Agenda of Council Meeting - Thursday, September 30, 2021

Council Meeting Agenda

30 September 2021

8.2 Update on proposed 3 Waters reform

Author: Ian Clements, Strategy Advisor

Authoriser: Sean Mallon, Group Manager Infrastructure Services

Purpose of Report

1 This report updates the Council on the Government’s Three Waters Reform proposal.

Delegation

2 The Council has the delegation to consider this report.

Background

3 Following the serious campylobacter outbreak in 2016 and the Government’s Inquiry into Havelock North Drinking Water, central and local government have been considering the issues and opportunities facing the system for regulating and managing the three waters (drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater).

4 The focus has been on how to ensure safe drinking water, improve the environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater networks and deal with funding and affordability challenges, particularly for communities with small rating bases or high-growth areas that have reached their prudential borrowing limits.

5 The Government’s stated direction of travel has been for publicly owned multi-regional models with a preference for local authority ownership. Te Tari Taiwhenua, the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), in partnership with the Three Waters Steering Committee (which includes elected members and staff from local government) commissioned specialist economic, financial, regulatory and technical expertise to support the Three Waters Reform Programme and inform policy advice to ministers.

6 In July 2020, the Government launched the Three Waters Reform Programme – a three-year programme to reform local government three waters service delivery arrangements. This reform programme intended to build on the findings of the Three Waters Review and the subsequent establishment of Taumata Arowai.

7 The initial stage of the programme (Tranche 1 - MOU, Funding Agreement, Delivery Plan and RFI process) was an opt in, non-binding approach. It did not require councils to commit to future phases of the reform programme, to transfer their assets and/or liabilities, or establish new water entities. Council received $6.26M funding through this initial Three Waters Reform funding process. The 2020 indicative reform programme and then anticipated next steps can be found in Appendix 1.

8 Council completed the RFI process in January 2021 and the Government has used this information, evidence, and modelling to make preliminary decisions on the next stages of reform and has concluded that the case for change has been made (Appendix 2).

Issues and Options

Government’s June 2021 and July 2021 announcements and information releases

9 In June 2021 a suite of information was released by Government that covered estimated potential investment requirements for New Zealand, scope for efficiency gains from transformation of the three waters service and the potential economic (efficiency) impacts of various aggregation scenarios.

10 In summary the modelling indicated a likely range for future investment requirements at a national level in the order of $120 billion to $185 billion, an average household cost for most councils on a standalone basis to be between $1910 and $8,690 by 2051. It also estimated these average household costs could be reduced to between $800 and $1,640 per household and efficiencies in the range of 45% over 15-30 years if the reform process went ahead. An additional 5,800 to 9,300 jobs and an increase in GDP of between $14b to $23b (in NPV terms) over 30 years were also forecast.

11 As a result of this modelling, the Government has decided to:

· establish four statutory, publicly owned water services entities that own and operate three waters infrastructure on behalf of local authorities.

· establish independent, competency-based boards to govern.

· set a clear national policy direction for the three waters sector, including integration with any new spatial / resource management planning processes.

· establish an economic regulation regime.

· develop an industry transformation strategy.

12 Both DIA and LGNZ have produced two-page national overviews, available on the DIA website ^{^[1]} and LGNZ websites ^{^[2]} respectively. Appendix 2 contains more detail on the national context and Appendix 3 provides the DIA/LGNZ overviews.

13 The Kāpiti Coast district has been placed in Water Services Entity C as shown in the diagram below, noting that the precise boundaries are still subject to ongoing discussion.

Timeline

Description automatically generated

14 On 15 July, in partnership with LGNZ under a Heads of Agreement ^{^[3]}, the Government announced a package of $2.5 billion to support councils to transition to the new water entities and to invest in community wellbeing. This funding is made up of a ‘better off’ element of $2 billion, of which $500 million will be available from 1 July 2022 and a ‘no council worse off’ element of $500 million available from July 2024.

15 The “better off” funding can be used to support the delivery of local wellbeing outcomes associated with climate change and resilience, housing and local placemaking, and there is an expectation that councils will engage with iwi/Māori in determining how to use their funding allocation. The “no worse off” funding is intended to meet the cost of stranded overheads and other adverse impacts of the reforms.

16 The Council’s indicative funding allocation from this package is a total of $24 million, comprising $21m “better off” and $3m “no worse off”. Conditions associated with the package of funding have yet to be worked through.

17 The $2.5 billion support package comprises $1 billion funding from the Crown and $1.5 billion to be funded by the Water Services Entities.

18 The DIA notes that:

18.1 “It is appropriate for water services entities to bear some of the costs associated with the support package given that future water customers stand to benefit most from reform. From the perspective of future water customers, the size of this benefit is significantly greater than the cost associated with providing some of the funding for the support package. Moreover, given most future water customers are also ratepayers, they stand to benefit from the additional investment into community well-being.

18.2 We also note that the proposed support arrangements provided by the Crown to the water service entities (such as a liquidity support), are expected to reduce the borrowing costs. The net present value of the reduced borrowing capacity (costs?) is expected to be greater than the $1.5 billion of funding provided by water service entities through the support package.

18.3 The remaining $1.5 billion to be contributed by the Water Services Entities is at effectively no net cost to customers, due to the proposed Crown support arrangements (such as a liquidity support) which reduce the borrowing costs of the water service entities.”^{^[4]}

19 In addition to the funding announcements, the Government committed to further discussions with local government and iwi/Māori over the subsequent eight weeks through to 1 October, on:

· the boundaries of the Water Service Entities.

· how local authorities can continue to have influence on service outcomes and other issues of importance to their communities (eg chlorine-free water).

· ensuring there is appropriate integration between the needs, planning and priorities of local authorities and those of the Water Service Entities.

· how to strengthen the accountability of the Water Service Entities to the communities that they serve, for example through a water ombudsman.

20 As a result, the original timetable for implementing the reform (outlined in Appendix 1) and for councils to consult on a decision to opt-in (or not), no longer applies.

21 Next steps, including the timeframes and responsibilities for any community or public consultation are expected to be announced from 1 October 2021, after the government has considered feedback.

22 It is also important to note that the Government has not ruled out legislating for an “all-in” approach to reform to realise the national interest benefits of the reform.

23 In the interim the DIA continues to engage with council staff on transition matters on a no regrets basis, should the reform proceed. These discussions do not pre-empt any decisions about whether to progress the reforms or whether any individual council will transition.

24 On the assumption that the reform goes ahead, it is anticipated that councils will continue to deliver water services until at least early 2024 and council involvement in transition will be required throughout.

Council specific information and analysis

25 While the Government and LGNZ consider that the national case for change has been made, each council will ultimately need to make a decision based on its local context.

26 Councils do not have a national interest test for their decision making. Councils are required to act in the interests of their communities and the community’s wellbeing (now and into the future), provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to their decision-making processes, ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of the district or region (including planning effectively for the future management of its assets) and take a sustainable development approach.

27 The Council owns all its three waters infrastructure and delivers three waters services as a standalone entity through a mix of inhouse capability and contracting out.

Asset Management approach to three waters

28 In managing its three waters assets the Council applies the basic principles associated with the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM). The IIMM provides the “How to do it” in terms of applying the standards for infrastructure asset management and has been driven largely by ISO 55000 Asset Management Standards

29 Renewals are programmed based on condition assessment investigations at the level directed in the criticality framework approach. This ensures those assets that have a high critical value are prioritised and appropriate future budgets allowed for in the Council Long Term Plan (LTP) and associated 30-year Infrastructure Strategy.

30 The development in 2020 of a network deterioration model has also assisted validating the current future renewal budgets.

Water Supply

31 The Council approach to demand management and the long-term sustainable provision of potable water to the community was highlighted by the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) in 2018 (Managing the supply of and demand for drinking water) as being one that ensures this Council is better able to respond to future challenges in this area.

32 The introduction of water meters in 2014, the commissioning of the River Recharge with Ground Water scheme and the procurement of land for a future dam ensure Council has a 100-year provision for future water needs for the community.

Wastewater

33 The overflow of wastewater from networks during dry weather and prolonged periods of wet weather is an issue that multiple councils have to deal with across the country. Storage basins for the retention of wet weather peak flows at Paraparaumu, Otaki Wastewater treatment plants and storage capacity at the old Waikanae wastewater treatment plant provide significant mitigation against wet weather overflows.

34 There is a need to look further at the long-term viability of the Paraparaumu wastewater treatment plant in its current location with changing requirements with regard to freshwater standards and potential acceptable treatment and disposal methods. This is currently being considered through the renewal of the plants current resource consent and will help inform the next LTP with regard to any future significant cost implications. This is not currently factored into the current LTP.

Stormwater

35 Over the last five years Council has developed and started implementation of a significant stormwater upgrade program across the district. This involves 34 large catchment areas and an excess of 250 projects to manage the significant flood hazards Kāpiti is subject to.

36 There has also been significant work carried out on updating the Council stormwater network model and surveying property connections to better inform the stormwater strategy currently under development and have input into the upgrade design process.

37 The initial budget of $256M for these works was incorporated into the 2018 LTP and 30-year Infrastructure strategy.

Future household costs – WICS modelling

38 The Three Waters Reform DIA local dashboard for the Kāpiti Coast District Council – produced by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS) – is shown below. The Council engaged Castalia to assist in understanding and analysing the WICS modelling.

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated

39 As shown, WICS modelling projects the average cost per household in 2051 to be $1,260 for Entity C versus $2,630 for KCDC as a stand-alone entity. The comparable figure for the Council as a stand-alone provider using LTP information is $884.

Entity C

KCDC

(per WICS)

KCDC

(per LTP)

Average cost per household (2051)

$1,260

$2,630

$884

40 This wide variation in projected household costs under the WICS model is driven by three key assumptions:

40.1 Required investment levels are based on Scottish comparators, around 40% higher than the Council’s LTP projections. While we would acknowledge that LTP projections may underestimate the level of investment required to fully comply with increasing water standards in the future, WICS estimates are considered to be excessive given past investment and the current good condition of the water network.

Year

KCDC

(per WICS)

KCDC

(per LTP)

Total investment requirement (cumulative)

2051

$1,552m

$1,097m

40.2 Entity C will achieve efficiency gains of 50% capex and 61% opex

40.3 the Council will not make any efficiency gains

41 Castalia consider each of these key assumptions to be implausible. WICS also assume that the Council as a standalone entity would need to sustain a 250% debt / revenue ratio - and increase water revenues to satisfy this ratio - with no such requirement for Entity C.

42 These assumptions are so significant, and the results so sensitive to them, that the accuracy of projected household costs is considered to be highly uncertain.

Financial impact of reforms on the Council

43 The effect of the reform package on the Council (the entity), however, does appear to be positive.

44 The proposed reforms include a funding package for the Council of $30m over five years, including the “better off” and “no worse off” funding of $21m and $3m respectively:

	2020/21	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	Total
Three waters infrastructure stimulus package – Tranche 1	$3.13m	$3.13m				$6.26m
*$2B Financial Support Package – “better off”			$5.25m		$15.75m	$21.0m
$500m Financial Support Package – “no worse off”					$3.00m	$3.00m
Total funding	$3.13m	$3.13m	$5.25m	-	$18.75m	$30.26m

45 Allowing for this additional funding, and assuming the transfer of debt as per our RFI response, plus debt related to unfunded depreciation, the resulting financial impact of the reforms are as follows:

Key metrics ($000)	2025	2031	2041	2051
Rates Revenue Reduction	(28,251)	(35,805)	(51,183)	(78,070)
% of total rates revenue	(29%)	(28%)	(27%)	(27%)

Capex Reduction	(22,172)	(21,454)	(60,356)	(94,344)
% of total capex	(31%)	(37%)	(59%)	(60%)

Net Debt Reduction	(167,967)	(179,123)	(209,424)	(216,456)

Asset Value Reduction	(409,739)	(526,027)	(894,307)	(1,403,141)
% of total asset value	(19%)	(20%)	(24%)	(28%)

46 The effect of these changes is to strengthen the Council’s balance sheet, because of the reduced level of net debt. This can be seen in the key liquidity and net debt / revenue ratios before and after the proposed reforms:

Key metrics		2025	2031	2041	2051
Liquidity Ratio	BEFORE	122%	119%	118%	117%
Liquidity Ratio	AFTER	137%	130%	128%	125%
Debt to Revenue (Debt/Revenue)	BEFORE	269%	235%	211%	156%
Debt to Revenue (Debt/Revenue)	AFTER	163%	153%	152%	118%

47 Projected net debt relative to the 280% net debt to revenue limits, before and after the reforms is shown in the graph below – with there being greater headroom after the reforms, which will give the Council greater capacity to borrow in the future to fund its other activities:

48 At this stage it is not possible to fully test the projections as the standards for New Zealand out to 2051 are not known, although it is reasonable to assume that there will be greater community and mana whenua expectations around environmental performance and quality, tougher standards to meet for water quality (drinking and receiving environment) and that monitoring, compliance and enforcement will be greater than it is now. This affects both operational and capital expenditure (costs will go up), including the number of staff (or contractors) that Council will need to ensure Council outcomes for water, and community and legal requirements are met. That being said, the Council is starting off from a strong base of sound investment and a good record of compliance.

49 There is always a level of uncertainty and therefore risk around assumptions and forecasts, whether prepared by the Council for its LTPs or by others such as Government to facilitate policy decisions, such as the current Three Waters Reform process. That’s why it was important for the Council to receive an independent analysis of the government proposals by Castalia.

50 To assess whether the proposed better off and no worse funding to Council [$24 million] is sufficient Council needs further information on the conditions that will be associated with that funding. Of note, Council analysis indicates that it would be left with stranded overheads in excess of $3m per annum from 2025-26 onwards, after receipt of the “no worse off” funding.

51 For the purposes of the following analysis it is assumed that the “better off” funding would provide Council with an opportunity to address a range of issues and opportunities to improve community wellbeing in partnership with mana whenua and the communities Council serves. Recent funding from government has tended to have prescriptive rules for use. If there are too many constraints around the “better off” package, it will make the funding less useful.

Options available to Council for three waters service delivery

52 While DIA and the steering group have had the opportunity and the resources to work their way through possible options for service delivery, most if not all the affected councils have not had that opportunity. It has been made very clear that, at this stage, councils should not be considering whether to opt in or opt out and should instead be reviewing and analysing the government’s current proposal, which is the only proposal in front of them, and considering what improvements could be made to the proposal.

53 The government has not put forward any alternative proposals for councils to consider. If the government decides that it would like to consider alternative models, and would welcome suggestions from councils, then this Council would need to be able to robustly examine all practicable options before it could make a recommendation to its community, which could be consulted on.

Transition

54 If the Government’s proposal were to proceed, effective management of the transition by the Council, Government and partners will be critical. There are a range of risks that will need to be considered in this regard, which include:

· Loss of customer voice.

· Loss of customer experience.

· Community uncertainty - owners continue to call Council resulting in delays in resolving faults.

· Staff/contractor retention.

· Speed of change.

· Deferred decision making - development projects may stall.

· Poor transition management could cause delays and confusion over responsibility exposing Council to liabilities and affecting continuity of service delivery.

· Transition resourcing in tight and challenging labour market.

· Transition team – would help but will require resourcing – impact on staff workloads

· Different local approaches may reduce the economies of scale.

· Asset Valuation - returning a much different value than expected affecting Council’s financial position

· Maintaining good quality assets.

· Loss of asset management systems & data - unclear responsibilities - loss of data or failure of systems affecting continuity of service delivery.

· Transfer of contracted services.

· Unreasonable economic Influence - from existing industry players.

· Existing contract liabilities - Council may be liable for compensation if contractors take legal action.

· Limited transfer of water debt –reserve funds collected for water related services affecting Council’s financial position.

· Development / Financial Contribution refunds - may affect Council’s charges linked to debt (including the possibility of refunds).

· Stranded overheads.

· Liability for environmental damage – lack of clarity for monitoring environmental impacts may expose Council to liabilities.

· Impact on bylaws.

· Lack of business confidence.

Council decision making and consultation

55 Part 6 of the LGA, sections 76 to 90, provide the requirements for decision making and consultation, including the principles of consultation and information that needs to be provided including the reasons for the proposal and the reasonably practicable options.

56 In particular, section 76 requires that in making a significant decision, which a decision on the future management and or ownership of three waters assets will be, councils must comply with the decision-making provisions. This is a ‘higher bar’ than the “promote compliance with” that applies for ordinary decisions.

57 Section 77 states that councils must seek to identify all reasonably practicable options and then assess the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

58 Section 78 requires that in the course of making a decision a Council must consider community views but section 78(3) explicitly says that consideration of community views does not require consultation, which is reinforced by case law.

59 Section 79 gives Council discretion to decide how the above Part 6 requirements are met including the extent of analysis done etc. Therefore, while a decision could be challenged, a judicial review is unlikely to be successful unless the decision made by council was manifestly unreasonable, the process was flawed or the decision was beyond its powers (as given in law, ie the council did not act within the law).

60 However, despite section 79 of the LGA, a decision to transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset from the council (or to it) must explicitly be provided for in the council’s Long Term Plan (and have been consulted on specifically in its consultation document).

61 According to Council policy, the Council will hold a referendum, and standing orders require a 75% majority of members present and voting, to make a significant decision in relation to water assets

62 The Council’s existing LTP and the consultation information and process used to develop it will not suffice to meet this test, as Council did not itself have adequate information on the options and the implications earlier this year when it consulted on the LTP. Therefore, either an LTP amendment or provision in the next LTP accompanied by commensurate consultation process on the ownership and governance arrangements and asset transfers proposed would be necessary.

63 There are also provisions in the LGA that relate to unlawful decisions to sell or dispose of assets, which can be investigated by the Auditor-General.^{^[5]}

64 A decision to opt-out would also be affected by the consultation and decision-making requirements set out in this report, including the need to follow a robust process that could survive a judicial review, as well as make a final decision that was not manifestly unreasonable in the circumstances.

65 Given the Government’s:

· 8-week period of engagement with mana whenua and councils.

· commitment to explore issues such as council and community influence of service outcomes, integration with other reform proposals, spatial and local planning.

· request for councils to give feedback on the proposal, identify issues and solutions.

· and uncertainty around next steps, including whether the reform may become mandatory or legislative change will remove legal barriers to opting in.

it would be premature to make a decision to opt out of the reform process and may expose the Council to litigation risk.

66 A Government Bill to progress the reforms could address the issues raised above, for example removing the section 130 requirements has explicitly been raised.

67 At this stage no decision is required on future delivery arrangements. Based on the analysis in this report, Council should wait until it has further information before consulting on and/or making a decision on the Government’s proposal.

68 If reform is not made mandatory, to ensure sufficient information is available to meet the moral and legal requirements of Council decision-making staff will develop alternative options (based on further information from the Government, advice on next steps, and regional discussions) prior to Council decision making and consultation on future water services delivery. Whether this is ultimately required will be dependent on where the Government gets to with the reform process and the decisions it makes after 1 October 2021.

Information that the Council requires or potential solutions to outstanding issues that it would like to convey to Government and LGNZ

69 There are still several issues that need to be resolved, including:

· the final boundaries.

· protections from privatisation.

· plans for consultation with mana whenua and communities.

· how the community voice will be heard in the new entities, what influence will councils have particularly if they’re not on the regional Representation Group, and especially in relation to strategic direction setting and service level determination.

· representation from and on behalf of mana whenua.

· integration with other local government reform processes.

· integration with spatial and local planning processes and growth.

· prioritisation of investment, and alignment with individual Council priorities.

· workforce and capability for the new entities.

· what a Government Bill will cover and whether the reform will be mandatory.

· conditions associated with the Government’s package of funding for local government.

· transition arrangements, including our own workforce challenges (without transition challenges on top) and due diligence for asset transfers etc.

· the scope of the stormwater role that the entities will play, both in relation to growth and development planning, development control, asset management and maintenance particularly of green and water sensitive assets.

· after reform, how the entity intends to engage with local communities, and the role of Council (for example with advocacy, facilitation of communication, response to failures).

· how Councils will be involved in holding future entities accountable for performance and customer service levels.

70 The Council is invited to discuss whether there are specific information needs, issues or solutions that the Council would like staff to convey to the DIA or LGNZ

Considerations

Policy considerations

There are no policy considerations at this time.

Legal considerations

71 This report focuses on providing information to the Council on the proposed Three Waters Reform, and the implications for the Council and the community. The report then recommends feedback for the Council to provide to the Government on its proposal.

72 The scope of decision-making for the Council is highly constrained at present.

73 The Council cannot make decisions to opt-in, or support, the Government’s proposal. This is because of sections 97 and 130 of the Local Government Act 2002. The Council is obligated to continue to provide water services and can currently only transfer them to another local government organisation. To make a decision to transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset also requires explicit Long-Term Plan (LTP) decisions. As such, Council does not have the legal powers to opt-in to the proposal, or to explicitly support it.

74 Similarly, the Council is not in a position to opt-out of the proposal. The Government has signalled that any opt-in/opt-out decision would be guided by bespoke legislation. Making such a decision now, or trying to, would be pre-determining the outcome of such a bespoke decision-making process and subject the Council to a judicial review risk.

75 These obligations are very tight. Attempting to make decisions places Council at considerable legal risk and potentially undermines any future decision-making opportunities the Council may have.

76 At this stage, the Government has only asked territorial authorities to provide feedback on the Three Waters Reform proposal. It is important that the Council does not seek to make decisions on the future of services at this point in time. This does not limit Elected Members from having an opinion, nor does it prejudice any future decision-making processes

Financial considerations

77 The Council has assessed the financial risks it might be exposed to if the reform proceeds in its current format, and this has been considered in the body of the report. There is still further information to be received from the government, further clarifications and in all probability some adjustments to the current information.

78 As it currently stands, the financial forecasts for the Council in the proposed reform model, which underpin the government’s case for change, are highly uncertain and do not provide a reliable basis for the Council to opt-in based on financial benefits alone.

79 At the point at which the government presents its final proposal to all councils, the full financial implications of that will be considered by officers and presented to the Council for its consideration.

80 There has been, and will continue to be, costs to the Council of participating in the reforms. The Council has been able to use some of the 3-Waters stimulus funding to cover some of the costs of consultants, but the significant time contribution of Council officers will be borne by ratepayers.

Tāngata whenua considerations

81 As part of the three waters reform proposals, Cabinet has agreed to recognise and provide for Iwi/Māori rights and interests with a specific focus on service-delivery. It is proposed that Iwi/Māori will have a greater role in the new Three Waters system, including pathways for enhanced participation by whānau and hapū as these services relate to their Treaty rights and interests.

82 The Department of Internal Affairs led engagement with iwi/ Māori through many workshops across the country, webinars, technical reference groups and one on one discussions.

83 The Crown is currently leading the engagement with iwi/Māori, mana whenua and DIA expect to continue its engagement on three waters service delivery reforms with iwi/Māori throughout the reform programme lifetime (anticipated to take until 1 July 2024). The Water Services Entities, when live, will also be required to form relationships with mana whenua and resource this relationship.

84 Mana Whenua involvement in reform programme, whether working alongside DIA and or Council, will ensure that a strong foundation is built which will enable active engagement when and if the government proceeds with its three water reforms.

85 The table that follows sets out the current opportunities for iwi/Māori in the three waters reform:

Design feature	Description	Opportunity for Iwi/Māori
Statutory recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi	Rights and interests of Iwi/Māori will be recognised and provided for in service-delivery arrangements for the new Three Waters system	Uphold existing Treaty Settlement arrangements, including through transition and the standing-up of new entities
Statutory recognition of Te Mana o Te Wai	Te Mana o Te Wai will be recognised and provided for in service-delivery arrangements for the new Three Waters system	Each entity will be required to give effect to Te Mana o Te Wai both in legislation and as articulated by mana whenua over a defined waterbody
Creation of Mana Whenua Groups for each Entity	A Mana Whenua Group for each of the four entities will be established to guide strategic performance expectations alongside local government	Each Mana Whenua Group will have equal voting rights to local government and the new entities will have statutory obligations to fund and ensure Mana Whenua participation
Te Mana o Te Wai statements	Legislation will broadly describe Te Mana o Te Wai, however the emphasis is that mana whenua define what Te Mana o Te Wai means to their specific location. Operationally, a statement can take the form of an Iwi Management Plan, Cultural Impact Statement or the like	Provides an instrument for mana whenua to prioritise their capacity and capability to participate in the new system and recognises the role of whānau and hapū in providing kaitiakitanga activities

Strategic considerations

86 The Council’s 3-Waters infrastructure and the staff who manage them are a critical part of the Council’s planning and operations, and any decisions which significantly affect them could have a significant impact on the Council’s ability to achieve its strategic objectives.

Significance and Engagement

Significance policy

87 The future of the Council’s 3-Waters services delivery is a significant issue however this report is not asking the Council to make a decision on the government’s proposed reform. The report provides initial analysis of the reform proposals for Council’s information and highlights the uncertainties around information and next steps.

88 As such this report has a low level of significance under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Consultation already undertaken

89 Council is not required to consult at this time as noted earlier in this report. Further advice regarding any future consultation requirements will be provided after 1 October 2021.

90 At this time, the Council does not have a formal proposal with which to engage the community as this is a government led proposal, which has not yet been finalised into a formal proposal for the Council to consult on with the community.

91 Once the government has made its decisions over the next steps for the proposed reforms, the Council will be able to consider when and how it can best manage its community engagement obligations.

Engagement planning

92 The Council has released information to the community, through its usual channels of print and digital media, to keep them informed of the ongoing decisions and processes being led by the government, and any analysis that the Council does on the government data.

93 The Council recognises the need for the community to be kept informed of developments in the government’s proposed 3-Waters reform and is balancing this with its duty to fully appraise the substantial information that it is receiving from the government and present this to the community in a manageable way.

Publicity

94 The Council meeting to consider the report will be held in a public forum. Due to the volume and complexity of the information, the importance of the matter and the uncertainty around the next steps of the process, it would be timely to update the community on the current status of the reform proposals.

Conclusion

95 There is uncertainty about the future steps in the Government’s reform proposal, and current legislative impediments to it. The eight-week period ending on 30 September has given the Council insufficient time to properly understand the information they have received (and will continue to receive) from the RFI and modelling processes.

96 That being said, all of this information will be useful to inform future decision making by all councils and the government, and to enable consultation and engagement with mana whenua and communities.

Recommendations

97 That the Council:

97.1 notes that in July 2020 the Government announced an initial funding package of $761M to provide a post COVID-19 stimulus to maintain and improve water networks infrastructure, and to support a three-year programme of reform of local government water services delivery arrangements;

97.2 notes that in August 2020 Council agreed to enter into a Three Waters Reform Memorandum of Understanding and Funding Agreement with the Government which resulted in the Council receiving funding of $6.26M;

97.3 notes the Government’s 30 June and 15 July 2021 Three Waters Reform announcements, which includes an indicative $21M ‘better off’ and $3m “no worse off” funding for the Council

97.4 notes the need to ensure and uphold active engagement, involvement and partnership with Mana Whenua throughout the three waters reform programme;

97.5 notes the Government’s 30 June and 15 July 2021 Three Waters Reform announcements;

97.6 notes officer’s advice on the information provided to Council in June and July 2021 as a result of a Request for Information process and Water Industry Commission Scotland (WICS) modelling processes;

97.7 notes officer’s high-level overview and analysis of the options available to Council for three waters service delivery;

97.8 notes that a decision to support the Government’s preferred three waters service delivery option is not lawful (would be ultra vires) at present due to section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), which prohibits Council from divesting its ownership or interest in a water service except to another local government organisation, and what we currently know (and don’t know) about the Government’s preferred option;

97.9 notes that Council cannot make a formal decision on a regional option for three waters service delivery without doing a Long-Term Plan amendment and ensuring it meets section 130 of the LGA;

97.10 notes that the Government intends to make further decisions about the three waters service delivery model after 30 September 2021;

97.11 notes that it is Council’s position that it is necessary to gain an understanding of the community’s views through consultation and engagement once Council has further information from the Government on the next steps in the reform process;

97.12 requests the Chief Executive to seek further information and guidance from the Government on the following key areas:

97.12.1 the final boundaries.

97.12.2 protections from privatisation.

97.12.3 plans for consultation with mana whenua and communities.

97.12.4 how the community voice will be heard in the new entities, what influence will councils have and what the community can realistically expect the council to influence particularly if it is not on the regional Representation Group.

97.12.5 representation from and on behalf of mana whenua.

97.12.6 integration with other local government reform processes.

97.12.7 integration with spatial and local planning processes and growth.

97.12.8 prioritisation of investment, and alignment with individual Council priorities.

97.12.9 workforce and capability for the new entities.

97.12.10 what a Government Bill will cover and whether the reform will be mandatory.

97.12.11 conditions associated with the Government’s package of funding for local government. transition arrangements, including our own workforce challenges (without transition challenges on top) and due diligence for asset transfers etc.

97.12.12 the scope of the stormwater role that the entities will play, both in relation to growth and development planning, development control, asset management and maintenance particularly of green and water sensitive assets.

97.12.13 after reform, how the entity intends to engage with local communities, and the role of Council (for example with advocacy, facilitation of communication, response to failures).

97.12.14 how Councils will be involved in holding future entities accountable for performance and customer service levels.

97.12.15 transition arrangements, including our own workforce challenges (without transition challenges on top) and due diligence for asset transfers etc.

97.12.16 the scope of the stormwater role that the entities will play, both in relation to growth and development planning, development control, asset management and maintenance particularly of green and water sensitive assets.

97.12.17 after reform, how the entity intends to engage with local communities, and the role of Council (for example with advocacy, facilitation of communication, response to failures).

97.12.18 how Councils will be involved in holding future entities accountable for performance and customer service levels.

97.13 considers any further areas of the Government’s proposals that Council needs more information or guidance on;

97.14 considers any feedback to be provided on the Government’s proposal or process;

97.15 authorises the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and the Chief Executive to update the Council’s feedback to the Government, following the meeting on 30 September;

97.16 notes that the Chief Executive will report back further once further information and guidance from Government has been received on what the next steps look like and how these should be managed; and

97.17 in noting the above, agrees it has given consideration to sections 76, 77, 78, and 79 of the Local Government Act 2002 and in its judgment considers it has complied with the decision-making process that those sections require (including, but not limited to, having sufficient information and analysis that is proportionate to the decisions being made).

Appendices

1. Appendix 1 - 2020 Background (including Taumata Arowai Information and Indicative Reform Programme) ⇩

2. Appendix 2 - Government's Conclusion that the case for change has been made ⇩

3. Appendix 3 - DIA two-page summary + LGNZ two-page summary ⇩

4. Appendix 4 - Castalia Report ⇩

What we know is important to our community as we grow

We’ve been talking about growth for a while and many people have shared their views and ideas. In our consultation on the long-term plan, we invited you to give your input to the development of the growth strategy and this has been very significant in shaping Council’s proposed approach.

Your input reinforced for Council that people and communities are at the heart of growth and that to grow well over the coming years we need to think about all aspects of how we experience and enjoy our district – our homes, our natural environment and open spaces, our community facilities, our services and our workplaces. We want to take care of what we value and see the opportunities growth gives us to enhance how we live.

You told us it’s important that Council plans for quality growth, particularly in relation to housing stock and climate change. This is in addition to ensuring our existing infrastructure is effectively maintained and expanded as we grow.

(GRAPHIC PRESENTATION)

Protecting our environment and open spaces

“Looking at how we can do things differently to ensure better outcomes for people, the environment”

“Building climate change mitigation into everything Council does”

Protecting our environment and wildlife is top of mind for many. Our parks and open spaces are appreciated and well used. There is a desire for new open spaces, as well as improvements, maintenance and protection of existing parks and open spaces.

Strong sense of community

“Foster community ties”

“Community spaces to connect people new to the district.”

There is a real sense of community connectedness and pride in our district and it’s clear that people care for each other. You want Council to help strengthen and foster this connectedness, as well as build community resilience.

More local jobs and industry

“Help keep people in jobs and create new opportunities”

“A focus on industrial and commercial areas along Kāpiti Road to create job opportunities.”

Increasing local job opportunities is part of improving the prosperity and liveability of our district. More opportunities for people to both live and work in Kāpiti also helps reduce climate emissions and congestion.

Affordable homes

“Affordable housing so that everyone has somewhere to live… our community is more diverse”

“A range of different housing… to enable people to get the home that suits them and their whānau”

A lack of affordable housing is a concern for many. There is particular concern for those residents who can no longer afford to live here or simply can’t find suitable housing, and are forced to leave the district and their community.

Planning for infrastructure

“A clear plan to ensure the infrastructure grows at the same rate, preferably slightly ahead, of population growth.”

“Good growth must be supported by good infrastructure.”

People want ‘growth to pay for growth’, meaning new developments help fund infrastructure. Planning ahead for new infrastructure to meet forecast population growth is key to growing well.

Better transport options

“Well-connected communities with good access to transport.”

“Ability to walk, cycle and commute by mass transport.”

Greater transport choice was seen as key, especially public transport such as our railway line. While areas of our district have good access to public transport, others have very limited access. Growth will support, and be supported by, extending public transport, particularly in the north of our district.

Opportunities for our young people

“As the population grows, it is important that communities are developed with a focus on ‘liveability’ and supporting future generations to flourish.”

“A strong but realistic plan that looks at the environment and a growing and younger population”

Ensuring our young people have options locally for study and work was important, with more young families now in our district. Planning with our young people in mind will help achieve the good growth we want and address a current lack of opportunities.

Section 2: Our process

This section gives a summary of the main things we have used to develop our proposed approach

It covers:

· what we’re dealing with – the challenges and opportunities for our district to grow well

· what we need to take into account – including the Government’s new requirements

· our important considerations – the direction Council has committed to with the community, such as acting on climate change, fostering resilience, developing our economy and responding to the pandemic

· our growth principles – the core principles we have developed to guide our proposed approach

· our growth principles, and priorities and aspirations – how we would translate the principles into action

It includes two of our questions for feedback about:

· our challenges and opportunities, and

· our growth principles and priorities and aspirations

What we’re dealing with – the challenges and opportunities for our district to grow well

Our long-term plan vision statement includes the main challenges and opportunities we have collectively identified for our future:

· Liveability of our district

· Rising costs and limited income

· Managing growth well

· Being connected and resilient

· Caring for our environment.

Highlighting ‘Managing growth well’ as one of our key issues reflects what we have identified together with our iwi partners and the community. Growing well is one of the primary issues Council sees as needing to be tackled in order to secure our future. And, as iwi and our community have shared with us, the way we need to think about growth is to see all these challenges and opportunities as linked.

A key part of developing our proposed approach for managing growth has been looking in-depth at the specific challenges and opportunities for our district. Here are the main issues we are facing and that we want to deal with, and the opportunities they give us, or that we can explore.

Our challenges

Our opportunities

A growing and changing population

· 32,000 more people by 2051

· Our population is the second oldest in New Zealand, with 27% aged 65 or older

· Our working age population is 10% smaller than the national average

· There are demographic differences within our district with the population in Ōtaki much younger than elsewhere.

We can embrace the benefits growth may bring

· A bigger population may provide the scale to support a fuller range of services (hospital, tertiary education facilities, wider range of shops etc)

· There may be opportunities for revitalisation of existing urban areas, to attract new business investment and employment

· Services may be closer to where people live, improving accessibility

· Greater density may allow for more affordable housing choices and diverse lifestyles

· We have the opportunity to retain more of our ‘missing cohort’, 18 to 25-year-olds that currently leave for tertiary study and work opportunities

· For our mana whenua, provide more opportunity to work and live closer to or within their ancestral homes

Higher demand across all Council services

· Growth in key demographics like older persons and young families has implications for the types of infrastructure and services we will need to plan for in the future

We can take advantage of the increased scale that growth offers to support infrastructure and services

· We can spread the costs of services across a wider base of ratepayers – residential and commercial

· With a bigger population we may be able to expand Council services

Housing supply, choice and affordability (both ownership and renting)

· Nearly 14,000 new dwellings needed over the next 30 years

· Almost 30% currently live alone, while around 65% live in one family households

· Severe under-servicing by emergency, social and transitional housing

We still have space to develop and can actively manage how and where we do that

· We can have a wide range of housing, including affordable options

· We can work in partnerships with government, iwi and the private and social housing sectors

· We can balance public and private space in subdivision and development design

· We can encourage building the types and sizes of housing to fit future demographic needs

Supporting and growing our economy with the skills it needs

· Lack of diversity and low labour productivity in local economy – healthcare, social assistance and construction are our biggest sectors

· A ‘mismatch’ of workforce needs and skills available in our local economy:

o 25% leave the district for work

o Workers come from outside the district to support our key sectors

· Few local tertiary training opportunities

We can use growth to diversify our local economy

· We can work with business to plan employment and training pathways for our young people and workers

· We can take advantage of technology and new ways of working that mean highly skilled workers can work remotely and no longer need to commute from the district

· We can encourage technologies that support new types of business

· We can explore opportunities for better tertiary education options and for within the district for upskilling our young people

· We can facilitate opportunities for mana whenua to participate in the local economy

Our changing climate

· Increased extreme weather, erosion and sea level rise – we are vulnerable as a coastal community

· Risk from other natural hazards (eg earthquakes)

We can manage our growth in a way that builds resilient communities

· We can manage risks of natural hazards including sea level rise, through the design and location of new developments

· We can maximise opportunities arising from the transition to a zero-carbon economy and climate neutral thinking

· Greater density around transport hubs and town centres makes low carbon living easier

Protecting our environment

· Increased waste (solid waste, wastewater and recyclables)

· Risk to freshwater quality

· Loss of biodiversity

· Risk of losing productive land

· Increased noise and light pollution

We can put environmental protection at the heart of decision making

· We can plan and design for better relationships with our natural environment and lower environmental impacts of new developments

· We can make the most of our open spaces – like beaches, parks, sports fields or riversides – to protect and restore our district’s ecology and add and enhance our spaces as we grow

· We can work to safeguard highly productive land

Transport choices

· Heavy reliance on private vehicles

· Poor connectivity combined with population growth and economic development is placing pressure on existing infrastructure

We can improve how we get around

· We can work with central and regional government to invest in both rail and roads to offer greater transport choice

· We can enable greater intensification in areas with good access to public transport, or with services and jobs within easy walking distance

· We can improve public transport, walkability and cycleways

· We can take advantage of new technologies such as scooters and e-bikes and improve shared pathway networks

· We can design new developments to ensure access to sites of significance to mana whenua

As we implement our growth strategy we will get into further detail. An important part of implementation will be monitoring what is happening and that might mean we identify further challenges or new opportunities.

TELL US YOUR VIEWS

Have we reflected the significant challenges and opportunities?

Tell us your views: go to the feedback section page XX, or kapiticoast.govt.nz/growingwell

What we need to take into account

Key factors in developing our proposed approach are working closely with our iwi partners and our communities, holding true to our vision and values, applying the Government’s new requirements for housing development and land use, other legislative requirements, and planning our district’s growth in line with the rest of the Wellington region.

Government requirements

Urban development

The Government has an ambitious programme for urban development, particularly to remove barriers to the supply of land and infrastructure and make room for cities to grow up and out.

As part of this, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) provides strong direction for how councils must enable growth within their district. It requires councils like ours to plan for growth to meet demand over the short, medium and long-term – that is, up to three years, three to 10 years and 10-30 years.

As part of the wider Wellington region, Kāpiti Coast is among the ‘Tier 1’ urban environments (the highest priority areas). For us, the policy requires:

· Council to enable ‘growing up’ to at least six storeys in major centres and around railway stations

· enabling of increased intensification generally

· the identification of greenfield land for development

· planning for more walkable neighbourhoods with better links to public transport, local services, open spaces and areas of employment

· ensuring we have the infrastructure in place for a larger population

· removing minimum requirements for car parks (excluding accessible car parks)

· supporting low-carbon living.30-year Future Development Strategy.

Our proposed approach for growth meets these requirements and will help inform the review of the Wellington Regional Growth Framework which will meet the requirements of the Future Development Strategy.

Te Mana o te Wai and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020

Urban growth can have impacts on the supply and quality of fresh water. When considering how and where growth happens, we will need to ensure that the district grows in a manner that prioritises the health of fresh water.

The Government has established a programme for restoring the health of fresh water with the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2020 and the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater 2020. At the core of this framework is the concept of Te Mana o te Wai, which refers to the vital importance of water for sustaining life. It establishes a hierarchy that prioritises the health and wellbeing of water first, then the health needs of people, followed by the ability for communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement sets out the objectives and policies that apply to the coastal environment and requires councils to achieve these when carrying out their functions and duties under the Resource Management Act (RMA).

In terms of urban development, the most relevant matters of the policy are those that relate to coastal hazards, the natural character of the coastal environment and public access. The policy requires Council to take a precautionary approach towards proposed activities whose effects on the coastal environment are uncertain, unknown or little understood, but potentially significantly adverse.

Resource Management Act (RMA) reform

The Government has committed to replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA), which will be key for our management of good growth. As part of the proposed changes, each region would have a 30-year spatial plan which would operate alongside a single regional planning document which consolidates all district and regional plans. Decisions would be made by a joint committee as a regional collective rather than individual councils. Our new District Growth Strategy will place us in a great position to respond to these changes.

We are already working with our partners to the north and south on similar activities – see Wellington regional growth framework below.

Other Government changes

The Government’s three waters reform programme has the potential to significantly change the way water infrastructure and services are delivered in our district. We will continue to engage with Government on water reform.

Councils have been advised to continue to plan and budget for infrastructure while the reforms work progresses. Our proposed approach to growth therefore plans for the infrastructure needed for a larger, more highly concentrated population.

The Government has established a review looking at the future for local government. This will consider what a resilient and sustainable local government system should look like, including: roles, functions and partnerships; funding and financing; and representation and governance. The final report from the review is due in 2023. In the interim, we need to continue to undertake our functions as currently required. Our new District Growth Strategy will provide a strong foundation for these changes.

Wellington regional growth framework

Growth is happening across the Wellington region and for our neighbours to the north in Horowhenua.

We are part of setting the overall direction of that through the Wellington Regional Growth Framework. The Framework is looking across the whole region, so we get ‘joined-up’ planning particularly in key areas such as our transport networks, including rail. Developing our direction in the context of the framework will mean our growth is complementary to what’s happening in other parts of the region – particularly those districts with whom we share boundaries such as Horowhenua which is also growing at a similar rate to Kāpiti.

The four current priorities in the Framework are:

· Housing supply, affordability and choice

· Transport choice and access

· Iwi/Māori housing capacity and taonga

· Climate change and resilience

Important considerations

Our growth strategy works together with other Council strategies to shape how we grow. The growth principles mean that we are taking a holistic approach to planning for growth. We have worked to make sure our proposed approach is consistent with the other work Council is doing, and supports the direction agreed with the community.

Our vision and community outcomes

Our overall vision, (discussed on page X), provides the starting point for our approach to growth. It gives us our ultimate objective of planning how we grow to help achieve a: thriving environment, vibrant economy and strong communities.

The five community outcomes developed by councillors for the long-term plan are integrated into our planning. The growth principles fit closely with the outcomes and our aim is that our proposed approach will help us achieve the outcomes.

ICON Mana Whenua and Council have a mutually mana-enhancing partnership

ICON Our communities are resilient, safe, healthy, thriving and connected. Everyone has a sense of belonging and can access the resources and services they need

ICON Our local economy is prosperous with ample opportunities for people to work and learn in Kāpiti

ICON Our natural environment is restored and enhance as we transition to a low-carbon future

ICON Our people have access to suitable housing in Kāpiti so that they can live and thrive

Te Kaupapa Mātua

As outlined on page X, our Te Kaupapa Mātua overarching framework underpins our principles and providing our values.

Key strategies and policies

We have developed our proposed approach to make sure we align with Council’s other key strategies agreed with the community and that our plan for how we grow will help deliver on their aims too.

INSERT DIAGRAM

Below is a high-level summary of the main strategies connected with our planning for growth. You can find specific information about these on our website. See kapiticoast.govt.nz

Some of these are current, some are to be reviewed. They are all areas we’ll factor into our implementation planning.

Climate emergency action framework

This framework sets out the overarching vision, objectives and principles we follow when we make decisions about climate change.

The vision at the heart of our Climate Emergency Action Framework is a thriving, vibrant and strong Kāpiti that has reduced its carbon footprint significantly, transitioned to a low-carbon future, and prepared for challenges and opportunities that come from responding to the climate crisis.

Economic development strategy and implementation plan

Our approach to economic development recognises the increasing attractiveness of our district for business investment particularly as our population grows. It provides a vision for how we can grow the diversity of our economy by partnering with iwi, business and the community, leading to greater opportunity, resilience and wellbeing for all.

Sustainable transport strategy

This is our 20-year vision for transport which seeks to enhance community connectedness by improving how we can get around including our transport network and reducing the reliance on private cars.

Cycleways, walkways and bridleways strategy

We have a comprehensive network of cycleways, walkways and bridleways and we want to develop this to improve connections across the district as well as opportunities for exercise and recreation.

Stormwater management strategy

This focuses on managing stormwater risk and how we deal with stormwater as we develop. Our future approach will need to take into account national requirements for prioritising the health and wellbeing of freshwater outlined in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

Sustainable water management strategy

This strategy covers our management of access to and use of water and sets out specific water management plans for different parts of the district.

Takutai Kāpiti/climate change adaptation

Working with our iwi partners, our community-led coastal adaptation programme – Takutai Kāpiti – will help prepare us for changes to our coastline.

Natural hazards information

Council is working on updating our flood hazard and coastal hazard information. This work will help direct where intensification and new development can occur.

Open space strategy

We are consulting on our vision for our open spaces over the next 30 years alongside our growth strategy. The open space strategy guides how we manage and provide for open space and recreation. Looking at them together, we have the opportunity to be creative and develop new green spaces as part of how we grow.

Local outcome statements

A number of local outcomes statements were developed by local communities alongside the previous Development Management Strategy in 2007. A number of these statements are now out of date and will be out of step with the new District Growth Strategy and government requirements. Further work to scope and provide a new framework to support local community development will be included as part of the implementation supporting the District Growth Strategy.

Our growth principles

Because how we grow is so important to us all, we want to ensure that our plan for managing growth is strongly grounded in what’s most critical to our community and reflects the direction we’ve already committed to.

We have developed six ‘growth principles’ to guide and test our proposed approach. They build on our overall vision (page X) and reflect the values and principles agreed with Mana Whenua in our Te Kaupapa Mātua framework (page x). They draw strongly on what the community has shared with us.

The principles combine what we want to nurture and protect – particularly our sense of identity and the importance of community, our environment and acting on climate change; and introduce the key elements of our proposed approach – different types of housing to help affordability, denser development of our urban centres to preserve our land and thinking about our district developing to a city-scale with the scope this brings for more services, facilities and opportunities.

(GRAPHIC PRESENTATION)

Supporting Mana Whenua aspirations
We recognises our partnership with Mana Whenua, and their role as kaitiaki for our district and our shared goal to grow sustainably.We will also support Mana Whenua to use their land and to provide for their needs for business, housing, educational and cultural purposes.

Valuing our environment
We will carefully consider the suitability of where and how we develop. We will protect our taiao, restoring habitats and enhancing our whenua and awa.

Fostering strong communities
By growing well and planning new developments thoughtfully we can foster connected, resilient communities who identify both with their immediate neighbourhoods and the wider district.

Encouraging low-carbon living
Concentrating development on centres and transport hubs better supports low-carbon living. Having close access to public transport and walkable communities with easy access to jobs and services means we can grow in a way that puts whānau and communities first. Greater density provides opportunities that helps us make a strong contribution to our climate emergency response.

Embracing the opportunities of growth
We want to actively plan for the benefits a larger population can bring to our whole district. "City thinking” allows for the benefits that scale can bring with regards to jobs, education, training, and services, while retaining the community character that makes Kāpiti special.

Enabling choice
Our growth strategy will help enable more options for housing to suit people’s different needs, including apartments, townhouses, papakāinga and social housing; and provide opportunities for different types of businesses and jobs to be created.

TELL US YOUR VIEWS

Do you think these give us the right focus?

Tell us your views: go to the feedback section page XX, or kapiticoast.govt.nz/growingwell

Our growth priorities and aspirations

As well as our growth principles, we have expressed what we want to achieve through our growth strategy in a set of priorities and aspirations. These expand on the principles and capture the many aspects of growing well that our community have raised.

Keep, protect, enhance

As we grow, we want to maintain, protect and enhance:

· our whakapapa and ancestral connections

· our district’s natural assets

· the connection between our natural environment and the values underpinning our Kāpiti lifestyle, and

· our sense of place and identity.

Improve walkability, neighbourhoods, and wellbeing

We can design our urban spaces in a way that:

· provides equity of access within communities

· supports us to be active and healthy

· enables positive interaction and connection, and

· helps build resilient and sustainable communities.

Achieve climate neutral living

We want to develop in harmony with our environment:

· applying our climate emergency action framework to our development approach, and

· actively planning how we can reduce our carbon footprint as our population increases, including encouraging intensification of our existing urban areas.

Enable affordable and efficient urban form

We will aim for a mix of intensification and greenfield expansion to give us:

· more housing available within existing urban areas

· efficient and effective transport networks

· attractive public spaces

· enhanced green and blue networks through the district (land and waterways), and

· resilient infrastructure with costs fairly shared.

Be prosperous and productive

We can use growth to:

· encourage more diverse business and employment opportunities and grow our skill base

· attract tertiary healthcare and educational services

· promote Kāpiti as a lifestyle destination, and

· protect the productivity of our rural sector and high-quality land from fragmentation.

Be respectful, inclusive, and diverse

We want the way we grow to:

· enhance the mauri of our district and communities and recognise that they are interrelated

· celebrate who we are – acknowledging our diversity and our sense of our local communities as well as what we love about our whole district

· provide vibrant, accessible and safe spaces and facilities for everyone to enjoy, and

· support a compassionate and just society.

Section 3: Our proposed approach

This section presents our proposed approach of growing up and growing out

It outlines the main features and with descriptions, maps and illustrations shows how they would be applied in different parts of the district

· Paraparaumu

· Railway stations

· Town centres

· Ōtaki

· Local centres

· Greenfields

· Business and commercial

· Rural

as we seek to deliver resilient, accessible and connected communities in a manner that protects and enhances our environment.

It includes specific questions for feedback about how we apply our proposed approach

- how high we could go in our town centres, and

- how far out we should go with our greenfields developments.

Our proposed approach is to grow up and grow out

The approach is to provide for intensification and greenfield development sensitive to the environmental values and constraints of the district and implemented in stages across the next 30 years.

We’ll provide for growth by enabling different types of housing, business and community facilities through a mix of:

· intensification in our urban areas – ‘grow up’, and

· new developments (greenfields) – ‘grow out’.

We still have space to develop – in urban centres and further out – and can manage how and where we do that. That means we can accommodate a bigger population while preserving our green, rural and open spaces that make Kāpiti so special.

One significant change is, over time, establishing central Paraparaumu as the coast’s ‘city centre’ with Ōtaki as a district centre in the north.

Key features

(GRAPHIC TREATMENT)

Increased density

For our centres, suburbs and our new land developments we are required to provide for increased density and make more efficient use of our land.

In and around our town and local centres we would be looking at medium-high density development (enabling development in local and town centres up to 4 and 6 storeys respectively, and in central Paraparaumu enabling up to 12 storeys). In most suburban areas, we will allow more infill housing at low-medium density (enabled up to 2-3 storeys). Our greenfields developments would also be more dense than previously and include different forms of housing – such as terraced housing and apartments.

Our approach meets the Government’s requirements for intensification of housing including removing minimum requirements for car parks (excluding accessible car parks) to support low-carbon living and encourage use of public transport.

Higher density can deliver increased services and facilities to support people’s everyday needs. We are aiming for more people living in walkable neighbourhoods. The emphasis is on more urbanised living with new developments centred on public transport, particularly rail, with less reliance on private vehicle use. Improved public transport will need to be delivered as part of implementing this strategy.

When we talk about “enabling development”, we mean that district planning rules will be set to allow for development at these densities. Infrastructure planning will also take these potential higher densities into account when upgrades and extensions to services are planned.

Growth will happen over time

Our growth strategy plans for the growth in our population over the next 30 years. Some development will happen in the next several years while other developments might not happen for 20 years or more.

Planning for this growth now means we will be able to ensure all necessary infrastructure is in place in time to support staged growth.

Our proposed approach also has the flexibility to adjust to population growth – if growth is faster or slower than expected, we can bring forward development or push it further out.

Our green spaces will be protected

Protecting the beautiful environment in which we live is paramount. The backdrop of bush-clad hills, the rivers and streams they feed, our wonderful coastline – these are the things that make living in Kāpiti so special.

Our proposed approach protects our green spaces, natural habitats and freshwater quality.

Different types of housing

To meet the needs of changing demographics – such as more single person households – and lifestyles, we want to enable different types of housing. A wider range of housing will also result in more affordable housing options.

We also want to enable forms of development we have a need for on the Kāpiti Coast. This might be working with community housing providers on social housing or supporting Mana Whenua to develop housing solutions to allow their people to live (and work) closer to their ancestral home.

The biggest change will be in areas of increased density where over time we will see apartment blocks, terraced housing, and townhouses.

Different types of housing across the district (GRAPHIC TREATMENT)

	Expected type of building	Dwellings per hectare	Areas in proposed approach
High density	Apartments/commercial buildings Buildings enabled up to 12 storeys	100					Central Paraparaumu
Medium-high density	Apartments/ commercial buildings Buildings enabled up to 4 or 6 storeys	80				Areas around railway stations in Paraparaumu and Waikanae (potentially Ōtaki and Paekākāriki in time as well as new train stations)
Medium density	Apartments/ commercial buildings Buildings enabled up to 6 storeys	60			Town centres of Raumati Beach, Paraparaumu Beach, Waikanae, Ōtaki
Low-medium density	Townhouses/ terraced houses/apart-ments (potential business use on ground floor) Buildings enabled up to 3-4 storeys	40		Local centres of Raumati South, Kena Kena, Meadows Precinct (Mazengarb Road), and Te Moana Road, Waikanae Beach
Low-medium density		40	Suburban areas with increased density enabled up to 2-3 storeys
Low density	Detached houses/semi-detached townhouses (no business use) Buildings enabled up to 2 storeys	20

STYLISED MAP

Grow up + grow out

· More options – different types of housing eg apartment blocks, terraced houses, townhouses

· Building on what we have already – eg developing Paraparaumu centre

· Some ‘new’/different – eg developing Ōtaki as a bigger centre

Grow up

· Central Paraparaumu
Enabled up to 12 storeys within central Paraparaumu
Up to six storeys within an 800m walkable catchment (about 10 minutes’ walk) of central Paraparaumu and railway station

· Railway stations
Enabled up to six storeys within an 800m walkable catchment (about 10 minutes’ walk)

o Paekākāriki (potentially in the future – there are currently infrastructure-related constraints)

o Paraparaumu

o Waikanae

o Ōtaki (pending commuter rail)

o Future major greenfield developments

· Town centres
Enabled up to six storeys within town centre area and four storeys within a 400m walkable catchment (5 minutes’ walk)

o Raumati Beach

o Paraparaumu Beach

o Waikanae

o Ōtaki

· Local centres
Enabled up to four storeys in centre and four storeys within a 200m walkable catchment (a short walk)

o Raumati South

o Kena Kena

o Meadows Precinct (southern end of Mazengarb Road between Realm Drive and the Expressway)

o Te Moana Road (Waikanae Beach

· Suburban areas
Enabled up to 2-3 storeys of infill and low to medium density development

Grow out

· Greenfield development enabled up to three storeys and six storeys around any future railway stations

· Any major development centred along transport routes and designed for housing, business and community facilities

High priority greenfield growth areas within the existing urban environment or Future Urban Zone

· Developments on the current urban periphery

o Waikanae and Ōtaki Future urban zones

o Raumati South near the start of the expressway

o in southeast Waikanae

o Waitohu in Ōtaki

o Medium-term greenfield growth areas Paraparaumu North/Otaihanga/near Otaraua Park

o North of Waikanae (between expressway and old state highway)

Long-term greenfield growth area/future urban study area

o Valley Road, Paraparaumu

o Te Horo/Hautere

o Peka Peka, east of old state highway

o Ōtaki, south of Waitohu

CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION/MAP ‘ZOOM IN’

Central Paraparaumu

We plan for Paraparaumu central to be developed, over time, as the main city centre for our district. This would give us the facilities and benefits of size you would expect in a city.

Increased density and a bigger population have the potential to support a fuller range of services – including potentially a hospital and tertiary education facilities – spaces for people to meet and gather, a wider variety of shops, improved ability to attract investment and new businesses, and increased local employment opportunities.

Currently, central Paraparaumu includes a lot of undeveloped or lightly developed land. Our proposed approach sees this area as having the densest development in our district, helping to achieve the benefits that a city brings.

Density in the central area of Paraparaumu centre would be enabled up to 12 storeys. Paraparaumu centre as the “city heart” of the District is distinguished from the district’s other centres in its form and density allowing for a greater concentration of retail, business, employment, and living opportunities. The density provided by enabling 12 storey development will bring housing and commercial/business space supporting housing choice and business vibrancy. Preliminary assessment has highlighted benefits of building more densely in this location, to make the best use of infrastructure and community facilities.

Development up to six storeys would be enabled within an 800m walkable catchment. This includes providing for development up to six storeys within a walkable catchment of the railway station, as required by the government’s urban development policy.

Business land will be retained for business purposes. To achieve increased density there will be continued and expanded mixed use on commercial land, for instance, a building with shops on the ground floor and offices and apartments above.

There will be easy access to public transport for those commuting or others coming to Paraparaumu and central Paraparaumu itself will consist of overlapping (walkable) neighbourhoods where residents can walk to a range of services and facilities.

CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION/MAP ‘ZOOM IN’

Railway stations

The Government’s urban development policy also has a focus on enabling intensification in s around railway stations. The area around any station that meets the definition of a ‘rapid transit service’ must be enabled to be intensified to at least six storeys.

For us, that is all our railway stations – Paekākāriki, Paraparaumu and Waikanae. Up to six storeys will be enabled within an 800m walkable catchment.

Although Paekākāriki railway station is considered a rapid transit stop, Paekākāriki lacks the community wastewater system necessary to support intensification and growth. This could be resolved through new infrastructure; however, this would take time and involve significant cost.

The area around the station at Paraparaumu will be developed as part of the intensification of the wider Paraparaumu metropolitan area.

Similarly, in Waikanae, the railway station-centered development will flow into the development of the Waikanae town centre.

Further north it is likely that Ōtaki railway station might also become a ‘rapid transit stop’ in the future, once double tracking and electrification of the line occurs, and so similar development would take place here.

Our proposed approach also includes enabling medium density in major new greenfield developments centred on potential future railway stations such as at Otaihanga/near Otaraua Park and north of Waikanae.

Some of this development depends on decisions on the rail network and services which we will continue to advocate to central government for.

CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION/MAP ‘ZOOM IN’

Town centres

To help retain diverse communities we will also have increased density and higher buildings in our town centres – Raumati Beach, Paraparaumu Beach, Waikanae and Ōtaki.

This will mean our higher density growth is not simply focused on Paraparaumu central; other areas will also have a greater range of housing, businesses, services and potentially local employment.

Raumati Beach and Paraparaumu Beach town centres could support density of up to six storeys within the town centres – including opportunities for mixed use, business and residential – and up to 4 storeys of residential development within a 400m walkable catchment.

The Waikanae town centre is right by the railway station – around which development is required to be enabled to at least six storeys – so our proposal is for up to six storeys within an 800m walkable catchment of the station.

CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION/MAP ‘ZOOM IN’

Ōtaki

In fostering growth, we are planning for Ōtaki to take on greater prominence as a district centre for the northern half of our district. This will support economic and cultural development in the area.

Ōtaki is growing and will grow even more through better transport links, including the completion of the Peka Peka to Ōtaki expressway in the next couple of years and its extension through to Levin within the decade.

It is anticipated the railway line will be double tracked and electrified in coming decades, connecting Ōtaki to Wellington by commuter train.

Development will initially be focused around both the shops/centre along State Highway 1 as well as the town centre halfway towards the beach. Later there will be opportunities for development around the railway station once double tracking and commuter rail has been planned for (some of this area covers the SH1 centre, which will already have been enabled for development).

We propose enabling up to six storeys within both current Ōtaki town centres and four storeys within a 400m walkable catchment of them both. If and when the railway station is part of the commuter rail network, this would extend to enabling up to six storeys within an 800m walkable catchment.

As well as development in the township itself, an area to the north has long been identified for urban development.

CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION/MAP ‘ZOOM IN’

Local centres

Our proposed approach sees gradual intensification in our local centres in Raumati South, Kena Kena, Meadows Precinct (Mazengarb Road) and Te Moana Road, Waikanae Beach.

Local centres with shops, basic services and community facilities you can walk to would make for even more liveable neighbourhoods.

Development would be enabled up to 4 storeys high within a 200m walkable catchment. This is expected to occur over time through infill and re-development.

CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION/MAP ‘ZOOM IN’

Suburban areas

Across the district, we will allow more infill housing at low-medium density (up to 2-3 storeys) in suburban areas.

Infill development is possible under the current District Plan, however, we are aiming to further promote this, as well as encourage other forms of low-medium density development such as semi-detached and terraced housing.

CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION/MAP ‘ZOOM IN’

Greenfields

Our greenfield development will be staged for release over the 30-years of the strategy.

Overall, our approach puts emphasis on ‘growing up’ with some greenfield development. This will help protect our valued green spaces, natural ecosystems, and safeguard highly productive land where it has not already been fragmented.

Future greenfield developments will be denser than previously, enabled with up to three storeys in new developments, and up to six storeys around any new railway station This is part of creating walkable neighbourhoods – reducing reliance on cars as we transition to a low carbon future. Larger greenfield areas will be of the scale to support local shops, services, and business activity. Greater density in new neighbourhoods also helps create efficiencies in infrastructure provision.

High priority greenfield growth areas within the existing urban environment or Future Urban Zone

First to be sequenced for development will be the greenfield sites located within and adjoining existing urban areas or in what are known as future urban zones. They range from quite small ‘gap fillers’, correcting historical zoning anomalies, to some large development areas.

These major greenfield areas are in Raumati South near the start of the expressway, along Valley Road, in southeast Waikanae and Waitohu in Ōtaki.

Medium-term greenfield growth areas

We would look to centre any major new developments along transport routes, particularly rail.

A new urban centre will be provided for at Paraparaumu North/Otaihanga/near Otaraua Park and development will happen over the medium term of the strategy. It will be planned around a potential inclusion of a future railway station near Otaraua Park. We are also proposing development north of the current Waikanae urban area. These areas reflect those initially indicated in the Wellington Regional Growth Framework and would need to be supported by extended rail services.

Long-term greenfield growth area/Future urban study area

Potential for a long-term greenfield growth area/future urban study area has also been identified to the north of the district, around the Te Horo/Hautere area. This would need extensive further investigations for suitability, which will be undertaken over the next few years. Such an area would be anticipated for development in the latter years of this strategy.

There is a strong preference for any long-term greenfield development in the north of our district to be matched with increased rail services.

CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION

Business and commercial

All existing business land will be retained for business use. In areas where higher buildings and density is enabled – such as Paraparaumu’s centre and our town centres – the mixed use of commercial land will be further encouraged, for instance, taller buildings with shops on the ground floor and offices and apartments above.

Higher density in centres and around train stations will enable businesses to be more accessible to people, by car, public transport or, in many cases, within walking distance.

We know our district generally has enough business land capacity in the short, medium and long-term, however, Council’s Housing and Business Assessment 2018 found we had a lack of large industrial lots. A growing economy and population mean we will need to plan for more business land over the longer term. We will include this in some strategically located greenfield developments that are well connected to transport infrastructure and have the space where we can include industrial activities sensitively in a new development. We will review this as part of the Housing and Business Assessment in 2022.

Rural

Our approach to growth will ensure we retain highly productive land in the district and potentially help develop new food production and manufacturing businesses.

A significant area of the Kāpiti Coast is used for farming and horticulture (particularly around Ōtaki, Te Horo and Hautere where there is high-quality soil for growing).

In recent years subdivision of rural land for housing has increased, mostly on the fringes of urban areas, although this has been somewhat managed through the District Plan. Our approach to growth aims to minimise the further fragmentation of productive rural land by setting out areas for future housing right through until 2050. This may involve tightening-up the current subdivision provisions in our most productive rural areas where the land has not already been significantly fragmented. We may also explore the possibility of incentivising re-amalgamation of subdivided land where feasible.

Summary of benefits and how they reflect our growth principles and priorities

Our growth principles

- Supporting Mana Whenua aspirations

- Embracing the opportunities of ‘city thinking’

- Valuing our environment

- Supporting low-carbon living

- Fostering strong communities

- Enabling choice

Benefits of our proposed approach

GRAPHIC TREATMENT

· Kāpiti will offer different kinds of homes and more options for how people live

· A bigger population will mean a bigger range of services – potentially a hospital or polytechnic

· People will have more opportunities to work in Kāpiti

· We’ll have more shops and community facilities a short walk away

· We’ll be able to attract new businesses to our district

· Our beautiful whenua and wai will be protected for future generations

· Growth will revitalise our town centres

· There will be more options for our rangatahi – for training and jobs

· We’ll have great spaces to connect in our neighbourhoods and centres

· With better access to transport options, it will be easier to lower our carbon footprint

· There’ll be more ratepayers to share the cost of services

TELL US YOUR VIEWS

Does our proposed approach give us a good mix between intensification and greenfield?

Tell us your views: go to the feedback section page XX, or kapiticoast.govt.nz/growingwell

Section 4:

Our implementation plan

This section gives an outline of how we would implement the proposed approach working with our iwi partners and community in the context of the Government’s requirements and the development of the greater Wellington region.

It explains the Council’s role and highlights how parts of our proposed approach are dependent on some key developments by central government and others like the regional council for the rail network and public transport.

It summarises the main work we’ve already got underway through our current long-term plan to invest in infrastructure and increase options for housing. It sets out the key first steps in implementation such as updating the District Plan to apply the Government’s new requirements for urban development and planning for our infrastructure needs in the next long-term plan.

It includes one of the key questions for feedback: Is our plan for implementation covering everything important?

Making it happen – outline of our implementation plan

We will deliver our growth strategy through a comprehensive implementation plan. This section explains what our proposed approach depends on, what work we’ve already done and got underway and what we plan to do next.

We will develop an implementation plan that breaks down step by step what needs to happen to realise the final growth strategy to enable sustainable growth in Kāpiti over the next 30 years.

The implementation plan will sit alongside our finalised growth strategy.

Guiding principles

We will use our growth principles to ensure our implementation plan stays on track and helps us achieve our vision of a thriving environment, vibrant economy and strong communities for all the people who will call Kāpiti home.

Our growth principles

- Supporting Mana Whenua aspirations

- Embracing the opportunities of ‘city thinking’

- Valuing our environment

- Supporting low-carbon living

- Fostering strong communities

- Enabling choice

Who’s involved

The implementation plan will be led by Council, working with our iwi partners, our communities, developers, central government and the regional council.

Council’s main roles are in helping set the direction and rules for development, and planning infrastructure and services to support growth. Development of housing, offices, shops and industrial facilities will be led by other parties, including property development firms, builders, community housing providers and iwi.

Working with other parties and within the Government’s framework means there are things outside our control and over which we have no choice. We will have to adapt along the way and work closely together to coordinate activities.

We have worked with all these parties for many years, and we share a commitment to achieving good growth.

What key things will contribute

Because growth has been on our radar for some time, there is a lot of work already underway or planned. There are a number of key projects and mechanisms that will be part of our implementation.

· District plan changes

· Long-term plan and infrastructure strategy

· Development contributions policy

· Assessments of housing and business land capacity

· Housing needs assessment

· Wellington regional growth framework and Future Development Strategy

Updating our district plan

Our district plan sets out rules for where and how development can take place. We will update the district plan to ensure we enable sufficient development capacity, both in land zoning and intensification.

The updated district plan will incorporate the Government requirements for intensification as well as further changes, over time, in relation to Mana Whenua, and coastal and flood risks.

The district plan is the main initiative that will enable our growth strategy.

Planning our infrastructure needs

The 2021–41 Long-term Plan has a focus on investing for resilience and growth. Much of the work programme is designed to set us up to grow sustainably at the same time as meeting our immediate infrastructure needs.

Growth will be enabled through the sequencing of our infrastructure development. We want to plan comprehensively and avoid piecemeal development. For example, we know we will need to increase our water infrastructure for the needs of an increased population, including possibly a new wastewater treatment plant and water reservoir.

Alongside the long-term plan, our infrastructure strategy – ‘Building for now and the future’ – takes a 30-year view, which aligns with our growth strategy.

Specific infrastructure requirements

We will need investment across our different areas of infrastructure. Some of the key investments required are our direct responsibility while others sit with our partner organisations, such as Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, KiwiRail and the Greater Wellington Regional Council.

Some of these significant investments and their timing to support development proposed are set out below.

Transport

· Improved intersection capacity and safety at critical intersections (eg Kāpiti Road/Amohia Street, Old State Highway 1 and Elizabeth Street) – short to medium term

· Link roads between Kāpiti Road and Ihakara Street to relieve capacity constraints on Kāpiti Road – medium term

· Frequency increases in rail services and double tracking and electrification of the railway line between Waikanae – medium to long term

Water

· Ōtaki would require additional capacity including reservoir storage – short to medium term

· North Waikanae would require new water supply system – short to medium term

Wastewater

· Ōtaki would require new sewage pipe network and pump station capacity – short to medium term

· Growth through intensification may trigger capacity upgrade requirements for wastewater pipe work and pump stations – short through to long term

· Upgrades to existing wastewater treatment facilities at Otaihanga and Ōtaki – long term

· Possible new wastewater pump station and treatment system for growth north of Waikanae – medium to long term

· As noted, any significant development planned for Paekākāriki would require a full wastewater system to be implemented

Stormwater and coastal

· Flood, stormwater management and coastal hazard plans – under development

· Intensification areas and greenfield expansion areas will need to be sensitive to climate change and sea level rise and managed accordingly.

Enabling quality development

We will increase our activities to support and enable quality development. An activity in our long-term plan is to review our development contributions policy which focuses on funding infrastructure. We also want to look at ways to incentivise good development that offers different types of housing, is climate friendly and provides spaces for community and recreation. These are seen as some of the key components of quality developments.

As part of the ‘growing up’ element in our proposed approach, we will work with commercial developers to encourage and incentivise higher-density development in suitable areas. This includes how we support green spaces and urban amenity in new types of developments, so it links with objectives in our Open Space strategy.

Investigating suitability of land for development

We are checking the suitability of land for different development, including considering natural hazards. We know there are areas of the district that have constraints, including some of the areas identified in the proposed approach. The future district plan changes will address these challenges in more detail, providing specific direction on where development can occur in light of the updated hazard information and the associated legislative requirements.

Greenfield site assessments

We have already done preliminary assessment of areas for potential greenfields development at a high level as set out in the proposed approach. This included considering their proximity to existing centres, access to transport and infrastructure, natural hazards, potential effects on the environment, effects on highly productive land and impact on climate change.

We will carry out more detailed examination as part of the implementation plan. Individual developments will also have to complete assessments required under the District Plan.

Exploring housing opportunities

We are also working to expand Council’s contribution to improving housing access and affordability in our community.

Social housing

An action in our long-term plan is to review our existing older persons' housing complexes to see if we could redevelop to add more housing.

We will also explore opportunities to increase social and affordable housing by partnering with iwi, community housing providers or central government.

We will come back to the community with any specific proposals that come out of our review of our existing social housing.

Assessments of housing and business land capacity

We have a programme of work to look at current housing and business land capacity against future demand to inform the 2024-44 Long-term Plan. A full updated Housing and Business Assessment will help identify shortfall in provision, and a response will be prepared to address any shortfall. An investigation of Māori and social housing needs will also be completed by early next year (2022?).

Strategic land purchases

We are pursuing strategic opportunities to secure land suitable for housing and have increased our budget for purchase of land. If the right opportunity comes up, we may be able to buy land that could be developed by a social housing provider, iwi or a private developer.

Advocating for our district’s needs

We will also be advocating to key government agencies about increasing their investment in Kāpiti to enable and respond to growth. We will continue to advocate for improved public transport – such as double tracking the railway to Ōtaki to support growth in the north of our district – key needs such as health services and increased direct government investment in housing.

We’re already working with our regional partners and central government agencies to support the districts growth needs as part of the Wellington Regional Growth Framework. Once completed, our growth strategy will help us inform future review of the Wellington Regional Growth Framework to meet Future Development Strategy requirements.

What else we need to consider

As outlined in the Our process section (page X), we have developed our proposed approach to make sure we align with Council’s other key strategies agreed with the community and that our plan for how we grow will help deliver on their aims too.

As we develop our implementation strategy, we will look closely at how our implementation needs to link with these strategies including our climate emergency action framework and Takutai Kāpiti/climate change adaptation plan; our economic strategy and implementation plan; and our strategies for sustainable transport; cycleways, walkways and bridleways; stormwater management; sustainable water management and open space, and our work on housing.

Particularly critical to our planning for implementation are our community-led coastal adaptation programme – Takutai Kāpiti – looking at how we prepare for changes to our coastline and our stormwater management strategy focusing how we deal with stormwater as we grow. Our future approach to stormwater will need to take into account the national requirements for wetlands protection and restoration.

We will also explore further work on a new framework to support local community outcomes. It will help to identify actions to support and build on our existing and future communities.

Investment and costs

As the Mayor outlined, there will be costs associated with growth, in particular to ensure we get our infrastructure where we want to support development in the right places.

Investment in infrastructure needed for our current community and to support future growth is already underway with this long-term plan. As described above, we will be looking in detail at what further infrastructure we will need and when to provide for this growth. That will include how we fund the investment required. These decisions will be made through consultation on our long-term plans over the coming years – including our next plan for 2024-44 and includes reviewing the development contributions policy.

Spreading the costs

As well as providing for our current residents’ needs, we will have to increase our services and facilities to accommodate growth. As our population increases, the cost of this will be spread across a bigger pool of ratepayers –– residents and businesses – so will be more sustainable for everyone.

We will also have the advantages of increased scale. While we will need some expansion of infrastructure and facilities, we will also be able to service a bigger population more efficiently. Building more densely – rather than spreading out all our development – also helps us to make the best use of infrastructure and community facilities.

Growth paying for growth

We intend to continue to focus on the predominant concept of ‘growth paying for growth’. As described, part of our implementation plan is to review our development contributions policy including ways to incentivise good development that offers diverse types of housing, is sustainable and supports connected communities.

Council has made it clear through the 2021-41 Long-term Plan that Council’s role is to be a facilitator not a developer, so Council would not be taking on any direct investment in commercial development.

Monitoring and reporting progress

Fully implementing our proposed approach will span across the next three decades. Our implementation plan will give us an overall road map that we will firm up and be able to plan in detail as we go forward.

A big part of that will be closely monitoring what is happening, including how our population growth is tracking against projections; how the market is responding – developers and purchasers; and what else central government does, for example, the impacts of reforms of resource management laws and three waters infrastructure. There will also be specific monitoring and response requirements under the national policy statement on urban development and other national policy statements we need to apply.

Being responsive and flexible

There will be things that we adjust as we get more information, for example further assessments of how land in different parts of the district can potentially be used or responding to new national direction.

As outlined in the proposed approach section, we will have the ability to adjust our pace and extent of development, to match what is happening and updated projections.

Council will regularly review our implementation plan and milestones and key issues will be reported and shared with our community.

Further opportunities for community input

The proposed approach sets out the main features that Council is putting forward to respond to the Government’s requirements for development and reflect the aspirations of our community for affordable housing, environmental protection, climate change action, sustainability and resilience, and more opportunities for jobs and services.

In setting the principles for growth, which have helped shaped the proposed approach, councillors have been determined to keep the focus of growth on ‘people and place’ echoing our vision statement: Toitu te whenua, toitū te wai, toitū te tangata, toitū Kāpiti. Councillors envisage an ongoing conversation with the community about ensuring we grow well as our population increases.

Consultation and engagement

Through implementation, there will be many aspects of putting in place the proposed approach where there will be opportunities for community input.

Some of these will be the big pieces of work we consult on such as changes to the district plan and our long-term plans including proposed policy changes such as for our development contributions policy, and possible community housing arrangements.

As parts of the growth strategy get underway, there will also be engagement about specific aspects such as design of shared spaces and new community facilities in local centres.

There will also be opportunities to influence how we grow through input to other strategies and work Council is doing. As mentioned, two key pieces of work are our planning for adaptation to climate change impacts on our coast and ensuring our stormwater system is developed in a way that is sensitive to our environment – including finding new, creative solutions.

Opportunities for further ideas

A big part of developing our proposed approach has been looking at the challenges we face, and can foresee, and also the opportunities they present or which we want to pursue. As time goes on other challenges – and opportunities – will emerge and that will be an area for further conversations and inviting and testing ideas.

Growing well will involve our whole community.

TELL US YOUR VIEWS

Is our plan for implementation covering everything important?

Go to the feedback section page X or kapiticoast.govt.nz/growingwell

Section 5: Your feedback

This section is for you to share your views to help Council finalise the growth strategy for our district.

Topics for feedback

We are specifically inviting your feedback on four key areas that are detailed in the document.

· Have we reflected the most significant challenges and opportunities?

· Do our growth principles feel right?

· Does our proposed approach to growth give us a good balance?

· Is our plan for implementation covering everything important?

You are welcome to comment on any of the content or other aspects.

Consultation process

Councillors will consider all the feedback received.

We will report back on the main themes of the input and the decisions Council makes on the proposed approach and implementation plan.

Councillors will finalise the approach during December 2021 and confirm the growth strategy and implementation plan in February 2022.

Our consultation timeframe

Consultation is open from Tuesday 19 October to Tuesday 23 November 2021

How to find out more and share your views

Want more information?

This document is designed to give you a summary of all the work that has been done over the past few years. There’s lots of supporting information that we’ve used to develop our proposed approach. If you would like to read more, see kapiticoast.govt.nz/growingwell

Have a question?

There are a lot of complex matters involved in managing our district’s growth and we don’t have all the details now. However, If you have a specific question, please email…..and we will do our best to answer it.

Want to chat?

You can talk with councillors about the proposed approach

· Online through our Facebook page?

· Face-to-face – we plan to host pop-ups in different parts of the district so you can talk to councillors unless we are restricted by lock-down.

Planned pop-ups

How to share your views

Online – go to kapiticoast.govt.nz/growingwell and use the online form

On paper – fill out the form in this section and either

Drop it to one of our libraries or serviced centres,

Post it to Growth strategy feedback, Kapiti Coast District Council Private Bag 60601, Paraparaumu 5254

Scan and email it to kapiticoast.govt.nz/growingwell

In person – you can arrange to speak to a Council meeting…. See the section at the end of the feedback form.

Your feedback on our proposed approach

Please give your feedback online at kapiticoast.govt.nz/growingwell or fill out the form below and get it to us – see previous page for options.

We need to receive your feedback by 5 pm Friday 19 November 2021

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our challenges and opportunities – pages X-X

As we developed our proposed approach, we looked at the main challenges our district is facing and also the opportunities these challenges present. Many of the issues and ways we can respond to them positively have been raised with us by the community and discussed through the long-term plan consultation.

The challenges and opportunities are detailed on page X.

Do you think we have reflected all the significant challenges and opportunities?

Yes

If you have any views, please comment here:

Our growth principles, priorities and aspirations - pages X-X

To guide our strategy for managing our district’s growth, we have developed a set of principles, priorities and aspirations, which reflect our partnership with Mana Whenua and the overall direction we have agreed with our community through the long-term plan.

The principles are detailed on page X.

Do you think these give us the right focus?

Yes

If you have any views, please comment here:

Our proposed approach – pages X-X

Our proposed approach is to provide for growth by enabling different types of housing, business and community facilities in a mix of:

· intensification in our centres – ‘growing up’, and

· new developments (greenfields) – ‘growing out’.

The approach is to have a mix of intensification and greenfield development.

For both our centres and our new land developments we are looking at increased heights and density and making more efficient use of land.

In and around our centres we would be looking at low-medium to high density (4 to 6 storeys with up to 12 in Paraparaumu central). Our greenfields developments would also be more dense than current urban areas, including different forms of housing – such as apartments.

In our existing suburban areas, we are looking at increased heights and densities.

Do you think our proposed approach will help us achieve good growth?

Yes No

If yes, how?

If no, what are your concerns?

How far ‘up’?

Our proposed approach shows how we would/could implement the Government’s direction on urban development. Specifically we are looking at:

· enabling development of up to at least 12 storeys within central Paraparaumu and up to at least 6 storeys within 800m (about 10 minutes’ walk) of central Paraparaumu

· enabling up to at least 6 storeys within 800m (about 10 minutes’ walk) of railway stations at Paekākāriki, Paraparaumu and Waikanae

· enabling up to at least 6 storeys within our town centres at Raumati Beach, Paraparaumu Beach, Waikanae and Ōtaki, and up to 4 storeys within 400m (5 minutes’ walk) of these centres

· enabling up to 4 storeys within 200m (a short walk) of our local centres at Raumati South, Kena Kena, Meadows and Waikanae Beach

· enabling up to 3 storeys and increased densities in our suburban areas.

· Do you think this is enough? Yes No

If No

· How much higher could we go and where? (state number of storeys and areas)

How far ‘out’?

To meet our population projections, we have identified X areas for potential new development (greenfields). (See map on page X)

Do you think this this seems appropriate? Yes No

If you think there are too many, which would you remove?

Do you think our proposed approach give us a good balance?

Yes

If you have any views, please comment here:

*Our plan for implementing our proposed approach – pages X-X

We will develop a comprehensive plan for implementing our proposed approach. We have identified the main parts of this that we can so far based on the information that we have at present.

The big pieces of work we plan to do in our implementation plan are set out on pages X-X.

We will engage with the community on these as we get into them or through the next long-term plan.

We will report on all parts of our implementation through Council meetings and the Annual Report including updates if anything major changes.

Do you think our plan for implementation covers everything important?

Yes

If you have any views, please comment here:

Other feedback

If you have any other feedback about how we can grow well, please comment here:

Need more space? You can send us extra pages if you wish.

We need to receive your feedback by 5 pm Friday 19 November 2021

YOUR DETAILS

First name…….………………………………………………….. Last name……………………………………………….

Address……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Email……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Iwi affiliation (optional)

If you identify as Māori, do you wish to state the iwi with which you identify?

If so, please tick all that apply.

Ngāti Raukawa au ki te Tonga Te Āti Awa Ki Whakarongotai Ngāti Toa Rangatira

Other iwi or hapu (please state)………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Individual or organisation feedback (please tick one)

Are you providing feedback:

as an individual on behalf of an organisation

Please state organisation name …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Publishing feedback

The feedback received on this consultation may be published on the Council website and provided in hard copy at our libraries and service centres. If you are providing feedback as an individual and you do not wish to have your name included when feedback is published, please tick below.

I do not want my name published with my feedback

If feedback is from an organisation, the organisation name will be included.

Speaking with Councillors (optional)

If you wish to speak to Council about your feedback, please provide your contact details so we can arrange a time…………………..You can come to a meeting or present via Zoom.

Phone………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Email………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Or, you can come along and hear what others say. The meetings will also be livestreamed.

What happens to my feedback and personal details? Your feedback will be reviewed. Councillors will consider it as they make final decisions on the approach for growth. Personal information will only be used as explained above in ‘Publishing feedback’ or for providing an acknowledgement of your feedback.

(BACK COVER)

Our proposed approach for managing growth in Kāpiti Community consultation document

Our population is increasing and we want to grow well over the coming years.

We want to protect what’s important to our community and help our whole district benefit from growth. We want to make Kāpiti an even better place to live!

(ILLUSTRATION/PICS)

This document explains our proposed approach for growing sustainably and asks for your feedback.

Have a read or check it out online at kapiticoast.govt.nz/growingwell and share your views.

We need to receive your feedback by 5 pm Friday 19 November 2021

Produced by Kapiti Coast District Council

Logo

Council Meeting Agenda

30 September 2021

MINUTES OF Kapiti Coast District Council
Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road, Paraparaumu
ON Monday, 17 May 2021 AT 9.30am

PRESENT: Mayor K Gurunathan, Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow, Cr Angela Buswell, Cr James Cootes, Cr Jackie Elliott, Cr Gwynn Compton, Cr Jocelyn Prvanov, Cr Martin Halliday, Cr Sophie Handford, Cr Robert McCann, Cr Bernie Randall

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Wayne Maxwell, Ms Natasha Tod, Mr Sean Mallon, Mrs Janice McDougall, Mr Mark de Haast, Mr James Jefferson, Ms Sacha Haskell.

APOLOGIES: Nil

LEAVE OF Nil

ABSENCE:

1 Welcome

2 Council Blessing

The Mayor welcomed everyone to the meeting and Cr Hndford read the Council blessing.

3 Apologies

Nil

4 Declarations of Interest Relating to Items on the Agenda

Nil

5 Members’ Business

(a) Public Speaking Time Responses

(b) Leave of Absence

Leave of absence

Resolution CO2021/46

Moved: Cr Jocelyn Prvanov

Seconder: Cr Bernie Randall

That a request from Cr Martin Halliday for a leave of absence from Friday 21 May 2021 to Wednesday 26 May 2021 be accepted and the leave of absence be granted

Carried

6 Public hearing of Long Term plan 2021-41 submissions

21LTP-12 & 21 LTP30 Lynn Sleath, on behalf of Kapiti Cycling Action spoke to the following points:

· Pekapeka Road in relation to the Waikanae to PekaPeka route. PekaPeka Road, said Mr Sleath, is one of the most dangerous roads in the district. Request a limit of 60kph instead of the current 80kph.

· The Group has estimated $50k maximum is required to make the road safe.

· Bringing the speed limit down is the key. The 2021 Land Transport rule is saying that speed limits need to be reduced and we need to share the road. This will come out later this year. Grays Road has been down at 60kph for some time and is a useful analogy. Nelson to Blenheim is a good example of reduced speed limits.

· The Support the LTP and understand there is some funding proposed but the group are sceptical that it will arise.

· The submission is also on behalf of equestrians as the road is dangerous for horse riding. Drivers need to share better.

· Current 80kph is based on a previous rule and is about to change due to legislation. This points to the face that we need to share the roads better.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· You haven’t mentioned the impact of the cycle way Pekapeka to Otaki and the increase in cyclists that will results. Have you thoughts about the potential numbers.

· What other submission did you wish to speak about?

The submitter commented as follows

· About 17 cyclists per hour is the estimate. It’s a route that is used at the moment by more experienced cyclists. The circuit will extend instead of stopping at Harrisons Café.

· The Community Board said three years ago that traffic will double.

· Money outside the NZTA budget would allow you to make footpaths a little wider. I’d like to be able to make my safe

· One was about a little bit of money so that where you want to do a footpath renewal you think ahead in relation to wider footpaths being required in the future which can be done without NZTA rules being breached.

· People want to park their bikes where they can see it. e.g. being able to chain bikes to a rail.

21 LTP-08 Bede Laracy, on behalf of Raumati Village Business Association spoke to the following points:

· The Submission was sent out to all of Raumati Village Business Association database. We have over 70 business on the database.

· We have seen other Otaki, Mahara Place and Paraparaumu have town centre upgrades. It Raumati’s turn for funding.

· What shall we do with the unused pool. It needs attention and funding. There is an opportunity to do something with it. It would be nice to have a conversation about it.

· Kean to hear of there are objections to Raumati Village receiving attention.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· One key thing in the submission was revisiting 2007 document and getting that updated.

· What do you see good engagement as in your ideal world.

· Do you think there is any way for us to be considering outcomes documents on a cyclic basis?

· Did you have in mind when you think the funding should be provided?

· You need to have conversations with the Community Boards and staff as soon after the LTP as possible.

· We did some consultation this year around Raumati Village roading improvements. Do you see that as an opportunity to incorporate some of this work and what kind of conversations happened with the Raumati Village Business Association through this process?

The submitter commented as follows

· What I’m not trying to do is create ‘Bedes vision for Raumati’. Keen to revisit the 2007 plan and let’s figure out what is relevant and what is not. A twenty-year vision.

· The consultation on roading plan last year was really well done. The more we can involve the local businesses and the community and schools the better. I’m happy to talk about how that might happen.

· Yes definitely more engagement based on the seven outcomes documents would be useful. Refreshing them. Seeing if they are still relevant.

· The sooner the better as retailers would need to prepare for major works. If we took a year to 18 months for consultation that wouldn’t be a bad thing. 2026 would be too long. I envisage a master plan that could be rolled out in stages. Community Boards could help with some of this e.g. seating.

· If Raumati Village is the topic of conversation I’m available.

· We were involved in the conversation with council staff and some elected members. Whatever we do in terms of a bigger vision will have to work in with the roading plans and I am happy to work with council on any stage of consultation.

EHQ-01 John Robinson spoke to the following points:

· We are one people all equal with no special inherited position. That is how it should be but not here. In Kapiti we have a dual divided government. About 4% of the population, three iwi, are given a special role and power. This should not be. The Kapiti District Council should be one body for all of us without such discrimination. The three iwi according to your figures make up 4.2% of the Kapiti population. Members of these three iwi should have exactly the same rights as the rest of us.

· I am looking at the overall situation. Across the country we should be all be aware of one government for all of us in equality.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Ngāti Toa iwi Representative Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti

· Thank you for alerting us to your somewhat selective viewpoint despite the evidence around you and to the contrary.

· The Crown and mana whenua, essentially the Māori in this area, have a treaty. While we are one government I don’t understand where you are coming from. We have a crown representative and then we have a rangatira which is like an iwi representative or a mana whenua representative.

· So this is where we are headed. These are drivers for change. 180 something years later we arrive at this point.

· We welcome any conversations you might like to have with mana whenua. In particular Ngati Toa puts their hand up to sit at the table with you on another occasion to help you understand where we sit amongst Council.

· Thank you again for your time. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe

The submitter commented as follows

· I just believe we should be equal, equal rights and 4% should not have a special position.

EHQ-10 Marco Zeeman spoke to the following points:

· Making sure we are in the LTP around a central park vision for Paraparaumu.

· Working together with ministers as we gear up for those meetings.

· Having a unified front in the way of costings understanding in the way of costings etc so the ministers understand what we are looking for and that we are all in the same boat together

· We are making appointments with Willy Jackson and Stuart Nash. Stuart Nash has been delegated by Grant Robinson to overlook the project in its entirety.

· We have added education and now have a whole team of four working on educational material working alongside Kapanui school. Soon we will be testing some of that stuff out with Kapiti College as we move up into the secondary phase.

· We are trying address all angles of the government and to secure money from multiple departments

· It’s going to take bit of a unified front from Council to help us get there.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· In terms of the request for this to be considered through the LTP can you elaborate on what that means to you in terms of how it’s reflected in the LTP.

· We have the national policy statement on urban development coming along. It’s going to see a lot of intensification around town centres as mandated by the government. Does that intensification mean the urgency of a project like Whale Song becomes much more of a priority to obtain that central park area.

· This project has moved on from Whale Song to Wharenui and the House of Ferns etc. This now is a project as a large, greened area from your perspective with these features as part of that?

· Could you expand on your views that No Council should not take a larger role in housing.

· You also ticked you support CCOs. Could you expand on that?

The submitter commented as follows

· All the stakeholders in the land should play a part in how we go forward for our funding. There is no change in the Trust belief that we can do this without Ratepayer Funding.

· If we have a coordinated plan, for instance like the Ihakara extension which is a well needed road extension if this is added into the central park along with the other aspects, and we are unified in the way we approach government then I’d like to see Government funds a good chunk of it. Then those stakeholders who are landowners who will benefit will also be required to throw some money in to the pie as well.

· Let’s wrap Wharemauku around Whale Song. The house of ferns, the larger park scheme. Yes I think there is an urgency because if we are going to intensify our housing we have to resolve our storm water. We have to pull our thinking together and combine all our costings so that we are not coming back to government later to say we missed a critical part of our thinking.

· The Whales will still require some private funding. Whether it’s through Lotteries, significant grants fund etc. We are still working towards to fund most of the Whales. It would be nice if we could get the infrastructure of the Whales, the foundations, done during the ponding effect for the stormwater which would cut the costs of the Whales down by about $1m

· If we can combine some of the aspects into our infrastructure then we’ll carry on with the different aspects.

· The Wharenui is another big opportunity for Wellington not just Kapiti. Perhaps if we reflect on the community centre that’s closed currently and some combination of representation and Te Atiawa’s desire to have a presence on the land as well as the opportunity for us to tell the Kapiti and the Wellington story we have the opportunity to make an exemplar for the rest of the country.

· I said from day one that Whale Song could not stand alone. We have a one-acre site that Puki Tapu, Ngahina Development have leased to us for 100 years. We have to be concerned about putting a $9m sculpture on a piece of land and then going ‘what are we going to build around it?’ So that’s driven where we are today. In combination of our communication with Puke Tapu, Ngahina Developments, with Coastlands and with you guys this is where Wharemouku, the House of Ferns has come from. I think it’s a much more structured project combined with the internal elements of the Wharanui, the forest nursery, Whale Song, and the stream regeneration.

· The Council has a lot on its plate. The land currently available is owned by property developers, the larger chunks anyway. They are all looking to put in some sort of housing. Is Council in the business of being a landlord to bulk tenants? I guess that’s a decision for you guys to make.

· I was part of Zealandia when a CCO was appointed. It helped create a structure that was more aligned to the philosophies of Zealandia and its ability to do its job. Without the CCO over it, it had become a little bit disorganised and had grown into a community group into something that was becoming a little bit unwieldy, making some rash decisions, and having costs incurred that could be handled another way. The CCO was a good solution for Zealandia, and I can see it working in other places as well.

EHQ-16 Georgia Choveaux spoke to the following points:

· I love living here, our parks, walking along the riverside, borrowing books from our library. Generally I think it’s a great place to be.

· My concern is recycling. Closing the local recycling doesn’t make sense for a council who is keen to have a waste minimisation strategy. Those two things are in stark opposition.

· Because I am rural I can’t access the kerb side recycling. Lots of people can’t access kerb side recycling.

· Lots of people at the recycling have crates far bigger than curb recycling would allow.

· Waikanae and the surrounding environment has people who are not there full time so they may or may not be able to use a kerb side service.

· What you value, prioritise and fund shows what you really care about. I am asking that you keep the Waikanae Recycling open. I want to take my son Joe weekly to do the recycling and model the type of community care people want to see.

· It is a very strange version of equity if your decision is ‘other people don’t’ have them so we’ll close yours’. I am challenging you to be transformative and say, ‘well if other people don’t have that recycling access how do we make that happen?’.

· So let’s look at being genuine kaitiaki for our environment, genuinely caring about waste reduction and recycling, keeping Waikanae open and thinking bigger about what we do.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· We are under cost pressures and it is about an 8–10-minute drive to get to another transfer station. How much of a problem would that be for you?

· How much further is it to Otaihanga for you? Is your concern solely about the recycling? They are looking to close the Green Waste too.

· How do you think closure will affect older people.

· How do you see this in relation to the climate crisis.

· If we didn’t close it there would be an additional 0.2% put back onto the rates.

· Are you aware that around 70% of the users also have recycling kerb side services but I think you are in the 30% of those who don’t.

· There is a lot of rubbish going into the recycling. Should we be looking at other ways if one way doesn’t work. Should we be looking at education.

· Do you think we are creating a perverse incentive given we have a climate emergency if we close the Waikanae Recycling centre then we are forcing people to drive further and burn more carbon emissions to recycle.

· To clarify I think what staff are referring to is the red, yellow, blue bins in McLean Park. The Recycling facility at Waikanae has been a permanent facility at Waikanae for decades.

The submitter commented as follows

· I stay locally. When I am shopping or going to the park it’s locally. So it’s really easy for me to make sure recycling happens when we are on the way to do other things. It means it happens. My concern is that if you have to make a special trip or deviate from your local day to day chances are it may not happen. It might be easier to just biff it in the bin. Driving further to recycle doesn’t fit with the green Kapiti that I have hopes and visions for.

· It’s an additional whatever Waikanae township to Otaihanga is that I would be driving for the recycling.

· The green waste has value too. Burning it doesn’t seem to be a good option.

· My mother-in-law felt confident driving locally but not further beyond the Waikanae boundary. I imagine she is not alone and there are probably a lot of older locals who are comfortable travelling locally but not going on google, getting in their car and finding somewhere new.

· I don’t think the recognition of a climate emergency and then closing recycling can be reconciled.

· Financial decisions model your values. It is about a line in the sand and sand that is ever eroding with climate change. The cost of not doing it is higher. We need to think of the environment as our absolute main priority.

· 30% don’t have access. 70% do. It far exceeds that value in terms of volume. If the Recycling station closed it would also affect that 70%. Based on the volume I see if you close the station it would have an impact on what people do with their recycling.

· Yes to innovation, yes to creativity, yes to reviewing. If people aren’t recycling at the refuse station properly then they aren’t recycling at home properly either. There is some real need to education.

· Acknowledge you are doing some really cool things. Worm composting. Keep going.

· It doesn’t make sense to have to drive further to do something for the environment.

· The labelling has been improved and made it easier. The pictures as well are great.

The meeting adjourned at 10.43am and resumed at 11.16am

21LTP-22 Shelley Warwick, on behalf of E Tu Otaki, spoke to the following points:

· This is a call for support for our community and better communication.

· I objected and attending a liquor licensing hearing in 2017 which seemed to be a very different process to the recent one. There was lots of opposition, and our Police and schools and the community was more informed.

· I was surprised at who was not on the recent list of objectors. There were only 4 objectors in relation to this hearing, Te Wananga Raukawa, Donovan Joice on behalf of My Otaki Hapu, myself, and another local lady. We were invited to be a witness to Te Wananga Raukawa’s objection when my and the other local ladies’ objections were disregarded due to legal jargon.

· Even though the proper community engagement process was followed, what was lacking was a chain of information to the local interested groups. Andy Fraser from Otaki College, Kira Rewiti Otaki Medical Centre and the Kura principles were left feeling like they had not been given a heads up on this.

· I had not realised these people had not been informed and just assumed our community would be present.

· Lawyers for the liquor outlet leant on the fact that the objector’s submissions were not robust legally, based on emotive concerns not legal ones, like the effect on the immediate area not taking into account the effect on the whole of our community

· Te Wananga Raukawa’s Lawyers worked on the appeal on a pro bono basis. Unfortunately to no avail. Without objections from the Police and Medical Officer of Health objections it was thrown out. Although the Medical Officer had produced a report about the high level of deprivation and alcohol harm but had withdrawn this report due to a lack of support from the community. But this support was not sought by anyone.

· The breakdown appears to be with the direct communication with those in our community who would have had an interest in this. From all angles, including my own.

· That is why we would like to see a discussion about how better to engage our community in discussions and processes that will affect them.

· It’s not that we don’t want Liquor Licenses, but we have enough.

· What we need is a local alcohol policy which would require consultation with the community, especially iwi. Before that we also need a commitment to some legal assistance from Council so that the community, if there is another application before we have that policy, can actually create legally robust submissions that would actually stand up to the liquor licensing board.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· What do you see the value of Council developing an LAP

· Are you aware that a LAP can have a maximum number of off licences.

· Councillors have been talking about an LAP and we are hoping it will occur this year. That is a way of ensuring we are meeting the letter of the law. Some of the issues you raised were not able to be heard because we have to follow the legal process. There is more than one way to follow the legal process and one is an LAP.

The submitter commented as follows

· It means that there is a requirement to consult. That was the breakdown here. We had no consultation. It wasn’t a lack of process by staff because they did the right thing. However may be for our community and especially for something that could have such an effect on our community there should be an over and above process. A local alcohol policy would require that engagement.

· So that maximum number of off licences would be in negotiation with the community wouldn’t it.

· Between now and community is vulnerable to other people requesting to open an off licence. In the interim we are looking for Council assistance, particularly legal.

21 LTP-23 -26 Shelley Warwick and Ruth Halliday, on behalf of Kapiti Equestrian Advisory Group, spoke to the following points:

· The Stride and Ride Network has been a huge success. We would like to see the same type of network developed with the next part of the expressway completion. There are a significant number of horses and riders in the Te Horo and Otaki areas who would be frequent users of trails leading to the expressway. The tracks will be a huge draw card to the wider region and to those we are wanting to come and stay and ride. Like Walkers and Cyclists, Horse Riders also like round trips and the tracks would offer a great day out.

· We’d like to see sufficient budget for the infrastructure to support these.

· New rural signs with the same message phrased differently are needed with some urgency.

· As part of selling the district we’d like to be able to point to good easy parking at the beginning of tracks and at the entrances to the beach.

· We would like to see hitching rails and if necessary mounting blocks at public toilets.

· Most of Greenaway Road is impossible to use after rain. We’d like to see this area being able to cope with float parking. A hitching rail would be well used here.

· We would like to see the metre wide strip fully maintained to the head height of a rider.

· The metal used on the track is not kind to horses.

· We have been working with Greater Wellington staff about rationalising access to parks. We’d be looking from support from KCDC for the rationalisation.

· We have been working on a pilot programme with Otaki Maori Racing Club to encourage equestrians to come and stay in Kapiti.

· A survey last year asking equestrians if they would come and camp in Kapiti with their horses received responses from as far as Otago and Auckland. If we have a portion of the 80000 sport horses in New Zealand coming to Kapiti it would add to the $13m economic input of equestrians into the Kapiti economy.

· We have talked with Wainua Whenua Group and Paikākāriki Community Board about the potential for horse camping in their communities. We will work with them further when the time is right.

· We need staff time to coordinate a plan, promote equestrian tourism in Kapiti and implement it. This could be a niche industry. Part of this plan would be stride and ride programme for PP20. We support this proposal in the LTP but would support additional investment if NZTA will equal any money put in. It is vital we get as much infrastructure in this district as possible. Council should be investing in as much as they can for the future. Good off-road connections especially while NZTA are helping.

· A lack of bridleway on the Otaki to Levin is one of the problems we have with connections. We would like advocacy to come from Elected Members also. This would benefit Otaki, Kapiti Coast, GWRC and Horizons Regional Council.

· We want people to come from the north as well as the south. Equestrian business could be set up and multiday rides and homestays would benefit from benefit from connections in the north.

· The connections to Reikorangi via Devil’s Elbow. KCDC owns land at the water plant that could form part of a safer access. 3 metres of land would provide safer access to all users.

· Think about the tourism potential. Thank you to Alison and her team for the work they do with us.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Did you or your group participate in consultation about the destination strategy.

· Have you approached the Kotahitanga Board to see where equestrians fit into the economic development strategy.

· Cr Cootes would ensure a copy of the Economic Development Strategy was provided.

· How does Kapiti sit regionally in terms of equestrian access, tracks and consideration given to the equestrian community.

· Have Horowhenua DC indicated they are not considering bridle access to any proposal for a shared pathway.

· CWB plays a big part in this. Do you feel there needs to be more support from Council than is coming from CWB.

· Do you have a collective that is connected to all our equestrian activities.

· If we do focus on equestrian tourism would you say it is likely we will get a good response to that.

The submitter commented as follows

· Equestrian group have been engaging with the Economic Development Strategy with Council for quite a few years. It seemed to go round in circles.

· The last meeting we were not invited but 2 CWB members were there and so did speak on the behalf of CWB.

· Ms Halliday - Haven’t spoken with the Kotahitanga Group and I haven’t seen the Economic Development Strategy. I have talked to staff for 7 years and haven’t seen any tangible result.

· We are envied in a lot of places. We have been lucky with our staff and with the CWB Strategy which informs inclusion.

· One of the things we have realised is that central government does not legislate for equestrian inclusion and it doesn’t fund it. This is why we are taking a petition to Parliament.

· Shelly Warwick submitted to Horowhenua and to Horizons to have a bridle way. They are considering it now.

· Yes would like to see more support from Council.

· As well as KEAG is our local body. The NZ Equestrian Advocacy Network however was created a couple of months ago as an umbrella over the local bodies.

· There is the opportunity for us to be a niche industry offering facilities to equestrians.

· We have to keep developing.

21 LTP74 Tony Kane, on behalf of Te Raukura, spoke to the following points:

· Council invested with a grant of $1.6m. That would guarantee community access.

· Things got more complicated than expected. We got a rude shock in terms of the facility becoming a regional facility as opposed to a facility just used by locals.

· We did a lot of talking to community groups. Each of these has their own vision. Our commitment was to build a venue which will meet most of what they all need. We did not understand the commitment involved in turning a school venue into a professional venue.

· We did not understand the need for a professional venue manager and professional technicians for the venue to work successfully.

· The easiest people to deal with are the touring groups. The community groups need a lot more support and time from staff.

· We need to put the manpower into upskilling the community groups to use the professional venue. The submission asks Council to provide the financial support in order to provide the support these community groups.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· How much use is there by Otaki College and Paraparaumu College.

· How long is the contract with the church to use the facility on Sundays.

· Is the lack of use from Otaki because of lack of requests or lack of availability.

· Audience numbers coming through.

· Have you had any feedback about the cost of hiring the facility.

· Were you involved in the destination management work that took place.

· Do you do any grant applications to Creative New Zealand.

· Are you linked in with local business association.

· Are you looking at running short courses for sound technician skills and so on.

· Feedback from students and parents.

The submitter commented as follows

· Other colleges haven’t requested use yet other than where we are joined together anyway.

· The contract with the church is for 10 years and they pay a $35000 insurance bill.

· Kapiti Concert Orchestra did find that people will use the facility on Saturday instead of Sunday.

· We’d love to see more Otaki productions. It certainly isn’t due to a lack of availability. If you were a person in Otaki would you still want to continue using your own local theatre? You probably would. There are a lot of Otaki people involved e.g. Coasters Theatre.

· The local ones are doing really well. A lot of that is that you have your existing databases. We want a Kapiti wide and beyond that database so that we can shoot information out to all interested in coming along.

· I think it’s working out fine. It’s not $200 for hiring the community hall. You have to have a venue manager and technical support there. You can’t have people just walk in and use the place. You’ve got tonnes of lethal equipment sitting there if they get it wrong.

· For tickets, we suggested you are probably going to go $20 to $30 for a community event and $30 to $40 for larger events.

· We’re not involved in destination management work. We have struggled just to get enough managed time to look very much beyond. It’s an issue for us.

· We’ve run a few shows ourselves. There are difficulties in applying for a lot of funding as we are a school.

· Yes we have had quite a few discussions with local business.

· Yes I agree, you can park.

· Yes we are looking to run training.

· The kids love it. There are courses run in performing arts technology and more.

EHQ-29 James Westbury, on behalf of Waikanae Community Board, spoke to the following points:

· Really supportive of LTP particularly with regards to investment in Waikanae Library, Waikanae Park and Waikanae Beach Hall. Also the commitment we had that we would see some investment in the Elizabeth Street crossing used within current budgets. Also supportive of the WCB communications and engagement initiative that the Council have put forward.

· Some of the things that have been brought to our attention by the community

· Concerns around the closure of the recycling and green waste centre. We would like to appeal to the Council to reconsider the closure. Particularly in a demographic that is not actively mobile this may pose some challenges. Hate to see a reduction in recycling as a result of the closure of that site.

· Waikanae Beach resident’s association have indicated they concerns about level of investment and timelines around investment in storm water bearing in mind the level of growth anticipated.

· Any investment in climate change initiatives needs to be evidence based. Reacting in a fashion that provides clear benefits and a sustainable level of investment for our community.

· Ask that Council encourages Community Board participation in some of the discussions regarding strengthening the recovery, including resilience.

· Ask that Council include the Community Board in the pathway and transition regarding Resource Management Act reforms and Three Waters Reform. Use us a grass roots sounder as how some of those reforms will impact our community and local ratepayers.

Cr Randall left the chamber at 12.05pm and returned at 12.10pm

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Were there any initiatives regarding climate change that the Council is taking that you don’t see as evidence based.

· If the Waikanae Recycling Centre was closed would your position be that it is not something that Waikanae could afford to keep open as a targeted rate.

· Advocacy role

· Draft strategic framework principles in the LTP consultation doc – commitment to act in the face of uncertainty using the best scientific information available.

· Community Boards view on conversation about growth in the Waikanae area.

· Is recycling more important than green waste? Is there a timeline?

· Do you support the submissions from Waikanae Residents Society and from Reikorangi.

The submitter commented as follows

· For example, is fleet replacement a sustainable and efficient way of managing climate change? What other initiatives would the Council have available to it.

· Making sure that planned transition is affordable and timely.

· It’s not something we’ve canvassed the community on. It’s certainly something we could work with Council to explore. I would just ask that you treat us the same as other sites in the area. If you closing ours are you closing other sites?

· Most certainly advocacy is one of the tools that Council can use to improve access to housing, particularly affordable housing. I’m hoping we see some of the levers opened up for Council to enable affordable housing to expand.

· The District Plan will guide how developers behave. We are not seeking growth for growths sake. It needs to be controlled.

· No problem supporting well researched, evidenced based investment in terms of climate change.

· We are not seeking to see sporadic and unplanned growth. We’d like to see the District Plan enable effective planning tools for developers, that development is in the right place and the infrastructure for supporting that development is going to be in place. Consistent with what the community is seeking as well as in line with legislation. How can the Council open up affordable housing for our community with the tools and levers it’s got and that are coming to ensure that growth is in the right areas.

· There was a commitment from Council that the green waste and recycling station would remain open based on the closure of the landfill. I have been unable to find reference to a timeline. General consensus in discussions with the public have indicated they would like both green waste and recycling.

· I have spoken with the Waikanae Beach Residents Association and would support the concerns they have raised.

· I haven’t actively been involved in the Reikurangi Submission.

EHQ-58 Adrian Gregory spoke to the following points:

· Highly supportive of the Council taking an active role in housing. Whatever is done must be done in combination with, not just the Community Board, but the wider community. The focus needs to be to replenish, reflect and enhance our communities. That would include social housing.

· Otaki Community Facilities. It is very likely the existing Birth right family centre will close. It is in poor condition and is a council asset. The Council will determine what to do with that asset. Be it the building or the plot.

· We are looking at collocating with another business in the town. This is a tiny move to a tiny location.

· My submission is for a much larger facility would serve as a community hub serving the wider community. At the moment we have no focal point where we can hold events that would cater to all ages. I would propose a multi-year approach by the community, the Council and iwi, starting with a concept, build a business model, establish a governance body and we start to fundraise.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Are there any indications of the level of support or willingness for the community to be involved in a hub.

· Should some of the good land in Otaki be used for housing or should alternatives be looked at.

· Do you have a proposed site in mind for the hub.

· Funding for a feasibility study or feasibility work

The submitter commented as follows

· You have to build a coalition of the willing in the first instance. With some momentum others will follow. There is a willingness to undertake this type of work.

· Various ranges of services are scattered around Otaki and people in the community don’t know where to go. To have a hub would generate greater and greater interest.

· One of the things that would be useful to understand is the distribution of spaces in Otaki. There are a lot of back blocks that are not being well used. Spatial planning is critical. It’s not an either /or. It’s an ‘and’ once we know what kind of land we’ve got and where it is.

· There are various options for the hub. I wouldn’t have any difficulty in looking at existing facilities in town and the way they might become hybrid facilities. There are locations that could be used from a ground up development process but that would have probably greater funding implications. It’s a question of what is affordable and what can be done with those sites.

· Yes this is about me acting in an advocacy sense and activating it for the community with the community.

The meeting adjourned at 12.27pm and resumed at 1.30pm.

EHQ-13 John Le Harivel spoke to the following points:

· Enabler of housing, but no to be a developer. An independent entity, possibly in –house, that could project manage provision of housing. It’s vision increasing supply of housing, decreasing homelessness. Specifically tackle policy constraints and roadblocks in the district plan.

· CCO proposal – further information on what the CCO proposal will do and how it would operate is needed.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Raised the issue of community boards.

· Is there a role of CCOs in housing development.

The submitter commented as follows

· Community boards are another roadblock and are of no use.

· Project management office is good initiative.

· Council is not set up to be a developer and provide social housing

EHQ-09 Peter Ryan spoke to the following points:

· Trying to build for social housing in Kapiti. Council should take a bigger role in social housing.

· The council is a roadblock to providing social housing.

· Could council delegate to a council officer an amicus for this wanting to provide social housing in their dealings with council

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Central government has a role in social housing and has there been a response from central government agencies.

· Council must be involved in consenting and planning is to ensure safe housing.

The submitter commented as follows

· There is difficulty in dealing with different consenting officers each time social housing providers approach council seeking consents.

· Some help has been provided by central government agencies.

· There are complex issues.

· There is strong risk aversion from council officers, in dealing with consents.

21LTP-56 Dawn Brook, on behalf of Kapiti Climate Change Action, spoke to the following points:

· A stronger strategic focus on climate change challenges.

· Agrees that council should take a stronger role in housing but needs to address climate changes issues in relation to this at the same time.

· Disagrees with the Council taking a stake in the airport.

· Does not support a CCO if it would be involved in the airport.

· Council sets up a Climate Change Committee

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· How would the climate change committee work, and how would it interact with the climate change strategy.

· Does the airport provide economic benefits to the region.

· Adaptation and mitigation are strategies followed by Council

· Could restoring the wetlands be a carbon sink.

The submitter commented as follows

· The committee should take control of the agenda

· The benefits from the airport do not appear to exist. The benefits only accrue to a few individuals, not the community.

· Restoration must be included along with adaptation and mitigation.

21LTP-54 Rachel Barwell, on behalf of Kapiti Climate Change Action, spoke to the following points:

· Cutting local emissions through transport strategies and housing policies.

· Implementation of low carbon policies

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· The effect of housing development on high productivity land.

· A number of points are related to transport, and Greater Wellington has recently been consulting

The submitter commented as follows

· The land feeds the food that feeds us.

· High productivity land needs to be protected

· We are submitting on the Greater Wellington on more public transport options.

EHQ-06 Shaun Johnson spoke of future technology for aircraft propulsion requesting:

· Support for retaining the airport.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Freight runs using newer technology is a possibility.

· How far away is the new technology..

The submitter commented as follows

· Once an airport is gone, it will never come back.

· Certification is the longest part of the process.

The meeting adjourned at 2:58 pm and resumed at 3.15pm.

21LTP-35 Russell Bell, on behalf of Kāpiti-Mana Branch of Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc, spoke on the issue of climate change requesting:

· Better mitigation, adaptation, and restoration strategies.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· How can growth be managed in a sustainable way.

The submitter commented as follows

· Climate change should feature large in any long-term plan.

· Ecology corridors should be developed alongside other corridors in the planning stage.

Resolution CO2021/47

Moved: Mayor K Gurunathan

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

Suspension of Standing Orders

That the meeting continue, in accordance with Standing Order 4.2 under which members must resolve to allow a meeting to continue beyond six hours.

Carried

EHQ-54 Sarah McMurray spoke to the following points:

· Traditional pillars of what council does, provision of local infrastructure. There are not a lot of pages on water, storm water, sewerage, and roads.

· Council must focus on its core services – be creative and innovative.

· Better town planning

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Central government is planning to take away water, wastewater and storm water management and provision from local councils.

· Four well-beings have been introduced.

· Housing is important.

The submitter commented as follows

· Local rate payers will still be paying for the three waters.

· The four welling-beings are the why, but the core services are the what.

· Focus on doing the basics right, is how one becomes great at delivering.

· Stop making it hard to build houses.

EHQ-07 Deirdre Kent spoke to the following points:

· Access to housing

· Managing growth – not on elite soils, upward, no outward

· Community resilience.

· Wary of CCO’s, not yet convinced.

· Waste minimisation – want Council collected organic waste

· Rating system – why rate based on building, base more on land value.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Closure of Waikanae recycle centre.

· Specific consultation would be undertaken into CCOs.

· Are there other justifications for land value as opposed to capital value

The submitter commented as follows

· Explore CCOs and consult

EHQ-57 Sue Lusk spoke to the following points:

· The Waikanae Library rebuild happens as quickly as possible.

· The current site makes more sense than looking at a new site

· Council go back to refurbishment option if costs for the purpose-built building can’t go ahead for whatever reason.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Focus on re-instatement of library

The submitter commented as follows

· Want to see the re-build on that site, including digital technology.

21LTP-51 Murray Smith, on behalf of Templeton Kapiti Ltd, spoke to the following points:

· Relief for land constrained by inadequate transport links.

· Notional road has existed, would provide a link to the east-west link road which is in the long-term plan.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Level of traffic on Raumati Road and Kapiti Road is very high, the link road would spread the traffic around

The submitter commented as follows

· Would follow the same stream corridor.

21LTP-07 Craig Steed, on behalf of Paraparaumu College, spoke to the following points:

· Alterations to the roading network around the entrance to Paraparaumu College,

· Congestion only to get worse as roll grows.

· Issues are around safe access for students as they leave college.

· Possibly moving bike stands to nearby council land.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Suggestion of a crossing further east

The submitter commented as follows

· Further east crossing would provide some relief but not the main concerns around cyclists leaving at the end of the day onto Mazengarb Road.

21LTP-46 Paul Hughes spoke to the following points:

· More adaptation to climate change, which is not mentioned on the plan.

· Community will expect the Council to respond to central government guidance on climate change

· Time for Council to action reserves funding to secure surplus Land Transport NZ land.

· Pensioner housing be managed by the Paekākāriki community, via local iwi and the Paekākāriki Housing Trust.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Paekākāriki sea wall remediate.

· Water supply research has been undertaken.

The submitter commented as follows

· There is no managed retreat from the coast, this should be the prime option.

· Seawall will not be sustainable long term.

· Housing needs of all types exist in Paekākāriki.

21LTP-34 Dr Paul Callister spoke to the following points:

· Mr Callister has received $276,000 from Wellington Community Trust to undertake carbon sequestration in Queen Elizabeth Park. He is also working on a million-dollar project to put a predator proof fence in Queen Elizabeth Park.

· He feels that is pointless doing all this work if parts of society are promoting policies that lead to emission growth.

· Mr Callister believes that subsidising the airport promotes the idea of the wider community subsidising other peoples’ lifestyle. Instead, Mr Callister believes that we should work with Puke Tapu Hapu to create housing, wetland, cycle tracks and open spaces to help solve the housing and climate crisis.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Have you talked to Templeton group around what housing ideas they have?

· Has any preliminary investigation been carried out on the extent and quality of the wetland around the airport site?

· The Templeton Group were asked if they were willing to forgo some profits for affordable housing, they said yes.

The submitter commented as follows

· Mr Callister had not been in discussion with the Templeton group but has just received contact from the group and will be meeting with Chris Simpson to discuss the housing issue.

· Mr Callister had only recently read about the wetlands in the paper, he has never seen them and is very interested to have a look.

21LTP- Liz Koh, spoke to the following points:

· Ms Koh would like it noted that she is speaking to an individual submission and not on behalf of any group or organisation.

· Ms Koh believes there is opportunity to partner with other people to produce affordable housing. Council money doesn’t need to be used to progress in this area. Council could be involved in creating the right environment and having a flexible approach to new solutions for housing.

· Kapiti airport land is major asset for the district. Conversations need to be had on what is the best use for the land. There could be better uses for it.

· There is a disconnect from what we have in the economic development strategy 2020-2023 and the Long-term Plan. Disconnect in terms of budget, the strategy, and the Economic Development Kotahitanga Board (EDKB) is under resourced. Ms Koh would like a better cross reference between the two documents.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Are you looking for standalone funding for the EDKB to allocate independently.

· I look forward to meeting with you and obtaining information on prospective donors.

· You support the rates increase, if more support would go to EDKB would you support the further rates increase?

· What vision did you have for the community centre?

The submitter commented as follows

· The EDKB are not council led, they need to connect with community. They need to have a budget and a communication plan to actually function. They need some discretionary funding to provide to the partner organisations and a secretariat.

· Make the resource consent process as quick and as simple as possible.

· They lose their independence if they are tied into Council processes.

· Yes, I would support a rates increased linked to support given to the EDKB

· There is a real push now for community resilience, for this to happen we need a heart, a gathering place an opportunity for people to come together and be connected.

21LTP-62 Kapiti Youth Council, spoke to the following points:

· Increased funding for the Kapiti Youth Support (KYS). The youth council acknowledged the existing funding that Council gives to KYS. KYS need a 300 percent increase in the funding they currently receive, this would help the youth services particularly in Ōtaki.

· The environment and Climate change. Mitigation is preferred rather than adaptation. Mitigation strategies include retrofitting buildings, adopting renewable energy sources, and helping cities develop more sustainable transport. Adaptation is admitting defeat. We request council to spend an equal amount of time on mitigation and adaptation.

· Housing is a major issue for our young people. Young people need a place to call home and feel safe. Emergency housing is also an issue for our youth. KYS are under resourced to support these youth. There is also a lack of adequate rental housing.

· Electrification of the railway to Ōtaki. Ōtaki is adversely disconnected in a transport sense from Kapiti and Wellington for a long time. Electrification of the train line will help Ōtaki feel connected to the rest of the Greater Wellington Region. Expense is another barrier for young people getting to work, university or just travelling around the district. We would like to see fares for trains and buses reduced as young people are often on low incomes. We ask this Council to advocate for change to the Wellington Regional Council.

· It is felt that the Kapiti Coast District needs an increase in outdoor lighting in public areas. Main areas of focus would be Kaitawa Park, the basketball court at MacLean Park, the park and basketball court in Raumati South and many other small parks scattered in the area. In Winter youth are not able to use these areas as it gets dark earlier.

· In regard to signage and the use of macrons the youth council would like to support whatever Mana Whenua decide.

· It is important that the youth of Kapiti are involved in park upgrade consultation. We would like Kapiti Coast District Council to engage with youth at the beginning of the consultation process.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· There is a petition being presented to the Ministry of Health around increased funding and more support for KYS.

· Climate change mitigation spending, could you talk to intergenerational equity?

· The feedback on lighting was very Paraparaumu/Raumati specific, is that because they are the only areas that needed attention? Or are they the only areas that you got feedback on? Is there sufficient lighting in Ōtaki for youth?

· Has the team considered the transport connections to the North? Would you speak to Horizons Regional Council about public transport issues?

· Did the youth council put in a submission the Greater wellington Long-term Plan?

· Do you have student passes on transport in Kapiti?

· What engagement did you do with other young people to make sure your submission was representative of the district?

· If parks were lighted would that encourage young people to stay out?

The submitter commented as follows

· If we ignore the climate emergency in a few years’ time the damage being caused to the planet will be irreversible.

· That was the youth councils’ personal experience from where they live and from feedback. We did have a few people from Ōtaki provide feedback which was “that’s just the way it is”, there is such a lack of lighting and the youth are just used to it.

· We haven’t spoken to other Councils regarding transport, we would like to focus on our region.

· A submission was put into GWRC’s Long-term Plan.

· There is a student discount, but it is still quite expensive.

· The Youth Council went to Ōtaki and conducted a youth survey to get wider views

· It enables youth to be safe. If signage says you can play until 7pm then in day light savings it gets dark before 7pm so we need lighting to keep on playing.

EHQ-21 Olivia Campbell spoke to the following points:

· Ms Campbell is a senior resource consents planner at Porirua City Council and is looking for medium density/ infill housing to be a priority for Kapiti.

· Requests Council to set up a task force to implement infill housing or look at minor units if subdivision is not a possibility.

· Council should work with private landowners to provide affordable housing.

· Consider the long-term business plan of Te Urihi (the Gateway), was all the research done on this project?

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Everyone around the table does understand the urgency of housing. Could we discuss this further offline?

· Medium and high-density housing within 3k of the train station and local centres, so you are challenging us to go faster, harder, and further than the National Policy Statement of Urban Development minimums.

· Did you want Council to be a housing provider?

The submitter commented as follows

· Yes, encourage higher density. You have the provisions in your district plan. Realign perspectives on what affordable housing looks like.

· No to Council acting as a social housing provider but should be focusing energy into infrastructure. Council should absolutely be supporting housing.

EHQ-22 Andrew Hollis spoke to the following points:

· Mr Hollis is a construction professional and has a funding model that can provided the ability to invest in social housing. The country is greying very quickly.

· We need to build social housing to meet the need and build a house builder to meet that need.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Can you expand on the model?

The submitter commented as follows

· This would give away commercial secrets

EHQ-27 Mike Alexander spoke to the following points:

· The beach level at Paekākāriki has dropped by 1.9 meters which can be classified by looking at the pier.

· A bank eroding away by Fisherman’s table, this needs to be maintained to save the road.

· The current seawall has bolts that have rusted away. Secure the seawall with marine grade stainless steel bolts.

· The Council needs to cut costs and carbon emissions.

· We need subsidised housing to accommodate for the growth happening in Kapiti.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· NZTA are proposing to retain the beach by SH1

· The housing built in England in the 50s & 60s are not pleasant to live in

· Could you expand on why you think Council should not have a role in the airport?

The submitter commented as follows

· Just be aware what the Council is going into if it takes on these assets.

· I agree, but they were cost effective, and they worked.

· I couldn’t say whether Council should have a role in the airport.

21LTP-13 David Ogden, on behalf of Older Persons Council, spoke to the following points:

· A focus on older person’s financing, health, accessibility, social connection, and housing

· There is an opportunity to have a model of best practice for our seniors

· Partnership with Maori should be worked on, increased, and made a real success.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Is the Older Persons Council fit for purpose? Does there need to be some improvement in that space?

· Have there been connections with OPC and the Youth Council? How is that relationship? Has the youth action plan been looked at by the OPC and are there any similarities in the plan for ensuring outcomes for youth and older persons?

The submitter commented as follows

· There is an opportunity for things to be done to enable the OPC to become the voice of older people. It can be improved.

· Historically, I couldn’t say. It can always be improved, members of the YC are welcome to speak to the OPC.

21LTP-45 Stuart Ayres, on behalf of KEDA, spoke to the following points:

· KEDA aiming to be at the centre of a growth towards resilience.

· Support increasing rates to kick start investment in the Kapiti district.

· Conditionally support the formation of a CCO to mitigate ongoing rates increases and to assist in the creation of growth

· The council to target and fund key industry sectors

· Council should take a bigger role in affordable housing

· Council should not to be involved in operating an airport

· Recommend the economic development costs should be borne by the community at large as the entire community benefits.

· EDKB to have an economic development Manager who is independent from Council

· Council to review and increase the amount required to fund economic development

· Request that council fund KEDA to the sum of $50,000 optimising its objective to assist the Council in delivering the plan.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· The existing economic development budget is the same amount of money, Council are just reapportioning who pays it.

· You have requested 2 million dollars for the EDKB and & 50,000 for KEDA. Can I clarify that you don’t see the $50,000 as part of the $2 million.

· If you received funding would you be happy with the rate increase?

· How is the business hub supported financially?

· Do you have a good relationship with the council economic development team?

· Is there an expectation of funding to implement action points?

The submitter commented as follows

· The $50.000 needs to be separate, if you are serious about supporting economic development in Kapiti you need to invest in it.

· I would need to see the figures around a rate increase if funding was received.

· There is no funding for the business hub, it is a network of volunteers with modest fees.

· Not really, I am a little underwhelmed actually.

· Not necessarily funding but support is most definitely needed.

EHQ-05 Chris Kroger spoke to the following points:

· Although the document was well put together it was quite hard to provide feedback.

· Council to take a role in social housing if they have the ability to do so.

· Do more for green projects rather than being a green council for example restoring wetlands and provide better access to the train station. Enable a green lifestyle.

· Prepare for growth, bike paths are part of this

· Will a CCO help us as a community? I am a bit wary. What is the commercial project?

· Build safe footpaths for all.

· A greater transparency around how the rates are set

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Explained rate increase differences between central government and local government.

· Property owners can object to their QV’s, were you aware of this?

The submitter commented as follows

· How the increase reflects on our rates is not clear

Resolution CO2021/48

Moved: Mayor K Gurunathan

Seconder: Cr Jocelyn Prvanov

That Council adjourn this meeting to 9.30am on Tuesday, 18 May 2021

Carried

The meeting adojourned at 7.56pm.

The meeting resumed at 9.53am on Tuesday 18 May 2021.

Resolution CO2021/49

Moved: Mayor K Gurunathan

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

That Council resume the meeting.

Carried

EHQ-38 Kevin Burrows spoke to the following points:

· Housing – I fully support council being more involved. Housing market nationwide is in a bad state. Central and Local Government need to be involved in housing. Age friendly survey showed clearly that Council should be more involved in the housing situation. Also Council has a responsibility to ensure safe, affordable housing as basic human rights issue for people.

· Locally, house prices have increased something like 30% in the past year. Developers tend to make their money building 3 and 4 bed homes. There is a lack of 2 bed homes. Lots of older people, once their family has grown and left, they are looking for a 2 bed or 1 bed home. When they move that frees up the 3 and 4 bed homes. In order to clear this blockage the Council needs to look at incentives for developers to build 2-bedroom homes. A proportion of Consents need to be a mixture of 2-bedroom good quality affordable homes. I believe Council could influence these things.

· It may be worthwhile for Council to investigate the possible issue of land banking to see if there is a problem. If there is a problem then look to penalise people who are sitting on land and not doing anything with it by charging extra rates.

· CCO – There is some opportunity for CCOs and some challenges. One challenge is what decisions do Council, the democratically elected representatives, make and what decisions can be made by the CCO, a board of directors. I would encourage you to think quite hard about this issue as it is a matter of democracy.

· I draw a distinction between older peoples housing and social housing. The council sets the rate for older peoples housing at 80% of the market rate. That is a political decision. I don’t believe this decision should be made by a board of directors or a board of trustees.

· If you put older peoples housing in a Trust as social housing the people in the housing can apply for income related rents. Income related rents applies to social housing. But when those houses become vacant they may then be used as social housing as opposed to older persons housing.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· If you were to look at the balance do you think we should put more emphasis on encouraging housing for families or housing for seniors?

· If we were able to solve the issue that the next lot of people going into the social housing could be seniors from this region, would you be supportive.

The submitter commented as follows

· Both. There is a mixture of housing required. While I have concentrated on older person housing, you will need housing for families.

· Yes I would be supportive. There is an issue with social housing, but it should not be fixed at the expense of older peoples housing.

EHQ-43 Cameron Butler, on behalf of Otaki Promotions Group, spoke to the following points:

· Mr Cameron, a resident of Te Horo, introduced Kirsti Doyle from Otaki.

· We are looking at the 10^th anniversary of the kite festival next year. It is the largest and widely considered the best kite festival in New Zealand. It is a free festival.

· The locals buy in and there are large numbers of people who attend from outside the area.

· Major Events Fund has allowed us to grow and improve the Kite Festival and to give back to the Community. We give volunteers an honorarium. Scouts, waka group, serf lifesaving, neighbourhood watch etc

· We also run the Community Expo, Light Up Otaki competition and are looking at running other events we run to benefit the Otaki Anniversary

· We will be looking at sponsorship but have some concerns about community buy in and corporate sponsorship. We’d like to talk to Council to see if the Council could underwrite, if OPG are unable to obtain sufficient sponsorship to run the Kite Festival, in order to ensure the Kite Festival carries on.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Have you already tried for corporate sponsorship. The marriage between what the kites symbolise and somebody like meridian energy for example.

· Is the reason you are asking now because you don’t expect the Major Events fund to support you in the future.

· In terms of operating the festival how many volunteers are involved. How important are the volunteers.

· What are the risks in taking on a sponsor.

· You are eligible to apply for other funding. Do you have a challenge in gaining sponsorship because Otaki is seen as a little further out, a little separate to the rest of the district.

· There are various funds that support volunteering. Have you looked at that at all.

· Have you looked at how other kite festivals around the country and how they are funded.

· Don’t be scared about getting a big corporate sponsor. It is possible to have a community event with a great community feel and have corporate sponsorship.

· Is it possible to see more information about the

The submitter commented as follows

· We have discussed this at our committee meetings but haven’t gone past this as of yet. It is probable that we would look at getting sponsorship after the 10^th anniversary for the next festival.

· No we just wanted to bring it in front of people. We have always found the Major Events Fund very supportive.

· We have a Committee of 5 or 6 people, about 35 people as marshals, team of people dealing with rubbish and recycling so approximately 100 volunteers over the weekend. The volunteers are critical.

· The risk is that we don’t charge entry. I don’t know if we have the skills on the committee to go out and sign up a sponsorship deal. One of the challenges we’d be concerned about is community buy in. There is a risk to the number of volunteers if this is no longer seen as community event but as a corporate event. Everybody volunteers because they love the event it’s free and it’s a family event.

· We are an incorporated society. We haven’t as yet gone out further than local businesses to look for sponsorship.

· We have in some previous years applied for community trust funding for toilets and such.

· There are no comparisons with other kite festivals. They are much smaller. Some of them do get some Council funding.

21LTP-32 John Hayes, on behalf of KCC Housing Task Force spoke to the following points

· The Housing Taskforce submitted a report in 2019. It was complete. However, we did not foresee the global pandemic. We did not see the effects of ultrafast broadband and the extent to which Kapiti would become increasingly attractive.

· In the last 12 months house prices in Kapiti have gone up by about a third. I have a fear that this is just a curtain raiser before what will happen as a result of transmission gulley.

· We have got to do something about the very real housing issues that exist for a number of people. It’s all our responsibilities, including Council. Our little community is in strife and even those members of the community who are already here are panicked that they are being priced out of their communities.

· Council can’t look the other way in terms of its pensioner housing. According to one of the submitters his housing costs are going to go up by 50% as a result of what is in the Long-Term Plan proposals. I don’t think it is socially or politically sustainable.

Cr Cootes left the chamber at 10,45am and returned at 10.49

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· With the senior housing and the issue we have in getting any government rebates – should we be trying to convince the government to change their rules or should we keep the housing ring fenced for seniors.

· If we had a CCO that was focussed on housing, should all profits be ploughed back into future housing.

· Could you possibly at some point write down who is entitled to what and how, that would be extremely helpful.

· In terms of Mr Hargraves have you double checked the 50% increase figure with staff.

The submitter commented as follows

· Housing ministers have all said they would like to do it, but they think it is too expensive.

· Please structure the CCO in such a way that your pensioners will be able to apply for the income supplement. Unless it is not seen completely as a CCO I don’t think pensioners will be able to do so. It means that you can charge a rate close to the market rate for the housing, but the pensioners will not be penalised as they will be subsidised by central government.

· Yes a closed circuit. That is a viable model, it has been shown.

· I have asked the question at a meeting but have received no response as yet.

The meeting adjourned at 10.55am.

The meeting resumed at 11.11am

EHQ-34 Rhonda Thompson spoke to the following points:

· Concerned about Council plans for the Paekakariki Sewall. The Council have reneged on the plan approved by the Council and the Community for the Paekakariki Seawall. Council is now offering a high straight up and down wooden wall. The waves crashing against this would gouge out the sand and leave us with a sandless beach. We saw this happen with a previous rock wall.

· Putting a wall up that will last 25 years is passing the buck onto future generations.

· As far as I know the concrete wall on Centennial Drive has lasted about 90 years.

· It is normal to get about three quotes for every job. How many quotes did you get for the stepped concrete wall plan. Has council thought about the shortage of building timber. Prices would go up because of the scarcity.

· Would the Council consider a concrete wall if it could be completed for the same price as the timber wall?

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Were you involved in the previous consultation.

· The like for like would go deeper than the current wall but not higher. It would not require resource consent. There is also existing resource consent for the other option. This is part of the reasons those options are identified in the Long-Term Plan.

· What kind of korero you have had with younger people and what are your thoughts on the managed retreat conversation,

The submitter commented as follows

· Yes. Comments were made that the stepped option wasn’t ever costed.

· I haven’t talked to a lot of young people about it. If we did the right wall we might not need managed retreat for Paekakariki. If we did the wooden wall that would last 25 years then we probably will need managed retreat. That would wreck Paekakariki.

EHQ-04 James Lee spoke to the following points:

· As far as managed retreat goes and rising sea levels we need a seawall from Waikanae Estuary up to the Waikanae River.

· It could be a progression and not one cost all in one go. This needs to be looked at carefully.

· We should value the community and not be ready to run away from it.

· Regarding the proposed rates increase. The Council shouldn’t be continuously hiking up the rates to the max. A lot of people are struggling.

· Kapiti Gateway is going to block out the vision. It’s a contrary argument if you are talking about managed retreat one minute and you are talking about building a large building which will not benefit the community.

· That money could be better spent on social housing or a hospital.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· A concrete cedar fence wall around north beach. Which side is this.

· Are you aware of the draft strategic framework principles on the climate emergency in the Long-Term Plan.

The submitter commented as follows

· This is on the Paraparaumu side. It has a considerable growing community. Three or four metres all the way around. It could be like a board walk. You could build concrete walls with an aggregate in the middle. Paraparaumu North Beach is the most immediately under threat.

· Managed retreat was really the option in the strategic framework. It doesn’t seem that Council is protecting the community. A seawall has been used in other areas around the world where the land has been reclaimed from the sea. The seawall would also help with a Tsunami depending on its height and other variables.

21LTP-39 Trevor Daniell, on behalf of Grey Power, spoke to the following points:

· We were disappointed in the document securing our future for a variety of reasons. We could have had bigger printer less pictures and more information. It depends on access to the KCDC website and the ability to read graphs.

· 33% of the 60–69-year-olds and 50% of the 70–79-year-olds and 79% older than this are not IT savvy and so if they don’t’ see the information in front of them they don’t get it. 28% of our population is over 65 which is why there is such a low level of submissions. I remember one year there were 177.

· The three-fold increase in capital expenditure is hidden is small print and the rates increases of 8.3 and 8.6% in 2 and 3 years are displayed in a graph which a lot of people think is a foreign language. Only 13% answered the questions about rates. Rate payers have told us that it doesn’t matter what you say to council they will do what it wants anywhere.

· General rate payers were unaware of the proposed rental changes. This will be a 50% increase in some cases. It’s clear from the submissions that only the tenants were aware of this.

· The BERL affordability tables which had been on the website said that there are a group of low-income families where rates were over 20% of their income. I wonder what the Council can do about that. We wonder if the Council is trying to beat the proposed reforms announced by the minister by rushing into its current programme.

· The three-fold increase in projects is decreasing the intergenerational equity for the current elderly demographic which pays 40% of the rates income.

· My experience with the Ocean Road Project verifies the auditors concern of labour availability. Materials are harder to come by and increasing in price.

· Grey Power requests that Council review the proposed work programme

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· It was clarified that just under 800 submissions had been received and were still be processed.

· $50m of our debt is from unfunded depreciation. Previous Council have artificially kept Rates lower. Are you proposing that we continue to use debt to fund a lower rates increase.

· What engagement did you have with your members particularly about keeping the Airport open.

· Do you think we should be looking at seniors housing, or family housing or both.

· Interested in comment that the older 28% of population pay 40% of the rates

The submitter commented as follows

· No I don’t believe that. You do need to recover the depreciation.

· We did that with our committee which is why we recommended doing nothing with the airport.

· Social Housing is what is needed, the whole gambit.

· By the time you take away all the children and people who live with their parents that indicates that the older people pay more than their share.

21LTP-33 Andy Fraser, on behalf of Otaki College, spoke to the following points:

· How do proposals for an all-weather sports facility at Paraparaumu College get into the LTP without wider consultation. A lack of consultation helps perpetuate the feeling that Otaki is not considered in the wider thinking of this council.

· There are 5 schools on the Kapiti Coast, but the Council appears to pour money into only two of them. Kapiti College and Paraparaumu College. Otaki Youth have received little to no benefit from this investment.

· Challenges - Poor public transport from Otaki to Paraparaumu, cost of travel, the cost to access these facilities after school hours.

· Otaki college struggled to get funding for the gym. Grateful to KCDC for finally $300,000

· Would this model be considered for facilities that consider to be based in Pa

· Is a new facility required when KCDC already have an all-weather state of the art facility in the district in Napurapura. There is nothing stopping Kapiti Coast residents from using this facility beyond their own desire not to travel to Otaki.

· The Council have also acquired Otaraua Park for developing a Sports Hub.

· Demographics would show the future is to the north. Stope disadvantaging Otaki residents and start looking at addressing our needs that are clearly demonstrated in your statistics.

· With the $9m designated for town development. Rather than invest in an all-weather facility why not use that money to help us to build our capacity to meet the needs of and strengthen the community.

· Apply a lens that is equitable, and future focussed rather than satisfying those whose voice seams louder and who just want more.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Past funding for college Gym $300,000 spread over how long.

· What are the barriers to Otaki youth using Te Raukura.

· Challenge of Youth Council getting participation from Otaki youth.

· It’s about a discussion of what’s appropriate – could you clarify that.

· Do you think there is a chance to engage with the community about community facilities and what they need from those facilities.

· How accessible is Ngapurapura for the under 18s of the district.

· Do you think that Otaki people feel more connected to Horowhenua.

· Could you get back to us with what is your dream for an all-weather hub

· Could you explain what you have to deal with as a principal, in order for Councillors to understand the level of hardship.

· We are working on our regional planning and trying to ensure we get transport into Otaki. How do we move forward because your request is to not spend money here. However how do we go forward with a request for resources to go to Otaki but still move forward to spend money elsewhere.

The submitter commented as follows

· It was spread out over six years, at $50k per year, and has three years to run.

· Our youth struggle to get to Paraparaumu to access any services.

· Our kids feal disconnected from Paraparaumu. We don’t have a major cultural connection with this particular area. They feel like second rate citizens. Everything is here in their eyes and they are always on the side-line.

· It is clear that there needs to be strong hard looks taken at our community right down to Liquor licensing. Our Liquor licensing issues have been likened to Courtenay Place.

· The other thing is cost to access these facilities after school hours. Most of our groups in Otaki have got as much chance of flying as accessing those facilities, particularly on a regular basis.

· Te Anamata group was set up because of the challenge for Otaki youth being involved in youth council.

· It’s about let’s look at what we have in this community and let’s utilise that so that the money we have is channelled into where it’s really needed. Otaki needs a collective council voice. Otaki is part of the Kapiti Coast District.

· Appreciate the investment in buildings outlined in the LTP. But those buildings are of no use at all unless we have the services and the people to be inside those buildings to make the difference.

· That facility is accessible to everyone. Residents do not want to travel up to Otaki to access what is an international facility. It just means that people have to change their mindset.

· Our connection lies South. Our connection lies here. All our teams play in the southern. The ART confederation is a southern connection so that’s a southern connection as well.

· There is actually no transport north. Nobody thought to change the police and health boundaries.

· Look at Otaki in the longer term. Put your arms around Otaki and really bring them into the fold.

· We don’t actually have a dream for an all-weather sports facility. Our desire would be that money spent to develop the Otaki township is utilised to develop a hub that would serve us, so that you have health providers, MSD, connectivity with Council, as well as the development of a library. We are after a really good concept where young people, people in need can go and where the community can focus. But in order for that to work you need good people inside this. Do you want to address the many social issues in Otaki or fund an all-weather sports hub.

· There is a huge amount of money proposed to be spent down here where we already have those facilities and there is actually much greater need, particularly in Otaki.

· On a daily basis we have students that come to college because they can’t afford uniforms. School lunches have been an amazing boost, just seeing kids actually being fed. We have students that withdraw from courses because they would have to front up with money for particular gear or something. We’ve had families sleeping in cars. When you’ve got that many people out of work, low-income bracket, a lot of children live with an Aunty or an Uncle times are tough. We have had to significantly fund extra counselling to support students with mental health issues. School became a nonentity for some students after COVID because they were the only breadwinner in their family.

· People can request things in the LTP, and you can either let those things through or decline them. If you have the power to decline but have funds there that leaves a residual under your capex budget that you could you then may be look at rechannelling those further down the track into some of the services and support that we need in our community.

Cr Handford left the meeting at 11.48am.

Cr Prvanov arrived at 11.55am

The meeting adjourned at 12.15pm

The meeting resumed at 1.17pm

21LTP-60 Phil Teal, on behalf of Wellington Fish and Game, spoke to the following points:

· Implementing initiatives to address water contaminates, this is an awareness aspect.

· We understand that there has been money set aside in the long-term plan for stormwater management, we would like a council emphasis to make sure no wastewater infiltration of storm water system. Make sure that there is a continual plan.

· Sensitive urban design can be incorporated into stormwater design.

· Promote wetland restoration.

· Support land management initiatives as the catchment management programmes take off, supporting landowners to improve waterways.

· Actively promote public access to freshwater fishing

· I didn’t understand the diagram relating to Iwi partnership. The idea needs to be socialised to understand what the Council is trying to achieve through its relationships and partnerships.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· What presence does Fish and Game have in the Kapiti Coast?

· You mentioned the impact of urban development of river eco systems, does Fish and Game have its eye on other legislative changes?

· Have Kapiti Coast District Council contacted you about the destination strategy going forward and where you might play a part in tourism and so forth?

· Would you be in support of amenities being put at that location?

The submitter commented as follows

· Trout fishing in the Waikanae and Ōtaki rivers as well as the short run rivers is well recognised. The duck hunting aspect is more on private land as you move up the coast, but it is still an important recreational pursuit from Ōtaki to the north.

· Yes we have our eyes on so many things. Resource Management Act changes, MPS implementation, National Environment Standards and Three waters. If you have any insights that could be made public, it would be really good for the community to understand how these changes will affect them.

· No we haven’t been contacted about a particular programme of interest on that, but one of the things that could quite easily be developed on a manageable scale, is adjacent to the lake in Ōtaki. Essentially having a fishing pond there. It has really good access when it’s not a working site and would provide access for those who don’t have good mobility. We are open to promoting fisheries where they can be sustained.

· Anything to make it more welcoming and sustainable experience.

21LTP-05 Adam Shelton, on behalf of Otaki Sports Club spoke to the following points:

· Would like to focus on how the planned project fits into the district plan (strong communities, open spaces, and active communities). Our proposal is for court lighting around the multisport courts. This will give us greater connectivity to local and community services and facilities which will lead to improved health outcomes. The project will meet the present and future recreational needs of the area.

· The courts are open to the public through an agreement with the Parks and recreation team.

Cr Elliott arrived at 1.36pm

· The club has paid $1200 for a resource consent, which has been granted. We will continue to fundraise, and we are at the stage where we will approach funding providers. We would welcome any contribution that you felt able to make. We understand that the upkeep of the pylons would be met by Kapiti Coast District Council.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Is Otaki well serviced for sports facilities?

· Will the club be seeking funding externally regardless of Councils decision on the LTP?

· Yesterday we heard from the Youth Council who were concerned about lighting in the district and the ability for youth to go out and be physically active, so it’s definitely something that we are aware of that can help different sectors of our community.

· With the way that the lighting would potentially work, is it after hours user pays, or do they automatically come on?

The submitter commented as follows

· We are a multi-sport club, tennis, football, and squash. They are all highly active. Teams have been increasing. The Cricket club is also based out of Haruatai, and they use our club rooms for their prizegiving. The rugby club is across the domain. Sport is a big part of the Otaki community.

· Yes that is a very good summary. We have been approved resource consent and see that this is important for the community.

· That’s a very good question and is something that we are trying to work through. The lights won’t automatically come on, they will have switches which will be inside the court rooms. As the courts are open to the public the club is in discussion about how the lights will be available to the community. We don’t have the money to pay for the electricity, so we are talking to our sparky about coin operated options or pre-paid cards. We don’t have an answer at the moment.

EHQ-02 Kerry Walker spoke to the following points:

· Affordability of rural rates. There is a big disconnect between the rates paid and the services received in the rural areas.

· My rates have increased by 21 percent which is 2.7 times the average rates increase.

· The Council must use more of the universal annual charges to the legal minimum of 30 percent to better apportion rates to services used. Maybe look at rural/urban differential adjustments.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Would you welcome a further review of the current rating system?

· Is your land classified as productive soil?

· Have your Greater Wellington rates increased as much?

· Is your property part of the rural village that had a big rates increase about ten years ago to bring it in line with urban areas or is it purely rural.

· Picking up on the fact that you are replanting some of your area and reverting it back to wetlands, are you aware of the rebate scheme that council has for planting?

The submitter commented as follows

· Of course, I pay over twelve thousand dollars in rates for a one-person unit, where is the equity? What services do I get? A rise in the land value is forcing people to sell their land.

· No, it’s not prime land. It is a kilometre from the beach. It floods quite regularly so can’t be built on.

· I’m not too sure how it works, I presume it has

· One of our drains gets cleaned out by Regional council. This has been discontinued for the last two years; therefore, 20 hectares of my farm has been unusable for the last two years because it has been underwater. At my own cost I am redesignating land as wetland.

· Mine is purely rural.

· I have progressed that through the Wellington Regional Council and they have been fantastic, I will look into Kapiti Coast District Council rebate scheme.

Cr Elliott left the meeting at 1:53 pm.

EHQ-30 Bob Hargreaves spoke to the following points:

· Council to reconsider the elderly housing rent increase proposal.

Cr Jackie Elliott returned to the meeting at 1:56 pm.

· The proposed increase amounts to 30 percent of the average superannuant income. This increase is 10 percent more than the government recommend for rent purposes.

· Achieve 80 percent income by increasing occupancy rate from 80 percent to 100 percent.

· Adopt a more sustainable and less disruptive renovation policy.

· Maintain the Council housing teams salaries to within 50 percent of the income.

· All profits generated to be used to fund mor housing for the elderly.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Clarification of the figures quoted will be sought. Are you aware that the upgrade to the units was unbudgeted and was sought by the tenants themselves.

· I have asked staff for the number of unoccupied flats. We are conscious that our renovation policies need to be as inobtrusive as possible. What are your thoughts around increasing the number of flats?

· Is there an opportunity for infill and better development?

· What are the alternatives that tenants have if they have to leave their housing?

· The rate of 50 percent was the highest range, through this LTP process this could be negotiated.

The submitter commented as follows

· I’m not sure that the few that asked that question would have thought that it would equate to a 50 percent increase for the remainder.

· Fully supportive of increasing the number of flats, I would like to see any profits for the proposed increase going towards new flats.

· I’m not sure what the alternatives are. I’m just trying to get a feel from the community. There is a lot of stress out there.

· I can appreciate that but has created a lot of anxiety and fear in the community.

Cr Halliday left the meeting at 2:10 pm.

Cr Halliday returned to the meeting at 2:11 pm.

21LTP-29 Asher Wilson-Goldman, on behalf of Low Carbon Kapiti, spoke to the following points:

· Focusing my discussion on Housing and Transport as they are symptomatic of what kind of district we want to be in terms of climate change and for the people that want to live here.

· We are asking that you not just focus on the direct carbon costs of Council activities, but also how the decisions of Council effect the carbon emissions of the district as a whole.

· What kind of houses are we going to build and how are we going to get around? We need to make smart housing and transport decisions.

· Set up and make rules that when housing is approved it is approved along existing transport links.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Could you expand on CCO?

· Are you doing an impassioned approach to Greater Wellington who ultimately have to create smart transport to go along with our smart housing?

· You mentioned ‘backing off’ on the building of roads. What is your view around Hybrids and EV’s?

· In your submission you talk about KCDC bringing waste collection back in house. Do you think the Hutt City’s model of recycling collection would it work for KCDC?

· How did you consult with your community group? How many members do you have?

· It has been suggested that smaller airports support greener air travel. Has that been taken into account by Low Carbon Kapiti?

· How can we be a hub for people to work in Kapiti rather than having people leave the district?

The submitter commented as follows

· The question felt a little bit premature. I would like to have seen a concrete proposal of what a CCO would be used for and then assess whether it is the best solution. It has to be based on outcomes. What outcomes are trying to be achieved and what is the best vehicle to get there. If Council does decide to create a CCO, the emissions that the CCO is responsible for needs to be counted as part of the Councils emissions.

· We have made a submission to Greater Wellingtons LTP and continually talking to them as well.

· The electrification of the lines north is critically important.

· There are always going to be single use vehicles, but these should be overflows not the norm. We have a system that looks at cars first. We need to switch that around to be making the best use for our climate.

· There are a few different ways we can look at it. We need to think of it as a total cost to households. If the money households currently spend on the private waste collection rolls into rates, that’s fine. Rolling waste minimisation collection into rates captures weekenders and batch owners who don’t live in this district but utilise Council resources. We should take back control of waste minimisation.

· We consulted our membership via our newsletter and Facebook. We have around 236 members. The Low Carbon Kapiti committee looked at the feedback when writing the submission

· Greener air travel. This seems so far into the future. Is this a practical consideration for what KCDC should decide to do around the airport now. We strongly support the land being returned to the local hapu and for them to use the land as they see fit.

· Improving local housing and transport provides work opportunities.

Cr Randall left the meeting at 2:26 pm.

Cr Randall returned to the meeting at 2:28 pm.

Cr Elliott left the meeting at 2:31 pm.

Cr Elliott returned to the meeting at 2:32 pm.

21LTP-31 Charlie Cordwell, on behalf of Surf Life Saving New Zealand, spoke to the following points:

· The group provided 4000 patrol hours around Kapiti and Ōtaki a third of which was funded by the Kapiti Coast District Council.

· 2700 hours were delivered by our volunteers on the weekend.

· We do a lot of work around preventative action, actively looking for opportunities to educate the public around water safety.

· Wherever possible we are employing local youth.

· We have an initiative called beach education where we take primary school children out of school for the day and spend the day on the beach. This sits as a separate entity from Surf Lifesaving.

· We request that the level of funding continues and includes a small CPI increase in the next two years. It doesn’t make provision for the potential living wage, that would have to be a separate discussion in the future.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Have there been any conversations about extending lifeguard facilities to the other beach communities in Kapiti?

· Are funding levels similar across councils?

The submitter commented as follows

· We have received funding from central government, which has allowed us to renew our aquatic risk analysis. Scientists will go into an area an re-evaluate what the need is. The results will show whether the service needs to be extended or it could mean that we customise the existing service.

· Yes, the funding levels are similar.

21LTP-25 Joanne Dacombe, on behalf of Kapiti Disability Advisory Group spoke to the following points:

· Ms Dacombe was disappointed as she felt that there was a lack of accessibility being provided at the meeting.

· A disability strategy for a Kapiti which will achieve a recognition that accessibility is not just around physical infrastructure. It’s about recognising the invisible impairments and catering for them. It will also provide a mechanism of accountability.

· Ms Dacombe was asked if she would bring an interpreter, but she felt that this would further prove that disabled people were the ones that had to adapted and meet their own needs.

· A disability strategy would enable a more inclusive Kapiti.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· How do think Council can address your issues?

· Apologies that we haven’t adequately addressed your concerns around accessibility for today. Are there any examples of good accessibility strategies from other Councils around New Zealand?

· Would it be appropriate to look at a good strategy and see if any are fit for purpose for our district?

· We have heard similar feedback from the Older Persons Council where they found the LTP document hard to read. There is a lot of work being done around providing help for those with disabilities. Were you aware that this meeting is able to be viewed online?

Cr Handford arrived at 2.47pm

The submitter commented as follows

· Accessible information across all of Council communication channels. Every time a picture is posted by the Council it is not accompanied by ALT text or an image description of a photo.

· Napier has a lovely visual strategy, Tauranga, Christchurch, and Wellington have one. It would be great if Council could look at these.

· Yes, I would agree with that. Council would have to look at which ones would fit.

· Yes, but I suspect that you will find that elderly people would still find it a challenge to actually see it online. Viewing online is also a challenge to the elderly with limited internet access and budget. The issue is about being able to participate fully. Any disabled person should be able to walk into this meeting and fully participate in the Kapiti society.

The meeting adjourned at 2.52pm

The meeting resumed at 3.15pm

Cr Randall left the meeting at 3:15 pm.

Resolution CO2021/50

Moved: Mayor K Gurunathan

Seconder: Cr Jackie Elliott

Suspension of Standing Orders

That the meeting continue, in accordance with Standing Order 4.2 under which members must resolve to allow a meeting to continue beyond six hours.

Carried

21LTP-01 Matt Warren, on behalf of Paekakariki Surf Lifeguards, spoke to the following points:

· An Increase in funding from Council for rebuilding club rooms. Building costs have been estimated to be in the region of four million. In the current climate this could escalate.

· The current proposed council support is welcomed but in comparison other councils around the country are contributing between 15 and 30 percent.

· The project needs to be started within the next 18 months as this is the last year to occupy the building. If the engineers close the building the club will lose members as there will be nowhere to base the surf lifesaving club.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· How much have you been able to raise so far?

· Have you made any request to Greater Wellington for funding?

· The contingency is less than 5 percent, is that underestimated?

· Have you thought about post opening. How is it going to be used? What the ongoing maintenance costs will be?

· Where will the new building be built? Is Regional Council land or Kapiti Coast land.

The submitter commented as follows

· To date the club has half a million dollars, so we can make a start. We are talking to surf lifesaving and high on the list to receive 1.5-2million. The club has spoken to the Lottery and should be able to receive half a million from them. The club is hoping to gain half a million dollars from a club fundraising campaign. Local suppliers have also pledged half a million dollars. We are possibly half a million short at the moment.

· At this stage no, they have done a lot work up to date and all the landscaping. They will also be implementing the tracks along the dunes and they have paid for a number of reports that we needed to provide. At some stage we will be targeting Greater Wellington.

· We cannot get any quotes on materials so it’s really hard to get a figure. The figure of 4 million dollars is a best guest.

· Yes, Surf Lifesaving New Zealand have just received Government funding for operational costs. We will be promoting use by other community groups.

· That is a bit of an anomaly. It is actually Crown land that is owned by DoC, under the management of Greater Wellington but sits in the boundary of the Kapiti Coast Council.

Cr Prvanov left the meeting at 3:33 pm.

Deputy Mayor Holborow left the meeting at 3:33 pm.

Deputy Mayor Holborow returned to the meeting at 3:35 pm.

21LTP-86 Gordon Moller, on behalf of Moller Architects Limited, spoke to the following points:

· The possibility of having an airport and also provide housing for the growth of Kapiti. Whenever areas develop there is always pressure on open space.

· The eastern and western sides of the airport could be developed for residential housing.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Are you aware of the extent of the wetlands on the site?

· There is also a grass emergency runway, were you aware of that?

· Have you taken your ideas to the Airport management?

· As you know, there are claims on that land. Have you spoken to Iwi?

· Have you look at other airports where houses are so close to the runway?

· I think that this is a great plan. A proposal that we could use going forward. Thank you for bringing this in. Did you overlay this with the current zoning of the airport.

The submitter commented as follows

· Yes, a lot of research needs to be done in terms of how this might work. The wetlands will need to be retained.

· There needs to be a very careful analysis.

· The Airport is a piece of open space that is a valuable asset that could serve a number of purposes.

· It is difficult to get any information about what is happening at the airport. Nobody seems to know what is happening.

· No, I’m aware that Iwi were the original owners of the land and that they have voiced an interest in it.

· No, the airport exists as it is. The Airport in Hong Kong used to be in the middle of a residential area. There is no reason why, with good design and mitigation that this idea couldn’t be made to work.

· No I haven’t. this is a very simple exercise based on a lot of information that I don’t know. We were involved in the design of Wellington and Hamilton airport terminals. This is a first idea that creates a lot of questions.

EHQ-19 Diana Loubser (David), on behalf of Ecosystem Services Ltd, spoke to the following points:

· Speaking to the big issues section of the document. These are very siloed. There is an opportunity to look at these issues in a holistic way. For example, jobs required under the Covid response could be linked to housing and infrastructure.

· A strong resilient community leads to resilience to all the other factors, which leads to more jobs.

· Time is limited in protecting the coastline especially in Paekākāriki. This needs to be looked at in terms of hard infrastructure and also hybrid nature-based solution structures (open concrete as well as vegetation). Strengthening the coastline through ground cover vegetation.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Are you aware of the coastal environment down in Paekākāriki? The force of the waves and the currents.

The submitter commented as follows

· Yes, I appreciate that a 100 percent natural approach is not appropriate. There does need to be some hard engineering.

21LTP-48 Nicky Sherriff (Phil Gibbins), on behalf of Nuku Ora, spoke to the following points:

· Nuku Ora was previously Sport Wellington.

· Nuku Ora supports the proposal around footpaths as active transport becoming the favoured way for people to commute.

· We endorse an indoor centre and the development of playgrounds. We note that there are other less expensive ways to provide play provision.

· We ask that you ensure that the play provision is inclusive of children with disabilities.

· Nuku Ora is an organisation around wellbeing. Our request to council as part of the LTP submission is to invest $10,000 annually over three years to support the appointment of a role at Nuku Ora that would see the spaces and places plan for the wider Wellington Region being brought to life.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· What are the benefits for tamariki and rangatahi through sport and recreation, especially those in low economic situations?

· I’m interested in your support for an indoor sports centre at Paraparaumu College when you know the challenges in Ōtaki.

· A question around the potential appointment of a Regional Facilities Advisor. Do you have a role that exists currently that has served a similar purpose? Could a role be adapted so you didn’t have to staff a new role?

· If we don’t agree to fund this position how will this affect the delivery of your services in our district?

· Why is it not funded regionally?

· Should children’s playgrounds be considered as parks or recreational spaces in general?

· What are play along the way activities in relation to footpaths?

· What connections and work are you doing in Ōtaki at the moment and what makes you confident that what you are bringing to the table is going to work in that township?

· Do you think Otaki would want to develop their own answers to their own problems?

· How are you going to deliver these recreational activities?

· Have you touched base with the Youth Council?

The submitter commented as follows

· Significant work has been carried out through the insights and evaluation team, who have gathered local and national data that has enabled us to identify six critical communities of interest across the region. The data tells us the rangatahi and tamariki in those areas are far less physically active than the national average. In this area that particular place is Ōtaki.

· It’s not a case of one or the other, in Ōtaki we would focus on those who are inactive. The other part of our strategy is to make those that are less active, more active.

· We don’t have anybody inside the organisation that would have the skills and experience to enable this role to support the spaces and places plan for the Region.

· It will limit our ability to support you through the functions that are outlined in the Regional Spaces and Places plan. We need to amalgamate as a region to enable places and spaces to be in place region wide.

· Regional council is not involved in this space at all.

· It’s interesting that in today’s world we are talking about introducing children to the idea of play, by way of it becoming a physical activity, which ultimately affects their wellbeing. Your community will tell you what will work for them.

· How imaginative can Councils be in enabling footpaths to provide a medium for active transport, but at the same time how might that enable children to interact, play and be active. In Lower Hutt large pieces of chalk have been provided and a hopscotch game has been drawn on the footpath.

· Nuku Ora are not bringing anything to the table, what we are doing is going into a community and enabling a conversation. Our relationship with mana whenua in Ōtaki is not at all strong, so we need to make sure that we have a relationship with each of the components of that community that can contribute to the conversation. Then through Nuku Ora’s leadership and influence enable that conversation to go on.

· What we have learnt is that if we do not sit down and have a series of conversations we will never identify the problem that we are trying to solve.

· In your district we see ourselves as enablers not deliverers. We do leadership development for sports organisations, about a third of the work we do is in the sports sector. Another third is in the health sector, we facilitate green prescriptions. Nuku Ora sees the relationship with this council is helping you plan more effectively around the places and spaces needed in this region, inside a regional context to enable the region to have the best the best that we can and to allow Kapiti Coast District Council to have the best it can.

· No I haven’t.

Cr Elliott left the meeting at 4:14 pm.

21LTP-58 Holly Ewens, on behalf of Paekākāriki Community Board, spoke of competing demands faced by council requesting:

· Council thinks creatively along-side the community board regarding the replacement seawall.

· Kapiti is unique in that doesn’t have one main centre, but four distinct population centres each with their own needs.

· Equity is about value, but not just dollar value

· Beach is an important part for the Paekākāriki community

· Like for like solution is not a like for like replacement.

· Supports the Seawall Design Group submission

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· The board supports the need for social housing

The submitter commented as follows

· The Council should work along the Paekākāriki Housing trust.

21LTP-72 Amanda Scothern, on behalf of Wellington Regional Healthy Housing Group, spoke to the following points:

· Support recommendation that Kapiti Coast District Council play a bigger role in providing housing.

· Support healthy homes.

· Funding for an eco-adviser role providing advice to home builders and renovators

· Inclusion of healthy home standards on LIMS

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· There are differences between home renters and homeowners. Homeowners have no compulsory standards.

Cr Elliott returned to the meeting at 4:31 pm.

21LTP-84 Max Lutz, on behalf of Friends of the Otaki River, spoke to the following points:

· Public toilet facilities for the Otaki walkway around the lake.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· There is nothing currently within walking distance or proposed site,

The submitter commented as follows

· Planning is well on track for this facility.

· The facility at the estuary site is well used.

The meeting adjourned at 4:43 pm and resumed at 6:00pm

EHQ-03 Andre Baker, Atiawa ki Whakarongotai spoke to the following points:

· that there is a clear understating that there is a better prescription moving forward for our partnership with Council

· Mahi Ngaio – a cohesive partnership

· Kotahitanga – unified

· Challenging elected members to become familiar with the Atiawa ki Whakarongotai review.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· The other aspect is that this chamber is too pakeha, and the challenge is how we make it more culturally appropriate.

· Should conversation occur outside of this environment and how would that happen

The submitter commented as follows

· The environment which we meet must reflect the relationship Council has mana whenua.

· Part of the journey moving forward, mana whenua must be able to continue their tino rangatiratanga, and the council exercise its kawanatanga to the best of its ability.

· Engagement should and can take place within our rohe

· There is big push for the expression of tino rangatiratanga, so we need to find people who can assist in that.

· Housing continues to be huge challenge for us now. When we approach council as a post settlement iwi there are land holdings we will be looking to develop in housing. The conversation needs to start so we can work in partnership.

· Papa kainga housing must be realised.

EHQ-23 Stuart Webster spoke to the following points:

· Council focus on its core business

· Restrain rates increases .

· No further investment into housing.

· No support for CCOs.

· It would be nice to retain the airport but should not invest in it.

· Link road not required.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Council are required to do more than what is considered core business.

· Council would not be involved in direct development.

· If nothing extra was done there would be a 6.2% increase just to fund depreciation and inflation.

· There are costs associated with not addressing climate change.

The submitter commented as follows

· Central government has spent a number of years adding more to local government work.

· People can pay for their own activities to address climate change.

EHQ-32 Joe Buchhanan spoke to the following points:

· More action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and addressing climate change

· Growth be managed to mitigate effect on climate change

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Council has submitted numerous times on public transport

· The CCO option was seeking a view about whether further discussion should take place before formally consulting.

The submitter commented as follows

· The consultation process did not seem to be balanced.

· Development has been appalling in terms so public transport, and much investment in roads.

· If there is an emergency then that is not the time to plan, action is required at the time of the emergency

Cr McCann left the meeting at 6:58 pm.

21LTP-71 Amanda Dobson, on behalf of Enviro Schools, spoke to the following points:

· Support for the Enviro-schools Kaupapa

· Enviro-schools involve long-term restoration projects across the district

· All provide fantastic opportunities for enviro-schools to be involved.

· My role to be an enabler to link schools with environmental projects.

· Examples provided of enviro-schools projects, and highlighted cloth nappy initiative

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Supportive of the work of enviro-schools, in particular cloth nappy initiative.

21ltp-49 Russell Spratt, on behalf of the Economic Development Board, spoke requesting …

· Funding for a feasibility study for the establishment of a Kapiti Educational Hub in Paraparaumu.

· The feasibility will investigate what skills needs and gaps there are in the local labour force

· KCDC recently adopted strategy – growing skills is one of 5 pou.

· Will explore viability of operating an educational Hub and would look to work with colleges and training providers.

· Expected outcomes are increasing level of qualifications, reduce NEET, support high demand and growth industries.

· Concerned that Kapiti youth go north or south for training and upskilling.

· Current KCDC recovery plan set out aims for recovery, including increased inclusive local employment.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· What discussion have been held with central government

The submitter commented as follows

· Discussion have been held with Whitireia and other providers, and there is interest in an educational hub.

· Link between vocation training, employment, and success.

21LTP-40 John Mills, Bride Cox, Miles Thompson, members of Paekākāriki Seawall Design Group, spoke to the following points:

· Like for like design no longer viable, the consented new wall is the better design, but the preference is for a stepped back design, with lower seaward wall 1:25:43

· Must retain the upper beach, as is serves to diffuse wave energy.

· Stepped design is less likely to be damaged in storms.

· Seawall Design Group has been in place since 2013 and is a conduit between the Council and the local community.

· Sandy beach is a taonga of the community, and easy access is important.

· A seawall will inevitably result in beach scour, but a stepped design minimises this.

· Allow a design and build tendering process, to allow competitive tenders from local builders and designers.

Cr Jocelyn Prvanov returned to the meeting at 7:25 pm.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Important for design group to work alongside the Council team in developing the seawall

· What is lifespan of gabion baskets

The submitter commented as follows

· Community involvement is vital for the seawall project

· Accept we need to work with new constraints

· Gabion baskets are expected to last 125 years.

· Vertical timber walls result in beach scouring

· Want Council to look into cheaper more effective options

21LTP-10 Gerald Rys spoke to the following points:

· Housing is a central government responsibility

· Needs to be a deeper analysis of all options for the Paekākāriki Sea Wall

· CCO questions requires a clear reason why one is needed

· Airport being retained, with an equity share

· Support WCB submissions

· Waikanae Beach hall

· Implementation of Waikanae Futures document, and should be included in the long-term pan.

· Believe in proportionality principal, should receive services proportion to rates paid.

· Emergency evacuation route through the golf course

· Comprehensive plan for the Waikanae Parks.

· Keep the green waste station and upgrade it.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Two key issues – rates and equity of funding, and beach hall upgrade or replacement.

· Is housing only a central government role, or is there a role of local government

· St Peters hall is Paekākāriki as an example of how Waikanae Beach Hall could be developed and managed

The submitter commented as follows

· Needs to be better criteria for how rates funding is allocated

· More supportive of council taking a facilitation role in the provision of social housing

· If council funded the restoration, the community could manage the hall ongoing through a trust as an option.

EHQ-59 Tim Costley spoke to the following points:

· Saving Kapiti airport.

· Growth will be coming to the region.

· Commercial leases on surrounding land support the finances of the airport.

· Life Flight rely on Kapiti airport.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Council to take a firm stance against re-zoning of land

The submitter commented as follows

· Discussions have been had with Puketapu Hapu.

· Not concerned about ownership, but that it stays as an airport

· The purpose of the land should not be changed

· 85% - 90% of people surveyed are in favour of the airport

· Government has a role in housing development., land needs to be opened up for housing.

· Council is entitled to fight for its community including saving the airport

The meeting adjourned at 8:16 pm and resumed on Wednesday 19 May 2021 at 9.31am.

Resolution CO2021/51

Moved: Mayor K Gurunathan

Seconder: Cr Sophie Handford

That the Council meeting resume.

Carried

Crs Elliott, Buswell and Randall were absent at the resumption of hearings at 9.31am

Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow declared an interest in the Nga Manu Trust submission and took no part in the discussion on the matter.

21LTP-43 Shelley Warwick, spoke to the following points:

· Learner license course/driver mentoring programme in Ōtaki. Ms Warwick has had conversations with council staff and has put in a submission to NZTA to fund this initiative, which has been denied. Te Puna Oranga o Ōtaki run a rangatahi programme and would like to come on board with this. This would initially be for the three kura in Ōtaki.

· There are a lot of children in Ōtaki, for whatever reason, are not getting their learner’s licence.

· We are requesting the initial start-up costs from Council but would seek ongoing funding of the project from other sources.

· Opposes the new gymnasium facility at Paraparaumu College. Why is there a need when you are developing Otaraua Park? Our rates are already going up quite significantly.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Have you brought this to the attention of the local MP? I recommend making contact with her.

· Have you put an OIA to police for numbers of Otaki residents who drive unlicensed and asked what is the age bracket of those drivers?

· Have you spoken to Work Ready Kapiti about this? I know that this is something that they try to progress.

· What was the reason from NZTA not being able to support the project?

· There has to be parental involvement and motivation from the youth themselves. Maybe there needs to be some time spent on connecting the agencies including the AA, is needed before all this can come together.

· What conversations with young people in codesigning what this could look like?

The submitter commented as follows

· I have spoken to NZTA, there was no reason given for not being able to support the project.

· I haven’t spoked to the Police, but they know that this is a problem.

· Yes, Te Puna Oranga o Ōtaki are in contact with Work Ready Kapiti. Work Ready Kapiti only work with a few kids we want this programme to encompass all children.

· I didn’t get a reason.

· Unfortunately, it is part of the problem that these kids aren’t getting the support they need to learn to drive.

· I haven’t no sorry, that’s something that I should be doing.

EHQ-41 Fraser Beggs spoke to the following points:

· Development of the Waikanae Park in particular a basketball court. There is lots of potential here to meet a wide demographic of people in Waikanae.

· Mr Beggs has looked at the Palmerston North example. They have used the Airtime Hoops system which comes in at a fraction of the cost that is being proposed. These are high quality hoops which will demand respect from those who play on them.

· Lighting is also a big key for the area. It will add extra safety and security around the park.

· The indoor sports centre needs to be accessible to everyone. I would like to see something like the ASB stadium in Wellington works or Nga Purapura in Ōtaki. These are run as a company, not a gym where someone has a key, and it is locked. The centre would be managed outside of school hours.

· Having a two-court system will encourage other sports codes to host tournaments here bringing in revenue for the Kapiti Coast.

· The design life needs to be around 50 years.

· How much impact would a multipurpose court have on Waikanae?

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· We have had submissions from Ōtaki principals that say we don’t need an indoor sports centre in Paraparaumu because we have Nga Purapura. What would you say about that?

· Why is wellbeing important? Especially for our young people.

· Could this type of sports facility be utilised by a broader part of the community?

· How much of an impact do you think having a multi surface court would have in Waikanae?

· How important is it for the people who use the courts to be involved in the planning from the very outset?

· Would you support funding to carry out a feasibility study?

· What are your thoughts on still developing an indoor sports centre but on a site like Otaraua Park which is equally as central?

The submitter commented as follows

· It’s about supply and demand. Nga Purapura is brilliant, but Paraparaumu is quite centralised.

· From my experience coming back home from Christchurch, it’s all too easy to catch up with mates in a bar. It would be awesome to be sociable through playing sports rather than drinking. It gets old and its much better for your health to play basketball.

· Yes, having it manned makes it more accessible to all, as there is no need to have a responsible adult with you. Anyone at any age would be able to call up and use this facility.

· This would have a massive effect on not only school children but young adults and parents. It will open up more opportunity for all people to get fit.

· It is vital for people that are going to use it to be involved in the planning. I’d be happy to be involved in the planning.

· Yes, but I don’t think that you would need much funding as there is lots of passion out there, people want to be involved.

· It would also be a good, centralised spot with plenty of parking. Paraparaumu College would still have two courts to use for their school activities.

Cr Randall arrived at 10.02am

21LTP- 83 John Barrett Manaaki Kapiti, spoke to the following points:

· Covid-19 has changed most things in the submission but not all. The statistics, the tourism figures, the historical figures are all relevant up until March 2020. In our opinion those stats still need to be part of the thinking. The statistics for the year 2020/2021 are something different in terms of visitor activity on the Kapiti Coast. I would hope that Council would view our submission as still relevant noting the figures for 2020/2021 are most unusual.

· Some of the changes that need to be spoken about are the incorporation of Destination Management Plan which will play a part in our sectors development.

· We are a group representative of tourism, hospitality, and retail. The sector has been going well with domestic tourism. We are optimistic for the future.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Are you happy with the direction that the destination plan is heading? Are there things that you would like to see implemented as we move forward in that space?

· Are you happy with the support from Wellington NZ with their support of Kapiti?

· What is your concern if Council didn’t play a part in ED?

· Has Maanaki Kapiti had any involvement with the Kotahitanga board?

· Can you comment on the impact/ possible impact of the completion the expressway projects and how that might affect the marketing of Kapiti, focusing on regional tourism.

· You spoke about the foot stomping we need to do in Wellington NZ, do you think the process that we have put in place with the independent economic development board is the way to do that?

· One of the things that have been identified in the past is a lack of high-class accommodation. Have you any views on what the Templeton group have to say on the potential for the airport?

The submitter commented as follows

· I think the Destination Management Plan that has been presented covers the priorities that the sector would want to see. The six strategic sectors covered are bang on. We think the process followed was good.

· Yes and no. I have a personal relationship with Wellington NZ, but Kapiti doesn’t do well out of the relationship with Wellington NZ. In terms of the return on investment I think it’s good but could be a lot better.

· It would make a huge difference if Council did not continue its involvement in economic development but increased and improved its role in economic development. Councils’ role is to enable ED growth. If there is not that support the risk is that we will turn into a village of not very much going on.

· No, we have had no involvement with Kotahitanga

· It is going to make access to Kapiti easier. My fear is that we don’t have sufficient tourism product.

· It depends how effective they can be. It is a process, but it has to be effective.

· Not sure what Templeton group have said. I am supportive of high-quality accommodation.

EHQ-12 Marlin Elkington spoke to the following points:

· Disability does not want to be left out for the next 20 years, we want to voice our concerns in this Long-term Plan.

· It is important to hear these concerns from a Maori person with a disability.

· As a full-time wheelchair user, it is hard to go around the streets and crossroads as the gutters are not safe and makes it really hard to move around town. This is not just for wheelchair users, mothers with prams will also find this difficult.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· We have had a request for a disability strategy, would that help with your concerns

· We have a disability advisory group. We will connect you to them which will enable you to participate in the strategy.

· Do you have any involvement in the disability group? Is there any discussion that goes to developers and Council staff about minimum standards and best practice?

The submitter commented as follows

· That would be awesome. Where would you get your knowledge from?

· Within the CCDHB there is a disability team, and we are looking at offering as much information and education as possible.

EHQ-100 Tony Quale, on behalf of Kapiti Districts Aero Club spoke to the following points:

· The airport is a valuable community asset and emergency facility and must be retained. The carbon footprint of flying to Auckland from Paraparaumu is lower than driving to Wellington or Palmerston North. There is a high chance of electric aircraft being operated on regional routes before public transport becomes as efficient as it needs to be to encourage people to take public transport. The aero club supports a mixed-use model that frees up surplus land for development whilst retaining the core as an airport and open space. Highly supportive of Mana Whenua aspirations to reconnect and benefit from the land.

· We support the CCO.

· We support Council exploring ways to have a role in the airport, noting that exploring does not necessarily lead to Council actually having a role.

· Elected members will be remembered for how you influenced the outcome of this issue.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Do you have any evidence to back up your statement of less emissions to fly to Auckland than to drive to Wellington or Palmerston North.

· There is very little evidence to support electric aircraft travel. Public transport is a lot more visible in long-term plans etc. Is there information out there that can support your claims?

· Would you be interested in extending an invitation to elected members to view the electric aircraft?

· What are the side clearances for development by the airfields?

· Why should Council not have a role in housing?

· Do you agree the CCO’s would be beneficial in housing

· Do you see the CCO being linked to the airport?

· Do CCO’s make profits?

· If Council were not able to have a role in the airport, how would you feel about that?

· What proportion of the club membership is from Kapiti

The submitter commented as follows

· A local scientist has done the calculations which can be supplied.

· Sounds air have placed an order for an electric carrier. As a club we will be trailing an electric aircraft next month. Public transport is time consuming and presents many challenges just getting across Wellington.

· Once details are finalised, yes.

· We are aware of the clearances and know what can be developed. Particularly to the south west of the airport. There is a significant area of land that has been rezoned and largely developable.

· I have not said that what I have said is that the airport should not be taken lightly as a windfall opportunity to address a real problem with housing.

It had been identified that members did not have the correct submission relating to Mr Quale in front of them.

Cr Elliott arrived at 10.36am

The meeting adjourned at 10.40am

· I said that a CCO could be one way for the airport to be operated. I’m not saying that it should be.

· I support the concept of a CCO. CCO’s have the ability to make profits, whether they do or not is a different matter.

· Absolutely beneficial in housing

· We don’t pretend to dictate public opinion. Democracy is democracy, we will accept the process.

· 90 percent of members live between Kapiti and south to Wellington, 60% of members live south of Kapiti. Those members who come from out of town spend money here.

Cr Randall left the meeting at 11:15 am.

Cr Randall returned to the meeting at 11:15 am.

21LTP-73 Anna Carter spoke to the following points:

· Ms Carter acknowledged the passing of Wilf Wright. He was a strong part of the Reikorangi rural community.

· We want to work on developing a strategy for the Reikorangi domain, working with the Waikanae Community Board.

· The Reikorangi community want to see a connection with Waikanae possibly through a walkway, cycleway, or bridleway

· We are looking for support for improving and increasing biodiversity and getting the blue duck brought up to the catchment.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Are you aware that the jobs for nature programme is running?

· Have you connected with predator free New Zealand? This is a nationwide programme for communities to become predator free.

· Is the pottery available for releasing?

· Do you know if there is any money set aside in the long-term plan for any of the requests that you have made today? Cr Prvanov will do some research on LTP provision.

Cr Buswell arrived at 11.17am

The submitter commented as follows

· Yes, with asked that the programme organisers come and speak to us. We are aware of the funding of jobs for nature and the catchment management plan. I don’t believe there is funding for roading upgrades or cycleway upgrades but certainly pest control.

· No we haven’t connected with that group, but we will.

· I can’t speak to that, but there are opportunities that we want to look into for the domain.

· I couldn’t find it but something that would be good to investigate.

EHQ0-37 Glen & Kay Wiggs spoke to the following points:

· Our property backs onto the Rangihroa domain. Part of the reserve was planted with Pines, Gums and Macrocarpa. As time has gone by they have gone well passed their use by date. They are dangerous and dead with large branches falling every week. The trees provide a constant risk of injury.

· The area is a high wind zone, and the Council needs to maintain the trees on the reserve for safety.

· We request $50,000 of the parks budget to be spent on removing the dangerous trees and replacing them with native trees.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Has a service request been made?

· Previously you have made a submission to the Council Long-term plan regarding best practice. Could you repeat that? Secondly, you said the price that you paid for your property 50 years ago now equals the amount of money that you pay on rates. Thirdly, if you could comment on Monarch butterflies.

The submitter commented as follows

· Yes, parks officers have attended and cut down some of the dead branches and dead trees. Not all the dead branches have been removed. You are going to have ongoing problems as the tress meet the end of their life one by one. It would be cheaper to remove them all at once.

· Yes the rates bill now exceeds the initial price paid for the property.

· The New Zealand Government has adopted best practice principles which are available on the internet. If you adopt best practice regulations it is a more effective way of administration. The Monarch butterflies are wintering over on the Macrocarpa, so you can leave that one.

EHQ-46 Joanna Poole spoke to the following points:

· We have a district that relies heavily on its rates as a source of income. Council needs to make it affordable to live in this district.

· My own personal situation, our rates have increased by 85 percent in the last 10 or 11 years. This isn’t sustainable or affordable.

· Rates are very much unaffordable for retired persons, approximately 14 percent of a retired persons income on average.

· There is a real scarcity of information around the proposed CCO.

· How would you suggest that we accommodate growth?

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Could you share views on the Waikanae library and the Gateway.

· We cannot stop people from wanting to move here so how would accommodate the growth?

· Are you aware that Libraries are seen as community hubs?

· 75 percent of people agreed with the Gateway.

The submitter commented as follows

· You could argue that a physical presence like a library is needed less and less these days. Most people are online. I don’t view the Gateway very favourably.

· I’m not sure that adequate consultation happened around the Gateway.

· It has to be very clear in the zoning and enabling. Being clear on areas of development, having a speedier consent process. Managed growth.

· I believe that libraries are an important resource, so if they can be hubs that is great.

· Supportive of Council being in an enabling role for housing but not a developer.

· A Gateway as a concept yes, not necessarily what has been proposed

Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow left the meeting at 12:16 pm.

Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow returned to the meeting at 12:20 pm.

Paekakariki School representative spoke to the following points:

· That pressure be put on businesses to convert to electric cars. Electric cars help with the environment.

· Put more electric car chargers around Kapiti. This would help the public be more inclined to purchase an electric vehicle.

· The Airport should be more accessible. Cars use a lot more petrol to travel around New Zealand.

· Put pressure on Regional Council to improve public transport. We need one cost, make it cheaper so more people can have access to it. Reducing the cost will also entice cars users to use public transport. Public buses should be made electric to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

· Council should create a marine reserve to protect native fish and underwater creatures.

· Retirement homes should be linked to childcare centres, then the elderly can be nearer to their grandchildren. The children can hear stories from people that they already know.

· Maori language should be more accessible, especially for older people.

· There should be cheaper university and polytechnics fees to enable people to get better jobs.

· Weekly rubbish bins should be secured so they don’t fall over in the wind. More recycling and composting bins should be made more publicly available.

· We should look after the sea and make sure that our native fish don’t go extinct.

· There should be more water fountains in the community, so people don’t have to buy water in plastic bottles. Cheap plastic bottles and bags should be banned.

· We should plant more trees, farmland that isn’t being used should be planted with trees to suck up all the carbon emissions.

· There should be more compostable dog poo bags.

· Please try to make the house prices lower.

· There should be more reserves like Kapiti Island to protect native birds and trees.

· Put bells on cats so native birds don’t die. Eco friendly farms would also be good.

· Technology could stop many problems including fossil fuels, littering and many more.

· We can produce more energy from different sources like windmills, turbines, and energy from waves.

· Search engines like Ecosia could be used where after so many searches a tree is planted.

· Enable faster internet, so people don’t have to drive into the city for work.

· Monthly rubbish clean ups would be great. They could be fundraisers.

· Please consult with the primary schools, children are really switched on.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· What are your ideas around litter traps?

· Can you provide your view on whether clips attached to bins would stop them tipping over in the wind.

· What are ways that we as elected members can do better with te reo maori?

· Where would we put more water fountains?

· Where do you think we could set up a marine reserve?

· How many of your parents own an electric car?

· Do you think people could take their rubbish home instead of having more bins? Could we encourage people to take their rubbish home and recycle it there?

· Can you think of one more thing we should do as a Council for climate change?

· What are you most hopeful for in the future?

The submitter commented as follows

· They will trap fly away litter so that it doesn’t go into the drains.

· Yes that would help to keep the lids on and stop rubbish flying away.

· There should be a school for te reo.

· Just in public areas where people go to a lot.

· Somewhere that there is a lot of underwater plants to protect the plants as well as the animals that live there. I’m not entirely sure.

· There was a show of hands (electric car ownership). One student answered that both parents owned electric cars.

· Yes, and encourage shops to use less plastic so that there is less need for rubbish bins to be around.

· Introduce Hybrid cars as this is a good transition between petrol and electric cars. We could also have electric buses and planes.

· I’m looking forward to my generation enjoying the environment. Cheaper house prices and more train stops. More science developments into eco-friendly ways to cook. Holograms that will pop out of our brains. I hope that you will take some of our ideas and carry them out to make a better world.

The meeting adjourned at 12.23pm and Cr Holborow left the meeting.

The meeting resumed at 1.30pm.

EHQ-28 Anne Geelan spoke to the following points:

· Regarding Indoor Sports Centre. I deal with a lot of older people in our community. A lot of older people go out in inclement weather to watch grandchildren play sport. In our Waikanae Beach Bowling club there are 8 over 80s and 10 or 12 over 70 years old who play. If you are thinking about a Sports Centre perhaps you could include a lawn bowls facility in there and may some other one’s as well, as well as a restaurant and café to appeal to a wider group of people.

· Our group has people involved from Paekakariki out to Waitarere Beach. Perhaps KCDC and Horowhenua could consider developing something together.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· How many people in Kapiti play outdoor bowls.

· Re housing. If we were looking at our existing sites and stock would you support council looking at providing additional accommodation for the vulnerable in our community.

· Would you support funding in the LTP to pay for a feasibility study around the requirements for an indoor stadium.

· What area would be needed to accommodate bowls inside.

The submitter commented as follows

· There would be hundreds. There are 7 or 8 clubs in Kapiti. Ours is small but others would have 100 or so members.

· There are so many organisations like Reimans trying to develop in the area of housing for elderly people. There is a need at the other end of the scale. We have an issue in NZ in that we don’t have entry level housing.

· Yes I would support funding for feasibility study. I would think about including Horowhenua as well.

· It depends what you are trying to accommodate inside. You’d be doing it for a number of activities. You’d make it a bigger centre so you could include other sporting events.

21LTP-11 Pat Stuart and Matu Booth, on behalf of Nga Manu Trust, spoke to the following points:

· We are committed to developing visitor experience. Something for people whatever the conditions. Looking to develop the visitors’ centre.

· Doubled workforce from 3 to about 6 FTE to improve our business capability, including a business development manager a fundraiser and an administration person.

· We are essentially a voluntary organisation. The board is a voluntary group of people.

· Our commitment on the board is partnered with the investment we are making in staff. We are keen to develop our relationship with Mana whenua.

· Think of Nga Manu as our district’s version of Zealandia. It’s much more than just a recreational or visitor experience. Lowland swamp forest is the calling card to the early trust. We have had a long relationship with DOC in relation to breed for release of native species. Some significant local conservation effort as well. Many of the 20000 people would not see the huge conservation effort behind the scenes.

· 1500 visits were educational last year. 500 visits were from people with disabilities. Over 60 active volunteers at Nga Manu. We are supported by 300 members who pay subscription.

· Undergoing strategic planning process helping reshape our Trust vision to set it within the context we now need to go forward.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· You were encouraged by Al Morrison to think bigger and think ahead. Ha that been useful and not money wasted.

· Is the $100,000 the cost of the feasibility study.

· Could you see Nga Manu becoming one of the key tourist attractions in the Kapiti Coast.

· Is there opportunity for internships.

· What thought have you given to the low carbon ways to get to Nga Manu. What advocacy role can you play.

· Have you talked to WRC about changing the bus services.

· Hoping you have fed into the Destination Plan.

· Are there income streams available through the conservation work that you do.

· Our submission to GW is being presented this afternoon. We can add the request to extend the Waikanae Pool Bus. Are you resourced to be the first port of call for injured birds on the Kapiti coast or what would your advice be.

The submitter commented as follows

· PGF was a washing machine experience but it is that that supplied our determination. We went into the process wanting the infrastructure we thought it could deliver. We have actually put a business team in place to deliver this and expertise to drive it.

· It’s really a rough breakdown of how we would spend the original amount of money. A pretty thorough feasibility study that looked at all of the issues we would be looking at least $3m to achieve it. So the investment up front is in terms of understanding what it will take to do it. It’s a brief understanding of what we think it would cost.

· Yes it has that potential. Growing the business from a sustainability perspective. There is huge potential. We notice a lot more people finding their way to Nga Manu. Thank you for the signage. When the borders reopen we hope to become an important drop off point for visitors to this country. In the meantime we’d like to improve our reach in the region. The opening of Transmission Gully is a real opportunity to showcase what we have and also that’s one of the reasons we want to provide the improved visitors centre.

· We offer scholarships for study. We also offer internships to wild based students. We could however comfortably spend all the money on developing the visitors’ centre. There are those other aspects including research.

· We could comfortably spend it on the centre. Nga Manu is used as a research site for students taking scholarships.

· The most obvious is that we will pursue at some point is that there is a bus link that takes people to the swimming pool about 3k from Nga Manu. That would be an obvious opportunity to extend that bus route to Nga Manu at least in summer initially. We haven’t spoken to WRC about changing bus route as yet.

· We did feed into early discussion and are keen to see the outcome.

· We receive no funding from DOC although we are in receipt of a relief funding as a result the administration of COVID support. That’s pretty much a one off.

· We receive the benefit of displaying some species that we are working with programmes with DOC. We are able to turn that opportunity into good advocacy e.g. kiwi night encounters.

· Part of our value is that we have a captive breeding programme. We have birds for people to view. It does come with a cost. In particular housing and bedding.

· Nga Manu has a long history of being a rehabilitation centre. However as time has gone on we don’t have the facilities Wellington Zoo or Wild base in Palmerston North have. We are more and more in the position that we cannot offer the backup care that the public still expect that we can.

Cr Holborow arrived at 2pm

EHQ-25 Neale Ames, on behalf of Ōtaki Surf Lifesaving Club, spoke to the following points:

· We’re speaking in opposition to the proposed $1 per club member pool admission charge. It does ad significant costs overall in percentage terms. It also adds administration cost of no longer do you just walk into the pool.

· Our members swim twice a week 40 weeks of the year. Club members pay membership. We pay lane charges. That would be an additional cost of $80 per year and would put even more pressure on families with more than one member.

· We provide a safety and rescue service at Otaki Beach. Our members voluntarily patrol. Over 2000 hours of voluntary patrol were performed for the recent season. Ongoing training in the pool for beach lifeguards is essential. It is not in the public interest to create barriers to pool access for our beach lifeguards.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Could you articulate the level of hardship you see in the community with existing costs even without the $1 proposal.

· What times of the day are you using the Otaki Pool.

The submitter commented as follows

· Our members pay a club fee. Most of that goes to paying lane charges in the off season for training. On top of that swimmers would pay $1 twice a week. You are talking about 50% plus increase in what lifesavers have to pay.

· There are a few families that this would really impact especially if they have 2 or 3 children and it’s likely some may well stop coming.

· We have not increased our membership for a number of years.

· We have the downtime off-peak slots e.g. Monday and Wednesday the last slots before the pool closes. We also don’t occupy the whole pool. We use half of the pool.

21LTP-40 John Mills spoke to the following points:

· Managed retreat. With the like for like timber wall that is proposed I have shown you a photo – its looking like a wharf sometimes now and gets worse every time there is a good blow. The trend is when the sea erodes the beach it always goes down to the bottom of the wall and then you have trouble. If we put palings in 3.5m down the sea would get under it and beat the wall to death. I’m seriously and urgently calling for a different design. The design that was consented I agreed to because it had a lowered walkway, but It still had a meter of wall in front of the sea which is still going to give you turbulence.

· The papers that I handed out last night are photographs of 8 different walls in Australia that have encouraged the sand to come back.

· When a wall is built at Paekakariki you can almost guarantee the beach is going to drop at least 1.5m. It has dropped 2.5m in some places. This information has been out for the last 10 years at least. There is too much attention being paid to cost savings.

· The figures I have given you that fit within our budget do stack up. If sea level does rise and we have put in the wall that I am advocating we want to have a reef or breakwater because when you have a decent solid thing in front even if it’s under water it does stop the bulk of the waves. With Gabian baskets I can do them for $500 per meter, and if you add a contingency at $700 per meter. That’s a whole meter nearly the length of our seawall which will do the secondary protection for just over half a million dollars. The figures I am giving you are realistic.

· I know you are going to be pushing managed retreat thing that you are going to be pushing more and more. There is no reason for us to say we will pull back from supporting the parade a Paekakariki because of managed retreat. That is going to turn us into somewhere like Pukerua Bay where you can’t actually get a vehicle down there. It’s like a goat track and where anything significant has to be taken in by sea.

· If you are going the way of managed retreat why are you are still granting consents for brand new houses down the parade which are going to be severely challenged in 20 years’ time. We don’t want managed retreat we want managed defence.

· We’ve been going very deep with our walls for the past 10 years and we’ve had no failures yet.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Is your design the desired design by the community. Would this design need reconsenting.

· Does your design use any more space from the road out towards the sea than the community design groups design?

· Is it your understanding that the reason for this work is to protect council assets not houses.

· Do you have independent reports on the design you are proposing.

· We have had different groups for Paekakariki all suggesting alternative designs be looked at. At the end of the day what you are wanting is sand on the beach.

The submitter commented as follows

· Yes it is desired by the community. If reconsenting is required this is allowed for.

· I don’t know. I can’t answer that. The community design group allowed for an extra 500 mills. But if it needs to go out any further then it should because it already looks like a wharf. If anyone was to stand under that wall especially when it’s washed out it’s dangerous because it hasn’t got fall protection. A new consent is allowed for if necessary. The shape of the wall is just the same apart from that front step. The better stepped option is what I’m advocating.

· Yes.

· I’m sure we could get them, but they are all from Australia.

· Yes. I like people too. Wherever they put rocks the rocks have gone so far out there’s no room for the people anymore.

Cr Elliott left the chamber at 2.23pm

21LTP-16 Colin Feek & Don Hunn, on behalf of Kāpiti Health Advisory Group, spoke to the following points:

· KHAG established 4 years ago. For 2 years KHAG has undertaken consultation in Kapiti to identify health service needs. The priority areas have been identified as Access to Services, Urgent Care, Care for Disabled, Mental Health and Care for the Elderly.

· KHAG has had a good response with CCDHB who include these priorities in their local planning. They have 2 people who attend KHAG Meetings.

· KHAG has supported and lobbied for a number of improvements. Inc. Wheelchair friendly shuttle, published options for transport to hospitals, supported Wellington Free Ambulance in their diversion scheme. WFA is a member of KHAG. A website is about to be completed identifying health resources and related services in the Kapiti area.

· We have requested through the Mayor information from CCDHB as to where Kapiti residents receive services, what’s happening in the care for elderly services, and who’s travelling currently to Wellington Regional Hospital for urgent care and get discharged the same day. The purpose is to see if we are making a difference and provide information to discuss possible improvements.

· Kapiti Health Network is established by Capitol Coast Health. It’s a partnership with iwi. There are three priorities the Network are involved in including Health and Social Care Integration.

· Local housing provider has put in a primary care visit once a week which has reduced people going to Wellington Hospital.

· There is local planning for Services. CCDHB will change and we will have to develop new relationships with whoever takes over.

· As Council you have a legal obligation to promote the Four Well Beings of which Health is an integral part. We see you as contributing to the planning of health services. KHAG and the network are vehicles to do this.

· We are expectations on councils for having a role in improving health services in their jurisdiction.

· Pandemic – clearly there will be future discussion as to the future role of the Council.

· We would like to request some administrative support for KHAG. We would like some administrative support. We think we may need a half FTE to help us. That probably comes to $50,000 to $80,000. We don’t want the money to do it. We want Council to help us do it.

· Consider if KHAG could be brought into your administrative machinery.

· Opportunities to plan and innovate.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Surely your role should be more advocacy than advisory.

· Have you made appointments with Otaki and Mana electorate MPs, and Health Ministers?

· Are you aware we are undertaking a social and housing needs assessment. Would you be happy to be involved.

· KHAG feeding into Kapiti Health Network.

· What kind of relationship have you had with Kapiti Youth Support.

· Would be good to become part of the Council so we walk side by side with all these new reforms coming.

The submitter commented as follows

· Our role is both advocacy and also advisory to the Mayor. It should be both and more. Through the network we should be influencing how services are going to be provided.

· I don’t see services being provided as they have been previously. I think we will be looking at technology and innovation. For example, there are important changes necessary in care for the elderly. How do we improve health services for the elderly at the top of the pyramid.

· Not yet.

· Yes. I don’t want housing to drown us. I agree housing is an important impact. I think we’d have to see that need comes out what it looks like. We would be open to looking at it.

· Kapiti Coast Health appointed me to Kapiti Health Network knowing I was KHAG. They made it clear to me that the see the network as the doer. They have put a lot of work into the network. We have to monitor and influence the network and the future provider.

· I’ve been concentrating on the priorities we’ve been given. We have got quite a lot to do already.

· If you want us to get more involved we are happy to sit down to see how we would do that.

21LTP-57 Geoffrey and Eva Churchman spoke to the following points:

· An extension of Waikanae riverbank walkways and cycleways. The Reikorangi Residents Association also mentioned this in their submission.

· The present paths extend the length of the Waikanae river on both banks for about 5km between the main road and the beach. Paths are used extensively by cyclists and walkers.

· To the east of the main road there is no path on either side, and it is desirable that there be one.

· When heading towards Reikorangi from Waikanae on the Reikorangi Road the road becomes narrow and largely devoid of shoulders for much of the road past the water treatment plant. There is no choice for cyclists other than to cycle on the road. It would be desirable that there be a side path that connects to a path along the river.

· The popular swimming hole known as Devil’s Elbow which is accessed via a 200m long path through the bushes from the road. At that point there are short shoulders for a small number of cars to park. We suggest that the new riverbank path go as far as the road bridge over the Waikanae River at Reikorangi. From there to the junction of Reikorangi Road and the fork forming Ngati Awa Road and Akatarawa Road and where the Anglican Church is, is about 400 meters. We are proposing that this be investigated. It would not be a big-ticket item.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Referring to page 3 and key question around airport and comments. Who released a letter to you from the owners of the Airport the Mayor and Councillors that was published on Waikanae Watch on 4

· Regarding your comment do not close the green waste facility in Park Road Waikanae. Who released the email from KCDC staff to Councillors that you reference in the opening comment in your story on Monday.

· Do you have any idea of what the potential generation is from the cost of micro hydro with the Dam Discussion.

· Do you agree with the submissions that the green waste facility in Waikanae is retained.

The submitter commented as follows

· I do not intend to answer the question.

· No I haven’t but it’s not going to be huge. It doesn’t need to be huge to be economic and viable.

· Yes I think it’s important that facility be retained.

The meeting adjourned at 2.50pm and resumed at 3.10pm

Cr Randall left the meeting at 3:10 pm.

21LTP-70 Keith Johnstone, on behalf of Paekakariki Housing Trust, spoke to the following points:

· Keith Johnstone Cochair of the Housing Trust are highly supportive of the Council taking a greater role as an enabler in Housing. Encourage you to go faster, focus on affordable housing, housing for older people, to look for partners and look at what you can do to enable land becoming available for housing, better provision of services to that land and look at the District Plan to make it more housing friendly.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Some people have confused the idea that Council playing a larger role means it is going to be a housing developer.

· Would you see a role for Council to try and have examples that other developers could follow.

· Are you aware we will be starting consultation about the growth strategies.

· Accessory dwellings. You’d see this as the quickest low hanging fruit.

· Do you see scope for the Trust to talk with the Paekakariki School about their vision and ideas.

The submitter commented as follows

· I think that fear exists and that it sounds expensive and complicated.

· Yes you could play the role of a provider of examples and you could do this in partnership with other housing providers. There are all sorts of possibilities for commercial and residential developments as a core where people live and also work.

· What can we do about creating examples quickly once that consultation is going on.

· Yes there is some other low hanging fruit involving community providers and looking at other possibilities to develop. But this seems to be one of the first.

· We’d love to do speak with the school students and are keen to do that.

· There is about 20 hectares of flat land that will become available at the conclusion of Transmission Gulley that does have housing potential. The biggest opportunity to retain the diversity that exists in Paekakariki is this land. The second is that accessory buildings would enable diversity. It would also enable the longer-term sustainability of the school.

21LTP-85 Marcel Van de Assum, on behalf of Save Kapiti Airport, spoke to the following points:

· Retaining the airport and resolving past wrongs are not mutually exclusive.

· There are a lot of different dimensions and lenses – serves multiple purposes - Medivac, Disaster Recovery, Passenger Transport, Aeroclub, Open space, sights of cultural significance.

· As a strategic asset there are opportunities for the future, such as connecting regions. Alongside aircraft avionics is also opening up opportunities. I would envisage avionics business and then building ancillary businesses.

· Point to point air travel is the future. Cleaner more sustainable travel.

· Beyond the Airport. The Airport is less than half the land space and so the opportunity exists for developing housing, hubs, a commercial business precinct and restoration of wetlands. I’d encourage a holistic view of the asset.

· Airports are not usually economically viable from flights alone. The community has been consistently supportive of retaining the Airport. There are various mechanisms, some sort of joint venture, a CCO, or some sort of collaboration for partnership.

· More start-up ventures are about making a difference, being impact lead and not just focussing on returns.

· Sustaining the Airport is the greatest impact opportunity we have on the coast.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Do members have experience in development of this sort of scale.

· Are you aware that some of the aircraft would have to be empty to take off from Kapiti Airport.

· How many members do you have.

· How many are from with the district or outside of the district.

· What’s your relationship like with the current owners of the airport and in terms of facilitating those ideas.

· Do your members understand that the LTP will give Council a mandate to take a particular approach in terms of the airport.

The submitter commented as follows

· No. It’s about highlighting the potential and painting a picture of what’s possible. We’re deliberately not bringing a specific property investment lens. We want to paint a bigger picture of what’s possible and help stakeholder contribute to that outcome.

· I’m not an airport or aircraft expert. In an emergency situation I expect that concessions would need to be applied to take off and landing envelope and various other factors.

· About 7000 registered on the mailing list.

· I would expect that the majority are from the region. On the committee most live up here. There are a number of folks who live from Paramata north.

· There is respect and understanding. We just have a different view in terms of the future, and it would be great if we could align those views for collective success. A level of collaboration would be needed as part of going forward.

· In the end we are respectful of process. This process is part of achieving a particular outcome. It’s up to you to absorb different perspectives and way up viability. I respect that and am sure others do too.

EHQ-51 Evan Freshwater spoke to the following points:

· Cycling Infrastructure in Kapiti and making better use of what we have.

· Cycleway’s infrastructure we have is really good. The gaps are in the connectivity between the expressway cycleway path and the community. I would like to see more separation between cyclists and vehicles, and between cyclists and pedestrians, particularly bearing in mind the older population in Kapiti. Accidents happen and people can get hurt.

· Council has been funded to provide for more connectivity down to the coast from the expressway cycle path. I’ve seen some things disappear from strategy to strategy. I’m not sure why that is.

· Multiuse sporting facility here in the district is imperative. There is demand for people to have a venue where they can undertake indoor sports e.g. community activities, ball sports, martial arts in fit for purpose facilities. We know the population is growing and we need the facilities to provide for that.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Do you have experience of schools blocking community access.

· Nga Pura Pura is a great facility. What barriers do you see in using that facility.

· Did you participate in our sustainable transport strategy.

· Are you aware of any research to see if CCOs are financially viable.

· Are you part of a cycling group that feeds into the CWB.

· Would be interested to talk with you about any tracks you believe that have been taken off the strategy.

· Would you support funding going into the long-term plan for a feasibility study on an indoor sports centre.

Cr Compton and Cr Randall left the chamber at 3.49pm.

Cr Compton returned at 4.16pm.

The submitter commented as follows

· Access has tended to be blocked during school time. Also over years the school tends to consider the facility more it’s than the communities. There are dozens of small venues that people are using but if we had a venue where people could collaborate that would be wonderful and would bring communities together.

· When I’ve talked to people about going to Otaki and using that facility some groups have been told point blank they are not welcome. It’s not a Council owned facility. If it’s owned by us Council gets to discuss how it is used.

· I was aware of the strategy but don’t know if I submitted.

· Yes a family friend is an accountant whose last job involved looking at every CCO in New Zealand and very few were financially successful. Some were viable to varying degrees.

· With three boys I don’t have time to be involved in any cycling organisations anymore.

· I would love to see funding going into the LTP for a feasibility study on an indoor sports centre.

EHQ-47 Sam Pritchard, on behalf of Kapiti Chamber of Commerce, spoke to the following points:

· The Chamber of Commerce represents over 300 businesspeople in Kapiti

· There is a huge opportunity for growth. This needs to be done in a managed way. Council needs to have a customer focussed approach in order to enable this to happen.

· Councils’ procurement policy should support local businesses as much as possible.

· The Chamber is happy to collaborate with Council on growth and the opportunities that brings.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Do you see a great deal of work that can be done to try to influence the market as opposed to being a housing developer.

· Do you see Council’s role in trying to rectify the lack of development of affordable housing, emergency housing, social housing.

· Do you think there is more money to be made by developers in the housing which is not social housing.

· Did the chamber discuss their planned survey on the Airport with the current owners before it took place.

· How’s the collaborations going in regard to KCDC around Economic Development.

· What was working closely with Council like in delivering to the community on recovery. Did your members and the wider community benefit from that.

The submitter commented as follows

· Yes it’s a definition around the role Council should have. Council definitely have role in housing in reducing regulation and helping zoning and supply of land. We don’t see the Council as a housing developer.

· The more land you provide the more options will be provided.

· Yes but there are numerous shared equity, rent to buy models.

· No but Chris is coming to the next Board Meeting to speak to the Board.

· The Economic Development Team under Darryn Grant and Leanna has been great. We have had some quite good engagement and have co-hosted a number of webinars. We have a monthly meeting with the ED team.

· We had some of our biggest numbers turn up to those webinars. The ED Team were very good to work with.

21LTP-59 Ellen Blake, on behalf of Wellington Living Streets, spoke to the following points:

· A Pedestrian Advocacy Group part of a larger group covering the Wellington Region. We try to get more people walking more often. Healthy, social, and good for the community and economy.

· Good on Kapiti District for declaring a climate emergency in 2019. We are expecting new planning laws to have a focus on making more liveable places, so places need to be more walkable.

· Propose that Paraparaumu link road project is canned, and the money is redistributed to footways and footpaths programme and to the transformation of the revoked state highway one work. Ask that work on footpaths is done well and done once. One good model is e.g. Upper Hutt has a cool redevelopment outside their train station.

· Make places safer for people who are walking. We don’t support shared paths. Support in particular 30km zones, slower speeds around schools. Another good place to spend money.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Were you in the process feeding onto the revocation plans for M2PP and have you seen the designs for the pathway and cycleway extending through to the north.

· Have you seen the plans for around the railway station area.

· Why are you opposed to shared pathways.

· Do you believe an etiquette programme with regards to cyclists and interaction on the shared pathway would be helpful.

· Were you aware that NZTA provide funding so we are getting good bang for our buck with the $6m.

The submitter commented as follows

· No but I know you have good staff on council who are onto those sorts of things.

· No but $6m won’t buy you very much in any road transport process.

· Shared paths are designed with cyclists in mind and pedestrians, particularly older people feel uncomfortable or will not use them. Particularly makes old people feel unsafe. Cyclists don’t like it either. Do it once do it right. It’s best practice to have separated facilities.

· No it doesn’t work. It’s not been effective anywhere else I don’t see why it should be successful here.

· Yes we are aware.

EHQ-52 Michael McKeon spoke requesting to the following points:

· Emphasised the intent of private plan change 73 be continued into the LTP. The development around an operating airport with a little of the development be put aside to support the Airport be permitted.

· About 55% of the area could be developed for non-aviation purposes. That sort of development could be aligned with funded crown investment programmes.

· Retaining a reduced airport as an enabler. Quality and visionary housing that Kapiti could really be proud.

· It’s important to keep the airport open so that we have time to make an informed decision.

· Kapiti Coast District Council should have involvement in the Airport.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Your submission mentions a plan to close the airport. Were you privy to any information that I haven’t been with regard to the future of the airport.

The submitter commented as follows

· No, just what I have read in the media.

EHQ-14 Barry Stimpson spoke to the following points:

· Waikanae swimming pool. That its summertime picnic pool facilities need to be upgraded. Existing dressing room need new showers and toilet cubicles, vanity tops basins and mirrors. New facilities for disabled, staff room and entrance lobby need to be similar to those at Paraparaumu Aquatics Centre.

· Also in 20 year plan a new Waikanae Aquatics Centre with a roof similar to Otaki Pool. This could be located off Park Avenue near Somerset Village or further north adjacent to a future Waikanae College.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Are you aware that one of the reasons for its popularity is the nature of it being an open pool.

· Can you explain the plans that you past around.

· Have you been to the Community board with these ideas.

· Are you a regular user.

The submitter commented as follows

· I am aware of that. The facilities just need to be upgraded/ renovated within the next five years. Longer term I am looking for a brand-new complex within 20 years. Not an award-winning roof, just an award-winning facility.

· I drew the plans. The facility is 50 years old and there has been very little done to the changing room. The other point is the choke point in the entry lobby. People bring chilly bins plus children and the existing lobby is inadequate.

· No.

· Yes a regular user. I’m not suggesting any work on the pool itself.

The meeting adjourned at 4:28pm and resumed at 6:02pm.

21LTP-87 & EHQ-50 Donovan Joyce, Ngati Maiotaki Hapu spoke to the following points:

· Donovan Joyce from Nga Hapu Otaki – direction of council for community outcomes, are these the correct priorities. Council’s partnership with mana whenua needs to be treaty based and prioritise the protection, maintenance, strengthening and development of Ōtaki ahi kā Whanau and hāpu of Ngati Mai Otaki, Ngati Pare, Ngati Huia ki Katihiku as hapu specified in appendix 1 of the Iwi Memorandum of Partnership with Council.

· Investing for resilience and growth – but not the expense of the place of mana whenua as ahi kā and of te Taiao. Council needs to partner with Ōtaki ahi kā hapu to explore environmentally sustainable solutions.

· Financial strategy – proposed13.2 % rates increase for Ōtaki will have a disproportionate effect on mana whenua ahi kā residents of Ōtaki. Mana whenua have a long history of adverse effects of council policies including rates, resulting I their ongoing alienation form whenua tupuna.

· Would like to see plan for COVID 19 recovery for Nga Hapu. Council contributed $20,000; Ngati mai Ōtaki hapu have not seen it

· Provide water retention facilities to all marae within the district.

· Support the development of pataka kai and local food production, including on Maori owned lands and at marae

· Direct line of contact with all hapu mandated representatives as part of a comprehensive response plan for the district.

· Access to housing: engaging with manawhenua, hapu landowners ensuring manawhenua are co-architects in planning for any social and elder housing. District plan must contain adequate protections for identified and unidentified wahi tapu in any new greenfield developments

· Responding to climate change - we’ve made good progress in reducing emissions. Support new waste minimisation processes.

· Do not allow brown field development on Ōtaki beach and marine parade.

· Retain identity and unique features of Otaki.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Cr Coutts noted the effect of rising house and rent costs, and subsequent rate increase and impact on ahi kā in Otaki.

· Cr McCann noted housing is a significant issue, and care should be taken with development that is going to force people out.

· Mayor noted the invitation to councillors to meet with iwi and hapu in their rohe.

· Cr Holborow questioned how council could best have a conversation around the district growth strategy with manawhenua

The submitter commented as follows

· Some are being confronted with having to move because of increasing costs, including rates. Raukawa marae principle home, if people not on marae we are no longer ahi kā – so if people have the leave because of increasing costs then the fires at Raukawa marae will go out, and then the marae will die.

· House prices dictate the movement of people.

· Council needs to prioritise the protection, maintenance, strengthening and development of Ōtaki ahi kā Whanau and hāpu

Heni Wirihana Te Rei, Ngati Huia ki Katihiku spoke to the following points:

· councillors visit marae to engage.

· Support strengthening manawhenua – Council relationship, and council recognition of ahi kā.

· Developing leadership programmes for ahi kā youth, mentorship, internships.

· Ahi kā and taiao at the forefront of COVID funding and resilience.

· Support the view of Ngati Mai Otaki. Increase in rates contribute to negative outcomes for mana whenua

· Pandemic or civil emergency response – would like to see marae provisioned with PPE kits generators etc for response to pandemic/civil emergencies.

· Support manawhenua in development of papa kainga models

· DP protect identified and unidentified wahi tapu, including wetlands.

· Ahi kā manawhenua contribute to the identity and health of a community.

· Create food forests, community gardens.

· No more development on Otaki Beach

· Do not support strategic framework set in the plan, until a two-house model can be developed, recognising te tiriti

· Retain unique features of Otaki must include ahi kā in development plans.

· Build resilience – through supply of water tanks at marae with quality filtering systems, community gardens.

· Should partner with manawhenua ahi kā in provision of housing.

· Funding for safe play area in Otaki, bi-lingual signage

· Rate remission policy is inequitable for manawhenua ahi kā.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· The Mayor noted a commonality between this submission and Ngati Mai Ōtaki’s submission.

· Cr Coutts asked about how rates remission policy could further assist manawhenua ahi kā.

· Cr Handford asked is the strategic framework would be supported if it was based on a treaty house model.

· Cr McCann noted the excellent suggestions, and asked how setting aside a percentage of housing stock for kaumatua would work

· Cr Buswell asked whether the submitter worked with WREMO around emergency preparedness and response.

The submitter commented as follows

· Discussion around rate will be taken offline. A lot of whanau are renters, so rates increases will affect their rent.

· A treaty house model for the strategic framework would be supported.

· There is a concern around the criteria based on age, given the mortality rates of manawhenua

Aroha Gleeson spoke to the following points:

· seeking support for a chill out space for youth in Otaki.

· Make friends, build confidence, keep youth off the streets

· Gaming room, music recording studio, basketball courts and chill out space

· While there are services in Kapiti transport is a big issue

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Councillors would like to engage rangatahi

· Transport for youth form Ōtaki could be investigated

The submitter commented as follows

· While there is a lot to do in Paraparaumu, transport for rangatahi is a problem, and rangatahi would prefer something on their own turf.

Roimata Baker spoke to the following points:

· Support in rehabilitating Winstone Lake

· Three key points, people purpose and place.

· Create a home for waka ama, facility to host national tournaments.

· Enhancing the environment by remediating the lake.

· Building a lake house for multiple clubs.

· Look forward to any future investment in the lake, including infrastructure such as roads, carparks, and toilets.

· Would like iwi to name the lake.

Summary of Discussion Points raised by Elected Members

· Mayor notes that the lake and area round it could be a significant regional asset.

· Cr Coutts notes the quality and depth of the submissions. Would there be an opportunity for elected members and staff to visit the site to get a grasp of the vision for the site.

· Lake is a by-product of the region’s growth.

· How is the current work funded.

The submitter commented as follows

· Councillors and staff would be welcome, and would get a feel for how it would link in with the shared pathway and other developments

· Ongoing discussions with GW, Winstone and others in rehabilitation of the area.

· Currently we fund up to 2 portaloos ourselves.

· We have an opportunity to develop an amazing space from scratch

· Current funding is from our ongoing fundraising

The Council meeting closed at 7.52pm.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON


AGENDA Council Meeting
I hereby give notice that a Meeting of the Kapiti Coast District Council will be held on:
Date:	Thursday, 30 September 2021
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Council Chamber Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road Paraparaumu
Wayne Maxwell Chief Executive

Evaluation criteria for final analysis of the Beach Bylaw Review proposals
Legislative (key criteria)	Public view (significant criteria)	Efficacy (significant criteria)
Protect the public from nuisance	Submissions feedback from formal consultation	Response fits size and impact of issue
Protect, promote, and maintain public health and safety		Practicality of response
Minimises potential for offensive behaviour in public places		Ability to monitor or enforce
Most appropriate to use bylaw		Financial impact in terms of capital expenditure or staff costs
		Usefulness of bylaw rule to address issue

Draft 2021 Keeping of Animals, Bees, and Poultry Bylaw				Key differences between 2010 Bylaw and draft 2021 Bylaw (approved for formal consultation by the Strategy and Operations Committee on 17 June 2021)		Changes made based on feedback from (i) submitters, and (ii) the revocation to the General Bylaw
1	Title, Commencement, and Application		2021	Minor amendments to reflect 2021 Bylaw.
			General Bylaw	Removed clause as not applicable.
2	Keeping of Animals, Bees, and Poultry Validation			Carried over from 2010 Bylaw.
3	Objective			Carried over from 2010 Bylaw.
4	Interpretation			The following terms are newly defined (n) or amended (a) to make the overall intent and scope of the Bylaw clearer.		Addition of the circus definition; amendment of the feral animal definition.
				· Poultry (a) · Urban Area (a)	· Authorised Officer (n) · Aviary (n) · Bird (n) · Council (n) · Feral Animal (n) · Nuisance (n) · Offence (n) · Public Place (n) · Slaughter (n) · Wild Animal (n)	· Circus Animal (n) · Feral Animal (n)
5	Keeping of Animals	Slaughter Offences		This is a new note under 5 (d) regarding legislation related to slaughter waste, for prohibitions against leaving animals or animal carcasses in a state where they are offensive or injurious to health, as well as waterway contamination.
		Animal Welfare Footnote		This footnote has been amended to reflect that MPI now administer the Animal Welfare Act 1999, and that breaches are enforced by MPI and the SPCA with support from the NZ Police.
		Animal Housing Buildings		This is a new clause and aligns with our Proposed District Plan provisions. The intent of including the clause here as well as the Proposed District Plan is to make it more accessible for users of the Bylaw. It also includes a new note below that reminds users of the Bylaw that some specific animal types have additional distance requirements under the Bylaw.
6	Stock	Pigs and Goats		A footnote has been added to clause 6.4 to advise users of the Bylaw that a resource consent is required when keeping pigs or goats in a living zone to align with the Proposed District Plan provisions. The intent of including the clause here as well as the Proposed District Plan is to make it more accessible for users of the Bylaw.
7	Poultry	Birds		This is a new footnote added to section 7 and references the Proposed District Plan, as this contains several specific rules on birds.
		Roosters		This is a new footnote added to clause 7.1 to advise users of the Bylaw that a resource consent is required when keeping roosters in a living zone to align with the Proposed District Plan provisions. The intent of including the clause here as well as the Proposed District Plan is to make it more accessible for users of the Bylaw.
		Peacocks		A new clause has been added to prohibit the keeping of peacocks in an urban area.
		Front Boundary		The minimum distance siting for a poultry coop clause has been amended to include the front boundary setback as required by the Proposed District Plan.
		Minimum Standards		The minimum standards for a poultry coop clause has been amended to reflect the current standards as set by MPI. A footnote has been added to advise that not all poultry types apply under the specific Code of Welfare mentioned and may have their own Code of Welfare. It reminds users that the Animal Welfare Act 1999 applies to all animals.
		Maximum Numbers		Amended reference from birds to reflect poultry.
8	Bees	Licenses and Titles		Amendments to clause 8.1 and 8.2 have been included to reflect that Council grants a license to keep bees to property owners. It has also been amended to capitalise the title of Authorised Officer.
		Non-urban apiaries		A new clause has been added to introduce a minimum distance for apiaries in non-urban areas from public places.
		The Management Agency		A note has been added to advise users of the Bylaw of their obligations under the Biosecurity Act 1993 if they are a beekeeper.		Amend the note from “within 30 days of possession” to “within 30 days of placing beehives on that site”.
9	Feral Animal Nuisance			A new section has been included to prohibit the encouragement of feral animals in the District.		A new note has been included under clause 9.1 to advise animal rescue activities are not prohibited unless they encourage feral animals to cause a nuisance or health and safety risk to other persons.
10	Offence and Penalty			Two new clauses have been added to advise users of the Bylaw of some of the actions Council can take for breaches of the Bylaw.
11	General Bylaw			This clause has been deleted as it is not required for the Bylaw.
	Rules on Dogs			This note has been amended to reflect the current controls in place for dogs.

Recommended amendments to Council delegations to staff under the Resource Management Act 1991
Positions	Amendments to RMA 1991 delegations
Advisor, Official Information	Position to assist with warranting. Position to include sections 35, 35A and 38(5) for warranting purposes.
Group Manager, Place and Space	Additional Section 332 to align with the new Refurbishment and Renewals Projects Manager position.
Group Manager Strategy, Growth and Recovery District Planning Manager	Additional procedural 58I delegation for publicly notifying amendments to the district plan.
Manager, Project Management Office	A new position to Manage the Project Management Office. Position to include sections 35, 35A, 330, 332 and 333.
Open Space Manager	Title no longer required.
Parks and Recreation Team Parks and Recreation Manager Parks Officer Programme Manager Biodiversity Programme Manager CWB Reserves Planning Advisor Senior Advisor, Place and Space Planning Senior Parks Officer	These positions have been disestablished as part of the Parks and Recreation team restructure.
Parks, Open Space and Environment Team Environment and Design Advisor Environment and Design Senior Advisor Parks and Environment Planning Advisor Parks and Environment Senior Advisor Parks, Open Space and Environment Manager Parks Ranger Programmes Manager Biodiversity and Landscapes Programmes Manager Parks and Active Environment	New positions as part of the Place and Space restructure. Positions to include sections 35, 35A, 330 and 333.
Property and Facilities Maintenance Team Property and Facilities Maintenance Manager Property and Facilities Maintenance Senior Advisor Refurbishment and Renewal Projects Manager	New positions as part of the Place and Space restructure. Positions to include sections 35, 35A, 330, 332 and 333.
Property and Parks Officer	New position as part of the Place and Space restructure (Property and Facilities Maintenance Team). Positions to include sections 35, 35A, 330 and 333.
Reserves Planning Advisor	Title no longer required.
Roading Engineer	A new title required for Access and Transport. Position to include sections 35, 35A, 330, 332 and 333.
Roading Network Operations Engineer	Title no longer required.
Senior Advisor, Warrants and Delegations	A replacement title for the Senior Advisor, Corporate, Planning and Reporting. Position to include sections 35, 35A and 38(5).
Transport Safety Lead	A new title required for Access and Transport. Position to include sections 35, 35A, 330, 332 and 333.

Mayor K Gurunathan	Chair
Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow	Deputy
Cr Angela Buswell	Member
Cr James Cootes	Member
Cr Jackie Elliott	Member
Cr Gwynn Compton	Member
Cr Jocelyn Prvanov	Member
Cr Martin Halliday	Member
Cr Sophie Handford	Member
Cr Robert McCann	Member
Cr Bernie Randall	Member