Source: https://infocouncil.fndc.govt.nz/Open/2018/10/CO_20181025_AGN_2104_AT.htm
Timestamp: 2019-12-14 20:33:16
Document Index: 3706406

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 15', 'art. 4', '§ 15']

Thursday 25 October 2018 at 10:00 am
5 Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board. 27
5.1 Lease of Part Kororipo-Kerikeri Basin Recreation Reserve - The Pear Tree Restaurant 27
6 District Services Group. 48
6.1 Museum @ Te Ahu Collection Management Policy. 48
7 Strategic Planning and Policy Group. 59
7.1 District Plan Update. 59
7.2 Adoption of the Lindvart Park Reserve Management Plan. 64
7.3 Commissioner Recommendations on Submissions to Private Plan Change 22 - Inlet Estate Limited. 91
7.4 Mana Whakahono-ā-rohe/Iwi Participation Arrangements with Hapū or Hapū collective 129
7.5 District Transport Strategy. 135
8 Corporate Services Group. 159
8.1 Tauranga Bay Holiday Park Reserve Lease. 159
8.2 Revised Procurement Policy. 188
8.3 Council Calendar of Meetings 2019. 217
8.4 Appointment of Community Board Chairs to Council Committees. 223
8.5 Adoption of the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2018. 227
9 Chief Executive Officer. 229
9.1 Chief Executive Officer's Report - August September 2018. 229
10 Public Excluded ………………………………………………………………………………….271
11 Meeting Close. 272
10.05 am Representitive from Disability Action Group
10.15 am Representitive from Oruru Hall
10.25 am Representitive from Kerikeri Squash Club
10.35 am Representitive from Māori Carbon Foundation
File Number: A2207078
The minutes are attached to allow Council to confirm that the minutes are a true and correct record of the previous meeting
That Council confirm the minutes of the Council meeting held 30 August 2018 as a true and correct record.
Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28A states that a local authority must keep minutes of its proceedings. The minutes of these proceedings duly entered and authenticated as prescribed by a local authority are prima facie evidence of those meetings
1. 2018-08-30 Council Minutes - A2176105 ⇩
File Number: A2188893
Author: Alice Astell, Property Legalisation Officer
To report back to Council the recommendation made by the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board proposing a new lease of part of the Kororipo-Kerikeri Basin recreation reserve comprising approximately 2054m2 of the land contained in CFR NA836/15, to the existing tenant Pear Tree Kerikeri Limited.
· On 2 July 2018 the Community Board, as the Council’s delegate, met to consider all submissions received following the public consultation process concerning the proposed new lease to the Pear Tree Restaurant and to make a recommendation to the Council regarding the proposed lease.
· Following deliberations on the submissions, the Board chose not to adopt the staff recommendation to grant the new lease as publicly notified but instead recommended that Council grant a new lease for a limited term of 5 years only with no right of renewal and subject to all concept plans being approved by Kororipo Stone Store Basin Management Group (now re-named Kororipo Heritage Park Management Group – KHPMG). KHPMG consists of representatives from the Department of Conservation (DOC), Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia, Heritage NZ, Northland Inc (being a Council- Controlled Organisation owned by Northland Regional Council), Council staff and a Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board member. All other essential terms of the new lease were recommended as proposed and consulted upon.
· On 30 August 2018 Council met to consider the Board’s recommendation and make the final decision on the proposal. This involved two decisions: one from the standpoint of the Council as the Administering Body for the reserve, and the other as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate.
· The staff report to Council (see attached Document A2208799) referenced a current Memorandum of Understanding between Council and Far North Holdings Limited (‘FNHL’) which authorises FNHL to manage the lease and relationship with the lessee. Commentary from FNHL’s Chief Executive concerning the lease negotiations was therefore included in the Council report, including his statement that: "the decision the Community Board made [on 2 July] was not based on the facts the Pear Tree will not give back to FNDC the land required for the wider basin development being proposed by Ngati Rehia unless the extension and right of renewal are granted”.
· Following deliberations, Council resolved “That Council refer the matter ‘Lease of part Kororipo-Kerikeri Basin Recreation Reserve – The Pear Tree Restaurant’ back to the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board for consideration”.
· Since then, DOC, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia, Heritage NZ, FNHL and KHPMG have been approached for further information to assist the Community Board to make an informed decision, and on 18 September 2018 FNHL representatives met to discuss the lease proposal with KHPMG.
· On 24 September 2018 the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board at its meeting reconsidered the report and makes the following recommendation to Council:
The full background is set out in the recent staff report to the Council meeting on 30 August 2018 (Document A2208799).
In view of the commentary provided by FNHL and Council resolution of 30 August 2018, further information regarding the wider basin reserve development plan was sought to enable the Community Board to make an informed decision on the lease proposal. The responses received from the key agencies approached are summarised below for Council’s consideration:
a) Response from a representative of DOC who also sits on KHPMG:
KHPMG have had some initial discussions regarding the proposed new lease and discussed some ideas for improvements to the recreation reserve. However DOC/KHPMG have not seen any actual development plans (which they believe need endorsing by KHPMG before the Council makes any funding decisions). They identified the need for a reserve management plan to cover the management and development of the reserve and advised that FNHL need to present the development plans to the management group and receive endorsement before the Community Board makes a recommendation.
Following FNHL’s subsequent meeting with KHPMG on 18 September 2018, DOC - on behalf of KHPMG - wrote a letter to the Community Board dated 18 September 2018 indicating their support of Option 1 (Attachment 4).
b) Response from a representative of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia who also sits on KHPMG:
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia have not received any information relating to the creation of a walkway to the Pā sites, the development of a pear tree nursery using seed from the original pear tree, creation of seating areas or matching of the old wooden fence that runs alongside the Stone Store.
Ideas have been discussed regarding what could be done in the area, but that is as far as things have progressed.
Ngāti Rēhia have submitted an application to the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) for the re-construction of Rewa’s Village, but this has no connection with the Pear Tree Lease proposal.
Following numerous meetings with staff from Council and FNHL, Ngāti Rēhia decided to support the original Pear Tree Lease new lease application which was for an initial term of 5 years followed by two rights of renewal of 5 years each. KHPMG have not seen any plans regarding the development of this area. Following FNHL’s meeting with KHPMG on 18 September, a letter was received from the Chairman of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia indicating Ngāti Rēhia’s and KHPMG’s support of Option 1 (Attachment 5).
c) From the Area Manager -Northland, Heritage New Zealand:
Heritage New Zealand advised that they have had no correspondence about plans for the Basin and look forward to conversation regarding the matter.
d) Far North Holdings Limited:
FNHL has an interest in the management of all aspects of the restaurant lease pursuant to an MOU between FNHL and Council. Commentary provided by FNHL’s Chief Executive, Andy Nock, was included in the 30 August Council report (Document A2208799).
On 18 September 2018, FNHL representatives met to discuss the lease proposal with KHPMG.
FNHL’s Chief Executive also addressed the Community Board at its meeting held on 24 September and confirmed to the Board that the existing tenant was agreeable to the revised lease term of 5 years plus one further right of renewal of 5 years.
The role of Council as Minister’s Delegate
The Council has a dual role as Administering Body (AB) of the reserve and as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate. The decision making function whereby the merits of a proposal are considered is the responsibility of the AB. The Minister is not the decision maker but has instead a supervisory role which has been delegated to Council.
In ensuring the decision is arrived at in compliance with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 (‘RA’), staff can confirm:
· that the status of the land involved has been correctly identified;
· the particular classification and purposes of the reserve have been taken into account;
· public submissions on the proposal have been considered, and
· the AB has the power and authority to make the decision.
On 14 September 2017, Council delegated authority to the Community Board to make a recommendation to Council in respect of the proposal. A final decision on the submissions must be made by the Council as the AB of the reserve. This decision also requires consent from the Minister of Conservation, however the Minister has delegated her role to the Council.
Relevant Legislation – the Reserves Act 1977 and the Local Government Act 2002
The RA provides a statutory framework for the management and preservation of areas of public land for the benefit of the public. The decision-making requirements of section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) overlay decision-making requirements under other Acts such as the RA and cover the need to take into account community views. This has been achieved by compliance with the RA’s public consultation requirements as well as iwi consultation.
The Board is required to take into account the above legislation, including the functions and purpose of recreation reserves, when deciding on a recommendation. Further, section 83 of the LGA covers the special consultative procedure. Subsection (3) states:
“This section does not prevent a local authority from requesting or considering, before making a decision, comment or advice from an officer of the local authority or any other person in respect of the proposal or any views on the proposal, or both.”
Council’s Reserves Policy generally favours the preservation of reserves. In this case the Community Board has made a recommendation which involves the continuity of an existing facility located on the reserve. Pear Tree Kerikeri Limited as the current tenant is seeking to significantly reduce (not increase) the area of reserve land currently leased and, in accordance with the general purpose of the RA, seeks to continue providing a facility which enables the public to obtain the benefit and enjoyment of the reserve and provide for the convenience of persons using the reserve.
Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 requires that various Acts including the RA are to be administered so as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. This requires decision-makers to seek comments from tangata whenua on proposals such as this proposed lease. The Council (and in this case the Board as the Council’s delegate) is required to consult with and consider the views of tangata whenua or to have been able to make an informed decision in some other way. This obligation has been met via the public consultation process with Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia as the recognised Tangata Whenua, Ahi-Kā and Kaitiaki of this area.
The full Council is required to consider the Board’s recommendation and make the final decision regarding the proposal. This will involve two decisions: one from the standpoint of the Council as the AB for the reserve, and the other from the standpoint of the Council as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate.
Council accept the Community Board’s recommendation of 24 September 2018 and resolve as follows:
· it will open up more of the reserve to the public;
· enable KHPMG to plan the broader basin development;
· create an opportunity for this important heritage precinct area to be further enhanced for the enjoyment of the public.
· the carpark will become available for public use and carpark maintenance costs will revert to Council.
This lease proposal has the support of all key stakeholders (KHPMG). Further, the current (commercial) Auckland District Law Society Lease was entered into in 1990 when the land was still in private ownership and entering a new lease- prepared in accordance with the RA- would enable the lease to accurately reflect this change in land status.
The restaurant operator will benefit from a right of renewal as it gives them security of tenure and enables them to plan and invest for the long term.
At the Community Board meeting held 24 September, FNHL confirmed the restaurant operator was agreeable to the proposed revised term of 5+5 years in exchange for reducing the size of the leased area.
Accept the Community Board’s previous recommendation of 2 July 2018
The Community Board’s previous recommendation of 2 July 2018, resolved to grant a new lease for 5 years with no right of renewal and subject to all concept plans being approved by Kororipo Heritage Park Management Group.
However, FNHL’s Chief Executive who has been conducting negotiations with the existing tenant has indicated “the Tenant will not relinquish the area required to carry out [the wider basin development] …unless the extension and right of renewal are granted”.
This option is not workable, the outcome would be that all plans by FNHL and Ngati Rehia to enhance the basin reserve would have to be placed on hold until the existing lease expires on 30 April 2022".
This option does not have the support of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia, DOC, FNHL, KHPMG or Council staff.
Continue under the existing lease arrangement
Under the existing lease arrangement the lease expires on 30 April 2022. At that future date a new lease made in accordance with the RA could be negotiated, either with the current lessee or through a tender process or Expressions of Interest.
The advantage of continuing with the current lease is that the carpark associated with The Pear Tree restaurant will continue to be maintained by the lessee at no cost to Council, and in the meantime the broader basin development plans can be worked through.
The disadvantage is work on implementing the development plans for the basin reserve would have to wait until the lease expires in 2022, the carpark will continue to be limited to restaurant patrons only, and, as the lease expires in under 4 years, the restaurant operator may be unwilling or unable to invest in the long term.
This option does not have the support of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia, DOC. FNHL, KHPMG or Council staff.
Defer making a recommendation until the broader basin development plans are finalised and approved by KHPMG
Council may choose to defer making a recommendation in respect of this matter for a maximum period of six months in order to enable the broader Basin reserve development plans to be finalised by FNHL and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia and presented to KHPMG for approval, at which time the proposed lease could be revisited by Council for consideration.
The advantage of this option is that Council would be satisfied that the proposed new lease conformed with the broader heritage basin precinct development plans.
The disadvantage is the uncertainty caused as a result of this further delay to the existing tenant and the carpark would remain for restaurant patrons’ use only.
This option does not have the support of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia, DOC FNHL, KHPMG or Council staff.
At its meeting held 24 September, the Board reconsidered the matter and made the recommendation to Council as set out in Option 1. This option offers the greatest benefit to the public and allows for the proposed development and meets some of the tenant’s requirements of a longer term.
The final decision must be made by the Council as the AB of the reserve.
Council continues to receive a commercial rental with future rent review dates to be negotiated.
The repair and maintenance of the gravel carpark becomes the responsibility of the Council at an estimated cost of $2,600.00 plus GST per annum. It is proposed that this relatively small amount be met from the existing Eastern Carparks External Services budget.
The new lease would expire ten years from the commencement date of the lease if the right of renewal is exercised (and no alternative need was identified).
1. Copy of the report presented to the Council meeting on 30 August 2018 - A2208799 ⇩
2. Pear Tree Lease Aerial Plan - A2208793 ⇩
3. Pear Tree Lease Submissions Updated - A2208798 ⇩
4. Letter received from Department of Conservation 18/09/2018 - A2208791 ⇩
5. Letter recevied from Ngati Rehia 20/09/18 - A2208792 ⇩
This has a high level of significance due to the heritage of the reserve and the public interest in the location and activities undertaken in the area
Council’s Reserves Policy
The Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board were given delegated authority to consider all submissions received regarding the proposal, hold hearings (if required) and make a recommendation to Council
Extensive consultation has been undertaken with Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia as the recognised Tangata Whenua, Ahi-Kā and Kaitiaki of this area. Ngāti Rēhia withdrew their initial objection submitted during the consultation process and support the proposed lease on the terms outlined in Option 1 of this report (refer attachment 5)
The statutory public consultation process under the RA has been undertaken. All submissions received were considered and formed part of the deliberations prior to a recommendation being made. As FNHL have a key interest in this matter under the MOU, their comments were sought and are included in this report for Council’s information and consideration. Further information has also been sought from and provided by other interested parties; viz: the Department of Conservation, Heritage NZ, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia and the Kororipo Heritage Park Management Group, who collectively have indicated their support of the proposed lease on the terms outlined in Option 1 of this report (refer attachment 4)
Carpark maintenance approx. $2,600.00 plus GST per annum would revert to Council. It is proposed that this relatively small amount be met from the Eastern Carpark External Services budget.
6 District Services Group
File Number: A2207587
To seek approval for the Collection Management Policy for Museum @ Te Ahu.
This report proposes a Collection Management Policy for Museum @ Te Ahu (MATA) to provide guidance on how museum collections are managed.
There is no current collection management policy for MATA.
The draft policy has been approved by the Far North Regional Museum Trust (Museum Trust).
A collection management policy is required to guide MATA on all aspects of collection management including the acquisition, accession, registration, cataloguing, care, use (for exhibition, education and research), and disposal of objects and specimens, collection security, conservation, storage environments, and access.
In implementing this policy MATA will have regard for legislation including, but not limited to, the following:
· Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014
· Protected Objects Amended Act 2006 (New Zealand)
· UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970 (International)
· Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1975 (CITES) (International)
· Wildlife Act 1953 (New Zealand)
· Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 (New Zealand)
· Arms Act 1983 (New Zealand)
· New Zealand Copyright Act 1994
· New Zealand Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008.
This policy sets out the MATA’s commitment to:
· Collect items/taonga relating to art, history, cultures, and the natural environment on behalf of communities in the Far North
· Maintain the collections/taonga to ensure their longevity
· Maximise access to the collections/taonga.
This policy also applies to any collection item/taonga belonging to another organisation, for which MATA has temporary legal custody through a loan agreement or documented receipt.
The policy mitigates the risk of collections being mismanaged due to the absence of standards for acquisition, accession, registration, cataloguing, care, use (for exhibition, education and research), and disposal of objects and specimens, collection security, conservation, storage environments, and access.
The policy takes into account implications for Maori and acknowledges the cultural importance of taonga to Maori.
The Collection Management policy will guide the Council and Museum Trust in their governance and leadership responsibilities and activities associated with the Museum's collections.
There are no anticipated financial implications.
1. Museum @ Te Ahu Collections Policy - A2212827 ⇩
District wide relevance
No implications for Maori
Draft policy has been approved by Far North Regional Museum Trust
The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed the report
2. Objectives. 1
4. Principles. 3
5. Relevant Legislation, Policies and Procedures. 4
6. Glossary. 4
Museum @ Te Ahu (MATA) recognises that the manner in which it grows, develops, manages and maintains its collections is fundamental to its role as a regional museum situated in Kaitaia, the Far North district of Aotearoa/New Zealand. The management of collections will be done in accordance with the Council’s values of professionalism, manaakitanga and integrity and will be guided by the International Council of Museums (ICOM) codes of ethics.
The collections and the associated information are the point of difference between Museum @ Te Ahu (MATA) and other cultural institutions within the region. They are the foundation for most of the activities undertaken by the Museum. In particular, collection development must be consistent with the Museum’s values of custodianship and stewardship, through the care of and access to the collections. The collections are retained by the Museum as a reference point or voucher for the development of new knowledge, and in the pursuit of meaning. Collections are obtained by the Museum through donation, field collection, purchase and exchange, and then retained for research, interpretation, education, display, enjoyment, and for their historical value to the regional context and sometimes on a national and international context.
This collection management policy will be a foundation document for the museum collections. Everything that is done to care for, document, develop these collections are all aspects of collection management. The acquisition, accession, registration, cataloguing, care, use (for exhibition, education and research), and disposal of objects and specimens, collection security, conservation, storage environments, and access is covered in this document.
This policy sets out the MATA commitment to:
• Collect items/taonga relating to art, history, cultures, and the natural environment on behalf of communities in the Far North
• Maintain the collections/taonga to ensure their longevity
• Maximise access to the collections/taonga.
This policy defines MATA’s Collections
• Care, Management & Use
• Deaccession
This policy replaces -
• Draft Collection Development Policy (2016)
• Draft Collection Management Policy (2017)
This policy covers the acquisition, care, management, use and deaccessioning of all MATA Collection items/taonga, wherever they may be and however they are used, for as long as they are part of the collection.
Diagram 1: The life cycle of a collection item/taonga
· MATA will hold collections on behalf of its communities, and serve them in a manner that advances the communities engagement to its past, present and future.
· MATA will actively collect in three interrelated core thematic areas:
o Far North histories, cultures and people
o Mātauranga Māori histories (toi, whakairo, kōrero)
o The unique natural environment of the Far North and people’s interaction with it
· Items considered for inclusion in the Museum’s collections are often significant in more than one thematic area, and represent a range of cultural value, historical experiences, artistic merit and scientific integrity
· The museum will continue to build on the strengths of our existing substantive collections and previous collecting priorities and opportunities
· The museum will ensure that it can adequately house and preserve collections in its care and will not accept items that it cannot suitably accommodate.
· The museum will collect items/taonga relating to art, history, cultures, and the natural environment to develop collections of regional significant aesthetic, historical, cultural, and scientific value
· Strategic plans detailing the scope of collecting, and the current basis for acquiring further items for the collections are produced and maintained. These plans align collection acquisition with the Museum @ Te Ahu (MATA) strategic plans
· The museum co-operates with other New Zealand museums and collecting institutions in its collection development, and consults with source communities and individuals in relation to the acquisition, care, management, and use of collection items/taonga
· The museum may acquire, or jointly acquire, a Collection item/taonga in the national interest that may reside within another museum or collecting institution subject to a joint management agreement
· The museum will not acquire Collection items/taonga for the purpose of investment or sale
· Due diligence will be carried out and documented for items/taonga considered for acquisition
1. Research will determine the significance of proposed acquisitions
2. Expert assessment will determine that Collection items/taonga are in, or are capable of being brought to, a state that will enable the realisation of their intended use and significance
3. Collection items/taonga acquired only when the museum is able to care for and manage them in accordance with Clause 4 of this policy
4. Legal title is established for every Collection item/taonga, and confirmation is sought that original collecting and any subsequent transfers were legal and ethical
5. All acquisitions are authorised in accordance with Governance delegations to meet internal and external audit requirements
6. Care, Management and Use
· Collection items/taonga are registered, and information about a collection item/taonga is recorded through its lifetime, in a central collections information management system
· Physical, environmental and legal risks to collection items/taonga are identified and mitigated
· Collection items/taonga sampling and conservation treatment are undertaken within an ethical framework
· Emergency response and recovery plans will determine response and capability to manage the impact of any emergency on the collections/taonga
· The museum will maximise access to the collections, while maintaining their physical and cultural wellbeing
· The museum will lend Collection items/taonga to other organisations
· The museum may restrict or decline access to collection items/taonga for legal and ethical reasons, or when risks to the collection items/taonga, to people using them, or to the museum cannot be sufficiently mitigated
· The museum will borrow items/taonga from other organisations or individuals to enhance its collections, research and exhibitions
· All borrowed items/taonga are cared for to the same standards as collection items/taonga in the museums collection and are subject to the terms of a legal contract.
8. Deaccession
· Museum @ Te Ahu(MATA) will Deaccession a Collection item/taonga that:
o is no longer relevant to the priorities in its strategic plans, or
o is to be Repatriated, or
o is to be transferred to another museum or collecting institution, or
o has deteriorated to the point where it is no longer in, and cannot be returned to, a usable state.
· Research will determine collection items/taonga no longer relevant to the museum strategic priorities, and will ensure no legal conditions preclude Deaccession
· Research and consultation will support the Repatriation of a collection item/taonga, or the transfer of legal title to another museum or collecting institution
· Expert assessment will determine collection items/taonga that has deteriorated to the point where they are no longer in, and cannot be returned to, a usable state
· All Deaccessions are authorised in accordance with Governance delegations to meet internal and external audit requirements
· Deaccessioned items no longer relevant to the museums strategic priorities or no longer in a usable state will be disposed of by return to donor, gift, exchange, sale or destruction.
Related Processes, Procedures and Guidelines
· This policy will be supported by Process, Procedure, Strategic Plan and Guideline documents that will detail what needs to be done, how, and by whom, to implement the principles described in this policy.
o Annual plans will be developed in each of the core thematic areas and will include plans to review a section of the current collections in order to ensure their ongoing relevance.
o Each year the Curator shall bring forward to the Far North Regional Museum Trust and Far North District Council an outline of its current priority focus areas for collections.
· This policy requires Museum @ Te Ahu Museum Trust namely the Far North Regional Museum Trust and the Far North District Council approval.
· The Far North Regional Museum Trust and Far North District Council or their delegated representative is responsible for the governance and practice support for this policy.
· Instances where this policy has been breached should be communicated to the Far North Regional Museum Trust and Far North District Council.
· The policy will be reviewed each year, by the Far North Regional Museum Trust and Far North District Council or their delegated representative.
10. Relevant Legislation, Policies and Procedures
Related FNDC Policies
As at October 2018 there are no related policies
These definitions have been informed by the Controller and Auditor-General’s report Management of heritage collections in local museums and art galleries, April 2006.
The process by which legal title; and therefore the legal transfer of ownership of collection item/taonga is obtained by MATA. The method of acquisition may be donation (gift, bequest), field collection, purchase, or commission
Document and manage the addition of acquired item/Taonga and associated information to the Museum’s collection
Collection Item/Taonga
An item/taonga acquired into museum’s collection through a formal acquisition process. A Collection item/taonga may be a single object, a multi-component object, or a group of objects with an intrinsic relationship (ie belonging to the Collection item/taonga but physically separable). These collection items/taonga and their associated information are formally accessioned in accordance with the Museum’s collecting plans. Collection items/taonga held for the benefit of present and future generations
To permanently remove a Collection item/taonga from the collection. De-accessioning: The formal approval and documentation of the removal of a collection item/taonga from the Museum’s collection
To donate, exchange, redistribute, sell or destroy an item/taonga as a result of deaccessioning
Give a Collection item/taonga a unique number and identifying description
Objects that are lent to the Museum for a specific period of time and for a specified purpose, such as research, exhibition or display. Historically, objects were deposited on loan to augment the collection. A loan does not involve a transfer of ownership but the borrowing organisation takes responsibility for these objects while they are under the care of the Museum
Objects from the Museum’s collections that are lent to another organisation for a specific period of time and for a specific purpose, such as research, exhibition or display. A loan does not involve a transfer of ownership but the borrowing organisation takes responsibility for these objects while they are under their care
Objects classified as taonga tuturu under the Protect Objects Act 1975. These objects include archaeological, ethnographic, historical, social history, applied and decorative arts, natural science objects, and documentary heritage
An object that is held temporarily at the Museum for photography, identification or assessment for acquisition
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPEMENT OF THE MUSEUM'S COLLECTIONS
The current collections of Te Ahu Museum and Archives(TAMA) formerly of the Far North Regional Museum; are a reflection of the history of the museum, and the contributions of a couple generations of trustees, directors, staff, donors predominately locals of Kaitaia and volunteers.
In 1940, the Centennial Memorial Library and Rest Room in Kaitaia was officially opened and funded by public subscription and government subsidy, the building was the district's New Zealand Centennial Memorial.
By 1967, the library had outgrown the premises and local interest in establishing a museum grew and it was suggested that the old library building would be suitable to house artefacts and documents relating to our Far North people and district. The council agreed, providing funds were raised by the public to relocate the library and establish a museum.
As part of the Queen Carnival, a ‘mini museum’ was set up on the top floor of Vegar's Drapery Store where Arthur Northwood’s Collection of over 400 photographs displayed for the first time. As interest grew to establish a museum, the committee received numerous donations of display items for the exhibits.
The Far North Regional Museum opened in December 1969, with the purpose of collecting and preserving treasures and taonga relating to the history of the Far North in the old Mangonui County.
From 1976 to 1985, Judy Evans was custodian and ran the Tourist Information Centre operating from the museum, assisted by an enthusiastic team of volunteers. During the 1980s, Olwyn Ramsey, focused on collecting historical documents about the district and its people, established the archives (documentary heritage) within the museum. The archives (paper based material) became an important part of the museum with the donation of early printed books, diaries and letters from missionaries, rangatira Māori and pioneer families of the Kaitaia region.
The discovery of the de Surville anchor provided a major boost of publicity for the museum and a new addition was added to the old building to house the anchor.
In 2006 the "concept" of bringing all Council amenities under one roof was envisaged and in 2012, the museum and archives moved from Pioneer House to the new Te Ahu Centre on the corner of South Rd & Matthews Ave, and the museum was renamed Te Ahu Museum and Archives (TAMA).
98 per cent of the collections have remained in storage in the Pioneer House while the paper based archives moved into Te Ahu Museum’s new temperature and humidity controlled storage room.
In 2018, the museum’s name was changed to Museum @ Te Ahu (MATA).
File Number: A2200348
To provide the Council a regular update on the status of various functions of the District Planning Department.
The report provides an update for the Council on the progress of current reserve management plans, plan changes, submissions, appeals, and the strategic alignment of the consolidated District Plan review processes.
This item includes an Update Schedule (refer to Attachment 1) and a graphic representation of Plan Change status (refer to Attachment 2).
Council has requested a regular update on the status of various functions of the District Planning Department, including reserve management plans, plan changes, submissions, appeals and the strategic alignment of the consolidated District Plan review processes.
Fully Operative and Completed:
· Proposed Plan Change 18 - Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
This plan change became fully operative on 19 September 2019. The District Plan has been updated to incorporate the new chapter 19, which regulates GMOs. The public were advised via a statutory public notice and media release.
Proposed Private Plan Change Hearing Panel Recommendations to be considered:
· Proposed Plan Change 22 – Inlet Estate Limited
This plan change was heard by an Independent Commissioner (William Smith) on 2 August 2018 and his recommendations have been received. Commissioner Smith has recommended approval subject to some minor changes and the inclusion of four additional titles. A separate agenda item has been submitted to Council seeking a decision on the Commissioner’s recommendations and proposed modifications.
Development of the draft District Plan
The District Plan team have completed the draft policy framework along with rule directions and are currently undertaking consultation with targeted stakeholders.
Plan Review Communications
Public consultation on the draft policy framework will occur from October through to December 2018. We are no longer able to align this consultation programme with consultation on the draft Sustainable Development Strategy and Spatial Plan. The District Plan team attended the combined Community Boards meeting on the 11 September 2018 and updated them on the draft District Plan and public consultation programme. Community Board members were invited to participate in public consultation days that would be occurring in their ward.
A workshop on the draft policy framework and rule directions was held with the Tangata Whenua District Plan Reference Group (TWWG) on the 29 August 2018. Consultation with TWWG will continue over the coming months. Tangata whenua will also be able to participate through the public consultation process.
The Regional Policy Statement for Northland (RPS) requires the protection, maintenance and where appropriate and practicable enhancement of biodiversity in our district. This is also required under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act). The RPS requires the identification of vegetation considered to be ‘Significant Natural Areas” (SNA’s) based on the criteria specified in the Appendix 5 of the RPS. Northlands three district councils (Far North, Whangarei and Kaipara) have agreed to work together collectively on undertaking this work. This collective approach will:
§ ensure that there is a consistent approach applied across the region;
§ address any cross boundary resource management issues; and
§ result in cost efficiencies.
The outputs of this project will be used to inform the Indigenous Biodiversity section of the District Plan. The draft District Plan policy framework and rule direction is currently proposing a tiered approach to the protection of indigenous biodiversity, with a more restrictive policy and rule framework applying to land identified as having SNA’s present. The new framework will only be applicable when undertaking new land use (e.g. vegetation clearance) or a subdivision.
Due to the three councils not having the required in-house ecologist expertise, this work will be undertaken by a consultant. It is intended to award the contract by the end of October 2018, with work to commence by late November 2018. A press release to inform the public of this piece of work will go out once the contract has been awarded. Once draft maps have been created for the proposed SNA’s, affected land owners will be notified and invited to participate in a consultation process to further refine these areas. It is envisioned that this will occur towards the end of March 2019 through May 2019.
Further Reform Considerations
The District Plan team on behalf of Council made a submission on the notified draft National Planning Standards (the Standards). The Ministry for the Environment is still intending to have a April 2019 gazettal date for the Standards. The Standards will have a strong influence on the structure, content and notification timing of the new District Plan.
Mana Whakahono-ā-Rohe
The Mana Whakahono-ā-rohe (MWāR) Working Group are continuing to work together to understand the risk and opportunities of this new requirement of the Act. To help support this process, Council is working with Northland Regional Council, Whangarei and Kaipara District Councils, in the sharing of information to help prepare for potential requests from Iwi authorities or hāpu.
An agenda item went to the 26 July 2018 Governance and Strategic Relationships Committee seeking a recommendation on how Council will respond to invitations to initiate a MWāR process with hapū.
Subsequently at the September 11 2018 combined Community Board meeting the District Plan team, with support from the Community Development team, gave a broad overview of the legislative requirements under MWāR. A Council workshop was later held on 20 September 2018 to update Council on current progress, issues and opportunities that have been identified and discuss next steps by the MWāR Working Group.
A separate agenda item has been submitted to Council seeking approval of the Governance and Strategic Relationships Committee resolution.
Proposed National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Soils
The Minister for the Environment is considering the development of a National Policy Statement for versatile land and high class soils. A workshop was held on the 24 September in Auckland which included councils and stakeholders (e.g. Horticulture New Zealand). The purpose of this workshop was to discuss the planning issues and associated options to help inform the potential creation of a new national policy statement. The District Plan team attended the workshop to give the Far North perspective on this important issue.
Current Reserve Management Plan Processes
The draft reserve management plan submissions were heard by the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board (the Board) on the 28 August 2018 and deliberations were held on the 12 September 2018. At the deliberations a resolution was made by the Board to approve the draft reserve management plan, subject to minor changes and removing reference to any concept plan. A separate agenda item has been submitted to Council seeking approval of the amended draft reserve management plan.
During September consultation on the development of a reserve management plan for the Kerikeri Domain took place with key stakeholders and the public. The draft reserve management plan document has been completed. Approval will be sought from the BOI-Whangaroa Community Board on 5 November 2018 to notify the draft reserve management plan and have it go before Council for approval to consult with the public.
Costs associated with the statutory RMA “Schedule 1” district planning work streams for the 2018/19 financial year (such as appeals on the Proposed Plan Changes) and other updates are budgeted for.
From a “Plan Review” perspective, a consolidated plan review will have associated costs once the Plan is notified and subsequent hearings and plan appeals occur. Stage 1 Processes which involved the Research and Investigation Framework was mostly undertaken in-house. Stage 2 - Issues and Options may have a moderate to high funding requirement in the 2018/19 financial year. Hearings and appeals are in the 2019/20 and/or subsequent financial years and may have greater costs, especially in relation to specialist involvement, legal processes and support. The budgets and timing of work proposed in the Annual Plan for 2018/19 and the subsequent Long Term Plan 2018-28 will be kept under review.
Costs associated with the “Reserve Management Plan” work streams for the 2018/19 financial year are budgeted for.
1. Plan Changes and Reserve Management Plans Update Schedule - A2202437 ⇩
2. District Plan Changes Progress Graphic - A2201781 ⇩
District Plan Changes and Reserve Management Plans Update Schedule
This plan change is now fully operative and the plan change process has been completed.
Inlet Estate Ltd (Private Plan Change)
Commissioners Recommendations received
The Hearing Panel recommendations have been received. Council must now determine whether those recommendations should be adopted.
RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN CHANGES
Deliberations completed
Subject to amendments, the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board has approved the reserve management plan. The next step is to seek a resolution from Council to approve it.
The draft reserve management plan has been written. The next step is to notify the draft document.
File Number: A2207204
To seek adoption of the Lindvart Park Reserve Management Plan.
In March 2017, Council gave public notice of its intention to create a Reserve Management Plan (RMP) for Lindvart Park. One of Council's responsibilities under the Reserves Act 1977 is to prepare RMPs for all of its reserves. An RMP sets out how Council intends to provide for the use, enjoyment, maintenance, protection, preservation and, when appropriate, development of a reserve.
The RMP was publicly notified on the 21 May 2018, with submissions closing on 27 July 2018. A total of 48 submissions were received, with 7 submitters requesting to be heard. All submissions were in support of having a RMP, but the majority requested changes to the RMP as they wanted to have additional facilities provided at the Park. Some submissions also referred to matters which cannot be controlled by the RMP and are better managed through Bylaws and the Long Term Plan.
At the 26 April 2018 Council meeting it was resolved that the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board would hear the submissions received on the RMP, and that they would deliberate on making changes to the RMP as a result of feedback before recommending adoption to Council. The resolution therefore enables the Board to amend the RMP and put forward a recommendation to Council to adopt an amended RMP.
The public hearing was held by the Board on the 28 August 2018, and deliberations were held on 12 September 2018 at which time the RMP was amended.
Kaikohe-Hokianga Options
The available options include Council either adopting the amended RMP or resolving to prepare a new RMP.
The Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board has reviewed the submissions made by the public and considers that there should be some minor changes made to the RMP to achieve a more integrated document, which also addresses concerns raised by the community. The following changes were made:
A number of submissions wanted the RMP to control dogs on the Park. Council is required to have a Dog Control Bylaw under the Dog Control Act 1996. While this bylaw should regulate the use of the park in relation to dogs, it is acknowledged that the RMP should make reference to the bylaw and provide facilities for activities set out in the bylaw to ensure that it is an integrated document that acknowledges other relevant legislation.
c) Providing for neither Concept Plan A and B
When the RMP was being discussed with key stakeholders and Iwi, there were two concept plans, referenced A and B. It was decided, however, to only incorporate concept plan A into the publicly notified draft. Submissions were divided on which was the best option and included new facilities not shown on the plans.
Therefore Council and the key stakeholders that use the Park would be best suited to determine where these facilities would be best located. Reference to the concept plan was removed from the RMP and a policy providing for additional equipment on the reserve was added.
The Council may consider that they do not agree with all or some of the recommendations made in Option 1. Therefore the Council has the option of recommending starting the RMP process again.
Option 1 is recommended to the Council. It is considered that the recommended amendments will address the majority of concerns raised in the submissions, and create a more integrated RMP. Council is required to have a RMP for Lindvart Park.
1. Attachment 1: Lindvart Park Reserve Management Plan - A2208125 ⇩
This report has a low level of significance. A reserve management plan is required by legislation, and those who will be impacted have been consulted.
District-wide relevance. Hearing and deliberations were delegated to the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board.
As part of the legislative process, the RMP was open to the public for two months for submissions, which were heard by the Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board.
File Number: A2207997
Author: Andrew McPhee, Senior Policy Planner
To seek approval for the recommendations and proposed modifications made by the Commissioner hearing Private Plan Change 22 – Inlet Estate Limited.
On 2 August 2018 the Council held a hearing in Kerikeri for PPC22 which seeks to change the zoning for two parcels of land totalling 3.57ha at 17 and 17A Kerikeri Inlet Road from Rural Living zone to Residential zone.
The Commissioner has recommended that PPC22 be approved with modifications to:
§ 7.6.3 Objectives;
§ 7.6.4 Policies;
§ 7.6.5.1.7 Setback from Boundaries;
§ 7.6.5.1.10 Visual Amenity;
§ 7.6.5.3.7 Setback from Boundaries; and
§ 15.1.6C.1.1 Private Accessway in all Zones.
Zone maps 28 and 87 will also need to be modified. The modifications include the addition of four properties within the plan change area being 86 Cobham Road, 7, 11 and 15 Kerikeri Inlet Road.
Private Plan Change 22 – Inlet Estate Limited (PPC22) was lodged on 11 April 2017 and sought to change the zoning for two parcels of land totalling 3.57ha in area at 17 and 17A Kerikeri Inlet Road from Rural Living zone to Residential zone.
37 submissions were received on PPC22, 19 in support, 9 in opposition, 2 neutral and 7 either supported or opposed the plan change in part. 4 further submissions were also received. One from Fredrick Walter Terry two days after the closing date for submissions. This submission was recommended to be accepted by the Reporting Planner because it did not raise any new issues and no parties would be disadvantaged as a result of the submission being accepted.
Council passed a resolution at its meeting on 26 November 2009 that under Section 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to delegate to a commissioner/s the responsibility of conducting hearings and making recommendations in relation to private plan changes, as set out in Section 41-42A of the RMA. These recommendations will then be referred back to Council for a decision.
A hearing was held in Kerikeri on 2 August 2018 and heard by the appointed Hearings Commissioner, William (Bill) Smith.
The Commissioner’s commentary and recommendations on PPC22 have been prepared in the form of a Decisions Report, which is now available for consideration by Council (see Attachment 1).
In summary the Commissioner recommends that PPC22 be approved with modifications to the following parts of the District Plan (see Attachment 2):
§ 15.1.6C.1.1 Private Accessway in all Zones; and
§ Zone Maps 28 and 87 Kerikeri Central: Change zoning of Lot 1 DP 404507, and Lot 1 DP 181291, Lot 2 DP 103531, Lot 1 DP 103531, Lot 2 DP 58333 and Pt Lot 1 DP 58333 to Residential.
In accordance with Clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the RMA Council is required to give a decision on the provisions and matters raised in submissions and that decision must include the reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions.
Accept the recommendations and proposed modifications
If Council’s decision is to accept the recommendations and proposed modifications identified in the Decision Report then Council can proceed to notify the decision in accordance with Clause 11 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. The reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions are provided in the Decision Report.
Reject the recommendations and proposed modifications
If Council’s decision is to reject the recommendations and proposed modifications in the Decision Report then the matters in Clause 10(2) of Schedule 1 of the RMA will need to be satisfied.
It should be noted that Council can approve or reject the Commissioner’s recommendations but cannot modify them.
It is recommended that Council adopt the Commissioner’s recommendations and proposed modifications. PPC22 was heard by an independent commissioner in accordance with Council’s resolution. The option to reject would necessitate a repeat of the hearing, which in accordance with Council’s resolution would be re-heard by an alternate independent commissioner/s.
The cost associated with the implementation of this private plan change is borne by the requester (Inlet Estate Ltd).
1. 2018-10-25 Private Plan Change 22 att1 - Commissioner Decision Report - A2208126 ⇩
2. 2018-10-25 Private Plan Change 22 att2 - Text and Map Changes - A2208127 ⇩
This has low significance as it has been through a statutory process and was publically notified.
PPC22 does not have district wide relevance and was publically notified. A Council resolution has determined that it be heard by an independent commissioner.
The requestor consulted with Iwi as part of the plan change process.
Any party is able to submit and/or further submit on the private plan change application and prepare evidence in support of that submission at a hearing.
The requestor is responsible for reasonable costs associated with the plan change application.
File Number: A2209121
Author: Makarena Dalton, Policy Planner
To seek adoption of the recommendation by the Governance and Strategic Relationships Committee on entering Mana Whakahono-ā-Rohe/Iwi Participation Arrangements (MWāR) with hapū.
MWāR present Council with a further opportunity to improve working relationships with tangata whenua and enhance Māori participation in resource management and decision-making processes. Engagement in the process is a statutory requirement for all Councils under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act).
The Act provides clear guidance on how a Council will respond to invitations from iwi authorities for a MWāR, however, Council can decide how they will respond to invitations from hapū.
On 25 July 2018, the MWāR working group and representatives from MfE hosted a workshop that focussed on MWāR with Council. Following the workshop, on 26 July 2018, the Governance and Strategic Relationships Committee (GSR) met and resolved the following:
That the Governance and Strategic Relationships Committee is recommending that Council can initiate Mana Whakahono-ā-Rohe with a hapū or collective of hapū only after it has established a relationship with that hapū or collective of hapū.
The Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) was amended in April 2017 to introduce a new process for establishing relationship arrangements between tangata whenua (through iwi authorities) and councils, called Mana Whakahono-ā-Rohe/Iwi Participation Arrangements (MWāR).
The intent of the MWāR provisions are:
· to improve working relationships between tangata whenua and local authorities;
· to enhance Māori participation in resource management and decision-making processes;
· to manage expectations between tangata whenua and local authorities, and highlight what can be achieved; and
· to facilitate efficient and effective statutory outcomes.
Following the introduction of the legislation, the Strategic Planning and Policy Group established the MWāR working group with staff from Community Development, District Planning, Strategy Development and Risk and Improvement. The purpose of the working group is to work collaboratively to understand the requirements of the legislative amendments, the organisational opportunities and community benefits.
The MWāR working group were tasked to undertake further analysis to better understand the potential structure, process and financial implications of MWāR. While a subsequent workshop was held with Council on 20 September 2018 further work is still required.
The guidance from MfE recommends undertaking a stocktake of existing relationships with tangata whenua as MWāR are intended to support and build on existing relationships. Where appropriate, there is the potential to replace existing formal relationship agreements, such as a Memorandum of Understanding, with a MWāR or they can be developed to complement those existing agreements.
These have already been highlighted in a report to GSR (refer to report Iwi/ Hapū/Māori Relationship Agreements Update to 31 May 2018 Committee Meeting - A2060329).
Initiation of Mana Whakahono-ā-Rohe
A significant feature of the legislation is the way in which a MWāR can be initiated and by whom. It is important to note that initiation by Council with an iwi authority, hapū or hapū collective is not bound by the statutory timeframes or process prescribed where an iwi authority initiates a MWāR with Council.
Initiation by iwi authorities:
· A Mana Whakahono arrangement can be initiated by one or more iwi authorities with one or more local authorities.
· At any time (other than in the period that is 90 days before the date of the triennial election) one or more iwi authorities may invite 1 or more relevant local authorities in writing to enter into a MWāR with 1 or more iwi authorities.
· The hui/meeting must be held no later than 60 working days after the invitation received, unless both parties agree otherwise.
· The MWāR must be concluded within 18 months following the date on which the initiation was received or another date agreed by all parties.
Initiation with hapū or hapū collective:
· A MWāR cannot be initiated by hapū or hapū collective.
· Council may initiate a MWāR with one or more hapū or hapū collective.
· The MWāR is not subject to the same statutory timeframes and processes as an iwi authority initiated MWāR. The process, time period and implementation must be agreed by both parties.
The guidance for MWāR was published by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) on 13 April 2018 (see Attachment 1).
Option One: Recommend that Council may initiate Mana Whakahono-ā-Rohe with a hapū or collective of hapū only after it has established a relationship with that hapū or collective of hapū.
If a hapū or hapū collective indicates that they are interested in engaging with Council and/or are seeking a MWāR, Council staff can begin a relationship building process. This process will focus on understanding the key issues and opportunities for Council and the hapū or hapū collective. Only after a positive relationship has been established and if both parties agree that the relationship is working well and it is appropriate, Council may choose to initiate a MWāR process with hapū or hapū collective.
There are a number of challenges to this approach. While the Far North District has 11 recognised iwi authorities (for the purposes of the Act), it is estimated that there are between 200-250 hapū. While it is not expected that every hapū or hapū collective will want an individual relationship, it is important to be aware of the scale and potential resourcing implications.
Option Two: Recommend that Council initiate MWāR with hapū or hapū collective.
If a hapū or hapū collective indicates that they are interested in a MWāR, Council will initiate a MWāR process.
The most significant challenge for this approach is the estimated number of hapū or hapū collective in the Far North District. While it is not expected that every hapū or hapū collective will want an individual relationship, resourcing and managing the potential scale of this task may be difficult and expensive.
Option Three: Recommend that Council not initiate MWāR with hapū.
This option means that Council will not consider initiating MWāR with hapū.
This approach may prematurely end any opportunity to build positive relationships and any potential benefits for the community through the development of a MWāR.
MWāR provide Council with an opportunity to build positive relationships with tangata whenua and work towards meeting obligations under that legislation. Option One provides Council with an opportunity to begin forming a relationship with tangata whenua, irrespective of their legislative status, that will support positive community outcomes and demonstrates a willingness to engage positively with tangata whenua.
In the short term there will be limited financial implications as there is budgetary provision for administering Memorandums of Understanding. However, once a process to manage MWāR has been developed and agreed, submissions will need to be made to the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan process to seek appropriate and necessary resourcing.
https://www.fndc.govt.nz/your-council/meetings/council-meetings-calendar/meetings-calendar-events/2018/10.00am-council-meeting-2018-10-25
1. Mana Whakahono a Rohe guidance – A2209609
This issue is considered to be of low significance.
The proposal supports Council obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991.
Mana Whakahono-ā-Rohe may impact all Council policies. These must be reviewed following the establishment of arrangements.
Mana Whakahono-ā-Rohe has district wide relevance and will be rohe specific. Mana Whakahono-ā-Rohe was workshopped with combined Community Board’s on 11 September 2018
Mana Whakahono-ā-Rohe will have positive implications for Māori as they seek to enhance their ability to contribute to decision-making for resource management issues.
This proposal will affect iwi and hapū. The views of iwi and hapū have been taken into consideration through their contribution to the guidance provided by MfE, the communication by iwi and hapū about the arrangements with Council staff and existing relationship agreements.
Budgetary provision has been provided for the administration of Memorandums of Understanding. As the process develops appropriate resourcing may be sought through the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan process.
This report will be sent to the CFO for review.
File Number: A2215671
To agree a governance structure for the District Transport Strategy project.
· Provides background context to the initiation of a project to develop a District Transport Strategy
· Seeks confirmation of the Elected Members to sit on the Project Board to provide strategic direction.
During Long Term Plan 2018-2028 deliberations Council resolved to develop a District Transport Strategy, deferring funding for significant Kerikeri initiatives until the transport and roading needs of the entire district could be prioritised through an appropriate strategy.
Staff have commenced work on a project brief and are now at the point of confirming the governance structure which includes a Project Board that is accountable for the success of the project. The Project Board includes a group of “senior users” whose function is to represent the interests of stakeholders (i.e. Council and communities), help set expectations and objectives, and provide ongoing strategic direction for the duration of the project. Staff ask that Councillors be appointed to the senior user roles.
A brief status report was presented to the Infrastructure Network Committee following their meeting 27 September 2018 during which the governance structure was described. This has been attached to this report for reference as Attachment 1.
The proposed Project Governance Structure (page 13 of Attachment 1) follows the recommended form set out in Council’s adopted project management methodology PRINCE2. This methodology is considered to be international best practice. The proposed structure was tailored to suit FNDC’s organisational structure and environment. Page 2 of Attachment 2 clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of all positions in the governance structure.
The Internal Reference Group will give Elected Members not appointed as a senior user to provide feedback on project matters at all stages throughout the development of the project.
Option 1: Project governance structure with Elected Members appointed as Senior Users (preferred option)
Staff believe that since the role of the Senior User is to represent the interests of stakeholders and set strategic direction, it makes sense that Elected Members be invited to fill these roles, one from each ward. This approach recognises that the project is more likely to be successful if the project team has ready access to those who can speak on behalf of key stakeholders such as Elected Members and the communities they represent in the formation of effective strategy for our roading/transport network.
Once the governance structure for the project has been agreed, including appointment of Senior Users, an inaugural Project Board meeting will be convened to receive, debate and approve the Project Initiation Document. This will set out objectives, planned approaches to risk and quality management, communications, project controls and reporting, and scope, deliverables and timeline.
The project team, supported by Senior Users, will report back to Council on progress and direction as the strategy is being developed.
Option 2: Modified project governance structure with no Elected Member representation
This option would require a project governance structure of staff only and would necessitate a series of workshops with Elected Members to agree scope, strategic statements and outcomes. This would require a reasonably high number of Council workshops (minimum of one per month) which would have the effect of slowing the programme down and require significant time from Elected Members during a busy period during which Council will set it’s 2019/20 Annual Plan and prepare for the local body elections.
There are no financial implications associated with the adoption of the Project Governance Structure and appointment of Councillors as Senior Users..
The financial implications of the project itself will be better understood once the scope has been considered and confirmed by the Project Board
1. 2018-10-25 Attachment 1 - DTS Status Report - A2216360 ⇩
2. 2018-10-25 Attachment 2 - DTS Roles and Responsibilities - A2216370 ⇩
Low. The report requests the appointment of Elected Members to the project governance structure. While a District Transport Strategy is of high significant, the intent of this report is not.
GPS Land Transport, NLTP, RLTP, RPTP, LTP, AP, DP, AMP, TTNEAP, SDS RMA, LGA, All Council policies relating to transport and within scope.
This project has District wide relevance. The Community Board Chairs are included in the reference User Group as detailed in the Project Governance Diagram.
Implications for all ethnic groups will be considered by incorporation into the External Reference Group as detailed in the Project Governance Diagram.
The scope of the strategy will include reference to Hapu/Iwi Management Plans and Treaty Settlements
The Project Risk Register will also identify potential cultural issues to be taken into account, especially during public consultation.
The District Transport Strategy will affect all residents and visitors to the Far North. The composition of the Internal and External Reference Groups and the proposed public consultation will be formulated to ensure active participation by all in the development of the strategy.
8.1 Tauranga Bay Holiday Park Reserve Lease
File Number: A2200849
To obtain a resolution by Council in its role as administering body of the Tauranga Bay recreation reserve and its role as the delegate of the Minister of Conservation to grant and consent to a new lease of the Tauranga Bay recreation reserve to Wupi Investments Limited.
· The Tauranga Bay Holiday Park spans across three property titles, two being freehold and one being recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.
· At its meeting on 31 July 2018 the Infrastructure Network Committee passed the following resolution:
· Agreement on the terms and conditions of a new lease have now been reached and a resolution by full Council in its role as administering body of the Tauranga Bay recreation reserve and its role as the delegate of the Minister of Conservation to grant and consent to a new lease of the Tauranga Bay recreation reserve is now required.
That Far North District Council:
Wupi Investment Ltd is planning a major upgrade and renewal of the improvements at Tauranga Bay Holiday Park, including those on the subject recreation reserve. To recoup the investment and to secure bank funding the lessee requested a further right of renewal of 21 years on the current lease which has 20 years to run.
To remove ambiguity over ownership and the responsibility for future maintenance and renewals of existing improvements and consistent with Council policy #5020 “Council Owned Campgrounds”, Council staff proposed to replace the existing lease with a new ground lease.
In April 2018 Council resolved to commence public consultation and appointed the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board to hear submissions. This resulted in a recommendation to Council, which in turn resulted in the before mentioned resolution passed by the Network infrastructure Committee on 31 July 2018.
Agreement on the terms and conditions of the new lease has now been reached. A draft copy of the lease on both the freehold titles and the recreation reserve is attached as Attachment 2. A resolution by full Council in its role as administering body of the Tauranga Bay recreation reserve and its role as the delegate of the Minister of Conservation, subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, to grant and consent to the new lease of the Tauranga Bay recreation reserve is now required before the lease can be executed.
Following Public Consultation and a positive recommendation by the Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board, Council’s Network infrastructure Committee acting on behalf of Council in its capacity of the Local Authority has resolved to grant a lease on both freehold titles and the reserve land.
Full Council, in its role as the delegate of the Minister of Conservation and the administering body of the Tauranga Bay recreation reserve and, subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, is required to grant and consent to the new lease.
In order for Far North District Council to comply with its responsibilities in its role as the delegate of the Minister of Conservation and the administering body of the Tauranga Bay recreation reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977
None that relate to FNDC in its role as the delegate of the Minister of Conservation and the administering body of the Tauranga Bay recreation reserve.
1. Aerial plan Tauranga Bay Holiday Park - Document number - A2201145 ⇩
2. DRAFT Deed of Ground Lease Tauranga Bay Holiday Park - Document number - A2201110 ⇩
Policy # 5020 – Council Owned Campgrounds
After considering submissions following Public consultation The Bay of Islands-Whangaroa Community Board recommended that Council Subject to S54 of the Reserves Act 1977 grants a lease on the Tauranga Bay recreation reserve to Wupi Investments Ltd.
Iwi consultation formed part of the Public consultation Process. Te Runanga o te Whaingaroa were contacted directly at the start of the consultation period. No submission has been received.
Advertisements were placed in local newspapers and letters were sent to the ratepayers of Tauranga Bay, as many of the residences are holiday homes and the owners reside outside of the district.
File Number: A2195114
Author: Michelle Sharp, Manager - District Administration (Acting)
To recommend the revised Procurement Policy – Procuring Goods and Services be adopted by Council.
· The report discusses the revised Procurement Policy.
· The Policy incorporates recommendations of the KPMG Audit of Procurement Practice 2017, local considerations and feedback from Elected Members.
· Key elements of the revised Policy include proposed new financial thresholds which will be detailed in the Procurement Manual.
The current policy adopted by Council in 2016 was a culmination of the input of a working party which consisted of staff and elected members.
This policy review is in line with the ongoing programme of work identified by the PMO and the recommendations from the KPMG Audit of Procurement Practices in late 2017. Key Changes numbered 3, 8, 9 and 10 address specific KPMG audit recommendations in regards to policy and procedures.
An Elected Member workshop was held on Thursday 20th September 2018, including members of the Procurement Board, to explore the proposed changes to the Policy in the context of Buy Local / Localism.
The proposed new financial thresholds were discussed, and how this would support low value suppliers’ panels. This should enable clear line of sight for local suppliers to be involved in up to $8m of supplier contracts at reasonably little administrative cost to both parties.
There was general agreement around the proposed changes to the Policy at this workshop.
Councils standard procurement processes are based on financial thresholds, detailed in Councils Procurement Manual.
To give effect to the requirements of the parties concerned, the policy became a hybrid policy/manual. In reviewing the policy, we propose to move the bulk of the information into the procurement manual (thus not losing those elements that are important and the principles behind how we carry out procurement) whilst making the policy fit-for-purpose and aligned to the look and feel of the current policy framework.
Any identified areas for improvement, either through audits or as we progress in our maturity, will be easily managed through changes to the manual, rather than having to amend the policy and have it re-adopted (although we will as required for a policy related change).
A first draft of the Procurement Manual has been completed and will be approved by SLT.
1. The section entitled Exemptions now includes reference to procurements subject to NZTA subsidy funding as these are managed within the NTA procurement processes with the recommendation to approve suppliers / funding going straight to Council. There is still work to be done to establish how procurement will work with the NTA and we envisage this will become clear as a result of the independent audit by LGNZ, requested by Councillor Court.
2. Removed specific delegation thresholds and referred to them as being part of the Delegations Register or within the manual. This includes financial thresholds for staff and delegations of the Infrastructure Network Committee.
3. Amalgamated the Community Projects Procurement Policy into the revised policy under Exemptions. The Community Projects Procurement Policy will be rescinded.
4. Reduced the Principles of Procurement in the policy and moved most of it into the manual.
5. Moved Annex A – Procurement Value Chain and TOR for Procurement Board into the manual. The review of the Procurement Board is in progress and any changes will be reflected in the manual.
6. Moved the Sustainability elements into the manual.
7. Reduced the Documents and Legislation list to remove the references to Public Entities. Referred to as best practice within the manual.
8. Assessment of procurement risk and probity will be contained within the procurement plan template. A probity checklist and a procurement risk matrix are under development. The risk matrix will be aligned to Councils risk framework and completion of the matrix will produce a risk rating with high risk ratings being entered onto the corporate risk register so they can be monitored.
9. Supplier vetting requirements will be contained within the manual and includes reference checking and financial due diligence checks. For high value procurements, the financial diligence checks will be conducted by an independent third party.
10. An Approval of Contract Variation form is in development, along with a supplementary mandatory contract to be completed and approved within DFA. Total cost of procurement is taken into account, separate to already approved contingency.
11. New financial thresholds are proposed - to be aligned to NZTA best practice, and detailed in the Councils Procurement Manual. A summary is provided below:
Proposed New Financial Thresholds
The revised Procurement Policy contains the recommendations of the KPMG Audit of Procurement Practices and reflects local considerations. It is now aligned with the format and content of other FNDC Policies
There are no direct budgetary implications arising from this Procurement Policy.
The main financial implications are around the introduction of enhanced procurement financial thresholds and the Delegated Financial Authority for their approvals.
1. Proposed Far North District Council Procurement Policy - A2198347 ⇩
2. #2104-16 Far North District Council Procurement Policy - Procuring Goods and Services - A2213494 ⇩
The revised Procurement Policy has a low degree of significance
FNDC Procurement Policy 2104-16
Government Rules of Sourcing, Third Edition
Auditor General Procurement Guidelines
Consultation was held with HWTM and Councillors at an Elected Member workshop on 20th September 2018.
There are no implications for Maori, the revised Procurement Policy does not affect decision making around land or water.
Consultation has been undertaken with SLT, business units and HWTM and Councillors
There are no financial implications in giving effect to this policy
As a spender of public money, the Far North District Council recognises its responsibility to ensure transparency and accountability in its spending.
The expenditure of public money has a significant impact on the local and domestic economy and the overall performance of Council. Procurement plays a vital role in the delivery of Council outcomes, and covers all the business processes associated with purchasing the goods, services and works that we use to run our business and deliver our public service objectives.
This Policy provides procurement guidance to suppliers and Council staff to deliver the outcomes of its Long Term Plan (LTP).
This policy and Council’s Procurement Manual outline the approach that the Council will take to planning, sourcing and managing its procurement. The purpose of this policy is to achieve Council’s Procurement Objectives in a fair, transparent and accountable manner.
This policy applies to procurement activities undertaken by all temporary and permanent employees, consultants and contractors.
This policy is the responsibility of the General Manger – Corporate Services.
Our procurement objectives are to:
· Get the best results from our spending, including sustainable value-for-money over the lifetime of the goods, services and works that we buy
· Raise performance standards through fair and effective management of our suppliers and service providers to get the best public services for the Far North District
· Help Far North District businesses to grow capability and increase competitiveness by working with them to identify opportunities for innovation and continuous improvement in planning, decision making and ongoing contract management.
1. Any procurement project partially or fully funded by NZTA is subject to the requirements of the NZTA Procurement Manual. The NZTA Procurement Manual Amendment 4, March 2018 takes precedence over the Far North District Council Procurement Policy for NZTA funded procurements.
2. Unsolicited proposals (proposals not initiated by Council through normal procurement processes) are not normally subject to the Procurement Policy and are to be initially assessed by the Procurement Board. Further guidance on this is contained in the Procurement Manual.
3. On occasion, an exemption to this policy may be required to comply with regulatory obligations.
4. The following are not considered procurement activities and are not subject to this Procurement Policy:
· Employing staff (excluding the engagement of contractors and consultants)
· Investments, loans and guarantees
· Gifts, donations and projects initiated by established grant funds
· Statutory appointments
· Ministerial appointments
· Payment of approved professional fees.
1. All staff are responsible for applying the Procurement Policy and procedures. Failure to comply with policy and procedures may be considered misconduct under Council’s Code of Conduct and could result in disciplinary action.
2. Council’s managers are responsible for:
· managing their business unit’s purchasing requirements up to their respective Delegated Financial Authority limits
· ensuring their staff apply Council’s Procurement Policy and procedures.
3. The Project Management Office will assist with higher value, higher risk procurements on an as required basis.
4. The roles and responsibilities of the Procurement Board are outlined in the Procurement Manual.
5. We will generally apply the Principles of Procurement and Government Rules of Sourcing when planning, sourcing and managing our procurement, as these set the standard for good practice.
6. The approach to procuring goods, services and works may vary depending on the value, complexity and risk involved. We will generally apply the approach best-suited to the individual purchase within the framework of the Principles and Rules, encouraging competitive tendering whenever possible.
7. Council’s default procurement approach will be open and competitive. Should an open competitive market not exist, there is guidance around alternative procurement approaches contained in the Procurement Manual.
8. Council will purchase from competitive suppliers where they offer best value for money. Council will seek to promote the Far North economy through providing full and fair opportunity to compete for Council business.
9. Council will buy from the best source available, based on its own analysis of all costs, benefits, and overall value for money.
Local Economic Outcome
The Council will be a fair but demanding buyer who will purchase from competitive suppliers where they offer best value for money. The Council will seek to promote the Far North economy through providing full and fair opportunity to compete for Council business. This will be achieved by:
· Ensuring local suppliers are included within invitations to tender and quote whenever practical
· Publicly advertising tender opportunities when appropriate
· Considering potential commercial and practical advantages in purchasing locally produced goods and services.
· Considering local economic impact when planning major procurement activities and packaging work for contracts.
· Ensuring that all future tender documents be worded in such a way as to enable a comparison between New Zealand and overseas produced goods, where relevant.
· All open contestable procurement activity will be publicly notified so all potential suppliers have equal access. The procurement documentation that council provides the market will contain information which makes it clear what council is looking for by way of response, and evaluations will be undertaken in a manner that avoids bias.
· When suppliers are equal on price and quality attributes, preference may be given to the local supplier where appropriate.
10. Council’s standard procurement processes are based on financial thresholds, detailed in Council’s Procurement Manual.
• Code of Conduct – Elected Members
• Disposal of Property, Plant and Equipment Policy 2119
• Gifts or Rewards Policy
• Delegations Manual
For more information on Council’s procurement, please contact the Project Management Office at mailto:projectoffice@fndc.govt.nz
WARNING: Printed versions may not be the latest version of this policy. Please refer to the electronic copy of the Procurement Policy for the latest version.
File Number: A2209900
Author: Rhonda-May Whiu, Elected Member Administrator
To propose for adoption a calendar for Council and Committee meetings in 2019.
· Continuation of the bi-monthly meeting cycle for Council and Committee meetings as approved at the Council meeting on 28 February 2018.
At the end of every year, Council sets the formal meeting calendar for the incoming year.
The 2019 formal meeting calendar up to September follows the same cycle as 2018 with formal meetings falling on the last week of each month on a rotation between Council (Thursday) and Committee Meetings (Wednesday and Thursday).
An additional Council meeting is required on the 15th of May for the Annual Plan Deliberations. Additional workshops on this topic may also be required.
The end of the triennium occurs towards the end of 2019 creating the need for one last Council meeting at the start of October.
Staff recommend that Council continue with the meeting patterns established at the meeting in February 2018.
The calendar proposed, blocks out 2 days every second month for committee meetings. This approach will give Council the flexibility if the frequency of committee meetings or committee structure changes. The remaining time on these days will be available for workshops to make the most efficient use of the time.
Two days per month (Feb – Sept) are set aside for workshops.
Adoption of the 2019 schedule at this point in 2018 will assist staff in planning work programmes and report deadlines, as well as elected members’ diary management.
Northland Regional meetings (e.g. workshops and mayoral forums) have been accounted for to avoid clashes.
As per the resolution establishing the current committee, a review workshop has been scheduled for 14 November to consider the committee structure and delegations. Members may choose to continue the current cycle and adopt the proposed schedule, or defer adopting a schedule and instead include in the workshop discussion the timetabling of committee meetings.
To adopt a Far North District Council formal meeting schedule for 2019.
1. Draft 2019 Formal Meeting Calendar - A2216027 ⇩
This issue has District wide relevance.
Community Boards decide their own meeting schedule independent of Council.
No significance in regards to the relationship of Maori with land and/or any body of water.
Operational priorities have contributed to the proposal, and the schedule reflects Council’s preference from 2018.
File Number: A2216396
To seek the revocation of the resolution of 28 February 2018: “That Council appoints the Community Board chairs to the Infrastructure Network Committee and Audit, Risk, Finance Committee with speaking but not voting rights.” and the reappointment of the community board chairs as either full members or as committee advisors.
· The resolution of 28 February 2018 appointing the community board chairs to the committees is inherently “ultra vires”.
· This may affect the validity of future decisions made by the Infrastructure Network Committee and the Audit, Risk & Finance Committee.
· Council needs to revoke the above resolution and either appoint the Community Board chairs to the Infrastructure Network Committee and the Audit, Risk & Finance Committee with full participating rights or as committee advisors with speaking but no voting rights (i.e non-members and not part of the quorum).
b) resolves to appoint the Community Board chairs as committee advisors to the Infrastructure Network Committee and the Audit, Risk & Finance Committee with speaking but no voting rights (i.e non-members and not part of the quorum).
In February 2018, Council decided to establish a new committee structure. Council decided to establish three committees, and appointed the (councillor) members of those committees. The Council resolution establishing the new Council committee structure included the following clause: “That Council … appoints the community board chairs to the Infrastructure Committee and the Audit, Risk & Finance Committee with speaking but not voting rights.”
The resolution appointing the community board chairs to the committees is inherently “ultra vires”, because Council does not have the legislative authority in terms of the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA02”) to limit the participation of those members in the business of the committees.
Although this matter was considered at Council’s 30 August meeting the full import of this was not made clear and it is vital that Council reconsiders the matter going forward as it may impact on the validity of the future decisions of the above committees. Standing order 7.8 makes it clear that a decision of the committee is not invalidated if:
“following the decision some defect in the election or appointment process is discovered and/or the membership of a person on the committee at the time is found to have been ineligible.”
However once the matter has been brought to the attention of Council the above provision in the standing orders can no longer apply.
Clauses 30 and 31of Schedule 7 of the LGA02 gives Council the power to appoint discharge and reconstitute committees. In relation to the appointment of persons who are not elected members of Council, clause 31(3) states:
There is nothing in the wording of clauses 30 or 31 that would suggest that the Council in appointing a member of a committee can in any way limit the participation of that member in the business of the committee. To the contrary the provisions of Schedule 7 are aimed at protecting the rights of members of a committee. For example:
1. Clause 19(2)
· “A member of a local authority, or of a committee of a local authority, has, unless lawfully excluded, the right to attend any meeting of the local authority or committee.”
2. Clause 23(2)
· “Business may not be transacted at any meeting unless at least a quorum of members is present during the whole of the time at which the business is transacted.”
3. Clause 24(1)
· “The acts of a local authority must be done, and the questions before the local authority must be decided, at a meeting by—
· (a) vote; and
· (b) the majority of members that are present and voting.”
Clause 23(1) does state that:
The Act does envisage circumstances where a member may not be entitled to vote, but that non-entitlement to vote is only something that could arise at a personal level on a specific occasion, such as a conflict of interest or a hearing panel member of a regulatory panel excludes him/herself in a particular subject and declares that interest and consequently decides not to discuss or vote on that particular matter. The exclusion cannot arise from the circumstances of the appointment of the member to the committee.
Council in constituting a committee or making appointments to a committee cannot exceed the statutory authority available to it. It is therefore not able to create a new category of “appointed committee members” lacking any of the rights and responsibilities inherent in that position.
Clause 31(1) of Schedule7 allows Council to discharge any member of a committee. Therefore Council should revoke the resolution of 28 February 2018: “That Council appoints the Community Board chairs to the Infrastructure Network Committee and Audit, Risk, Finance Committee with speaking but not voting rights.”
Council can thereafter resolve to appoint the Community Board chairs to the Infrastructure Network Committee and the Audit, Risk & Finance Committee with full participating rights including voting rights.
This appointment would mean that Community Board chairs can be counted for the purposes of quorum at committee meetings and vote as fully participating members of those committees. Whether they then choose to exercise that vote will be at each member’s discretion but cannot be dictated by Council. When establishing committees the Council’s decisions were based on the intention that only councillors were counted. Council may wish to reconsider this.
Council can resolve to appoint the Community Board chairs as committee advisors to the Infrastructure Network Committee and the Audit, Risk & Finance Committee with speaking but not voting rights (i.e. non-members and not part of the quorum).
This appointment would mean that the committees follow the same pattern for Community Board participation as Council. This will allow Community Board chairpersons to sit with councillors at committee meetings and participate in discussion, to ensure their constituents’ views are well represented, but with no impact on meeting quorum.
To regularise the membership of Council committees and enable councillors to clarify the role of community board chairs at committee meetings.
Low – relates to meeting processes (committee membership) for elected members.
Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7
This issue will impact elected members and will be determined by their preferences.
Elected members and Community Board Chairs
File Number: A2232224
The purpose of the report is to present the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2018 for adoption.
· The purpose of the report is to present the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2018 for adoption.
Audit New Zealand is appointed as the Far North District Council’s auditors by the Office of the Auditor General and its auditors were in house from 03 to 21 September 2018 to review and audit the Council’s accounts to the year ended 30 June 2018.
The Annual Report is presented separately for adoption. At the time of writing the report, Audit New Zealand has not given clearance for the issuance of the audit opinion. No major issues have been identified by the audit team at this time. It is anticipated that the opinion will be issued prior to the Council meeting and will be available on the day of the meeting.
Council is required under the Local Government Act 2002 to adopt an Annual Report prior to the 31st October each year.
This report has been prepared by the Chief Financial Officer
File Number: A2219631
Author: Kaela Allison, Accounting Support Officer
The purpose of the report is to present the Chief Executive Officer’s Report – August September 2018 for Council’s consideration.
The Chief Executive Officer’s report is a summary of Council activities, presenting an overview across all activities that Council undertakes. We have placed emphasis on relevant issues and pressures Council is experiencing whilst meeting its objectives to the community.
The Chief Executive Officer’s report is attached and covers a detailed overview of progress against Council’s activities. His Worship the Mayor and Councillors’ feedback is welcomed.
1. Chief Executive Officer's Report to Council - August September 2018 - A2219605 ⇩
1.2 – Coopers Beach Christian Youth Camp Remission
14.3 – Special resolution of the sole Shareholder of Far North Holdings Ltd (the Company) under sections 32(2), 107(2) abd 122 of the Companies Act 1993 (Act)
1.4 – Urlich Family Trust v Far North District Council and Others