Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 30 August 2023

Council

30 August 2023

File No.: 23/535

7.1 Horowhenua District Draft Speed Management Plan: Public Engagement Review and Endorsement

1. Purpose

1.1 To discuss the feedback received during public engagement on the Horowhenua District Draft Speed Management Plan 2024 – 2034, recommend an option for inclusion in the three year implementation programme, and endorse submitting the Draft Speed Management Plan 2024-2034 for inclusion in the Regional Speed Management Plan.

This report directly aligns with two of Council’s top 10 priorities “Get the basics right and support the customer focussed delivery of core services” and “Reset our engagement and partnership approach, and work more with and for the community”.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 Horowhenua District Council is required to develop and consult on a Speed Management Plan to set safe and appropriate speeds limits in the Horowhenua District (excluding State Highways). The process that Horowhenua District Council is required to follow and the content and form of the Speed Management Plan is outlined in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022.

2.2 Council officers, following the guidance of Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency, are proposing a staged approach to implementing any changes to the transport network. It is proposed that the initial three year Implementation Programme outlined in the Speed Management Plan focus on:

· Improving safety around schools by applying safe and appropriate speed limits,

· Applying safe and appropriate speed limits to areas of Waikawa Beach and Manakau,

· Confirm a number of legal speed limits around the District where there are anomalies between sign posted and legal speed limits.

2.3 Council officers have sought feedback from the community on the proposed inclusions in the Draft Speed Management Plan and based on this are presenting three options for Council to consider. The option endorsed by Council will be included in the Draft Speed Management Plan and submitted to Horizons Regional Council for inclusion in the Regional Speed Management Plan, then to Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency for certification by the Director of Land Transport.

3. Recommendation

3.1 That Report 23/535 Horowhenua District Draft Speed Management Plan: Public Engagement Review and Endorsement be received.

3.2 That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act.

3.3 That Council adopt Option A which is described as:

· Variable 30km/h speed limit for Koputaroa School Zone

· Variable 30km/hr speed limit for Manawatu College and Foxton School zone, with the exception of Hulke Street.

· Permanent 30km/hr speed limits for all other local road school zones.

· Permanent 30km/hr speed limit for Manakau Village

· No speed limit change for Waikawa Beach

Changes and additions included in Option A are described below:

· Shannon School zone 30km/h zone is extended 275m south east to the intersection on Vogel Street on Grey Street, as requested from Shannon School.

· Foxton Beach School zone extended 20m east along Thomas Place, incorporating Low Avenue, changed as the original plan’s threshold is too close to the drop off/pick up zone.

· Coley Street School zone permanent 30km/h extended to in include Futter Street from Coley Street to Avenue Road, and Avenue Road from west of Futter Street intersection to east of Spring Street intersection

· Foxton Beach School, Hart Street speed limit change has been removed based on a feedback form from Foxton Beach School. Foxton Beach School has suggested other changes which have not been included at this stage, but will be noted for future Speed Management Plans.

· Tokomaru School, 30km/h Speed Limit has been extended to 300m south east of SH57 intersection, to be in line with the Speed Management Guidelines

· Levin School, Levin Intermediate, Horowhenua College and St Joseph’s School zones, 2 private roads have been removed, off Bath Street, and two private roads have been removed off Durham Street

· Levin North School zone has extended 48m north east along Weraroa Road, to start the 30km/h speed limit at the top of a hill, rather than at the bottom

· Ohau School zone has been reduced, moving closer to the Bishops Road intersection on Bishops Road and Muhunoa East Road. The existing 50km/hr zone on Muhunoa East Road has been extended to just east of Fayden Close, including Fayden Close to comply with the minimum speed limit lengths as described in the Rule

· Arete Lane, Ruapai Drive and Oriwa Lane have been changed from 80lm/hr to 60km/hr. These roads were included in the confirmation of signposted speed limits section of the engagement SMP. Feedback received from resident suggests a lower speed limit, which Officers agree with. These roads have a similar form and function of other roads with 60km/h speed limits within the district.

· Te Whanga Road has been included with a 60km/h speed limit, reduced from 80km/hr. Residents have provided feedback suggesting a 50km/hr speed limit, however the safe and appropriate speed for Te Whanga Road according to the Speed Management Guidelines is 60km/h

· Buller Road has been included with two speed limit reductions. Buller Road currently has a speed limit of 80km/h throughout. The proposed changes see a 60km/h speed limit from SH1 to CD Farm Road, and a 30km/h speed limit from CD Farm Road to the road end by Papaitonga Reserve. These changes have been suggested in Feedback forms, however the 60km/r suggested extents were from SH1 to Bruce Road. Officers have determined that it is more appropriate for the 60km/r speed limit to extend to CD Farm Road.

3.4 That Council adopt Option B which reflects the minimum changes required and is described as:

· All local road school zones have variable 30km/hr speed limits

· No speed limit change for Waikawa Beach

· No speed limit change for Manakau, with the exception of a variable 30km/hr speed limit for the Manakau School zone.

· Some of the school zone extents change between Option A and B, this is due to requirements around minimum speed limit lengths in the Rule, which do not apply for variable zones.

· Option B includes a speed limit change to 60km/h for Arete Lane, Ruapai Drive and Oriwa Lane. This is not strictly required under the Rule at this time, however confirmation of the speed limit is required at this location, either to 80km/h (current sign posted speed limit) or 60km/h (safe and appropriate speed limit). With feedback supporting 60km/h, and 60km/h being supported by the Speed Management Guidelines, 60km/h has been proposed in all options.

3.5 That Council adopt Option C which reflects the maximum possible changes and is described as:

· Permanent 30km/h speed limits for all local road school zones.

· Permanent 30km/h speed limit for Manakau.

· Permanent 30km/h speed limit for Waikawa.

Option C includes all the additional changes described for Option A. In addition to these, the following changes are included in Option C:

· An addition 30km/h speed limit on Stafford Street, Shannon from SH57, extending 230m east to cover a back entrance to Grey Street School. This suggestion was not made by the school so has not been included in Options A or B.

· A 30km/h speed zone on Muhunoa West Road, from SH1, extending 280m west.

· Palmer Road 60km/h speed limit from Foxton Beach Road, extending 600m west.

· Potts Road, 60km/hr speed limit change for the full length.

· Moutere Road, 60km/hr speed limit change for the full length.

· Gladstone Road, 60km/h speed limit change for the full length.

3.6 That Council note that the required review of 70km/hr and 90km/hr road speed limits have been completed as part of this consultation and no changes are recommended.

3.7 That Council confirms the current legal speed limits of roads listed in Appendix E to ensure consistency with current sign posted speed limits.

3.8 (If Option C is selected) That Council approves a change in speed limit for:

· Gladstone Road from intersection with Tararua Road to intersection with Queen Street East change from 80km/hr to 60km/hr

· Palmer Road first 600m from Foxton Beach Road change from 80km/hr to 60km/hr

3.9 That Council authorise the Chief Executive to finalise the Draft Speed Management Plan 2024-2034 and submit to Horizons Regional Council for inclusion in the Regional Speed Management Plan.

4. Background / Previous Council Decisions

4.1 The Minister of Transport introduced the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits (the Rule) in 2022, which requires a new approach to speed management to be taken for all Road Controlling Authorities in New Zealand. The Rule requires Horowhenua District Council, as a Road Controlling Authority, to develop and engage with the community on a Speed Management Plan.

4.2 The primary purpose of this new process is to facilitate the implementation of safe and appropriate speeds to improve safety, save lives and prevent debilitating injuries. A safe and appropriate speed is a speed limit that is safe according to the standards set by the ‘Safe System’ and appropriate in terms of aligning with community wellbeing objectives as well as the movement and place function, design and infrastructure of the street or road. Additional guidance on the process has been provided by Waka Kotahi in The Speed Management Guide.

4.3 The completed draft plan is required to be submitted to Horizons Regional Council for inclusion in the Draft Regional Speed Management Plan before being certified by the Waka Kotahi Director of Land Transport. The timeframes of when this needs to occur have been set by Waka Kotahi. The first deadline is 5 October 2023 which is the final date for the publication of any consultation draft speed management plan. The second deadline is the 29 March 2024 which is the last date for submitting the final draft speed management plan for certification. Horizons Regional Council officers have indicated that they will be seeking an extension to this deadline to 30 June 2024.

4.4 At the council meeting on 19 July 2023, council discussed the Draft Speed Management Plan 2024-2034 and authorised Council Officers to commence community engagement on the Draft Speed Management Plan. Council Officers subsequently commenced public engagement activities from Monday 24 July 2023 to Monday 21 August 2023.

4.5 School zones make up 1.23% of Horowhenua’s roading network (excluding State Highway’s), which is just over 7km of road. Between 1 July 2013 and 1 July 2023 there were a total of 103 death and serious injury crashes across our local road network. A total of 10 or 9.7% occurred in school zones. Therefore, crashes in schools zones are significantly more likely to result in death or serious injury than other areas of the road.

5. Discussion

Community Engagement Activities

5.1 Community engagement started on Monday 24 July 2023 and finished on Monday 21 August 2023. As part of this the following activities were undertaken:

· Development of a Let’s Korero page that included information on the Draft Speed Management Plan and an online Feedback Form.

· Publication of a community connection article on Speed Management on Friday 11 August 2023.

· 14 Social media posts on Horowhenua District Council social media channels.

· Letters were put in directly affected people’s letterboxes between Thursday 27 July 2023 and Monday 31 July 2023 e.g. residents of areas where speed limits may change outside their home address.

· Facebook Live event held on Tuesday 15 August 2023 with Councillor Justin Tamihana, Councillor Ross Brannigan, and Council Officers James Wallace, Land Transport Manager and Justine Moore, Infrastructure Planning Lead.

· Media Release published on 1 August 2023.

· Front page news article in the Horowhenua Chronicle published on Friday 11 August 2023.

· Presentation to the Older Person’s Network on Thursday 3 August 2023.

5.2 90 feedback forms and seven additional submissions were received. The feedback received is summarised below and the complete feedback forms are attached in Appendix D.

5.3 14 posts were shared on Horowhenua District Council social media channels. This included six posts to Facebook timelines, 2 posts to Instagram timeline, 3 posts to Facebook/Instagram stories, 1 post to LinkedIn timeline, 1 post to the Waikawa community page, and 1 Facebook Live video. There were a total of 41,245 impressions (number of times this content was displayed on a screed) with a total reach of 27,518 (number of unique users who saw the posts). In addition, the total number of engagements (comments, shares, likes) was 4,074. While this campaign received an impressive volume of engagement, it is hard to measure in terms of positive/negative sentiment. However, overall analysis showed that there was positive emotion sentiment of published posts.

5.4 Let’s Kōrero Horowhenua District Council’s community engagement online platform Speed Management page received 872 site visits and the Draft Speed Management Plan was downloaded 55 times.

Feedback on Speed Limit Changes around Schools

5.5 The majority, 60% of people, who submitted feedback agreed with the proposed changes around schools. This related to the implementation of permanent 30km/h speed limits around schools within the district, excluding Manawatu College, Foxton Primary School, and Koputaroa School.

Question: Do you agree with the proposed speed limit changes around schools?	Number of responses
Yes	58 (60%)
Yes, with some changes	22 (23%)
No	12 (12%)
Blank	5 (5%)

5.6 Where changes or comments were made these related to:

· Support for speed limit changes to improve safety for tamariki.

· Request for speed limit changes to be implemented around early childhood centres.

· Requests for variable speed limits (a) around school drop off and pick up times, (b) all day during term time.

· Request for additional safety infrastructure.

· Enforcement.

· Near misses observed.

· Request for additional roads to be included or school zones to be extended.

· Reduced school zone size.

· Driver behaviour.

· Education on the dangers of roads and traffic for children.

5.7 Where comments have suggested speed limit changes, they have either been included in the one of the three options, or discarded for one of the following reasons:

· The suggested changes would be result in beach of Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022. For example, suggesting a change which would result in a speed limit length less than the minimum lengths described in Schedule1 of the Rule.

· The suggested change may have merit, but may require more in depth investigation, planning and consultation than our present Speed Management Planning process allows for. Such as proposing a seasonal speed limit.

· Feedback with these suggested changes have been recorded for investigation in future processes.

· The suggested change is for a road outside the control of Horowhenua District Council, such as changing speed limits on State Highways.

5.8 Where comments have suggested feasible changes to the Speed Management Plan, they have been used to develop the three options. The three options have been developed using the following method:

· Where a feasible change has been suggested which would result in a speed limit change less impactful than the changes described in our engagement documents, it has been included in Option 2 as the Do-Minimum option. The suggested changes may have been altered slightly to align with Speed Management Guidelines, or to comply with the Rule

· Where a feasible change has been suggested that would not have a significant impact, but would see reduced speed limits, and officers agree that it is a sensible change, it has been included in Option 1 as the Recommended Option.

· Where a feasible change has been suggested that would generally be more impactful than the changes included in the Recommended Option, it has been included in Option 3 as the “Do-Maximum” option.

5.9 Where suggestions have been made for speed limit changes that are not feasible due to the timeframe of the current Speed Management Planning process, they have been recorded and will be investigated in future Speed Management Plans.

5.10 Where suggestions have been made for physical safety improvements, or enforcement, they have been noted for investigation, or will be passed on to the appropriate authority / agency.

Feedback on Speed Limit Changes around Manawatū College and Foxton Primary School

5.11 The majority (64%) of people who submitted feedback supported a change to the speed limit outside Manawatū College and Foxton Primary School. For the people who supported a speed limit change, the majority (52%) preferred a variable 30km/h speed limit.

Question: Do you support the proposed changes around Manawatu College and Foxton Primary School?	Number of responses
Yes, permanent 30km/h speed limit on Ladys Mile, Robinson Street, Duncan Street and Park Street	28 (29%)
Yes, variable 30km/h speed limit on Ladys Mile, Robinson Street, Duncan Street and Park Street	32 (33%)
Yes, but did not specify variable or permanent	2 (2%)
No	12 (12%)
Blank	23 (24%)

Relevant feedback comments on speed limit changes around Manawatū College and Foxton Primary School

5.12 One person submitted an addition comment related to Manawatū College and Foxton Primary School:

Feedback form #6:

“Option 1 - Making all of Lady’s Mile in Foxton, the primary thoroughfare to Foxton Beach, carrying a 30kph zone 24hrs a day, 365 days a year is ridiculous given the adverse impact on its many (but not dangerous level) vehicle users.

Is the current proposal based on hard facts on the number of car on person accidents, the times of occurrence and the severity of the injuries incurred? If so - please share to justify. I do not subscribe to the “save every life/injury at any cost message being pushed by NZTA as it is both economically and morally severely flawed but that’s another day’s debate.”

How speed limit changes around Manawatū College and Foxton Primary School have been proposed in the recommended option.

5.13 Option A, the recommended option, includes a variable speed limit for the roads around Manawatū College and Foxton Primary School, in line with a slight majority of feedback among people who preferred speed limit changes.

5.14 The school zone considered from Manawatū College and Foxton Primary School is a fairly unique situation among our speed limit changes, as Lady’s Mile has the highest traffic volume of all local roads which pass through a school zone, and is subject to significant seasonal variation, with much higher daily traffic volumes during summer weekends, as the main access road to Foxton Beach.

5.15 Due to the function of Ladys Mile, a permanent speed limit would present a more significant increase to travel time and vehicle operating costs compared to recommended permanent speed limit changes in other school zones. The higher level of traffic, particularly on weekends when school related activities are less likely, would therefore have less net benefits which target school zones.

5.16 Officers believe that either a permanent or variable speed limit of 30km/hr at this location would result in a reduction in the risk of severe crashes. A permanent 30km/hr speed limit at this location may result in an overall lower crash risk than a variable speed limit, however officers have been unable to sufficiently determine the extent of improved safety outcomes of a permanent speed limit at this location to justify a recommendation which does not align with the views of the community, or the priorities of Councillors as described during the Speed Management Plan Council Workshop held on 17 May 2023. The potential safety benefits that a permanent 30km/h speed limit change in this area would present over a variable speed limit would not be specifically targeted towards reducing the risk of a crash involving a school student, but would rather be a benefit to road users in general. Officers have interpreted the community’s and Council’s feedback to mean that general traffic safety benefits of permanent speed limit reductions in urban areas to 30kmh are not widely supported, however the opportunity to revisit this approach in more detail will be available in future Speed Management Plans.

Feedback on Speed Limit Changes around Koputaroa School

5.17 The majority (59%) of people who submitted feedback supported a change to the speed limit outside Koputaroa School. For the people supported a change in speed limits, a small majority preferred a permanent 30km/h speed limit.

Question: Do you support the proposed changes around Koputaroa School?	Number of responses
Yes, permanent 30km/h speed limit on Koputaroa Road	29 (30%)
Yes, variable 30km/h on Koputaroa Road	28 (29%)
No	14 (14%)
Blank	26 (27%)

Relevant feedback comments on speed limit changes around Koputaroa School

5.18 Two people submitted additional comments related to Koputaroa School:

Feedback form #34:

“Koputaroa students are dropped off by cars & buses on one side of the road. There is nobody walking alongside a road, or crossing a road, like in town. Kids are dropped off & walk straight on to school grounds. I don’t see why the speed limit would ever need to be 30km/hr like a town school, when the set up of Koputaroa school is completely different.”

Feedback form #16:

“I support a VARIABLE 30kmph speed limit on Koputaroa Rd. I think people are more likely to adhere to the limit if it's variable.”

How speed limit changes around Koputoroa School have been proposed in the recommended option

5.19 Option A, the recommend option, includes a variable speed limit for Koputaroa School. A variable speed limit is recommended despite a greater number of responses preferring a permanent speed limit.

5.20 Officers believe a variable speed limit will have a greater level of compliance for this specific location. Considering the current 80km/h speed limit on Koputaroa immediately outside the school zone, it is expected that many drivers may regularly fail to comply with a permanent 30km/r speed limit. Particularly if drivers are regularly travelling through the school zone when there are no school activities taking place, drivers will likely form a habit an exceeding 30km/h. It is proposed to replace the existing active warning signs (flashing speed limit signs) to set the recommended variable speed limit. A variable speed limit supported by active warning signs is expected to achieve a greater level of compliance during the drop off and pick up times for Koputaroa School.

5.21 One of the key reasons permanent speed limits outside schools have been recommend elsewhere is to provide a safer environment outside the school pick up and drop off periods, as urban schools can see children walking to and from schools outside these times. As Koputaroa School is rural, without footpaths or significant pedestrian use, this reason does not apply for Koputaroa School.

Feedback on Speed Limit Changes in Manakau

5.22 57% of people who submitted feedback supported changing the speed limits in Manakau.

5.23 Feedback was received from nine people who identify their town as Manakau, of these people 4 people agreed with the proposed changes and 3 agreed with the proposed changes with some additions or suggestions. None of these additions or suggestions related to decreasing the scope of what has been proposed. 2 people did not support the proposed changes.

Do you agree with the proposed speed limit changes in Manakau?	Number of responses
Yes	46 (47%)
Yes with some changes	9 (9%)
No	20 (21%)
Blank	22 (23%)

Relevant feedback comments on speed limit changes around Manakau Speed Limits

5.24 Six people submitted additional comments related to Manakau Speed Limits.

Feedback form #16:

“30km should go over the cutting to Eastern Rise, or at least continue to the south end of Honi Taipua St.”

And;

“So very happy to finally see reasonable speed limits in Manakau! The number and size of vehicles has increased immensely since I was a child there, and it no longer feels very safe walking in the village. Especially in winter, when it's too muddy to walk on the berm. We might need speed bumps in Manakau to actually slow some drivers down, though.”

Feedback form #21

“I would be very happy to see the speed limit lowered in Manakau Village. With the extra housing developed there are a lot more people, young and old, and cars using the roads”

Feedback form #61: (Officers believe this comment is regarding State Highway 1)

“The change is: that between South Manakau road and the entrance signs into Manakau, there are NO STREET LIGHTS!!!! Why not?! Numerous people have been killed on this small stretch of road at night due to the NON-EXISTENT lighting. Put up a couple of lights for God's sake. Myself like numberless others hate driving through this small stretch (1 km max?) of road at NIGHT. It is a death trap at NIGHT. Please do something about this for God's sake, and don't take the easy opt out of throwing my suggestion in the bin, with the justification "this is a different matter to speed. I deal with speed issues, someone else deals with street lights, therefore I will throw this suggestion out, as I am confident that this matter will eventually be handled by the appropriate team members - in due course. What a cop out! I do not know who you are, but my confident in your team to put up 2-3 street lights in this so-dangerous area is very low. Q: Why? A: Because it has been abundantly clear to ALL but the most mentally challenged person that this tiny stretch of road is very DANGEROUS at night. Please fix it, and not just bin this suggestion. Thank you.”

Feedback form #81

“Waikawa Beach Road from SH1 to Takapu Road is a race track. Drivers race down the road because it's a straight piece of road and it's tempting. We no longer will walk our dogs down the road as we don't feel safe to do so. Obviously there are no foopaths. Sometimes even pulling out of our driveway is risky. Since we moved here 18 years ago, the road has become a nightmare because it's so much busier. People will always go beyond the speed limit. Currently some still go 100kph. So, if the limit was reduced from 80kph to, say, 60kph, then we would achieve averages of 80kph.”

Feedback form #88

“I would like the speed restriction extended to the whole of Honi Taipua Street, as many people walk their children to school from Manakau Heights and drivers often do not even observe the 50km restriction at the south end”

How speed limit changes around Manakau have been proposed in the recommended option

5.25 Option A, the recommended option, includes a permanent speed limit for change to 30km/h for Manakau, with no change made from the engagement proposal.

5.26 All 7 people who listed their town as Manakau or Manakau 5573 supported the proposed speed limit changes, with 1 of these supporting with some changes.

5.27 Feedback form suggests extending the 30km/h speed limit to the Southern end of Honi Taipua Street, this suggestion has been incorporated into Option C, the “Do-Maximum” Option.

Feedback on Speed Limit Changes in Waikawa Beach

5.28 The majority (49%) of people who submitted feedback supported the proposed changes to the speed limits in Waikawa Beach. With a further 6% supporting the proposal with some changes.

5.29 13 responses were received from people who identified their town as Waikawa Beach. Of these 4 supported the proposed changes, 2 supported changing the speed limits with some additional changes, and 7 did not support the proposed speed limit changes.

Question: Do you support the proposed changes around Waikawa Beach?	Number of responses
Yes	48 (49%)
Yes, with some changes	6 (6%)
No	23 (24%)
Blank	20 (21%)

Relevant feedback comments on proposed speed limit changes around Waikawa Beach

5.30 Nine people provided comments relevant to the proposed speed limit changes in Waikawa Beach

Feedback form #22:

“30km at Waikawa beach is overkill. I barely see another vehicle on the road and there have been no accidents of consequence. I would rather a focus on sh1 turning out of Waikawa beach southbound where there are regular accidents and turning is becoming more difficult with traffic increases.”

Feedback form #26

“Just thrilled about the lower speed limit in Waikawa Beach. 50km is too fast in the area with so many people and others using the road, as there are no footpaths. We don’t want footpaths with Btw. we like the very laid back beach feel If the Neighbourhood. Thanks”

Feedback form #39

“waikawa beach road should stay same the request for reduded speed limit as forwarded by a few ratepayers not the majority was for ONLY DURING school holidays long weekend s . this was put forward by non resident holiday bach owners. as we have few school kids living here it seems ridiculous to have a 30km speed. I have lived here for 20years + and as far as i know there has never been a pedidisitain accident . we walk the roads for excise and it is not often there is more than one car passes us . the information that was put out by council about NARROW roads where are they ?? most roads you can have acar parked on each side and is have room for cars to pass 90 % of the roads at beach (villiage Are striaght and can see at 300 meters ahead . The only NORROW road is the entrance of about 400 meters we have approx 2000mtres these have formed gutters + 500mtres of no formed gutters this area has only 5 houses that have permament residents . the total number of premament resident dwellings is about 38 my estimate of house here is aprox 234 that is roughly 15% of houses are permament residents”

Feedback form #40

“The first option should be to provide footpath in Waikawa beach Silly to reduce speed to 30? When people are walking on the road”

Feedback form #65 (Under “When would you like to see these changes made?”)

“As soon as possible because it is highly likely that many people driving around Waikawa Beach will ignore the new speed limits”

Feedback form #70

“I have been going to Waikawa Beach for over 25 years and have lived there permanently for 7.

I have been a member of Police for over 30 years also and policed road safety and attended, investigated traffic related offending.

My opinion is that compared to other more highly densely populated areas where goads a much narrower with greater on street parking, Waikawa has quite wide streets in comparison.

There are wide berms that people can walk on. It the council does not maintain trees and vegetation on the berms that cause people to have to go onto the road to avoid the obstructions.

Logan horses ride on the berms here too where they can and I see this regularly too.

The only reduction in speed in the area I know of that I was involved in as a member of the Waikawa Beach Ratepayers Assn as a committeee member since moving here permanently was for taking Strathnaver Drive from 80 to 60km:h. That speed was too fast for the width of that road which for a main feeder road in the winding section is narrower than most streets in the Beach area. Strathnaver and Reay Makay Grove also have extensive berms of width for pedestrians to use and I do when walking my did daily.

The full time residents and those who own holiday homes here do adapt their driving for holiday periods. We also ‘have a word’ with those May transgress with motorbikes or quads heading to the beach.

Personally and professionally I do not feel that for the number of residents permanently here and the amount of traffic through here, permanent reduction of speeds within the village is not warranted”

Feedback form #77

“Having lived here for the last 5 years the speed limit around the village in Waikawa has never been a topic of conversation or apparent concern. We are a quiet community with few people and not much traffic. The wide roads and generally sensible driving gives plenty of room for all users. What is of concern over the years has been the beach access and the intersection from the main road on to state highway 1. Maybe an option would be to put up temporary speed limits in the village during peak periods such as when the recycling station is here over Christmas.”

And;

“Maybe Strathnaver drive could be slowed down to about 50km.”

Feedback form #80:

“We object to the speed limit changes at Waikawa Beach

• We live at the south end of Reay MacKay Grove, Waikawa Beach.

• Council are proposing to lower the speed on our road to 30km/hr.

• We object to this and believe the road should retain the speed limit of 60km/hour.

• This is a quiet rural road with a cul de sac at each end, the road is at least 6 metres wide and visibility along the road is excellent.

• The road is in a good condition and is about 20 years old.

• There are less than 10 houses of permanent residents on Reay MacKay Grove.

• Walking on the road or biking along the road and even riding horses along the road can all be done very safely, with hardly ever seeing a car on the road.

• Recent years have brought a lot of building and construction in our area and even this level of traffic has not caused any issues with regards to safely

• We do not believe there has been any accidents causing injury or death on Reay MacKay Grove and the same applies to the Waikawa Beach Village area.

• We do not agree with the reduction of speed in the village either, mainly the folks in the village are only residing there as a holiday house occupancy.

• The people in the village and in Strathnaver and Reay MacKay are always respectful towards pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and other vehicles.

• We would be agreeable to Council changing the speed limit on Strathnaver and Reay

MacKay to 50 km/hour to match the speed limit in Waikawa Village

• We are willing to speak to our submission as we feel strongly that Council are heading along the wrong track in relation to Waikawa Beach.

Feedback form #89

“For many years we have asked for a speed reduction during Christmas Holidays. What about Strathnaver Drive? Why has it not had speed reduced”

Feedback form #96

“Housing and population density has increased greatly along Waikawa beach rd. Residents and users along Waikawa Beach Pd between SH1 and Takapu Rd would like the speed limit reduced to 60km/hr in keeping with road use, road condition and housing density.”

How speed limit changes around Waikawa Beach have been proposed in the recommended option

5.31 Option A, the recommended option, includes no speed limit for change for Waikawa Beach, despite the majority of feedback supporting a permanent speed limit change.

5.32 A majority of people (6 out of 11 responses) who listed their town as Waikawa Beach opposed the proposed speed limit changes, with 4 supporting the proposed changes, and 1 supported the proposed changes, but only for the summer holiday period.

5.33 Reviewing past engagement with the Waikawa Community has indicated advocacy on speed limits for Waikawa Beach has been focused on a Seasonal Speed Limit.

5.34 Officers believe a Seasonal Speed Limit would be more widely supported in Waikawa Beach, however it is not feasible to implement as part of this Speed Management Plan due to resourcing and timeframes.

5.35 Investigating Seasonal Speed Limits across all of Horowhenua’s beach settlements may be prioritised for the next Speed Management Plan.

5.36 Two people have suggesting reducing the speed limit of Waikawa Beach Road from SH1 to Takapu Road from 80km/h to 60km/h. This suggestion has not been included in any of the three options. Officers believe a more thorough planning process is required for planning rural connector roads through the district in a future Speed Management Planning Process.

70km/h speed limit and 90km/h Speed Limit Review

5.37 There are no local roads with a speed limit of 90km/h within the Horowhenua District.

5.38 Roslyn Road has a current sign posted speed limit of 70km/h and it was proposed that the speed limit remain as it is. 49% of those who provided feedback agreed with this proposal. 25% of those who provided feedback did not agree with this proposal, but did not provide any feedback on this.

5.39 Council Officers recommend that the speed limit on this road remains at 70km/h.

5.40 It is a requirement of ‘The Rule’ that all roads with a 70km/h or 90km/h speed limit are reviewed as part of each Speed Management Plan. Therefore, if the speed limit on this road remains 70km/h this will be included in the next speed management plan.

Confirmation of Sign Posted Speed Limits

5.41 Council Officers are proposing that the current speed limits are confirmed on identified roads within the Horowhenua District. This process is required due to a legal anomaly to confirm that the legal speed limits are the same as the speed limit signs.

5.42 Appendix E outlines the roads where speed limits are required to be confirmed.

6. Options

6.1 Three options for changes to speed limits have been developed for Council consider. Council Officers have assessed that each option will meet the requirements outlined in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022. Council Officers recommend that Council approve Option A: Recommended be included in the Speed Management Plan 2024-2034.

6.2 In addition it is the Officer’s recommended approach for Council to adopt the points listed below.

6.3 That Council approve the proposed approach to 70km/h or 90km/h roads.

6.4 That Council approve the proposed changes to confirm the legal speed limits to ensure consistency with current sign posted speed limits on identified roads in Horowhenua, as outlined in Appendix E. Noting that if Option C: Do Maximum is adopted, the speed limit changes in Option C will be implemented instead of confirming the current sign posted speed limits for the roads also included in Appendix E.

6.5 That Council authorise Council Officers to finalise the Draft Speed Management Plan 2024-2034 and submit to Horizons Regional Council for inclusion in the Regional Speed Management Plan.

Option A: Recommended. (Maps shown in Appendix A)

6.6 Option A is the most similar to the draft Speed Management Plan used for engagement

6.7 A summary of Option A is provided below:

· Variable 30km/h speed limit for Koputaroa School Zone

· Variable 30km/hr speed limit for Manawatu College and Foxton School zone, with the exception of Hulke Street.

· Permanent 30km/hr speed limits for all other local road school zones.

· Permanent 30km/hr speed limit for Manakau Village

· No speed limit change for Waikawa Beach

6.8 Changes and additions included in Option A are described below:

· Shannon School zone 30km/h zone is extended 275m south east to the intersection on Vogel Street on Grey Street, as requested from Shannon School.

· Foxton Beach School zone extended 20m east along Thomas Place, incorporating Low Avenue, changed as the original plan’s threshold is too close to the drop off/pick up zone.

· Tokomaru School, 30km/h Speed Limit has been extended to 300m south east of SH57 intersection, to be in line with the Speed Management Guidelines

· Levin School, Levin Intermediate, Horowhenua College and St Joseph’s School zones, 2 private roads have been removed, off Bath Street, and two private roads have been removed off Durham Street

· Levin North School zone has extended 48m north east along Weraroa Road, to start the 30km/h speed limit at the top of a hill, rather than at the bottom

· Arete Lane, Ruapai Drive and Oriwa Lane have been changed from to 60km/hr. These rods were included in the confirmation of signposted speed limits section of the engagement SMP. Feedback received from resident suggests a lower speed limit, which Officers agree with. These roads have a similar form and function of other roads with 60km/h speed limits within the district.

Option B: Do Minimum (Maps shown in Appendix B)

6.9 Option B has been developed to provide a plan which makes the minimum changes necessary to be compliant with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022.

6.10 A summary of Option B is provided below:

· All local road school zones have variable 30km/hr speed limits

· No speed limit change for Waikawa Beach

· No speed limit change for Manakau, with the exception of a variable 30km/hr speed limit for the Manakau School zone.

· Some of the school zone extents change between Option A and B, this is due to requirements around minimum speed limit lengths in the Rule, which do not apply for variable zones.

Option C: Do Maximum (Maps shown in Appendix C)

6.11 Option C has been developed to provide a plan which makes as many suggested feasible changes as practicable.

6.12 A summary of Option C is provided below:

· Permanent 30km/h speed limits for all local road school zones.

· Permanent 30km/h speed limit for Manakau.

· Permanent 30km/h speed limit for Waikawa.

6.13 Option C includes all the additional changes described for Option A. In addition to these, the following changes are included in Option C:

· A 30km/h speed zone on Muhunoa West Road, from SH1, extending 280m west.

· Palmer Road 60km/h speed limit from Foxton Beach Road, extending 600m west.

· Potts Road, 60km/hr speed limit change for the full length.

· Moutere Road, 60km/hr speed limit change for the full length.

· Gladstone Road, 60km/h speed limit change for the full length.

6.14 Estimated Costs

Option	Estimated Costs
A (Recommended)	$80,000 (includes new active warning signs for Koputaroa Road and Ladys Mile, and permanent speed signs at all other locations).
B (Do Minimum)	$85,000 (includes new active warning signs for Koputaroa Road and Ladys Mile, plus static variable signs at all other locations).
C (Do Maximum)	$65,000 (includes new active warning signs for Koputaroa Road, which are still recommended with a permanent speed limit, not required for Ladys Mile. Permanent signs at all other locations).

7. Rate Impact

7.1 There will be no rate impacts arising. The costs associated with implementing the Speed Management Plan can be achieved within safety improvements existing budgets.

8. Community Wellbeing

8.1 The Draft Speed Management Plan is aligned with the Community Outcomes of Strong Communities, Fit for Purpose Infrastructure, Outstanding Environment, and Partnership with Tangata Whenua.

8.2 By ensuring that vehicles travelling on our roads are doing so at safe and appropriate speeds we can improve safety for all road users, including those who are walking, cycling, or using mobility devices. In addition, the speed management plan will support the provision of equitable access to a variety of safe and healthy transport options. This will include supporting the increased use of active transport modes such as walking and cycling particularly for getting to and from school or work, and for recreation.

8.3 The proposed changes outlined in the Draft Speed Management Plan have not been assessed as having any significant negative impacts on community wellbeing.

9. Consenting Issues

9.1 There are no consents required or consenting issues arising.

10. LTP Integration

10.1 There is no LTP programme related to the options or proposals in this report. There are no special consultative processes required.

11. Consultation

11.1 Initial engagement activities were undertaken by Council Officers with school principals, iwi partners, and NZ Police. When received, their feedback was incorporated into the initial Draft Speed Management Plan that was presented for community feedback.

11.2 As part of the initial engagement process, Council Officers contacted the school principals of each of the potentially affected schools. Responses were received from the principals of the following schools:

· Levin School,

· St Josephs School,

· Manawatū College,

· Fairfield School,

· Koputaroa School,

· Ohau School,

· Foxton School,

· Tokomaru School,

· Manakau School,

· Taitoko School, and

· Levin East School.

7.3 All responses supported the proposed changes and where suggestions were made this included adding in areas where there were entrances to schools that Council Officers were unaware of. This feedback was incorporated into the Draft Speed Management Plan.

12. Legal Considerations

12.1 Horowhenua District Council, as a Road Controlling Authority, is required to complete a Speed Management Plan for implementation in 2024. The timeframes for completion are set by Waka Kotahi.

12.2 The process for how speed limits are set changed in 2022 with the Minister for Transport establishing the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022 (‘The Rule’). Specifically this includes setting out the requirements for how Road Controlling Authorities must comply when setting speed limits. ‘The Rule’ significantly changed how speed limits are set and removed the requirement for Councils to set speed limits through bylaws and instead the Director of Land Transport at Waka Kotahi will certify Speed Management Plans. A new Speed Management Plan will be required to be completed every three years.

12.3 Waka Kotahi has provided guidance on how to apply ‘The Rule’ to support national consistency. As this is a new process, it is anticipated that Waka Kotahi will be able to provide feedback to Road Controlling Authorities following the certification process.

12.4 Waka Kotahi has advised that any changes to speed limits, including speed limit signs or additional safety infrastructure will need to be funded out of existing land transport budgets.

13. Iwi Considerations

13.1 Māori must be engaged from the development stage of the Speed Management Plan to provide a meaningful opportunity to contribute. This is a requirement in ‘The Rule’ and also outlined in the guidance provided by Waka Kotahi. Waka Kotahi also outline that the Safe Speed System and safe and appropriate speed limits are expected to contribute to improved speed management for Māori communities and improved Māori road safety outcomes overall.

13.2 Council Officers engaged with iwi partners. Information was shared on what was being proposed and input into developing the plan was sought. The feedback received outlined support for reducing speed limits around schools and in areas where there are high numbers of vulnerable road users, e.g. people walking and cycling, to improve safety.

13.3 In addition, Council Officers sought specific feedback and input into setting speed limits around marae. Speed limit setting around marae is similar to that used around schools, however the feedback received from iwi partners is that they do not believe it would be beneficial to permanently reduce speed limits on the roads next to marae entrances at this time. ‘The Rule’ does not require speed limits around marae to be reduced at this time, the way that it requires speed limits around schools to be addressed.

13.4 Council Officers will continue to work with iwi partners to improve safety around marae. For example, a variable speed limit may be required where the safe and appropriate speed limit would be too high under certain circumstances. This may include: kaupapa at the marae generate significant changes to the volume of traffic entering and exiting the marae; and kaupapa at the marae such as tangi require processions of people to walk on the road. A variable speed limit does not require certification from the Director of Land Transport as part of a Speed Management Plan, therefore the requirements for variable speed limits around marae will continue to be discussed and will be implemented if appropriate, following engagement with relevant parties.

14. Climate Change Considerations

14.1 Waka Kotahi have provided the following information about climate change impacts of lower speeds in the Speed Management Guide: Road to Zero edition 2022.

14.2 Speed management is a proven way to improve safety, saving lives and preventing debilitating injuries. It also represents a major, yet under-appreciated opportunity to improve the climate change impacts of travel, support better health and wellbeing, and create greater inclusion.

14.3 While speed management contributes to improving the climate impacts of travel, the proposed changes in the three year implementation plan are unlikely to have a significant impact, either positive or negative.

15. Environmental Considerations

15.1 Waka Kotahi have provided the following information about environmental benefits arising from lowering speeds in the Speed Management Guide: Road to Zero edition 2022.

15.2 Safe speeds make travel more comfortable and accessible for people outside vehicles because of improved safety, reduced noise and emissions, and the reduced division of communities by high-speed roads. As safe speeds are achieved on more of the network and more people walk and cycle, a positive feedback loop can be created where private vehicle use is reduced and health grows.

15.3 Environmental benefits from lowering speeds overall and reducing acceleration and deceleration include reduced particulate matter, emissions, and noise pollution. Research has found that reducing speed to safe speed limits reduces particulate matter from diesel vehicles. The reduction is more significant on higher speed roads such as motorways than on local roads, but the research noted a reduction in all contexts.

15.4 When a vehicle travels at a lower average speed, the wind and rolling resistance decreases, so the car requires less energy and fuel to maintain speed. Therefore fewer emissions are produced on safe speed roads. A vehicle moving at a constant speed produces fewer emissions than a vehicle moving between speeds needing to use more fuel accelerating and decelerating. This is particularly relevant for urban areas where lowered speed limits can contribute to more consistent travel speeds and reduce acceleration and deceleration.

16. Health & Safety Considerations

16.1 There are no health and safety impacts for completing the Draft Speed Management Plan.

16.2 Any health and safety considerations involved with implementing any subsequent changes, including changing or installing road signs, will be managed using current health and safety processes.

16.3 The predominant aim of implementing safe and appropriate speeds is to improve the safety and accessibility of local roads in the Horowhenua District for all road users. Implementing the proposed changes will increase both the perceived and actual safety for all road users.

17. Other Considerations

17.1 A number of recommendations for improved road safety infrastructure were raised by community members during the engagement process. These suggestions have been recorded and will be considered and prioritised as part of forward work planning.

17.2 Council Officers will continue to engage with New Zealand Police and where comments have been made regarding enforcement these will be shared. This will help to contribute to a whole of system approach to make our roads safer for all road users.

18. Next Steps

Draft Speed Management Plan Certification Process

18.1 Once Council have recommended an option for inclusion in the three year implementation programme and endorsed submitting the Draft Speed Management Plan 2024-2034 for inclusion in the Regional Speed Management Plan, Council Officers will finalise the draft plan. This plan will then be submitted to Horizons Regional Council for review and inclusion in the Regional Speed Management Plan.

18.2 The Regional Speed Management Plan will then be reviewed by the Regional Transport Committee, who after endorsement will authorise Horizons Council Officers to submit this for certification by the Director of Land Transport at Waka Kotahi. Horizons Council Officers have advised that they are considering seeking an extension on the deadline for submitting the draft plan to Waka Kotahi until 30 June 2024.

18.3 Once submitted to Waka Kotahi, the draft plan is then reviewed by the Speed Management Committee who provide a recommendation to the Director of Land Transport about whether the plan should be certified and any other feedback.

18.4 Once the plan is certified, speed limits are able to be updated in line with the three year implementation programme.

18.5 Council Officers will continue to advocate for road safety education programmes including those that will support the community to be aware of how their behaviour will need to change once any changes to speed limits are implemented and to support children to act safely around roads.

18.6 If Council does not complete a speed management plan it is possible that Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency may direct Horowhenua District Council as a Road Controlling Authority to:

- Set the speed limit in accordance with the Agency’s directions

- Review or change the procedures used by the road controlling authority to set speed limits or to propose to change speed limits to comply with the Rule

- Carry out the instructions above within a stated period.

Speed Management Plan 2027-2037

18.7 Horowhenua District Council will be required to complete the next speed management plan in 2026 for the 2027 – 2037 time period. It is possible the Minister for Transport will update the requirements Road Controlling Authorities will be required to follow in ‘The Rule’ and Council Officers will seek direction from Council on future approaches to changes.

18.8 Future Speed Management Plans will include a greater focus on a whole of network approach including integrating planned improvements to road safety infrastructure with speed limit changes. Suggestions for changes that were not implemented as part of the Speed Management Plan 2024-2034 will be able to be reconsidered in line with priorities during development of subsequent plans.

State Highway Speed Management Plan

18.9 Waka Kotahi has started considering inclusions for the State Highway Speed Management Plan 2024-27. This plan will continue focusing on the remaining schools, marae, townships, areas with community support for speed limit reductions, and the remaining high-risk state highway sections in the top one percent. They have said they will start working with Road Controlling Authorities towards the end of August and are asking for specific feedback on where there is clear community demand for speed limit reductions on state highways so they can consider these areas for inclusion in the plan. New requests can be considered until the end of September 2023.

18.10 A number of the responses received during the feedback process for the Horowhenua Speed Management Plan included recommendations or feedback on the State Highways. Council Officers will forward this information to Waka Kotahi for their consideration and possible inclusion in either the State Highway Speed Management Plan or planning for road safety improvements.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

19. Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Appendix A Option A Recommended (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Appendix B Option B Minimum (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Appendix C Option C Maximum (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Appendix D Speed Management Plan 2024 - 2034 Feedback - REDACTED (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Appendix E: Confirming Sign Posted Speed Limits (Under Separate Cover)

Author(s)

Justine Moore

Infrastructure Planning Lead

James Wallace

Land Transport Manager

Approved by

Daniel Haigh

Group Manager Community Infrastructure

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer

Council

30 August 2023

File No.: 23/472

7.2 Selecting the Electoral System for Local Body Election 2025

1. Purpose

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with the opportunity to choose the electoral system used in the District local body elections 2025. Options available are Single Transferable Voting (STV) system and the First Past the Post (FPP) system.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 Council is asked to consider the electoral (voting) system it wishes to use for the 2025 Local Government Election.

2.2 Any resolution to change the current electoral system from First Past the Post (FPP) to Single Transferrable Vote (STV) must be passed before 12 September 2023. If there is no Council resolution, the status quo (FPP) will remain. If Council resolves to change its voting system from the current system, then the new voting system must apply for the next two elections or until another resolution takes effect.

3. Recommendation

3.1 That Report 23/472 Selecting the Electoral System for Local Body Election 2025 be received.

3.2 That this matter or decision is recognised not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act.

3.3 That the Council note this report and takes no further action (Option 1).

That Council re-affirms its commitment to the First Past the Post (FPP) electoral system for the 2025 local body elections (Option 2).

That Council adopts the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system for the 2025 local body elections (Option 3).

That Council direct officers to hold a poll on the Electoral System for the 2025 local body elections with a choice between First Past the Post and Single Transferable Vote (Option 4).

4. Background / Previous Council Decisions

4.1 The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides the opportunity for local authorities to choose between the first past the post (FPP) and the single transferable vote (STV) electoral system for local elections.

4.2 In 2002, Council resolved to use the FPP system for the 2004 election, continuing with the electoral system that had been in use since the formation of the district in 1989. A poll was subsequently demanded by electors proposing that the STV electoral system be used instead. The resulting poll saw voters retain the FPP system (5,498 votes for FPP and 3,974 votes for STV).

4.3 In 2014, Council again resolved to use the FPP system for the 2016 election, and this system has continued to be used for every election thereafter.

4.4 This system must continue to be used until either:

· a Council resolution in accordance with Section 27 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 takes effect, or

· a poll of electors of the Horowhenua District Council held under section 33 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 takes effect.

4.5 The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides local authorities and/or their communities with three options for choosing which system is used:

· a local authority may resolve to change its electoral system; or

· a local authority may resolve to hold a poll to determine which system should be used; or

· electors may demand that a poll be held on the matter.

4.6 Council has the following choices (these are discussed in more detail later in the report):

1. Note this report and take no further action.

2. Reaffirm its commitment to FPP by passing a resolution to that effect (s27 Local Electoral Act 2001).

3. Resolve to change the electoral system from FPP to STV (s27 Local Electoral Act 2001).

4. Resolve to hold a poll on the matter (s33 Local Electoral Act 2001).

4.7 Council must make a decision by 12 September 2023 and notify via public advertisement by 19 September 2023, to advise the community to its right to demand a poll to countermand any resolution.

5. Discussions

5.1 There are two voting options for Council to consider – Single Transferable Vote (STV) or First Past the Post (FPP). Council currently uses FPP. The characteristics of each system is set out as follows.

Single Transferable Voting

5.2 Single Transferable Voting (STV) is a form of preferential voting. Electors have a single vote and rank candidates in the order they prefer. STV was used by 19% of local authorities in 2022 (15 of 78), including Kāpiti Coast District Council, Palmerston North and Ruapehu District Council.^{^[1]}

5.3 Under a STV (Single-Transferable Vote) electoral system, voters rank candidates in their order of preference. A good example to consider is an election to select three councillors for a ward in a council election. Under STV, you would write “1” next to the name of your favourite candidate, “2” next to your second favourite candidate and so on.

5.4 STV means that you have one vote, but can indicate your preferences for all the candidates and it can be transferred if your most preferred candidate is so popular they don’t need all their votes or is not popular at all with other voters. Under FPP, you would place ticks next to the names of up to three candidates, which means you would have three votes.

5.5 The number of vacancies and votes determines the quota a candidate must reach to be elected. The formula for deciding the quota is total number of valid votes, divided by one more than the number of vacancies).

5.6 This counting process is illustrated in the diagram below.

(source: Department of Internal Affairs website www.dia.govt.nz)

First Past the Post

5.7 With First Past the Post (FPP) electors tick their preferred candidate(s) up to the number of vacancies. Candidates with the highest number of votes are elected. FPP was used by 81% of local authorities in 2022 (63 of 78) including Horowhenua District Council, Manawatu District Council, and Rangitekei District Council.

5.8 Under the FPP (First Past the Post) electoral system, the candidate with the most votes wins. This is a very simple method of electing candidates and is widely used throughout the world. It was used in New Zealand for Parliamentary elections up until the introduction of MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) in the 1996 general election.

5.9 The following examples show how results of FPP elections may vary when counted. Where one candidate has a clear majority of votes, it can be seen that the majority of people did support the winning candidate.

	Number of Votes	Percentage of Votes
Candidate One	140	70%
Candidate Two	20	10%
Candidate Three	20	10%
Candidate Four	20	10%
	Total Votes = 200	Total = 100%

5.10 In this example, the winning candidate received 70% of the total votes
However, the winning candidate might receive more votes than any other one candidate, but receive fewer votes than the other candidates put together.

	Number of Votes	Percentage of Votes
Candidate One	80	40%
Candidate Two	60	30%
Candidate Three	40	20%
Candidate Four	20	10%
	Total Votes = 200	Total = 100%

5.11 In this example, the winning candidate got 40 percent of the total votes, the other candidates received 60 percent of votes. It could be said that the election result did not reflect the wishes of the majority. Some people have also argued that even where the winning candidate gets the majority of the votes, many people’s votes are “wasted”.

5.12 FPP has continued to be used by a majority of councils. Only a relatively small number of councils have ever opted to use STV since it was first introduced in 2004 and over the triennia a number of ‘STV councils’ have moved between using FPP and STV.

5.13 The Horowhenua District has used the FPP system for every local body election, and has not opted to use STV since the option became available in 2004.

6. Analysis of Voting Systems

6.1 Both FPP and STV have advantages and disadvantages.

6.2 The advantages of FPP relate to the simplicity of the process including the ways votes are cast, counted and announced.

6.3 The disadvantages of FPP relate to:

• disproportional election results, including the generally ‘less representative’ nature of FPP councils

• the obstacles to minority candidate election

• the number of wasted votes.

6.4 The advantages of STV, relate to the people who get elected using STV. The system potentially achieves:

• broad proportionality (in multi-member wards/constituencies)

• majority outcomes in single-member elections

• more equitable minority representation

• a reduction in the number of wasted votes.

6.5 The disadvantages of STV relate to:

• the public are less familiar with the system and possibly find it harder to understand

• matters of process such as the way votes are cast and counted (for example perceived complexity may discourage some voters)

• the information conveyed in election results.

6.6 The following table identifies further advantages and disadvantages of both electoral systems:

First Past the Post (FPP)	Single Transferrable Vote (STV)
Casting Votes FPP is a straightforward system of voting. FPP is familiar to most people.	Casting Votes STV is a less straightforward system of voting. There is a need for more information for people to understand the STV ranking system of candidates.
“Tactical” voting is possible; votes can be used with a view to preventing a candidate from winning in certain circumstances.	It is virtually impossible to cast a “tactical” vote under STV. As a result, voters are encouraged to express their true preferences by voting for as many or as few candidates as they wish.
Counting Votes FPP is a straightforward system for counting votes.	Counting Votes STV vote counting requires a computer program (the STV calculator).
Votes can be counted in different locations (by the two election providers) and then aggregated by the Electoral Officer in one location..	Votes can be recorded in different locations (by the two election providers) then aggregated by the Electoral Officer in one location.
Election results are usually announced soon after voting ends.	Election results will usually take a little longer to produce, but not significant.
Election results Official results show exactly how many people voted for which candidates.	Election results Official results will identify which candidates have been elected and which have not and in which order in an iteration report which shows how many votes candidates have received.
Results are easy to understand.	Results easy are to understand.
A “block” of like-minded voters can determine the election of multiple candidates in multi-member wards/ constituencies, without having a majority of the votes, thereby ‘over-representing’ themselves.	STV moderates “block” voting as each voter casts only one single vote, even in multi-member wards/ constituencies.
The overall election results may not be proportional to voters’ wishes, and may not reflect the electoral wishes of the majority of voters, only the largest group of voters who may not be the majority.	The overall election results reflect the wishes of the majority of voters in proportion to their support for a variety of candidates.
In single-member elections, the winner often does not have the majority of votes, just the largest group of votes.	In single-member wards/constituencies, the winner will have the majority of votes (preferences).
There will be more “wasted” votes (votes that do not contribute to the election of a candidate).	Every vote is as effective as possible (depending on the number of preferences indicated) meaning there are fewer “wasted” votes and more votes will contribute to the election of a candidate than under FPP.
Costs FPP processing costs are lower than for STV.	Costs STV election processing costs are 10-15% higher than FPP procession costs

7. Options

Option 1: Note the report and take no further action.

7.1 If the Council makes no decision on this issue, the public will be notified that FPP will continue to be the electoral system for the 2025 election unless 5% of the electors (approximately 1,280 electors) demand that a poll be held. To take effect for the 2025 election, the valid demand must be received by 28 February 2024 with the last date for a poll to be held being 21 May 2024.

Option 2: Reaffirm Commitment to First Past the Post

7.2 Council could make a resolution reaffirming its commitment to FPP. Such a resolution would be consistent with Council's previous decisions. The decision will be binding for the 2025 and 2028 elections and associated by-elections. The decision will be publicly notified and subject to the same poll demand provisions as in Option 1.

Option 3: Change Electoral System from FPP to STV

7.3 Should the Council wish to change its electoral system for the next elections, a decision must be made by 12 September 2023 for it to take effect at the 2025 election. Again the decision will be binding for the 2025 and 2028 elections and associated by-elections. The decision will be publicly notified and subject to the same poll demand provisions as in Option 1.

Option 4: Hold a Poll on the Electoral System

7.4 The Council could resolve to conduct a poll on the electoral system to be used for the 2025 election, effectively leaving it to the public to decide. The outcome of the poll would dictate the electoral system for both the 2025 and 2028 elections with no change possible until the 2022 election.

7.5 The estimated cost for a poll, based on 26,000 electors is $110,000 - $110,000

8. Cost

Option	Cost
Option 1: Note the report and take no further action	There is no cost to change the system.
Option 2: Reaffirm Commitment to First Past the Post	There is no cost to change the system.
Option 3: Change Electoral System from FPP to STV	There is no cost to change the system.
Option 4: Hold a Poll on the Electoral System	The estimated cost for a poll, based on 26,000 electors is $100,000 - $110,000 – 0.23% rates.

9. Rate Impact

9.1 There are no additional rates impact for option 1, 2 or 3. There is a small rates impact of 0.23% for option 4.

10. Iwi Considerations

10.1 As noted in 6.4, the STV system leads to more diversity amongst elected members. However, a decision to change the electoral system will not affect current Governance arrangements with mana whenua.

10.2 Any change to the electoral system will not affect the number of Maori wards.

11. Legal Considerations

11.1 The relevant provisions of the Local Electoral Act 2001 for changing a local authority’s electoral system are:

• a local authority may, no later than 12 September two years before the next triennial local election, resolve to change electoral system to take effect for the next two triennial local elections (section 27)

• every local authority must give public notice by 19 September two years before the next triennial local election, of the right for electors to demand a poll on the electoral system and that notice must include a statement that a poll is required to countermand any local authority resolution made on the electoral system (section 28)

• 5% of electors may at any time demand a poll on a proposal that a specified electoral system be used at the election of a local authority (section 29)

• a local authority may, no later than 28 February in the year immediately before the next triennial local election, resolve to hold a poll on the electoral system (section 31)

• if, prior to 28 February in the year immediately before the next triennial local election, either a valid demand for a poll is received (under section 29) or a local authority resolves to hold a poll (under section 31) this is notified to the electoral officer and the poll must be held not later than 82 days after the notification i.e. not later than 21 May in that year, and the result of the poll takes effect for the next two triennial local elections (section 33)

• if a valid demand for a poll is received after 28 February in the year before the next triennial local election, the poll must be held after 21 May in that year and takes effect for the next but one triennial local election and the subsequent election (section 30)

12. Financial Considerations

12.1 If a successful demand for a poll is received the estimated cost to undertake a poll is approximately $100,000 - $110,000 which is unbudgeted in the 2023/24 financial year.

13. Other Considerations

The Future for Local Government Review Panel’s Recommendation

13.1 In its final report of 2023 (attached) - He mata whāriki, he matawhānui - the Review Panel for the Future for Local Government encourages the use of STV across all councils and that this be a legislative requirement, rather than the current practice of local authorities being able to choose between systems. The rationale behind this recommendation includes:

13.2 The ‘winner takes all’ system (FPP) is poorly equipped to represent a population’s diversity; whereas (STV) can improve representativeness by transferring votes and avoiding ‘wasted ballots’;

13.3 Considered that STV promotes greater diversity;

13.4 Potential conflict of interest where elected members perceive they have an increased chance to win under a particular system.

14. Community Engagement

14.1 Timeframes are as follows:

· 12 September 2023: A local authority MAY resolve to retain or change the electoral system (from the system it used at the 2025 general election) for the next triennial election.

· 19 September 2023: A local authority MUST give public notice of the right of 5% of the electors to demand a poll on the future electoral system for the next two triennial elections and, if a resolution has been made by a local authority by 12 September, then this must be included in the notice.

· 18 December 2023: A 90-day period MUST be given following the public notice allowing electors to gather sufficient signatures to demand that a poll be held to change the electoral system for the next two triennial elections.

· 22 February 2024: A local authority MAY resolve to undertake a poll of electors on a proposal that a specified electoral system be used for the next two triennial elections.

· 21 May 2024: If EITHER a successful demand has been received by 21 February 2024 to hold a poll, OR a resolution has been made by a local authority by 21 February 2024, then a poll MUST be held by 21 May 2024 to take effect for 2025 and 2028.

15. Next Steps

15.1 Any resolution passed by Council at this meeting with regards to the voting system for the 2025 triennial election will be publicly notified as soon as possible after the meeting, well in advance of the legal deadline of 19 September 2023.

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

· Appendices

There are no attachments for this report.

Author(s)

Ashley Huria

Business Performance Manager

Approved by

Jacinta Straker

Group Manager Organisation Performance

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer

Council

30 August 2023

File No.: 23/565

7.4 Council's response to concerns raised over the increase in vaping for young people and children

1. Purpose

1.1 This report is in essence a discussion document that aims to get a decision from Council on the direction Council Officers should take surrounding the reported growing use and availability of vape products, in particular among young people and children.

This report does not directly align with one of Council’s top 10 priorities.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That Report 23/565 Council's response to concerns raised over the increase in vaping for young people and children be received.

2.2 That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act.

2.3 That Council notes the report but takes no further action at this point in time, noting the existing work being undertaken within the Community Development work programme (Option 1).

That Council request the Chief Executive prepare a further report detailing possible roles for Council and resourcing implications (Option 2).

3. Background / Previous Council Decisions

3.1 Councillors received an email from a representative of the Vape-free Kids Group on 11 July 2023. The email was asking Councillors to consider support two Vape-Free Kids NZ petitions and also provide advocacy to central Government on a number of areas, mainly in the regulatory management in the sale of vape products. A copy of the email can be found as an attachment to this report.

3.2 The email received also encouraged Councillors to sign two petitions. Broadly speaking, the intention of the petitions was to ban the sale of vape products from non-specialist stores such as local dairies. One of the petitions is before Parliament and closed for signatures on 10 August 2023. That petition will now be considered before Select Committee before being referred to the Minister. The other petition is a Change.org petition and has also closed for signatures.

3.3 In receiving that email, Deputy Mayor Allan in his capacity as Acting Mayor at the time, requested that the CE prepare a paper for Councillors to consider. Deputy Mayor Allan noted that Council has shown good leadership with reducing the effects of smoking in the past and this could be an opportunity for newer Councillors around the table to address concerns raised over vaping.

3.4 It should be noted that Council has, in the past done some work to promote positive health outcomes for the community regarding vaping by way of a policy it adopted in June 2022. The Smokefree and Vapefree Environment Policy was updated to include vaping, aligning the policy with the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Act 2020. A copy of this policy is attached to this report.

4. Discussion

4.1 At this point in time, Council Officers do not have any specific work programme items relating to reducing the impacts of vaping within the community.

4.2 That said, Council Officers do provide support to the Horowhenua Youth Services Network through the work of the Community Development Team. Within that forum, of which Councillor Tukapua is Chair has a dedicated work stream that focuses on understanding the impact that vape products are having on our younger communities. The work group, made up of key people from within our social sector are keeping up to speed with legislative changes and what support is needed here in Horowhenua.

4.3 In preparing this report, Council Officers have not proactively sought a detailed understanding of the law surrounding vaping including any incoming legislation.

4.4 Depending on the direction that Council wishes to take, it is the opinion of Council Officers, that if Council chose to play a role in reducing the impacts of vaping, there are a number of high-level approaches that could potentially be considered as listed below:

Community Education Approach

4.5 Council Officers continue to work alongside our community networks and partners such as the Horowhenua Youth Services Network who have already identified this as a priority and support them with their work. Details are yet to be determined and will be led by the community with support from Council.

Retailer Education Approach

4.6 Council Officers prepare and launch a small campaign alongside community groups and networks to assist vape product retailers to understand their obligations under the legislation and in particular about the sale of products to children and young people.

Council Advocacy Approach

4.7 Council Officers will continue to monitor any legislative changes within Parliament and perform an advocacy role upon the instruction and direction of Council when required. This could include preparing letters to the Minister of Health on behalf of Council.

Regulatory Approach

4.8 At this point in time, Council’s Customer and Compliance Team are unaware of any regulatory changes that warrant them to educate, restrict or change the way that vape products are sold within businesses. The Team will continue to monitor any legislative changes and report back to Council, if necessary.

4.9 Additionally, Council could consider incorporating the intention of The Smokefree and Vapefree Environment Policy into The Public Places Bylaw which is due for review within the next 12 months. By doing so, Council would have the ability to enforce those who do not adhere to the Policy and therefore the Bylaw. Noting that Council Officers in the first instance, typically follow an education-first approach.

5. Options

5.1 As the purpose of this report is essentially a discussion document, the options moving forward, largely sit with Council and the direction they instruct the CE to take. However, to provide some guidance, Council Officers suggest that the Council consider one of the two options listed below.

Option 1: Council takes no further action at this point in time.

5.2 This option would result in Council Officers not spending any additional time directly on the topic or issue of vaping. Council Officers would continue to support our community networks and groups who are working in this space as per our normal Community Development work programme. Noting that with this option, if any additional new information was made available to Council Officers and if it was deemed necessary, this would be conveyed back to Council.

Option 2: Council prepares further detailed options for Council to consider.

5.3 This option would require Council Officers to spend some time to fully understand what support it can offer to the community to help reduce the impact of vaping in our younger population. Once done, Council Officers would feedback to Council alongside the time commitment from Council and associated costs, if any. Ideally, if this was the option that the Council agreed with, Council Officers could communicate back to Councillors by the end of November 2023.

6. Cost

6.1 The cost associated with either option is unknown, however, it would be the intention that any costs would be absorbed within existing operational budgets (Community Development).

Rate Impact

6.2 There will be no Rate impacts arising.

7. Community Wellbeing

7.1 The overall intention of this report is to consider how we can best support our community regarding this issue and no matter what direction is chosen, the community will be at the heart of any work undertaken.

7.2 Council’s Strong Communities (Community Wellbeing Strategy 2021-24) identifies in its action plan that Council will “continue to be an advocate for our community” and the essence of this report, reflects this priority.

8. Consenting Issues

8.1 There are no Consents required or consenting issues arising.

9. LTP Integration

9.1 There is no LTP programme related to the options or proposals in this report. There are no Special Consultative Processes required.

10. Consultation

10.1 There was no consultation required to be undertaken.

11. Legal Considerations

11.1 There are no Legal Requirements or Statutory Obligations affecting options or proposals at this stage in the discussion.

12. Financial Considerations

12.1 There is no financial impact at this stage in the discussion. In most of the discussion points, identified in this report, any costs or financial considerations would be absorbed in existing operational budgets (Community Development) unless a more significant project is identified and supported by the Council.

13. Iwi Considerations

13.1 At the time of writing this report, there are no known Iwi Considerations. For the purposes of this report, views have not been sought.

13.2 If Council wish to pursue some form of action in relation to this matter, Council Officers will engage with our Iwi/hapu partners on the work they’re already doing in this space and how we could potentially collaborate moving forward.

14. Climate Change Considerations

14.1 There is no Climate Change impact.

15. Environmental Considerations

15.1 There are no Environmental considerations.

16. Health & Safety Considerations

16.1 There is no Health & Safety impact.

17. Other Considerations

17.1 There are no other considerations.

18. Next Steps

18.1 Council need to consider the options and ideas discussed in this report. Following that discussion and decision, if need be, Council Officers will share a timeframe and plan on their suggested way forward.

18.2 If Council choose to take no further action at this point, Council Officers will not start any new work in this space but will continue to support community networks and groups within their existing Community Development work programme.

1. Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Vapefree Email to Councillors	62
b ⇩	HDC Smokefree and Vapefree Policy	65

Author(s)

Mark Hammond

Community Facilities and Services Manager

Approved by

Brent Harvey

Group Manager - Community Experience & Services

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer

Council

30 August 2023

File No.: 23/576

7.7 Wellington Regional Leadership Committee - update to Terms of Reference to incorporate the Future Development Strategy

1. Purpose

1.1 The purpose of this report is to:

a) seek approval for the amended Terms of Reference for the WRLC (WRLC) to incorporate the Future Development Strategy (FDS), and,

b) appoint one elected member, to be a member of the Joint Committee Subcommittee for the FDS for the purposes of hearing submissions.

This report does not directly align with one of Council’s top 10 priorities, however has strong alignment with the priority “ Provide advocacy and leadership to Ōtaki to North Levin Expressway Project”.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 The WRLC is in the process of developing a FDS, which updates the Wellington Regional Growth Framework (WRGF). The development of the WRGF was supported by an Agreement and Terms of Reference (TOR) signed by all councils involved in the process.

2.2 At the time that the Agreement and TOR was signed the FDS was not anticipated. To address this, and to ensure that the WRLC has the appropriate powers to sign off the FDS, an update is required to the Agreement and TOR.

2.3 This report identifies the process that was undertaken and options that were considered to enable a sign off process. This involved a two-step process:

a) Step 1: the WRLC agree which option for signoff of the draft FDS, signoff of the final FDS and the establishment of a Hearings Panel it endorses.

b) Step 2: as required by the Local Government Act, any changes to the WRLC Agreement and TOR, needs to be agreed by all ten councils.

2.4 Step 1 is complete, and this report seeks agreement from Council to approve the updated Agreement and TOR.

2.5. To ensure that there is equitable participation for all Councils taking part in the process, the report also seeks that a representative of each Council is appointed to the sub-committee of the WRLC to specifically hear submissions on the FDS.

3. Recommendation

3.1 That Council notes that on 8 September 2021, the Council resolved to establish the WRLC and for Council to become a member of it. The matters that Joint Committee addresses now need updating and these resolutions reflect those updates. These resolutions should be read as being in addition to the original resolutions,

3.2 That Council agrees the WRLC continues as a joint committee under clause 30(1)(b) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, but on the amended terms set out in the Joint Committee Agreement (dated 2023), with the amendments in effect from the date the WRLC Joint Committee Agreement is signed by all local authority parties,

3.3 That Council notes the main amendments provide for the WRLC to:

a) undertake the work necessary to inform, prepare and finalise the FDS in accordance with the National Policy Statement for Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD),

b) establish a Joint Committee Subcommittee to hear submissions on the draft FDS (and any updates) and make recommendations to the WRLC on those submissions (which will make the final decision on the FDS),

c) undertake regular reviews of the FDS,

d) prepare the implementation plan in support of the FDS, and,

e) implement the FDS.

3.4 That Council authorises the WRLC to appoint a Joint Committee Subcommittee for the FDS to hear and make recommendations on submissions received on the draft FDS to be developed under the NPD-UD (and any updates to that Strategy),

3.5 That Council approves the amended WRLC Joint Committee Agreement, including the amended Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee and the new Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee Subcommittee for the FDS. (Noting that as required by the existing Agreement, the WRLC Joint Committee has endorsed the amendments to functions and powers of the Joint Committee),

3.6 That Council delegates all powers and functions to the WRLC set out in the amended WRLC Joint Committee Agreement, including the amended Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee and the new Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee Subcommittee for the FDS,

3.7 That Council notes that the WRLC is a joint committee of all local authorities that are parties to the WRLC Joint Committee Agreement, and it includes members representing iwi and the Crown,

3.8 That Council authorises the Mayor to sign the amended WRLC Joint Committee Agreement on behalf of the Council,

3.9 That Council appoints one elected member being [Elected member name], to be a member of the Joint Committee Subcommittee for the FDS for the purposes of hearing submissions on the draft FDS (or any updates to it) and making recommendations on those submissions to the WRLC, and

3.10 That Council authorises officers to make any consequential amendments to Attachment 1 of the report, based on direction provided at this meeting and to correct any minor editorial, typographical, arithmetical, or formatting errors that are identified.

4. Background / Previous Council Decisions

The Future Development Strategy

4.1 The FDS is an updated version of the Wellington Regional Growth Framework. It is a statutory document, for “Tier 1 and 2” councils who are required to prepare a FDS under the NPS-UD in time to inform the 2024 Council Long Term Plans (LTPs). This means we ideally need to complete and have signed off at least a draft FDS by third quarter 2023 to enable councils to include any financial and other implications in the early drafts of their LTP.

4.2 Wellington, Porirua, Kāpiti, Hutt City, Upper Hutt and Greater Wellington are Tier 1 Councils and Horowhenua, South Wairarapa, Carterton and Masterton are Tier 3 Councils. These categories based on growth projections, with Tier 1 councils considered “high growth”.

4.3 As a Tier 3 Council, there is no requirement to produce a FDS, and HDC sits within the Horizons rohe. However with recent improvements to the northern corridor and market changes, our future is becoming more closely aligned with the Greater Wellington Region. The benefits to the Horowhenua District of being included in the FDS for the Greater Wellington Region include strengthening ties with the Wellington region, and being able to capitalise on growth from there. The FDS will send a clear signal that Horowhenua District is located in a strategic position in terms of both regions, that we are open for business and planning for growth, and will indicate where the regionally significant growth is to occur. Inclusion in the Greater Wellington Region FDS will not prevent Horowhenua District from being included in the Horizons FDS or any similar document.

4.4 Officers from local government and central government have been working on the content of the FDS since August 2022 and the list below outlines workshops and meetings that the WRLC, Councils, iwi and others have had on the FDS including:

a) various presentations to incoming councils on the WRLC and the FDS – though October to December 2023, in February 2023 and to the last council in June 2023.

b) FDS workshop with the WRLC – 1 February 2023

c) FDS update paper to the WRLC at its meeting - 7 March 2023

d) combined Wellington City Council/Porirua City Council workshop – 29 March 2023

e) combined Wairarapa councils workshop – 4 April 2023

f) combined Upper Hutt City Council/Hutt City Council workshop – 5 April 2023

g) iwi workshop – 11 April 2023 and various one on meetings with iwi

h) combined Horowhenua District Council/Kāpiti Coast District Council workshop – 13 April 2023

i) three separate workshops in the Wairarapa, one with each Council – 3 May 2023

j) workshop with iwi members on the statement of iwi/hapu aspirations for urban development – 15 May 2023

k) workshop with the WRLC on elements of the Future Development - 15 May 2023

l) FDS update paper to the WRLC at its meeting - 13 June 2023

m) booth on the FDS and a workshop session on the FDS at the WRLC Annual Partners Forum - 26 June 2023

n) separate workshop in Martinborough for SWDC – 5 July 2023

4.4 The FDS team has also been working with developers and infrastructure providers on the Strategy, as required under the NPS-UD.

4.5. The FDS is nearing completion and is expected to be taken in draft to the WRLC meeting on 19 September 2023 for approval for consultation. This, however, cannot be done without signoff from all ten councils on changes to the WRLC Agreement and TOR as discussed below.

The WRLC Agreement and Terms of Reference

4.6. The current WRLC Agreement and TOR includes the development and implementation of the Wellington Regional Growth Framework, as a spatial plan for the region. At the time of developing the Agreement the FDS was not contemplated as a tool and therefore, the WRLC Agreement and TOR do not give the WRLC the powers/functions relating to a FDS.

4.7. The WRLC includes both the Mayor from each council as the substantive member and the Deputy Mayor from each council as the alternate member.

4.8. The WRLC Secretariat has received legal advice (see Attachment 1) that states: “It is beyond the scope of the WRLC powers to approve the FDS, draft or final, on behalf of the member Councils at present. Those decisions on the FDS currently must be made by each individual Council.” 16. This is because the current WRLC Agreement and TOR identifies that the WRLC is responsible for the WRGF specifically, rather than a more general responsibility for regional spatial planning, which is and has always been the intent for the WRLC.

4.9 As a comparison for instance the Agreement has the WRLC responsible for “regional economic development” in a more general term, rather than stating a specific document. 18. Therefore, for the WRLC to be involved in the FDS process (in any manner), an update needs to be made to the WRLC Agreement and TOR.

4.10 This is being undertaken in two steps:

a) Step 1: the WRLC agree which option for signoff of the draft FDS, signoff of the final FDS and the establishment of a Hearings Panel it endorses. This decision was made at the WRLC meeting on 13 June 2023 and discussion on the process for this is covered in this paper.

b) Step 2: as required by the Local Government Act, any changes to the WRLC Agreement and TOR, needs to be agreed by all ten councils that are party to the WRLC. This paper covers this step, and a similar paper is being considered during August and September 2023 by the other nine councils who are party to the WRLC.

4.11 This report seeks Council’s approval for Step 2. Similar papers are also being presented to the other WRLC Councils, and a discussion on Step 1 is included below.

5. Discussion

Step 1: WRLC consideration of the options for signoff of the Future Development Strategy

5.1. The WRLC was provided with a recommendation at its meeting in September 2022 as follows: “Agrees to support the option a. as outlined in paragraph 20 of this report and update the Agreement and Terms of Reference for the WRLC to enable the Committee to sign off the draft and final of the FDS and form a subcommittee to undertake hearings on the FDS.

5.2 No decision was made at the September 2022 meeting due to the lack of local government representatives at the meeting. This recommendation was proposed to be raised at both the December 2022 and March 2023 WRLC meetings.

5.3. However, making a decision on the FDS signoff and updated WRLC Agreement and TOR was put on hold and not taken forward at the December 2022 and March 2023 meetings as:

a) the WRLC requested in September 2022 that it be provided further information, regarding decision making on the FDS and any proposed amendments to the WRLC Agreement and TOR.

b) there were five new Mayors and many new councillors across the region following the local body elections in October 2022 and it was felt that these people needed to be bought up to speed on what regional spatial planning is, what a FDS is and options and implications for the FDS signoff by the WRLC.

c) mana whenua had not had enough time (capacity related) to engage in the FDS and signoff process as would be preferred.

5.4. To assist in b) and c) above a number of workshops were undertaken as outlined elsewhere in this paper. The workshops covered - what is regional spatial planning, what is the FDS and the FDS signoff options.

5.5. At its meeting on 13 June 2023 the WRLC was provided with a paper which outlined options for approval of the FDS both draft and final and establishment of a hearing subcommittee.

5.6. Four options were considered by the WRLC. These options had previously been explained and discussed at the workshops held with WRLC councils in March, April, May and July 2023 as noted elsewhere in this paper.

5.7. The four options are covered in the table below and Option 1 which was agreed to by the WRLC at its meeting on 13 June 2023 is covered in more detail below.

Options	Ability to meet statutory timeframes?	Iwi partners involved?	Additional costs (staff time or budget)?	FDS reflects a joined-up vision for our region?	Alignment with future Spatial Planning Act (SPA)	Rating (out of 10)
1. WRLC signoff draft FDS and final FDS and undertake hearings	Yes - project plan in place that reflects this option	Iwi part of WRLC Central government part of WRLC	Budget allocated and on track	Yes, through WRLC	Yes, SPA is likely to require a joint committee with mana whenua	10/10
2. Set up a subcommittee or new committee of just Tier 1 councils and iwi	Maybe/ unlikely depending on time taken to set up new committee	Maybe -dependent on being part of new committee	Slightly more legal costs to craft new agreement, but not significant	Mostly through new subcommittee representation	Somewhat i.e. does not include whole region	7/10
3. WRLC signoff the draft FDS and undertake hearings and each council signoff the final FDS	Delay likely if agreement can’t be reached on final FDS (i.e. if 1 or more councils don’t agree on content)	Not at final FDS stage unless allowed for in council standing orders	Iwi will need to attend multiple for final sign off meetings Individual council officers to prepare and present reports for final FDS	Risk that agreement may not be reached on FDS May in effect have 10 FDS documents	No	5/10
4. Each council sign off the draft FDS, WRLC hold hearings and sign off the final FDS	Delays likely if agreement can’t be reached on draft FDS (i.e. if 1 or more councils don’t agree on content)	Worse than option 3 for iwi partners as key decisions will be made at the draft FDS stage	Slight increase in work for each council and dedicated staff will need to be available	Risk that agreement may not be reached on FDS. May in effect have 10 FDS documents.	Maybe	5/10

5.8 Option 1 (the option approved by the WRLC and included in the changes to the WRLC Agreement and TOR) includes:

a) one on one workshops with each council and iwi entity on the content of the FDS for their overview and comment – before the draft goes to the WRLC – underway.

b) engagement with certain parties and consideration of the matters as required by clauses 3.14 and 3.15 of the NPS-UD – before the draft goes to the WRLC – underway.

c) the WRLC signing off the draft FDS.

d) the WRLC Secretariat and FDS Project lead managing the submissions hearings and report back process.

e) a hearings panel consisting of one representative from each local government and iwi entities on the WRLC (if they choose to).

f) workshops/briefings to provide councils and iwi entities with an understanding of proposed changes from the submissions and hearings to the FDS.

g) the WRLC signing off the final FDS.

5.9 Assuming all WRLC councils approve changes to the WRLC Agreement and TOR by mid-September 2023 (the last likely council meeting timing) then the FDS is likely to be finalised in early 2024 (i.e.Feb/March) with engagement and hearings being undertaken in 2023.

5.10 Option 1 was selected because:

a) regional spatial planning is a key function of the WRLC as it was initially set up. If other options had been selected, it raises a question about why have the WRLC in the first place. It should be noted that Ministers are on the WRLC for the regional spatial planning aspects only;

b) this option aligns strongly with the future direction given for the proposed Spatial Planning Act (SPA). The SPA will be replacing the RMA and will require regional level spatial strategies (called “RSS”) to be developed through regional committees made up of central and local government and mana whenua. Undertaking the FDS process jointly through the WRLC will put this region in a good place to prepare future Regional Spatial Strategies which will be an update of the FDS;

c) the WRLC generally works on a consensus model, and it is expected that key decisions are made on this basis. Therefore, in effect if alignment cannot be achieved then decisions are brought back to the table for further discussion – for instance if there is a lack of agreement on the draft FDS;

d) from an efficiency perspective Option 1 would only require one resolution from each Council at the start of the process rather than needing to obtain multiple Council resolutions throughout the process (ie for the draft FDS and the final FDS);

e) this is the best option for iwi members on the WRLC;

f) it is the preferred option of and has been endorsed by the WRLC Secretariat, the FDS Core Team and Steering Group, the WRLC Senior Staff Group, the WRLC CEO Group and iwi members on the WRLC.

5.11 Reflecting the statutory context for the FDS (required under the NPS-UD), Central Government would not participate in the hearings or formally signoff the FDS. This is the same for all the options.

5.12 The recommendation provided below was approved at the 13 June 2023 WRLC meeting: “Agrees to support the progression of Option 1 as outlined in paragraphs 20-23 of this report which includes the Committee making decisions to commence the FDS consultation and preparation process, approve the draft FDS (statement of proposal) and commence special consultative procedure, to engage in consultation and set up a hearing panel to hear submissions on the FDS, and approve the final FDS (with reporting to the councils at relevant steps).”

5.13 Therefore Step 1 is now complete.

Step 2: Changes to the WRLC Agreement and TOR.

5.14 Each of the ten councils has previously approved an initial WRLC Agreement and TOR and then an updated one. This will be the second update to the WRLC Agreement and TOR.

5.15 The current WRLC Agreement and TOR has been updated to align with the recommendation at the 13 June 2023 WRLC meeting. A clean copy and a track changed copy of the updated WRLC Agreement and TOR can be seen in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3.

5.16. As required by the Local Government Act, any changes to the WRLC Agreement and TOR, need to be agreed by all ten councils that are party to the WRLC. This will be undertaken at council meetings which will be occurring between July and September 2023.

5.17 A summary of changes that related to the FDS are:

a) adding the FDS as a “Specific Responsibility” of the WRLC including the detailed actions of what this includes.

b) the wording requirements, in a number of places, for the WRLC to set up a subcommittee to hear submissions and the delegations to do so – including what this means in terms of actions.

c) adding the FDS and related activity such as the work to develop the FDS, hold hearings and approve the FDS into the delegations of the WRLC.

d) the ability for the subcommittee to have an independent chair if needed (the subcommittee may decide not to do this, but the changes allow for this in case).

e) a new Appendix 2 which is the Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee Subcommittee for the FDS (to undertake the hearings). This includes information on its purpose, responsibilities, membership, and delegations.

5.18 As any change to the WRLC Agreement and TOR requires all ten councils to agree the changes and it a long and administratively heavy process, we are also taking the opportunity to make some other changes to the WRLC Agreement and TOR. These are:

a) some tidy ups in the document. For example, the old version referred to both persons and Ministers when talking about the Crown members, the Administering Authority was noted but not explained.

b) removing reference to an independent chair for the WRLC itself – there has been some comments about perhaps not having an independent chair in the future. We don’t know if this will happen yet but to avoid having to go back to ten councils again if it was decided to not have an independent chair in the future, the language in the WRLC Agreement and TOR has been softened e.g. now an option rather than a must.

5.19 If one or more councils do not pass the resolutions in this paper i.e. does not agree to the changes to the WRLC Agreement and TOR to enable the WRLC to carry out the stated activities for the FDS, or wants to make large changes to the Agreement, then next steps would likely be:

a) hold an extraordinary meeting of the WRLC to understand its next preference for the signoff of the FDS.

b) make any further relevant changes to the WRLC Agreement and TOR.

c) set up dates for another ten council meetings.

d) prepare a new pack of background information/analysis for council papers.

e) have ten councils consider another paper with the new process.

f) we estimate that this would take us to the end of 2023 which means engagement on the draft FDS cannot be undertaken until at least February 2024 with the final signed off mid-2024.

Hearings subcommittee

5.20 The updated WRLC Agreement and TOR provides for a Joint Committee Subcommittee for the purpose of hearing submissions on the FDS. Some points about the subcommittee are:

a) Appendix 2 of the updated WRLC Agreement and TOR provides all the information on the hearings subcommittee.

b) the new WRLC Agreement and TOR allows for each council and each iwi entity to have a member on the hearings subcommittee. This is reflected in the recommendations of this paper. It is not a must to appoint someone, but the option is provided to enable all parties to continue to be part of the process if so chosen.

c) at this stage we are not clear on how long the hearings will last. Our only reference point so far is the Nelson/Tasman FDS where there was a week of hearings.

d) we are planning to hold hearings across the region e.g. Wellington city, the western corridor, the Wairarapa to make it easier for those who are wanting to make an oral submission. Those on the hearings subcommittee will need to attend all hearings across the region.

e) the hearings subcommittee will be provided with resource to manage submissions and submitters who want to be heard, an expert to write up the findings from the hearings and submissions and may have access to an independent chair for the hearings if required.

f) the hearings subcommittee will make recommendations for changes to the draft FDS for the WRLC for consideration.

6. Options

6.1 The high-level options with regards to the recommendations in this paper are:

(i) approve the recommendations as written including nominating someone for the hearings subcommittee;

(ii) approve the recommendations as written but do not nominate anyone for the hearings subcommittee;

(iii) do not approve the recommendations.

Cost

6.2 No additional costs involved in the updated Terms of Reference, it will be covered by the current budget for by the WRLC

Rate Impact

6.3 No additional rates impact over and above funds already committed

Community Wellbeing

6.4 There are no negative impacts on Community Wellbeing arising.

Consenting Issues

6.5 There are no consenting issues arising.

LTP Integration

6.6 There is no LTP programme related to the options or proposals in this report. There are no Special Consultative Processes required.

7. Consultation

7.1 There is no consultation required to be undertaken.

8. Legal Considerations

8.1 Legal advice on this matter can be found in Attachment 1. 51. Key points from this advice are:

a) it is beyond the scope of the WRLC powers to approve the FDS, draft or final, on behalf of the member Councils at present. All decisions on the FDS currently must be made by each individual Council.

b) in order to streamline the process for the FDS across all 10 Councils, the Agreement could be amended in order to include the FDS within WRLC’s specific responsibilities. Such an amendment should state that the WRLC has authority to make decisions to commence the FDS consultation and preparation process, approve the draft FDS (statement of proposal) and commence SCP, to engage in consultation and hear submissions on the FDS as part of the SCP, and approve the final FDS (with reporting to the Councils at relevant steps)

c) together with amendment to the Agreement, each Council would need to resolve to delegate its decisions on the FDS and its role in consultation and the SCP to the WRLC.

d) pursuant to clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the LGA, the delegation of a decision on the FDS is not prevented.

9. Financial Considerations

9.1 There is no financial impact. The costs of the FDS have been budgeted already, with these costs split between all council partners, based upon population size. The costs for the WRLC signing off the draft and final and undertaking hearings will be paid for from this budget.

9.2. By undertaking the process regionally, we will be able to stick to this budget and ensure that knowledge that is gained through this process stays in house.

10. Iwi Considerations

10.1 The decision making and hearing subcommittee option endorsed by the WRLC for the FDS will enable iwi partners to the WRLC to participate in the FDS decision making. This is the best option for iwi partners as:

a) iwi members of the WRLC will have an option just like councils do to put someone on the hearings subcommittee.

b) iwi members will be at the WLRC meetings when the draft and final FDS is signed off.

c) other options considered by the WRLC where councils only signed off either the draft or final FDS would rely on:

I. Council standing orders enabling iwi members to sit at the council table and vote on either the draft and/or final FDS.

11. II. iwi partners having to go to multiple council meetings in their rohe to participate in the signoff/s.Climate Change Considerations

11.1 The FDS being developed is consistent with many of the objectives in the Sustainability Strategy in that the proposed strategy aims to:

a) reduce greenhouse gas emissions;

b) build resilience;

c) address climate change;

d) protect and enhance the natural environment.

12. Environmental Considerations

12.1 There are no environmental considerations.

13. Health & Safety Considerations

13.1 There is no health and safety impact.

14. Other Considerations

14.1 There are no other considerations.

15. Next Steps

15.1 If the recommendations are accepted, the FDS will be able to continue on its current trajectory – which will be for a completed report ready for consultation in October 2023.

15.2 If the recommendations are not accepted, this may mean delays in producing the document, possible

16. Supporting Information

Strategic Fit/Strategic Outcome

Accepting the recommendations of this report will allow the FDS to continue and to be completed, which will ensure that the Horowhenua District remains part of the strategic planning for the Wellington Region.

Decision Making

This report has a medium degree of significance.

The report does relate to a transfer of decision making to the Wellington Region Leadership Committee but does not represent a significant variation to the previous TOR.

Engagement and consultation has been undertaken with developers and infrastructure providers as required to by the NPS-UD. We need to engage with them as part of developing the FDS.

Internal engagement has included:

a) multiple discussions at WRLC Senior Staff Group meetings from September 2022 through to now. In all these discussions the preferred options as reflecting in the updated WRLC Agreement and TOR has been endorsed.

b) multiple discussions at WRLC CEO meetings from September 2022 through to now. In all these discussions the preferred options as reflecting in the updated WRLC Agreement and TOR has been endorsed.

c) discussion at workshops with WRLC iwi members on the FDS with them endorsing the recommended changes and approach.

d) explanation and discussion at numerous council workshops as highlighted elsewhere in this report.

e) discussion at WRLC workshops since September 2022.

Consistency with Existing Policy

Funding

Already funded through existing budget.

Risk Area	Risk Identified	Consequence	Likelihood	Risk Assessment (Low to Extreme)	Managed how
Strategic	nil
Financial	nil
Service Delivery	nil
Legal	Please see legal advice in Attachment 1	If recommendation to accept amended TOR not adopted, then the FDS will not be able to proceed	medium	medium	By accepting the change to the TOR
Reputational	nil

Confirmation of statutory compliance

In accordance with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:

a. containing sufficient information about the options and their advantages and disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,

b. is based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the significance of the decision.

17. Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment 1 - Legal Advice on decision-making on FDS	87
b ⇩	Attachment 2 - WRLC Agreement and TOR - updated post June 2023 meeting - track version - with amendments from Councils	95
c ⇩	Attachment 3 - WRLC agreement - Clean version	123

Author(s)

Lisa Poynton

Senior Policy Planner

Approved by

David McCorkindale

Group Manager - Vision & Delivery

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive Officer

Risk and Assurance Committee

16 August 2023

Risk and Assurance Committee

OPEN MINUTES

UNCONFIRMED

Minutes of a meeting of Risk and Assurance Committee held in the Council Chambers, 126-148 Oxford St, Levin on Wednesday 16 August 2023 at 1:00pm.

present

Chairperson	Cr Sam Jennings
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Paul Olsen
Members	Cr Alan Young
	Cr Clint Grimstone
	Cr Jonathan Procter
	Cr Piri-Hira Tukapua
	Mayor Bernie Wanden
	Jenny Livschitz	Independent Member
	Sarah Everton	Independent Member

IN ATTENDANCE

Reporting Officer	Monique Davidson	Chief Executive
	Daniel Haigh	Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
	Jacinta Straker	Group Manager - Organisation Performance
	Brent Harvey	Group Manager - Community Experience and Services
	David McCorkindale	Group Manager – Community Vision and Delivery
	Blair Spencer	Group Manager – Housing & Business Development
	Nicki Brady	Procurement & Organisation Transformation Manager
	Rob Benefield	Risk Manager
	Ashley Huria	Business Performance Manager
	James Wallace	Roading Manager
	Tanya Glavas	Health and Safety Lead
Meeting Secretary	Grayson Rowse	Principal Advisor – Democracy

1 Apologies

Apology

Resolution number RAACC/2023/35

MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Mayor Wanden:

That the apology from Councillor Procter for lateness be accepted.

CARRIED

2 Public Participation

There was no public participation.

3 Late Items

There were no late items.

4 Declaration of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

5 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution Number RAACC/2023/36

MOVED by Cr Grimstone, seconded Cr Olsen:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Risk and Assurance Committee held on Wednesday, 7 June 2023, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

Resolution Number RAACC/2023/37

MOVED by Cr Grimstone, seconded Cr Olsen:

That the minutes of the meeting of the In Committee Meeting of Risk and Assurance Committee held on Wednesday, 7 June 2023, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

6 Reports for Noting

6.1	PWC Tax Governance Presentation
	The PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) annual tax update was presented to the Horowhenua District Council, as part of the tax governance framework programme.
	Resolution Number RAACC/2023/38 MOVED by Cr Tukapua, seconded Mrs Everton: 2.1 That Report 23/504 PWC Tax Governance Presentation be received. 2.2 That this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002. Carried
	Michelle McDonald, Tax Partner from PricewaterhouseCoopers presented to the Committee, and responded to member’s questions. In terms of this committee, an annual report back is usually sufficient unless there is a particular issue that needs further investigation.

6.4	Health, Safety and Wellbeing Quarterly Report - August 2023
	The health, safety and wellbeing information and insight from 1 May to 28 July 2023 was reported to update the Committee on key health and safety critical risks and initiatives.
	Resolution Number RAACC/2023/39 MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Mayor Wanden: 2.1 That Report 23/505 Health, Safety and Wellbeing Quarterly Report - August 2023 be received. 2.2 That this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002. Carried
	Councillor Procter joined the meeting at 1:25 pm during consideration of item 6.4.
	Officers to provide further information on trends in reports on footpath maintenance requests. Service Level agreement for immediate health and safety issue s to make safe within 24 hours of notification; there has been no failure of this service level. Very poor or poor standard footpaths are made good though the foot path renewal budget, but this budget only allows for approximately 2 kilometres of footpath renewal per year: there are 9.93km of poor or very poor footpaths in the total 229 km of footpath. Yellow tactile indicators are a treatment to indicate safe pedestrian crossings for the visually impaired where safe crossings are. There are specific technical details that must be implemented when installing to ensure the indicators do not present a trip or fall hazard. Maintenance budget used to minimise the risk posed by poor or very poor footpaths, but even though the risk has been minimised this does not change the quality rating of the footpath. The quality rating of the a poor or very poor footpath is changed through the renewal budget.

6.5	Legislative Compliance Programme
	This report familiarised the Risk and Assurance Committee with Council officers' suggestions around advancing and implementing a Legislative Compliance Programme. This program is designed with the Council's Risk Management Policy and Framework. The programme includes policy update, the identification of relevant legislation, and the reporting of key legislation to promote effective risk management and compliance practices.
	Resolution Number RAACC/2023/40 MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Cr Young: 2.1 That Report 23/542 Legislative Compliance Programme be received. 2.2 That this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002. Carried
	Updated conflict of interest policy for staff implemented, and will be reported back on in future meetings. A more targeted legislative compliance report will be presented within the next six months.

6.2	Risk Management Status Quarterly Report - August 2023
	The report updated the Risk and Assurance Committee of the risk landscape, risk management work in progress and invited discussion with the committee about risk.
	Resolution Number RAACC/2023/41 MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Mrs Livschitz: 2.1 That Report 23/536 Risk Management Status Quarterly Report - August 2023 be received. 2.2 That this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002. Carried
	Insurance a significant part of this month’s Risk Report. Significant progress in risk management framework and workplan. Strong engagement with officers and elected members. Initial focus has been at Executive Leadership Team and Activity Manager level. ELT meeting identify key risks. Improved risk assessments are being included in reports.
	Resolution Number RAACC/2023/42 MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Cr Procter: 2.3 That the Risk and Assurance Committee endorse the Draft Insurance Strategy & Workplan. 2.4 That the Risk and Assurance Committee endorse the Draft Council Insurance Renewal - Valuation Methodology & Asset Selection Policy 2023v3. 2.5 That the D23/103663 Council Natural Disaster Risk Assessment – 2023 be received. Carried

6.8	Annual Insurance Renewal Process Update
	1. Purpose 1.1 This memo has been submitted to the RAC agenda for the Committee’s information.
	Resolution Number RAACC/2023/43 MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Cr Olsen: 2.1 That Annual Insurance Renewal Process Update be received. 2.2 That this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002. Carried
	Once a proposal for insurance renewal has been negotiated this will come back through Council for endorsement.

6.3

Treasury Report for the June 2023 Quarter

The Bancorp Treasury Reporting Dashboard for the June 2023 quarter was presented to the Risk and Assurance Committee.

Resolution Number RAACC/2023/44

MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Cr Olsen:

2.1 That Report 23/511 Treasury Report for the June 2023 Quarter be received.

2.2 That this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Carried

6.6	Standard and Poor's Report
	The report informed the Risk and Assurance Committee of the Horowhenua District Council’s credit rating being affirmed by Standard and Poor’s (S&P) Global Ratings in June 2023.
	Resolution Number RAACC/2023/45 MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Cr Young: 2.1 That Report 23/506 Standard and Poor's Report be received. 2.2 That this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002. Carried
	Independent Member Sarah Everton left the meeting at 3:01 pm during consideration of item 6.6.

6.7

LGFA Statement of Intent 2023-2026

1. Purpose

1.1 To update the Risk and Assurance Committee on the Statement of Intent (SOI) 2023-2026 prepared by the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA).

Resolution Number RAACC/2023/46

MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Cr Olsen:

2.1 That Report 23/509 LGFA Statement of Intent 2023-2026 be received.

2.2 That this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Carried

6.9	Continuous Improvement and Audit Actions Monitoring Report
	1. Purpose 1.1 To report to the Risk and Assurance Committee on progress of the action items from previous resolutions.
	Resolution Number RAACC/2023/47 MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Mayor Wanden: 2.1 That Report 23/507 Continuous Improvement and Audit Actions Monitoring Report be received. 2.2 That this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002. Carried

	Resolution Number RAACC/2023/48 MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Cr Olsen: 2.3 That the Risk & Assurance Committee notes the Risk & Assurance Committee resolution and actions monitoring report. Carried

6.10	Risk and Assurance Committee Work Programme
	This report provided the Risk and Assurance Committee with an outline of the Draft Work Programme.
	Resolution Number RAACC/2023/49 MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Cr Young: 2.1 That Report 23/541 Risk and Assurance Committee Work Programme be received. 2.2 That this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002. Carried
	Resolution Number RAACC/2023/50 MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Cr Tukapua: 2.3 That the Risk and Assurance Committee notes the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee Work Programme. Carried

7 Procedural motion to exclude the public

Resolution Number RAACC/2023/51

MOVED by Cr Jennings, seconded Mayor Wanden:

That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

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

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

C1 Health and Safety Investigation

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

The text of these resolutions is made available to the public who are present at the meeting and form part of the minutes of the meeting.

Carried

3.23 pm The public were excluded.

Resolutions in relation to the confidential items are recorded in the confidential section of these minutes and are not publicly available.

4.12 pm There being no further business, the Chairperson declared the meeting closed.

CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF Risk and Assurance Committee HELD ON

DATE: ...........................

CHAIRPERSON:

Te Awahou Foxton Community Board

07 August 2023

Te Awahou Foxton Community Board

OPEN MINUTES

UNCONFIRMED

Minutes of a meeting of the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board held in the Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom, 92 Main Street, Foxton on Monday 7 August 2023 at 6:00pm.

present

Chairperson	Mr John Girling
Deputy Chairperson	Mr Trevor Chambers
Members	Mrs Nola Fox
	Mr David Roache
	Deputy Mayor David Allan

IN ATTENDANCE

	Monique Davidson	Chief Executive
	Bella Blenkin	Resource Management Planner
Meeting Secretary	Grayson Rowse	Principal Advisor - Democracy

1 Apologies

Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/64

MOVED by Mr Chambers, seconded Mr Roache:

That an apology from Community Board Member Brett Russell be received and accepted.

Carried

2 Public Participation

There was no public participation.

3 Late Items

There were no late items.

4 Declaration of Interest

Members were reminded of their obligation to declare any conflicts of interest they might have in respect of the items on this Agenda.

5 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/65

MOVED by Mrs Fox, seconded Mr Roache:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board held on Monday, 26 June 2023, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

6 Presentations

6.1

Address by NZ Police, Sgt Bernie O'Brien

Sgt O’Brien confirmed he had been appointed as Offoer in Charge, and along wioth his team was committed to making this area the best place to live, work and play.

The Police have been working along side Community Camera Trust, which has proved to be very beneficial.

Encourage community to report incidents to Police, as it helps police build a bigger picture of activity in the area.

Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/66

MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mr Chambers:

That the Board notes the presentation from Sgt Bernie O’Brien

That the Board thank Sgt O’Brien for his presentation,

Carried

6.2	Presentation by Horowhenua Community Camera Trust
	The Horowhenua Community Camera Trust presented to the Board on the activities of the Trust in the Foxton area.
	Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/67 MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mr Roache: 2.1 That the Presentation by Horowhenua Community Camera Trust be received and noted. 2.2 That the Board thank the Trust for their presentation Carried
	Ted Melton introduced the Trust’s report, Stage 1 coverage of Foxton town complimenting Foxton Beach cameras, looking to link in Himatangi through to Sanson. Consultation with numerous parties including Police around placement of camera. ANPR a computer analysis of number plates. Purpse to update and seek endorsement to contued. 6 cameras, mains street, moving out of Foxton, Union Street intersection to cover SH1, and traffic from Shannon. Ladys Mile intersection, wide angel camera to capture fourbincoming roads, and camera at north Foton , near Mobil capturing vehicles form the north. Small scale development – well planned. Questions rised around privacy of individuals. Trust is strict on who sees data coming in, images only held for 60 days, data held by Police. Follows guidance from Privacy Commissioner. Questions: Funding Sources – letter to Minister in funding criteria – the funding criteria does not apply to cameras. Trust currently looking at various opportubties. Looking for sponsorship, and other avenues of funding. Approximately $50-$60k.
	Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/68 MOVED by Cr Allan, seconded Mr Roache: The Board supports the direction outlined in the presentation and thanks the trust for its ongoing commitment to ensuring the wellbeing of our community. .Carried

6.3

Sam Ferguson - Horizon’s Regional Councillor

Update on activities from Horizons in relation to transport, and Manawatu River and Esturary. HRC working with DoC and GDC on Manawatu River Estuary Management Plan.

In transport space Capital Connection refurbished. Running to same timetable, but have commitment more services.

Interregional transport review launched. About how to connect wider – for example Wanganui to Waikanae. Looking at what connections Foxton would like to see.

HRC and HDC review of public transport for our community. For e.g Foxton beach has one bus a week for residents – what is an appropriate level of service for our local beach communities.

What planning is there for flood protection. River, beach, rainfall – there is an affordability issue, and complexity. In the past strong engineering response but that effects ecosystems. High expectations but complex issues with affordability issues. Reviewing rating models, ad what are reasonable expectations around protesting land and livelihoods.

Shannon train – station beng addressed by KiwiRail.

Whatis the right level of ervoce for Foxton/Foxton Beach

7 Elected Members Reports

7.1	Chairperson's Report
	1. Purpose 1.1 To receive the Chairperson’s report highlighting matters of interest to the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board
	Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/69 MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mrs Fox: 2.1 That Report 23/523 Chairperson's Report be received and noted. Carried
	The Board were able to view the progress of the pool refurbishment.

7.2

Community Board Member Report - Brett Russell

1. Purpose

1.1. To report back on liaison activity with:

· Horowhenua Community Camera Trust

· Manawatu Estuary Trust

· Wildlife Foxton Trust

Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/70

MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mrs Fox:

2.1. That Report 23/522 Community Board Member Report - Brett Russell be received and noted.

Carried

7.3	Community Board Member Report - Nola Fox
	1. Purpose 1.1 To report back on liaison activity in relation to: · MAVtech · Foxton Beach Community Centre · Foxton Beach Progressive Association Inc.
	Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/71 MOVED by Mr Roache, seconded Mr Chambers: 2.1 That Report 23/524 Community Board Member Report - Nola Fox be received and noted. Carried
	Invite association to workshop with Board in preparation for LTP,

8 Reports

8.1	Road Name Proposal - Hest Lane
	1. Purpose 1.1 To present a prosed road name for Te Awahou Foxton Community Board to consider.
	Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/72 MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mr Roache: 2.1 That Report 23/519 Road Name Proposal - Hest Lane be received. 2.2 That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act. Carried
	Bella Blinken presented her report, name has been assessed against Council policy, and compliamnce with LINZ.
	Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/73 MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mr Roache: 2.3 That Te Awahou Foxton Community Board recommend Council approve the change in name from ‘Shest Lane’ to ‘Hest Lane’ for the new road to service a 14 Lot residential subdivision off Norbiton Road, Foxton, which has been approved by Horowhenua District Council and held under Council reference SUB/502/2020/324/2 Carried

8.2	Road Name Proposal - Koa Rise, Kilmister Way and Rangeview Rise
	1. Purpose 1.1 To present three proposed road names for the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board to consider.
	Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/74 MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mrs Fox: 2.1 That Report 23/527 Road Name Proposal - Koa Rise, Kilmister Way and Rangeview Rise be received. 2.2 That this matter or decision is recognised as not significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act. Carried
	The report was taken as read.
	Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/75 MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mrs Fox: 2.3 That Te Awahou Foxton Community Board recommend Council approve the road name Koa Rise as the name of the road to access the lots in the subdivision SUB/502/2020/374. 2.4 That Te Awahou Foxton Community Board recommend Council approve the name Kilmister Way for the private right of way accessing Lots 1 and 2 of SUB/502/2020/374. 2.5 That Te Awahou Foxton Community Board recommend Council approve the name Rangeview Rise for the private right of way accessing Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14 of SUB/502/2020/374. Carried

8.3

Foxton Beach Freeholding Account Update

1. Purpose

1.1 This report updates Te Awahou Foxton Community Board on progress of the Policy and Strategy Review, and provide the most recent account statement

Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/76

MOVED by Mr Girling, seconded Mr Roache:

2.1 That Report 23/512 Foxton Beach Freeholding Account Update be received.

2.2 That this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Carried

8.4

Te Awahou Foxton Community Board - Actions Monitoring Report - July 2023

1. Purpose

1.1 To present to Te Awahou Foxton Community Board the updated monitoring report covering requested actions from previous meetings of the Board. This report incorporates updates related to the Foxton and Foxton Beach areas from the Long Term Plan Monitoring Report presented to Council on 19 July 2023

Resolution Number TAFCB/2023/77

MOVED by Cr Allan, seconded Mr Roache:

2.1 That Report 23/514 Te Awahou Foxton Community Board - Actions Monitoring Report - July 2023 be received.

2.2 That this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Carried

7.12 pm There being no further business, the Chairperson declared the meeting closed.

CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF Te Awahou Foxton Community Board HELD ON

DATE: ...........................

CHAIRPERSON:

Mayor	His Worship The Mayor Bernie Wanden
Deputy Mayor	Councillor David Allan
Councillors	Councillor Mike Barker
	Councillor Rogan Boyle
	Councillor Ross Brannigan
	Councillor Clint Grimstone
	Councillor Nina Hori Te Pa
	Councillor Sam Jennings
	Councillor Paul Olsen
	Councillor Jonathan Procter
	Councillor Justin Tamihana
	Councillor Piri-Hira Tukapua
	Councillor Alan Young