Notice is hereby given that an ordinary meeting of the Horowhenua District Council will be held on:

 

Date:                       Time: Meeting Room: Venue:	Wednesday 22 May 2024 12:00 pm Council Chambers 126-148 Oxford St Levin
Council   OPEN AGENDA

 

 MEMBERSHIP

 

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

 

 

Contact Telephone: 06 366 0999 Postal Address: Private Bag 4002, Levin 5540 Email: enquiries@horowhenua.govt.nz Website: www.horowhenua.govt.nz Full Agendas are available on Council’s website www.horowhenua.govt.nz Full Agendas are also available to be collected from: Horowhenua District Council Service Centre, 126 Oxford Street, Levin Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom, Foxton, Shannon Service Centre/Library, Plimmer Terrace, Shannon and Te Takeretanga o Kura-hau-pō, Bath Street, Levin

 

Council 22 May 2024

 

 

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

KARAKIA

PROCEDURAL

1        Apologies                                                                                                                          5

2        Late Items                                                                                                                          5

3        Declarations of Interest                                                                                                   5

REPORTS

          Reports

4.1     Long Term Plan 2024-2044 Deliberations - Summary Report                           7

4.2     Deliberations Report 1 - Managing Waste (Topic 2)                                         83

4.3     Deliberations Report 2 - Sharing Costs (Topic 3)                                           141

4.4     Deliberations Report 3 - Activities Report                                                       177

4.5     Deliberations Report 4 - Fees and Charges and other Policies (Topic 4)    225

4.6     Deliberations Report 5 - Financial Matters (Management Report)                357

4.7     Deliberations Report 6 - What Services do we need for our Community? (Topic 1)                                                                                                                           377

 

 

 

 

Karakia

 

 

Whakataka te hau ki te uru Whakataka te hau ki te tonga Kia mākinakina ki uta Kia mātaratara ki tai E hī ake ana te atakura He tio, he huka, he hau hū Tīhei mauri ora!

Cease the winds from the west Cease the winds from the south Let the breeze blow over the land Let the breeze blow over the ocean Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air. A touch of frost, a promise of a glorious day.

 

 

1        Apologies

 

An apology from Councillor Mike Barker has been received.

 

2        Late Items

 

To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the Council to consider any further items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded.

Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:

(i)      The reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and

(ii)      The reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

 

3        Declarations of Interest

 

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

 

 

 

 

Council 22 May 2024

 

4.1            Long Term Plan 2024-2044 Deliberations - Summary Report

File No.: 24/301

  

1.    Purpose

1.1     To present to Council for deliberation, a summary of the process followed to develop the draft Long Term Plan 2024-2044 (LTP) and a summary of the consultation and engagement process, events held and an overview of formal submissions, and feedback.

 

2.    Recommendation

2.1     That Report 24/301Long Term Plan 2024-2044 Deliberations - Summary Report be received.

2.2     That this matter or decision is recognised as significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.3     That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submission.

3.    Background/Previous Council Decisions

3.1     Under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) Council is required to develop an LTP every three years. In 2022/23 Council made an Amendment to the Long Term Plan 2021-2041, which was adopted in June 2023. As an amendment to the LTP the scope was limited. The full LTP or ‘LTP proper’ considers all of Council’s business, all activities, the whole budget.

3.2     The LTP is a key strategic document, setting Council’s budget and strategic direction for the next 20 years.

3.3     The LTP describes the activities of Council, how they will be undertaken, how the activities will be funded, and the benefit providing these activities will have for the community. When done well, planning long-term provides Council with the means to simultaneously meet the community’s current and future needs and wants effectively. Poor future planning could result in not being able to meet the needs of our current community, or the district’s future community.

3.4     During development of the LTP, Council needs to carefully consider the vision and aspirations for the district and weigh it up against prioritising projects and planned delivery.

          Process

3.5     Following adoption of the LTP Amendment in June 2023, Council began preparation for the ‘LTP proper’ with the goal of being considered for adoption by 30 June 2024 to meet the legislative requirements of the LGA.

3.6     The LTP comprises several parts including: Development of Activity Budgets, Significant Forecasting Assumptions, Community Outcomes, Infrastructure Strategy, Financial Strategy, Financial Statements, Revenue and Financing Policy, Rates Remission Policy, Remissions on Rates on Māori Freehold Land, Liability Management Policy, Prospective Accounting Policies, Summary of Council’s Policy on Determining Significance, Working with Māori, and Council Controlled Organisations.

3.7  The decisions Council makes through this process will have significant impacts on the community. The services and projects Council decides to include or remove from the LTP will affect current and future generations.

3.8  These decisions will impact the Level of Service (LOS) Council is able to provide, level of debt and the level of rates revenue required from the district’s ratepayers. It is Council’s role to weigh up these costs and benefits to make the best decisions for the community.

3.9    Given the impact of a LTP, it is particularly important that Council is open and transparent with the community throughout this work. 

3.10   Since August 2023, there have been 28 Council Workshops and Meetings held in the lead-up to Deliberations, including only two publicly-excluded Workshops.

          The complete list is below:

Council Workshop/ Meeting	Date	Topic
1	16 August 2023	Workshop: Introduction to the LTP
2	23 August 2023	Workshop: Defining the Scope
3	30 August 2023	Workshop: Appetite for Growth
4	13 September 2023	Workshop: Statements of Service Provision (SSPs) and Early Engagement
5	20 September 2023	Workshop: External Facing Activities
6	27 September 2023	Workshop: Walking & Cycling, Earthquake-prone Buildings, Prioritisation, Waste Management & Minimisation Plan (WMMP)
7	11 October 2023	Workshop: Supporting Strategies, climate change and early engagement. Council Meeting: Agreed the population and household forecasts, LTP timeframe, Community Outcomes and Scope of the LTP
8	18 October 2023	Workshop: Post-election update, Solid Waste Rating and WMMP
9	1 November 2023	Workshop: LTP Design, Financial Strategy Overview, Activities Discussion 1: Community Facilities, Community Support, Representation and Community Leadership, Community Infrastructure
10	8 November 2023	Workshop: Activities Discussion 2: Solid Waste, Property, Regulatory Services, Land Transport
11	15 November 2023	Workshop: Activities Discussion 3: Three Waters, Information Services
12	29 November 2023	Workshops A – Public Workshop: Shaping information into options: Early Engagement Feedback, SSP Review, Fees and Charges B – Public Excluded Workshop: Budget package discussion (closed as included commercially sensitive material)
13	6 December 2023	Workshop: LTP Update: Key Assumptions, Financial Strategy, Infrastructure Strategy, Revenue and Financing Policy splits, Budget Package
14	13 December 2023	Public Excluded Workshop: Further discussion of Budget Package material from 29 November Workshop B. Council Meeting: -     Endorsement of the Significant Forecasting Assumptions, Statements of Service Provision (SSP), draft Fees and Charges schedule and the public/private splits to be used to draft the Revenue and Financing Policy -     Endorsement of LTP Budget and potential additional savings options for inclusion in the Draft LTP 2024-2044 Budget
15	24 January 2024	Workshop: Preparation for Audit, Impact of Reforms, Confirming direction on key policies, Audit updates about the Consultation Document, SSPs
16	31 January 2024	Workshop: Pre-Audit check-in - Rating update, Draft Waste Assessment, draft WMMP, draft accompanying doc, Revised draft LTP narrative, initial designs
17	7 February 2024	Council Meeting: Option for Council to have an unaudited LTP Consultation Document
18	14 February 2024	Workshop: Consultation and Engagement
19	21 February 2024	Workshop: Post-Audit/Pre-Consultation Update
20	28 February 2024	Workshop: Audit Feedback and Finalisation of documents for consultation
21	6 March 2024	Council Meeting: Adoption of Consultation material
22	3 April 2024	Workshop: Consultation check-in and a look ahead
23	22 April 2024	Workshop: Capital Programme Prioritisation
24	1-2 May 2024	Council: Hearing of Oral Submissions
25	8 May 2024	Workshop: Consultation Conversations and Pre-Deliberations Check-in 1
26	15 May 2024	Workshop: Pre-Deliberations Check-in no.2.

 

          Scope

3.11   Council’s discussions in August 2023 about the scope considered the environment Council and the community are in at the moment.  There is a constrained financial environment for the community with the high cost of living, and limited income sources for Council. Several submitters on the LTP Amendment noted the current challenges and urged Council to focus on the basics.

3.12   There was also a Central Government election held in October 2023. Whether or not the Government changed, there was a significant amount of reform that was affecting local government, in particular Three Waters and Resource Management Act reform.

3.13   Locally, growth was expected to remain strong and projects identified as priorities by Council such as the Ō2NL expressway being constructed by 2029, Levin Town Centre Transformation, Horowhenua Blueprint, and climate change. These present opportunities that Council will need to be prepared for, in order get the best outcomes for the district.

3.14   In addition, the Waste Management & Minimisation Plan (WMMP) is due for review by 30 June 2024, the same time as the LTP is due to be adopted.

 

 

3.15   Noting those matters, Council agreed the scope of the LTP as being:

·    Focusing on the basics; and

·    Being prepared for growth and future focused

·    Waste Management & Minimisation Plan.

A 20-year plan

3.16   The LGA states that an LTP must cover a period of at least 10 years. It can be longer. Since 2018 Council has adopted 20-year LTPs. This followed the district’s rapid growth increase and enabled project and budget planning to be set out over a longer period. LTPs and Development Contributions Policies have timeframes that align, also enabling growth and projects to be aligned. It takes it closer to the 30-year period that the Infrastructure Strategy covers. For these reasons Council agreed to develop a 20-year LTP.

          Early engagement

 3.17  In early workshops, Council indicated the importance of involving the community early in these discussions, through early engagement. Council asked whether the community agreed with the proposed scope of the LTP, (see point 4.6 above), what priority should be given to climate change, their appetite for recycling options and shared pathways. Early Engagement ran from 16 October to 5 November 2023.

3.18   The feedback from Early Engagement is discussed below and attached as Attachment A.

          Developing the financial picture

Zero-based budgeting

3.19   During the LTP Amendment officers trialed Zero Based Budgeting, which was starting the budgeting process from a starting point of ‘zero’ and then building in costs associated with the work proposed for the next financial year and period of the LTP. This is instead of a more common approach of taking the budget from the previous year and seeing what is expected to be different in the year ahead.

3.20   This approach was rolled out across Council budgets for this LTP. The purpose was to gain a better understanding of costs, and increasing accountability and confidence in the budgets. It was also timely as Council wanted to be able to show that close scrutiny had been applied internally before building the LTP programme and from that, what would be proposed and consulted on with our community.

          Solid Waste and Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

3.21   In the 18 October Workshop Council received information about and discussed solid waste rating – current issues and different approaches that could be considered depending on the direction Council wished to take and reflect in the WMMP.

Financial position and preparation of a financial envelope to work with

3.22   The grouping of Workshops on 1, 8 and 15 November began with an overview of the Financial Strategy, that is, key factors that contribute to Council’s financial position.

3.23   This showed Council is facing significant financial challenges because of the economic environment, growth challenges and their impacts on interest, insurance contractual cost increases and the associated impacts on the cost of managing, developing and replacing our assets. These directly impact on fees and charges, and rates revenue required to continue with the same level of service. Interest, depreciation, insurance and utilities alone account for 16% of the initial proposed rates increase of 18.8%. Depreciation alone contributes 9.8% of the proposed increase and it relates mainly to the rising costs of the Three Waters infrastructure.

3.24   From there each Activity of Council was presented for discussion: First considering the issues, challenges and opportunities for each, then considering the Activity Management Plans and budget for each.

3.25   The 29 November Workshop moved from getting the picture of what the budgets, issues and opportunities currently are, to shaping issues for consultation and rates options. The public workshop shared the results of early engagement, the review of Statements of Service Provision (SSPs) and proposed amendments to fees and charges following discussion at earlier workshops. 

3.26   Following feedback from Council, four different budget packages were presented ranging from 9% to 24%. In a public-excluded workshop Council were presented with the implications for staff, services and partnerships of each option. Council were provided with the presentation and a budget calculator and were able to individually signal their preferences for options to be brought forward into the budget endorsement paper considered on 13 December 2023. 

3.27   The 6 December Workshop brought back budget information following guidance Council provided at the 29 November Workshop. This material formed the basis of the budget approach and was endorsed by Council on 13 December 2023.

3.28  A budget based on a 17.4% rates increase was endorsed to enable budget preparation, and formation of draft consultation options and material which was considered at a workshop, revised and presented for adoption on 6 March 2024.

          Audit

          Pre-consultation Audit

3.29   Normally the Consultation Document and Supporting Information (documents that make up the LTP) are required to be audited.

3.30   For this LTP process, councils were permitted to have an unaudited Consultation Document. This option arose following the General Election, which saw the new coalition government confirm it would repeal the existing reform legislation which had meant that Council’s would no longer be responsible for Three Waters. 

3.31   The Minister of Local Government advised that ‘as part of the new Government’s Local Water Done Well and as part of providing Councils with clarity and certainty for developing LTPs in 2024, Councils would be permitted to have unaudited long-term plan consultation documents. This acknowledged that while the legislation was signaled to change, at the time at which many councils would be preparing their LTP the legislation would still require councils to exclude three waters from their LTP. The new Government has been very clear their expectation is for councils to include three waters in their LTP and that the legislation will be changed to reflect this.’ 

3.32   Council agreed to have an unaudited LTP Consultation Document at the meeting on 13 February 2024.

3.33   Audit NZ commenced their audit of the Council information in the LTP supporting documents ahead of their final audit process which will occur once Council have held hearings, deliberations and made any final changes to the LTP documents. Because Audit NZ have not completed their usual audit process of the Consultation Document, they will not be issuing an audit opinion on the Consultation Document in the way they have done so for previous LTP processes.

          Further audits of LTP material

3.34   The draft LTP is undergoing a further Audit from 13-16 May 2024. This agenda will have been published by that time and officers will provide Council with a separate update about that process prior to Deliberations meetings commencing.

3.35   Following Deliberations meetings, the draft LTP will go through a ‘Hot Audit’ by the Office of the Auditor General from 27 May. This will be completed before 26 June 2024 when Council will consider adoption of the LTP.

          Consultation and engagement

3.36   Council adopted the Consultation Document and Supporting Information on 6 March 2024.

3.37   The consultation period ran from 15 March until 15 April and is discussed in further detail below.

3.38   The final stage of the formal consultation process is the hearing of oral submissions, these were held at Council on 1 and 2 May, with 52 individuals, groups and organisations being heard. There is further detail below.

4.    Consultation and Engagement

          New Ways of Engaging

4.1     Council sought to increase engagement and interaction with the community. Given the complex topics surrounding this LTP, this round of engagement provided an excellent opportunity to explore new methods of reaching out to the community. Of particular focus were youth and other minority groups, whose feedback was under-represented in the Long Term Plan Amendment consultation.

4.2     Throughout the engagement and consultation phases, the goal was to dismantle barriers that hinder community involvement in local government processes. Both Council and officers strived to ensure that everyone in the community had an opportunity to be involved in the process and be heard. It was important that the community knew that their feedback was valued and that they could trust in the transparency and fairness of the LTP process.

4.3     To achieve this, a multi-channel communications and engagement campaign was designed to meet the community where they are, at convenient times and in ways that foster active participation and dialogue.

Early Engagement

4.4     Council ran an early engagement survey from 16 October to 5 November 2023. 

4.5     The purpose was to let the community know that preparation of the next LTP had commenced and to check in with the community as to what they think should be included in the LTP. The objectives were to:

·    Build awareness about what a LTP is

·    Seek the community’s feedback - are we on the right track

·    Ask - do you agree with our proposed focus for the LTP, is anything missing.

 4.6    A total of 93 responses were received: 83 online survey response and 10 hardcopy responses. The hardcopy responses included 1 printed copy, 6 from the survey included in the Community Connection and 3 from the Age on the Go event.

4.7     The results are included as attachment A.

Consultation

4.8     The consultation period ran from 15 March 2024 until 15 April 2024.

4.9     The consultation and engagement objectives were to:

·    Build awareness of the key topics included in the LTP 

·    Make it easy for people to be involved and make submissions

·    Increase community engagement and submissions for the LTP, focusing on harder to reach segments 

·    Build on successful approaches used in the 2023 LTPA –

o  Council led 

o  Citizens Panels, Facebook lives, Tour/Open Day

·    Use budget and resource to best effect – for example by printing fewer consultation documents, hand out business card with QR code for CD and submission form.

4.10   Building from Council’s initial scope of focusing on the basics, being prepared for growth and opportunities for the district – and consulting on the draft WMMP, the key issues consulted on were:

·    What services does our community need – which sets out the options for the rates increase.

·    Managing Waste

o  Sets out the intention to split the current Solid Waste rate into its three components to better

o  Asks which option people would prefer for managing kerbside recycling; and

o  Asks for a preference for paying for the Levin Landfill After Care and Landfill Debt

·    Sharing costs: Who pays for what:

o  Options for funding Te Awahou Foxton Community Board

o  Introducing an Economic Development Rate

o  Changes to the Rates Remissions Policy

   

·    Feedback and submissions could be provided about any of the LTP Supporting Information. Specific questions were asked about:

o  Proposed Fees and Charges

o  Development Contributions Policy

o  Significance and Engagement Policy

 

There was also a question asking whether there is anything else people would like to tell Council about the daft LTP.

Consultation events

4.11   During the consultation period, 34 events took place in Levin, Foxton and Shannon including five online events.

4.12   Events included:

·    300+ at Rangatahi and Community Group events

·    Six school visits: Levin East, Waiopehu, Horowhenua and Manawatū Colleges and one Youth Voice event​

·    Levin Intermediate – 17 students undertook a 5-week Council Elective, including time on the LTP​

·    Five Citizen Panel workshops with 120+ attendees

·    Four Cuppa with Councillor events at Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom, Te Takeretanga o Kura-hau-pō and Shannon Library

·    Several meetings were held with groups who requested meetings or were eager to engage with Council on the LTP; this included but was not limited to, local iwi and hapū, Grey Power and other community and ratepayer groups.

Social Media

4.13   Council’s social media strategy for the LTP consultation aimed to engage various segments of the Horowhenua community including Iwi/hapū, residents, young people, businesses and special interest groups by providing engaging information which empowered them to make informed submissions.

4.14   We focused on increasing visibility and awareness of the LTP, fostering open conversations about community concerns, and highlighting key dates and events. To reach our diverse audience effectively, we implemented a mixed media campaign across four channels, utilising a variety of visual creatives to maintain engagement and avoid creative fatigue. A relatively new channel for Council, was the use of TikTok (alongside targeted workshops) in a bid to reach a younger demographic.

4.15   Additionally, "Because of you" brand campaign was launched and run concurrently with the LTP discussions, underscoring the community benefits derived from their contributions and reinforcing the importance of participation in these discussions.

4.16   A detailed breakdown of the range of social media engagements and Let’s Kōrero engagements is provided in attachment B.

Consultation and Engagement Results

4.17   A summary of the results from the consultation events is presented in attachment C.

 

Submissions

4.18   Council received a total of 499 formal submissions on the LTP. Many of these were written submissions and in addition, three school groups made video submissions. This was a trial of this format and feedback will be sought from submitters and Council before the next Annual Plan (AP) or LTP process commences.

 

4.19   Fifty-two submitters made an oral submission in support of their written submission.

 

4.21   A summary of the overall results from formal submissions is presented in attachment D.

 

4.22   A new initiative is a visual exhibition of feedback received from community engagement sessions such as the Citizen’s Panels, school and youth sessions. This exhibition is on public display in the Council foyer which enables members of the community to view the feedback.

 

4.23   The Deliberations Reports that follow present the submissions and analysis on each of the key consultation topics and additional matters raised by submitters. While the topics follow the order of the Consultation Document, it is proposed that Council consider each topic in the following order to enable consideration of matters that would potentially have the greatest impact on a rates increase, down to the least impact topics.

         

·    Summary Report

·    Deliberations Report 1 – Managing Waste

·    Deliberations Report 2 – Sharing costs

·    Deliberations Report 3 – Activities Report

·    Deliberations Report 4 – Fees and charges and other policies

·    Deliberations Report 5 – Financial Matters

·    Deliberations Report 6 – What services are needed for our community

 

4.24   Alongside the Deliberations reports, Council is encouraged to review the reports presented

on adoption of the Draft LTP for consultation.

https://horowhenua.infocouncil.biz/Open/2023/12/CO_13122023_AGN_AT_SUP.PDF

https://horowhenua.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/03/CO_06032024_AGN_AT.PDF

 

 

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a⇩	LTP 2024-2044 - Early Engagement Analysis	16
b⇩	LTP 2024-2044 - Comms & Engagement Overview	28
c⇩	LTP 2024-2044 - Citizens Panel Analysis PowerPoint Presentation	56
d⇩	LTP 2024-2044 - Summary of Submissions	69

    

 

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 benefits and costs, 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.

Signatories

Author(s)	David McCorkindale Group Manager - Vision & Delivery
	Daniel Haigh Group Manager Community Infrastructure
	Brent Harvey Group Manager - Community Experience & Services
	Blair Spencer Group Manager Housing & Business Development
	Jacinta Straker Group Manager Organisation Performance

 

Approved by

Monique Davidson Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Council 22 May 2024

 

Council 22 May 2024

 

Council 22 May 2024

 

Council 22 May 2024

 

Council 22 May 2024

 

4.2            Deliberations Report 1 - Managing Waste (Topic 2)

File No.: 24/276

  

1.  Purpose

To present to Council for deliberation, the submissions received on Topic 2 – Managing Waste, with officer analysis, regarding consultation topics:

2A: Landfill Legacy rate – Levin Landfill Aftercare and Landfill Debt 2024-2044

2B: Delivery of Kerbside Recycling Services 2024-2044

2C(i): Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) Vision

2C(ii): Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) Goals

2.  Recommendation

2.1     That Report 24/276 Deliberations Report 1 - Managing Waste (Topic 2) be received.

2.2     That this matter or decision is recognised as significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act.

2.3     That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

2.4     That Council  endorse Legacy Landfill Rate Option 1 (preferred option) – Repay through a separate Targeted Rate to pay for the Levin Landfill aftercare and Landfill debt where every property pays the same rate.

2.5     That Council  endorse Delivery of Kerbside Rural Recycling Service Option 2 (Preferred) Implement a targeted rate for urban and rural kerbside recycling – Existing rural only.

2.6     That Council  endorse the WMMP 2024 vision - To provide households and businesses with affordable and impactful waste management and minimisation services. To promote community empowerment, individual responsibility and positive behaviour change.

2.7     That Council endorse Officers to use the following priorities to inform future waste planning for the district.

·    Make it easy to recycle

·    Reduce waste where we can

·    Manage waste responsibly

·    Maintain community services

·    Safe disposal of hazardous substances

·    Educate the community on waste minimisation

·    Promote reuse of waste

·    Best price disposal of urban waste

·    High impact, low-cost delivery of targeted waste diversion initiatives

·    Regional collaboration

 

 

 

 

3.  Topics for Consideration

2A	Landfill Legacy Rate – Levin Landfill Aftercare and Landfill Debt
2B	Delivery of Kerbside Recycling Services
2C(i)	Do you support the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) Vision?
2C(ii)	How would you rank the WMMP goals?

 

Topic 1: 2A Landfill Legacy Rate – Levin Landfill Aftercare and Landfill Debt

 

2A: How should we pay for Levin Landfill aftercare and Landfill debt?	Submitters	%
Option 1 (Preferred Option): Repay through a separate Targeted Rate where every property pays the same rate.	175	59.93%
Option 2 (Status quo) Repay through solid waste targeted rate	117	40.07%
Total respondents	292	100%

 

Summary of Submissions

There has been a healthy level of engagement from the community in relation to the Managing of Waste, 2A: Landfill Legacy rate - Levin Landfill Aftercare and Landfill Debt 2024-2044.

While the submissions provided some helpful feedback and ideas, overall the responses were in support of user pays as a preferred option. Consensus was with Council implementing a Targeted Rate for Levin Landfill aftercare and Landfill debt. Note this preference was via a tick box method.

A landfill targeted rate provides clarity of what the actual costs are in managing the district closed landfills. Of the community that participated in the survey 59% supported the option to Repay through a Landfill Targeted Rate where every property pays the same rate. A number of the oral submissions also discussed this topic.

Submitter #240 Horowhenua Farmers Ratepayers Group and #437 Federated Farmers favoured sharing the Landfill Legacy targeted Rate on an 80% Urban 20% Rural basis, following the split of the Solid Waste Rate. A benefit proposed is that this would largely remove the targeted rate from the 30% rates cap, reducing the amount on the General Rate and so overall have some impact on overall rates costs.

Analysis

Horowhenua residents have for more than 60 years benefited from the Council provision of its own district landfills. This arrangement ended in October 2021 (officially 31 May 2023) with the closure of the Class I Levin New Landfill. The district’s closed landfills will require ongoing monitoring and maintenance, particularly the Levin Landfill, for at least another 30 years. To cover this a ‘Landfill Provision’ will be implemented to rate for these costs. Council will loan to cover the cost for this provision and will repay that loan over the next 20 years. Residents of the district benefited from the landfills so through Long Term Plan consultation Council proposed a rate that will equally distribute the cost across all properties.

If the Landfill Legacy rate was set on a differentiated basis, the rural sector would be required to contribute $357,220 ((20%) or approximately $66.05 per property towards this rate and the urban sector would contribute $1.429 million (80%). Under the current proposal the rural sector would pay $560,568 or approximately $99.78 per property. It is important to remember that the differential was set at 20%, to recognise that recycling costs were previously included in the solid waste rate and so the differential took that into account.

It is also important to note that while we acknowledge that some members of the rural community may not have used the landfill, the remediation of the landfill and repayment of the debt is a legacy issue for the whole district and requires everyone to contribute to resolve the issue. Some new urban properties that have been built after the landfill was closed are still being required to contribute.

Recommendation

That Council acknowledges, with thanks, the oral and written submissions made about managing waste, and the 294 tick box submissions.

That Council  endorses Option 1 Repay through a separate Landfill Legacy Targeted Rate to pay for the Levin Landfill aftercare and Landfill debt where every property pays the same rate.

 

Topic 2: 2B Delivery of Kerbside Recycling Services

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig 1. Submission Table - percentage split

 

 

Summary of Submissions

There has been a healthy level of engagement from the community in relation to the Managing of Waste 2B: Delivery of Kerbside Recycling Services 2024-2044. Written submissions for this topic made a range of comments; one theme mentioned a few times was that all residents who received the rural kerbside collection service should pay for the service (User pays). Other comments noted by submitters include:

·    Submitter #37: Glass collection crates difficult for the elderly to hold and carry.

·    Submitter #35: Reducing number rubbish collection companies servicing our streets

·    Submitter #88 that they do not support removing kerbside recycling as it will result in more rubbish going to landfill.

·    Submitter #105 sought that Council reduce frequency of rubbish collection to fortnightly

·    Submitter #252: Funding ideas for Council – Dump shop, plastic to diesel conversion

·    Submitter #341: Rural ratepayers will always be out voted by urban ratepayers

·    Submitter #365: Collect rubbish every fortnight. Encourage people to have compost bins

·    Submitter #380 Retain rubbish and recycling collections. They are essential to maintain hygiene and responsible disposal of waste including plastics.

·    Submitter #414 - that rural recycling be removed

·    Submitters #430, #437 and #440 said they supported user pays regarding rural rate payers receiving kerbside recycling

·    Submitter #450 Ensure rural properties get recycling bins.

·    Submitter #451 that Council continue with waste minimisation practices including recycling

Analysis

Of the 348 submissions, 51% (Fig 1.) chose to support Option 2 retaining of rural kerbside recycling but with the rural residents presently receiving the service, to in the future, pay for the service. The other 49% are split among Option 1 urban funding rural service 20%; and Option 3 Urban receives the service only at 13%; and Option 4 completely removing the service within the district at 16%.

The submissions and voting on options are however a very small sampling (1.7%) based on the total number of ratepayers. This makes it difficult to conclude a precise outcome based on the submissions alone.

Equally important is understanding that the user pay option offers a number of complexities and removes the ability to secure any operating contract efficiencies (Up for renewal in 2025 & 26), that can be achieved from removing the unfunded service that is currently provided to rural properties. If this is the option  endorsed, Council would need to cap the size of the rural collection boundaries. This would prevent uncontrolled collection area expansion and realising further inefficiencies that come with rural recycling. This will also assist in providing clarity for tendering purposes and ‘ring fence’ or fix costs. Note: The options given in the Long Term Plan (LTP) only mention retaining the service to ‘rural areas currently receiving the service. Those currently getting the service will in its current capacity create inefficiencies due to the low density and rural residents opting in or out of the service. If a decision is made to continue this service, several options will need to be considered as part of the contract review including tendering as a separable portion or removing from the Council rates and outsourcing to the private sector.

Rural recycling costs are currently being paid for by urban ratepayers. Based on submitter feedback, Council will need to decide what type of recycling service rural residents will receive and who pays. Options include user pays or remove the service and promote the use of the in-place provisions. E.g. Waste transfer stations and community mobile recycling stations.

Rural kerbside recycling has a very low density of residents compared to urban, this significantly inflates the costs with this service. Equally the diversity in width and condition of rural roads coupled with higher speed limits can at times provide an unsafe environment during collection.

Officers note that a general theme is that if rural are to receive any type of recycling initiative then they should be paying alongside urban ratepayers. It is worth noting that if it is a true user pay system rather than delivering the rural service (as noted in the consultation document), it is more expensive to deliver than the urban service. This is mainly due to the lower density and geographical spread in rural areas.

Moving forward the community needs to understand that Council, over time has removed itself from being a major player or competitive stakeholder in the solid waste sector as the private sector continues to corner the market. As the Council have closed town landfills in the district, especially with the closure of the Council owned Levin Landfill, Council dominance in rubbish collection and disposal has been eroded, with private waste collection companies introducing a more equitable and competitive user pays market. Any attempts to operate in the market as a true competitor would be initially costly in setting up, but would pay dividends by reducing community waste disposal costs. Additionally, more Council control would assist Council meeting its key deliverables such as the WMMP goals and assist with initiatives that limit the environmental impacts solid waste has on the community and district.

Options to have more influence in the market will be considered as part of the upcoming contract review. This will also include engagement with other Councils on their strategies to meet the Ministry for Environment (MfE) waste diversion targets. Such as Council rolling out its own kerbside rubbish wheelie bin collection. Rate payers would get a reduction due to economies of scale in the annual costs due to the efficiencies of only having one waste provider traversing the district roads and streets. This is what Manawatū District Council are proceeding with. All Feilding residents will receive a Council supplied wheelie bin for kerbside rubbish.

Council has a statutory responsibility to ensure rubbish is collected regularly and safely. We are committed to supporting (MfE) in diverting solid waste away from the landfill and providing urban properties in the district with kerbside recycling. Council has strategically located Mobile Transfer Stations (MTS) across the district. The complexity with providing the recycling service rurally is it is more expensive and logistically complex.

Having only one waste company would provide some benefits however the benefit of a private contract between property owners or renters is that a competitive market is in place which most often ensure collection costs are as low as possible. Equally important is that waste companies through the pressure of the market provide a high level of service.

Existing waste services agreements come up for renewal in the next 18-24 months, it is important the Council remain focused on securing operational and contract efficiencies in the new waste services contracts. The debate and decisions as part of Long Term Plan 2024-44 will provide initial direction on Level of Service expectations ahead of the procurement process.

Other submitters provided sound advice around looking at adjusting recycling collection time frames for rural properties i.e. every 3-4 weeks rather than fortnightly. This idea deserves further investigation as we look to renew collection agreements, often recycling bins and glass grates are only used proportionately to the size of the collection containers, fewer collections would naturally reduce operating costs. Further analysis is needed to understand the negative impacts of diverting waste away from landfill and reduction of service has on existing users.

Fig 2 – Collection frequency examples

Collection rate	Annually	Frequency	Comments
Fortnightly	26	Existing
Every 3 weeks	17	65%	Approximately 30% reduction in collection rates including reduction in transporting recycling out of the district.
Every 4 weeks	13	50%	Approximately 50% reduction in service again reducing the impacts on the collection of the recycling. Given the rural area's geographical size, this would also reduce the carbon emissions created by the frequent collection model.

 

A further trend in submissions and feedback noted ideas for Council around composting initiatives including the introduction and provision of composting bins and or a kerbside kitchen waste collection. Again, excellent ideas that require consideration, especially given MfE are focused on Local Government leading kitchen waste collection by 2030. Such an initiative would require significant upfront investment, ongoing funding of operational costs, supported by a comprehensive education program required to maximise any intended benefits.

A financial analysis and environmental impact assessment are essential to understanding the impact on rates, reduction in waste to landfill, and overall affordability. That said there is an opportunity for Council to lead an education program in supporting property owners in setting up their own composting arrangements. Council is currently working with the private sector in looking at options for diverting green waste and kitchen waste away from general waste to landfill. It is important that Council continue to invest in development of new WMMP initiatives intended to be funded by the waste levy.

As per the Proposed Target Rates Options (Fig 3) provided during the lead up to the Long Term Plan consultation process, any future decision in the current economic climate will be weighted towards ratepayer affordability, fairness that supports a reduction on our carbon footprint or positive impact on the environment. Unfortunately, these decisions are limited by the costs associated with the Closed Landfill and Aftercare cost impacts.

 

 

Fig 3 - Solid Waste and Rates Proposals (GST inclusive)

 

The simplest option from a management and financial advantage is Option 3 - Provide for urban only kerbside recycling from 1 July 2026. However, only 13% of submitters or votes supported this option. The removal of the rural recycling collection service would be unpopular with those that receive it and those in the community that see protecting our environment as a priority. This option would meet MfE’s current expectations of providing a measure of waste diversion is not applied to any rural zones. Urban diversion is set at 30% by 2026, 40% by 2028, 50% by 2030. The service to Urban properties would provide certainty and the ability for council to effectively minimise costs associated with providing the service. Officers acknowledge this is not the most favorable option with only 13% of submissions supporting this option.

The most favorable option amongst those that submitted feedback supported Option 2 – 51% indicated their support for retaining the existing service to urban and rural with a user pays targeted rate option. The challenge is in ‘ring fencing’ the extent of residents receiving a rural kerbside collection. Some residents presently receiving the service will miss out if and when a defined route is agreed upon. Note: Rural residents will still have access to the district’s waste transfer stations and community mobile recycling stations.

In weighing up between Options 2 and 3, Council will need to consider the pros and cons of these options and provide direction for future procurement of waste services. A summary of key considerations between the two is set out below.

Option 2: Transition to a Targeted Rate for kerbside recycling where those that are currently receiving the service pay their share of the costs. With the proviso that some of the rural properties presently receiving the kerbside service may not meet contractor or Council health and safety standards for a safe collection. Noting this approach isn’t aligned with the best practice for rating models and a more formal collection catchment and requirement for rural residents to contribute fair costs would need to be introduced by 1 July 2026. This could be done by way of a contracted separable portion to split rural from urban costs, however would be expected to significantly increase the rate to rural residents receiving the service on a location, not opt in basis.

Option 3: Urban only kerbside recycling from 1 July 2026. With the current focus on reducing the rate payer burden, now would be the most appropriate time to remove a service that has safety, logistical challenges and additional ratepayer costs. MfE are not requiring any Councils to introduce rural kerbside recycling. The MfE measure of waste diversion is not applied to any rural zones. Urban waste diversion set targets are 30% by 2026, 40% by 2028, 50% by 2030.

Recommendation

That Council endorse Option 2 (Preferred) Implement a targeted rate for urban and rural kerbside recycling – Existing rural only.

 

Topic 2C(i) Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) vision

 

The vision reads- “To provide households with affordable and impactful waste management and minimization services. To promote community empowerment, individual responsibility and positive behavior change.”

Summary of Submissions

Submissions for WMMP mention alternative ways of diverting waste away from landfills and generating revenue, for example opening secondhand stores to sell construction waste or recycled goods. This would require a significant investment and operating resource, and while diverting waste would unlikely be able to sustain any financial viability, it would also move Council into the retail sector, which isn’t our core business.

A further trend in submissions and feedback noted ideas towards Council introducing composting initiatives including Council introducing and providing composting bins and a kerbside kitchen waste collection. Again, excellent ideas that require consideration, especially given MfE are focused on LGAs leading kitchen waste collection. Such an initiative would require significant upfront investment, ongoing funding of operational costs, supported by a comprehensive education program required to maximise any intended benefits.

·    #6 presented a proposal for a vermiculture pilot

·    #181: When building next survey allow for choice in the design of questions

·    #279: Investigate the relocation of Waikawa Beach summer MRS

·    #268: Council to supply compost bins for kitchen waste

·    #232: Suggested a Council ‘Dump’ shop and plastic to diesel conversion

·    #402: Have a tip shop as a revenue source. Use Memorial Hall and staff with volunteers. 

·    #409: Suggested Council focus on construction and demolition waste – 40-50% to landfill

Analysis

Ideas generating revenue are helpful and will continuously be considered or investigated now and in the future. It is necessary that we continue to look at opportunities that assist in negating the ever-increasing costs of managing our districts waste.

Council officers acknowledge submitter #6’s proposal for a vermiculture pilot within the Horowhenua District. A financial analysis and environmental impact assessment are essential to understanding the impact on rates, reduction in waste to landfill, and overall affordability. That said there is an opportunity for Council to lead an education program in supporting property owners in setting up a successful composting system.

Council officers acknowledge submitter #181‘s comment and will look at building another type of survey tool for future WMMPs.

Officers acknowledge submitter #232’s suggestions. However, Council does not own or manage the Levin Waste Transfer Station. It is owned by Midwest Disposals. For this reason, it would be challenging for Council to divert reusable waste that was entering a privately-owned Waste Transfer Station and sell them at a resale shop. Noting the community has many second-hand shops. Plastic to diesel: A feasibility analysis would be required to determine whether the facility could secure enough annual plastic tonnages to guarantee continuous production and that the consents were not prohibitively held up by challenges from competing waste disposal operators. Note: Landfill operators have in place long term waste supply contracts from councils and private operators. Only when the contract ends can alternative disposal options be entered.

Officers acknowledge submitter #268’s comments in relation to home composting. This is an option that Council officers encourage, however the community would need to be fully onboard with their support if such an undertaking was implemented by the Council. The Council could support this project through education via workshops on promoting effective composting in the home. The Ministry for Environment (MfE) give priority to kerbside kitchen waste collections. MfE is another funding agency available for district waste minimisation.

Council officers acknowledge the comments from submitter #279. Council are regularly looking at alternative locations for MRS. Note: Alternate locations have previously been investigated. Appropriate land is difficult to get consent approval and source without exhausting additional funds to achieve land ownership etc.

Officers acknowledge submitter #409’s suggestions. Waste minimisation is often best driven by education and pricing incentives e.g. High general waste disposal cost and low waste diversion charging for green waste and demolition waste.

Council is currently working with the private sector in looking at options for diverting green waste and kitchen waste away from general waste landfill sites.

Recommendations

That Council acknowledge, with thanks the submissions received in relation to the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) vision.

That Council  endorse the WMMP 2024 vision - To provide households and businesses with affordable and impactful waste management and minimisation services. To promote community empowerment, individual responsibility and positive behaviour change.

Topic 2C(ii): Waste Management & Minimisation Plan Goals

 

The draft WMMP 2024 consultation document requested the public to rank a list of 10 waste goals. There most important priority goal would be listed first with the lowest priority goal listed last. The results are to be seen in the graph below.

 

WMMP Priority Rating

 

 

Summary of submissions

The most preferred priority from the 270 submissions received is ‘making it easy to recycle’, followed closely by ‘reducing waste where we can’, and to ‘manage waste responsibly’.

In association with what is best practice Council will make it a priority to consider what waste minimisation methods work the most efficiently and which ones are the most cost effective.

Analysis

Council staff will use these priorities in its future waste planning. Making recycling easy is important to get community support. Without community support waste minimisation targets will be difficult to meet. The right balance between what is easiest and what works best has to be struck.

Council aims to strike the right balance between ease of recycling and factors such as contamination of proscribed materials with unwanted materials. The cost of compliance would be factored into any new initiative. A very prescriptive service needs to be weighed against barriers to community acceptance and participation levels. For example, a recycle wheelie bin is easy to use but it is also easy to fill with the wrong materials (i.e. general rubbish) A delivery model that does not allow the ‘hiding’ of non-proscribed materials may weigh heavily against the use of wheelie bins even through bins are easy to use. E.g.; crates instead of wheelie bins for all types of recyclables even cardboard and plastics.

Council is incentivized by MfE funding to reduce/minimise materials going to landfill as much is practically possible. If Council are interested, urban organics accounting for some 51% of urban waste will likely become the next largescale Council lead waste minimisation project.

Council has a clear mandate to manage the district recycling via its WMMP. Private waste companies are not inclined to participate in recycling unless they are funded by Council or regulated by Council to do so. The reason for this limited private participation in recycling is, that there is little or no commercial financial incentive to divert waste. Collecting then processing and on selling the diverted waste is often more expensive than sending waste direct to landfill. Associated with that diverting waste from going to landfill for the larger commercial operators is not supplementing the tonnages to their landfill operation.

It is within Council’s capability to lead positive behaviour change. The organisation named WasteMINZ has a full library of behaviour change videos, brochures, handouts and statistical data for all councils to utilise. In association with that many councils in New Zealand have already implemented various waste minimisation projects. Their learnings are easily accessible through direct approaches to the relevant activity manager.

Affordable waste minimization is within Council’s WMMP mandate. Since the Levin Landfill is now closed the only other supplementary option available to the Council in making waste more affordable is the roll out of its own urban kerbside rubbish collection. This would be achieved in one of two methods, either via lower priced Council rubbish bags. This would make Council bags more competitive and easily affordable to a large demographic who are on fixed or low incomes. (Some 30% of households in Horowhenua).

Alternatively, the Council could provide its own urban kerbside wheelie bin collection for rubbish. The benefits of this option are, lower community collection costs in comparison with commercial operators. Only having one provider traversing the district roads reduces costs and if the operation was in house there would be a further reduction of 25-30% profit margins applied by private industry. Additionally, because Council would roll out a small sized wheelie bin, usually 120 litre in size, urban residents would then more fully utilise Councils larger 240 litre recycling wheelie bin. Further resident cost savings from the fuller utilisation of a ‘in place’ service would result.

The likely outcome of this Council lead rubbish collection would be that the MfE waste minimisation targets would be reached and ongoing MfE funding to Council would be assured. Note: Urban waste diversion targets are, 30% by 2026, 40% by 2028, 50% by 2030. If Council does not meet those targets MfE has signaled either a partial or full removal of annual levy funding.

Funding this year is expected to be close to $666k (Originally forecast to be as low as $280k). Next financial year we can expect over $868k. This funding sits outside of rates and rate influenced annual charges. It is only to be used for what is stipulated in the most current WMMP which is for waste minimisation activities.

Recommendation

That Council acknowledge, with thanks the submissions received in relation to the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) goals.

 

That Council endorse Officers to use the following priorities to inform future waste planning for the district.

·    Make it easy to recycle

·    Reduce waste where we can

·    Manage waste responsibly

·    Maintain community services

·    Safe disposal of hazardous substances

·    Educate the community on waste minimisation

·    Promote reuse of waste

·    Best price disposal of urban waste

·    High impact, low-cost delivery of targeted waste diversion initiatives

·    Regional collaboration

 

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a⇩	Waste Management - Solid Waste - Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 - 4 March 2024 for audit May24	96

    

 

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 benefits and costs, 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.

Signatories

Author(s)	David McCorkindale Group Manager - Vision & Delivery
	Daniel Haigh Group Manager Community Infrastructure
	Brent Harvey Group Manager - Community Experience & Services
	Blair Spencer Group Manager Housing & Business Development
	Jacinta Straker Group Manager Organisation Performance

 

Approved by

Monique Davidson Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Council 22 May 2024

 

Council 22 May 2024

 

4.3            Deliberations Report 2 - Sharing Costs (Topic 3)

File No.: 24/278

  

1.    Purpose

1.1     To present the submissions received on the Long-Term Plan 2024-2044 consultation Topic 3 – Sharing Costs. This included three matters for consideration: How Te Awahou Foxton Community Board and Economic Development should each be funded, and proposed changes to the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy.

2.    Recommendation

 

2.1     That Report 24/278 Deliberations Report 2 - Sharing Costs (Topic 3) be received.

2.2     That this matter or decision is recognised as significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.3     That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

2.4     That Council endorse Option 2 (Preferred Option): Fund through new Targeted Rate to fund Te Awahou Foxton Community Board.

2.5     That Council endorse a new Economic Development Targeted Rate to fund economic development services based on 75% Targeted Rate and 25% General Rate.

2.6     That Council endorse  the proposed Rates Remission & Postponement Policy and the caps associated with limiting the level to 1% of rates.

 

3.    Topics for Consideration

Issue 1	How should Te Awahou Foxton Community Board be funded
Issue 2	How should Economic Development be funded
Issue 3	Do you support the proposed changes to the Rates Remission & Postponement Policy
Issue 4	30% cap on Targeted Rates

 

Issue 1: How should Te Awahou Foxton Community Board be funded

 

Submitters were asked whether they supported the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board continuing to be funded as presently done, through the Representation and Community Leadership Targeted rate OR whether they supported it being funded through a new Targeted Rate for ratepayers in the Kerekere Ward (Foxton and Foxton Beach).

The table below shows the overall support for each option:

 

How should Te Awahou Foxton Community Board be funded	Number of submitters who selected this option	%
Option 1 (Status Quo): Fund through Representation and Community Leadership Targeted Rates only	118	35.87%
Option 2 (Preferred Option): Fund through new Targeted Rate	207	62.92%
Comment Only	4	1.22%

 

 

 

Submissions supporting Option 1 (Status quo)

·    7 submitters suggested it was an unnecessary expense or asked whether the Board was needed (Submitters # 1, 50, 58, 102, 133, 181, 231).

·    7 submitters said the Board benefits the whole district so the cost should be shared over the whole district (Submitters # 204, 254, 278, 324, 330, 332, 361).

·    5 submitters said the Board is not relevant or not relevant to them (Submitters # 13, 19, 73, 89, 227).

·    5 submitters said this option is fairest (101, 214, 331, 344, 407)

·    4 submitters said the Board is legally required (Submitters # 295, 385, 424, 440).

·    2 submitters said the option of a Board should be offered to Shannon or other areas (Submitters # 159, 163).

Submissions supporting Option 2 (New targeted Rate)

·    Eighty-two (82) submitters supported this option on a user pays basis or that Foxton/Foxton Beach benefit so should pay (Submitters # 14, 30, 34, 40, 41, 45, 51, 52, 54, 60, 61, 62, 67, 72, 76, 83, 84, 88, 93, 104, 105, 111, 113, 121, 132, 145, 150, 175, 179, 180, 185, 186, 187, 188, 192, 195, 198, 200, 213, 216, 226, 230, 232, 235, 241, 244, 257, 259, 266, 268, 272, 275, 276, 294, 304, 313, 328, 333, 334, 335, 338, 340, 342, 345, 352, 354, 388, 374, 375, 378, 379, 380, 387, 393, 409, 411, 419, 453, 460, 475, 485).

·    8 submitters said costs should be shared equally (Submitters #29,#31, 183, 191, 336, 362, 384, 395).

·    5 submitters asked whether it is needed (Submitters # 318, 341, 349, 413, 442).

·    2 submitters said it is a decision for Foxton (Submitters # 10 and 250)

 

Analysis

 

Endowment Fund

The Te Awahou Foxton Community Board (formerly the Foxton Community Board) was established in 1989 as part of the local government reorganisation.

Its role is to represent and act as an advocate for the interest of the Foxton and Foxton Beach communities. It also acts an advisory body to Council in relation to requests for funding from the Foxton Beach Endowment Fund.

While the final decision on the use of the Foxton Beach Endowment Fund rests with the Council, Te Awahou Foxton Community Board assesses applications to the fund, and also advocates for the use of the fund for local initiatives, and makes recommendations to Council ahead of their decision.

The Foxton Beach Endowment Fund was established by statute and can be used for “…the provision of services and public amenities for the benefit of the inhabitants of Foxton Beach Township, or on the improvement, maintenance, or repair of any such services and amenities, or on the improvement, maintenance, or repair of any existing services or public amenities”.

A substantial proportion of the projects supported by the endowment fund significantly enhance the district as a whole such as Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom and Foxton Pool. Many of these initiatives, would have solely relied on district-wide rates for funding, however received funding from the endowment fund therefore taking some of the burden off rates.

Te Awahou Foxton Community Board Rate

Te Awahou Foxton Community Board (TAFCB) represents its local community and advocates to Council about local issues, including public transport and facilities such as libraries and parks.

The board has six members: five members elected by Kere Kere Ward voters that are within the TAFCB boundary, and one of the Kere Kere Ward councillors appointed by Horowhenua District Council.

The Board receives $188,000 in funding from Council, paid for by rates, each year. Currently everyone in the districts rates include an equal amount that goes in to keeping TAFCB running.

The question was asked whether HDC should keep it this way or move to a Targeted Rate which would see Foxton and Foxton Beach ratepayers pay a Targeted Rate.

62.92% of submitters were in support funding Te Awahou Foxton Community Board of through new Targeted Rate.

We acknowledge that some of the submitters supported maintaining the status quo and commented that the decision should be made by Foxton and Foxton Beach residents. We also acknowledge that there will be an increase in rates for Foxton and Foxton Beach residents.

Officers note that it is reasonable for the decision to be made on behalf of the district as the costs are currently paid by all properties. Under the proposal, residents in areas other than Foxton and Foxton Beach, will benefit from the proposal as the charges related to the Te Awahou Foxton Community Board will be paid only by Foxton and Foxton Beach residents.

 

 

 

 

Recommendations

That Council acknowledges with thanks the submitters who responded and/ or made comment on how should Te Awahou Foxton Community Board be funded.

That Council endorse Option 2 (Preferred Option): Fund through new Targeted Rate to fund Te Awahou Foxton Community Board.

 

Issue 2: How should Economic Development be funded

Submitters were asked whether they supported continuing to fund Economic Development through the General Rate OR to fund it through a new Economic Development Targeted rate. The table below shows the support for each option:

 

Issue 2: How should Economic Development be funded?	Number of submitters who selected this option	%
Option 1 (Status Quo): Fund through General Rate	122	34.66%
Option 2 (Preferred Option): New Economic Development Targeted rate	226	64.20%
Comment Only	4	1.14%

 

 

 

Summary of Submissions

The breakdown of the support for the two options is identified above.

Of the 352 who responded to this topic, 206 supported an option without providing any comment or explanation for their choice of option.

·      78 chose Option 1 with no additional comment

·      128 chose Option 2 with no additional comment

Of those who provided a comment as part of selecting Option 1 (General Rate), the most common recurring themes for their support for this option included:

·   Everyone in the district benefits from economic development so everyone should pay (x20 submissions – Submitter # 25, 41, 44, 45, 54, 87, 133, 185, 188, 195, 254, 274, 301, 331, 333, 361, 372, 375, 385, 407)

·   Keep with the Status quo of funding Economic Development through the general rate as a Targeted rate would be too onerous on businesses (x12 submissions – Submitter # 146, 209, 217, 272, 276, 278, 363, 374, 378, 404).

·   Funding Economic development through the General rate is the simplest way and keeping it this way will create less confusion (x5 submissions - Submitter # 6, 31, 132, 143, 197).

Of those who provided a comment as part of selecting Option 2 (Targeted rate), the most common recurring themes for their support for this option included:

·   Funding Economic Development through a targeted rate, is a fairer method with those who benefit the most pay more (x71 submissions – Submitter # 9, 19, 30, 34, 35, 50, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, 67,72, 76, 83, 84, 93, 101, 104, 119, 147, 166, 180, 183, 184, 186, 187, 190, 200, 213, 218, 230, 231, 232, 235, 236, 241, 244, 257, 266, 275, 285, 298, 304, 307, 310, 313, 328, 330, 334, 335, 336, 338, 340, 342, 344, 349, 350, 352, 354, 358, 379, 393, 400, 409, 413, 417, 430, 447, 460, 485).

·   There were some alternative funding splits suggested by submitters seeking businesses to pay a higher proportion of the cost. (2 Submitter # 59 and 409).

·   Recognition that a Targeted Rate would help keep rates lower for more people in the District (x3 submissions – Submitter # 24, 110, 207) 

Three submitters (Submitter # 440, 455, 487) put forward their own Option 3, which sought no economic development funding through rates or a reduction until Council can avoid it and didn’t want to see new businesses setting up in the District punished with these costs. 

Within the comments raised by submitters there were a range of comments that were not directly related to the Targeted Rate decision. These included comments in relation to the current providers of economic development services and how these services were delivered; suggestions that in the current financial context the funding for economic development should be paused or scaled back until Council can afford it or not prioritized over functions or responsibilities; and more general comments about the district’s challenges and economic development opportunities.

Analysis

In direct response to these comments about the delivery of Economic Services, officers can confirm that Council is committed to undertaking a section 17A service delivery of economic development services. The review will assess the effectiveness of the current service delivery model where Council outsource the delivery of economic development services, alongside alternative models. The current contract for The Horowhenua Company Limited to deliver economic development on behalf of Council, will end 30 June 2024. A one year extension has been agreed while the section 17A review is completed and the model for the future delivery of economic development services is confirmed by Council.

In relation to the current level of funding for economic development that is being considered as part of the overall rate increase. Council’s scope of decision making as part of this LTP, will include setting the level of funding for economic development for 2024/25 and beyond. Noting that the section 17A Review to be undertaken in 2024/25 could still influence the level of funding required for the service delivery model chosen.

The LTP consultation document sought feedback on introducing a new targeted rate for economic development. The feedback received through the submissions is strongly weighted (64%) towards supporting Option 2 being the introduction of the targeted rate. With nearly 60% of those who selected an option not providing any supporting comment it is therefore difficult to read into their reasons for choosing their preferred option.

The most common reason for supporting Option 2 was due to it being a fairer method (user pays) as businesses who stand to benefit the most, pay a higher share of the cost. Comment was made around submitters not using these services, or not all parts of the district benefitting from these services so therefore not wanting to have to pay for them.

Some submitters supporting Option 2 suggested a different split to the 75% (Targeted Rate) 25% (General Rate) proposed, preferring the businesses to pay a bigger share. In proposing the targeted rate consideration was given to the split, with 75% 25% being the split that seemed most reasonable given that the benefits and services from economic development are not only received by businesses but also the wider community, including those not yet in employment, those looking to start a business and those in the community utilising the economic data and information. There has not been any information provided through the written or verbal submissions that has changed the opinion of officers. Officers continue to see 75% and 25% as the appropriate split.

In terms of submitters who supported the status quo (option 1) the main reasons provided included feeling that everyone in the District benefits from economic development and so everyone should pay the same. Submitters mentioned feeling that they don’t see businesses benefitting and so businesses shouldn’t pay a greater portion. Comment was also made about any added cost to businesses would just be passed on to customers and that we needed to encourage businesses in the district to support growth otherwise the town will not survive. There was also support for sticking with what people already knew rather than creating potential confusion through a new rate.

It is acknowledged that businesses will have different experiences of economic development services. Some will have felt the benefits directly, for other businesses this may have been indirectly and some may not have noticed or been aware of the benefits.

In terms of those who proposed an Option 3 these were not options consulted on. The sentiments of those specific submissions are consistent with comments about Options 1 and 2 and have been discussed above.

While introducing a new targeted rate for Economic Development would result in a change to the current rating system, the change is not considered sufficient reason to hold off making this change. This targeted rate is just one of several potential rating changes that have been proposed as part of this LTP, so it likely that there could be changes to the rating system. It could be argued that it makes more sense to introduce all the changes at once, as once in place ratepayers generally soon come to grips with the change and any confusion reduces with time.

On balance, the community have shown strong support for Option 2 to introduce the new Targeted Rate. Submitters have provided a range of reasons for their support and opposition to the proposed new Economic Development Targeted Rate. Having considered the range of reasons provided by submitters, officers are satisfied that there has been nothing presented through the submissions (written and verbal) that has convinced officers to recommend changing from the Council preferred option to introduce a new targeted rate for economic development (Option 2).

Recommendations

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions. 

That Council approves a new Economic Development Targeted Rate to fund economic development services based on 75% Targeted Rate and 25% General Rate.

 

 

 

Topic 3: Do you support the proposed changes to the Rates Remission and Postponement

Submitters were asked whether or not they supported the proposed changes to the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy. The table below shows the support for each option:

 

Do you support the proposed changes to the Rates Remission Policy?	Number of submitters who selected this option	%
Yes	208	58.59%
No	143	40.28%
Comment Only	4	1.13%

 

Summary of Submissions

Submitters were asked if they support the proposed ways of changing the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy to provide ways for some ratepayers to reduce their rates and others to apply to postpone their rates.

There were 355 responses to this topic, of which 208 submitters in support (58.59%) and 143 submitters not in support (40.28%). Four submitters made comments only.

Of the 355 submitters on this topic, 121 submitters made comments.

Below is a summary of the comments provided. They are grouped by their main theme.

Cap the Level of Rates Remissions

Comments by submitters who support the proposed changes to the Rates Remission Policy with a cap in place were:

•     Cap the level of rates for the remission - so we know where we are

•     Cap the level of Rate Remission for all

•     Capping the areas outlined would be fairer in the economic climate of today. It Could be revisited at a later date

•     If capping the remissions will save rate payers money then it has to be a good change

•     Avoid an increase in rates by leaving the cap

•     Cheaper as a definite cap is provided and the amount involved is not open ended

•     No increase to pool to fund this, remain capped

•     Keep the cap on remissions

•     DIA provides a rates subsidy and this should be the first port of call.

Everyone Pays Their Fair Share

Comments by submitters who do not support the proposed changes to the Rates Remission Policy.

•     Change rating system from capital rating to all houses contribute the same. Everybody uses the same stuff full stop

•     Everyone should pay their fair share of rates

•     Hard times - we cannot be remitting rates - everyone needs to pay their fair share

•     It is expected that every rate payer should pay their due rates

•     People should budget for their own rates and not expect them to be subsidized by the rest of the community

•     Rates should be paid by all. Most can, very few can't

•     The targeting of community members that appear to have more than others is not the way to fairly treat the people of Horowhenua. Everyone household receives the same level of services so should pay the same

•     User pays

•     Why should certain sectors of the community get a reduction at the cost to everyone else. Rating needs to be fair and equitable across the community

Support Those in Need

The following are comments by submitters who support the proposed changes to the Rates Remission Policy. It appears submitters assume that there is some form of Remission based on affordability.

•     Likely more people, particularly on fixed incomes, will apply for rates remission in the current economic conditions. The budget may need to be higher than $630,000 but not necessarily $959,000

•     People experiencing hardship will benefit from this. It’s important that the rate payers who have

•     reduces or postponed rates pay it back in the agreed timeframe in order to ensure the funds remain available

•     The country, including our district, is suffering from the cost of living. People are struggling to put food on the table and will struggle to heat their homes this coming winter because everything is going up in price. Home ownership is a right and rates are an unfortunate bill we have to pay to have that right. So give people the right to get them reduced or postpone so they can afford to keep surviving. Otherwise

•     you're going to see a lot of houses start to go on the market as we all struggle to pay the bills

•     Yes, we are drowning, single income family, don’t qualify for community services card etc, but man are we being hit from all sides, having even the option to maybe get deferment etc is helpful

•     Affordability is going to be an issue for a section of the community

•     Those that are paying higher rates need some relief especially in these times where costs is increasing

•     It gives home owners options if they fall into financial hardship due to lose of income or family bereavement

•     This should be primarily for residential ratepayers in hardship

•     Those who are on pensions, benefits etc. and have less resources to pay should be able to apply

•     To allow those struggling to postpone their rates

Some of the rural verbal submissions from the rural community also commented that the remissions associated with rural properties should not be capped as they were seen as an important part of maintaining affordability for the rural community.

Analysis

58.59% of submitters were in support of the proposed changes to the Rates Remission Policy. Many of the comments were linked to ensuring that rates did not increase further.

While the majority of submissions were in favor of the cap, it is important that Council consider the impact on properties that currently receive a full remission and are planned to receive a reduction with the proposed cap. Below is a summary of the components of the rates remission and the proposed caps on certain parts of the policy.

Based on the feedback received from submitters, Council may wish to change how the cap is applied.

 

 

Officers note that there will be an impact on the overall rates increase in 2024/25 to properties that currently receive a part 7, 11, 12 or 14 rates remission, by capping the amounts granted. Parts 7,12 and 14 are primarily rural properties and they would see an average reduction in remissions of between $500 - $2000.

Councilors should in particular note the impacts on those properties that receive the part 7 rezoned land remission. The proposed cap would result in a reduction in the remission amount received during 2024/25 when compared to 2023/24. This will therefore increase their rates by approximately 2% for smaller properties up to 20% for properties with high valuations, in addition to the budgeted increase in the LTP.

Recommendations

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions. 

That Council endorse the proposed Rates Remission & Postponement Policy and the caps associated with limiting the level to 1% of rates (excluding remissions).

30% Cap on Targeted Rates

Some members and representatives of the rural community requested that the Council maximise the use of fixed charges, up to the limit of 30% permitted in the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

Officers carefully monitored the 30% legislative cap on fixed charges as part of budget preparation. Going into deliberations, the level of fixed charges remains at 29.6% in year 1 to ensure we can set rates below 30%. The Draft LTP proposed a transfer of $2.7m from Representation and Governance to the General Rate. For the Deliberations, this has reduced to $2.0m due to the work done during consultation period to allocate insurance to the appropriate activities.

 

 

 

Recommendations

That Council budgets the level of fixed charges at a maximum of 29.6% rather than exactly 30% as the levels will shift as the actual growth vs forecast becomes known. This will prevent the cap from being breached.

 

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a⇩	Rates Remission and Postponement Policy	152

    

 

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 benefits and costs, 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.

Signatories

Author(s)	David McCorkindale Group Manager - Vision & Delivery
	Daniel Haigh Group Manager Community Infrastructure
	Brent Harvey Group Manager - Community Experience & Services
	Blair Spencer Group Manager Housing & Business Development
	Jacinta Straker Group Manager Organisation Performance

 

Approved by

Monique Davidson Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Council 22 May 2024

 

Council 22 May 2024

 

4.4            Deliberations Report 3 - Activities Report

File No.: 24/277

  

1.    Purpose

1.1     To present to Council for deliberation, the submissions received on the Long Term Plan 2024-2044 that were raised throughout Hearings and do not directly relate to any of the key topics outlined in the consultation document, with analysis of those submissions and additional material requested by Council.

2.    Recommendation

2.1     That Report 24/277 Deliberations Report 3 - Activities Report be received.

2.2     That this matter or decision is recognised as significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.3     That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

2.4     That Council commit to the same level of funding as per previous years, and apply a CPI increase to allow for the general increase in cost to serve.

2.5     That Council notes it currently supports the maintenance of the Manawatū Estuary, through existing operational budgets.

2.6     That Council directs Officers to liaise with the Cancer Society for support in the review of the Public Places Bylaw, and in conducting the shade audit of parks and playgrounds.

2.7     That Council considers directing Officers to provide options to restrict motor vehicles from beach areas within the District and provide options for consultation on this topic.

2.8     That Council endorse the City to Sea Rail Trail project’s and advocates for its inclusion into the Horizons Regional Land Transport Programme.

2.9     That Council direct the Officers to update the Horowhenua Road Safety Group’s Terms of Reference.

 

3.    Topics for Consideration

Iwi and hapū submissions
Te Tumatakahuki
Muaūpoko Tribal Authority
Rangitāne o Manawatū
Customer Experience and Services
Topic 1	Community contracts for services
Topic 2	Environmental policies
Topic 3	Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom roof
Topic 4	Shannon Open Spaces
Topic 5	Playgrounds
Topic 6	Foxton Open Spaces
Topic 7	Other Open Spaces
Topic 8	Young people matters
Topic 9	Strategic recreation facilities investment
Topic 10	Rainbow Community Considerations
Topic 11	Property
Land Transport
Topic 12	Restricting motor vehicles on beaches
Topic 13	Speed Management Plan
Topic 14	General Road Network Issues​
Topic 15	Public Transport Funding
Topic 16	Equestrian advocacy and use of transport infrastructure
Topic 17	Walking and Cycling Advocacy
Topic 18	City to Sea Rail Trail Shared Path
Topic 19	Pathway Waikawa Beach to Manakau Domain
Topic 20	Horowhenua Road Safety Group
Stormwater
Topic 21	Foxton Beach Stormwater
Topic 22	Lake Horowhenua
Topic 23	Waitārere Rise Stormwater
Water
Topic 24	Water Meters
Topic 25	Water Supply
Wastewater
Topic 26	Wastewater
Solid Waste
Topic 27	Levin Landfill
Strategic Planning
Topic 28	Climate Change
Topic 29	District Plan
Topic 30	Heritage
Topic 31	Growth
Topic 32	Role of De Molen and approach to Destination Management
Topic 33	Public Spaces and Town Centre Investment
Topic 34	Levin Town Centre
Topic 35	Industrial Land Rezoning
Topic 36	Need for Low-Cost Housing
Topic 37	Pasifika Fale
Topic 38	Shannon Community Plan
Health & Safety
Topic 39	Manawatū Coastguard Relocation
Topic 40	Contractor Smoking and Vaping on Council Sites

 

Iwi and hapū submissions

 

 

Te Tumatakahuki 

 

Shane Royal on behalf of Te Tumatakahuki (Submitter #446) emphasised the following key points: 

 

a) Te Tiriti o Waitangi: We urge the Council to prioritize the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in all aspects of governance and decision-making. This includes honouring the first right of refusal of Council properties to iwi/hapū and ensuring meaningful participation in processes such as the Foxton Endowment process. 

b) Māori Engagement Framework: While we acknowledge the development of the Māori Engagement Framework, it is concerning that there have been limited resources allocated for hapū participation. True partnership requires equitable access to resources to ensure all voices are heard and respected in decision-making processes. 

c) Foxton War Memorial Hall: We express our position on the consultation regarding the Foxton War Memorial Hall, emphasizing the importance of preserving and honouring the cultural significance of the site to Māori communities. 

d) Support for Community Initiatives: We extend our support to initiatives such as the Save Our River Trust and Foxton Futures (Paretao), which are vital for the well-being and sustainability of our community. 

e) Resource Consenting Concerns: We raise concerns regarding the resource consenting process, emphasizing the need for transparent and culturally sensitive procedures that consider the interests of Māori communities. 

f) Engagement in Government Reforms: We seek meaningful engagement in government reforms such as 3 Waters and Local Water Done Well, advocating for proper representation and roles for hapū in decision-making processes. 

g) Marae Infrastructure and recognition within Funding Grants: We are seeking specific outcomes for all marae within the Horowhenua. This should include alignment with Parks and Recreation team, Infrastructure team, and policy frameworks. Alongside this, we are seeking visibility and recognition in the community grant space which exclude Marae from applications. 

h) Development of Council Infrastructure: Council has major challenges with the development of infrastructure to support our community aspirations. Council must work with hapū to ensure any and all capital works programmes can be successfully undertaken. We have demonstrated the logic of working in genuine partnership with hapū. This is being celebrated in Ō2NL projects but underserved by Council in its own programme of works. As an example, we have enabled the development of the Poads Road water storage, and it saved millions of dollars in relation to the reconsenting and operation of the Pot. The commitment Council made have not been honoured and we look forward to a framework that provides for our interest. 

i) Recognition that the entire Horowhenua District Catchment is in the Rohe of Ngāti Raukawa: Currently Horowhenua District Council provides exclusivity for some iwi partners at the expense of Ngāti Raukawa hapū. This is clearly evident in the Taraika Development where we have raised our concerns consistently and remain excluded. It is also evident where Te Tumatakahuki have provided a clear pathway to successful capital works, but council has not taken appropriate steps out of a misplaced concern for other iwi concerns rather than hapū at place. 

 

Analysis

 

a) Te Tiriti o Waitangi: 

Council does seek to uphold and prioritise the principles of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Council identified within the proposed Community Outcome - Partnership with Tangata the following outcomes: 

·    We will uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles.

·    We build mutually respectful partnerships with Tangata Whenua.

·    We support Mana Whenua to maintain and enhance tikanga with their ancestral lands and waterways, wāhi tapu and other taonga.

·    We support whānau, marae, hapū and iwi in achieving their aspirations.

·    We recognise the role of Mana Whenua as kaitiaki of their rohe. 

 

Community Outcomes are Council’s commitment to the community and is what the Council can be expected to be held to account on. The manner in, which Council undertakes work and the projects it delivers, are expected to link to Council’s Community Outcomes. 

 

Officers have been working closely with iwi and hapū partners regarding an amendment to the current property disposal strategy, which would grant iwi/hapū the first right of refusal for any properties the Council wishes to dispose of. 

 

Council considered the views expressed by iwi and hapū partners through a report submitted to the Council late last year. As a result, the decision was made to defer action on the proposal pending further discussions with iwi and hapū partners to achieve alignment on the process. 

 

Recently, officers have recommenced this engagement process and are currently meeting with our partners with the aim of gaining their alignment on the proposed amendment before taking it back to council for adoption. 

 

b) Māori Engagement Framework: 

Council acknowledges the concerns raised by Te Tumatakahuki regarding hapū representation on the Project Advisory Group. The composition of the group was determined by the Council, which also committed to providing financial support through meeting fees for up to two representatives from each Iwi group to facilitate their attendance and participation in the Project Advisory Group. This support is intended to facilitate their attendance and active participation in the Project advisory Group, contributing to the development of this important document on behalf of all iwi, hapū, and Māori within the district.

 

 

c) Foxton War Memorial Hall:

The Foxton War Memorial Hall is facing challenges due to its designation as an Earthquake Prone Building, low community usage, and it was subsequently identified as a non core asset which led to council resolving to dispose of the property.

 

Council has recently consulted with the community in relation to the Future of the Foxton War Memorial Hall and sought feedback on the following options, retaining and upgrading it,

selling it on the open market, or transferring ownership to a community organisation.

 

Officers are currently analysing the submissions that have been received and intend to bring a paper back to council for decision separate to the Long Term Plan Process.

.

d) Support for Community Initiatives 

Council thanks Te Tumatakahuki for their support of Save Our River Trust and Foxton Futures (Paretao). Officers will continue to work with the community groups and Te Tumatakahuki on these community initiatives to ensure the best outcomes for the community, hapū and environment.

 

e) Resource Consenting Concerns

Council plays two key roles when it comes to resource consenting, each of which provide different opportunities for engagement with Iwi/Hapū. At times, Council is a resource consent applicant (e.g. applying for resource consent for its activity, such as water takes and discharges). At other times, Council is a consent authority. The process at hand, and the role Council plays, impacts the opportunities for Iwi/Hapū input. 

 

When Council is the applicant, it has much greater ability to involve Iwi/Hapū at the outset, take a partnership-based approach, and embed cultural values in the process and outcomes. In respect of our own applications, we always aim to work in this manner, so welcome any feedback on how to do this more effectively. 

 

When Council is the consent authority, it is limited by what the Resource Management Act allows in terms of how it can involve Iwi/Hapū. Understanding the cultural effects of proposals is a critical part of understanding the environmental effects, which is central to decisions made on resource consents. Council recognises it does not have the expertise to assess cultural effects on its own, so where a proposal may have cultural effects, applications are referred to Iwi/Hapū for comment. This process helps Council consenting staff to gain an understanding  of the extent of cultural effects, including whether any additional information or assessments are needed in order to draw conclusions on adverse cultural effects. Due to the statutory timeframes imposed on resource consents by the Resource Management Act, the referral process requires a short turn around which Council acknowledge places pressure of Iwi/Hapū’s already stretched resources.

 

Following the referral process, Council consenting staff make a decision on whether to notify a consent application on either a public (any party can make a submission) or limited basis (parties who are identified as being affected can make a submission, which can include Iwi/Hapū).

 

Council is happy to discuss this further, including how to providing greater transparency and consideration of cultural matters, whilst ensuring we can still meet our statutory requirements. 

 

f) Engagement in Government Reforms

In response to submission points regarding Council work with Iwi/Hapū on 3 Waters and Local Water Done Well, officers note that on 17 February 2024, The Coalition Government repealed the Water Services Entities Act 2022, by section 8 of the Water Services Acts Repeal Act 2024 (2024 No 2) and has been developing its replacement model under the ‘Local Water Done Well’ policy. It must be noted that under the previous 3 Waters reform, Iwi/Hapū engagement was being led by the National Transition Unit. Council acknowledged that this process was flawed and strongly advocated for engagement via Te Tumatakahuki. 

 

Whilst Local Water Done well is in the early stages and no legislation has been introduced, the Chief Executive has engaged with Iwi/Hapū seeking early views on the possibility of taking a regional approach to the delivery of three waters in the future, as well as collaborating on future submissions.

 

In addition to submission points, officers note the recent process followed in preparing Council’s submission on the Fast Track Consenting Bill, which involved officers sharing briefing material on the Bill with Iwi/Hapū partners and sharing the draft submission. 

 

g) Marae Infrastructure and recognition within Funding Grants 

Marae within the rohe are significant to our overall community framework. Council wishes to continue working alongside our iwi and hapū partners to assist in any positive outcomes for marae. This is a collective piece of mahi where multiple teams within the Council organisation can contribute to. In regards to community grants and funding, the current Rural Halls fund does allow for marae to apply for funding. Whilst there is a tier system in place, marae can apply for funding and are not excluded.

 

Additionally, the proposed LTP doubles the amount of budget within that fund to allow for urupā grants, allowing iwi and hapū to apply to assist with the maintenance of urupā. The criteria for this fund, is still being developed. 

 

h) Development of Council Infrastructure 

Council Officers acknowledge the support both historically and today in addressing the infrastructure constraints and challenges faced by our community, particularly as a result of growth. In addition the shared objectives to do better for our environment and develop true partnership in doing so with Iwi and hapū at place. Council acknowledges its role in managing relationships and shared responsibility around commitments made to Iwi/hapū. Some progress has been made with support from the Te Tumatakahuki Navigator role established in 2023. Project of note include progressing historic commitments and improvements around Foxton Wastewater (Matakarapa Island), Shannon Wastewater, Tokomaru Wastewater and Pot Levin Wastewater. Also valued input and support on the Poads Road water storage project.

 

i) Recognition that the entire Horowhenua District Catchment is in the Rohe of Ngāti Raukawa

In response to the submission points regarding Tara-Ika and the role for Ngāti Raukawa hapū, officers wish to advise that the engagement process for Tara-Ika (Plan Change 4) included Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga. The detail regarding the process  is set out in the s32 and s42A reports which are available on https://www.horowhenua.govt.nz/Council/Participate/Have-your-say/Proposed-Plan-Change-4-Tara-Ika-Growth-Area.

 

The s32 report sets out the pre-notification process and acknowledges that while approaches were made to both Muaūpoko Tribal Authority, Tamarangi Hapū, and Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga, responses were only received from Muaūpoko Tribal Authority. 

Following notification of the plan change, a submission was received from Muaūpoko Tribal Authority. No submissions were received from Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga or Tamarangi Hapū. The submissions and evidence received by Muaūpoko were addressed within the s42A report Hearing Report. Since the plan change process, we have received advice that engagement with Ngāti Raukawa should be through Te Tūmatakahuki. However, this advice had not been received at the time of Plan Change 4 development and notification, hence engagement occurring with the Iwi Authority, as is required by the RMA. 

While engagement on Plan Change 4 was primarily with Muaūpoko, this is due to the responses received from them during the pre-notification process and the submission received during the formal phase of the process. While both Muaūpoko and Raukawa were approached as part of the plan development process, only Muaūpoko participated in the plan change process. Once a plan change has been notified, the potential for changes is limited to those sought by submissions – which is why only Muaūpoko is reflected in the plan change. 

However, this does not preclude the opportunity for engagement with Te Tūmatakahuki as we move into the implementation phase. We look forward to working with both Muaūpoko and Ngāti Raukawa in this next phase of the project. 

 Recommendation

that Council thank Te Tumatakahuki for making this submission. Council acknowledges the importance of our relationship and the progress we are making together on many of the complex term matters we are working on together. 

 

Muaūpoko Tribal Authority 

Di Rump on behalf of Muaūpoko Tribal Authority (Submitter #465) set out three specific parts of the LTP to which their submission relates:

1.   Māori policy and engagement

2.   Stormwater

3.   Drinking water 

 

Māori policy and engagement

Muaūpoko noted that although the draft Māori Policy is currently sparse, it is anticipated that the outcomes of the Māori Engagement Framework will provide more structure and detail to how HDC interacts with Muaūpoko and the difference between Māori Engagement in general and the treaty partnership with Muaūpoko.

 

       Muaūpoko also noted that a key outcome of the LTP is that the partnership between tangata whenua and HDC is strengthened. Support was noted for the following goals outlined in the LTP to give effect to this outcome: 

 

1.   We will uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles. 

2.   We build mutually respectful partnerships with Tangata Whenua. 

3.   We support Mana Whenua to maintain and enhance tikanga with our ancestral lands and waterways, wāhi tapu and other taonga. 

4.   We support whānau, marae, hapū and iwi in achieving our aspirations; and 

5.   We recognise the role of Mana Whenua as kaitiaki of their rohe. 

 

In relation to Iwi engagement, Muaūpoko seek: 

·     Involvement in the Māori Engagement Framework development

·    Elaboration on how HDC proposes to achieve the goals they have identified for their partnership with tangata whenua. For example, support could be provided through funding, resourcing, or support to build capability within HDC and/or MTA.

·    Specific provision for tangata whenua in the Significance and Engagement criteria. This could involve the addition of a factor to the ‘Community Interest’ criterion that assesses the magnitude of a decision’s impact on tangata whenua values, or something similar. 

 

Analysis 

The Māori Engagement Framework is the overarching tool that will essentially provide the guidance that will dictate how we engage with Iwi/hapū/marae and the wider Māori community, acknowledging the differing levels of partnership. E.g. the framework will ensure consistency in the way Council approaches Iwi agreements (for example), to ensure fair and equitable processes are considered and undertaken.

 

Council is involved at various levels, in a range of activities to support our partnership with tangata whenua goal. Below are some of the ways we have and are doing this: 

·    We partner with Iwi and hapū within the rohe in occasions important to Māori such as Matariki and Te Wiki o te reo Māori. 

·      Matauranga Māori Scholarship Programme where $150k was provided to 5 rangatahi who whakapapa to a Horowhenua Iwi, and who were studying at university or wānanga in the field of 3 Waters. 

·      3 Waters Marae Upgrade Programme 

·      Marae entranceway project 

·      Marae CDEM resilience – Providing Civil Defence Emergency Management training for marae to run effectively in an emergency 

 

Further work on the policy has been put on hold to align with the outcomes of the Māori Engagement Framework.

 

Stormwater 

Muaūpoko submission sought the following:

 

·    More ambitious actions to address stormwater issues in the Horowhenua District. This could include more concrete commitment to minimising flood flows and encouraging nature-based stormwater solutions.

·    Prioritisation of stormwater treatment – especially with regards to the health and wellbeing of Punahau.

·    Planning and design of a stormwater management system using mātauranga Māori, based on a Muaūpoko worldview.

·    Prioritisation of nature-based solutions for the capture, conveyance, treatment, and discharge of stormwater. For example, wetland restoration, open space in new developments, disincentivising the removal of permeable surfaces during infill development.

·    Ensuring the use of rainwater tanks.

 

Analysis

Council acknowledges the submission from MTA and look forward to the development of wider catchment management planning to address concerns in regards to: 

·      The resilience of infrastructure with regard to natural hazards and climate change 

·      More frequent and intense rainfall increasing pressure on the ability of existing infrastructure to provide service and water quality. 

·      Infill development within existing urban areas increasing the ratio of impermeable surface to uncovered land, which can exacerbate flooding in low-lying areas and create more contamination.

 

          Council is currently working towards a meeting with the Lake Horowhenua Trust to discuss the Levin Stormwater Consent Project. 

 

          Council has allocated budget for the Levin Stormwater Consent and in-network water quality improvement projects in the early years of LTP24. Our objective is to engage with the Lake Horowhenua Trust in an initial discussion regarding this project, ahead of wider Iwi engagement, consenting and delivery.

 

          Key aspects of the consent application include in-network treatment to enhance the water quality entering Lake Punahau and by agreement in the medium term, ecological and cultural improvements such as wetlands in the vicinity of lake. There are multiple strands of work associated with this kaupapa, examples include the work that we are already positively progressing with the Lake Trust/MTA via the Fresh Water Improvement Fund and working alongside partners on the Horizons led Arawhata wetland project. 

  

          Council also acknowledges its leadership role alongside Iwi in managing growth and development. This includes setting the outcomes for new development and ensuring the cost does not fall back on the environment or wider community. The initial relief sought is highly aligned with Council outcomes and current focus, development of this alongside Iwi partners will be critical to delivering the shared outcomes sought. 

 

Drinking Water 

Muaūpoko submission asked for: 

• Inclusion of the Poads Road reservoir consenting in the final LTP.

• Provision for the recommendations made in the reservoir CIA in the final design and consent conditions of the reservoir.

• Prioritisation of the reservoir construction in the next iteration of the LTP. 

 

Analysis 

Council agrees that this project is of strategic importance, hence its position in the Long Term Plan 2024-2044. Council looks forward to continuing its work with Iwi partners to achieve the outcomes that the project seeks.

 

Recommendations 

That Council thank Muaūpoko Tribal Authority for making this submission. Council acknowledges the importance of our relationship and the progress we are making together on many of the complex term matters we are working on together. 

 

Rangitāne o Manawatū 

Danielle Harris on behalf of Rangitāne o Manawatū submitted on four issues:

1.       Iwi engagement

2.       Urban Development and Stormwater Management in the Manawatū Awa Catchment

3.       Wastewater

4.       Connected Communities 

 

Iwi engagement

That as Te Tiriti partners with Council, Rangitane’s position is that they must be engaged in decision-making processes before significant investments have been committee.

 

Analysis 

The Māori Engagement Framework is the overarching tool that will essentially provide the guidance that will dictate how we engage with Iwi/hapū/marae and the wider Māori community, acknowledging the differing levels of partnership. E.g. the framework will ensure consistency in the way Council approaches Iwi agreements (for example), to ensure fair and equitable processes are considered and undertaken. 

 

 

Urban Development and Stormwater Management in the Manawatū Awa Catchment:

 

Rangitāne o Manawatū said any urban development within the Manawatū Awa catchment must: 

·    be planned and designed using mātauranga that considers a Rangitāne o Manawatū (and Muaūpoko) 

·    worldview; 

·    align with Rangitāne o Manawatū understanding of Te Mana o te Wai; 

·    will avoid filling gullies, destroying wetlands, streams and any other special ecological area; 

·    will set aside wāhi tapu as public reserves through any development process; 

·    prioritise stormwater treatment to the highest degree; 

·    avoid interrupting natural flow paths, working with wai instead of against it; 

·    avoid amplifying the risk of flooding people’s homes in the Koputaroa catchment and any other areas 

·    of flooding risk (some areas may need to be considered for managed retreat); and 

·    ensure sufficient servicing budget is provided for maintenance of infrastructure, especially stormwater devices that provide the first line of defence to protect wai. 

 

Analysis 

Where Council are advancing urban development opportunities (for example, re-zoning land for development), it will work with all Iwi partners to ensure that their values are appropriately identified, recognised, and protected. Not only is this required by legislation, but Council also recognise the importance of this, including the value of mātauranga in delivering a resilient and environmentally sustainable urban environment. Council agree that urban development proposals provide an opportunity to protect and recognise wahi tapu and would seek to understand this through engagement processes.

 

Officers note that earthworks (including filling) and modifying or destroying wetlands, streams, or other ecological areas generally require resource consent from Horizons Regional Council. In respect of activities in and around streams and wetlands specifically, consents are often required under National Environmental Standard for Freshwater Management (and often trigger a Non-Complying Activity Status). In some instances, such activities are ‘Prohibited’ meaning that no resource consents can be issued. Council acknowledge the submitter’s comment and note its commitment to ensuring effects of urban development are appropriately managed, including by avoiding destruction of wetlands, streams and any other special ecological areas.

 

Officers agree with the Rangitāne o Manawatū regarding the need to prioritise stormwater treatment in urban development, including through exploring water sensitive design. 

 

The RMA requires risk from natural hazards, including flooding, to be considered in both Plan Changes (e.g. rezoning) and subdivision consents. 

 

Regarding the points about having sufficient budget to maintain stormwater infrastructure to protect the wai from flooding, Council note that this a joint effort between Council, Horizons Regional Council, and individual properties. For example, Horizons Regional Council are responsible for maintaining stopbanks, Council is responsible for maintaining civic stormwater assets, while individual property owners are responsible for maintaining soakpits on their own properties. 

 

 

Wastewater 

Rangitāne o Manawatū said the Wastewater across the Tokomaru, Shannon and Foxton systems must: 

·    prioritise infrastructure upgrades to prevent leaking issues, particularly in waterways; 

·    prioritise urgent action to remove discharges from waterways that are having negative effects on 

·    water quality; 

·    minimise the risk of treatment plants flooding resulting in overflow discharges into waterways; 

·    prioritise higher treatment standards of wastewater prior to discharge; and 

·    avoid treatment and/or discharge near wāhi tapu. 

 

Analysis 

Council is implementing ongoing improvements across the operations of existing wastewater networks and treatment sites. Council are also committing to working with Iwi partners around legacy issues, commitments and planning for the future. Officers are actively engaged with Rangitāne, Muaūpoko and Ngāti Raukawa hapū in regards to the future of Tokomaru wastewater treatment and disposal. We encourage and look forward to further engagement in bringing together Council and Iwi perspectives to deliver better outcomes for our environment and our community.

 

Connected Communities 

Rangitāne o Manawatū strongly support the implementation of a network of shared use pathways (SUP) across the district. 

·    Prioritise the consenting and implementation of SUP’s that connect communities throughout the district; 

·    Draw on Rangitāne o Manawatū experience delivering SUP’s in partnership for the benefit of our communities and cultural reconnection to wai; 

·    Prioritise alignment of SUP’s with waterways; 

·    Use mātauranga in the design phase; 

·    Redevelop the Procurement Policy with Rangitāne o Manawatū input to reflect the importance of providing for Māori business procurement and participation 

 

Analysis 

Officers would look forward to engaging with interested Iwi and Hapū in planning, design and delivery of walking and cycling facilities.

 

Recommendations 

That Council thank Rangitāne o Manawatū for making this submission. Council acknowledges the importance of our relationship and the progress we are making together on many of the complex term matters we are working on together. 

 

 

Topic 1: Community Contracts for Services

 

Submissions

Submissions #320, #390, #391, #454, #482, #478, #457, #387, #455, and #440

 

Summary of Submissions

Submitters have requested continued funding for their contracted community services and in some instances, have requested an increase in funding.

Two other submissions discuss the idea of some partial decreases in funding and look at other funding sources. The same submissions, also request that the Council consider a new funding arrangement to support the ecological maintenance of Manawatū Estuary.

Analysis

The table below shows each current Contracted Service, previous contract amount and their requested amount through the LTP.

 

Contracted Service	Previous Contract Amount (over a three-year term)	Year 1 Requested Amount	LTP Requested Amount (over a three-year term)	% +/-
Levin Waitārere Surf Life Saving Club	$87,313	$33,984	$106,818	22% +
Surf Life Saving New Zealand (on behalf of Foxton Beach Surf Life Saving Club)	$87,313	$40,250	$125,644	44% +
Whatunga Tūao Volunteer Central	$30,000	$20,000	$60,000	100% +
Horowhenua District Neighbourhood Support	$75,000	$25,000	$75,000	0%
Save Our River Trust (SORT)	$30,000	$10,000	$30,000	0%
Horowhenua Community Camera Trust	$45,000	$20,000	$68,000	51% +
Waitārere Beach Progressive & Ratepayers Association	$15,750	$5,250	$15,750	0%
Levin Community Patrol	$15,000	$5,000.00	$15,000 - Assumed (Commentary noted below)	0%
Foxton and Beach Community Patrol	$15,750	0	0
TOTAL	$401,126	$159,484	$496,212

 

Foxton and Beach Community Patrol are an existing Contracted Service and did not submit on the LTP. They have expressed to Council Officers prior to the LTP process that they no longer require funding. The reason for this is that they are struggling to recruit volunteers and are not confident in being able to utilise the funding. Their existing funding allocation is $5,250 per annum. They did not uplift their funding requirement in the current financial year.

Additionally, Levin Community Patrol also did not submit on the LTP. However, Officers have made contact with their representative, who have informed Council that they do indeed wish to continue their funding arrangement and are apologetic for not submitting. Their existing funding allocation is $5,000 per annum and it can be assumed that they would appreciate the same or similar level of funding.

Council through this funding process, funds Surf Lifesaving Services at two local beaches within the Horowhenua – Levin Waitārere and Foxton Beach. Historically, Council has funded the clubs directly for this service however, this year, Surf Lifesaving New Zealand (national body) submitted on behalf of Foxton Beach Surf Life Saving Club. They have requested additional funding to allow for a fourth lifeguard which they have deemed necessary as part of their submission, whereas the Levin-Waitārere is for the continuation of the existing service at the same levels as previously funded (noting inflation).

Throughout the hearing process a request was made to Officers for a more detailed breakdown of the funding that was requested from Surf Life Saving New Zealand (SLSNZ). This was followed up and the detail received from SLSNZ is in the table below.

Council Officers are of the view that both Surf Life Saving services receive the same level of funding that Council decides.

Currently in the proposed LTP, the total amount budgeted for Contracted Services over three years is $421,248 noting that for Years 2 & 3, CPI would be applied. If Council were to support and fund as per the submissions received, this would total $496,212 over a three-year term. Therefore, the funding shortfall is $74,964 over the three-year period/contract.

For Year 1 of the LTP, the total contracted community funding being sought is $159,484.00. The current budget in the proposed LTP is $140,416, meaning that there is a shortfall of $19,068.

The Te Awahou Foxton Community Board and another submitter have requested that the Council contribute a minimum of $30,000 to support the volunteer efforts in enhancing the ecology of Manawatū Estuary. Council currently supports the work of maintaining and enhancing this community taonga through its existing operational arrangements and budgets.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

That Council commit to the same level of funding as per previous years, and apply a CPI increase to allow for the general increase in cost to serve.

That Council notes it currently supports the maintenance of the Manawatū Estuary, through existing operational budgets.

Topic 2: Environmental Policies

 

Submissions

Submitter #433.

Summary of Submissions

This submitter raised a number of suggestions for Council to consider. This included allocating budget to support the community to be physically active, Smokefree and SunSmart.

Analysis

Through the review of the Public Places Bylaw in 2024, consideration is being given to including the smokefree and vape free environment policy into the bylaw, this follows on from a Council resolution in 2023 and an action in the ongoing monitoring report.

In June 2022 Council adopted a Sun Protection Environment Policy which commits Council to improving shade and other sun protection measures. This will be achieved through providing infrastructure and increasing the provision of appropriately placed shade. In order to achieve this Council Officers will be conducting a shade audit of parks and playgrounds, to ensure we can incorporate shade planning into all future playground, outdoor recreation, and park development planning.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

That Council Officers liaise with the Cancer Society for support in the review of the Public Places Bylaw, and in conducting the shade audit of parks and playgrounds.

 

Topic 3: Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom Roof

Submissions

Submissions #485, #191, #409

Summary of Submissions

One submitter signalled that the funding for the new roof should come from the Foxton Freeholding Account.

One submitter questioned why the facility is requiring a new roof so soon after opening.

One submitter requested Council consider the lesser-valued option to replace the roof as highlighted in the Infrastructure Strategy.

Analysis

When Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom was built, only parts of the existing roof on the building was replaced which has contributed to a number of issues with the overall roof and some areas of significant deterioration which has resulted in water ingress.

Officers have budgeted for the higher amount and option to replace the roof to ensure that enough capital funding is available. This is in part due to the known increasing costs in materials and construction and allowing for the air conditioning units to be removed from the structure. Essentially, it is the view of Council Officers that this will allow some level of contingency and budget protection.

Officers confirm the budget for replacing the roof at Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom is included in the draft Long Term Plan 2024-44

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

Topic 4: Shannon Open Spaces

Submissions

Submitters #378, #232, #393

Summary of Submissions

Three submissions were made regarding open spaces and toilet facilities in Shannon. These included the Waterwheel Project and development at Te Maire Park.

Analysis

The Shannon Waterwheel has been a project the Parks and Property team have engaged and worked with the community on over the past several years.

 

 

In October 2020 Council commissioned a report by Calibre Consulting regarding the installation of the Shannon Waterwheel on State Highway 54. This report highlighted the works that would need to be completed to facilitate the installation, these included:

·         Reinforced piled foundations would be required to support both the gravity (vertical) loads from the structure and lateral forces generated during a seismic event. The costs of which may exceed the construction cost for the Waterwheel installation.

·         The construction of bank protection (and ongoing maintenance) to the stream along the entire length of the proposed site.

·         Review and re-design of the existing drainage pipe which runs through the site.

·         Geotechnical investigations would be required with an approximate cost of $15,000-$20,000.

·         Consultation with affected parties including Waka Kotahi / NZTA.

The report estimated the design and construction costs would be between $50,000-$100,000 and once constructed it would require $2,000-$5,000 for maintenance and monitoring.

These costs reflect the original size and proposed location of the Shannon Waterwheel. If there is a proposed new location and / or change in the Waterwheel construction, Council officers are unaware of these.

The Shannon Progressive Association believe they have the funds and materials to complete it, which will reduce the cost for Council.

Officers support the association through the consenting process; the deposit for the consent is $1,500. While Horowhenua District Council Officers can support and outline the path to gain a consent if it is required, we are just one piece of the puzzle and there may be more costs associated with this dependent on the requirements of Waka Kotahi / NZTA and Horizons.

Council has Better Off Funding to develop Te Maire Park. As part of this project, officers will incorporate the steps to the Shannon Railway Station. As mentioned above, there have been examples in other districts of incorporating play into every day designs. This new development provides an opportunity to look at ways of including natural and simple activities for rangatahi and tamariki which officers will explore.

Three submissions also requested a toilet at Te Maire Park. The community, contractors and Officers often witness travellers using the Te Maire gardens as a toilet facility. While Council has external funding for the development of this park, this does not provide for a toilet. Officers are supportive of the idea of a new toilet at the northern end of Te Maire, particularly as there are services available and the location provides parking for trucks on the State Highway. It is estimated this would cost $300,000 and is therefore not currently provided for in the Long Term Plan budgets.

There is currently a public toilet on Balance Street, which will have some renewal work undertaken next financial year. However, there is inadequate parking for trucks on Balance Street. There is also a public toilet located on Stout Street behind the Shannon Grandstand. Officers will ensure signage to these toilets are visible. Signage is within the road reserve of a state highway and therefore falls under the decision-making process of Waka Kotahi / NZTA. Previous attempts to improve the indication signs within the road reserve have been declined due to sign regulations by Waka Kotahi / NZTA.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

 

Topic 5: Playgrounds

Submissions

Submitters #82, #87, #95 and #441

 

Summary of Submissions

Three submissions were received wanting more areas in our parks and playgrounds to cater for under-5 year-olds.

A submission was received outlining desires for a children’s playground and or play area on Park Avenue in Waitārere Beach.

Analysis

Council currently has a Capital Budget of $87,000 for year one, $92,479 for year two and $96,462 for year three for playground renewals.

Council’s playground assets are within an asset management system which monitors typical renewal periods for these assets.

Additionally, Council’s Open Spaces Maintenance contractors audit these assets monthly to ensure they are compliant.

This budget is to renew the playground equipment and ensure the assets remain safe for tamariki to use.

Currently Council has limited areas within our playgrounds that specifically cater for Under 5 year olds. This has largely been historic, due to the limited equipment available for this age group. However, there is now a new approach taken to create spaces for our younger children, such as sand and water play spaces.

An example of this is Jubilee Park in Levin which has proven a safe and popular option for this age group since the upgrade has occurred.

Council Officers can work with our Open Spaces Maintenance contractor to identify areas where we can replace failing play equipment with spaces that will be attractive for Under 5 year old’s.

Additionally, there have been examples from other districts where play areas have been incorporated into day to day design. While there is not currently budget available to create new spaces, Officers and Contractors will continue to look into these examples and incorporating it into renewal works where possible.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions

Topic 6: Foxton Open Spaces

Submissions

Submitters #431, #440, #443, #455, #478

Summary of Submissions

Two submissions highlight plans for the restoration of the Foxton River Loop, in particular plans to restore the river verge.

Three submissions referred to the Manawatū Estuary and RAMSAR site, including funding to support volunteers.

Analysis

Council Officers have a strong relationship with the community groups who are working to improve the protection of the Manawatū River, including the Estuary (by ensuring that the RAMSAR site is maintained and its high environmental values enhanced over the long term by all stakeholders), as well as the Foxton River Loop, which is a significant area and focus for Save Our River Trust (SORT) members.

Save Our River Trust currently receives $10,000 annually to cover their costs and is not seeking additional funding as part of their submission. The Council has previously supported SORT in rehabilitating a walkway near the refuse station and intends to continue such assistance where it is able.

Officers will continue aiding these groups by facilitating external funding applications, fostering connections, navigating council processes, and supporting development aspirations in these vital Horowhenua areas.

Council Officers are continuing to advance the Foxton Community Plan during 2024. This Plan seeks to capture and align the vision, aspiration, challenges, opportunities and actions for the Foxton and Foxton Beach area. From the community engagement sessions undertaken several key themes were identified. One of those key themes was Nature and Environment, which included the community’s references to the Foxton River Loop, Manawatū Estuary and RAMSAR. A part of developing the Foxton Community Plan will be to better understand these sites and their associated challenges and opportunities. The Foxton Community Plan would look to identify actions that respond to the challenges and opportunities. It is anticipated that the Foxton Community Plan will draw and align with existing plans and aspirations of local groups active in these sites such as SORT and Manawatū Estuary Trust.

Officers will ensure that the relevant feedback provided through the LTP submission process is factored into the Foxton Community Plan work. As the actions are identified for the Foxton Community Plan, consideration will be given by Council to the implementation of the Foxton Community Plan and support that may been necessary from Council.

The District Plan also offers a degree of protection for the Manawatū Estuary through the classification of the site as an Outstanding Natural Feature (ONF) (Manawatū River Estuary), through its rules on activities such as earthworks and buildings within the ONF area.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

 

Topic 7: Other Open Spaces

Submissions

Submitters #97, #148, #185, #403, #378, #387 and #314.

Summary of Submissions

One submitter requested to remove the London Plane trees down on Oxford Street, Levin due to the leaves blocking drainage.

A small number of submitters made comments regarding specific works in specific Council owned open spaces.

A small number of submitters commented on the need to continue with planting initiatives, as well as the removal of noxious weeds.

A submitter spoke to the development of a volleyball court at Marie Street Reserve.

 A submitter asked Council to provide funding for the development of Waitārere Domain and for planting, removal of trees a new toilet and park furniture at Holmwood Park in Waitārere.

A submitter would like to see the Manakau Domain increased in size by purchasing land to the west and/or north of the current domain. The submitter also requests that the sports playing surfaces needs to be brought up to current standard of other HDC sports facilities. Including training facilities, a training area for all-weather turf and a larger, re-surfaced car park. The submitter also requests the Council take over all domain maintenance and line marking while allowing the local community and domain users group to retain Kaitiakitanga.

 

 

Analysis

Due to the notable tree status of the London Plane Trees on Oxford Street, Levin, removing the trees is not currently a viable option. Council recently applied for Resource Consent to have the trees removed however through the notified consent process it became apparent that the community was not supportive of this. However, Officers are currently in the process of applying for a Resource Consent to have the trees pollarded and the roots pruned for tree maintenance, as well as to protect and repair the damage caused to Council's infrastructure.

A recent arborists reports highlights the likelihood of the reduction of leaf litter following pollarding and indicates that pollarding is a perfectly acceptable way of managing these street trees.

Council has sportsground and reserve renewal budgets every year which are mainly driven by our Asset Management system. Officers get the information from the system that highlights which assets should be renewed. Officers use a risk matrix to ascertain which assets can be appropriately deferred and which assets are more critical and therefore need to be renewed and/or replaced.

Manakau Domain is a community sportsground, with an agreement in place with the community association to manage and maintain the sportsground. This has been in place since 2013, following a Council decision to stop maintaining the grounds.

This year Council has received Better Off Funding which will fund the establishment of bollards to regulate public traffic, an upgraded toilet facility and changing rooms and improvements to the training fields.

Officers have taken note of the submissions requesting specific changes within parks, sportsgrounds and playgrounds and will take them into consideration.

Additionally, provision has been made for Council to commission a Recreation and Aquatics Facilities Strategic Investment Plan to ensure future investment in these areas are meeting the requirements of our community.

There are currently two volleyball courts that are available for public use in Levin (Levin Adventure Park and Solway Park). Officers are aware that there is some remediation work required to be undertaken at Levin Adventure Park and are working with Council’s contractor to facilitate this. As part of the proposed LTP there is funding allocated to undertake a Recreation and Aquatics Strategic Investment Plan which will review sporting facilities in the district based on demand and need, this will guide future investment in recreational and sporting facilities.

In an increasingly environmentally aware society, global warming and environmental sustainability have achieved an ever-increasing profile. Council can assist in reducing the impacts of global warming and maintaining a sustainable environment in a number of ways.

Council has, for a number of years, been developing coastal resiliency by replacing marram dunes which have low resiliency to localised coastal erosion with native sand-binding species such as Spinifex and Pingao. Council will continue to collaborate with communities in riparian planting and volunteer planting days which have historically been very successful.

Additionally, Council are keenly aware of the impact Phragmites Karka can have on the district and will continue to act with haste in regards to this noxious weed.

Council has retained a $10,000 CAPEX budget for Year 1 for Waitārere Domain. Officers will work with the Waitārere Beach Progressive & Ratepayers Association to ensure the money is spent on items that are of interest and use.

As mentioned above Council has sportsground and reserve renewal budgets every year which are mainly driven by our Asset Management System. Officers get the information from the system that highlights which assets should be renewed based on their condition and useful remaining life.

Officers use a risk matrix to ascertain which assets can be appropriately deferred and which assets are more critical and therefore need to be renewed and/or replace.

This approach is also taken with playground renewal and toilet renewal budgets. However, the items requested by the submitter would require a separate budget line as they would be new items, rather than renewals.

There is not currently any separate development budget for Holmwood Park, additionally there is no budget allocated for any maintenance that any new assets would require. It is likely that Officers will undertake a Development Plan process for Holmwood Park over the next two years, to gain insight into the Waitārere Beach community’s aspirations for the site and to form the basis for submissions to future LTP’s for funding.

Recommendation
That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions

 

​Topic 8: Young People Matters

Submissions

Submitters #476, #105, #272, #330, #363, #496, #82, #384, #127, #301, #110

Summary of Submissions

A small number of submitters highlighted the need to ensure that there are pathways for young people to access employment and generally the request that the Council help to ensure that local employment opportunities are available for young people.

Request from one submitter identifying the need for a dedicated study space and group.

One submitter requested that the Council facilitate some form of Pacific youth voice.

One submitter urged the Council not to reduce any youth service as these services are important for our young people to stay engaged in society.

One submission highlighted the need to have outreach activities within our community spaces in a bid to build meaningful relationships with young people and their families.

A small number of submitters highlighted the need for more activities for young people to do. This included a submitter's comment that more fun things are needed in our Aquatic Facilities. Another comment was that both the Levin Adventure Park and Levin Aquatic Centre need to be expanded to be able to cater to different age groups.

One submitter acknowledged that they were pleased to see that the Council has a Youth Voice (Youth Council). Another submitter suggested that we create a Youth Council that can feed into this LTP process.

One submitter advised that the LTP documentation should be easier to read for young people and that due to the nature of the content, some young people feel intimidated. Additionally, another submitter expressed their appreciation for applying youth engagement to this process as it assists in civics education.

Concerns were raised by one group submission that highlighted their concern about safety outside of the Youth Space and that it can be a place where people vape and cause minor violence issues. This can restrict some people from wanting to use the space.

On the subject of the Youth Space, there were some ideas suggested to allow for children to be able to access the Youth Space. This includes having set times for different age groups as one example.

Analysis

Young people are typically defined as people aged between 12 and 24.

Council is currently contracted to deliver Mayors Taskforce for Jobs (MTFJ) which supports young people to either enter employment or gain skills and experience that will assist them with their career and employment pathway.

Through its Community Facilities, a number of suitable spaces are available for the purposes of study.

Council Officers are mindful that any youth representation needs to encompass the whole community and that means young people representing our diverse cultures. Any Pacific young people are encouraged to take part in Youth Voice.

Other than the consideration of the Youth Space being closed on Sundays, the proposed LTP does not intend to reduce any other youth services and in fact, through other ways, some additional investment will be made into youth development initiatives.

Ensuring that there are adequate activities, programmes and facilities for young people to take part in and use is always a common struggle. Council has a diverse events programme that have components that are suitable for young people. Additionally, the Youth Space provides an exciting events and activities programme.

The Youth Voice (Youth Council) was recently refreshed and now has 13 members on board representing the views of young people.

Surveillance outside the Youth Space, in the bus stop is currently being investigated in a bid to mitigate any anti-social behaviour.

The work of our Youth Programme Coordinators in conjunction our facility Kaitiaki have seen a significant reduction in anti-social issues occurring in the wider facility. We believe the Youth Space is an inclusive environment that is welcoming for all youth, any behavior that is not in line with our values or expectations is managed appropriately.

The Youth Space is essentially a Youth Development Centre and this is the common terminology, across New Zealand. The purpose of a Youth Development Centre is to create a safe space for young people where they can make sensible choices and where need be, be connected to other agencies that can offer specialist support. Striking the right balance between having a space for young people versus children is a challenge. Currently, the Youth Space has an impressive youth membership that allows for organic youth development to occur. If the Space was promoted, even partly to cater for children (under 12), there is a risk that we would see a reduction in young people using the space as they will not feel as though it is a space for young people.

Council provides a series of facilities, activities, programmes and events that are specifically designed for children. This includes but is not limited to aquatic facilities, playgrounds, and childrens’ space within the Libraries as some examples.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions

Topic 9: Strategic recreation facilities investment

Submissions

Submitter #389

Summary of Submissions

The Levin Tennis Club requests funding to provide additional lighting and resurfacing Court 5, a public usage court.

Analysis

Current budgets do not allow for Council to support funding this project, however there is provision in the budget for a Recreation and Aquatics Strategic Investment Plan which will review sporting facilities in the district and ensure future investment is applied to meet community needs.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions

 

Topic 10: Rainbow Community Considerations

One submitter discussed the idea and importance of allowing for gender fluid bathrooms within our facilities.

Additionally, the same submission proposed the idea of a rainbow support group, providing a safe space for our Rainbow community to come together.

Analysis

Gender neutral bathrooms is currently a discussion that is happening across the country and in this instance, is a topic that the Aquatics industry in particular is working on. Horowhenua District Council welcomes anyone who wishes to use our facilities and in doing so, we want to create facilities that are safe, welcoming and inclusive. This is an ongoing piece of work that Officers are actively monitoring and when and where required, guidance will be provided.

Horowhenua District Council is in the process of establishing a rainbow support group for rangatahi which aligns with Pride Month in June through our Library Services Team. Similarly to the above comment, Council welcomes involvement and participation from all sectors of our community. In the past, a number of pride events, programmes and initiatives have taken place and we look forward to hosting more.

 

Topic 12: Property

A number of submitters commented on different properties owned by Council:

·    Foxton War Memorial Hall

Submitter #331 does not want the Foxton War Memorial Hall sold.

Analysis

Council recently consulted on the future of the Foxton War Memorial Hall and Officers are preparing a paper to come to the next Council meeting for a decision on the future of the hall. This process occurred outside of the Long Term Plan, however Officers will include this feedback into that process.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions

·    Foxton Courthouse

Submission #428 would like Council to commit resources, such as cash in kind or guarantees, to support their requests for external funding. The submitter believes the lack of this will weaken any case for funding.

Analysis

Council received Better Off Funding which funded a concept upgrade plan for Foxton Courthouse which was referenced by the submitter. The funds will also go towards creating a fit out plan and consent preparations.

There is currently no budget to progress this further, however Officers will continue to support the Foxton Heritage Society with external funding applications, letters of support and connections where necessary.

Council may consider additional support such as supporting external funding applications, fostering connections, navigating council processes, and supporting development aspirations with the Courthouse.

·    Foxton Coronation Hall

Submitter #470 appreciates the relationship between the Trust and Council, and sought confirmation of ongoing maintenance for the Town Hall. They indicated they plan to upgrade display signage and to better share the history of their exhibits. They will be seeking funding this year but have not asked for funding from Council at this time. They seek to work together with Council to achieve the Community Outcomes in the LTP in a cost-effective way.

Analysis

Council Officers have a constructive working relationship with the MAVtech Trust, and will continue to support them with opportunities and identifying external funding.

Council signed a 10 year lease with MAVtech Trust in October 2020. The lease outlines that MAVtech Trust will complete necessary seismic strengthening to 67% of the new building standard within the term of the lease. It also outlines that Council will renew the roof within the first three years, however this time has already passed.

Additionally, the building does not have a current Building Warrant of Fitness. In order to obtain one, repairs are required to ensure the building is fire compliant.

A conversation needs to be had with Council on what works should be completed on a building that is not earthquake strengthened and has been identified as non-core through the Property Strategy.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions

·    Waitārere Beach Surf Life Saving Club

Submitters #65 said there should not be a restriction on the Surf Club.

Submitter #189 said there should be a permanent restaurant/bar in the Club that could raise money for the club and be the heart of the community.

Analysis

The designation of the Waitārere Beach Surf Life Saving Club, the purpose for what the building can be used for, was set following a hearings process with a commissioner.

At this stage Council and the Waitārere Surf Life Saving Club are confident the community will be able to utilise the facilities within its current designation. The Council has been working with the Club to create a framework to ensure there is clear guidance on who and how the facility can be used.

The Waitārere Beach Surf Life Saving Club leases the building from Council and the Club will review requests for use based on this designation utilising the framework.

The framework will be reviewed in a year or so, alongside the use, to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

 

Topic 13: Restricting motor vehicles on beaches 

​​Submissions 

​​Submitters # 279, 287 and 322. 

​​Summary of Submissions 

​All three submissions on this topic advocate for preventing vehicle access to beaches, with various beaches within the district mentioned in the submissions. Suggestions are made to keep main beaches open only for pedestrians, with alternative access provided away from main beach entrances for vehicles. 

​​The three submissions argue for the safety and amenity benefits that this proposal could bring to pedestrians, in addition to ecological benefits.

​​Analysis 

​Council do not currently have a bylaw prohibiting vehicle access to the beach foreshore. Currently, the beach foreshore is classified as a legal road with a speed limit of 30kmph. 

​​Council has the ability to restrict vehicular access to beaches, partially or completely through a bylaw. Council may also consider the option of a seasonal restriction of vehicles access to beaches if it so desires. Shorter term restrictions are also possible through Temporary Road Closures, managed as a Traffic Management Plan, similar to the process used for public events. A formal public consultation process would be anticipated to proceed with any permanent vehicle restriction to beaches. 

Council’s Public Places Bylaw is in place for the purpose of protecting the public from nuisance and ensuring public health and safety is maintained in public places. Although this bylaw does not specifically address vehicular access, it does contain provision to address nuisance, dangerous or offensive behaviour, and damage caused to public places. A review of the Public Places Bylaw is currently underway. Coincidentally, a review of Council’s Land Transport Bylaw is also currently underway.    

​Recommendations 

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions

That ​Council considers directing Officers to provide options to restrict motor vehicles from beach areas within the District and provide options for consultation on this topic. 

Topic 12: Speed Management Plan 

​​Submissions 

​Submission #337, #374 

​​Summary of Submissions 

​Both submissions on this topic advocate not to proceed with speed limit changes, but it seems both submitters may have overestimated the extents of Council’s speed limit changes. 

​ Analysis 

​Officers note the Council's Speed Management Plan primarily consisted of speed limit changes around schools. The Speed Management Plan includes a speed limit reduction in the Manakau township, which could possibly be described as a blanket speed limit, as it extends past the area of the school zone. The speed limit change in Manakau was supported by the majority of respondents to the Speed Management Plan's consultation process. 

​​Recommendation 

​That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions. 

​Topic 14: General Road Network Issues 

​Submissions 

Submitter #148, #187, #378, #384, #441 and #333.

​Summary of Submissions 

​All submitters identify specific concerns with the roading network.

​Analysis 

​Submission #148 advocates for safety improvements for pedestrians along Holben Parade. 

​A minor safety improvement project is planned to address the concerns raised in this submission, to be delivered in the 2024-27 period, pending confirmation of NZTA funding support. 

Submitter #148 asked whether the plan to change intersections on Liverpool St is needed.

​​Submission #378 advocates for improvements to the kerb and channel on Plimmer Terrace, due to the large drop to the road in a busy pedestrian area.

​Officers have been made aware of this issue, agree it requires addressing and are investigating options to fix it. 

​ ​Submission #384 advocates for a fairer distribution of footpath renewals across the district and advocates for better public transport options. 

​Officers note that Council’s footpath renewal programme is developed solely based on condition assessments. Footpaths in the worst condition are prioritised to be repaired first. 

​Officers will capture the submission's notes regarding advocacy for better public transport and incorporate it into the advocacy for improved public transport. 

​Submission #411 requests a speed hump and a prohibition of engine braking on East Road Shannon. 

​Officers do not recommend the installation of speed humps on this part of East Road, Shannon, due to heavy trucks using this route.

​Officer will proceed with the installation of signage in this location to advise drivers that engine braking is prohibited in urban areas in. Officers will also contact commercial heavy vehicle operators to remind them that engine braking is prohibited in urban areas. 

​Submission #333 enquires why a contractor from Wanganui was used for arborist work on a recent worksite, and questions why a different arborist contractor was later doing tree work in a similar location.

Officers note that the contractor from Whanganui was working under the main roading contractor’s worksite, and required to be compliant with their specific health and safety requirements. Officers also note that this specific contractor provide excellent value for money, and deliver quality service. In this instance the contractor was undertaking a several pieces of work locally, resulting in minimal establishment cost. Regarding the second arborist contractor later working in the same area, that contractor was working on behalf of Electra, who maintain local power lines.

Recommendation 

​That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions. 

​Topic 15: Public Transport Funding 

​Submissions 

​Submission #253, #351, and #422.

​Summary of Submissions 

Submitter #253 notes the work Council and Horizons are doing together on the future vision for public transport within the Horowhenua district. They say it is unclear whether the proposed capital expenditure for land transport includes public transport infrastructure, and highlight the need for its inclusion. They also support the inclusion of public and active transport in planning for Ōtaki to North of Levin (Ō2NL).

Submitter #351 sought clarification on whether the Financial Strategy includes the capital funding that will be required for bus stops / terminals to implement the planned increase in bus services between towns / communities within Horowhenua and inter-regionally as proposed in the Horizons long term plan currently out for consultation. The Horowhenua Company (THC) strongly supports the development and implementation of a public bus service that better connects the local workforce to significant (and growing) employment locations within Horowhenua, and to support better access to public facilities in other parts of the wider region (such as Massey University, Te Pūkenga/UCOL and the Hospital in Palmerston North), but this will only be useful if there are safe and well-maintained access and egress points for buses.

​Submission #422 enquired about funding allocation for public transport infrastructure, associated with Horizons Regional Council’s plans to increase bus services in Horowhenua within the LTP’s financial strategy. The submission also describes economic benefits of improved public transport within the district. 

​Analysis 

​Officers recognise the positive benefits for the community of the public transport service Horizons Regional Council that is proposing. Officers note that funding has not been specifically budgeted for the installation of additional public transport infrastructure in Horowhenua District Council's LTP. Officers have been working with Horizons Regional Council in planning a potential new bus service for the district, but at this stage planning has not progressed to the stage where funding requirements can be accurately estimated. Officers will continue to work with Horizons Regional Council to ensure a smooth roll-out of the public transport bus service.

It is noted that a public transport hub is part of the Levin Town Centre work programme and that consideration is being given to the best long term location for a hub. While the Draft LTP contains a budget towards the implementation of the Levin Town Centre, the transport hub options and designs have not been explored in any detail yet to understand the costs and budget requirements. This work will continue over the next two years.

​Recommendation 

​That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

Topic 16: Equestrian advocacy and use of transport and open spaces infrastructure 

​​​Submissions 

​Submission #435, #436. 

​Summary of Submissions 

​Both Submissions advocate for increased investment catering for Equestrians. 

​Submitter# 436 requests Council advocate Waka Kotahi / NZTA to allow equestrian use of Ōtaki to North of Levin (Ō2NL) shared use path, access to Council’s unformed roads, parks and reserves, engagement in transport planning work, safety media campaigns and collaborating with other Council’s to link networks of Bridleways.

​Submitter #435 requests changing a bylaw to allow horse riders to no longer be required to remove manure. 

​​Analysis 

​No allowance has been made for equestrian related expenditure in the LTP's Land Transport budgets. Equestrian activities are generally undertaken for a recreational purpose, rather than for a transport purpose. The submission advocates for an increase in level of service to be provided for equestrians using transport and community infrastructure. The recreational use of transport and community infrastructure is common, for example a recreational walk, however most recreational activities that use transport or community infrastructure do not create any significant disbenefits, whereas equestrian use can accelerate asset deterioration and impact other users, with manure. 

​​Officers note that Council have not undertaken any significant road safety public messaging in the past. Road Safety messaging is generally undertaken at a national or regional level, where the scale of outreach is more effective. Officers believe that road safety outcomes are more effectively achieved at a local council level through infrastructure improvements, rather than significant expenditure in public messaging. 

​​Officers note that Waka Kotahi / NZTA subsidised budgets cannot be used for work that is not focused on transport related benefits, and also note that costs relating to Officer's time has been entirely budgeted for using Waka Kotahi / NZTA subsidised budgets, therefore investigation into the submission's points would have operational expenditure impacts.

​​A budget to support equestrian activity in the district could be considered as a new operational budget managed by Council's Parks and Property Team. Council could consider the potential benefits of this expenditure, while noting that these benefits would likely be mainly experienced by the equestrian community, rather than the wider community, possibly with additional benefits to businesses which cater to the equestrian community. Officers are not yet able to quantify the costs of supporting the initiatives proposed in the submission.

​Officers will ensure that the New Zealand Equestrian Advocacy Network Inc. is specifically notified of consultation on the upcoming review of Council's Land Transport Bylaw when it opens.

​Officers do not recommend amending Council's Land Transport Bylaw to remove or limit a requirement to remove manure from the road reserve.

​Recommendation 

​That Council acknowledges the submitters and thanks them for their submissions. 

​Topic 17: Walking and Cycling Advocacy 

​​Submissions 

​Submission #422 

​​Summary of Submissions 

​The submitter advocates for an increased focus on improving walking and cycling provisions, describes benefits of walking and cycling and indicates more detail will be presented in their presentation. 

​​Analysis 

​Officers note that unfortunately the submitter was not able to attend the Hearings of oral submissions and so the further information has not been presented or received. 

​​Recommendation

​That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

​Topic 18: City to Sea Rail Trail Shared Path ​ 

​Submissions 

​Submission #438

​Summary of Submissions 

​The submission advocates for Council’s endorsement of a submission seeking inclusion to the Horizons Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP), for the City to Sea Rail Trail project. This project aims to build a shared path from Palmerston North to Foxton Beach, as well as Himatangi Beach. The project’s extents would begin in Longburn, south through State Highway 56, then continuing through Rangiotu Road, Himatangi Beach Road, and south to Foxton either through Wylie Road or State Highway 1.

​​The submitter plans to leverage the project’s inclusion to the RLTP to assist with funding applications, and progressing planning and development. 

​The submission is not requesting funding support for the project. 

​​​Analysis 

​It is assumed that the project has been submitted to the Horizon’s Regional Transport Committee (RTC) for inclusion to the recent review of the 2021-2031 RLTP. If supported, Council’s representative to the RTC will be able to indicate support for the project at the next RTC meeting, scheduled for 04 June 2024, if supported. If the submission of this project to the RLTP has not yet been made, a letter indicating Council’s endorsement may be required. 

​​Based on the content of the submission, Officers believe the project has potential to bring benefits to the district. Officers intend to contact the submitter to request further information about the project, with an aim to better understand the submitter’s plans for progressing the project’s development. 

Officers support Council’s endorsement of the of the City to Sea Trail because if the indirect benefit it will bring to the district

​​Recommendation 

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions

That Council endorse the City to Sea Rail Trail project’s and advocates for its inclusion into the Horizons Regional Land Transport Programme.

 

Topic 19: Pathway Waikawa Beach to Manakau Domain

Submissions

Submitter #314

Summary of Submission

Submitter #314 would like to see a Multi modal pathway between SH1 to Waikawa Beach needs to continue to be a priority to allow all local children safe access to the Manakau Domain.

Council to continue to lobby Waka Kotahi regarding the installation of traffic lights at the junction of SH1 and Waikawa Beach Road ‐ to allow all local children safe access to the Manakau Domain and the multimodal pathway to Waikawa Beach.

Analysis

This is a matter that rests with Waka Kotahi; Council’s role is advocacy.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

Topic 20: Horowhenua Road Safety Group

 

Submissions

Submission #44

Summary of Submissions

This submission advocates for the re-instatement of the Horowhenua Road Safety Group, which was a community liaison group facilitated by Horowhenua District Council and Horizons Regional Council. The last meeting of the Horowhenua Road Safety Group was in 2019.

Analysis

Regular meetings of the Horowhenua Road Safety Group stopped in late 2019, meetings were initially cancelled due the impacts Covid-19. Officers were of the opinion that format of the Horowhenua Road Safety Group meetings resulted in an inefficient and unproductive use of resources, providing no significant road safety benefits. The meetings provided an opportunity for community representatives to discuss perceived road safety concerns, and an opportunity for Officers to provide updates of safety improvement programmes. It is believed that these outcomes can be better achieved through Council’s Customer Request Management (CRM) system for raising road safety concerns, and community engagement processes for updating the wider community on Council’s programme of road safety improvements. For these reasons Officers sought to revise the Terms of Reference for the Horowhenua Road Safety Group in late 2020, however competing priorities have prevented that work from being completed.

Officers believe that a revised format for the Road Safety Group could deliver benefits, if the group is refocused on improving engagement with organisations which deliver road safety outcomes, such as police and Waka Kotahi / NZTA, schools, and user groups. A new format that is more operational focused would allow better sharing of information and allow an improved level of coordination for the various organisations’ road safety initiatives.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions

The officer recommends that: Council direct the Officers to update the Horowhenua Road Safety Group’s Terms of Reference.

Topic 21: Foxton Beach Stormwater

Submissions

Submission #97, #130, #440 and #478.

Summary of Submissions

Submissions #97, #130 and #440 raise several concerns around the stormwater infrastructure in Foxton Beach, the rates charged for Foxton Beach property owners and the Foxton Beach Stormwater consent process and the next steps for community consultation and engagement with stakeholders.

Submission #478 raises concerns in relation to the development of a long term solution for Kings Canal.

Analysis

​Council has reviewed individual activities and considered the nature of the service, the benefits, and beneficiaries for each service. Stormwater rates have been set as a variable targeted rate, applying to properties situated in specific areas that have access to the service, but the rates are based on the value or size of the property or land (urban rating units only based on Capital Value).

​Council have allocated resources to progress with the next steps with the consent process, which will involve community consultation and engagement with stakeholders. There is a budget of $300,000 in the first three years of the LTP for the consent process.

Officers acknowledge submitter #478 concerns in relation to the development of a long term solution for Kings Canal. Council officers continue to work in collaboration with Horizons Regional Council (HRC) on a long term solution for flood mitigation for Te Awahou Foxton. HRC are leading the project, physical works undertaken or planned, includes culvert upgrades and realignment. The main focus of the project now is finding cost effective mitigations across the HDC stormwater network and Foxton East Drainage Scheme infrastructure.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

 

Topic 22: Lake Horowhenua

Submissions

​Submission #10, #451, #465 and #205. 

Summary of Submissions

Submissions #10, #451 and #205 advocate for Council to do more to address environmental issues, advance improvements with Lake Horowhenua, manage risks with iwi partners and to see the stormwater improvement works included in the Long Term Plan.

​Submission #465 advocates for more funding to be directed to the management of existing stormwater issues both through the implementation of catchment management plans and other district-wide and site-specific measures. The submitter feels that the current mechanisms outlined in the Infrastructure Strategy are insufficient to address the issues. The submitter would like Council to recognise the Lake Horowhenua catchment as Punahau. 

Analysis

Council is currently working towards a meeting with the Lake Horowhenua Trust to discuss the Levin Stormwater Consent Project.

Council has allocated budget for the Levin Stormwater Consent and in-network water quality improvement projects in the early years of LTP24. Our objective is to engage with the Lake Horowhenua Trust in an initial discussion regarding this project, ahead of wider Iwi engagement, consenting and delivery.

Key aspects of the consent application include in-network treatment to enhance the water quality entering Lake Punahau and by agreement in the medium term, ecological and cultural improvements such as wetlands in the vicinity of lake. There are multiple strands of work associated with this kaupapa, examples include the work that we are already positively progressing with the Lake Trust/MTA via the Fresh Water Improvement Fund and working alongside partners on the Horizons led Arawhata wetland project.

Council further acknowledge the submission from MTA and look forward to the development of wider catchment management planning to address concerns in regards to:

·    The resilience of infrastructure with regard to natural hazards and climate change

·    More frequent and intense rainfall increasing pressure on the ability of existing infrastructure to provide service and water quality.

·    Infill development within existing urban areas increasing the ratio of impermeable surface to uncovered land, which can exacerbate flooding in low-lying areas and create more contamination.

Council also acknowledges its leadership role alongside Iwi in managing growth and development.. This includes setting the outcomes for new development and ensuring the cost does not fall back on the environment or wider community. The initial relief sought is highly aligned with Council outcomes and current focus, development of this alongside Iwi partners will be critical to delivering the shared outcomes sought.

Recommendation

​That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions. 

Topic 23: Waitārere Rise Stormwater

Submissions

​Submission #77, #189, #193, #195, #196, #203, #265, #306, #342 and #362 . 

Summary of Submissions

All submitters are seeking Council to commit funding to improve the stormwater issues at Waitārere Beach, in particular the Waitārere Rise subdivision, and to ensure past and future development have adequate stormwater mitigation in place.

Analysis

​Council engaged in a large volume of work in seeking to assist in enabling a better outcome for the Waitārere Rise area. In particular, utilised lidar to provide a view as to the topography of the land, helping to identify any secondary flow paths. Council has also undertaken design work around a series of small above ground swales which connect to culverts in the road, then on to holding ponds in the reserve area. Council has commissioned an erosion & sediment control plan for the management of the pond establishment process, along with detailed designs for the proposed establishment of the swales and culverts. 

​​Although there is currently no further funding for the delivery of any proposed infrastructure in the Long Term Plan, there have been submissions to this effect which Council will consider. 

​​Officers recommend that an operational budget of $50K for Waitārere Rise Stormwater infrastructure be included in year 1 of the Long Term Plan, this budget will be Council’s contribution to a cost share agreement with the developer and private landowners to implement the proposed mitigation works. The proposed agreement was on a 1/3,1/3,1/3 basis to highlight that any proposed mitigation is premised on a collaborative outcome being contributed to. Any funds provided for in the LTP are conditional on this methodology.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions. 

That Council considers an operational budget of $50k be included in year 1 of the LTP for Waitārere Rise Stormwater infrastructure.

 

Topic 24: Water Meters

Submissions

Submission #130, #231, #333, #349, #374 and #492. 

Summary of Submissions

​Submission #130 advocates for all ratepayers across the Horowhenua district to have Water meters installed to manage water usage. 

​​Submitter #231 encourages Council to prioritise infrastructure, and praises Council for implementing the roll out of Water meters districtwide. 

​​Submission #333 raises concerns around the timing and cost for the Districtwide Water metering project. 

​​Submissions #349 and #374 both advocate for a review of the current water rating charges. 

​​Submitter #492 raised concerns about the roll out of water meters and the engagement with the community on the project. 

​Analysis

Officers agree with the need for district wide metering as advocated for in submission #130. All new properties across the district have had water meters installed since 2017. Council has initiated the district wide water metering project, currently in progress, to ensure we minimise water loss and maximise the use of what we are capturing and treating. 

​​Officers agree with submitter #231 that Council must prioritise infrastructure especially in the three waters space where we are facing substantial growth and higher requirements of compliance in drinking water and wastewater. Officers thank the submitter for acknowledging that water meters are a good thing, we agree that meters will not only help us reduce leakage but will be a benefit to educating the community on water usage. 

​​Officers acknowledge the concerns raised by submitter #333. All new properties across the district have had water meters installed since 2017. The district-wide water metering project in progress will ensure that all properties in the district have a leak monitoring system that will alert Council and the property owner of a leak. Council continues to improve water education throughout our community to ensure people understand where our resources come from and how to conserve it. The district wide water metering project is one piece of the puzzle, however key to ensuring what resource we have is being managed effectively in limiting water loss. 

​​Officers agree with submitter #349 and #374 and recommend that a review of current water rating charges be undertaken in the 2024/25 financial year (Yr1 of the LTP). 

​Officers acknowledge the points outlined 

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions​

That Council requests that Officers undertake a review of the current water rating charges in the 2024/25 financial year. 

 

Topic 25: Water Supply

Submission

Submission #34, #73, #113, #198 and #465 Di.

Summary of Submissions

​Submitter #34, #73 and #113 advocate for Council to look at alternative ways to provide water supply, support the introduction of water meters due to concerns with yearly water restrictions and seeks for Council to increase community education about water conservation. 

​​Submitter #198 advocates for the construction of a dam to address the water supply issue, that could alternatively be utilised as a recreational space. 

​​Submitter #465 advocates for the Poads Road Water Supply Reservoir project to be retained in the final LTP and seeks clarification on the timing of the funding allocated to build the storage scheme. While recognising the impact of the scheme on the environment, the submitter also acknowledges the issues with the existing water supply and the importance of enhancing the resilience of that supply. Additionally, the residential and commercial growth in the Horowhenua District necessitates an expanded approach to water supply. 

Analysis

Officers agree with submitter #34 ideas of water conservation and that public education is a key part of this. Council is proactively looking at other alternatives in reducing the strain on our water supplies. This includes the roll out of our meter programme throughout the district to help with finding and reducing leaks in the council and resident networks. Water harvesting is also an option that Council promotes as well as running an education programme for our communities to better understand the process of delivering safe drinking water including the cost associated with treatment and delivery. 

​​Officers acknowledge submission #73. As part of our water supply master planning, we are investigating viable options of alternative water supplies. This includes surface and ground water sources dependent on the quality and volumes available which will vary within the district. We also consider the environmental and cultural effect a particular source may have and the challenges of consenting. Water sources like bores are also dependent on the flow and age of the water in our aquafers and are not always the best option. 

Officers acknowledge submission #113. Council have initiated a district wide water metering project to ensure we minimise water loss and maximise the use of what we are capturing and treating. Council is also working through a better education framework for the public in terms of water conservation. Water restrictions while frustrating is a common-sense approach to ensuring our communities use water wisely during drier months. Council is working on a consenting application to develop a large reservoir to capture a significant amount of water during high flow river conditions to support our systems and water demand during drier months. 

​​Officers acknowledge the support from submitter #198 and #465. Council is currently going through a process ahead of submitting consent for the Levin Water Supply Reservoir. This will in the future provide approximately 30 days storage of raw water that will be the main supply to the Levin water treatment plant. Additionally, it is Council's intention to upgrade the capacity of the water treatment plant to accommodate future growth and compliance including increasing the capacity of our treated water storage.

​​Officers do not support the recommendation from submitter #198 for the reservoir to be used as a recreational space. Council is required to protect water sources as part of the source water risk management plan. In terms of a place for recreation, the Levin Water Supply reservoir would not be used for this purpose, as the reservoir will be a secured facility to protect our drinking water supply as part of our compliance to the drinking water regulator. 

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

Topic 26: Wastewater

Submission

​Submission #440, #130, #426. 

Summary of Submissions

​Submitter #130 enquires about wastewater disposal and the rates charged to properties who are on septic systems. 

​​Submitter #440 is advocating for Horowhenua District Council to continue its work and discussions with PNCC on their wastewater disposal plans for cost effective and environmentally acceptable solutions. 

​​Submitter #426 enquires about how trade waste and commercial waste can be managed better and who is responsible. 

Analysis

Officers acknowledge submitter #130 comment in relation to wastewater disposal and the rates charged. Council charges a targeted rate districtwide on all connected properties. Properties available to connect pay an availability charge of 50% of this targeted rate. 

Officers acknowledge submitter #440 comments and Officers are actively working with PNCC and other neighbouring Councils to discuss a regional approach to wastewater and sludge disposal whilst looking at advances with technology that will provide acceptable and cost-effective solutions.

Officers acknowledge submitter #426 comments in relation to tradewaste. Tradewaste historically has been under resourced, however this has been addressed and we have our wastewater engineer working with local commercial premises to help educate, assist and improve trade waste discharge quality. We are also working with other neighboring councils sharing information and improving our own processes. Council is also working towards implementing a sole trade waste officer. 

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

Topic 27: Levin Landfill

Submissions

Submission #459, #491.

Summary of submissions

Submission #459 acknowledges the improvement in the relationship between Council Officers and the PMG, with two key outcomes being met. The first is the way Council is working with affected communities to address landfill issues, and the second and most important is the closure of Levin Landfill. PMG note there is still significant work to do, including the need to see the landfill site remediated, adopt an appropriate solution to address contaminate losses to the Hokio catchment, and conclude a closure management plan that addresses the landfill issues for decades to come.

Submission #491 raises concerns about the Levin Landfill BPO recommendations.

Analysis

Council officers acknowledge submitter #459 and agree with the comments in relation to the improvement in the relationship between Council officers and community representatives of the PMG. Engagement with PMG will continue to address the work required to remediate the landfill site and conclude a closure management plan that addresses the landfill issues. At the Council meeting of 8 May 2024, Council approved the Best Practical Option 3 (full trench (200m) 100% extraction (360m3/day) discharge to sewer) for the management of the Leachate Ground Water Plum, with an associated budget for the works of $1,997,000 to be included in the Long Term Plan.

Council officers acknowledge the concerns raised by submitter #491 in relation to the Levin Landfill BPO recommendations. Officers have and will continue to engage with the submitter through the Levin Landfill Neighbour Hood Liaison Group and Project Management Group to address concerns as they arise. At the Council meeting of 8 May 2024, Council approved the Best Practical Option 3 (full trench (200m) 100% extraction (360m3/day) discharge to sewer) for the management of the Leachate Ground Water Plum, with an associated budget for the works of $1,997,000 to be included in the Long Term Plan.

Recommendations

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

Topic 28: Climate Change

Submissions

Submitter #232, # 253.

Summary of Submissions

A number of submitters commented about climate change.

Comments included:

Submitter #232 saying climate change is a nice-to-have not a need-to-have. They want to ensure Council funds are spent on matters that do good for the district, and that compliance costs aren’t increases for farmers, businesses, and general residents.

Submitter #253  Horizons Regional Council noted the increased risks of drought, inland or coastal flooding and heatwaves on the district. They encourage Council to provide for initiatives increasing resilience to natural hazards and a changing climate, including those outlined in the draft Infrastructure Strategy, the climate change assumptions and recommended actions from the Manawatū-Whanganui Climate Change Action Plan.

Analysis

Officers note the work being done on the updated Climate Action Plan and that this was discussed recently at a Council Workshop.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

Topic 29: District Plan

​Submissions 

​Submitter #312, #334,#339, #341, #352, #363, #378, #439 and #451.

​​Summary of Submissions ​

​​Submitter #312, submitted that all new builds in Tokomaru and other small settlements should have their own water supply and septic systems, in order to ease strain on the existing services and the River. 

​Submitter #334 stated that all new builds (dwellings) should be required to have a water tank to encourage sustainable water use.

​Submitter #339, submitted that Council should encourage new builds to incorporate water supply and onsite wastewater, if section appropriate, so there is less reliance on Council services 

​​Submitter #341, submitted that Council should not be seen as a provider of housing (Tara-Ika).

​Submitter #352, submitted that Council should find ways to keep infrastructure local rather than investing in expensive reticulation. New builds should be using their own onsite waste processing and water retention. 

Submitter #363, suggested that Council should be requiring all new properties and those with more dwellings added, to have rain water storage tanks. Owners of existing dwellings should be encouraged to install subsidized tanks.

​​Submitter #439 requested that houses be required to have stormwater retention tanks in current and future development plans, and that existing dwellings be encouraged to install, whilst Submitter #451 requested stormwater wetlands for new developments. 

​​Submitter #378 requested that the council work closer with Te Roopu Taiao o Ngāti Whakatere Trust with the resource consenting processes.  

​Analysis 

​In response to Submitter #341, we advise that Council’s involvement at Tara-Ika was to rezone the land to allow for residential subdivision and build lead infrastructure (funded through Crown Infrastructure Partners Funding and Development Contributions). Residential subdivision and construction of dwellings is being delivered by private landowners/developers. Council is not playing the role of housing provider in Tara-Ika.

​In response to Submitters #312, #339 and #352, officers advise that Horizons Regional Council have strict rules for disposing of effluent onsite for sites less than 5,000m² (e.g. secondary or tertiary treatment). These rules are in place to ensure that effluent is disposed of in a sanitary manner and without contaminating groundwater. The majority of residential sized sections in Tokomaru and other small settlements will not be large enough (or have suitable soil types) to meet these requirements. As such, onsite servicing is unlikely to be suitable. Onsite servicing is generally only practical on rural areas where sections are large enough to meet HRCs requirements.

​​In response to Submitters #334, #363, #439 and #451, on-site stormwater/rainwater collections tanks are already a requirement at Tara-Ika. These tanks will be used for toilet flushing and garden watering. Depending on the effectiveness of this in Tara-Ika, such tanks may be required for new builds in future residential plan changes. Wetlands may be appropriate for larger developments.

​​In response to Submitter #378, there is already an internal procedure in place to ensure that consultation occurs with consents that are relevant to Ngāti Whakatere.

​​Recommendation 

​That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions. 

​​That Council direct officers to prepare a report for Council by December 2024 to consider options for Council to consider including a requirement for onsite stormwater retention tanks to be installed by landowners as part of in the future residential District Plan. 

Topic 30: Heritage

​​Submissions 

​Submitter #428 

​Summary​

​Submitter #428 makes a number of recommendations regarding protection of historic heritage in Foxton, including the inclusion of a Historic Precinct at the north end of Main Street, updating and implementing the Horowhenua District Heritage Strategy (including recognition of Wahi Tapu and Wahi Taonga), and reviewing the Foxton Heritage listings to update details (and consider adding additional sites). In particular, the sumission noted that Foxton has only four listed heritage buildings which is low in proportion compared to the rest of the District. 

​Analysis 

​​Heritage Protections within the Horowhenua District Plan 

​​Protection of historic heritage is a joint responsibility between Councils and Heritage New Zealand. Historic buildings and sites can be listed with either Heritage New Zealand (process led by them), District Plans (led by Councils), or both. Heritage New Zealand lists four heritage sites for Foxton (compared with 15 in Levin and 20 in Shannon). Of these four sites, three are Wahi Tapu (and not listed in the Horowhenua District Plan), and one moa hunter and midden site (also listed in the Horowhenua District Plan). 

​​The Horowhenua District Plan however, lists 10 heritage buildings or sites for Foxton, with six of these added by the most recent heritage plan change, Plan Change 1 (notified in 2017). Owning heritage buildings generally comes with additional costs compared to owning unlisted buildings, due to the restrictions listing buildings puts on alterations, modifications, and repairs. Council previously offered a Heritage Fund to contribute to these costs, but the budget for this was removed in 2020, primarily due to financial pressures during Covid-19 and the associated Annual Plan.

​​Given the limitations that heritage listings put on buildings, Council works with landowners before listing buildings. In Plan Change 1, Council called for nominations for buildings to be considered for protection. The sites nominated were assessed by heritage experts Ian Bowman and Val Burr (Burr Bowman report referenced in submission). The Council approach was for only buildings with sufficient heritage value and where there was landowner agreement to being listed within the District Plan, would be advanced to be protected through the District Plan. This approach resulted in the six additional buildings or sites being identified for Foxton within the District Plan. While it would be great if the Heritage New Zealand list reflected the Horowhenua District Plan, this is outside the Council’s control. 

​​Council is aware that one heritage building (Nye Cottage) in Foxton has been relocated, meaning its details in the District Plan are now out of date. Officers intend to correct these details as part of upcoming ‘omnibus’ plan change. 

​The District Plan already contains a Foxton Town Centre Character/Heritage Overlay (purple pecked line) and a Foxton Tourism Overlay area (orange pecked line) as shown below. New buildings (or external alterations to existing buildings) and demolition of existing buildings in Foxton Town Centre Character/Heritage Overlay area are subject to specific District Plan controls, including the requirement for resource consent. Applications for resource consent within this area will be assessed against specific District Plan content, including the Foxton and Shannon Town Centre Design Guide, to determine what impact the proposal in question will have on heritage character. This is considered to provide a good level of protection to the overall built character and heritage amenity of the Foxton Main Street, regardless of whether specific buildings are listed or not – this reflects that the heritage character of Foxton Main Street is derived from the groups of historically inspired buildings and shop frontages. 

​Given Council has already undertaken a review of its heritage list within the lifetime of the current District Plan, and the fairly broad protections the Foxton Town Centre Character/Heritage Overlay offers the Foxton Main Street, revisiting this topic is not high on the current priority list. This may change, if more funding and capacity becomes available in the future or if Heritage New Zealand choses to list more buildings within the Horowhenua District.

​​Wahi Tapu/Wahi Taonga 

​Council acknowledges that Horowhenua District Plan does not currently identify any Wahi Tapu sites. This is a known gap in the Horowhenua District Plan and one which Council intends to address. This will require close partnership with Te Tiriti Partners. While both Council and its Te Tiriti partners share a desire to see Wahi Tapu and Wahi Taonga appropriately protected, various factors including capacity (for both Iwi and Council) and a desire to approach protection equitably across Iwi has stood in the way of making the progress desired in each space. Council intends to continue these conversations with Iwi partners and hopes to be able to progress more meaningfully in this space in the near future. Council Officers can re-engage with Iwi partners on this topic and report back to the Council on the options for progressing a Plan Change to protect Wahi Tapu by the end of 2024. 

​​Heritage Strategy

​​Council considers that the Heritage Strategy 2012 is still relevant and fit for purpose. The opportunities, challenges, vision, and goals remain relevant to this day. The Strategy’s action are split into three goals, each containing between seven and nine action points. 

​

 

To identify heritage resources that are representative of the District’s history of occupation and settlement. 

1.   ​To appropriately protect and manage heritage resources that have been identified. 

2.   To promote public awareness of, and appreciation for, identified heritage resources. 

​​The actions under Goals 1 and 2 have largely been completed, through Plan Change 1 (including developing a heritage nomination process, a survey of prospective heritage sites, and reviewing and amending the District Plan’s heritage list) to the extent possible with landowner agreement. 

​​The actions under Goal 3 have not yet been implemented (such as having an annual/biannual heritage week, heritage awards, and more information on heritage on Council website), have not been implemented, due to a focus on other priorities and a lack of funding. These elements are not time sensitive in that they seek to enhance the profile of heritage within the District, rather than seeking to protect further loss of heritage. The fundamental (and time sensitive) aspects of the strategy, including improved information about the extent of built heritage in Horowhenua and increasing protection have been implemented. The detail of the Heritage Strategy has not been discussed by the current Council so it is difficult to gauge the Council’s support for the intent of this Strategy and the level of priority to be provided to the goals.

Beyond the specific recommendation made in respect of Wahi Tapu, Officers do not recommend a full review of the Heritage Strategy or undertaking District Plan work to protect additional heritage sites/buildings, due to this having already been reviewed within the lifetime of the current District Plan and a need to focus on enabling what matters. It is suggested that Officers present the Heritage Strategy to the current Council and seek direction on the content and intent of the Strategy.

​Recommendation 

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions

That Council directs Officers to present the Heritage Strategy (2012) for consideration and further direction from Council by October 2024.

That Council directs Officers to engage with Council’s Iwi/hapū partners and report back to Council by December 2024 on the options for progressing a District Plan Change to protect Wahi Tapu.

Topic 31: Growth

​Submissions 

​Submitters, #67, #256, #262, #289, #304, #324, #332, #334, #339, #347, #356, #379, #393, #399, #418, #419, #420.

​Summary

​Submitter #399 owns a 49 hectare parcel of land at 93 Tararua Road, Levin, which is subject to a current industrial subdivision consent application. Their submission states that significant renewals and upgrades to water and wastewater treatment in Levin are required and supports the proposal to invest in and improve water supply and wastewater infrastructure in Levin. The submission seeks that investment in water supply and wastewater upgrades be accelerated where possible to support development of existing zoned land, before rezoning of any further land. The submitter also requests confirmation that any planned upgrades support all additional connections within existing industrial zoned land and if not, that further provision be made in the LTP in order to support the development of industrial land as a priority. 

​Officers note that the submission refers to site that is the subject of a current resource consent application. The resource consent process is the most appropriate avenue to assess the specifics of this proposal, including the capacity of Council’s network to service the activity proposed. 

Submitter #67 considered that there is sufficient land available for housing, and that growth should not occur unless there is central government funding committed for the infrastructure expansion.  Submitter #262’s submission was to resist the population increase, not wanting Horowhenua to be a destination for retirees or people wanting a cheaper place to live.  

Submitter #334 states that the country is in a recession, which is a time for maintenance and not growth. The submitter states that a new suburb (Tara-Ika) will cause excessive costs to the current community and put stress on the natural environment. The submitter states the Council should instead focus on maintenance, as this would make the community feel valued.

Submitters #322 and #324 considered growth a positive, with opportunities to secure residents’ futures.

Submitter #289 considered that Council needs to be more strategic in its planning, to protect versatile soils.

Submitter #347 sought for future development in Horowhenua to follow permaculture principles and design – more in harmony with nature.

Submitters #256 and #304 described difficulties in navigating the development process, procedures and costs associated with smaller dwellings, especially in smaller settlements. 

Submitter #420 sought for Council to actively engage with and support the Manawatū Tenants Union to support renters.

Analysis

​Officers agree with submitter #399 that it is very important to align infrastructure planning and land use planning and recognise the need to ensure that services to support development are in the right place at the right time. This is very difficult, particularly for industrial activities where demand for services can vary significantly depending on the nature of the activity proposed, not least because the timeframes for demand arising are very difficult for Council to predict as they influenced by factors such as landowner/developer preferences, market conditions and more. In this site's case, the land was zoned for industrial development some 15 years ago, with proposals to develop it only coming into Council in the last few months. Since the land was rezoned, the District’s population has grown significantly which has not only required additional land to be rezoned for residential purposes, but has also resulted in new pressures on Council’s water supply and waste water treatment capacity.

​Infrastructure capacity is not reserved based on when land was rezoned. Rather, capacity is assessed at the time rezonings are proposed and then allocated as development proposals come in. This is considered a practical and cost effective way of working, as some land zoned for development remains vacant for many years. As an example it would be ineffective to allocate capacity to such land, thus preventing other areas that have active development proposals from using it, or requiring expensive upgrades before they are required. When upgrades occur, assumptions are made about upcoming demand (including demand expected to arise from zoned but undeveloped land), but sometimes actual demand can be very different to these assumptions (particularly in the case of industrial land where demand for water supply and waste water disposal can vary significantly depending on the specific activity or activities proposed). This requires careful balancing, as overestimating capacity can be costly if it results in having infrastructure capacity in place long before it is required. Equally, underestimating capacity can present a significant barrier to development. 

​Council’s ability to quickly increase water and waste water capacity is limited by a number of factors, including the amount of water it can abstract from rivers (particularly during dry weather), the need to supply multiple users (including residential users), the costs and difficulty in obtaining the necessary resource consents, the financial costs, and the uncertainty about 3 waters reform. 

​As such, large scale development proposals (regardless of when the land was zoned), requires a collaborative process between Council and the developer, including recognition of environmental and infrastructure capacity constraints. 

​Council officers are working to better align infrastructure and land use planning and to take an integrated approach to growth. This will include a stocktake of available services and timetabling future service roll-outs which will assist Council in prioritising the delivery of infrastructure upgrades. However, work in this space will always be based on imperfect information, as only some factors are within Council’s ability to control (for example, developers may desire services sooner or later than Council can provide them). Furthermore, Council will be unable to provide all services for all possible development scenarios, in all possible development locations. As such, Council will have to prioritise what it does. Where this prioritisation does not align with developer’s aspirations, conversations will need to be had about what can realistically be achieved through site specific mechanisms, including private development agreements (including funding from developers), staging of developments, and more.

In response to submitter #334, Officers can advise that the environmental impacts of Tara-Ika were evaluated and considered as part of the plan change process. Council has statutory obligations, imposed by the National Policy Statement for Urban Development to provide sufficient housing and business land to meet demand. Due to population growth and associated high demand for housing, Tara-Ika was considered an efficient and effective way of fulfilling these obligations. The costs of delivering lead infrastructure to Tara-Ika are being funded by the Crown Infrastructure Partners funding and development contributions, rather than via maintenance budgets.

For submissions #256 and #304, Officers note that Council has also identified the need for information and resources specific for owners wanting to develop their land, as opposed to industry professionals. We have recently completed some guidance for customers wanting to add family flats onto their property and we hope to expand this approach across the building and planning activities. We are also currently focusing on improvements to how our teams operate to enable a more integrated approach to providing advice to customer about the development process. The proposed fee increases for building and resource consents reflect the increased costs associated with delivering these activities. If the increased service delivery costs are not covered by direct users of the service, they would need to be passed on to the general ratepayers.

With regards to submission #262, Officers advise that Council plans for growth for all sectors of our community, and our Housing Action Plan gives particular attention to enabling housing for low income families.

In response to Submission #289, Officers note that the current National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land and Council's current Rural Subdivision rules for Versatile land provide a level of protection currently for our highly versatile soils outside of the identified Growth Areas. Horowhenua District Council has also been participating in a project with the Wellington Regional Growth Forum on producing a Regional Food Security Strategy, which may interest the submitter.

​​Recommendation 

​That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

​Topic 32: Role of De Molen and approach to Destination Management

Submission

Submission #404

Summary of Submission

During the hearing the submitter questioned Council on whether Council had a tourism plan. The submitter wanted to see the De Molen windmill, the Riverside Cultural Park and Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom recognised in the LTP and seek their inclusion in any tourism or hospitality plans. De Molen is a ‘must have’ and acts as a magnet that draws people to this part of Foxton. The submitter challenged Council on if Council were not committed to De Molen then why should they be committed. The submission provided reference to the De Molen Windmill Strategic Framework, and sought through this LTP to get to a clear understanding and under pinning documents so that the Trust and Council share a vision and will support each other. Ensuring the community and visitors are properly provided for with food options, restroom facilities, safe green spaces and experiences.

Analysis

The Foxton Windmill Trust currently leases the café at The Te Awahou Riverside Cultural Park and operates Café De Molen from this location. The Trust has expressed aspirations to enhance their café offerings by introducing night-time dining and creating an authentic Dutch experience for locals and tourists alike. Representatives from the Trust have emphasised the need to expand the café kitchen to improve functionality and suitability, as well as modernise the interior of the building, particularly the area that previously housed the old tram.

Council officers acknowledge the significance of Café De Molen and its importance in enhancing the visitor experience at the Riverside Cultural Park. However, apart from property renewal funding, there is currently no allocated budget within the Long Term Plan (LTP) for the requested works unless Council allocates funding as part of this process.

Council officers are continuing to advance the Foxton Community Plan during 2024. Several of the matters raised by the submitter relate to feedback that has come through in the feedback that has been provided on the Community Plan.

Officers will ensure that the relevant feedback provided through the LTP submission process is factored into the considerations for the Community Plan work. Officers were grateful for the involvement that the Windmill trust had already had to the Community Plan process and would be eager to see this continue as the Community Plan is developed. The Community Plan is expected to identify a number of initiatives intended to benefit and support visitors and the local community.

Destination Management

The Horowhenua 2040 Blueprint (adopted May 2022), details 12 action areas for Council. Attracting more visitors with a strong district identity and nurturing and promoting a food culture were among these action areas.

This focus was driven by the Horowhenua Destination and Development and Management Plan 2020-2030, which found that between 2016 and 2019, Horowhenua visitor expenditure growth outstripped New Zealand (organically). The findings of this plan, suggested that targeted investment in Horowhenua destination development should be viewed as a critical element of the district’s future prosperity, and anticipated this investment would see the contribution of visitor spending double to $200m by 2030 (approximately 10% growth per annum).

Off the back of this work and in collaboration with iwi/hapū, the tourism sector and broader community and business sectors, Council developed a delivered a transformative Horowhenua NZ brand, including a new website www.horowhenuanz.co.nz boundary signage, visitor guide, brand launch and always on digital marketing strategy.

Council’s Long Term Plan 2021-41 had funding set aside for this brand refresh, but not for future Destination Management activity, however Council’s comms & engagement team pitched for further investment by way of Three Waters Better Off Funding, and received $350,000. This one-off investment enabled Council to continue delivering destination management activities as an interim measure, until longer term destination management funding could be provisioned for in the Long Term Plan 2024-2044. Council have not yet committed to this funding, with the decision forming part of deliberations and adoption.

If funding is secured, this will enable the recruitment of a permanent Destination Management Lead and the continued delivery of Destination Management efforts, including a Destination Management Framework, tourism sector capacity and capability building, Major Event Fund promotion and ongoing delivery of destination marketing among other things.

While not yet endorsed by Council, Officers are happy to reach out to the Submitter to share the Destination Management and Development Plan 2020-30 and the initiatives delivered to date to grow the sector, including the ongoing promotion of key attractions and experiences in Horowhenua, which includes, but is not limited to Foxton, De Molen Windmill and the Riverside Cultural Park.
Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.
 

Topic 33: Public Space and Town Centre Investment

Submission

Submission #468

Summary of Submissions

The submitter discussed how investing in public spaces, streetscape and making them more usable and vibrant is an investment in economic development as well as community development. If Council want to attract new businesses to town, and retain the ones we have, and if Council want to attract good people to work in these businesses, Council have to appeal to the decision makers. High up on their list will be “do I want to live there?” Is there a nice attractive town/city centre with outdoor public spaces? Is there a good selection of cafes and restaurants? Are there good recreational facilities? Is the place vibrant? Are there events and attractions? These factors attract or repel business owners and the good people who work in these businesses. This is on top of the more obvious instant benefit of locals and visitors spending money in your town or city if there are nice public spaces to enjoy while they are doing so. It may be a break while shopping, enjoying a performance or a place to enjoy a coffee or lunch. Stopping investing in such public spaces is a false economy. The investment has a long-term life over several generations so should be paid for by intergenerational loan which reduces the short-term effect on rates increases. The effect on rates is very modest, particularly when compared with the benefits to the community and local economy. The submitter identified that wise public investment in streetscape and usable public spaces attracts private investment in buildings and businesses. Shutting up shop by not investing in public spaces will significantly and detrimentally affect business growth and economic development in the district and leave the town centres tired and unappealing. While the community is doing it hard with high interest rates and cost of living, a modest investment in usable public spaces shows that you care for your local community.

The submission includes a range of examples of Council lead projects in other centres where their company has been involved in the design or manufacture. The submitter has expressed a desire to be involved with Council in the future.

Analysis

Officers agree with the submitter’s comments about the importance of investing in the town centre and public spaces. Through the Levin Town Centre project Council proposes to include a budget in the LTP to support the implementation and transformation of the Levin Town Centre. The Implementation Plan contains public space and placemaking initiatives to contribute to the vibrancy and activity in the town centres. Confirming the LTP budget for the Levin Town Centre would be a further commitment from Council to invest in and make the town centre a place that attracts businesses, visitors and brings wider benefits to the community.

Other projects such as the Foxton Community Plan (underway) and Shannon Community Plan (pending) provide a mechanism to identify opportunities for Council to consider investment in the public spaces in the other centres.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

Topic 34: Levin Town Centre

Submission

Submitters #272 UNISON Community Choir #286 Waiopehu College # 381 Levin Intermediate, #495 MTA Rangatahi,

Summary of Submissions

Submissions from Unison Community Choir provided several suggestions relating to improvements to the Levin Town Centre, these included an upgrade to parks, tramp park, time zone, indoor sports facility, bigger mall with a K-Mart and a food court. Unison Community Choir have also raised other points which are responded to in other parts of this report.

 

Submissions from Waiopehu College provided several suggestions relating to improvements to the Levin Town Centre, these included having a bigger mall, time zone and more shops. Waiopehu College have also raised other points which are responded to in other parts of this report.

 

Levin Intermediate provided suggestions of how the Levin Town Centre could be improved. These suggestions included having a second floor on the Levin mall – to give it a ‘wow’ factor, having a trampoline park and indoor skating, some brand shops that are not currently in Levin, make the rents in the Levin Mall more affordable. It was suggested doing a community survey to find out what shops people want. Levin Intermediate have also raised other points which are responded to in other parts of this report and the Financial Matters Deliberations Reports.

MTA Rangatahi provided several suggestions relating to improvements to the Levin Town Centre, these included a new skatepark, for smaller kids as the bigger kids take over the current one, more shops and a K-Mart store. MTA Rangatahi have also raised other points which are responded to in other parts of this report.

Analysis

As part of developing the Transforming Taitoko/Levin Town Centre Strategy in 2018 community feedback was provided as part of the extensive community consultation undertaken that provided good insights into the shops and activities that were missing or needed in the Town Centre. Some further work will be undertaken as part of the Levin Town centre programme to understand the shops and types of businesses that would enhance the town centre in the future.

The Levin Mall is privately owned so Council is not in a position to directly influence the rents for the shops in the Mall but hope that through other transformation initiatives in the town centre that the Mall becomes a vibrant hub of activity where shops want to be located. As for additional development of the Mall, officers will continue to connect with the Mall owner and keep him abreast of the Town Centre Plans. Council would be very supportive of the Levin Mall being further developed to contribute to the transformation of the Town Centre. The intent of the ideas suggested aligns well with the direction being taken with the Levin Town Centre Transformation work.

Council is currently seeking expressions of interest from the development sector to reimagine the Levin War Memorial Hall, Village Green and Paul Ireland Skatepark. The Village Green and Skate Park have been included with the War Memorial Hall to provide some greater scope and opportunity for a development on this site. Council has confirmed that if a development proposal was to be selected that incorporated the Skatepark site then a replacement skatepark would be developed in the Levin Town Centre. Rather than Council commit to building a new skatepark now as part of this process, officers recommend Council await the outcome of the EOI process for the Levin War Memorial Hall, given that a potential outcome could include a new skatepark. The comments are noted about the challenge of the one facility catering for both the smaller and older ones. If a new skate park was to be proposed it would be important for the design to consider the range of users and how a facility can accommodate the different needs.

Council has identified the Transformation of the Levin Town Centre as one of the Top 10 priorities. Officers are currently working to deliver on the Implementation Plan that Council adopted in December 2023. The transformation of the Town Centre seeks to create opportunities for a wider range of shops and activities to be based in the Levin Town Centre. As the population of the district grows the scale of the district will get to the size where some of the larger shopping chain stores located in the bigger centres will weigh up locating on Levin. Council’s role will largely be an enabler. Through the contracted delivery. of economic development services the Horowhenua Company Limited will continue to have a responsibility for inward investment and attracting new shops and businesses to the district.

Through the town centre project work is being undertaken to understand where is the appropriate site in Levin for large retail shops such as a K-Mart or Big Box shops like Bunnings. Officers support the intent of the submissions and through the Transforming Levin Town Centre programme work will actively work to ensure that the opportunities are created that will support and enable new shops to be established.

The youth perspective on the Town Centre is really appreciated and Officers working on the Town Centre are currently ensuring that there is youth representation on the Levin Town Centre Reference Group to make sure that a youth perspective continues to inform the project.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

Topic 35: Industrial Land Rezoning

Submission

Submission #442

Summary of Submissions

The submitter shared the perspective that economic development is all about jobs. Better paying jobs. Jobs that not just cover the grocery bills, but get local people into houses, and make it feasible to raise families in the district. One of the challenges the Horowhenua suffers from is a lack of scale. As a result, our residents are more vulnerable to the ups and downs of the national economy. Currently, Horowhenua have the 8th highest unemployment rate out of 53 districts in the country. Nearly 1 in 5 of our working population is on a benefit. Despite our impressive growth in the past 5 years, the Horowhenua district has the third lowest household income level in New Zealand.

The projected significant population growth over the next 20 years raises important questions about the quality and impact of this growth on our district's livelihood. While population growth can bring economic opportunities, it's crucial to consider whether it will truly enhance our community's prospects. The fact that 88% of businesses in Horowhenua are either sole traders or businesses that employ less than 5 staff members, has significant implications. Essentially, this means that if you exclude the owners, many of their employees are essentially earning minimum wage. The submitter’s view was that we need businesses that employ 20+ staff or more, as these larger businesses offer opportunities for higher-paying jobs, including managerial roles that require experienced senior skills.

Ō2NL brings opportunity. But that opportunity isn’t a given. The Horowhenua District Council must strategically target development areas. Studies on the impacts of expressways across New Zealand tell us the availability of industrial land with direct access to expressways, are crucial for development and growth.

A Regional Industrial Land Study for the Greater Wellington Region reveals a shortage of 697 hectares of industrial land required to meet future development demands. This shortage emphasises the urgency for Horowhenua to act swiftly in securing commercial and industrial businesses to our district, while we still have the opportunity to choose from the best options available.

During the hearings the submitter explained about the land banking of Industrial land that is currently occurring and through the lack of competition the land has continued to hold on to the land and not develop it.

The submitter argues it is time for action and wants Council to not miss this invaluable opportunity to shape the future of our district. By expanding industrial zones, Council would be not just building businesses; but building better lives for the community.

Analysis

Officers agree with the submitter’s comments about the district and the challenges the district faces. Rezoning land is one of the few tools that Council has to be able to influence and facilitate growth opportunities in the district. The land identified by the submitter is part of growth areas identified in the Horowhenua Growth Strategy. Officers are aware of the work being undertaken at the Wellington regional level and understand the potential role that Horowhenua can play in providing industrial land to support the Wellington region. Officers agree that it makes sense to look at the opportunities for further industrial or commercial expansion and to consider rezoning the future growth areas as part of a District Plan Change. There will be a number of matters that need to be worked through for the Plan Change to proceed. It is recommended that Officers are directed by Council to explore the rezoning opportunities and following direction from Council’s Integrated Growth and District Plan Steering Group that Officers advance this as a priority District Plan Change.

The LTP contains a budget to advance District Plan changes, so this work could be funded from the proposed budget, Council will need to understand this priority against other District Plan work.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

That Council direct Officers to present a report to the District Plan Steering Group by 30 September 2024 that explores the Industrial/Commercial Rezoning opportunities that could be advanced in a District Plan Change.

Topic 36: Need for Low-Cost Housing

Submissions

Submissions #304, #256.

Summary of Submissions

Submissions #304 and #256 raised concerns about the cost of housing, in particular building new houses and the need for separate fees for ”developers” and ”owners”. The submissions also noted difficulties in navigating through regulatory processes.

Analysis

Officers acknowledge the comments in submissions #304 and #256 in relation to the costs associated with building new houses. The proposed fee increases for building and resource consents reflect the increased costs associated with delivering these activities. If the increased service delivery costs are not covered by direct users of the service, they would need to be passed on to the general ratepayers.

Officers noted that there is a need for information and resources specific for owners wanting to develop their land, as opposed to industry professionals. This has been added to work programmes and recently guidance for customers wanting to add family flats onto their property has been released. There is also a focus on improvements to enable a more integrated approach to providing advice to customer about the development process.

Recommendations

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions

Topic 37: Pasifika Fale

Submissions

Submission #272

Summary of Submissions

Submitter #272 advocated for a Pasifika Fale, a space for community to come together for all different activities, Safe space for the elderly to come and have a chat and have a coffee eg. workshops, health checks, performances, events, cultural activities

Analysis

Council provide a number of facilities in the community for use by the community. Whilst Council acknowledges the importance of this initiative to the Pasifika community, Council are not in the positions be able to support this development.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

Topic 38: Shannon Community Plan

Submission

Submission #232, #379, #409, #411, and #444.

Summary of Submissions

The submitters 379, 409, 411 and 444 requested that Shannon and Mangaore were prioritised as the next place to have a Community Plan prepared. In speaking to the submission it was requested that in addition to Shannon being the next place for a Community Plan they also referenced that Opiki and Tokomaru be captured as part of the Community Plan. When asked during the hearing about this, the submitter explained that it would make sense to prepare the Shannon Community Plan as the ‘umbrella’ document and then use that framework for the Opiki and Tokomaru Plan.

Analysis

Officers have prioritised developing a Community Plan for Shannon and Mangaore during 2024/25. Work on this plan is anticipated to start in August 2024 following the completion of the current LTP process. During hearings submitters raised whether the Tokomaru and Opiki communities should be included as part of this community planning process. Submitters shared some views on the sequencing of this. Officers have not yet connected with the Tokomaru and Opiki communities specifically about a Community Plan, however following the LTP Hearings, Officers can explore the community appetite and preparedness to work on a Community Plan. This is something that can be explored early 2024/25 and then factored into the process for developing the Shannon and Mangaore Community Plan.

Community Plans have so far been prepared for Waitārere, Ōhau, Manakau, Foxton Beach, and Officers are currently working on a Foxton Community Plan that would capture Foxton and Foxton Beach. Given the interest by the Shannon community and their active engagement, Officers agree that Shannon would be the next logical community to work with in developing a Community Plan. The Draft LTP contains an operation budget that would support the development of this plan in 2024/25.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

That Council commits to developing a Community Plan for Shannon and Mangaore Village in 2024/25 and that officers explore the inclusion of Opiki and Tokomaru in that Plan or an associated Plan.

Topic 39: Manawatū Coastguard Relocation

Submitter #314 on behalf of Manawatū Coastguard notes their current building is no longer fit for purpose as it is too small and flood prone. They have identified a property across the road on Hartley Street Foxton Beach, they understand Council wishes to dispose of that would, with modification suit their purposes. They would like to work with Council to design and build a purpose build base that meets their needs and could be used by the wider community through the use of the IMT and as training facilities.

Analysis

Council owns 55-57 Hartley Street, a recreational reserve which currently has a public toilet which is accessible 24 hours a day.

This property has been identified as non-core through the Property Strategy and is therefore on the list for disposal. Revocation of the reserve status will need to be undertaken to allow for this.

Currently all property disposals are on hold while a review of the Foxton Beach Endowment Fund review is taking place.

Council Officers can continue the discussions with Manawatū Coastguard regarding this property following the review process.

Council can decide to sell, lease or gift the land following the review and revocation if they decide to do so.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

 

Topic 40: Contractors Smoking and Vaping on Council Sites

 

Summary of Submissions

A number of submitters mentioned Council contractors smoking while working

​

Analysis

Council has a Smokefree & Vapefree Environment Policy 2022 which also includes vaping, aligning the policy with the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Act 2020.

The Smokefree and Vapefree Environment Policy was adopted by Council in June 2022.

This policy supports Horowhenua District Council's commitment to promote positive health outcomes for our community. By focusing on public outdoor areas and supported events, Horowhenua District Council is proactive and will demonstrate leadership by promoting a Smokefree and Vapefree environment as being both desirable and the norm in Horowhenua.

The objectives of the policy is that Council, in collaboration with partner organisations, will work towards achieving the following objectives:

·    Improve the health and wellbeing of Horowhenua's communities by reducing the prevalence of smoking and vaping and de-normalising smoking behaviour.

·    Fewer people smoke and vape in public places.

·    Businesses and other organisations designate their premises “Smokefree and Vapefree”.

·    The prevalence of smoking and vaping in Horowhenua continues to decrease over time.

Contractors are expected to adhere to a no vaping or smoking policy on Council sites where they are engaged. This is in place not only to safeguard the health and safety of individuals but also to ensure the protection of the surrounding areas.

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.   

 

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 benefits and costs, 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.

Signatories

Author(s)	David McCorkindale Group Manager - Vision & Delivery
	Daniel Haigh Group Manager Community Infrastructure
	Brent Harvey Group Manager - Community Experience & Services
	Blair Spencer Group Manager Housing & Business Development
	Jacinta Straker Group Manager Organisation Performance

 

Approved by

Monique Davidson Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

 

4.5            Deliberations Report 4 - Fees and Charges and other Policies (Topic 4)

File No.: 24/271

  

1.    Purpose

1.1     To present to Council for deliberation, the submissions received on the Long-Term Plan 2024-2044 in relation to the consultation on proposed fees and charges, draft Development Contributions Policy and draft Significance and Engagement Policy.

 

2.    Recommendations

2.1     That Report 24/271 Deliberations Report 4 - Fees and Charges and other Policies (Topic 4) be received.

2.2     That this matter or decision is recognised as significant in terms of s76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.3     That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

2.4     That Council endorse the fees and charges as amended – attached D24/63304 - Fees and Charges Full Schedule Deliberations 22 May 2024

2.5     That Council endorse the recommended rubbish bag prices as outlined in the fees and charges

2.6     That Council direct officers to continue to review service delivery options for domestic solid waste.

2.7     That Council endorse the recommended waste transfer fees.

2.8     That Council endorse the proposed changes to Tables 1 and 2 and Appendix 5 of the Draft Development Contributions Policy.

2.9     That Council directs officers investigate the actual demand created by aged care rooms and retirement units in the district as part of a future LTP/LTPA process. 

2.10   That Council endorse the draft Significance and Engagement Policy.

Topics for Consideration

Topic 1	Draft Fees and Charges
Topic 2	Draft Development Contributions Policy
Topic 3	Draft Significance and Engagement Policy

 

Topic 1: Fees and Charges

 

Background

The proposed fees and charges for 2024/25 for consultation were prepared noting the following, (13 December Council meeting):

Building fees:

3A review of the splits will be carried out in 12 months to ensure they continue to accurately reflect the public benefit (cost to serve, legal requirement to provide service) and the private benefit received.

Dogs:

No change was proposed to the existing splits (80% private, 20% public) or the 30% fee increase implemented through the LTP Amendment. Those changes meant that this is now compliant with the Revenue and Financing Policy.

Aquatics:

Fees and charges went through a rounding process for the benefit of cash handling. Those fees and charges have been rounded to the nearest dollar or fifty cents. Therefore, in some instances this will result in a zero increase and while it seems to be inconsistent, it is appropriate and also reflects feedback received from Council during recent workshops. Rounding to the nearest dollar or fifty cents has only occurred where it is a point of sale fees, all other fees (which are invoiced) have not been rounded.

Facilities:

Fees for hiring meeting rooms are proposed to increase by 10-15% to reflect the high level of service provided following feedback from Council during workshops.

Parking:

Parking fees were proposed to increase by 90 cents an hour to $2 per hour.

 

Submissions received

Council consulted on the proposed fees and charges for 2024/25 with the consultation on the Long Term Plan consultation items. Submitters were asked whether there was anything they would like to tell Council about the proposed fees and charges.

Ninety five (95) people added a comment.

They are broken down into the following themes:

 

 

Submissions about affordability and general cost of fees and charges

Of the 95 people commenting on the proposed fees and charges 43 commented about the affordability and general cost of them.

Submitter # 1 and Two submitters commented on fees and charges associated with regulatory licensing. Both submitters mentioned that the excessive fees and regulations are hindering the growth and prosperity of areas in the district.

Submitter #22 supported an increase in fees and charges so the burden is not on the general rate for some services e.g. animal management.

Submitter #45 noted everything is getting more expensive. That if Council can justify the increases and that is being correctly managed, then they believe an increase is a sensible approach.

Analysis

Officers acknowledge the current challenging economic climate, marked by increasing costs, including the cost of living, which can affect both individuals and businesses. The funding approach for regulatory services ensures that those who benefit most from regulatory oversight and Council-related services bear the primary responsibility for covering associated costs, with the remainder funded by rates.

Recommendations

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

That Council endorse the fees and charges as amended – attached D24/63304 - Fees and Charges Full Schedule Deliberations 22 May 2024.

Submissions about a User Pays approach

Nine submitters commented that Council they supported a user pays approach, and either increasing the use pays component further or moving to a fully user pays system (Submitters # 59, #104, #106, #119, #134, #210, #214, #278, and #485).

It is noted that otter comments about a user pays approach were made in relation to specific types of fees, e.g. Community Facilities (3 submitters) and these are shown in that section.

Submitter #59 said “charge for as much as you can - user pays including central govt”

Submitter #106 supported this approach completely

Submitter #134 said the proposal seemed reasonable as the user should be paying.

Submitters #104 said that communities should work more on a ‘user pays’ basis and feels these charges are fairer for those who never use the facilities.

Submitter #119 is in favour of those using or benefitting from the service paying the fees.

Submitter #210 said consumers should pay for costs – no cross subsidisation.

Submitter #214 supports an increased cost of user pays portions of fees.

Submitter #278 said to make it user pays so those with bigger households pay more than those with 1-2 people usually pensioners - fixed income people.

Submitter #485 agreed with the proposal as it supported a user pays approach.

 

Analysis

Officers carefully considered our costs and which proportions are covered by rates and which costs are more appropriately recovered through fees and charges. In some cases, such as commercial rates for meeting room hireage and dog registration, Council decided to increase the level of user pays by more than the average. Otherwise fees were broadly increased in line with the level of budget increases.

 

Submissions about dog registration fees

Increases to dog registration fees was included in Option 2 of Topic 1 – What services do we need for our community - with the proposal to ‘Increase fees (by higher than the average) to meet Revenue and Financing Policy target for Animal Control and other minor changes across the organisation’ so these submissions are included in Deliberations Report 1 – What services do we need for our community?

This Fees and Charges Deliberations Report will be considered before Deliberations Report 1 – Sharing Costs.

 

Submissions about Parking fees and charges

Increases to parking fees and charges formed part of Option 2 of Topic 1 – What services do we need for our community so these submissions are included in Deliberations Report 1 – What services do we need for our community? As mentioned above this Fees and Charges Deliberations Report will be considered before Deliberations Report 1.

 

Recommendations

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

 

Submissions about Solid Waste fees and charges

 

Submitter #58, #105, and #185 mentioned that increased fees will put pressure on a lot of households, meaning rate payers will be paying for more fly tipping

 

Submitter #6 and #192 suggested increasing the cost of rubbish bags and use the surplus from this cost increase to fund a local waste minimisation effort. Submitter #6 also suggests that Council includes worm bins so residents can manage compost and green waste.

 

Submitter #185 asked where does our rubbish and recycling go?

 

Submitter #110 said it will be great to see an alternative business that can recycle our waste into something and provide more jobs.

 

Submitter #191 agreed to seeing that tipping fees are not being raised too much, as this could have resulted in more dumping/fly tipping.

 

Submitter #259 agreed to be on the front foot with waste services rather than later as the population is growing.

 

Submitter #378 suggested that council should investigate converting plastic into diesel, and human waste into a bio-digestion system. Turning Trash into cash. Also commented that Shannon Reuse to be open regularly.

 

Analysis

The current price for Council rubbish bags is higher than our neighbour Palmerston North City Council’s bag price ($2.90). Having our bag price lower would be beneficial to lower income residents in Horowhenua and show Councils support of a large demographic who are living on a low income. Bag sales in the Horowhenua are low and the numbers using the service continue to decline as property owners use the alternative kerbisde bin collection method by engaging a private company collection option. A large proportion of the bag sales are by retired residents who are on fixed incomes. Other users include small families, couples or single occupied properties who have small amounts of solid waste.

 

As mentioned in the Managing Waste Deliberation paper, over time Council has removed itself from the solid waste sector, specifically in providing any specific service. While promoting Council bags may effectively assist in minimising waste (small waste receptacle moves residents to more fully utilise the large kerbside recycling wheelie bins), the revenue generated from bag sales in no way covers the cost to operate the service. The question needs to be asked to whether Council should continue to offer the kerbside bag collection service, given the rising costs of the service and being unable to compete with the growth of the privately delivered kerbside bin collection service the kerbside. Lowering bag prices may increase sales and market share which may over time result in more revenue to cover the costs of the service, the growth of the service would need to increase by 25% year on year over the next four years just to meet the current cost of service.

 

Due to its geographic location near to Palmerston North, Shannon Waste Transfer Station suffers from having its fees and charges for waste disposal lower than Palmerston Norths Waste Management owned transfer station. $397/tonne. This closeness results in Palmerston North residents using the Shannon WTS which has lower prices. If Council opened the Waste Transfer Station (WTS) for more days then more Palmerston North residents would use Shannon WTS. This effectively increases Council charges for district waste disposal, effectively making the problem worse. With the Levin and Foxton Transfer stations in proximity the Shannon Transfer station the existing hours are sufficient for the small community.

 

The kerbside bag collection agreement is up for review in 2026, and Council are currently undertaking a S17A of the Solid waste agreement and its services. This is the opportune time to investigate viable options including alternative service delivery models for all the districts solid waste services i.e. Waste Transfer Stations, kerbside bag collection, mobile recycling stations.

 

Understanding that the Solid Waste Service Agreement is currently being reviewed prior to its 2025/26 agreement renewal, it is recommended that bag prices remain as they are while Council officers review service delivery options. This would allow those that use the service the opportunity to continue without the added pressure of additional costs.

 

Recommendation

That Council endorse the recommended rubbish bag prices as outlined in the fees and charges.

 

That Council direct officers to continue to review service delivery options for domestic solid waste.

 

That Council endorse the recommended waste transfer fees.

 

Submissions about Community Facilities fees and charges

Fourteen submitters commented about the proposed changes to Community Facilities fees and charges. (Submitters #52, #58, #86, #110, #163, #185, #298, #318, #331, #352, #370, #409, #463, and #484).

 

Submitter #58 asked why ratepayers don’t get a discount for community facilities as they are already paying through rates?

Submitter #185 said the district does not need several libraries and pools. They said Provide a shuttle bus instead. Pools should be run as businesses, with only minimal rate support to keep going if needed. There are way too many life guards and staff members at the pool in Levin as well as in the library. They would be happy to pay a yearly membership for the library in Levin because they use it a lot, but people that do not use these services should not have to have their rates increased to keep it going.

Submitter #298 suggested Council moves to user pays and “things like sports clubs town pools libraries need to be able to fund themselves and not rely on rates money to bail them out”

Submitters #370 and #484 said community facilities should be closer to user pay approach.

 

Youth Space

Submitter #110 said they would like to see services for youth continue – “after all their future is our best investment”. 

Pool fees

Submitter# 52 said maybe the pools could have charges reviewed and updated instead of cutting library services and opening days

Submitter #86 and 352 said the fees for children’s swimming lessons are already too high, and more should be taught this fundamental skill, especially as schools don’t do this anymore.

Submitter#331 likes the Foxton pool upgrade but has heard that large families can't afford to use eg the spa where there is an extra charge. They ask Council to please consider the level of charging for this for families.

Submitter # 163 said due to increasing mortgage costs and the increased cost of living, with these increases they are not re-enrolling their daughter for lessons as the money is needed for bills.

Submitter #409 suggested the idea of creating a membership/concession card for Aquatics which would allow a person to buy a number of swim passes and potentially get a cheaper discount.

Facility and Library Fees

Submitter #318 is not in favour of increasing the charges for getting a library card. They support the increased charge for loaning of a new fiction book and suggest it could be increased further.

Submitter #352 did not support the hireage costs of Te Takere. Their feedback is the space is small and loud and would not hire again at that rate.

Analysis

Providing Community Facilities and Services, in particular Libraries and Aquatic facilities, is a core service and function of Council. Council aims to provide all-inclusive facilities and fit for purpose services that cater for our whole community. In doing so, we can ensure that members of the community have access to quality outcomes. For example, access to a Library ensures that people have the ability to connect, learn and grow their knowledge and increase their literacy skills.

 

There were a small number of submissions that highlighted their concerns about the cost of swimming lessons and the risk this could pose, with young people not learning to swim. Some submissions highlighted that given the current cost pressures, swimming lessons would be a budget item that they would need to stop, to prioritise other family costs.

 

When Foxton Pools received its refreshed development, a spa pool was included as part of the project. The intention was to always have a charge for this additional service however, when the Pools opened in January 2024, initially, users were not charged for the spa pool in a bid to allow users to experience the spa and understand how they can enjoy this facility without being charged. Since then, a charge has been introduced and users have been paying to use the spa pool on a user pays basis as per the original intent. Paying an additional fee to use a spa pool is not uncommon across aquatic facilities in New Zealand.

 

Pool users can currently purchase a concession card for our Aquatic Facilities for up to 60 visits. Officers did investigate other membership card concepts and found that some work would be required to establish such an offering and that the reward or uptake of the concept would be low.

 

A number of submissions raised the point of Community Facilities being more of a user pays system, highlighting that people who do not use those facilities, should not be required to pay for them.

 

Recommendations

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions. 

 

Submissions about Building & Resource Consent fees and charges

Four submitters commented about the proposed changes to building and resource consent fees and charges.

 

Analysis

One submission was received in relation to proposed changes to the Revenue and Financing Policy for building. Council’s current Revenue and Financing Policy sets out that 80-90% of the cost to deliver the building consents service and 60-70% of the cost to deliver the resource consents service be recovered through fees and charges. In the proposed Revenue and Financing Policy, this has been adjusted to 65-75% user pays for building consents and 33-43% user pays for resource consents. This proposed change to the Revenue and Financing Policy more accurately reflects the aspects of the service that we are not able to directly recover costs for, an example of this is general enquiries.

 

Three submissions about consenting fees identified that the submitters thought the fees were too high. One submitter provided the view that the fees were too expensive for individual home owners, but supported increasing fees for developers.

 

In preparation for the LTP process a review of the overall costs for the building and resource consenting activities was undertaken. The fees were revised in accordance the increasing costs associated with delivering these services, with an aim of recovering costs in accordance with the proposed changes to the revenue and financing policy. Building consent fees have been staggered so that higher rates apply to more complex work, which the Building Consent Authority requires staff with a higher level of competency and training to undertake. This change will, by default, result in higher costs for commercial buildings.

 

It is noted that there will be a slight change in the fees outlined in Section A of the schedule of Building Consent fees and charges. The fees in Section A are composite initial fees and deposits, that are made up of the component fees from Section B of the schedule. Due to some calculation errors, some minor changes will be required to update some fees in Section A of the Building Consent fee schedule. These changes will not change what customers pay for building consents, as they will still pay the fees outlined in Section B of the building consent fee schedule, it will just change the amount that customers pay upfront.

 

Recommendations

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions. 

 

Submissions about Rounding Fees Up

A few submitters commented that they would like the Council to increase the level of rounding on fees to help reduce the impact on rates.

 

Analysis

Officers note that while it is difficult to estimate the impact on rates of rounding some fees, a further 1% increase in fees would increase fees by $75k and allow Council to reduce rates by $75k or 0.14%.

 

Recommendations

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions

 

Topic 2: Draft Development Contributions Policy

 

Background

 

Development contributions are provided for under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) and are able to be used to fund capital expenditure required as a result of growth. Council re-introduced Development Contributions through the LTP 2021-2041.

There was a partial review of the Policy through the Long Term Plan Amendment, as it included amendments to the Infrastructure Strategy and capital programme which needed to be reflected in the Development Contributions Policy.

Proposed amendments to the Policy include:

·         Updating the policy to support the principles of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.

·         Delegating some decision making to General Manager Housing and Business/Chief Executive for some requests for remission/reduction/postponement

·         Updating growth assumptions and base data

·         Introducing additional maps to define DC areas

·         Greater flexibility to undertake special assessment

·         Updating the Development Contribution amounts based on the capital projects in the LTP.

 

Consultation question

Submitters were asked whether there was anything they would like to tell Council about the draft Development Contributions Policy. Ninety four (94) submitters made comments. The themes were:

 

​Submissions about increased Development Contributions

 

​Submissions

 

​Submitters #12, #19, #34, #45, #59, #105, #107, #121, #133, #147, #190, #192, #218, #232, #241, #296, #301, #331, #335, #338, #341, #349, #350, #400, and #485, supported the draft development contributions policy.  

​ 

​The general tone of these submissions was that developers should pay their share of growth infrastructure costs, rather than ratepayers. Whilst there was general support for growth infrastructure being paid for by way of Development Contributions, there were a range of views within this group of submitters, including the comments as set out below: 

​ 

Submitter #59 ”Charge developers as much as you can to reduce rates burden”

 

Submitter #145 ”Please do not spook investors by excessive development contributions to fund non-essential projects” (note that Submission #145 stated support contributions for the listed projects were essential and legitimate projects) 

Submitter #167 ”Development Contributions should be higher for developers, not your average person building a single houses” 

 

Submitter #190 ”Council must not look to general ratepayers to bear the cost of water and sewerage treatment as new subdivisions are created” 

 

Submitter #232 ”(Developers) don’t build these things for love, they build them to make money. If there is land they can develop they will – and profit from it. Their bottom line should not be boosted by being subsidised by the ratepayers.” 

​

Submitter# 240 ” Developers should 100% fund development for infrastructure upgrades caused by district growth. Existing ratepayers should not pay for new people coming to live in the district. We didn’t ask for them to come.” 

​

Submitter #341 ” I think Developers need to pay a higher proportion of costs as they benefit the most. These new large subdivisions place huge strain on our infrastructure and all ratepayers are having to foot the bill. HDC stands to reap a higher rate intake from increased dwellings but will this be reflected after all new infrastructure costs?? Taraika, Speldhurst, Oak Place, Fairfield Road area - all examples of intensive housing requiring large infrastructure improvements” 

​

Submitter #400 - ”The Shannon Progressive Association believes that although development can have benefits for the district, developers do so primarily for commercial reasons. i.e. to make a profit. Therefore, the ratepayer should not be indirectly nor inadvertently subsidising by paying for infrastructure upgrades that their projects necessitate.” 

​

Submitter #485 ” Agree - User pays - and as been stated the cost of installing infrastructure has increased by 30% in the last couple of years so the Contribution levy needs to increase to cover the cost to Council of supplying the additional infrastructure” 

​ 

​​Submission #355, #368, #369, #371, #383, #405, and #406 did not support the draft development contributions policy, or increases in Development Contributions in general. Submission #368 and #471 spoke on Development Contributions in their oral submissions. These submissions all came from members of the Development Community. 

​ 

​Submitter #355 ”We are not against DC and believe that they are a necessity to grow a community however in a climate where the cost to build a house has increased in the past 5 years by 41% we question the logic of imposing yet another cost to building when we are already facing a declining market” 

 

​Submitter #368 ”In short, To (sic) higher increase, Wrong timing, Increases need to be progressive, Targeted rates on new development, No DCs on minor dwellings”. 

 

​Submitter #369 ”The changes proposed the Development Contribution (DC) will be unsustainable and will make developing virtually unaffordable. I read on your website that you believe that 440 homes need to be built in the Horowhenua each year to meet the proposed growth targets. You must know that this DC proposal will stop that from happening almost immediately.” 

​

Submitter #371 ”With all the costs involved in developing I cannot see that having to pay this ridiculously increased fee would make developing worth while for me. It seems to me that this increase goes against your desire of promoting more affordable housing in the Horowhenua.” 

​

Submitter #383 ” The increase in development contributions over the District is significant. We believe an increase in the levy of that quantity should be phased in gradually... Have Council considered the growth targets anticipated? We are not anywhere near meeting these now. If Development Contributions are increased at this level this would create a negative impact on growth.”

​

Submitter #405 ”Cost increase not sustainable. No DCs on minor dwellings. Targeted rates scheme for developments. DC cost increased to be over a period (sic) of time. Wrong time in the market”. 

​

Submitter #406 ”It’s ridiculous. its been a big enough wack bringing them back let alone the proposal your suggesting. Your wanting to encourage more affordable housing yet driving up foundation details, insulation rating etc and now extra for subdivisions. Its contradicting.” 

 

Submitter #471 (verbal) ” How comfortable is Council signing off that the DC charges are based on solid work? Stated he was happy to pay if fair, reasonable and transparent. The upper end of proposals will stifle growth – noted the stormwater changes – how can council have confidence in such a big change? What does wastewater/water supply to  Ōhau look like? People won’t pay $45k so don’t put a pipe out.” 

​

Analysis 

 

Proposed changes to the draft Development Contributions Policy 2024 that affect the Development contribution amounts are:

·    Updates to Table 1 and 2 and Appendix 5 – Schedule of Assets of the Draft Development Contributions Policy 2024.

​Feedback on the scale of the proposed increase has been taken on board. As set out in Deliberations report 6, the Capital works programme has been adjusted, which has led to a re-prioritisation of some projects. The amount of Development Contributions has subsequently been reduced across all contribution areas, from the amounts included in the consultation documentation, as indicated in the table below. 

 

 

​​Changes in the re-prioritisation process were primarily driven the available limit on borrowings and a focus on asset management principles. The re-prioritisation of non-core infrastructure projects were reduced to essential items only, and care was taken to ensure that core infrastructure was not traded off with non-core items.

​ 

​The key changes from the draft policy were: 

·    ​Deferred delivery and reduction of budget assumptions to meet the budget caps. The overall draft LTP capital programme could not be funded based on borrowing assumptions. 

·    ​Increased allocation of renewals towards existing community based on asset assessments undertaken Jan-Apr 2024. Detailed changes at activity level are set out in Deliberation report 6.

·    ​Increased density and yield in North-East Levin used for modelling distribution of newly introduced targeted SW DC for this area. Previous DC policy shared these costs across the Levin catchment, this change has resulted in a significant increase for this growth area from that setout in the Long Term Plan Amendment, reflective of the costs incurred to provide for development serving in this zone. 

·    ​Slightly more conservative allocation of costs to developers on long term projects in early stages of development. More certainty on timing and budgets to be a key focus moving into Local Water Done Well or next LTP update. 

​Whilst an increase in the Development Contributions is required due to the projected capital works and the costs associated with those works, the proposed decrease in the contribution amounts is expected to assist in striking the balance between encouraging growth whilst having those that cause demand for increased services meeting their share of the cost of providing them.

 

The inclusion of an additional area for Stormwater contributions at North East Levin is to allow for the recovery of Council’s expenditure on the Roslyn and Fairfield Road drainage areas, including Coley Pond. The additional growth area catchment was included as the works benefit only a small area of Levin. Having a targeted stormwater charge for this area would ensure a user pays system, rather than the stormwater charges for North East Levin being spread across the entire Levin urban area. The only submission specifically on this new charge was a verbal submission from submitter 471, who queried whether the development contribution amounts were based upon solid information.

 

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

 

That Council endorse the proposed changes to Tables 1 and 2 and Appendix 5 of the Draft Development Contributions Policy.

 

​Submissions on Development on Whenua Māori 

​ 

​Submitter #167 includes a request to exclude Development Contributions on whenua māori . 

​ 

​Submitter #301, noted that they “would like to see 1) local government planning levers that maximise Māori developments, (collective ownership for long-term collective benefit) to support independent, people-led initiatives. 2) Fixed-term investment in planning staff time, to remove obstacles for Māori initiative, a modern evolution in collective housing and cultural tradition of light impact on the land.” 

 

Analysis

 

​With regards to these submission points, officers note that this is partially covered by Clause 2.14 of the proposed Development Contributions policy, which seeks to remit the roading and community facility components of the development contributions (which would be the full contribution for rural land) for papakāinga. This clause was inserted into the draft Development Contributions Policy in response to the requirement under Section 102(3) of the Local Government Act 2002, which requires Council’s Financial policies to support the principles set out in the Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (TTWM Act). This provision came into effect from 1 July 2021. It is noted that there were no specific submissions against the inclusion of this clause.

 

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

​ 

​Submissions on other Proposed Changes to the Development Contributions Policy 

​

In addition to the changes to Tables 1 and 2, Clause 2.14 and Appendix 5 already discussed above, a number of changes to the Development Contributions Policy have been introduced to the draft document. These include: 

·       ​Updates to Sections 1 and 2 to reflect the current development context and current growth expectations 

·       ​Allowance for greater scope for special assessments of Development Contributions at Council’s discretion. This is intended to allow for listed activities that will have a greater or lesser demand for services than what is set out in Appendix 4, or for an activity requiring services outside of the service area specified on the maps at Appendix 1 where Council has agreed that services are available 

·       ​Inclusion of Maps of all urban Development Contribution Areas at Appendix 1 to show the expected serviced areas for the various Development Contribution areas. These maps are intended as a guide for when the various Development Contribution rates are applicable, rather than confirmation of full availability of services.

·       ​Changes to Clauses 3.6.3.4-3.6.3.6, to allow the Chief Executive and the Group Manager Housing and Business to consider postponements of Development Contributions, and reduce or remit Development Contributions in accordance with the agreed amount in the delegations manual. This change was intended to avoid situations where the hearing fee was greater than or a substantial portion of the amount of remission/reduction sought.

·       ​Clarification that any credits for buildings demolished after the 2021 policy came into effect will only relate to the site that they were located on, and that those credits cannot be transferred between sites. 

​

Furthermore, an additional clause is recommended to be included at 2.11.7, to clarify that if a Development Contribution is not invoiced at the correct time due to error or omission, the contribution will remain payable. The suggested wording is: 

 

“2.11.7 If a development contribution required by Council is not invoiced at the specified time as a result of an error or omission on the part of Council, the development contributions remain payable. An invoice will be issued on identification of the error or omission for payment by a due date.”

​ 

​​These changes have been introduced to assist in administering the Development Contributions Policy. 

 

Recommendation:

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

 

That Council endorse the proposed changes to the draft District Plan Development Contributions Policy 2024.

​ ​

​Submissions on Targeted Rates 

​Targeted rates were raised by submitters 368 and 405 as another potential method of charging for infrastructure.

 

Analysis

 

There is a tool available to use alongside, or in place of a Development Contribution. Essentially, an additional rate, for infrastructure growth could be levied upon a property, as a means of recouping costs.

 

​Positive attributes of Targeted Rates	Negative attributes of Targeted Rates
Incentivises development – passes risk to land owners	Involves compulsion
Secure/predictable revenue stream	Future ratepayers may be unaware
Familiar to financial institutions	Needs to be set each year – can be subject to political reconsideration
Can fund service level improvement, operational costs and other types of infrastructure	Can only be set at the start of the rating year – cannot be put in place to take advantage of commercial opportunities.
Can spread cost over a longer timeframe (future ratepayer pays, rather than developer)	Potentially costly to administer
Can overcome issues associated with fragmented ownership
Can be charged prior to infrastructure being provided

​

Officers note that Palmerston North is looking to include a targeted rate for wastewater in order to fund the required upgrade to their treatment plant. The Officer considers that there may be some merit in targeted rates in Horowhenua, but that there hasn’t been sufficient time to investigate whether they would be appropriate, or cost effective to administer in a smaller Territorial Authority such as Horowhenua District.

 

Recommendation

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

​ 

​Submissions on Transparency 

​Submission #227 would like more transparency on how much Council financially underwrites the installation of infrastructure for large private developers.

​ 

​Submission #378 ”The policy says it funds the bulk of infrastructure and public networks why are the rates going up again?”

​ 

​Submission #355, #369, #371 noted that they were unaware of the proposed changes to the Development Contributions Policy until they attended an information evening at Council.

​ 

​Submitter #413 ” I will need to read the document. Quite detailed. Just to make sure future documents are in laymans terms so I can understand the jargon. A kanohi ki te kanohi for any Council matter is a better approach.” 

​ 

​By way of response to Submission #227, Officers note that the projects that are funded through the draft Development Contributions Policy are set out in Appendix 5 to the policy, which states the portion of each project that is due to renewals, and the growth portion. Only the growth portion is recovered through Development Contributions.

​ 

​With regards to Submission #378, Officers advise that development contributions only apply to infrastructure activities that have a growth portion. Any renewals are charged through rates.

​ 

​For Submitters #355, #369 and #371, Officers confirm that the Draft Development Contributions Policy was included in the supporting documents to the LTP that were put out for public consultation on April 15, 2024. We note that it is standard practice across other Territorial Authorities to include consultation on the Development Contributions policy as part of the Long Term Plan, rather than as a separate document/separate consultation. Officers note that opportunities for consultation before the submission period were limited. However, a session for consultation with the development community was included and organised at short notice, during the consultation period, when this shortfall was noticed. Feedback regarding opportunities and consultation is noted and will be taken on board for next time.

​ 

​For submitter #413, the comments regarding needing to use laymans terms are noted, and it is recommended that care be taken with future documents to ensure that they are as easy to understand as possible, whilst still including sufficient technical language to be legally correct. Opportunities for meetings with the community on a kanohi a kanohi (face-to-face) basis were a large part of this LTP consultation.

 

Recommendation

​ 

​That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

 ​

Submissions on Potential Exemption for Minor Dwellings, Sleepouts 

​

Summary of Submissions 

 

​Submitter #368, #405, raised the possibility of an exemption for Minor Dwellings from development Contributions. Submitter #345, raised concerns with sleepouts being subject to development contributions.

 

​

 

 

Analysis

 

​Minor dwellings (self-contained units, family flats) were included in the Development Contributions Policy as they do cause demand for services. The District Plan already allows for a 50% discount on Development Contributions for one bedroom units, to recognise that they generally have lower occupancy, and therefore less demand for services. Sleepouts (which do not contain bathroom and kitchen facilities together) are not subject to development contributions at this time, and there is no proposal to require them. 

​

Recommendation

​ 

​That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

​ 

​Submissions on how Development Contributions could better support smaller settlements

​ 

​Summary of Submissions 

​ 

​Submitter #372 considered that Development Contributions should be in proportion to the value of the development, so lower value areas would contribute a smaller portion of the levy, and higher value areas pay more.

​Submitter #379 included the following: ”The current policy approach impacts the growth of village communities in the Miranui Ward. The current Infrastructure (water, waste water and effluent) across the 3 villages, Opiki, Tokomaru and Shannon are ill equipped to support housing development. Any development within these villages is not supported by current levels of infrastructure. There is greater risk to a developer regardless of a reduced Development Contribution compared to the rest of the wards. Therefore we would like to see a different approach to the application of the development contribution policy that better serves village community living 

​

Analysis 

​ 

​The content of these submissions is noted. In general, development contributions can be higher in smaller settlements, due to the smaller number of people to share in the cost of providing growth infrastructure and infrastructure capacity upgrades.

​ 

​Apportioning development contributions based upon development value would be difficult to administer, and could require input from a registered valuer, which would add an additional cost into the process.

​ 

​A change in approach to development in smaller settlements may be warranted, to encourage future development in those areas. This may be something that Council wishes to direct staff to investigate in the future. 

​ 

​Recommendation

​That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

 

​ 

​Submission on Amount of Development Contributions paid for Retirement Units and Aged Care Rooms 

​ 

​Submitter #251 – Summerset Groups submitted that the current rate of Development Contributions paid by retirement units for transport and community infrastructure, and for aged care rooms for transport is too high. 

​

 

 

Analysis 

​No changes were proposed to Table 3 in relation to the proportion of Development Contributions payable for retirement units or aged care rooms as part of consultation on the LTPA. The table below demonstrates the current units of demand (compared to a single household unit) versus the Summerset Groups ’s suggested amendments. 

​ 

​Activity Unit of Demand	​Current units of demand	Summerset Group Suggested Change	Difference
Any retirement unit for purposes of calculating the roading contribution only.	0.3	0.2	0.1
Any retirement unit for purposes of calculating the water supply and wastewater contributions only.	0.5	No change	-
Any aged care room for purposes of calculating the roading contribution only.	0.2	0.1	0.1
Any aged care room for purposes of calculating the water supply and wastewater contributions only.	0.1	No change	-
Any aged care room for purposes of calculating the community infrastructure contribution only.	0	No change	-
Retirement Unit – community infrastructure contribution (no discount noted in Table 3)	1	0.1	0.9

​ 

​The submission from Summerset Group considers that the transport rate for the two activities and the community infrastructure rate for retirement units is greater than the actual demand, and noted that their suggested figures are what Tauranga City Council have recently adopted. Given the short turnaround between submission closing and this report being drafted, there hasn’t been sufficient time to investigate the actual level of demand for roading and community services from retirement units and aged care rooms. Whilst there would be likely some variation in actual usage of municipal facilities and roads across the country, this will likely be determined by the location of any retirement village from the town/city centre and the scale and quality of the facilities within the retirement village. It should be borne in mind that some retirement villages allow residents from age 55, and detached houses within a retirement village (including those that have space for a residents car) meet the definition of a retirement unit. It is likely that demand for community and roading services from these independent living units is similar to other child-free households of a similar size. As there is no consistent approach to charging for retirement units or aged care rooms across the country, it is important that Council has an understanding of the Horowhenua context before considering changing these factors. 

​ 

​Recommendation 

​That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

 

That Council Officers investigate the actual demand created by aged care rooms and retirement units in the District as part of a future LTP/LTPA process. 

 

Rate of Growth

Councillors asked Officers to consider whether we move the capital programme out further because the growth may not be what we had forecast.

The Draft LTP is based on the significant forecasting assumptions. A summary of the forecasted new dwellings for the first 10 years of the LTP is included below.

 

 

 

 

Year	No. of Additional Dwellings
2024/25	385
2025/26	365
2026/27	372
2027/28	391
2028/29	399
2029/30	383
2030/31	366
2031/32	415
2032/33	395
2033/34	379

 

Current State - Growth Summary 

Although consenting volumes continue to be down across the country, the district’s growth remains on track to hit the LTP (Long Term Plan) Growth Forecast for the 2023/24 period.

 

The positive move in the February trend nationally may assist this pattern further. Now three quarters into the financial year, the Units Consented YTD sits at 76% of Units Required.

 

Macro-economic conditions continue to provide challenges for the housing sector, however this year's LTP Growth Forecast remains attainable. It should however be noted that these numbers have been buoyed by a large multi-unit consent that was approved earlier in the year and is unlikely to repeat in 2024/25. This one off may also impact the final number, if you consider underlying run rate the number delivered could potentially fall to around 90% of plan worst case.

 

Current forecasts suggest the market may remain relatively flat for much of 2024, There is unlikely to be any additional growth to make up for the below-par result from the prior period. 

 

 

Building Consents Issued for New Dwellings vs. LTP 2021-2041(Long Term Plan) Growth Forecast (to 31 March 2024) 

 

It is noted that the above chart is based on the forecasting assumptions from the 2021-41 Long Term Plan, the forecasting assumptions included in the Draft LTP 2024-44 have scaled back the forecasted growth as can be seen in the summary table above.

 

Future Forecast for New Zealand

Building Consents in New Zealand are expected to improve slightly to 2,954 units per month through 2024, up slightly on prior projections. In the long-term, the New Zealand New Dwellings Building Consents are expected to trend up slightly to 3,100 per month in 2025 and to 3,193 in 2026 based on current projections. 

Forecasted trend for Building Consents by month 

 

Consenting Summary Overview 

Consenting numbers locally remain low and can be best described as patchy at present. Current economic indicators do not indicate that this trend is going to change with any significance in the near term. It seems likely that 2024 will continue at the current levels with some upside leading in to 2025.

 

With the first stage being consented at Tara-Ika this may start to turn the demand around however, this again is not likely to turn into housing stock until 2025. The building of the new Ō2NL road corridor from Ōtaki to north of Levin is anticipated to bring localised growth to the Horowhenua that can perform against the current trend. Resourcing levels continue to be actively managed to align with the current demand position. 

 

HDC (Horowhenua District Council) Building Consenting

Building consent trends based on data for the period from 1 July 2023 to 31 March 2023 are as follows: 

 

	YTD to 31 March 2024	YTD to 31 March 2023	Trend
Number of building consents lodged	377	416	↓9%
Number of building consents issued	334	457	↓27%
Number of new dwelling consents issued	81	160	↓49%
Number of new dwelling units consented	309	222	↑39%
Value of building consents issued	$124,362,028	$143,196,527	↓13%
Number of inspections completed	4829	5425	↓11%
Number of CCCs issued	402	408	↓2%
Number of enquiries about building control functions	1344	1380	↓3%

 

There has been an overall decline in the number of consents for new dwelling units and demand continues to fluctuate month to month.

In summary shifting the capital programme out in anticipation of lagging growth based on current market conditions could well be counter productive in that lagging infrastructure is arguably a negative contributor to positive growth profiles. Although the market is currently off the boil, there is however a strong base which continues to develop across the district.

The development cycle generally runs to a seven year cycle with the next peak likely to come in around 2028. It should be noted that local initiatives such as the pending development of the Ō2NL road corridor however will bring with it localised growth opportunities that are expected to sit outside of the national development trends. Having well programmed and managed infrastructure that can keep pace and maybe even get ahead of development could well be a positive for the district as it continues to chase the bold 95^th percentile growth projections of Council.

 

Topic 3: Draft Significance and Engagement Policy

 

Background

Minor amendments to the 2021 policy were proposed:

·    Addition of thresholds for significance

·    To update wording in a number of places to provide greater clarity and to ensure it is current regarding Community preferences, engagement methods, explaining what a 'whole of asset' approach means in more detail, and when Council may not engage.

 

Consultation question

Submitters were asked whether there was anything they wanted to tell Council about the draft Significance and Engagement Policy. Twenty-one (21) people made a comment about the draft Policy.

 

The themes in those comments were:

 

 

Summary of Submissions

The comments made are below, with analysis following each group:

Submission supporting no change

Submitter #12 said leave as is.

Submissions supporting proposed changes without further comment

Support proposed changes

Submitter #255 thinks the Council have got it fairly right. It is a difficult thing to assess.

Submitter #275 says they are always a fan of more engagement

 

Submissions about How Council Engages/Does Engagement Eork

Submitter #45 said Council should do this in-house, particularly in the current economic environment.

Submitter #59 said tell us about the big stuff and keep cuppa with a councillor.

Submitter #147 I know you have trouble getting a wide representation of people engaging in matters you seek to engage them on but I still think it’s important for democracy and people's sense of ownership to try. The policy reads a little like you'd like to do as a little as it as possible, only what is mandated by law or what YOU think is a decision of significance. I'm not sure the balance is right.

Submitter #190 said that with the recent change in central government, this policy may require revisiting.

Analysis

Officers noted each of the comments, and has taken the support and suggestions on-board. It is hoped that Council’s approach to engagement over recent years is giving a local example of genuine engagement, but also note that we are always looking to improve so do appreciate all perspectives being shared.

Submissions about making it simpler to engage

Submitter #54 said council should engage in a better way with rate payers, don't ‘make them jump through so many hoops’.

Submitter #407 said Council should make comms accessible and in simpler terms so it is easy for the community to read and understand.

Analysis

Officers note the comments and note that as an organisation we are continually seeking to making working with Council easier – quicker, smoother, easier to access information – and will continue to work in this area.

Relationship with iwi/Māori and use of Te Reo

Submitter #301 said they are proud of our country, our bi-cultural nation and our unique Māori culture. I am proud of the Māori road signs around Horowhenua district and villages of tolerant people that are proud of being pakeha and Māori. Next time, please lift 'Working with Māori', from 'recognition,' to 'who we are' and how we do things around here. For example, Council and the community shares the hopes of mana whenua for improving lake water quality and is some way from or inspired by the vision Māori champion for this precious resource. We are together on many things and better for it. 

Submitter #378 said Council should keep engaging with local iwi and hapu and to continue building these relationships regularly. Regular meetings with the hapu. To retain the two Māori representatives and they need to keep iwi and hapu in the know of these local issues. Support resourcing for local iwi and hapu for environmental endeavours. 

Submitter #409 said that there is reference to both the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Tiriti o Waitangi in this document with them both being separate documents and Council noting Te Tiriti o Waitangi in other documents I recommend 'The Treaty of Waitangi' is altered to read 'Te Tiriti o Waitangi'.

Submitter #413 loves the part about Māori involvement and decision making. That this would be great for all aspects and levels of Council. The approach has to fit as well re face to face at the marae etc and having ongoing hui not just when a matter comes up. Having Māori at the front reception helps. Also breaking down the council info so we can understand it.

Analysis

Officers note the support for continued and ongoing involvement of iwi, hapu and Māori in decision-making and ongoing partnership. When the Community Outcomes were discussed with Council it was agreed to include both versions of Te Tiriti/The Treaty and inclusion of both in this Policy reflects Council’s wider approach and those Outcomes.

 

 

Inclusion of youth voice

Submitter #363 said it is good to see a youth voice, they would like to see easily accessible input from iwi where appropriate.

Submitter #381 said student voice is important, considering that they are the future rate payers.

Analysis

Officers note the comments and suggest this shows the benefit of expanding the focus of engagement for this LTP.

Democracy and people’s voice

Submitter #58 said the people need to have more of a voice. 

Submitter #232 believes it is very honourable initiative to make council decisions more democratic. Certainly it is of benefit to the citizens of the district that they feel their influence is broader than just ticking a box on polling day. They have noticed this council has been increasing their efforts to engage with the communities of the Horowhenua and this is commendable.They said there has to be a balance, it would be counterproductive for an enhanced engagement process to make the decision making of council unwieldy and drawn out. So care is needed there. Also, to be wary of inadvertently making it easier for "special interest groups" of the population to get in the way of progress on decisions, especially at the "last minute" once everything seems settled. 

Submitter #417 supports ongoing democratic decision process. They say don’t confuse population requirements for whanau Māori with the partnership with Iwi under treaty. Both are vital to do well.

Analysis

Officers note the comments and support for the more inclusive and broader engagement approach Council is taking, and which is detailed in the Policy.

Material presented for consultation

Submitter #191 was expecting a one pager - seems overly convoluted, but serves a purpose I guess. 

Submitter #278 asked, other than via internet, e mails, the booklet, what other ways has Council consulted the community?

Submitter #487 asked where is this Korero in the Consultation Document?

Analysis

Officers note the comments, and appreciate the feedback as it will inform future work. The final LTP will include a Summary of the Significance and Engagement Policy which is 1-2 pages, which may be more in line with what submitter #191 was expecting to see.

 

During the consultation period, 34 events took place in Levin, Foxton and Shannon including five online events.

Events included:

·    300+ at Rangitahi and Community Group events

·    Six school visits: Levin East primary, Waiopehu, Horowhenua and Manawatū Colleges and one Youth Voice Rangatahi event​

·    Levin Intermediate – 17 students doing a 5-week Council Elective, including time on the LTP​

·    Five Citizen Panel workshops with 120+ attendees

·    Four Cuppa with Councillor events at Te Awahou Nieuwe Stroom, Te Takeretanga o Kura-hau-pō and Shannon Library

·    Several meetings were held with groups who requested meetings or were eager to engage with Council on the LTP; this included but was not limited to, local iwi and hapū, Greypower and other community and ratepayer groups.

There is further detail about this in the Deliberations – Summary Report in this Agenda.

 

It is noted that the Policy wasn’t included in the Consultation Document. We had intended for our approach to the consultation and engagement on the LTP to show a ‘live’ example of this policy in action. That is, continuing to expand the range of ways Council engages, the type of information provided, and assistance. We understand that signaling that in the Consultation Document may have been helpful to connect words and actions.

 

Recommendations

That Council thanks submitters for their time and acknowledges their submissions.

 

That Council endorses the draft Significance and Engagement Policy.

 

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a⇩	Fees and Charges Full Schedule Deliberations 22 May 2024	247
b⇩	Draft Development Contributions Policy	282
c⇩	LTP 2024-2044 Significance and Engagement Policy	341

    

 

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 benefits and costs, 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.

Signatories

Author(s)	David McCorkindale Group Manager - Vision & Delivery
	Daniel Haigh Group Manager Community Infrastructure
	Brent Harvey Group Manager - Community Experience & Services
	Blair Spencer Group Manager Housing & Business Development
	Jacinta Straker Group Manager Organisation Performance

 

Approved by

Monique Davidson Chief Executive Officer