Agenda of Strategy and Infrastructure Committee

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee – 19 July 2017 – Open Agenda

Agenda Items

1. Matariki Regional Economic Development Strategy

*Type of Report:*	Enter Significance of Report
*Legal Reference:*	Enter Legal Reference
*Document ID:*	375927
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Wayne Jack, Chief Executive

1.1 Purpose of Report

To endorse the governance structure, delivery and funding model for Mataraki – Hawke’s Bay Regional Economic Development Strategy.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a. Endorse the governance structure, delivery and funding model for the Matariki Regional Economic Development Strategy.

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

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

1.2 Background Summary

The Matariki Regional Economic Development Strategy (REDS) for Hawke’s Bay – Matariki - was launched by Government Ministers on 27 July 2016. This announcement was the culmination of nearly two years’ work with broad and deep regional engagement with the strategy developed in partnership, as aspired for in the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Matariki REDS has a vision of ‘Every household and every whānau is actively engaged in, contributing to and benefiting from, a thriving Hawke’s Bay economy. Our Council adopted Matariki REDS on 10 August 2016.

Action 1.1 within the strategic framework required a stock take of the organisation involved in economic development in the region and to recommend the regional economic development delivery model to give effect the Matariki REDS. The governance group overseeing Matariki REDS commissioned Martin Jenkins to draft a report on alternative governance structures, delivery and funding models. The Martin Jenkins report identified some options but the Matariki REDS Governance Group did not believe they provided the right framework to ensure Hawke’s Bay continued to move forward and embrace the partnerships that had been developed. The delivery model was further developed through engagement with key stakeholders.

It was agreed that the proposed structure would enable flexible governance that would be able to accommodate existing and future regional collective action, while at the same time allowing organisations, as appropriate, to have an input into critical regional decision-making. The structure is required to provide ability for central government input in order to ensure that the Matariki REDS strategy is consistent with central government regional economic growth strategy intentions. The proposed structure is also intended to recognise the desire to merge the functions and governance of Matariki REDS and the Regional Social Inclusion Strategy that is currently being developed under the auspices of the Intersectoral Leaders Forum. Finally, any structural solution would provide agility, via an open and transparent governance structure, whereby access to resources by those charged with project implementation is able to be willingly aided by those with available and appropriate skill-sets.

The essential elements of the proposed structure are:

1. Flexible governance arrangement

2. Meaningful iwi and hapu participation

3. Business engagement and participation

4. Social and economic inclusion

5. Robust management overview of identified projects

6. Resourced project management and delivery function

7. Project initiation and review structure

8. Recognition of democratic process and funding realities

9. A distributed and collaborative approach which involves all partners and agencies delivering their contributions

1.3 Social Inclusion integration

Hawke’s Bay has for a few years had two groups operating with one focusing on economic development (Matariki REDS) and the second at improving our social outcomes (this group operates under the name LIFT). It was recognised during this review that by focusing on economic inclusion in the growing economy of Hawke’s Bay, the opportunity to improve the lives of individuals, households and whānau is genuine and tangible. The work required to deliver this strategy requires all the partners to participate for a shared success. There is therefore an opportunity and a need to be bring the components of Matariki and Social Inclusion together to drive equity across Hawke’s Bay and to develop integrated pathways between projects, partnerships and results.

Social inclusion is the ability of all individuals, households, whānau and communities to participate in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the community in which they live. This means people have access to some very basic but important things, including enough income to sustain an ordinary life, a safe place to live, an education, the opportunity to develop skills that are valued and services that support their health. Collectively these form the basis of the resources and opportunities to progress through life in a way that creates wellbeing for individuals, families, whānau, households and communities.

Recognising that adequate income is a significant enabler for social, cultural and civic participation, the central focus of ‘Successful Together’, a social inclusion strategy for Hawke’s Bay is on economic inclusion and participation to generate improvements in social inclusion.

1.4 Structure and Representation of various Stakeholders

The proposed structure provides for the creation of an expansive group of stakeholders to provide meaningful engagement to occur between the Matariki Board and the key stakeholder groups.

It is proposed that a Forum be created that operates under the name of Matariki Forum be established that recognises all stakeholders with a vested interested in the successful outcome of Matariki are required to be actively engaged and openly participate in project outcomes. Therefore, the ultimate objective of the Forums creation is to provide a sense of trust between all participating group partnership members. The Forum will provide, via the Governance Group^{^[1]}, with both regular formal and informal communication regarding the status of Matariki projects. This Forum will meet twice a year to debate new project initiatives considered for inclusion under the Matariki umbrella.

One of the central thrusts of the proposal is to incorporate a unified governance structure to oversee and monitor the progress being made (or not) on each of the identified projects. The process recognises the importance of ongoing coordination, communication and evolution of each project. The entity responsible for the transparent communication of project progress to governors across partnership organisations is the Matakiki Board. The Matakiki Board will comprise up to 12 participants. These include 3 participants from council, 3 from business, 3 iwi/hapu, 2 from central government and an independent chair (see Table 1 below). It is proposed that selection of the governance board be managed by the respective stakeholder groups.

Other governance groups that will provide input to the Matariki Board are: Te Kei o Takitimu; Hawke’s Bay Business Leaders Forum; and the five Councils.

Delivery of the strategy will require the ongoing support of councils, while recognising that no one single agency will be responsible for delivery all of the strategy. It will require a networked approach. The delivery of REDS will not require councils to give up their own economic development activities, but will allow councils to leverage off REDS regional initiatives and the central Government financial support attached to many of the proposed actions. Councils will continue to provide economic development services to their own communities.

Table 1: Proposed Matariki Governance Framework

1.5 Financial Implications

Councils currently provide funding to Business Hawke’s Bay and to the LIFT programme. It is proposed that this funding remain in place to support this new delivery model. There is also the opportunity for funding to be allocated through other funding streams, which will be developed over future months. The funding levels to Business Hawke’s Bay and Matariki REDS are as shown on Table 2 below.

Table 2: Current cost versus proposed cost

Existing structures	BHB (000)	Matariki (000)	Additional Required	Proposed structures	Matariki (000)
Cost				Costs
Core	431.0			Core including Matariki	735.0
F & B	100.0			F & B	103.0
B/Hub	256.0			B/Hub	255.0
Total cost	787.0				1093.0

Funding				Funding
Council	335.5	140.0	11.5	Council	487.0
Sponsor	155.0			Sponsor	155.0
MBIE*	70.0	65.0	40.0	MBIE	175.0
B/Hub	238.0			B/Hub	238.0
Other agency funding			38.0	Other agency funding	38.0
Total funding	798.5	205.0	89.5^{^[2]}	Total funding	1093
Total		1003.5		Total	1093

As a living document, the action plan is likely to change in the future as new action items are added. Individual items in the current action plan that are linked to councils will require a commitment at a future date with integration into Long Term Plans / Annual Plans through the usual council planning processes.

1.6 Options

The options for Council are to either endorse the REDS governance structure, delivery and funding model or to not at this time.

1.7 Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is to endorse the governance structure, delivery and funding model as presented and continue the support the implementation of the identified actions.

1.3 Attachments

Nil

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee – 19 July 2017 – Open Agenda

2. Napier Aquatic Centre Business Case: Options for Expansion

*Type of Report:*	Enter Significance of Report
*Legal Reference:*	Enter Legal Reference
*Document ID:*	375027
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Glenn Lucas, Manager Sport & Recreation

2.1 Purpose of Report

To seek Council approval of the Napier Aquatic Centre Expansion Business Case and engage with the community on the recommended options.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a. Approves the Napier Aquatic Centre: Options for Expansion Business case

b. Progresses community engagement and consultation on the recommended three options.

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

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

2.2 Background Summary

As a result of the development of the Napier Aquatic Strategy in 2015 which identified issues with the projected life of the Greendale Pool, a Council-funded condition assessment was carried out, followed by a feasibility study into options for pool provision in Taradale.

The Taradale Aquatics Feasibility Study Demand Assessment completed early in 2016, concluded that it was in the Council’s best interest to develop facilities at the Napier Aquatic Centre rather than invest in Greendale (Taradale Primary School) or alternative new facilities in Taradale. It was recommended that a business case and master plan were developed to determine the best long-term solution to expand and upgrade Napier Aquatic Centre at Onekawa Park.

In 2016, Global Leisure Group Ltd, supported by Create Ltd were contracted to carry out the business case development and make recommendations on the preferred options (attachment A).

2.3 Issues

The current Napier Aquatic Centre facility is meeting its targets in terms of visitor numbers and cost recovery. Utilisation has been at a consistent level for some time at approximately 200,000 visits per annum with the facility meeting its funding policy target of 40% cost recovery.

The current facilities are used to capacity during peak demand periods (after school to 7.00pm). The only users of the pools during these times are the learn to swim programmes and swimming clubs. During these peak times, these core user groups fully utilise all available lanes resulting in no access for casual swimmers at these peak times.

In addition to there being no capacity for casual health and fitness and leisure swimming during peaks periods, both learn to swim and swimming clubs identify unmet demand for additional pool/lane time at these peak times. There is currently uncertainty around the fate of the Greendale pool, though worst-case scenario is that it will not reopen, resulting in sustained additional demand for the Napier Aquatic Centre.

Discussions with key stakeholders indicate that there is a significant and growing section of the community that are unable to access aquatic facilities at peak times due to the lack of available water space. With the growth of event-based participation with events such as the Tremains Triathlon, Iron Maori and others, these event participants with the need to access aquatic space to train, create a demand that currently cannot be met.

The current facility has developed over a period of time with the pools fragmented across three buildings. The resultant layout has a number of implications including:

· Poor sight lines and multiple spaces increasing staffing levels (and costs)

· Multiple plant rooms increasing operating costs through inefficiencies.

The buildings range in age from the 1950’s through to the 1990’s. These buildings are ageing, inefficient and not fully fit for purpose.

Overall building access is limited with a small and poorly designed reception area. This is located within the ‘wet’ area with the reception staff having their back to the main entrance. This layout increases noise levels and it is difficult to control access to the facility. The outdoor splash park is in high demand for families in summer; however use is restricted by the limited range of activities and lack of shade.

The overall design of the facility restricts the range of activities and reduces the number of services that can be offered, therefore restricting potential income streams that could be developed to offset the operational subsidy. The impact of these challenges is significant as these are key areas of potential net revenue that cannot be realised.

In response to these issues, four options to expand the Napier Aquatic Centre have been developed and assessed. These four options range in scope, benefits delivered, capital cost and operational impact.

The four options considered were:

· Option 1: No frills replacement

· Option 2: Expand Ivan Wilson

· Option 3: New build 25m

· Option 4: New build 50m

The assessment process of these four options is summarised as follows:

· Option 1 was discounted due to it not meeting current identified demand and having a limited ability to meet the future demands of the community

· Option 2 is recommended to proceed to public consultation, as it a lower initial capital outlay option for returning a good level of community benefits

· Option 3, the preferred option, is recommended to proceed to public consultation, as it is the best rated option in terms of delivered benefits with the greatest reduction of annual operating expenditure

· While the Business Case does not recommend Option 4 for further consideration, it is recommended that it also proceeds to public consultation so that the community can be fully informed on the full costs and benefits of the development of a 50m pool.

There has been an indication that a 50m high performance swimming complex may be established in the future at the Regional Sports Park development. If this development does occur, there will be little need for another 50m indoor facility in Hawke’s Bay. However the timing of this is unclear.

2.4 Significance and Consultation

It is considered that this business case meets thresholds of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as the Napier Aquatic Centre is listed as a strategic asset.

Significant stakeholder consultation has been carried out as part of the process of developing the business case.

High Level Engagement Plan – Napier Aquatic Centre expansion

The purpose of engagement on the options for expansion of the Napier Aquatic Centre is to provide opportunities for the public to give feedback on their preferred option for the redevelopment. Importantly the feedback needs to not only identify which option they prefer, but determine the community’s willingness to pay.

Planned engagement activities and tools will ensure that the community is given relevant opportunities informed by appropriate information so that feedback received is correctly informed and as representative as possible of the views of the wider community.

A draft engagement plan has been developed. This proposes a mix of engagement activities, using aquatic sports and recreation as the theme, targeted to aquatic facility users and the wider community.

Phase	Engagement activities	Tools
Web Survey	NCC/Say It Napier webpage with information and voting options. Traffic driven through promotion of site	· Questions · Survey · Supporting information around options
Engagement Event	Family-focussed engagement event held at Napier Aquatic Centre. Free entry, food and drink, games for kids and various options for people to give NCC their views. Local stakeholders and residents will receive a personal invite to this event.	· Event plan · Activities · Promotion · Invites · Competitions · Surveys and feedback · forms
Aquatic Centre Engagement	In-centre engagement through a vote box with corflute information	· Voting box · Information · Posters · Digital screen

Following the consultation phase, a report with the results of the consultation and a recommended option to proceed to detailed design, will be prepared for Council.

As part of the business case development to date, considerable consultation has taken place with aquatic clubs and stakeholders. While these groups’ views will be important during this engagement phase, the intention is to reach as much of the general public as we can to ensure the results are representative of the wider community.

Formal consultation through the Long Term Plan 2018-28 will give the community another chance to have their say on the inclusion of the community’s preferred option on new aquatic facilities.

2.5 Implications

Financial

There are no immediate financial considerations in the decision on options for consultation beyond minor consultation costs from existing budgets. Depending on the outcomes of public consultation and the final decision on which option to proceed with, there will be significant financial implications for capital costs of construction. The financial models within in the business case for all four options indicate reduced operational costs than the current situation.

The final detailed costs of the preferred option will be incorporated to the Long Term Plan 2018-28 process.

Social & Policy

Depending on the final option selected, there will be considerations such as parking, and the way in which the build process and the operational new facility will impact local residents and stakeholders. These issues have been identified and will be worked through during the detailed design phase for the chosen option.

Risk

· The community doesn’t engage in the consultation, resulting in limited public input to the preferred option

· The community reject the options presented and put forward an alternative option not considered

· The consultation process is heavily influenced by aquatic sports clubs and participants.

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

1. Approve the business case and consult with the community on Options 2 and 3 as recommended by the business case.

2. Approve the business case and consult with the public on options 2, 3 and 4 (New build 50m) to enable the community to be fully informed on the costs and benefits of including an Olympic sized pool.

3. Not to approve it at this time

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

The Napier community has been vocal in all media about the provision of additional quality aquatic space in Napier. Community input to inform the expansion of the Napier Aquatic Centre is required to meet the timeframes of the Long Term Plan. The preferred option is to consult on the options recommended by the business case along with Option 4 – New build 50m, to enable the public to be fully conversed with the true costs and community benefit of each option.

2.8 Attachments

a Napier Aquatic Centre Options for Expansion July 2017 (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee – 19 July 2017 – Open Agenda

3. Draft Ahuriri Estuary & Coastal Edge Masterplan - Consultation

*Type of Report:*	Procedural
*Legal Reference:*	N/A
*Document ID:*	373788
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

3.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of the report is to obtain endorsement of the Final Draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan, and of the community engagement plan in advance of the community consultation phase.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a. endorse the Final Draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan.

b. endorse the Community Engagement Plan.

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

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

3.2 Background Summary

The City Vision sees Napier committed to a number of key principles for the management and development of our city, and how Council operates within the community. Although all of these Principles are reflected in this Draft Masterplan, it is the principle Ecological Excellence that is at its heart. By committing resources to ensuring water and habitat quality is the very best it can be, the success of this place for recreational and commercial uses will follow. The Draft Masterplan reinforces and expands on many of the Project Area ideas of the City Vision, including all of those in the Ahuriri framework and half of those in the Waterfront framework areas.

The Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan sets a long-term vision for the Ahuriri Estuary, inner harbour, Iron Pot, and coastal edge from Perfume Point to the Port, as well as the surrounding urban and rural environment. Developed in consultation with Hawkes Bay Regional Council, the Department of Conservation, and Mana Ahuriri, the strategic thinking and initiatives will contribute to Te Muriwai o Te Whanga – Joint Ahuriri Estuary Management Plan under the Mana Ahuriri Settlement. The draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan is attached in Attachment 1.

The next phase in the development of this Draft Masterplan is to engage with key stakeholders and the wider community. This will commence following the presentation of the Draft Masterplan to the Maori Consultative Committee on the 9^th August. A summary of the Community Engagement Plan is attached in Attachment 2.

3.3 Issues

There is currently no strategic framework that provides guidance to Council, businesses, landowners, interest groups, mana whenua, other government agencies, and the community for the Ahuriri Estuary, Pandora Pond, Inner Harbour, and Ahuriri areas in terms of future development and priorities. Although partnerships between agencies is becoming more commonplace, these are often focussed on relatively small geographic areas or on specific topics. A more co-ordinated approach is needed if the full potential of this special place is to be realised, there is agreement on priorities, and conflicting uses are minimised. As previously noted, the Draft Masterplan will feed into Te Muriwai o Te Whanga – Joint Ahuriri Estuary Management Plan.

3.4 Significance and Consultation

The Masterplan is a high level strategic document that guides Council decision-making and assists in the formation of partnerships working toward a common goal. A number of initiatives have been identified within the Masterplan that affect Council strategic assets, including reserves, stormwater networks, the roading network, the inner harbour and leasehold land portfolio, and Napier City Council’s share of the Airport. The Masterplan has been prepared in close consultation with a number of key stakeholders including the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Department of Conservation and Mana Ahuriri. It is now proposed to take the Masterplan out for further stakeholder and public consultation as outlined in the summary of the Engagement Plan attached in Attachment 2.

Each initiative contained within the Masterplan will be further consulted on, either through the Long Term Plan, Special Consultative Procedure, or through other consultative means.

3.5 Implications

Financial

The Masterplan itself will not incur significant financial implications on Council and ratepayers, with only minimal costs associated with the implementation of the Engagement Plan. However, each initiative contained within the Masterplan will be a cost to the community if it is realised. As noted above, significant projects will be included in the Long Term Plan, while others will be included in operational budgets, or consulted on using the Special Consultative Procedure.

Social & Policy

The Draft Masterplan includes commentary on the measures needed to realise some of the changes proposed by the initiatives. At times, this includes changes to Council policy and to the District Plan. Policy and District Plan changes have their own legal and consultative processes, and these will be followed as each initiative is prioritised.

Risk

There is a risk that some stakeholders may feel that they should have been consulted with prior to this draft being prepared. It was decided to work initially with just the three most affected stakeholders (HBRC, DoC, and Mana Ahuriri) before engaging more broadly for a number of reasons:

· The Masterplan is a high level strategic document, with further opportunities for engagement through the Long Term Plan and at the project development stage;

· Producing a draft that stakeholders can comment on can sometimes be an easier approach than starting with a ‘blank sheet’.

· The team took the direction given by Mana Ahuriri who wanted to restrict engagement to key partners at the very early stage.

There is a risk that the public may view the initiatives presented in the Draft Masterplan as confirmed projects for the future and expect that they be instigated, rather than a selection of potential opportunities (which they are). There are a small number of initiatives in this Draft Masterplan that are already being considered as part of the existing work programme. Others will be put forward in the Long Term Plan, while others are ideas for the future, with some being reliant on the movements of private investors or other agencies.

3.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

1. Endorse the Draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan to commence the consultation phase in accordance with the Engagement Plan;

2. Endorse the Draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan to commence the consultation phase but not in accordance with the Engagement Plan;

3. Do not endorse the Draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan to commence the consultation phase.

3.7 Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is 1) Endorse the Draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan to commence the consultation phase in accordance with the Engagement Plan. As previously noted, the Draft Masterplan has been developed in close consultation with three key stakeholders, all of whom support the vision for this area.

The Engagement Plan has been prepared and will be executed in partnership with the Community Services team, who have considerable experience in this area of work.

3.8 Attachments

a Draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

b High Level Engagement Plan - Estuary - June 2017 ⇩

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee – 19 July 2017 – Open Agenda

High Level Engagement Plan – Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge: Masterplan

The purpose of engagement on the draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan is to provide information, gain feedback and understand any issues about the Masterplan.

Planned engagement activities and tools will ensure key stakeholders and the community are given appropriate and relevant opportunities to provide feedback on the draft Masterplan.

A draft engagement plan has been developed. This proposes a staged approach to seeking feedback on both the Masterplan as a whole and proposed activities identified in the three character areas (Estuary, Pandora, and Ahuriri/West Quay/inner harbour):

· Initial and focused direct engagement with major and primary stakeholders

· Wider engagement with other key stakeholders, residents and users (recreational and organised).

It is noted that the major stakeholders of Mana Ahuriri, HBRC, and DoC have been involved in the development of the draft Masterplan from the very beginning. The engagement plan proposes to extend the sphere of engagement within these organisations beyond the key players.

The table below summarises planned engagement activities and tools for each phase.

Phase	Engagement Activities	Tools
Initial engagement	Meetings with Major Stakeholders including wider DoC team and HBRC team/Council Meetings with primary stakeholders (eg, Thames Tyne Stormwater Working Group, Maori Liaison Roopu, Te Taiwhenua O Te Whangaui-a-Orotu, Friends of the Estuary, Ahuriri Protection Society etc)	 Presentation (direct consultation)  Pamphlet/booklet incl FAQs  Provision of full draft Masterplan for comment
Wider engagement	Key stakeholders - information with pamphlet/booklet and details of engagement opportunities	 Letter  Pamphlet/booklet incl FAQs  Web content with feedback forms  Media release
	Local residents and general public – information about engagement opportunities	 Pamphlet/booklet incl FAQs  Web content with feedback forms  Signage and pop up installation in high use areas (eg, Humber Street and Perfume Point)  Social media  Media release
	Other stakeholders in region - information about Masterplan (eg, HDC, WDC, CHBDC)	 Letter  Web content

An engagement summary will be prepared, outlining engagement activities, key themes, and issues for consideration.

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee – 19 July 2017 – Open Agenda

4. Permanent Commercial Activity on Marine Parade

*Type of Report:*	Operational
*Legal Reference:*	N/A
*Document ID:*	352651
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

4.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to obtain a Council decision on whether to allow a commercial activity to operate on Marine Parade’s foreshore reserve throughout the year on a more permanent basis.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a. Agree to grant a ‘licence to occupy’ for the northern end of the Marine Parade foreshore reserve (adjacent to the petanque court) to a food and beverage-related commercial business.

b. Agree that the license to occupy be managed as a 3 year contract with a review after each year.

c. Direct officers to hold an open tender process to determine who will be granted this licence to occupy.

d. Require the future proprietor to cover all costs associated with the provision of infrastructure.

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

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

4.2 Background Summary

Magnet Café, operating out of a new repurposed shipping container, was granted a licence to occupy, resource consent, and food licence from Napier City Council in 2016, with a licence to occupy from 19 November 2016 to 21 May 2017. Magnet was located on top of the petanque court at the Napier Port entrance end of Marine Parade foreshore reserve. They were entirely self-sufficient, providing their own water supply, greywater disposal, and electricity (through the use of a generator). They did not prepare any food on-site, but provided ready to go pre-prepared snacks and hot and cold drinks. They also provided seating on the reserve space adjacent to the container, through the use of beanbags, tables and chairs, as well as games for children.

The proprietors were granted permission after approaching Council with the idea to trial this activity in this space over the summer months, promoting their venture to be consistent with the City Vision for activating quiet spaces, creating memorable and enjoying city spaces, and giving things a go.

During their time in operation, they found a number of issues that would need to be addressed should Council decide to provide for a similar type of food-related commercial activity on this site in the future:

· Electricity supply – the generator was not able to cope with the hot summers. It was also considered a fire risk in the dry grass, and filling it with petrol was both a fire risk and an inconvenience. The generator was turned off overnight due to safety concerns, which caused an issue with perishables.

· Shade – the shade sail that was attached to their deck could not cope with the seaside breezes that frequently blew through this area. Shade was however important given the exposed nature of the site, the users (often being young children), and to meet Council’s Shade Policy objectives.

· Water supply – Water was transported to the site each day, which was an inconvenient and heavy task.

Despite the issues above, the café was always busy and received wide support from the community. It’s location on a reserve away from cars and with plenty of open space around them made it attractive to young families. Appendix B contains information supplied by the current vendors Magnet Café on the success of their enterprise. The only matter of contention was in relation to the placement of the container on the petanque court. If a similar venture were to return to this location, it would be placed adjacent to the court (refer Location Plan Appendix A).

Given the success of this venture Council Officers are now recommending that a food and beverage related (no alcohol) ‘pop-up’ style business be located in this position of Marine Parade on a permanent basis under a 3 year (review after the close of each year) licence to occupy. It is proposed that the ‘pop up’ building be granted permission to be sited here all year round to take advantage of Napier’s mild winters, and to avoid the considerable cost of relocating the building in the off-season.

To provide an opportunity for everybody who wishes to establish a business in this location to put forward their idea, Council will assess applicants through a tender process. The tender committee will be made up of three Council Officers, with the assessment of tenderers carried out on a weighted attributes basis.

4.3 Issues

To address the issues identified above, Council Officers have costed out the installation of the infrastructure required, as set out below:

· Water supply - $3,500

· Electricity supply - $2,000

· 1x Shade sail (as per those in Marine Parade playground) - $8,000

As no connection to the Council’s wastewater supply is possible, any proprietor would need to demonstrate how they will be able to dispose of their greywater without discharging it directly onto the gravels. It is recommended that the future proprietor cover the costs of this infrastructure themselves should they wish to have access to it. Any capital would revert to Council’s ownership upon the expiry of the licence to occupy.

4.4 Significance and Consultation

Prior to the commencement of the previous summers trial at this location, letters were sent to all surrounding businesses asking for feedback and to advise of any concerns resulting from the activity. The only feedback received through this exercise was positive in nature. Further to this, and in preparation for this item, letters were sent to the same proprietors asking for feedback on this proposal. No comments have been received.

4.5 Implications

Financial

As outlined in section 1.2 above, there are no costs to Council in issuing a licence to occupy for this commercial enterprise.

It is proposed that the collection of rent under the licence to occupy would be consistent with other businesses occupying Marine Parade foreshore sites; 5% of gross takings per week, payable monthly in arrears without further demand by the Council.

Ongoing electricity costs will be paid for by the proprietor.

Social & Policy

The provision for a ‘pop-up’ style food and beverage business in this location is consistent with the City Vision, both with regards to the guiding principles and the waterfront framework.

Should Council support the installation of a shade sail at this location, this will ensure consistency with Council’s Shade Policy.

Reserves Act and Reserve Management Plan

The reserve is gazetted in the Reserves Act as a Recreation Reserve. The Reserve Management Plan is due to be updated, but currently neither supports nor prevents such use of the reserve.

Trading in Public Places Bylaw

The site falls outside of the prohibited CBD area for trading in public places. The proprietor will be required to obtain a trading licence from Council’s Environmental Health Officers.

Marine Parade Foreshore Reserve Business Concession Policy

This Policy sets out the maximum number of and conditions applicable to any food and beverage business established on Marine Parade. The Policy is applicable to the area from the Mardi Gras site to the north, to the Ellison Street carpark to the south. Assuming the Mardi Gras site is the carpark adjacent to Ocean Spa, the site that is the subject of this item falls outside of this area. Nevertheless, applicants in the tender process will be assessed based on the criteria provided in this Policy.

District Plan

Food and Beverage businesses in the Marine Parade Recreation Zone are Controlled Activities, requiring resource consent to establish and operate. If Magnet is selected as the preferred tenderer, they will not be required to obtain another resource consent.

Risk

There is some risk that the public may feel that the public reserve should be open and available to everyone, without the intrusion of commercial activity. As noted above, the 2016/2017 summer period was used as a testing period, the result of which was that the concept was widely welcomed by the public. As such, it is believed that this risk is low.

There may also be some risk of existing CBD-based business operators believing that the successful tenderer is given assistance in a prime location, while they do not receive such support on privately owned land in the CBD. This has not been something that was raised during the trial period. The open tender process will be open to everyone and will therefore mitigate this risk.

In a manner consistent with the City Vision’s Open for Business Principle, Magnet’s operation from this site was initially a trial for the summer period. Knowing the popularity and success of this venture, there is a risk that not allowing this site to be occupied for a commercial ‘pop-up’ food business would see a missed opportunity to activate this quiet spot on our city’s waterfront.

4.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

1. To not provide for a new site for a food and beverage-related commercial activity at the northern end of the Marine Parade foreshore reserve.

2. To provide for a new site for a food and beverage-related commercial activity at the northern end of the Marine Parade foreshore reserve.

4.7 Development of Preferred Option

The test period of the summer 2016/2017 has shown a willingness by the community to accept the use of this site for a ‘pop-up’ style food business. Magnet Café added vibrancy to this coastal reserve and provided a safe and relaxing space for families to enjoy Napier’s coastal environment in a manner consistent with the City Vision. As such, the Officers preferred option is (1) to provide for a new permanent site for a food and beverage-related commercial activity at the northern end of the Marine Parade foreshore reserve, and for this site to be tendered in an open tender process.

4.8 Attachments

a Proposed Location Plan ⇩

b Magnet Trial Analysis ⇩

PUBLIC EXCLUDED ITEMS

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

AGENDA ITEMS

1. CBD Security Patrols

2. Citizen's Civic Award recommended recipients

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. CBD Security Patrols

7(2)(b)(ii) Protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

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.

2. Citizen's Civic Award recommended recipients

7(2)(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

NAPIER CITY COUNCIL

Civic Building

231 Hastings Street, Napier

Phone: (06) 835 7579

www.napier.govt.nz

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee

Open

MINUTES

Meeting Date:	Wednesday 31 May 2017
Time:	3pm
Venue:	Main Committee Room 3rd floor Civic Building 231 Hastings Street Napier

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

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee – 19 July 2017 – Open Agenda

Apologies

Nil

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Nil

Public forum

Councillor Price / Councillor Boag

That Standing Order 14.14 be suspended for the duration of the Public Forum to allow Dr Daugherty to speak for up to 15 minutes.

CARRIED

Dr Charles Daugherty, Chair of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Implementation Planning Group spoke about the Biodiversity Strategy, a community led project to which the councils of the region, as well as NGOs and private parties are encouraged to become partners to. The goal of the Strategy is to engage people and create partnerships to address issues of ecological recovery for the benefits of the people of the region. Dr Daugherty noted that as well as the ecological services provided to us by nature, there were wellbeing and economic benefits to this work for the region.

A report will be brought to the next meeting of the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee, outlining the options and implications for Council of partnering in the implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy.

Announcements by the Mayor

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson

Nil

Announcements by the Management

Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

Councillor Brosnan / Councillor Wise

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2017 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

CARRIED

Notification and Justification of Matters of Extraordinary Business

(Strictly for information and/or referral purposes only).

Agenda Items

1. Retail Strategy

*Type of Report:*	Enter Significance of Report
*Legal Reference:*	Enter Legal Reference
*Document ID:*	354524
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Dean Moriarity, Team Leader Policy Planning

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is for Council to acknowledge its existing Retail Strategy, confirm its philosophical approach as still sound, and to authorise officers to review the strategy to ensure it remains fit for purpose for the next several years.

At the Meeting

It was noted that the existing strategy is some years old now and there has been many changes in the retail sector in that time. A number of factors would need to be considered in any review - the original strategy maintained the integrity of the CBD through careful management of the placement of larger format retail and chains and it would need to be tested as to whether there was appetite for any shift away from this approach.

In response to a question from Councillors is was noted that strong synergies are seen between the Retail Strategy and the City Vision. They are believed to be complementary in building vibrancy across Napier.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Jeffery / Councillor White

That Council

a. Acknowledge that the basic philosophical approach and strategic direction of the existing Retail Strategy (2003) remains fundamentally sound and

b. Authorise a review of the existing Retail Strategy, including a seminar for elected members, to ensure it remains ‘fit for purpose’ whilst noting the intention to retain the current overall strategic direction.

CARRIED

2. Heritage Improvement Grant Administration Changes

*Type of Report:*	Operational and Procedural
*Legal Reference:*	N/A
*Document ID:*	350991
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

2.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to redistribute Napier City Council’s Heritage Improvement Grant to the Art Deco Trust, so that it may be added to a much larger funding pool available for the restoration of Napier’s heritage.

At the Meeting

An amendment to the Officer’s recommendation was proposed at the meeting in response to the request from the Art Deco Trust that Council increase its funding contribution to $20,000 per annum. While some concern was expressed that Council not become the sole funder of work that has a more specific focus on heritage buildings than has been the case while the funding was under Council’s jurisdiction, general support was expressed for an investigation into how this increase might be funded. One proposed option was that the $10,000 heritage grant only be increased by the additional $10,000 requested by the Trust if the targeted $80,000 additional funding is sufficiently progressed at a 6 month review.

It was suggested that a Council representative might be appointed to the committee assessing the allocation of funding to contribute to this decision making and to provide a city wide perspective.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Wright / Councillor White

That Council:

a. Agree to disestablish the Napier City Council Heritage Improvement Grant annual fund of $10,000 per year as of 30 June 2016

b. Approve that for the 2017/18 financial year, the fund allocation be transferred to the Art Deco Trust to combine with a larger Robert McGregor Heritage Fund; and

c. Approve that an agreement to manage the administration and expectations associated with this be prepared.

d. Direct Council Officers to investigate increasing the Heritage Improvement Fund to $20,000 and report back to the Council meeting scheduled for 28 June 2017 on funding options.

CARRIED

3. Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 - Progress Update

*Type of Report:*	Enter Significance of Report
*Legal Reference:*	Enter Legal Reference
*Document ID:*	352640
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	James Minehan, Development Planner

3.1 Purpose of Report

To inform and update Council about the progress on the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy since the last report presented to Council in June 2016 and to obtain approval of funding additional unbudgeted expenditure.

At the Meeting

A brief update was provided to the Committee on progress made under the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy and topics of particular focus currently, including concerns regarding the depositing of sand off shore (as opposed to the current consented deposite zones close to Westshore) by the Port of Napier which is believed would have ramifications for Westshore. It was noted that reports commissioned by the Port differ greatly to the findings of historical investigations into the ramifications of this scenario, but the committee have not had to the opportunity to review the Port papers.

A minor amendment was made at the meeting to Part B of the Committee’s recommendation.

Committee's Recommendation - SUPERCEDED

Councillors Boag / Jeffery

That Council:

a. Receives the Officer’s Report Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 – Progress Update.

b. Endorses the following reports adopted by the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (28 February 2017):

- Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120: Coastal Hazard Assessment, Tonkin & Taylor, May 2016 (Attachment A).

- Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120: Coastal Risk Assessment Tonkin & Taylor, May 2016 (Attachment B)

- Stage Two Report: Decision Making Framework, Mitchell Daysh, February 2017, (Attachment C)

c. Endorses the updated Terms of Reference (Attachment D) adopted by the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (5 December 2016).

d. Notes that the forecast project costs have now been incurred and that funding of $110,000 will be sourced from year end budgets.

Committee's Recommendation – AMENDED

Councillors Dallimore / Boag

That Council:

a. Receives the Officer’s Report Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 – Progress Update.

b. Receives the following reports adopted by the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (28 February 2017):

- Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120: Coastal Hazard Assessment, Tonkin & Taylor, May 2016 (Attachment A).

- Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120: Coastal Risk Assessment Tonkin & Taylor, May 2016 (Attachment B)

- Stage Two Report: Decision Making Framework, Mitchell Daysh, February 2017, (Attachment C)

c. Endorses the updated Terms of Reference (Attachment D) adopted by the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (5 December 2016).

d. Notes that the forecast project costs have now been incurred and that funding of $110,000 will be sourced from year end budgets.

CARRIED

4. Land legalisation - 2 Hastings Street & 12 Browning Street, Napier

*Type of Report:*	Legal
*Legal Reference:*	Public Works Act 1981
*Document ID:*	352620
*Reporting Officer/s & Unit:*	Bryan Faulknor, Manager Property Jenny Martin, Property and Facilities Officer

4.1 Purpose of Report

To obtain Council approval, pursuant to Section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981 to declare the land in the Schedule to be road.

At the Meeting

No discussion was held.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillor Jeffery / Councillor Brosnan

That Council

a. Consents, in accordance with Section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981, to the land described in the Schedule hereto to be declared road and vested in the Napier City Council.

SCHEDULE

Hawke’s Bay Land District – Napier City

Area (ha)	Legal Description	Certificate of Title
0.0001	Lot 8 DP 6356	HB 56/57
0.0002	Lot 9 DP 6356	HB 56/59

CARRIED

The meeting concluded at 3.40pm.

[1] Note: The Governance Board does not report to the Matatiki Forum but is responsible for regular communication updates and liaison.

[2] This figure represents a funding shortfall (differential between current state and the proposed structure). Assumptions include additional council funding (11.5k), MBIE funding (40.0K) and TBA (38.0k).

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