MEETING AGENDA
INGLEWOOD COMMUNITY BOARD
Tuesday 20 January 2015 at 1.30pm
Inglewood Town Hall, Inglewood
Chairperson: Mr Phillip Rowe Members: Mrs Jenny Bunn Mr Donald McIntyre Mr Kevin Rowan Cr Marie Pearce
INGLEWOOD COMMUNITY BOARD TUESDAY 20 JANUARY 2015 Community Boards
Role of community boards (s52 Local Government Act 2002) a) represent, and act as an advocate for, the interests of its community; and b) consider and report on matters referred by the council and other matters of interest c) maintain an overview of services provided by the council within the community; and d) prepare an annual submission to the council for expenditure within the community; e) communicate with community organisations and special interest groups within the community; and f) undertake any other responsibilities that are delegated to it by the territorial authority.
Addressing the community board Members of the public have an opportunity to address a community board during the public forum section or as a deputation.
A public forum section of up to 30 minutes precedes all community board 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.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 INGLEWOOD COMMUNITY BOARD TUESDAY 20 JANUARY 2015
APOLOGIES None advised.
PUBLIC FORUM None advised.
DEPUTATIONS None advised.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Recommendation: That the minutes of the Inglewood Community Board dated Tuesday 11 November 2014 and the proceedings of the said meeting, as previously circulated, be taken as read and confirmed as a true and correct record.
A ITEMS FOR DECISION BY INGLEWOOD COMMUNITY BOARD
No report received.
B ITEMS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
B1 JUNCTION ROAD LEASEHOLD LAND SALES - TEN YEAR FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME The matter for consideration by the Council is to endorse the proposed ten year forward work programme for Tarata Road and other roads in the former County of Inglewood and to endorse the proposed funding strategy outlined in this report.
B2 OUTLINE OF PROCESS FOR ROAD STOPPING AND SALES REVENUE POTENTIAL The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the stopping process for Council owned unformed legal road and the opportunities for sale revenue potential. In particular the report outlines:
1. The statutory process for stopping (ceases to be road) of unformed legal road vested in Council ownership and the methods by which road stopping and sale is instigated; and
2. The potential for the Council to proactively undertake a programme to identify, stop and sell stopped road parcels over and above stopping and sale that is instigated by way of standard application by the adjoining owner.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 INGLEWOOD COMMUNITY BOARD TUESDAY 20 JANUARY 2015
B3 ROAD NAMING The matter for consideration by the Council is the naming of new roads created as a result of subdivision and the formalisation of an existing road name.
B4 NZ PETROLEUM & MINERALS – PETROLEUM EXPLORATION BLOCK OFFER 2015 CONSULTATION Petroleum exploration Block Offer 2015 has been released by NZ Petroleum & Minerals (NZPM) inviting submissions from affected local authorities on matters of concern. Submissions close 9 February 2015.
B5 TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE – INGLEWOOD FIRST AMERICARNA The matter for consideration by the New Plymouth District Council is to recommend the temporary closure of roads in Inglewood to enable Inglewood First to hold Americarna Inglewood.
B6 TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURES – TARANAKI CAR CLUB The matter for consideration by the New Plymouth District Council is to recommend the temporary closure of roads in the New Plymouth District to enable the Taranaki Car Club to hold four separate motorsport events.
B7 DISTRICT PETROLEUM ACTIVITY UPDATE An update on petroleum activity matters within, or affecting, this District and it’s communities.
B8 PROPERTY (LAND) SALES REPORT TO 31 DECEMBER 2014 The purpose of this report is to provide an update on Land Sales as at 31 December 2014, outlining status of approved sales, potential sales, and other sales categories and supporting highlighted commentary on particular land sales. The last update was provided as at 30 June 2014.
B9 2015 REPRESENTATION REVIEW PROCESS The matter for consideration by the Council is the establishment of a preliminary consultation process for the 2015 Representation Review.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B1
JUNCTION ROAD LEASEHOLD LAND SALES - TEN YEAR FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME PREPARED BY: Stephen Bowden (Roading Programming Engineer) TEAM: Roading Assets APPROVED BY: Max Aves (Manager Roading Assets) WARD/COMMUNITY: Inglewood DATE: 19 December 2014 FILE REFERENCE: RT-12-01-05, ECM 6202755
MATTER The matter for consideration by the Council is to endorse the proposed ten year forward work programme for Tarata Road and other roads in the former County of Inglewood and to endorse the proposed funding strategy outlined in this report.
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report:
a) This project is included within the Draft Long Term Plan for 2015-2025, commencing in 2015/16.
b) The forward works programme outlined in this report is endorsed.
c) That $1 million from the Endowment Trust Account and the interest accrued over one year is used in year one to “kick start” the forward work programme to generate some impetuous. Thereafter the interest only will be used each year to fund maintenance and improvement work in the former County of Inglewood.
d) A further review of the project priorities is undertaken for the 2018-28 LTP and thereafter at three yearly intervals, commensurate with the development of future Long Term Plans.
COMPLIANCE This matter is of some significance. Significance
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 2 ITEM B1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
COMPLIANCE This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter following consultation with the residents and ratepayers of the former Inglewood County:
1. Endorse the proposed forward work programme for Tarata Road and other roads within the former County of Inglewood for inclusion in the LTP 2015-2025.
2. Endorse the expenditure of $1.36m in 2015/16 and thereafter the interest accrued from the Endowment Trust Fund.
Options 3. Endorse forward works programme but accelerate works to only expend $450,000 per annum from the endowment funds.
4. Endorse the forward works programme but expense $8m in works to utilise the full endowment funds.
5. Do not endorse the recommendations and leave the funds invested until further notice. On-going maintenance and improvements will be funded from existing Roading budgets, as budgets permit.
The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are the Affected persons residents and users of the roading network within the former County of Inglewood. Recommendation This report recommends options 1 and 2 for addressing the matter. Expenditure of the endowments funds on the maintenance and Long-Term Plan / improvement of Junction Road or other roads to meet the needs of the Annual Plan Inglewood community in providing good quality local road Implications infrastructure in a way that is most cost effective.
The matter is consistent with the Monitoring Committee resolution of Significant 21 May 2013 regarding the use of the proceeds from the sale of the Policy and Plan Junction Road leasehold land. The application of the expenditure of Inconsistencies the endowment proceeds is statutory based.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 3 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On 1 June 2010, the Council approved the sale of the estate in fee simple interest in the 25 Junction Road Leasehold Endowment properties owned by the Council by way of an offer to the existing lessees, limited to a 24 month take up period, with provision for conditional sale of any unsold freehold interests by way of auction, tender or private treaty at the discretion of the Chief Executive.
The freehold interests in 24 leasehold land farm properties have been sold and settled to date totalling $7.68m in sales. Taking into account the interest this fund has generated, there is currently $8m in the Endowment Trust Fund. In accordance with the conditions of the endowment, these funds are to be used for the purposes of undertaking maintenance and improvement works on Junction Road (now Tarata Road), and thereafter “other” roads located within the former Taranaki and Inglewood Counties, excluding Inglewood itself.
In May 2013 it was agreed that consultation would be undertaken with the affected landowners/residents to consider their views and preferences on the draft 10 year Road Maintenance and Improvement Work Programme.
BACKGROUND As a result of the report to the Monitoring Committee of 21 May 2013 regarding the use of the sale proceeds, that Committee re-affirmed that: a) Both the capital sale proceeds, net income and accrued interest from the separate Junction Road Endowment Trust Account, be applied for expenditure in terms of the purpose of the endowment; and b) The commissioning of an independent Engineer’s Report to identify the required “maintenance and improvement” to former Junction Road (now Tarata Road) and on satisfaction of those works to any surpluses to “Other Road Works”; and c) The Manager Roading Assets will prepare a draft 10 year Road Maintenance and Improvement Work Programme and undertake consultation with affected land owners/residents to seek and consider their views and preferences. The work programme is estimated to be completed by March 2014 and consultation undertaken by August 2014; and d) The final Road Works Programme of Expenditure will be included in the draft LTP 2015-25 for Council approval.
In accordance with c) above the residents within the former County of Inglewood, including those living in the former Inglewood Borough were invited to submit their views via a public consultation process, comprising of:
• Two advertised public meetings were held with the affected landowners/residents, on 30 July (Tarata Hall); and 14 August 2014 (Inglewood Town Hall). • A copy of the draft Detailed Forward Works Programme was provided to each member of the Inglewood Community Board.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 4 ITEM B1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
• Three copies of the draft Detailed Forward Works Programme were left at the Inglewood Library for public viewing. • The draft Detailed Forward Works Programme was uploaded onto NPDC’s website, including details of the consultation process. • Advertisements were placed in Seven Days and the Inglewood Moa magazine advising of the consultation period and where the report could be viewed. • 1307 individually addressed letters, including survey forms were sent to each resident within the catchment area, seeking their view and inviting them to attend one of the two meetings. • A further public meeting was held on 17 September 2014 at the Kaimata Hall to provide the results of the survey. These results have been included in Appendix A.
In accordance with d) above and as an early part of the LTP 2015-25 process, a draft Capex template was completed for the expenditure of these Junction Road Lease funds at a suggested rate of $800,000 per year, commencing in 2015/16.
SIGNIFICANCE In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter involved the community assisting with the prioritisation of the draft works programme that had been identified. It has been assessed as of some importance because the funding for the maintenance and improvement work identified in this report can be funded from the Junction Road Endowment Trust Fund.
OPTIONS Prior to the public consultation stage of this project, a “drive-over” was undertaken of all the roads within the catchment area to identify potential improvement projects. The list of projects identified was not exhaustive and it may not have necessarily contained potential sites that were of particular interest to residents of the catchment area. No attempt was made to prioritise the candidates identified, as it was the intention for the community engagement to establish the priorities. During the public engagement period, residents were invited to identify any projects that they felt had been omitted which could then be considered for inclusion. The only project of note that was raised at the public meeting on 30 July 2014, was a request to carry out significant improvements to the road over the Tarata saddle. Copies of the details of the individual sites, including photographs, were made available in a separately bound document and left at the Inglewood Library and also posted on NPDC’s web site.
Community Views and Preferences The public engagement period closed on the 20 August 2014 and the full results have been included in Appendix A. A further public meeting was held on 17 September at Kaimata Hall to discuss the results and also to undergo a “moderation” exercise. The purpose of this moderation was to remove those projects that would attract a New Zealand Transport Agency subsidy, for example safety improvements to the Tarata/Dudley Road intersection. Such
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 5 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B1
projects could normally be expected to be funded as a part of the traditional roading programme.
There was also some discussion relating to the widening of three single lane bridges along Tarata Road. The initial response from the community feedback, ranked these bridges at numbers 6, 10 and 14 respectively. The remaining life of these bridges is in the order of 20 - 30 years, the cost to replace these bridges with two lane bridges would be in the order of $2.5m. During the discussions with the community, it was agreed to reduce the ranking of these bridges and elevate lower ranking projects, for example seal widening at Purangi.
On the 16 September 2014, NPDC officers held an informal “moderation” meeting with the Inglewood Community Board. The purpose of the meeting was to provide the Community Board with the results of the survey and the rankings of the numerous projects. The meeting was used as a “litmus test” to identify the projects that could be removed to form part of the traditional roading programme and to gauge the Community Board’s view on the ranking of the projects that would remain as part of this ten year programme.
Having undergone the “moderation” of all the projects identified, the list below forms the programme of work that could commence in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan period. Also shown below is a list of the “other roads” within the catchment where work has been identified and we requested the community place these roads in priority order. There could be several sites on each of the roads listed below. The prioritisation of these projects/sites will be undertaken as part of the on-going three yearly community engagement process, as recommended under item d) above.
In accordance with the conditions of the endowment, these funds are to be used for the purposes of undertaking maintenance and improvement works on Junction Road (now Tarata Road), and thereafter “other” roads located within the former Taranaki and Inglewood Counties, excluding Inglewood itself. It should be noted that Bosworth Street in Egmont village scores higher than any of the projects indentified along Tarata Road. Given this high score, it is proposed to include Bosworth Street in year two of the first three year work programme, rather than wait potentially eight years before this work can be undertaken. During the public meeting held on 17 September 2014, Upland Road rated highly with some concerned residents. This road has been rated as the second most important road for improvements to be undertaken. Therefore, we are proposing to include these works into years two, three and four.
Traffic Counts
Tarata Road has the status of a rural Collector road from the fringes of Inglewood to the district boundary at Purangi. The traffic volumes vary along its 36.1 km length from 1215 vehicles per day, (vpd), at the fringes of Inglewood; 540 vpd at Kaimata; 121 vpd at Tarata to 35 vpd at Purangi/Stratford District Council boundary.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 6 ITEM B1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Programme of Work Having removed the projects that are likely to receive a subsidy from NZTA and thus be included in the traditional roading programme, of the 52 schemes originally identified, the table below indicates the remaining 31 projects in descending order of importance to the community. A list of the projects that could receive funding from NZTA is shown in Appendix B. Approx. Score* Rank Cost Responses in ranked order - Tarata Road $ Realignment through 45kph curves (rapid 8.98-10) 106 1 654,000 Seal widening over blind brow (rapid 23.11-23.33) 101 2 6,800 Seal widen L and R over blind brow (rapid 22-22.08) 92 3 5,500 RHS bank trim and seal widen before Munga Street (rapid 17.68-17.82) 86 4 30,000 Seal widening left or right (rapid 20.8-22) 81 5 66,000 LHS ease curve (rapid 3.3-3.45) 76 6 33,500 Widen left and right over blind brow (rapid 16.51-16.64) 74 7 34,500 LHS tie back wall (rapid 13.32-13.35) 68 8 166,000 Ease 45kph and 35kph curves right and left hand (rapid 10.85- 11.55) 64 9 288,000 RHS retaining wall (rapid 34.4) 63 10 77,000 Realignment through 55kph curves (rapid 6.3-6.75) 60 11 373,000 Seal widen either side of 3 blind brows (rapid 27.9-28.34) 59 12 24,000 RHS bank trim and seal widen (rapid 12.36-12.46) 57 13 25,000 Seal widening left or right (24.5-25.05) 54 14 30,500 Seal widening over blind brow (rapid 22.8-22.9) 53 15 8,800 Bristol Road intersection. RHS seal widen (rapid 1.95-1.1) 51 16 23,000 LHS bank trim at 30kph corner (rapid 33.4-33.45) 50 17 46,500 Minor bank trims and seal extension (rapid 34.06-35.92) 50 17 495,000 LHS seal widening (rapid 22.6-22.7) 46 19 5,500 LHS seal widening (rapid 23.7-24.49) 45 20 43,500 RHS bank trim and seal widen (rapid 19.63-19.72) 43 21 31,500 LHS ease curve and seal widen (rapid 11.9-12.1) 42 22 110,000 RHS minor bank trims and seal widening (13.06-13.61) 42 22 122,000 Seal widen at Hall (rapid 17.4-17.51) 41 24 15,200 Widen seal left or right (rapid 25.2-26.1) 41 24 49,500 LHS ease curve and seal widen (rapid 8.25-8.35) 39 26 22,000 RHS bank trim for improved visibility (rapid 10.3-10.42) 39 26 25,500 LHS seal widening (rapid 27.1-27.85) 34 28 41,500 Seal widening left or right (rapid 26.9-27.16) 33 29 14,400 Ease curves, widen LHS (rapid 20.62-20.85) 32 30 75,500 RHS seal widen (rapid 26.7-26.9) 32 30 11,000 2,954,200
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 7 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B1
Based on a first year budget of $1.36m and thereafter an annual budget of $300,000, (anticipated interest), the table below provides a list of the projects and the year in which we propose the work could be undertaken.
Proposed Works Programme.
Project Ranking Approx Cost Year $ Realignment through 45kph curves (rapid 8.98-10) 1 654,000 2015/16 Seal widening over blind brow (rapid 23.11-23.33) 2 6,800 2015/16 Seal widen L and R over blind brow (rapid 22-22.08) 3 5,500 2015/16 RHS bank trim and seal widen before Munga Street 2015/16 (rapid 17.68-17.82) 4 30,000 Seal widening left or right (rapid 20.8-22) 5 66,000 2015/16 LHS ease curve (rapid 3.3-3.45) 6 33,500 2015/16 Widen left and right over blind brow (rapid 16.51- 2015/16 16.64) 7 34,500 LHS tie back wall (rapid 13.32-13.35) 8 166,000 2015/16 Ease 45kph and 35kph curves right and left hand (rapid 2015/16 10.85-11.55) 9 288,000 Total for year 1 1,284,300
Bosworth Street Upgrade 1 71,000 2016/17 Upland Road safety improvements (rapid 2.36 and 2 91,000 2016/17 6.55) RHS retaining wall (rapid 34.4) 10 77,000 2016/17 Total for year 2 239,000
Realignment through 55kph curves (rapid 6.3-6.75) 11 373,000 2017/18 Upland Road safety improvements (rapid 5.30) 2 30,500 2017/18 Total for year 3 403,500
Seal widen either side of 3 blind brows (rapid 27.9- 12 24,000 2018/19 28.34) RHS bank trim and seal widen (rapid 12.36-12.46) 13 25,000 2018/19 Seal widening left or right (24.5-25.05) 14 30,500 2018/19 Seal widening over blind brow (rapid 22.8-22.9) 15 8,800 2018/19 Bristol Road intersection. RHS seal widen (rapid 1.95- 2018/19 1.1) 16 23,000 LHS bank trim at 30kph corner (rapid 33.4-33.45) 17 46,500 2018/19 Upland Road safety improvements (rapid 1.83) 2 31,000 2018/19 Total for year 4 188,800
Minor bank trims and seal extension (rapid 34.06- 17 495,000 2019/20 35.92) Total for year 5 495,000
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 8 ITEM B1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Project Ranking Approx Cost Year $ LHS seal widening (rapid 22.6-22.7) 19 5,500 2020/21 LHS seal widening (rapid 23.7-24.49) 20 43,500 2020/21 RHS bank trim and seal widen (rapid 19.63-19.72) 21 31,500 2020/21 LHS ease curve and seal widen (rapid 11.9-12.1) 22 110,000 2020/21 Total for year 6 190,500
RHS minor bank trims and seal widening (13.06-13.61) 22 122,000 2021/22 Seal widen at Hall (rapid 17.4-17.51) 24 15,200 2021/22 Widen seal left or right (rapid 25.2-26.1) 24 49,500 2021/22 LHS ease curve and seal widen (rapid 8.25-8.35) 26 22,000 2021/22 RHS bank trim for improved visibility (rapid 10.3- 2021/22 10.42) 26 25,500 LHS seal widening (rapid 27.1-27.85) 28 41,500 2021/22 Seal widening left or right (rapid 26.9-27.16) 29 14,400 2021/22 Total for year 7 290,100
Ease curves, widen LHS (rapid 20.62-20.85) 30 75,500 2022/23 RHS seal widen (rapid 26.7-26.9) 30 11,000 2022/23 Total for year 8 86,500
In order to achieve the proposed programme outlined above, any savings made should be accrued into successive year’s programmes in order to fund larger projects which exceed the $300,000 anticipated interest. Alternatively, some of the projects can be re-scheduled and included in subsequent year’s programmes.
Other Roads - Responses in ranked order
As the total number of projects identified during the “drive over” amounted to 216, of which 52 were located on Tarata Road, we asked the community to focus on Tarata Road in the first instance, and then rank the “other roads” in order of preference, rather than try to rank/rate all 216 projects. This resulted in the ranking shown below for the other roads located in the catchment area.
No. of Score* Responses Rank Bosworth Street 298 67 1 Upland Road 59 17 2 Bristol Road 42 16 3 Motukawa Road 41 16 4 Autawa Road 39 17 5 Durham Rd Lower 39 15 6 Lepper Road Upper 37 13 7 Dudley Road Upper 35 13 8 Windsor Road 30 13 9
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 9 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B1
Wortley Road 29 11 10 Hursthouse Road 28 11 11 Lincoln Road 27 12 12 Kaimata Rd North 26 11 13 Norfolk Rd Lower 26 11 14 Bedford Rd North 25 12 15 Everett Road 24 11 16 Mangaone Road 24 10 17 Tariki Rd North 23 11 18 Tariki Rd South 23 11 19 Bedford Road South 20 11 20 Kaimata Rd South 17 9 21 Davis Road 16 10 22 Suffolk Rd South 16 9 23 Ratapiko Road 15 9 24 Richmond Road 15 8 25 Durham Rd Upper 14 10 26 Johns Road 14 9 27 Norfolk Rd Upper 14 8 28 Salisbury Road 12 8 29 Rugby Road 11 8 30 Surrey Road 11 9 31 Derby Road (North) 8 9 32 Derby Road (South) 8 9 33 Ngaro Road 8 8 34 Oapuhi Road 5 7 35
Funding Strategies.
Strategy 1. As an early part of the LTP 2015-25 process, a draft Capex template was completed for the expenditure of these Junction Road lease funds at a proposed rate of $800,000 per year, commencing in 2015/16. Thus far an overall total of $15m of improvement work has been identified. Of this, $5,217,200 can be funded using subsidised maintenance, renewal and improvement budgets, as a part of the traditional roading programme, as shown in Appendix B. The remaining $9.8m of work represents the value of the identified works for addressing via the lease funds.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 10 ITEM B1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Strategy 2. Currently the Endowment Trust Fund accrues interest at 4.5 percent per annum. With a total investment of $8m this will generate $360,000 in interest payments. This strategy proposes to spend the interest only on maintenance and improvements within the catchment area. With this level of expenditure, it is anticipated that the work identified will take 28 years to complete. This does not include any projects which we are not aware of or those that may be brought to our attention during this period.
Strategy 3. In order to give this project immediate impact and impetuous, $1m of the principal and one year’s interest (making a total of $1.36M), is used in year one to make immediate headway into the list of projects outline above. Thereafter, the remaining $7m remains invested to provide a return of $300,000 - $315,000 to be used from year two onwards to continue with the work identified. On this basis, it will take 28 years to complete the programme due to the reduced expenditure from year two onwards. This is the recommended strategy.
Strategy 4. The rate of expenditure per year is reduced from $800,000 to $450,000 comprising of the interest and a small amount of the capital until all the funds are utilised to complete the work that has been identified. This will take 23 years to complete the projects indentified.
Strategy 5. Leave the funds invested in the Endowment Trust Fund and consider this programme of work at some point in time in the future.
Risk Analysis. No specific risks are indentified provided the Council expends the endowment funds consistent with the Taranaki County Reserves Act 1966 and the Local Government Act 2002. As some projects will involve land acquisition the Council will undertake consultation with affected rural property owners/residents before implementing a Works Programme for expenditure.
Recommended Option This report recommends options 1 and 2 for addressing the matter.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 11 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B1
APPENDICES Appendix A – Results of feedback from the community.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 12 ITEM B1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 13 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B1
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 14 ITEM B1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 15 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B1
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 16 ITEM B1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015
17 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B1
Appendix B – List of works to be funded from traditional Roading/NZTA budgets.
Project Initial Approx Approx Year Community Cost $ Ranking Tarata Road Lower Dudley Road intersection 2 77,000 2015/16 safety improvement (rapid 0.58- 0.73) Bristol Road intersection RHS seal 25 23,000 2023 widen (rapid 1.95 – 2.10) Widen single lane bridge (rapid 6 149,000 2045. Approx date 2.28) – extra over costs to widen to for bridge to be two lane replaced Lower Durham Road intersection 1 153,000 2015/16 safety improvements (rapid 3.84- 3.89) Widen single lane bridge (rapid 10 220,000 2050. Approx date 4.15) – extra over costs to widen to for bridge to be two lane replaced Widen single lane bridge (rapid 14 99,000 2026. Approx date 7.82) – extra over costs to widen to for bridge to be two lane replaced Widen RHS and strengthen road 39 144,000 2020 Road is (rapid 16.0-16.32) showing signs of failure Minor improvements to Otaraoa 35 15,000 2030 Road intersection (rapid 20.21- 20.29) Provide site rail on RHS (rapid 45 3,100 2015 20.53-20.57) Remove vegetation on RHS (rapid 28 2,800 2015 23.60-23.65) Ease 35km/h corner (rapid 25.05- 31 60,000 2020 25.20) Site benching and seal widening at 19 9,400 2016 culvert #149 (rapid 31.50-31.55) Bank trim and seal widening on 12 26,000 2016 RHS (rapid 31.55-31.60) Removal of pine trees for safety 33 11,000 2025 (rapid 32.40-32.45) Build new retaining wall RHS 17 77,000 2019 (rapid 34.40) Total for Tarata Road 1,069,300
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 18 ITEM B1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Project Initial Approx Approx Year Community Cost $ Ranking Other Roads Bedford Road North – Seal 15 467,500 2034-2054 –Approx widening, widening single lane dates for bridges to be bridges replaced Bedford Road South – widening 20 482,000 2034-2064 – Approx single lane bridges dates for bridges to be replaced Bristol Road – Seal widening, 3 1,100,000 2018-2055*. Approx safety improvements and bridge date for bridge widening replacement Davis Road – Safety 22 44,000 2016-2017 improvements Durham Road – Rapid 7.58 - 26 2,100 2015 Seal widening at entrance Everett Road – Seal widening, 16 839,800 2015-2045*. Approx widen single lane bridge, date for bridge intersection improvements replacement. Hursthouse Road – Seal 11 91,000 2020 widening (rapid 0.02-1.12) Kaimata Road North – minor 13 12,000 2016 safety improvements Kaimata Road South – Seal 20 93,000 2020-2025 widening and minor safety improvements Lepper Road Upper – Widen 7 99,000 2055 – due date for single lane bridge and improve bridge replacement approaches (rapid 5.70) Motukawa Road – Retreat away 4 221,000 2015-2018 from three underslips. Norfolk Road Lower – Seal 14 124,000 2030 widening (rapid 0.10 – 1.90) Norfolk Road Upper – Seal 28 41,000 2040 widening (rapid 1.35 – 1.95) Rugby Road – Widening of 30 182,000 2035-2065. Approx single lane bridges dates for bridges to be replaced Salisbury Road – Widen single 29 44,000 2050 Approx date for lane bridge (rapid 0.04) bridge to be replaced Tariki Road South – Widen 19 275,000 2040. Approx single lane bridge (rapid 3.70) replacement date for bridge Upland Road – Ease curves 2 30,500 2017 Total for Other Roads 4,147,900
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B2
OUTLINE OF PROCESS FOR ROAD STOPPING AND SALES REVENUE POTENTIAL PREPARED BY: Murray Greig (Property Consultant) Steve Corlett (Property Officer) TEAM: Property Assets APPROVED BY: Peter Handcock (Manager Property Assets) WARD/COMMUNITY: District Wide DATE: 19 December 2014 FILE REFERENCE: CM 08 28 01 v05, ECM 6201650
PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the stopping process for Council owned unformed legal road and the opportunities for sale revenue potential. In particular the report outlines:
1. The statutory process for stopping (ceases to be road) of unformed legal road vested in Council ownership and the methods by which road stopping and sale is instigated; and
2. The potential for the Council to proactively undertake a programme to identify, stop and sell stopped road parcels over and above stopping and sale that is instigated by way of standard application by the adjoining owner.
RECOMMENDATION That, having considered all matters raised in the report, the report be noted.
a) It is noted that the statutory process for road stopping (ceases to be of road status on revocation) of unformed legal road and disposal more particularly set out in this report, is carried out under the provisions of two statues being either:
i. Sections 319(h), 342(1) and the Tenth Schedule of the Local Government Act 1974; or
ii. Section 116(1) and 117 of the Public Works Act 1981.
b) It is noted that the ownership of all local roads as defined in Section 315 of the Local Government Act 1974, (which includes access way and service lane) are vested in an estate in fee simple (freehold) in the Council for the purpose of road pursuant to Section 316(1) of the Act.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 2 ITEM B2 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
c) It is noted that the majority of road stoppings for sale purposes, are instigated by the adjoining land owner, excepting those that might otherwise be randomly identified or are associated directly with road acquisition and disposal, for the realignment, diversions, diminishing, widening, improvement or formation of local roads to secure ownership, upgrade road infrastructure and provide for better safety and visibility.
d) It is noted that of the $9M in land sales since 2006 that only $0.65M is represented in the sale of stopped road at an average net sale price return of $25,000, noting that the blanket aggregated road stopping and sale of parcels of land on Messenger Terrace is a one off exception, compared to the mainstream individual parcel road stopping and sale.
e) It is noted that the returns achieved historically from road stopping sales (principally limited to adjoining owners) provides an overall marginal fiscal economic return, weighted against applied resources and is not conducive to a programme of proactive road stopping sales, as a means of achieving any substantial net pecuniary revenue cash flows. f) It is noted that the statutory process for road stopping and sale under the Local Government Act 1974 (to which the Council is principally confined) can be onerous and costly and subject to objection to the Environment Court, and in recognising that adjoining owners who have free grazing use of unfenced unformed legal road in rural areas, may not wish to purchase unformed legal road parcels bisecting their property, nor cannot be forced to do so. g) It is noted that all applications for the stopping and sale of stopped road are scrutinised on merit, desired outcomes and economies consistent with other land sales, in particular the net revenue potential.
SIGNIFICANCE This report is provided for information purposes only and has been assessed as a matter of low significance. Road Stopping and disposal are dealt with case by case through a report to the Council and this report outlines the process and considers the limited marginal economic potential for actively promoting road stopping and sale as a means of securing additional revenue for budgetary purposes.
DISCUSSION 1. Property Ownership in Local Roads Under Section 316(1) of the Local Government Act 1974, the ownership of all local roads are vested in an estate in fee simple (freehold) in the Council.
A local road (includes an access way and service lane) means any road other than a motorway or state highway road vested in the Crown under the Government Roading Powers Act 1989 that is under the control of the NZ Transport Agency.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 3 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B2
The majority of road stopped (ceases to be road on revocation) is unformed legal road (paper road) and stopping under the Local Government Act 1974 rarely includes the part or whole of a portion of formed road that could more commonly occur with a road legalisation realignments under the Public Works Act 1981.
2. Power of the Council to Stop Local Road under the Local Government Act 1974 Under Section 319(h) the Local Government Act 1974, the Council has power to stop a road or part thereof and dispose of the land upon conditions set out in Section 342 and the Tenth Schedule of the Local Government Act 1974.
More particularly Section 342(1) (a) provides that the Council may in the manner set out in the Tenth Schedule of the Act, stop any road or part thereof in the district provided that the Council shall not proceed to stop any road or part thereof in a rural area unless the prior consent of the Minister of Land Information has been obtained. The requirement to obtain prior consent of the Minister, does not apply to the stopping of local urban roads.
3. Status of Local Road on Stopping under Local Government Act 1974. Road declared to be stopped ceases to have the legal status of road and following securing title under the Land Transfer Act 1952, becomes unencumbered estate in fee simple (freehold) held by the Council as the registered proprietor. The Council is then able to dispose of the land by way of sale of title to the land, principally by way of a condition of amalgamated title with the adjoining land title, to eliminate the creation of fragmented and minimum size land parcels that do not meet the allotment sizes in the District Plan.
4. How Road Stopping are Instigated Road Stopping and sales are triggered by:
i. In the main by direct application and payment of an upfront fee by the adjoining land owner; or
ii. The Council identifying a potential road stopping and sale if there is a significant building encroachment (dwelling on legal road) or other situations where for one reason or more it is beneficial to instigate a road stopping following agreement with the affected land owner(s).
For enquiries the Council has a hard copy information brochure “Purchasing Unformed Legal Road” also available on the Council website and officers field and answer enquiries on the feasibility of proposals, process and cost.
Applications are initially evaluated on need to retain the road area, whether or not access to land will be restricted (landlocked) or if there are any other impediments to stopping and sale. Evaluation includes estimates of potential sale price and costs and subsequent agreement with owner on process and costs. A determination would be made at the time if the application should be processed under either the Local Government Act 1974 or Public Works Act 1981.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 4 ITEM B2 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
5. Brief Summary of Process for Road Stopping under the Tenth Schedule of the Local Government Act 1974
. If the stopping relates to a rural road, the prior consent of the Minister of Land Information’s delegate is obtained to meet the requirements of the legislation.
. Assuming that the application is to be processed, Cadastral Survey is undertaken and Survey Office plan is prepared and approved as to survey (mandatory requirement).
. Consultation is undertaken with iwi/hapu on the road stopping proposal.
. A report is prepared and submitted to the Monitoring Committee seeking approval to the stopping and sale of the freehold of the land at market value.
. If the proposed road stopping is approved by the Council, fixed signage is put in place at each end of the road proposed to be stopped that includes details and a plan. The signage placement is timed in line with the first public publication of the road stopping notice and expiration date for lodging any objection.
. Public notice requirement is given at least twice at intervals of not less than seven days calling for any objection with the period for objection remaining open for 40 days.
. If objections are received a further report is submitted to the Council to consider the objections and make a decision on proceeding with the road stopping and an application to the Environment Court. If no objections are received the road stopping can be implemented.
. If the matter goes to the Environment Court (the hearing could take place up to six months later depending on the backlog of cases already before the court) either the Court approves or declines the stopping. If declined any further road stopping application is statute barred for a period of two years. (It will be noted that in the past three years, two road stopping proposals have been the subject of objection and review by the Environment Court).
. If the stopping is approved either by Court or the Council (as the case maybe), the road can be declared to be stopped by the giving of the required public notice and an unencumbered Computer Freehold Register to the land in an estate in fee simple (freehold) secured under the Land Transfer Act 1952 in the name of the Council as registered proprietor.
. Disposal of the land is then implemented on the terms approved by way of Council resolution.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 5 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B2
6. Council Statutory Powers to Dispose of Land not Required for Road under the Local Government Act 1974 Under Section 345(1) (a) of the Act, the Council may either in:
i. Forming a new road or any part thereof.
ii. Diverting an existing road or any part thereof.
iii. Diminishing the width of an existing road or part thereof.
iv. Stopping any part thereof not required as road may either;
a) i. Sell that part to the owner of any adjoining land for a price fixed by a competent valuer appointed by the Council (no legal requirement imposed to negotiate a price); or
ii. Grant a lease of that part to the owner or an adjoining owner for a rental and such conditions as the Council thinks fit; and
iii. If no such owner or owners are willing to purchase the land at the fixed price or take a lease, the Council may pursuant to a Special Order sell or lease the land by public auction or private tender; or
b) Apply part or any part thereof to any purpose which the Council may apply land; or
c) Grant a lease or any part thereof for such terms and conditions as it thinks fit for use for any purpose to which the Council may apply land; or
d) Transfer that part or any part thereof to the Crown for a public reserve or for addition to a public reserve or for any purpose of public convenience or utility as Crown land subject to the Land Act 1948.
7. Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 Section 345(1A) provides that for avoidance of doubt that Section 345 does not apply to the common marine and coastal area under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 6 ITEM B2 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
8. Resumption of Unformed Legal Road by the Crown under Local Government Act 1974 Note that under Section 323 of the Local Government Act 1974, that where road vested in the Council by Section 191A (1) of the Counties Act 1956, (by way of the Counties Amendment Act 1972 which came into force on 1 January 1973) the Minister of Land Information may by notice in writing to the Council require the road where it continues to be unformed to transfer that road to the Crown without consideration, by gazettal declaration, wherein it would become Crown land subject to the Land Act 1948.
Situations involving resumption by the Crown are very infrequent and would generally be invoked where the Crown through the Department of Conservation sought to add land to a National Park, Conservation Area or Scenic Reserve.
9. Title Amalgamation Condition under Local Government Act 1974 Where the Council disposes of the estate in fee simple (freehold) of land comprising former stopped road, it may require notwithstanding the provisions in any other enactment, the amalgamation of that land into with the adjoining owners land under one Computer Freehold Register title. This condition is imposed on such sales so as not to create allotments that would otherwise contravene subdivision rules in the District Plan.
10. Specific Provisions relating to Water Margins Section 345(3) of the Act, sets out specific requirements regarding the stopping of roads that abut water margins where esplanade reserves are created. More particularly where any road or part thereof is stopped:
. Along the high springs water mark of the sea; or . Along the bank of any river with an average width of 3 metres or more; or . Along the margin of any lake with an area of 8 hectares,
There shall become vested in the Council (as the administering body) as esplanade reserve (as defined in Section 2(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the purposes of Section 229 of that Act) subject to the Reserves Act 1977:
a) A strip forming part of the land that ceases to be road that is less than 20 metres wide (unless a Rule in the District Plan under Section 77 of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides otherwise - there are no rules currently exist in the District Plan, so the statutory provisions prevail); or
b) The full width of the land that ceases to be road - whichever is the lesser.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 7 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B2
11. Purposes of Esplanade Reserves under Section 229 of the Resource Management Act 1991 Esplanade Reserves created on road stopping are held for the purposes of Section 229 of the RMA for the purpose:
a) To contribute to the protection of conservation values by in particular-
i. Maintaining or enhancing the natural functioning of the adjacent sea, river or lake; or ii. Maintaining or enhancing water quality; or iii. Maintaining or enhancing aquatic habitats; or iv. Protecting the natural values associated with the esplanade reserve; or v. Mitigating natural hazards; or
b) To enable public access to or along any sea, river or lake.
c) To enable public recreational use of the esplanade reserve and adjacent sea, river or lake where the use is compatible with conservation values.
12. Preservation of Public Access associated with Road Stopping Within the confines of express or implied statutory provisions, the public has a right at common law to pass and repass along a road, and there are substantial areas of unformed legal (Paper) road in rural areas, and along water bodies that provide access to water bodies (sea, lakes and rivers) for water recreation activities (swimming, kayaking) passive recreation (picnicking) and fishing.
Public access is recognised in legislation under the Walking Access Act 2008, the purpose of that legislation providing for free, certain and practical walking access to the outdoors, including around the coast and lakes, rivers and to public resources. The legislation provides for negotiating walking access arrangements involving public and private land and includes paper roads and the declaration of land as walkway by the Walkways Commission, and the appointment of controlling authorities which may include a local authority. The walkways while principally facilitating walking access can nevertheless in given circumstances also provide for cycling and other vehicle use.
Under Section 6(d) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes and rivers is provided for as a matter of national importance. Thus the Act provides for the laying off of public reserves or provision of esplanade strips along waterbodies indentified in the District Plan.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 8 ITEM B2 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Conservation Act 1987, National Parks Act 1980 and Reserves Act 1977 also provide generally for free public access to conservation areas, national parks and public reserves. Additionally, the Local Government Act 1974 also makes provision for the Crown to resume roads vested in territorial local authorities at nil consideration, generally where it is considered that such areas should be added to protected areas.
The preservation and enhancement of public access is therefore a matter that is taken into consideration by the Environment Court where considering objections to a road stopping by a territorial local authority. The Court while focusing generally on the future need to retain road to be stopped for sale, can take any relevant matters it so considers into account.
As a local Council example, evidence of rigorous scrutiny for the preservation of public access was involved in the multiple stopping of a number of connecting grid roads at Pukearuhe that was considered by the Environment Court following objection. The roads were originally surveyed off during the period of early colonial settlement for the Township of Pukearuhe, but the township was never developed.
That case demonstrates the high standard to be applied by Council’s in considering comprehensively all of the implications directly or indirectly associated to road stopping revocation principally in rural areas.
In practice the higher standard in effect adds to the complexity, uncertainty and financial resources required to deal with road stoppings in rural areas should such stoppings proceed to the Environment Court for a final decision.
13. Policy P11-004 Encroachments on Road Reserve This broad policy deals with private use of council land, and road reserve, the road reserve including footpaths, formed road and unformed road as a means of managing exclusive private uses, buildings and structures or airspace occupied by structures. Such activities can be accommodated by the grant of Encroachment Licences, however in the case of occupation of unformed legal road it may not be a substitute for a preferred road stopping and sale.
Encroachment Licences are for the most part applied in urban areas and rarely would be applied in a rural setting for occupation of unformed legal road.
14. Policy P05 -019 Approval of Properties for Sale and Method of Sale Council policy is applied in conjunction with statutory provisions under the Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002 as applicable, noting that all stoppings and sales are subject to a Council report and approval.
In addition the same situation applies to stopping, exchange, disposal where transactions are undertaken under the Public Works Act 1981.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 9 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B2
15. Consultation Public Notice requirements and iwi consultation is undertaken in respect of road stopping as applicable (unless dispensed with on a case by case basis) and including in certain cases with adjacent land owners in terms of:
. Council Significance and Engagement Policy P14-005 (in lieu of supplanted Council Consultation Policy P09-001). . Council Policy P05-019 Approval of Properties for Sale and Method of Sale. . Local Government Act 1974 and 2002. . Public Works Act 1981.
Note that there is an extensive public process involved in road stopping under the Local Government Act 1974, but less so under the Public Works Act 1981.
16. Road Stopping under the Public Works Act 1981 Under Section 116 of the Public Works Act 1981, the Council can seek the consent of the Minister of Land Information to stop any road under its control as defined in Section 315 of the Local Government Act 1974. That is the Council has no autonomous powers under the Act, to stop a road but must seek the consent of the Minister of Land Information delegate.
However, under Section 117 of the Act, the Council is able to deal with stopped road (notwithstanding any offer back requirement under Section 40 of that Act) in the same manner and in all respects as if the road had been stopped under the Local Government Act 1974.
The prerequisite for a achieving a road stopping under the Public Works Act 1981, is that either:
i. Adequate road access to land adjoining the road is left or provided; or
ii. The owners of the land adjoining the road or part of the road consent in writing to the stopping.
Note that unlike the Local Government Act 1974, where there is a mandatory requirement for public notice and provision for objection and appeal to the Environment Court, there is no such requirement under the Public Works Act 1981.
Under Section 118 of the Public Works Act 1981, the provisions of Section 345(3) of the Local Government Act 1974 applies to any road stopped along the mean high water springs of the sea, or along the bank of any river or the margin of any lake as the case maybe.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 10 ITEM B2 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
One of the essential differences between the Local Government Act 1974 and the Public Works Act 1981, is that under the former Act only road stoppings can be undertaken with any disposal being undertaken by standard conveyance and title amalgamation. Whereas under the Public Works Act 1981, road stopping, exchange and vesting by ministerial declaration in adjoining land owners can be undertaken.
In all cases involving road legalisation the only option is to use the Public Works Act 1981.
Where road stopping only is involved each case is treated on its merits as to whether it is appropriate to use the Public Works Act 1981 or the Local Government Act 1974.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCING IMPLICATIONS Road stoppings essentially fit into two categories.
a) One where the Council wishes to undertake a road alignment or acquire land for road requirements; and
b) One where the adjoining land owner specifically makes application to stop and purchase unformed legal road or as the case maybe infrequently where that is instigated by the Council.
Where land is being acquired under the Public Works Act 1981, in respect of a road legalisation (road alignment etc) to improve road safety/visibility the cost is meet from the Roading budget. Any acquisition would be offset in land value compensation by any road stopped, and or severance area that is vested in an owner in exchange for the land acquired.
Where an adjoining owner wishes to purchase a stopped road, in the majority of cases the revenue exceeds the cost, so there are no budgetary requirements.
17. Road Stopping Costs These include:
. Scheme plans, Cadastral survey and plan costs. . Drawing up Agreements. . Preparing and registering Compensation Certificates as may be appropriate. . Land Valuation costs. . Land Information NZ (LINZ) Accredited Agents costs and or Conveyance legal costs and fees. . Potential rates costs where road stopping sales do not proceed for one reason or another. . Staff and Council resources.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 11 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B2
Where it is possible the cost of survey, valuation and other costs are recovered for road stopping under the Local Government Act 1974, noting that this is not always practicable or achievable in certain sales and all cases are treated on their merits based on objective outcome sought and achieving a positive net return.
Often under the Public Works Act 1981, where the Council is both acquiring road and disposing of stopped road, it is bound as the acquiring authority by the provisions for compensation under the Act and Government policy through Land Information NZ to meet the costs of the land owner involved in facilitating the transaction are directly imposed on the Council as the acquiring authority. These transactions therefore constitute a cost to the Council and examples include road realignments, acquiring formed road that is situated in part or whole on private land.
18. Potential Sales from a Programme of Road Stopping Land Sales As indicated, the Council is principally confined to undertaking road stopping under the Local Government Act 1974, which places a more onerous statutory and less cost effective process on the Council than compared to that of the Public Works Act 1981. Use of the Public Works Act 1981 is confined in the main to land acquisition and disposal and road legalisation.
The majority of road stoppings are under the Local Government Act 1974, usually initiated by the adjoining owner and the process requires a prerequisite cadastral survey/approved plan, followed by public notification/signage and an objection process with rights of appeal to the Environment Court with no guarantee of a successful road stopping outcome.
Road stopping by adjoining owners in rural areas are tempered by the fact that unless there is good reason to acquire stopped road, land owners can enjoy free use/grazing of unfenced road bisecting and farmed in conjunction with their farm property. In addition it is not possible, while providing an indicative price for the purchase of stopped road to legally contractually bind the owner to purchase any stopped road parcel, until all of the statutory processes have been completed. Should the Council not follow the correct statutory process, the process undertaken could be challenged by way of a judicial review.
As indicated, while the Public Works Act 1981 is less onerous and more cost effective as there is no requirement to undertake an initial cadastral survey/plan or publicly notify, there are limitations on the use of the legislation for straight out road stopping where the Council is expected to use the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974.
Applications for the stopping and sale of road are scrutinised for outcome and economies consistent with other land sales, revenue potential versus costs and staff resources. Overall there is only an average marginal return on the stopping and sale of road, and there would be no advantage in proactively undertaking a wide scale road stopping programme.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 12 ITEM B2 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT This report confirms that the matter concerned has no particular implications in terms of the Local Government Act 2002. Road stopping is a statutory process that is carried out in accord with legislation and Council Sales Policy, noting this report is principally for information purposes only.
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Copy of Tenth Schedule to Local Government Act 1974 Appendix B - Council Road Stopping Brochure Appendix C - Policy on Approval of Properties for Sale and Method of Sale
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 13 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B2
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 14 ITEM B2 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 15 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B2
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 16 ITEM B2 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 17 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B2
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 18 ITEM B2 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 19 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B2
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 20 ITEM B2 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B3
ROAD NAMING PREPARED BY: Rowan Williams (Team Leader Consents) TEAM: Resource Consents APPROVED BY: Liam Hodgetts (Group Manager Strategy) WARD/COMMUNITY: District-wide DATE: 8 January 2015 FILE REFERENCE: ECM 6205884
MATTER The matter for consideration by the Council is the naming of new roads created as a result of subdivision and the formalisation of an existing road name.
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report:
1. The following road and road names be approved and the Group Manager Business Performance allocate street numbers to the properties fronting these roads:
(a) Foundry Lane (b) Katikara Drive (c) Whitaker Street East
COMPLIANCE Significance This matter is of some significance. This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter:
Options 1. Approve the recommended road and right of way names
2. Do not approve some or all recommended names and report back with alternatives The persons who are affected by or have an interest in road naming generally are identified in the road naming policy and include the Affected persons developer, iwi and hapu and any property owners or occupiers whose property address will require to be changed as a consequence of the naming of the road. Recommendation This report recommends Option 1 for addressing the matter. Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan No Implications
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 2 ITEM B3 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
COMPLIANCE Significant Policy and Plan No Inconsistencies
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report proposes names for roads created as a result of recent subdivisions and the formalisation of an existing road name. The proposed names for the new roads have been identified in accordance with the criteria and process outlined in Policy 11-002 Policy on Naming and Renaming of Roads, Private Roads and Rights-of Way.
BACKGROUND Roads created as a result of subdivision, and which are to be vested in Council, are required to be named under Section 319(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.
In accordance with the road naming policy, once a road requires naming or renaming the Council will identify and notify affected parties and provide an opportunity to propose a name for the road meeting the criteria set out in the policy.
While the Council has no obligation to name a private road or ROW, these may be named at the request of the property owner.
The subdivisions which have created the new roads referred to in this report have all reached the stage of completion and naming is now required to meet statutory requirements and so that signage and road numbering can be undertaken and arrangements made for service connections.
Plans showing the locations of the roads are appended to this report.
The process for naming new roads set out in the policy has been followed, including the notification of affected parties, the receipt of any suggested names and the assessment of those names against the criteria set out in the policy.
The recommended names were generally the only complying suggestions received and have connections with the relevant localities as follows:
- Foundry Lane: The naming of this street was included in the previous road naming report (November 2014) with the recommended name of ‘Underwood Lane’ but deferred pending further consideration and discussion with affected parties. Further discussion and consideration has resulted in the recommendation of the name ‘Foundry Lane’ to recognise more specifically the nature of the original large engineering/manufacturing business which was located in the immediate locality.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 Januarty 2015 3 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B3
- Katikara Drive: This is a private access proposed to be named after the Katikara River which flows through the subdivision. Naming of this access will resolve confusion currently associated with the other access point at the coastal end of this development. - Whitaker Street East: While this road has been used as a public road for many years, and has an official Council street sign reading ‘Whitaker St East’ it was recently discovered (following an enquiry from the Electoral Processing Centre, LINZ) that it has never been subject to a formal road naming resolution. The proposed naming, through this report, is therefore a ‘tidy-up’ exercise to correct a current anomaly and formalise the current name.
Plans showing the locations of the roads are attached as Appendices B-D to this report.
SIGNIFICANCE In accordance with the Council's Significance Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some significance because road naming is an administrative function with no significant impact on current and future cultural, economic or environmental well-being of the District and undertaken in accordance with approved policy and procedures.
OPTIONS Option 1 Approve the recommended names
This option allows road names and house numbers to be allocated within required timeframes and meet legislative requirements.
Option 2 Do not approve some or all recommended names and report back with alternatives
The benefit of this option is that consideration can be given to other, possibly more suitable names. However the delays associated with this option could cause practical problems in terms of timely registration of new names, house numbering (where dwellings are in the process of being erected/ occupied) and associated connection to services.
Recommended Option This report recommends Option 1: Approve the recommended names for addressing the matter.
APPENDICES Appendix A: Table associating subdivision consent details and proposed road names Appendix B: SUB12/45905 subdivision scheme plan showing road location Appendix C: SUB04/41711 subdivision scheme plan showing road location Appendix D: Plan showing location of Whitaker Street East
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 4 ITEM B3 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Appendix A: Table associating subdivision consent details and proposed road names
Consent No. Address Consent Holder Consent Description Proposed Road Name SUB12/45905 46 Kelly Street, Inglewood AG Builders Limited 8 Eight lot residential Foundry Lane subdivision with one lot to vest as road SUB04/41711 456 Lower Pitone Road, Okato G & P Snowdon 23 lot rural subdivision (15 Katikara Drive lots for residential purposes)
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 5 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B3
Appendix B: SUB12/45905 subdivision scheme plan showing road location
Foundry Lane
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 6 ITEM B3 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Appendix C: SUB04/41711 subdivision scheme plan showing proposed road location
Katikara Drive
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 7 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B3
Appendix D: Plan showing location of Whitaker Street East
Whitaker Street (East)
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 8 ITEM B3 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B4
NZ PETROLEUM & MINERALS – PETROLEUM EXPLORATION BLOCK OFFER 2015 CONSULTATION PREPARED BY: Ralph Broad – Senior Planning Adviser TEAM: Environmental Strategy & Policy APPROVED BY: Liam Hodgetts – Group Manager Strategy WARD/COMMUNITY: District Wide DATE: 16 December 2014 FILE REFERENCE: ECM 6094360
MATTER Petroleum exploration Block Offer 2015 has been released by NZ Petroleum & Minerals (NZPM) inviting submissions from affected local authorities on matters of concern. Submissions close 9 February 2015.
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report a submission be made in respect of the following matters detailed in the report:
a) That the scope of block offer submission considerations be widened to include how permit areas are constructed to reduce adverse effects on sensitive activities identified by the Council so that community expectations are better met than by resource management tools alone.
b) That NZPM engage with immediate communities hosting oil & gas activities to receive feedback on their experiences and satisfaction with the engagement they have with operators.
c) NZPM to widen block offer bid assessment to include external verification of an operators environmental performance and community relationships.
d) To monitor the effectiveness of a permit holders community engagement and work with the Council to promote successful community engagement practice.
e) That NZPM and Council officers continue to work closely together to manage the Districts oil & gas activities.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 2 ITEM B4 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
COMPLIANCE Significance This matter is of some importance Options This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter: 1. To accept the Block Offer 2015 release areas without comment. 2. To make a submission on the issues identified in the recommendation. Affected persons The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are the wider community. Recommendation This report recommends option 2 for addressing the matter. Long-Term Plan / None, provided roading infrastructure impacts paid by operators. Annual Plan Implications Intensive petroleum exploration and large scale downstream activities Significant arising from a significant find while not inconsistent with current Policy and Plan plans and policies can present significant regulatory and community Inconsistencies challenges.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed 2015 Block Offer release is materially the same as the 2014 Block Offer. Most importantly the area from the Herekawe Stream westward to the Stoney River remains excluded as the Council project that identifies the location of sites of significance to Maori in that area, is not finalised.
The NZPM and Ministerial position is that the District Plan is expected to manage the effects of the petroleum exploration within the areas offered. The effectiveness of the District Plan in addressing such matters will be improved through the District Plan review but will not be able to meet all community expectations in terms of managing the impacts oil & gas activities e.g. you cannot regulate the quality of community engagement.
Building a closer working relationship with NZPM, and jointly addressing the challenges we face managing oil & gas activities in our District would achieve better outcomes. Using the Block Offer process is currently the only way for the Council on behalf of the community to formally communicate to the government the need to work together to achieve effective solutions.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 3 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B4
BACKGROUND The invitation for the Council to submit on the 2015 Block Offer was received on 17 November 2014 with Submissions closing on 9 February 2015. The areas offered to the industry will then be finalised and offered for competitive tender from 1 April 2015.
Three Permits since awarded as part of the 2014 Block Offer round will be removed from the 2015 offer.
The Council submitted on Petroleum & Minerals 2014 Exploration Block Offer regarding: • The absence of true Council and community consultation in the Block Offer process, • The desirability of excluding exploration drilling from the urban areas of Inglewood, Oakura and Okato and their associated Future Urban Growth areas. • The sensitivity of Sites of Significance to Maori and Significant Natural Areas to intensive exploration. • The desirability of ensuring that individual permit areas are designed to avoid the potential cumulative effects of two adjoining permits having simultaneous adjacent operations (as with Tikorangi). • That the Council be invited to provide formal feedback to intending block offer bidders regarding specific District Plan and community issues relating to a particular locality that they may wish to factor into their operations should their bid be successful;
Uncertainty regarding the location of important sites to Maori resulted in NZPM excluding the area from the Herekawe Stream at the western edge of New Plymouth to the Stoney River district boundary from the 2014 offering. The concerns regarding the effects of oil & gas exploration on sensitive land uses and unintended cumulative effects were (and still are) seen as issues that the District Plan should manage.
Council officers from all of Taranaki Councils met with NZPM and other Ministry of Business, Employment & Innovation officers in October this year to share views on a range of oil and gas issues and initiate effective communication channels and working relationships.
The meeting was positive and included the following matters related to the Block Offer process: • NZPM acknowledged that their legislated scope for consultation and consideration of submissions under the Crown Mineral Act fell short of community engagement expectations. They canvassed interest in holding a public meeting similar to those held in new or “frontier” oil and gas exploration regions, where the Crown Minerals oil and gas regulatory system is explained and questions answered. Our advice was that as Taranaki is not a frontier area the conversation would need to be at a higher level seeking feedback on experiences to date.
• We reiterated that the way Permits are constructed has potential to exacerbate impacts on communities like Tikorangi, where permits bisect a community and the two operators appear to shadow each other to access the same reservoir, resulting in a level of activity that has stretched community tolerance. NZPM saw this as a District
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 4 ITEM B4 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Plan issue rather than a Block Offer matter but did offer to assist with resolving how these may be managed within the District Plan framework.
• That NZPM was amenable to a welcome to Taranaki document those awarded Permits providing guidance as to effective community engagement.
The Block Offer submission process provides the opportunity for the Council on behalf of the community to formally communicate to the Government on issues connected with its Block Offer and Permit system. However the considerations applied by NZPM and the Minister in responding to Council submissions result in a short, narrowly focussed, formal response covering all of New Zealand. Despite this it is a way to convey to the Government to the community the challenges and community expectations the Council faces.
The matters that the Council should consider raising in a submission include: 1. That the Block Offer formulation, consultation and submission process be widened to provide for consideration of the way individual blocks and permits are constructed to reduce the potential negative impacts on sensitive communities and specific areas identified by Council’s to meet community expectations that are unlikely to be adequately met using Resource Management tools.
2. NZPM is currently tasked by the Government with marketing NZ’s petroleum and mineral potential. There is significant ongoing operator engagement as part of this but an absence of similar community engagement. This is left to Councils to manage. The Government view seems to be that we are fortunate to have oil and gas activities. While this is true in an economic sense, it is an incomplete picture. As Taranaki currently is the only region in NZ that hosts intensive oil & gas activities that NZPM need to better appreciate the impacts both positive and negative and engage those communities that host oil & gas activities to receive feedback on their experiences and challenges and their satisfaction with the level and type of engagement they have with operators.
3. It is noted that the Block Offer bid evaluation process considers an operators technical, HSE, environmental and financial capability and may seek verification from overseas regulators. The Council considers the environmental performance and relationship management of the operator very important for this District and should be subject to verification and be given status in block bid evaluations.
4. It is noted that Block Offer documentation and regulation requires that permit holders regularly engage with iwi and hapu and that this be reported on. Operator engagement obligations should also be applied to the communities hosting oil & gas activity. The Council is willing to work with NZPM and the industry to share and communicate successful community engagement experiences. Quality engagement will reduce the need for the community to turn to the Council to resolve communication issues.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 5 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B4
5. That the Council appreciates the effort and quality of recent officer engagement with NZPM and MBIE on oil & gas matters and seeks a continuing close working relationship to manage issues and better assimilate the oil & gas industry into this community.
SIGNIFICANCE In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some importance. The reason is that that the matter relates to whether or not the council makes a submission on Block Offer 2015 and if we do what is the content of that submission. The underlying issue of the management of oil and gas activities in this District is significant.
OPTIONS Option 1 To accept the Block Offer 2015 release areas without comment.
Option 2 To make a submission on the issues identified in the recommendation
Recommended Option This report recommends Option 2 “To make a submission on the issues identified in the recommendation” for addressing the matter.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 6 ITEM B4 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B5
TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE – INGLEWOOD FIRST AMERICARNA PREPARED BY: KATE KEEGAN (BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR) TEAM: REGULATORY APPROVED BY: MARY-ANNE PRIEST (MANAGER CUSTOMER AND REGULATORY SERVICES) WARD/COMMUNITY: SOUTH-WEST WARD DATE: 6 JANUARY 2015 FILE REFERENCE: ECM 6200108
MATTER The matter for consideration by the New Plymouth District Council is to recommend the temporary closure of roads in Inglewood to enable Inglewood First to hold Americarna Inglewood.
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report, the road closures for the following event be approved:
Americarna Inglewood
Roads to be closed to ordinary traffic:
• Matai Street from Rata Street (SH 3) to Brooks Street. • Rata Street (SH 3 and SH 3a) from Cutfield Street to Rimu Street (SH 3a).
Period of closure: from 2pm to 9pm on Thursday 26 February 2015.
The above road closure is subject to the conditions outlined in a letter sent to Inglewood First dated 12 December 2014.
COMPLIANCE This matter is of some significance. Significance
This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter:
1. Approval of this road closure application to allow effective and safe traffic management during Americarna Inglewood. Options 2. To not approve this road closure application, which would mean Americarna Inglewood could not safely take place in the proposed location.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 2 ITEM B5 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
COMPLIANCE The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are Affected persons residents and businesses in the road closure area, and participants and spectators at the Americarna event. Recommendation This report recommends option one for addressing the matter. Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan No. Implications Significant Policy and Plan No. Inconsistencies
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report recommends the temporary road closure of roads in Inglewood to safely manage all road users and allow vehicles to be displayed on the road, during Americarna Inglewood.
BACKGROUND In accordance with the 10th Schedule of the Local Government Act 1974, the intention to close the roads was advertised in the Taranaki Daily News on Saturday 13 December 2014. Submissions closed at 4pm on Wednesday 31 December 2014 and no submissions were received were received.
SIGNIFICANCE In accordance with the Council's Significance Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some significance because it does not have a large impact on the public. Inglewood First has advised all businesses and residents in the affected area of the proposed closure and the submission process. Inglewood First has promoted Americarna Inglewood to local businesses as a chance to extend their opening hours to profit from the event.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 3 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B5
OPTIONS
Option 1 Approval of the road closure application to allow effective and safe traffic management so that Americarna Inglewood can take place.
Option 2 To not approve the road closure application, which would mean Americarna Inglewood could not safely take place in the proposed location.
Recommended Option This report recommends option one for addressing the matter.
APPENDICES
1. Letter from NPDC to Inglewood First, outlining conditions of road closure. ECM 6161394.
2. Map of affected area. ECM 6200092.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 4 ITEM B5 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 5 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B5
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 6 ITEM B5 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 7 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B5
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 8 ITEM B5 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B6
TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURES – TARANAKI CAR CLUB PREPARED BY: KATE KEEGAN (BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR) TEAM: REGULATORY APPROVED BY: MARY-ANNE PRIEST (MANAGER CUSTOMER AND REGULATORY SERVICES) WARD/COMMUNITY: WHOLE DISTRICT DATE: 6 JANUARY 2015 FILE REFERENCE: ECM 6200012
MATTER The matter for consideration by the New Plymouth District Council is to recommend the temporary closure of roads in the New Plymouth District to enable the Taranaki Car Club to hold four separate motorsport events.
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report the road closures for the following events be approved: a) Waitara Street Sprint
Date and period of closure: from 6am to 6pm on Saturday 14 February 2015.
Roads to be closed: • Memorial Place. • Whitaker Street from Blake to Browne streets. • Browne Street from McLean Street to High Street West. • Stafford Street from Grey to Browne streets. • Cameron Street from Grey to Blake streets. • Broadway from Cameron to Pratt streets. • High Stret West from Browne to Cracroft streets. • Cracroft Street from High Street West to McLean Street. • Stafford Street from Blake to Cracroft streets.
Detours will be in place.
b) Lepperton Rally Sprint
Date and period of closure: from 6am to 6pm on Sunday 29 March 2015.
Roads to be closed: • Richmond Road from Cross to Ackworth roads • Ackworth Road from Richmond to Kelly roads.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 2 ITEM B6 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
• Kelly Road, south from Cross Road. • Cross Road from Kelly to Richmond roads.
c) Korito Road Hill Climb
Date and period of closure: from 6am to 6pm on Sunday 19 April 2015.
Road to be closed: • Korito Road, south from Herbert Road.
d) Mataro Road Hill Climb
Date and period of closure: from 6am to 6pm on Sunday 14 June 2015.
Road to be closed: • Mataro Road, south from Hickman Road.
The above road closures are subject to the conditions outlined in a letter sent to the Taranaki Car Club dated 5 December 2014.
COMPLIANCE This matter is of some significance. Significance
This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter:
1. Approval of each road closure application to allow effective Options and safe traffic management during Taranaki Car Club events.
2. To not approve the road closure applications, meaning the events would not be able to safely take place.
The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are residents and businesses in the closed roads and affected areas, Affected persons participants and spectators at the motorsport events, and all other road users in the area. Recommendation This report recommends option one for addressing the matter. Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan No. Implications
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 3 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B6
COMPLIANCE Significant Policy and Plan No. Inconsistencies
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report recommends the temporary road closure of various roads in the New Plymouth District to safely manage all road users and event participants during four separate Taranaki Car Club events: Waitara Street Sprint, Lepperton Rally Sprint, Korito Road Hill Climb and Mataro Road Hill Climb.
BACKGROUND In accordance with the 10th Schedule of the Local Government Act 1974, the intention to close the roads was advertised in the Taranaki Daily News on Saturday 6 December 2014. Submissions closed at 4pm on Monday 22 December 2014 and no submissions were received.
SIGNIFICANCE In accordance with the Council's Significance Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of some significance because it does not have a large impact on the public. The Taranaki Car Club has visited all properties affected by these proposed closures, to advise them of the road closure applications, nature of the events and the submission process.
OPTIONS
Option 1 Approval of all four road closures applications to allow effective and safe traffic management during each event.
Option 2 To not approve the road closure applications which would mean the events would not be able to take place.
Recommended Option This report recommends option one for addressing the matter.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 4 ITEM B6 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
APPENDICES
1. Letter from NPDC to the Taranaki Car Club, outlining conditions of road closure. ECM 6129327.
2. Waitara Street Sprints, map of affected area. ECM 6159347.
3. Lepperton Rally Sprint, map of affected area. ECM 6159339.
4. Korito Road Hill Climb, map of affected area. ECM 6159343
5. Mataro Road Hill Climb, map of affected area. ECM 6159342.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 5 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B6
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 6 ITEM B6 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 7 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B6
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 8 ITEM B6 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 9 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B6
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 10 ITEM B6 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 11 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B6
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 12 ITEM B6 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B7
DISTRICT PETROLEUM ACTIVITY UPDATE PREPARED BY: Ralph Broad – Senior Planning Adviser TEAM: Environmental Strategy & Policy APPROVED BY: Liam Hodgetts – Group Manager Strategy WARD/COMMUNITY: District Wide DATE: 8 January 2015 FILE REFERENCE: ECM 6192183
PURPOSE An update on petroleum activity matters within, or affecting, this District and it’s communities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2014 Block Offer outcomes were announced with three onshore permits approved in the District at Urenui, Inglewood and Tarata / Waitui area. The 2015 Block Offer submissions have been invited with submission closing 9 February 2015.
Council officers continue to liaise with and advocate to New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals and other central government agencies on a range of Oil and Gas issues.
Taranaki Regional Council and the District Council’s are working together to co-ordinate the regulation of land farms with clarity now provided on the statutory responsibilities under the National Environmental Standards. Work also continues on a regional approach to oil and gas regulation. If achievable, the intention is to adapt and incorporate this common approach into our respective District Plan Reviews.
A review of our monitoring regime is underway and an update on consenting and compliance activity is also provided.
RECOMMENDATION That, having considered all matters raised in the report, the report be noted.
SIGNIFICANCE This report is provided for information purposes only, and has been assessed as having some importance.
DISCUSSION The following oil and gas related matters may be of interest to the Council:
2014 Block Offer outcomes announced: NZ Petroleum & Minerals have awarded three new onshore permits within this District. See Appendix for District permit locations. The new permits are:
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 2 ITEM B7 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
• Permit 57063 - Tag Oil. This permit is in the sparsely populated area north east of Urenui. This area contains some difficult back country roads. • Permit 57065 - Tag Oil. This permit is centred around the Inglewood area. • Permit 57076 - Petrochem (Greymouth Petroleum). This permit is centred over the Tarata / Waitui area. This area is in the main sparsely settled. Traffic from oil & gas activity here seems likely to be via Junction Rd (Inglewood).
Given the locations of the Permits, it seems likely that the Inglewood area will be subject to elevated levels of exploration activity over the next ten years, which may intensify if finds warrant field development.
2015 Block Offer submissions invited: Petroleum exploration Block Offer 2015 has been released by NZ Petroleum & Minerals (NZPM) inviting submissions from affected local authorities on matters of concern. Submissions close 9 February 2015. A separate report to the Council on this matter has been prepared.
NZ Petroleum & Minerals liaison: In October Council officers from all of Taranaki Councils met with NZPM and other Ministry of Business, Employment & Innovation officers to share views on a range of oil and gas issues and initiate effective communication channels and working relationships. All parties agreed that the meeting was valuable. Further meetings are planned on an as needed basis.
Landfarm statutory responsibilities: Following representations by this Council, it has been determined that the Resource Management National Environmental Standard (NES) for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health Regulations 2011, that came into effect on 1 January 2012, applies to any area actively or previously used as a landfarm.
The NES lists a range of activities that have the potential to cause soil contamination. This is called the Hazardous Activities & Industries List (HAIL). Remediation sites (landfarms) and activities involving hydrocarbons are included within the scope of the HAIL. Other HAIL activities on farms can include sheep dips, horticulture areas (sprays), mechanical workshops and chemical storage.
Administering the NES is a District Council responsibility and there are corresponding enforceable obligations on those using the land. Councils across Taranaki are working together to co-ordinate the implementation of the NES to landfarms and mixed bury cover areas.
New Plymouth District has two known landfarms. There are a number of confined mixed bury cover areas. The TRC is to confirm details.
In practical terms the NES considerations and processes will apply to subdivision, soil disturbance and changes in use. The change of use processes will mean that returning the
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 3 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B7
remediation site to food production such as grazing or cropping will require clearance under the NES. Resource consent is likely to be required where there are residue hydrocarbons.
The Taranaki Regional Council advise that land farming and mix bury cover activities represent no elevation in risk to human health (and food safety), as the most stringent of land use guidelines have always been applied by the regional council in discharge consents prior to allowing the relinquishment of the consent and site usage.
Regional resource management consistency: Several meetings of Taranaki local government officers have been held to jointly improve regulatory consistency and efficiency in dealing with oil & gas activities. Active projects within the group include: • Improved co-ordination of consent processes between the TRC and District Councils. • Sharing consent conditions to improve regional regulatory consistency. • Seeking fair and effective ways to recover elevated roading costs that are caused by oil & gas and other rural activities involving large numbers of heavy vehicles. • Establishing a Taranaki oil & gas regulation information web portal for the community, providing details of RMA and other legislative processes and responsibilities that apply to oil & gas activities. This will cover both Government and Local Government regulation. Stratford District Council are currently overseeing the web design work. • A Taranaki community engagement guide for oil & gas operators is planned. NZPM endorse the idea. Industry ownership is desirable to give credibility. A sponsor for the $15,000 project is being sought. • Working towards a uniform RMA regulatory approach for oil & gas across the region. All three District Councils have initiated District Plan reviews and are discussing the merits of a joint regional oil & gas activity planning approach.
Spot monitoring of resource consents: Consent conditions need to be monitored to ensure compliance. The noise and traffic effects of oil & gas activities are subject to conditions requiring record keeping and reporting. Because of the variability of these two effects spot or random monitoring is needed to confirm compliance. Programmes are being put in place to embed this. Council officers are advising the industry accordingly.
Managing hazardous facilities under the RMA: The Council have engaged the consultants ERM to provide RMA expertise in relation to the specialised area of hazardous facilities, substances and the matters arising from National Environmental Standard (NES) for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health. How the hazardous aspects of oil & gas are managed in the District Plan is being reviewed by ERM. The objective is to clearly identify where and why we need to provide a regulatory response under the District Plan and where the reliance can be on the regulatory responsibilities of Worksafe NZ, the Environmental Protection Authority, NZ Petroleum & Minerals and NZ Fire Service. Officers are liaising with these agencies as part of this review. The review also seeks to identify the equipment, features and processes applied at oil & gas sites that contribute to environmental safety and look at ways to ensure
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 4 ITEM B7 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
that best practice is applied. A draft report on this project is due early in the New Year. Both Stratford and South Taranaki District Council’s are contributing to the cost of this project.
Initial observations found the industry to be very safety conscious, have good systems and well resourced.
Consenting activity: Todd Energy’s development of the Mangahewa gas field continues to be the main focus for land use consent activity. This has recently included variations to the land use consents for the Manghewa C and E wellsites and the recent application for the 12 well Mangahewa G site off Otaraoa Rd. Two large compressors are to be installed at Todd’s McKee Production Station as part of a gas processing upgrade.
Consent was recently granted for Greymouth Petroleum’s Turangi D wellsite (Waiau Rd, Urenui) and a further consent is being processed for TAG Oil’s Sidewinder B wellsite consent (Norfolk Rd, Inglewood).
Complaints and Compliance: Oil & gas related heavy traffic continues to be of concern to some Tikorangi residents. The level and duration of traffic associated with the testing and well flow related activity at Todd Energy’s Mangahewa C wellsite has come into question. Officers are looking into whether the traffic volumes indicated in its resource consent application(s) have been exceeded. The interpretation of the District Plan rules as they apply to traffic the different phases of oil & gas exploration and production are complex. At this point in time Council Officers and the operator have different interpretations. A meeting with Todd Energy will take place in January. This issue also highlights the high degree of uncertainty and resulting challenges for an applicant to specify the expected duration and intensity of oil & gas exploration activities within a resource consent application. The scale of this uncertainty appears to be unique to the oil & gas industry and is a matter that the District Plan review will consider.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCING IMPLICATIONS This work is within existing budgets and resourcing.
IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT This report confirms that the matter concerned has no particular implications and has been dealt with in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002. Specifically: • Council staff have delegated authority for any decisions made; • Council staff have identified and assessed all reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter and considered the views and preferences of any interested or affected persons (including Māori), in proportion to the significance of the matter; • Any decisions made 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; • Unless stated above, any decisions made can be addressed through current funding under the Long-Term Plan and Annual Plan;
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 5 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B7
• Any decisions made are consistent with the Council's plans and policies; and • No decisions have been made that would alter significantly the intended level of service provision for any significant activity undertaken by or on behalf of the Council, or would transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset to or from the Council.
APPENDICES Permit maps showing general locations
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 6 ITEM B7 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 7 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B7
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 8 ITEM B7 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B8
PROPERTY (LAND) SALES REPORT TO 31 DECEMBER 2014 PREPARED BY: Jeremy Wichman (Team Leader Asset Management) TEAM: Property Assets APPROVED BY: Peter Handcock (Manager Property Assets) WARD/COMMUNITY: District Wide DATE: 24 December 2014 FILE REFERENCE: CM 08 28 01 vo5, ECM 6201632
PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide an update on Land Sales as at 31 December 2014, outlining status of approved sales, potential sales, and other sales categories and supporting highlighted commentary on particular land sales. The last update was provided as at 30 June 2014.
RECOMMENDATION That, having considered all matters raised in the report Appendix A Land Sales estimate to 31 December 2014, be noted. a) Category 1 - Properties Approved for Sale. b) Category 2 - Properties that are being considered for Sale, but have yet to be formally considered or a final decision yet to be made by Council. c) Category 3 - Properties with low Sale Potential. d) Category 4 - Properties that have been considered for Sale but are to be retained.
SIGNIFICANCE This report is provided for information purposes only, and has been assessed as having low significance in terms of the Local Government Act 2002, as the report essentially provides an update, noting that each individual property land sale are subject to a Council Report and decision.
DISCUSSION Report Requirements under Policy P05-019 Approval of Properties for Sale and Method of Sale This report is submitted in accord to meet the requirements of the above policy in reporting progress on land sales and outlining ancillary subcategories relating to potential sales, other and commentary on particular land sales as maybe appropriate.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 2 ITEM B8 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
1. Properties Sold Since 30 June 2014 For the first six months of the 2014/2015 year gross sales revenue of $733,500 has been achieved, more specifically in Appendix A to this report.
2. Commentary on Progress of Highlighted Properties Approved for Sale in Category 1
. Sale of Stopped Road Messenger Terrace Oakura - Sale Value of Contracts to date total $708,550 (GST inclusive) Twenty nine (29) owners have signed contractually binding Agreements for Sale and Purchase to buy the road frontage parcels to their property, out of the original 34 owners that indicated that they were prepared to do so, but who were could not be legally contracted in advance of the statutory road process being completed. Two owners have declined to proceed with purchase, one wishes to purchase but is unable to fund at this time, and two owners have yet to advise. Formal stopping, the raising of Computer Freehold Register will be undertaken to secure settlement of the 29 sales prior to 30 June 2015.
. Sale of Surplus Land Acquired or held for the Bell Block By-Pass Post construction of the Bell Block By-Pass, legalisation has been progressing over the last several years to provide land title to surplus land to enable a decision to be made on disposal or retention of that land. Reports for a decision on surplus land have been put to the Council over this period as part of the wrap rationalisation of land associated with the By-Pass.
Sales pending the signing of an Agreement for Sale and Purchase include the offer back under the Public Works Act 1981 of 1.5 hectares at 6 Jersey Place for $265,000. Two other blocks of land accepted by former owners for offer back totalling a net sale price of $235,000, cannot be settled until the Henwood link road is constructed that is tied to the route options for the road associated with the re-zoning and plan change for Area N to industrial/commercial. The funding from the sale of the offer back properties will fund the link road construction.
The sale of road to be stopped situated at the tunnel underpass off Pohutukawa Place by way of agreed exchange with the NZ Transport Agency for the sum $32,000, is pending execution of the Memorandum of Agreement with the Crown acting on behalf of the NZ Transport Agency.
A conditional Agreement for Sale of land to the adjoining land at Pariate Road has now been signed for the sum of $73,000. That sale is anticipated to be completed before 30 June 2015.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 3 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B8
. Surplus Land Acquired or held for City to Vickers State Highway upgrade to date Estimate
The Council has received to date $476,500 in compensation for Council land required for road for state highway which includes 618/620/622 Devon Road and 30/32 Northgate.
618 Devon has been sold outright and the balance title areas for 620/622 were tendered on the open market closing 27 November 2014, and a sale at $309,000 concluded.
The properties at 30/32 Northgate and 173 Lemon Street (estimated value $540,000) will be marketed for tender shortly as an independent report indicates that there is no obligation to offer these properties back to the former land owner. The survey of a splay area to vest as legal road off the property at 173 Lemon Street is underway.
Compensation of $145,000 has just been approved for land at the corner of Watson and Northgate which will be settled before 30 June 2015.
. Kelly and Towai Streets Landlocked Undeveloped Residential Land Block Inglewood - Rating Value $324,000 A comprehensive report commissioned on the fiscal cost options for the land rationalisation, disposal/ residential development of landlocked 2.4 hectare block has been received and a report to the Council is pending a valuation of the options. This block of land has been in District Council hands since 1 November 1989 and the report to the Council in early 2015 will address all the options for a decision on the future of the land.
. Former Korito Domain Block 153 Kent Road - Offer of Sale to Te Atiawa Trustees $211,000 plus GST This 1.6 hectare lifestyle block of land was approved for offer to TAIA in 2011 and a response is still awaited from the Te Kotahitanga Trust, Post Governance Settlement Entity of TAIA. The approved 2010 sale of the residential property at 2 North Street, Waitara is also pending a response on interest in purchase from the Trust ($80,000). Should the Trust not purchase the land, it will be marketed for sale on the open market.
. Sale of Ngakoti Street Land and Improvements by the Crown to Ngati Mutunga An agreement was reached with the Department of Conservation in 2011 to sell the above property on the basis that the net proceeds from sale of the Crown owned land would be shared, and Council fully reimbursed for net proceeds of the Improvements it owns.
The proposal involves an offer by the Crown of a Right of First Refusal to Ngati Mutunga at market value. The hold up in this sale is with the Crown due
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 4 ITEM B8 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
to technical legal issues involving offer back associated with part gifted by donor/ former owner’s successors when land was originally acquired for a public work for a Post Office. It is hoped that resolution of this long outstanding sale will be resolved with LINZ approval shortly.
3. Commentary on Category 2 - Properties under Consideration for Sale
. Surplus Bell Block Land off Pohutukawa Place $596,000 Rateable Value The sale of the block of land off Pohutukawa Place to be subject to a report to the Council on proposed sale is pending an iwi consultation response.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCING IMPLICATIONS This report outlines progress on land sales to 31 December 2014 and an update on land sales that have been approved for sale.
Properties sales are made on a case by case basis and are considered in terms of the need to retain for core infrastructure or other purposes in terms of benefits, cost effectiveness.
The decision on the application of net proceeds from general sales are made in each case by the Council as to application toward debt repayment, or other applications, noting that proceeds from endowment properties must be applied toward the purpose of the endowment.
Budgeted net income from land sales for the 2014/15 year is $1M.
IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT There are no particular implications in terms of the Local Government Act 2002. The report is consistent with Policy P05-019 Approval of Properties for Sale and Method of Sale.
APPENDICES Appendix A - Land Sales Schedule estimated to 31 December 2014 (ECM 6202249).
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 5 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B8
APPENDIX A - Land Sales Schedule : Estimate to 31 December 2014 Valn Category Prop ID Assessment Location Area (ha) Value Property Description/Comments Status Type Part 11661/222.00 Sale by tender of land not required for road SOLD 9209 620 / 622 Devon - land for road 0.1111 M $ 309,000 Sold pending settlement. & 1161/223.01 widening - including two dwellings.
Part 11661/222.00 SOLD 9208 620 / 622 Devon - land for road 0.0311 M $ 255,000 Sale to Crown for road widening. & 1161/223.00
Pohutukawa Place .Section 50 SOLD 9322 Part 11661/286.77 0.6444 R $ 80,000 Road sidling. Crown purchase. SO 443966
Adjoins Road stopping that contains burial sites, to SOLD 6752 Part Corbett Road 0.0024 M $ 500 11641/454.00 Taumata Historic Reserve.
Adjoins SOLD 16172 55 Belt Road 0.0080 E $ 9,500 Stopped road. 11710/276.00
Adjoins SOLD 22411 5 Azalea Place 0.0158 E $ 8,000 Stopped road. 11750/344.03 Part Part 11680/495.00 Road frontage to 30,32 SOLD 100696, 0.0110 $ 71,500 Sale to Crown for road widening. & 495.01 Northgate 12909 Total $ 733,500
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 6 ITEM B8 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Category 1: Properties that have been approved by the Council for sale Pohutukawa Place, Bell Block- Road to be exchanged for sale to 1-AFS Adjoining 0.0647 M $ 32,000 Pohutukawa Place. Section 34 SO 443966 adjoining land owner.
Road stopping project - sale to adjoining 29 agreements for sale & purchase 1-AFS W70 50 Multiple sites Messenger Terrace M $ 708,550 properties. have been signed. Rural land to be re-zoned industrial - Public 6 Jersey Place, Bell Block Lot 1 Agreement for sale & purchase to be 1-AFS 9372, 9370 11661/28695 1.5290 M $ 265,000 Works Act Offer back to former owner as DP 473328 executed. Council resolution of 14/12/10. Rural land to be re-zoned ( Area N) - Public 11661/28696 & Bell Block Lot 2 DP 473328 & Net return after cost of link road 1-AFS 9373, 9370 5.3631 M $ 235,000 Works Act Offer back to former owners as 11661/28692 Section 44 SO 443966 construction. Council resolution of 14/12/10. Last Junction Road endowment ground 1-AFS 5513 11610/372.00 Korito Road, Egmont Village 23.8735 M $ 330,000 Lessee has declined initial offer. lease up for renewal May 2018. Residential land. Access needs addressing. Consultants report received. Progress to Kelly Street /Towai St, 1-AFS 29133 11841/841.22 2.4918 R $ 324,000 Council resolution to sell on the open market. follow including report to Council with Inglewood Public Works Act offer back first. options.
Korito Domain - Rec Reserve. Attractive 1-AFS 5407 11610/295.00 153 Kent Rd, Korito Domain 1.6031 M $ 211,000 Under offer to Te Atiawa. lifestyle property.
Vacant residential section. Iwi have declined 1-AFS 2751 11571/424.00 2 North St, Waitara 0.1012 B $ 90,000 Under consideration by Te Atiawa. offer to purchase.
Reserve and stopped road to add to 1-AFS 9667 NA Paraite Road, Bell Blk 0.1135 M $ 73,000 Close to settlement. industrial site.
Adjoins Possible sale of stopped road to adjoining 1-AFS 15099 St Aubyn Street, NP 0.0071 M $ 41,000 To investigate offer to Waterfront Hotel. 11700/486.00 owner. Waterfront Hotel.
Office building. Lessee (Ngati Mutunga) Crown Agents are dealing with the 1-AFS 1302 11550/058.00 4 Ngakoti St, Urenui 0.0490 R $ 24,000 interested in purchase. disposal.
Adjoins Unable to agree on transfer price. Status 1-AFS 6432 246 Mountain Rd 0.7028 R $ 20,000 Rural land - can only sell to adjoining owner. 11641/252.00 is still unformed legal road.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 7 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B8
Redundant local purpose reserve access Both adjoining owners do not want to 1-AFS 21254 11742/070.58 21 Kipling Dr 0.0113 M $ 15,000 adjoins residential. Can only sell to adjoining purchase at market valuation. owners.
Adjoins 1-AFS 9301 75 Katere Rd 0.0086 M $ 8,600 Unformed road to add to industrial site. Under offer to adjoining owner. 11661/272.00
Dwelling & land purchased for northern Balance of land to be sold after land 1-AFS 100616 11680/495.00 32 Northgate 0.0467 E $ 230,000 arterial road widening. taking.
Dwelling & land purchased for northern Balance of land to be sold after land 1-AFS 12909 11680/495.01 30 Northgate 0.0287 E $ 210,000 arterial road widening. taking.
Dwelling & land purchased for northern Balance of land to be sold after land 1-AFS 12912 11680/496.01 173 Lemon St 0.0386 E $ 244,000 arterial road widening. taking.
Land on corner of Watson Street for possible 1-AFS 13105 Part 11680/629.00 Corner of Watson/Northgate 0.0233 E $ 145,000 Compensation payment to follow. purchase by NZTA.
862 Mountain Road (part of 1-AFS 6381 11641/206.00 0.3078 E $ 10,000 Proposed road stopping. Almost complete. Little Lepper Road)
Transfer of ownership of Sugar Loaf Islands, To transfer at nil value. To be vested 1-AFS 2866 Part 11720/572.00 Centennial Drive 3.0000 SP $ - part of Paritutu Central Park. under settlement legislation.
Total $ 3,216,150
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 8 ITEM B8 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Category 2: Properties that are being considered for sale - but have yet to be formally considered or a final decision yet to be made by the Council Pohutukawa Place, Bell Block - 0.444 $ 240,000 2-CFS 111257 11661/286.67 Section 54 SO 443966 R Surplus Bell Block bypass land. Iwi consultation in progress.
Pohutukawa Place, Bell Block 0.046 $ 30,000 2-CFS 111844 11661/286.91 Section 5 SO 452400 R Surplus Bell Block bypass land. Iwi consultation in progress.
Pohutukawa Place, Bell Block 0.341 $ 220,000 2-CFS 111253 11661/286.89 Section 7 SO 443966 R Surplus Bell Block bypass land. Iwi consultation in progress.
Pohutukawa Place, Bell Block 0.0955 $ 106,000 2-CFS 111306 11661/286.84 Section 13 SO 443966 R Surplus Bell Block bypass land. Iwi consultation in progress.
Part of 2-CFS 4016 Memorial Pl, Waitara 0.2000 E $ 95,000 Vacant sections - Waitara Memorial Hall. Part approved for lease to YMCA. 11580/45100
To progress discussions with Trust Old Waterworks site on Waiwakaiho River - 2-CFS 27146 11800/009.01 39A Kaipi Rd, Egmont Village 3.2805 R $ 65,000 Power, iwi and adjoining neighbour prior no legal access. to Council report.
Part of End of Pukenui Street. Poor contour. 2-CFS 13086 18 Pukenui Street 0.2385 E $ 100,000 Unused part of Hobson Street depot. 11680/61500 Industrial zone.
11642/112.00 & Ex Brixton Hall and Tennis courts. Iwi 2-CFS 6919,6918 6-8 Tate Road, Brixton 0.2356 E $ 150,000 Waiting response from hapu/iwi . 11642 /113.00 interest.
2-CFS 7180 11642/312.00 Black Road 1.3152 R $ 14,000 Bare land adjoining Waitara River. Under investigation.
Total $ 1,020,000
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 9 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B8
Category 3: Properties with low potential for sale
Stopped Road. Proposed offer to adjoining To progress. Low potential due to large 3-LPFS 95913 11530/154.04 469 Mataro Rd, Urenui 0.4482 R $ 15,000 owner. culvert affecting site use.
Adjoins 18 Cutfield Street, Part Inglewood Depot. Offered to adjoining To progress. Low potential due to large 3-LPFS 71621 11841/260.01 0.0123 R $ 28,000 Inglewood owner. culvert affecting site use.
Former Taranaki Electricity land. To offer to Old Quarry bush site. Offered to 3-LPFS 27878 11810/118.00 355 Tariki Rd South, Inglewood 0.2808 M $ 22,000 adjoining owner. adjoining owner but disputed valuation.
Old landfill site. Retained for the required Requires investigation for sale potential 3-LPFS 552 11520/315.00 30 Okoki Rd, Uruti 1.6218 B $ 30,000 stand down period. and iwi consultation (TRONM).
Old landfill site. Retained for the required Landfill site closed in 1994. Ongoing 3-LPFS 1048 11540/098.01 67 Waipapa Rd, Waitara 0.6692 R $ 57,000 stand down period. management requirements.
Access issues, but could sell to adjoining 3-LPFS 11640 11670/425.00 10A Mahoe St, NP 0.2096 R $ 175,000 Surplus northern outlet land. Swamp. owner.
Utilised by Mountain Biking Club. 3-LPFS 5412 11610/301.00 Scout Road 33.5889 B $ 150,000 Forestry Block (Busing Forest). Forestry Management Plan in place including harvesting schedule.
Under Forestry management. Low sale 3-LPFS 5517 11610/377.00 157 Alfred Rd 5.5121 B $ 55,000 Forestry Block. potential while in trees.
Title investigation has been completed. Landlocked Rural land. Grazed by adjoining 3-LPFS 6101 11632/004.01 867 South Rd, Okato 1.2141 R $ 160,000 Land is Crown land. Options put forward landowner. but not cost effective. Return to Crown.
Land required for drainage purposes. 3-LPFS 9139 11661/163.01 2A Raniera St, NP 0.1340 R $ 40,000 Residential section with drainage issues. Potential to re-sell once work has been done.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 10 ITEM B8 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
11510/060.04, 3-LPFS 000271 46 Uruti Rd, Uruti 0.5737 R $ 5,000 Stopped road. Adjoining owner interests. Further report to Council required. 11510/060.06
Pohutukawa Place, Bell Block - Gully that can only be sold to adj owner. 3-LPFS 9331 11661/286.88 0.7495 R $ 100,000 Possible retention as reserve. Section 33 SO 443966 To probably be retained.
Pohutukawa Place, Bell Block - 3-LPFS 9332 11661/286.89 1.6078 R $ 182,000 Possible retention as reserve. Grazing land. Probable interest from iwi. Section 42 SO 443967
Total $ 1,019,000 TOTAL CATEGORIES 1-3 GRAND TOTAL $ 5,255,150
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 11 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B8
Category 4 Properties that have been considered but are to be retained Open space adjoining Joe Gibbs Reserve. Added to Joe Gibbs reserve with Council 5-Retain 108703 11841/580.03 Standish Street, Inglewood 0.1203 R Inglewood CB, wish to retain as reserve. retaining title. L P Reserve. Separate title. Community 5-Retain 4767 11590/253.00 38 Tasman Parade, Oakura 0.0840 R Board preferred to retain. Former Waiwaka Bowling Club area. 5-Retain 13105 11680/628.00 Lemon St - Te Henui Cemetery 0.5059 R Cemetery use. Quarry Site. Required for road realignment. 5-Retain 27028 11790/114.00 203 Tarata Rd, Inglewood 0.3470 R Retain. Detention dam site - not required. Prone to flooding. Retain as included in Appendix 4 5-Retain 2012 11561/461.01 85 Blake St, Waitara 0.4083 R Part D - Other Land - Te Atiawa Crown Settlement Package Council Resolution 30 March 2004. Windy Point (Maungaroa) open space block. 5-Retain 025439 11772/009.00 81 South Rd, NP 2.0310 R Telecom to sell adjoining land. 11700/637.00, Strong objection from neighbours and 5-Retain 015290 Powderham / Vivian St Carpark 0.2159 R 11700/637.01 Catholic church. 5-Retain 5289 11610/214.08 Junction Rd, Mangamahoe 202.4319 R Forestry Block. Mangamahoe forest. Part of Karo Park. Potential to develop for 5-Retain 27384 11800/135.03 6A Karo St, Inglewood 0.4200 E residential sections. Niger Terrace depot building. Retain for 5-Retain 13012 Part 11680/56500 Niger Terrace Depot 0.1502 R now. Dwelling removed - bare land leased to 5-Retain 9256 Part 11661/253.10 76 Colson Road 1.2500 M adjoining farmer. Retain by WW. 5-Retain 12989 11680/545.00 27 Mangorei Road 0.0755 R Developed as reserve until required for road.
CATEGORY 1 - Approved for sale (AFS) B = Book Value CATEGORY 2 - Considered for sale (CFS) M = Market Valuation CATEGORY 3 - Low potential for sale (LPFS) R = Rateable Value CATEGORY 4 - Sale considered. Retain E = Estimate
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 12 ITEM B8 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 1 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B9
2015 REPRESENTATION REVIEW PROCESS PREPARED BY: Julie Straka (Manager Democratic Services) TEAM: Democratic Services APPROVED BY: Liam Hodgetts (Group Manager Strategy) WARD/COMMUNITY: District Wide DATE: 8 January 2015 FILE REFERENCE: DM 1605834v6
MATTER The matter for consideration by the Council is the establishment of a preliminary consultation process for the 2015 Representation Review.
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION That having considered all matters raised in the report: a) The preliminary timetable be noted b) Preliminary consultation be undertaken comprising • Written feedback • Community Conversations c) Consultation be coordinated internally.
COMPLIANCE Significance This matter is of some importance. This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter:
Options 1. Undertake preliminary consultation 2. Not undertake preliminary consultation.
The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are the Affected persons wider New Plymouth District community and elected members. This report recommends option 1 – preliminary consultation for Recommendation addressing the matter. Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan No Implications Significant Policy and Plan No Inconsistencies
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 2 ITEM B9 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report sets out a proposed preliminary consultation process for the 2015 representation review.
BACKGROUND The Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA) requires all councils to review their representation arrangements at least every six years. The New Plymouth District Council must conduct a review in 2015. The outcome of the review will take effect for the 2016 triennial election.
Requirements relating to representation reviews are contained in the LEA. Provisions in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) must also be taken into account.
The representation review includes deciding the:
• Number of elected members
• Basis of election (at large, wards, or a mix of both) and
• Establishment of community boards.
Key factors and considerations In reviewing representation arrangements, the Council must provide for ‘effective representation of communities of interest’ (s19T and 19U LEA) and ‘fair representation of electors’ (s 19V LEA). There are three key factors to be considered when determining their representation proposals:
• Communities of interest
• Effective representation of communities of interest
• Fair representation of electors.
Consultation The consultation principles set out in s14 of the LGA are relevant. Throughout the review the Council must ensure:
• It is aware of, and given regard to, the views of all of its communities
• It has taken account of the diversity of the community before making any decision.
• It has provided opportunities for Māori to contribute to the decision making process.
Formal consultation processes (ie submissions, appeals and objections) are set out in the LEA. Some local authorities undertake preliminary consultation prior to commencing the formal statutory representation review process. Preliminary consultation is a useful tool to help identify current communities of interest.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 3 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B9
The community have been engaged in previous representation reviews. It is expected the community will wish to be engaged in the upcoming review. Enabling community views to be expressed early in the process will enable robust decision making.
While preliminary consultation can be a useful component of the representation review process, it is not a substitute for the formal statutory steps. The outcome of a review must seek to achieve fair and effective representation for all individuals and communities of interest of the district.
Implications of a Māori Ward If a Māori ward is implemented for the 2016 election, this will have implications for the representation review. Those implications will be considered fully during the formal consultation process and do not alter the proposed preliminary consultation. If a poll on the matter is required, the outcome of that poll is expected to be known by April 2015.
Governance Structures and Delegations Establishment of governance structures (ie standing committees and subcommittees) and delegations to committees and/or community boards are not considered during representation reviews. These matters are dealt with by the Council after each triennial election.
Proposed Steps for 2015 Review The proposed timetable for the representation review, including preliminary consultation, is shown in Appendix 1. The appendix also shows how the timetable fits with the LTP timetable.
1. Preliminary consultation (February/March 2015) The community are invited to provide feedback prior to the initial representation proposal being determined.
The feedback process will be modelled on a recent Christchurch City Council process. Respondents will be asked to indicate on a map what they consider the extent of their community to be. Responses will assist the Council to identify current communities of interest.
Respondents will also be asked to provide feedback on preferred numbers of elected members, whether there should be voting at large, voting in wards or a mix of both and whether there should be community boards. Similar questions will be included in the NRB survey being undertaken in early 2015.
2. Preliminary consultation – community conversations (Late April / May 2015) The Mayor will lead a round of community conversations on the representation review and seeking preliminary views. This round of conversations will be undertaken following the consultation period on the LTP.
3. Preliminary consultation reported (Council workshop) (June 2015)
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 4 ITEM B9 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
4. Officers report on Representation Review (July/August) Preliminary consultation results will guide the Council in determining the initial proposal to be consulted on. The preliminary consultation will provide data on current communities of interest, strength of community opinion in relation to ward boundaries (if any), number of elected members and structure and distribution of community boards (if any).
5. The Council confirm the initial proposal
6. Consultation period - minimum one month duration
7. Hearing of submissions – within six weeks of closing date for submissions
8. Appeal/objection period - minimum one month duration
9. Appeals/objections forwarded to Local Government Commission - as soon as practicable but not later than 15 January 2016
10. Local Government Commission hearing of appeals / objections if required
SIGNIFICANCE In accordance with the Council's Significance Policy, the preliminary consultation process has been assessed as being of some importance. The consultation process will have no impact on the present or future interests of the district. Persons likely to be affected by, or interested in the representation review will have a range of opportunities to express their opinion. Preliminary consultation will be coordinated and delivered internally and there are no financing issues.
OPTIONS Financial and Resourcing Implications General External assistance could be provided. A 2009 NRB survey purely on representation cost approximately $12,000. External consultant costs for the 2003 review were in excess of $25,000.
No funding has been provided in the LTP or Annual Plan for external assistance on the representation review. In addition the Civic and Democracy budget is currently under pressure due to the election to fill extraordinary vacancies in the city ward. There is also the possibility of a poll being required in relation to the establishment of a Māori ward.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 5 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B9
Option 1 Option 2 Preliminary consultation No preliminary consultation Financial and Preliminary consultation will be There would be no financial or Resourcing coordinated internally. There are no resourcing implications if Implications additional costs in relation to the preliminary consultation is not use of Seven Days and the undertaken. Council’s website. Production and distribution of feedback forms (electronic and hard copy) will be at minimal cost. A small number of questions on the representation review will be included in the NRB survey scheduled to occur in February 2015. There will be no additional cost for these questions.
Community Preliminary consultation will enable Not undertaking preliminary Outcomes the Council to align the formal consultation could impact on the proposal with the Council’s Council’s community outcomes, community outcomes. The most specifically the theme of Our relevant theme is Our Community – Community – an inclusive and an inclusive and connected connected community and the community and the community community outcomes of outcomes of “community that “community that fosters pride and a fosters pride and a collective sense collective sense of identity” and “a of identity” and “a community that community that is strong, resilient is strong, resilient and values and values diversity”. diversity”.
Risk Analysis Preliminary consultation will assist Not undertaking preliminary the Council to identify issues consultation is likely to result in the relevant to the review process and formal representation proposal enable consideration of a wider being founded on a narrower range range of representation options of community opinion and elected when developing the formal member assumptions which may proposal. not reflect community views.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 6 ITEM B9 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Option 1 Option 2 Preliminary consultation No preliminary consultation Statutory The representation review process Preliminary consultation will not Responsibilities is heavily prescribed by the LEA substitute for the formal statutory and guided by the LGA. Relevant steps to be undertaken. However, statutory matters have been referred preliminary consultation will ensure to earlier in this report. Preliminary there is a robust understanding of consultation will enable statutory community viewpoints when considerations to be taken into undertaking the formal review. account.
Implications for The Council has an obligation to Māori engage with Māori when making all decisions. Preliminary consultation opportunities would be available to Māori through community conversations and the feedback process.
Community Political representation and The wider New Plymouth District Views and governance is a key issue for the community have previously Preferences community. Preliminary expressed concerns at Council consultation will enable the views proposals being proposed before the within the community to be community have had any input. expressed to Councillors to assist in They feel they have been excluded future formal decision making from the process and the final processes on representation. decision has already been made.
Advantages and The advantage of preliminary By not undertaking preliminary Disadvantages consultation is to increase consultation, it is possible that Councillors awareness of Councillors are not aware of the community views prior to extent of community views and commencing the formal process preferences prior to commencing the formal process.
Recommended Option This report recommends option 1 preliminary consultation for addressing the matter.
APPENDICES 1. Proposed representation review timetable 2. History of New Plymouth District Council Representation Reviews
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 7 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B9
Proposed Representation Review timetable
Representation Review LTP February 2015 Policy Committee approves preliminary consultation process.
February 2015 Preliminary consultation (written feedback) March 2015 Preliminary consultation (written Submissions open feedback) 25 March – 24 April
Community Conversations
April 2015 Submissions open 25 March – 24 April
Community Conversations
May 2015 Preliminary consultation involving Officer reports signed off 18 May community conversations (May – early June)
June 2015 Mid-late June Consideration of Hearings 4-6 June preliminary consultation Deliberations 9 June (workshop)
July 2015 Policy Committee 28 July / Council 11 August Determination of initial proposal (before 31 August)
September 2015 Mid-September – Submissions close
If no submissions proposal becomes final
Last week of If submissions – Council considers October submissions Late November Appeals and Objections close
Early 2016 Local Government Commission hearing (if required)
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 8 ITEM B9 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
HISTORY OF NEW PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COUNCIL REPRESENTATION REVIEWS
History of New Plymouth District Council Reviews
2001 The Council comprised 16 councillors and the Mayor (Clifton Ward (1 member), Waitara Ward (2 members), Inglewood Ward (2 members), Kaitake Ward (1 member) and New Plymouth Ward (10 members).
There were four community boards (Clifton, Waitara, Inglewood and Kaitake).
2004 Following a review of membership and basis of election, the Council initially resolved:
Mayor and 14 councillors elected at large. Retention of the four existing community boards (Clifton, Waitara, Inglewood and Kaitake)
Having considered the 416 submissions on the proposal, the Council’s final resolution:
• Mayor plus 14 Councillors elected from three wards: New Plymouth City Ward (10 members), South-West Ward (2 members) and North Ward (2 members).
- New Plymouth City Ward to include Omata and Oakura. - South West Ward to include Inglewood and Okato areas - North Ward to include Clifton and Waitara areas.
• Retain Waitara and Clifton Community Boards • Abolish the Inglewood and Kaitake Community Boards • Establish an Inglewood-Okato Community.
Following a hearing of appeals and objections, the Local Government Commission determined:
Mayor and 14 Councillors: North Ward (2 members), New Plymouth City Ward (10 members) and South-West Ward (2 members).
Four community boards – Clifton, Waitara, Inglewood and Kaitake Community.
2007 Council initial proposal was 14 councillors and the Mayor – elected at large. Plus four Community Boards (Waitara, Clifton, Inglewood and Kaitake). The Council confirmed this decision following submissions.
Following the receipt of five appeals (focussed solely on the decision for an at-large system), the Local Government Commission held a hearing.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 9 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM B9
The Local Government Commissioner determination established the current structure of North Ward (two members), City Ward (10 members) and South-West Ward (2 members). The determination also confirmed the Clifton, Waitara, Inglewood and Kaitake Community Boards.
2009 Council resolved to undertake a representation review. As a result of consultation, the Council resolved to make no change to the representation structure (Council and community boards).
2011 Council resolved not to undertake a representation review.
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015 10 ITEM B9 ITEM FOR RECOMMENDATION
Inglewood Community Board Tuesday 20 January 2015