Agenda of Maori Consultative Committee

Maori Consultative Committee – 10 May 2017 – Open Agenda

Maori Consultative Committee – Review of Terms of Reference

Hui Okawa

Whakamoremiti Hori Reti

Apologies Piri Prentice, Liz Ratima

Present Tiwana Aranui, Hori Reti, Apiata Tapine

Agenda;

As per the MCC Committee Meeting Wednesday 10^th March, Item on the agenda is;

“Opportunities for the role of the Māori Consultative Committee”.

Acknowledge his Worship Mayor Bill Dalton for the opportunity to participate in the review of the TOR that supports the function of the Māori Standing Committee for Napier City Council.

Agreed to review the terms of Reference

Agreed to keep this process short and effective, consulting with those who may represent the interests of Iwi in regard to issues pertaining to Māori Values and expectations.

Why Review:

 The TOR could be more robust and provide more substantial feedback into the Napier City Councils decision-making processes.

 Listed benefits of where valuable for Napier City Council can be achieved through more comprehensive information from the Iwi around decisions of Council and areas where there are shared responsibility.

 Increase participation of Iwi groups in local authority tters and economic activities and committee representation.

 Recent changes to the RMA and the Mana Whakahono O Te Rohe amendments.

The following points were noted;

 There is massive scope to improve the way in which Māori can engage in decisions of council.

 Recently there are several new potential partners in the Hawkes Bay Economy from Iwi Settlement Groups in and around Kahungunu, over half a billion dollars from Te Wairoa To Wairarapa.

 Stronger partnerships with Māori at a Governance level of the city will enable stronger decisions of council.

 Māori groups and associations are still predominately volunteer based and commitment and continuity of work as well as recognition of who has pre-established relationships with NCC.

It was determined by those present that the Terms of Reference would benefit from being review.

After considering the task constraints and framework in detail and conversation around a suggested process, the meeting closed at 6:30pm.

Task Constraints and Framework

Māori prefer to negotiate and korero around issues in a face to face manner, this is not a time conservative approach to communications and engagement, however, it has historically resulted in more open and considered dialogue with enhanced outcomes coupled with stronger ownership from participants. Given this is, the consultative committee members will may choose the preference to engage face to face [kanohi ki kanohi].

Some TOR being considered for reference

Rotorua City Council

Nelson Council?

Wairoa District Council

 Wairoa’s Māori Standing Committee has offered to come and speak directly to the changes they have implemented and what learning has been gained since it’s inception. Contact Maori Liason Officer Dwyane? and Chairman of the MCC of WDC, Kiwa Hammond

We have at discounted those with a TOR similar to our current references. Opting instead for those that present new, different or more comprehensive TOR that enable the committee to be active in their role to support decision making.

Suggested Schedule considered;

Recommended Process to Review;

HUI TUATAHI
MSC - Committee; Mayor and Management representatives? Any others Venue; At Chambers?	1 hour workshopping with the Mayor and Management. 1 Hour Workshop with Committee only. Venue to be confirmed.	Kanohi ki Kanohi Check with NCC around history of MSC, range of powers, previous attempts, and recommendations on process, key components and expectations, Constraints. Time - 2 Hours?
HUI TUARUA
Develop draft TOR Identify key stakeholder holder groups and partners to participate in conversation	Invite the Wairoa Council Māori Standing Committee	Email or Kanohi ki Kanohi? Time - 2 Hours? Venue
Māori Standing Committee of Wairoa District Council Did we want to accept? Verbal confirmation received – interested in a korero with the Wairoa MSC.	WDC Mayor Mr Little has offered the learning gained from reviewing their TOR. The WDC Māori Liaison Officer and the Chairperson of the committee are awaiting confirmation around our invitation. To hear first-hand from their perspective around the development of relationships with Iwi in the Wairoa Region and other indirect benefits that Wairoa Council has achieved. The Wairoa MSC are waiting on a date for their visit.
Circulate Draft Material around members via email OR Wananga [preferred?]	Did we want to have an open hui around this kaupapa vs circulating digital information?	Gather feedback and incorporate into the TOR Draft version.
HUI TUATORU
MSC - Committee; Mayor and Management and new representatives. Circulate digitally OR Kanohi ki Kanohi Hui	Meet with key and potential stake holders to offer amendments the Draft TOR and Draft MCC recommendations to be presented to the Mayor? Committees?
HUI TUAWHĀ
Engagement Hui OR Digital Hui	Meet kanohi ki Kanohi with parties and finalise the final Draft recommendations for TOR. Prepare for inclusion on the agenda.
MSC - Committee; Mayor and Management representatives; OR Wananga	Present the TOR and framework Provide recommendations to council to adopt the New TOR.	Email or Kanohi ki Kanohi?
Māori Consultative Committee	Include on the Agenda
Roadshow Wananga	Present the TOR to stakeholder groups or members who to be recruit/engaged to support the MSC in the decisions of Council.

Maori Consultative Committee – 10 May 2017 – Open Agenda

REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES

MAORI CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Maori Consultative Recommendations arising from the discussion of the Committee reports, be submitted to the Council meeting for consideration.

Reports from Strategy and Infrastructure Committee
held 19 April 2017

1. Park Island Master Plan Review

*Type of Report:*	Legal and Operational
*Legal Reference:*	Resource Management Act 1991
*Document ID:*	347334
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Antoinette Campbell, Director Community Services

1.1 Purpose of Report

To outline the process undertaken in reviewing the 2013 Park Island Master Plan and provide the updated Park Island Master Plan 2016 for Council’s consideration.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Brosnan / Councillor Hague

That Council

a. Adopt the Park Island Master Plan 2016 and

b. That a District Plan Change is initiated to rezone Park Island’s Northern Sports Hub to meet the Master Plan objectives.

CARRIED

1.2 Background Summary

The original Park Island Master Plan (shown as attachment A) was developed in 2013 in consultation with users of the sportsgrounds, to provide a plan for development over a 30 year timeframe to meet the community’s current and growing sport and recreation needs. The Master Plan sets out the overall direction for Park Island, which includes the development of new sporting and recreational areas and various environmental enhancements throughout the 68 hectares. The Master Plan also considers Park Island in the broader context and the relationship and linkages to surrounding areas, particularly Parklands subdivision and Mana Ahuriri’s Westminster Block. The ‘sportsville’ concept is the basis of the Master Plan with reorganisation and development focused around sporting ‘hubs’. A major component of the original Master Plan development was the inclusion of the substantial Northern Sporting Hub on a greenfields site.

Since the adoption of the Master Plan in 2013, a number of smaller scale projects have been completed in the Southern and Central Sports Hubs, however before proceeding with some of the more significant capital developments, it was identified that that a comprehensive review of the Master Plan was warranted.

1.3 Issues

Current utilisation of Park Island by sports codes is predominantly on Saturdays with the exception of hockey which operates seven days a week primarily due to having artificial turf playing surfaces available to the sport. What was once played on 25 grass playing fields between Napier and Hastings, is now played on 3 ½ artificial hockey surfaces in Hawke’s Bay. Over the last three years there have been several changes in sporting trends, including a recent increase in the acceptability of the use of artificial turf pitches for other sporting codes including football and rugby.

A new issues and options paper was therefore developed in consultation with Park Island user groups and relevant stakeholders to inform the review of the Master Plan. A summary of stakeholder consultation follows highlighting current issues identified by the user groups.

Stakeholder consultation

During the 2016 stakeholder consultation, most sports organisations identified the need for greater capacity in sports fields based on growth of their sports. This demand is primarily within the winter codes. It is anticipated that this demand can be met by the implementation of artificial turf pitches that can be more intensely utilised and shared between codes. Several organisations have aspirations for significant development of facilities, fields and services at Park Island to meet current demand and anticipated growth.

Central Football see Park Island as the main hub for football within its Federation area and the logical location for its high performance programmes. Central Football desires a permanent year-round operating base which includes offices and meeting rooms, high performance training facilities as well as more fields for football competitions, tournaments and training, including in the near future, at least one artificial turf.

The Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union (HBRU) needs an operating base including offices, meeting rooms and high performance training facilities with a seminar room, fitness gym, a covered training area with an artificial surface, as well as facilities for related services e.g. surgery, sport massage and physiotherapy. In addition, the high performance programme needs access to a training field and a half field that are both floodlit to game standard. To avoid duplication of facilities there maybe opportunities for Central Football to share high performance related training facilities with the rugby union.

Napier Old Boys Marist (NOBM) is seeking allocation of two more training fields close to their clubrooms to meet current demand. Netball and softball both lack training facilities at Park Island and seek to have a similar level of service to other sports within NOBM though a designated softball training area and the installation of two courts on the park. The Club would like to have the existing grandstand on the Tremain Field covered to provide shelter for spectators and to increase the life of the grandstand.

Napier Pirate Rugby and Sports Club is advocating to be fully relocated from Tamatea Park onto Park Island, with allocated fields and a clubroom facility. This has been driven by a growth in Club membership, with over 500 members currently. Presently the Club’s activities are fragmented between Tamatea Park and Park Island which can be difficult to manage. This has meant activities have been consolidated on Tamatea Park which has led to chronic overuse and degradation of the sportsground. The Master Plan proposes a clubroom facility and associated sports fields in the Northern Sports Hub for games and training. There is potential for colocation of clubs to occur at this facility.

The Napier City Rovers Football Club propose development of a secure store for football equipment at Shrimpton Fields to eliminate hazards associated with carrying equipment across Clyde Jeffery Drive. The lack of floodlighting on Shrimpton Fields hinders full utilisation of the venue for training in the evenings. The Master Plan proposes new floodlights for these fields. Napier City Rovers also see the provision of an artificial turf football field as critical to the future development of the sport in the Region.

Since the 2013 Park Island Master Plan there has been significant additional capacity in artificial hockey turf developed at the Regional Sports Park. The development of a full sized turf with spectator facilities and an adjacent half turf means there is sufficient capacity in the Region to defer development of the third hockey turf in the foreseeable future. The Master Plan however makes provision for the development of a third and fourth artificial turf as demand arises. Hawke’s Bay Hockey have identified a severe lack of space for change rooms and other ancillary facilities. Provision has been made for the extension of existing facilities toward the third and fourth hockey turfs.

Changes to the Master Plan

Most changes to the Park Island Master Plan 2016 update (shown as attachment B) have occurred in the Northern Sports Hub. The main changes are;

 a reduction in the overall number of fields,

 an increase in the total number of artificial turfs, and

 the establishment of the HBRU high performance training facility.

Updates to the Master Plan have seen a consolidation of the park layout giving the Northern Sports Hub a more compact urban form and better connectivity to the wider park and surrounds. The Northern Sports Hub has contracted and shifted towards the southeast direction to overlay Residential zoned greenfields bordered by the corner of Orotu Drive and Westminster Avenue.

The Northern Sports Hub now includes additional car parking to support the inclusion of a new high performance facility and game standard training field for the HBRU which will contribute to the creation of an additional 527 car parks on Park Island in total.

Another significant change to the Plan is the removal of twelve tennis courts from the Northern Sports Hub as they are no longer seen as needed. This was confirmed by the findings of the Indicative Business Case (IBC) carried out for the Clay Tennis Court proposal in 2015. The Central and Southern Sports Hubs are essentially unchanged from the 2013 plan with the exception of the addition of the two artificial turf fields, one for rugby on the Tremains field and the other for football outside the Bluewater Stadium.

The redesign of the Northern Sports Hub in particular will necessitate a District Plan Change proposing to rezone the Residential Zone on the southeastern boundary to Sports Park Zone, and to rezone much of the current Sports Park Zone in the northeast, to Residential Zone.

1.4 Significance and Consultation

The proposed Park Island Master Plan has been assessed against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and is found to meet the criteria for significance in that the proposal involves a strategic asset.

Whilst stakeholder engagement has taken place in the review of the Master Plan (summarised within the Issues section above and detailed within the Master Plan itself), the Council is being asked to approve the plan as the basis of a proposed Plan Change to rezone areas of greenfields to meet the objectives of the Master Plan. The statutory plan change process will involve wider community and affected party consultation including consultation with Maori as required by the Resource Management Act 1991.

1.5 Implications

Financial

The Park Island Expansion has a budget of $4,246,000 in years 2017/18 and 2018/19 of the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2015-25. There is also $7,500,000 earmarked for the years from 2022/23 to 2024/25 (years 8-10) of the current LTP. The total rough order of cost (ROC) of implementing the Council-owned facilities in the Park Island Master Plan has been estimated to be $25,650,000 over a 30 year timeframe. As a comparison a ROC developed in 2013 estimated that construction of Council-owned facilities would be $35,450,000.

No additional funding to implement the Park Island Master Plan is being sought at this stage however will need to be considered in the drafting of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Any facilities proposed to be developed by Regional Sports Organisations (RSO) and Sports Clubs are expected to be fully funded by the relevant RSO/Club with budgeted contributions from Council and external organisations such as the Artificial Turf Trust.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

A key risk in adopting the Park Island Master Plan 2016 is that the associated Plan Change and rezoning is not upheld for whatever reasons. This will have the effect of making the updated Master Plan redundant and this matter will need to be brought back to Council for reconsideration. Early community engagement and rigorous consultation process will be carried out to minimise this risk.

1.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

1. To adopt the Park Island Master Plan 2016 to form the basis of a change to the District Plan to rezone the greenfields site on the western side of Orotu Drive to the corner of Westminster Avenue.

2. To not adopt the Park Island Master Plan 2016.

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is to adopt the Park Island Master Plan 2016 so that the proposed Plan Change may be notified as soon as possible. The HBRU are keen to progress the high performance facility development as early as possible and it has been estimated that the statutory process will take at least until December 2017 when a decision will be forthcoming. Likewise, Pirates Rugby and Sports Club are keen to progress their plans to relocate and consolidate facilities at Park Island as soon as possible. The reviewed Master Plan has been through a robust consultation exercise with stakeholders to ensure it will meet the various sporting needs now and into the future.

At the Meeting

Councillors remarked that this plan reflected the strategic direction of the Council well.

1.8 Attachments

a Park Island Master Plan 2013 (Under Separate Cover)

b Draft Park Island Master Plan 2016 (Under Separate Cover)

Maori Consultative Committee – 10 May 2017 – Open Agenda

2. McLean Park Re-turf Project

*Type of Report:*	Operational and Procedural
*Legal Reference:*	Enter Legal Reference
*Document ID:*	348170
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Debra Stewart, Team Leader Parks, Reserves, Sportsgrounds

2.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the Mclean Park Re-turf Project and seek approval for an additional $330,000 to be transferred from the Sportsground Renewal fund to enable the hybrid turf to be secured this (2016/17) financial year.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Jeffery / Wise

That Council:

a. receive the report titled McLean Park Re-Turf Project.

b. approve an additional $330,000 to be transferred to the McLean Park Re-turf Project from the Sportsground Renewal fund to be spent in the 2016/2017 financial year.

CARRIED

2.2 Background Summary

A strategic review in late 2015 confirmed McLean Park’s standing as a well-regarded regional venue for both cricket and rugby in the New Zealand. The strategic review identified a number of opportunities for investment that would improve the facilities service offering and better position McLean Park as a true multipurpose venue suitable for both sports and other large events.

With support from Council this has led to a programme to develop drop in wickets, on venue practise nets and a review of sports field lighting provisions, provided for by existing funding provisions in the LTP.

Further funding was identified in the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan for development of sports grounds and for investment in sportsground infrastructure. In addition to the above, funding for the re-turfing of McLean Park was made available in the 2018/19 financial year of the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

After the cricket game between the Blackcaps vs Australia on 2 February 2017 was called off due to outfield drainage conditions Sports Surface Design and Management (SSDM) were engaged to undertake a detailed investigation into the cause of the issue.

Councillors were briefed on the outcomes of that investigation and presented with options for the rectification of the issues identified, including the excavation of the existing outfield, construction of a gravel (drainage) raft and laying of a new turf. Several options for new turf were discussed, including a traditional sand carpet and two hybrid turf options that incorporate synthetic fibres to strengthen the final playing surface.

Through the briefing process Council’s preference for a hybrid turf was confirmed as a traditional sand carpet is not considered appropriate given the multi-use nature proposed for Mclean Park. Council also confirmed the need to undertake drainage improvement works and irrigation system improvements as a coordinated project and it is on this basis that the project is proceeding.

Council officers have undertaken significant investigation of two alternative hybrid turf surfaces. These include –

1. Stabilised Sand Carpet (MOTZ Eclipse)

2. Reinforced Surface (DESSO Playmaster)

2.3 Issues

The field requires full reconstruction including the sub surface drainage and irrigation installation as well as laying the new hybrid turf.

The timeframes for the re-turf project are very tight and the window is limited to between November 2017 and early January 2018.

The MOTZ Eclipse has been ordered, and the timeframes for delivery are to be confirmed. HG Sports Turf who will supply and lay the turf are very confident they can meet the proposed timeframes.

2.4 Significance and Consultation

The Mclean Park Re-turf has been identified in the Long Term Plan and the Annual Plan. Consultation has already been undertaken on this issue as part of the Long Term Plan and it is a key priority project for the upcoming Annual Plan process.

2.5 Implications

Financial

The Mclean Park Re-Turf project is identified in the Annual Plan for 2017/2018. $851,000 has been set aside for this purpose specifically. This will be inadequate to complete the combined project (including drainage and irrigation) which will have a total cost of $2million plus. A more accurate cost will be able to be established once the detailed design and design specifications for all components of work have been completed. The remainder of the project will be funded from the following existing budget provisions made available in the Annual Plan:

 Sportsground Infrastructure - $1.95 million in 2017/2018

 Sportsground Infrastructure - $461,000 in 2018/2019

For work programmed to be completed this financial year funding will come from Sports Grounds Renewals of which $170,000 is currently available. Whilst the bulk of the works will be completed in the 2017/2018 year there will be a required spend of approximately $500,000 in 2016/2017 year to secure the product.

It is recommended that $330,000 be bought forward from the 2018/2019 Sportsgrounds Infrastructure Renewal fund, to cover this cost in this financial year.

Social & Policy

Mclean Park is Napier’s premier sporting facility and the Councils intention is for this Park to become a more multiuse facility able to accommodate a range of events. Mclean Park hosts the HB Magpies home games, occasional Super Rugby games, and is home to the Central Districts Stags who play there regularly. In addition the Park recently hosted the opening powhiri for Te Matatini and is being considered for Christmas in the Park.

Risk

If the proposed re-turf is not completed then Mclean Park could be considered unfit in terms of its ability to host international cricket games. Mclean Park is the only facility in Hawke’s Bay capable of hosting international cricket. Not doing the re-turf would likely mean that no further cricket games would be allocated to the Hawke’s Bay region.

New Zealand Cricket have expressed a level of concern around the ability for the ground to be fully re-turfed (including the required sub-surface works) in sufficient time to enable Mclean Park to available for the scheduled one day international matches in 2018. Officer’s have been assured by the proposed supplier that the timeframes can be met and the ground will be ready by mid January 2018. Appropriate contractual mechanisms will be employed to ensure that the risk to Council of timeframes not being met is mitigated.

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

1. Do nothing

Doing nothing is not considered to be an option because the ground would not be able to host international cricket games. The current surface presents some challenges in terms of being able to manage it for cricket, rugby and occasional events and is already programmed for replacement.

2. Re turf with a product only suitable for cricket

Replacement with a traditional sand carpet, which would be suitable for cricket only, is not considered to be an option given that Mclean Park is a multi- purpose venue catering for rugby, cricket and events.

3. Re- turf with a hybrid turf

Replacement of the current turf with a hybrid turf is considered to be the preferred option in that it would provide for international rugby, cricket, soccer and events. The hybrid turf proposed for Mclean Park is considered to be the product most proven in other venues which hold a similar range of events.

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

The table below shows examples of where various turf surfaces are being used in New Zealand as a useful comparison. It also notes that the MCG Melbourne is MOTZ Eclipse which is what is being proposed for Mclean Park.

Venue Code Surface

Hagley Oval	Cricket	Traditional Sand Carpet
Seddon Park, Hamilton	Cricket	Traditional Sand Carpet
The Basin Reserve	Cricket	Traditional Sand Carpet
FMG – Waikato Stadium	Rugby	MOTZ Eclipse
Westpac – Wellington	Multi use	MOTZ Eclipse
Eden Park - Auckland	Rugby and Cricket	MOTZ Eclipse
QBE – Training field	Rugby	DESSO Playmaster
MCG - Melbourne	Multi use	MOTZ Eclipse

On balance the MOTZ Eclipse is considered to be the most suitable hybrid turf for Mclean Park, Napier’s premier sporting facility.

There have been ongoing discussions with New Zealand Cricket (NZC). In addition, Officers have discussed the options with several sports turf experts. Preliminary discussions have also been held with the Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union. Both NZC and Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union are comfortable with what is proposed.

At the Meeting

It was noted that it is necessary to have hybrid turf to future-proof the park for growth in cricket and other sports.

In response to questions on the preferred option of the turf, and risks around timing of installation, the Director Infrastructure Services and Chief Executive advised:

 there will be never be a perfect time to install the turf. There will always be a risk due to the cross-over between the rugby and cricket seasons. Officials have looked at what events could be set aside during the construction period. If they delayed the construction any further then council would lose two 1 day international cricket matches which could result in a three year wait to secure international cricket matches.

 the preferred turf has been around for a number of years and has been tested in a variety of venues in New Zealand and Australia. The other option for turf had not been tested to international game standard, only community games. Therefore, officials selected the turf which has been tried and tested.

 the preferred turf is also versatile and can be upgraded if required in future years.

Director Infrastructure Services advised that the drop-in wicket will be ready for the under-19s world cup which will be held in January 2018. It was hoped it would be ready by now, but due to unforeseen events it had to be delayed.

2.8 Attachments

Nil

Maori Consultative Committee – 10 May 2017 – Open Agenda

Reports from Regulatory Committee
held 19 April 2017

1. Adoption of the 2016 Review of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy

*Type of Report:*	Enter Significance of Report
*Legal Reference:*	Enter Legal Reference
*Document ID:*	344792
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Dean Moriarity, Team Leader Policy Planning

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is for the Council to adopt the 2016 Review of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS2016).

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Jeffery / White

That Council:

a. receives and notes the HPUDS Implementation Working Groups Hearing meeting record and the recommendation reports

b. adopts the Review of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS2016) in accordance with the Joint Working Group’s recommendations on submissions, as set out in the appendices attached to this report, as the regional strategy to direct urban development from 2015 to 2045.

c. appoints Councillor White as the second elected member (in addition to Councillor Jeffery) on the Implementation Working Group of HPUDS to represent Napier City Council’s interest.

d. approves the Terms of Reference for the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation Working Group for the 2016-19 Triennium, conditional on the other two partner councils (Hawkes Bay regional Council and Hastings District Council) also agreeing to the same Terms of Reference.

CARRIED

1.2 Background Summary

The scheduled five yearly monitoring and review of the HPUDS strategy, as provided for in the implementation section of the previously adopted HPUDS2010, has now been completed. The HPUDS Implementation Working Group has considered submissions on the Draft Review document it published last year and has now formally recommended that the amended strategy be adopted by the Napier City, Hastings District and Hawke’s Bay Regional Councils.

HPUDS 2010

Before considering the Working Group’s recommendations for the review, it is worth recapping on HPUDS2010.

HPUDS was adopted in August 2010 by the Hastings District, Napier City and Hawke’s Bay Regional Councils (the partner Council’s). The purpose of HPUDS2010 is to provide a comprehensive, integrated and effective growth management strategy for the Heretaunga Plains sub-region (refer Figure 1). HPUDS 2010 brought together the separate urban development strategies that both Hastings and Napier had in place covering the period from the 1990s through to 2015.

Figure 1 - Location Map of Heretaunga Plains sub-region

HPUDS 2010 takes a long-term view of land use and infrastructure and how growth will be managed in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region for the period 2015-2045. Other strategies and plans that will influence and be influenced by HPUDS include:

 the Regional Land Transport Strategy,

 the Regional Land Transport Programme,

 each of the partner Councils’ growth strategies; Long Term Plans (LTPs),

District Plans and the Regional Policy Statement.

HPUDS 2010’s stated vision is:

“In 2045, the Heretaunga Plains is a place where there are thriving communities, quality living environments with high levels of amenity, and where mana whenua values and aspirations are recognised and provided for, and where:

 There is a growing and resilient economy which promotes opportunities to live, work, play and invest.

 The productive value of its soil and water resources are recognised and provided for, and sustainable use is promoted.

 The urban centres of Napier and Hastings have distinct identities and provide complementary living, working and learning opportunities.

 Community and physical infrastructure is integrated, sustainable and affordable.”

HPUDS 2010 is also founded on a series of guiding principles as depicted in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2- HPUDS2010 guiding principles

In implementing these principles, HPUDS 2010 seeks to achieve a compact development form. This development form was settled on by the partner Councils after an initial round of consultation in the development of HPUDS. At that time, the approach to achieve compact development was explained as:

“In the move towards more compact urban form for the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, an increasing proportion of the residential growth will need to take place through intensification, by redevelopment within existing residential and rural residential areas, development is expected to transition from current development allocation levels to the following by 2045:

 60% intensification

 35% greenfield

 5% of population in rural areas.

The Strategy was also developed on the basis of achieving balanced supply between Napier and Hastings.”

This change to a more compact form was envisaged to take the form of a transition from largely greenfields development to intensification over time. HPUDS therefore identified specific areas for greenfields development out to 2045 and seeks to limit such development largely to these areas. To protect the versatile land resource of the Heretaunga Plains, some tension in greenfields land supply is considered necessary to encourage the intensification of development within the existing urban areas to ensure that the 60% intensification target can be met by 2045. Table 1 below shows this transition:

Table 1: Additional Households for the Heretaunga Plains 2015 – 2045 (HPUDS 2010)

Type of Development	Proposed of Additional Households [No.]
Type of Development	2015-2025	2025-2035	2035-2045	2015-2045
Intensification	45% [1872]	55% [1502]	60% [674]	51% [4048]
Greenfields	45% [1872]	40% [1092]	35% [394]	41% [3358]
Rural Residential	10% [416]	5% [136]	5% [56]	8% [608]
Total	100% [4160]	100% [2730]	100% [1124]	100% [8014]

Defined growth areas in conjunction with intensification are considered to be more efficient and cost effective from an infrastructure and servicing point of view. It ensures land use and infrastructure can be coordinated, development well planned, and growth on the versatile land of the Heretaunga Plains avoided as much as possible.

The growth areas and their potential dwelling yield have been derived by projecting the dwelling growth needs for the HPUDS study area out to 2045. These projections are based on demographic information and calculate the number of greenfields, infill and rural dwellings that will be required to meet these growth needs in a ratio that achieves the preferred settlement pattern.

The Strategy’s timeframe deliberately started from 2015 in order to provide a lead-in time for establishing policies in statutory planning documents (e.g. the Regional Policy Statement and Hastings District Plan Review). For the 2010-2015 period, existing growth strategies for Napier and Hastings continued to apply.

Key implementation actions that have been taken since 2010 include:

 Change 4 to the Regional Policy Statement to embed HPUDS policy direction

 Review of the Hastings District Plan and a change to the Napier City District Plan to incorporate HPUDS policy and zoning initiatives

 Incorporated HPUDS in land-use projections for the Regional Land Transport Strategy and Programme.

HPUDS Implementation and Review

Following adoption of the final HPUDS in August 2010, a working group (IWG) was formed to oversee its implementation. The IWG has no direct decision-making powers, but can make recommendations to the partner councils. The IWG consists of:

 Two elected members from each partner council.

 Mayors of Napier and Hastings councils

 Chairperson of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council

 Chief Executives from each partner council

 Two representatives of mana whenua.

Councillors White and Jeffery represented this Council on the Group over the last triennium, which included overseeing the HPUDS2016 Review and hearing submissions on the Draft document.

This triennium, Napier City Council has appointed Councillor Jeffery to the IWG but under its Terms of Reference Napier City Council has the opportunity to appoint a second elected representative (other than the Mayor) in line with the other partner Councils. In order to provide balanced numbers with the other partner Councils and for continuity reasons it is recommended that Councillor White should also be appointed to the IWG to represent Napier’s interest. A small Technical Advisory Group (TAG) supports the Working Group. The TAG comprises senior planning staff from each of the three partner councils. An updated version of the IWG’s terms of reference is set out in Attachment F for the Council’s endorsement, subject to similar endorsement from the two other partner Councils’.

HPUDS is based on a number of assumptions about future development and infrastructure trends that will likely change over the next thirty years and the Strategy is intended to adapt to changing trends over time. As such, HPUDS specifically provides that the Strategy be reviewed every five years after the results of the national census are available to ensure that it is kept up to date and relevant. Due to the Canterbury earthquakes delaying the last census, this first five year review programmed for 2015 was delayed until 2016.

Current Situation

The IWG was charged with undertaking the first regular five yearly review and recommending any changes to HPUDS back to the partner Councils. The IWG split the review into three stages as set out in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 - Representation of the HPUDS Review's key stages

The IWG commenced the first review by doing a ‘stock take’ of a range of local and national factors which may have influenced the Strategy since 2010. Eleven separate reports were completed as part of Stage 1 reports. These reviewed the assumptions upon which the strategy was based, with a particular focus on the monitoring of growth drivers and trends of the five years to 2015.

Growth Drivers and Emerging Issues

The population growth within the study area from 2009 – 2015, was higher than that projected in 2009 (by 1,080) due mainly to net migration gain (1,106). This migration gain was from internal migration from other parts of New Zealand of 3,172, which more than compensated for a net overseas migration loss of 2,066. However, net migration gains have historically tended to be followed by losses, hence the long term Statistics New Zealand projections assume a migration balance.

Similarly, the total number of ‘households’ in the study area has exceeded the projections made six years ago by 545 households. In addition to population increase, this has resulted from demographic and social changes in the community which has reduced the average number of people per household from 2.6 in 2009 to 2.55 in 2016.

The HPUDS2016 Review therefore provided updated projections, which resulted in both population and dwelling growth increases over the 30 year period (based on the medium – high growth projection scenarios) compared to the HPUDS 2010 projections.

Projected household growth across the HPUDS Study Area for the 2015 – 2045 study period is 10,610 households is based on a Statistics New Zealand ‘Halfway Medium to High’ growth projection scenario. This is an increase on that projected in 2009 of 8 014 (it should be noted though that this projection was based on a medium-high projection for Napier City, but a ‘middle of the road’ growth projection scenario within the Hastings District). Total population growth in the area over this timeframe is projected to be 16,455, while average household occupancy falls from 2.55 to 2.38.

Forecast annual average GDP growth for the wider Hawke’s Bay region remains at 1.5% throughout the study period to 2045 with primary industry growth and infrastructural upgrading, underpinning this growth outlook. Employment is similarly forecast to grow at average annual rates of 1 - 1.5% during the study period, so industrial and commercial land requirement projections remain similar to those projected in 2009.

The reports completed as part of the HPUDS Review Stage 1 therefore generally confirmed that the HPUDS 2010 assumptions and directions around urban growth remain sound despite there being a slightly larger than projected increase in population during the period 2009 - 2015.

The updated projections result in a slight population increase over the 30 year period to 2045 and a more significant increase in dwelling growth (based on adopting the medium – high growth projections). Nevertheless this increase would still be able to be accommodated within the HPUDS identified greenfield growth areas and the infill growth projections over the long term, with some amendments i.e. there is a sufficient buffer.

In summary the demographic analysis undertaken as part of the review for the period 2009-2015 (as compared to that predicted as part of the 2010 strategy) found:

• 1080 extra population (mainly increased due to net migration)

• 545 extra households

Projecting the new demographics over the life of the strategy (30 years) using a standard whole of population projection results in:

• 8000 extra population (now projected to increase by 16,455)

• 2500 extra dwellings required (now 10 610 projected to be required)

• 1387 extra greenfield sites supply required to proportionally meet the increased population

What this means in terms of HPUDS is that projected increase in demand for greenfield sites (+1387) results in a total projected demand over the life of the strategy for:

• (4745 total sites now compared to 3358 in 2010)

Scope of Review

Despite a long term level of comfort some immediate supply issues (at Havelock North and Frimley (Lyndhurst) and potentially at Te Awa), suggested further work was needed around current greenfields supply availability issues in some locations.

The Market Demand report also identified that the lifestyle residential housing supply appears to fall short of the likely total demand to the end of the 2045 study period, despite lessening demand beyond the 2020s with an aging population requiring better access to amenities and services.

After considering matters arising from the initial reporting ‘stock take’, the IWG agreed that the scope of this first 5-yearly review (i.e. remaining review Stages 2 and 3) would be to:

(1) consider councils' requests for alternative sites to include in the strategy and make any required or requested changes to the settlement pattern (including reconsideration of inappropriate areas for development)

(2) further investigate the rural residential land supply and regulatory responses

(3) evaluate the retirement sector and options for accommodating retirement villages

(4) update hazard information

(5) remove redundant or low value recommended actions from the strategy, and correct omissions and errors.

On this basis the IWG commissioned three further reports as follows:

 Alternative Greenfield Sites and Review of the HPUDS Settlement Pattern

 Review of Rural residential Lifestyle Sites

 Retirement Sector Housing Demands Forecasts 2016-2045

Greenfields Sites/Settlement Pattern

Opus Consultants undertook an independent evaluation of the comparative suitability of the residential greenfield areas (including ‘Reserve’ areas) put forward by the Council’s for inclusion in HPUDS. They were assessed against the Regional Policy Statement Criteria in Policy 4.2 ‘New Residential Greenfield Growth Area Criteria’

Due to the potential high costs associated with servicing land in Te Awa and concerns around the viability of future stages, South Pirimai was promoted as an alternative option for Napier while Hastings promoted the following:

 Brookvale as a short-medium term substitute for Arataki Extension

 Part Romanes Drive as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area

 Part Middle/Te Aute Road as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area

 Murdoch Road West as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area

 Wall Road as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area.

The Opus review confirmed that it was appropriate to adopt the Hastings District Council’s preference for Arataki Extension to be removed from the list of Greenfield Growth Areas in HPUDS (due to reverse sensitivity issues to odour from the neighbouring Te Mata Mushrooms) and be replaced with an area fronting Brookvale Road, Havelock North. Further to this in responding to immediate greenfields supply availability issues the report recommended the inclusion in HPUDS of additional ‘reserve’ growth areas, as requested.

It needs to be clearly understood that Reserve areas’ are recommended to act as stand-by replacements for the Greenfield Growth Areas. This ensures that there are identified areas available within HPUDS to ‘bring on’ if, as has happened with Arataki Extension, a Greenfields Growth Area proves to be inappropriate upon closer investigation. Having reserve areas that have passed preliminary pre- screening and are on ‘standby’ should a need arise, saves the delay that would be associated with a screening assessment which would otherwise be built into the HPUDS review process to introduce a new replacement area.

Other circumstances where a reserve area could be advanced would be if there is a rapid and significant change in growth demand, or if for example retirement village needs cannot reasonably be met within the preferred greenfields areas. It is not however deemed necessary to have ‘reserve growth areas’ for every identified greenfield growth location in HPUDS, but it is prudent to have them available for the main urban areas of Napier City and Hastings District.

In addition a review of ‘Areas Inappropriate for Greenfields Growth’, specifically identified Whirinaki and South Clive for consideration. The Opus report subsequently recommended, two areas identified in the ‘Inappropriate Areas for development’ list in HPUDS 2010, be removed. These are:

 Clive South (an area off the end of Read Crescent between SH2 and Muddy Creek); and

 Whirinaki.

The report concluded that both areas were identified as inappropriate because of servicing issues and concluded that both areas warrant removal from the ‘inappropriate’ list, however neither warranted inclusion as appropriate greenfield growth areas (or reserve areas) in HPUDS.

Rural Residential Supply

A specific planning analysis by Cheal Consultants revealed that there is still available zoned but not yet developed land supplies for rural residential development in the areas identified as being desired by the market. This conclusion however relies on ongoing subdivision to create new lots in areas of market preference, whereas the HPUDS 2010 assumption was that there was already a surplus of available lots.

The creation of new lots in areas of market preference may or may not happen. No action was however deemed necessary at this point in time, but future HPUDS review processes should continue to identify the supply of lifestyle residential sites and monitor whether these are becoming scarce in areas of market preference.

Retirement Sector

Given the increasing proportion of the population in the 65+ age group, a specific study was undertaken by EMS Consultants on this form of housing and its likely demand, and whether this is likely to be by greenfields or brownfields retirement villages or infill housing (or combinations).

Retirement units are likely to represent 30-40% of all future new build housing in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region between now and 2045, with half of these likely in ‘traditional’ retirement villages. Sites of sufficient size for this are likely to be found primarily on greenfield land, rather than infill sites within existing urban areas.

As retirement housing (with associated higher housing densities) becomes an increasingly significant factor in the overall housing market, it is possible that the amount of greenfield land required for future housing development in the HPUDS study area would be reduced. As these trends develop there will be an increase in supply and potentially a reduction in demand for larger homes as these are sold by older people to help fund their entry into retirement housing. In providing for retirement villages however, there may be a need to reflect on future housing density rules and ways in which greater densities can be achieved in both greenfields and infill areas, without compromising (and ideally enhancing) the urban living environment.

No immediate change to the HPUDS settlement pattern was considered as a result of this report at this stage; rather what is required is an awareness that the type of homes built within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region is going to change over the study period to meet the demands of the aging population. In addition there will be a need for developers to be able to aggregate larger blocks within residential greenfield growth areas in suitable locations to accommodate retirement villages. Reserve greenfields areas could be used to provide for retirement villages if the aggregation of sufficient areas of greenfields or brownfields land proves to be too difficult in the medium to longer term.

Draft Strategy

The other component of Stage 2 of the Review was to prepare a draft HPUDS Review Strategy document, based on the finding of the Stage 1 reports and the abovementioned Stage 2 reports, for public consultation.

The redrafted HPUDS document removed the implementation actions that were either completed or deemed unnecessary (in some cases because they are being actioned through other existing programmes, plans or strategies). In addition the redrafting involved the correction of errors and omissions and incorporated amendments to the HPUDS document arising from the items discussed above.

Further, it was decided to separate the implementation sections out from the main strategy document so that it would be more coherent and easier to digest for external audiences readers. A separate implementation plan (attached as an Appendix to the report) was produced as a companion document, which would then guide the future activities of the IWG and Council staff between the 5 year monitoring and review phases.

Public Consultation

The third stage featuring public consultation, involved refreshing the long-established website (www.hpuds.co.nz) with the content updated in July 2016. All the 2015 – 2016 review information, including new maps and submissions is posted on that website. Councillors from the three Council’s were briefed on the draft strategy on 14 July 2016. Full page advertisement/explanations were included in the community newspapers on 3rd August 2016 and articles were also included in the Hawke’s Bay Today to advise the opportunity to make submissions on the reviewed HPUDS document.

Notices calling for submissions were e-mailed and posted to interested parties in late July 2016. The mailing lists included the following:

• HPUDS Stakeholder Consultation Group; Submitters to RPS Change 4; and those who submitted on HPUDS last time (if not already in the stakeholder database);

• Te Awa and South Pirimai landowners, including land owners within 100m of the boundary of the newly proposed South Pirimai area; and

• Arataki Extension, Brookvale and proposed Hastings District Reserve Area landowners, including land owners within 100m of the boundaries of new areas in Hastings (Brookvale and reserve areas).

That consultation phase resulted in over 50 submissions being made on the Draft Revised Strategy and a hearing being held in early October 2016. Submissions are available to view on the HPUDS website: http://www.hpuds.co.nz/review/#sub

In terms of submission themes and locations the following submissions were received:

 Brookvale / Arataki Area

 Supporting Brookvale as a greenfields development area but seeking immediate rezoning (11 submissions),

 Opposing Brookvale as a greenfields development area (1),

 Supporting Romanes Drive as a reserve area (2), and

 Seeking the retention of the Arataki Extension in HPUDS (1);

 Other Hastings District Growth or Reserve Areas:

 Supporting and Opposing Iona / Havelock Hills (4),

 Supporting Middle Road (2),

 Supporting Howard Street (1),

 Supporting Wall Road (2),

 Opposing Murdoch Road (1),

 Mapping of Tomoana Industrial (2) and

 Mapping of Te Awanga (2);

 Requests for New Hastings District Growth Areas or New Reserve Areas for residential development:

 Ada Street (1),

 Pakowhai Road (2),

 Clive (2),

 Raymond Road (3),

 Waiohiki (1)

 and Whirinaki (1);

 Issues with Existing Growth Areas, Napier at:

 Te Awa (2),

 Taradale Hills (2)

 and promote infill housing (1)

 Requests for New Napier Growth Areas / Development Opportunities at:

 Jervoistown (1),

 Meeanee Road (1),

 Cnr Riverbend & Bledisloe (1)

 and Churchhill Drive (1)

 Another 10 general submissions (or parts of submissions) were received with a variety of more general requests, notably 3 of them strongly supported the existing strategy and either opposed or urged caution with regards to the introduction of any new areas or reserve areas.

Hearings and Recommendations

The Working Group held hearings over two days in October last year and resolved to write to all submitters thanking them for their submissions and advising them of the IWG’s recommendations in response to their submissions and offering explanations based on the officer comments as amended by the Working Group at the meeting. Submitters were also advised that the final adoption of a revised HPUDS document could not occur until after the local body elections.

The IWG have now recommended to the individual partner councils the adoption of a revised Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 as amended by recommendations of the IWG with such consequential amendments to the Draft Revised HPUDS 2016 as may be required to give effect to those recommendations.

The hearings record is attached as Appendix A and details the changes recommended as a result of the submissions, with the most notable of these being as follows:

 Add Romanes Drive as Greenfields Growth Area back to Thompson Road in addition to Brookvale Road, with a yield of around 255 sites between the two areas.

 Remove south Clive from the list of areas classified as inappropriate for growth and identify the 4 ha block off the end of Read Crescent as being appropriate for growth, approximately 40 sites.

 Make reference to assessment of Raymond Road as part of Cape Coast master planning following the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy.

 Expand Western Hills (Taradale Hills/Mission Heights) area and increase indicative yield from 350 to 600 sites (+250).

 Reclassify Arataki Extension as a Reserve Area and clarify the restricted circumstances for utilising including “reserve areas”” for development.

A number of consequential amendments are required as a result of these changes. All changes both primary and consequential are shown in the tracked changes version of the strategy attached as Appendix 3. Of note is the need to change the intensification targets to reflect the added yield resulting from the inclusion of Romanes Drive and expansion of the Napier Western Hills areas. While the end target percentages between Greenfields, Rural and Intensification remain the same, the transition to those targets (refer Table 3) have been adjusted to reflect the slower intensification take up implied by the increased greenfields land expected to be made available during the earlier years of the strategy.

Table 3: revised allocation of additional residential households 2015-2045

Type of Development	2015 Development	Proposed of Additional Households [No.]
Type of Development	2015 Development	2015-2025	2025-2035	2035-2045	2015-2045
Intensification	[35]	40% [2138]	51% [1706]	60% [1152]	47% [4996]
Greenfields	[40]	50% [2673]	42% [1405]	35% [672]	45% [4749]
Rural Residential	[25]	10% [534]	7% [234]	5% [96]	8% [875]
Total	[100]	5345	3345	1920	10610

National Legislative Developments

In recommending increases in the greenfield growth areas available and adding ‘Reserve Areas’ to HPUDS, the IWG gave consideration to the then impending ‘National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016’ (NPS-UDC), which came into effect on 1 December 2016. In short this NPS places an obligation on Councils to meet demand for residential development in the short (which must be zoned and serviced), medium (which must be zoned and either serviced or allocated to be serviced in the LTP) and long (identified in plans and strategies) terms.

There is a potential tension between HPUDS, which seeks to influence the nature of future urban growth (towards greater intensification of existing urban areas) and the NPS which seeks that current and future demand is satisfied (with current demand being for greenfield land). Just how far reaching the NPS may potentially impact on HPUDS will become clearer once the Ministry for the Environment publishes its implementation guidance. Preliminary feedback to date indicates that central government will attempt to provide a centralised resource to assist Council’s in implementing the NPS rather than leaving individual Council’s to work through each and every requirement on their own. There may be ways in which both the objectives of HPUDS and the NPS can be satisfied and this is likely to be a focus of some further work overseen by the new IWG.

In the meantime however, it is considered beneficial in terms of being able to progress new developments to adopt the revised HPUDS, which at least moves more in the direction of the NPS requirements in relation to greenfields land availability, rather than delaying matters and continuing with the current strategy in its unmodified form.

1.3 Issues

The first issue has been canvassed above and concerns the fact that NCC has currently only appointed CouncillorJeffery to the IWG but under its Terms of Reference NCC has the opportunity to appoint a second elected representative (other than the Mayor) in line with the other partner Council’s. The recommendation in this report is, in order to provide balanced numbers with the other partner Councils (and for continuity reasons), Councillor White should also be appointed to the IWG to represent Napier’s interest.

The second issue that has arisen recently is that both the HDC and now the HBRC have had a similar report (to this one) presented to their Council’s seeking adoption of the IWG’s recommendations and both Council’s have decided (at least for now) to let the matter lie on the table (i.e. not make a decision on the IWG’s recommendations).

Reasons for the delay from HDC seemingly focus around not having had sufficient time to adequately consider the report and its implications (it went straight to an ordinary meeting of full Council, rather than through a committee first). In terms of the HBRC, additional concerns identified were in relation to some of the fundamental approaches over the strategy (i.e. some of the HBRC Councillors seem to consider that the strategy does not effectively address the issue of urban development on fertile soils; does not address soil classifications; has a timeframe which is too long; and does not address issues such as ‘land-banking’).

As identified above the NPS-UDC requires all Council’s to provide for urban development that meets demand focusing on sufficient residential and business development capacity; basing plans and regional policy statements on robust, accurate and frequently updated evidence; integrating land use and infrastructure planning; and responding to market activity in the short, medium and long term. This is effectively what HPUDS does already, although there may in the future need to be some ‘tweaking’ to the strategy to fully deliver the outcomes required by the NPS. Viewed in this context the concerns of the HBRC, while well intentioned, do not necessarily align with what the NPS now requires Councils to do.

In order to progress the issue, demonstrate leadership, and to better cater for current and future demand for residential development within Napier (including providing a broader range of potential options) it is recommended NCC adopt the recommendations of the IWG. The net result of this would be to support the proposal for an expanded residential offering on the Western Hills (the Mission land) as well as add South Pirimai into the mix for future residential greenfield land, albeit at this stage only as a reserve area.

The final issue to be addressed is for Council to approve the Terms of Reference for the IWG for the 2016-19 Triennium (as set out in Attachment F) conditional on the two other partner councils also agreeing to the same Terms of Reference.

1.4 Significance and Consultation

HPUDS is a significant strategy document that already largely meets the needs of the newly promoted NPS on Urban Development Capacity. The review has tested the underlying assumptions on which the strategy is based and found them to be still largely sound, relevant and appropriate. In response to current and emerging issues a number of amendments to HPUDS have been suggested by the IWG and these simplify, clarify and enhance HPUDS.

As discussed above the draft strategy has already been consulted on and a significant opportunity provided for public consultation where all submissions were duly considered by the IWG in making their recommendations to the partner Councils.

Additionally the substantive 2010 strategy was subject to extensive consultation both prior to its preparation, as a draft document and through its subsequent incorporation where relevant in the Regional Policy Statement, City and District plan reviews and Changes and Council Long Term Plans. Any significant changes arising out of the reviewed strategy will similarly need to be consulted on through normal resource management and asset management processes before they can be implemented.

1.5 Implications

Financial

There may be a future requirement to provide proportional financial commitment to the newly formed IWG in line with the other partner Councils in order to fund any proposed work programme. The newly formed IWG has not yet met to set priorities and timeframes so it is impossible to quantify any such financial implications now.

Social & Policy

HPUDS eventually flows through to the statutory planning documents within Hawke’s Bay (including the Regional Policy Statement and the District Plans of Napier and Hastings) by way of specific recognition, zoning patterns and structure plans for how growth can be coordinated. This has largely been completed for the 2010 Strategy, but there may be additional requirements due to the 2016 review. Having land identified in HPUDS as appropriate for residential growth supports in principle any subsequent rezoning process but does not guarantee an outcome in the rezoning process. Other land that is not included in HPUDS can still be rezoned but will face potentially more difficult hurdles to overcome to find significant policy support in relevant statutory and policy documents.

Risk

The risk of not adopting the 2016 HPUDS review is that the issues that have presented over the last 5 years will not be addressed and that potentially the process of reviewing the original strategy will have to be restarted.

1.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

1. Option 1 – adopt the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 Review and Implementation Plan as recommended by the IWG.

2. Option 2 – seek changes to the Strategy or request that additional work be undertaken or technical reports be prepared to be overseen by the new IWG.

3. Option 3 – not adopt the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 Review and Implementation Plan; refer back to the new IWG with clear reasons why the revised strategy was not adopted and instructions for further re-workings.

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

Option 1 would provide the Council with an up to date framework to assist in the planning of its urban development and infrastructure for the next 5 years of the 30 year HPUDS period. It would accord with the delegation given to the IWG to regularly monitor and review HPUDS to ensure its continued relevance and to consult with and hear and recommend changes as a result of submissions.

The IWG has considered a considerable body of monitoring information and new research to come to considered conclusions as to how HPUDS can be amended to ensure it is fit for purpose over the near term to reflect changes over the last five years. The IWG has recommended some amendments without, in their view, detracting from the essential vision and purpose committed to by the partner Councils when they adopted HPUDS 2010 and signed a Memorandum of Agreement: ‘Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation’.

In respect of Option 2, it is possible for Council to request some changes to be made to the document, or request further work over and above that recommended by the IWG (other than minor editorial amendments). However, the principles of natural justice dictate that the request should most appropriately be referred back to the IWG for further consideration as it is the ‘body’ who has heard and considered all the relevant information. As it stands HPUDS needs to be endorsed by all three partner Councils’ before the strategy can be formally adopted as a joint strategy.

Option 3 as the opposite of option 1 would mean HPUDS2010 would remain unchanged. It would not be responsive to, nor anticipate, changing circumstances and would risk become less relevant in terms of meeting its strategic objectives and community outcomes it aims to achieve. The flexibility and improved residential supply buffers and mechanisms proposed will not be available to assist with a more agile response to market changes over time, nor to assist with the current supply constraints. This could compromise our favourable current position in relation to largely complying with the NPS-UDC direction.

The preferred option is therefore Option 1 – “adopt the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 Review and Implementation Plan as recommended by the IWG”.

At the Meeting

The following points were raised in discussion on this item:

 The number of low costs housing units available for those living on the pension has been shrinking and concern was expressed that this trend may continue. Napier has also lost a lot of state housing and it was reiterated that engagement with central government to negotiate for greater public housing provision again should be a priority.

 This strategy is about sustainable use of the Heretaunga Plains land; there has already been ad hoc development and the strategy is intended to guide and manage development and prepare for growth in a meaningful and future focussed way.

 It is believed that the risk of Hastings District Council or the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council not adopting the strategy is low; there has been a significant investment of time and resource in drafting and consultation on the strategy and the guidelines are believed to be the best option for the area (for example, infill alone would not provide for all growth in the future). The Strategy has also made provisions for high density retirement housing in anticipation of a significant need over the next 30 years. It was also noted that many regional strategies such as the Regional Transport Strategy and other long term Council documents (LTP, District Plan) are informed by the HPUDS strategy.

 The strategy has provided well thought out sequencing for development. A careful balance will need to be struck between development and maintaining the fertile soils of the region.

 Other issues, such as odour, from particular industries may need to be addressed as development expands.

1.8 Attachments

a HPUDS 2016 Submission Hearings Record (Under Separate Cover)

b HPUDS 2016 Submission Recommendation Reports Themes 1-6 (Under Separate Cover)

c HPUDS 2016 Tracked Changes Amendments from IWG's recommendations (Under Separate Cover)

d HPUDS 2016 Final Implementation Plan from IWG's recommendations (Under Separate Cover)

e HPUDS 2016 Final maps from IWG's recommendations (Under Separate Cover)

f HPUDS Terms of Reference (Under Separate Cover)

Maori Consultative Committee – 10 May 2017 – Open Agenda

NAPIER CITY COUNCIL

Civic Building

231 Hastings Street, Napier

Phone: (06) 835 7579

www.napier.govt.nz

Māori Consultative Committee

Open

MINUTES

Meeting Date:	Wednesday 29 March 2017
Time:	3pm-3.42pm
Venue:	Main Committee Room 3rd floor Civic Building 231 Hastings Street Napier

Present:	Piri Prentice (Chair), Councillor Api Tapine, Tiwana Aranui
In Attendance:	Mayor Bill Dalton, Chief Executive, Director Community Services, Manager Community Strategies, Team Leader Governance

KARAKIA

The Chair invited Councillor Tapine to deliver a Karakia.

Apologies

Nil

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Nil

Public forum

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson

Nil

Announcements by the Management

The Chief Executive raised the requirement of a more structured approach to registering interests for Committee members. The Chief Executive provided Conflicts of Interests forms to the Committee members to fill out and advised these will be stored in a confidential area. These forms are also filled out by Elected Members and senior staff.

Confirmation of Minutes

Nil

New Items for MĀori Consultative Committee

1. Opportunities for the role of the MĀori Consultative Committee

*Type of Report:*	Information
*Legal Reference:*	N/A
*Document ID:*	338316
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Jane McLoughlin, Team Leader Governance

1.1 Purpose of Report

To outline that Napier City Council will review the Terms of Reference of the Māori Consultative Committee.

At the Meeting

In a discussion on the Terms of Reference, the following points were made:

- the representatives of the committee should represent Maori interests in general, not solely organisations they may be part of. Therefore, reference to organisations will be removed from the Terms of Reference.

- the Committee should provide a genuine avenue for the members to put forward issues that Maori consider important and to be able to seek resolution of these issues. An example was provided where an issue had been raised at the Maori Consultative Committee over two years ago regarding the timing of burials, but no satisfactory resolution had been forthcoming. This issue was raised again, namely, that due to Council’s business hours for the cemetery, this sometimes resulted in a deceased person not being able to be buried for several days, and the body would be kept on a Marae until it could be buried. This presented an affordability issue for Maori.

- in response to the issue of burials, the Mayor advised that Council will look into this and report back at the next Maori Committee meeting.

- the review of the Terms of Reference provides an opportunity to reassess who the key stakeholders in the Maori community are and how to feed that back to Council, and to ensure there are robust measures so engagement is effective and genuine.

- there was agreement that the Maori Consultative Committee members should set aside some time outside of the meeting to discuss and share ideas for developing the Terms of Reference and to ensure it has solid principles for the future.

- The current Terms of Reference should be amended to reflect hat the committee feeds into the decision-making process of council decisions, rather than a focus on stating that the committee does not have any decision-making powers.

ACTION: Officials to consider the burial issue raised and report back to the next Maori Consultative Committee meeting.

Maori Consultative Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Tapine / Mayor

That the report titled Opportunities for the role of the Maori Consultative Committee be received.

That the Maori Consultative Committee members review the Terms of Reference and bring suggested changes to the Terms of Reference back to Napier City Council officials.

That the suggested changes to the Terms of Reference today, namely, the removal of organisations represented by Committee members, and the change from no decision making powers to a focus that the committee feeds into the decision-making process of council decisions, be noted and incorporated into any further changes made by the Maori Consultative Committee members.

CARRIED

REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES

MĀORI CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Chair / Councillor Tapine

That the Māori Consultative Recommendations arising from the discussion of the Committee reports, be submitted to the Council meeting for consideration.

CARRIED

Reports from Strategy and Infrastructure Committee
held 8 March 2017

1. Road Stopping - Portion of Rogers Road

*Type of Report:*	Legal
*Legal Reference:*	Public Works Act 1981
*Document ID:*	339644
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property

1.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Council’s approval to stop approximately 70 m² of legal road fronting 107 Rogers Road, Napier, and sell the stopped road to the adjoining landowners.

Maori Consultative Committee's Recommendation

Mayor / Councillor Tapine

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Jeffery

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of Section 116 of the Public Works Act 1981, resolves to stop the road described in the Schedule hereto, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 117 of the Public Works Act 1981 to vest the stopped road to the owners of the adjoining land contained in CFR 95876.

SCHEDULE

Hawke’s Bay Land District – Napier City

Area	Road	Adjoining Land (CFR)
0.0070ha	Section 1 SO Plan 478237	95876

CARRIED

Reports from Regulatory Committee
held 8 March 2017

1. Gambling Venues Policy Review

*Type of Report:*	Legal
*Legal Reference:*	Gambling Act 2003
*Document ID:*	338322
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Kim Anstey, Planner Policy/Analyst

1.1 Purpose of Report

For Council to adopt the Statement of Proposal for the draft Gambling Venues Policy to enable public consultation to commence.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Mayor advised that the review of the policy was a requirement and the Regulatory Committee had ensured there were no increases to gambling venues and in particular, a restriction on gambling places in particular areas in which people are living in hardship.

Maori Consultative Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Tapine / Mayor

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors White / Wright

That Council approve the draft Gambling Venues Policy and Statement of Proposal and authorise officers to proceed with public notification through the special consultative procedure as prescribed in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

CARRIED

2. Establishment of a Freedom Camping Working Group and Draft Terms of Reference

*Type of Report:*	Operational
*Legal Reference:*	N/A
*Document ID:*	339045
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Paulina Wilhelm, Manager City Development Kim Anstey, Planner Policy/Analyst

2.1 Purpose of Report

To provide Council with a draft Project Plan and Terms of Reference for a Freedom Camping Working Group, in order that Council may agree on the composition of the Working Group, including the appointment of a Chair, Council and community representatives.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

The Mayor advised that regulating freedom camping is an issue that every council in New Zealand is facing and expressed how difficult it can be to enforce rules in this area.

Maori Consultative Committee's Recommendation

T Aranui /Mayor

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

Councillor Tapine abstained from the vote as he is a member of the working group.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Dallimore / Taylor

a. That the Council resolve that the Officer’s Recommendation be adopted: “That Council establish a Freedom Camping Working Group composed of key stakeholders, Councillors and Council officers to consider freedom camping issues and to report back to Council with recommendations on potential solutions”; and

b. That Council invites and appoints the following community representatives to the Working Group:

 President of the Taradale Development Association to represent general residents; and

 Secretary of the Westshore Resident and Development Association to represent coastal residents; and

c. That Council appoint Councillor Hague (as Chair) and Councillor Tapine to the Working Group.

d. That the third guiding principle outlined in the draft Terms of Reference be expanded to read develop guiding principles on how freedom camping should be managed whilst minimising impact on the residents of Napier.

CARRIED

3. Annual Dog Control Report 2015/16

*Type of Report:*	Legal
*Legal Reference:*	Dog Control Act 1996
*Document ID:*	334560
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Hayleigh Brereton, Manager Regulatory Solutions

3.1 Purpose of Report

To present the territorial authority report on dog control policies and practices for the dog control registration year 1 July 2015 – 30 June 2016, for adoption by Council as required under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996, prior to being submitted to the Secretary for Local Government and being made publically available.

Maori Consultative Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

Action: Director City Strategy to provide information to Councillors on how Napier City Council’s statistics in the report compare with that of other councils.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Wright / Taylor

That the Napier City Council Annual Dog Control report 2015/16 be adopted by Council, submitted to the Secretary for Local Government, and published in accordance with the Dog Control Act 1996.

CARRIED

Reports from Finance Committee
held 22 March 2017

1. Hawke's Bay Airport Limited - Statement of Intent

*Type of Report:*	Procedural
*Legal Reference:*	N/A
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services

1.1 Purpose of Report

To identify any changes or any comment Council wishes to make to Hawke’s Bay Airport Limited in regard to the Draft Statement of Intent.

Maori Consultative Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Taylor / McGrath

That the draft Statement of Intent of the Hawke’s Bay Airport Limited be received.

CARRIED

2. Hawke's Bay Airport Limited Half Yearly Report

*Type of Report:*	Legal and Operational
*Legal Reference:*	Local Government Act 2002
*Document ID:*	340167
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services

2.1 Purpose of Report

To receive the half-yearly report to shareholders from Hawke’s Bay Airport Limited to 31 December 2016.

Maori Consultative Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Jeffery / Brosnan

That the Hawke’s Bay Airport Limited half-yearly report to shareholders, to December 2016 be received.

CARRIED

3. Business Hawke's Bay Report

*Type of Report:*	Procedural
*Legal Reference:*	N/A
*Document ID:*	344753
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services

3.1 Purpose of Report

To provide Council with an update report from Business Hawke’s Bay (BHB).

Maori Consultative Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Wright / Boag

That the Council resolve that the report from Business Hawke’s Bay be received.

CARRIED

4. Hawke's Bay Museums Trust - Half yearly report to 31 December 2016

*Type of Report:*	Legal
*Legal Reference:*	Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
*Document ID:*	345481
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services

4.1 Purpose of Report

To provide the half-yearly report for 2016/17 for the Hawke’s Bay Museum’s Trust for adoption.

Maori Consultative Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors White / Wright

That Council adopt the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust half-yearly report to 31 December 2016.

CARRIED

5. HB Museums Trust Statement of Intent 2017 - 19

*Type of Report:*	Legal
*Legal Reference:*	Local Government Act 2002
*Document ID:*	345482
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services

5.1 Purpose of Report

To provide the draft Statement of Intent 2017 – 19 for the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust to Council for its consideration as part of the reporting requirements for council-controlled organisations.

Maori Consultative Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Price / Taylor

That the HB Museums Trust Statement of Intent 2017 - 19 be received and any feedback is provided to the Trust for their consideration.

CARRIED

6. HB LASS Limited - Half Yearly Report

*Type of Report:*	Legal and Operational
*Legal Reference:*	Local Government Act 2002
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Adele Henderson, Director Corporate Services

6.1 Purpose of Report

To consider the Hawke’s Bay Local Authority Shared Services Limited (HB LASS Ltd) half yearly report to 31 December 2016.

Maori Consultative Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Dallimore / Hague

That the Council resolve that the HB LASS half yearly report to 31 December 2016 be received.

CARRIED

7. Seismic Assessments of Council Buildings

*Type of Report:*	Operational
*Legal Reference:*	N/A
*Document ID:*	344798
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property

7.1 Purpose of Report

To update Council on the progress regarding Seismic Assessments of Council owned buildings.

Maori Consultative Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Tapine / T Aranui

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Brosnan / Mayor Dalton

That the update report on progress regarding Seismic Assessment of Council owned buildings be received.

CARRIED

Reports from Community Services Committee
held 22 March 2017

1. Joint Alcohol Strategy Review - Public feedback

*Type of Report:*	Operational
*Legal Reference:*	N/A
*Document ID:*	340799
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Michele Grigg, Senior Advisor Policy

1.1 Purpose of Report

To advise Council on the process undertaken in reviewing the Joint Alcohol Strategy with Hastings District Council, and to request approval to release the draft Strategy for stakeholder and public feedback prior to finalisation of the document, and adoption by each Council.

At the Māori Consultative Committee meeting

A discussion on the review of the Strategy occurred. In response to a question about what Council proposes to focus on in supporting Maori as an identified target group in the Strategy, officials advised the following:

- Maori have been identified as being affected by alcohol-related harm,

- Council will work with target groups, such as Maori to develop approaches to addressing the target group. A number of Maori stakeholders are listed in the strategy and they will all have input to shape how Council delivers services to the target group.

- the public consultation for the strategy will be open for 3 weeks and that provides an opportunity to comment on the strategy.

Maori Consultative Committee's Recommendation

Councilor Tapine / T Aranui

That the Council resolve that the Committee’s recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Wright / Wise

a. That Council approve the release of the draft Joint Alcohol Strategy for stakeholder and public feedback; and

b. That Council nominate the Community Services Committee Chair and Councillor Keith Price to consider any feedback jointly with the nominated Hastings District Councillors prior to the finalisation of the draft Strategy.

CARRIED

The meeting concluded at 3.42pm

APPROVED AND ADOPTED AS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE MEETING

CHAIRPERSON:_____________________________

DATE OF APPROVAL:____________________

Council Members	Piri Prentice (in the Chair), the Mayor, T Aranui, Councillor Tapine, Liz Ratima
Officer Responsible	Director Community Services
Administrator	Governance Team

2016/17						2015/16
	Actual YTD	Budget YTD	Variance	Budget full year	Forecast	Actual
Total income	76.3m	75.2m	1.1m	97.8m	105.8	98.3m
Total expenditure	62.4m	62.5m	0.1m	87.8m	92.8	86.5m
Net operating surplus	$13.9m	$12.7m	$1.2m	$10.0m	$13.0m	$11.8m

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to:	GROUND(S) UNDER SECTION 48(1) TO THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION 48(1)(a) That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist:
Reports from Regulatory Committee held 19 April 2017
1. Property Acquisition	7(2)(i) Enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	48(1)A That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist: (i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this Act, under Section 6 or 7 (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
Reports from Finance Committee held 3 May 2017
1. Risk Update	7(2)(f)(ii) Maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the protection of such members, officers, employees and persons from improper pressure or harassment	48(1)A That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist: (i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this Act, under Section 6 or 7 (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Meeting Date:	Wednesday 10 May 2017
Time:	3pm
Venue:	Main Committee Room 3rd floor Civic Building 231 Hastings Street Napier