complexity will depend to a large degree on the design of the proposal and support by local hapu, community and other interested parties.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Nil
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Jonathan Gibbard |
Title: |
Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement |
Date: |
04 July 2019 |
Council Meeting item: 5.4
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Draft Submission - Climate Change (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill |
ID: |
A1205566 |
From: |
Justin Murfitt, Strategic Policy Specialist |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
The Government has released the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill (the Bill). The Bill sets out the framework to develop and implement climate change policies, including greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, emission budgets, adaptation measures and the establishment of an independent Climate Change Commission. The Bill is likely to have implications for local government and Northland in general once enacted. The Bill is open for submissions to the Environment Select Committee until 16 July 2019. Staff recommend council lodge a submission on the Bill and have prepared a draft for consideration and approval by Council (Attachment 1).
1. That the report ‘Draft Submission - Climate Change (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill’ by Justin Murfitt, Strategic Policy Specialist and dated 24 June 2019, be received.
2. That council approve the draft submission in Attachment 1 (pertaining to Item 5.4 of the 16 July 2019 council meeting agenda).
3. That the submission to be lodged with the Environment Select Committee.
Background/Tuhinga
The Bill amends the current Climate Change Response Act 2002 to include four key new elements:
· Set a new greenhouse gas emissions reduction target to: reduce all greenhouse gases (except biogenic methane) to net zero by 2050; reduce emissions of biogenic methane within the range of 24–47 per cent below 2017 levels by 2050, including to 10 per cent below 2017 levels by 2030.
· Set a series of emissions budgets to act as stepping stones towards the long-term target.
· Require the Government to develop and implement policies for climate change adaptation and mitigation.
· Establish a new, independent Climate Change Commission to provide expert advice and monitoring to help keep successive governments on track to meeting long-term goals.
Implementation of the Bill (once enacted) is likely to have significant implications for council, especially in relation to the climate change adaptation measures proposed. The greenhouse gas emissions targets, budgets and emission reduction plans are also likely to have socio-economic implications for Northland and the country as a whole. The key adaptation proposals include a requirement to develop National Climate Change Risk Assessments (every six years), and a National Adaptation Plan, with associated monitoring and reporting functions. While greenhouse gas reduction targets and budgets will be set in accordance with the process established in the Bill, much of the implementation will be through settings in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which sets a price on greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration (offsets).
Staff have prepared a draft submission on the Bill for consideration by council. The key submission points are summarised below following the structure used in the Bill:
Climate change commission
· Support for the establishment of the Climate Change Commission but highlight the need for good networks between the commission, local government, Māori and industry, and the need for the commission to be extremely well resourced to ensure the advice provided to government is robust.
Mitigation
· Support for the emission reduction targets being set in the Bill but note the targets for bio-genic methane are ambitious given currently limited reduction measures and an earlier review of the methane targets is recommended.
· Support the intent to meet emissions budgets using domestic reductions / removals but retaining some ability to use offshore mitigation, given this will reduce the risk of emissions ‘leakage’ to offshore jurisdictions with more lenient regimes.
· Recommend stronger consultation requirements in setting emissions budgets.
· Support for the contents of emission reduction plans, the matters to be considered when developing these plans, and the requirement for consultation, but recommend that emissions budgets and reduction plans be developed in parallel (rather than the reduction plan being developed after the budget is set).
Adaptation
· Support the requirement for National Risk Assessments and consultation process, but suggest the six-year interval between assessments may be too long and recommend provision for a ‘rapid review / stocktake’ three years after the completion of each assessment.
· Adding specific requirements to assess risks to infrastructure / lifelines into the risk assessment provisions and a reference to climate change predictions (not just ‘trends’).
· Stronger requirement to assess the impact of adaptation measures on communities, sectors and organisations.
· Clarification of the ‘enforceability’ of national adaptation plans – a particular concern if communities, sectors or agencies are expected to fund and implement adaptation measures.
· Concern over the potential cost and practicality of local government responding to Ministerial information requests.
General comments
· Concern at the potential for landscape scale land use change driven by incentives for afforestation offsets.
· A recommendation that the ETS settings be used to maximise the potential range of offsetting methods rather than relying solely on afforestation.
· That proceeds from ETS auctions be used for investigating the potential for additional forms of offsets / sequestration and reduction technology.
Submissions on the Bill close 16 July 2019. Staff recommend the draft submission in Attachment 1 be approved by council and lodged with the Environment Select Committee.
Considerations
1. 1. Options
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
1 |
Lodge a submission on the Bill (as per attached) |
Council’s view is provided on the Bill and can be considered by the select committee. Council is seen to be supporting the Bill while proactively representing Northland’s interests. |
None |
2 |
Council does not lodge a submission |
None |
Council is perceived as having no position on climate change. Council’s views and Northland’s interests are not available to the committee. |
3 |
Lodge an amended submission with changes directed by council |
A potentially more thorough / comprehensive submission. |
Timeframe – the submission period closes on the day of the council meeting. |
The staff’s recommended option is Option 1
2. Significance and engagement
In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because it is part of council’s day to day activities. This does not mean that this matter is not of significance to tangata whenua and/or individual communities, but that council is able to make decisions relating to this matter without undertaking further consultation or engagement.
3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
The decision is consistent with policy and legislative requirements and is considered low risk being a submission on a proposed Bill and does not require a significant programme of work or financial / resourcing implications.
Further considerations
4. Community views
The Northland ‘community’ has a broad range of views on climate change mitigation and adaptation which is the focus of the Bill, however, it is not considered necessary for council to canvas these views prior to lodging a submission on the Bill – nor is there any legal requirement to do so. Individuals and communities also have the opportunity to lodge submissions expressing their own views on the Bill.
5. Māori impact statement
Māori have a range of views on climate change mitigation and adaptation, however, it is not considered necessary for council to consult on these views prior to lodging a submission – nor is there an express requirement to do so. It should be noted that Māori also have the opportunity to lodge a submission expressing their views.
6. Financial implications
There are no ongoing financial implications associated with the decision to lodge a submission on the Bill.
7. Implementation issues
There are no ongoing implementation issues associated with the decision to lodge a submission on the Bill.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: Draft NRC submission on
climate change response amendment bill ⇩
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Jonathan Gibbard |
Title: |
Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement |
Date: |
04 July 2019 |
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Amendments to Elected Members' Expenses and Allowances Policy |
ID: |
A1206701 |
From: |
Chris Taylor, Governance Support Manager |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
The Local Government Members (2019/20) Determination 2019, which sets the base remuneration, allowances and expenses payable to elected members, came into force on 1 July 2019. The two key changes, from the previous determination, that have effect immediately are the revised annual remuneration figures and vehicle mile allowance rates. Also, for the first time, the Remuneration Authority (RA) has introduced the ability to pay a childcare allowance.
This report provides further information on the RA’s review of the remuneration framework and facilitates the necessary amendments to the ‘Elected Members’ Expenses and Allowances Policy’ to give effect to the new determination and council’s decision on childcare allowances.
1. That the report ‘Amendments to Elected Members' Expenses and Allowances Policy’ by Chris Taylor, Governance Support Manager and dated 26 June 2019, be received.
2. That council declines the inclusion of childcare allowances in the ‘Elected Members’ Expenses and Allowances Policy’.
3. That section 7.1 ‘Vehicle Mileage Allowance’ of the ’Elected Members’ Expenses and Allowances Policy’ be amended as detailed in Appendix One [pertaining to Item 5.5 of the 16 July 2019 council meeting agenda].
Background/Tuhinga
Under the Local Government Act 2002, the Remuneration Authority (RA) must set the base remuneration, allowances and expenses payable to elected members.
Over the last two years the RA has conducted a ‘refresh’ of the remuneration framework, which can be broken down into three stages as follows:
· Stage One: In 2018 the RA completed a comprehensive review of the remuneration of elected members of local government. As a result, all councils were ‘re-sized’ (to determine relativity between the various councils) and a local government pay scale was developed using parliamentary remuneration as a comparator. The first tranche of changes was included in the 2018/19 Determination.
· Stage Two: The second tranche of changes to adjust remuneration has been included in the 2019/20 Determination (accessible via the link http://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2019/0135/latest/LMS211368.html?src=qs )
and took effect on 1 July 2019. This includes remuneration changes for all elected members, based on the current ‘partial pool’ approach (whereby the RA determines base councillor pay and each council has a pool to ‘top up’ remuneration for councillors holding positions of responsibility). With regard to the Northland Regional Council the changes in remuneration for elected members is shown in the table over page:
Table 1: Changes to remuneration
Office |
Annual Remuneration 18/19 |
Annual Remuneration 19/20 |
Chairperson |
$119,834 |
$122,056 |
Deputy Chairperson |
$78,062 |
$79,153 |
Committee Chair/Portfolio Leader (7) |
$68,502 |
$69,459 |
Councillor |
$55,758 |
$56,537 |
The Determination includes an update to the vehicle mileage allowance rates to reflect the new kilometre rates published by the Inland Revenue Department and also introduces the provision for childcare allowances at the discretion of each council.
· Stage Three: The final suite of changes take effect from the day after the date on which the official result of the 2019 election of members for the council is declared by public notice. At this time, there will be a move to a ‘full pool’ approach whereby each council is allocated a pool relating to the ranking of the council on the size index. Each council will provide a proposal to the RA on the councillor base pay and the additional pay for positions of responsibility and the whole of the pool allocated. However, the pool will not apply to the remuneration of the Chair which will continue to have their pay set directly by the RA.
Childcare allowances
This year, for the first time, the RA has introduced a childcare allowance for members who have responsibility for caring for children under the age of 14 years. The allowance is a contribution towards expenses incurred by the member for the provision of childcare while the member is engaged in local authority business. The allowance is capped and is subject to certain conditions.
It is purely at each council’s discretion whether or not it includes a childcare allowance.
Council workshopped the concept of childcare allowances on 21 May 2019. At this time a range of opinions were expressed, including but not limited to:
· Early Childhood Education already provided 20 hours of free childcare.
· The proposed childcare allowances would assist young parents entering local government.
· In the past parents took care of their own childcare and some members were unconvinced the ratepayer should pick up this cost.
If council elected to introduce childcare allowances the necessary inclusion into the ‘Elected Members’ Expenses and Allowances Policy’ is included as Attachment Two.
Considerations
1. Options
Given that council must give effect to the 2019/20 Determination the only matter at council’s discretion is whether to include the provision to pay childcare allowances. The table below reflects this:
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
1 |
Introduce childcare allowances |
· Reduces the barriers to parents entering into elected positions in local government. · Opens opportunities for local government to access the ideas, talent, skills, insights, contacts and passion that young parents could bring to local government. · Provides certainty for candidates prior to elections. |
· Not currently budgeted for. · Would provide an inconsistent policy approach between council employees and elected members |
2 |
Do not introduce childcare allowances |
· No additional budget required. · Provides certainty for candidates prior to elections. · Maintains a consistent approach to council support for employees and elected members. |
· Does not address barriers to parents entering into elected positions in local government. |
3 |
Defer the decision on childcare allowances to the incoming council. |
· Does not tie the incoming council to a decision on allowances. |
· Does not provide certainty for candidates prior to elections whether there will be childcare allowances which could deter parents from standing. |
The staff’s recommended option is Option 2.
2. Significance and engagement
In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because it is an administrative function as part of council’s day to day activities. This does not mean that this matter is not of significance to tangata whenua and/or individual communities, but that council is able to make decisions relating to this matter without undertaking further consultation or engagement.
3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
This report gives effect to Section 6, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 which states that the Remuneration Authority must determine the remuneration, allowances and expenses payable to elected members.
4. Financial implications
If council approves the recommendations in the report then the only financial implications will be in relation to changes to vehicle mileage allowances. This is estimated (based on the mileage of councillors during the 2018/19 financial year) to be $1,800 and can be accommodated within existing budgets.
If council elects to include childcare allowances it could require an additional $6,000 per annum per child and would not be able to be accommodated within existing budgets (i.e. council would need to seek additional funding through the 2019/2020 Annual Plan consultation process).
Being an administrative matter, further consideration of Community Views, a Māori Impact Statement and Implementation Issues is not required.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: Amended Section 7.1:
Vehicle mileage allowances ⇩
Attachment 2: Optional New Section 9:
Childcare allowances ⇩
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Jonathan Gibbard |
Title: |
Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement |
Date: |
04 July 2019 |
Council Meeting item: 5.6
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Regional Software Holdings Limited Statement of Intent 2020-2022 |
ID: |
A1207021 |
From: |
Dave Tams, Group Manager, Corporate Excellence |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
The purpose of this report is to lay before council the Regional Software Holdings Limited (RSHL) Statement of Intent 2020-2022.
1. That the report ‘Regional Software Holdings Limited Statement of Intent 2020-2022’ by Dave Tams, Group Manager, Corporate Excellence and dated 27 June 2019, be received.
2. That council accept the Regional Software Holdings Limited Statement of Intent 2020-2022 as set out in Attachment 1 (pertaining to Item 5.6 of the 16 July 2019 council meeting agenda).
Background/Tuhinga
Attached is Regional Software Holding Limited’s Statement of Intent 2020-2022.
RSHL provide a statement every year to cover their activities. Council has seen the draft previously.
Considerations
1. Options
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
1 |
Agree to Statement of Intent for RSHL |
SOI for RSHL is agreed by council. Council’s investment is managed appropriately. |
None |
2 |
Do not agree to Statement of Intent for RSHL |
None |
SOI for RSHL is not agreed by council . Council’s shareholding may not be managed appropriately. |
The staff’s recommended option is 1.
2. Significance and engagement
In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because it is part of council’s day to day activities.
3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
This decision is consistent with council’s policy as a shareholder of RSHL.
Being a purely administrative matter, Community Views, Māori Impact Statement, Financial Implications and Implementation Issues are not applicable.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: Regional Software
Holdings Limited Statement of Intent 2020-2022 ⇩
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Dave Tams |
Title: |
Group Manager, Corporate Excellence |
Date: |
01 July 2019 |
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Inter-regional Marine Pest Management - Consultation Results and Next Steps |
ID: |
A1207340 |
From: |
Justin Murfitt, Strategic Policy Specialist and Don McKenzie, Biosecurity Manager |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
The Inter-Regional Marine Pest Pathway Discussion Document on the management of marine pests across the four regions at the top of the North Island was released for public feedback on 18 March 2019 (council approved release of the discussion document at the February 2019 council meeting). This consultation project was developed by the Top of the North Biosecurity Group as a collaborative project between Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Waikato Regional Council, Auckland Council, Northland Regional Council, Ministry for Primary Industries / Biosecurity NZ (MPI) and the Department of Conservation (DOC). The discussion document sought feedback on a number of options to manage marine pests, including the option to develop consistent rules across the four regions. The discussion document received 370 submissions – this feedback has been collated and is presented in the attached report (Attachment 1). Staff recommend that the feedback received be assessed and a preferred option be identified by the Top of the North Biosecurity Group. This preferred option and supporting evidence would then be presented to all four councils (and partner agencies) for consideration in early 2020.
1. That the report ‘Inter-regional Marine Pest Management - Consultation Results and Next Steps’ by Justin Murfitt, Strategic Policy Specialist and Don McKenzie, Biosecurity Manager and dated 28 June 2019, be received.
2. That council authorise staff in collaboration with the Top of the North Biosecurity Group partners to progress with the options analysis to identify a preferred option (and supporting evidence) for marine pest management.
3. That a preferred option for the management of marine pests across the four partner regions and supporting evidence be presented to council for consideration in early 2020.
4. That council approve public release of the consultation results report, subject to formatting and other minor edits to improve ‘readability’.
Background/Tuhinga
The threat of marine pest incursions is particularly high in the coastal waters of northern New Zealand. Northland’s coastal waters are particularly susceptible to incursions of marine pests given the range of habitats available, relatively benign climate and the high number of visiting and resident vessels that are a vector for spread (the movement of ‘fouled’ vessels is the biggest pathway for the spread of marine pests). Northland also has significant cultural, natural heritage and economic values that are potentially impacted by marine pests. These issues are also faced by neighbouring regions such as Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty, which in combination with Northland accommodate the majority of New Zealand’s vessel movements. Controlling marine pests once established is extremely difficult and preventing their arrival is far more cost-effective. Restricting the spread of marine pests is likely to be more effective if a coordinated and consistent multi-region approach is adopted – there are also likely to be efficiency gains in implementation.
The consultation
The discussion document presented four options for the overall direction on managing marine pests, being:
• Status quo – continue current efforts and work towards a national approach (with each region retaining the option to develop their own rules for managing marine pests);
• Lead the way with consistent rules requiring clean vessel hulls across the four biggest boating regions – Northland, Auckland, Waikato, and Bay of Plenty;
• Go further - make rules for other pathways too like ballast water, aquaculture, bilge water and marine equipment; or
• None of the above.
People were also asked for feedback on options for hull-fouling rules, this being the key pathway for the spread of marine pests. Engagement processes across the four regions and through MPI/Biosecurity NZ and DOC channels included:
• Email distribution to each agencies tangata whenua / stakeholder lists;
• Media releases;
• Public events / hui.
• Printed material (discussion document and pamphlets) provided to stakeholders; and
• Social media.
For a more detailed summary of the engagement see Appendix B in Attachment 1.
The results
The consultation attracted 370 submissions from a wide range of interests across New Zealand. Table 1 below shows submitters by location and whether they owned a boat stored ‘on-water’.
Survey completed |
Number of submitters |
Boat ownership |
Northland |
120 |
89 (74%) |
Auckland |
123 |
70 (57%) |
Waikato |
22 |
12 (55%) |
Bay of Plenty |
49 |
23 (47%) |
Elsewhere in NZ |
22 |
10 (45%) |
Overseas |
1 |
1 (100%) |
No region given |
4 |
- |
Incomplete submissions |
|
|
No region given |
29 |
- |
Total responses considered |
370 |
- |
Key themes identified largely through comments in submissions were:
• The importance of protecting marine environments;
• Practicality and compliance issues;
• Managing other pathways is also important (not just hull fouling);
• The practicality of current tools (e.g. effectiveness of anti-foul, lack of haul-out facilities, and in water cleaning rules);
• The allocation / distribution of costs;
• Need for a national approach to managing marine pests;
• Pests having already established; and
• ‘Stationary vessels’ (i.e. low risk of spread).
The number of submitters that owned boats stored on-water was between 45% and 57% for all regions, except Northland where boat-owners made up 74% of respondents. This likely reflects that the issue has been recently debated through the Northland Marine Pest Pathway Plan and associated charging regime.
Feedback on the three primary options is summarised below in Figure 1:
Figure
1
Note: The total number of submitters who responded to this question is 314 (a number of submitters did not complete the question or were either from elsewhere in NZ, from overseas, or did not identify a region).
Responses from Northland differed from other regions in that a higher proportion (37%) preferred the ‘none of the above’ option compared with 8-9% in the other regions. Lower numbers of submissions from Bay of Plenty and Waikato may reflect the fact that marine pests are a less prominent issue and that there has been more debate on the matter recently in the Auckland and Northland regions – it may also reflect a lower percentage of owners of vessels stored ‘in-water’ in the Bay of Plenty and Waikato regions. Overall, the majority of responses sought more action on marine pest management by selecting either Option 2 or 3. This was slightly lower in Northland where Options 2 and 3 were supported by 50% of submitters who answered this question.
There were also regional variations in the response to the options for hull-fouling rules as shown in Figure 2.
![]() |
Overall, the results indicate there is support from those who responded for further efforts to manage marine pests across the four regions, with a significant percentage supporting some form of control on hull-fouling (although this is notably more muted in Northland than the other regions with 33% opposed to hull-fouling rules).
Next steps
The consultation has provided useful feedback on the issue of marine pest management. It is recommended that staff (in collaboration with the Top of the North Biosecurity Group partners) undertake a detailed options analysis to identify a ‘preferred’ approach and report back in early 2020. This would include:
• A preferred option for marine pest management;
• An indicative cost / benefit assessment and rationale;
• An indicative implementation programme and associated costs; and
• An outline of the process should the preferred option be pursued.
At this point council(s) could direct that:
• Further consultation be undertaken;
• More information on implementation approaches and / or costs be provided;
• Further investigation into the merits of other options be undertaken;
• A formal proposal under the Biosecurity Act should proceed; or
• No further action be taken.
In the event council (and partner agencies) support proceeding with a formal proposal under the Biosecurity Act, a draft proposal, full cost / benefit analysis and other supporting information required under the Act would be developed - this would require further approval from participating councils prior starting the formal process. It should be noted that each council / participating agency has discretion over whether to proceed and over how implementation costs are allocated (the allocation of implementation costs may therefore vary across each region).
There is clearly some appetite for more action to address marine pests across the ‘top of the north’ regions from both the individuals and the agencies that responded. There are also likely to be benefits arising from a consistent approach across the top of the north regions which staff recommend be explored further (including lower risk of pest incursions and clarity / simplicity for vessel owners). It is therefore recommended that council (and partners) maintain momentum on progress to date by investigating the future options for marine pest management and report back in early 2020 with a preferred approach, indicative costs and supporting evidence, at which time councils can provide further direction.
Costs of developing the options analysis and supporting evidence are not expected to be significant and can be met within existing budgets and utilise tools / information already available (such as the cost / benefit model used in development of the Northland Marine Pest Pathway Plan and the experience with implementation to date, both of which can be extrapolated to other regions).
Considerations
1. Options
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
1 |
No further action is taken |
No cost / resourcing required. |
The status quo remains with inconsistent approaches across the four regions. Less effective response to the risk of marine pests. Momentum on the issue is lost. |
2 |
Further options analysis is undertaken to identify a common preferred option (and evidence base) and reported back to council(s) and agencies in 2020 |
The effectiveness and costs and benefits of the options are clearly identified. Council(s) have greater confidence in deciding next steps particularly if a formal proposal is pursued. |
Further time and resource required. |
3 |
Council identifies a preferred option now |
Clear direction on marine pest management. |
The benefits of an inter-regional approach are less likely to arise if council does not act in unison with partners. A robust analysis of the options (and their implications) would not have been considered. |
The staff’s recommended option is Option 2.
2. Significance and engagement
In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because it is part of council’s day to day activities. This is on the basis that the work can be met with existing budgets and does not commit council to a particular course of action. This does not mean that this matter is not of significance to tangata whenua and/or individual communities, but that council is able to make decisions relating to this matter without undertaking further consultation or engagement.
3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
The decision is consistent with policy and legislative requirements in that it would provide council with a robust basis for future decision making. In addition, the decision relates to non-statutory processes and is consistent with the principles in the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Further considerations
4. Community views
The consultation document provides an indication of community views on the issue and suggests there is a desire for more action on managing marine pests across a range of interests. In the event a formal proposal is progressed (subject to a future council decision) further consultation is required under the Biosecurity Act.
5. Māori impact statement
Māori have had an opportunity to make their views on the matter known through submissions on the discussion document (and a number of Māori have done so). The Te Taitokerau Maori and Council Working Party has been briefed on the issue and has indicated support for inter-regional approaches to marine pest management.
6. Financial implications
The further options analysis, identification of a preferred option and associated evidence base can be met within existing budgets.
7. Implementation issues
There are no significant implementation issues expected given the decision relates to provision of further information to support future council decisions rather than implementation.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: Consultation Results
Report ⇩
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Bruce Howse |
Title: |
Group Manager - Environmental Services |
Date: |
10 July 2019 |
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
NRC Appointment of Trustee onto Northland Events Centre Trust |
ID: |
A1205024 |
From: |
Jonathan Gibbard, Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
This paper seeks Northland Regional Council (NRC) agreement to request an amendment to the Northland Events Centre Trust (NECT) Deed to remove the responsibility of NRC to appoint a representative onto the NECT Board. This would be timed to coincide with the end of NRC’s current representative’s term to the NECT board on 31 December 2019.
1. That the report ‘NRC Appointment of Trustee onto Northland Events Centre Trust’ by Jonathan Gibbard, Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement and dated 20 June 2019, be received.
2. That the council agree that the Whangarei District Council and Northland Events Centre Trust Board (NECT) be asked to amend the NECT deed to remove council’s power to appoint one trustee, as provided in cl 22.3(i), and that this be progressed prior to the end of the current NRC appointee, Mr Alistair Wells, being 31 December 2019.
Background/Tuhinga
Council established the Regional Recreational Facilities Rate, through the Long Term Plan 2006-2016, which provided funding for the Northland Events Centre (NEC). Council funding for the NEC finished in early 2018.
In May 2010, the NECT was established to own and manage the multi-purpose sporting and cultural venue built at Okara Park, Whangārei.
As part of a Handover Agreement to transfer the Northland Events Centre to Whangarei District Council, among other things, it was agreed that Northland Regional Council should have a representative on the Board of NECT. This was sought on the basis that council continued to strike a rate to fund the facility and to ensure that the facility had good governance and was supported as a regional facility.
Accordingly, in March 2013, an amendment was made to Clause 22 of the Northland Events Centre Trust Deed which specified under clause 22.3(i) that one Trustee be appointed by council.
Mr Alistair Wells is the trustee appointed by council to the Board of NECT in 2011 and has been re-appointed most recently at council’s March meeting, until 31 December 2019.
Given council funding support is completed it is recommend to council that Whangarei District Council and NECT be asked to change the Trust Deed to remove council’s requirement to appoint a trustee.
Considerations
1. Options
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
1 |
Continue to have the ability to appoint a trustee to the NECT Board |
NRC continues to have limited input into the running of the NEC through the appointment of one trustee. |
Administrative and political time taken to appoint one trustee to a WDC owned facility with limited to no real benefit. |
2 |
Do not continue to have the power to appoint a trustee to the NECT Board |
NRC would no longer be required to have a process to appoint a trustee to the NECT Board, reducing staff and governance time, and better reflects WDC’s responsibility for management of the facility. |
Removed council’s ability to provide limited influence over the future of NEC through the appointment of one trustee. |
Staff recommend option 2. The NEC is appropriately owned by Whangarei District Council and managed by NECT. Council’s ability to appoint one trustee is no longer considered necessary nor achieving any benefit.
2. Significance and engagement
In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because it is part of council’s day to day considerations and activities. This does not mean that this matter is not of significance to tangata whenua and/or individual communities, but that council is able to make decisions relating to this matter without undertaking further consultation or engagement.
3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
There are no known policy matters, risks or legislative compliance issues associated with this decision.
Further considerations
4. Community views
While no recent community views have been sought, Northland ratepayers supported the funding of the Northland Events Centre on the basis that this is a regional facility – not solely a Whangārei centric facility.
5. Māori impact statement
There are no known specific impacts on Māori that are different to those of the wider community.
6. Financial implications
There are no known financial impacts from the decision proposed in this report.
7. Implementation issues
There are no known implementation issues from this decision.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Nil
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Jonathan Gibbard |
Title: |
Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement |
Date: |
04 July 2019 |
Council Meeting item: 5.9
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Northland Inc. Limited: Statement of Intent 2019-2022 |
ID: |
A1208405 |
From: |
Darryl Jones, Economist |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
The purpose of this report is to present to council Northland Inc. Limited’s (Northland Inc.) final Statement of Intent (SOI) for 2019–2022. The Northland Inc. Board has chosen to incorporate almost all changes and additions suggested by council following the review of the draft SOI 2019–2022 in March/April 2019. Under section 65(2) of the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 council must agree to the SOI, or if it does not agree take steps to require the SOI to be modified. Officers recommend that council agree to the SOI 2019–2022 as attached.
1. That the report ‘Northland Inc. Limited: Statement of Intent 2019-2022’ by Darryl Jones, Economist and dated 2 July 2019, be received.
2. That council agree to Northland Inc. Limited’s Statement of Intent 2019-2022 as set out in Attachment 2 pertaining to Item 5.9 of the 16 July 2019 council agenda.
Background/Tuhinga
In February 2019, Northland Inc. provided a draft SOI 2019–2022 for council’s consideration. Council discussed the draft SOI at a workshop on 5 March and at the quarterly council/Northland Inc. workshop on 12 March. The draft SOI was formally received at the council meeting on 16 April 2019 where council agreed to delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), in consultation with council Chairman and Deputy Chairman, to provide feedback to Northland Inc. on the draft in line with the recommendations in the report.
A written formal response was sent to Northland Inc. on 30 April 2019 (Attachment 1).
Council received a Northland Inc. Board approved final version of the SOI 2019–2022 (Attachment 2) on 27 June 2019, before the 30 June deadline required by Schedule 8(3) of the Local Government Act 2002. Staff have reviewed the SOI and confirm that it complies with the requirements of Schedule 8 of the LGA 2002.
Staff have also reviewed the final SOI against the formal response provided by council and conclude that almost all the changes and additions suggested by council have been taken on board and incorporated into the final SOI. These include, among others, giving priority ordering to council’s objectives; refocusing the destination management and marketing activity on visitor promotion only (NB: investment promotion now combined with Investment and PGF activity); stretch targets for some KPIs; and maintaining activity expenditure for destination management and marketing beyond the life of the extended regional promotions project funding provided by council. The letter from the Board Chair (Attachment 3) accompanying the SOI answers some of the other questions raised.
The main point not included is the request for the SOI to show that a portion of council’s baseline operational funding for Northland Inc. includes a contribution towards the destination management and marketing activity. Overall staff consider that considerable progress has been made by Northland Inc. to accommodate the feedback received.
There are four major changes of note:
1. The number of work programme areas have been reduced from five to four, with the merging of the ‘Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan’ area with the ‘Investment and Infrastructure’ area to create a new ‘Investment and PGF’ work programme.
2. The ‘Māori Economic Development’ work programme no longer has specific reference to the activity of supporting the ICEC to establish a work programme to implement the tikanga based principles of ‘He Tangata, He Whenua, He Oranga: the Taitokerau Māori Economic Growth Strategy’.
3. The ‘Business Innovation and Growth’ work programme is now called “Engagement Collaboration and Visibility’, and a number of activities have been removed including ‘supporting the landing pad programme’
4. and ‘lead and co-ordinated the delivery of the Digital Enablement Plan’.
5. The ‘Destination Management and Marketing Plan’ work programme (previously called ‘Promoting the Region’) no longer has an activity related to delivering narratives which communicates positive attributes of Northland but has a new activity for leading the development of a regional tourism strategy.
6. The key performance indicators relating to the value of NZTE and Callaghan Innovation grant funding facilitated (both total and specifically for Māori) has been reduced as changes to R&D tax credits and how they impact the availability of grants has lowered the anticipated value of uptake of these grants.
The first change creates greater alignment with the first priority area identified in section 3 of the SOI and supported by council. The other changes appear to have been made to give greater weight to the more important activities actually being done within each of the work programme areas.
As shareholders of Northland Inc., council has a requirement under section 65(2) of the LGA 2002 to agree to the SOI, or if it does not agree, to take practicable steps to require a modification to the SOI. Under clause 5 of Schedule 8, the shareholders of a council-controlled organisation may, by resolution, require the board to modify the SOI by including or omitting any provision or provisions of the kind referred to in clause 9(1)(a) to (i), and any board to whom notice of the resolution is given must comply with the resolution.
Northland Inc. Board members and staff will attend the council meeting.
Considerations
1. Options
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
1 |
Agree to Northland Inc.’s SOI 2019–2022 as set out in Attachment 2 |
Allows Northland Inc., to begin operating in 2019/20 without uncertainty. |
Don’t get all the changes requested by council incorporated into the SOI. |
2 |
Not agree to Northland Inc.’s SOI 2019–2022 as set out in Attachment 2 and formally request modifications |
Get all changes requested by council incorporated into the SOI. |
Creates antagonism with Northland Inc. |
The staff’s recommended option is Option 1, that council agrees to the SOI 2019–2022 received from Northland Inc. as set out in Attachment 2. The Northland Inc. Board has chosen to incorporate almost all of council’s recommendations into the final SOI, and those not incorporated are not considered significant enough to warrant council formally requesting modifications.
2. Significance and engagement
In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because it has previously been consulted on and provided for in council’s Long Term Plan 2018–2028 and previous decisions of council to set up Northland Inc. Limited as its council controlled organisation. They are part of council’s normal operations. This does not mean that this matter is not of significance to tangata whenua and/or individual communities, but that council can make decisions relating to this matter without undertaking further consultation or engagement.
3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
The decision is consistent with policy and legislative requirements.
Further considerations
4. Community views
The community have not been specifically consulted with regard to the Northland Inc. SOI. While there was no specific proposal regarding Northland Inc. in council’s proposed Long Term Plan 2018–2028, a number of submitters made comments supporting council’s involvement in economic development through Northland Inc. However, concerns were raised by other submitters about the level of funding provided to Northland Inc.
5. Māori impact statement
Māori have not been specifically consulted with on the development of the latest Northland Inc. SOI. The SOI includes a specific work programme supporting Māori economic development and there are four key performance indicators for this work area.
6. Financial implications
An annual allocation of funding to Northland Inc. for operational expenditure is set out and provided for in council’s Long Term Plan 2018–2028. For 2019/20, the annual level of operational funding is $1,335,876 (plus GST). This funding stream is allocated from council’s Investment and Growth Reserve (IGR), and is paid quarterly on receipt of an invoice from Northland Inc.
In addition to operational funding, the criteria and procedures for the allocation of funding from the IGR (IGR criteria) provides the Board of Northland Inc. the delegated ability to allocate up to $300,000 per annum for project development. In 2018/19, $249,200 was used for this purpose. Northland Inc. also receives IGR Enabling Investment funding from council for projects that it is responsible for delivering. It currently receives funding for two such projects: Extension 350 (a six-year programme worth $832,600 in total ending 2021/22) and extended regional promotions ($200,000 per annum for three years ending 2020/21). Funding for these projects, and any future project allocations, are made by specific council decision in line with IGR.
7. Implementation issues
Northland Inc. is responsible for implementing its SOI. Council does not provide any direction to Northland Inc. on how its operational funding is spent across the four work programmes. It is up to the Board of Northland Inc. to prioritise the allocation of its operation funding across the work programmes. Council receives a report each quarter from Northland Inc. on progress made in achieving the performance measure targets.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: Letter from council to
Northland Inc. providing comments on their draft SOI 2019-2022 ⇩
Attachment 2: Northland Inc. Limited
Statement of Intent 2019-2022 ⇩
Attachment 3: Letter from Northland
Inc. accompanying final SOI ⇩
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Jonathan Gibbard |
Title: |
Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement |
Date: |
04 July 2019 |
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Policy on Hazardous and Controlled Substances for Pest Control |
ID: |
A1209127 |
From: |
Bruce Howse, Group Manager - Environmental Services |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
On 18 June 2019 council resolved to ‘request the development of a policy on the use of controlled and hazardous substances as a pest management tool for its consideration’.
A draft policy on hazardous and controlled substances for pest control is attached for council’s consideration and adoption.
1. That the report ‘Policy on Hazardous and Controlled Substances for Pest Control’ by Bruce Howse, Group Manager - Environmental Services and dated 3 July 2019, be received.
2. That council adopts the ‘Northland Regional Council Policy on Hazardous and Controlled Substances for Pest Control’.
Background/Tuhinga
Nil
Considerations
1. Options
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
1 |
Adopt the policy |
Council has a policy position on hazardous and controlled substances for pest control, which supports council’s pest free aspirations. |
Nil. |
2 |
Reject the policy |
Nil. |
Council does not have a policy position on hazardous and controlled substances for pest control. |
The staff’s recommended option is Option 1.
2. Significance and engagement
In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against council’s significance and engagement policy because pest control is part of council’s day to day activities. This does not mean that this matter is not of significance to tangata whenua and/or individual communities, but that council is able to make decisions relating to this matter without undertaking further consultation or engagement.
3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
The policy is consistent with policy and legislative requirements.
The policy is explicit in stating that the use of hazardous and controlled substances for pest control is subject to compliance with New Zealand law, hence there is no compliance risk in adopting the policy on this basis.
Being a purely administrative matter, Community Views, Māori Impact Statement, Financial Implications and Implementation Issues are not applicable.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: Policy on Use of
Hazardous and Controlled Substances for Pest Control ⇩
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Bruce Howse |
Title: |
Group Manager - Environmental Services |
Date: |
10 July 2019 |
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Rates Resolution - Typographical Error |
ID: |
A1209216 |
From: |
Dave Tams, Group Manager, Corporate Excellence |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
An error was made in exercising the council's power under section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, which authorises the rates to be set by resolution. Under section 13 of the Interpretation Act 1999 the council may exercise its power to correct an error or omission in a previous exercise of statutory power even though the power is not generally capable of being exercised more than once.
This paper provides for the council to correct the typographical error found in the rates resolution adopted during the council meeting held on 4 June 2019.
1. That the report ‘Rates Resolution – Typographical Error’ by GM -Corporate Excellence, Dave Tams, and dated 5 July 2019, be received.
2. That council resolves to correct an error in the rates resolution by altering the amount of the targeted land management rate for the Whangārei district as set on 4 June 2019 from $0.000991 per dollar of land value to $0.0000991 per dollar of land value.
3. That the matters in section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (the financial year to which the rate applies and the due dates of each instalment) as resolved on 4 June 2019 continue to apply in respect of the amended targeted land management rate for the Whangārei district.
Background/Tuhinga
It was found that a typographical error had occurred in the rates resolution adopted by council during the meeting held on 4 June 2019. In the recommendations the Land Management rate for Whangarei District Council shows as $0.000991 per dollar of land value, however in the background information which contains the rates summary table it is shown as $0.0000991. Upon review of the rates calculation spreadsheet it was found that the summary table contained in the background information is correct and a zero had been dropped from the figure contained in the recommendations. See extracts from resolution below.
Information as contained in the rates resolution recommendations:
Information as contained in the supporting summary table in the rates resolution:
Considerations
1. Options
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
1 |
Adopt the recommendations presented in this report |
Correct a typographical error in the rates resolution making the rate legally correct. |
Do not correct the typographical error and have the rate not meet legal requirements. |
2 |
Do not adopt the recommendations presented in this report |
None. |
Rates resolution will remain incorrect. |
The staff’s recommended option is to adopt no 1 recommendations presented in this report.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: Rates Resolution Memo ⇩
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Dave Tams |
Title: |
Group Manager, Corporate Excellence |
Date: |
10 July 2019 |
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Manea Footprints of Kupe - Confirmation of Definitions |
ID: |
A1209718 |
From: |
Darryl Jones, Economist |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
At its meeting on 19 February 2019, council agreed to allocate $500,000 from the Investment and Growth Reserve as an Enabling Investment funding allocation for the Manea Footprints of Kupe (Manea) project at Opononi. One of the conditions of the allocation is that the funding agreement between Te Hau o te Kawariki Trust (the Trust), Manea Footprints of Kupe Limited and Far North Holdings Limited (FNDL) must include ‘an undertaking that Manea will be held in perpetuity for the benefit of the local community and that should it ever be sold into private ownership that council will be refunded its $500,000 funding allocation.’ This paper is prepared to seek council confirmation on the definitions of the ‘Manea Footprints of Kupe’ project and ‘public ownership’ for the purposes of the funding agreement.
1. That the report ‘Manea Footprints of Kupe - Confirmation of Definitions’ by Darryl Jones, Economist and dated 4 July 2019, be received.
2. That council confirm that the Manea Footprints of Kupe project consists of the land, buildings and improvements that occur on it.
3. That council confirms that Te Hua o te Kawariki Trust and Far North Holdings Limited are considered to be public ownership for the purposes of the funding agreement.
Background/Tuhinga
Following council’s decision to allocate funding for the Manea Footprints of Kupe project, staff have been involved in discussions with the Trust on the funding agreement. Two definitional issues have arisen that staff are seeking council confirmation on: the definition of what is the Manea project that must be held in perpetuity and what constitutes private ownership.
The ownership of the project is complex. Under the terms of the project, FNHL will purchase and own the land on which the centre will be developed. FNHL will construct a building on that land which it will own and lease to the Trust. The Trust will develop and own the internal fit out of the building in which the visitors will receive the experience. The agreement to lease between FNHL and the Trust includes an irrevocable option for the Trust to purchase the property in Lot 1 DP 195242 CT NA123B/576 from FNHL when it is able to do so. Staff recommend that the Manea project be defined as the land, buildings and improvements that occur on it.
The Trust has raised the issue that they could be considered as ‘private ownership’. It was never intended that they be captured by the definition of ‘private ownership’ as the Trust has been established, as set in both its Deed and Constitution, to be for the benefit of the community rather than private individuals. For clarity purposes, staff recommend that both the Trust and FNHL not be considered private ownership for the purposes of the funding agreement.
Considerations
1. Options
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
1 |
Agree to the definitions |
Provides certainly in the funding agreement. |
None. |
2 |
Don’t agree to the definitions |
None. |
Could create uncertainly in the funding agreement. |
The staff’s recommended option is Option 1.
2. Significance and engagement
In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as the ability to allocate funding from the IGR has been specifically considered and provided for in council’s Long Term Plan.
3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
The activities detailed in this report are in accordance with the IGR criteria, the Long Term Plan 2018–2028, and council’s decision-making process as prescribed in the Local Government Act 2002.
Being a purely administrative matter, Community Views, Māori Impact Statement, Financial Implications and Implementation Issues are not applicable.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Nil
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Jonathan Gibbard |
Title: |
Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement |
Date: |
05 July 2019 |
Council Meeting item: 5.13
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Mt Tiger Harvest Results - 1991 Stand |
ID: |
A1210817 |
From: |
Nicole Inger, Property Officer |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
This report is provided to council giving the results and summary of council’s recent Mt Tiger forest harvest.
Council’s forestry consultant, Mr Ian Jenkins, will be present at the meeting to further discuss the harvest outcomes with councillors, if required.
1. That the report ‘Mt Tiger Harvest Results - 1991 Stand’ by Nicole Inger, Property Officer and dated 9 July 2019, be received.
2. That the harvest’s net revenue be deposited into the Equalisation Reserve.
Background/Tuhinga
At the 11 December 2018 council meeting, the following approvals were provided:
1. That councillors give approval in principle to the Property Subcommittee recommendation that the Forest Harvest Plan and harvest of the 1991 Mt Tiger Forest Block goes ahead.
2. That councillors give the Chief Executive Officer authority up until 30 June 2019 to make the final decision when to harvest.
3. That the harvest will be subject to market conditions, contractor availability, be undertaken in line with budget, and meet high health, safety and employment and environmental standards.
4. The Property Subcommittee recommendations that:
- the areas unable to be harvested be left standing and a long-term plan developed to ultimately convert these areas to native forest; and
- the harvested area be replanted in suitable species in the 2020 winter.
be accepted.
The Mt Tiger Forest 1991 block consists of 23.4 hectares (a. 11,700 tonne) of pruned radiata pine. The harvest of this block was originally budgeted for the NRC 2019/20 budget year - subject to market conditions and final approval by council.
The previous harvest at Mt Tiger Forest was the 1985 block, completed in June 2016 after being delayed some 18 months owing to market conditions and difficulty in sourcing a suitable cable harvesting contractor. Owing to these difficulties with the last harvest, the 1991 Block pre-harvest planning was undertaken earlier in order to have it ‘harvest ready’ and thus provide more flexibility and allow prompt harvest start-up.
As a result of the detailed pre-harvest planning it was found that:
· Only 18.5 ha of the 1991 block (80%) is physically/economically able to be harvested.
· Consequently, the expected volume will only be some 7,974 m3.
· A number of challenges exist and will need to be managed accordingly, this includes public roads, powerlines, traffic, security, kiwi, environmental, archaeological and adjacent kauri area.
Whilst harvest was not scheduled (and budgeted) until summer 2019/20, in late 2018 high export and domestic log prices and the fact that Northland Forest Managers Limited (NFML), the council’s contracted Forest Manager, had a harvest crew available in March 2019 meant that council could take this opportunity to harvest the 1991 block.
NFML presented a Harvesting and Marketing Proposal for the 1991 Block via council’s forestry consultant to the Property Subcommittee (and subsequently council) in November 2018 which outlined:
· That full harvest be undertaken in March 2019.
· Prior to full harvest, road-lining is required in December 2018, and road and landing construction in January 2019.
NFML’s proposal estimated the net return from the harvest of the 1991 area at approx. $471,000 (7,974 m3, Gross Price $135.97/m3, Harvest Costs $76.90/m3, Stumpage $59.08/m3).
Whilst the area and volume able to be harvested were down by some 20% on the original NRC budget, the high log prices and similar costs mitigated this to some extent, with the projected result being 13% below budget.
On this basis, council approval to progress the harvest was granted. NFML undertook the road-lining in January 2019, and road and landing construction in February 2019.
Council’s CEO was delegated the authority to make the final decision when to undertake the harvest - to allow for any changes in market conditions, etc. This was subsequently given 12 February 2019, based upon an updated and more favourable forecast of the net harvest revenue.
The updated forecast was as shown below:
Variable |
Budget 2019-20 |
Previous Estimate |
Current Estimate |
(NFML H&M Proposal- Nov 2018 |
(NFML) Feb2019 |
||
Area (ha) economic |
23.4 |
18.5 |
18.5 |
Volume (cubic metre) |
11,700 |
7,974 |
7,974 |
Gross price (per m3) |
$120.50 |
$135.97 |
$144.81 |
Harvest cost (per m3) |
$74.50 |
$76.90 |
$77.96 |
Stumpage return (per m3) |
$46.00 |
$59.08 |
$66.85 |
Net Total Return |
$538,200 |
$471,104 |
$533,062 |
Again, it was noted that the area and thus volume able to be practically, environmentally and profitably harvested is down some 20% on the original budget. However, the more recent projected net income, as at the February 2019 update, had further improved and was now very close to budget (and a year earlier).
Full scale harvest commenced 18 February 2019.
Harvesting was completed on 12 April 2019, after which post-harvest clean-up and site shutdown was undertaken, culminating with full harvest sign-off on 23 May 2019.
Final harvest outcomes:
Health and Safety:
Prior to harvest, the forestry consultant went through rigorous H&S checks with NFML, to ensure council’s interests/risk was covered off. In conjunction with council’s H&S Officer, NFML’s H&S systems, their contractor induction, and specific actions regarding the Mt Tiger operation were reviewed. This included ensuring NFML had done hazard ID, new site induction meetings, etc., to ensure the contractors were meeting all their requirements.
The whole harvest operation from road lining through to site clean-up was undertaken extremely well from an H&S perspective. During the harvest there were no Lost Time Injury incidents. There were no incidents reported and no reported critical rule breaches reported during the harvest period.
Environmental:
The harvest of the 1991 block was a permitted activity under the NES-PF. NFML submitted and obtained the pre-requisite pre-start requirements from NRC under the NES-PF Regulations.
An NRC environmental monitoring inspection was undertaken on 20 March 2019, one month into full scale harvest, and was fully compliant.
At harvest end, for council’s own satisfaction and to be seen to be operating under best practice and at or above its own forest industry monitoring standards, the council’s Environmental Monitoring Officer was asked to carry out a final post-harvest inspection. An excellent result was achieved with full compliance.
Overall, the harvest was undertaken to a high environmental standard and at least consistent with best practice.
Archaeological site:
There was one small archaeological site (Q07/989) within the 1991 stand harvest area that required careful management as part of the harvest.
A Heritage New Zealand authority was obtained (in February 2019) and the forester harvest crew undertook the harvest around this site appropriately. The pine trees immediately on the site were carefully felled to waste at the end of the harvest. The site has been undamaged.
An archaeologist inspected the site during and after harvest and has now prepared his final post-harvest report (favourable outcome) and submitted it to Heritage New Zealand.
Overall Harvest Financial Results:
The final outcome for the harvest of the 1991 block is described below, resulting in a final net return to council of $523,000.00.
The total $ net return at $523,000 is only 3% below the original 2019/20 budget ($538,000), and 2% below the pre-start estimate (Feb 2019) of $533,000, and has also been achieved a year earlier.
To understand the final harvest result more fully, it is also useful to examine it in terms of $/t unit figures as per the Table below.
Variable |
Budget 2019-20 |
Pre-Start Estimate |
Final Harvest Result |
(NFML) Feb2019 |
(Jan- May 2019) |
||
Area (ha) economic |
23.4 |
18.5 |
18.5 |
Volume (m3/ha) |
500 |
431 |
382 |
Total Volume (t) |
11,700 |
7,974 |
7,074 |
Gross price (per t) |
$120.50 |
$144.81 |
$148.31 |
Infrastructure (per t) |
$4.92 |
$15.07 |
$11.75 |
Log and load (per t) |
$48.22 |
$44.99 |
$44.69 |
Cartage (per t) |
$14.45 |
$12.84 |
$12.82 |
Other (per t) |
$1.91 |
$0.57 |
$0.58 |
H&M Agent fees (per t) |
$5.00 |
$4.50 |
$4.50 |
Total Harvest cost (per t) |
$74.50 |
$77.96 |
$74.34 |
Stumpage return (per t) |
$46.00 |
$66.85 |
$73.97 |
Net Total Return |
$538,208 |
$533,063 |
$523,213 |
There are two comparisons to be made from the above data, actual versus budget (2019/20) and actual versus the pre-start estimate (Feb 2019).
Key points of comparison are as follows:
The actual total net return of $523,000 is an excellent result.
As noted earlier, once the harvest planning was completed, the area actually able to be harvested was 21% less than the original budget (18.5 ha vs 23.4 ha) and hence the budgeted total net return (all other things being equal) should have been unachievable.
The budget volume of 500 m3/ha was a ballpark estimate based on previous NRC harvests and upon a harvest not until 2019/20 (age 28 years). The inventory found the 1991 area to be not as well stocked and the inventory was undertaken at age 26 over the whole 23.4 ha stand. The inventory PLE (probable limits of error, ie reliability) was +/- 17% showing the stand to be variable. Thus, the inventory at 431 m3/ha and 14% lower than budget was understandable, as it was a measured result.
The actual volume harvested per ha, was 382m3/ha, and thus 11% below inventory. The consultant has confirmed that all volume has been accounted for, all produce has been invoiced, there is no significant merchantable volume left on the landing or on the cutover. Any material on the cutover is windthrown and non-merchantable or within industry norms. The reason for the volume under-achievement is in part because inventory is only a sample estimate and not always precise (PLE range), and the reduced area able to be harvested was not the same as the sample area, with possibly better areas left behind. Further, industry harvest reconciliations often show 5-10% less actual volume than inventory. This variance is also more common in small harvest areas due to the ‘edge’ effect, i.e. for small irregular stands the impact of accurately mapping and inventorying the forest boundary can be more pronounced.
The volume per ha comparison is shown in the figure above. The left chart shows the volume by log grade per hectare and the right chart shows the log grade mix in percentage terms.
So overall, area and yield recovery per hectare combined, the actual total harvest volume at 7,074t was only 60% of the budget (2019/20) figure of 11,700t, and was 11% below the pre-start estimate (Feb 2019) of 7,974t.
As can be seen in the right-hand figure above, in percentage terms - the actual harvest log grade mix was slightly under the inventory based pre-start estimate (Feb 2019) with less large log and more industrial grades, but was slightly superior to the budget (2019/20) ballpark estimate. Overall the actual grade outturn from harvest was a good result.
The actual unit $/t gross price achieved ($148.31/t) was 23% better than the budget (2019/20) of $120.50/t and in line with (2% above) the pre-start estimate (Feb 2019) of $144.82/t. The better log grade recovery achieved contributed to this slightly, but it was mainly a result of the better log prices prevailing during harvest as compared to the budget estimates. In fact, whether by luck or good management, the 1991 harvest (as indicated by the yellow highlight) was undertaken at the absolute peak in export market prices, as shown in the graph below.
Actual unit $/t total costs ($74.34/t) are almost identical to the budget (2019/20) of $74.50/t and 5% below the pre-start estimate (Feb 2019) of $77.96/t.
As can be seen in the table above, there are variations in the harvest cost components.
Infrastructure (roads and landings) was more expensive than the budget (2019/20) due to the new harvest plan and less volume to spread the costs. However, the outcome was 22% below the pre-start estimate (Feb 2019) despite the lower volume.
The actual log and load costs of $44.69/t were as expected close to the pre-start estimate (Feb 2019) as they were negotiated and set pre-start, but they were some 7% below the budget (2019/20) of $48.22/t.
The infrastructure costs are high by industry standards, as is the log and load rate - the result of harvesting a small area with a cable hauler.
The actual average cartage cost of $12.82/t was as expected close to the pre-start estimate (Feb 2019) as the rates were also negotiated and set pre-start, but they were some 11% below the budget (2019/20) of $14.45/t due to competitive rates being obtained and with more wood going to the CHH domestic mill as compared to the longer and higher cartage rate to Marsden Point export.
Other costs (e.g. forest industry levy, weighbridge, etc.) and NFML’s harvesting and marketing fee were slightly under budget.
As a result of the above, the final net stumpage return at $73.97/t was an excellent outcome, being 61% above the budget (2019/20) of $46.00/t and 11% above the pre-start estimate (Feb 2019) of $66.85/t. A result of higher returns and lower costs.
Therefore, these high unit stumpage returns almost completely offset the significantly lower volume achievement to result in the final net return at $523,000 falling just short of the budget (2019/20) of $538,000 and the pre-start estimate (Feb 2019) of $533,000.
Concluding Comments:
The 1991 block at Mt Tiger Forest has now been successfully harvested.
The area able to be actually harvested was 18.5 ha and less than the planted area (23.4 ha), a result of practical harvesting realities, which were not taken into account at planting.
The volume/ha achieved was also less than budget, but the log grade mix was reasonably well aligned.
The harvest timing was superb and captured very high export log prices. The unit rates for revenue were thus well above budget. Generally, harvest costs were lower than budget.
The overall total net return at $523,000 is an excellent result given the significantly less volume (40% less) harvested. Also, the income has been achieved a year earlier than planned.
NFML has done a good job in undertaking their H&M contract on behalf of council and should be commended.
Replanting:
As per the Forest Management Plan, this block will be replanted in the winter of 2020 for its second rotation. This will provide sufficient time for the initial regenerating weeds and pine regen to be sprayed and controlled, to provide a clean planting site.
After due consideration of options, including the need to re-establish the 1991 harvested site from an environmental perspective as quickly as possible, along with the area being part of a council commercial asset which should be making an investment return, and physical and practical challenges with other land uses, this area is best replanted in commercial plantation.
It is likely to be replanted in radiata pine to grow another commercial tree crop, but other species will be considered prior to a final decision being made.
Residual Area:
At present the approximately 5 hectares of the 1991 stand that could not be physically/economically harvested remains standing.
It is recommended that these areas be left standing in the medium term. This will help mitigate the environmental impacts of harvest (i.e. 20% less area harvested, and these trees will act as a buffer at the lower elevations of the block). They will continue to grow happily for at least another 30 years. They might be harvestable next rotation (assuming the main block is replanted in radiata pine, see below) with equipment/technology developments.
It is not recommended to fell these areas to waste in one operation due to the difficulties this would create with future land use. However, it might be a consideration longer term to ‘convert’ these areas to native vegetation through the gradual removal of the pine crop (e.g. ringbarking/poisoning) to allow the native understory to develop in a staged manner.
Council Meeting item: 5.13
16 July 2019
Pictures taken during harvest for interest:
Health and Safety was top priority and well managed, checking crew H&S documentation
Cable hauler extracting logs
Loading out logs for transport to Marsden Point
Cutover after harvest, with residual unharvestable area in background
Cutover, with archaeological site prior to final tree felling
Considerations
1. Options
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
1 |
Deposit harvest revenue into the Equalisation Reserve |
Complies with Council’s ‘usual process’ for harvest revenue. |
Nil |
2 |
Do not deposit revenue into the Equalisation Reserve |
Nil |
Does not comply with Council’s ‘usual process’ for harvest revenue. |
The staff’s recommended option is to deposit the harvest revenue into the Equalisation Reserve.
2. Significance and engagement
This matter is deemed to be of low significance when assessed against council’s Significance and Engagement Policy given it is an administrative matter.
3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
This report complies with council’s reserves ‘usual process’ whereby any net forestry income is transferred to the Equalisation Fund.
Being a purely administrative matter, Community Views, Māori Impact Statement, Financial Implications and Implementation Issues are not applicable.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Nil
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Phil Heatley |
Title: |
Strategic Projects Manager |
Date: |
09 July 2019 |
Council Meeting item: 6.1
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Chair's Report to Council |
ID: |
A1207935 |
From: |
Bill Shepherd, Chairman |
Purpose of Report
This report is to receive information from the Chair on strategic issues, meetings/events attended, and correspondence sent for the month of June 2019.
That the report ‘Chair's Report to Council’ by Bill Shepherd, Chairman and dated 1 July 2019, be received.
Strategic issues
Last Chair’s Report for this Triennium
This will be my last Chair’s Report for this Triennium as we enter the pre-election hiatus when sitting councillors are no longer able to express views in council publications.
Māori in Local Government
I attended the Tai Tokerau Māori in Local Government Symposium in Waitangi on 27 June. My compliments to the team of organisers from Te Huinga and Te Taitokerau Māori and Council (TTMAC) Working Party of the Northland Regional Council.
It was a very well organised event designed mainly to encourage Māori to participate in local government, first by registering as electors, then encouraging good Māori candidates to stand, and then finally supporting their people by voting.
Northland Regional Council has had a number of very good Māori councillors over the years. With support from the Māori community it could do so again.
Meetings/events attended
During this period, I attended the following meetings/events/functions:
· Meetings attended with the council’s CEO, Malcolm Nicolson:
o UNISA Mayors and Chairs meeting held in Auckland.
o Celebration of progression of Awanui flood infrastructure works and Business After Five event in partnership with the Northland Chamber of Commerce.
o Meeting with Murray Jagger, Chairman, Marsden Maritime Holdings – director appointment.
o Attended function in Kawakawa and had a brief discussion with Hon Shane Jones.
o Northland|Forward Together Strategic Planning Workshop.
o Marsden Maritime Holdings director interviews. Councillors David Sinclair and Joce Yeoman also participated on the interview panel.
· Regular Northland Mayoral Forum conference call.
· Friends of the Chamber informal mid-winter get together.
· Tai Tokerau Māori in Local Government Symposium held in Waitangi
· Kaipara Moana negotiations held in Warkworth. Councillor Penny Smart also attended.
Correspondence
During June I sent out the following correspondence:
Date |
Addressed To |
Subject |
05.06.19 |
Jordan MacDonald |
NRC Environment Awards |
24.06.19 |
Boyda Wikaira Chairperson Whirinaki Water Board Inc. |
Building a meaningful and enduring relationship |
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Council Meeting item: 6.2
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Chief Executive’s Report to Council |
ID: |
A1205970 |
From: |
Malcolm Nicolson, Chief Executive Officer |
That the report ‘Chief Executive’s Report to Council’ by Malcolm Nicolson, Chief Executive Officer and dated 30 June 2019, be received.
6.2.1 Highlights
Northland Civil Defence Ememergency Management
The establishment of the Emergency Management Assistance Teams is progressing at a national level with a two-week residential training course scheduled for August. The EMAT is a national surge capacity capability to be used in responding to emergency events. Shona Morgan from the Northland CDEM Group has been selected to attend the training, and should be congratulated for this recognition of her work.
Predator Free Taitokerau
Council’s Predator Free Taitokerau proposal was successful in receiving a significant amount of funding from Predator Free 2050 Ltd (PF2050 Ltd). PF2050 Ltd has conditionally awarded council funding of up to $6M over five years to eradicate possums from Whāngarei Heads or Bay of Islands Peninsulas. The original proposal requested $10.5M over five years, leaving a shortfall of $4.5M ($900,000 per annum). Council is currently working through options with key stakeholders to identify which area and communities are best placed to make a start towards becoming predator free.
6.2.2 CEO’s Office
Upper North Island Strategic Alliance (UNISA)
Mayors and Chairs met on 7 June 2019. Minister David Parker discussed the Upper North Island Supply Chain Study (ports, rail and roads), water quality and water infrastructure financing, and climate change impacts amongst other topics. NZTA Acting Chief Executive, Mark Ratcliffe, provided an update on NZTA funding and priorities.
UNISA Councils continue to support an Upper North Island marine pest management pathway plan promoted by council. UNISA is a key contributor to the Refinery Pipeline Enquiry.
Council Property Update
A Sale & Purchase Agreement to purchase a Hihiaua Precinct property has settled.
A Sale & Purchase Agreement to Purchase of a Waipapa property has been signed and due diligence satisfied, settlement is later in the year.
The decision to proceed with redevelopment at 8 Kensington Avenue is before the 16 July 2019 council meeting.
KDC councillors have approved a KDC-NRC lease agreement ‘in principle’ for the Kaipara Service Centre, Chief Executives to negotiate terms.
The Mt Tiger Forest harvest and clean-up is complete and the report is before 16 July 2019 council meeting.
Current Legal Proceedings
Department |
Description |
Status |
Consent decision appeal |
To construct a boardwalk as part of a coastal walkway in Back Bay, Mangawhai Estuary |
Parties agreed to an alternative route to the proposed boardwalk. Appeal resolved by consent order issued by the Environment Court on 17 June 2019. |
Consent decision appeal |
Seventeen groundwater takes for horticultural irrigation at Houhora, Motutangi, and Waiharara |
Awaiting the Court to make a final decision or provide further directions. |
Consent decision appeal |
Replacement consents for, and new consents for an expansion of, Doug’s Opua Boat Yard in Walls Bay, Ōpua. |
Awaiting the Court’s decision on the applications. |
6.2.3 Corporate Excellence
Year-end Draft Accounts
The finance team are currently working hard towards completing the 2018/19 year-end draft accounts for audit review. These draft annual accounts will be presented to the August council meeting. Deloitte will be on site from 19 August until early September completing their review of the final accounts. The final accounts are set to be given audit clearance and be adopted by council at the council meeting on 25 September 2019.
Fraud Declaration
I am not aware of any fraud nor am I investigating any incidence or suspected incidence of fraud at this time.
6.2.4 Regulatory Services
CONSENTS IN PROCESS
During June 2019, a total of 52 Decisions were issued. These decisions comprised:
• Moorings |
2 |
• Coastal Permits |
6 |
• Air Discharge Permits |
0 |
• Land Discharge Permits |
12 |
• Water Discharge Permits |
0 |
• Land Use Consents |
24 |
• Water Permits |
6 |
• Bore Consents |
2 |
The processing timeframes for the June 2019 consents ranged from:
• 546 to 2 calendar days, with the median time being 29 days;
• 346 to 2 working days, with the median time being 20 days.
27 applications were received in June 2019.
Of the 107 applications in progress at the end of June 2019:
• 35 were received more than 12 months ago (most awaiting further information);
• 24 were received between 6 and 12 months ago (most awaiting further information);
• 48 less than 6 months.
Appointment of Hearing Commissioners
No commissioners were appointed in June 2019.
Consents Decisions and Progress on Notified Applications in Process, Objections and Appeals
The current level of notified application processing activities at the end of June 2019 is (by number):
• Applications Publicly/Limited Notified During Previous Month |
0 |
• Progress on Applications Previously Notified |
4 |
• Hearings and Decisions |
3 |
• Appeals/Objections |
3 |
HYDROLOGY Rivers / Rain Situation • Northland rainfall totals were below the expected average amount for June 2019. The highest rainfall totals were received in the Parataiko and Tutāmoe Ranges to the west. The east of the Far North, from the Bay of Islands upwards were the driest areas for the month. • River flows have generally been higher during June due to the frequent small rainfall events over the month. River flows will continue to be monitored closely. For more detailed information, please refer to the Hydrology Climate reports uploaded on the NRC website.
|
|
Hydrology Projects
• A backup water level sensor was installed at the key flood monitoring site ‘Awanui at School Cut’, to increase the resilience of this station.
• The Selwyn Swamp, Awanui Spillway and Waipapa at Doonside Road water level recorders were upgraded to a IRIS270 datalogger, compatible with the new telemetry system. A new staff gauge was also installed at the Waipapa at Doonside Road site to mitigate a health and safety issue associated with getting reference measurements.
• The water level recorder on the Takahue River was repaired after a large tree fell on it and damaged the communication aerial.
• Traffic controller training was completed by all of the Hydrology Team on 21 June 2019.
• Groundwater SOE sampling runs were carried out.
• The Hydrology Team made improvements to its Quality Management System.
NATURAL RESOURCES DATA
• Coordinating LAWA requests (key dates for delivery across May – September 2019):
• LAWA Groundwater Quality Module (EMaR) and National Environment Reporting (MfE) – currently reviewing the status of the data feeds and data provided. The module’s “Go-live” date is September 2019.
• LAWA Annual Refresh of Lakes, Rivers, Can I Swim water quality and Water Quantity data. All raw data was supplied for refresh at the end of June 2019. Council needs to confirm final datasets and load them for LAWA by August 2019 and Go-live in September 2019.
• Survey 123 for electronic data collection: This will be trialled alongside the traditional paper forms for the River Water Quality Run in July 2019.
• The Water Meter Online System is now finalised. The online system will allow consent holders to enter their water use records directly via the NRC website. Go-live is early July 2019 and the Data Management Team is working closely with the Compliance and Online Services teams regarding communication to the consent holders on the new service.
• Discussions were held with other councils around a national QMS proposal, including setting up national quality objectives, reports on what councils are/are not meeting the specified objectives, audit processes and NEMS.
NATURAL RESOURCES SCIENCE
Coastal
A water quality buoy was deployed in the Ruakāka estuary for 30 days and collected water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and chlorophyll-a data every fifteen minutes. The data will complement information collected from our discrete sampling site in the estuary and will help us to understand how water quality varies over tidal cycles and following high rainfall events.
Freshwater quality / Freshwater ecology
• NIWA’s final report analysing the first three years of periphyton monitoring data has been received. The report will be used to inform a proposed plan change in 2021 for deriving appropriate in-stream nutrient concentrations and limits/criteria for Northland rivers. The report also contains a review of the current periphyton monitoring programme. Recommendations will be reviewed and actioned where appropriate.
• The annual fish monitoring programme has been completed for the year following the NZ National Fish Monitoring Protocols (Joy et al, 2013). A total of 18 sites was sampled including 15 RWQMN/priority catchments sites and three randomly selected sites and
• The 2018 macroinvertebrate data has been passed on to the data management team for the latest LAWA update.
• An investigation into elevated ammoniacal nitrogen levels at one of the Doubtless Bay Catchment sites was initiated this month, in collaboration with the Land Management Team.
Air quality
• Ambient PM10 monitoring results for May 2019 for the Whangārei and Marsden Point airsheds show that compliance was met with the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ). PM2.5 monitoring results for Whangārei were within the Ambient Air Quality Guideline value.
• The Mobile PM10 monitor has been moved to Kawakawa from Kaikohe. The first results from the Kawakawa monitoring site will be presented in next month’s report.
• Energy and Technical Services (Energy TS) Limited has started to track council’s carbon emissions. Login information to e-Bench and an initial report is expected to be available within next few weeks.
Coastal/Water Quality Field Operations
• Coastal water quality sampling of the Whangārei, Bay of Islands and Kaipara harbours and southern estuaries (Mangawhai, Waipū and Ruakāka) was carried out.
• The continuous water quality monitoring station on Tikinui wharf was re-established after going through a redesign of the monitoring equipment. This site collects water quality data every 15 minutes year-round to greatly improve our understanding of the water quality in the Wairoa Catchment and greater Kaipara Harbour.
• Three continuous dissolved oxygen freshwater monitoring sites were validated and calibrated for the first time. The sites require monthly validations and quarterly calibrations. A further three sites are yet to be established.
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
The results of compliance monitoring for the period 1 – 30 June 2019 (and final figures for 2018/2019) are summarised in the following table and discussed below.
Classification |
Total |
Full compliance |
Non-compliance |
Significant non-compliance |
Not exercised during period |
Air discharges |
36 |
26 |
7 |
0 |
3 |
Coastal permit |
69 |
47 |
6 |
0 |
16 |
Discharge permit |
154 |
101 |
31 |
2 |
20 |
Land use consent |
126 |
103 |
4 |
0 |
19 |
Water permit |
122 |
85 |
30 |
0 |
7 |
Total |
507 |
362 |
78 |
2 |
65 |
Percentage |
71.4% |
15.4% |
0.4% |
12.8% |
|
YTD |
10,611 |
8,184 |
1,243 |
319 |
865 |
Percentage |
77.1% |
11.7% |
3.0% |
8.2% |
Coastal
• The majority of consents monitored during the reporting period related to coastal discharges (treated municipal sewage, industrial and boat maintenance facilities) and coastal structures.
Hazardous substances
• Four incidents involving the discharge of hazardous substances and 22 enquiries regarding contamination.
Water, Waste, Air and Land Use Compliance Monitoring
During the month of June compliance staff were involved in:
• Attending the forestry workshop lead by the Land Management team held at Barge Park.
• Attending a ‘drop in’ day held by the Kerikeri Kiwifruit Growers Association. The purpose was to encourage residents to drop in and discuss any concerns or questions they may have regarding spraying, other related activities and regional plan rules. Disappointingly, the session was not well attended by the community; possibly due to the timing of the event and venue choice.
• A liaison meeting was held with the Whangarei District Council compliance staff to discuss issues involving both Councils and to share information. This forum is proving valuable to both teams. Topics discussed included stormwater management, asbestos and sites that contain hazardous substances.
• A “meet and greet” was held between the Kaipara District Council (KDC) compliance staff and our compliance staff. We aim to meet with KDC compliance staff on a regular basis.
Ongoing training of Armourguard officers continued in June with more officers from the outer Armourguard offices in attendance.
Environmental incidents
There were no incidents recorded during the reporting period that resulted in a significant environmental impact.
ENFORCEMENT
Abatement notices, infringement notices and formal warnings
The following enforcement actions were taken during the period:
|
Infringement Notice |
Abatement Notice |
Total |
|||
Nature of Offence |
No. Offences |
No. Notices |
No. Offences |
No. Notices |
No. Offences |
No. Notices |
Burning & smoke nuisance |
1 |
1 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
Illegal activity in coastal marine area |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Illegal use of lake bed or river bed |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Other air discharge |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Other water discharge |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Sediment |
1 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
Sewage |
0 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Total |
5 |
5 |
14 |
15 |
15 |
20 |
Other Enforcement
• Dumping and burning of demolition waste, Kaikohe
No new developments/change since previous update.
• Enforcement Order – Paihia wastewater treatment plant
No new developments/change since previous update.
• Farm dairy effluent – Waipū
Charges have been laid against a Waipū farmer for offending which occurred in July and December 2018. The offences related to discharges of untreated effluent from breakages in irrigation lines. The farm has a poor history of compliance with regional rules for animal effluent disposal. Guilty pleas to all charges were entered on 18 April 2019. Sentencing has been adjourned to 22 July 2019.
• Farm dairy effluent – Maungakaramea
Charges have been laid against a farmer owner and his company as well as the farm manager for offences which occurred in September 2018. The farm has a poor history of compliance with regional rules for animal effluent disposal. Adjourned until 17 July 2019, when pleas should be entered.
• Farm dairy effluent – Maromaku
Charges have been laid against a farm owner and his company as well as the farm manager for offences which occurred in September 2018. The farm has a poor history of compliance with regional rules for animal effluent disposal. Adjourned until 17 July 2019, when pleas should be entered.
6.2.5 Environmental Services
Land Management
Environment Fund Update
Within this financial year $997,000 of e-fund projects have been completed. A full summary will be reported in the next CEO’s report once a final reconciliation has been completed.
Farm Environment Plans (FEP) – 2018/19
This financial year 152 FEPs have been commenced covering 24,896 hectares and 104 FEPs completed totalling 10,405 hectares. The KPIs for the LTP have met and exceeded the baseline 25,000 ha, per annum, of farm plans to be commenced or completed in each financial year.
Nursery Expansion and Harvest Update
Harvest is now complete with approximately 5,000 poplar and willow poles delivered to 53 properties across Northland for soil conservation purposes. The 2018/19 Nursery expansion is reaching its final week with approximately 3.5ha of land planted out with new poplar and willow pegs. Thirty thousand additional poplar and willow pegs will be planted.
Kaipara Hill Country Erosion Project
The Kaipara Hill Country Erosion Project was completed in June 2019. The four-year project achieved its goals with 125 Kaipara Hill Country Erosion Farm Plans produced for properties within the Kaipara catchment that have areas of high erosion risk, totalling 33,875.5 ha of land under plans, 128 ha of erosion prone land retired, 10,091 poplar and willow poles delivered to 126 properties and $935,636.65 of the NRC Environment Fund allocated to 204 properties.
Hill Country Erosion Fund – Sustainable Hill Country and Regional Priorities
NRC is still awaiting MPI to sign the contract. As the project is agreed in principle NRC has commenced the recruitment process of 4 FTE (1 Project Co-ordinator and 3 Land Management Advisors) to implement this project. An implementation plan will be presented in September to Council.
Hill Country Erosion Fund Boost Year Fund
This project was completed in June 2019 and all work submitted to MPI. The project final report will be distributed to partners and stakeholders and NRC staff in due course. This has been an excellently executed project that was initially designed to take 12 months, but was delivered to a high standard in seven months and $135k under budget.
Northern Wairoa FIF Project
With all funding projects completed we have signed off 41km of fencing, totalling $160K. We have met our KPI for FEPs completed and winter planting projects are well underway with a successful planting day with Te Horo School in Pipiwai.
Hātea Project
Milestone 4 was reported on 17 June. There is one final milestone to report at the end of the project in March 2020. So far approximately 11km of fencing has been completed, 17 stock troughs funded and 5,000 plants funded.
Final push for better uptake over the last 10 months has seen quotes underway for four large planting projects on large blocks or those with high visibility or specific need. We’re also partnering with fencing contractors to ease the process of fence completion for landowners, including increased funding rates to ensure uptake of grants. Currently we have approximately 6.5kms of fencing being scoped for e-fund applications.
BIODIVERSITY
CoastCare
A CoastCare dune planting day was held at Waipū Cove with Waipū Primary School and Camp Waipū Cove. 1,450 spinifex and pingao, provided through the Environment Fund, were planted at the northern end of the dunes managed by the Waipū Cove Domain Board.
NRC CoastCare has been working with Tane’s Tree Trust on a three-year indigenous coastal forest buffers project. The Northland trial sites, north of Waipapkauri, were planted in June with just over 2,000 trees, 750 of which were provided through the NRC Environment Fund. Most of the plants were grown by Bushlands Trust in their nursery at Kaitāia Intermediate and the school helped with the planting.
The final report was submitted for the 2018-19 Far North Kaitiaki ranger programme and a funding application has been submitted to run an expanded collaborative programme in the Far North over the upcoming summer.
Wetlands and biodiversity plans
Four biodiversity plans have been completed in the last month covering 140 hectares of land, including Takou Bay Estuary and surrounding area for Takou Bay Reserve Trust and Ngā Whenua Rahui, and three other landowners. Ecological advice was provided for an appealed consent application for a boardwalk through mangrove-saltmarsh at Mangawhai, which was resolved and withdrawn from Environment Court. Advice was also given to Mangawhai Golf Club on protecting/enhancing their wetland and to assist with their PGF application.
Dune Lakes FIF Project
Objective |
Progress Update |
% complete |
Pest Plants and Fish |
Year Three planning around herbicide operation in spring 2019 included sending out information and a letter to ask adjacent landowners about water takes close to two lakes planned for treatment. Planning for discussion day at Lake Ngatu on 21 July. Electric fishing training undertaken by one FIF staff member and the Te Roroa Kaiwhakahaere. |
10% |
Stock exclusion |
Lake Shag fully fenced and water reticulation set up. Water reticulation set up for Lake Midgely ready for fencing 2019/20 |
90% |
Sediment detention bunds |
Set for Year 4. Planning started. |
0% |
Matauranga Maori |
Four “Get to know your dune lake” days were run in conjunction with Enviroschools and Te Aho Tu Roa at Lakes Waikare (Kai Iwi), Waiporohita (Karikari) and Kanono (Pouto). Nearly 200 students from a total of 12 schools from all over the region participated in these marae based education days. Many of the students were from farming families. One goal is to increase the number of young people, especially Māori, pursuing careers in science, business and the environment. Students were involved in planting and activities based around water quality, plants, fish and invertebrates. |
25% |
Other |
A final draft of the FIF Dune Lakes Project Work Plan was agreed with Ministry for the Environment and has been submitted. |
N/A |
Biosecurity
Biosecurity Partnerships
· Tutukaka High Value Area (HVA) Highlights
• Biodiversity and kiwi monitoring: The first opportunity to contribute to the National Kiwi Listening Survey closed with around half the listening sites completed and further listening is planned for the end of June. There are reports of pairs of kiwi calling being heard in Whale Bay, Horseshoe Bay, and North Gable Bay.
• Kauri Dieback Protection: Community members have made good progress working to reduce the risk of kauri dieback on the Te Araroa Trail. This includes rerouting and up grading tracks, and installing wash stations.
Newly installed hygiene station on the |
|
• Weed Control: Site led surveys with North Tech students have been completed with a tally of 910 observations including 149 species of pest plants.
• Species Enhancement: Increasing numbers of pateke and Royal Spoonbills are being reported along the Ngunguru river and estuary. Visiting kākāriki, bellbirds, and kākā have been recorded from coastal forest between Ngunguru and Sandy Bay.
· Whangārei Heads High Value Area Highlights
• Kiwi Monitoring: Kiwi listening is well underway at 21 sites to establish long term population trends. Members of the kiwi listening group attended the National Kiwi Hui held in Hawkes Bay.
• Weed Control: A contractor is working on elaeagnus, moth plant, woolly nightshade, and tree privet in Waitangata Stream area.
· Western Northland Pest Control Area Highlights
• Whirinaki, Waiotermarama, and Pakanae Pest Control Initiative: Within the Hokianga there are three adjoining groups that are interested in pest control. The groups are in the process of determining boundaries, target pests, and control methods. Once this is determined they will begin planning the trapping and bait station network.
· Mid North High Value Area Highlights
• Trapping: Trap deployment is underway on Upokorau Farm, Summit Takou Block, and the Summit Whitehills and Shepherds Blocks. Further traps have been added to Taronui Pest Control Area, Purerua Pest Control Area, Waitangi Iwi Kiwi, Kerikeri Peninsula CPCA, Bay Bush Action, and the Waipapa West Trap Library. More traps boxes are being made at NZ Corrections in Ngāwhā for bio-fund agreements. |
New traps ready for deployment in the
|
· Piroa-Brynderwyns High Value Area Highlights
• Trapping: Expansion of trapping networks throughout the HVA has continued with 889 predator trap sites installed to date. The sites are being added into TrapNZ for monitoring and reporting purposes.
• National Kiwi Listening Survey: The survey is underway with further five-minute bird count surveys planned for November 2019.
• Kiwi Aversion Training: Training for dogs and their handlers is scheduled for July 2019.
• Weed Control: The weed action group and coordinator have conducted targeted weed activities and events including school visits.
• Budget and Expenditure: The budget is on track for end of financial year.
· Kiwi Coast Partnerships Highlights
• National Kiwi Listening Survey: The Annual Northland Kiwi Call Count Survey is now in full swing. Kiwi Coast is working closely with council biosecurity staff and the Department of Conservation to provide support and training to all the groups and projects involved, ensure as many sites as possible are successfully monitored, and assist with analysing the data from the Kiwi Listening Devices. This outcome monitoring is crucial for determining if the work done is having the desired result, and if kiwi populations are declining, stable, or increasing across the region.
• Annual Partnership Event: Council and Kiwi Coast have been working together to organise the annual partnership event – the Northland Regional Pest Control Wananga/Workshop being hosted this year by Ngati Hau on 30 June on the Akerama Marae at Towai. The wananga/workshop will bring together 150 people from community and iwi-led projects, agencies, and organisations from across Northland for networking, skill sharing, and capacity building. This year’s wananga/workshop features updates on some of the landscape scale pest control initiatives underway in the region, practical demonstrations of new and innovative pest control traps, tools and technology, and skill sharing from some of Northland’s top professional trappers.
• Budget and Expenditure: With the end of the financial year looming, Kiwi Coast has also been supporting groups and projects (including the High Value Areas) with administrative processes to ensure they are on track to complete their annual workplans, finalise budgets, and ensure they are on track to prepare their annual reports and meet funding requirements.
• National Kiwi Hui: Kiwi Coast’s Mid North Coordinator also attended the National Kiwi Hui run by Kiwis for Kiwi. The aims of the hui are to keep those involved informed and updated of national kiwi strategies; provide an opportunity to network with community and agency led projects from around NZ; and bring back the latest ideas and information to Northland.
Biosecurity Fund Projects
Eighty-seven Biofund projects have been signed off by the Chairman this month (up from the 71 projects approved last year) and $186,127 has been allocated to date. Biosecurity staff are now in the process of writing up agreements for these successful applicants.
KAURI DIEBACK
Kauri Protection Fencing Fund
$72,401 of MPI funding has been allocated to 10 landowners. Four landowners have completed their fences and the remaining six will be completed when weather permits.
Ground Truthing
Staff are continuing to ground truth potential kauri dieback sites. Results to date are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Kauri Dieback Ground-Truthing Results 2018/2019
Month |
No. Sites / Properties Inspected |
No. Samples Taken |
Sample Results |
||||||
Surveyed |
Positive |
Priority 1 |
Priority 2 |
Landowner Requests |
Positive |
Negative |
Pending |
||
October |
5 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
17 |
6 |
11 |
0 |
November |
11 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
6 |
38 |
2 |
36 |
0 |
December |
11 |
4 |
8 |
3 |
0 |
44 |
10 |
34 |
0 |
January |
15 |
2 |
7 |
3 |
5 |
40 |
6 |
33 |
0 |
February |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
March |
8 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
15 |
1 |
14 |
0 |
April |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
May |
2 |
|
0 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
|
|
9 |
June |
2 |
|
|
2 |
0 |
5 |
|
|
5 |
YTD Total |
57 |
11 |
18 |
14 |
24 |
170 |
25 |
134 |
14 |
Ground Truthing Contractor
Biosense have completed their fieldwork and are in the process of handing in their final report. Ground truthing was done on 130 sites identified by the aerial surveillance programme.
Management Plans
Kauri dieback management plans continue to be developed for all positive sites as well as negative sites that are identified as medium – high risk sites. All site occupiers receive advice and a basic management plan about how to best protect their kauri and forest from kauri dieback and other diseases.
Cleaning Stations
Two barrel and grate cleaning stations were established at A.H.Reed Memorial Reserve. All the reserve entrances now have a cleaning station including the disabled/maintenance entrance. One barrel and grate cleaning station was provided to the Kowhairoa CPCA in the Whangaroa area. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) intend to establish a barrel and grate cleaning station in the Warawara area and have purchased a barrel and grate cleaning station from NRC to speed up the process.
Pig Hunting Competition
Council kauri dieback staff attended the Northland Pig Hunting club’s Pat White Memorial competition on 2 June 2019 at Hukerenui. Council staff created and sponsored two extra divisions to include a heaviest sow division and a hygiene division with first, second, and third prizes in each division. The aim of council’s involvement in these competitions is to establish a positive ongoing relationship with pig hunters (a potential kauri dieback vector) which will enable the promotion of hygiene practices and wild pig eradication.
|
Biosecurity Officer Gavin Clapperton explaining best hygiene practices for hunters at a Northland Pig Hunting Club competition. |
MARINE BIOSECURITY
Hull Surveillance Programme
The 2018/19 Hull Surveillance Programme has been running since October 2018 and was completed on 11 June, with the target of 2,000 vessel hulls exceeded. The final hull surveillance activities for the season took place in Marsden Cove on 25 May 2019 with 12 hulls checked and in Tutukaka Marina on 10 and 11 June 2019 with 50 vessel hulls checked, bringing the total number of hulls checked to 2,037. No marine pests were detected on any of the vessel hulls checked this last month (inspection results are shown in Table 2).
Table 2: Hull Surveillance Programme Results (25/5/19 – 11/6/19)
2018/2019 Hull Surveillance Programme Results (25/5/19 – 11/6/19 |
|
Number of vessels surveyed |
62 |
Total year to date |
2,037 |
Number of Vessels with Marine Pests Found in Surveillance |
|
Vessels detected with fanworm (Sabella) |
0 |
Vessels detected with Styela sea squirt |
0 |
Vessels detected with Japanese kelp (Undaria) |
0 |
Vessels detected with Australian droplet tunicate (Eudistoma) |
0 |
Vessels detected with Pyura sea squirt |
0 |
Pathways plan compliance for the month * |
52% of vessels |
* If the vessels surveyed were to move to a new designated place then 52% would be compliant with the pathways plan rule.
In total, the 18/19 hull surveillance programme resulted in 107 Notices of Directions issued by NRC’s marine biosecurity team to vessel owners for the presence of Sabella and one for Undaria. These vessel owners worked with the marine biosecurity officers to develop a plan for removal of the marine pests before the vessel was authorised to move.
Ōpua Fanworm Incursion
· An Ōpua Sabella incursion workshop was conducted at NRC on 7 June 2019.
· Experts in marine biosecurity from Cawthron Institute, MPI, and NRC, along with experienced scientific and commercial divers and the Ōpua Marina manager met for a one-day workshop.
· This meeting brought together a range of expertise to review the Ōpua Sabella incursion and the data available to date with the aim to: (1) clearly identify the rationale for selecting an option going forward, and (2) determine what the preferred option is for the next step of the incursion response.
· The recommendation of the group was to go ahead with another round of diving with the purpose of ‘local elimination’ and to establish adequate data with which to create an appropriate decision-tree for continuing the eradication attempt or changing focus to a long-term management programme.
· A council workshop on the findings is being planned for July.
NRC Internal Marine Pest Training
The Marine Biosecurity Team delivered a marine pest training workshop on 30 May 2019 to the council’s Maritime Team (based in Whangārei and Ōpua). The training upskilled the Maritime Team in the identification of marine pests, knowledge of the rules under the Biosecurity Act, and the Northland Regional Pest and Marine Pathways Management Plan, as well as how to inspect structures and moorings for marine pests. A refresher workshop will be provided to this team every year, and offered to other NRC teams working in marine and coastal environments.
Far North Marine Biosecurity Charter meeting
On 13 June, council organised a meeting for members of the Far North Marine Biosecurity Charter. The meeting was attended by several marina managers and other representatives of marinas in Northland. Council staff presented the latest update on the Hull Surveillance Programme and the Ōpua Sabella incursion response. The group also discussed implementation of the marine pathways plan and whether the Charter Group should be extended to include haul-out operators and other interested marine industry groups. The next meeting is planned for September.
Tutukaka and Whangaroa Sabella incursion surveillance
Following an incursion of Sabella at Tutukaka Marina in 2015 and removal of several specimens from the substrate there, an annual surveillance programme has been conducted (with the exception of 2016). No Sabella has been found during these surveys. The surveillance is carried out in collaboration with MPI, who contributes financially. A dive contractor is currently (started 19 June) conducting checks on all marina structures and all moorings in the harbour for this year’s surveillance. Next year (2020) will be the fifth survey and if no Sabella is found then, eradication will be deemed successful.
In 2017, a vessel was found with mature Sabella on its hull in the Bay of Islands that had also previously spent several months in Whangaroa Harbour. MPI and NRC initiated a surveillance programme to ensure no Sabella was introduced in Whangaroa Harbour. The survey for year 3 is planned to be completed in June/July 2019 with a dive contractor engaged to check all structures at the marina. No Sabella has been found during the two previous years which is a positive sign that there was no incursion at this site.
PEST PLANTS
Eradication Plants
Control work has been undertaken for Evergreen Buckthorn, Mickey Mouse Plant, and Yellow Flag Iris. Te Ngahere (contractors) have found new Evergreen Buckthorn sites at Sandy Bay, where previously it was thought there were only 2 sites. Te Ngahere were also contracted to search and control Batwing Passionflower in the Kamo Reserves. They completed searching of three reserves and found (and controlled) several adult plants. Another contract is required to complete searches of the rest of the reserves.
Site visits to control the eradication plant Evergreen Buckthorn were completed in the month for all management sites except those in Matakohe. Te Ngahere was contracted to complete abseiling cliff work for Evergreen buckthorn at Sandy Bay, and while they were there they have discovered more management sites in the area, for council staff to follow up.
Ochna eradication management sites are being worked through with the largest regime in the programme (Kamo) completed. The whole programme is scheduled to be completed next month.
Sustained Control Plants
The Stop Wild Ginger Stake holder bi-annual meeting was held this month. The meeting covered latest Biocontrol host-testing results and impacts on contract negotiations and future funding streams. The initial host-testing failure of the stem mining fly will mean greater focus on the weevil and identified hispine beetle species. Further information is available at the Stop Wild Ginger website (http://www.stopwildginger.co.nz/updates).
Weed Workshops
Staff are now preparing for Weed Workshops which will be held around Northland next month.
Manchurian Wild Rice
Manchurian Wild Rice contractors completed the autumn spray round and post spray monitoring is in progress. The annual report to Ministry of Primary Industries on the programme is being prepared.
RIVERS
River Contract Works
Priority Rivers |
Work |
Status |
Comments |
Awanui |
OpEx |
100% complete |
Mid-Awanui stop-bank re-alignment. |
Awanui |
CapEx |
100% complete |
Te Ahu stopbank stabilization works and grade control. |
Awanui |
CapEx |
100% complete |
Bell’s Hill Benching |
Kaihu |
OpEx |
100% complete |
All proposed works completed. |
Kaeo |
OpEx |
100% complete |
All proposed works completed. |
Minor Rivers |
OpEx |
100% complete |
All funding committed. |
LTP Projects
Rivers |
Comments |
Awanui |
A celebration event was held on 19 June recognizing the successful completion of Bell’s Hill and Te Ahu bank stabilization projects. The event was well attended with Councillors, Working Group members, Iwi and members of the public. |
Matangirau |
A Kaeo Working Group meeting was held on 5 June at the Matangirau Marae. The recommendations were taken to the community at a 23 June Marae Hui. Archaeologist assessment is scheduled for 26 June |
Kawakawa - Taumarere |
6 June meeting with Otiria Marae Working Group to progress Turntable Hill works and waiting confirmation to address the full Marae meeting. |
Whangārei |
Demolition and removal of the abandoned building has been completed. Rip-rap has been placed and works layout and pre-cast of the flood wall has begun. |
Panguru |
A Working Group meeting was held on 20 June and a second hui is scheduled for 30 June to present the latest 10-year modelling results to the community. |
NATURAL HAZARDS
Work Streams |
Status |
Comments |
Priority Rivers Flood Hazard Maps for Waipū and Paparoa |
100% |
Final flood maps went live and landowners notified. Eight responses for more information or hard copies. |
Awanui Flood Model |
90% |
Staff have requested additional work to verify catchment run off using HIRDS4 and to better represent SH-1 overflow from the Awanui River to the Tarawhataroa catchment. |
Northland LiDAR Capture
LiDAR capture phase remains tantalisingly close to completion. Capture reported at 95.5% as at 24th June 2019. Crews remain focussed on infill of missing sections, however RPS has reported shortened flight times due to winter weather patterns.
While RPS has indicated batch processing of captured data has now commenced, it has yet to report actual progress in this phase. NRC has requested weekly updates from RPS for this stage in an effort to maintain programme.
NRC is liaising with LINZ to discuss QA/QC process and hosting of deliverables. NRC QA/QC team is also assembled and has tentative dates for QA/QC workshop (at RPS offices) set for late July 2019.
6.2.6 STRATEGY, Governance And Engagement
PROPOSED REGIONAL PLAN
An item is included in this agenda relating to Appeals on the Proposed Regional Plan.
NATIONAL INITIATIVES
The Productivity Commission will release its draft report on Local Government Funding and Financing on 4 July 2019, including the Commission’s initial findings and recommendations for feedback. The deadline for submissions has yet to be confirmed. The final report to Government is due 30 November 2019.
DISTRICT PLANNING
At the time of writing, staff are putting together a submission on Whangārei District Council’s suite of ‘Urban and Services’ Plan Changes (submissions due to close on 03 Jul).
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Investment and Growth Reserve – Projects Report
Project |
June update |
Future developments/ reporting |
Resources Enterprise Limited (REL) |
June interest payment sent along with request for March interest payment and an update on new potential investor. |
Continue engaging with REL to obtain interest payments. |
Hundertwasser Art Centre (Whangārei) |
Nothing new to report. |
Expect the second payment of $500,000 (due at 50% completion) to be delayed. |
Manea Footprints of Kupe |
Meet with Trust representatives to discuss funding agreement. |
Finalise funding agreement. |
Northland Water Storage and Use |
RFP for Pre-feasibility Demand Assessment and Design Study placed on GETS. |
Waiting for signed funding agreement to begin implementation. |
Te Hononga / Kawakawa Hundertwasser Park Centre |
Progress report received and second invoice (for $100,000) paid. |
Awaiting receipt of progress report and third invoice. |
Extension 350 |
Final invoice for 2018/19 (Q4) received and paid. |
Continue receiving progress reporting and invoicing as per funding agreement |
Extended Regional Promotion |
Nothing new to report. |
Next report due August 2019 for second sixth months 2018/19. |
Twin Coast Cycle Trail (TCCT) |
Nothing new to report. |
Awaiting further progress report on remaining four easements to complete funding commitment. Maybe Q4. |
Investment and Growth Reserve – Project Development funding by Northland Inc
· Expanding marine sector capacity – additional funding for completion of a inshore fishing fleet business case - $12,500.
· Northland Indigenous Wood Products Pilot Study – second year of committed funding to help support research study – $50,000.
· The total allocation of funding for project development in 2018/19 was $249,200. This represents 83% of possible annual funding available through this IGR category.
Other Activties
· 24th issue of Northland Economic Quarterly released 27 June and available online at www.nrc.govt.nz/economicquarterly
· Letter to Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media and others on the results of the 2017/18 Northland internet speed survey.
· Northland Inc/Council quarterly workshop held on 11 June 2019.
ONLINE CHANNELS
Most popular post on Facebook – The May rainfall map for Northland. The Natural Resources Monitoring team provide a wrap up of the areas that received the highest and lowest rainfall levels in Northland. This post reached over 5,000 people.
Key Performance Indicators |
Feb-19 |
Mar-19 |
Apl-19 |
May-19 |
Jun-19 |
WEB |
|
|
|
|
|
# Visits to the NRC website |
24,500 |
28,000 |
26,100 |
25,200 |
23,100 |
E-payments made |
3 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
# subscription customers (cumulative) |
1,173 |
1,179 |
1,191 |
1,176 |
1,184 |
SOCIAL MEDIA (cumulative) |
|
|
|
|
|
# Twitter followers |
1,428 |
1,430 |
1,439 |
1,444 |
1,448 |
# NRC Facebook fans |
7,816 |
7,968 |
8,130 |
8,515 |
8,641 |
# NRC Overall Facebook Reach |
168,100 |
219,300 |
189,900 |
267,900 |
138,600 |
# NRC Engaged Daily Users |
11,700 |
27,000 |
8,314 |
16,200 |
4,753 |
# CDEM Facebook fans |
16,500 |
16,600 |
16,700 |
16,700 |
16,900 |
# CDEM Overall Facebook Reach |
43,800 |
31,900 |
45,400 |
15,400 |
49,800 |
# CDEM Engaged Daily Users |
4,925 |
2,132 |
2,710 |
1,172 |
6,514 |
# Instagram followers |
689 |
712 |
736 |
755 |
802 |
Four dune lakes action days were held at lakes Waiparera (Waiharara), Waikare (Kai Iwi), Waiporohita (Karikari) and Kanono (Poutō) during June. These days included riparian planting, pest and indigenous fish and dune lakes plants investigations, and water quality testing. Local schools, iwi, catchment group and other community members took part in this Freshwater Improvement Fund Dune Lakes Project education initiative.
Enviroschools Reflection celebration
On 5 June – World Environment Day – Manaia Kindergarten (Parua Bay) celebrated achieving Enviroschools Bronze.
Whangārei Project Pest Control assessment workshop
On 10 June, Tauraroa Area School, Te Kura Kaupapa O Te Rawhitiroa and Whangārei Boys’ High students were put through their paces at Barge Park. Participants shared their skills through practical assessments and their knowledge through completing theory assessments.
First Enviroschools eNewsletter
The Enviroschools newsletter went digital in June. Articles featured environmental learning and action happening throughout Northland, council’s planting campaign and upcoming events.
Tiakina Whangarei pest control workshop
On 20 June, an after school pest control workshop for urban Whangārei teachers and caretakers was held at council. Biosecurity and Enviroschools staff supported Tiakina Whangarei in teaching about trapping and pest monitoring in school environments.
School communities facilitated
Over 20 school communities were visited by Enviroschools facilitators during June.
MARKETING AND ENGAGEMENT
Awanui Flood Infrastructure Works event (19 June)
A community event was held to showcase and celebrate the progress of the Awanui Flood works. The event included presentations and updates on the progress of the project and concluded with a site visit. The event was attended by around 40 people.
Business After 5 Event in Kaitaia (19 June)
Council hosted its first business after 5 event in collaboration with the Chamber of Commerce. The event theme was ‘Building thriving, resilient and connected communities’. Topics covered included the FarNorth Link passenger transport service and the Awanui River flood works. The event was attended by around 30 people.
Northland Regional Council Environmental Awards
Council is continuing to leverage and promote the positive mahi of our community through an 8-page spread in the Northern Advocate and a 4-page wrap around the paper.
Our videographer is working on editing the eight winners’ videos which will be used on social media to continue to share their success stories.
A winner’s field day will be held at Comrie Park Kindergarten on Thursday 18 July from 1.00pm – 3.00pm.
Environmental Leaders Fund
This will be reported on in August as schools will be notified in July.
MĀORI ENGAGEMENT
Kaiārahi Māori – Cultural Advisor
Our team is excited to announce we have filled this position successfully. Arama Morunga of Ngāpuhi and Te Hikutu has demonstrated in regard to his career experience a familiarity with local Iwi and hapū dynamics and ability to uphold tikanga Māori in a variety of settings. In his role at the Northland District Health Board he developed a cultural competency framework to deliver a kaupapa Māori training to educate doctors and nurses of the needs of Māori patients. His pōwhiri, supported by Te Parawhau, will be held on Monday 8 July.
Training and Capability Programme – Responsiveness to Māori
Te Ataarangi Te Reo Māori Training
Six week te reo training facilitated by Te Puna o te Ao Marama Trust completed. 100% of those that completed the evaluation survey would recommend the class to a friend or colleague. Recommendations for improvement included a careful consideration of scheduling to account for busy times in council.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi Training
He mihi rangatira kia koutou katoa, ngā kaimahi o Te Kaunihera o Te Taitokerau mo tō mahi tika i ako i te Tiriti o Waitangi. |
A number of Council staff completed the Tiriti workshop held on Monday 24 June, 2019 facilitated by Moea Armstrong and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. It was a great day of learning and reflecting on the history of Aotearoa, exploring the current environment of He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni / Declaration of Independence of New Zealand 1835 within Te Taitokerau. |
Te Taitokerau Māori Advisory Working Party
Ongoing work of the Māori Technical Advisory Group (MTAG) has continued with progress on the following projects:
· Mana Whakahono a Rohe for multiparty hapū to join and be endorsed by TTMAC with and to be presented at council, with a recommendation that council adopt the multiparty agreement as the basis for which to enter into Mana Whakahono a Rohe with hapū.
· Resource consent processes and better engagement with hapū.
· Completion of a report to review Te Taitokerau Māori and Council Working Party 2016 – 2019 to be presented to council for consideration in its overall governance review.
· Te Taitokerau Māori in Local Government Symposium well attended at Waitaha Conference Centre with strong line up of speakers and an acknowledgment of the leadership within TTMAC raising this as an important conversation for Te Taitokerau.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION (LGOIMA) REQUESTS
Month |
LGOIMA requests |
LGOIMA
requests |
July |
7 |
15 |
August |
10 |
20 |
September |
16 |
7 |
October |
15 |
5 |
November |
12 |
10 |
December |
14 |
9 |
January |
12 |
11 |
February |
14 |
15 |
March |
12 |
9 |
April |
14 |
12 |
May |
15 |
19 |
June |
18 |
11 |
TOTAL LGOIMA REQUESTS RECEIVED |
159 |
143 |
Total LGOIMA requests not responded to within 20 working days* |
15 |
1* |
In June there were no LGOIMA requests that were not responded to within 20 working days.
6.2.7 Customer Service – Community Resilience
Telephone Inbound Call Statistics
|
June 2019 |
Target |
Call volume |
2081 |
|
Conversion rate |
97.9% |
>95% |
Average wait time |
6 sec |
|
Calls answered in under 30sec |
96.1% |
>90% |
The volume of inbound calls during June was over 20% down on May, and on the same month last year. There is no obvious explanation for this. There have been some problems with occasional calls ‘dropping off’ but this is not a contributing factor to the lower number of calls. The dropped calls are being managed by the customer services team, who call back the customer immediately. The issue has been raised with the service provider who are being pressured to rectify this problem quickly.
Satisfaction Monitoring
· Feedback Cards, Compliments and Complaints
Feedback cards have been included with compliments and complaints, as appropriate.
Compliments received |
Total |
Service provided by a specific person · O Khanal - Resource Science · B Tait - Policy & Planning · T Bullock, S Henderson & P Graham - Biosecurity |
3
|
Quality of Information · Biodiversity team |
1 |
Total compliments recorded |
4 |
Three of the compliments relate to activities that involved community engagement either working with and/or seeking community feedback which demonstrates the value our customers place on these interactions.
The Biosecurity team was complimented on the dune lake education day at Lake Waiporohita in collaboration with Te Aho Tu Roa's noho taiao.
Complaints received |
Total |
Standard of service provided |
3 |
Disagree with decision or process |
1 |
Issue has occurred repeatedly for me |
1 |
Staff or contractor behaviour / attitude |
2 |
Lack of information or communication |
1 |
Total complaints recorded |
8 |
Four of the complaints related to bus services, and in two of these it is likely the customer played a part in the issue arising. All bus service complaints have been resolved and communicated to the contractor company.
Two complaints were due to perceived behaviour or attitude issues. Both of these complaints were about people associated with the council, not council staff.
Customer Service Centre (CSC) Enquiries
Biosecurity and non-NRC calls make up over 50% of all new enquiries made by phone or social media. Of the biosecurity enquiries, by far the majority area about land-based pest animals with rat related issues make up a large volume of these enquiries.
CIVIL DEFENCE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
On 5 June 2019 a small tornado caused damage to 12 houses in Coopers Beach. Damage to ten of the houses was superficial, with two houses rooves being blown off. Fire and Emergency New Zealand coordinated the response, with CDEM personnel assisting.
National Tsunami Warning
On Sunday 16 June at approximately 10.50am a magnitude 7.4 earthquake occurred in the Kermadec Islands. An initial assessment by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre minutes after the earthquake indicated that small tsunami less than 0.3 meters was possible within 300km of the epicentre. MCDEM issued three advisories of warnings, initially indicating that there was a marine and beach threat and then quickly changing to no threat. CDEM personnel, including the duty officer, responded to and monitored the developing situation.
Minister of Civil Defence
On the 27 June, the Prime Minister announced changes to her Ministerial portfolio list and appointed Hon Peeni Henare as the Minister of Civil Defence.
CDEM Group and Coordinating Executive Group (CEG)
The Northland CDEM Group and Coordinating Executive Group met for their quarterly meetings on Monday 17 June.
Emergency Management System Reforms
Amongst further proposed changes is a change in name, with the words Civil Defence being replaced with Emergency Management.
Service Level Agreements
The 2019/20 CDEM Service Level Agreements (SLA) between the Northland Regional Council and the three district Councils have now been finalised.
Lifelines Utility Group
The Northland Lifelines Utility Group meet on 1 July. Forty personnel from various utility organisations attend the meeting, which included a review and update of the protocols for reporting to CDEM during an emergency, presentations from NZTA on roading resilience projects in the region, the First Gas network in Northland and the CDEM GIS portal.
TRANSPORT
Regional Land Transport Planning
· Regional Road Safety Action Plan
A workshop was held on 12 June 2019 to discuss regional road safety initiatives undertaken to date and progress made. Twenty-five invitees attended the workshop that was run by an external facilitator. The invitation list included Mayors, the Northland Regional Council Chair, Regional Transport Committee Members, senior management and transportation staff from the three district councils, Northland Regional Council and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).
The group agreed on the Vision and Requirements for road safety in Northland and that these are to be included in a submission on the Draft National Road Safety Strategy scheduled for release in the middle of this year.
The information gathered at the workshop is being correlated and will be released early July 2019 for comment. The agreed course of action to be taken on a regional level is to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries
· Draft National Road Safety Plan.
The Ministry of Transport has recently announced that, subject to Cabinet confirmation, they expect the Draft National Road Safety Strategy (RSS) will be released in early July 2019 for consultation. This consultation will be primarily an on-line process and will seek views on:
• a proposed vision,
• principles to guide decision making and investment,
• a proposed 10-year target,
• focus areas for the next 10 years, and
• a plan of priority interventions for the first action plan, as well as priority interventions for future action plans.
The consultation period has been set for one month following release of the document.
Passenger Transport Administration
Total Mobility
Total Mobility (TM) figures are reported one month in arrears, due to the required information being unavailable at the time of the agenda deadline.
|
Total Clients |
Monthly Actual Expend |
Monthly Budget Expend |
Variance |
Year/Date Actual Expend |
Year/Date Budgeted Expend |
Variance |
May |
1,498 |
$20,199 |
$25,000 |
-$4,801 |
$197,909 |
$275,000 |
-$77,091 |
Total Mobility awareness campaign
As part of the ongoing Total Mobility (TM) awareness campaign, the TM Scheme was advertised on local radio stations during June.
Total Mobility Coordinator's meeting
All regional TM Coordinators attended a national meeting in Wellington on Thursday 20 June 2019. This meeting included:
• Ministry of Transport updates;
• NZTA feedback on proposed trademarking Total Mobility;
• Ridewise II (RW2) Transaction Specification – update for regional councils:
• Supplier’s confirmation of upgrades to support RW2, and their expected timeframes for development/testing etc.
Operational Statistics
Due to the short period provided, the statistics for June 2019 are unavailable.
May 2019 |
Actual |
Budget |
Variance |
Year/Date Actual |
Year/Date Budgeted |
City Link Passengers |
34,907 |
30,425 |
+4,482 |
299,860 |
283,517 |
CityLink Revenue |
$44,914 |
$58,639 |
- $13,725 |
$516,183 |
$563,184 |
Mid North Link Passengers (revised 1 May 2019) |
179 |
280 |
- 101 |
1,954 |
4,420 |
Mid North Link Revenue |
$658 |
$1,245 |
- $587 |
$7,072 |
$27,599 |
Hokianga Link Passengers |
60 |
78 |
- 18 |
338 |
456 |
Hokianga Link Revenue |
$683.00 |
$1,017 |
- $334 |
$4,769 |
$5,789 |
Far North Link Passengers |
611 |
699 |
- 88 |
6,213 |
6,955 |
Far North Link Revenue |
$1,592 |
$1,748 |
- $156 |
$14,789 |
$17,388 |
The passenger numbers on the Citylink service have continued to show a positive trend since the implementation of the $1.00 and $2.00 “Gold Coin” fares.
Council have approved that this fare structure remains in place till early 2020 when it will be reviewed.
Maritime
The six-weekly Whangārei harbour safety meeting was held, with a stakeholder joint self-assessment completed for the safety systems. This is a requirement under the Port and Harbour safety code. A number of system improvements came out of the meeting which will be implemented, including improvements to the incident reporting and recording system.
Fourteen incidents were recorded for June, made up of the usual speeding, light failures, and vessels dragging anchor. The Ōpua maritime team responded to a stranded 16m vessel in danger of becoming a wreck with consequent pollution and managed to float it off without further damage.
The council vessel Waikare has been slipped in Whangārei and is receiving an engine room refurbish and engine reconditioning. Shipco 360 are carrying out the work with maritime staff monitoring. The work is reported as progressing well, and to a high standard.
A number of staff have attended training recently including management, Microsoft and CIMS and the Harbourmaster assisted with the running of the Regional on Scene Commanders course in Auckland.
Rolling maintenance of ATON is on-going, and the maritime team provided on water monitoring services to other departments. Work is ongoing to make the data from the wave-rider buoy available.
A maritime officer attended the annual Maritime NZ Recreational Education funding workshop in Wellington. Further funding has been applied for the coming year.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Council Meeting item: 7.0
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Receipt of Committee Minutes |
ID: |
A1208169 |
From: |
Chris Taylor, Governance Support Manager |
That the unconfirmed minutes of the:
· Regional Transport Committee – 5 June 2019;
· Civil Defence Emergency Management – 17 June 2019;
· Civil Defence Emergency Management Coordinating Executive Group – 17 June 2019;
· Property Subcommittee – 2 July 2019;
be received.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: RTC unconfirmed meeting
minutes - 05 June 2019 ⇩
Attachment 2: CEG unconfirmed meeting
minutes - 17 June 2019 ⇩
Attachment 3: CDEM group unconfirmed
meeting minutes - 17 June 2019 ⇩
Attachment 4: PSC unconfirmed meeting
minutes - 2 July 2019 ⇩
Authorised by Group Manager
Name: |
Chris Taylor |
Title: |
Governance Support Manager |
Date: |
|
Council Meeting ITEM: 8.0
16 July 2019
TITLE: |
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to recommend that the public be excluded from the proceedings of this meeting to consider the confidential matters detailed below for the reasons given.
1. That the public be excluded from the proceedings of this meeting to consider confidential matters.
2. That the general subject of the matters to be considered whilst the public is excluded, the reasons for passing this resolution in relation to this matter, and the specific grounds under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution, are as follows:
Item No. |
Item Issue |
Reasons/Grounds |
8.1 |
Confirmation of Confidential Minutes - 18 June 2019 |
The public conduct of the proceedings would be likely to result in disclosure of information, as stated in the open section of the meeting. |
8.2 |
Receipt of Confidential Committee Minutes |
The public conduct of the proceedings would be likely to result in disclosure of information, as stated in the open section of the meeting. |
8.3 |
Human Resources Report |
The public conduct of the proceedings would be likely to result in disclosure of information, the withholding of which is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(a). |
8.4 |
The Kensington Redevelopment Project |
The public conduct of the proceedings would be likely to result in disclosure of information, the withholding of which is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(b)(ii), the withholding of which is necessary to enable council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(h) and the withholding of which is necessary to enable council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) s7(2)(i). |
8.5 |
Marsden Maritime Holdings Ltd - Appointment of Directors |
The public conduct of the proceedings would be likely to result in disclosure of information, the withholding of which is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(a). |
3. That the Independent Financial Advisor be permitted to stay during business with the public excluded.
Considerations
1. Options
Not applicable. This is an administrative procedure.
2. Significance and Engagement
This is a procedural matter required by law. Hence when assessed against council policy is deemed to be of low significance.
3. Policy and Legislative Compliance
The report complies with the provisions to exclude the public from the whole or any part of the proceedings of any meeting as detailed in sections 47 and 48 of the Local Government Official Information Act 1987.
4. Other Considerations
Being a purely administrative matter; Community Views, Māori Impact Statement, Financial Implications, and Implementation Issues are not applicable.
[1] Clause 10, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991
[2] The council’s Significance and Engagement Policy states that it must trigger two or more of the thresholds to be a significant decision.
[3] Rob van Voorthuysen acted as Chair of the three-member Hearing Panel
[4] Excluding those submissions that requested the inclusion of provisions on genetically modified organisms
[5] There is a 30 working day period within which appeals must be lodged with the Environment Court and served on the regional council