Planning Committee Agenda - Agenda

MEETING AGENDA

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Tuesday 29 November 2016 at 4.30pm

COUNCIL CHAMBER LIARDET STREET NEW PLYMOUTH

Chairperson: Cr Roy Weaver Members: Cr Stacey Hitchcock (Deputy) Cr Shaun Biesiek Cr Murray Chong Cr Richard Handley Cr Alan Melody Cr Mike Merrick Mayor Neil Holdom

1 Planning Committee Agenda - Agenda

PLANNING COMMITTEE PURPOSE 1. To consider strategies, policies, bylaws and plans to promote the district’s community outcomes and priorities.

2. To consider matters not provided for in the Long-Term Plan, Annual Plan or other strategies and plans.

3. To consider cross-committee matters or matters not the function of any other committee.

Addressing the committee Members of the public have an opportunity to address the committee during the public forum section or as a deputation.

A public forum section of up to 30 minutes precedes all committee meetings. Each speaker during the public forum section of a meeting may speak for up to 10 minutes. In the case of a group a maximum of 20 minutes will be allowed.

A request to make a deputation should be made to the secretariat within two working days before the meeting. The chairperson will decide whether your deputation is accepted. The chairperson may approve a shorter notice period. No more than four members of a deputation may address a meeting. A limit of 10 minutes is placed on a speaker making a presentation. In the case of a group a maximum of 20 minutes will be allowed.

Purpose of Local Government The reports contained in this agenda address the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to decision making. Unless otherwise stated, the recommended option outlined in each report meets the purpose of local government and:

 Will help meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses;

 Would not alter significantly the intended level of service provision for any significant activity undertaken by or on behalf of the Council, or transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset to or from the Council.

END

2 Planning Committee Agenda - Health and Safety

Health and Safety Message

In the event of an emergency, please follow the instructions of Council staff.

Please exit through the main entrance.

Once you reach the footpath please turn right and walk towards Pukekura Park, congregating outside the Spark building. Please do not block the foothpath for other users.

Staff will guide you to an alternative route if necessary.

If there is an earthquake – drop, cover and hold where possible. Please be mindful of the glass overhead.

Please remain where you are until further instruction is given.

3 Planning Committee Agenda - Deputations

Page provided for note taking….

4 Planning Committee Agenda - Table of Contents

REPORTS

ITEMS FOR DECISION BY COMMITTEE

1 Impact of Recent Reduction in Community Funding

ITEMS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL

2 Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy Options

3 Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

4 Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

5 Exclusion of the Public for the Remainder of the Meeting

END

5 1 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Impact of Recent Reduction in Community Funding

Item for Decision

IMPACT OF RECENT REDUCTION IN COMMUNITY FUNDING

MATTER The matter for consideration by the Council is the impact of the recent reduction in community funding, which is to be monitored, and a report on the options presented to Council, prior to the development of the draft Annual Plan 2017/18.

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report, the Council consider increasing the funding budget as a per annum increase through the 2018- 2028 Long Term Plan.

COMPLIANCE

Significance This matter has been assessed as being of some importance. This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter:

Options 1. No change to increase the funding budget is pursued

2. Council consider increasing the funding budget as a per annum increase through the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are community groups and charitable entities, who apply to and receive funding through Council’s funding schemes, other Affected persons philanthropic funding organisations within the district, and the general public given that any budget changes are funded from rates.

Recommendation This report recommends option 2 for addressing the matter.

Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan Yes. Implications

Significant Policy and Plan No. Inconsistencies

6 1 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Impact of Recent Reduction in Community Funding

Item for Decision

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Through the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan, Council resolved to reduce the level of community funding, with a per annum reduction of $200k to the Community Services and Programmes budget.

This report analyses and presents the impact since reduction (2015/16 and first half of 2016/17 financial years), and the strategic investment approach introduced through policy and operational changes.

The impact was that with less funds, a smaller amount of community organisations have been funded. However, with the introduction of the strategic investment approach, and associated processes to support Council decision making, funds have been targeted towards community groups that demonstrate alignment to community outcomes and strategic priorities set out in the District Blueprint.

As a result of these changes, while less grants have been made, the amounts being granted in general to strategic partners have increased. Successful organisations have also received funding to similar levels as before and increased the number of its multi- year funding partnerships.

If Council was of a mind to increase community funding, officers advise that this should be done through the long term planning processes of Council.

BACKGROUND New Plymouth District Council provides funding to support community based agencies/organisations that provide services or undertake projects that benefit the wider community and contribute to the strategic goals of the Council. Funding is budgeted in the Long Term Plan (LTP) and provided annually to community organisations via contestable grant processes.

The Council provides targeted and accountable financial support to the community in a transparent manner. Community investments are made under the Community Funding Investment Policy, which sets the forward direction for community investments. The purpose of funding is to contribute towards the districts Community Outcomes, and defined strategic priorities, including the key directions of the District Blueprint. Each separate grant fund is defined further under a scheme within the Policy.

There are a total of 10 funding schemes provided by the Council. Fund schemes funded from the Community Services and Programmes Grants budget (the budget which was reduced) are identified in bold:  Strategic Council Community Partnerships (multi-year funding)  Social Enterprise Grant  Community Services and Programmes Grant (annual funding)  Community Action Neighbourhood Development Matching Grant  Rural Halls Development Grant

7 1 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Impact of Recent Reduction in Community Funding

Item for Decision

 Marae Development Grant  Built, Cultural and Natural Heritage Protection Grant  Community Concessional Leases  Creative Communities Scheme  Mayoral Relief Fund

Summary information on the fund schemes highlighted with bold are contained in Appendix A.

Funding changes Throughout the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 process, Council proposed a range of cost saving measures, one of which was a reduction in the level of grant funding. This proposed reduction included the introduction of a more strategic investment approach to the awarding of grants.

The LTP 2015-2025 was adopted with a $200k reduction to the Community Services and Programmes Grants budget, leaving the budget at $655k per annum. This reduction commenced in year one of the plan (the 2015/16 financial year).

To give effect to the more strategic investment approach, a review of the Community Funding Investment Policy was undertaken. Changes were proposed, then consulted on and adopted. This included removing two funding schemes and introducing officer delegations on some smaller more administrative schemes.

To support the Policy, an assessment framework to assist decision making was introduced. This focuses on the Purposes and Values for the awarding of funding, along with strategic priorities identified through the Blueprint key directions. A new process was also introduced to identify potential groups for strategic partnerships, and give priority to these groups by considering and allocating this funding first. A strategic partnership means that an organisation can demonstrate a strong alignment towards Council strategic priorities, and as a result are able to receive a multi-year funding commitment. The benefit is greater certainty for strategic partners over a multi-year funding term, which can be from two to five years.

Impact of changes To understand the impact of changes, Council’s funding data has been compiled and analysed for the past six financial years, from 2011/12 through to the current year 2016/17 (note that the current year budget has been fully allocated, and can therefore be included). This period takes into account the major community funding milestones.

8 1 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Impact of Recent Reduction in Community Funding

Item for Decision

Understanding and monitoring the impact of the funding reduction on individual community organisations, which Council has funded in the past, is not feasible, nor is the prediction of what organisations may have received funding and have missed out. In regards to organisational impact there are a significant range of variables, such as other income sources, different operating models and costs, which makes this unfeasible. A further complexity is that the majority of funding provided by Council has been for one off projects therefore not impacting on continued operations. The question of predicting what organisations could have received funding, but may have missed out, is again difficult. This is as each fund round is a contestable process, with decisions made on funding applications and outcomes achieved, within available budget. For example, some organisations may have received community funding previously, but then not be successful as the funding application on balance may not deliver strong community outcomes. Note the Strategic Partnership multi-year grants was introduced to reward organisations who consistently deliver strong community outcomes.

From the available information, impacts of a reduced funding budget are derived from both a reduction in funding and introduction of a strategic investment approach, which has influenced the way in which funding has been considered.

An obvious change as a result of the funding reduction is that the level of funds granted has decreased. With reduced funding, this has resulted in less organisations receiving funding, with a trend towards more applications declined. Despite the reduction in funding, successful organisations have continued to receive the same ratio of requested funds as per previous years (receiving an average of 60% of funds requested). While less grants have been made, the average value of grants has increased. A final impact is that as a result of introducing a strategic investment approach, Council is now funding more strategic partnerships (multi-year grants) than in previous years.

The purpose of a strategic approach to community partnerships is to recognise those social and not-for-profit services that are closely aligned to the strategic objectives of the Council, and with whom the Council is comfortable to engage in a longer term funding partnership. The relationship is based on the delivery of outcomes and accountable to key performance indicators and specifically the extent to which the organisation can support the Council to deliver its strategic outcomes, on behalf of the community.

Analysis of funding over the 2011/12 to 2016/17 financial years can be found in Appendix B.

Challenges within the not-for-profit environment When considering the broader not-for-profit operating environment, Council’s funding reduction has occurred at a time when the NFP operating environment is under increasing pressure.

9 1 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Impact of Recent Reduction in Community Funding

Item for Decision

Grant Thornton’s Not for Profit (NFP) sector survey1 has been referenced as the authoritative source to understand broader sector challenges. Findings from the 2015/16 report highlights four key areas of concern, which are:

1. Funding – Funding remains the primary concern, as survey participants seek new or improved funding sources in response to tightening economic conditions. This, in turn, increases pressure on funding levels and service provision demand. 2. Increased Risk Management – The NFP sector is undergoing unprecedented change. With change comes risk and organisations are becoming increasingly aware that to ensure future sustainability they need to manage the risks they are exposed to and monitor them on an ongoing basis. 3. Technology – With the rise of disruptive technologies affecting the way business is conducted, and an increased focus on social media as an engagement tool, NFP organisations increasingly need to challenge their use of technology: its utility, application and uptake within the organisation. 4. People – Like organisations in any service-driven sector, NFPs’ greatest resource is their people, whether they are employees or volunteers. The unique nature of the sector poses additional retention challenges.

Impact of increasing funding levels of service Community funding investments is a defined level of service within Council’s LTP, comprising part of the Community Development service level. Because of the level of significance, the decision to reduce the funding budget by $200k occurred through the LTP 2015-2025 process,

A one off increase, through the Annual Plan process, will only achieve a single year increase. Funding could not be committed over multiple years, meaning that any one off funding would be allocated towards annual grants, not strategic partnerships. This is also inconsistent with the strategic investment approach adopted by Council.

Reinstatement of $200k per annum to the Community Services and Programmes budget, over the 10 years of the LTP, would represent a 31% increase to budget, effecting levels of service. As such it is recommended that a permanent increase should occur through the next LTP review for 2018-2028.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some importance.

1 Grant Thornton, (2015-2016). The challenge of change: Nor for Profit sector survey 2015/2016.

10 1 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Impact of Recent Reduction in Community Funding

Item for Decision

The matter to review the impact on the recent funding reduction, and to consider options and determine a way forward, includes options to increase the community funding budget and effectively reverse Council’s decision from the 2015-2025 LTP. Any additional budget allocation will impact on rates, and trigger a level of significance requiring consultation. As such, any increase is recommended to be addressed through an Annual Plan or Long Term Plan process.

It is acknowledged that public interest in Council’s Community Funding and Investment is high, evidenced through submissions during the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan, and the interest with recent Community Funding Investment Policy review and changes to grant administration. Community Investment is part of Council’s service delivery, listed and reported under the Community Development Activity Page in the LTP, Annual Plan and Performance Report.

OPTIONS The following options are reasonably practicable:

1. Make no change to the current funding level (remains the same at $655k per annum) 2. Seek to increase the funding level, as a per annum increase through the Long Term Plan 2018-2028

For all options, information obtained through previous consultation processes show that the Community Views and Preferences of the not for profit community is that community funding is vital to the support and success of the community sector. Any increase in funding will be welcome, and enable organisations and groups to deliver projects and programmes for community benefit. There remains a proportion of the wider community that considers that community funding needs to be balanced against rates affordability, given that this activity is solely funded from rates.

Specific feedback previously received by Council on this issue, through the 2015-2025 LTP, is contained in the fifty-seven submissions received. At this time the majority of submissions (40) were in favour of no reduction, with 17 favouring a reduction. Limited submissions were received relating to the move towards a more strategic approach, however four (4) were received in favour of more strategic and pro-active funding, and one (1) submitting that current funding processes should be reviewed. Seventeen (17) submitters also outlined that funding is vital to community organisations, and that any reduction in funding or changes to the awarding of grants, and will have far reaching impacts on community organisations.

11 1 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Impact of Recent Reduction in Community Funding

Item for Decision

Option 1 No change to increase the funding budget is pursued Under this option no increase to the current budgeted amount of $655,000 per annum will be pursued. a) Financial and Resourcing Implications As the funding level will remain the same with this option, there will be no financial and resourcing implications. b) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes Council will continue to achieve Community Outcomes through existing funding levels and grant processes, which given affect to these outcomes and Council’s Blueprint key priorities. c) Consistency with Policies and Plans This decision remains consistent with the reduction of the fund and a more strategic investment approach, resolved by Council through the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan. d) Advantages and Disadvantages A disadvantage is that additional funding support will not be provided for the community sector.

Options 2 Seek to increase the funding budget as a per annum increase through the 2018-2028 LTP Under this option Council will seek to increase the Community Services and Programmes budget in the 2018-2028 LTP process. Any increase will have a budgetary impact on rates, and the existing level of service, triggering a level of significance requiring community consultation. The Annual Plan process will only achieve a single year increase, while the LTP will increase the budget each year, over the ten years of the plan.

Council could seek to reinstate the level of community funding, by returning $200k to the budget, or another figure. A $200k increase is a 31% increase of existing budget (which currently sits at $655k pa). The impact on rates of nominal increases of $100k, $200k or $400k would be 0.122%, 0.245% or 0.489% respectively. a) Financial and Resourcing Implications There will be no budgetary or resource implications of option 2, as any financial increases would be considered by Council through either the LTP processes. b) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes Council will consult with the community on increasing community funding. Any increase in budget that results would mean more funds available for community organisations through existing grant processes. The awarding of grants considers how well applicants can demonstrate benefit to Community Outcomes.

12 1 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Impact of Recent Reduction in Community Funding

Item for Decision c) Consistency with Policies and Plans Option 2 is consistent with the strategic investment approach adopted by Council, which gives greater priority to strategic partnerships and the awarding of multi-year grants, as a one year increase can only be allocated to annual grants. d) Advantages and Disadvantages An advantage is that additional funding support will be provided to the community sector.

Recommended Option This report recommends option 2, seek to increase the level of community funding through the 2018-2028 LTP process, for addressing the matter.

APPENDICES Appendix A: Overview of funding schemes funded from the Community Services and Programmes Budget

Appendix B: Analysis of community funding impact from 2011/12 to 2016/17 financial years.

Report Details Prepared By: Craig Campbell-Smart (Community Partnerships Lead) Team: Community Partnerships Approved By: Liam Hodgetts (Group Manager Strategy) Ward/Community: All Date: 2 November 2016 File Reference: ECM 7247962

------End of Report ------

13 1 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Impact of Recent Reduction in Community Funding

Item for Decision

Appendix A:

Overview of funding schemes funded from the Community Services and Programmes Budget

Strategic Council Community Partnerships (multi-year funding) The purpose of a strategic council community partnership is to recognise those social and not-for-profit services that are closely aligned to the strategic objectives of the Council, and with whom the Council is comfortable to engage in a longer term funding partnership relationship.

The relationship is based on the delivery of outcomes, and specifically the extent to which the organisation can support the Council to deliver its strategic outcomes, on behalf of the community.

Selected community organisations will be invited to submit a proposal to be considered for a Strategic Council Community Partnership.

Funding may be provided for up to five years.

Social Enterprise Grant The aim of the Social Enterprise Grant is to provide seed funding to community organisations who seek to earn an income for the sole purpose of generating an income for reinvestment into the community.

There are many different forms of not-for-profit enterprise. For the purposes of Council’s funding, a Social Enterprise is a business with primarily social, environmental and / or cultural objectives, whose surpluses are principally re-invested for that purpose of community good, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners.

Funding may be provided for up to five years.

Community Services and Programmes (annual funding) Funding is available for community- based agency/organisations that provide a service or undertake a project that acts as a catalyst for change or seeks to strengthen the community.

A range of initiatives are available to be funded through this scheme, and include community services and programmes, public education, support services, build community awareness and understanding, and contribute to community cohesion.

Funding may be provided for a one year term only.

14 1 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Impact of Recent Reduction in Community Funding

Item for Decision

Appendix B:

Analysis of community funding impact from 2011/12 to 2016/17 financial years. The impacts of the LTP 2015-2025 decision are derived from both a reduction in funding and introduction of a strategic investment approach, which has influenced the way in which funding is awarded.

The impact is that with less funds, and greater focus on funding for priorities (via strategic investment), a smaller amount of community organisations have been funded. Of the organisations funded, a greater proportion of this funding has gone towards strategic partnerships.

This finding has been reached by comparing major milestones for community funding over the past six years, and analysis from funding data.

Major funding milestones Funding milestones over the past six years relate to the introduction of a new Community Funding Investment Policy in 2012, followed by the reduction in funding, the decision to take a more strategic investment approach and its subsequent implementation. This is outlined below:

2011/12 2012/13 Major review of Community Funding Investment Policy, which incorporated and provided consistency for Council funding schemes. 2013/14 2014/15 LTP 2015-2025 adopted introducing: 1. $200k funding reduction; 2. Strategic investment approach. 2015/16 $200k funding reduction takes effect. Community Funding Investment Policy reviewed and adopted. 2016/17 Strategic investment approach implemented

Impact of reduced funding and strategic investment approach – 2015/16 Key findings following the reduction of the Community Services and Programme budget by $200k, in the 2015/16 financial year, and introduction of a strategic investment approach, i.e. grant assessment and allocation priority to strategic partnerships, are as follows (note that the figures that follow demonstrate the impact):

 The number of applications funded has decreased (figure 1);  There is a corresponding increase in the number of applications declined, with the number of declines trending up (figure 2);  Of successful applications, the ratio between funds requested by applicants, and the amount granted, has stayed consistent at 60% (figure 3), and therefore has not been impacted by the funding reduction.

15 1 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Impact of Recent Reduction in Community Funding

Item for Decision

 Council is funding more, in terms of dollar value, for strategic partnerships (multi-year grants) than in previous years (figure 4);  The average value of grants has increased, meaning overall less grants are given, but these grants are on average of greater value (figure 5).

Figure 1: Comparison of number of applications received and funded

0 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Number of new applications received Multi-year grants already approved Number of grants funded (includes multi-year amounts)

Figure 2: Number of applications declined (with trend)

0 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Number of declined applications Linear (Number of declined applications)

16 1 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Impact of Recent Reduction in Community Funding

Item for Decision

Figure 3: Percentage difference between funds requested to granted, for successful applications

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Figure 4: Ratio of the value ($) of Strategic Partnership (multi-year) to Annual (Single Year) grants

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Multi-year Single year

Figure 5: Comparison of number of grants approved and average value

25000 60

20000 50 40 15000 30 10000 20

5000 10

0 0 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Count of Year allocated Average of Amount granted

17 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy options 2

Item for Recommendation

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT – EASTER SUNDAY SHOP TRADING POLICY OPTIONS

MATTER This supplementary report notes there is potential for a regional conversation on adopting an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy and seeks deferral of the issue for further advice.

PROCEDURAL MOTION That having considered all matters raised in the report, the Council: a) Notes that, since development of the report on the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy, Council officers have been approached by South Taranaki District Council officers about a potential option for regional collaboration (with Stratford District Council as well). b) Defer the matter to the 13 December 2016 Council meeting to enable Council officers to provide further advice about the potential option for regional collaboration, including a draft statement of proposal.

BACKGROUND South Taranaki District Council (STDC) have approached New Plymouth District Council and Stratford District Council (SDC) about regional collaboration in adopting an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy. It is understood that STDC are aiming to have a policy in place in time for Easter Sunday 2017. STDC will therefore consider adopting a statement of proposal at their Council meeting on 12 December.

Given time constraints, the current thinking is that regional collaboration (if agreed) will focus on aligning timing and joint communications, rather than in holding joint submission and hearing processes. It will ensure that the Taranaki conversation on Easter Sunday trading occurs simultaneously rather than on multiple occasions at different times.

Officers are assessing how to enable the Council to join this collaboration with STDC and SDC. Officers will provide a new report for the 13 December Council meeting.

Report Details Prepared By: Greg Stephens (Senior Policy Adviser) Team: Policy Development Approved By: Mitchell Dyer (Policy Development Lead) Ward/Community: District wide Date: 23 November 2016 File Reference: ECM 7287822 ------End of Report ------

18 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy options 2

Item for Recommendation

EASTER SUNDAY SHOP TRADING POLICY OPTIONS

MATTER The matter for consideration by the Council is a decision on whether to begin the process to consider whether or not the Council should adopt an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy.

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report, the Council:

a) Note that the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 has been amended to enable territorial authorities to adopt an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy

b) Note that trading on Easter Sundays is potentially controversial meaning that there may be a risk of judicial review in decision-making if a thorough decision-making process is not followed

c) Note that the Chief Executive has already received correspondence urging the Council to consider adopting an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy

EITHER d) Defer consideration of whether or not to introduce an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy to allow sufficient time for potential legal challenges against other local authorities’ decisions to be brought and resolved

e) Note that deferring consideration will mean there is no shop trading on Easter Sundays in 2017 and 2018, and a decision could be made to start Easter Sunday in 2019.

OR d) Agree to begin a two-stage consultation process for considering whether or not to introduce an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy. e) Instruct officers to develop and issue a questionnaire seeking the community’s views on whether or not the Council should introduce an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy. f) Note that it is unlikely that an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy could be adopted in time for Easter Sunday in 2017 due to consultation requirements.

19 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy options 2

Item for Recommendation

COMMUNITY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS Kaitake Community Board Endorsed the officer’s recommendation.

Inglewood Community Board That having considered all matters raised in the report, the Council do nothing.

Clifton Community Board That having considered all matters raised in the report, the Council proceed with option 2.

COMPLIANCE

Significance This matter has been assessed as being of some importance This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter:

Options 1. Delay consideration for two years

2. Begin a two-pronged consultation approach

3. Do nothing The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter Affected persons are retailers, retail staff, unions, religious organisations, shoppers, tourists, and all residents of New Plymouth district.

This report recommends either option 1 or 2 for addressing the Recommendation matter.

Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan No Implications

Significant Policy and Plan No Inconsistencies

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent legislative changes mean territorial authorities can now introduce a policy to enable shops in all or part of their districts to open on Easter Sundays. This report recommends the Council undertake a cautious approach to using this new power through either deferring consideration for two years, or undertaking a robust decision- making process to make a decision over the coming months.

20 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy options 2

Item for Recommendation

BACKGROUND There are a range of different statutory restrictions around whether shops can open on holidays. Easter Sunday is technically not a public holiday; however shops are required to close on Easter Sunday. There are a range of exemptions under the law to this, including national exemptions for certain types of shops (e.g. service stations, pharmacies) and area specific exemptions (there are no area specific restrictions in New Plymouth). The restrictions, and exemptions, around Easter Sunday have been controversial, particularly in tourist centres. Some local authorities have long advocated for new exemptions (which can only be established by law).

The Shop Trading Hours Amendment Act 2016, which came into force 30 August 2016, amended the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 (the STH Act) to allow territorial authorities to introduce an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy.1 The STH Act now establishes a regulatory regime for such policies. These policies are not compulsory – territorial authorities can determine whether or not to have them. If there is no policy then the default position in law is that shop trading is prohibited. The Act also provides a higher degree of employee protection to decide not to work on Easter Sunday when compared to the protections for other public holidays.

An Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy may permit shops to open on Easter Sundays in all or any part or parts of the district. A Policy may not permit shops to only open for certain purposes, permit only some types of shops to open, specify opening times or include any other conditions. Enforcement of Easter Sunday trading restrictions continues to lie with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, not with territorial authorities.

Easter Sunday trading is controversial. There are groups both for and against it. Submissions to the Commerce Committee when considering the then Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill included submissions from unions and religious organisations opposed to the changes and from retailers and retail associations in favour of the changes. There were also submissions from local authorities (some in favour, some opposed – including New Plymouth District Council2) and individuals. Officers note that some of these organisations may potentially undertake judicial reviews of territorial authorities for their decisions in relation to Easter Sunday shop trading. Judicial reviews must demonstrate that the Council’s decision-making process was flawed, either in process or improper considerations.

The Chief Executive has already received a letter from Foodstuffs New Zealand seeking the Council to initiate public consultation on this issue (attached as Appendix 1). It is likely that other retailers will also actively seek the Council to consider and introduce an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy. Officers therefore recommend that the Council undertake one of two courses of action at this point in time.

1 When initially introduced, the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill proposed that a bylaw be used to regulate Easter Sunday trading. The Committee of the Whole House amended the Bill so that it is set by policy rather than by bylaw. 2 The Council submission opposed on the Bill on the grounds that it should be a national issue to consideration. The submission was neutral on whether or not there should be shop trading on Easter Sundays.

21 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy options 2

Item for Recommendation

 One option for the Council to consider is to formally resolve to delay consideration of Easter Sunday trading to enable other territorial authorities to ‘test the waters’ around any judicial review risk. The Council would consider the issue in 2018 so that any policy took effect from Easter Sunday 2019. A number of territorial authorities are already in the process of considering policies, with at least one territorial authority having already moved to consultation on a draft policy. This approach will enable the Council to determine whether there is legal risk in considering such a policy and to address this. For instance, there could be successful challenges that territorial authorities did not take into account certain factors; being aware of this means the Council can avoid this problem. It does, however, mean that a decision will have effectively been made to not allow trading on Easter Sunday in 2017 and 2018. This in turn may create its own legal risk. However, it is also clear that the Council intends to consider the issue in the foreseeable future, which will mitigate this risk.

 Another option for the Council to consider is to begin considering whether or not to adopt an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy by running a two-pronged consultation approach. This approach will provide a thorough decision-making process designed to support the Council’s decision (whatever that decision is). This approach is detailed in Appendix 2. It involves developing and releasing a questionnaire to seek community views (including retailers, unions, religious organisations, non-retail businesses and individuals) as an input into the Council making its preliminary decision (along with other considerations from officers). If the Council decided to adopt a policy then that preliminary decision would be consulted upon under the special consultative procedure. If the Council decided not to adopt a policy, then it could either resolve to consult the community on that decision (to provide a robust decision-making process for that decision), or end the process at that point – the appropriate course of action at this stage will depend on the results of the initial community views.

It is unfeasible that a decision will be made in time for Easter Sunday 2017 (16 April) due to the timeframes involved. A decision to adopt an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy must be made at least 4 weeks before Easter Sunday in order for retail shops to issue notices to employees of the right to refuse to work under the STH Act. This means a policy must be adopted by 16 March 2017 (and this would provide just 17 March for retailers to make a decision and issue notices). Even with an extraordinary meeting over the holiday period and just the one month statutory consultation under the special consultative procedure, this would be a very ambitious and tight timeframe that would place considerable strain on resources to achieve at this point. It is therefore not considered to be a reasonable practicable option to aim for implementation of an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy for Easter Sunday 2017.

This report does not provide sufficient information for the Council to make a preliminary decision on adopting, or not adopting, an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy. There would be risk in making such a decision without sufficient information. This is not considered to be a feasible option.

22 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy options 2

Item for Recommendation

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some importance because it has no impacts on the Council’s levels of service or statutory responsibilities.

The STH Act requires territorial authorities to use the special consultative procedure when deciding whether to adopt, amend or revoke an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy.

OPTIONS Option 1 Delay consideration for two years Under this option, the Council would formally decide not to consider adopting an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy until 2018 (for Easter Sunday 2019 onwards). a) Financial and Resourcing Implications There would not be financial and resourcing implications at this stage. However, there may be requests for the Council to consider adopting an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy (e.g. from submissions to the Long-Term Plan 2018-28 process) that would have to be addressed. There would also be resource implications later on in deciding whether or not to adopt an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy. b) Risk Analysis There is risk that retailers not happy with a two year delay may either actively lobby the Council to change this decision or seek a judicial review of the decision to delay consideration. c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes Community outcomes would be considered during adoption of a policy. d) Statutory Responsibilities The STH Act requires territorial authorities to use the special consultative procedure for adopting, amending or revoking an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy; this requirement would not apply in making a decision to delay consideration to the future. e) Consistency with Policies and Plans This matter is consistent with current policies and plans. f) Participation by Māori Participation by Maori would be considered during adoption of a policy. g) Community Views and Preferences The views of the New Plymouth district community are unknown; however it is clear that nationally the views are split and this is likely to continue at the District level.

23 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy options 2

Item for Recommendation h) Advantages and Disadvantages The advantage of this option is that it provides a delay in considering whether or not to adopt an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy to allow for potential legal action elsewhere in New Zealand to occur first. This would provide guidance and/or assurance for the Council when considering decision-making processes in the future.

Option 2 Begin a two-pronged consultation approach a) Financial and Resourcing Implications There will be staff and councillor time involved in undertaking consultation and in assessing options. These are considered manageable within existing resources. b) Risk Analysis There is a risk that dis-satisfied parties seek judicial review of any decision- made (e.g. for not taking into account matters that should have been taken into account); however undertaking a robust decision-making process will mitigate this risk. c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes Undertaking a consultative process promotes Our Community. d) Statutory Responsibilities The STH Act requires territorial authorities to use the special consultative procedure for adopting, amending or revoking an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy. e) Consistency with Policies and Plans This matter is consistent with current policies and plans. f) Participation by Māori Officers will ensure iwi, hapū and other Māori organisations are provided an opportunity to engage in the process. g) Community Views and Preferences This option will seek the views of the New Plymouth district community. The views of the New Plymouth district community are unknown; however it is clear that nationally the views are split and this is likely to continue at the District level h) Advantages and Disadvantages This option provides a robust decision-making process for consideration of adopting an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy. There is a disadvantage that taking a two-stage consultation process means that Easter Sunday trading will not occur in 2017 due to timing issues.

24 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy options 2

Item for Recommendation

Option 3 Do nothing a) Financial and Resourcing Implications There would be no financial and resourcing implications under this option. b) Risk Analysis Deciding to do nothing is effectively a decision not to adopt an Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy. It may therefore open the Council to challenge from the community in not having sought community views in making this decision. c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes Impact on Community outcomes has not been assessed under this option. d) Statutory Responsibilities The Council is under no legal obligation to adopt an Easter Sunday Trading Policy. e) Consistency with Policies and Plans This matter is consistent with current policies and plans. f) Participation by Māori Maori have not been consulted in relation to this option. g) Community Views and Preferences The views of the New Plymouth district community are unknown; however it is clear that nationally the views are split and this is likely to continue at the District level. h) Advantages and Disadvantages This option is effectively making a decision to not have a policy, without undertaking any consultation with the community.

Recommended Option This report recommends either option 1 (defer consideration for two years) or option 2 (begin a two-pronged consultation approach) for addressing the matter.

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Letter from Foodstuffs New Zealand requesting Council initiate a policy on Easter Sunday Trading

Appendix 2: Proposed two-pronged consultation approach

25 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy options 2

Item for Recommendation

REPORT DETAILS PREPARED BY: Greg Stephens (Senior Policy Adviser) TEAM: Policy Development APPROVED BY: Mitchell Dyer (Policy Development Lead) WARD/COMMUNITY: All DATE: 1 November 2016 FILE REFERENCE: ECM 7261076

------End of Report ------

26 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy options 2

Item for Recommendation

APPENDIX 1: LETTER FROM FOODSTUFFS NEW ZEALAND REQUESTING COUNCIL INITIATE A POLICY ON EASTER SUNDAY TRADING

27 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Easter Sunday Shop Trading Policy options 2

Item for Recommendation

APPENDIX 2: PROPOSED TWO-PRONGED CONSULTATION APPROACH

Council agrees to two-pronged consultation approach

Officers issue a community questionnaire seeking community views on Easter Sunday trading

Officers develop a report summarising community views and other considerations for decision-making phase decision Initial

Council makes a preliminary decision

Decide not to Consult on not Adopt a policy adopt a policy adopting a policy

No policy Council issues a Council issues a adopted statement of proposal statement of proposal, on its preliminary including a draft policy decision to not have an Easter Sunday Trading Policy Council considers all submissions in a hearings Council considers all process

submissions in a

hearings process Council makes a decision Council makes a on the draft policy decision

Policy Policy No Decision adopted not policy to and in adopted adopted develop force a policy

28 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

3 Item for Recommendation

TRANSFER OF SPECIFIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT RESPONSIBILITIES RELATING TO LANDFARMS TO THE TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL

MATTER The matter for consideration by the Council is approval to seek transfer of specific landfarm related consenting, monitoring and enforcement functions of the Resource Management National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health Regulations 2011 (NES CS), to the Taranaki Regional Council as part of a regionally co-ordinated approach to manage landfarms.

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) Pursuant to section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991, New Plymouth District Council agrees in principle to the draft transfer agreement for the transfer of NES CS functions, powers and duties that relate to the activities of landfarming, mixed bury cover, surface application and similar contaminant remediation where such activities require discharge consent from Taranaki Regional Council under section 15 of the RMA, as the transfer is desirable on all of the following grounds: i) the Taranaki Regional Council represents the appropriate community of interest relating to the exercise or performance of the function, power, or duty: ii) efficiency: and iii) technical or special capability or expertise.

b) That following the process prescribed in section 33(4)(b) of the RMA, notice of the proposed transfer be served on the Minister for the Environment.

c) That as required by section 33(4)(a) of the RMA, approval be given to commence the Special Consultative Procedure of section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 for the proposed Transfer of Powers in early 2017 using the Statement of Proposal appended to the report.

COMPLIANCE

Significance This matter has been assessed as being of some importance

29 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

3 Item for Recommendation

COMPLIANCE This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter:

1. Joint processing.

Options 2. The sharing of scientific application related information.

3. Transfer the NES CS powers for landfarm activities to the TRC

The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are the District’s community, the oil and gas operators in the District, the District’s landfarm operators and land owners, the Affected persons Taranaki Regional Council, Stratford District Council, South Taranaki District Council and other Central Government agencies with overlapping regulatory roles in the matter.

Recommendation This report recommends option 3 for addressing the matter.

Long-Term Plan / No Annual Plan Implications

Significant No Policy and Plan Inconsistencies

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The change of use provisions of the Resource Management National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health Regulations 2011 (NES CS) has mandatory processes to evaluate and provide formal clearance for grazing and other contamination sensitive activities to take place on land that is known to have contained contaminants such as land farms.

Establishing a landfarm is also subject to discharge consent Taranaki Regional Council. Discharge consents are subject to a surrender process once contaminant levels meet national standards. These standards are the same as applied in the NES CS clearance process. The overlap of these closely related functions results in inefficiency due to duplication of regulatory evaluation.

Administering the NES CS is a District Council responsibility. The four Taranaki Councils have sought to put in place a seamless joint “release” process that incorporates the overlapping District Council NES CS obligations and the Taranaki Regional Council’s discharge consent surrender process.

30 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

3 Item for Recommendation

Joint investigations concluded that the most efficient, effective and appropriate process would be for the NES CS matters to be addressed by the TRC concurrently with the TRC’s discharge consent surrender process for land farms, mixed bury cover and similar contamination remediation activities.

Section 33 to the RMA prescribes the transfer of powers process. This report seeks the Council’s approval to undertake the legislated steps.

BACKGROUND Since about 2013 the community have raised concerns with Taranaki Council’s regarding stock gaining access to landfarm and mixed-bury-cover sites used for remediation of hydrocarbon drilling wastes (mainly cuttings and muds with residual hydrocarbons). The concerns were around the potential impacts on animal health and food safety. An associated concern is the possibility of contaminated land legacy issues.

Landfarming or surface application, is an international scientifically accepted bioremediation method applied to a range of materials.

The need to address the premature grazing/ food safety concerns was highlighted within the 2014 report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment “Drilling for Oil & Gas in New Zealand – Environmental Oversight and Regulation”.

A working party led by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) that include representatives from Taranaki Councils was established to address the matter.

The working party’s findings led to the formulation of New Zealand specific, safe hydrocarbon related food safety levels now applied by the MPI. The working party also recognised that the change of use provisions of the NES CS requires the evaluation and provide formal clearance for grazing and other contamination sensitive activities to take place on land that is known to have contained contaminants.

We are aware of three regulatory regimes that apply to landfarms:

(i) The Ministry for Primary Industries administer the NZ food safety standards.

(ii) District Council’s administer the human health, soil safety focussed NES CS using the same MPI NZ standards to control when affected land can safely return to grazing or cropping. This indirectly addresses food safety but is not the statutory focus of the NES CS.

31 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

3 Item for Recommendation

(iii) Regional Councils are responsible for the discharge to land consent process under section 15 of the RMA. Discharge consent is required before the material to be remediated can be deposited on the land i.e. before a landfarm can be established. At the end of the remediation process the Regional Council facilitates surrender of the discharge consent. The MPI NZ standards are used to determine when surrender is appropriate. The TRC determine this by scientific monitoring. This also indirectly addresses food safety even though the purpose is protecting soil and water.

Taranaki Council’s noted that RMA regulatory processes (ii) and (iii) apply identical criteria to evaluate surrender and clearance respectively causing regulatory duplication which would likely be regarded as inefficient by applicants.

While the NES CS works well in most areas, the preceding regulatory tensions do not appear to have been identified when the NES CS regulations were formulated. The NES CS is currently under review by the Ministry for the Environment. They are now aware of the issue. We do not know whether the matter will be addressed. Changes to the NES CS are about eight months away.

Given this the four Taranaki Councils agreed to jointly investigate ways to make obtaining this regulatory clearance for landfarms effective, efficient and appropriate. The Council have been previously advised of progress in this matter through “District Petroleum Activity Update Report’s”.

The options identified and evaluated were:

1. Joint processing. Evaluation: - As both consent processes are non-notified there is no statutory trigger for a joint hearing. Given this the processes would still be the individual responsibility of the respective Councils . 2. The sharing of scientific application related information between the TRC and the District Council to minimise consenting costs and to simplify the two related consent processes. Evaluation: - The TRC’s scientific monitoring of discharge consents establishes when contaminant are within NZ standards. Disseminating these scientific reports to the applicants and the District Council could avoid or reduce the need for the applicant to engage expensive technical advice. - Separate consent applications to both the TRC and the District Council, referencing the scientific report would still be required.

3. Transfer the NES CS powers for landfarm type activities (only) to the TRC. Evaluation: - Both applications would be dealt with by one regulator in an integrated process.

32 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

3 Item for Recommendation

- The applicant could reference the TRC’s scientific monitoring report in both applications avoiding or reducing the need for the applicant to engage expensive technical advice. - There would be opportunities to cross reference other information between the applications to minimising duplication. - The scientific bias and in house capability of the TRC makes them better equipped to efficiently address the issues involved. - The consent holder will be responsible to one RMA regulator. There are opportunities for mentoring and consistent messaging regarding the whole of life remediation process and regulatory compliance. - TRC familiarity with the consented scope of the activity and regular cost recoverable monitoring which will check NES CS compliance. District Council monitoring would not be cost recoverable as there is no consent to administer.

It was agreed by all three Taranaki District Councils and the TRC that option 3, being the transfer of NES CS powers in respect of landfarms and similar remediation activities to the TRC, provides the best outcome in terms of simplification and cost efficiency while retaining regulatory integrity. Given this a Transfer of Powers would be in the wider public interest.

Section 33 of the RMA prescribes the Transfer of Powers process. Legal advice has been provided that confirms that the proposed transfer meets the RMA’s transfer of powers criteria.

The appended draft transfer agreement, required by section 33(6) of the RMA has been legally reviewed. This specifies the scope, terms and conditions of transfer and once the regulatory steps in the transfer process are completed, will need to be signed by the three District Councils and the Taranaki Regional Council.

The first step of the transfer process is to serve notice of the proposed transfer on the Minister for the Environment. Legal advice is that including the draft transfer agreement as part of the letter of notice will fulfil this step.

The second step is the Special Consultative Procedure. This requires a Statement of Proposal. This has been prepared and appended to this report and reiterates the relevant key aspects of this report. It is proposed to commence this process in early 2017.

33 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

3 Item for Recommendation

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT The presence and management of landfarms has raised concern with a sector of the community with resultant media interest.

Land used for landfarming related purposes may cleared for use by other contamination sensitive activities subject to specific RMA processes. The community need to know that these processes are rigidly followed and that nationally accepted standards are applied.

The draft Agreement for the Transfer of specific RMA Powers for landfarm and similar activities requires that these statutory processes are followed and reported on. The resultant consents, reports and related application information are publicly available providing transparency.

The Agreement is reversible should unresolvable problems occur.

There are no financial, resourcing, policy or asset related issues for District Council’s.

Therefore, in accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some importance.

OPTIONS The three identified options are detailed in the main body of the report. They are:

Option 1 – The joint processing of the TRC’s surrender of discharge consent and the District Councils NES CS process. This option was found to have no supporting legal mechanism so is excluded from further consideration.

Option 2 – The sharing of scientific application related information between the TRC and the relevant District Council.

Option 3 – Transfer of powers to the TRC.

Evaluation a) Financial and Resourcing Implications  No District Council implications identified in respect of the two remaining options.

b) Risk Analysis  Neither of the two remaining options present elevated regulatory risk for District Councils. Option 3 avoids a split regulatory process and therefore reduces risk.

34 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

3 Item for Recommendation

c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes  Both of the two remaining options achieve the required regulatory outcome by managing land containing contaminants. Option 3 provides opportunities for significant regulatory efficiencies and a simpler consent path for consent holders and may be regarded as being consistent with the Community, Economy and Environment “Community Outcomes”. d) Statutory Responsibilities  The two remaining options properly address both the TRC and District Council statutory responsibilities under the RMA and the NES CS.

e) Consistency with Policies and Plans  The TRC’s discharge consent responsibilities are not affected by either of the two remaining options. District Council’s NES CS responsibilities are statutory and do not impact any NPDC strategies, policies or plans.

f) Participation by Māori  It is highly unlikely that remediation activities requiring discharge consent would establish on Maori land.  Should a land farm seek to establish on a District Plan listed waahi tapu or archaeological site then ground disturbance considerations will apply. This may result in the need for consent. Mana whenua will be involved in that process. Similarly the provisions of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 will apply to archaeological sites and accidental discoveries. Processes under this Act provide for Maori engagement.  The transfer of powers process requires that the “Special Consultative Procedure” be followed. This will provide for Maori participation.

g) Community Views and Preferences  A sector of the community considers that landfarming is an inappropriate activity due to its association with hydrocarbon contaminants and non-renewable energy. However a landfarm can legally establish provided the necessary regulatory consents are obtained and complied with. The matter addressed by this report concerns the regulatory process and not whether landfarms should be allowed.  Overall the community expects that a Council’s regulatory functions will be carried out in an effective and efficient manner. Option 3 achieves this.

h) Advantages and Disadvantages  These are evaluated and detailed in the main body of the report. Option 3 has significant advantages.

35 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

3 Item for Recommendation

The evaluation favours option 3 - transfer of powers. This supports the report’s recommendations.

APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Draft Transfer of Powers Agreement Appendix 2 - Special Consultative Procedure “Statement of Proposal”

Report Details Prepared By: Ralph Broad (Senior Planning Adviser) Team: District Planning Approved By: Liam Hodgetts (Group Manager Strategy) Ward/Community: District Wide Date: 15 September 2016 File Reference: DM 7210723

------End of Report ------

36 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 1 3

14 September 2016 ECM 7232755

New Plymouth District Council Statement of Proposal

Proposed Transfer of Specific Resource Management Act Powers under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health Regulations 2011, to the Taranaki Regional Council.

1. Purpose

The purpose of this statement is to inform and seek comments from the community regarding the New Plymouth District Council’s proposal to transfer of specific landfarm related consenting, monitoring and enforcement functions of the Resource Management National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health Regulations 2011 (NES CS), to the Taranaki Regional Council (TRC) as part of a regionally co-ordinated approach to manage landfarms and similar activities.

2. Background

Since about 2013 the community have raised concerns with Taranaki Council’s regarding stock gaining access to landfarm and mixed-bury-cover sites used for remediation of hydrocarbon drilling wastes (mainly cuttings and muds with residual hydrocarbons). The concerns were around the potential impacts on animal health and food safety. An associated concern is the possibility of contaminated land legacy issues.

Landfarming or surface application, is an international scientifically accepted bioremediation method applied to a range of materials.

A working party led by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) that include representatives from Taranaki Councils was established to address the matter.

37 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 1 3

Three regulatory regimes apply to landfarms:

1) The MPI administer NZ food safety standards.

2) District Council’s administer the human health, soil safety focussed NES CS, applying the same MPI NZ food safety standards to determine when affected land can safely return to grazing or cropping. This indirectly addresses food safety although this is not the purpose of the NES CS.

3) Regional Councils are responsible for the discharge to land consent process under section 15 of the RMA. Discharge consent is required before the material to be remediated can be deposited on the land i.e. before a landfarm can be established. At the end of the remediation process the Regional Council facilitates surrender of the discharge consent. The MPI NZ standards are used to determine when surrender is appropriate. The TRC determine this by scientific monitoring. This also indirectly addresses food safety even though the purpose is protecting soil and water.

Taranaki Council’s noted that RMA regulatory processes (2) and (3) apply identical criteria to evaluate surrender and clearance respectively, causing regulatory duplication which would likely be regarded as inefficient by applicants.

Given this, the four Taranaki Councils agreed to jointly investigate ways to make obtaining this regulatory clearance for landfarms effective, efficient and appropriate.

New Plymouth District Council Officers have been previously advised the Council of progress in this matter through ” District Petroleum Activity Update Reports”.

3. Proposal

All three Taranaki District Councils (NPDC, Stratford and South Taranaki) and the TRC will seek transfer of NES CS powers in respect of landfarms and similar remediation activities to the TRC,

38 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 1 3

Section 33 of the RMA prescribes the Transfer of Powers process. Legal advice confirms that the proposed transfer meets the RMA’s transfer of powers criteria. That is the transfer is desirable on all of the following grounds: i. the Taranaki Regional Council represents the appropriate community of interest relating to the exercise or performance of the function, power, or duty: ii. efficiency: and iii. technical or special capability or expertise.

The transfer process requires serving notice of the proposed transfer on the Minister for the Environment. Notice was served in XXXX. The notice included the draft transfer agreement which is also appended to this Statement of Proposal.

The second step is this Special Consultative Procedure. This Statement of Proposal is a required part of the Special Consultative Procedure.

4. Assessment of Options

The options identified and evaluated were:

1) Joint processing. Evaluation: - As both consent processes are non-notified there is no statutory trigger for a joint hearing. Given this the processes would still be the individual responsibility of the respective Councils.

2) The sharing of scientific application related information between the TRC and the District Council to minimise consenting costs and to simplify the two related consent processes. Evaluation: - The TRC’s scientific monitoring of discharge consents establishes when contaminant are within NZ standards. Disseminating these scientific reports to the applicants and the District Council could avoid or reduce the need for the applicant to engage expensive technical advice. - Separate consent applications to both the TRC and the District Council, referencing the scientific report would still be required.

39 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 1 3

3) Transfer the NES CS powers for landfarm type activities (only) to the TRC. Evaluation: - Both applications would be dealt with by one regulator in an integrated process. - The applicant could reference the TRC’s scientific monitoring report in both applications avoiding or reducing the need for the applicant to engage expensive technical advice. - There would be opportunities to cross reference other information between the applications to minimising duplication. - The scientific bias and in house capability of the TRC makes them better equipped to efficiently address the issues involved. - The consent holder will be responsible to one RMA regulator. There are opportunities for mentoring and consistent messaging regarding the whole of life remediation process and regulatory compliance. - TRC familiarity with the consented scope of the activity and regular cost recoverable monitoring which will check NES CS compliance. District Council monitoring would not be cost recoverable as there is no consent to administer.

5. Other Considerations

The transfer would be cost neutral for District Councils. The TRC would recover its costs through monitoring and consenting fees and charges under the RMA. It is highly unlikely that landfarm type remediation activities requiring discharge consent would establish on Maori land.

Should a land farm seek to establish on a District Plan listed waahi tapu or archaeological site then ground disturbance considerations will apply. This may result in the need for consent. Mana whenua will be involved in that process. Similarly the provisions of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 will apply to archaeological sites and accidental discoveries. Processes under this Act provide for Maori engagement.

There would be reduced regulatory risk for all Councils due to the integration of the two closely related processes.

40 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 1 3

There would be increased community transparency in terms of the compliance and remediation status of landfarms due to the TRC’s established inspection, compliance and public reporting systems.

The TRC has established communication channels with the Ministry of Primary Industry which will enable more effective and consistent landfarm compliance and co- ordinated management practice initiatives across both regulatory regimes.

6. Significance

The presence and management of landfarms has raised concern with a sector of the community with resultant media interest.

The Agreement is reversible should unresolvable problems occur.

There are no financial, resourcing, policy or asset related issues for District Councils.

Therefore, in accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some importance.

7. Have your say

There are several ways you can have your say on this matter. A submission form is provided with this document or you can submit online.

To get your submission to us:

Post it to: NPDC Transfer of RMA Powers Submissions, Reply Paid DX, DX Box NX10026, New Plymouth 4342

41 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 1 3

Deliver it to: Civic Centre, Liardet Street, New Plymouth, Puke Ariki or to a library in Bell Block, Inglewood, Oakura, Urenui or Waitara.

Email it to: [email protected]

Do it online: www.newplymouthnz.com/HaveYourSay

Be sure to get your submission to the Council by 5.00pm on xxx x xxxxx 2017

In accordance with the Local Government Act and subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, all submissions on this matter, including any personal information, will be made available to the public and media as part of the Council’s decision-making.

42 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 2

ECM 7232951

DATED: day of 2017

AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF NES CS POWERS

PARTIES:

1. New Plymouth District Council, Stratford District Council, South Taranaki District Council all Body Corporates under section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

2. Taranaki Regional Council, a Body Corporate under section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002.

BACKGROUND:

A. The Territorial Authorities wish to transfer their functions, powers and duties under the NES CS to Taranaki Regional Council to the extent that those functions, powers and duties relate to the activities of landfarming, mixed bury cover and similar contaminant remediation and such activities require discharge consent from Taranaki Regional Council under section 15 of the RMA.

B. In order to give effect to the transfer the parties have agreed to enter into the terms of this agreement.

C. This agreement:

(a) defines the responsibilities and obligations of the parties under the NES CS;

(b) establishes a coordinated and efficient approach to the administration of the NES CS;

(d) provides that Taranaki Regional Council shall provide information to the the Ministry of Primary Industries in respect of the NES CS powers in accordance with sections 368 to 369 of the Food Act 2014;

27967976_1.docx

43 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 2

(e) promotes the creation and efficient distribution of educational information to members of the public that are, or that are proposing to, carry out the activities of landfarming, mixed bury cover and similar contaminant remediation where those activities are regulated by the NES CS.

AGREEMENT:

1. Defined Terms

In this agreement unless the context otherwise requires the following expressions have the following meanings:

(a) Activity means landfarming, mixed bury cover and similar contaminant remediation;

(b) NES CS power means the functions, powers and duties of the Territorial Authorities relating to administration, consenting, monitoring and enforcement in accordance with the RMA to the extent that those functions, powers and duties are regulated by the NES CS, and concern the activities of landfarming, mixed bury cover and similar contaminant remediation where such activities require discharge consent from Taranaki Regional Council under section 15 of the RMA;

(c) NES CS means the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health 2011;

(d) RMA means the Resource Management Act 1991;

(e) Territorial Authorities means New Plymouth District Council, Stratford District Council, South Taranaki District Council; and

(f) Transfer means the transfer of the NES CS powers from the Territorial Authorities to Taranaki Regional Council in accordance with clause 2 of this agreement.

27967976_1.docx

44 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 2

In this agreement unless the context otherwise requires references to the following activities have the following meanings:

(a) Landfarming means the incorporation/blending of drill fluid and cutting wastes, with residual hydrocarbons, and other hydrocarbon wastes, with in situ soil, in a manner that allows for the waste constituents to be naturally broken down through bioremediation, above the water table;

(b) Mixed bury cover means the application of drill fluid and cutting wastes, with residual hydrocarbons, and other hydrocarbon wastes, onto land and mixing with clean in situ soil in a manner that allows for waste constituents to be naturally broken down through bioremediation, below the major rooting zone and above the water table; and

(c) Similar contaminant remediation means the application and/or incorporation of waste to land in a manner that allows for waste constituents to be naturally broken down through bioremediation above the water table.

2. Transfer of Powers

The Territorial Authorities transfer their NES CS powers to Taranaki Regional Council.

Taranaki Regional Council accepts the transfer of the NES CS powers.

The parties agree that the transfer is desirable on all of the following grounds:

(a) Taranaki Regional Council represents the appropriate community of interest relating to the exercise or performance of the NES CS powers as Taranaki Regional Council's and the Territorial Authorities' territorial jurisdictions generally coincide;

27967976_1.docx

45 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 2

(b) the transfer promotes efficiency because Taranaki Regional Council is responsible for the administration of section 15 of the RMA and will be responsible for issuing resource consents relating to the activities from time to time; and

(c) Taranaki Regional Council has the technical capability, special capability, and special expertise necessary to carry out the NES CS powers because it has the power under section 30(1)(ca) of the RMA to investigate and monitor contaminated land and the power under section 15 of the RMA to regulate discharges to land and water.

3. Term of the Transfer

The transfer takes effect as of the day of 2017 and Taranaki Regional Council shall continue to exercise the NES CS powers until one or more of the following takes place:

(a) the Territorial Authorities give written notice signed by duly authorised representatives of all the Territorial Authorities of the cancellation of the transfer; or

(b) Taranaki Regional Council gives six (6) months’ written notice signed by duly authorised representatives of Taranaki Regional Council to all of the Territorial Authorities of the cancellation of the transfer.

Any single Territorial Authority may withdraw from this agreement by giving written notice signed by that Territorial Authority's duly authorised representatives.

4. Amendment of the Agreement

This agreement cannot be varied except in writing signed by duly authorised representatives of the Territorial Authorities, provided that:

(a) in the circumstances that a single Territorial Authority wishes to vary the agreement, that Territorial Authority shall make its best endeavours to obtain written agreement of all the Territorial Authorities; and

27967976_1.docx

46 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 2

(b) in the circumstances that a single Territorial Authority is not able to obtain written agreement of all the Territorial Authorities then the relevant variation shall only apply to the Territorial Authorities that have given written agreement.

5. Administration

This agreement shall be administered by Taranaki Regional Council.

6. Responsibilities of the Territorial Authorities

Each individual Territorial Authority shall:

(a) actively contribute to educational initiatives and dissemination of information about land regulated by the NES CS to the other parties to this agreement and the public as appropriate;

(b) carry out its respective responsibilities under the RMA in relation to the activities where those responsibilities fall outside the scope of the NES CS powers;

(c) communicate the details of any alleged or actual non-compliance incidents in relation to the NES CS and any action taken in relation to any such alleged or actual non-compliance incidents to Taranaki Regional Council and the other Territorial Authorities, as the particular Territorial Authority deems appropriate and in a timely manner;

(d) provide information to Taranaki Regional Council, as required, for it to effectively and efficiently carry out the NES CS powers;

(e) shall not obstruct Taranaki Regional Council from efficiently and effectively carrying out the NES CS powers; and

(f) transfer any request for official information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 relating to

27967976_1.docx

47 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 2

the NES CS powers to Taranaki Regional Council in accordance with the procedure prescribed by section 12 of that Act and shall provide Taranaki Regional Council with any information held by the Territorial Authority that is relevant to the request to enable Taranaki Regional Council to meet the relevant statutory timeframes for responses.

7. Responsibilities of the Taranaki Regional Council

The Taranaki Regional Council shall:

(a) carryout the NES CS powers in an efficient and effective manner and consistent with the requirements of the RMA;

(b) develop and maintain a twenty four hour seven days a week NES CS incident response programme that ensures appropriate responses to any incidents relating to the NES CS powers are carried out throughout the region. The response to any incident shall be appropriate to its severity;

(c) provide copies of reports to the relevant Territorial Authority for the purposes of section 35 of the RMA containing the details of all consents granted, monitoring and enforcement carried out in accordance with the NES CS powers; and

(d) provide information to the Ministry of Primary in accordance with section 368 to 369 of the Food Act 2014 in respect of the NES CS powers.

8. Consent processing, monitoring and enforcement costs

Taranaki Regional Council's consent processing, compliance monitoring and reporting costs, relating to the NES CS powers are to be recovered by the Taranaki Regional Council in accordance with section 36 of the RMA.

27967976_1.docx

48 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 2

Taranaki Regional Council's enforcement costs relating to the NES CS powers are to be recovered by Taranaki Regional Council in accordance with standard statutory procedures.

Taranaki Regional Council:

(a) shall set its own schedule of charges in accordance with section 36 of the RMA in relation to the NES CS powers; and

(b) shall be responsible for its own costs in relation to the carrying out of the NES CS powers where there is no provision for the recovery of costs in accordance with clause 8.1 or clause 8.2 of this agreement.

9. Other costs

Each party to this agreement shall be responsible for its own costs in relation to any contribution to the educational initiatives and dissemination of information in accordance with clause 6(a) of this agreement.

10. Legal costs

The legal costs relating to any future amendment to this agreement that is agreed upon by all the Territorial Authorities in accordance with clause 4.1(a) of this agreement shall be shared between the Territorial Authorities on an equal basis.

The legal costs relating to any future amendment to this agreement that is not agreed upon by all the Territorial Authorities shall be shared equally between the Territorial Authorities that agree to the amendment in accordance with clause 4.1(b) of this agreement.

11. Limitations

This agreement shall not affect any of the parties’ statutory responsibilities outside of the NES CS powers.

27967976_1.docx

49 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Transfer of RMA Powers relating to Landfarms to TRC

Appendix 2

------

Stratford District Council

------

South Taranaki District Council

------

New Plymouth District Council

------

Taranaki Regional Council Commented [SG1]: To be amended in to reflect correct signing procedure of each council.

27967976_1.docx

50 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 RANGIMARIE MAORI ARTS AND CRAFTS SOCIETY – PROPOSAL TO RELOCATE TO MARFELL PARK

MATTER The matter for consideration by the Council is the opportunity to provide a site at Marfell Park where the Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society can re-establish to enable the centre to provide training for the local community.

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report, the Council:

a) Approves a public notice proposing to amend the Marfell Park Management Plan and to grant a ground lease over part of Marfell Park (part of Lot 1 DP 9485) as identified in Appendix One to Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society, for a period of 30 years. The management plan amendment if the lease proceeds will identify that ‘An area has been set aside in the park for the occupation by Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society to facilitate the organisations recreation, education and training activities’.

b) Agrees officers will report back to Council the results of the public notice unless there are no objections received in which instance, officers will proceed with the lease and the amendment to the management plan on the basis that Council has approved these matters.

c) Notes that the cost of the solicitor’s fee for preparing the lease document (estimated to be $850 exclusive of GST) will be invoiced to Rangimarie.

d) Agrees that Rangimarie meet the criteria for a Community Concessional Lease under the Council’s Community Funding Investment Policy and therefore a lease rental of $1 per annum is approved.

e) The Property Manager is authorised to approve the final lease terms and any adjustment to the ground lease area.

COMPLIANCE

Significance This matter has been assessed as being of some importance.

51 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 COMPLIANCE This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter:

1. Approve a public notice for a ground lease for part of Marfell Park with an associated amendment to the park’s Options management plan.

2. Decline the lease and the associated amendment to the Marfell Park Management Plan (Appendix Four).

The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are: Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society; Marfell Primary School, Marfell Community Trust, Grow Together Better Affected persons Communities Trust, neighbours and users of Marfell Park, Ngati Te Whiti and Ngā Mahanga-a-Tairi hapu and the wider community.

Recommendation This report recommends option 1 for addressing the matter.

Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan No Implications

This lease is not contemplated in the Marfell Park Management Significant Plan – part of the Sports Parks Management Plan 2012 – and if Policy and Plan the proposal is approved will require an amendment to the Inconsistencies plan.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report seeks approval from the Council to publicly notify the intention to grant a ground lease over part of Marfell Park for the activity and the buildings of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society Incorporated.

The society has been required to relocate from their current location on Centennial Drive which they have occupied since 1980, due to their lease being terminated following the purchase of the Centennial Drive land by Port Taranaki.

The proposed relocation site is the car park area adjacent to the BMX track at Marfell Park.

Rangimarie are a recreational training centre for weaving, bone and wood carving as well as Maori language and culture.

This report recommends approval of the public notice and a 30 year ground lease of the proposed relocation site to Rangimarie.

52 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 BACKGROUND Rangimarie The Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society (Rangimarie) have been occupying a leased site at Centennial Drive beside Paritutu since 19801. The initial ground lease was an arrangement between the owners, New Zealand Electricity Department (NZED) and the Council, who sub-leased to Rangimarie. Land ownership was transferred from NZED to Contact Energy, a private company who sold the site to Port Taranaki in 2013. In April 2014, the Council lease was terminated with the requirement that all buildings be removed from the lease area, which includes those of Rangimarie.

Rangimarie are not affiliated with an iwi or hapu and provide tuition in weaving, wood and bone carving and are well known in the Maori community. Additionally the centre has been a drop by centre for tourists who look at the various works produced by artists which are on display. Appendix Two which is provided by Rangimarie, gives an overview of the society’s activities.

Relocation investigations With the requirement to vacate the site, Council officers met Rangimarie to discuss relocation options. Meetings in 2014 also included staff from Port Taranaki, as initially options to relocate within the Port’s estate were explored.

Rangimarie expressed a desire to be located in the western part of New Plymouth and after considering several sites, Ngamotu Domain was chosen. Canvassing neighbours for two separate sites at Ngamotu Domain resulted in a general non- support of the proposal. Rangimarie did not want to proceed with these sites given this response.

Rangimarie then identified Marfell Park as a preferred location due to its proximity to the other educational training centres such as secondary and intermediate schools. The site being the former BMX car parking area which is identified in Appendix One. The management plan will require amending due to this change of activity at the park.

Marfell Park Marfell Park is a recreation reserve covering 11.8 hectares, formerly used as sports field for rugby, soccer and softball. Current use involves a skateboard park, a BMX track (established in 1981) and a children’s playground. The BMX track is in the process of being handed over to the Marfell Community Trust with BMX having relocated to Hickford Park and the children’s playground is planned for decommissioning when a new playground is installed at the new reserve on Cook Street (see development concept).

1 Date taken from correspondence in NPDC archive files.

53 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 The land parcel Lot 1 DP 9485 (one of three parcels comprising the park) is where the ground lease is proposed. It was purchased by the Council in 1967 and was classified as a recreation reserve in 1980.

Development concept:

Marfell Park was formally a municipal landfill receiving domestic and industrial waste and was in operation from the early 1950s to 1976. Like many other landfill sites within New Plymouth, the site has been developed for recreation use.

54 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 The depth of the landfill varies throughout the park, with greatest depths being from the terraced area south of the BMX track. The depth of landfill material at the proposed lease area is unknown but is reported as being up to 1.0m in depth in the nearby playground area2.

Prior to the area being used as a land fill it was a gully containing a water body. Storm-water piped through the park exits into the Mangaotuku Stream.

Consultation on the proposal Consultation on the proposal prior to reporting to Council has included: 1. A meeting with four organisations involved in the Marfell Park area. 2. A letter drop to 33 residences immediately neighbouring the proposed lease area. 3. A door knock undertaken by Rangimarie along Grenville Street, the northern entrance to Marfell Park.

1. Response from four organisations Comments of support were received from four organisations working in the Marfell Park area; details are included in the brochure provided by Rangimarie in Appendix Two.

2. Mail out to neighbours Letters were sent to 33 residences that neighbour the immediate area advising of the proposed lease and relocation. The letter identified the nature of the activities that would be undertaken by Rangimarie and requested comment on the proposal by a fixed date. No comments were received.

3. Door knock on Grenville Street The response to the door knock along Grenville Street was positive and is outlined in Appendix Three in a letter provided by Rangimarie.

Lease The lease can be processed within Marfell Park’s recreation classification; the Reserves Act Guide identifies that ‘educational and training centres’ are compatible for recreational reserves through the provisions of section 54 (1) (b) of the Reserves Act 1977.

There are two tests when applying section 54(1) (b), which are: Group is a voluntary organisation The Reserves Act 1977 in section 2, defines a voluntary organisation as “any body of persons (whether incorporated or not) not formed for private profit”. In granting the lease to Rangimarie under section 54 (1) (b) of the Act, this requirement needs to be maintained.

Is this in the public’s interest?

2 Report on soil sampling investigation – ECM 861600

55 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 Additionally, to grant a lease under section 54(1) (b), the activity must be given on the grounds that it is in the public interest. The activity of Rangimarie is considered to benefit the general community and in particular to those who have an interest in Maori crafts (such as weaving and wood carving) and Maori culture.

Application of Section 54(1) has been delegated to Council through the ‘Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities’ dated 12 June 2013 and signed by Nick Smith, Minister of Conservation.

Management Plan Amendment Any proposed use of Marfell Park must comply with the management objectives and policies as set out in the Sports Parks Management Plan (Appendix Four). The proposed use is not contemplated in the management plan and therefore the Council, if approving a lease in principle will also need to amend the management plan to approve the proposed occupation.

The proposed amendment to the management plan is included in the recommendation.

District Plan District plan considerations – the lease area is identified as Open Space A environment area, used primarily for organised sports and recreation and often involving buildings such as clubrooms.

National Environmental Standards (NES) The National Environmental Standards3 (NES) are a regulation introduced in 2011 (pursuant to section 43 of the Resource Management Act 1991). Because the proposed lease area was formerly a municipal landfill, the NES standards apply as there as a change in land use with a disturbance of soil to install piles as a foundation for the relocated building and because landfills are identified in the NES Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL).

Subsequently, a resource consent will be required for the relocation. The Council’s Consenting Team are aware of the proposal and have been working with Rangimarie.

Council officers sought advice from Graeme Proffitt of PDP, an environmental consultancy that were engaged in 2009 to give a comprehensive study of Marfell Park for the regional council. He has indicated that driven piles would be of no general concern but that bored piles and/or any trenching for services will disturb soil which comes under the NES regulations, as the site is a contaminated site.

3 More accurately “Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulation 2011.

56 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 Building Permit The location of the building on site may require some variation as the installation of piles at this site which is a former landfill cannot be fully determined until further site assessment is carried out. To this end, the resolution includes that authorisation is given to the Manager Parks and Open Spaces to finalise the ground lease area.

There is no requirement to upgrade specifications of the building when it is being used for the same purpose.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT POLICY In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some importance as the activity relates to a community activity occurring in a recreation reserve for which a lease can be issued under the Reserves Act 1977.

The level of community engagement being applied is pursuant to that specified by the Reserves Act 1977, being a one month public notice which additionally will include a letter drop to neighbours in the area and a poster located at the park.

OPTIONS The following options are presented to the Council on this matter:

Option 1 Approve a public notice for a ground lease and amend the Marfell Park Management Plan. a) Financial and Resourcing Implications The relocation of Rangimarie and its ongoing operation is independent and does not require financial contributions from Council. The legal costs (estimated to be $850 plus GST) for preparing a lease document will be invoiced to Rangimarie.

b) Risk Analysis The potential risk of the proposal is the continued sustainability of the group and the requirement to remove structures if the lease is terminated. There is no information to suggest that there is an immediate financial threat to the organisation but certainty is required in finding a new location for them to enable to continue.

c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes The community outcomes of ‘community’ is involved as the proposal means an enhancement of Maori craft and culture and an added vibrancy to Marfell Park.

57 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 d) Statutory Responsibilities These responsibilities are prescribed in the Reserves Act 1997 and include the requirement to publicly notify and to assess any objections before making a decision on whether to approve a lease.

e) Consistency with Policies and Plans This option is not contemplated within the reserve management plan approved for Marfell Park. The activity proposed was not in consideration when the plan was adopted by Council and it is recommended that the plan be amended to reflect the proposal.

f) Participation by Māori The activities of Rangimarie relate to enhance Maori craft and culture, there is no affiliation with any tangata whenua group as the training and craft activities are available to all.

Rangimarie had been in contact with Ngati Te Whiti in relation to relocating to Ngamotu Domain, which the hapu supported. The relocation to Marfell Park has not been formally discussed by the hapu although it is considered that this is also likely to be supported.

Te Kotahitanga O Nga Mahunga A Tairi chair, Keith Manukonga, identified that the hapu has no issue with the lease proposal.

g) Community Views and Preferences The initial feedback through contacting neighbours and organisation working in the Marfell area has been positive. This feedback will be complete when the public notice is issued and any response is received.

h) Advantages and Disadvantages The advantages of this option are that it gives continuance of the work of Rangimarie, by providing them with an operational base. The disadvantages is are that the land will not be locked up in a lease and therefore options would be kept open.

Option 2 Decline the proposal. Decline the ground lease and the associated amendment to Marfell Park Management Plan.

This option would be detrimental to the continuance of Rangimarie and a loss to the Marfell and the wider district community. There is a risk if this site is not leased to Rangimarie that the community will lose this training provider in the field of Maori crafts and culture.

58 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4

Recommended Option This report recommends option 1 for addressing the matter.

APPENDICES Appendix One Proposed area at Marfell Park to be leased to Rangimarie. Appendix Two Rangimarie Brochure. Appendix Three Letter from Rangimarie regarding door knock of neighbourhood. Appendix Four Marfell Park Management Plan.

REPORT DETAILS PREPARED BY: Warren Dalgleish (Parks Reserves Planner) TEAM: Strategy APPROVED BY: Alan Bird (Chief Financial Officer) and Liam Hodgetts (Group Manager Strategy) WARD/COMMUNITY: City DATE: 1 November 2016 FILE REFERENCE: DM 6657195, PID 112701

59 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4

Appendix One Proposed area at Marfell Park for ground lease to Rangimarie.

Area of approximately 1,000m²

60 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4

Appendix Two: Rangimarie brochure Rangimarie Maori Arts & Crafts

Centre

is relocating

(current location is below Paritutu Rock, 80 Centennial Drive, Moturoa)

We welcome your feedback and please contact us if you would like to talk with us

or visit. Maryjane Waru (Chairperson) 0277540080 or email [email protected]

Rangimarie Philosophy: To revive, preserve and promote traditional Maori Arts & Crafts and language in Aotearoa (short version)

61 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 Potential site for relocation

is Marfell Park, Marfell

• Accessible to schools o The location is within a 15-25 minutes walking distance of the local schools making accessibility easier and more cost effective

• Enhances art profile to the community o Having an art centre located in the community provides the immediate presence of art in the community

• Provides a resource centre for the community o The centre will provide the community with an asset and resource people that can be utilised for the programmes and projects

• Can be utilised to house history for the community o The centre could be utilised as a space to house community history

• Promotes Maori arts & crafts in the community o The location will assist in the promotions of Maori art in the community

62 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 What events has Rangimarie been involved with?

Community Projects:

Tukotahi (Pukeariki, NP) Pukeiti Panels (Rhododendren Gardens, Pukeiti) Putake (NP Power Station, NP)

Rangimarie takes pride in being involved with schools and the community through participation at festivals; A & P shows; community events and projects to name a few since the 1970s. Between 1980-2005 Carving and weaving programmes led the way for Rangimarie to support rangatahi (young people) in the community. Rangimarie continues to promote Maori art in the community and this relocation to Marfell Park will help support Rangimarie’s philosophies and direction.

Schools:

Te Hapua Native School (Te Hapua, Far North) Kaimiro School (Kaimiro)

63 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 Who is Rangimarie? • A community organisation • A Resource Centre for Maori Art • Is non-denominational & open to all ethnicities Do you do Stone Carving? NO • Stone carving courses are provided by Te Kupenga Stone Sculpture Society which is a different organisation

What days do you open? • Every 1st and 3rd weekend of the month 8am-5pm (Lapidary Club) • Every Monday evening 5pm-9.30pm (wood carving classes) • Other days by arrangement (flax weaving classes, group visits, community meetings)

Do you have community support? YES • Marfell Community Trust – “The Marfell Community Trust supports Rangimarie Maori Arts & Crafts Centre relocation to Marfell Park, Marfell which we believe will benefit our community” (Ray Tucker – Chairman)

• Together Grow Better Communities Trust – “The Together Grow Better Communities Trust wishes to offer their full support to Rangimarie Maori Arts & Crafts relocation to Marfell Park. It will be of great value to the community to have a facility that embraces the arts & crafts and community spirit of Rangimarie in Marfell” (Andrew Pepper – Chairperson)

• Bishops Action Foundation - “The Bishops Action Foundation would like to express its support for the relocation of Rangimarie Arts & Crafts to Marfell Park. With the move of the BMX club to Bell Block, the lower park was in danger of becoming neglected. Rangimarie’s move will help to generate momentum to see the lower park area maintained and become a viable hub for the local community” (Simon Cayley – CEO)

64 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 • Marfell Community School – “Wow! How awesome would it be to have Rangimarie Maori Arts & Crafts as our neighbour. Just think of the creative opportunities for our tamariki” (Janet Wilson – Principal)

Rangimarie looks forward to building positive relationships with these community organisations, the community and New Plymouth District Council to build a better future for the development of Marfell Park

65 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 Appendix Three: Rangimarie Maori Arts & Crafts

Society Inc. 80 Centennial Drive PO Box 6120 Moturoa [email protected] (06) 751 2280 / 027 754 0080 (Chairperson)

Warren Dalgleish Parks Reserves Planner, ARPro New Plymouth District Council PO Box 2025 New Plymouth

26 October 2016

Re: Neighbourhood Response to Door Knocking – Grenville Street, Marfell

Tēnā koe Warren,

Rangimarie has been in consultation with the Marfell Community groups since early September with the potential relocation at Marfell Park. Rangimarie’s Relocation pamphlets have been circulating among the Marfell Community since mid- September. One of the Community groups has also posted our pamphlet on their Facebook page.

During the weeks of 13th September to 23rd September, Rangimarie members went door knocking in the neighbourhood to speak kānohi ki te kānohi (face-to-face) with the residents. The results and responses from the visits on Grenville Street are set out in the tables overleaf.

Grenville Street is located at the north western end of Marfell Park. Marfell Park is situated on the back yards of three houses on Grenville Street. All three residents were home at the time of the visit by the Rangimarie members and conversations with these residents lasted between 10-30 minutes. All three residents were appreciative of the kānohi ki te kānohi contact with them. Discussions also took place with a further 8 residents from Grenville Street.

66 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 Some of the residents indicated they meet regularly with the Marfell Community groups and their children go to Marfell Community School. These residents were already aware of Rangimarie’s potential relocation to the community. All responses received were positive but there were concerns as to Marfell Park being built on a landfill and the environmental impact this has had on the land. Public safety; environmental safety; community pride; community project ideas; and succession planning were common themes identified by many of the residents. Grenville Street residents range from those who rent the properties to homeowners; short term to long term residents; and young parents, professional couples to pensioners and retirees. A common thread between residents is the pride they have in their neighbourhood and the desire to provide a safe environment for their children and grandchildren.

Table of Results:

a) Conversation & Pamphlet drop offs There were a total of 40 pamphlets printed (25 colour/15 b&w) and 34 pamphlets were distributed on Grenville Street. Pamphlets were left in letterboxes where residents were not home.

GRENVILLE STREET, NP

Action Total At home (conversation) 11 Not home (pamphlet 23 drops) Vacant homes 2 Total 36

b) Responses There are two sets of totals. The totals in red are the responses specifically from the three residents whose backyards face Marfell Park and the black are the responses from the other 8 residents who were home.

Responses & Question from residents spoken to: Total

1) Was aware that Rangimarie may relocate to Marfell Park 5/8 (1/3) 2) Support Rangimarie’s relocation to Marfell Park 8/8 (3/3) 3) Object to Rangimarie’s relocation to Marfell Park 0/8 (0/3) 4) Is it safe to put the building on the site given the fact the park was a rubbish dump? 6/8 (2/3) 5) Will any soil tests be taken before the move? 6/8 (1/3) 6) The relocation will give back a sense of identity and security (would be good to see a 8/8 (3/3) hive of activity at the park again. It has been quiet since the BMX club left)

67 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 7) Positive presence in the community again 8/8 (2/3) 8) Would Rangimarie consider running training/employment programmes? 3/8 (2/3) 9) Would Rangimarie consider running community art projects? 6/8 (1/3) 10) Wow! It would be awesome to have Rangimarie at Marfell Park. My 3/8 (1/3) brother/sister/cousin/mate was a student there in the 80s/90s. To have Rangimarie here in our back doorstep would be fantastic 11) The relocation would be great for the neighbourhood and the school 5/8 (2/3)

There have been 2 phone calls from residents on Grenville Street who were not home when the visits were made and both residents have given their unanimous support to Rangimarie. One resident recalled his neighbours sending their wayward teenagers to Rangimarie in the 1990s and he saw positive changes in both boys. In his opinion, “they grew up to be fine young responsible men”. Rangimarie provided a place of sense and worth for the young people and to have Rangimarie in a community that needs help with young people it can only be positive for the community and families.

Rangimarie has been overwhelmed by the support shown by the community of Marfell and believe that relocation to Marfell Park would be beneficial to a community in need. Working together with the community organisations, Marfell Community School and the community will help bring positivity into this community.

If you have any further questions do not hesitate to contact me.

Nāku noa

Maryjane Waru

Maryjane Waru Chairperson

68 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 Appendix Four: Marfell Park Management Plan Description Location: Cook Street, New Plymouth West Legal description: Lot 1 DP 9295 Lot 1 DP 9485 Lot 1 DP 15742 Size: 11.78 hectares Reserve Status: Subject to the Reserves Act 1977 Reserve Classification: Recreation reserve Lot 1, DP 9295 and Lot 1, DP 9485 Proposed classification of Lot 1, DP 15742 as Recreation Reserve

Grenville Street Cook Street

Parcel to be classified

Physical description This sports park is located off Grenville Street and Cook Street in New Plymouth West. Marfell Park comprises of three fields; two on an upper terrace and one on a lower terrace approximately 2m below the upper level. The park is split into two sports fields and a skatepark at the upper levels, a BMX (Bicycle Motor Cross) track and a playground on the lower level.

The fields are located within steep valley walls. The lower field slopes in two directions from the high south east corner. Marfell Park is located on a former municipal landfill and over the years the sinkage has been addressed by importation of large volumes of soil to fill holes. It is thought that the sinkage is likely to continue due to the continuing breakdown of material in the underlying rubbish landfill.

69 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 The park is Open Space A Environment Area in the District Plan. These areas are used primarily for organised sports and recreation. Such areas will normally have associated buildings such as clubrooms, changing sheds or toilet facilities. The park is surrounded by a mix of Residential A and B and Marfell School is located to the west of the park.

Tangata whenua interests This reserve is within the tribal rohe of Te Atiawa and Taranaki iwi. The area is of historic and cultural significance to Ngati Te Whiti and Ngā Mahanga-a-Tairi hapū.

Land status and acquisition history Lot 1 DP 9485 was purchased by New Plymouth City in 1967. Pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977 Lot 1 DP 9485 was classified as a recreation reserve in 1980.

Lot 1 DP 9295 was purchased by New Plymouth City in 1965. Pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977 it was classified as a recreation reserve in 1980.

Lot 1, DP 15742 (formally Lot 2 DP 9249) was obtained by New Plymouth City Council in 1987 in trust as a reserve for off street parking. Although it is subject to the Reserves Act 1977 it has not been classified.

History and cultural values Marfell Park is located on a former landfill, containing domestic and industrial waste, which operated from the early 1950s until 1976. The landfill was closed in 1976 and subsequently developed into a park, which has a children’s playground, BMX track which has been operating at Marfell Park since 1981, and two former sports field areas that now have casual use.4

The sports fields were developed in 1977/1978 for use by the adjacent Marfell School and as rugby fields by a local club. The landfill material was capped with imported soil and perimeter surface drains installed. The school ceased formal use of the fields from the mid 1980s.

The park was converted to soccer fields in 1991 and also used for softball. In 1995 the club went out of existence. The clubrooms were demolished in 2008. The skatepark has been at the park since 2003.

Results from a soil sampling and testing programme prepared by Taranaki Regional Council for Marfell Park have recently proven that there are no contaminants or any environmental risk at the former landfill site.

Existing improvements Existing improvements include: Shed, playground and play equipment, two rubbish bins, seven flood lights, three signs, seats, wall structures, barriers, carpark surface, road and playground base.

4 ‘Marfell Park, New Plymouth, Environmental Investigation’, Prepared for Taranaki Regional Council, Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd, August 2009.

70 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation 4 There is a storm water pipe running along the eastern boarder and another running horizontally through the northern end of the park. There is a waste water pipe running along the western border at the northern end of the park.

Uses and activities Although Marfell Park is currently under-utilised it could provide recreation opportunities for a variety of users. The upper and middle levels of Marfell Park are unused with two sports fields available. Although the fields are not currently used for organised sport, there are some informal or casual activities undertaken by locals.

A playground and BMX track are located on the lower levels as well as a skatepark at the southern end of the park.

The following club has a land only lease at Marfell Park: • New Plymouth BMX Club for the BMX track and associated facilities located on the lower level of the park (lease expired 2009)

Management objectives and specific policies

1) The developed areas of this park will be managed as a sports park suitable for formal and informal sport and recreation. 2) In May 2011, the Council resolved to support in principle to enter into a lease for an off-road cycle park and BMX track at Marfell Park with New Plymouth BMX Club and New Plymouth Mountain Bikers Club. This would cover a large portion of the park in order to establish a new international standard track, four cross track and jump park. The development concept plan contemplates this development although the final layout may differ from than shown in this management plan. 3) Future development of Marfell will be in accordance with the development concept including: i. BMX and Cycling facilities (subject to the a lease being entered into) ii. Future removal and replacement of Crytomeria trees on the southern bank iii. Creation of new entrance ways in accordance with the Housing New Zealand Neighbourhood Master Plan iv. Relocation of the play equipment near a new entrance opposite Clerke Place or near the existing skate park v. An all-weather pathway though the park to provide connectivity through Marfell and towards the Mangatoku Pathway vi. Extension and sealing of the carpark injunction with the cycling facility development. vii. Relocation of softball nets to Hickford Park 4) Any earthworks at the park must be carefully managed in accordance with guidelines for management of contaminated sites.

71 Planning Committee Agenda - Recommendation - Relocation of Rangimarie Maori Arts and Crafts Society

Item for Recommendation

(Overflow parking 4 for events) Future removal and relocation of existing softball nets to Hickford

Future all-weather Pathway (chipseal with timber edging)

New Bike Racks

Specimen trees

72 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Exclusion of the Public for the Remainder of Meeting

Item for Decision

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING 5

MATTER This report details items that are recommended should be considered with the public excluded, and the reason for excluding the public.

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report, the Council hereby resolves that, pursuant to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting: a) Marfell Third Party Proposal The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information, where the making available of that information would be likely to unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information, this particular interest being protected by Section 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.) b) Residential Growth The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information, where the making available of that information would be likely to unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information, this particular interest being protected by Section 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.)

The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege, this particular interest being protected by section 7 (2)(g) of the Act.

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

COMPLIANCE

Significance This matter has been assessed as being of some importance.

73 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Exclusion of the Public for the Remainder of Meeting

Item for Decision

COMPLIANCE This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably 5 practicable options for addressing the matter:

Options 1. Exclude the public.

2. Not exclude the public.

This report recommends option one (1) for addressing the Recommendation matter.

Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan There are no budget considerations. Implications

Significant Policy and Plan This report is consistent with Council’s Policy and Plans. Inconsistencies

BACKGROUND This report details items that are recommended should be considered with the public excluded, and the reason for excluding the public.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some importance because the exclusion of the public is a statutory procedure that will have a little or no impact on the Council’s strategic issues.

OPTIONS Option 1 Pursuant to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, good reason exists to exclude the public for consideration of the items listed.

Option 2 The Council can choose to consider these matters in an open meeting.

Risk Analysis Release of information which meets the statutory tests for withholding (under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987) may expose the Council to legal, financial or reputational repercussions.

74 Planning Committee Agenda - Decision - Exclusion of the Public for the Remainder of Meeting

Item for Decision

5 Recommended Option This report recommends option one (1) exclusion of the public for addressing the matter.

Report Details Prepared By: Jan Holdt (Committee Adviser) Team: Democratic Services Approved By: Julie Straka (Governance Lead) Ward/Community: District Wide Date: 3 November 2016 File Reference: ECM 7271279

------End of Report ------