Agenda of Future Napier Committee

Future Napier Committee - 22 October 2020 - Open Agenda Item 1

Agenda Items

1. Councillor Consent Hearing Delegations

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Resource Management Act 1991
Document ID:	1017194
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Luke Johnson, Team Leader Planning and Compliance

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to update the current Hearings Committee Terms of Reference (TOR) and to introduce a set of guidance criteria that will help guide the appointment of Commissioners by the committee to hear and determine resource consent applications, in accordance with best practice.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Receive the Independent Report Councillor Consent Hearing Delegations attached as Attachment A to this report, which includes:

i. Annex A – Quality Planning Guidance – The use of Commissioners 2017

ii. Annex B – NCC Current Hearings Committee Terms of Reference

iii. Annex C – Guidance Criteria for Delegations to and Assignment of Commissioners

b. Approve the changes to the Hearings Committee Terms of Reference attached as Appendix B to this report.

1.2 Background Summary

Napier City Council (Council) has a set of regulatory functions that include the processing of resource consent applications, some of which are publicly or limited notified and which require being heard by a Hearing Commissioner(s). At present there is no Council set or defined criteria/policy to support decisions made in appointing Hearing Commissioners.

Officers therefore commissioned a review by an independent planning consultant to consider whether current practice is in line with best practice, and to recommend changes that would ensure that all future decisions to appoint Hearing Commissioners are transparent and robust. Specifically, the review sought to achieve the following outcomes:

· Set a clearly understood and transparent process for whom the decision sits with when appointing Hearing Commissioners.

· Ensure the process is robust and of sound legal standing.

· Update the Hearings Committee TOR, if required, to reflect any change in process as a result of this review.

· Consider the benefits, costs and risks of using Councillors as Hearing Commissioners.

· Consider what opportunities exist to grow the capability of Councillor Commissioners and to have them share in local decision making, while retaining the use of Independent Commissioners where warranted.

· Establish a set of criteria to be considered for every appointment that guides officers’ recommendation and the final decision.

The key output of the review was the completion of an independent report which is attached as Appendix A and Annexes A, B and C to this item. That report discusses the review process undertaken and the key findings and recommended actions and should be read in conjunction with this item.

A workshop was held with Councillors on 17^th October 2020 to explore the findings of the independent review. The outcomes and actions from that workshop have been considered in this item.

1.3 Best Practice

The review considered relevant best practice reference material and the practice of several other local authorities. The following have been identified as the key best practice measures a Council should follow when appointing Commissioners:

· Elected members or Councillors should have training and experience as hearing panel members and be able to demonstrate fulfilling the accreditation requirements of the RMA by holding a current certificate under the Making Good Decisions programme.

· Councillors nominated to be appointed as Commissioners should have no actual or perceived conflict of interest.

· Where Councillors or other elected members are regularly called upon to act as Commissioners, they need to be made fully aware of the potential workload involved and be available as required.

· Any appointment of Commissioners and delegation of functions made under s34A of the RMA should be formally recorded as a resolution of the Council. This appointment may be recorded on documentation related to a hearing (such as correspondence and order papers) to ensure that no confusion exists in regard to the authority of those persons to act as Commissioners.

· For the sake of transparency and consistency, Councils should have a clear policy or set of guidelines on the use of independent Commissioners which clearly states what circumstances are considered to warrant the use of a Commissioner, what powers are to be delegated, and what steps are to be followed in the appointment of a Commissioner. Such a policy or set of guidelines may form part of a Council’s delegations manual or policy, or may constitute a separate policy.

· The skills and experience of Independent Commissioners employed should match the nature, scale and technical complexity of the issues on which a decision is being made.

In summary, officers consider the key takeaway to be the need to develop a clear set of guidance criteria to guide, inform and structure the decision-making process, so that it is clear (and clearly recorded), that they were considered when making the decision. This provides a level of robustness and demonstrates that the Hearings Committee has taken responsibility and ownership of the decision and has clearly followed the adopted practice. As part of the review, a set of guidance criteria has been developed and included in the existing TOR is attached as Appendix B to this item. The recommendation is for these criteria to form part of the Hearings Committee TOR so that they are clearly referred to and referenced in any decision made.

1.4 Review Findings

In addition to the best practice comments above, the review made several findings which are summarised below:

· The Resource Management Act makes it clear that the power to hear and determine resource consent applications may be delegated to staff or to Hearing Commissioners provided they are accredited to do so (by holding a current Making Good Decisions Accreditation certificate).

· The decision to appoint Hearing Commissioners, whether Independent or Councillors, to hear and determine a resource consent should sit with the Hearings Committee.

· Council has a TOR setting out that the Hearings Committee is responsible for appointing and delegating powers to Hearings Commissioners to hear and determine resource consent applications.

· Following the Planning Team’s consideration of a resource consent application that requires a hearing (typically between the processing officer and their Manager), a recommendation should be made to the Hearings Committee, with the key reasons as to why (with reference to the guidance criteria), on who should be appointed to hear and determine the application.

· Consideration should be given to the approach of having a mixed Hearings Panel consisting of an experienced Independent Commissioner sitting with a Councillor (Commissioner) where the opportunity presents itself. This should be done irrespective of costs with consideration on a case by case basis for the Councillors time being absorbed by Council.

· All decisions on resource consents made by appointed Hearing Commissioners should be made by those Hearings Commissioners. Council staff (other than the Reporting Officer) may be used to assist in the writing but the decision must be that of the decision makers.

· Although Commissioners should generally write their own decision reports, there may a professional development opportunity for Council staff/accredited Councillor Commissioners to assist in this respect. This could be considered on a case by case basis.

· The current non-financial delegations are fit for purpose with the decision to appoint Commissioners sitting with a Committee of Council. In other words, there is no additional delegation needed and therefore no amendment of the non-financial delegations is required for the purpose of this item.

Overall, the review found that the correct structure and delegations are in place to appoint Commissioners (being the Hearings Committee). What was identified was no clear process or guiding criteria which informs the decision being made. The review noted that this was not a criticism and often a function related to a Council holding a low number of hearings on an annual basis. Notwithstanding, Officers recognise that it is an opportunity to put in place a process with more rigour that empowers the decision makers giving them confidence in the decision being made.

Officers also note the review makes the point that hearing applications can be technically complex and time exhaustive, and therefore Independent Commissioners are often required and justified in their use. Having said that, more opportunities to include Councillor Commissioners should be afforded (when independence is not requested by either the Applicant or Submitter, or where elected members can sit alongside independents) with the most favoured scenario being a hybrid panel where a Councillor Commissioner sits with an Independent Commissioner. This would assist with ensuring a technically robust decision is reached and that the workload that comes with writing a robust decision is appropriately managed. To negate the possible higher costs that would come with having two commissioners instead of one, the review suggests that the costs of using the Councillor Commissioner could be absorbed by Council as a development opportunity. This recommendation is endorsed by Officers and the decision will be made on costs by the hearings committee at the time of appointing commissioners.

1.5 Conclusion

Having considered the review findings it is recommended that amendments be made to the Hearings Committee TOR to include specific guidance criteria when considering the appointment of Hearing Commissioner’s, and the development of a specific process whereby the recommendation by the Planning Team is documented alongside the decision being made by the Hearings Committee.

1.6 Issues

No Issues.

1.7 Significance and Engagement

There is nothing significant about this item that requires community engagement.

1.8 Implications

Financial

There are no financial implications as a result of this item.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

There is no significant risk associated with this matter. In fact, the recommended course of action will lessen risk through providing a more robust process for the appointment of Commissioners.

1.9 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Approve the changes to the Hearings Committee Terms of Reference as set out in the attached Appendix B.

b. Refuse the changes to the Hearings Committee Terms of Reference as set out in the attached Appendix B and continue with the current practice whereby Commissioners are appointed.

1.10 Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option of amending the TOR to include the best practice guidance criteria has been completed through the review work done and through the development of the guidance criteria. Should the changes to the TOR be approved and endorsed by the Committee, they will be updated at the next Council meeting and be in place for consideration when the next resource consent hearing is required.

1.4 Attachments

a Independent Report Councillor Consent Hearing Delegrations (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

b Annex A - Quality Planning Guidance - The use of Commissioners 2017 (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

c Annex B - NCC Current Hearings Committee Terms of Reference (first draft version) (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

d Annex C - Guidance Criteria for Delegations to and Assignment of Commissioners (Under Separate Cover) ⇨

e Amended Hearings Committee Terms of Reference ⇩

Future Napier Committee - 22 October 2020 - Open Agenda Item 2

2. Civic Precinct Framework

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	984587
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

2.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the Civic Precinct Framework.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Endorse the Civic Precinct Framework

2.2 Background Summary

Since 2017, Council has been investigating various options for Office accommodation, governance facilities, and a new Library. In December 2017 Council approved a Statement of Proposal which would have allowed the sale of the Civic site (on the corner of Station and Hastings Streets) for a commercial use. Negotiations with an international hotel provider for the purchase of this site have now closed following a change in circumstances due to Covid-19. A site selection process for the new Library also concluded, with Council resolving to establish new library facilities on the Station Street site in 2019. Preliminary investigations into the options for Council accommodation and governance facilities have also concluded, awaiting a decision on the siting and delivery of a new Library.

With the civic site and surrounds being the subject of a number of complex decisions and staged delivery, as well as it being a key focus for community use and Council administrative services and governance, a new Civic Precinct Steering Group was established to oversee its vision, options exploration, and design. The first phase in the delivery of this project is the creation of a Civic Precinct Framework (the Framework), which sets the vision and principles in order to guide the development of the Masterplan (the spatial plan for the site and surrounds).

The Framework Vision and Themes are:

· Destination

· Connections

· Inclusive

· Leadership

· Activation

The Values and Principles are:

· Expression or outstanding design that compliments the City

· Expression of Māori heritage and presence

· Expression of art

· Expression of community leadership

· Establishing a safe and inclusive place for all

· Physical connectivity, multi-modal transport and arrival requirements

· Flexible spaces that foster collaboration and cohabitation

· Enhancing social connection

· Economic stimulus

The Principles will ensure decisions made over time are consistent and values-based, and take full advantage of the once in a generation opportunity to create a community hub that both serves the needs of our community, and is an engaging destination.

The extent of the Precinct has blurred edges, with influence cast beyond the Civic site, to nearby properties and streets. Council has engaged with other organisations including the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Ministry of Justice, to ensure thinking around shared services and facilities, and spatial design considers our neighbours and their needs.

Finally, the Civic Precinct is a working title and will likely change through the Masterplan process to one that better encapsulates its community and governance function, and reflects our culture.

2.3 Issues

No issues.

2.4 Significance and Engagement

The endorsement of the Civic Precinct Framework does not trigger any special consultative procedure requirements under the Significance and Engagement Policy. Engagement in this phase of the project is through the Project Steering Group. It is not intended to consult more broadly on this Framework. It is expected that further consultation on later phases of this project including the Masterplan, and component designs will be carried out.

2.5 Implications

Financial

Social & Policy

The Principles of the Civic Precinct Framework are consistent with a number of existing strategies and plans including the City Vision, District Plan Review, Library Strategy, Covid Recovery Plan, and Long Term Plan.

Risk

2.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Endorse the Civic Precinct Framework

b. Do not endorse the Civic Precinct Framework

2.7 Development of Preferred Option

The endorsement of the Civic Precinct Framework by Council is the first phase in the re-imagining and redevelopment of this site and its surrounds. It is the vital first step toward forming the project brief for the Masterplan/Spatial Plan, and establishes a set of underlying principles that guide the sites design and function for the future phases of the project.

The Framework has been developed by the Project Steering Group, with all members supporting its content.

2.8 Attachments

a Civic Precinct Framework ⇩

Future Napier Committee - 22 October 2020 - Open Agenda Item 3

3. Waiapu Cathedral Market

Type of Report:	Operational and Procedural
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1251060
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Stephanie Kennard, Planning Projects Facilitator

3.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to approve a Market Day on Saturday, 21^st November 2020 within Cathedral Lane which will include the selling of goods and services within a public space. Approval from Council is required as we have a Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2014 that prohibits the selling of goods and services within a defined city centre boundary without approval from Council. Permission is being sought by on behalf of Anglican Diocese of Waiapu who will be operating the market.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Approve Anglican Diocese of Waiapu to operate a market within Cathedral Lane on Saturday, 21^st November 2020, where the trading of goods and services will occur.

b. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently as the market is two days after the next Council meeting on the 19^th of November 2020.

3.2 Background Summary

The St John’s Cathedral is located on the corner of Browning Streets and Cathedral Lane. Members of the Cathedral approached Steph Kennard, Planning Projects Facilitator to discuss the potential of holding a market in Cathedral Lane on Saturday, 21^st November 2020 between the hours of 10am and 3pm. The market will include craft stalls, food carts and childrens’ activities. No alcohol will be served at this market. The Waiapu Cathedral market is a free-to-attend event and will appeal to all ages. With a particularly difficult year almost behind us, this is an opportunity for our local residents to come and enjoy themselves amongst an anchor point for the CBD.

This is an inaugural event for the Anglican Diocese of Waiapu. If successful, they would plan to hold this event annually in the same location.

If this were to occur, an exemption to the Trading In a Public Place BylLaw 2014 would be required on each occasion. Anglican Diocese of Waiapu has written a letter outlining their request (attached to this report).

3.3 Issues

Without the exemption, Anglican Diocese of Waiapu will not be able to hold their event. This is planned to be a significant contributor to their fundraising efforts for this year.

As this is a Saturday, one month prior to Christmas, parking will be at a premium. This road closure would mean Cathedral Lane will not be available for parking for the day.

Some CBD retailers may not support this market.

3.4 Significance and Engagement

This matter does not meet the criteria in the Significance and Engagement Policy as a significant matter, and therefore does not require engagement with the community. The Anglican Diocese of Waiapu has consulted retailers and other businesses in the northern end of Hastings Street, who are all very supportive of the event.

3.5 Implications

Financial

Council may wish to waive the TMP costs of the road closure.

Social & Policy

This exemption request is required under our Trading and Public Places Bylaw 2014.

The market is consistent with the City Vision Framework which seeks to bring people into the city centre through the flexible use of public spaces and multiple activities. The market is also consistent with the Napier Recovery Plan.

Anglican Diocese of Waiapu have applied for funding for this market from the Recovery Fund and a decision had not been made at the time of this report.

Due to COVID-19, we have not had many events based in the CBD that are available to our residents to enjoy. This is a great opportunity to bring people in to our CBD to support the Cathedral with their fundraising efforts. This is a community event that plans to provide entertainment for children and families but also will appeal to our older community, many of whom would enjoy a market of this style and format.

Risk

Risks associated with activities operating on a street can be mitigated through a road closure which will be sought for this market.

There is potential risk for retailers to not support this event.

There will also be the loss of carparking for one day one month prior to Christmas.

3.6 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Approve the exemption request by the Anglican Diocese of Waiapu to hold a market in Cathedral Lane, Napier on Saturday, 21^st November in Cathedral Lane

b. Do not approve the exemption request by the Anglican Diocese of Waiapu to hold a market in Cathedral Lane, Napier on Saturday, 21^st November 2020.

3.7 Development of Preferred Option

That Council approve the exemption to the Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2014 for the Anglican Diocese of Waiapu for Saturday, 21^st November 2020. This is for the purpose of running a Market in Cathedral Lane.

This market will have a broad appeal across our wider community. The market will include locally made crafts and foods. Entertainment will be family friendly with bouncy castles and other child-focused activities. Proceeds from the sale of items at this market are for the purposes of fundraising for the Diocese. The CBD has had a reduced number of events over the past 6 months and this is an opportunity for people to come in to town to enjoy themselves for the day. Local retailers and hospitality providers will benefit from the increased number of people.

The Anglican Diocese of Waiapu has already commenced advertising, providing a good lead in time for people to know an event will be planned on that day. Napier City Business Inc. will also support the market through communicating with their membership and assisting with advertising of the event.

The road closure will be supported by a traffic management plan, health & safety plan and regular marketing and communication to the community of the market.

3.8 Attachments

a Waiapu Cathedral - request for exemption to Trading in Public Places Bylaw - Sat, 21st November 2020 ⇩

Future Napier Committee - 22 October 2020 - Open Agenda Item 4

4. Report - Resource Consent Activity

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1254856
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Luke Johnson, Team Leader Planning and Compliance

4.1 Purpose of Report

This report provides an update on recent resource consenting activity. The report is provided for information purposes only, so that there is visibility of major projects and an opportunity for elected members to understand the process.

Applications are assessed by delegation through the Resource Management Act (RMA); it is not intended to have application outcome discussions as part of this paper.

This report only contains information which is lodged with Council and is publicly available.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Note the resource consent activity update.

4.2 Background Summary

The Resource Consent team have seen a steady number of RMA applications being lodged since the last Committee meeting.

While the number of resource consent applications has been steady over this recent period, the team have been able to prioritise processing applications and addressing other relevant planning matters. Further, timeframes continue to be achieved in accordance with the legislated requirements.

The following is an outline of recent activity regarding applications received by Council for consenting pursuant to the RMA. This list does not detail all RMA applications under assessment or having been determined, rather provides detail around significant or noteworthy applications.

Summary Table*

Address	Proposal	Current Status	Update
121 Battery Road, Ahuriri	Demolish existing Group 3A Heritage Building, proposed earthworks and multi units (10 residential dwellings) and one into 11 Lot subdivision in Mixed Used Zone and Coronation Street Area Zone	Under assessment S92 Further Information Request issued	Detail provided below
262 Emerson Street, Napier	Proposed alterations and additions to Provincial Hotel in Fringe Commercial Zone	Application suspended	Additional detail provided below
72 West Quay, Ahuriri	Mixed Use development, Demolition of Group 1 Heritage Building and Ancillary earthworks in West Quay Waterfront Zone	Under assessment	Previously reported for Future Napier Committee Additional detail provided below
16 and 38 Willowbank Avenue, Meeanee	Proposed lifestyle village	Publicly notified Submissions closed 16 September 2020 3 submissions received	Previously reported to Future Napier Committee. Additional detail provided below
62 Raffles Street, Napier	Additions and alterations to an existing building and establish multi-unit development (30 residential apartments) in Fringe Commercial Zone	Approved	Additional detail provided below
Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities
16-18 McLaren Crescent, Onekawa	Proposed subdivision and five new dwellings	Approved	Application approved

* Current as at time of report being published to Agenda

121 Battery Road, Ahuriri – Mixed Use Development, Demolition of Group 1 Heritage Building and Ancillary Earthworks

The resource consent application continues to be assessed. Internal and external referral responses have been provided and an information request under s92 of the Act was issued. The applicant is currently engaging with Council officers and external experts to address all matters raised within the information request.

Figure 1: Artist impression of subject development (Coronation Street frontage)

Figure 2: Artist impression of subject development (Battery Road frontage)

Figure 3: Subject site

262 Emerson Street, Napier – Proposed alterations and additions to Provincial Hotel in Fringe Commercial Zone

The Provincial Hotel building is identified as a Group 1 Heritage Item. Accordingly, the applicant has engaged with a heritage architect to provide direction with regard to the proposed alterations and additions. The application details the redevelopment of the Provincial Hotel to enable a continuation of hospitality activities. The intent is to refurbish the existing building, creating two tenancies to be established as a bar and restaurant respectively.

At the request of the applicant, the assessment of the application has been suspended to allow them time to engage with Heritage New Zealand.

Figure 4: Historic eastern elevation

Figure 5: Historic northern elevation

Figure 6: Proposed internal layout

72 West Quay, Ahuriri – Mixed use development, demolition of Group 1 Heritage Building and ancillary earthworks

The resource consent application continues to be assessed. Internal and external referrals were received and an information request under s92 of the Act was issued. The applicant is currently engaging with Council officers and external experts to address all matters raised within the information request.

16 and 38 Willowbank Avenue, Meeanee – Proposed lifestyle village

The notification period has now closed. Council is in receipt of three submissions relating to the proposed development. One submission is opposed to the proposal and two submissions are neutral. A request for further information has been issued under s92 of the RMA. The applicant has requested the application be placed on hold whilst they engage with submitters.

62 Raffles Street, Napier – Additions and alterations to an existing building and establish multi-unit development (30 residential apartments) in Fringe Commercial Zone

The subject site has an area of 1268m² and is bound by Raffles Street to the north, a Council service lane to the south and established commercial activities to the east and west.

Figure 7: Approved northern elevation

The existing structure is to be retained, and through alterations and additions, will permit the site to accommodate 30 residential units and the provision of 25 off street vehicle parking spaces. The development will remove the formal vehicle accesses from Raffles Street. Vehicle access and egress for the site will be exclusively via Council’s service lane (to the rear of the site). Pedestrian access will be retained from Raffles Street.

Figure 8: Approved southern elevation

4.3 Attachments

Nil

Future Napier Committee - 22 October 2020 - Open Agenda

Future Napier Committee

Open Minutes

Meeting Date:

Thursday 10 September 2020

Time:

10.22am-11.36am

Venue

Large Exhibition Hall
War Memorial Centre
Marine Parade
Napier

Livestreamed via Zoom to Council’s Facebook page

Present	Mayor Wise, Deputy Mayor Brosnan (In the Chair), Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tapine, Taylor and Wright
In Attendance	Interim Chief Executive, Director Corporate Services, Director Community Services, Director City Strategy, Manager Asset Strategy, Manager Communications and Marketing, Chief Financial Officer, Team Leader Policy Planning, Team Leader Planning & Compliance, Policy Planner
Administration	Governance Team

Apologies

Nil

Conflicts of interest

Nil

Public forum

Nil

Announcements by the Mayor

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson including notification of minor matters not on the agenda

Nil

Announcements by the management

Nil

Confirmation of minutes

Councillors Mawson / Taylor

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 July 2020 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

Agenda Items

1. District Plan Review - Policy Approach of Draft District Plan

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	Resource Management Act 1991
Document ID:	957626
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Dean Moriarity, Team Leader Policy Planning

1.1 Purpose of Report

a. The purpose of this report is to follow up on the recent seminars held with Council between July 20^th and August 20^th regarding the review of the District Plan; and

b. For Council to approve the recommended policy approach for specific chapters so that officers can draft plan provisions within an agreed framework.

At the Meeting

The Team Leader Policy Planning spoke to the report noting that the report follows a number of Councillor seminars held this year. The specific topics addressed in this report include Heritage, Character Precincts, Potential rezoning in Ahuriri, Landscapes and Greenfield growth in the hills. An overview of each topic, including the recommendations, was provided.

In response to questions from Councillors, the following points were clarified:

· The new sensitive activities condition for the mixed use zone around Coronation Street, Ahuriri, would likely be applied to a special control area within the specific risk contour. The risk contours would set the limitations of where any specific provisions would apply.

· High impact, low probability events are one in a million statistical events.

· Significant Natural Areas (SNA’s) and Landscapes are their own specific overlays.

· SNA’s relate to indigenous biodiversity. There is a National Policy Statement currently in draft form, and expected to be passed into a Final Policy Statement next year, which is about raising the bar in terms of requiring Council’s to identify and protect significant natural areas. There are ongoing discussions with affected parties in relation to SNA’s and this topic has been pushed out to be dealt with at a later date.

· Heritage classification is a matter of national importance and identifies individual buildings and groups of buildings. Character Precincts is a layer below that and best practice has been to try to preserve those areas and maintain them. This topic will likely be raised and discussed as the Draft District Plan progresses through to the final District Plan.

· The National Policy Statement requires Council to remove all minimum car parking requirements within the next 18 months in order to assist in breaking down the barriers to providing housing in the centre of town as well as encouraging the use of public transport. This will feed into the District Plan.

· The Draft District Plan consultation period has been delayed due to Covid-19 but the intention was to have a Draft District Plan notified by around November this year. This may be impacted further as each stage relies on the previous workstream being completed. Council officers will be looking for a consultation window that is not already occupied by other projects and is cognisant of the LTP demands.

· Council officers advised that it would be unwise to delay the District Plan process due to possible changes to the Resource Management Act, as it could be years before District Plans are replaced altogether. The work that is being done through the District Plan process is still important for Council and the community to consider. At this time, there is still a legal requirement to have a District Plan.

· Oil facilities have health and safety requirements to manage a risk on site but they cannot prepare for everything. Council is required to understand the risks, how they work, and to convey that information to stakeholders that are impacted by it. This work is still in progress.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Browne / Tapine

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Endorse the recommended policy approach in the report, for preparing the Draft District Plan for the purposes of undertaking consultation and engagement with the Napier community.

Carried

2. Terms of Reference for Ahuriri Regional Park Working Group

Type of Report:	Operational and Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	957082
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Yvonne Legarth, Policy Planner

2.1 Purpose of Report

To enable appropriate awareness, questions about implications and feedback about the Napier City Council and Hawkes Bay Regional Council Joint Working Group that focuses in the main on the land administered by the organisations that is adjacent to Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu.

At the Meeting

Deputy Mayor Brosnan invited Hawke’s Bay Regional Councillor Hinewai Ormsby to join her in speaking to this report, as a fellow chair of the Ahuriri Regional Park Working Group, noting that the intention of the Joint Working Group is to strengthen collaboration between Napier City Council (NCC) and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) and also to bring about the step change following on from the Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan that was created and endorsed in 2018.

In response to questions from Councillors the following points were clarified:

· Councillor Ormsby confirmed that HBRC officers are following the direction set by elected members. It was noted that the terms of reference provide a really wide scope to bring issues back to both Councils.

· It was confirmed that co-chairs have been appointed to the Joint Working Group.

ACTION: Council officers to consider opportunities for Mana Ahuriri to present to Council regarding their settlement.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Future Napier Committee:

a. That the information be noted.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Crown

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Receives and endorses the terms of reference for the Joint Working Group.

b. Note there may be changes to the terms of reference as it is presented to the other partners in the group including:

1. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

2. Mana Ahuriri

3. Te Komiti

4. Napier City Council Māori Committee

Carried

3. Internal Practice Note for Financial Contributions

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	Resource Management Act 1991
Document ID:	947060
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead

3.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to obtain an endorsement for a new Internal Practice Note to provide guidance to Resource Consent Planners preparing conditions relating to Financial Contributions.

At the Meeting

The Director City Strategy spoke to the report noting that the principle would only apply to existing buildings that are being repurposed for residential. The application of a practice note would guide decision making for officers in situations where it might be appropriate to waive financial contributions.

A number of Councillors requested that other areas of Napier also be considered for inclusion. It was agreed that officers would consider what other areas may be appropriate and bring these back to the full Council meeting for possible inclusion.

In response to questions from Councillors, the following points were clarified:

· It was noted that following the full Council meeting where this matter will be double debated, the practice note would not come back to Council. Council officers will develop the practice note in accordance with the principles set by Council.

· Another instance where a practice note has been developed is for pre-application meetings. This was done in order to formalise Council’s legal responsibilities where a proposed development requires the collaboration of multiple areas of Council.

· The practice note recognises that a ratepayer has already paid for an existing development. In some instances, the services to that property are not being increased therefore it may be appropriate to waive financial contributions.

Officer’s Recommendation

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Endorse the development of an Internal Practice Note for Planners that will provide additional guidance in the assessment and application of Financial Contribution conditions on resource consents applying to residential developments in the city centre.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION

Committee's recommendation

Mayor Wise / Councillor Price

The Future Napier Committee:

b. Note that consideration will be given to other areas of Napier before the final resolution is brought back to Council.

Carried

4. Resource Consent Activity Report

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	Resource Management Act 1991
Document ID:	951718
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Luke Johnson, Team Leader Planning and Compliance

4.1 Purpose of Report

Applications are assessed by delegation through the Resource Management Act (RMA); it is not intended to have application outcome discussions as part of this paper.

This report only contains information which is lodged with Council and is publicly available.

At the Meeting

The Team Leader Planning and Compliance spoke to the report, providing a brief overview and noted that there has been an increase in applications received in comparison to the same time last year.

In response to questions from Councillors, the following points were clarified:

· The design panel were engaged in relation to West Quay due to the zoning and location, being the waterfront area of Ahuriri. The architects that form the design panel are Jacob Scott and Chris Ainsworth.

· The application for West Quay included archaeological assessments in relation to the cultural significance of that site. This is currently being assessed. Heritage New Zealand also provided comment and proposed conditions to the applicant.

· The variation to the Hospital Hill site was non-notified.

Committee's recommendation

Councillors Crown / Price

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Note the resource consent activity update

Carried

5. UNCONFIRMED MINUTES HAWKE'S BAY CIVIL DEFENCE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GROUP - 8 JUNE 2020

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
Document ID:	960285
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Anna Eady, Personal Assistant to the Mayor

5.1 Purpose of Report

To receive the unconfirmed minutes of the Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management Group meeting held on 8 June 2020.

At the Meeting

In response to questions from Councillors, the Mayor confirmed that the local civil defence groups were consolidated two years ago under Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has a targeted rate to fund the group.

Committee's recommendation

Councillor Simpson / Mayor Wise

The Future Napier Committee:

a. Receive the unconfirmed minutes of the Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management Group meeting held on 8 June 2020.

Carried

The meeting closed at 11.36pm.

Approved and adopted as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Chairperson .............................................................................................................................

Date of approval ......................................................................................................................

Meeting Date:	Thursday 22 October 2020
Time:	Following the Sustainable Napier Committee
Venue:	Napier War Memorial Centre Marine Parade Napier

Committee Members	Mayor Wise, Deputy Mayor Brosnan (In the Chair), Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tapine, and Wright
Officer Responsible	Director City Strategy
Administration	Governance Team
	Next Future Napier Committee Meeting Thursday 3 December 2020