Agenda of Regulatory Committee

Regulatory Committee – 19 July 2017 – Open Agenda

Agenda Items

1. Gambling Venues Policy - Hearing Report

*Type of Report:*	Legal
*Legal Reference:*	Gambling Act 2003
*Document ID:*	356506
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Kim Anstey, Planner Policy/Analyst

1.1 Purpose of Report

This report provides an analysis of submissions received on the Gambling Venues Policy review and outlines the officer’s recommendations on these submissions.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a. Hear the submissions on the Gambling Venues Policy and determine whether any changes are required to the proposed policy.

b. Adopt the intent of the policy as proposed (cap on venues and machines) with the following changes to the relocation clause (N.B. strikethrough indicates those items proposed to be removed):

3.1 A Class 4 or TAB gambling licence holder who holds consent from Council to operate in the Napier District may apply for consent to relocate.

3.2 Consent to relocate is subject to the conditions provided in the policy and in accordance with section 97A of the Gambling Act.

~~3.2 For any site to which an existing Class 4 venue licence operator wishes to relocate, the maximum number of machines approved shall be 9.~~

3.3 If the venue from which the licence is relocated operates fewer than 9 machines, then the maximum of machines at the newly licenced site shall be the same as the Class 4 venue prior to being relocated.

~~3.4 The initial licence operated under must be surrendered prior to approval of an application for relocation.~~

~~3.5 Applications to relocate an existing Class 4 or TAB venue must meet all the necessary requirements of the policy, as if it was a new application for consent.~~

c. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required as a Hearing is not subject to double debate.

d. That, in terms of Section 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002, the principles set out in that section have been observed in such a manner that the Napier City Council considers, in its discretion, it is appropriate to make decisions on the recommendation.

1.2 Background

At the Council meeting on 5 April 2017, Council resolved to continue with the current cap policy of 20 venues and 320 Class 4 machines (pokies) and two standalone TAB venues, subject to the following proposed amendments:

1. No new venues are to be located in suburban commercial zones

2. A cap of three Class 4 venues in the Taradale Suburban Commercial Zone (the current number of venues in this zone)

3. Minor amendments to the title, wording and layout of the policy to improve its readability.

At that meeting, Council resolved to publically notify the proposed changes as per section 83 of the Local Government Act (‘LGA’).

The statement of proposal and amended policy were made available for public submissions from 8 April to 19 May 2017.

A total of 11 submissions were received.

1.3 Statutory Implications

Local Authorities have legislative responsibilities under the Gambling Act 2003 to consider the effects of gambling within their district. The purpose and intent of the Gambling Act is to:

· Control the growth of gambling

· Prevent and minimise harm caused by gambling, including problem gambling

· Authorise some gambling and prohibit the rest

· Facilitate responsible gambling

· Ensure the integrity and fairness of games

· Limit opportunities for crime and dishonesty associated with gambling

· Ensure that money from gambling benefits the community

· Facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling

The purpose and intent of the Racing Act 2003 is to:

· To provide effective governance arrangement for the racing industry

· The facilitate betting on galloping, harness and greyhound races and other sporting events

· To promote the long-term viability of New Zealand racing.

Review of Class 4 Regulation

In September 2014, the Gambling (Class 4 Net Proceeds) Regulation came into effect. This change increased the minimum percentage return that gaming trusts must make to communities from 37.12% to 40%. Currently there is no legislation that requires funds to be returned to the community they are generated in. However, some gaming trusts have adopted voluntary policies seeking to achieve this outcome. Currently councils have no ability to control how gaming proceeds are distributed.

The government is currently undertaking a review of Class 4 Gambling regulation with the aim to ensure that funding to communities from the class 4 sector remains sustainable without any growth in gambling, and minimising harm in gambling. A Council submission on a public discussion document in June 2016 raised concerns on the sustainability of the class 4 community funding model particularly in regards to funding not being returned to the community in which it was generated i.e. funds from some Napier venues are granted to Auckland organisations. The results of the discussion document and next steps for the government review are yet to be announced.

Conflicting responsibilities

There is potential for conflict and uncertainties around decision-making on the provision of gambling when communities want to balance the need to minimise harm from gambling with the desire to generate benefits to the community from gambling money. The submissions received reflect this conflict, with a number calling for a tougher stance by requesting Council to adopt a sinking lid policy. Others argue that machine numbers are in a natural decline and that lowering machine numbers does not in fact contribute to reducing harm, and may negatively impact on the ability of community groups to gain funding.

1.4 History of the Napier City Council Gambling Policy

Following the 2003 commencement of the Gambling and Racing Acts, Napier City Council adopted its first gambling policy in 2004. At this time Napier City had 38 Class 4 venues and 492 machines. The first policy was a ‘sinking lid’ policy, which meant that no new venues were permitted and every time a gaming machine was removed or a venue closed, the number of machines decreased. The policy was reviewed without change in 2006.

In 2010, the policy changed from a sinking lid to a ‘cap’ policy where numbers were restricted to 26 venues, 350 machines and two TAB venues.

The 2013 policy review lowered this cap to 20 Class 4 venues and 320 machines. The cap on two TAB venues remained.

There have been two venue closures in the last year so current numbers as at 25 May 2017 are 18 venues and 297 machines. Under the policy at it stands, this creates the opportunity for two new venues and up to 23 new machines, providing applicants meet the application requirements. The following graph shows changes in proceeds and machine numbers and venues over time:

A relocation clause was inserted into the policy in 2010. This clause allowed venues to relocate, with the objective being that this may encourage the movement of venues to more appropriate locations. Relocations up to a maximum of 15 machines was allowed in the 2010 policy. This dropped to nine machines during the 2013 review, with a clause added to state that the initial consent operated under must be surrendered prior to approval of an application for relocation. Changes to legislation in September 2015 now render these clauses invalid, as if a policy allows for relocations, venues must be able to maintain the same number of machines. Further discussion on relocations is provided in the submissions analysis below.

1.5 Alignment with Hasting’s District Council Policy

A number of submissions have requested a sinking lid policy on the premises as this would align Napier’s policy with that of Hasting District Council (‘HDC’). Hastings have previously had a sinking lid policy. However, at a policy review hearing on 24 May 2017, HDC amended their policy from a sinking lid to a cap on machines only, based on the current number of machines (293). Based on this new information, the submission request to adopt a sinking lid to align with Hastings is no longer valid.

1.6 Summary of Submissions

· Four submissions oppose the policy, stating that they would prefer a sinking lid. Reasons for this are to align with Hastings District Council and the desire to have no additional gambling venues in the CBD, over and above what currently exists. These submissions were from Peggy Taurima, Napier Business Inc, Hawkes Bay DHB and HB Gambling Harm Association: Te Rangihaeata Oranga Trust.

· Three submissions support the policy in part, namely the proposal not to allow new venues in suburban commercial zones. All three of these submissions would prefer a sinking lid policy. These submissions were from Wayne Walford, Taradale Marketing Association and Safer Napier Strategic Group.

· Four submissions support the proposed policy. These submissions are from Infinity Foundation, NZ Community Trust, NZ Racing Board and Robyn Gwynn.

The following table provides a summary of the submissions received:

Submitter			Support	Summary of reasons
2	Peggy Taurima	No		· Concerned about Maraenui venue but no specific policy change requested.
4	Napier City Business Inc	No		· Requests sinking lid policy. · Submission is on behalf of 380 businesses. · While supports no new venues in suburban areas, is concerned that this could mean more locations should be opened in CBD which could tarnish the Napier City brand. · Would like to see Council advocate for ring fencing funding as believes more money returned to community would lessen the requirement to have so many machines. · Supports Cap in Taradale Suburban Commercial Zone.
6	Hawkes Bay District Health Board	No		· Requests a sinking lid policy · Would like to see NCC align with HDC sinking lid policy · Supports the restrictions on vulnerable areas i.e. no new venues in these areas · Would like to see social impact assessment for Taradale.
7	Te Rahgihaeata Oranga Trust	No		· Requests a sinking lid policy · While praising Council for considering venue locations as a way to minimise harm, urges Council to return to a sinking lid policy with relocations only allowed to support venues relocating out of high deprivation areas · Notes the requirement to allow relocations is not compulsory · Opposes Taradale Cap as would like to see sinking lid applied to whole district.
5	Taradale Marketing Association	In part		· Requests a sinking lid policy · Concerned about venues able to relocate within the Taradale Suburban Commercial Zone. · Would like policy to be worded so that no relocations are allowed to occur in Taradale Suburban Commercial Zone as well as Napier CBD and Ahuriri.
8	Safer Napier Strategic Group	In part		· Late Submission, received 24 March · Requests a sinking lid policy as would like to see alignment with HDC · Supports increase in restrictions to not allow new venues in suburban commercial zones · Agrees on cap for Taradale, no need for further gambling venues in Taradale · Requests NCC advocates at National level on: Ensuring fairer distribution of funds, increasing percentage of proceeds allocated to problem gambling levy to enhance treatment services.
3	Wayne Walford	In part		· Supports cap policy but would prefer a sinking lid · Highlights increasing difficulty in community groups obtaining funding. However, believes the threat of reducing funding to the community should not be a defining component of decision to adopt a sinking lid · Notes that positive leadership is likely to be applauded by the health and law enforcement sectors.
1	Robyn Gwynn	Yes		· Balanced and carefully thought out policy
9	Infinity Foundation	Yes		· Supports maintaining current cap on machines numbers and venues · Supports the rejection of a sinking lid and NCCs consideration of the character and risk of particular communities · Would like cap to be population based, rather than static · Relocations should not have to reapply for consent · Recommend no constraints on suburban commercial zones as believes this will restrict funds returned to these communities · Notes that if these communities have liquor licenced premises, they should not be restrained from operating gambling machines.
10	New Zealand Racing Board	Yes		· Supports maintaining current cap on machines numbers and venues with allowance for small growth in CBD area. · Believes gaming machine numbers are in natural decline and there are existing safeguards to minimise harm · Would like venues to be able to relocate and retain their current numbers of machines i.e. 18 instead of 9.
11	New Zealand Community Trust	Yes		· Supports maintaining current cap on machines numbers and venues · Supports clauses that prevent venues locating in suburban commercial zones · Would like venues to be able to relocate existing numbers of machines i.e. 18 instead of 9.

Submission Analysis

Decisions to be made on the strategic intent of this policy effectively require a conscience type vote by the Council. As a result, officers have focused primarily on the technical aspects of the policy and submissions rather than recommending one option over another.

The following is the officer’s response to the main submission points raised:

A sinking lid versus a cap policy

A number of submissions advocated for a sinking lid policy over a cap policy. A sinking lid policy is a restrictive policy that will result in a decrease in venues and machines over time. A cap policy determines the maximum number of machines and/or venues allowed in the district. Where this level is set in relation to existing venues and machines determines whether any new venues can be established e.g. Currently the number of machines and venues in Napier is under the cap limit and therefore the policy allows new venues to establish (providing they meet the application criteria) up to the maximum allowed under the cap. Generally, a cap policy is seen as a softer approach than a sinking lid in that it allows for more flexibility and movement of venues and machine numbers.

Population based cap

The submission from Infinity Foundation suggested that Council adopt a population-based cap. A population-based cap is a policy option that some Councils have adopted that allows for machine numbers to expand with population. Considering that census data is only available every five years and the policy is required to be reviewed every three years there seems to be no benefit in this approach. The Department of Internal affairs has no information on the effectiveness of population-based caps.

No new venues in CBD and Taradale Commercial Zone

Under the proposed policy, a new venue can only be located in the following zones:

· Inner city commercial

· Art Deco Quarter

· Fringe Commercial

· Ahuriri mixed use zone

· Main Industrial zone

· West Quay Waterfront

· Taradale Suburban Commercial zone (Max of 3 venues)

Council have indicated that gambling should be accessible to tourists, and therefore it is appropriate that the location of gambling venues are in areas of the city most visited by tourists, such as the CBD, Ahuriri and West Quay Waterfront. These zones are notably not identified as supporting at risk communities and are located away from areas where the risks of harm are greater. As discussed above, to ensure no new venues in the CBD or Taradale, Council would need to adopt a sinking lid or introduce a cap specifically for these zones. Council need to be aware that this would further limit the options for establishing or relocating venues.

Relocations

Since the last policy review, the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Act 2013 resulted in changes to the provisions for relocating venues. The changes are deigned to make it easier for venues to relocate by allowing the maximum number of machines permitted at the new venue to be the same as permitted at the old venue (up to a maximum of 18). The purpose behind this change was to encourage venues to move out of unsuitable locations.

As highlighted by the Infinity Foundation submission, the existing clause on relocations within Napier does not effectively allow for relocations as determined by the Act. Our current policy states the maximum number of machines allowed to relocate is nine and we require the initial licence operated under to be surrendered and a new consent to be issued. If Council wanted to continue to allow for relocations, the policy wording will need to be amended to comply with the new legislation that allows venues to transfer the same amount of machines they are consented to operate.

Ring fenced funding

Rules around the distribution of funds from Class 4 gambling are determined by national legislation and therefore Council has no control over how funds generated in our district are distributed. The concern raised in the Infinity Foundation submission that not allowing new venues in suburban commercial zones will restrict the return of funds to these communities is unfounded. Trusts have no legal obligation to return funds to the community in which they were generated, although they may wish to do so on a voluntary basis. Some gaming trusts have voluntarily adopted policies that state a certain proportion of funds will be returned to the community in which they are generated. However, the term community is generally not defined and could conceivably be the immediate community or the wider community.

No venues in suburban commercial zones

This policy change was widely supported in submissions.

TAB Venues

There were no submission points raised in relation to TAB venues.

1.5 Significance and Consultation

Section 102 of the Act requires that any proposed change to the policy must be adopted in accordance with the special consultative procedure as prescribed in section 83 of the Local Government Act.

In addition to the prescribed public notification, the Act further requires that the Council must give notice of the proposed changes to:

1. Each society that holds a class 4 venue licence

2. The New Zealand Racing Board

3. Organisations representing Maori

In addition to this list, notification was sent to all submitters on the last policy review, Sports HB and the Napier Community Network. A total of approx. 160 emails were sent out advising that the policy was out for consultation. The review was advertised on our website and on facebook.

1.6 Options

As discussed above, decisions to be made on the strategic intent of this policy effectively require a conscience type vote by the Council. Therefore, Officers are recommending Councillors consider the verbal submissions and either adopt the policy as proposed albeit with an amendment made to the relocation clause; or chose to amend the policy as a result of submissions.

The following is the recommended wording change to the relocation clause to align it with the Act:

3.1 A Class 4 or TAB gambling licence holder who holds consent from Council to operate in the Napier District may apply for consent to relocate.

3.2 Consent to relocate is subject to the conditions provided in the policy and in accordance with section 97A of the Gambling Act.

~~3.2 For any site to which an existing Class 4 venue licence operator wishes to relocate, the maximum number of machines approved shall be 9.~~

~~3.4 The initial licence operated under must be surrendered prior to approval of an application for relocation.~~

~~3.5 Applications to relocate an existing Class 4 or TAB venue must meet all the necessary requirements of the policy, as if it was a new application for consent.~~

1.7 Attachments

a Draft Gambling Venues Policy ⇩

b Submissions ⇩

Regulatory Committee – 19 July 2017 – Open Agenda

Gambling Venues Policy
Approved By:	Council
Department:	City Strategy
Date Approved:
Next Review Date:		DOC ID:	216767
Relevant Legislation:	Gambling Act 2003, Racing Act 2003
NCC Documents Referenced:	Napier District Plan

Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to:

· Address the cumulative effects that additional opportunities for gambling in the district could present our community

· To curb the growth of gambling in the district

· To minimise the harm to the community caused by gambling

· Control the location of class 4 gambling and TAB board venues

Definitions

Class 4 Gambling means gambling that utilises or involves a gaming machine as defined in the Gambling Act 2003

Club means a voluntary association of persons combined for a purpose other than personal gain

Gaming Machine means a device whether totally or partly mechanically or electronically operated, that is adapted or designed and constructed for the use in gambling. Also commonly known as ‘pokie machines’.

TAB Board Venue means the premises that are owned or leased by the NZ Racing Board where the main business carried on at the premises is providing racing or sports betting services.

Policy

1. Total number of venues and machines to be allowed

1.1. New class 4 and TAB board venues may be established, subject to the following conditions:

· The maximum number of gaming venues in the Napier does not exceed 20;

· The maximum number of class 4 gaming machines in the Taradale Suburban Commercial Zone does not exceed 3;

· The total number of Class 4 gaming machines in the Napier District does not exceed 320;

· The maximum number of TAB board venues will not exceed 2.

2. Number of gaming machines allowed per venue

2.1. The maximum number of gaming machines for Class 4 venues, clubs and TABs shall be the same as allowed under section 92, 93 and 94 of the Gambling Act 2003:

Category	Number of Machines
Licensed on or before 17 October 2001	18
Licensed since 17 October 2001	9

3. Class 4 and TAB board venue relocations

3.1. A class 4 gambling licence holder who holds consent from Council to operate in the Napier District may apply for consent to relocate.

3.2. For any site to which an existing Class 4 venue licence operator wishes to relocate, the maximum number of machines approved shall be 9,

3.3. If the venue from which the licence is relocated operates fewer than 9 machines, then the maximum of machines at the newly licenced site shall be the same as the class 4 venue prior to being relocated.

3.4. The initial licence operated under must be surrendered prior to approval of an application for relocation.

3.5. Applications to relocate an existing Class 4 or TAB venue will be considered a new application for consent.

4. Club Mergers

4.1. Upon amalgamation of incorporated clubs operating a class 4 venue, the maximum number of machines of the new entity shall:

i) Where the total number of machines operated by the clubs exceed 30, the maximum shall be 30 gaming machines, or such lessor number determined by resolution of Council.

ii) Where the total number of gaming machines operated by the clubs is greater than 17 but less than 31, the max. shall not exceed the amalgamated total.

5. Conditions for Consent

5.1. New or relocating venues may only be located within the following zones specified in the Napier City Council District Plan:

i) Inner City Commercial Zone

ii) Art Deco Quarter

iii) Fringe Commercial Zone

~~iv) Suburban Commercial Zone~~

v) Ahuriri Mixed Used Zone

vi) Main Industrial Zone

~~vii) Ahuriri Local Retail Zone~~ (This zone no longer exists under current plan)

viii) West Quay Waterfront

ix) Taradale Suburban Commercial Zone

5.2. Applicants must meet all application, declaration and fee requirements.

Regulatory Committee – 19 July 2017 – Open Agenda

2. Set Parking Fees and Charges - 292 Hastings Street

*Type of Report:*	Operational
*Legal Reference:*	Traffic Regulations, Parking Control Bylaw 2008
*Document ID:*	374136
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Hayleigh Brereton, Manager Regulatory Solutions

2.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Council’s approval for establishing parking fees for a property at 292 Hastings Street, Napier, which has recently been acquired by Council to bolster the supply of parking options in the city.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a. Establish the property at 292 Hastings Street, Napier, as an all-day casual car park.

b. Agree that the parking fees be set at $1 per hour with an all-day rate of $5 per day

c. Agree that the car park be trialled as a technology only payment system, with payment made by car parking App Parkmate.

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

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

2.2 Background Summary

Council purchased an existing privately owned car park at 292 Hastings Street in May 2017. The car park has a total of 18 car parking spaces and was previously utilised as a leased car park.

The site is in close proximity to the Napier District Court, Napier City Council and Marine Parade, and the areas of lost leased car parking due to the Marine Parade redevelopment.

There are four casual all-day off-street car parks and nine off-street leased car parks in the CBD.

2.3 Issues

There are a number of potential uses for the car park, including leased car parking or casual all day parking. Currently, on-street car parking occupancy in Hastings Street is at 85.6% (Parking Survey, December 2016). Leased car parking occupancy in the city is at 100%. There is demand for both casual and leased car parking.

Parking fees across the CBD off-street car parks are generally $1 per hour. All-day casual rates at the CBD’s four off-street car parks are $5 per day. Leased car parking across the CBD ranges from $20 -$30 per week. Seven of the nine leased car parks fees are set at $25 per week.

This car park provides an opportunity to trial the success of utilising cashless technology to provide payment for car parking through the ‘Parkmate’ App. This is a unique trial. It will allow us to test the market and the willingness of customers to use the system as the only mechanism for payment.

Napier has been utilising the ‘Parkmate’ App for parking payment since May 2014 and have seen considerable uptake in usage. It is available for use in all of Napier’s ‘pay and display’ car parks (on or off street).

There is no additional installation or maintenance cost involved in extending the usage of ‘Parkmate’ to this car park. There is however additional cost involved in installation and ongoing maintenance of a ‘Cale’ Pay and Display machine should the trial prove to be unsuccessful.

The use of ‘Parkmate’ allows us to better understand real time parking trends across a whole car park. It allows us to contact customers to improve customer service, e.g. if the car lights are left on. It allows us to understand the communities willingness to utilise different payment mechanisms, as well as providing a promotional opportunity for the ‘Parkmate ’app.

2.4 Significance and Consultation

N/A

2.5 Implications

Financial

Expected conservative annual returns for the car park operating as an all-day casual car park (with the assumption customers all use the all-day parking rate and the park is 80% occupied) is a return of $23,868.

The annual return for the car park if used for leased car parking is $23,400 when based on a fee of $25 per week with 100% occupancy.

There are no additional financial implications for utilising Parkmate as a payment platform. There are additional costs for installing a ‘Cale’ pay and display machine. Costs are approximately $2,000 for installation, on-going maintenance and pay and display ticket costs.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

There is a risk that the use of the ‘Parkmate’ App to pay for parking may limit the occupancy rate of the car park. If this did occur, a ‘Cale’ pay and display machine can be readily installed.

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

1. All day casual car park, with payment facility provided by Parkmate App. Fee and charges aligned with council car parks, at $1 per hour with an all-day rate of $5 per day.

2. All day casual car park, with payment facility provided by Parkmate App and ‘Cale ’pay and display machine. Charges aligned with council car parks, at $1 per hour with an all-day rate of $5 per day.

3. Leased car park at $25 per week.

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is Option 1.

· All day casual car park.

· Fees aligned with council car parks $1 per hour with an all-day rate of $5 per day.

· Payment via Parkmate App only, to trial success of technology solutions, to further promote the App and encourage users to use the app.

2.8 Attachments

Nil

Regulatory Committee – 19 July 2017 – Open Agenda

Apologies

Apologies

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Jeffery / Price

That the apologies from Cr Tania Wright and Cr Graeme Taylor be accepted.

CARRIED

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Nil

Public forum

Nil

Announcements by the Mayor

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson

Nil

Announcements by the Management

Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

Councillors Wise / Boag

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 March 2017 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

CARRIED

Agenda Items

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).

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.

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

2. Freedom Camping Working Group Update

*Type of Report:*	Procedural
*Legal Reference:*	N/A
*Document ID:*	347883
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Kim Anstey, Planner Policy/Analyst Paulina Wilhelm, Manager City Development

2.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is update Council on the progress of the Freedom Camping Working Group and present the terms of reference (ToR) that the group have adopted.

At the Meeting

In response to a query from Councillors, it was confirmed that contacts had been made with representatives of the more transient non self-contained campers and they would have opportunities to speak with members of the Working Group and provide feedback.

It was believed that the TOR is well drafted and the work programme is well structured and clearly laid out.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors White / Wise

That Council

a. Approve the Freedom Camping Working Group Terms of Reference.

CARRIED

3. Street Naming - Te Awa Estate

*Type of Report:*	Procedural
*Legal Reference:*	N/A
*Document ID:*	347705
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Paul O'Shaughnessy, Team Leader Resource Consents

3.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is obtain Council approval for three new street names within stages X, XI, XII and XIII of the Te Awa Estates residential subdivision

At the Meeting

In response to questions from Councillors it was confirmed that the Arrow River is a small river in the Otago region.

It was noted that it was unfortunate that more local rivers were not included in the list of approved names as it would have worked well to have a local name for this area of development.

Committee's Recommendation

Mayor Dalton / Councillor White

That the Council

a. Approve three new streets within the Te Awa Estates subdivision (consent plan 09067 approved in August 2010) as follows:

Road 3 (stages XI and XII) - Hurunui Drive

Road 12 (stage X) - Kaituna Place

Road 11 (stage XIII) - Arrow Place

CARRIED

PUBLIC EXCLUDED ITEMS

Councillors Hague / Brosnan

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:

1. Property Acquisition

CARRIED

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public was excluded, the reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution were as follows:

GENERAL SUBJECT OF

EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER

GROUND(S) UNDER SECTION 48(1) TO THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION

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.

The meeting closed at 3.35pm.

Council Members	Councillor Jeffery (In the Chair), the Mayor, Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, McGrath, Price, Tapine, Taylor, White, Wise and Wright
Officer Responsible	Director City Strategy, Richard Munneke
Administrator	Governance Team

Meeting Date:	Wednesday 19 April 2017
Time:	3.17pm – 3.35pm
Venue:	Main Committee Room 3rd floor Civic Building 231 Hastings Street Napier

Present:	Councillor Jeffery (In the Chair), the Mayor, Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, McGrath, Price, Tapine, White, Wise
In Attendance:	Chief Executive, Director Community Services, Director Infrastructure Services, Manager Communications and Marketing, Manager City Development
Administration:	Governance Team