Agenda of Ordinary Meeting of Council - Thursday, 31 October 2024

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 October 2024 - Open Agenda Item 8

8. Housing Divestment

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1801710
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Stephanie Murphy, Manager Strategy and Transformation

8.1 Purpose of Report

Purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Housing Divestment Project; outline the recommended programme and procurement process for the project.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a. Receive the paper entitled “Housing Divestment”.

a. Approve Officer’s recommendation to:

i. Commence the two-step procurement process, including Stage 1, calling for Expressions of Interest; and Stage 2 Request for Proposals to deliver Napier City Council’s Three-Year Plan housing decisions.

ii. Commence discussions with Abbeyfield NZ Incorporated (Hawke’s Bay branch) to facilitate delivering strategic housing priorities for Napier on the Greenmeadows East site, including site due diligence, feasibility and commercial terms.

8.2 Background Summary

In 2017, Napier City Council (“NCC") commenced a Local Government Act (“LGA”) Section 17A review of Community Housing portfolio. This led to further work commissioned and ultimately a decision by Council in May 2022^{^[9]} to retain the portfolio as status quo with other conditions including implement 80% rental income; debt fund deficit operating costs; develop a Housing Strategy; investigate alternative operating models; and implement sustainable cost recovery rent setting policy. This confirmed the current delivery model of the Community Housing portfolio.

In mid-2023 work commenced on developing the Draft Housing Strategy (March 2024) followed by a review of Future Direction for Napier City Council’s housing portfolio (March 2024). The Draft Housing Strategy confirmed Council’s focus on retirement housing provision, and Future Direction of Council’s housing portfolio confirmed the current operating model is financially unsustainable. Both reports formed the basis of the Three-Year Plan FY24-27 Housing portfolio consultation items. The Draft Housing Strategy is being presented to Council for adoption at the 31 October 2024 meeting.

At the conclusion of the Three-Year Plan, Council agreed to two key decisions, being:

Decision 1: Shift the focus to retirement only and divest the social villages, being Carlyle; Nelson and Wellesley villages.

Decision 2: Deliver Council’s strategic housing priorities, under a mixed or independent delivery model approach.

Council also agreed to the following five strategic priorities in delivering upon the two key decisions made:

1. All current tenants will have a home

2. It is financially sustainable for council and the tenants

3. Over time, move away from providing social housing

4. Portfolio maintains, and increases over time, the retirement housing unit numbers

5. Enable investment in the condition of the housing portfolio including ensuring all are warm and dry

The five strategic priorities will form the basis upon which the assessment criteria for the recommended two-step procurement process are based.

8.3 Recommended Process: Two-step procurement process

To implement the decisions made by Council in the Three-Year Plan, it is recommended Council undertake a two-stage procurement process, including:

· Stage 1: Expressions of Interest (“EOI”); and

· Stage 2: Request for Proposals (“RFP”)

Stage 1 will call for EOI, approaching both local and national community housing providers (“CHP”) as well as submitters on Three-Year Plan. Other local interested parties who have made contact post the Three-Year Plan being adopted will also be invited to submit an EOI.

Stage 1 EOI will ask parties to identify if they are interested in Decision 1, being purchase of the social village; or Decision 2, being mixed or independent delivery model of Council’s housing priorities; or a combination of decisions made by Council to enable the best solution to be obtained. It is proposed to release the EOI in November 2024, with a decision being made by Christmas 2024 on parties to proceed to Stage 2 RFP.

Following the review of the responses, a short list of parties will be taken through to Stage 2 RFP. An RFP process allows the greatest flexibility for parties to outline how they propose to deliver Council’s housing strategic priorities. It is proposed to release the RFP in early 2025, subject to EOI responses received. Note, Stage 2 is subject to parties responding to the EOI and those parties being short listed to participate in the RFP stage.

8.4 Recommended Process: Abbeyfield Hawke’s Bay

Abbeyfield NZ Incorporated Hawke’s Bay branch submitted on and presented to the Three-Year Plan hearings. During the deliberations, Council passed a resolution to:

Direct officers to investigate the suitability of Essex Street recreational reserve and Tait Drive (adjacent to the Greenmeadows East Retirement Village) for an Abbeyfield development.

Abbeyfield NZ Incoporated was first established as a charitable organisation in 1992 and now operates 14 sites across NZ and are a registered CHP. Their model is to develop sites (approx. 2,000m2) for 12-14 older residents mainly in their 70s and 80’s with minimal assets. They typically build a facility that includes private studios with ensuite for residents within large family-styled house with communal lounge, dining area, laundry, and gardens. They do not provide medical care facilities; however, residents can have personal care support as required. Their model also requires their sites are close to public transport and within 1km of community facilities, including supermarkets, medical centres, libraries etc.

Abbeyfield’s proposition fits well within Councils Three-Year Plan decision to deliver strategic housing priorities for Napier, noting this is an independent delivery option. Abbeyfield Hawke’s Bay have advised their proposal meets criteria for funding available from Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (“MHUD”). As outlined further below (Section 8.6) MHUD are focusing on “new net housing” to be provided by CHP’s which this proposal aligns with.

Officers have engaged with Abbeyfield Hawke’s Bay regarding site options and are recommending commencing due diligence and site feasibility of the Greenmeadows East site (83 Tait Drive) and commercial terms discussions. This process will ensure any proposed site layout does not hinder future proposed development on the Greenmeadows East site. The Greenmeadows East site is compatible with all Abbeyfield requirements including adjacent to an existing NCC retirement village.

Officers will also review the Essex Street Reserve (and other Reserves) suitability for alternative retirement residential development and the process required to revoke reserve status under the Reserves Act 1977.

8.5 Significance and Engagement

Engaging with the existing tenants was fundamental during the consultation process in March 2024 as part of the Three-Year Plan. This was led by the Community Strategies Team and support from Elected Members. The consultation process specifically outlined the two preferred options by Council, therefore meeting NCC's significance and engagement policy^{^[10]} requirements. Tenants will be kept informed of the project and any developments as they occur.

8.6 Implications

Financial

As outlined above, the Future Direction for Napier City Council’s housing portfolio (March 2024), confirmed the current operating model is no longer financially sustainable. Refer to Attachment 1. The purpose of the housing portfolio decisions in the Three-Year Plan are to provide a pathway to financial sustainability for Council and reduce the burden on NCC rate payers of delivering the housing portfolio.

Social & Policy

One of the five strategic priorities agreed to in the Three-Year Plan decision is for “All current tenants will have a home”. This will be a key assessment criterion in the recommended two-step procurement process. The basis for this is outlined in the Draft Housing Strategy before Council for approval on 31 October. Refer Attachment 2

Risk

The key risk identified for implementing the Three-Year Plan decisions, is there are limited, or no responses received at Stage 1 EOI. The following provides further context to this risk and how this will be managed.

Policy Changes

A change in Government policy settings has seen a withdrawal of the MHUD supporting Council housing existing and new projects. MHUD’s focus is on better social outlines being delivered via partnerships, namely via CHP’s. This also has a flow on with access to various subsidies including redirects^{^[11]}, Income-Related Rent Subsidy (“IRRS”) and Operational Supplement (“OS”) now being applied to “new net housing” only and not existing housing stock.

Market Conditions

It is understood that several Councils are in the process of divesting their housing portfolio’s either commencing reviews, or in the market to divest. Generally, market competition is welcome, however for NCC this could pose a greater risk to either decision due to their being greater competition.

To manage this risk from policy changes and market conditions, the two-step procurement process needs to be open to alternative options presented by parties to maximise the housing outcomes to deliver NCC's strategic housing priorities. This needs to ensure the assessment criteria are not overly restrictive.

Legal

Legal advice has been sought from Willis Legal to answer two questions and has confirmed:

1. First right of refusal (“FRR”) – are there any obligations binding on NCC to Mana Ahuriri under the Mana Ahuriri Hapu Claims Settlement Act 2021? There are two reasons that confirm NCC is not subject to provisions of the Act:

a. NCC does not meet the definition of “The Crown” under the Act; and

b. None of the 10 properties listed in the Deed of Settlement include any of Council’s housing portfolio. All properties listed are owned by the Crown.

2. Are there any restrictions that may impact NCC's ability to divest any of the villages in the housing portfolio due to Public Works Act (“PWA”) or Endowment Acts 1876 provisions? Carlyle Street is Endowment Land as it was vested in Council by Napier Borough Endowments Act 1876.

Purpose of Endowment Land is very broad “for the use, benefit and improvement of the Borough of Napier”. An amendment to be Endowments Act in 1999 provided list properties in Schedule 3 that could be sold, subject to provisions, with Carlyle Street being included in Schedule 3. In the case where the Crown was the donor of the land, NCC needs to notify Ministries of Land Information and Treaty of Waitangi negotiations of the intention to sell the land. The process post Ministerial notification is uncertain with multiple avenues available to the Ministries. Therefore, early engagement is recommended.

Managing the legal risk requires early engagement with Mana Ahuriri Trust regarding the FRR and with Ministries of Land Information and Treaty of Waitangi negotiations regarding Endowment Land.

Consultation

Depending on the outcome of the two-step procurement process to be undertaken and the decision recommended to Council, this may trigger a need to reconsult with the community on the proposed decision(s). This risk will be managed during the decision making process.

8.7 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Approve Officer’s recommendation to:

i. Commence the two-step procurement process, including Stage 1, calling for Expressions of Interest; and Stage 2 Request for Proposals.

b. Approve Officer’s recommendation as per (a) above, subject to Council’s amendments.

8.8 Development of Preferred Option

Option A: Approve Officer’s recommendation to:

a. Commence the two-step procurement process, including Stage 1, calling for Expressions of Interest; and Stage 2 Request for Proposals.

b. Commence discussions with Abbeyfield NZ Incorporated (Hawke’s Bay branch) to facilitate delivering strategic housing priorities for Napier on the Greenmeadows East site, including site due diligence and feasibility and commercial terms.

8.4 Attachments

1 Attachment 1 Future Direction for Napier City Council's housing portfolio ( March 2024) (Under separate cover 1)

2 Attachment 2 Napier City Council Draft Housing Strategy (Under separate cover 1)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 October 2024 - Open Agenda Item 9

9. Review of Gambling Venues Policy

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	Gambling Act 2003
Document ID:	1800137
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Michele Grigg, Senior Policy Analyst Jeriel Sajan, Policy Analyst

9.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the review of Council’s Gambling Venues Policy and to seek approval to retain the Gambling Venues Policy in its current form.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a. Note the information from the Officers’ review of the Gambling Venues Policy.

b. Resolve to adopt the 2024 Gambling Venues Policy.

c. Note that consultation is not required if the 2024 Gambling Venues Policy is retained in the form of the 2021 Policy (with some non-material editorial updates).

9.2 Background Summary

The regulation of gambling in New Zealand under the Gambling Act 2003 aims to balance the potential harm from class 4 gambling against the benefits of using gaming machines as a form of community funding.

Territorial Authorities have a particular role under both the Gambling Act and the Racing Industry Act 2020 to control the impacts of class 4 and TAB gambling on its community. The mechanism for this is through the Gambling Venues Policy (‘the Policy’) to determine whether class 4 and standalone TAB venues can be established in the territorial authority district and, if so, how many, and where they can be located.

Territorial authorities are required to review their Policy every three years. In reviewing a policy under the Gambling Act and Racing Industry Act, Council should have regard to the following:

a. must have regard to the social impact of gambling within the territorial authority district

b. must specify whether or not class 4 gaming venues may be established in the territorial authority district and, if so, where they may be located

c. may specify any restrictions on the maximum number of gaming machines that may be operated at a class 4 venue

d. may include a relocation policy for class 4 gaming venues, which sets out whether or not venues can relocate and, if so, under what circumstances

e. must specify whether or not new TAB agency venues may be established and, if so, where they may be located.

In determining its policy on whether class 4 or TAB agency venues may be established in the territorial authority district, where any venue may be located, and any restrictions on the maximum number of gaming machines that may be operated at venues, the territorial authority may have regard to relevant matters, including:

a. the characteristics of the district and parts of the district

b. the location of kindergartens, early childhood centres, schools, places of worship, and other community facilities

c. the number of gaming machines that should be permitted to operate at any venue or class of venue

d. the cumulative effects of additional opportunities for gambling in the district

e. how close any class 4 venue should be permitted to be to any other venue

f. what the primary activity at any class 4 venue should be.

1.2.1 Current Policy

Napier’s Gambling Venues Policy was last adopted in 2021. It regulates the establishment and operation of gambling venues within the district. The policy aims to:

· Control the growth of gambling in the community

· Minimise harm associated with gambling, particularly problem gambling

· Ensure gambling venues operate in a manner that is safe and socially responsible.

During the 2021 policy review, Council determined to move to a sinking lid approach for the Policy (a change from the previous capped approach). This change in policy sought to strike an appropriate balance between permitting responsible gambling and minimising gambling harm to the community.

During the 2014 review the Council at the time established more controls around where new venues could be located, in recognition that low socio economic areas are disproportionally affected by the harmful effects of gambling, together with a specific cap in Taradale to three venues. These were retained in the 2021 Policy, as below:

· a maximum of three class 4 venues in the Taradale Suburban Commercial Zone, and

· a limit on the location of relocating venues to the Inner City Commercial, Art Deco Quarter, Fringe Commercial, Ahuriri Mixed Use, Main Industrial and West Quay Waterfront zones in the District Plan.

9.3 Issues

Class 4 gambling is the use of non-casino gaming machines, also known as electronic gaming machines or ‘pokies’. Recent research from Te Whatu Ora for the revision of the national Strategy to Prevent and Minimise Gambling Harm 2025/26 to 2027/28,^{^[12]} states that electronic gaming machines pose high risks due to a high participation and high frequency of play among participants, in contrast to risky but less frequently played casino games, and prevalent but non-risky forms of gambling such as lotteries or Lotto.

Currently Napier has 19 venues, 291 machines and 2 TAB venues. There has been little to no change in the number of venues and machines in Napier since 2021. Per head of population (based on 2023 Census data), Napier has 45 gaming machines per 10,000 residents. The national average is 28 machines per 10,000 and Hastings has 30 machines per 10,000 people (255 machines in total). Forty-two percent of the machines in Napier (eight out of 19) are located in medium-high and very-high deprivation areas.

The following types of entities own class 4 gambling machines within Napier (see list in Attachment A):

· non-club societies and trusts operate gaming machines in venues such as pubs and bars

· club societies largely tend to operate gaming machines from their own venues

· the NZ Racing Board operates gaming machines in venues it owns or leases (TAB venues).

All operators require a licence from the Department of Internal Affairs who oversee and inspect their operations.

1.3.1 Gambling Harm

Class 4 gaming machines are the most cited form of gambling by people seeking help for problem gambling (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Primary Gambling Mode for People Requiring Support, NZ, 2022/23

One in five people in New Zealand will experience harm in their lifetime due to their own or someone else’s gambling (Ministry of Health, 2019).^{^[13]} Gambling harm disproportionately impacts Māori and Pacific peoples. The 2020 Health and Lifestyles Survey found that Māori were 3.13 times more likely to be moderate or high risk gamblers than non-Māori and non-Pacific peoples, and Pacific peoples were 2.56 times more likely to be moderate or high risks gamblers than non-Māori and non-Pacific peoples.

Napier has the sixth highest (population adjusted) rate of people seeking gambling help across all New Zealand territorial authorities.^{^[14]} Locally, just over 200 clients from Napier seek out or receive gambling harm intervention support per year. Ministry of Health information however shows that approximately 16% of potential clients for gambling support services actually access or present at these services.^{^[15]}

1.3.2 Financial Impacts

Napier City has followed the national trend of a general growth in annual gaming machine profit (GMP). The largest spend on was in 2023 with almost $22.4 million being list to pokies in Napier City (Figure 2). The Covid lockdown is likely to account for the drop in GMP in 2020.

Figure 2

Gaming Machine Profit (GMP) per Year in Napier, 2015-2023

Per head of population aged 18 and over, Napier had the 6th highest GMP across New Zealand in 2023 (approx. $471) (Figure 3). This compares to the national average for the year of (approx. $294). Napier’s rate is higher than each of the other territorial authorities in Hawke’s Bay.

Across New Zealand, in the 12 months to March 2024, $1.035 billion was taken by pokies in Gaming Machine Profits. By way of comparison, losses to onshore online gambling were estimated at $332m in 2022 (ie, this includes Lotto and TAB). Losses to offshore online gambling were estimated at $415m. Online gambling is largely unregulated and increasingly accessible. Online gambling is outside the scope or control of Council and its Policy review.

Figure 3

Gaming Machine Profit (GMP) per Head of Population 18+, 2023

1.3.3 Community Benefits

There is community benefit from Class 4 gaming as some revenue is reinvested into community outcomes by the way of community grants. All non-club trusts and societies are required to return or distribute at least 40% of their gaming machine profit (GMP) to authorized purposes. Clubs are not required to return a minimum amount, with many using profit to support their own membership (some also provide community grants).

However, in the case of trusts and societies, there is not requirement for the gaming machine profit to be returned to the district from which it was generated. For example, in 2023, of the approximately $16.55 million lost in Napier in venues with pokie machines operated by non-club trusts and societies, approximately $5.02 million was returned to Napier by way of community grants to organisations based in Napier. This represents 30% of the GMP, which means another $1.6m was distributed to other areas, not Napier. Figure 4 shows where the $5.02 million funding was allocated in 2023 in Napier, from trusts and societies only.

Figure 4

Recipients of Electronic Gaming Machine Grants in Napier, 2023

9.4 Options Analysis

Council is required to consider what policy position it wishes to take as part of the review of the current Gambling Venues Policy. The Policy options available to Council are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1	Gambling Venues Policy Options and Description
Option 1: Status Quo - Sinking Lid with relocations (under certain circumstances) and club mergers permitted	Retain the sinking lid approach. Retain relocation policy and club merger policy. Retain restrictions on relocated venue locations. Cap of three venues in Taradale. The number of gaming machines or class 4 venues decreases through natural attrition. Any new gaming machines or venues are banned. The sinking lid approach does not reduce the number of machines in an existing operating venue.
Option 2: Re-introduce a Cap	Revert to previous capped policy approach, setting the cap at the current numbers of machines and venues with Napier City: 19 venues, 291 machines, and two TAB venues. This approach means that every time a venue closes, the number of permitted machines remains the same. Other venues can apply for additional machines if their permitted number of machines hasn’t been exceeded or if a new venue is established. Retain relocation policy and club merger policy. Retain restrictions on relocated venue locations. Cap of three venues in Taradale.
Option 3: Sinking Lid with no relocations and/or no club mergers	Retain the sinking lid approach. Cap of three venues in Taradale. Introduce a no venue relocation policy (no exceptions) and/or a no club merger policy. The no venue relocation policy would prevent any venue from relocating under any circumstances. The no club merger policy would prevent two clubs merging and having a large number of machines at one site.

The advantages and disadvantages of each option are presented below.

Option 1 (preferred)

Status Quo – Sinking Lid with relocations (under certain circumstances) and club mergers permitted

Advantages

Disadvantages

Sinking lid approach.

Retain relocation policy and club merger policy.

Retain restrictions on relocated venue locations.

Cap of three venues in Taradale.

Any new gaming machines or venues are banned.

• Over time, numbers of machines and venues expected to decrease.

• Growth in venues is controlled.

• Ability to relocate venue licence to a new premises due to unforeseen events such as natural disasters and fire damage to premises.

• Provides a clear framework for relocations.

• Prevents new venues from opening.

• Aims to reduce gambling harm by reducing access to gambling opportunities over time.

• Protects vulnerable areas by restricting venue relocations to controlled zones.

• Limited immediate impact on reducing gambling harm as approach relies on gradual venue closures and allows mergers and relocations in certain circumstances.

• In time, may lead to less funding available through community grants.

• May lead to clusters of venues in fewer locations, especially if venues successfully apply to relocate.

• Businesses needing to relocate who meet the criteria must apply and follow an approvals process.

• Could be an economic impact on venues unable to relocate if they don’t meet the criteria.

• Small compliance cost for Council to assess relocation applications to determine if criteria are met.

Option 2

Re-introduce a Cap

Advantages

Disadvantages

Capped approach.

Set at current numbers of machines and venues (19 venues, 291 machines, two TAB venues).

Every time a venue closes, the number of permitted machines remains the same.

Other venues can apply for additional machines if permitted number of machines hasn’t been exceeded or if a new venue is established.

Retain restrictions on relocated venue locations. Cap of three venues in Taradale.

• Maintains similar level of community funding from proceeds, assuming funding returns to Napier community organisations.

• Growth in venues is controlled.

• New venues can apply to host machines if there are machines available.

• Provides greater flexibility to businesses to open new venues if another venue closes, or upgrade and move existing ones with reduced compliance processes.

• Provides a clear framework for relocations.

• No compliance costs to Council as no requirement to assess relocation applications.

• Gaming machine numbers and venues more likely to remain constant.

• More difficult to reduce gambling opportunities as the cap sets a static maximum of venues and machines.

• Greater likelihood of concentrations of venues if operators relocate or expand within the capped number.

• Likely to further limit the reduction in existing gambling-related harm.

Option 3

Sinking Lid with no relocations and/or no club mergers

Advantages

Disadvantages

Sinking lid approach.

Cap of three venues in Taradale.

No venue relocations (with no exceptions) and/or no club mergers.

• Gradual reduction in venues and machines over time.

• Growth in venues is controlled.

• Potential to minimise exposure to gambling and harms from gambling.

• Provides a clear framework for relocations.

• Prevents new venues from opening.

• Prevents relocation of venues, including into vulnerable or concentrated areas.

• Aims to reduce gambling harm by reducing access to gambling opportunities over time.

• Simple and easily enforced as no exceptions for relocation.

• Limited immediate impact on reducing gambling harm as approach relies on gradual venue closures. But potential to have greater better medium to longer term impact.

• Pockets of concentrated numbers of venues could remain if venues stay open, so gambling harm also remains.

• Potential economic impact on venues who are unable to relocate and clubs who are unable to merge.

• Potential reduction in community funding if number of venues decreases, likely to be gradual.

• Some monitoring costs to ensure compliance with the policy.

Officers recommend retention of Council’s Gambling Venues Policy (Option 1 – Status Quo). Reasons for this recommendation are:

· it is apparent the Sinking Lid policy adopted in April 2021 has had, at this stage, no impact on gambling machine numbers

· expenditure on pokie machines continues to increase despite the adopted Policy approach

· the relocation clause enables venues to move under certain circumstances while still controlling location of any approved relocating venues

· funding will remain available for community organisations with reducing availability of gaming machines over time

· in the future, potentially fewer gaming machines and venues may enable remaining venues to better monitor gaming behaviour, including harmful gambling.

A draft Gambling Venues Policy, including required non-material editorial amendments, is provided in Attachment B.

9.5 Significance and Engagement

If Council adopts the recommendation to retain the Gambling Venues Policy in its current form (with some non-material editorial updates) and makes no further amendments to the Policy, there is no requirement to complete a formal consultation process under the Local Government Act.

In relation to the non-material editorial amendments, it is noted that the potential relocation zones as listed in the current Policy were renamed in Napier’s Proposed District Plan, requiring updating in the new Policy if retained as a required clause.

The following stakeholders will be notified of Council’s decision:

· New Zealand Racing Board

· Gaming Trusts, Societies and Clubs (as listed on Department of Internal Affairs website)

· Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand

· Te Rangihaeata Oranga Trust (Hawke’s Bay Gambling Harm Service)

· Te Whatu Ora (Health New Zealand)

· Mana whenua

· Māori social service and health providers.

If however, Council determines that consultation is appropriate, or another Policy approach is preferred, preparation of a Statement of Proposal will be required for Council approval to be released for consultation.

9.6 Implications

Financial

The cost of the policy review has been met within existing operational budgets. It is anticipated compliance costs will remain unchanged should Council agree to the recommendation to retain the Gambling Venues Policy.

Social & Policy

The social impact of gambling on the Napier community must be considered at each review. In order to inform the decision on a revised policy, gambling statistics for the Napier District along with other key information relating to gambling harm and the funding applied to the Napier area from gambling proceeds were presented to Council in a public workshop in October 2024.

Risk

Any policy that permits gambling will have varying benefits and costs to the community. Balancing responsible gambling with the need to minimise social harm must be taken into consideration by Council.

9.7 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Agree to retain the Gambling Venues Policy in its current form (with some non-material editorial updates) and therefore not undertake consultation (preferred option);

b. Agree to retain the Gambling Venues Policy in its current form (with some non-material editorial updates) and request preparation of a Statement of Proposal to be released for consultation;

c. Do not agree to retain the Gambling Venues Policy in its current form (with some non-material editorial updates), provide an alternative preferred policy approach, and request preparation of a Statement of Proposal to be released for consultation.

9.8 Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option strikes a balance between the historical capped policy approach and a more restrictive sinking lid approach, amidst increasing levels of gaming machine profits, both locally and nationally.

It is therefore recommended that Council approves retention of the current policy with a sinking lid approach, allowing for relocations and club mergers under specific circumstances as noted in the draft Policy.

9.5 Attachments

1 Napier Class 4 Gaming Venues and Locations, 2024 DOC ID 1802312 (Under separate cover 1)

2 Proposed 2024 Napier Gambling Venues Policy DOC ID 1802313 (Under separate cover 1)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 October 2024 - Open Agenda Item 11

11. Draft Freedom Camping Bylaw 2024

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1802028
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Jeriel Sajan, Policy Analyst Michele Grigg, Senior Policy Analyst

11.1 Purpose of Report

This report seeks Council’s adoption of the Statement of Proposal (SOP) and the Draft Freedom Camping Bylaw 2024 for public consultation and for officers to commence the special consultative procedure.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a. Adopts the Statement of Proposal and Draft Freedom Camping Bylaw 2024 for public consultation.

11.2 Background Summary

Pursuant to Section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 (FCA), local authorities may establish bylaws to regulate freedom camping within their district or region. These bylaws can restrict or prohibit freedom camping to protect the environment, ensure public health and safety, and preserve public access.

The Freedom Camping Bylaw is designed to manage freedom camping activities within the district to ensure they are safe, environmentally sustainable, and considerate of local communities. The bylaw aims to:

· Protect public spaces.

· Manage public health and safety risks.

· Preserve the natural environment and local amenities.

· Align with the Freedom Camping Act (FCA), section 11, which outlines conditions under which bylaws may be created.

1.2.1 Napier’s Freedom Camping Bylaw

Napier City Council’s bylaw aligns with its strategic priorities of enhancing the city as a visitor destination while fostering community relationships. It regulates freedom camping at specific sites to ensure responsible use of public spaces.

Freedom camping in Napier is permitted for one night in a self-contained vehicle, provided that campers comply with all conditions set out in the bylaw. However, camping is not allowed in areas listed under Schedule 1, Schedule 2, or in designated prohibited areas. Otherwise, Campers can stay for one night only in any one location within the Napier local authority area.

Prohibited Areas: Freedom camping is prohibited in:

· Central business district (CBD)

· Shopping areas: Marewa, Tamatea, Taradale

· Westshore Beach Reserve

· McLean Park

· Areas with speed limits exceeding 50 km/h

· Grassed reserves.

Permitted Areas and Restrictions: Freedom camping is allowed in restricted areas outlined in Schedule 2 of the bylaw. These sites are:

· Westshore Reserve (Temporarily closed)

· Foreshore Reserve (Non-self-contained vehicles)

· Te Karaka/Perfume Point

· Pump Track/Ellison Street.

Conditions for Camping: To camp legally, the following conditions must be met:

· Proper waste management.

· Compliance with fire and nuisance prevention measures.

· Legal parking and land access must be observed.

· Sites may be subject to inspections by the council.

· A maximum of 10 nights is allowed within the Napier area per calendar month.

Temporary Modifications and Closures: The bylaw allows for the temporary modification or waiving of restrictions, as well as temporary closures of certain areas for reasons such as:

· Damage prevention or maintenance.

· Ensuring safety during events or activities.

· Public access management and addressing adverse effects on local residents.

Enforcement and Penalties: The bylaw includes measures for enforcement, with penalties applied for non-compliance.

The bylaw was last reviewed in 2017. Since then, changes in visitor volume, camper behaviour, and legislative amendments have prompted an early review to ensure the bylaw remains effective and relevant. The review was initiated to realign Napier City Council’s position on non-self-contained vehicles, considering the Self-Contained Vehicles Legislation 2023 and recent changes to the Freedom Camping Act 2011 (FCA). Additionally, the temporary closure of Westshore Beach Reserve prompted the need to engage with the community to decide on its future.

Following a public workshop, the review aimed to assess the overall suitability of the bylaw in managing freedom camping in Napier, ensuring it remains aligned with both the city's needs and best practices from other districts.

11.3 Review of Napier’s Freedom Camping Bylaw

Topics considered in the Bylaw review were:

· Occupancy and Demand: Evaluating whether local infrastructure can accommodate current and future camping demand.

· Comparative Analysis: Reviewing bylaws from similar districts to ensure alignment with best practices.

· Site Assessment: Determining whether Westshore Beach Reserve should be reopened and reviewing the overall suitability of other freedom camping sites.

1.3.1 Occupancy and Demand

The occupancy data for freedom camping sites in Napier highlights several trends, shaped by factors such as COVID-19 disruptions and temporary site closures (Figure 1). The Pump Track remains the busiest location, overall being well used due to its larger capacity. Occupancy at this site reached its peak in the 2023-2024 season, returning to pre-COVID levels, like those seen in the early years of data collection.

For Te Karaka/Perfume Point and the Foreshore Reserve, the data reveals fluctuating trends. Both sites saw occupancy peaks in 2020-2021, followed by a decline, but recovery has been observed in the 2023-2024 period. A key distinction at the Foreshore site is the increasing proportion of homeless occupants. In 2023-2024, 24% of the site's users were people experiencing homelessness, up from 20% the previous year, which is significantly higher than the other two (currently open) sites where homeless occupancy varied between 6% and 14%.

The Westshore site, once popular, shows reduced occupancy, reflecting its temporary closure. Although demand for the site remained strong during its open periods, the closure starting in September 2021 resulted in a drop in occupancy.

Figure 1: Site Occupancy, 2018-19 to 2023-24 (July to June year)

Pump Track site occupancy

The Pump Track experiences clear seasonal occupancy patterns (see Attachment A, Figure A). Demand increases sharply from October, peaking in the summer months (December through February), often nearing, or exceeding the site’s average capacity. This trend aligns with the holiday season, where favourable weather drives increased travel. During off-peak months (April to September), occupancy falls below capacity, reflecting reduced demand. Variations in peak occupancy between years are evident.

Te Karaka/Perfume Point site occupancy

Occupancy at Te Karaka/Perfume Point has remained generally stable, with the site operating close to its average capacity year-round (see Attachment A, Figure B). While there are minor fluctuations, such as a notable drop in 2019-2020, the site is used consistently without significant overcrowding. This suggests the site is well-managed and generally able to accommodate demand.

Foreshore Reserve site occupancy

The non-self-contained freedom camping Foreshore site consistently operates near capacity, reflecting its popularity (see Attachment A, Figure C). Recent peaks, particularly in 2023-2024, indicate an increase in occupancy, driven in part by a rise in homeless occupants (24% in 2023-2024, up from 20% in 2022-2023). Occupancy remains stable throughout the year, with a noticeable increase during peak summer months (December to February).

Westshore Reserve site occupancy

The Westshore site occupancy data reflects seasonal restrictions at this site (no freedom camping permitted between 24 December and 7 February each year) and the impact of its temporary closure from September 2021 (see Attachment A, Figure D).

1.3.2 Infringement Data

The infringement data highlights enforcement trends, particularly the high activity in 2019 and 2020, with the Foreshore Reserve and Pump Track sites seeing the most violations (see Attachment A, Figure E). This aligns with increased compliance efforts during a time of heightened camping demand. In contrast, infringements declined sharply in 2020-2021, primarily due to COVID-19 restrictions that reduced travel and camping activity.

Since 2022, infringement rates have stabilised, reflecting a return to regular camping activity. However, overall infringements have decreased in the last year, which may be attributed to the June 2023 increase in infringement fees. For example, fines for bylaw breaches, such as using non-self-contained vehicles in restricted areas, now carry a $400 penalty, while more serious offenses, like damaging property or depositing waste, incur an $800 fine. Te Karaka/Perfume Point sees most infringements, partially due to campers parking outside of designated freedom camping areas.

1.3.3 Patrols & Complaints

Patrols are conducted by Armourguard under contract, with two primary types of patrols. Educational patrols occur around 7 PM, aimed at identifying vehicles potentially in breach of regulations and engaging in conversations to educate campers. Enforcement patrols are carried out between midnight and 6 AM, focusing on monitoring compliance and acting against any violations. Additionally, complaint-based patrols are dispatched as needed when issues are reported.

The associated costs for these patrols have remained steady over the years, ranging between $60,000 and $70,000 annually (see Attachment A, Figure F). In the last financial year, these services amounted to $60,000. The consistency in these costs indicates the Council’s ongoing commitment to enforcement and the need to balance educational efforts with compliance measures to ensure proper use of freedom camping sites.

1.3.4 Comparative Analysis

A comparative analysis of freedom camping bylaws across coastal cities such as Tauranga, Thames-Coromandel, Nelson, Whakatāne, and Gisborne highlights that bylaws are locally tailored to meet specific needs. There is no universal approach, and regulations vary based on local conditions and priorities.

Key notes include the widespread prohibition of non-self-contained vehicles in several cities, a trend driven by local concerns about waste management and environmental impact. Additionally, some cities, such as Gisborne and Whakatāne, impose seasonal restrictions to manage peak periods effectively.

While there are similarities in terms of prohibited areas, such as urban zones and high-traffic locations, the extent of enforcement and the specific conditions vary. General rules across all cities remain aligned, focusing on requirements for parking, waste disposal, and noise control, ensuring responsible use of public spaces.

1.3.5 Site assessments

The purpose of the site assessments (see Attachment B) was to provide insights for the Napier City Council’s Freedom Camping Bylaw Review by evaluating 18 existing and potential freedom camping sites. Each site was assessed based on key criteria, including safety, services, proximity to activities, site condition, and overall amenity. These factors were critical in determining the suitability of sites for freedom camping. Sites that failed to meet safety thresholds were excluded, while those that could interfere with other uses were flagged for further consideration.

Some potential inner-city sites were excluded, such as parking lots, due to operational challenges related to compliance under the Parking Bylaw and behaviour management to ensure access and safety under Section 11 of the FCA. Coastal sites were prioritised for their scenic appeal and established use by freedom campers. However, it was noted that there is no current budget for making improvements to sites with lower rankings, meaning the recommendations are based on existing conditions.

The assessment identified Pump Track/Ellison Street as the highest-ranked existing site, followed by the National Aquarium Carpark (a potential new site) and Te Karaka/Perfume Point. Other sites, such as the Foreshore Reserve Carpark, were ranked lower (7th), while the Westshore Reserve (temporarily closed) was ranked 11th. These rankings reflect the strength of safety, amenities, and proximity to services across the various sites.

1.3.6 Other Issues

Recent legislative changes to the Freedom Camping Act (FCA) have exempted individuals who are homeless from enforcement actions related to freedom camping offenses. Under these provisions, a person is considered homeless if they have no other viable option to secure safe and secure housing, including those living in vehicles on the street. This exemption differentiates homeless individuals from those who choose to live full-time in motorhomes, caravans, or converted buses.

According to Subsection 2A of the FCA, individuals on visitor visas who are unable to secure residential accommodation and, as a result, are living in temporary structures or vehicles, are also not considered to be freedom camping.

Rates of homelessness across Napier have been increasing (see Attachment A, Figure G). Figure H (see Attachment A) indicates the number of occurrences of homeless individuals using freedom camping sites (rather than unique individuals). This means that each time a person occupies a site, it is counted as a separate occurrence. Since data collection began in January 2021, the highest numbers have been observed at Pump Track and Foreshore Reserve, with Pump Track surpassing 1,000 occurrences in the 2023-2024 period. In contrast, sites like Te Karaka/Perfume Point and Westshore show much lower usage by homeless individuals, with relatively stable figures over time. This data provides important context for understanding the frequency with which homeless individuals use these sites.

11.4 Issues and Proposed Bylaw Changes

Based on a review of the data and information received, three options were considered:

· Option 1: Retain the current sites, including Pump Track, Te Karaka/Perfume Point, and Westshore, while converting Foreshore to self-contained.

· Option 2: Retain Pump Track and Te Karaka/Perfume Point and close the lowest-ranking existing sites (Westshore and Foreshore).

· Option 3 (Selected): Retain Pump Track and Te Karaka/Perfume Point, close the lowest-ranking sites (Westshore and Foreshore), and add new high-ranking site(s) from the assessment.

Option 1: Retain Current Sites – Status Quo

Maintaining the current freedom camping sites ensures that existing demand is met without the need for new locations. This approach has the advantage of no additional infrastructure or setup costs, keeping maintenance expenses minimal. However, it does not address ongoing issues such as inappropriate camper behaviour (eg, littering, noise, vandalism), which could lead to long-term environmental degradation and community dissatisfaction. Additionally, as demand increases, overcrowding at existing sites may become an issue. This option offers limited flexibility to adapt to changing conditions, potentially harming the city’s ability to be a safe and welcoming destination for freedom campers.

Option 2: Removal of Low-Ranking Sites

This option focuses on improving the quality of the network of sites by closing lower-ranked locations, allowing for better management and infrastructure at higher-ranking sites. By reducing the number of available sites, this approach makes it easier to monitor and enforce regulations, relieving pressure on council resources. However, fewer sites may lead to overcrowding at the remaining locations, particularly during peak seasons. This could result in environmental damage and dissatisfaction among campers. Furthermore, reducing site availability may negatively impact local businesses that rely on the economic benefits of freedom camping, and community pushback could arise from site closures. Flexibility is also reduced in the long term if demand increases in the future.

Option 3: Removal of Low-Ranking Sites and Addition of New High-Ranking Sites

This option provides the best balance between improving the camping experience and managing demand. By removing low-ranking sites and adding new high-ranking site(s) like the National Aquarium Carpark, the overall quality of the network is improved. This approach offers better facilities, environmental protections, and safer locations. The addition of a new site helps distribute camping pressure, reducing the risk of overcrowding at remaining high-ranking locations. However, this option requires an upfront investment in infrastructure, including signage and carpark, which increases initial costs. While access is improved with the addition of a new site(s), closing low-ranking sites may reduce options in underserved areas. Overall, this option provides greater flexibility for managing future tourism and offers stronger environmental protections.

1.4.1 Comparison of Options

Factor	Option 1: Status Quo	Option 2: Removal of Low-Ranking Sites	Option 3: Removal & Addition of a New Site
Site Quality	No improvement in site quality.	Improvement by focusing on high-ranking sites.	Enhanced quality by removing low-ranked sites and adding a new site.
Management Flexibility	Limited flexibility to adapt to changes in demand or conditions.	Reduced flexibility with fewer sites.	Greater flexibility with an additional site for managing future demand.
Environmental Impact	Risk of long-term degradation due to misbehaviour and overcrowding.	Reduced environmental risk by concentrating on fewer, better-managed sites.	Stronger protections with better-managed, high-quality sites.
Initial Setup Costs	No additional costs.	Minimal costs for decommissioning low-ranking sites.	Upfront costs for developing the new site (signage, parking, waste systems).
Ongoing Maintenance	Minimal ongoing costs.	Reduced maintenance costs at closed sites but increased at remaining ones.	Increased costs to maintain both new and existing high-ranking sites.
Risk of Overcrowding	High potential for overcrowding as demand increases.	Potential overcrowding at remaining high-ranking sites.	Reduced risk with better distribution of campers.

1.4.2 Proposed Changes for the Draft Bylaw

Based on the analysis, the proposed draft bylaw includes the following key changes:

· Removal of Non-Self-Contained Vehicles: This aligns with national legislation changes and aims to reduce misuse of sites and environmental impact.

· Site Removal and Additions: Low-ranking sites, such as Westshore and Foreshore, are proposed for closure due to their underperformance in the site assessment. In their place, a new high-ranking site(s) is proposed to distribute camping pressure more evenly and improve site quality. For the purpose of the SCP, the National Aquarium has been proposed, however, option three allows for any new high-ranking site(s) from the site assessment to be considered by the community.

Following this analysis, the draft bylaw (see Attachment C) and Statement of Proposal (see Attachment D) have been developed, allowing the public to review and provide feedback on the preferred option. A section 155 determination report has been completed (see Attachment E).

11.5 Significance and Engagement

Pursuant to Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, as modified by Section 86, a local authority must use the special consultative procedure when making, amending, or revoking a bylaw under Sections 10A, 11, or 11A of the Freedom Camping Act. This process involves key components:

1. Statement of Proposal: The local authority must prepare and adopt a statement of proposal outlining the bylaw or amendment. A summary of the proposal may also be provided to ensure public understanding if deemed necessary.

2. Public Availability: The statement of proposal and information on how interested parties can present their views must be made publicly available. The public consultation period must be at least one month from the release of the statement.

3. Consultation and Participation: The local authority must provide an opportunity for the public to present their views in person, either through verbal or sign language interaction. Reasonable opportunities should be offered for participation, including via audio or audiovisual link if needed.

4. Consideration of Feedback: The local authority can request or consider input from officers or any other relevant person before making a final decision.

1.5.2 Pre-Engagement with External Stakeholders and Nearby Residents

Stakeholders

Stakeholders were approached in August and September 2024 and invited to provide early input into the Bylaw review. Many of the stakeholders had been involved in the 2017 Bylaw review. Discussions were held with tourism operators, business association, New Zealand Motor Caravan Association (NZMCA), campervan hire companies, Campermate (app), backpacker operators, Holiday Parks New Zealand, Napier iSite, and the Department of Conservation.

The general consensus among stakeholders is support for freedom camping while acknowledging the importance of structured management to protect local resources and ensure responsible camping behaviour. There were no concerns expressed by stakeholders about a lack of freedom camping sites or freedom camping parking spaces in Napier.

See Attachment F for a summary of stakeholder feedback.

Nearby Residents

Residents near to the current sites were offered an opportunity in September 2024 to provide input into the Bylaw review. Address selection was determined based on a 100m range in each direction from the midpoint of the sites identified within the current Bylaw. Given there are no residential properties within this range at the Te Karaka/Perfume Point site, this site was not included.

Letters were hand delivered to 17 households within the identified range of the Westshore site (The Esplanade and Domain Road), 17 households within range of the Foreshore site (Te Awa Avenue), and three households within range of the Pump Track site. Responses were received from eight Westshore residents plus the Westshore Residents and Development Association (six requested permanent closure of the Westshore site), and two Te Awa Avenue residents (both requested closure of the Foreshore site).

See Attachment F for a summary of nearby residents’ feedback.

1.5.3 High-Level Engagement Plan

A high-level engagement plan has been prepared (see Attachment G). Consultation on the draft Freedom Camping Bylaw 2024 will:

· Provide information on the purpose of the draft Bylaw

· Ensure a range of opportunities for interested parties, residents and the wider community to provide feedback on the draft Bylaw.

The draft Bylaw is likely to be of high interest to residents located near the sites currently identified as restricted areas for freedom camping for either certified self-contained vehicles or non-self-contained vehicles (including the temporarily closed site at Westshore Reserve). It will also be of high interest to residents located near any proposed new sites in the draft Bylaw.

The matter is likely to be of high to moderate interest to specific interest groups including the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Inc., Hawke’s Bay Tourism, the Napier City Business Association, Napier iSite, campervan hire companies, local backpacker providers, and the Department of Conservation, among others.

The engagement approach acknowledges the level of interest from these groups and will also ensure Napier residents are provided an opportunity to provide input during the consultation phase.

Engagement will follow the requirements of the Special Consultative Procedure as set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. It is anticipated the Statement of Proposal and draft Freedom Camping Bylaw 2024 will be made publicly available for feedback during November 2024, with a hearing likely to be in February 2025. Online submissions will be encouraged, with hard copy documents of the Statement of Proposal, draft Freedom Camping Bylaw 2024, and submission form made available at Napier City Council Customer Services Centre and Libraries.

11.3 Implications

Financial

Should Option 3 be adopted, the following initial implementation costs are anticipated:

Site	Description	Item	Cost (+ gst)
Aquarium (new)	Remove six car parks and replace with four freedom camping parks	· Install signage structure · Design and fit sign · Remove six marked car parks and repaint as four freedom camping parks	$6,000 $350 $300
Westshore (closure)	Remove all (four) freedom camping parks and reinstate site as car parking	· Upgrade sign · Remove freedom camping bollards and edging	$350 $500 (est.)
Foreshore (closure)	Remove all (eight) freedom camping parks and reinstate site as car parking	· Upgrade sign · Remove marked freedom camping parks and repaint as car parks	$350 $300
Total estimated cost			$8,150

It has been confirmed that compliance monitoring costs will not change from the current annual cost, should Option 3 be adopted.

Any other costs associated with the rollout of closing and opening sites will be confirmed as part of an operational plan should Option 3 be adopted. Any substantive one-off or ongoing costs not able to be accommodated within current budgets, will be put forward for consideration as part of the next Long Term Plan process.

It is expected that, in time, compliance costs will decline slightly with the reduction of freedom camping sites from four to three. In the short-term however, there is likely to be a transition phase where education and monitoring checks will be required at new, remaining, and closing sites until users are familiar with the new bylaw provisions. Interaction with homeless at sites will remain as an activity, however this is outside the considerations of the proposed bylaw and subsequent impacts on operational costs.

Social & Policy

Option 3, which involves closing low-ranking sites and adding a new high-ranking site, effectively addresses the need for environmental protection. Closing sites with poor infrastructure or environmental vulnerabilities minimises the risk of damage to natural areas. The new site with improved amenity allows for more controlled and sustainable camping, reducing the potential for issues such as waste mismanagement and overcrowding. This ensures that camping activities can be concentrated in areas equipped to handle the demand, prioritising the long-term protection of public spaces.

In terms of public access, Option 3 provides a balanced approach by maintaining access to camping sites while managing visitor demand more effectively. Closing underperforming sites and adding a high-quality alternative prevents overcrowding at existing sites, ensuring that campers can still access designated areas without compromising the quality of these spaces. This strategy helps avoid potential site closures due to overuse or environmental degradation while ensuring sustainable use of camping resources.

The bylaw also strengthens visitor protection by focusing camping activities at well-maintained, high-ranking sites. Concentrating visitors at sites with appropriate infrastructure reduces health and safety risks, such as overcrowding, improper waste disposal, or inadequate facilities. The new site will ensure that campers have access to safe, sanitary amenities, reducing potential hazards and improving the overall experience.

Risk

A High Court decision involving New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Incorporated v Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) was released on 20 September 2024 (QLDC Decision). The QLDC Decision concerned judicial review proceedings bought by the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association against QLDC’s decision to adopt the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2021. The High Court declared the bylaw invalid. The Court found that two site assessment factors were irrelevant considerations in the scoring of sites in the area. The outcome of the judicial review was considered when undertaking the site assessment for Napier’s bylaw review.

Sites proposed for freedom camping must be included in Council’s Statement of Proposal. It is noted that if Council considers additional sites outside of the site assesment (not identified in the Statement of Proposal and draft Bylaw) as part of its deliberations following the hearing, there may be a requirement to re-consult with the community. Minor amendments that are not significant and do not impact on the public’s ability to make submission are able to be made at that stage without a need to reconsult.

Closing current sites and opening new sites may create confusion for site users. An operational plan for managing the approach for site closures and a new site opening will be developed. Clear messaging will be identified as part of a Communications Plan, including messaging for stakeholders to use in their communications with freedom campers and for social service agencies to use in any communications with homeless.

The distinction between the Bylaw and homeless will also be clearly communicated to nearby residents, the wider Napier community and stakeholders to explain why homeless persons cannot have any enforcement action taken against them under the FCA for offences concerning freedom camping.

11.4 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Adopt the Statement of Proposal and draft Freedom Camping Bylaw for consultation – this option aligns the bylaw with legislative requirements and reflects updated community needs (preferred option).

b. Do not adopt the Statement of Proposal and draft Freedom Camping Bylaw for consultation – this option maintains the status quo while officers prepare another option to align with national direction and explore options for new sites. The disadvantage is that potentially outdated provisions may not adequately manage current issues, leading to ongoing community concerns and increased legal risk.

11.5 Development of Preferred Option

Option A above is recommended as the preferred option as it ensures the Council aligns with current legislative requirements, including the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Act 2023, while also addressing the updated needs of the community. This option allows us to proactively manage freedom camping issues, improve site safety, and protect public spaces, thus responding to community concerns.

11.6 Attachments

1 Attachment A: Occupancy and Demand Summary DOC ID 1802407 (Under separate cover 1)

2 Attachment B: Freedom Camping Site Assessment Report DOC ID 1802410 (Under separate cover 1)

3 Attachment C: Draft Napier Freedom Camping Bylaw 2024 DOC ID 1802409 (Under separate cover 1)

4 Atttachment D: Statement of Proposal Freedom Camping 2024 (Under separate cover 1)

5 Attachment E: Freedom Camping Bylaw Amendment Assessment & S155 Determination DOC ID 1802406 (Under separate cover 1)

6 Attachment F: Pre-Engagement Summary - Stakeholders and Nearby Residents DOC ID 1802408 (Under separate cover 1)

7 Attachment G: High Level Engagement Plan DOC ID 1802404 (Under separate cover 1)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 October 2024 - Open Agenda Item 12

12. Joint Waste Assessment and Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP)

Type of Report:	Operational and Procedural
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1802709
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Stefni Wilson, Waste Minimisation Lead

12.1 Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the Joint Waste Assessment (Attachment 1) including the Hawke’s Bay Solid Waste Surveys April 2024 report (Attachment 2) and letter of support from the Medical Officer of Health (Attachment 3) for the Council to formally receive the documents. The documents were received by the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee on 7 October 2024. This will allow both Councils to progress drafting the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for the period 2025 – 2031.

1.2 The Councils are required to review their Waste Management and Minimisation Plan every six years giving regard to Te Rautaki Para | Waste Strategy and the council’s most recent waste assessment and decide whether the current 2018 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan should be amended or revoked and a new plan substituted. This process must be completed by 15 September 2025.

1.3 The Joint Waste Assessment has been prepared to inform the review process for the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. The Joint Waste Assessment reflects the requirements of Te Rautaki Para | Waste Strategy.

1.4 This report concludes by recommending that the current 2018 Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is revoked based on the Waste Assessment and work is to commence on drafting a replacement Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. The current plan will remain active until the replacement plan is adopted.

1.5 This report also recommends that delegation is given to the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee to adopt the final Waste Management and Minimisation Plan after the special consultative procedure is completed.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a. Receive

i. the report titled Joint Waste Assessment and Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) dated 31 October 2024.

ii. the Joint Waste Assessment completed in accordance with section 51 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

iii. the feedback from Medical Officer of Health on the Joint Waste Assessment obtained on 20 September 2024.

b. Approve

i. based on the completed Joint Waste Assessment that the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 -2024 be revoked, and a new plan substituted under section 50(3) of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. [options are: continue, amend, or revoke and substitute WMMP]

ii. to proceed with the review of the WMMP in accordance with section 44 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

c. Note

i. that a draft WMMP will be presented to the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee and then both Councils for approval for consultation in December 2024.

d. Receive

i. That the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee has considered the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 in light of the draft Hastings District Council and Napier City Council Waste Assessment 2024 and agree to develop a replacement Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

e. Approve

i. the delegation to the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee to adopt the final Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan on behalf of both Councils after completing the consultation in line with the Special Consultative Procedure and the hearing of submissions by the committee.

12.2 Background Summary

1.2.1 This process arises from The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) giving councils the responsibility to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their territory. The WMA requires councils to complete a Waste Assessment and review their Waste Management & Minimisation Plan (WMMP) every six years and decide whether it should be amended or revoked, and a new plan substituted.

1.2.2 The original review deadline was 30 August 2024.

1.2.3 The Ministry for the Environment accepted the joint application for a review extension under section 33A of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (as amended by clause 12 of the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery (Waste Minimisation) Order 2023). (Attachment 4)

1.2.4 This means that the new WMMP would need to be adopted by 15 September 2025 by both Hastings District and Napier City Councils.

1.2.5 The Waste Assessment must include comments from the Medical Officer of Health. We provided the draft Waste Assessment to the Medical Officer of Health on 10 September 2024 and received their feedback on 20 September 2024.

1.2.6 Below is the programme for the review process:

Month(s)	Activity	Status
Oct – Nov 2023	Complete and submit an application for an extension to MfE	Complete Accepted
Oct – Dec 2023	Procure support for the review of the solid waste bylaw, waste assessment and WMMP	Complete
Commence May 2024 - ongoing	Engagement with the community, including; mana whenua, businesses, operators, etc.	Underway & ongoing
June/July 2024	Options analysis using evaluation matrix	Completed (included in the draft waste assessment)
September 2024	Waste Assessment adopted by the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee, Medical Officer of Health endorsement received, and decision made on whether or not the WMMP requires reviewing.	Subject of this report
October 2024	Waste Assessment adopted by both Councils	Work will commence after this report is received.
October 2024	Work commences on drafting the bylaws and WMMP	Not yet started
December 2024	Drafts adopted for consultation	-
April 2025	Consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure	-
May/June 2025	Hearing of Submissions by the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee	-
July 2025	The Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee adopt the WMMP	-

1.2.7 A Waste Assessment (Attachment 1) has been prepared to inform the development of the next Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (draft waste plan 2025), which, in accordance with the Waste Minimisation Act achieves the following:

• reviews progress against the waste plan 2018

• reassesses future demands for collection, recycling, recovery, treatment, and disposal services across the region

• reassesses goals, objectives and targets to support the waste plan

• develops and assesses options to meet future demand and achieve desired outcomes for waste minimisation

• reviews options for waste management and minimisation against a multi-criteria assessment (MCA) to determine preferred options

• reviews options against the direction and requirements of Te Rautaki Para | Waste Strategy.

12.3 Discussions

1.3.1 This section of the report covers the key findings of the Waste Assessment and sets out some suggested actions to be included in the new WMMP for the Councils to consider.

1.3.2 Approach to partnering with mana whenua:

1.3.2.1 Officers are currently carrying out an initial engagement process as a contribution to achieving the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee’s aspiration of enhancing partnerships with Māori and mana whenua for a partnered future in waste minimisation. This process has been guided by the Māori Partnerships teams of both councils. These teams are key sources of expertise and experience, whose existing relationships with mana whenua are invaluable.

1.3.2.2 The current approach consists of carrying out initial engagements directly with mana whenua partners and updating the Māori committees of both councils on progress with those engagements as well as the development of the WMMP. The initial engagements (which are still underway) intend mainly to secure relationships with mana whenua to then begin jointly determining what a partnered future looks like.

1.3.2.3 It cannot yet be stated what the aspirations or expectations of mana whenua are for this WMMP or longer-term waste management and minimisation journey. However, the councils – as Te Tiriti partners in their own right – are deeply invested in the co-creation of a partnered future. The hope is that through partnership, the councils’ ability not only to comply with their governing legislation and regulation, but deliver strong waste minimisation practices, is enhanced by genuinely and seamlessly incorporating the knowledge and guidance that mana whenua deem appropriate.

1.3.2.4 Additional to the above activities, the waste teams have hosted a series of Waste Kaupapa engagements with Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee, Ngā Mānukanuka o Te Iwi (NCC), Heretaunga Takoto Noa Māori Standing Committee (HDC), and Māori and mana whenua representatives to build knowledge of the waste management and minimisation kaupapa. These engagements were held at Te Whare Mukupara and covered the following topics:

• 16 April 2024 - Ōmarunui Landfill, an overview of the engineering approaches, operations and management of the site with Jordarne Wiggins (Te Whānau-ā-Apanui), Mātanga Mukupara - Waste Minimisation Specialist at HDC

• 17 June 2024 - ”World of Waste“ with Kate Fenwick, Director of Waste-Ed with Kate

• 23 August 2024 - Toitū te Taiao with Jacqui Forbes (Ngāti Tama), Para Kore Kaihautū

1.3.3 Early-engagement: Our waste, our resources – have your say:

1.3.3.1 An early engagement opportunity was undertaken over the months of May and June 2024 to gather ideas from the community before work commenced on drafting the waste assessment and WMMP documents.

1.3.3.2 The online platform, Social Pinpoint, was used for the early engagement phase to collate all feedback in one central location. This platform received 289 comments.

1.3.3.3 Officers visited over 100 businesses in June to seek ideas and suggestions for the WMMP pre-engagement process via the online portal. Direct invitations to provide ideas and suggestions were also sent to a wide variety of businesses and organisations, including waste operators, Te Whatu Ora, Sustainable is Attainable members, among others. This feedback was shared with Tonkin & Taylor for inclusion in the Joint Waste Assessment and the next stage of the WMMP review process.

1.3.4 Summary of strategic context:

1.3.4.1 It has been identified through the waste assessment process that Hastings District Council (HDC) and Napier City Council (NCC) will need to consider the following impacts as part of the future waste planning:

· A broader and more holistic focus on circular economy and emissions reduction as set by the Te Rautaki Para | Waste Strategy

· Potential changes in waste legislation and related uncertainty particularly for:

o Proposed standardisation of kerbside services including food scraps collections

o Waste disposal levy revenue and territorial authority allocations

o Reporting and enforcement requirements for waste

o Implementation of extended producer responsibility and container return schemes.

· Addressing climate change and in particular:

o Reducing emissions from waste (organic derived material and landfill gas)

o Adaptation and resilience planning for waste infrastructure and disaster waste management (especially considering Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023)

o Impact of the emissions trading scheme on the cost of waste disposal and related sectors (e.g., transport).

· There are opportunities within the regional economy to drive more circular activity within primary production, food manufacturing and tourism/event sectors, however a challenging economic environment and the Cyclone Gabrielle recovery and rebuild will impact on what investment can be made in improved waste services.

· While the region has a well-established resource recovery infrastructure network (transfer stations, organics and paper processing), there are some gaps. Consideration should be given to:

o Viability, resilience and accessibility of diverted material markets and onshore processing solutions

o Recovery infrastructure for construction and demolition, organic and reuse materials.

1.3.5 Te Rautaki Para | Waste Strategy population-based indicators:

1.3.5.1 There are two population-based indicators in the Te rautaki para|Waste Strategy – waste disposal and waste generation.

1.3.5.2 Waste disposal to landfill per capita is a key indicator of overall performance of the waste system and can be used to benchmark against other territorial authorities.

1.3.5.3 Since 2007, there has been a decreasing trend in waste per capita for Hastings and Napier communities, however over the period of the last WMMP per capita disposal has increased above 2016 (WMMP baseline) levels and in 2024 was 600 kg per person. This is driven largely by commercial activity, as kerbside waste disposal per capita has shown a stable to decreasing trend over the same period from 227 in 2009 to 191 kg per person disposed in 2024.

1.3.5.4 Waste generation per capita is a new indicator in Te Rautaki Para | Waste Strategy, measuring the increase in circular activity with the aim that material entering the waste management system (as opposed to waste disposed to landfill) should also decrease as more waste avoidance and reduction through design occurs. Based on data currently available (noting data on diverted material is limited particularly from the commercial sector), the total waste generated within Napier city and Hastings district in 2022/2023 was 808 kg per person, lower than the national figure of 1055.1 kg per person.

1.3.5.5 Figure 4.1: Annual rubbish disposed to landfill per capita:

1.3.6 2018 WMMP progress:

1.3.6.1 The previous WMMP for Hastings and Napier was prepared in 2018. The WMA requires that each Waste Assessment includes a review of the last WMMP, including an assessment of data, key issues from the last WMMP, any other issues not addressed, and an update on the action plan including progress.

1.3.6.2 The 2018 WMMP had a total of 55 actions. Of those actions, 30 have been completed and 13 are on-track or underway. Some of the actions that have been implemented are:

• New kerbside collection services with rubbish bins and rate funded collection services aligned across the councils.

• Assisted service where feasible for residents with physical restrictions or impairments.

• Inclusion of a RFID chip in kerbside rubbish bins to reward households that produce low amounts of waste and enable data collection for reporting purposes.

• A permanent rural recycling site at Waipatiki.

• Continuing to undertake the three yearly Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) surveys.

• Continued support of product stewardship.

• New cell development at Ōmarunui landfill providing local disposal capacity for the next 30 years.

• Both Councils jointly fund and operate the annual Hazmobile collections providing free disposal for household hazardous waste.

• Resource consent was granted in 2022 for the development of Area B for Ōmarunui Landfill.

• Development of regional waste branding for education.

• Established a regional C+D waste advisor role and commenced the construction of a C+D drop-off area at Henderson Road RTS.

1.3.6.3 Table 4.2: The status of the 55 actions from the Hawkes Bay 2018 WMMP

1.3.6.4 There are still 10 actions with limited progress, partly due to lack of demand or limited engagement with relevant sectors. The main inactions are:

• Investigating options to allow for properties not serviced, to utilise a local drop off facility for waste

• Investigating the location and operation of transfer stations

• Investigating options for diversion of organic waste

• Public place recycling (due to contamination issues)

• Supporting Hawkes’s Bay healthcare establishments

• Rewarding waste minimisation behaviour across the community

• Partnering and building relationships to enable stakeholders

• Reviewing landfill pricing to include material specific pricing

• Monitoring behaviour change.

1.3.6.5 Key factors impacting the progress with WMMP actions have included:

• Covid-19 pandemic

• Cyclone Gabrielle response and recovery

• Staff changes.

1.3.7 Previous WMMP targets:

1.3.7.1 The 2018 WMMP for Hastings and Napier had two targets to measure progress with the actions

• 20% total tonnage increase in common recyclables diverted from Ōmarunui Landfill.

• 30% total tonnage decrease in organics to Ōmarunui Landfill.

1.3.7.2 The performance against these targets is provided in Table 4.3.

1.3.7.3 While not quite achieved, the target of increasing common recyclables diverted by 20% did increase by 15% on the 2016/2017 baseline.

1.3.7.4 The target of decreasing organics to landfill by 30% by 2024 has not been achieved. In 2022/2023 there was an 8% increase in organics disposed to landfill since the baseline financial year of 2016/2017. However, this has been due mainly to the increased disposal of special wastes that have no other alternative disposal option than landfill. When special waste is removed, there has been an 11% reduction.

1.3.7.5 The progress towards targets aligns with progress on related actions in these areas as well as reflects the changing environment where the councils have had little control (i.e., pandemic, cyclone, slow pace of regulated product stewardship, deferment of CRS and commercial sector waste).

1.3.7.6 Table 4.3: The 2018 WMMP targets for recyclables and organic materials

1.3.8 Summary of current circular activity and gaps

1.3.8.1 Te rautaki para|Waste Strategy 2023 provides clear direction for Aotearoa New Zealand to shift to a circular economy with ambitious targets for 2030 in relation to waste and emissions reduction. However, the pending review of the WMA creates some uncertainty on the future legislative context. Key areas that the councils need to plan for include:

• Kerbside standardisation including food scraps collections

• Data collection and reporting requirements

• Implications from regulated product stewardship schemes

• Waste disposal levy changes (both an opportunity with increased revenue, but also uncertainty regarding future allocation to territorial authorities)

• Contributing to an effective resource recovery infrastructure network (local and national).

• An increased focus on the importance of behaviour change programmes (local and national)

• Contaminated land and remediation.

1.3.8.2 A review of local waste infrastructure and services indicates that the region is well set up with some waste infrastructure provided from both the councils and the private sector. Current education and behaviour change approaches to support local services are having a positive impact on the community with waste per person remaining stable or decreasing. However, the increasing population across both the council areas and little progress on commercial waste minimisation actions is leading to an overall increase in waste to landfill each year. There are opportunities to:

• Prioritise services that support more circular activity (i.e. reduction and reuse), supported by education and behaviour change.

• Improve the capture of material for recycling and recovery at the kerbside, transfer stations, and the landfill.

• Review the transfer station infrastructure and network to increase resource recovery.

• Reduce emissions through a focus on key waste streams - organic waste, construction and demolition waste, and commercial waste.

1.3.8.3 Alongside this, there are key challenges to progress, including:

• Napier City and Hasting District are facing a challenging economic climate and dealing with the impacts of climate change. This has caused financial restraints for the councils, making the ability to action change challenging

• Resilience and adaption to climate change will continue to be important with the ongoing recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle still evident

• A large portion of landfilled waste from the commercial sector, where the councils have less visibility and direct influence

• There is also local commercial recovery activity occurring but very little data to confirm the effectiveness of current systems and where future opportunities lie. This makes it difficult to effect change to the overall waste system, without collaboration across sectors, and organisations.

1.3.8.4 The strong food production and manufacturing sector in the region provides an opportunity to build on existing recovery infrastructure (paper/cardboard and organic recovery) to shift into a fully circular system by working with local growers, manufacturers, and processors of paper/cardboard and organic material.

1.3.8.5 There is an opportunity to partner with mana whenua in the delivery of the next WMMP and into the future of waste minimisation.

1.3.8.6 Some improvements to collecting data are needed to further identify opportunities and priorities. The main data gaps identified were:

• Council data collection is comprehensive but inconsistent between the councils

• Diverted materials from the commercial sector including recycling, organics and scrap metal

• Disposal in class 2-5 landfills (including cleanfills)

• Effectiveness of education programmes.

1.3.9 Forecast of future demand

1.3.9.1 There are a range of drivers that mean methods and priorities for waste management will continue to evolve. There will be an increasing emphasis on diversion of waste from landfill and recovery of material value. These drivers include:

• Increasing costs of waste disposal to landfill resulting from the waste levy expansion and emissions trading scheme

• Changes resulting from Te rautaki para | Waste Strategy including potential changes to the WMA, and requirements for territorial authorities

• The introduction of product stewardship schemes

• Activities and policy resulting from the second emissions reduction plan

• Increased commercial sector capacity to recycle and reprocess materials

• Changes to markets for materials

• Economic development in the region

• Export market demand and supply chain resilience

• Consumption behaviour

1.3.10 Forward projections

1.3.10.1 The forecasted recovery and disposal numbers are based on the 2023 waste per capita value and are then projected with population growth estimates. The projected recovery and disposal numbers are shown in Figure 5.1. The projections show that even if waste per capita remains the same population growth will drive an increase in waste generation for the councils.

1.3.10.2 Figure 5.1: Projections of waste disposal and recovery out to 2030

1.3.11 Te rautaki para | Waste Strategy targets

1.3.11.1 Te rautaki para | Waste Strategy sets three national targets to be achieved by 2030 (Ministry for the Environment, 2023). This includes:

• Waste generation: reduce the amount of material entering the waste management system, by 10% per person.

• Waste disposal: reduce the amount of material that needs final disposal, by 30% per person.

• Waste emissions: reduce the biogenic methane emissions from waste, by at least 30%.

1.3.11.2 Figure 5.2: Waste disposal and generation, and target reduction based on national targets

1.3.12 Kerbside standards

1.3.12.1 The Government has proposed minimum performance standards for kerbside collection that need to be met by the councils over the next six years. The 2026 performance target is 30% recovery of material at the kerbside. Currently, 28% of the councils’ kerbside waste is diverted (Figure 5.3), close to the minimum standard.

1.3.12.2 Figure 5.3: Kerbside diversion rate for the councils in comparison to the 2026 minimum diversion standards

1.3.12.3 However, if commercial residential kerbside collections are included, the diversion is 18%, leaving 12% more to be diverted to reach the proposed minimum standards. It is likely that a portion of the commercially collected waste is business rather than residential waste (and therefore not included in the performance standard). The portion of commercial collections and the level of diversion that is occurring is unknown. This highlights a common theme throughout the waste assessment that the councils have less influence over commercial waste.

1.3.12.4 There are further diversion rates required by 2028 and 2030 that the councils would need to meet under the proposed minimum standards (Figure 5.5). Under the 2028 standard, 40% of material would have to be diverted and 50% by 2030. The 2028 and 2030 targets will require a plan to recover more materials such as organic waste and better capture of recycling.

1.3.12.5 Figure 5.5: The percentage of material diverted in 2023 and the required diversion to reach the 2026, 2028 and 2030 proposed kerbside standards

1.3.12.6 The introduction of some regulated product stewardship schemes (i.e. plastic packaging) or a container return scheme may also impact on the ability of councils to achieve these minimum standards.

1.3.13 Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee Responsibility

1.3.13.1 The Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee have responsibility for setting the direction for waste activities and overseeing the implementation of the WMMP. As mentioned earlier in this section, the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee has an aspiration to enhance partnerships with Māori and mana whenua for a partnered future. Like the outcomes sought through partnership, the partnership itself should be collaboratively determined between mana whenua and councils. While initial steps are taken to strengthen relationships with mana whenua and create a foundation for a future of genuine partnership, the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee has proceeded to establish a strategic framework that reflects the Committee’s views and captures their dream of a partnered future.

1.3.13.2 Based on the key drivers, and information provided through the analysis of the current waste situation. A vision and goals have been discussed with the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee over two workshops with council officers. The strategic framework from the existing WMMP was discussed alongside that of Te Rautaki Para | Waste Strategy. The vision and goals were updated reflecting the local context and aligning with Te Rautaki Para.

1.3.14 Options assessment process

1.3.14.1 To make progress towards the vision and goals, actions and/or opportunities have been identified and could be implemented in a number of ways. These options are presented in Part 3, Section 7 of the Waste assessment and will be carried forward to the draft WMMP.

1.3.15 Longer range forecast

1.3.15.1 The Te Rautaki Para | Waste Strategy envisions a low waste, low emissions circular economy by 2050 and provides a high-level roadmap to achieve this. Over the next 26 years or four Waste Management and Minimisation Plans, a significant reduction in waste will need to be achieved. To make progress, action is needed at the national, regional and local level. Figure 7.5 shows how this could map out based on the current national work programme alongside local actions.

1.3.15.2 Figure 7.5: Forecast waste reduction to 2050 with priority actions and current national work programme

1.3.16 Statement of proposal

1.3.16.1 Within a Waste Assessment, the councils must:

• Include a statement of their proposal for meeting the forecast demands including proposals for new or replacement infrastructure.

• A statement about the extent to which the proposals will:

o Ensure that public health is adequately protected.

o Promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation.

1.3.16.2 The Waste Assessment summarises the priority options the councils propose for meeting and managing the forecast demands on waste in the district (subject to consultation). These options have been aligned to the strategic framework including goals and objectives.

1.3.16.3 The current waste minimisation services and activities provide a good foundation and will continue to be delivered and built on to ensure:

• The councils are set up to respond to future national policy changes.

• Improved data collection and reporting to enhance planning and transparency.

• Councils can tackle specific waste streams and improve the capture of materials.

• Support and increase the focus on circular economy activities.

1.3.17 Councils’ intended role in meeting the forecast demand:

1.3.17.1 The councils currently provide waste services in the district via contracts for kerbside collection (to those in eligible areas), transfer station, rural recycling stations and landfill disposal services supported by education and behaviour change programmes. This ensures public health is adequately protected by providing facilities for the safe recovery and disposal of waste. The councils also provide information on specific disposal options and educational resources to encourage recovery and waste minimisation.

1.3.17.2 However, councils cannot progress towards a circular economy alone. The proposed vision focuses on ensuring systems are set up to enable successful recovery of waste and change in mindset towards consumption and the generation of waste. Over the next six years, through the proposed objectives the Councils will continue to improve the delivery of waste services and facilities including a focus on supporting and enabling the community to contribute through:

• Developing partnerships and collaboration with mana whenua, industry and community groups.

• Enabling investment in infrastructure and services that will transition the community to a more circular economy with associated increased resource recovery.

• Developing effective behaviour change and education programmes.

• Providing leadership to industry, the community, and residents.

• Ensuring council owned services and facilities are consistent across the councils through ongoing collaboration.

1.3.18 Medical Officer of Health comments

1.3.18.1 Section 51 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 sets out the requirements for conducting a waste assessment. It states that the Council, in making the assessment, must consult the Medical Officer of Health.

1.3.18.2 The Medical Officer of Health was provided with a draft copy of the Waste Assessment. Their response is included as an appendix to the Waste Assessment (Attachment 3).

1.3.19 The Medical Officer of Health noted:

1.3.19.1 As Medical Officer of Health, I support the approach that has been taken in the development of this assessment, and in particular want to acknowledge the willingness to include a Health NZ representative through its development stages.

1.3.19.2 I also support and commend:

• The recognition of the importance of partnership with mana whenua and the need to embrace indigenous knowledge and solutions in how we interact with and protect Te Taiao. This is especially important given the pervasive health inequities experienced by Māori and the interconnected nature between the health of Te Taiao and human health.

• The need to focus on transitioning to a circular economy model of waste minimisation and management. This is consistent with international health-centred frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which include a call for sustainable consumption and production patterns (SDG 12), and a focus on reducing mortality from environmental pollution (SDG 3.9).

• The emphasis on the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which will have health co-benefits by contributing to reduced climate change impacts.

• The community pre-engagement which has shown a clear community mandate for a focus on waste minimisation, a circular waste economy and recycling.

• The ongoing prioritisation of activities which centre on community engagement, education and capacity building, including targeted behaviour change programmes hosted at Te Whare Mukupara.

• The overall strategic framework outlined in the assessment which will form the foundations for the joint Hastings and Napier WMMP.

1.3.20 The Medical Officer of Health recommendations are:

1.3.20.1 Within the assessment and subsequent WMMP:

• Consider strengthening the direct focus on improving and protecting public health, including an explicit focus on considering health equity. For example, a health focus could easily be incorporated into the overall strategic vision (p. 82) as well as the evaluation criteria used for prioritisation of activities (p. 124).

• Implementation of the waste hierarchy framework (Figure 1.3, p. 4) includes actions to “reduce, rethink, and redesign” waste out of the system. Priority should be placed on products which create waste that is directly hazardous to human health or that creates environmental pollution which indirectly impacts on human health.

• Ensure actions centred around educational activities maximise public health benefit by working alongside other public education and capacity building programmes – for example, there are synergies with educational opportunities to support whānau and communities to make healthy and sustainable food choices.

1.3.20.2 Health NZ looks forward to the journey towards strengthened waste minimisation and management within our communities, and the positive outcomes we can all create together.

1.3.21 Delegation to Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

1.3.21.1 This report is also requesting that Napier City Council delegates responsibility and authority to the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee to adopt the final Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) after the consultation period.

1.3.21.2 This request is also being made to Hastings District Council.

1.3.21.3 The Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee has equal representation from both Hastings District and Napier City Councils. The Hastings District Council Councillors are; Councillor Apatu (deputy chair), Councillor Monteperto-Hendry and Councillor Nixon. The Napier City Councillors are: Councillor Browne (chair), Councillor McGrath and Councillor Tareha. This committee already has the delegation to receive and hear the submissions from the consultation.

1.3.21.4 The Napier City Council will be involved in the development of WMMP, with a workshop scheduled for mid-November and the final draft will be presented to Council for adoption prior to the public consultation.

1.3.21.5 A number of engagement sessions are being undertaken with different sectors of our community and due to this, officers are not expecting the final document to differ much from the draft that will be presented to Council for adoption.

1.3.21.6 The purpose for this request is to reduce the risk of the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee completing the consultation process, finalising the WMMP document and then recommending the final version separately to each Council, who then may make changes, which aren’t in line with previous work or the other Council.

1.3.21.7 The paragraphs below detail the sections of the Local Government Act which allow for this delegation to occur.

1.3.21.8 The adoption of standing orders and any amendment to standing orders must be made by the Council and by a vote of not less than 75 % of the members present. Similarly, in the case of a local and community board the adoption of standing orders and any amendments also requires a vote of not less than 75% of the members of the specific board. (cl. 27(3) Schedule 7, LGA 2002)

1.3.21.9 Unless clearly stated in the LGA or any other Act, a council may, for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness, delegate to a committee, subcommittee, subordinate decision-making body, community board, local board, member, or officer of the local authority, any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers except:

• the power to make a rate;

• the power to make a bylaw;

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

• the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report;

• the power to appoint a chief executive;

• the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the LGA in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement;

• Repealed;

• the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

(cl. 32 (1) Schedule 7, LGA 2002)

1.3.21.10 A committee, subcommittee, subordinate decision-making body, local board, community board, member, or officer of the local authority, may delegate any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers to a subcommittee or person, subject to any conditions, limitations, or prohibitions imposed by the body that made the original delegation. (Cl. (2) & (3), Schedule 7, LGA 2002).

1.3.21.11 The committee, subcommittee, other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority to which or to whom any responsibilities, powers, duties are delegated may, without confirmation by the council, committee or body or person that made the delegation, exercise or perform them in the like manner and with the same effect as the local authority could itself have exercised or performed them. (cl. 32(2) & (3)(4) Schedule 7, LGA 2002.)

12.4 Significance and Engagement

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of moderate significance.

All WMMPs are subject to the requirements of the Local Government Act’s (LGA) special consultative procedure, a requirement also set out in the WMA Part 4, section 44 and section 50(3) which outlines consultation requirements for preparing new plans.

Significant changes arising from the WMMP review will need to be incorporated into each Council’s LTP(s) or Annual Plan depending on timeframes.

The public consultation methodology and program will be co-developed by Hastings District and Napier City Councils marketing and communication teams. It is the intention of council officers to provide engaging face-to-face consultation alongside the more traditional digital media and mail submissions.

12.5 Implications

Financial

Funding for council’s waste services comes from a mixture of:

• commercial revenue

• targeted and general rates

• revenue from the waste levy (this is a $60 per tonne waste levy, rising $5 each year to $75 per tonne from 1 July 2027, administered by the Ministry for the Environment, 50 per cent of which is distributed to territorial authorities, amounting to $1,382,133 for Hastings District Council and $1,055,526 to Napier City Council in 2023/24).

Risk

The overall risk appetite for this project (based on the risk register) is conservative.

The risk register is reviewed regularly at the project team meetings.

Opportunity: Update the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan to meet legislative obligations and drive community behaviour.

REWARD

RISK

The expected benefits from the project include; mana whenua partnership, increased waste levy funding, greater commercial waste diversion and better outcomes from updated bylaws.

The high project risks are:

Limited staff capacity - concerns over staff capacity to meet deadlines and deliver engagement opportunities.

Failure to meet government targets - this risk is rated high based on the waste assessment finding that not meeting government targets for kerbside collections could lead to a loss of waste levy funding.

1.6 Sustainability

The Waste Assessment and Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan aligns with many sustainability objectives across the Councils and communities. Including the Emission Reduction Plan and associated budgets.

1.7 Consultation

Full community consultation will be undertaken in early 2025 using the Special Consultative Process

12.8 Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a. Option One - Recommended Option:

1.8.1 Receive the Waste Assessment documents (including the Hawke’s Bay Solid Waste Surveys, April 2024) and letter of support from the Medical Officer of Health (Appendices 1, 2 & 3) as recommended by the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee to revoke and replace the current WMMP.

1.8.2 While some progress has been made against the issues that were identified in the 2018 WMMP, including the improvements to kerbside collection services in 2020, there are still areas that require more work. Such as reducing the organic waste disposed of to landfill which has been again identified as a significant issue in this most recent Waste Assessment. Furthermore, the changes to waste legislation outlined in the national Waste Strategy indicate we will need to revise our plans for waste minimisation.

1.8.3 Preparing a replacement WMMP is therefore an appropriate response to the findings of the 2024 Waste Assessment. It provides the Councils with the opportunity to revise and improve the actions in the current WMMP and sets out a course of actions for the next six years to improve waste minimisation outcomes for our region and cities.

1.8.4 Both options are similar in cost and can be funded by council’s existing and planned waste management budgets which are funded by the waste levy, targeted rates and general rates.

1.8.5 Delegate authority to the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee to adopt the Joint WMMP after public consultation.

Advantages

• Aligns with the recommendation from the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

• supports planning for the Te Rautaki Para | Waste Strategy targets for 2030 in relation to waste and emissions reduction and proposed minimum performance standards for kerbside collection that need to be met by the councils over the next six years

• meet the councils’ responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to minimise waste in the region and ensure each council can still receive their allocated waste disposal levy funds to carry out projects, initiatives and actions documented in the WMMP. Combined the waste disposal levy payments are estimated to be approximately $2.4 million for this financial year and is still increasing.

• It also focuses further on waste-related climate emissions, as also required by the National Emissions Reduction Plan.

• Will enable the Councils to meet drivers of increasing emphasis on diversion of waste from landfill and recovery of material value.

• Reduce the risk of the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee completing the consultation process, finalising the WMMP document and then recommending the final version separately to each Council, who then may make changes, which aren’t in line with previous work or the other Council.

Disadvantages

• Will require another 9 months of ongoing commitment and staff resources to complete the project. The cost associated with this work is already budgeted for by both Councils

• Council will not be adopting the final WMMP, which is a different approach to the previous review.

b. Option Two – Status Quo

1.8.6 Continue to deliver the waste plan 2018:

• Continue to deliver the waste plan 2018 which will not provide opportunities to extend into new priority waste areas identified in the Waste Assessment.

Advantages

• Will have a lighter resourcing requirement, however the work is already planned and budgeted for.

Disadvantages

• Goes against the recommendation from the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

• Does not align to the priorities and targets set by Te Rautaki Para | Waste Strategy

• Does not fully meet the council’s responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to minimise waste in the region

• Could jeopardise the Councils receipt of their proportion of the waste disposal levy to fund activities and initiatives in the plan. Combined the waste disposal levy payments are estimated to be approximately $2.4 million for this financial year and is still increasing.

c. Option Three –

1.8.7 Waste Assessment adopted, delegation not approved and WMMP to be approved NNC:

Advantages

• The adoption of the Waste Assessment aligns with the recommendation from the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

• It also focuses further on waste-related climate emissions, as also required by the National Emissions Reduction Plan.

• Will enable the Councils to meet drivers of increasing emphasis on diversion of waste from landfill and recovery of material value.

• Council will be adopting the final WMMP after hearings are completed by the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee.

Disadvantages

• Will require another 9 months of ongoing commitment and staff resources to complete the project. The cost associated with this work is already budgeted for by both Councils

• Doesn’t reduce the risk of the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee completing the consultation process, finalising the WMMP document and then recommending the final version separately to each Council, who then may make changes, which aren’t in line with previous work or the other Council.

12.9 Development of Preferred Option

Option A – Next Steps

1.9.1 Subject to endorsement from the Joint Waste Futures Committee, next steps (including indicative timeframes) will be:

• preparation of a draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan which will be presented to the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee and both Councils in December 2024 for approval to proceed to public consultation in early 2025. The draft WMMP will be presented to a full Hastings District Council meeting and a Sustainable Napier Committee meeting.

• draft WMMP 2025 made publicly available for consultation, likely to occur concurrently with the Annual Plan 2025-2026 process. Public able to provide feedback (and request to be heard by the committee).

• collation and analysis of submissions in April/May 2025

• hearings and deliberations from late June 2025

• final draft waste plan 2025 presented to this Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee for formal adoption in July/August 2025.

1.9.2 Once approved, the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 will form the basis of Hastings District Council and Napier City Council’s work on waste for the next six years. Monitoring and reporting frameworks will ensure transparency.

12.6 Attachments

1 Attachment 2 - Hawkes Bay Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) Survey 2024 Report, Medical Officer of Health letter of support-September 2024, WMMP Review extension approval from MFE. DOC ID 1802767 (Under separate cover 2)

2 Joint Waste Futures - Waste Assessment Report (Under separate cover 2)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 31 October 2024 - Open Agenda

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Open Minutes

Meeting Date:	Thursday 26 September 2024
Time:	9.30am – 10.50am (Open) 11.05am – 12.05pm (Public Excluded)
Venue	Chapman Room Level 1, Chapman Pavilion Latham Street Napier
	Livestreamed via Council’s Facebook page

Present	Chair: Mayor Wise Members: Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Chrystal, Crown, Greig, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tareha and Taylor
In Attendance	Chief Executive (Louise Miller) Acting Executive Director Corporate Services (Caroline Thomson) Acting Executive Director City Services (Jessica Ellerm) [via zoom] Executive Director City Strategies (Rachael Bailey) Executive Director Infrastructure Services (Russell Bond) Executive Director Community Services (Thunes Cloete) Manager Communications and Marketing (Julia Stevens) Manager Strategy and Transformation (Stephanie Murphy) Senior Advisor Corporate Planning (Danica Rio) Senior Policy Analyst (Michele Grigg) Manager City Development (Paulina Wilhelm) Asset & Planning Manager (Robin Malley) Manager Property (Bryan Faulknor) Project Manager (Hugh Mullane) Team Leader Community Strategies (Margot Wilson) Team Leader Governance (Anna Eady)
Public Forum	Shyann Rahania, Te Hiwa a Mahiki - Community Focussed Group, Maraenui Sukhdeep Sing
Administration	Governance Advisors (Carolyn Hunt and Jemma McDade)

Ordinary Meeting of Council – Open Minutes

Table of Contents

Order of Business Page No.

Karakia. 4

Apologies. 4

Conflicts of interest 4

Public forum.. 4

Announcements by the Mayor 5

Announcements by the management 5

Confirmation of minutes. 5

Agenda Items

1. Development Approach to the Annual Plan 2025/26. 6

2. Climate Action Joint Committee - Changes to Terms of Reference. 7

3. Mayoral Relief Fund - Distributions. 7

4. Information - Minutes of Joint Committees. 8

5. Complaints Policy Review.. 9

6. Elected Members' Remuneration Update. 10

7. Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi Recommendations for Ratification. 11

8. Hearings Committee (District Plan) Recommendations for Ratification. 14

9. Action Points Register as at 17 September 2024. 15

10. Audit and Risk Committee Recommendations for Ratification. 15

Reports under Delegated Authority

1. Tenders Let 18

Minor matters. 19

Resolution to Exclude the Public. 20

Order of Business

Karakia

The meeting opened with the Council karakia.

Apologies

Council resolution

Councillors Tareha / Chrystal

That the apology for absence from Councillor Browne be accepted.

Carried

Conflicts of interest

Deputy Mayor Brosnan declared a conflict of interest in Item 3: Mayoral Relief Fund – Distributions and did not participate in the discussion or decision.

Public forum

Shyann Raihana, Te Hiwa ā Mahiki Trust displayed a PowerPoint presentation (Doc Id 1797117) providing a brief summary of what the Maraenui based Community Focussed Group wanted to achieve. They had identified gaps in services and were planning on delivering three programmes relating to:

· Youth/housing/home ownership

· Tailored life skills/navigation support

· Exploration of career pathways.

The Trust had a drop-in centre in a Maraenui laundromat which is open 10.00am to 3.00pm daily. Ms Raihana has 15 years experience in youth development and is a very active member of the community.

Vaping Issues - Sukhdeep Singh spoke on the serious vaping issue affecting the health and future of New Zealand’s young people. He shared some facts on the number of retailers and online retailers able to sell vapes, with some only 300m in distance from schools. The increase in school age children vaping addiction to nicotine is alarming.

Mr Singh had circulated an overview of the Government’s planned vaping legislation (Doc Id 1797108) advising that currently the Government are progressing new legislation as part of their crack down on youth vaping. The Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) has just passed its first reading in Parliament and now moves on to the select committee process. This is where anyone can make a submission to the select committee and share their views on the legislation. The submission period has been extended by one week from 27 September to close on 4 October 2024.

Mr Singh was aware of capacity and resource issues for Council and suggested that as there was a Joint Smokefree and Vapefree Policy that a joint submission by Hastings District Council and Napier City Council could be made. He encouraged councillors to spread the word for people to make a submission on this serious matter.

Public Forum ATTACHMENTS

Attachments

1 Te Hiwa ā Mahika PowerPoint Presentation (Doc Id 1797117)

2 Sukhdeep Singh - Vaping Information circuated (Doc Id 1797108)

Announcements by the Mayor

Napier Monopoly – As part of the 150 year celebrations for Napier City a limited edition monopoly board game has been created. The board incorporates Art Deco landmarks like the Napier Soundshell, Tom Parker Fountain, some favourite facilities and parks, the National Aquarium etc. The Mission Estate Winery had been selected as the most valuable property to acquire in the game.

The limited edition board game will be available for pre-order in early October and this can be made through www.ourplacenapier.nz. There will be only 3000 games available and when released will also be available for purchase from the Napier i-Site, Aquarium and the Faraday Centre.

Announcements by the management

Nil

Confirmation of minutes

Council resolution

Councillors Boag / Chrystal

That the Draft Minutes of the Ordinary Council (Māori Wards) meeting held on Tuesday, 5 September 2024 be confirmed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

Councillor McGrath abstained from voting on this motion

Council resolution

Councillors Boag / Chrystal

That the Draft Minutes of the Ordinary Council (Representation Review) meeting held on Thursday, 10 September 2024 be confirmed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

Agenda Items

1. Development Approach to the Annual Plan 2025/26

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1789937
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Danica Rio, Senior Advisor Corporate Planning

1.1 Purpose of Report

To provide an overview of the timeline officers will follow to develop the Annual Plan 2025/26. Legislation requires that the final plan is adopted no later than 30 June 2025.

At the meeting

The Senior Advisor Corporate Planning, Ms Rio took the report as read advising that the report provided an overview of the 2025/26 Annual Plan development process.

The Manager Strategy and Transformation, Ms Murphy advised that a workshop will be held on 10 October 2024 to discuss future consultation processes.

Council resolution

Councillors Greig / Price

That Council:

a. Receive the report titled “Development Approach to the Annual Plan”, dated 26 September 2024 and the Summary Project Plan - Annual Plan 2025/26 (Doc Id 1790865).

Carried

2. Climate Action Joint Committee - Changes to Terms of Reference

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1792182
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Michele Grigg, Senior Advisor Policy
2.1 Purpose of Report To convey proposed changes to the Climate Action Joint Committee Terms of Reference and recommend the changes be adopted.

At the meeting

The Senior Advisor Policy, Ms Grigg spoke to the report which included some minor changes to the Climate Action Joint Committee Terms of Reference. Ms Grigg advised that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council had adopted the ToR on 25 September 2024 and the Hastings District Council would be considering them on 26 September 2024.

Council resolution

Deputy Mayor Brosnan / Councillor Simpson

That Council:

a) Receive the report titled “Climate Action Joint Committee – Changes to Terms of Reference” dated 26 September 2024.

b) Adopt the amended Terms of Reference for the Climate Action Joint Committee (Doc Id 1792183)

Carried

Deputy Mayor Brosnan having previously declared a conflict of interest in Item 3 did not participate.

3. Mayoral Relief Fund - Distributions

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1790993
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Talia Foster, Financial Controller

3.1 Purpose of Report

To report back to Council on the expenditure to date from the Napier City Council Mayoral Relief Fund and provide an update on the available balance.

At the meeting

The Acting Executive Director Corporate Services, Ms Thomson spoke to the report which provided visibility and oversight of the donations and distributions of the Cyclone Gabrielle Mayoral Fund. Total donations to date is $512,575, with distributions of $454,329 being made, with $20,000 pending, leaving a remaining balance of $38,246.

Funding application for those affected during Cyclone Gabrielle can be made via email to Mayor Wise. Payments from the fund are then co-approved by the Mayor and the Chief Executive.

Council resolution

Councillors Boag / Mawson

That Council:

a) Receive this report regarding donations and distributions from The Napier City Council Cyclone Gabrielle Event – February 2023 Mayoral Fund.

Carried

4. Information - Minutes of Joint Committees

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1782445
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Anna Eady, Team Leader Governance

4.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to receive unconfirmed minutes from Joint Committee meetings.

To view the full agendas relating to these minutes please refer to the following websites:

· Hawke’s Bay Regional Council https://www.hbrc.govt.nz/our-council/meetings

· Napier City Council Infocouncil | Business Papers

· Hastings District Council https://hastings.infocouncil.biz

At the meeting

The Team Leader Governance, Ms Eady took the report as read.

The Chair invited representatives on the relevant Joint Committees to comment:

Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee – Councillor Tareha advised that at the recent meeting of this Joint Committee, held on 20 September 2024, a decision had been made to allow Wairoa District Council to transport up to 4,000 tonnes of waste to the Omarunui Landfill. This would be for a short term period of three years and would enable Wairoa District Council to explore options for a new landfill.

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee – Councillor Simpson advised that this Committee had now been disestablished and that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council would be undertaking community consultation on the Strategy for final adoption by HBRC. However, once the Strategy was adopted it was proposed that a new Advisory Committee would be set up.

Ahuriri Regional Park Joint Committee – Deputy Mayor Brosnan advised that the Joint Committee were working on the development of a Masterplan with an Engagement Plan. A pause has been taken in the development of the Masterplan to allow for the 3 waters panel to complete technical design work on the typograph of the land.

Council resolution

Councillors Simpson / Tareha

That Council:

a) Receive for information the minutes of the following Joint Committee meetings held:

11 March 2024	- Climate Action Joint Committee (Doc Id 1785899)
21 June 2024	- Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee (Doc Id 1787054)
5 July 2024	- Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (Doc Id 1782465)
9 August 2024	- Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (Doc Id 1789353)
19 August 2024	- Ahuriri Regional Park Joint Committee (Doc Id 1787541)

Carried

5. Complaints Policy Review

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1785238
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Anna Eady, Team Leader Governance

5.1 Purpose of Report

To present the updated Complaints Policy to Council for adoption.

At the meeting

The Team Leader Governance, Ms Eady spoke to the report advising that the main change was the inclusion of elected members to the Complaints Policy. Regular reports are received from the Ombudsman Office in regard to information request complaints, however they were not directly related to elected members.

Council resolution

Councillors Greig / Crown

That Council:

a. Receive the report titled ‘Complaints Policy Review’

b. Adopt the revised Napier City Council Complaints Policy (Doc ID 1792988).

c. Note the Policy will be published on the Policy page on the Napier City Council website.

ACTION: Direct officers to provide data to the Napier Prosperous Committee on complaintsand compliments received through the Ombudsman Office or direct to NCC.

Carried

6. Elected Members' Remuneration Update

Type of Report:	Legal and Operational
Legal Reference:	Local Government Act 2002
Document ID:	1789321
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Anna Eady, Team Leader Governance

6.1 Purpose of Report

To present to Council the Mayor’s proposed reallocation of the 2022/2025 pool set by the Remuneration Authority for Napier City Councillors. This reallocation of the remuneration pool is in response to an elected member’s responsibilities changing, requiring a surplus to be distributed amongst the other positions.

At the meeting

The Team Leader Governance, Ms Eady took the report as read.

In response to questions the following was clarified:

· The reallocation of the pool was in response to an elected member wishing to remove themselves from having a portfolio and was not performance based, or for cultural, religious or health reasons.

· The elected member was provided an opportunity to take up another portfolio, however this offer was declined.

· The vacant portfolio has been reallocated to Mayor Wise, who will take on the additional work with no additional remuneration.

Council resolution

Councillors Tareha / Boag

That Council:

a) Endorse the reallocation of the 2022/2025 remuneration pool of $831,709 set by the Remuneration Authority for Napier City Councillors (noting that the Mayoral remuneration is set directly by the Remuneration Authority).

Role	Previous Remuneration	Proposed Remuneration
Deputy Mayor; Chair Standing Committee	$94,402	$95,733
Senior Chair; Chair Standing Committee	$73,627	$74,627
Chair Standing Committee (2)*	$73,627	$74,627
Deputy Chair Standing Committee (4)*	$66,368	$67,368
Deputy Chair Hearing Committee (1)*	$64,294	$65,294
Portfolio Holder (2)*	$62,220	$63,220
Base Councillor Rate (1)*	$50,889	$50,889

*No. of role holders in brackets

b) Note that the base rate for Councillors is set by the Remuneration Authority.

Carried

7. Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi Recommendations for Ratification

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1791273
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Anna Eady, Team Leader Governance

7.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to advise that recommendations from the Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi meeting held on 29 August 2024 require ratification by Council. A copy of the 29 August 2024 minutes are attached for information.

To view the full agendas relating to these minutes please refer to the Napier City Council website at https://napier.infocouncil.biz

At the meeting

The Team Leader Governance, Ms Eady spoke to the report. The actions given at the meeting had been be included in the Action Register, with some having already been completed.

It was noted that a Māori wards Poll remit was presented and passed at the Local Government New Zealand conference and ranked third in terms of importance for LGNZ’s work plan. The Chief Executive, Ms Miller advised that some councils were seeking a legal opinion on this matter and Council is exploring the option of being included in those findings.

The meeting agreed to receive the recommendations of Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi as opposed to ratification.

Council resolution

Deputy Mayor Brosnan / Councillor Crown

That Council:

a) Receive for information the minutes of the Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi meeting held on 29 August 2024.

b) Receive the following recommendations from the Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi meeting of 29 August 2024:

1. Cultural Narrative for Emerson Street

a) Endorse the Cultural Narrative for the Emerson Street upgrade subject to review of principles in line with Te Ao Māori policy and other amendments from Committee members.

ACTION: To review the adopted principles with the Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi Committee and ensure they are embedded in projects

2. The Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 Consultation

a) Receive the report titled The Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 Consultation.

b) Note that under the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024, Council must make a decision by 6 September 2024 on whether to reaffirm or rescind its previous decision made on 20 October 2021 to establish Māori wards for the 2025 local government election in Napier.

i. Napier City Council carried out consultation between 9-23 August to inform the Council decision as outlined above.

ii. The approach to the consultation was to state Council’s preference to proceed with establishing Māori wards from the 2025 local government election in Napier and invite community feedback on this.

iii. The Council will consider the community feedback and make a decision on 5 September 2024.

iv. If Council decides to continue its plans to establish Māori wards from the 2025 local government election in Napier, a binding poll must be held at the time of that election.

c) Endorse Napier City Council holding candidacy, voting and education campaigns in conjunction with Māori partners, leading up to the 2025 local election to increase candidate and voter participation.

d) Note for Napier residents opinions to be counted on the matter of Māori wards, and in electing preferred ward candidates:

i. Residents who are not enrolled to vote but who are eligible to vote should enrol; and

ii. Residents who are enrolled need to vote at the 2025 Local Election.

e) Recommend that Napier City Council resolves to retain their 2021 resolution to establish Māori Wards for Napier in 2025.

i. Support the Napier City Council in continuing to advocate in support of Māori representation in opposition to the current coalition government’s stance.

ii. Collectively in partnership we recommend Napier City Council participate in a local government petition to the Crown seeking equal treatment of Māori Wards, and not requiring binding polls as a pre-requisite for Māori representation in local government.

3. Local Water Done Well – Committee Update

a) Note the content of this report titled “Local Water Done Well – Committee Update” dated 12 August 2024.

4. Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

a) Receive this report and provide feedback and guidance on:

i. their general view of Joint Waste Futures, waste management and minimisation, and the WMMP

ii. the approaches outlined in this report

iii. how they should be involved in the current process to develop the WMMP

iii. how they should be involved in the waste aupapa into the future.

ACTION: To engage in ongoing kōrero with the Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi Committee and Te Waka Rangapū to provide progress updates and engagement as appropriate.

Carried

8. Hearings Committee (District Plan) Recommendations for Ratification

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Resource Management Act 1991
Document ID:	1792697
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Anna Eady, Team Leader Governance

8.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to advise that the Hearings Committee (District Plan) in its meeting held on 11 September 2024 referred a recommendation to Council for ratification.

At the meeting

The Team Leader Governance, Ms Eady took the report as read.

Council resolution

Deputy Mayor Brosnan / Councillor Taylor

That Council:

a) Receive for information the minutes of the Hearings Committee (District Plan) meeting held on 11 September 2024 (Doc Id 1792698).

b) Ratify the following recommendation from the Hearings Committee (District Plan) meeting of 11 September 2024:

i. Delegate the power under Clause 16 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 for Council Officers to make amendments to correct minor errors in the Proposed District Plan or make alterations to the Proposed District Plan that are of minor effect prior to the plan becoming operative.

Carried

9. Action Points Register as at 17 September 2024

Type of Report:	Operational
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1791413
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Anna Eady, Team Leader Governance
9.1 Purpose of Report The Action Points Register (Register) records the actions requested of Council officials in Council and Committee meetings. This report provides an extract from the Register as at 17 September 2024, for Council to note. It does not include action points that were requested in public excluded Council or Committee meetings.

At the meeting

The Team Leader Governance, Ms Eady took the report as read.

Council resolution

Councillors Greig / Chrystal

That Council:

a. Note the extract from the Action Points Register as at 17 September 2024

Carried

10. Audit and Risk Committee Recommendations for Ratification

Type of Report:	Procedural
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1794245
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Anna Eady, Team Leader Governance

10.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to advise that recommendations from the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 5 September 2024 require ratification by Council.

At the meeting

The Team Leader Governance, Ms Eady took the report as read and noted that following direction from the Audit and Risk Committee she had contacted the Ombudsman Office for their input on the Indemnity and Liability Policy. To date acknowledgement had been received with a comment they would look at the Policy.

The meeting agreed to adopt the Policy and if feedback from the Ombudsman Office’s required amendment it could be undertaken at a later date.

Council resolution

Councillor Crown / Deputy Mayor Brosnan

That Council:

a) Note for information the minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 5 September (Doc Id 1794244 ).

b) Ratify the following recommendation from the Audit and Risk Committee meeting of 5 September 2024:

1. Civic Precinct Main Contractor Procurement

a) Endorse Civic Precinct Main Contractor Procurement Approach (Doc Id 1783631).

b) Note The Civic Precinct Main Contractor Probity Plan (Doc Id 1783634).

2. Draft Indemnity and Liability Policy for Council Workshops and Meetings

a) Receive the report “Draft Indemnity and Liability Policy for Council Workshops and Meetings” (Doc Id 1752204).

b) Adopt the draft Indemnity and Liability Policy for Council Workshops and Meetings with a review date in 12 months.

c) Direct officers to send copy of the “Liability Policy for Council Workshops and Meetings” to the Ombudsman office to seek support for the proposed Policy.

3. Policy Review Process Update

a) Receive the report titled “Policy Review Process Update” dated 5 September

ACTION: Officers to provide clarity on the workflow and priority process, in relation to the Policy Review System at the next Audit and Risk Committee meeting.

4. Procurement and Contract Management Improvement Plan

a) Approve the Procurement and Contract Management Improvement Plan.

ACTION: Officers requested to report back to the next Audit and Risk Committee meeting on the progress of the improvement plan and include any risks that may impact the programme of work being completed.

5. Asset Management Roadmap Progress

a) Receive the update on the progress of asset management initiatives and endorse the continued implementation of the Asset Management Roadmap.

ACTION: Direct officers to set out in next report if the roadmap is to be reset as unable to meet the initiatives and assumed direction and outline what is now going to happen. Also attach the core key risks and any uncertainty for the programme to enable the Committee to provide support to the initiatives.

Carried

Reports under Delegated Authority

1. Tenders Let

Type of Report:	Information
Legal Reference:	N/A
Document ID:	1792386
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Debbie Beamish, Executive Assistant to the Chief Executive

1.1 Purpose of Report

To report the Tenders let under delegated authority for the period 5 August 2024 to 13 September 2024.

At the meeting

The Manager Property, Mr Faulknor advised that Contract 2772 was for the design of the Waka Hub, not in construction at this stage and market lease arrangements would not be entered into until the design was approved.

It was noted that the contract was committing $693,000 to a design process when Council had signalled there were other actions required prior to proceeding with the project and were happy with a market lease arrangement.

The Executive Director City Strategy, Ms Bailey clarified funding approved in the Long Term Plan with:

· $2.2m from Council’s “better off funding”, for the design/concept of the waka hub at the preferred site.

· $3.3m funding committed for the build on the basis that Council would own the facility and lease it back.

· The Ātea a Rangi Educational Trust was to look at alternative external funding sources to make up any shortfall.

Council resolution

Mayor Wise / Councillor Simpson

That Council:

a) Receive the Tenders Let for the period 5 August – 13 September 2024 as below:

· Contract 2734 National Aquarium of New Zealand HVAC Priority Remedial Works be awarded to AE Hemmings Limited in the sum of $334,834.41 excl. GST

· Contract 2772 Waka Hub Design and Engineering Services be awarded to Wraight Athfield Landscape and Architecture (WALA) in the sum of $693,660 excl. GST.

· Contract 2750 Drinking Water Lab Sampling and Testing Services be awarded to ALS Environmental NZ T/A ALS Hawke’s Bay (previously Water Testing Hawke’s Bay) in the sum of $2,456,250 excl. GST.

· Contract 2729 Restoration of the Memorial Square Community Rooms be awarded to Alexander Construction HB Limited in the sum of $1,805,306 excl. GST.

· Contract 2432 Street Lighting & Traffic Signal Maintenance 2024-2027 be awarded to Nathan Pope Electrical Limited in the sum of $4,541,493.46 excl. GST.

ACTIONS: a) The Executive Director City Strategy would review the Long Term Plan resolution to ensure that Council’s expectations of a market lease arrangement prior to funding being released is undertaken.

b) Officers to provide details of the design levels entered into for Contract 2772 - Waka Hub Design and Engineering Services.

Carried

Minor matters

There were no minor matters to discuss.

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Council resolution

Councillors Tareha / Mawson

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

Agenda Items

1. Council Projects Fund - Te Hiwa a Mahaki Trust

2. Land Purchase

3. Extension to Contract C1215 - Road Maintenance and Renewals

4. Art Deco Trust Loan

5. Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi Recommendations for Ratification

6. Action Points Register (Public Excluded) as at 17 September 2024

7. Information - Audit and Risk Committe Minutes of meeting held 5 September 2024

Carried

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

General subject of each matter to be considered.	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter. That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to:	Ground(s) under section 48(1) to the passing of this resolution. 48(1)(a) That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist:
Agenda Items
1. Council Projects Fund - Te Hiwa a Mahaki Trust	7(2)(c)(i) Protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied	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. Land Purchase	7(2)(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person	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.
3. Extension to Contract C1215 - Road Maintenance and Renewals	7(2)(h) Enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities	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.
4. Art Deco Trust Loan	7(2)(h) Enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities	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.
5. Ngā Mānukanuka o te Iwi Recommendations for Ratification	7(2)(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person	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.
6. Action Points Register (Public Excluded) as at 17 September 2024	7(2)(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person 7(2)(c)(i) Protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied 7(2)(h) Enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities 7(2)(i) Enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	48(1)(a) That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist: (i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this Act, under section 6 or 7 (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
7. Information - Audit and Risk Committee Minutes of meeting held 5 September 2024	7(2)(a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person	48(1)(a) That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist: (i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this Act, under section 6 or 7 (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

The meeting adjourned at 10.50am and reconvened

in Public Excluded at 11.05am

The meeting closed with a karakia at 12.05pm

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

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

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

[1] Schedule 7, clause 32. Local Government Act 2002.

[10] Significance and Engagement Policy: Final-2024-SE-Policy.pdf

[13] Ministry of Health. 2019. Strategy to Prevent and Minimise Gambling Harm 2019/20 to 2021/22.

[15] Ministry of Health. 2019. Strategy to Prevent and Minimise Gambling Harm 2019/20 to 2021/22.

Council Members	Chair: Mayor Wise Members: Deputy Mayor Brosnan, Councillors Boag, Browne, Chrystal, Crown, Greig, Mawson, McGrath, Price, Simpson, Tareha and Taylor
Officer Responsible	Chief Executive
Administrator	Governance Team
	Next Council Meeting Thursday 31 October 2024

Chairperson	Her Worship Mayor Kirsten Wise
Deputy Chairperson	Deputy Mayor Annette Brosnan
Membership	All elected members
Quorum	7
Meeting frequency	At least 6 weekly and as required
Executive	Chief Executive

Type of Report:	Enter Significance of Report
Legal Reference:	Enter Legal Reference
Document ID:	1798205
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Anne Bradbury, Manager Community Strategies
3.1 Purpose of Report This report outlines the final Housing Strategy and seeks endorsement for the Housing Strategy. It also asks the komiti (committee) to recommend the Housing Strategy is taken to the Council for adoption.

Meeting Date:	Thursday 31 October 2024
Time:	9.30am (Adopt Annual Report)
Venue:	Chapman Room Level 1, Chapman Pavilion Latham Street Napier
	Livestreamed via Council’s Facebook page

2022-2025 TERM OF REFERENCE - COUNCIL