Agenda of Council Meeting - Thursday, 14 December 2023

Council Meeting Agenda

14 December 2023

10.1 Representation Review Approach 2024

Kaituhi | Author: Steffi Haefeli, Manager Democracy Services

Kaiwhakamana | Authoriser: Hara Adams, Group Manager Iwi Partnerships

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This report asks Kapiti Coast District Council (Council) to:

1.1 consider and approve the suggested approach to the representation review scheduled for 2024 which was triggered as a result of Council’ decision under Section 19Z of the Local Electoral Act 2001 to establish a Māori ward; and

1.2 approve a staff-led approach to managing the preliminary community engagement process to explore whether any changes to communities of interest are required and what representation arrangements are most appropriate for the Kapiti Coast District.

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

2 As a result of Council resolving on 14 November 2023 (ahead of the statutory deadline of 23 November 2023) to establish a Māori ward ahead of the 2025 local body elections, under clause 1 schedule 1A of the Local Electoral Act 2001 a representation review must be conducted in 2024. The parameters, deliverables and timeline for this review are mandated through legislation, the Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA) and the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

3 A decision is sought from Council to approve the proposed representation review approach (including timeline) and approve a staff-led approach to lead the preliminary community engagement process. Any recommendations emerging from the preliminary community engagement will be presented to Council to resolve an initial representation arrangement proposal in June/July 2024, followed by consultation with the community on the proposal in accordance with the requirements of the LEA.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

4 As per section A.2 of the Governance Structure and Delegations for the 2022-2025 triennium, Council has the authority to consider this matter.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That Council approve the proposed representation review approach outlined in the paper and associated timelines (noting that timeframes are mandated by legislation) and approve the proposed preliminary community engagement process.

B. Option A (recommended) – Approve a staff-led community engagement process to inform recommendations for an initial representation arrangement proposal to Council for consideration no later than 31 July 2024.

C. Option B – That Council approve the appointment of an independent panel to lead the preliminary community engagement process and develop options for an initial representation arrangement proposal to Council for consideration. As part of this approach, Council also approves:

C.1 that the review panel would comprise an independent chair and six independent community representatives which include representatives from the following groups: Council, Older Person’s Council, Youth Council, Community Boards and Mana Whenua

C.2 the Independent Review Panel Terms of Reference attached as Attachment 1 to this report including the suggested remuneration of the chair and panel members

C.3 that the responsibility to appoint the independent chair and panel members be delegated to the Mayor, the Chief Executive and the Chair of Te Whakaminenga o Kapiti.

Tūāpapa | Background

What is a representation review?

5 A representation review is a statutory process which must be undertaken by every territorial authority at least every six years to ensure the representation arrangements in place are still fit for purpose. The process to conduct a review is mandated through the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 and the Local Electoral Act (LEA) 2001 (primarily section 19) – as appended to this report in Attachment 2.

6 Representation reviews are conducted regularly to:

6.1 ensure fair electoral arrangements and equality of access to democratic processes are in place, where the community can participate and contribute effectively in decision-making;

6.2 ensure greater feeling of connectedness with Council, achieve greater participation in local body elections and higher-voter turn-out; and

6.3 enable the community to be involved in discussing the nature of effective representation for their district.

7 Representation arrangements determine the boundaries of constituencies and which electors can nominate and elect candidates into what vacancy. Legislation sets out the parameters, deliverables, and timeframes of the review to:

7.1 identify any communities of interest and what fair and effective representation looks like for these communities

7.2 determine whether the district should be divided into wards or whether voting should remain district-wide, and, if wards should be established, the number of wards, their boundaries, names and the number of elected members. The number of possible councillors can be between 5 and 29 not including the Mayor

7.3 if a Māori ward is to be established, determine the Māori ward boundaries and the ward’s name

7.4 determine how the elected members are elected (from wards, at-large (district-wide) or a mix of both)

7.5 determine whether community boards provide effective representation for communities of interest, and if so, what their boundary names and membership look like

7.6 ensure fair representation of electors by ensuring that councillors are representing around the same number of people within a 10% threshold (called the +/- 10% rule).

8 Council last undertook a representation review in 2021 ahead of the 2022 local body elections. Under the standard 6-yearly cycle of representation reviews under the LEA, another review was scheduled for 2027 ahead of the 2028 local body elections.

9 However, the LEA sets out circumstances where a review may be required earlier, including where a territorial authority resolves to establish a Māori ward under section 19Z of the LEA by the 23 November two years before the upcoming local body elections.

10 On 14 November 2023, Council resolved to establish a Māori ward which, under clause 1 schedule 1A of the LEA, triggers a representation review ahead of the 2025 local body elections. This is to determine how a Māori ward fits within a district’s wider representation arrangements taking into account the factors set out in paragraph 7. Under the LEA, the Māori ward will be in effect for both the 2025 and 2028 elections unless there is a change to legislation.

What are the current representation arrangements?

11 The current representation arrangements in the Kapiti Coast district consist of ten councillors plus a mayor, with the mayor and three of the councillors elected ‘at large’ (district-wide) and seven elected from four general wards:

11.1 Paekākāriki-Raumati ward – represented by one ward councillor

11.2 Paraparaumu ward – represented by three ward councillors

11.3 Waikanae ward – represented by two ward councillors

11.4 Ōtaki ward – represented by one ward councillor

12 The district’s representation arrangements also include 20 community board representatives across five community boards (four members each), all elected from their community board constituencies:

12.1 Paekākāriki

12.2 Paraparumu

12.3 Raumati

12.4 Waikanae

12.5 Ōtaki

13 Each community board also has a determined number of ward councillors appointed back by Council to the community board to ensure an effective relationship between Council and the community boards is in place. To give effect to that principle, the Paekākāriki-Raumati ward councillor is appointed back to the Paekākāriki and Raumati Community Boards, two ward councillors are appointed back to the Paraparaumu Community Board, one ward councillor is appointed back to the Waikanae Community Board and the Ōtaki ward councillor is appointed back to the Ōtaki Community Board.

14 A map of the ward and community board boundaries has been attached to this report in Attachment 3.

What is a Māori ward?

15 The LGA requires local authorities to provide for Māori participation in decision-making, but it does not prescribe how this should happen. The establishment of one or more Māori wards is one avenue under the LEA for such participation.

16 A Māori ward is a distinct form of representation under the LEA which is different to the appointment of mana whenua representatives to Council’s governance structure. While these two forms of representation are distinct, they are not mutually exclusive.

17 A Māori ward is a representation structure which allows Māori electors enrolled on the Māori electoral roll to directly elect a councillor to Council. The person standing for the Māori ward vacancy does not have to identify a mana whenua or tangata whenua to stand; however, only those on the Māori electoral roll can nominate that person and vote for the person to be elected.

18 Once the Māori ward vacancy has been created at the next local body elections in 2025, Māori electors enrolled on the Māori electoral roll will vote for the Māori ward candidates in place of voting for the general ward candidates as has been the case to date. Māori electoral roll electors will be able to cast the same number of votes as electors on the general roll as illustrated in the table below:

Māori electoral roll electors can vote for	General electoral roll electors can vote for
Mayoral seat
District-wide seats
Māori ward seat	General ward seat(s)^{^[1]}
Community Board seats (in the community they reside in)

19 While Māori electors are able to switch between the Māori electoral roll and the general electoral roll easily due to a recent change in electoral legislation, this can still only be done up to three months before the relevant elections. Messaging around these considerations for Māori electors will be incorporated in pre-election communications and representation review community engagement to ensure Māori are aware of the impacts of the different rolls.

20 It is important to note that the decision on whether to introduce a Māori ward seat at the 2025 local body elections has already been made. The representation review process will not re-consider this matter, it will simply consider and confirm the number of Māori wards, their boundaries and names as part of the overall review process.

21 The exact number of Māori ward councillors will not be known with certainty until the final representation proposal is passed by Council. The LEA sets out a formula to determine how many Māori wards may be established which is based on population size of the territorial authority area and the number of ward councillors in proportion to Māori ward councillors. Based on this ‘fair representation’ ratio and 2023 Statistics New Zealand population data, it is likely that there will be only one Māori ward in Council’s representation arrangements.^{^[2]}. The establishment of a Māori ward may have an impact on the number of ward councillors and/or district-wide councillors as it may impact boundaries due to the legislative requirement for ‘fair representation’ across wards.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

He take | Issues

What are the impacts of the new Government’s coalition agreement on Council’s decision?

22 The newly sworn in Government has in its Coalition Agreements with ACT and New Zealand First committed to “restore the right to local referendum on the establishment or ongoing use of Māori wards, including requiring a referendum on any wards established without referendum at the next local body elections”^{^[3]}. At the time of writing this report, it is unclear how this commitment will be implemented and in what timeframe.

23 While the commitment in the Coalition Agreement signals an intent to introduce a mandatory referendum at the next elections, current legislative provisions remain in force until such time as legislation is amended.

23.1 Under section 19Z of the LEA, a local authority may resolve whether to establish a Māori ward no later than 23 November of the year that is two years before the next local body elections. The exact wording in the act further provides that a decision under section 19Z “takes effect, subject to paragraph (c), for the purposes of the next triennial general election.” Paragraph (c) provides that all resolutions resolving to establish a Māori ward take effect for “two triennial general elections of the territorial authority…and continues in effect after that until a further resolution under this section takes effect.”

23.2 Under clauses 1 and 3 schedule 1A of the LEA, if a territorial authority decides to establish a Māori ward, a representation review must be carried out and all requirements outlining the standard process of a representation review are subject to provisions of schedule 1A.

24 As such, territorial authorities, including this Council, do not presently have the ability to change their position on whether to establish a Māori ward or carry out a representation review ahead of the local body elections in 2025. The LEA sets out strict timeframes for electoral matters such as these and does not provide councils with discretion relating to the requirement to carry out a representation review once it is triggered by the LEA. Non-adherence to the LEA requirements may be subject to judicial review and further present a reputational risk to Council and its partnership with mana whenua.

25 This position has been confirmed with the Local Government Commission (LGC) and Council’s Electoral Officer. ^{^[4]}

What needs to be considered in a representation review?

26 As noted earlier in this report (section 5-10), the representation review process is mandated by legislation, meaning that Council’s ability to change the approach during the different stages of the process is limited.

27 The following should be considered in a representation review process.

27.1 What the district’s communities of interest ^{^[5]} are and/or whether they have changed since the last review.

27.2 Representation arrangements need to be fair and effective and comply with the ‘fair representation rule’ that suggests that effective and fair representation is achieved if all elected members represent roughly the same number of constituents. This is called the +/- 10% rule.

27.3 Questions that will need to be answered are:

27.3.1 Has the population grown and is there significant change impacts to consider?

27.3.2 Do the current arrangements have the right number of councillors and how should these councillors be elected (by ward or districtwide, or should there be a mixed system of both), and how does the Māori ward fit into these arrangements?

27.3.3 Are the names and boundaries of the wards still fit for purpose and do they comply with the fair representation rule of +/- 10%?

27.3.4 How do Community Boards fit into the current arrangements and what is their role? And are their boundaries, names and membership still fit for purpose?

28 To review and confirm the above, the LGC recommends as best practice that Councils conduct preliminary community engagement to inform Council’s initial representation arrangement proposal. The LGC is the body that provides guidance and oversight of the representation review process and determines representation arrangements if the community object or appeal Council’s final proposal.^{^[6]}

29 The initial preliminary engagement process is not mandated by legislation which means Council has the ability to be more creative in its approach to this part of the community engagement. Examples of preliminary consultation before beginning the formal statutory process include community surveys, decision documents, newspaper advertising, focus groups, email groups of interested citizen, and public workshops and meetings. Targeted engagement will also be appropriate, for example, with mana whenua. Preliminary engagement is, however, not a substitute for the formal statutory steps and rather aims to engage with the community early to inform the initial proposal. The statutory steps are the minimum mandatory requirements that will need to be met.

30 Council, community boards, and mana whenua will also be consulted early as part of the preliminary engagement process to capture their views on fair and effective representation arrangements.

What process steps and timeline milestones will the representation review need to meet?

31 Certain timeframes and key milestones of the representation review process are mandated by legislation. A copy of the mandated timeframes provided by the LGC in their representation review guidance has been appended to the report in Attachment 4.

Preliminary steps

32 Preliminary steps in the representation review process include deciding on the electoral system and whether to establish a Māori. In August 2023, Council resolved to retain Single Transferable Voting as the electoral system and on 14 November 2023, Council resolved to establish a Māori ward for the 2025 local body elections. These decisions will therefore not need to be considered in 2024 as they have already been made.

33 While not a mandatory part of the process, the LGC recommends in its guidance that preliminary community engagement be undertaken to engage with the community early to determine their views on effective and fair representation arrangements for our district and shape the options for Council’s initial proposal.

Initial proposal

34 Once preliminary community engagement has concluded, options must be developed for the initial proposal and Council will be asked to approve an initial proposal which must occur before 31 July 2024 (final date). Once an initial proposal has been approved by Council, the proposal will be publicly notified and the community will have the opportunity to submit on the proposal in accordance with the consultation requirements in the LEA.

Final proposal & referral to LGA if required

35 Following this, Council will be required to consider the submissions and approve a final proposal that reflects the community’s views on fair and effective representation. The final proposal will also be publicly notified and the community has the opportunity to appeal or object to the final proposal. If such an objection or appeal is received, or the approved arrangements do not comply with the fair representation rule of +/-10%, the decision on the final representation arrangements for the 2025 local body elections will be referred to the LGC, who will determine the final representation arrangements by 10 April 2025.

Summary table – representation review milestones

36 The table below sets out key milestones and timeframes in the process. The statutory part of the process must be completed within mandated timeframes and cannot be adjusted.

Key Milestones	Delivery dates (including statutory timeframes)
Council Decision on Preliminary Community Engagement and Establishment of Independent Panel	December 2023
Engagement of Independent Panel – if required	December 2023/January 2024
Preliminary community consultation	January – March 2024
Analysis of preliminary consultation and draft initial proposal	April/May 2024
Workshops on engagement results	May/June 2024
Council Decision on initial proposal (under section 19H, J, K, M of LEA)	27 June 2024 (no later than 31 July 2024)
Public Notice of Decision within 14 days (under section 19M(1) of LEA)	11 July 2024 (no later than 8 August)
Community Submission Period (minimum 1 month)	July/August 2024
Community Submissions close (under S 19M(2) of LEA)	16 August 2024
Analysis of Community Submissions (maximum 8 weeks)	August – November 2024
Council Decision on Final Proposal (within 8 weeks of submissions closing) (under section 19N of LEA)	26 September 2024
Public Notice of final proposal (within 8 weeks of submissions closing)	11 October 2024
Latest date for appeals and objections (council could set a different date but must not give less than 1 month) (under section 19 O and P of LEA)	3 December 2024
Latest date for Council to forward objections/appeals to LGC (under section 19Q of LEA)	20 December 2024
LGC considers proposals and determines representation arrangements (under section 19R of LEA)	10 April 2025

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

Approach to preliminary engagement and initial proposal development

37 There are a number of ways that information may be gathered in order to shape the initial proposal to be considered by Council in June 2024 ahead of the mandated last date of 31 July 2024. For the 2015 representation review, Council approved the approach to convene a working party consisting of two Councillors and Council Officers to lead the preliminary community engagement phase. This approach was intended to reduce any potential confusion as there was a simultaneous consultation around proposed regional political representation arrangements occurring at the time. For the 2021 representation review, Council approved a staff-led approach to conducting the preliminary community engagement and approved the engagement of an external consultant, Empathy Design, who led a comprehensive preliminary engagement process.

38 Council, through this report, is asked to consider and approve the recommendations on Page 1 of this report:

38.1 the proposed representation review approach noting that the statutory timeframes and requirements cannot be amended by Council and will have to be adhered to; and

38.2 options to carry out the preliminary engagement and initial proposal development with either:

38.2.1 a staff-led process; or

38.2.2 the appointment of an independent panel to lead the process.

Option A – Staff-led process

39 Given the tight timeframes for the representation review set out in paragraph 36 (resulting from the recent decision by Council to establish a Māori ward) and that Council has recently carried out a representation review, a staff-led process is likely to present efficiencies both in staff resourcing and costs. A staff-led approach would comprise a project team led from the Governance and Legal Services area with a Manager Representation Review appointed on a fixed term basis to project manage and oversee the process. The role would be supported by the Governance and Legal Services Manager, technical guidance from Election Services and other staff from within the Democracy Services team and across the organisation.

40 Other benefits to a staff-led process include the opportunity for Council staff to work as a project team, to undertake community engagement activities directly with residents and mana whenua, and to develop initial proposal options that then inform recommendations for a Council decision.

41 Council undertook a comprehensive representation review in 2021 and reconsidering all possible representation arrangements so soon is not seen as necessary. This aligns with discussions had by Council in the lead up to the decision to establish a Māori ward. In view of this, a staff-led approach would balance the requirements mandated by legislation with reducing staff time, budget and resources spent to facilitate the process.

Option B – Independent Panel

42 The LGC recommends in its Representation Review guidelines that local authorities should consider using independent panels to undertake the preliminary community consultation that then makes recommendations on options for representation arrangements. Appointing an independent panel to lead certain aspects of the representation review process is one option that can assist in avoiding potential perceptions of parochialism and self-interest arising from elected member and staff involvement, at least in the early stages of the review process.

43 An independent panel will still be supported by staff project team; however, the panel will play a key role in shaping preliminary engagement and initial proposal options.

44 The LGC recommends that when convening a panel, the following should be considered:

44.1 Selection of panel members who have the relevant skills, and a good knowledge of the district/region.

44.2 Provision of a clear terms of reference (a draft terms of reference is attached in Attachment 1).

44.3 Clearly briefing the panel on its task, roles and responsibilities to ensure it has a good understanding of the statutory requirements.

45 If Council decides to establish an independent panel to lead the preliminary community engagement process and development of options, the position of the panel chair would be advertised and expressions of interest from prospective panel members would be sought. The panel would consist of the chair plus a minimum of three members, up to a maximum of six members. Independent panel members should represent the following groups: Council, Older Person’s Council, Youth Council, Community Boards, and mana whenua.

46 It is further proposed that the appointment of the independent chair and members be delegated to the Mayor, the Chief Executive and the Chair of Te Whakaminenga o Kapiti.

Summary of Options

47 A summary table of the options is set out below:

Kōwhiringa | Options

Hua | Benefits

Tūraru | Risks

Option A – Council staff-led review process (recommended)

This option would involve a staff-led community engagement process to inform recommendations to Council.

Council Officers would facilitate community engagement.

Council would then determine its initial proposal for representation arrangements.

· This option provides Council Officers with an opportunity to engage directly with residents on what Council’s representation arrangements should look like.

· A representation review has recently been carried out and a staff-led process may present time/cost savings.

· The work will take place at the same time as other competing demands on elected members’ time.

· This option does not benefit from having an independent lens over the process and perceptions of parochialism and self-interest arising from elected members’ and staff involvement will have to be managed.

· This option does not align with LGC best practice guidance.

Option B – Establishment of an independent panel to lead review process

This option would involve the appointment of an independent panel (chair and six members from various community and interest groups) to conduct and manage the preliminary community engagement process to inform recommendations to Council.

The panel would seek input from elected members (including community board members) and would be supported by staff.

Council would then determine an initial proposal for representation arrangements

· This option aligns with LGC best practice guidance.

· An independent panel would bring an external perspective to the process and may be perceived to be more independent.

· The panel membership would cover a variety of skills and community-based interests.

· The independent panel could be considered to be theoretical and, depending on membership, removed from understanding the relationship between residents and elected members.

· Engaging an independent panel is likely to increase budget and resource (including staff time) required to carry out the representation review.

· Tight timeframes may be challenging to meet.

Mana whenua

48 As part of the representation review, to understand what fair and effective representation arrangements for the Kapiti Coast district looks like, Council will be required to work with our mana whenua partners to understand their views, in particular in relation to the impacts and arrangements of the Māori ward and our ongoing partnership.

49 If Council decides to approve the establishment of an independent panel the expectation is:

49.1 that mana whenua would nominate a representative on the panel, and

49.2 Te Whakaminenga o Kapiti Chair alongside the Mayor and Chief Executive would be delegated to appoint the independent panel members.

50 If the establishment of a panel is not approved, a plan for best way forward will be worked through with the Iwi Partnerships team to engage appropriately with mana whenua. .

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

53 There are no climate change and environment considerations relevant to this report.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

52 Conducting a representation review has an impact on the budget which has been factored into the planning for the long-term plan. The full cost for the representation review is estimated at between $240,000.00 and $300,000.00 which includes preliminary community engagement costs.

53 This proposed budget will also cover costs incurred for technical advice being sought from our Electoral Officer (Election Services) as well as administration costs to cover printing, advertising, venue hire and catering for community engagement sessions during the preliminary community engagement phase.

54 If Council agrees to appoint an independent panel to manage the preliminary community engagement, it is suggested that each member and the Chair be reimbursed by way of a daily honorarium. The draft terms of reference for the independent panel are attached in attachment 1. We estimate that the panel would need to convene for approximately 30 hours (five meetings plus preparation) and that the cost is likely to be between $10,000.00 to $15,000.00.

Tūraru ā-Ture me te Whakahaere | Legal and Organisational Risk

55 The parameters, deliverables and timeframes of the representation review are mandated by legislation under the LGA and LEA (primarily section 19).

56 While the coalition agreement of the newly formed government signals an intent to amending legislation relevant to this matter, until the amendments have passed through the house and have received royal ascent, current legislation remains in force and will guide the conduct of the representation review process.

57 The representation review plan will include mitigations for the following risks to Council:

57.1 The communications and engagement plan containing the right information to ensure that constituents understand how to participate in the review process to provide for high levels of engagement during the preliminary community engagement process and the submission phase. This will aim to decrease the likelihood of opposition and objection to the final proposal agreed by Council.

57.2 Engagement in adequate timeframes to ensure opportunities for engagement with community groups are not missed.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

58 There will be no direct impact on any existing or planned policies as a result of this decision.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

59 A communications and engagement plan will be developed by Council Officers with input from Council’s iwi partnerships team and mana whenua. Preliminary community engagement will take place between January and March 2024 to ensure there is enough time for Council to consider the recommendation for an initial representation proposal and to make decisions in line with legislative timeframes.

60 Any input provided by mana whenua as part of the discussions on this report will be incorporated in the communications and engagement plan.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

61 There is likely to be community interest in this decision and it will be published through our usual channels.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Draft Terms of Reference for Independent Panel for the Kapiti Coast District Council Representation Review 2024 ⇩

2. Relevant Legislation - Local Electoral Act 2001 and Local Government Act 2002 ⇩

3. Current Ward and Community Board Boundaries ⇩

4. Representation Review Timeline suggested by Local Government Commission ⇩

Council Meeting Agenda

14 December 2023

10.2 Adoption of Class 4 Gambling & TAB Venue Gambling Policy 2023

Kaituhi | Author: Lesley Olsson, Policy Advisor

Kaiwhakamana | Authoriser: Kris Pervan, Group Manager Strategy & Growth

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This report seeks Council’s approval to:

1.1 Repeal the Kāpiti Coast District Council Class 4 Gambling Policy 2019.

1.2 Repeal the Kāpiti Coast District Council TAB Venue Gambling Policy 2019.

1.3 Adopt the Kāpiti Coast District Council Class 4 Gambling & TAB Venue Gambling Policy 2023 (Attachment 1 to this report).

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

2 No executive summary is required.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

3 Council has authority to consider this matter under section A2 of the Governance Structure and Delegations 2022-2025.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

A. Repeal the Kāpiti Coast District Council Class 4 Gambling Policy 2019.

B. Repeal the Kāpiti Coast District Council TAB Venue Gambling Policy 2019.

C. Note the feedback received from the 87 submitters on the draft Kāpiti Coast District Council Class 4 Gambling & TAB Venue Gambling Policy 2023.

D. Agree to amend the draft policy to not allow club mergers through the Kāpiti Coast District Council Class 4 Gambling & TAB Venue Gambling Policy 2023, following feedback from submitters.

E. Adopt the Kāpiti Coast District Council Class 4 Gambling & TAB Venue Gambling Policy 2023 effective immediately.

Tūāpapa | Background

4 Class 4 gambling involves the use of an Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM), commonly referred to as a “pokie machine”. A portion of the proceeds from this form of gambling are distributed for authorised purposes (e.g. grants to sport/community groups).

5 A Class 4 gambling venue is a place used to operate Class 4 gambling (e.g. a pub or club but may include a TAB venue). A TAB venue is a standalone premises owned or leased by TAB NZ and where the main business carried out is providing racing and sports betting.

6 Under the Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Industry Act 2020, Territorial Authorities must complete a review of their Class 4 gambling and TAB venue gambling policies within three years of a policy being adopted/reviewed.

7 Our current gambling policies were adopted on 11 April 2019 and the review of these policies commenced in 2022. These policies apply a “capped” approach to managing both EGMs and Class 4 venues – setting a maximum number of machines and venues for each of the communities across Kāpiti; and a districtwide cap for TAB venues.

8 On 24 August 2023 the Strategy, Operations, and Finance Committee agreed to consult on the draft Kāpiti Coast District Council Class 4 Gambling & TAB Venue Gambling Policy 2023. This paper now sets out feedback from consultation and next steps.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

Submissions Feedback

9 The draft Gambling Policy 2023 proposes to combine the two existing policies into a single policy and proposes a new “sinking lid”approach^{^[7]} to the management of Class 4 and TAB venue gambling in our District. A sinking lid approach means no new venues or EGMs would be able to be introduced into our District. This approach was recommended as the most effective in achieving the Gambling Policy 2023’s main objective of minimising gambling harm.

10 Council consulted on the draft policy using the LGA Special between 30 September 2023 and 2 October 2023. Eighty-seven submissions were received with six submitters participating in the hearing that was held on 19 October 2023.

11 The submission form asked four specific questions to gauge levels of support for the proposed sinking lid approach. Submitters provided the following feedback which shows the majority of support in each instance for no consents.

Question

Yes

Somewhat

Do you agree that there should be no new consents for Class 4 gambling venues in Kāpiti?

77%

(67)

19.5%

(17)

3.4%

(3)

Do you agree that there should be no new consents for additional Class 4 gambling machines in Kāpiti?

75.9%

(66)

19.5%

(17)

4.6%

(4)

Do you agree that there should be no new consents for Class 4 relocations in Kāpiti?

71.3%

(62)

23%

(20)

5.7%

(5)

Do you agree that there should be no consents for standalone TAB venues in Kāpiti?

73.6%

(64)

13.8%

(12)

12.6%

(11)

12 The high-level analysis of the submissions was presented to a Council briefing on 2 November 2023 (refer Attachment 2) and all submissions are attached under separate cover (as noted in lines 4 and 5 of attachments).

He take | Issues

13 There are no issues to be considered in relation to the adoption of this Policy except the changes noted in the Options section.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

Changes proposed following consultation

Substantive change – venue mergers

14 The submission process proposed that our policy be amended to not consent to any venue mergers^{^[8]}. (Under the Gambling Act 2003 this applies to club corporate societies only).

Table 1: Club Mergers Options Analysis

Kōwhiringa | Options

Hua | Benefits

Tūraru | Risks

1. Status Quo – allow club mergers

Maintains the intent of the sinking lid policy by:

· Preventing an increase in the total number of EGMs within the district.

· Providing for a decrease in the total number of venues within the district through mergers.

By merging clubs, the number of EGMs within the merged club could increase (up to a maximum of 30). This is not in keeping with the overall intent of a sinking lid policy.

Allowing clubs to merge could result in the redistribution of EGMs between communities, resulting in a net increase in EGMs in one area (offsetting a decrease in another). Allowing the number of EGMs to increase in any given community is not in keeping with the intent of the sinking lid approach taken by this policy.

2. Proposed Change – do not allow venue mergers

Maintains the intent of the sinking lid policy by preventing:

· increases in the number of EGMs within merged venues and across the district as a whole.

· the redistribution of EGMs across the district.

An inability to merge may result in the individual Clubs staying operating, which could prevent a reduction in the number of venues. However, the ability to maximise EGM numbers is unlikely to be the primary factor influencing a decision to merge Clubs. Officers consider that a decision to merge clubs (based on other factors) is unlikely to be significantly influenced by this policy.

15 While this merging provision only applies in very specific circumstances (the merger of two or more clubs), not permitting mergers is still considered a useful lever to prevent any increase in EGMs within venues or in parts of our district. Option 2 of preventing mergers will contribute to the overall outcomes being sought by the Gambling Policy 2023 (to reduce gambling harm) and will maintain the policy intent of the sinking lid approach. We therefore recommend that this be included in the Gambling Policy 2023.

16 By preventing venue mergers, Council would be adopting a “comprehensive sinking lid”^{^[9]} policy. Four other councils currently take this comprehensive sinking lid approach, including Porirua City and Hutt City (as well as Tasman and Western Bay of Plenty).

17 The Gambling Policy 2023 has been amended to reflect this policy change, as shown by the tracked changes in Attachment 3.

Minor drafting change - Relocation provisions

18 The consultation draft of the Gambling Policy 2023 included a provision that allowed relocations “nearby” based on DIA’s “Waikiwi precedent”^{^[10]}. However, Officers have been advised by in-house legal counsel that it is more appropriate to remove this clause (6.2 of the consultation draft) and replace it with an explanatory footnote in clause 6.1 (refer attachment 3 for tracked changes), as the Department of Internal Affairs is responsible for decisions in this regard.

19 This recommended change is because the Department of Internal Affairs is responsible for decisions relating to any nearby relocations not requiring Council consent. It does not substantively change the intent of the Gambling Policy 2023 relocation provisions.

Mana whenua

20 Māori are more likely to be affected by gambling harm than any other group. The Policy 2023 sinking lid approach has been designed with our most vulnerable communities in mind.

21 Our iwi partners Te Rūnanga O Toa Rangātira, Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki and Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust were approached and had the opportunity to provide feedback on the policy development during the pre-engagement stage and on the draft Gambling Policy 2023 during the public consultation period. We received a submission from Ngāti Kapu (Ōtaki) but no other feedback from our other iwi partners.

22 We met the requirements under section 102(1)(a) of the Gambling Act to give notice of the special consultative procedure to organisations representing Māori.

23 We received a submission from Tainui Marae on behalf of Ngāti Kapu (Ōtaki) who spoke to their submission at the hearings and supported the sinking lid approach. This feedback was incorporated into the submission analysis.

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

24 There are no climate change implications in relation to the adoption of the Gambling Policy 2023.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

25 The adoption and implementation of this policy has no financial or resourcing implications for Council.

26 A reduction in gambling spend over time resulting from a long-term reduction in EGMs and venues will reduce the amount of funding available to community groups through Class 4 Gambling Trusts. Council will investigate how it can ensure that community groups are able to continue to access necessary funding over time if gambling proceeds reduce.

Tūraru ā-Ture me te Whakahaere | Legal and Organisational Risk

27 The Gambling Policy 2023 is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Human Rights Act 1993. The Gambling Policy 2023 does not restrict people’s freedom to gamble if they choose, it specifies requirements as per the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Industry Act 2020 with regards to venues (including relocations and mergers), and EGMs in the District.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

28 Councils have limited tools available to minimise harm to communities from problem gambling. They do not have the legislative powers to close venues or remove EGMs. While the proposed Gambling Policy 2023 is our primary regulatory tool for reducing gambling harm in our community, Council can also look to non-regulatory tools. For example, the Health Strategy currently being developed has the ability to take a more whole-of-system approach to supporting people impacted by addictions such as gambling.

29 Council can also continue to lobby central government for changes to the Gambling Act 2003 to get access to stronger regulatory tools (such as removal of EGMs), particularly in areas of high deprivation. Similarly, we can advocate central government to address gambling issues at a broader level.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

30 A communications and engagement plan were implemented throughout different stages of the development of the Gambling Policy 2023 and to support consultation. Council will engage a range of communication channels to inform the community and key stakeholders of Council’s decision on the Gambling Policy 2023 adoption and to explain the rationale for why it made that decision.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

31 In line with the communications and engagement plan, following adoption of the Gambling Policy 2023:

31.1 A media release will be issued regarding the decision.

31.2 Council’s website will be updated to align with the Gambling Policy 2023.

31.3 Key stakeholders will be advised of the decision and issued a copy of the Gambling

Policy 2023.

32 As per section 102(4) of the Gambling Act a copy of the Gambling Policy 2023 will be provided to the DIA as soon as practicable after it is adopted.

33 As per section 97(3) of the Racing Industry Act a copy of the Gambling Policy 2023 will be provided to TAB NZ and Racing New Zealand as soon as practicable after it is adopted.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Final Class 4 Gambling & TAB Venue Gambling Policy for Adoption ⇩

2. Submissions analysis for draft Class 4 Gambling & TAB Venue Gambling Policy 2023 ⇩

3. Post-consultation tracked changes Class 4 Gambling & TAB Venue Gambling Policy 2023 ⇩

4. Gambling policy submissions excluding long form (under separate cover)

5. Long form gambling policy submissions (under separate cover)

Council Meeting Agenda

14 December 2023

10.3 Adoption of the Smokefree Public Places Policy 2023

Kaituhi | Author: Amelia Thomas-Wilson, Senior Policy Advisor

Kaiwhakamana | Authoriser: Kris Pervan, Group Manager Strategy & Growth

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This report seeks Council’s approval to:

1.1 Repeal the Kāpiti Coast District Smokefree Policy 2008.

1.2 Adopt the Kāpiti Coast District Smokefree Public Places Policy 2023 (refer to Attachment 1).

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

2 An executive summary is not required.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

3 Local government has a role in promoting the health of its communities through:

· Section 11 of the Local Government Act 2002, which mandates local authorities to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

· Section 23 of the Health Act 1956, which mandates local authorities to improve, promote, and protect public health within its district.

4 As the governing body, Council has the power to adopt this policy.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

A. Repeal the Kāpiti Coast District Smokefree Policy 2008.

B. Adopt the Kāpiti Coast District Smokefree Public Places Policy 2023 (see Attachment 1), subject to any further minor amendments or corrections deemed necessary, approved by the Chief Executive and Mayor; and

C. Note that the Policy 2023 will come into effect immediately.

Tūāpapa | Background

5 On 24 August 2023 the Strategy, Operations, and Finance Committee agreed to consult on a draft Policy and Statement of Proposal (Agenda of Strategy, Operations, and Finance Committee Meeting – 24 August 2023). In summary, key advice in the paper recommended the scope of the policy be broadened to include:

5.1 Vaping.

5.2 More smokefree/vapefree places.

6 The adoption of the 2023 policy will contribute to:

· the objectives set out in Smokefree Aotearoa 2025, and

· the community outcome set out in the Long-term Plan 2021 – “communities are safe, healthy, thriving and connected’.

7 Kāpiti Coast District Council adopted its first smokefree policy in 2008, stating “That the Kāpiti Coast District Council adopts the concept of smoke-free Council parks and playgrounds for the Kāpiti Coast District to be implemented through education and promotes awareness through signage in key parks.”

8 Due to its age, Council’s Smokefree policy is largely out of step with both national legislation and the approach taken by other Councils across New Zealand and the Wellington region. There has been no review or amendment made to this policy since its adoption, and today Council’s existing Smokefree Parks and Playgrounds Policy is currently one of the narrowest policies in scope compared to similar policies across the country.

9 We’re proposing to update the provisions of Council’s smokefree policy by repealing the Smokefree Parks and Playgrounds Policy, and introducing a new Smokefree Public Places Policy that better aligns with the government’s goals for a smokefree Aotearoa New Zealand.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

10 Eighty-six submissions were received on the draft policy. Hearings were held on 19 October 2023, where three organisations spoke to their submissions.

11 The high-level analysis of the submissions was discussed at a Council briefing on 2 November 2023 (see Attachment 2).

12 Feedback received indicated that:

12.1 74.7% of respondents favoured the inclusion of vaping alongside smoking in the updated policy.

12.2 The majority of the 87 respondents supported the expansion of the policy to include;

12.2.1 all council owned parks, reserves, and sportsgrounds

12.2.2 all council owned playgrounds, including skateparks.

12.2.3 within 10 metres of outdoor public areas around council buildings and facilities

12.2.4 train stations, bus stops and shelters

12.2.5 beaches, rivers, lakes

12.2.6 outdoor Dining on Public Land (from 2025)

12.2.7 events held on Council land or receiving Council funding (from 2025).

13 The predominant themes in favour of including vaping was the detrimental health impacts of vaping and the protection of young people susceptible to vaping habits. Those against the inclusion of vaping stated the lack of evidence around the impacts of vaping and the need for freedom of choice.

14 With regards to broadening the policy to include more public places, general themes from respondents in favour were the reduction of second-hand harm from smoking and setting a good example for young people. General comments from respondents against the expansion were that broadening the policy would not be enforceable and the need for a commonsense approach.

15 Based on the feedback and analysis of submissions, Council Officers consider that the current policy is not fit-for-purpose, and the updated policy should be adopted.

He take | Issues

16 Based off the number of submissions, the majority of the 87 respondents support the expansion of the policy to include all the additional areas proposed. However, it was identified during the consultation period that an issue with the submission form prevented respondents from stating that they did not agree with any of the additional areas being proposed for inclusion in the policy. This error was quickly rectified, and of the 49 submitters who had submitted by the time the issue was identified, two submitters had directly raised this issue through their comments. These two submissions were corrected to reflect their intended response of not supporting any expansion of the policy.

17 Officers are confident that, given most submitters supported the expansion of the policy to include multiple new areas and that submitters were able to clarify their position through the comments, that this issue has not unduly affected the results of the survey. It is, however, possible that submitters who disagreed with the policy were deterred from completing their submission due to an inability to have their views accurately captured by the survey.

18 We consider that the risk of continuing with this policy given the above survey issue is low. The focus of this policy is one of education and encouraging the community to reduce smoking in shared public places. It does not come with any associated enforcement activity (eg fines or infringement notices) and relies on the willingness of the community to comply.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

19 Council has two options available to consider following the review of the Smokefree Policy 2008:

A. Replace the Smokefree Policy 2008 with the Smokefree Public Places Policy 2023 (recommended).

B. Re-adopt the Smokefree Policy 2008 (not recommended).

20 Option A, to replace the existing smokefree policy, remains consistent with current smokefree/vapefree ambitions set by central government and legislation, with the role of Council in promoting the health and wellbeing of our community and the majority of the respondents supporting the update of the existing policy.

21 We note that the newly formed government has indicated intent to review New Zealand’s smokefree policy, however changes have not been set out or consulted on at the timing of this briefing. Councillors may wish to defer making a decision on the Kapiti Coast District’s Smokefree Policy until they understand the implications of any new central government direction; however, there is strong support from submitters to move forward, regardless of any new direction taken.

Mana whenua

22 Mana whenua had the opportunity to provide feedback on the policy in the community consultation and subsequent Council hearings.

23 We received feedback on the policy from Ngāti Toa Rangatira and incorporated this feedback in Council briefings.

24 This policy has been created with the health and wellbeing of our Māori community at the fore, and in particular the future of our rangatahi and tamariki. If implemented successfully this policy can achieve positive health outcomes for our most vulnerable residents and communities.

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

25 There are no climate change considerations.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

26 If the 2023 policy is adopted, existing smokefree signage will need to be updated to include vapefree messaging. Smokefree/vapefree signage will also be required at the additional areas outlined in the policy.

27 Approximately 140 existing signs would need to be updated to include vapefree messaging. It costs approximately $74 each to remove and install a sign. We currently have a budget of $16k for the replacement and renewal of signs around the district. It will cost approximately $11k to replace all the existing smokefree signs (not including contractor costs) and this will be met from within existing budgets.

28 There are no enforcement costs to this policy as it is educational in nature.

Tūraru ā-Ture me te Whakahaere | Legal and Organisational Risk

29 The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affirms, protects, and promotes human rights and fundamental freedoms in New Zealand. As this policy is advisory and not legally enforceable, members of the community have a choice whether to adhere to it. Therefore, we do not believe the policy infringes on the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights Act – specifically freedom from discrimination and freedom of peaceful assembly.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

30 This policy will ensure that Councils smokefree/vapefree position has greater alignment with government legislation and with neighbouring councils. It is recommended that the final policy be acknowledged in Council’s Open Spaces Strategy, Health Strategy and Reserve Management Plans as they are renewed, to aid implementation and align with wider health messaging to our communities.

31 The Council will also consider as part of the development of the Health Strategy, other tools to support smoke-free and vaping-free options, and additional changes to internal Council policies around smoke-free Council premises to support the intent of this updated policy.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

32 While the significance of this policy change is low and there will be no enforceable element arising from it, it is a topic that many feel strongly about. For this reason, we consulted with our community on the draft policy following approval to do so from Council.

33 The consultation period ran for 4 weeks from 30 August 2023 through to 2 October 2023. A Hearing was held on 19 October. Key stakeholders and our iwi partners were kept informed of progress as we worked through the steps of this review.

34 The information available to the public for consultation on the draft Smokefree Public Places Policy was produced in accordance with LGA 2002 requirements and Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

37 Publicity and other communications have been developed to support community and stakeholder understanding of the Smokefree Policy options, and this work will support policy implementation.Examples:Examples:

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Draft Smokefree Public Places Policy 2023 ⇩

2. Submissions Analysis - Smokefree Public Places Policy 2023 ⇩

Council Meeting Agenda

14 December 2023

10.4 Wellington Region Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (2023-2029) - Final Adoption.

Kaituhi | Author: Robbie Stillwell, Waste Projects Manager

Kaiwhakamana | Authoriser: Sean Mallon, Group Manager Infrastructure Services

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This report requests that Council adopt the Waste Management & Minimisation Plan (WMMP 2023-2029), as recommended by the Wellington Region Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Joint Committee on December 4^th, 2023.

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

2 On December 4, 2023, the Wellington Region Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Joint Committee (Joint Committee) recommended that the WMMP 2023-2029 be adopted by the eight councils in the Wellington region, and the previous WMMP 2017-2023 be revoked.

3 The existing Wellington Region Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) 2017-2023 was required to be reviewed by January 2023 in accordance with the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA).

4 In December 2022 it was formally agreed by the eight councils that a new WMMP would be developed for 2023-2029 and the existing WMMP 2017-2023 would be revoked upon the new plan’s adoption.

5 A draft WMMP for 2023-2029 was developed by the eight councils in the Wellington region between November 2022 and July 2023.

6 Between May and June 2023, the eight councils in the Wellington region agreed to give the Wellington Region Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Joint Committee (Joint Committee) the delegated authority to manage the public consultation process for the WMMP 2023-2029.

7 The draft WMMP 2023-2029 was publicly consulted on between 31 July 2023 and 1 September 2023 in accordance with the special consultative procedure. Oral hearings took place on 18 September 2023.

8 Officers have analysed submissions and based on public feedback have recommended updates to be included in the draft WMMP.

9 Suggested amendments were presented to the Joint Committee alongside an updated draft of the WMMP and the Summary of Submission report at a public workshop on 30 October 2023. Further updates were provided at a briefing to the Joint Committee on 13 November 2023.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

10 The Council has the authority to consider this under section A.2. of the 2022-2025 Triennium Governance Structure and Delegations.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Recommend that Council:

A.1 Agree to formally adopt the Wellington Region Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2023-2029.

A.2 Agree to revoke the existing Wellington Region Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017-2023.

Tūāpapa | Background

11 Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) a territorial authority is required to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within its district.

12 To give effect to the WMA, territorial authorities are required to adopt a waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP). Two or more districts can jointly prepare and adopt a WMMP for the whole or parts of their district.

13 In 2017 the WMMP 2017-2023 was prepared for the eight councils in the Wellington region and fulfilled the requirements under the WMA.

14 Section 50 of the WMA specifies the conditions to review the WMMP and requires all TAs review their WMMPs at intervals of not more than 6-years from the last review.

15 The review of the 2017-2023 Wellington Region WMMP was therefore required no later than January 2023. As part of this review, a decision had to be made to:

a) Amend the current WMMP

b) Revoke the current WMMP and substitute it with a new plan

c) Continue the current plan without amendment

16 In December 2022 a recommendation was made by the Joint Committee to each of the councils that the existing WMMP be revoked and substituted with a new plan. A formal decision was made by each of the councils to agree to this recommendation.

17 In late December 2022 the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) confirmed that they consider the Wellington region had fulfilled its obligations under the WMA to review its joint WMMP.

Development of the 2023-2029 WMMP

18 Between November 2022 and July 2023 work was carried out by the eight councils in the Wellington region to develop a new joint WMMP for 2023 – 2029.

19 The joint WMMP contains a vision, guiding principles, objectives, targets, and a set of regional actions for the region to work towards. In addition to the regional aspects of the plan, six local action plans were developed to meet the local needs of each area. The six local action plans are:

· Lower Hutt City Action Plan

· Kāpiti Coast District Action Plan

· Porirua City Action Plan

· Upper Hutt City Action Plan

· Wairarapa Joint Action Plan

· Wellington City Action Plan

20 Beca was selected as the contractor to undertake this work and worked closely with the eight councils in the Wellington Region on the development of the new WMMP. Porirua City Council (PCC) managed the contract with Beca on behalf of the eight councils.

21 Throughout the development process several reports were produced by Beca to inform the development of the WMMP 2023-2029. This included:

· Report one: Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

· Report two: Situational Review

· Report three: Potential Broader Strategic Outcomes

· Report four: Summary of Stakeholder Workshops

· Report five: Options and Directions

· Report six: Draft WMMP

22 Between March and April 2023 three stakeholder engagement workshops were hosted by Beca to engage with stakeholders at a regional level. Stakeholders included community leaders in waste reduction, representatives of large industries and waste managers, and wider council staff.

23 Stakeholders were asked to identify what was already working well in the region that the WMMP could support, the biggest challenges and roadblocks to Wellington becoming a more circular region, and any potential actions they would like included in the WMMP.

24 In addition to this, six internal workshops were held between officers of the eight councils. Through these workshops, the vision, objectives, targets and regional actions were developed. Considerations for the development of these items included:

· Feedback from stakeholder engagement

· Outcomes of the Wellington Region Waste Assessment

· Te rautaki para | Waste strategy and other central government work programmes

· Local and regional priorities

· Beca reports and feedback

25 Alongside regional engagement and workshops, internal and external stakeholder engagement was carried out by council officers at a local level to develop the Local Action Plans (Part B of the WMMP).

26 The initial draft of the WMMP 2023-2029 was presented to councillors of the Joint Committee at a workshop on 26 June 2023. An updated draft of the WMMP was presented to the Joint Committee on 24 July 2023 where it was approved for consultation.

Joint Consultation Process

27 In early 2023 it was proposed that, for efficiency, public consultation on the WMMP 2023-2029 be run at a regional level rather than each council running individual consultation processes.

28 This consultation approach required the Joint Committee to be delegated responsibility to approve the draft WMMP for public consultation and hear submissions received.

29 Between May and June 2023, the eight Wellington region councils agreed to delegate responsibility to the Joint Committee to approve the draft WMMP for consultation and hear and deliberate on the submissions received.

30 On 24 July 2023 the Joint Committee approved the draft WMMP be released for public consultation.

31 The draft WMMP 2023-2029 was publicly consulted on between 31 July 2023 and 1 September 2023 in accordance with the special consultative procedure.

32 Local engagement activities were carried out during this time, including but not limited to public drop ins across the region, engagement at events, and a discussion at the Wellington Waste Forum.

33 In Kāpiti region targeted outreach was undertaken with local waste minimisation community groups and advocates, mana whenua, previous grant recipients, waste collectors, and contractors.

34 The consultation was publicised throughout the region through a variety of methods including via Council social media channels, newspaper ads, emails to stakeholders, and information on council websites.

35 The consultation documents and questionnaire were hosted on a joint website ‘www.lesswastegreaterplace.co.nz’ with hardcopy questionnaires available at council facilities across the region.

36 The website domain used during consultation is intended to be retained for future communications on the WMMP and to be a hub for waste information in the region. This will replace the existing joint website ‘www.wellingtonregionwasteplan.govt.nz’.

Updates following consultation:

37 Following public consultation and oral hearings officers analysed the submissions received and drafted the Summary of Submissions report. This was presented to the Joint Committee alongside an amended version of the WMMP at a public workshop on 30 October 2023.

38 Following discussions at the 30 October workshop, officers met as a region to discuss further proposed amendments to the WMMP. These were presented to the Joint Committee at a briefing on 13 November 2023.

39 The final amended WMMP 2023-2029 is attached to this report. (Attachment 1).

He kōrerorero | Discussion

40 Public consultation on the draft WMMP commenced 31 July 2023. In total 196 submissions were received. The breakdown of submissions received across the region was as follows:

Local Council Area	Number of submissions
Carterton District Council	7
Hutt City Council	56
Kāpiti Coast District Council	23
Masterton District Council	9
Porirua City Council	13
South Wairarapa District Council	4
Upper Hutt City Council	37
Wellington City Council	47

41 Of the 196 submissions received, 25 were from organisations and the remaining 171 were from individuals. A total of 10 submitters spoke at the oral hearings held on 18 September 2023.

42 Submitters were asked 88 questions in total, with 31 questions focussed on the regional WMMP components and a further 57 tailored to the respective Local Action Plan.

Overall feedback on WMMP

43 Submitters were asked whether they believed the WMMP provided a clear direction for how the Wellington region will minimise waste. The majority (61%) of submitters either agreed or strongly agreed that the WMMP provided a clear direction.

44 Across all regional questions asked during consultation the most common themes were:

44.1 Ambition of the overall WMMP and its components

44.2 Timeframes included within the WMMP

44.3 Recognition of the circular economy and higher levels of the waste hierarchy

44.4 Management of organics

44.5 Cost of delivery and value for money

44.6 Clarity of the WMMP and its components

Vision

45 Submitters were asked whether the proposed vision for the WMMP was too aspirational, not aspirational, or about right and to provide any further comments they may have. Half (50%) of submitters responded that the vision was about right, with 33% saying it was not aspirational. 39% of submitters also provided further comments on the vision.

46 Themes arising from the free text comments on the vision included submitters wanting to see more ambition from the vision and wanting recognition of the circular economy and the higher levels of the waste hierarchy in the vision. A number of submitters also commented on the overall timeframes in the WMMP, or proposed alternative visions for consideration.

Objectives

47 Submitters were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with each of the WMMP objectives and were given the option to provide further comments on the objectives.

48 The proposed objectives had mixed support from submitters, with Objective 2 having the greatest (83%) support, with Objective 6 having the least support with 46% of submitters agreeing or strongly agreeing. The support received for each objective is presented in the table below:

Objective	Strongly agree or agree	Neutral	Strongly disagree or disagree	Don’t know
Objective 1	78%	6%	10%	6%
Objective 2	83%	7%	7%	4%
Objective 3	47%	22%	26%	5%
Objective 4	68%	14%	8%	10%
Objective 5	54%	12%	30%	4%
Objective 6	46%	19%	22%	12%
Objective 7	47%	22%	14%	16%
Objective 8	56%	15%	18%	11%
Objective 9	56%	19%	9%	16%

49 Further, 31% of submitters also provided additional comments on the objectives. Themes arising from the free text comments included, comments on the importance of behaviour change and waste education, the desire to see waste management and minimisation services that are convenient and accessible, support for reduction of waste at source, and recognition of higher levels of the waste hierarchy in the objectives. A number of comments also noted the need for greater clarity and explanations of the objectives.

Targets

50 Submitters were asked if they considered each target was too strong, too weak, or about right and were asked to provide additional comments. The overall responses to the targets were as follows:

Target	Too strong	About right	Too weak	Don’t know
Target 1	7%	41%	43%	9%
Target 2	12%	45%	32%	12%
Target 3	8%	45%	37%	10%
Target 4	8%	42%	45%	5%
Target 5	9%	33%	49%	9%
Target 6	8%	22%	59%	12%

51 48% of submitters also provided further comment on the regional targets. This was the highest response rate of all the optional regional questions.

52 Feedback from submitters showed a strong desire to see the target delivery timeframes brought forward, particularly for the targets relating to infrastructure and service implementation.

53 Organic processing and provision of kerbside services was also mentioned in the comments on targets. There was support from submitters for alternative organic processing and collections options to be considered alongside larger processing options. Submitters also indicated they would like to see kerbside organic collections implemented earlier (Target 5).

54 There were also a number of comments made on the ambition of the targets. Specifically, Target 6 was highlighted by submitters as not being ambitious enough and feedback indicated a desire for increased partcipation by the business sector.

55 Other common themes included comments on recycling services and comments on the potential cost required to implement the proposed targets.

Regional Actions

56 Overall, the proposed regional actions were supported, with all regional actions receiving between 73% and 84% support. The response to all regional actions were as follows:

Regional action	Strongly agree or agree	Neutral	Strongly disagree or disagree	Don’t know
Action 1	73%	11%	9%	7%
Action 2	74%	11%	9%	6%
Action 3	81%	7%	7%	6%
Action 4	77%	10%	9%	5%
Action 5	79%	10%	9%	5%
Action 6	80%	8%	7%	5%
Action 7	73%	14%	8%	6%
Action 8	79%	10%	5%	6%
Action 9	80%	8%	7%	6%
Action 10	84%	5%	6%	5%

Local Actions

57 In addition to questions on the regional aspects of the plan, submitters were given the option to answer questions on one or more of the six local action plans. The number of submissions received on each action plan were as follows:

Local Action Plan	Number of submissions
Lower Hutt City Action Plan	38
Kāpiti Coast District Action Plan	25
Porirua City Action Plan	20
Upper Hutt City Action Plan	32
Wairarapa Joint Action Plan	22
Wellington City Action Plan	49

58 Full details of submitters response to each local action plans can be found in the Summary of Submissions report (Attachment 3)

Kāpiti Coast Local Action Plan

59 Overall, submitters were in support Kāpiti’s Local Action Plan with 80% of submitters agreeing that “Kapiti’s proposed local action plan contains actions that will help communities and businesses in Kāpiti to minimise waste, reduce emissions and restore and protect the environment.”

60 Three key themes emerged from the submissions received specific to the Kāpiti Coast Local Action Plan. These key themes were :

60.1 Management of organics to avoid disposal (while including community solutions and promoting community involvement),

60.2 Accessible and convenient services (including kerbside collections), and

60.3 Businesses being responsible for minimising their waste (producer responsibility).

61 Kāpiti Coast Local Action Plan had two minor amendments only, with the addition of “or earlier” to Local Actions 10 & 11 to reflect consultation feedback themes of “why wait” and “do it now.” These actions now read:

61.1 Ensure all households in urban areas have kerbside food scrap collection by 2030, or earlier.

61.2 Ensure all households in urban areas have access to kerbside recycling by 2027, or earlier.

Amendments following consultation

62 A number of changes have been incorporated in the draft WMMP following public consultation and subsequent workshops with the Joint Committee, including:

62.1 Review of wording throughout the document to increase clarity and readability.

62.2 Increased acknowledgement of the circular economy and higher levels of the waste hierarchy throughout the document in line with public feedback.

62.3 Updates made to the roles and responsibilities section of the WMMP to reflect public feedback.

62.4 Further details provided on the implementation of the WMMP.

62.5 Acknowledgement that the current legislative environment, including proposed legislative change may change over the life of the WMMP.

62.6 Updates made for accuracy and grammar.

63 In addition, a number of specific amendments have been made to key aspects of the document to reflect public feedback. These are further detailed in the following sections.

Changes to Vision

64 The vision has been updated to better reflect the intent of the WMMP and the higher levels of the waste hierarchy, while retaining the theme of collective regional action. The tag line used during consultation ‘less waste, greater place’ has been incorporated for consistency of messaging.

65 The updated vision is:

Working together to care for our resources - for less waste and a greater place.

Changes to Objectives

66 Objectives 2 - 9 have been amended to improve clarity and better recognise the upper levels of the waste hierarchy. The objectives have been amended as follows:

Objective	Previous wording	Updated wording
Objective 2	There is collective responsibility within the Wellington region for our resources and environment	There is collective responsibility within the Wellington region for reducing our resource use and protecting our natural environment
Objective 3	Residents, businesses, and other organisations are motivated to minimise waste	The conditions are in place to support everyone to use fewer resources and minimise waste
Objective 4	Material circularity is increased through waste and resource recovery infrastructure and services	Material circularity is increased through reuse, resource recovery, waste infrastructure and services
Objective 5	It is accessible and convenient for residents, businesses, and other organisations to divert their waste	It is accessible and convenient to reduce waste, reuse materials and minimise disposal to landfill in line with the waste hierarchy
Objective 6	Waste and resource recovery systems are traceable and transparent	Waste and resource recovery data systems are in place to track and monitor waste streams.
Objective 7	Resource recovery facilities and landfills provide regional resilience in case of emergency events	Resource recovery facilities and waste systems are resilient and able to cope with emergency events
Objective 8	Landfills are treated as finite	Recovery of materials is maximised so that landfills are used as a last resort
Objective 9	Residual waste is managed safely and effectively in accordance with best practice	Waste that cannot be prevented or diverted from landfill is managed safely and effectively in accordance with best practice

Changes to Targets

67 Following public consultation changes have been made to targets 1, target 3, and target 6. The amendments are:

Target	Previous wording	Updated wording
Target 1a	Ensuring a regional construction and demolition processing facility is available by 2026.	Ensuring construction and demolition waste processing and recovery is available in the Wellington region by 2026.
Target 1b	Ensuring a regional organics processing facility is available by 2029.	Ensuring organic processing systems are available to the Wellington region by 2029
Target 1c	Ensuring three new resource recovery facilities are established in the Wellington region by 2030.	Ensuring five new resource recovery locations are added to the existing network within the Wellington region by 2030.
Target 3	Reduce emissions from the transport of waste by 30% by 2030.	Reduce emissions from the collection and transport of kerbside waste by 30% by 2030.
Target 6	For each council to engage with and commit 20% of the business community to minimising waste	For each council to engage with and support 30% of the business community to minimise waste and implement waste minimisation activities by 2029

Changes to Regional Actions

68 No substantive changes have been made to the regional actions, however, the wording of the actions have been updated to increase clarity.

He take | Issues

69 No issues are being presented as part of this report.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

Table 1: Table Name

Kōwhiringa | Options

Hua | Benefits

Tūraru | Risks

Option A (recommended)

· That the WMMP 2023-2029 be adopted and the current WMMP 2017-2023 be revoked.

Statutory requirements met.

Project complete and resourcing switched to implementation.

None.

Option B

· Not adopt, pending further amendments.

Further amendments can be made.

Delayed implementation.

Non-compliance with MfE and subsequent loss of waste levy funding.

Mana whenua

70 In te ao Māori, traditional waste management practices are centred around sustainability and a circular, closed-loop system. There is a focus on not creating the waste in the first place, and cycles of continual regeneration of nature. This involves returning all resources back to Papatūānuku (the earth). This process intends to reduce harm to the land, waterways, and oceans.

71 The work identified in this WMMP will be underpinned by the three commonly understood principles of Te Tiriti, which are:

71.1 Participation – we will maximise opportunities for Māori to participate in decisions.

71.2 Protection – we will support mana whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga of the environment and seek to ensure that the actions included in this WMMP achieve positive environmental, cultural, social, and economic outcomes for Māori.

71.3 Partnership – we remain committed to developing meaningful relationships and partnerships with mana whenua and to collaborate on waste management and minimisation practices and activities important to them.

72 Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai and Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki were informed at various stages throughout the WMMP development and were invited to submit during the consultation stage.

73 Ngāti Toa attended a workshop on the local action plan for Kāpiti, Porirua, and Wellington City.

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

74 Climate change and greenhouse gas emissions from waste were a key consideration in the development of the WMMP. This WMMP sets targets for the Wellington region for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from waste, through reducing organics to landfill and reducing emissions from waste transport.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

Costs related to the development of the WMMP have been budgeted and a split between the eight councils has been undertaken on a population basis.Tūraru ā-Ture me te Whakahaere | Legal and Organisational Risk

75 There is a legal requirement for territorial authorities to have a waste management and minimisation plan in place under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

76 Section 44 of the WMA requires the special consultative procedure be followed when preparing, amending or revoking a WMMP.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

77 The existing Wellington Region Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017-2023 will be revoked and replaced with the Wellington Region Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2023-2029.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

78 The special consultative procedure was undertaken as required under the Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) 2008 and the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002.

79 A regional consultation approach was undertaken, with officers across the region forming a consultation delivery team. This allowed for the development of regionally consistent consultation collateral, with each council undertaking local engagement activities.

80 In accordance with the WMA, public consultation on the draft WMMP 2023-2029 occurred for a period of 1 month, from 31 July 2023 to 1 September 2023.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

81 Post-adoption publicity is currently being agreed on by the Project Leads to determine a consistent approach for the Wellington region.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Wellington Region Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2023 to 2029 (under separate cover)

Council Meeting Agenda

14 December 2023

10.5 Older Persons' Housing Review

Kaituhi | Author: Stephen Cross, Housing Programme Manager

Kaiwhakamana | Authoriser: Kris Pervan, Group Manager Strategy & Growth

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This paper provides an update on an action from the Housing Strategy: The Older Persons Housing Review, following the completion and receipt of the Stage two report from The Property Group. The report examines the options for potential changes in the operating model to help ensure the portfolio is sustainably managed and structured for growth.

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

2 No executive summary is required.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

3 The Council has delegation to consider this matter under section B.1. of the 2022-2025 Triennium Governance Structure and Delegations.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

A. Receive the Review of Older Persons’ Housing: Stage 2 Report – Delivery Options (Appendix One) and note the key findings of the report.

B. Note the recommended option in the report is for Council to establish a Community Housing Provider (CHP) and transfer ownership of the older persons housing portfolio to the CHP.

C. Agree to consult on the preferred option noted in Recommendation B of this report, as one of the key issues for formal consultation on in the 2024-34 Long-term Plan process.

Tūāpapa | Background

4 Council provides a range of housing throughout the Kāpiti Coast, including housing provided specifically to support eligible older persons to have access to affordable rental accommodation in the district. The portfolio comprises 118 single-storey one-bedroom units that are owned and managed by Council.

5 During consultation on the 2021-41 Long-term Plan, Council asked the community whether the identified community outcomes were the right priorities at this time. The priority with the most support was ‘our people have access to suitable quality housing in Kāpiti so that they can live and thrive’.

6 As part of driving affordable focused change, Council agreed that improving older persons’ housing would be a targeted action under the “Implement the Housing Strategy” priority for Council.

7 A comprehensive review of Council’s portfolio has not been undertaken for approximately 30 years and during that time the policy and funding settings for social and affordable housing in New Zealand have changed significantly. In addition, there have been significant changes in the way people live and the make-up of our communities.

8 The review of Council’s Older Persons’ Housing (the Review) commenced in August 2023 with the purpose of the review being to understand:

8.1 Council’s role in the provision of Older Persons’ Housing and options for the ongoing provision of this activity.

8.2 Opportunities for growth of the current portfolio through the better use of existing sites.

8.3 The current asset and tenant management approach and identify the requirements for additional welfare and wrap-around services.

9 The Property Group was commissioned through a competitive tender process to assist with this review, which is split into two stages:

9.1 The first stage focused on reviewing the current operation, considering how well the portfolio is currently supporting those most in need and whether the portfolio is set up to support growth.

9.2 The second stage, based on the outcomes of the Stage One report, considers different delivery model options within current central government policy settings to improve the financial sustainability of the portfolio, while also understanding opportunities to grow the portfolio.

10 On 19 October 2023 the Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee received the Kāpiti Coast District Council Review of Older Persons Housing: Stage One Report. The Stage One Report, focused on the current state and identified seven key findings:

10.1 There is a growing unmet need for affordable and accessible housing for older people in the district.

10.2 Council’s older persons’ housing portfolio is targeting a group that is currently overrepresented in social housing demand.

10.3 The portfolio is not fully meeting the accessibility needs of older people.

10.4 The portfolio does not provide diversity and housing choice to meet the differing and changing needs of older people.

10.5 The current operating model of the portfolio is not financially sustainable without significant and ongoing rates-based funding.

10.6 Redevelopment of the portfolio and increasing its size is cost-prohibitive without a change in operating model.

10.7 Strategic Asset Management needs to align with the long-term strategy for the portfolio.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

11 Following the completion and receipt of the Stage One report, we have now received the Stage Two report from The Property Group. This was undertaken in four parts as outlined below:

11.1 Part A: Understanding the Housing Sector - an overview of the housing sector including a brief description of the challenges in providing affordable housing within the district.

11.2 Part B: Portfolio Delivery Options - an overview of each of the possible delivery options and details of what impacts they would have on the future delivery of the portfolio.

11.3 Part C: Evaluation of the Portfolio Delivery Options – an evaluation of the delivery options against evaluation criteria to help determine which option will best support Council’s objectives.

11.4 Part D: Portfolio Growth Options – an overview of how future growth options can be considered once a preferred delivery model has been determined by Council.

12 The following portfolio delivery options have been explored as part of this process.

12.1 Status quo – Council retains ownership and continues to manage the portfolio.

12.2 Council establishes a Community Housing Provider and transfers ownership.

12.3 Council transfers ownership to an existing Community Housing Provider.

12.4 Council leases the portfolio to a Community Housing Provider.

12.5 Full or partial divestment of the portfolio.

13 These are discussed further in table 1 below:

Table 1: Operating Model Options - Benefits and Risks / Implications

Kōwhiringa | Options

Hua | Benefits

Tūraru | Risks / Implications

Option 1: Status quo - Council continues to own and operate the existing portfolio under the current delivery model.

· Council can ensure the continuation of the current level of service.

· Council retains ownership of properties into the future.

· Tenants not required to be on the public housing register to access.

· Restricting to people over the age of 65 years old ensures Council provides housing to those who may not be adequately catered for by other housing providers.

· Council needs to continue to subsidise the current portfolio through ratepayer funding.

· Any expansion of the portfolio would require an increased level of subsidy through ratepayer funding.

· No access to IRRS or Operating Supplement.

· Constraints on growth of the portfolio.

· Tenants potentially miss out on other wraparound services provided or arranged by CHPs.

· Tenants pay 30% of their income under this model which would be capped at 25% if they were eligible for IRRS.

Option 2: Council establishes a CHP and transfers ownership -

Council creates an independent entity which can become a registered Community Housing Provider, and transfers ownership to the entity either by sale or gifting.

· Potential access to government funding.

· CHP specifically set up to deliver the service, with degree of control by Council retained (relationship agreement).

· Reduced future financial commitment and risk to Council.

· Potential for increased wrap around services for tenants.

· Increased ability to grow the portfolio with access to IRRS and OS for new units.

· Ability to have a mixed tenure portfolio of affordable and public housing places.

· Size of portfolio may not justify the creation of a CHP.

· Portfolio may lack scale to recruit sufficient resources.

· Large set up costs with creation of CHP and transfer of portfolio.

· MHUD may not provide funding for existing OPHUs.

· Timeframes to set up independent entity, achieve CHP registration and contract with HUD is approx. 18 months.

Option 3: Council transfers ownership to an existing CHP or Kāinga Ora -

Council sells or transfers ownership to an existing CHP or Kāinga Ora who are already well established and able to access subsidies.

· Potential access to government funding.

· Reduced future financial commitment and risk to Council.

· Potential for increased wrap around services for tenants.

· Increased ability to grow the portfolio with access to IRRS and OS for new units.

· Ability to have a mixed tenure portfolio of affordable and public housing places.

· Size of portfolio may not be attractive.

· MHUD may not provide funding for existing OPHUs.

· Council loses direct control.

· Potential for focus to move away from Older Persons’ Housing.

· If CHP has a larger portfolio Kāpiti may not be a key focus for the CHP.

Option 4: Council leases the portfolio to a CHP or Kāinga Ora -

Council retains ownership and leases the portfolio to a registered CHP or Kāinga Ora, with conditions to ensure the existing level of housing and service provision is at least maintained.

· Council retains ownership of the portfolio.

· Greater level of control over future development.

· Option not preferred by MHUD and would require significant negotiation.

· Set-up costs to agree partnership and document agreement.

· Council loses a level of control.

· Potential for deadlock if parties disagree.

· Mixed tenure model likely required which is a change to current OPH model.

· Leasing would impact the ability for a CHP to raise mortgage debt and another instrument may be required to grow portfolio.

Option 5: Divest the portfolio -

Council divests the portfolio or part of the portfolio on the open market to reinvest the proceeds to create affordable and social housing for older people.

· No further reliance on ratepayer funding to support the service.

· Sale proceeds could be reinvested into new housing supply.

· Full divestment approach unlikely to meet the objectives of the review.

· Public concern at loss of portfolio.

· Loss of control.

· Portfolio no longer available to provide affordable housing.

· Unlikely to meet requirements under the Public Works Act if any.

14 Following a review of the different options, evaluation criteria was applied, which included both qualitative and quantitative criteria to assess each option against the following:

· Supports improved financial sustainability.

· Supports portfolio growth.

· Provides security of tenure for older persons, and

· The complexity of the delivery model.

15 The following table shows the outcomes of the evaluation criteria scoring against each of the different options:

Table 2: Delivery Options Evaluation Summary Older Persons’ Housing Portfolio

Evaluation Criteria:	Option 1 Status Quo (No change)	Option 2 Council creates CHP and transfers ownership	Option 3 Council transfers portfolio ownership to an existing CHP	Option 4 Council leases portfolio to CHP or KO	Option 5 Council divests to the open market
Supports improved financial sustainability for Council The delivery option is financially sustainable, minimising the impacts on ratepayer and Council debt levels.	1	4	4	3	4
Supports portfolio growth The ability for the delivery option to support further growth of the portfolio through an increase in the number of units.	1	4	4	3	1
Security of tenure for older persons The delivery options provide security of tenure for the older persons’ cohort	3	3	2	2	1
Total Score	5	11	10	8	6
Council retains majority ownership	Yes	No	No	Yes	No
Council retains operating control	Yes – but will be limited by financial burden	Potential to influence through governance structure and partnership agreement	Some potential to influence through conditions of sale	Some potential to influence through conditions of lease	No
Overall Ranking	5	1	2	3	4

Evaluation Scale:

1 - Does not meet criteria

2 - Provides some improvement but does not meet criteria

3 –Partially meets criteria

4 – Meets criteria

16 The first- and second-highest ranking options respectively after assessment against the evaluation criteria are that Council either creates a CHP and transfers ownership or Council transfers ownership to an existing CHP.

17 However, The Property Group notes in the Stage Two report that a combination of multiple delivery models may be required to support ongoing delivery and future growth of the portfolio. For example, with the need to expand the portfolio to meet growing demand for affordable older persons housing within the district, divestment of less suitable villages may be required to provide capital funding to support new housing development. The report includes several case studies that outline the approach that different councils have undertaken through similar processes, with many moving forward with a mixed model approach.

18 Based on this analysis undertaken, The Property Group has identified five key findings including:

18.1 The recommend delivery model is that Council establishes a Community Housing Provider (CHP) and transfers ownership of the older persons housing portfolio to the CHP.

18.2 A mixed-model approach will be required.

18.3 Redevelopment should be undertaken once the delivery model has been changed.

18.4 Redevelopment should be undertaken using a staged approach.

18.5 Investigate capital funding for portfolio expansion.

19 The Property Group have also made several recommendations on next steps that Council should undertake:

19.1 Engage further with the Ministry for Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) – Council staff have already had some initial engagement with MHUD, who have confirmed that they would be willing to enter into discussions with Council on this matter.

19.2 Exploring different partnership options - Council staff have already had some initial discussions with existing CHP’s and other possible operators, who have confirmed that they would be willing to enter into discussions with Council on this matter.

19.3 Review Preliminary Section 40 Reports – This is currently underway.

He take | Issues

Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) and Operating Supplement

20 In 1991, all subsidies available to Local Government to support the provision of affordable housing, including access to subsidised lending products were withdrawn by central government.

21 IRRS is a government-funded subsidy that sets rents payable by tenants at 25% of their income, with the subsidy paid to the CHP for the difference between this and the market rent for the unit.

22 For tenants to be eligible for IRRS, their housing provider needs to be a registered Community Housing Provider (CHP) with the Community Housing Regulatory Authority (CHRA). To become registered as a CHP, applicants are assessed against a series of standards which include their governance, management, financial viability, tenancy management and property and asset management expertise.

23 Although the CHRA welcomes applications from both non-governmental organisations and not-for-profit companies, it cannot consider applications from local authorities.

24 MHUD also provide an Operating Supplement to CHPs. The Operating Supplement is a funding subsidy paid in addition to the IRRS for eligible net new public housing. The Operating Supplement recognises that market rental alone still might not make new development feasible in the current environment.

25 Although the IRRS and Operating Supplement are focused on bringing on new supply, there are limited circumstances where MHUD will accept existing properties and tenancies as being eligible to receive IRRS. This is subject to bespoke funding arrangements being negotiated. Generally, bespoke funding arrangements also require ministerial approval. Initial conversations with MHUD have confirmed that they would be willing to have further discussions with Council on this matter and that the Kāpiti Coast is an area of priority given the low numbers of social housing and limited existing CHP presence.

Public Works Act

26 A report on the acquisition history of the existing Older Persons’ Housing sites is being reviewed to determine if there are any obligations under the Public Works Act 1981 on the sale or transfer of the sites. This may include “offer-back” obligations to previous owners.

27 We have received advice that if offer-back obligations do exist, there are grounds for an exemption if the sites continue to be used to provide affordable housing for older people as the public work will continue. It is recommended that mechanisms are put in place to ensure the land continues to be used for that purpose. This may include an encumbrance over the land.

28 Divestment of sites are likely to trigger the offer-back provisions under the Act if they exist.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

29 The objective of the Review of Older Persons’ Housing has been to identify if the current governance and policy settings are appropriate and able to support the growth of the portfolio. The finding of the review is that the current settings do not support growth and the operation of the portfolio is not sustainable.

30 The Older Persons’ Housing Stage Two report identifies alternative operating models that may be adopted to ensure the portfolio is financially sustainable and positioned for growth. In the Report, five potential operating models were identified and assessed against criteria established to ensure sustainability and growth orientation.

31 The Stage Two report includes the following recommendations:

31.1 The recommend delivery model is that Council establishes a Community Housing Provider (CHP) and transfers ownership of the older persons housing portfolio to the CHP.

31.2 A mixed-model approach will be required.

31.3 Redevelopment should be undertaken once the delivery model has been changed.

31.4 Redevelopment should be undertaken using a staged approach.

31.5 Investigate capital funding for portfolio expansion.

32 There is likely to be significant interest in the community about the future of Councils Older Persons’ Housing Portfolio, it is therefore consider appropriate for Council to consult with the community on any substantive changes to the portfolio as part of the Long Term Plan process.

33 Options including benefits, risks and implications are summarised in the table below:

Kōwhiringa \| Options	Hua \| Benefits	Tūraru \| Risks / Implications
Approve formal consultation on the recommended option with the community through the Long-term Plan process.	Enable consultation with the community to help inform any next steps.	Communication of the intent and focus of the change is crucial, particularly the focus on sustainability and growth of the portfolio to meet growing demand. There could be significant concern in the community otherwise. Outcomes of negotiation with MHUD are unknown.
Approve formal consultation with the community following further negotiation with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development on potential bespoke funding arrangements.	More certainty regarding the arrangements that could be acceptable to MHUD / Ministers.	Delayed engagement with the community Final approval might be different depending on feedback from the community.
Do not approve a change in operating model and continue with the current operating model of Council ownership and management of the Older Persons Housing Portfolio.	Less disruption to existing tenants of the older persons’ housing tenancies.	Unsustainable funding arrangements continue, limited opportunities to grow the portfolio.

Mana whenua

34 Council continues to proactively partner with local iwi and hapū on the Kāpiti Coast represented by Te Rūnanga O Toa Rangātira, Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki and Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust, in relation to the implementation of the Housing Strategy. This has included the establishment of Te Urunga Whakakāinga, a Place-Based Housing Steering Group with representation from the Ministry for Housing and Urban Development, Kāinga Ora, and Te Puni Kokiri.

35 There has been engagement with iwi through the review processes, with opportunities already identified for greater cooperation in the delivery of the service to better understand need in the community, and to better reflect aspects of Te Ao Māori.

36 As part of the next steps, Council will continue to explore partnership options including those with Iwi and Iwi affiliated CHPs.

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

37 As part of the review, The Property Group have assessed the existing properties to understand any current issues as well as opportunities for expansion of the portfolio. This includes an assessment of climate change or environmental issues (specifically, flooding and tsunami risk) that need to be considered in the delivery or expansion of services.

38 The assessment also looks to understand the needs of the tenants, in terms of the facilities provided but also their need to access other services and amenities. These have been determining factors when reviewing which sites present the best option for expansion or redevelopment with higher ratings for those sites near town centres and public transport.

39 Options to make the properties more environmental efficient and sustainable will be reviewed as part of the portfolio asset management plan.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

40 The Stage One report for this review concluded that the portfolio is currently not self-funding and has a heavy reliance on ratepayer funding. There has been a year-on-year operational loss across the last five years with a shortfall of $800k forecasted for 2024/25. Growing the portfolio would further increase the reliance on rates-based funding, with the Council needing to subsidise the development costs as well as the operating costs of any additional units.

41 Since the Stage One report, further financial analysis has been undertaken on the costs of the portfolio being retained by Council and the other potential ownership options. The information in the following table has been sourced from the draft 2024 Long Term Plan and shows the forecast Operating Deficit and Capital expenditure over the next 5 years.

Budget Year	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27	2027/28	2028/29
Operating Deficit	($807,970)	($941,286)	($1,082,686)	($1,235,686)	($1,438,778)
Capital Expenditure	$1,447,675	$932,783	$1,327,794	$1,152,056	$2,283,004

42 It is noted that the combined forecast operating loss for the older persons housing portfolio over the next 10 years is $17.5m, with $19.4m forecast for additional capital expenditure over this period. This does not include any growth in the number of units provided.

43 The current asset value for the portfolio is approx. $20m, with an estimated market value of $12.14m, a difference of approx. $8m.

44 When assessing the different operating models, it is important to note that options that continue to deliver a similar service would need to meet similar operating costs to Council. Therefore there are limited opportunities for significant reductions in losses based solely on operational efficiency improvements. The biggest impact on the operating position will be access to subsidies for the whole or part of the portfolio. As noted previously this would require negotiation with MHUD as Council units transferred or sold to a CHP do not automatically qualify for the IRRS or the Operating Subsidy.

45 It is also noted that it is not viable to transfer or sell the portfolio to a CHP at the current Council asset value of $20m or the estimated market value of $12.14m. A sale at $20m would result in a negative equity position for the CHP of $7.6m, while a sale at market value would result in nil equity for the CHP, neither are potentially viable options.

46 To understand the potential operating position for ownership of the portfolio under a CHP, a range of scenarios has been developed. These scenarios have been assessed based on the following assumptions that:

46.1 The CHP is able to negotiate receipt of IRRS on at least 50% of the portfolio, the remainder of the portfolio would receive rental at current levels.

46.2 Council provides the CHP with a loan for the debt portion of any sale / transfer at the current LGNZ lending rate.

46.3 All other costs remain in line with current Council forecasts.

47 Based on these assumptions, the difference between each of the scenarios outlined below is the level of equity versus debt. Equity would be dependent on the discount to market value agreed by Council, if it was to transfer the portfolio to the CHP.

A B C

Scenario		50-50 equity-debt and IRRS to 50% of portfolio	70-30 equity-debt and IRRS to 50% of portfolio	99-1 equity-debt and IRRS to 50% of portfolio
		$	$	$
Equity		6,070,000	8,498,000	12,018,600
Debt (Council Loan at LGNZ rate)		6,070,000	3,642,000	121,400.
CHP Year 1 surplus/(deficit)		(505,852)	(325,729)	(64,549)
Council OPEX surplus/(deficit)	2024/25	(807,969)	(807,969)	(807,969)
Council impacts
Balance sheet (Asset Value)	$20.00m	(13,930,000)	(16,358,000)	(19,878,600)
COMBINED - OPEX / CAPEX	2024/25 - 2033/34	37,011,612

48 The above table shows that under each of the scenarios there is a reduced operating deficit, which includes payment of interest costs to Council of any holding debt. As the level of equity to debt improves, the operating position improves significantly. This could be improved further if the CHP was able to negotiate an increased subsidy from MHUD or the interest rate on the Council loan was reduced for a period.

49 Under each of the scenarios, there would be an impact on Council’s balance sheet, which would vary between $13.93m and $19.9m depending on the equity contribution from Council. Any impact on the balance sheet would also have an impact on the operating result of Council in the year that the loss was recognised.

50 Scenario C provides the best overall combined position, with a one-off impact on Council’s balance sheet of $19.9m and Council not needing to supplement or support the ongoing operation of the portfolio or fund future capital expenditure, combined impact of $37m.

51 A lease option is possible, however discussions with MHUD have confirmed that this is their least favoured approach as it generally requires a subsidy to the CHP and the owner of the properties. Under a lease it is also very difficult for the CHP to grow the portfolio as they don’t have an actual asset base to leverage and grow. It is likely under the lease option that Council would still be liable for the capital expenditure on the portfolio and would also likely be responsible for some operating costs such as depreciation and interest costs.

52 Should Council look to divest the whole or part of the portfolio, there would likely be a loss on sale of the asset compared to book value. As noted in the sale / transfer to a CHP this would have an impact on the operating result in the year that the sale occurs. Council would not need to meet the ongoing cost of operating the portfolio or undertake the planned renewals, a saving of approximately $37m over the next 10 years.

53 An assessment of the development feasibility indicates that a positive return is not possible at affordable rental levels (see example below). The IRRS and Operating Supplement is required based on current development costs. The profit margin under the following scenario is -$9.4m, which reduces to -$3.5m if IRRS is received on the full development. An Operating Supplement would then need to be negotiated to enable a positive return on the development. Council is unable to secure IRRS or the operating supplement.

A screenshot of a report

Description automatically generated

Tūraru ā-Ture me te Whakahaere | Legal and Organisational Risk

54 The Legal Team within Council will be requested to review all consultation documents and supporting information to ensure they meet requirements.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

55 There are no policy impacts from this report. The review undertaken to support the ongoing provision and growth of older persons’ housing is in alignment with Council’s Age Friendly Approach 2023.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

56 Clear communication of the intent of the review, particularly the focus on ensuring sustainability of the provision of Older Persons’ Housing in the district and the ability to grow the availability of affordable housing for older people is critical.

57 A communication plan has been developed to support communications with community partners and stakeholders about this matter. We are keenly aware that the welfare of existing Older Persons’ Housing tenants is paramount.

58 All communications will be sensitive to the rights and needs of existing tenants and assure them and the community that Council is committed to the provision of affordable rental housing for older people and recognises the need to develop more provision to help address the growing need.

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

59 An engagement plan has been developed to support this review. This includes engagement with key partners, stakeholders, the community, and the existing residents of the units.

60 As outlined in the attached report there has already been significant engagement with different partners and stakeholders, this includes various government agencies, other sector participants, residents, and various community groups.

61 In addition, regular letter drops are made to residents to ensure that they remain informed of the process and can contribute to the review.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

62 A communications plan has been developed to support communications with the community partners and stakeholders about this matter.

63 Council will use its established communications channels to inform the community of this decision and to explain the rationale for why it made this decision.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Older Persons' Housing Review Stage 2 Report (under separate cover)

Council Meeting Agenda

14 December 2023

10.6 Decisions on Proposed Plan Changes 1A (Accessible Carparking) and 1C (Cycle Parking) to the Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan

Kaituhi | Author: Jason Holland, District Planning Manager

Kaiwhakamana | Authoriser: Kris Pervan, Group Manager Strategy & Growth

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 To seek Council decisions in relation to:

Proposed Plan Change 1A (Accessible Carparking) to the Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan (District Plan)

1.1 Withdrawing a part of that plan change under clause 8D of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA); and

1.2 Endorsing decisions on the provisions and the matters raised in submissions under clause 10 of that schedule.

Proposed Plan Change 1C (Cycle Parking) to the Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan (District Plan)

1.3 Endorsing decisions on the provisions and the matters raised in submissions under clause 10 of that schedule.

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

2 Following the process set out for it in Schedule 1 of the RMA, Council is now able to make decisions on provisions and matters raised in submissions on two plan changes.

3 The primary reason for both Proposed Plan Change 1A (Accessible Carparking) and Proposed Plan Change 1C (Cycle Parking) was (and is) to address an unintended consequence of a requirement in Clause 3.38 of the National Policy Statement for Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) to remove minimum general carparking requirements. As minimum accessible and cycle parking requirements for new developments were calculated as a proportion of minimum general carparking requirements, the removal of those general requirements automatically removed minimum accessible and cycle parking requirements for new developments.

4 Proposed Plan Change 1C also introduces design standards for cycle parking to ensure policy direction regarding the design of cycle parking facilities can be implemented through rules.

5 Both plan changes also include supporting amendments to relevant policies, which will be relevant to decision-making on any resource consent applications to not comply with standards in the relevant rules for accessible and cycle parking.

6 Following earlier targeted and public consultation on draft versions of both plan changes, public notification of Proposed Plan Change 1A (PC1A) and Proposed Plan Change 1C (PC1C) occurred on 17 February 2022. Two submissions were received on PC1A, and one submission was received on PC1C. Following the public notification of the summary of decisions requested, no further submissions were received.

7 Following the closure of further submissions, Council planners have engaged with the submitters to understand if amendments could be agreed to resolve matters raised in their submissions. Agreements have been reached between the Council planner and the submitters on PC1A, and between the Council planner and the sole submitter on PC1C. All submitters have agreed to withdraw their right to be heard in support of their submissions, subject to Council endorsing the agreed amendments through their decision on provisions and matters raised in submissions under clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

8 The recommended option for Council is to endorse the proposed amendments to PC1A and PC1C (as agreed with submitters, and incorporating minor amendments to PC1A pursuant to clause 16(2) of the RMA) under clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. An alternative option of not making this decision and instead progressing the plan changes to a hearing has been assessed, but is not recommended for a number of reasons, including less regulatory certainty, failure to resolve a regulatory gap relating to cycle parking requirements, a lack of benefit likely to arise from progressing the plan changes to a hearing, and uncertainty about the outcome of applying to the Minister under clause 10A of Schedule 1 of the RMA to extend timeframes for Council’s decision.

9 A related matter concerns an appendix of the District Plan which was deleted through Plan Change 2. A decision is required to withdraw a part of PC1A, listed as amendment number 9 of that plan change, that proposed an amendment to that now-deleted appendix. The withdrawal of amendment number 9 of PC1A has been discussed with the sole submitter who submitted on that part of the plan change, and the submitter has provided written confirmation of acceptance of the withdrawal.

10 The recommended option for Council is to withdraw amendment number 9 of PC1A under clause 8D of Schedule 1 of the RMA. No feasible alternative option has been identified.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

11 Clause 8D of Schedule 1 of the RMA allows a local authority to decide to withdraw a proposal to change its District Plan. It states:

8D Withdrawal of proposed policy statements and plans

(1) Where a local authority has initiated the preparation of a policy statement or plan, the local authority may withdraw its proposal to prepare, change, or vary the policy statement or plan at any time—

(a) if an appeal has not been made to the Environment Court under clause 14, or the appeal has been withdrawn, before the policy statement or plan is approved by the local authority; or

(b) if an appeal has been made to the Environment Court before the Environment Court hearing commences.

(2) The local authority shall give public notice of any withdrawal under subclause (1), including the reasons for the withdrawal.

12 Clause 10 of that schedule requires a local authority to decide on the provisions and matters raised in submissions on a plan change, whether or not a hearing is held on the plan change. It states:

(1) A local authority must give a decision on the provisions and matters raised in submissions, whether or not a hearing is held on the proposed policy statement or plan concerned.

(2) The decision—

(a) must include the reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions and, for that purpose, may address the submissions by grouping them according to—

(i) the provisions of the proposed statement or plan to which they relate; or

(ii) the matters to which they relate; and

(ab) must include a further evaluation of the proposed policy statement or plan undertaken in accordance with section 32AA; and

(b) may include—

(i) matters relating to any consequential alterations necessary to the proposed statement or plan arising from the submissions; and

(ii) any other matter relevant to the proposed statement or plan arising from the submissions.

(3) To avoid doubt, the local authority is not required to give a decision that addresses each submission individually.

(4) The local authority must—

(aaa) have particular regard to the further evaluation undertaken in accordance with subclause (2)(ab) when making its decision; and

(a) give its decision no later than 2 years after notifying the proposed policy statement or plan under clause 5; and

(b) publicly notify the decision within the same time.

(5) On and from the date the decision is publicly notified, the proposed policy statement or plan is amended in accordance with the decision.

13 Council has the authority to consider these matters.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That the Council:

A.1 Withdraws that part of Proposed Plan Change 1A (Accessible Carparking) referred to as Amendment 9 in Attachment 8 (pp.19-20 of that attachment) under clause 8D of Schedule 1 of the RMA

A.2 Endorses the proposed amendments to Proposed Plan Change 1A as shown in Attachment 8 under clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the RMA (which also includes minor amendments under clause 16(2) of that schedule)

A.3 Endorses the proposed amendments to Proposed Plan Change 1C (Cycle Parking) as shown in Attachment 9 under clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Tūāpapa | Background

14 Council resolved to prepare Plan Change 1A related to Accessible Carparking, and Plan Change 1C related to Cycle Parking in October 2021 (hereafter referred to as PC1A and PC1C, respectively).^{^[11]} The primary reason for these plan changes was (and is) to address unintended consequences from the National Policy Statement for Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD):^{^[12]}

14.1 Clause 3.38 of the NPS-UD required Council to withdraw all minimum carparking requirements from its District Plan. Part 4 of the NPS-UD required this by 20 February 2022.

14.2 Because the District Plan set minimum accessible and cycle parking requirements for new developments based on general carparking requirements, withdrawing minimum carparking requirements automatically removed minimum accessible and cycle parking requirements for new developments.

15 For both accessible and cycle parking, the proposed solution to the issue created by the NPS-UD was to change the method in the District Plan for determining minimum requirements as follows:

15.1 Instead of being based on general carparking requirements, PC1A and PC1C introduced tables to relevant rules detailing minimum numbers of accessible carparks and cycle spaces (respectively). Except for multi-unit residential developments, these minimum accessible carparking and cycle parking space requirements are a continuation of the requirements in place previously.

15.2 Minimum numbers of accessible carpark spaces are set out in proposed amendments to Rule TR-PARK-R18. Within this rule, TR-Table 6A details the types of activities subject to minimum requirements for accessible carparking spaces, and what those requirements are.

15.3 Minimum cycle parking space and design requirements are included in proposed new Rule TR-PARK-R19. Within this rule, TR-Table 6B details the types of activities subject to minimum cycle park space requirements, and what those requirements are. This rule includes the following exclusion:

This rule excludes business activities carried out within existing buildings within the working zones that front a road where no building setback from the road is available for the provision of on-site cycle parking.^{^[13]}

15.4 Standard 2 of new Rule TR-PARK-R19 also specifies ten design standards for cycle parking where it is required for new developments. The reason for this part of PC1C was to address a gap in the District Plan, which previously only included high-level policy direction^{^[14]} regarding the design of cycle parking facilities without any means for implementing that policy in the rules. Standard 2 states cycle parking shall:

a. be securely anchored to an immovable object.

b. support the bicycle frame and front wheel.

c. allow the bicycle frame to be secured.

d. be accessible for users of all ages and abilities.

e. provide a minimum separation distance of 1.2 metres between cycle stands.

f. provide a minimum separation distance of 1 metre between any marked car park space, wall, or any other obstruction.

g. be clearly signposted or visible to cyclists entering the site.

h. be located so as not to impede pedestrian thoroughfares including areas used by people whose mobility or vision is restricted.

i. be located so that the bicycle is at no risk of damage from vehicle movements within the site.

j. be in a covered area and in an area excluded from general public access when provided exclusively for staff/employee use.

15.5 For avoidance of doubt, Standard 2(j) only applies to cycle parking for staff/employee use, and does not necessarily require the construction of a new covered area (i.e., an existing covered area could be used for this purpose).

15.6 The relevant rules (Rule TR-PARK-R18 for accessible carparking, and proposed new Rule TR-PARK-R19 for cycle parking) are permitted activity rules. Each rule specifies standards that must be met in order for an activity to be undertaken without needing a resource consent under that rule. Developers are able to exceed these minimum requirements if they choose to. Alternatively, a developer that does not wish to meet the proposed minimum requirements for either accessible or cycle parking under the relevant rule is able to apply for resource consent to facilitate a lower level of provision for that form of parking.

16 Both plan changes also include supporting amendments to relevant policies, which are relevant for decision-making on any resource consent applications to not comply with standards in the relevant rules for accessible and cycle parking.

17 In November 2021, Council initiated public and targeted consultation on a draft of both plan changes. Feedback was received and this informed the preparation of the notified versions of both plan changes.^{^[15]}

18 Ordinarily, these plan changes would not have legal effect until Council publicly notified its decisions on provisions and matters raised in submissions. However, due to concerns about the potential effects of new developments occurring in the interim without appropriate provision for accessible parking, Council applied to the Environment Court for the rules in PC1A to have legal effect earlier (from public notification). In December 2021 the Court granted this application,^{^[16]} concluding that:

…granting the application accords with the purpose of the Act in that it enables people with disabilities and/or limited mobility to provide for their social well-being and their health and safety by requiring the provision of accessible car parking for them where appropriate.

19 Council resolved to publicly notify PC1A and 1C on 10 February 2022,^{^[17]} and both proposed plan changes were publicly notified on 17 February 2022.^{^[18]} This public notification was deliberately timed to coincide with the removal of the minimum car parking requirements (Amendment No. 1) which also occurred on 17 February 2022.^{^[19]} Synchronising these public notifications avoided any regulatory gap in the requirements for accessible carparking.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

He take | Issues

20 Following public notification, submissions were received from two submitters on PC1A (Kāpiti Disability Advisory Group and Sheffield Properties Ltd/Ngahina Developments Ltd), and from one submitter on PC1C (Sheffield Properties Ltd/Ngahina Developments Ltd).

21 A summary of decisions requested was publicly notified, as required by the RMA, and no further submissions were received. A summary of decisions requested on PC1A and PC1C is contained in Attachments 1 and 2.

22 Given the small number of submitters, and the nature of both submissions (which sought discrete amendments to the plan changes, rather than opposing them outright), approaches were made to both submitters to understand if amendments could be agreed between the Council planner (Christine Foster) and both submitters to resolve matters raised in their submissions.

23 Discussions with submitters have now concluded and a mutually acceptable outcome has been reached. Attachments 3 and 4 set out the issues raised in submissions on PC1A and PC1C respectively, along with amendments proposed to address those issues which have been agreed by the Council planner and submitters. Attachments 8 and 9 show the versions of PC1A and PC1C that result from those amendments, and it is these versions which are now being recommended to Council.

24 Amendments agreed with submitters on PC1A include:

24.1 Amending Policy TR-PARK-R8 to:

24.1.1 clarify the requirements for accessible carparking apply only to new development; and

24.1.2 more appropriately cater for situations where an existing building houses multiple individual businesses or activities (e.g. a shopping mall).

24.2 Amending Policy DEV-P14 to differentiate the purpose of accessible carparks particularly to avoid any suggestion they are available for loading or service vehicle use.

25 Amendments agreed with the sole submitter on PC1C include:

25.1 Amending Policy TR-PARK-P8A to clarify that the requirements for cycle parking apply only to new development.

25.2 Amending proposed new Rule TR-PARK-R19 to:

25.2.1 clarify how location requirements for cycle parking apply in situations where an existing building houses multiple individual businesses or activities (e.g. a shopping mall); and

25.2.2 enable recognition of the extent to which existing cycle parks available for an existing building housing multiple individual businesses or activities (e.g. a shopping mall) contribute to meeting demand for cycle parks associated with a proposed new activity.

26 Editorial amendments are also recommended to be made to the notified version of PC1A under clause 16(2) of Schedule 1 of the RMA. These are separately identified in the version of PC1A in Attachment 8. Clause 16(2) states:

A local authority may make an amendment, without using the process in this schedule, to its proposed policy statement or plan to alter any information, where such an alteration is of minor effect, or may correct any minor errors.

27 Clause 8C of Schedule 1 of the RMA states that a local authority is not required to hold a hearing on a plan change where submissions are made but no person indicates they wish to be heard, or the request to be heard is withdrawn.

28 Both submitters on PC1A (the Kāpiti Disability Advisory Group and Sheffield Properties Ltd/Ngahina Developments Ltd) have agreed to withdraw their right to be heard in support of their submissions, provided Council’s decision on the provisions of PC1A suitably reflects the amendments agreed in Attachment 3. A Council decision to endorse the version of PC1A in Attachment 8 would give effect to this agreement.

29 Sheffield Properties Ltd/Ngahina Developments Ltd has agreed to withdraw its right to be heard in support of its submission on PC1C, provided Council’s decision on the provisions of PC1C suitably reflects the amendments agreed in Attachment 4. A Council decision to endorse the version of PC1C in Attachment 9 would give effect to this agreement.

30 As evidence of the agreement that has been reached between the Council planner and the submitters, Attachment 6 sets out email correspondence between the Council planner and the Kāpiti Disability Advisory Group (who submitted on PC1A only), and Attachment 7 sets out written correspondence between the Council planner and Sheffield Properties Ltd/Ngahina Developments Ltd (who submitted on both PC1A and PC1C).

31 When making decisions on provisions and matters raised in submissions, Council must have particular regard to a further evaluation prepared in accordance with section 32AA of the RMA. The section 32AA evaluation must be undertaken in accordance with clauses (1) to (4) of section 32 of the RMA. The relevant considerations in sections 32 (1) to (4) are set out in the attached section 32AA Evaluation Report and are summarised below:

32(1)(a): the evaluation report must examine the extent to which the objectives of the proposed changes are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA [Note: Plan Changes 1A and 1C do not make any changes to the Plan's objectives, so no evaluation under s. 32 (1) (a) is required];

32(1)(b): the evaluation report must examine whether the proposed provisions are the most appropriate way to achieve the Plan objectives. The evaluation must also assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed amendments in achieving the objectives;

32(1)(c): the evaluation report must contain a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and significance of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects that are anticipated from implementation of the proposed amendments;

32(2)(a): the assessment must identify and assess the benefits and costs of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects that are anticipated from implementation of the proposed amendments, including opportunities for economic growth that are anticipated and employment;

32(2)(b): if practicable, the assessment must quantify the benefits and costs identified;

32(2)(c): the assessment must assess the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the proposed amendments;

32(3)(b): for an 'amending proposal' (Plan Changes 1A and 1C constitute 'amending proposals') the Plan objectives must be considered to the extent that they are relevant to the proposed amendments.

32 The Plan objectives that are relevant for Plan Changes 1A and 1C were attached to the original section 32 evaluation report. The section 32AA further evaluation report to support the proposed amendments to Plan Changes 1A and 1C is contained in Attachment 5. In summary, the evaluation concludes that the amendments are appropriate because they:

32.1 do not alter the fundamental purpose of the plan changes;

32.2 are within the scope of the fundamental purpose of the plan changes (in other words, Council has discretion to make these amendments); and

32.3 are more efficient and effective than the publicly notified versions of these plan changes; will contribute to achieving the sustainable management purpose of the Act and the community wellbeing and accessibility outcomes sought by the NPS-UD, RPS and the District Plan objectives.

33 In August 2022, a separate plan change (Plan Change 2) proposed the deletion of Appendix 2 – Medium Density Design Guide.^{^[20]} The deletion of this appendix was subsequently confirmed by Council and became operative on 1 September 2023.

34 Amendment number 9 of PC1A proposed amendments to this appendix, and one submission point, by the Kāpiti Disability Advisory Group, pertains to PC1A amendment number 9. As the change to that appendix is no longer relevant, a decision is required to withdraw that part of PC1A under clause 8D of Schedule 1 of the RMA. Amendment 9 of PC1A can be viewed on pp.19-20 of Attachment 8, and is shown as struck-through.

35 The withdrawal of amendment number 9 of PC1A has been discussed with the submitter and the submitter has provided written confirmation of acceptance of the withdrawal.

36 Clause 8D of Schedule 1 of the RMA provides for withdrawal of part or all of a proposed plan change at any time until the plan change is approved by Council if there are no appeals, or before an Environment Court hearing. As neither milestone has been reached, it is now open to the Council to withdraw amendment number 9 of PC1A and it is appropriate to make that withdrawal immediately. Clause 8D(2) of Schedule 1 of the RMA requires the Council to give public notice of the withdrawal and this can be done at the same time as publicly notifying the Council's decision on PC1A.

37 Attachment 9 is the version of PC1C that reflects amendments agreed with submitters.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

38 The recommended option for Council is that it resolves to:

38.1 Withdraw amendment number 9 of PC1A under clause 8D of Schedule 1 of the RMA (shown in Attachment 8, pp.19-20 as struck out). This decision would recognise that this amendment is no longer possible because this appendix was deleted as a result of decisions on Plan Change 2.

38.2 Make a decision on the provisions and matters raised in submissions on PC1A under clause 10 of that schedule that endorses the version of PC1A in Attachment 8. This decision would ensure that:

38.2.1 amendments agreed with submitters are effected;

38.2.2 clause 16(2) amendments are made; and

38.2.3 the withdrawal under clause 8D of amendment number 9 of PC1A is effected.

38.3 Make a decision on the provisions and matters raised in submissions on PC1C under clause 10 of that schedule that endorses the version of PC1C in Attachment 9. This decision would ensure that amendments agreed with the submitter are effected.

39 Under this recommended option:

39.1 Rules in the version of PC1A in Attachment 8 would have legal effect from the date Council’s decision is publicly notified (likely late January or early February 2024). This version of the rules would replace the version of the rules in PC1A which had legal effect from public notification on 17 February 2022, as a result of the Environment Court decision discussed earlier in this report.

39.2 The rules in the version of PC1C in Attachment 9 would also have legal effect from the date Council’s decision is publicly notified. This would be the first time that those rules have legal effect.

40 There is no feasible alternative option to withdrawing amendment number 9 for PC1A. As previously noted, the amendment applies to a part of the District Plan that no longer exists. Although this decision could be deferred till a later date, clause 8D does limit Council’s discretion on timing, and there is no known reason for a delay. Irrespective of Council’s decision on provisions and matters raised in submissions on PC1A, Council should decide now to withdraw amendment number 9 of PC1A.

41 Council does have the option of not making a decision now on the provisions and matters raised in submissions on one or both of the plan changes. Selecting this option would mean that:

41.1 The pre-conditions for both submitters to have withdrawn their rights to be heard would not be met, meaning that a hearing would be required. The only parties able to present at the hearing would be the submitters, and the Council planner. The matters considered at the hearing would be limited by the scope of existing submissions.

41.2 Given the time required to organise and hold the hearing, and the time required for the hearing panel to deliberate and prepare recommendations for Council, an application would need to be made for an extension of time for this plan change process to the Minister for the Environment under clause 10A of Schedule 1 of the RMA. This extension would be required because Council would be unable to meet the requirement under clause 10(4)(a) to give its decisions on these plan changes within 2 years of notification (notification was 10 February 2022, so a decision on provisions and matters raised in submissions is due by 10 February 2024).

42 This alternative option would also have different implications for the legal effect of the rules in each of the plan changes:

42.1 For PC1A, the rules in the notified version would continue to have legal effect, albeit with lesser legal weight than if Council endorsed the version in Attachment 8 (as that version is further advanced through the plan change process).

42.2 The rules in PC1C would continue not to have legal effect until such time as Council makes, and publicly notifies, its decision on provisions and matters raised in submissions.

43 This option is not recommended for the reasons set out below.

43.1 Less regulatory certainty: as noted in the section 32AA evaluation in Attachment 5, the amendments proposed to PC1A improve the drafting by clarifying a number of matters which might otherwise create interpretation difficulties, causing delays and increased costs to development. The amendments to PC1C also provide practical direction to developers on how to meet District Plan policy expectations regarding the design of cycle parking.

43.2 Fails to resolve regulatory gap: this option would see the continuation of a situation which has existed since 17 February 2022, being that the District Plan does not have any rule in legal effect that requires a minimum number of cycle spaces to be provided for applicable new developments. This would mean policy direction in the District Plan regarding cycle parking would be left largely unimplemented.

43.3 Lack of benefits: While there is always inherent uncertainty in what a hearing panel might recommend to Council, in this case the hearing would be limited to either one or two submitters (depending on which plan change Council chose not to make a decision on), and the matters open for consideration would be limited to the scope of those initial submission/s. Both submitters and the Council planner have expressed comfort with the agreed position on these plan changes, and a section 32AA evaluation (Attachment 5) has found them to be appropriate. Therefore, a hearings panel’s recommendations on these plan changes are likely to closely resemble the versions set out in Attachments 8 and 9. The benefits of this option are therefore unclear.

44 The outcome of an application to the Minister for an extension is also uncertain. Clause 10A states:

10A Application to Minister for extension of time

(1) A local authority must, before the time for making its decision under clause 10, apply to the Minister for an extension of the time for giving a decision under that clause if the local authority is unable, or is likely to be unable, to meet the requirement of clause 10(4)(a) (under which decisions must be given within 2 years of notification of a proposed policy statement or plan).

(2) An application under subclause (1) must be in writing, and must set out—

(a) the reasons for the request for an extension; and

(b) the duration of the extension required.

(3) Before applying for an extension, a local authority must take into account—

(a) the interests of any person who, in its opinion, may be directly affected by an extension; and

(b) the interests of the community in achieving adequate assessment of the effects of the proposed policy statement or plan or change to a policy statement or plan; and

(c) its duty under section 21 to avoid unreasonable delay.

(4) The Minister—

(a) may decline or agree to an extension applied for under subclause (1); but

(b) in the case of a regional coastal plan, must consider the views of the Minister of Conservation before granting an extension.

(5) The Minister must serve notice of his or her decision on the local authority.

(6) If the Minister grants an extension, the local authority must give public notice of that extension.

(7) This clause applies instead of section 37 if the time limit prescribed by clause 10(4)(a) is to be extended.

45 As set out in sub-clause (4)(a), the Minister may decline or agree to an extension. The Minister would consider the reasons for the request (sub-clause (2)(a)), the requested duration of the extension (sub-clause (2)(b)) and would also look at the analysis provided by Council under sub-clause (3).

46 Given the apparent lack of any sound reasons for / benefits associated with this option, it is possible the Minister could decline Council’s application. It is not known whether there is a precedent for such a decision, so the next steps in that situation are unclear. However, it is noted section 24A of the RMA provides the Minister with a range of powers to investigate the exercise and performance by a council of any of its functions, powers, or duties under the RMA, and make recommendations to it on those matters.

Mana whenua

47 The District Planning team engaged with mana whenua on these plan changes during their preparation in accordance with Schedule 1 requirements. The Council report to Council on 10 February 2022 seeking public notification of these plan changes noted that:

During early email and face to face conversations prior to consultation on the draft plan change provisions, iwi have indicated they would likely not provide specific feedback on these draft plan changes. Consistent with this early feedback, no specific comment was provided from iwi following circulation of the draft provisions.

48 Iwi did not lodge a submission following the public notification of the plan changes in February 2022, or a further submission following public notification of the summary of decisions requested in September 2022.

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

49 The proposed amendments to PC1C will support cycling as a low-carbon transport option within the Kāpiti Coast District.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

50 The ability to proceed to make both of these plan changes operative without a hearing will reduce procedural costs that have already been factored into the operating expenses of the District Planning team.

Tūraru ā-Ture me te Whakahaere | Legal and Organisational Risk

51 All necessary procedural steps as set out in clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the RMA have been completed to enable Council to make decisions on the provisions and matters raised in submissions on these plan changes.

52 The written confirmation of the submitters to the attached proposed amendments (Attachments 6 and 7) and the Council’s endorsement of the proposed amendments (Attachments 8 and 9) having particular regard to the section 32AA evaluation (Attachment 5) will eliminate any procedural legal risk.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

53 The policy impact of these plan changes is not anticipated to be significant:

53.1 Apart from requirements relating to multi-unit residential housing of four or more units, the minimum space requirements for both accessible and cycle parking are based on District Plan requirements that existed prior to the forced removal of the minimum general carparking requirements under the NPS-UD.

53.2 Although the introduction of design requirements for cycle parking spaces into a rule is new to the District Plan, these standards will provide certainty to Council and developers by clarifying expectations about matters such as the appropriate layout and location of cycle parks associated with new developments, which were already policy expectations in the District Plan prior to PC1C.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

54 The Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy does not apply to the engagement or consultation processes that are required under the RMA.

55 The District Planning team undertook public and targeted consultation on the draft PC1A and PC1C provisions prior to public notification. Following this, both plan changes have been formally publicly notified for submissions as per the RMA requirements. At the time of public notification in February 2022, a range of communication media were used to raise awareness of the plan change, including email and internet-based communications, as well as public notices in the local newspaper.

56 Should Council make decisions on these plan changes now, communications to raise awareness of these requirements will target the development sector. They are likely to include messaging to email distribution lists, and inclusion of these plan changes on the agenda of a meetings with representatives of the development sector planned for early 2024.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

57 In the event Council proceeds to make decisions on these plan changes now, it will issue a public notice. In accordance with clause 10(4)(b) of Schedule 1 of the RMA, this public notice must be issued prior to 17 February 2024 (i.e. within two years of public notification of these plan changes). A media release will also be prepared.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Summary of decisions requested by submitters on PC1A ⇩

2. Attachment 2 - Summary of decisions requested by submitters on PC1C ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Issues raised in submissions on PC1A and amendments proposed to address those issues ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - Issues raised in submissions on PC1C and amendments proposed to address those issues ⇩

5. Attachment 5 - Section 32AA evaluation report for the Plan Changes ⇩

6. Attachment 6 - Correspondence with Kapiti Disability Advisory Group ⇩

7. Attachment 7 - Correspondence with Sheffield Properties Ltd / Ngahina Developments Ltd ⇩

8. Attachment 8 - PC1A incorporating amendments to the notified version ⇩

9. Attachment 9 - PC1C incorporating amendments to the notified version ⇩

Council Meeting Agenda

14 December 2023

10.7 Amendments to Council Delegations to Staff

Kaituhi | Author: Sarah Wattie, Governance & Legal Services Manager

Kaiwhakamana | Authoriser: Hara Adams, Group Manager Iwi Partnerships

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This report seeks Council’s consideration and approval of amendments to Council delegations to the Chief Executive and Staff, including changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 delegations.

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

2 An executive summary is not required.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

3 Council has the authority to consider this matter. Clause 32, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 empowers the Council to delegate its responsibilities, duties and powers in accordance with the restrictions set out in this provision.®

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

A. Adopts the revised Council Delegations to Chief Executive and Staff as shown in Attachment 1 to the report ‘Amendments to the Council Delegations to Staff’.

B. Adopts the revised Resource Management Act 1991 Delegations to Staff as shown in Attachment 2 to the report ‘Amendments to the Council Delegations to Chief Executive and Staff’.

C. Revokes existing delegations to officials in relation to private requests for changes to the district plans of local authorities under Clause 25 Schedule 1 of the RMA 1991, so that only Council and the Strategy, Finance and Operations Committee have the ability to approve private requests for plan change, on the advice of staff (noting that this may require urgent or extraordinary meetings to be scheduled for this purpose due to the strict timeframes under the Act).

Tūāpapa | Background

4 The purpose of local government under clause 10(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future. Legislative compliance with central Government’s legislative and regulatory programme supports Council to do this in a fair and efficient manner.

5 Council has a range of legislative functions, duties and powers. It is not always efficient or practical for elected members to carry out all of these functions, duties and powers, which is reflected in various statutes that provide Council with the legal authority to delegate to Council staff. Delegated authority allows for administrative efficiency and ensures timeliness in the conduct of Council’s daily business.

6 In particular, Council has the authority to delegate to officers under clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. Clause 32 of the Local Government Act 2002 also sets out certain powers that cannot be delegated as follows:

“32. Delegations‒ (1) Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act, or in any other Act, for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority's business, a local authority may delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers except‒

(a) the power to make a rate; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

(c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan; or

(d) the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e) the power to appoint a chief executive; or

(f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement.

(h the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.”

7 Most legislation provides the Chief Executive with the discretion to sub-delegate to Council staff. However, some Acts prescribe the way delegations must be made. For example, section 62 of the Natural Built and Environment Act 2023 (NBE) and section 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) provide local authorities with the power to delegate to an employee any functions, powers, or duties under these Acts however, they prohibit the power to sub-delegate and therefore these delegations must be approved by Council.

8 The Council’s delegations to Chief Executive and staff are monitored on a regular basis and reported back to Council for amendment as required, in response to changes in either staff or legislation.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

9 This report proposes amendments to Council delegations to the Chief Executive and Staff and Resource Management Act 1991 delegations to give effect to recommendations from staff.

He take | Issues

Debt Cancellation

10 An increase in staff debt write-off capabilities under the Local Government Act 2002, Building Act 2004 and Resource Management Act 1991 is recommended in order to increase efficiency and relieve administrative burden on the Council.

11 Currently, Council approval is required for any amount above $1,000. Staff recommend this is increased to $10,000. The updated delegations are shown in Attachment 1.

Kapiti coast district bylaws

12 Reference to the General Bylaw has been removed from the Kapiti Coast District Bylaw delegations as the General Bylaw has been revoked (August 2021). The updated delegations are shown in Attachment 1.

Resource Management Act 1991 Delegations

13 Amendments are required to Council’s delegations to staff under the RMA, which are set out in the table below. These changes relate to the Access and Transport and Resource Consents and Compliance teams. The amended RMA delegations and glossary are set out in Attachment 2.

Recommended amendments to Council delegations to staff under the Resource Management Act 1991
Positions	Amendments to RMA delegations
Resource Consents Project Officer	Additional delegations to align with Compliance and Monitoring Officer role. Title to include 36AA(1), 109, 314-321, 322-324, 325A, 327, 328, 330, 336, 338 and 343B.
Roading Contracts and Project Administrator	A new title in the Access and Transport team requiring sections 35, 35A, 330, 332 and 333.
Senior Roading Engineer	A new title in the Access and Transport team requiring sections 35, 35A, 330, 332 and 333.

Delegation to consider private requests for plan change

14 Council has delegated most responsibilities, duties and powers under the RMA 1991 and regulations made under this Act to the Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive (officials). The exceptions to this are the power of delegation (there is no ability to sub-delegate) and the power of approval of a policy statement or plan under clause 17 of Schedule 1.

15 On 30 June 2022 Council resolved to amend the delegation under clause 25, Schedule 1 of the RMA 1991 so that officials have authority to exercise this power^{^[21]}. Conditions were imposed on the exercise of this delegation restricting the ability to further subdelegate this power to other staff and requiring those exercising delegated authority to notify Council (through the Elected Members Bulletin or other communication such as email) as soon as any requests are received and of all decisions made by staff under this provision.

16 However, it appears that there was an administrative error in implementing this change and that officials and Council received the same delegations for the RMA (refer to Attachment 1). These delegations were subsequently approved on 23 March 2023.

17 In most recent discussions around steps to approve private plan changes, in August 2023, Council staff sought clarification around this delegation issue, and Council and the Chief Executive noted in discussion a desire to retain exercise of this power of approval with Council. Consideration was given to:

17.1 Magnitude of requests: in the last seven years one private plan change has been requested, progressed and completed. Council staff are aware of two to three possible private plan change requests, and a process for engaging upfront with requestees is now in place.

17.2 Robustness of decision-making: Clause 25, Schedule 1 of the RMA 1991 relating to private requests for changes to the district plans of local authorities (set out in Attachment 3) requires decisions to be made within 30 working days and sets out key considerations to be taken into account in considering a request. Decisions made under this clause may be challenged under clause 27 of Schedule 1 by an appeal to the Environment Court. Subject to appeal rights on questions of law, decisions of the Court are final on matters of fact. Decisions need to be robust and based on sound resource management principles and take care not to expose Council to undue legal risk.

17.3 Timeliness of decision: it is not predictable when private plan changes request may be received by Council. However, with existing strategic development work underway Council staff are usually informed ahead of time of such intentions. If Council is to retain this delegation, a decision is required within 30 working days within the ordinary schedule of Council and Strategy and Operations meeting. Council staff believe this is manageable, but it may be necessary for Councillors to schedule an urgent or extraordinary meeting for the purpose of making a decision.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

18 The proposed options are set in paragraphs 10 through 17 of this paper.

Mana whenua

19 Where responsibilities and powers are delegated to staff, staff will be required to seek early input from Council’s Iwi Partnerships Group on matters that are likely to impact on mana whenua or mana whenua interests. What is appropriate in view of Council’s partnership with mana whenua and legislative provisions will depend on the nature of the delegated responsibility, duty or power.

20 Plan changes including those resulting from private requests under clause 25, Schedule 1 of the RMA have the ability to impact on many different interests and stakeholders within our community including mana whenua and Māori. Local Government Act 2002 and RMA provisions provide mechanisms for mana whenua participation and engagement in planning decisions. In relation to the delegation under clause 25, Schedule 1 of the RMA, having the delegation rest with Council and the Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee will provide the ability for mana whenua representatives around the Council table to contribute to (and in the case of Strategy, Operations and Finance vote on) decisions on private applications for plan changes.

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

21 There are no climate change considerations triggered by this report.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

22 There is no direct financial impact from these changes to delegations.

Tūraru ā-Ture me te Whakahaere | Legal and Organisational Risk

23 This paper has been reviewed by the Council’s Governance and Legal Services Manager.

24 The exercise of powers and functions by staff must adhere to legislative requirements. Managers are responsible for ensuring legislative compliance in the exercise of statutory powers in their area and are able to seek legal advice where required.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

25 Appropriate delegations facilitate efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of Council business and assist staff to deliver on Council outcomes.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

26 This decision has a low level of significance under the Council’s Significance and Engagement policy.

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

27 No consultation or engagement is required relating to the process of making these amendments.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

28 No publicity is required for these minor amendments.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Draft amended sections of the Council to Chief Executive and Staff Delegations ⇩

2. Draft Council to Staff Resource Management Act 1991 Delegations ⇩

3. Resource Management Act 1991 Schedule 1 clause 25 ⇩

[1] Under the current representation arrangements this can be up to three ward councillors depending on the ward an elector is able to vote in.

[3] Coalition Agreement New Zealand National Party and Act New Zealand, dated 24 November 2023, page 9

[4] The LGC is the body that provides guidance and oversight of the representation review process and determines representation arrangements if the community object or appeal Council’s final proposal.

[5] The term ‘Communities of Interest’, while not defined in the Local Electoral Act 2001 or the Local Government Act 2002 as it means different things to different people, is an essential part of the representation review process and is described by a three-dimensional concept:

· Perceptual – a sense of belonging of a clearly defined area or locality

· Functional – the ability to meet with reasonable economy the community’s requirements for goods and services

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

[6] Local Government Commission Guidelines for Local Authorities Undertaking Representation Reviews July 2023

[7] A sinking lid approach means when a Class 4 venue closes, loses its licence, or looks to relocate, no consent will be issued for any new or re-establishing Class 4 venue (nor for additional EGMs). In the Policy 2023 this approach also applies to standalone TAB venues (of which we currently have none in the District).

[8] Four organisations put forward this proposal – Problem Gambling Foundation Group, Oasis Salvation Army, Tainui Marae on behalf of Ngāti Kapu (Ōtaki) and Asian Family Services.

[9] Not consenting for any new venues, EGMs, relocations, and mergers.

[11] Strategy and Operations Committee, 21 October 2021. Agenda and minutes available at:

https://kapiticoast.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/10/SAOCC_20211021_AGN_2321_AT_WEB.htm

[12] Available at: https://environment.govt.nz/publications/national-policy-statement-on-urban-development-2020-updated-may-2022/

[13] The phase “working zone” is defined as follows: “means the part of the District comprising the Centre Zones, General Industrial Zone, Hospital Zone, Waikanae North Development Area Precinct 6 – Mixed Use and Airport Zone and are shown as such on the District Plan Maps.”

[14] For example, operative Policy TR-PARK-P8 seeks that the location and layout of cycle parks provided through new subdivision and development is “safe, user-friendly and appropriate” while operative Policy TR-P7, principle 3 is that new development in centres should provide for “convenient cycle parking facilities.”

[15] This feedback is summarised in the report included on the agenda of the Strategy and Operations Committee meeting, 10 February 2022, available at: https://kapiticoast.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/02/SAOCC_20220210_AGN_2390_AT_WEB.htm.

[16] ENV-2021-WLG-000038. Decision available at: https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/2021-NZEnvC-191-Kapiti-Coast-District-Council.pdf

[17] Strategy and Operations Committee, 10 February 2022. Agenda and minutes available at: https://kapiticoast.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/02/SAOCC_20220210_AGN_2390_AT_WEB.htm

[18] Public notice available at: https://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/whats-on/have-your-say/public-notices/?noticeid=19

[19] The public notice for Amendment No. 1, along with a memo explaining the changes it made, is available at: https://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/your-council/forms-documents/district-plan/other-plan-amendments/removal-of-minimum-car-parking-standards/

[20] Decisions on Plan Change 2 had the effect of deleting this appendix and replacing it with Appendix 24 – Residential Design Guide, and Appendix 25 – Centres Design Guide.

[21]Due to the quasi-judicial nature of the decisions and strict timeframes under the RMA 1991, some territorial authorities retain this power to be exercised as a governing body while others delegate this to staff.


RĀRANGI TAKE AGENDA Kaunihera \| Council Meeting
I hereby give notice that a Meeting of the Kāpiti Coast District Council will be held on:
Te Rā \| Date:	Thursday, 14 December 2023
Te Wā \| Time:	9.30am
Te Wāhi \| Location:	Council Chamber Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road Paraparaumu
Darren Edwards Chief Executive

Mayor Janet Holborow	Chair
Deputy Mayor Lawrence Kirby	Deputy
Cr Glen Cooper	Member
Cr Martin Halliday	Member
Cr Sophie Handford	Member
Cr Rob Kofoed	Member
Cr Liz Koh	Member
Cr Jocelyn Prvanov	Member
Cr Kathy Spiers	Member
Cr Shelly Warwick	Member
Cr Nigel Wilson	Member